1887
Volume 8, Issue 6
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Electromagnetic parameters of the subsurface such as electrical conductivity are of great interest for non‐destructive determination of soil properties (e.g., clay content) or hydrologic state variables (e.g., soil water content). In the past decade, several non‐invasive geophysical methods have been developed to measure subsurface parameters . Among these methods, electromagnetic (EM) induction appears to be the most efficient one that is able to cover large areas in a short time. However, this method currently does not provide absolute values of electrical conductivity due to calibration problems, which hinders a quantitative analysis of the measurement. In this study, we propose to calibrate EM induction measurements with electrical conductivity values measured with electrical resistivity tomography (ERT). EM induction measures an apparent electrical conductivity at the surface, which represents a weighted average of the electrical conductivity distribution over a certain depth range, whereas ERT inversion can provide absolute values for local conductivities as a function of depth. EM induction and ERT measurements were collected along a 120‐metre‐long transect. To reconstruct the apparent electrical conductivity measured with EM induction, the inverted ERT data were used as input in an electromagnetic forward modelling tool for magnetic dipoles over a horizontally layered medium considering the frequencies and offsets used by the EM induction instruments. Comparison of the calculated and measured apparent electrical conductivities shows very similar trends but a shift in absolute values, which is attributed to system calibration problems. The observed shift can be corrected for by linear regression. This new calibration strategy for EM induction measurements now enables the quantitative mapping of electrical conductivity values over large areas.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010037
2010-07-01
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AbduH., RobinsonD.A. and. JonesS.B.2007. Comparing bulk soil electrical conductivity determination using the DUALEM‐1S and EM38‐DD electromagnetic induction instruments. Soil Science Society of America Journal71, 189–196. doi:10.2136/sssaj2005.0394
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AbduH., RobinsonD.A., SeyfriedM. and JonesS.B.2008. Geophysical imaging of watershed subsurface patterns and prediction of soil texture and water holding capacity. Water Resources Research44, W00D18. doi:10.1029/2008WR007043
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BorchersB., UramT. and HendrickxJ.M.H.1997. Tikhonov regularization of electrical conductivity depth profiles in field soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal61, 1004–1009.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BornemannL., WelpG. and AmelungW.2010. Particulate organic matter at the field scale: Rapid acquisition using mid‐infrared spectroscopy. Soil Science Society of America Journal74, 1147–1156.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CallegaryJ.B., FerreT.P.A. and GroomR.W.2007. Vertical spatial sensitivity and exploration depth of low‐induction‐number electromagnetic‐induction instruments. Vadose Zone Journal6, 158–167. doi:10.2136/vzj2006.0120
    [Google Scholar]
  6. GebbersR., LuckE., DabasM. and DomschH.2009. Comparison of instruments for geoelectrical soil mapping at the field scale. Near Surface Geophysics7, 179–190. doi:10.3997/1873‐0604.2009011
    [Google Scholar]
  7. HendrickxJ.M.H., BorchersB., CorwinD.L., LeschS.M., HilgendorfA.C. and SchlueJ.2002. Inversion of soil conductivity profiles from electromagnetic induction measurements: Theory and experimental verification. Soil Science Society of America Journal66, 673–685.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. JadoonK.Z., LambotS., ScharnaglB., van der KrukJ., SlobE. and VereeckenH.2010. Quantifying field‐scale surface soil water content from proximal GPR signal inversion in the time domain. Near Surface Geophysics8, 483–491.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. KachanoskiR.G., GregorichE.G. and VanwesenbeeckI.J.1988. Estimating spatial 365 variations of soil‐water content using noncontacting electromagnetic inductive methods. Canadian Journal of Soil Science68, 715–722.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. van der KrukJ., MeekesJ.A.C., van den BergP.M. and FokkemaJ.T.2000. An apparent‐resistivity concept for low‐frequency electromagnetic sounding techniques. Geophysical Prospecting48, 1033–1052.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. LambotS., SlobE.C., van den BoschI., StockbroeckxB. and VancloosterM.2004. Modeling of ground‐penetrating radar for accurate characterization of subsurface electric properties. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing42, 2555–2568.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. LokeM.H., AcworthI. and DahlinT.2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics34, 182–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. LückE., GebbersR., RuehlmannJ and SpangenbergU.2009. Electrical conductivity mapping for precision farming. Near Surface Geophysics7, 15–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. McNeillJ.D.1980. Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurements at low induction numbers. Geonics Technical Note TN‐6.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. MoghadasD., AndréF., VereeckenH. and LambotS.2010. Efficient loop antenna modeling for zero‐offset, off‐ground electromagnetic induction in multilayered media. Geophysics (in press).
    [Google Scholar]
  16. MüllerM., KurzG. and YaramanciU.2009. Influence of tillage methods on soil water content and geophyscial properties. Near Surface Geophysics7, 27–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. NüschA., Dietrich. P., WerbanU. and BehrensT.Acquisition and reliability of geophysical data in soil science. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, 1–6 August, Brisbane, Australia, Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. PellerinL. and WannamakerP.W.2005. Multi‐dimensional electromagnetic modeling and inversion with application to near‐surface earth investigations. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture46, 71–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. ReedyR.C. and ScanlonB.R.2003. Soil water content monitoring using electromagnetic induction. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering129, 1028–1039.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. RobinsonD.A., BinleyA., CrookN., Day‐LewisF.D., FerréT.P.A., GrauchV.J.S., KnightR., KnollM., LakshmiV., MillerR., NyquistJ., PellerinL., SinghaK. and SlaterL.2008. Advancing process‐based watershed hydrological research using near‐surface geophysics: A vision for and review of, electrical and magnetic geophysical methods. Hydrological Processes22, 3604–3635.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. RubinY. and HubbardS.S.2005. Hydrogeophysics. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. SaeyT., SimpsonD., VermeerschH., CockxL. and Van MeirvenneM.2009. Comparing the EM38DD and DUALEM‐21S sensors for depth‐to‐clay mapping. Soil Science Society of America Journal73, 7–12. doi:10.2136/sssaj2008.0079
    [Google Scholar]
  23. SherlockM.D. and McDonnellJ.J.2003. A new tool for hillslope hydrologists, spatially distributed groundwater level and soil water content measured using electromagnetic induction. Hydrological Processes17, 1965–1977.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. SudduthK.A., DrummondS.T. and KitchenN.R.2001. Accuracy issues in electromagnetic sensing of soil electrical conductivity for precision agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture31, 239–264.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. TriantafilisJ., LaslettG.M. and McBratneyA.B.2000. Calibrating an electromagnetic induction instrument to measure salinity in soil under irrigated cotton. Soil Science Society of America Journal64, 1009–1017.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. WardS.H. and HohmannG.W.1987. Electromagnetic theory for geophysical applications. In: Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, Vol. 1: Theory (ed. M.N.Nabighian), pp. 130–311. SEG.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. WeihermüllerL., HuismanJ.A., LambotS., HerbstM. and VereeckenH.2007. Mapping the spatial variation of soil water content at the field scale with different ground penetrating radar techniques. Journal of Hydrology340, 205–216.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010037
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010037
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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