Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A review of ground-penetrating
radar studies related to peatland
stratigraphy with a case study
on the determination of peat
thickness in a northern boreal
fen in Quebec, Canada
Sandra Proulx-McInnis
INRS-ETE, Canada
Andre St-Hilaire
INRS-ETE, Canada
Alain N. Rousseau
INRS-ETE, Canada
Sylvain Jutras
Universite Laval, Canada
Abstract
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is a non-intrusive geophysical observation method based on propagation and
reflection of high-frequency electromagnetic waves in the shallow subsurface. The vertical cross-sectional
images obtained allow the identification of thickness and lithologic horizons of different media, without
destruction. Over the last decade, several studies have demonstrated the potential of GPR. This paper presents
a review of recent GPR applications to peatlands, particularly to determine peat stratigraphy. An example study
of acquisition and comparison of peatland soil thickness of a fen-dominated watershed located in the James Bay
region of Quebec, using (1) a meter stick linked to a GPS RTK and (2) a GSSI GPR, is given. A coefficient of determination (r2) of 56% was obtained between the ordinary krigings performed on data gathered using both techniques. Disparities occurred mainly in the vicinity of ponds which can be explained by the attenuation of GPR
signal in open water. Despite these difficulties the higher time required for analysis and the error margin
it seems more appropriate to use a GPR, instead of a graduated rod linked to a GPS, to measure the peat depths
on a site like the one presented in this study. Manual measurements, which are user-dependent in the context of
variable mineral substrate densities and with the presence of obstacles in the substrate, may be more subjective.
Keywords
geomorphology, geophysics, GPR, ground-penetrating radar, peatland, stratigraphy
I Introduction
The representation of shallow subsurfaces is of
interest in several geophysical sciences such
Corresponding author:
Sandra Proulx-McInnis, INRS-ETE, 490 de la Couronne,
Quebec City, Quebec G1K 9A9, Canada.
Email: sandra_mcinnis@hotmail.com
768
Proulx-McInnis et al.
769
Lake/Ponds
Fluvioglacial
Glacial/
Permafrost
Snow
Coastal/Delta/
Aeolian
Slope/Alluvial fan
Volcanic
Faults, joints and
folds in
sediments
Forestry
Karsts/
Carbonates
Aquifers
Flow estimation/
Groundwater
paths
Water content/
Soil moisture
Key reference(s)
Example of applications
Water table
depth
Mining
exploitation
770
Proulx-McInnis et al.
771
IV Study site
The study site is a small drainage watershed
dominated by a highly aqualysed fen (54
06868 N, 72 30083 W) located between
Hydro-Quebec LG-4 and LA-1 dams in North
Boreal Quebec (River La Grande drainage
basin). This site was chosen for its high proportion of surface water pools, small size, easily
identified outlet and ease of access (Figure 1).
The structured surface of this peatland appears
to be typical of many of those found at this
latitude. The peatland is formed by two oblong
regions (named south and north), made of
a series of ponds and strips parallel to each other
and perpendicular to the general slope (i.e. the
predominant flow direction), ultimately flowing
in a larger pond just upstream of the outlet
(Figure 1). There is a sphagnum sward in the
upstream portion of the north section, making
the latter about 1.5 times longer than the south
section. Visually, upstream and downstream
portions of the watershed have slopes much
steeper than the mid-section, where the boundaries seem visually difficult to define. The bedrock consists mainly of tonalite and gneiss.
Glacial deposits and rock outcrops form the hills
(Dissanska et al., 2007). The predominant peatland vegetation in this region consists of small
trees (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP and Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch), heaths (Kalmia polifolia Wangehn., Andromeda glaucophylla Link,
Vaccinium oxycoccos L. and Chamaedaphne
calyculata (L.) Moench) and sedges (Carex
772
Figure 1. Location of the study peatland (54 06868 N, 72 30083 W).
V Methodology
1 Peat depth surveys
We performed depth surveys using two methods
of measurements: (a) a meter stick (accuracy +
0.5 cm) linked to a dGPS; and (b) a GSSI GPR
system.
a Meter stick linked to a dGPS. To obtain positions
(X,Y,Z) on the peatland, we used a dGPS (Trimble
model 5800; http://www.trimble.com). The fixed
Proulx-McInnis et al.
773
2 Geostatistical interpolation
a Physical characteristics of the peatland drainage
basin. A panchromatic image acquired on
774
Figure 2. Watershed land cover with location of the meter stick and GPR surveys for peat depth
measurement.
N h
X
li zxi
i1
Proulx-McInnis et al.
