[en] Introduction: Characterization of the shallow subsurface in mountain catchments is important for understanding hydrological processes and soil formation. The depth to the soil/bedrock interface (e.g., the upper ~5 m) is of particular interest. Frequency domain electromagnetic induction (FDEM) methods are well suited for high productivity characterization for this target as they have short acquisition times and do not require direct coupling with the ground. Although traditionally used for revealing lateral electrical conductivity (EC) patterns, e.g., to produce maps of salinity or water content, FDEM inversion is increasingly used to produce depth-specific models of EC. These quantitative models can be used to inform several depth-specific properties relevant to hydrological modeling (e.g. depths to interfaces and soil water content). Material and methods: There are a number of commercial FDEM instruments available; this work compares a multi-coil device (i.e., a single-frequency device with multiple receiver coils) and a multi-frequency device (i.e., a single receiver device with multiple frequencies) using the open-source software EMagPy. Firstly, the performance of both devices is assessed using synthetic modeling. Secondly, the analysis is applied to field data from an alpine catchment. Results: Both instruments retrieved a similar EC model in the synthetic and field cases. However, the multi-frequency instrument displayed shallower sensitivity patterns when operated above electrically conductive grounds (i.e., 150 mS/m) and therefore had a lower depth of investigation. From synthetic modeling, it also appears that the model convergence for the multi-frequency instrument is more sensitive to noise than the multi-coil instrument. Conclusion: Despite these limitations, the multi-frequency instrument is smaller and more portable; consequently, it is easier to deploy in mountainous catchments.
Disciplines :
Life sciences: Multidisciplinary, general & others
Author, co-author :
Blanchy, Guillaume ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Urban and Environmental Engineering ; F.R.S.-FNRS (Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique), Brussels, Belgium
McLachlan, Paul; Department of Geoscience, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Mary, Benjamin; Department of Geoscience, Padua University, Padova, Italy ; Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Madrid, Spain
Censini, Matteo; Department of Geoscience, Padua University, Padova, Italy
Boaga, Jacopo; Department of Geoscience, Padua University, Padova, Italy
Cassiani, Giorgio; Department of Geoscience, Padua University, Padova, Italy
Language :
English
Title :
Comparison of multi-coil and multi-frequency frequency domain electromagnetic induction instruments
H2020 - 842922 - GROWING - Geophysical Roots Observation for Water savING in arboriculture, viticulture and agronomy
Funders :
F.R.S.-FNRS - Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique EU - European Union
Funding number :
1.B.044.22F; 842922
Funding text :
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. GB is a Research Fellow of the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique – FNRS (CR: 1.B.044.22F). BM acknowledges the financial support from European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under a Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement (grant no. 842922).The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. GB is a Research Fellow of the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique – FNRS (CR: 1.B.044.22F). BM acknowledges the financial support from European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under a Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement (grant no. 842922).
Corwin DL. “Past, present, and future trends in soil electrical conductivity measurements using geophysical methods.” in handbook of agricultural geophysics, (CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group). 17–44.
Triantafilis J Lesch SM. Mapping clay content variation using electromagnetic induction techniques. Comput Electron Agric. (2005) 46:203–37. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2004.11.006
Corwin DL. Past, present, and future trends in soil electrical conductivity measurements using geophysical methods. In: Handbook of agricultural geophysics (2008). p. 17–44.
Brogi C Huisman JA Pätzold S von Hebel C Weihermüller L Kaufmann MS et al. Large-scale soil mapping using multi-configuration EMI and supervised image classification. Geoderma. (2019) 335:133–48. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.08.001
Martini E Werban U Zacharias S Pohle M Dietrich P Wollschläger U. Repeated electromagnetic induction measurements for mapping soil moisture at the field scale: validation with data from a wireless soil moisture monitoring network. Hydrology Earth System Sci. (2017) 21:495–513. doi: 10.5194/hess-21-495-2017
Huang J Pedrera-Parrilla A Vanderlinden K Taguas EV Gómez JA Triantafilis J. Potential to map depth-specific soil organic matter content across an olive grove using quasi-2d and quasi-3d inversion of DUALEM-21 Data. CATENA (2017) 152:207–17. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2017.01.017
McLachlan P Blanchy G Chambers J Sorensen J Uhlemann S Wilkinson P et al. The application of electromagnetic induction methods to reveal the hydrogeological structure of a riparian wetland. Water Resour Res. (2021) 57:e2020WR029221. doi: 10.1029/2020WR029221
Samouëlian A Cousin I Tabbagh A Bruand A Richard G. “Electrical resistivity survey in soil science: A review. Soil Tillage Res. (2005) 83:173–93. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2004.10.004
Blanchy G Watts CW Richards J Bussell J Huntenburg K. Sparkes DL et al. Time-lapse geophysical assessment of agricultural practices on soil moisture dynamics. Vadose Zone J. (2020) 19:e20080. doi: 10.1002/vzj2.20080
McNeill JD. Electromagnetic Terrain Conductivity Measurement at Low Induction Numbers. Canada: Geonics Limited Ontario (1980). Available at: http://www.geonics.com/pdfs/technicalnotes/tn6.pdf.
