HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Meadows, D. G. Articles by McDonald, E. V. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Meadows, D. G. Articles by McDonald, E. V. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Meadows, D. G. Articles by McDonald, E. V. Related Collections Dryland Soils Field-Scale Studies Ground Penetrating Radar, GPR

Estimating the Fine Soil Fraction of Desert Pavements Using Ground Penetrating Radar

^a Desert Research Institute, Nevada System of Higher Education, 755 E. Flamingo Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89119
^b Desert Research Institute, Nevada System of Higher Education, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Illustration of GPR (ground penetrating radar) transects, EM-38 (electromagnetic survey) measurements, TDR (time domain reflectometry), infiltrometer, and particle size sampling locations.

View larger version (86K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Raw radar data beginning on the older Qf3 desert pavement, traversing a wash, and ending on the younger Qf6 pavement.

View larger version (34K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Color-coded map of radar signal penetration depth on the older Qf3 surface, traversing a wash, and ending on the younger Qf6 surface. Red stars indicate where soil samples were taken for particle size analysis, and percentages are clay content.

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Color-coded map of radar signal penetration depth on an older Qf3 pavement of different parent material. Red stars indicate where soil samples and infiltrometer measurements were made, and percentages are clay content.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Silt plus clay content of (A) the older Qf3 soil samples vs. average GPR (ground penetrating radar) amplitudes from 0 to 2 ns, and (B) the younger Qf3 soil samples vs. EM (electromagnetic) response.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Predicted vs. measured values of silt plus clay content for (A) the older Qf3 surface and (B) the younger Qf3 surface using GPR (ground penetrating radar) amplitudes and a categorical variable describing the degree of pavement development, outlier adjusted. For both figures, x1 = GPR amplitude and x2 and x3 are binary variables related to pavement development. Dotted lines are the predictive interval and dashed lines are the confidence interval, both at 95%.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Predicted vs. measured values of ln Ks for the Qf3 surface using ground penetrating radar amplitude (x1) and two binary variables (x2, x3) describing pavement development. Dotted lines are the predictive interval and dashed lines are the confidence interval, both at 95%.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Predicted vs. measured values of silt plus clay for the younger Qf6 surface using ground penetrating radar amplitude (x1) and two binary variables (x2, x3) describing pavement development. Dotted lines are the predictive interval and dashed lines are the confidence interval, both at 95%.