1887
Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

Geophysicists commonly have a simplistic view of the water table as a sharp interface between the vadose zone (unsaturated region) and the phreatic zone (saturated region). In reality, this boundary is a transition zone where moisture content varies continuously with depth. Since geophysical methods respond to depth-related variations in water content, the use of this simplistic model could lead to significant errors in the interpretation of surface geophysical data. An improved model for the moisture content profile that incorporates different soil structures, soil type and water qualities would allow better interpretation of nearsurface geophysical surveys. In this study, an analysis of the relationship between time-varying moisture content and the response of commonly used near-surface geophysical methods has been performed using the soil-moisture simulation program LEACHM.

Model studies reveal that the interpreted depth to water table will be less than the true depth to 100% saturation, and that the non-uniqueness of interpretation generates a wide range of possible vadose models that fit data to within 5%. Heavy summer rainfall events significantly change surface geophysical responses over a two-week period; lighter winter rain will introduce smaller changes, but with greater frequency. Additionally, temperature variations in the top one metre are also important for pore-water electrical conductivity. Such variability has important consequences for the repeatability of measurements over time, and in comparing data from different areas.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/EG01070
2001-03-01
2026-01-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Annan, A.P. & Cosway, S.W., 1991. Ground penetration radar survey design criteria: 61st Mtg. Eur. Assoc. Expl. Geophys., Extended Abstracts, European Association Of Geophysical Exploration, 480.
  2. Annan, A.P., Cosway, S.W., & Redman, J.D., 1991. Water table detection with ground-penetrating radar: Annual Meeting Abstracts, Society Of Exploration Geophysicists, 494-496.
  3. Archie, G.E., 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics: Translations of American Institute of Mineral and Metallurgy, 146, 54-62.
  4. Banton, O., Seguin, M.K., & Cimon, M.A., 1997. Mapping field-scale physical properties of soil with electrical resistivity: Soil Science Society of America Journal, 61, 1010-1017.
  5. Chanzy, A., Tarussov, A., Judge, A., & Bonn, F., 1996. Soil water content determination using a digital ground-penetrating radar: Soil Science Society of America Journal, 60, 1318-1326.
  6. Clement, W.P., Cardimona, S., Kadinsky-Kade, K., 1997. Geophysical and geotechnical site characterisation data at the Groundwater Remediation Field Laboratory, Dover Air Force Base, Dover, Delaware: in Bell, R. S., Ed., Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, 665-674.
  7. Emerson, D. & Yang, Y., 1997. Effects of water salinity and saturation on the electrical resistivity of clays: Preview, Australian Society Exploration Geophysicists, 68, 19-24.
  8. Endres, A.L., & Redman, J.D., 1996. Modelling the electrical properties of porous rocks and soils containing immiscible contaminants: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 0, 105-112.
  9. Hutson, J.L. & Wagenet, R.J., 1992. LEACHM, Leaching Estimation and Chemistry Model - a process based model of water and solute movement, transforms, plant uptake and chemical reactions in the unsaturated zone: Version 3, Department of Soil, Crop and Atmospheric Sciences, Research Series No. R92-3, New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, USA.
  10. McNeill, J.D., 1980. Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurements at low induction numbers: Technical note TN-6, Geonics Limited, Canada.
  11. Merrick, N.P. & Poezd, E., 1997. RINVERT for Windows software for the interpretation of resistivity sounding: Exploration Geophysics, 28, 110-113.
  12. Quist, A.S. & Marshall, W.L., 1968. Electrical conductance of aqueous sodium chloride solutions from 0 to 800ºC and at pressures to 4000 Bars: J. Phys. Chem., 71, 684-703.
  13. Reynolds, J.M., 1997, An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics: John Wiley & Sons, UK, pp 79.6
  14. Sharma, P.V., 1998, Environmental and Engineering Geophysics: Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 500.
  15. Sheets, K.R. & Hendrickx, J.M.H., 1995. Noninvasive soil water content measurement using electromagnetic induction: Water Resources Research, 31, 2401-2409.
  16. Wharton, R.P., Hazen, G.A., Rau, R.N., & Best, D.L., 1980. Electromagnetic propagation logging: advances in technique and interpretation: Soc. Pet. Eng. of AIME.
  17. Wyllie, M.J.R., Gregory, A.R., & Gardner, G.H.F., 1958, An experimental investigation of factors affecting elastic wave velocities in porous media: Geophysics, 23, 459-93.
/content/journals/10.1071/EG01070
Loading

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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