Application of electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) for the assessment of peat properties: a case study of the Całowanie Fen, Central Poland

Abstract

Complex studies were carried out to recognize the fen structure and peat properties in the Całowanie Fen area, belonging to the Natura 2000 network. The studies were conducted in two study areas that differ significantly in terms of peat thickness. Electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) was used to identify the properties of the peat and its substrate, such as thickness and electrical resistivity. Comparison of the field studies with the laboratory tests has shown that the ash content rises electrical resistivity in peat. In addition, the study has shown that the application of non-invasive geophysical methods in protected areas is justified. The fen, as a medium containing mostly water, was a proper test area for the ERI measurements.

Peatland Volume Mapping Over Resistive Substrates With Airborne Electromagnetic Technology

“…To the best of our knowledge, AEM has never been specifically applied before for the retrieval and characterization of boreal peatlands. As reported for other peatlands (Boon et al, 2008;Comas et al, 2015;Kowalczyk et al, 2017), in this case we find a resistive substrate underlying the peat. Developments of the AEM technology (better system monitoring and early time gates, e.g., Schamper et al, 2014) in the last decade have pushed it toward high-resolution near-surface deposits mapping (i.e., within the first 10 m of depth; Skurdal et al, 2018), making it potentially suitable for studying peatland characteristics, depth, and extension.…”

“…Ground electrical resistivity mapping has been also found successful in several applications (Boon et al, 2008;Comas et al, 2015;Elijah et al, 2012;Kowalczyk et al, 2017). Even though peat usually is electrically more resistive than the substrate (often clays), ground geophysical measurements have shown that there are several examples of peat over resistive unit, both in tropical environments (Comas et al, 2015) and in northern European countries (Boon et al, 2008;Kowalczyk et al, 2017). Even though peat usually is electrically more resistive than the substrate (often clays), ground geophysical measurements have shown that there are several examples of peat over resistive unit, both in tropical environments (Comas et al, 2015) and in northern European countries (Boon et al, 2008;Kowalczyk et al, 2017).…”

“…Ground penetrating radar (GPR) has been proven to be the most reliable and precise ground geophysical method to detect peat thickness (Comas et al, 2015;Slater & Reeve, 2002;Warner et al, 1990). Ground electrical resistivity mapping has been also found successful in several applications (Boon et al, 2008;Comas et al, 2015;Elijah et al, 2012;Kowalczyk et al, 2017). Induced polarization imaging is another viable method because of the chargeability of peat (Comas & Slater, 2004;Slater & Reeve, 2002).…”

“…Induced polarization imaging is another viable method because of the chargeability of peat (Comas & Slater, 2004;Slater & Reeve, 2002). Even though peat usually is electrically more resistive than the substrate (often clays), ground geophysical measurements have shown that there are several examples of peat over resistive unit, both in tropical environments (Comas et al, 2015) and in northern European countries (Boon et al, 2008;Kowalczyk et al, 2017). Ground geophysics, however, is usually applied to relatively small areas (order of magnitude of~1 km 2 ), and it is extremely difficult to perform in flooded ecosystems like wetlands/peatlands.…”

Quantification of Peat Thickness and Stored Carbon at the Landscape Scale in Tropical Peatlands: A Comparison of Airborne Geophysics and an Empirical Topographic Method

“…Correlations between peat thickness and soil surface elevation extracted from studies that report measurements recorded in locations situated in Asia, Africa, Europe, South, and North America. Data are extracted from the following sources: (a) – Cameron and Schruben () (dark red crosses: first bog to the left of “their figure ”, points 49‐5; blue triangles: third bog from the left of “their figure ” points 68‐16 – Maine, USA); (b) – Cubizolle et al () (France); (c) – Kowalczyk et al () (purple circles – Poland) and Silvestri et al () (orange squares – Norway); (d) – Esterle and Ferm () (“their figure ” – yellow circles – Indonesia); (e) – Esterle and Ferm () (“their figure ” – blue diamonds – Indonesia), Supardi and Neuzil () (“their figure ” – red squares – Indonesia), Page et al () (green crosses – Indonesia), Anshari, personal communication (purple triangles – Indonesia); (f) – Dargie et al () (Congo); (g) – Lähteenoja and Page () – (“their Figure a” – dark red squares – Peru and “their Figure b” – gray circles – Peru); (h) – Lähteenoja and Page () (“their Figure d” – Peru). The elevation is referred to a different zero for each data set, e.g., referred to the mean sea level or to another local reference as specified in the supporting information.…”