1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 17, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Soil water content (θ) is a key variable in different earth science disciplines since it mediates the water and energy exchange between the surface and atmosphere. Electrical and electromagnetic geophysical techniques have been widely used to estimate soil electrical conductivity (σ) and soil moisture. However, obtaining the relationship is not straightforward due to the non‐linearity and also dependency on many different soil and environmental properties. The purpose of this paper is to determine if artificial neural network is an appropriate machine learning technique for relating electrical conductivity to soil water content. In this respect, time‐lapse electrical resistivity tomography measurements were carried out along a transect in the Chicken Creek catchment (Brandenburg, Germany). To ensure proper retrieval of the σ and θ, reference values were measured near the beginning of the transect via an excavated pit using 5TE capacitance sensors installed at different depths. We explored robustness and pertinence of the artificial neural network approach in comparison with Rhoades model (as a commonly used petrophysical relationship) to convert the inversely estimated σ from electrical resistivity tomography to the θ. The proposed approach was successfully validated and benchmarked by comparing the estimated values with the reference data. This study showed the superiority of the artificial neural network approach to the Rhoades model to obtain relationship. In particular, artificial neural network allowed for more accurate estimation of the temporal wetting front than the petrophysical model. The proposed methodology thus offers a great promise for deriving spatiotemporal soil moisture patterns from geophysical data and obtaining the relationship, taking into account the non‐linear variations of the soil moisture.

© 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12036
2019-03-26
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12036
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AndreF., van LeeuwenC., SaussezS., Van DurmenR., BogaertP., MoghadasD., et al. 2012. High‐resolution imaging of a vineyard in south of france using ground‐penetrating radar, electromagnetic induction and electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics78, 113–122.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. ArchieG.E.1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Petroleum Transactions of the AIME146, 54–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BuczkoU. and GerkeH.H.2005. Estimating spatial distributions of hydraulic parameters for a two‐scale structured heterogeneous lignitic mine soil. Journal of Hydrology312, 109–124.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. CracknellM.J. and ReadingA.M.2013. The upside of uncertainty: identification of lithology contact zones from airborne geophysics and satellite data using random forests and support vector machines. Geophysics78, WB113–WB126.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. CracknellM.J., ReadingA.M. and McNeillA.W.2014. Mapping geology and volcanic‐hosted massive sulfide alteration in the Hellyer‐Mt Charter region, Tasmania, using random forests (TM) and self‐organising maps. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences612, 287–304.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DahlinT. and BernstoneC.1997. A roll‐along technique for 3D resistivity data acquisition with multi‐electrode arrays. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problem, Reno, Nevada, January 1997, pp. 927–935. The Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society.
  7. Decagon
    Decagon2008. 5TE Operator's Manual. Version 1. Pullman, WA:Decagon Devices.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. FriedmanS.P.2005. Soil properties influencing apparent electrical conductivity: a review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture46, 45–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. GallantS.1993. Neural Network Learning and Expert Systems. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. GerwinW., SchaafW., BiemeltD., FischerA., WinterS. and HuttlR.F.2009. The artificial catchment “chicken creek” (lusatia, germany)‐a landscape laboratory for interdisciplinary studies of initial ecosystem development. Ecological Engineering35, 1786–1796.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. HanT.C., BestA.I., SothcottJ., NorthL.J. and MacGregorL.M.2015. Relationships among low frequency (2 Hz) electrical resistivity, porosity, clay content and permeability in reservoir sandstones. Journal of Applied Geophysics112, 279–289.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. HoshyaripourG., BrasseurG., AndradeM.F., Gavidia‐CalderonM., BouararI. and YnoueR.Y.2016. Prediction of ground‐level ozone concentration in sao paulo, brazil: Deterministic versus statistic models. Atmospheric Environment145, 365–375.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. HuangJ., ScudieroE., ClaryW., CorwinD.L. and TriantafilisJ.2016. Time‐lapse monitoring of soil water content using electromagnetic conductivity imaging. Soil Use and Management33, 191–204.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. IhamoutenA., Le BastardC., DerobertX., BoscF. and VillainG.2016. Using machine learning algorithms to link volumetric water content to complex dielectric permittivity in a wide (33‐2000 MHz) frequency band for hydraulic concretes. Near Surface Geophysics14, 527–536.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. IslamS.M.T., ChikZ., MustafaM.M. and SanusiH.2013. Model with artificial neural network to predict the relationship between the soil resistivity and dry density of compacted soil. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems25, 351–357.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. KarandishF. and SimunekJ.2016. A comparison of numerical and machine‐learning modeling of soil water content with limited input data. Journal of Hydrology543, 892–909.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. KrummelbeinJ., BensO., RaabT. and NaethM.A.2012. A history of lignite coal mining and reclamation practices in lusatia, eastern germany. Canadian Journal of Soil Science92, 53–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. LaloyE., JavauxM., VancloosterM., RoisinC. and BieldersC.L.2011. Electrical resistivity in a loamy soil: identification of the appropriate pedo‐electrical model. Vadose Zone Journal10, 1023–1033.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. LaloyE. and VrugtJ.A.2012. High‐dimensional posterior exploration of hydrologic models using multiple‐try DREAM (ZS) and high‐performance computing. Water Resources Research48. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011wr010608
