1887
Geoelectrical Monitoring
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604
PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In the past several decades, there has been considerable interest in groundwater–surface water interactions and their ability to regulate and cycle nutrients and pollutants. These interactions are spatially and temporally complex, but electrical resistivity imaging can be a useful tool for their characterization. Here, an electrical resistivity imaging monitoring array was installed laterally across a groundwater‐dominated Chalk river and into the adjacent riparian wetland; data were collected over a period of 1 year. Independent inversions of data from the entire transect were performed to account for the changing river stage and river water conductivity. Additionally, data from just the riparian zone were inverted using a temporally constrained inversion, and the correlation between the riparian zone resistivity patterns and river stage was assessed using time‐series analysis. The river stage and the Chalk groundwater level followed similar patterns throughout the year, and both exhibited a sharp drop following cutting of in‐stream vegetation. For the independent inversions, fixing the river resistivity led to artifacts, which prevented reliable interpretation of dynamics in the riverbed. However, the resistivity structure of the riparian zone coincided well with the intrusively derived boundary between the peat and the gravel present at the field site. Time‐series analysis of the inverted riparian zone models permitted identification of seven units with distinct hydrological resistivity dynamics (five zones within the peat and two within the gravel). The resistivity patterns in the gravel were predominantly controlled by up‐welling of resistive groundwater and the down‐welling of more conductive peat waters following the river vegetation cutting event. In comparison, although the vegetation cutting influenced the resistivity dynamics in the peat zones, the resistivity dynamics were also influenced by precipitation events and increasing pore‐water conductivity, likely arising from biological processes. It is evident that such approaches combining electrical resistivity imaging and time‐series analysis are useful for understanding the spatial extent and timing of hydrological processes to aid in the better characterization of groundwater‐surface water interactions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12114
2020-07-09
2020-09-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nsg/18/4/nsg12114.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12114&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Allen, D.J., Darling, W.G., Gooddy, D.C., Lapworth, D.J., Newell, A.J., Williams, A.T.et al. (2010) Interaction between groundwater, the hyporheic zone and a Chalk stream: a case study from the River Lambourn, UK. Hydrogeology Journal, 18, 1125–1141.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bernard‐Jannin, L., Sun, X., Teissier, S.; Sauvage, S. and Sánchez‐Pérez, J.M. (2017) Spatio‐temporal analysis of factors controlling nitrate dynamics and potential denitrification hot spots and hot moments in groundwater of an alluvial floodplain. Ecological Engineering, 103, 272–284.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Binley, A., Ramirez, A. and Daily, W. (1995) Regularised image reconstruction of noisy electrical resistance tomography data. In Beck, M. S., Hoyle, B. S., Morris, M. A., Waterfall, R. C. and Williams, R. A. (Eds.). Process Tomography. Bergen, Norway: Proceedings of 4th Workshop of the European Concerted Action on Process Tomography, pp. 401–410.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Binley, A., Ullah, S., Heathwaite, A.L., Heppell, C., Byrne, P., Lansdown, K., Trimmer, M.et al. (2013) Revealing the spatial variability of water fluxes at the groundwater–surface water interface: spatial variability of groundwater‐surface water fluxes. Water Resources Research, 49, 3978–3992.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Binley, A.M. (2019) R2 user guide [online] Available at: http://www.es.lancs.ac.uk/people/amb/Freeware/R2/R2_readme.pdf [8 April 2020].
  6. Chambers, J. E., Wilkinson, P.B., Uhlemann, S., Sorensen, J.P.R., Roberts, C., Newell, A.J.et al. (2014a) Derivation of lowland riparian wetland deposit architecture using geophysical image analysis and interface detection. Water Resources Research, 50, 5886–5905.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chambers, J.E., Gunn, D.A., Wilkinson, P.B., Meldrum, P.I., Haslam, E., Holyoake, S.et al. (2014b) 4D electrical resistivity tomography monitoring of soil moisture dynamics in an operational railway embankment. Near Surface Geophysics, 12, 61–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chambers, J.E., Ogilvy, R. and Kuras, O. (2002) 3D electrical imaging of known targets at a controlled environmental test site, Environmental Geology, 41(6), 690–704, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-001-0452-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Crook, N., Binley, A., Knight, R., Robinson, D.A., Zarnetske, J. and Haggerty, R. (2008) Electrical resistivity imaging of the architecture of substream sediments. Water Resources Research, 44, W00D13.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Frei, S. and Peiffer, S. (2016) Exposure times rather than residence times control redox transformation efficiencies in riparian wetlands. Journal of Hydrology, 543, 182–196.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Geuzaine, C. and Remacle, J. F. (2009) Gmsh: a three‐dimensional finite element mesh generator with built‐in pre‐ and post‐processing facilities. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 79(11), 1309–1331.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hayashi, M. (2004) Temperature‐electrical conductivity relation of water for environmental monitoring and geophysical data inversion. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 96, 119–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hill, A.R. (1996) Nitrate removal in stream riparian zones. Journal of Environmental Quality, 25, 743–755.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. House, A. R., Sorensen, J. P. R., Gooddy, D. C., Newell, A. J., Marchant, B., Mountford, J. O.et al. (2015) Exfiltrations discrètes en zone humide révélées par un modèle thermique tridimensionnel et par des indicateurs botaniques (Boxford, UK). Hydrogeology Journal, 23(4), 775–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-015-1242-5