775
Surface (m)
Subsurface
meter stick (m)
Subsurface
GPR (m)
Ez from
equation (1) (cm)
Gaussian,
isotropy
Gaussian,
anisotropy
Spherical-exponential,
anisotropy
Spherical,
isotropy
0.52
6.64
0.13
0.18
4.15
0.21
0.11
5.52
0.11
1.20
3.36
1.42
0.02
0.28
0.37
0.06
0.02
0.59
0.56
0.04
0.01
0.61
0.57
0.01
0.50
44.23
41.61
0.01
Sill
Range
Nugget
Predicted errors:
Mean
Root mean square
Average standardized error
Mean standardized
equation (5):
Relativebias
1
n:
z Z
Sn1 gprzms ms
VI Results
This section presents the quantitative physical
characteristics and the different kriging results
of the study watershed.
776
Area (m2)
Watershed
Forest
Peatland
125,490
90,214
35,275
100.0
71.9
28.1
Area (m2)
Percentage (%)
North section
South section
Large pond
17,270
12,990
5017
49.0
36.8
14.2
Area (m2)
Percentage (%)
6156
10,926
18,193
17.5
31.0
51.5
Peatland divisions
Strips
Ponds
Other
Proulx-McInnis et al.
777
Figure 3. Topography of the peatland watershed obtained by ordinary kriging (RMS 0.28 m). The dotted
line corresponds to the transects on which the surface slope was calculated.
VII Discussion
GPR has proved to be a good alternative to manual sampling to estimate peak thickness (Doolittle and Butnor, 2009; Rosa et al., 2009). Section
778
Figure 4. Comparison of peat depths derived using ordinary kriging of data gathered by GPR (RMS 0.61 m)
and meter stick surveys (RMS 0.59 m).
Proulx-McInnis et al.
779
Figure 5. Relationship between peat depths obtained by GPR and meter stick surveys (r2 0.56).
Figure 6. Spatial representation of the difference between the peat depths obtained by GPR and meter stick
surveys (10% error). Ez represents the meter stick depth subtracted from the Georadar depth, in
centimeters.
Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at IPICYT - Parent on September 5, 2016
Figure 7. Five peatland multilayered profiles showing the surface and subsurface topographies obtained by GPR and meter stick surveys.
780
Progress in Physical Geography 37(6)
Proulx-McInnis et al.
781
to the observers experience, the signals sharpness and the amount of interference encountered. In addition, the accuracy is +25 cm
depth, which is not negligible. It was more difficult to interpret the GPR signals and to extract
the depths from areas that were covered with
water, such as ponds (Dallaire, 2010). Indeed,
the signal is strongly attenuated when the water
table is near the surface (Cassidy, 2008). The
water is the medium with the largest dielectric
constant (David and Annan, 1989). The minerotrophic peatlands are more difficult to characterize than ombrotrophic peatlands, because
the number of ponds is larger (Dallaire, 2010).
Several interferences are detected at these levels
(Comas et al., 2004). Indeed, the GPR profile
nearest to the meter stick measurement was
sometimes impossible to interpret. A point
located further away had to be selected, which
may have led to greater differences in the vertical structure of the profiles that were compared.
Manual surveys are often used to validate
GPR data in the literature (e.g. r2 0.94 by
Hanninen, 1992; r2 0.89 by Holden et al.,
2002). They are also imparted with considerable
uncertainty (Doolittle and Butnor, 2009; Rosa
et al., 2009). The difference between the two
methods in this study (r2 0.56) can be
explained by numerous caveats in the field
protocol: the samplers strength may vary, the
flexibility and the possible obliquity of the graduated rod penetrating the peat layer may all be
sources of error (Jol and Smith, 1995; Worsfold
et al., 1986). The difference can also be the
result of spatial variability (distance between
comparison points up to 3 m). It may be influenced by microtopography. The rod can hit
obstacles in the peat column (branch, rock, etc.).
Authors have highlighted that the nature of the
contact between peat and mineral layers can
lead to additional uncertainty (Jol and Smith,
1995; Worsfold et al., 1986). Indeed, if the
mineral substrate beneath the peat layer is
unconsolidated, like clay or sand, the rod can
penetrate beyond the peat layer.
782
Proulx-McInnis et al.
783
VIII Conclusion
At the beginning of this study, two basic questions were raised. (1) Do methodologies used
to collect GPR data on peaty soils to characterize the stratigraphy yield similar results?
(2) More specifically, is there a significant difference between peat depth measurement using
a GPR and a manually driven meter stick?
In the literature, the number of papers reporting the use of GPR on peatlands has greatly
increased. GPR can penetrate up to 10 m
(+0.25 m) in peat soils (Comas et al., 2005b),
allowing the possible creation of high spatial
resolution maps (Worsfold et al., 1986). However, GPR surveys are challenging on peatlands
as there are numerous areas conducive to EM
wave scattering (Comas et al., 2005b). Indeed,
the moisture content fluctuations within the
media, the porosity differences, the water-table
depth, the biogenic gas content, and the presence of root or clay layers could be responsible
for numerous strong GPR reflections (Comas
et al., 2005a; Plado et al., 2011). Many authors
have highlighted the fact that to obtain a good
modeling of an environment, with peatlands as
an example, GPR data have to be combined with
other methods to fill in the gaps, to validate the
data (Comas et al., 2005a; Neal, 2004; Plado
et al., 2011) and to reduce the uncertainties
associated with interpolation (Rosa et al., 2009).
