PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 25, 2026Geophysical Research Letters1 citationsOpen Access

Feasibility Mapping of L‐Band InSAR for SWE Retrievals Across the Western United States

View Full Paper
PKPreetika KaurRWRyan WebbJTJack Tarricone

Key Points

  • This research aims to evaluate the feasibility of using L-Band InSAR for retrieving snow water equivalent (SWE) across the western United States.
  • Utilized airborne L-Band InSAR technology with a wavelength of ∼25 cm.
  • Analyzed factors affecting SWE retrievals including forest cover fraction and liquid water content.
  • Created feasibility maps for SWE change retrieval in major mountain ecoregions.
  • Feasibility for SWE retrievals declined from ∼65% on 1 February to 30% on 1 April.
  • On these dates, corresponding total SWE volumes were 73%, 70%, and 49% respectively.
  • The maps provide foundational data for enhanced SWE retrievals using future satellite missions like NISAR.

Abstract

Abstract Mountain snowpacks provide vital water resources for communities in the western U.S. (WUS), but high spatial variability challenges accurate measurement of snow water equivalent (SWE) from remote sensing platforms. Studies using repeat airborne L‐band (∼25 cm wavelength) Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) have demonstrated sensitivity to forest cover fraction (FCF), liquid water content, and incidence angle. We use these factors to map feasibility of L‐band InSAR for SWE change (ΔSWE) retrievals in major mountain ecoregions of WUS. We found feasibility declines from ∼65% on 1 February, to 58% on 1 March, and 30% on 1 April, corresponding to 73%, 70%, and 49% of total SWE volume, respectively. Thus, these feasibility maps provide groundwork for future InSAR snow studies using satellite data from missions such as NISAR (NASA‐ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar) to refine work based on regional conditions and hence improve ΔSWE retrievals globally.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kaur et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a13e88c0e02ee3982d334d3https://doi.org/10.1029/2025gl120162
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Snow water equivalent retrieval over Idaho – Part 1: Using Sentinel-1 repeat-pass interferometry2024 · 8 citations
  2. 2Evaluating L-band InSAR snow water equivalent retrievals with repeat ground-penetrating radar and terrestrial lidar surveys in northern Colorado2024 · 6 citations
  3. 3Snow water equivalent retrieval over Idaho – Part 2: Using L-band UAVSAR repeat-pass interferometry2024 · 7 citations
  4. 4Using LIDAR and SNOTEL data for evaluating the performance of snow water equivalent retrieval using Sentinel-1 repeat-pass interferometry2026
  5. 5Multi-Band Differential SAR Interferometry for Snow Water Equivalent Retrieval over Alpine Mountains2025 · 1 citations