Doolittle JA Brevik EC. The use of electromagnetic induction techniques in soils studies. Geoderma. (2014) 223–225:33–45. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.01.027
Altdorff D Sadatcharam K Unc A Krishnapillai M Galagedara L. Comparison of multi-frequency and multi-coil electromagnetic induction (EMI) for mapping properties in shallow podsolic soils. Sensors. (2020) 20:2330. doi: 10.3390/s20082330
Martinelli P Duplaá MaríaC. Laterally filtered 1D inversions of small-loop, frequency-domain EMI data from a chemical waste site. Geophysics. (2008) 73:F143–49. doi: 10.1190/1.2917197
Brosten TR Day-Lewis FD Schultz GM Curtis GP Lane JW. Inversion of multi-frequency electromagnetic induction data for 3D characterization of hydraulic conductivity. J Appl Geophysics. (2011) 73:323–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.02.004
Minsley BJ Smith BD Hammack R. Sams JI Veloski G. Calibration and filtering strategies for frequency domain electromagnetic data. J Appl Geophysics. (2012) 80:56–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2012.01.008
De Smedt P Saey T Lehouck A Stichelbaut B Meerschman E Islam MM et al. Exploring the potential of multi-receiver EMI survey for geoarchaeological prospection: A 90 ha dataset. Geoderma. (2013) 199:30–6. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.07.019
Simon François-Xavier Sarris A Thiesson J Tabbagh A. Mapping of quadrature magnetic susceptibility/magnetic viscosity of soils by using multi-frequency EMI. J Appl Geophysics. (2015) 120:36–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2015.06.007
McLachlan P Schmutz M Cavailhes J Hubbard SS. Estimating grapevine-relevant physicochemical soil zones using apparent electrical conductivity and in-phase data from EMI methods. Geoderma. (2022) 426:116033. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116033
Boaga J. The use of FDEM in hydrogeophysics: A review. J Appl Geophysics. (2017) 139:36–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.02.011
McLachlan P Blanchy G Binley A. EMagPy: open-source standalone software for processing, forward modeling and inversion of electromagnetic induction data. Comput Geosciences. (2021) 146:104561. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2020.104561
Bjerg T Lima Simões da Silva E Døssing A. Investigation of UAV noise reduction for electromagnetic induction surveying.” in 2020:1–5. European association of geoscientists & engineers. doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.202020149
Doolittle J Petersen M Wheeler T. Comparison of two electromagnetic induction tools in salinity appraisals. J Soil Water Conserv. (2001) 56:257–62.
Won IJ. Keiswetter DA Fields GRA Sutton LC. GEM-2: A new multifrequency electromagnetic sensor. J Environ Eng Geophysics. (1996) 1:129–37. doi: 10.4133/JEEG1.2.129
Keiswetter D Won IJ. Multifrequency electromagnetic signature of the cloud chamber, nevada test site. J Environ Eng Geophysics. (1997) 2:99–103. doi: 10.4133/JEEG2.2.99
Wait JR. Geo-electromagnetism. New York: Academic Press (1982).
Hanssens D Delefortrie S De Pue J Van Meirvenne M De Smedt P. Frequency-domain electromagnetic forward and sensitivity modeling: practical aspects of modeling a magnetic dipole in a multilayered half-space. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Magazine. (2019) 7:74–85. doi: 10.1109/MGRS.2018.2881767
Bardossy A Singh SK. Robust estimation of hydrological model parameters. Hydrol. Earth Syst Sci. (2008) 11(12):1273–83. doi: 10.5194/hessd-5-1641-2008
Houska T Kraft P Chamorro-Chavez A Breuer L. SPOTting model parameters using a ready-made python package. PloS One. (2015) 10:e0145180. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145180
Nasta P Bogena HR Sica B Weuthen A Vereecken H Romano N. Integrating invasive and non-invasive monitoring sensors to detect field-scale soil hydrological behavior. Front Water. (2020) 2:26. doi: 10.3389/frwa.2020.00026
Romano N Nasta P Bogena H De Vita P Stellato L Vereecken H. Monitoring hydrological processes for land and water resources management in a mediterranean ecosystem: the alento river catchment observatory. Vadose Zone J. (2018) 17:180042. doi: 10.2136/vzj2018.03.0042
von Hebel C van der Kruk. Huisman JA MesterAltdorffEndreset al. Calibration, conversion, and quantitative multi-layer inversion of multi-coil rigid-boom electromagnetic induction data. Sensors. (2019) 19:4753. doi: 10.3390/s19214753
Blanchy G Watts CW Ashton RW Webster CP Hawkesford MJ Whalley WR et al. Accounting for heterogeneity in the θ–σ Relationship: application to wheat phenotyping using EMI. Vadose Zone J. (2020) 19(1):1–17. doi: 10.1002/vzj2.20037
Hanssens D Delefortrie Samuël Bobe C Hermans T De Smedt P. Improving the reliability of soil EC-mapping: robust apparent electrical conductivity (RECa) estimation in ground-based frequency domain electromagnetics. Geoderma. (2019) 337:1155–63. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.11.030
Hunkeler PA Hendricks S Hoppmann M Paul S Gerdes Rüdiger. Towards an estimation of sub-sea-ice platelet-layer volume with multi-frequency electromagnetic induction sounding. Ann Glaciology. (2015) 56:137–46. doi: 10.3189/2015AoG69A705
Karaoulis M Ritsema I Bremmer C De Kleine M Essink GO Ahlrichs E. Drone-borne electromagnetic (DR-EM) surveying in the Netherlands: lab and field validation results. Remote Sens. (2022) 14:5335. doi: 10.3390/rs14215335
Lavoué F van der Kruk J Rings J André F Moghadas D Huisman JA et al. Electromagnetic induction calibration using apparent electrical conductivity modelling based on electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surface Geophysics. (2010) 8:553–61. doi: 10.3997/1873-0604.2010037
