Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes
The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis o...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Wodajo, Leti T. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2021transfer abstract |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic - Huber, Brian T. ELSEVIER, 2021, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:192 ; year:2021 ; pages:0 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV054745772 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV054745772 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230626040705.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 210910s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001469.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV054745772 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0926-9851(21)00130-0 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 550 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 38.16 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Wodajo, Leti T. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021transfer abstract | |
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. | ||
| 520 | |a The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Bakhtiari Rad, Parsa |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sharif, Shariful Islam |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Samad, Md Abdus |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mamud, Md Lal |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hickey, Craig J. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wilson, Glenn V. |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier Science |a Huber, Brian T. ELSEVIER |t Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic |d 2021 |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV00720910X |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:192 |g year:2021 |g pages:0 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OPC-GGO | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 38.16 |j Stratigraphie |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 192 |j 2021 |h 0 | ||
| author_variant |
l t w lt ltw |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
wodajoletitbakhtiariradparsasharifsharif:2021----:goepyiamtosoietf |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2021transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
38.16 |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001469.pica (DE-627)ELV054745772 (ELSEVIER)S0926-9851(21)00130-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 550 VZ 38.16 bkl Wodajo, Leti T. verfasserin aut Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes 2021transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. Bakhtiari Rad, Parsa oth Sharif, Shariful Islam oth Samad, Md Abdus oth Mamud, Md Lal oth Hickey, Craig J. oth Wilson, Glenn V. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Huber, Brian T. ELSEVIER Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV00720910X volume:192 year:2021 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-GGO 38.16 Stratigraphie VZ AR 192 2021 0 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001469.pica (DE-627)ELV054745772 (ELSEVIER)S0926-9851(21)00130-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 550 VZ 38.16 bkl Wodajo, Leti T. verfasserin aut Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes 2021transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. Bakhtiari Rad, Parsa oth Sharif, Shariful Islam oth Samad, Md Abdus oth Mamud, Md Lal oth Hickey, Craig J. oth Wilson, Glenn V. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Huber, Brian T. ELSEVIER Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV00720910X volume:192 year:2021 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-GGO 38.16 Stratigraphie VZ AR 192 2021 0 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001469.pica (DE-627)ELV054745772 (ELSEVIER)S0926-9851(21)00130-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 550 VZ 38.16 bkl Wodajo, Leti T. verfasserin aut Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes 2021transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. Bakhtiari Rad, Parsa oth Sharif, Shariful Islam oth Samad, Md Abdus oth Mamud, Md Lal oth Hickey, Craig J. oth Wilson, Glenn V. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Huber, Brian T. ELSEVIER Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV00720910X volume:192 year:2021 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-GGO 38.16 Stratigraphie VZ AR 192 2021 0 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001469.pica (DE-627)ELV054745772 (ELSEVIER)S0926-9851(21)00130-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 550 VZ 38.16 bkl Wodajo, Leti T. verfasserin aut Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes 2021transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. Bakhtiari Rad, Parsa oth Sharif, Shariful Islam oth Samad, Md Abdus oth Mamud, Md Lal oth Hickey, Craig J. oth Wilson, Glenn V. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Huber, Brian T. ELSEVIER Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV00720910X volume:192 year:2021 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-GGO 38.16 Stratigraphie VZ AR 192 2021 0 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001469.pica (DE-627)ELV054745772 (ELSEVIER)S0926-9851(21)00130-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 550 VZ 38.16 bkl Wodajo, Leti T. verfasserin aut Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes 2021transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. Bakhtiari Rad, Parsa oth Sharif, Shariful Islam oth Samad, Md Abdus oth Mamud, Md Lal oth Hickey, Craig J. oth Wilson, Glenn V. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Huber, Brian T. ELSEVIER Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV00720910X volume:192 year:2021 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-GGO 38.16 Stratigraphie VZ AR 192 2021 0 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:192 year:2021 pages:0 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:192 year:2021 pages:0 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Stratigraphie |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| dewey-raw |
550 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Wodajo, Leti T. @@aut@@ Bakhtiari Rad, Parsa @@oth@@ Sharif, Shariful Islam @@oth@@ Samad, Md Abdus @@oth@@ Mamud, Md Lal @@oth@@ Hickey, Craig J. @@oth@@ Wilson, Glenn V. @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV00720910X |
| dewey-sort |
3550 |
| id |
