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 Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Butnor, J. R. Articles by Kress, L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Butnor, J. R. Articles by Kress, L. Agricola Articles by Butnor, J. R. Articles by Kress, L. Related Collections Lysimeter/Rhizosphere Studies Ground Penetrating Radar, GPR Forest Soils

Utility of Ground-Penetrating Radar as a Root Biomass Survey Tool in Forest Systems

^a Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 3041 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
^b USDA-NRCS, 11 Campus Boulevard, Suite 200 Newtown Square, PA 19073
^c School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences, Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Illustration of study site showing the location and orientation of trees, irrigation tubes, transects, and GPR passes.

View larger version (114K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Radar profiles representative of a low root biomass transect (control) and a high root biomass transect (irrigated). The midpoint of each image is the location of the row center, tapering at either end to the inter-row area. Effect of each digital signal processing procedure on the profile is presented: (A) horizontal distance normalization only, (B) horizontal distance normalization, and background removal, (C) horizontal distance normalization, background removal, and Kirchoff migration, (D) horizontal distance normalization, background removal, and Hilbert transformation.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Relationship between actual root biomass from soil cores and GPR data processed with horizontal distance normalization, background removal, Hilbert transformation, and thresholding procedures. Analysis of covariance results using (A) no treatment delineation, (B) separation in four treatments, and (C) reduction to two primary treatments.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Linear regression comparing total root biomass per core and root biomass estimated with GPR, which has been adjusted to account for fertilizer effects on signal magnitude. Dashed lines represent the 95% confidence interval.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Comparison of total root biomass per transect (five cores) and root biomass estimated with GPR (adjusted to account for fertilizer effects on signal magnitude) within each block (+/- s.e.).

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Comparison of total root biomass per transect (five cores) and root biomass estimated with GPR (adjusted to account for fertilizer effects on signal magnitude) within each treatment (+/- s.e.).

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Effect of soil core location along the survey transect on root biomass (actual and estimated in each treatment (+/- s.e.). Except for the control treatment, drip irrigation/fertigation tubes cross the transect at 180 cm.