The two techniques examined for measuring
peat depth have a coefficient of determination
(r2) of 56%. Disparities between the two methods occurred mainly in the vicinity of ponds,
this observation may be caused by the difficulty
of interpreting the GPR profiles taken over
water. Indeed, the signal is attenuated when the
water table is near the surface (Cassidy, 2008),
due to its high dielectric constant (Davis
and Annan, 1989). However, it seems more
appropriate to use a GPR to take peat depth
Funding
This research was financially supported by the
Collaborative Research and Development (CRD) program of the Natural Science and Engineering Research
784
References
Annan AP (2003) Ground Penetrating Radar Principles,
Procedures and Applications. Mississaugua: Sensors
and Software.
Bano M (2000) Imagerie de la proche surface par georadar.
Masters thesis, Universite Louis Pasteur-Strasbourg 1.
Benson AK (1995) Application of ground-penetrating
radar in assessing some geological hazards: Examples
of ground water contamination, faults, cavities. Journal
of Applied Geophysics 33: 177193.
Beres M and Haeni FP (1991) Application of groundpenetrating radar methods to hydrogeologic studies.
Ground Water 29: 375386.
Beres M, Huggenberger P, Green AG, et al. (1999) Using
two- and three-dimensional georadar methods to characterise glaciofluvial architecture. Sedimentary Geology 129(12): 124.
Bottom S, Duquenne F, Egels Y, et al. (1997) GPS, localisation et navigation. Paris: Editions Herme`s.
Bridge JS, Alexander J, Collier REL, et al. (1995) Groundpenetrating radar and coring used to study the
large-scale structure of point-bar deposits in three
dimensions. Sedimentology 42(6): 839852.
Bristow CS, Neil Chroston P and Bailey SD (2000) The
structure and development of foredunes on a locally
prograding coast: Insights from ground-penetrating
radar surveys, Norfolk, UK. Sedimentology 47(5):
923944.
Butnor JR, Doolittle JA, Johnsen KH, et al. (2003) Utility
of ground-penetrating radar as a root biomass survey
tool in forest systems. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 67(5): 16071615.
Buynevich IV and Fitzgerald DM (2003) High-resolution
subsurface (GPR) imaging and sedimentology of coastal
ponds, Maine, USA: Implications for Holocene backbarrier evolution. Journal of Sedimentary Research
73(4): 559571.
Cassidy NJ (2008) Introduction to GPR (Workshop 1).
Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR08), 1619 June,
University of Birmingham, UK.
Charman D (2002) Peatlands and Environmental Change.
Chichester: Wiley.
Comas X, Slater L and Reeve A (2004) Geophysical evidence for peat basin morphology and stratigraphic
Proulx-McInnis et al.
785
786
improve peat thickness estimations by ground penetrating radar. Earth Surface Process and Landforms 37:
377383.
Russell JK and Stasiuk MV (1997) Characterization of
volcanic deposits with ground-penetrating radar. Bulletin of Volcanology 58(7): 515527.
Rydin H and Jeglum J (2006) The Biology of Peatlands.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sass O, Friedmann A, Haselwanter G, et al. (2010)
Investigating thickness and internal structure of alpine
mires using conventional and geophysical techniques.
Catena 80: 195203.
Slater LD and Reeve A (2002) Investigating peatland
stratigraphy and hydrogeology using integrated electrical geophysics. Geophysics 67(2): 365378.
Smith DG and Harry MG (1997) Radar structure of
a Gilbert-type delta, Peyto Lake, Banff National Park,
Canada. Sedimentary Geology 113(34): 195209.
Tardif S (2010) Hydrologie comparative des tourbie`res et
des lacs de la Baie de James dans un contexte daqualyse. PhD thesis, INRS-ETE.
Theimer BD, Nobes DC and Warner BG (1994) A study of
the geoelectrical properties of peatlands and their
influence on ground-penetrating radar surveying. Geophysical Prospecting 42(3): 179209.
Van Dam RL, Van Den Berg EH, Van Heteren S, et al.
(2002) Influence of organic matter in soils on radarwave reflection: Sedimentological implications. Journal of Sedimentary Research 72(3): 341352.
Van Overmeeren RA, Sariowan SV and Gehrels JC (1997)
Ground penetrating radar for determining volumetric
soil water content: Results of comparative measurements at two test sites. Journal of Hydrology 197(14):
316338.
Warner BG, Nobes DC and Theimer BD (1990) An application of ground penetrating radar to peat stratigraphy of
Ellice Swamp, southwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal
of Earth Sciences 27(7): 932938.
Worsfold RD, Parashar SK and Perrott T (1986) Depth
profiling of peat deposits with impulse radar. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal/Revue Canadienne de Geotechnique 23: 142154.