4D ground-penetrating radar during a plot scale dye tracer experiment

Allroggen, Niklas; Schaik, Loes van; Tronicke, Jens

doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2015.04.016

Cited by 31 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The GPR data were analyzed using an appropriate constant velocity and gridded to a 2-D transect with a regular trace-spacing of 0.02 m. There is no standard interpretation procedure for the analysis of time-lapse GPR data. Most approaches are based on calculating trace-to-trace differences (Birken and Versteeg, 2000;Trinks et al, 2001) or picking and comparing selected reflection events in the individual time-lapse transects (Allroggen et al, 2015b;Haarder et al, 2011;Truss et al, 2007). In the context of this study, however, both approaches provided only limited interpretable information.…”

Section: Data Processing Of 2-d Time-lapse Gpr Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Its short measurement times and high sensitivity towards soil moisture predestine GPR for monitoring subsurface flow processes. Nevertheless, only few field studies exist which have successfully applied surface-based GPR for the investigation of preferential flow paths or subsurface flow in general (Truss et al, 2007;Haarder et al, 2011;Guo et al, 2014;Allroggen et al, 2015b). Previous GPR monitoring studies rely on two different principles.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first approach relies on interpreting selected reflection surfaces and comparing this interpretation result between the individual recorded GPR surveys (Truss et al, 2007;Haarder et al, 2011). The result is a shift in GPR signal travel time, which can be interpreted in terms of soil moisture changes, using a petrophysical relation (e.g., the CRIM model, Allroggen et al, 2015b). The second approach relies on calculating difference images between individual GPR surveys (e.g., Birken and Versteeg, 2000;Trinks et al, 2001;Guo et al, 2014;Allroggen and Tronicke, 2015) and thereby highlighting areas of increased changes in the subsurface.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Form and function in hillslope hydrology: characterization of subsurface flow based on response observations

Angermann

Jackisch

Allroggen

et al. 2017

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The phrase form and function was established in architecture and biology and refers to the idea that form and functionality are closely correlated, influence each other, and co-evolve. We suggest transferring this idea to hydrological systems to separate and analyze their two main characteristics: their form, which is equivalent to the spatial structure and static properties, and their function, equivalent to internal responses and hydrological behavior. While this approach is not particularly new to hydrological field research, we want to employ this concept to explicitly pursue the question of what information is most advantageous to understand a hydrological system. We applied this concept to subsurface flow within a hillslope, with a methodological focus on function: we conducted observations during a natural storm event and followed this with a hillslope-scale irrigation experiment. The results are used to infer hydrological processes of the monitored system. Based on these findings, the explanatory power and conclusiveness of the data are discussed. The measurements included basic hydrological monitoring methods, like piezometers, soil moisture, and discharge measurements. These were accompanied by isotope sampling and a novel application of 2-D time-lapse GPR (ground-penetrating radar). The main finding regarding the processes in the hillslope was that preferential flow paths were established quickly, despite unsaturated conditions. These flow paths also caused a detectable signal in the catchment response following a natural rainfall event, showing that these processes are relevant also at the catchment scale. Thus, we conclude that response observations (dynamics and patterns, i.e., indicators of function) were well suited to describing processes at the observational scale. Especially the use of 2-D time-lapse GPR measurements, providing detailed subsurface response patterns, as well as the combination of stream-centered and hillslope-centered approaches, allowed us to link processes and put them in a larger context. Transfer to other scales beyond observational scale and generalizations, however, rely on the knowledge of structures (form) and remain speculative. The complementary approach with a methodological focus on form (i.e., structure exploration) is presented and discussed in the companion paper by Jackisch et al. (2017).

show abstract

Section: Data Processing Of 2-d Time-lapse Gpr Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Form and function in hillslope hydrology: characterization of subsurface flow based on response observations

Angermann

Jackisch

Allroggen

et al. 2017

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on previously reported case studies (e.g., Allroggen et al . ), reliable time‐lapse signatures can only be obtained where such careful survey design and data acquisition protocols are employed, especially when the target structures are close to the resolvable limit of GPR reflection data.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