ELV054745772 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV054745772</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626040705.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210910s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001469.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV054745772</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0926-9851(21)00130-0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">550</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">38.16</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wodajo, Leti T.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bakhtiari Rad, Parsa</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sharif, Shariful Islam</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Samad, Md Abdus</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mamud, Md Lal</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hickey, Craig J.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wilson, Glenn V.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Huber, Brian T. ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic</subfield><subfield code="d">2021</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV00720910X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:192</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-GGO</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">38.16</subfield><subfield code="j">Stratigraphie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">192</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Wodajo, Leti T. |
| spellingShingle |
Wodajo, Leti T. ddc 550 bkl 38.16 Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes |
| authorStr |
Wodajo, Leti T. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV00720910X |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
550 - Earth sciences |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
550 VZ 38.16 bkl Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes |
| topic |
ddc 550 bkl 38.16 |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 550 bkl 38.16 |
| topic_browse |
ddc 550 bkl 38.16 |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
r p b rp rpb s i s si sis m a s ma mas m l m ml mlm c j h cj cjh g v w gv gvw |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV00720910X |
| dewey-tens |
550 - Earth sciences & geology |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV00720910X |
| title |
Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV054745772 (ELSEVIER)S0926-9851(21)00130-0 |
| title_full |
Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes |
| author_sort |
Wodajo, Leti T. |
| journal |
Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic |
| journalStr |
Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
500 - Science |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2021 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
0 |
| author_browse |
Wodajo, Leti T. |
| container_volume |
192 |
| class |
550 VZ 38.16 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Wodajo, Leti T. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 |
| dewey-full |
550 |
| title_sort |
agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes |
| title_auth |
Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes |
| abstract |
The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. |
| abstractGer |
The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-GGO |
| title_short |
Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Bakhtiari Rad, Parsa Sharif, Shariful Islam Samad, Md Abdus Mamud, Md Lal Hickey, Craig J. Wilson, Glenn V. |
| author2Str |
Bakhtiari Rad, Parsa Sharif, Shariful Islam Samad, Md Abdus Mamud, Md Lal Hickey, Craig J. Wilson, Glenn V. |
| ppnlink |
ELV00720910X |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth oth oth oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T22:35:01.839Z |
| _version_ |
1803870852182179840 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV054745772</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626040705.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210910s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001469.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV054745772</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0926-9851(21)00130-0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">550</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">38.16</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wodajo, Leti T.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Agrogeophysical methods for identifying soil pipes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The direct contribution of internal soil piping to soil losses or their collapse to form ephemeral gullies is a vital component in understanding total soil loss from agricultural lands. The generation and evolution of soil pipes occur below the surface, where survey-based measurements and analysis often fail to provide a comprehensive image of these crucial phenomena or their erosional evolution. The distribution of soil pipe collapses does not always correlate with surface flow paths, as indicated by surface topography. This lack of correlation makes inferences from traditional remote sensing or manual surveying of surface features subject to significant uncertainty and lack of correspondence to the actual subsurface flow path. Non-invasive geophysical methods provide a better alternative for high spatial resolution imaging to delineate, characterize, and map the distribution of soil pipe networks. In addition to being non-invasive, geophysical methods are more expedient and lower in cost than invasive techniques. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of two geophysical methods, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI), for delineating soil pipes in cross-sectional and plan view maps is presented. The evaluations are based on field measurements at a research site with established soil pipes and ephemeral gullies. Geophysical signatures from the two methods are evaluated using a composite (combined) cross-section plot that includes results of an invasive technique known as cone penetrologger testing (CPL). These signatures are then used to construct plan view maps of the area. The EMI results allow for the delineation of larger zones of fields having soil pipe networks. The GPR data provides a much better resolution. The GPR data can be used to construct maps (depth slices) representing different depths. The results demonstrate the high potential of EMI and GPR as useful tools for studying internal soil pipes.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bakhtiari Rad, Parsa</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sharif, Shariful Islam</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Samad, Md Abdus</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mamud, Md Lal</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hickey, Craig J.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wilson, Glenn V.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Huber, Brian T. ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Calcareous plankton biostratigraphic fidelity and species richness during the last 10 m.y. of the Cretaceous at Blake Plateau, subtropical North Atlantic</subfield><subfield code="d">2021</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV00720910X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:192</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104383</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-GGO</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">38.16</subfield><subfield code="j">Stratigraphie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">192</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.398242 |