Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 405–415 | Cite as

Identifying soil structure along headwater hillslopes using ground penetrating radar based technique

  • Xiao-le Han
  • Jin-tao LiuEmail author
  • Jun Zhang
  • Zhi-cai Zhang


Soil structure plays an important role in understanding soil attributes as well as hydrological processes. Effective method to obtain high quality soil map is therefore important for both soil science research and soil work ability improvement. However, traditional method such as digging soil pits is destructive and time-consuming. In this study, the structure of headwater hillslopes from Hemuqiao catchment (Taihu Basin, China) have been analyzed both by indirect (ground penetrating radar, GPR) and direct (excavation or soil auger) methods. Four transects at different locations of hillslopes in the catchment were selected for GPR survey. Three of them (#1, #2, and #3) were excavated to obtain full-scale soil information for interpreting radar images. We found that the most distinct boundary that can be detected by GPR is the boundary between soil and underlain bedrock. In some cases (e.g., 8–17m in transect #2), in which the in situ soil was scarcely affected by colluvial process, different soil layers can be identified. This identification process utilized the sensitive of GPR to capture abrupt changes of soil characteristics in layer boundaries, e.g., surface organic layer (layer #1) and bamboo roots layer (layer #2, contain stone fragments), illuvial deposits layer (layer #3) and regolith layer (layer #4). However, in areas where stone fragments were irregularly distributed in the soil profile (highly affected by colluvial and/or fluvial process), it was possible to distinguish which part contains more stone fragments in soil profile on the basis of reflection density (transect #3). Transect #4 (unexcavated) was used to justify the GPR method for soil survey based on experiences from former transects. After that, O horizon thickness was compared by a hand auger. This work has demonstrated that GPR images can be of a potential data source for hydrological predictions.


Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Hillslope Soil structure 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bassuk N, Grabosky J, Mucciardi A, et al. (2011) Groundpenetrating radar accurately locates tree roots in two soil media under pavement. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 37: 160.Google Scholar
  2. Benson R, Glaccum R (1979). Test report. The application of ground-penetration radar to soil surveying for National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA). Technos Inc. Miami, Florida, USA. p 18.Google Scholar
  3. Bergström S, Forsman A (1973) Development of a conceptual deterministic rainfall-runoff model. Nordic Hydrology 4(3): 147–170. DOI:10.2166/nh.1973.012Google Scholar
  4. Beven K, Calver A, Morris EM (1987) The Institute of Hydrology distributed model. Report 81, Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Brown VA, McDonnell JJ, Burns DA, et al. (1999) The role of event water, a rapid shallow flow component, and catchment size in summer stormflow. Journal of Hydrology 217(3): 171–190. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00247-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniels DJ (1996) Surface-penetrating radar. Electronics & Communication Engineering Journal 8(4): 165–182. DOI: 10.1049/ecej:19960402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doolittle JA, Collins ME (1995) Use of soil information to determine application of ground penetrating radar. Journal of Applied Geophysics 33(1): 101–108. DOI: 10.1016/0926-9851(95)90033-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doolittle JA, Jenkinson B, Hopkins D, et al. (2006) Hydropedological investigations with ground-penetrating radar (GPR): Estimating water-table depths and local ground-water flow pattern in areas of coarse-textured soils. Geoderma 131(3): 317–329. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.03.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doolittle JA, Minzenmayer FE, Waltman SW, et al. (2007) Ground-penetrating radar soil suitability map of the conterminous United States. Geoderma 141(3): 416–421. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.05.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fu ZY, Li ZX, Cai CF, et al. (2011) Soil thickness effect on hydrological and erosion characteristics under sloping lands: a hydropedological perspective. Geoderma 167-168: 41–53. DOI:10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.08.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eriksson CP, Holmgren P (1996) Estimating stone and boulder content in forest soils—evaluating the potential of surface penetration methods. Catena 28(1): 121–134. DOI: 10.1016/S0341-8162(96)00031-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerber R, Felix-Henningsen P, Behrens T, et al. (2010) Applicability of ground-penetrating radar as a tool for nondestructive soil-depth mapping on Pleistocene periglacial slope deposits. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 173: 173–184. DOI: 10.1002/jpln.200800163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hänninen P, Kohonen J, Marmo J (1992) Application of ground penetrating radar and radio wave moisture probe techniques to peatland investigations. Geological survey of Finland 361: 1–71.Google Scholar
  14. Ho JY, Lee KT, Chang TC, et al. (2012). Influences of spatial distribution of soil thickness on shallow landslide prediction. Engineering Geology 124: 38–46.DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.09.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holden J, Burt TP, Vilas M (2002) Application of groundpenetrating radar to the identification of subsurface piping in blanket peat. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27(3): 235–249. DOI: 10.1002/esp.316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoover MD, Hursh CR (1943) Influence of topography and soil depth on runoff from forest land. Earth and Space Science News Transactions, American Geophysical Union 24: 693–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huisman JA, Hubbard SS, Redman JD, et al. (2003) Measuring soil water content with ground penetrating radar. Vadose zone journal 2(4): 476–491. DOI:10.2136/vzj2003.4760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson DO, Arriaga FJ, Lowery B (2005) Automation of a falling head permeameter for rapid determination of hydraulic conductivity of multiple samples. Soil Science Society of America Journal 69(3): 828–833. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2004.0014NCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson RW, Glaccum R, Wojtasinski R (1979) Application of ground penetrating radar to soil survey. Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida Proceedings 39: 68–72.Google Scholar
  20. Khakiev Z, Shapovalov V, Kruglikov A, et al. (2014) GPR determination of physical parameters of railway structural layers. Journal of Applied Geophysics 106: 139–145. DOI: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2014.04.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu J, Chen X, Lin H, et al. (2013) A simple geomorphic-based analytical model for predicting the spatial distribution of soil thickness in headwater hillslopes and catchments. Water Resources Research 49(11): 7733–7746. DOI: 10.1002/2013WR013834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu J, Chen X, Zhang X, et al. (2012) Grid digital elevation model based algorithms for determination of hillslope width functions through flow distance transforms. Water Resources Research 48: W04532. DOI: 10.1029/2011WR011395Google Scholar
  23. Lucà F, Buttafuoco G, Robustelli G, et al. (2014a) Spatial modelling and uncertainty assessment of pyroclastic cover thickness in the Sorrento Peninsula. Environmental Earth Sciences 72: 3353–3367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lucà F, D’Ambrosio D, Robustelli G, et al. (2014b) Integrating geomorphology, statistic and numerical simulations for landslide invasion hazard scenarios mapping: an example in the Sorrento Peninsula (Italy). Computers & Geosciences 67: 163–172. DOI:10.1016/j.cageo.2014.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mellett JS (1995) Ground penetrating radar applications in engineering, environmental management, and geology. Journal of Applied Geophysics 33(1): 157–166. DOI: 10.1016/0926-9851(95)90038-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neal A (2004) Ground-penetrating radar and its use in sedimentology: principles, problems and progress. Earth-Science Reviews 66(3): 261–330. DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2004.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nováková E, Karous M, Zajícek A, et al. (2013) Evaluation of Ground Penetrating Radar and Vertical Electrical Sounding Methods to Determine Soil Horizons and Bedrock at the Locality Dehtáre. Soil and Water Research 8(3): 105–112.Google Scholar
  28. Parsekian AD, Slater L, Ntarlagiannis D, et al. (2012) Uncertainty in peat volume and soil carbon estimated using ground-penetrating radar and probing. Soil Science Society of America Journal 76(5): 1911–1918. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2012.0040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roering JJ, Kirchner JW, Sklar LS, et al. (2001) Hillslope evolution by nonlinear creep and landsliding: an experimental study. Geology 29(2): 143–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saarenketo T, Scullion T (2000) Road evaluation with ground penetrating radar. Journal of Applied Geophysics 43(2): 119–138. DOI: 10.1016/S0926-9851(99)00052-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sass O, Friedmann A, Haselwanter G, et al. (2010) Investigating thickness and internal structure of alpine mires using conventional and geophysical techniques. Catena 80(3): 195–203. DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2009.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sauer D, Felix-Henningsen P (2004) Application of groundpenetrating radar to determine the thickness of Pleistocene periglacial slope deposits. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 167(6): 752–760. DOI:10.1002/jpln.200421433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Segoni S, Rossi G, Catani F (2012) Improving basin scale shallow landslide modelling using reliable soil thickness maps. Nat Hazards 61: 85–101. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-011-9770-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sheriff RE, Geldart LP (1983) Exploration seismology. Volume 1: History, theory, and data acquisition. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA. pp 253.Google Scholar
  35. Sucre EB, Tuttle JW, Fox TR (2011) The use of groundpenetrating radar to accurately estimate soil depth in rocky forest soils. Forest Science 57(1): 59–66.Google Scholar
  36. Troch P, van Loon E, Hilberts A (2002) Analytical solutions to a hillslope-storage kinematic wave equation for subsurface flow. Advances in Water Resources 25(6): 637–649. DOI: 10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00017-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warner BG, Nobes DC, Theimer BD (1990) An application of ground penetrating radar to peat stratigraphy of Ellice Swamp, southwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 27(7): 932–938. DOI: 10.1139/e90-096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Winkelbauer J, Völkel J, Leopold M, et al. (2011) Methods of surveying the thickness of humous horizons using ground penetrating radar (GPR): an example from the Garmisch-Partenkirchen area of the Northern Alps. European Journal of Forest Research 130(5): 799–812. DOI: 10.1007/s10342-010-0472-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang J, Lin H, Doolittle J (2014) Soil layering and preferential flow impacts on seasonal changes of GPR signals in two contrasting soils. Geoderma 213: 560–569. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhao RJ, Zhuang YL, Fang LR, et al. (1980) The Xinanjiang model, Hydrological forecasting, Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium, IAHS-AISH Publ. 129: 351–356.Google Scholar
  41. Zheng WZ (2010) The relationship between natural environment and quarrying culture in Zhejiang. Acta Geographica Sinica 65(9): 1099–1110 (In Chinese).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiao-le Han
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jin-tao Liu
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jun Zhang
    • 3
  • Zhi-cai Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic EngineeringHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of College of Hydrology and Water ResourcesHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.Institute of GeochemistryChinese Academy of SciencesGuiyangChina

Personalised recommendations