Geophysical imaging of tree root absorption and conduction zones under field conditions: a comparison of common geoelectrical methods

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F67985891%3A_____%2F22%3A00564804" target="_blank" >RIV/67985891:_____/22:00564804 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00027073:_____/22:N0000089 RIV/62156489:43410/22:43922131 RIV/00216208:11310/22:10452086

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11104-022-05648-2" target="_blank" >https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11104-022-05648-2</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05648-2" target="_blank" >10.1007/s11104-022-05648-2</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Geophysical imaging of tree root absorption and conduction zones under field conditions: a comparison of common geoelectrical methods

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Aims Our objective was to identify the most accurate and simple non-destructive method for visualising a tree's root system, based on the assumption that tree physiological processes affect subsurface physical properties. To investigate this, we tested four geoelectrical methods, i.e. electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), electromagnetic induction (EMI), modified earth impedance (MEI) and ground-penetrating radar (GPR), each providing geophysical maps representing the spatial distribution of physical quantities that allow for the identification of structural and functioning roots. Methods The four geoelectric methods were applied to a semi-solitary 13-year-old European ash (Fraxinus excelsior) 'Atlas' (diameter at breast height = 15.1 cm, height = 8.3 m) situated in a 14 x 14 m plot. Subsequently, we unearthed the roots using an air spade to visualise the actual root system. A 3D model and orthomosaic of the root system was then created from 177 photographs. Finally, root-zone maps from each technique were compared with the excavated root system to determine the spatial accuracy of each method. Results Our results showed that the spatial accuracy of each method used to detect root system structure (conduction zones) varied widely, ranging from 12.38% for MEI, to 44.59% for GPR, 74.54% for EMI and up to 92.66% for ERT. The results for functioning roots (absorption zones) also varied along the same gradient, ranging from 14.06% for MEI, 50.63% for GPR, 84.64% for EMI and up to 105% for ERT. Conclusions Based on our case study, ERT, followed by EMI, provided the most reliable reconstruction of a tree's root system, with EMI successfully detecting many individual absorption zones.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Geophysical imaging of tree root absorption and conduction zones under field conditions: a comparison of common geoelectrical methods

Popis výsledku anglicky

Aims Our objective was to identify the most accurate and simple non-destructive method for visualising a tree's root system, based on the assumption that tree physiological processes affect subsurface physical properties. To investigate this, we tested four geoelectrical methods, i.e. electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), electromagnetic induction (EMI), modified earth impedance (MEI) and ground-penetrating radar (GPR), each providing geophysical maps representing the spatial distribution of physical quantities that allow for the identification of structural and functioning roots. Methods The four geoelectric methods were applied to a semi-solitary 13-year-old European ash (Fraxinus excelsior) 'Atlas' (diameter at breast height = 15.1 cm, height = 8.3 m) situated in a 14 x 14 m plot. Subsequently, we unearthed the roots using an air spade to visualise the actual root system. A 3D model and orthomosaic of the root system was then created from 177 photographs. Finally, root-zone maps from each technique were compared with the excavated root system to determine the spatial accuracy of each method. Results Our results showed that the spatial accuracy of each method used to detect root system structure (conduction zones) varied widely, ranging from 12.38% for MEI, to 44.59% for GPR, 74.54% for EMI and up to 92.66% for ERT. The results for functioning roots (absorption zones) also varied along the same gradient, ranging from 14.06% for MEI, 50.63% for GPR, 84.64% for EMI and up to 105% for ERT. Conclusions Based on our case study, ERT, followed by EMI, provided the most reliable reconstruction of a tree's root system, with EMI successfully detecting many individual absorption zones.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

10505 - Geology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Plant and Soil

ISSN

0032-079X

e-ISSN

1573-5036

Svazek periodika

481

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1/2

Stát vydavatele periodika

NL - Nizozemsko

Počet stran výsledku

27

Strana od-do

447-473

Kód UT WoS článku

000874058400002

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85140247865