     [Google Scholar]
  20. LaryD.J., AlaviA.H., GandomiA.H. and WalkerA.L.2016. Machine learning in geosciences and remote sensing. Geoscience Frontiers7, 3–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. MahrooghyM., AanstoosJ., NobregaR.A., HasanK. and YounanN.H.2016. A neural network approach to soil electrical conductivity estimation on earthen Levees using spaceborne X‐band SAR imagery. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing82, 509–519.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. MartinezG., HuangJ., VanderlindenK., GiraldezJ.V. and TriantafilisJ.2018. Potential to predict depth specific soil water content beneath an olive tree using electromagnetic conductivity imaging. Soil Use and Management34, 236–248.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. MoghadasD., JadoonK.Z. and McCabeM.F.2017. Spatiotemporal monitoring of soil water content profiles in an irrigated field using probabilistic inversion of time‐lapse EMI data. Advances in Water Resources110, 238–248.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. NajafiM.R., MoradkhaniH. and WherryS.A.2011. Statistical downscaling of precipitation using machine learning with optimal predictor selection. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering16, 650–664.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. PoultonM.M. and BirkenR.A.1998. Estimating one‐dimensional models from frequency‐domain electromagnetic data using modular neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing36, 547–555.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. RhoadesJ.D., ManteghiN.A., ShouseP.J. and AlvesW.J.1989. Soil electrical conductivity and soil salinity: new formulations and calibrations. Soil Science Society of America Journal53, 433–439.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. RhoadesJ.D., RaatsP.A.C. and PratherR.J.1976. Effects of liquid‐phase electrical conductivity, water content, and surface conductivity on bulk soil electrical conductivity. Soil Science Society of America Journal40, 651–655.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. RinkM. and SchopperJ.R.1974. Interface conductivity and its implications to electric logging. SPWLA 15th Annual Logging Symposium, June 1974, McAllen, TX. SPWLA.
  30. SchaafW., PohleI., MaurerT., GerwinW., HinzC. and BadorreckA.2017. Water balance dynamics during ten years of ecological development at chicken creek catchment. Vadose Zone Journal16. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2017.04.0074
     [Google Scholar]
  31. SchoenJ.2015. Physical Properties of Rocks. 2nd edn. Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. ShutkoA.M. and ReutovE.M., 1982. Mixture formulas applied in estimation of dielectric and radiative characteristics of soils and grounds at microwave‐frequencies. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing20, 29–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. SongX.D., ZhangG.L., LiuF., LiD.C., ZhaoY.G. and YangJ.L., 2016. Modeling spatio‐temporal distribution of soil moisture by deep learning‐based cellular automata model. Journal of Arid Land8, 734–748.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Taghizadeh MehrjardiR., NabiollahiK., MinasnyB. and TriantafilisJ.2015. Comparing data mining classifiers to predict spatial distribution of USDA‐family soil groups in Baneh region, iran. Geoderma253, 67–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. VereeckenH., HuismanJ.A., PachepskyY., MontzkaC., van der KrukJ., BogenaH., et al. 2014. On the spatio‐temporal dynamics of soil moisture at the field scale. Journal of Hydrology516, 76–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. VrugtJ.A.2016. Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using the DREAM software package: theory, concepts, and MATLAB implementation. Environmental Modelling and Software75, 273–316.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. VrugtJ.A., Ter BraakC.J.F., DiksC.G.H., RobinsonB.A., HymanJ.M. and HigdonD.2009. Accelerating markov chain monte carlo simulation by differential evolution with self‐adaptive randomized subspace sampling. International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation10, 273–290.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. WaxmanM.H. and SmitsL.J.M.1968. Electrical conductivities in oil‐bearing shaly sands. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal8. https://doi.org/10.2118/1863-A
     [Google Scholar]
  39. XingC.J., ChenN.C., ZhangX. and GongJ.Y.2017. A machine learning based reconstruction method for satellite remote sensing of soil moisture images with in situ observations. Remote Sensing9, 24.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. ZhouQ.Y., ShimadaJ. and SatoA.2001. Three‐dimensional spatial and temporal monitoring of soil water content using electrical resistivity tomography. Water Resources Research37, 273–285.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12036
Loading
Machine learning to estimate soil moisture from geophysical measurements of electrical conductivity
Near Surface Geophysics 17, 181 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12036
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12036
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12036
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Electrical conductivity; Electrical resistivity tomography; Machine learning; Soil moisture

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