1887
Volume 12 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Resistivity measurements were used for tracing water transport during a three‐year irrigation study. Three different rates of landfill leachate irrigation and one control treatment were applied to two cultivars of short‐rotation willow coppice. Groundwater level measurements and water sampling were carried out in pipes installed in the centre of each plot. Resistivity was measured with permanently installed electrodes along six lines running through the centre of the plots. The resistivity results were inverted to produce vertical sections of ground resistivity at different time steps and as change in resistivity relative to the start of the experiment. Changes in resistivity linked to differences in irrigation quantities and plant growth were observed. The results showed that a repeated soil resistivity measurement has the potential as a tool to monitor changes in soil water and ion contents. Furthermore, expanding zones of increasing soil resistivity immediately under and around the plants indicate that the method may be useful for imaging plant root development.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013035
2013-03-01
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nsg/12/1/nsg2013035.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013035&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. AronssonP., DahlinT. and DimitriouI.2010. Treatment of landfill leachate by irrigation of willow coppice – Plant response and treatment efficiency. Environmental Pollution158, 795–804.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AukenE., PellerinL., ChristensenN.B. and SørensenK.2006. A survey of current trends in near‐surface electrical and electromagnetic methods. Geophysics71(5), G249–437, G260.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BessonA., CousinI., BourennaneH., NicoullaudB., PasquierC., RichardG.et al. 2010. The spatial and temporal organization of soil water at the field scale as described by electrical resistivity measurements. European Journal of Soil Science61, 120–132
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BinleyA., Henry‐PoulterS. and ShawB.1996. Examination of solute transport in an undisturbed soil column using electrical resistance tomography. Water Resources Research32, 763–769.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DahlinT.2001. The development of DC resistivity imaging techniques. Computers and Geosciences27, 1019–1029.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DahlinT. and ZhouB.2006. Multiple‐gradient array measurements for multichannel 2D resistivity imaging. Near Surface Geophysics4, 113–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DimitriouI. and AronssonP.2007. Landfill leachate treatment on short‐rotation willow coppice: Resource instead of waste? In: Landfill Research Focus, (ed. Ernest C.Lehmann ), pp. 55–85. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. ISBN 1‐60021‐775‐3.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. FrenchH. and BinleyA.2004. Snowmelt infiltration: Monitoring temporal and spatial variability using time‐lapse electrical resistivity. Journal of Hydrology297(1), 174–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. GebbersR., LückE., DabasM. and DomschH.2009. Comparison of instruments for geoelectrical soil mapping at the field scale. Near Surface Geophysics7(3), 179–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. GuerinR., MunozM.L., AranC., LaperrelleC., HidraM., DrouartE. and GrellierS.2004. Leachate recirculation: Moisture content assessment by means of a geophysical technique. Waste Management24, 785–794.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. al HagreyS.A., Schubert‐KlempnauerT., WachsmuthD., MichaelsenJ. and MeissnerR.1999. Preferential flow: First results of a full‐scale flow model. Geophysical Journal International138(3), 643–654.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. HayleyK., BentleyL.R., GharibiM. and NightingaleM.2007. Low temperature dependence of electrical resistivity: Implications for near surface geophysical monitoring. Geophysical Research Letters34, L18402.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. HayleyK., BentleyL.R. and PidliseckyA.2010. Compensating for temperature variations in time‐lapse electrical resistivity difference imaging. Geophysics75(4), 467, WA51–WA59.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. JonesG.M., CassidyN.J., ThomasP.A., PlanteS. and PringleJ.K.2009. Imaging and monitoring tree‐induced subsidence using electrical resistivity imaging. Near Surface Geophysics7(3), 191–206.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. KemnaA., KulessaB. and VereeckenH.2002. Imaging and characterisation of subsurface solute transport using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and equivalent transport models. Journal of Hydrology267, 125146.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LerouxV. and DahlinT.2005. Time‐lapse resistivity investigations for imaging saltwater infiltration in glaciofluvial deposits. Environmental Geology49(3), 347–358.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. LindersonM.‐L., IritzZ. and LindrothA.2007. The effect of water availability on stand‐level productivity, transpiration, water use efficiency and radiation use efficiency of field‐grown willow clones. Biomass and Bioenergy31, 460–468.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. LindrothA. and BåthA.1999. Assessment of regional willow coppice yield in Sweden on basis of water availability. Forest Ecology and Management121, 57–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. LokeM.H., AcworthI. and DahlinT.2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2‐D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics34(3), 182–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. ÖmanC., MalmbergM. and Wolf‐WatzC.2000. Handbok för Lakvattenbedömning – Metodik för karakterisering av lakvatten från avfallsupplag (in Swedish.). IVL rapport/report B 1354. IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet AB. http://www3.ivl.se/rapporter/pdf/B1354.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  21. PalackyG.J.1987. Resistivity characteristics of geologic targets. In: Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, (ed. M.N.Nabighian ), pp. 53–130. Society of Exploration Geophysics.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. RosqvistH., DahlinT. and LindhéC.2005. Investigation of water flow in a bioreactor landfill using geoelectrical imaging techniques. Proceedings of Sardinia‐05, 10th International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium,Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. RossiR., AmatoM., BitellaG., BochicchioR., Ferreira GomesJ.J., LovelliS.et al. 2011. Electrical resistivity tomography as a nondestructive method for mapping root biomass in an orchard. European Journal of Soil Science62(2), 206–215.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. SamouëlianA., RichardG., CousinI., GuérinR., BruandA. and TabbaghA.2004. Three‐dimensional crack monitoring by electrical resistivity measurement. European Journal of Soil Science55(4), 751–762.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. SeladjS., CosenzaP., TabbaghA., RangerJ. and RichardG.2010. The effect of compaction on soil electrical resistivity: A laboratory investigation. European Journal of Soil Science61(6), 1043–1055.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. SjödahlP., DahlinT., JohanssonS. and LokeM.H.2008. Resistivity monitoring for leakage and internal erosion detection at Hällby embankment dam. Journal of Applied Geophysics65, 155–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. SlaterL.D. and SandbergS.K.2000. Resistivity and induced polarization monitoring of salt transport under natural hydraulic gradients. Geophysics65, 408–420.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013035
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013035
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