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HuntRJ, KrabbenhoftDP and AndersonMP (1996) Groundwater inflow measurements in wetland systems. Water Resources Research, 32, 495–507
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Huntley, D, Bobrowsky, P, Hendry, M., Macciotta, R., Elwood, D., Sattler, K.et al. (2019) Application of multi‐dimensional electrical resistivity tomography datasets to investigate a very slow‐moving landslide near Ashcroft, British Columbia, Canada. Landslides, 16, 1033–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01147-1.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnes, P.J, Gooddy, D.C., Heaton, T.H.E., Binley, A., Kennedy, M.P., Shand, P.et al. (2020) Determining the impact of riparian wetlands on nutrient cycling, storage and export in permeable agricultural catchments. Water, 12, 167.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Johnson, T.C., Slater, L.D., Ntarlagiannis, D., Day‐Lewis, F.D. and Elwaseif, M. (2012) Monitoring groundwater–surface water interaction using time‐series and time‐frequency analysis of transient three‐dimensional electrical resistivity changes. Water Resources Research, 48, W07506.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kuusemets, V., Mander, U., Lohmus, K. and Ivask, M. (2001) Nitrogen and phosphorus variation in shallow groundwater and assimilation in plants in complex riparian buffer zones. Water Science & Technology, 44, 615–622.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. LaBrecque, D.J. and Yang, X. (2001) Difference inversion of ERT data: a fast inversion method for 3‐D in‐situ monitoring. In 13th EEGS Symposium on Applications of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems. EAGE, pp. 723–732
  21. Lesparre, N., Nguyen, F., Kemna, A., Robert, T., Hermans, T., Daoudi, M.et al. (2017) A new approach for time‐lapse data weighting in electrical resistivity tomography, Geo‐physics, 82, E325–E333
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ma, R., McBratney, A., Whelan, B., Minasny, B. and Short, M. (2010) Comparing temperature correction models for soil electrical conductivity measurement. Precision Agriculture, 12(1), 55–66
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Marsh, T.J., and Hannaford, J. (2008) UK Hydrometric Register. Wallingford, UK: Hydrological Data UK ser., Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, 210 pp.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. McLachlan, P.J., Chambers, J.E., Uhlemann, S.S. and Binley, A. (2017) Geophysical characterisation of the groundwater–surface water interface. Advances in Water Resources, 109, 302–319.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. McLachlan, P. J. (2020) Geophysical characterisation of the groundwater–surface water interface. Ph.D. Thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
  26. Musgrave, H. and Binley, A. (2011) Revealing the temporal dynamics of subsurface temperature in a wetland using time‐lapse geophysics. Journal of Hydrology, 396, 258–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Newell, A.J., Sorensen, J.P.R., Chambers, J.E., Wilkinson, P.B., Uhlemann, S.S., Roberts, C.et al. (2015) Fluvial response to late Pleistocene and Holocene environmental change in a Thames chalkland headwater: the Lambourn of southern England. Proceedings of Geological Association, 126(6), 683–697.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Newell, A.J., Vane, C.H., Sorensen, J.P.R., Moss‐Hayes, V. and Gooddy, D.C. (2016) Long‐term Holocene groundwater fluctuations in a chalk catchment: Evidence from Rock‐Eval pyrolysis of riparian peats. Hydrological Processes, 30, 4556–4567.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Old, G.H., Naden, P.S., Rameshwaran, P., Acreman, M.C., Baker, S., Edwards, F.K.et al. (2014) Instream and riparian implications of weed cutting in a chalk river. Ecological Engineering, 71, 290–300
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Oldenborger, G.A., Knoll, M.D., Routh, P.S. and LaBrecque, D.J. (2007) Time‐lapse ERT monitoring of an injection/withdrawal experiment in a shallow unconfined aquifer. Geophysics, 72, F177–F187. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2734365
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Shabaga, J.A. and Hill, A.R. (2010) Groundwater‐fed surface flow path hydrodynamics and nitrate removal in three riparian zones in southern Ontario, Canada. Journal of Hydrology, 388, 52–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Slater, L., Binley, A.M., Daily, W. and Johnson, R. (2000) Cross‐hole electrical imaging of a controlled saline tracer injection. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 44, 85–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Steelman, C.M., Kennedy, C.S., Capes, D.C. and Parker, B.L. (2017) Electrical resistivity dynamics beneath a fractured sedimentary bedrock riverbed in response to temperature and groundwater–surface water exchange. Hydrological and Earth Systems Science, 21, 3105–3123.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Toran, L., Hughes, B., Nyquist, J. and Ryan, R. (2012) Using hydrogeophysics to monitor change in hyporheic flow around stream restoration structures. Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, 18 (1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.18.1.83.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Uhlemann, S.S., Sorensen, J.P.R., House, A.R., Wilkinson, P.B., Roberts, C., Gooddy, D.C.et al. (2016) Integrated time‐lapse geoelectrical imaging of wetland hydrological processes. Water Resources Research, 52, 1607–1625.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Wallin, E.L., Johnson, T.C., Greenwood, W.J. and Zachara, J.M. (2013) Imaging high stage river‐water intrusion into a contaminated aquifer along a major river corridor using 2‐D time‐lapse surface electrical resistivity tomography. Water Resources Research, 49, 1693–1708.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Ward, A.S., Gooseff, M.N. and Singha, K. (2010) Imaging hyporheic zone solute transport using electrical resistivity. Hydrological Processes, 24, 948–953.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Younger, P.L. (1989) Devensian periglacial influences on the development of spatially variable permeability in the Chalk of southeast England. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 22, 343–354.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12114
Loading
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12114
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error