High‐resolution imaging and monitoring of animal tunnels using 3D ground‐penetrating radar

Allroggen

Booth

Baker

et al. 2019

Near Surface Geophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ground‐penetrating radar is widely used to provide highly resolved images of subsurface sedimentary structures, with implications for processes active in the vadose zone. Frequently overlooked among these structures are tunnels excavated by fossorial animals (e.g., moles). We present two repeated ground‐penetrating radar surveys performed a year apart in 2016 and 2017. Careful three‐dimensional data processing reveals, in each data set, a pattern of elongated structures that are interpreted as a subsurface mole tunnel network. Our data demonstrate the ability of three‐dimensional ground‐penetrating radar imaging to non‐invasively delineate the small animal tunnels (∼5 cm diameter) at a higher spatial and geolocation resolution than has previously been achieved. In turn, this makes repeated surveys and, therefore, long‐term monitoring possible. Our results offer valuable insight into the understanding of the near‐surface and showcase a potential new application for a geophysical method as well as a non‐invasive method of ecological surveying.

show abstract

“…Other geophysical tools such as seismic refraction and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) can provide valuable information regarding subsurface structure (Holbrook et al, 2014;McClymont, Hayashi, Bentley, & Liard, 2012;Mills, 1990;Neal, 2004;Parsekian, Singha, Minsley, Holbrook, & Slater, 2015). GPR has also been used in a time-lapse capacity to examine subsurface hydrologic function (Allroggen, van Schaik, & Tronicke, 2015;Angermann et al, 2017;Nyquist, Toran, Pitman, Guo, & Lin, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing hydrological processes in a semiarid rangeland watershed: A hydrogeophysical approach

Carey

Paige

Carr

et al. 2018

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The complex ecohydrological processes of rangelands can be studied through the framework of ecological sites (ESs) or hillslope‐scale soil–vegetation complexes. High‐quality hydrologic field investigations are needed to quantitatively link ES characteristics to hydrologic function. Geophysical tools are useful in this context because they provide valuable information about the subsurface at appropriate spatial scales. We conducted 20 field experiments in which we deployed time‐lapse electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), variable intensity rainfall simulation, ground‐penetrating radar (GPR), and seismic refraction, on hillslope plots at five different ESs within the Upper Crow Creek Watershed in south‐east Wyoming. Surface runoff was measured using a precalibrated flume. Infiltration data from the rainfall simulations, coupled with site‐specific resistivity–water content relationships and ERT datasets, were used to spatially and temporally track the progression of the wetting front. First‐order constraints on subsurface structure were made at each ES using the geophysical methods. Sites ranged from infiltrating 100% of applied rainfall to infiltrating less than 60%. Analysis of covariance results indicated significant differences in the rate of wetting front progression, ranging from 0.346 m min−1/2 for sites with a subsurface dominated by saprolitic material to 0.156 m min−1/2 for sites with a well‐developed soil profile. There was broad agreement in subsurface structure between the geophysical methods with GPR typically providing the most detail. Joint interpretation of the geophysics showed that subsurface features such as soil layer thickness and the location of subsurface obstructions such as granite corestones and material boundaries had a large effect on the rate of infiltration and subsurface flow processes. These features identified through the geophysics varied significantly by ES. By linking surface hydrologic information from the rainfall simulations with subsurface information provided by the geophysics, we can characterize the ES‐specific hydrologic response. Both surface and subsurface flow processes differed among sites and are directly linked to measured characteristics.

show abstract

4D ground-penetrating radar during a plot scale dye tracer experiment

Cited by 31 publications

References 25 publications

Form and function in hillslope hydrology: characterization of subsurface flow based on response observations

Form and function in hillslope hydrology: characterization of subsurface flow based on response observations

High‐resolution imaging and monitoring of animal tunnels using 3D ground‐penetrating radar

Characterizing hydrological processes in a semiarid rangeland watershed: A hydrogeophysical approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About