Calibrating electromagnetic induction conductivities  with time-domain reflectometry measurements

Dragonetti, Giovanna; Comegna, Alessandro; Ajeel, Ali; Deidda, Gian Piero; Lamaddalena, Nicola; Rodriguez, Giuseppe; Vignoli, Giulio; Coppola, Antonio

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1509-2018

Articles | Volume 22, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1509-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1509-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 22, issue 2

Research article

|

28 Feb 2018

Research article |

| 28 Feb 2018

Calibrating electromagnetic induction conductivities with time-domain reflectometry measurements

Giovanna Dragonetti, Alessandro Comegna, Ali Ajeel, Gian Piero Deidda, Nicola Lamaddalena, Giuseppe Rodriguez, Giulio Vignoli, and Antonio Coppola

Download

Final revised paper (published on 28 Feb 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 30 May 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'comments to the paper', Giorgio Cassiani, 18 Jun 2017
- AC1: 'Reply to Reviewer #1', Antonio Coppola, 15 Sep 2017
RC2: 'Comment to the paper', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jul 2017
- AC2: 'Reply to Reviewer #2', Antonio Coppola, 15 Sep 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (18 Sep 2017) by Erwin Zehe

AR by Antonio Coppola on behalf of the Authors (09 Nov 2017) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Nov 2017) by Erwin Zehe

RR by Giorgio Cassiani (15 Nov 2017)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (11 Dec 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear Authors and Editors,

I have few additional minor-moderate recommendations.

1) The authors added the data plots so that the readers can now properly evaluate the quality of the geophysical data and their inversion.
In Figures 2 and 4, I nevertheless recommend decreasing the upper limit of the color-bar to 0.05-0.06 S/m. For now, the color-scale gives the impression that the smooth solution is rather homogeneous, which, sometimes, is not true: it is just varies within the blue color range.

2) The authors modified Figure 10, which now shows the results for different irrigation contexts. This is good. However, it would be helpful to have a discussion of the results according to what is expected from the experimental set-up. Ideally, the filtered 26 3-levels TDR soundings could be shown together with these results.

3) On p. 13, the authors decided to discuss the analysis of the subsurface magnetic permeability. There is a recent growing interest for this topic, especially for small ground EMI devices. Hence, the recent literature should not be omitted. Before Deidda et al, (2017), please incorporate the following references from several research groups working on this topic:

Sasaki, Y., J. Kim, and S. Cho, 2010, Multidimensional inversion of loop-loop frequency domain EM data for resistivity and magnetic susceptibility: Geophysics, 75, 213-223.

Guillemoteau, J., F. X. Simon, E. Luck, and J. Tronicke, 2016, 1D sequential inversion of portable multi-configuration electromagnetic induction data: Near Surface Geophysics,14, 411-420.

Noh, K., K. H. Lee, S. Oh, S. J. Seol, and J. Byun, 2017, Numerical evaluation of active source magnetics as a method for imaging high-resolution near-surface magnetic heterogeneity: Geophysics, 82, J27-J38.

Best regards

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (12 Dec 2017) by Erwin Zehe

AR by Antonio Coppola on behalf of the Authors (20 Dec 2017) Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (08 Jan 2018) by Erwin Zehe

AR by Antonio Coppola on behalf of the Authors (15 Jan 2018)

Short summary

The paper aims to infer the bulk electrical conductivity distribution in the root zone from EMI readings. TDR measurements were used as ground-truth data to evaluate the goodness of the estimations by EMI inversion. The approach is based on the mean and standard deviation of the EMI and TDR series. It looks for the physical reasons for the differences between EMI- and TDR-based electrical conductivity and provides a correction of the bias based on the statistical sources of the discrepancies.