Geoderma 97 Ž2000.

393–404
www.elsevier.nlrlocatergeoderma

Soil resistivity: a non-invasive tool to map soil

structure horizonation
´
Alain Tabbagh ) , Michel Dabas, Albert Hesse, Cedric Panissod
GEOFCAN, UMR 7619, «Sisyphe» UniÕersite´ Pierre et Marie Curie, et CNRS, Centre de
´
Recherches Geophysiques, Garchy 58150, France

Received 5 October 1998; received in revised form 11 October 1999; received in revised form 8
December 1999; accepted 13 January 2000

Abstract

Since geophysical methods are non-invasive, they can be of great help in soil studies because
they disturb neither the structure nor the dynamics of the soil. Moreover, data are acquired with
reliable spatial sampling. The usual ways of investigation, like augering and excavation, disturb
the soil and are totally incompatible with a spatially dense sampling strategy, which would destroy
the object of the study. Both approaches are complementary when excavations have a limited
extent and are distributed according to the information conveyed by the geophysical investigation.
A basic principle of applied geophysics is to measure different physical parameters without direct
access to the studied volume. Horizontal andror vertical variations of the parameterŽs. can be
recorded. Possible soil parameters should be restricted to measurements which do not alter the
medium Žreversible effect.. To be significant, the variations of the parameterŽs. should exhibit a
wide dynamic range over different soil types and should be correlated in some way to soil
parameters such as particle size or hydraulic conductivity. After summarising the soil properties,
two examples are shown whereby electrical resistivity was used. The first example is a specific
soil so-called hardpan Žsandy soil in arid area. in Lagadge, ´ North Cameroon. Using resistivity
surveys the three dimensional extension of a very coherent horizon was mapped. This horizon is
delineated by low resistivities - 100 V m Žconductivities ) 10 mSrm. because of the
disposition of clay particles around the quartz grains. In a second example, a ‘‘homogeneous’’
area ought to be found delimit the extent of a surface where a pesticide transfer experiment is to
take place. Accurate mapping of soil horizons was not feasible by augering. Resistivity data have
clearly shown the three-dimensional extension of clayey horizons in the complex delta context.
q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: geophysical survey; mapping; electrical resistivity; soil physical properties

)
Corresponding author.

0016-7061r00r$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 7 0 6 1 Ž 0 0 . 0 0 0 4 7 - 1
394 A. Tabbagh et al.r Geoderma 97 (2000) 393–404

1. Physical properties usable for soil surveying

Exploration geophysics originates from a simple fact that it is useful for

investigating soil without digging. This is a major requirement in the field of
soil science for two main reasons: Ž 1. direct observation over the whole volume
of a soil is not possible as it would imply the total destruction of the soil; only
non-invasive methods allow the investigation of the whole volume with a good
sampling strategy. Ž2. digging disturbs the dynamics of the soil, particularly by
changing the ground water flow path. After an excavation, structure and
dynamics are different from what they were previously.
This exploration, obviously, does not exclude other observations and analy-
ses. Since a number of observations such as chemical and biological, cannot be
performed in situ and must be undertaken in the laboratory; so, excavations for
sampling remain necessary. Even if one expects significant improvements for in
situ non-invasive methods, similar progress would also probably take place with
laboratory methods, and their use need to be combined to optimise the under-
standing of a site.
The general principle behind geophysical exploration is to collect data outside
the medium under investigation, which are a function of the internal properties
of this medium ŽTelford et al., 1976; Scollar et al., 1990.. At first sight, the
number of methods which can be applied is large, but constraints limiting these
types of survey must be considered. First, in order to maintain the main
advantage of non-invasive methods one must only choose the methods, which
correspond to a strictly reversible effect, i.e. the medium must be identical
before and after the measurement. Second, the chosen physical propertyŽ ies.
must span over a wide range for different soil types; the higher this variability,
the better the chance to detect small variations of soil structure; the better the
correlation between this Žthese. propertyŽ ies. and the commonly used parameters
Žporosity, water content, clay content, . . . . , the easier the interpretation and the
information transfer to a non-physicist. Third, the cost of the measurements is
not negligible; one must use light and robust instruments and reduce as much as
possible the duration of a measurement and the delay between two successive
ones.
Geophysical methods have been used for eighty years in mining, oil, civil
engineering, . . . prospecting. Four groups of properties have proven to be very
useful: density, seismic velocity, electrical conductivity and permittivity, and the
magnetic parameters Žmainly susceptibility. .
Density is correlated to porosity and water content, but its range of variation
in soils remains limited Ž1.2 to 2 typically.. Seismic velocity exhibits a wider
range in soil, from 500 to about 2000 mrs, it is also related to porosity along
with a fair sensitivity to water content. Magnetic properties play a very
important part in archaeological prospecting, but their use in soil sciences is still
limited. They are determined by the amount and grain size of ferrimagnetic iron
 A. Tabbagh et al.r Geoderma 97 (2000) 393–404 395

oxides and sulfides. These minerals are generated by several authigenic, bio-
genic and anthropogenic processes that occurred during and after pedogenesis
ŽVerosub and Roberts, 1995.. Magnetic properties can thus probably play an
important role in soil sciences and their application will probably increase in the
future.
Electrical resistivity Žor its inverse, conductivity. exhibits a large range of
variation, from 1 for saline soil to several thousand ohms per metre for dry soil
overlying crystalline rocks. Electrical conduction involves two different pro-
cesses of ion displacement: Ž 1. through the volume of the water in the pores, and
Ž2. at the surface of particles Žcations.. Consequently, two parameters control its
magnitude: Ž i. the saturation and salinity of the water, Ž ii. the value of the
specific surface which is related to the clay and fine-particle content. In saline
areas, the first parameter plays the major part, whereas the clay content
dominates in the second case. Several methods such as d.c. electrical, electro-
static and low-frequency electromagnetic, can be used in order to measure the
resistivity. They are mostly used in soil science and related domains including
hydrogeology, civil engineering and archaeological prospecting ŽHalvorson and
Rhoades 1976; Bottraud et al., 1984; Dabas et al., 1989; Gras et al., 1997; Lesch
et al., 1992; Benson et al., 1997. and more recent papers were presented in
precision farming Ž Dabas et al., 1999; Lund et al., 1999. .
Electrical permittivity is the parameter that determines the velocity and
reflection coefficients of higher-frequency electromagnetic waves used with
ground penetrating radar Ž GPR. . This parameter depends on the liquid water
content of the soil material ŽTopp et al., 1980. . The application of GPR to soil
sciences is an active domain of research.
Two field examples will be presented here: the first one on a Sahel-type arid
climate area, the second one in temperate climate area. In both cases, the
resistivity measurements by d.c. electrical method was most relevant.

2. Distribution of hardpan in soil cover at the Lagadge´ site (Northern

Cameroon)

The area investigated is located in the flat plain of southern Chad basin; the
top of the granite gneiss basement is several metres deep. The soil comprises
from bottom to top: a clay layer and sandy layers with either low cohesion Ž ‘‘sol
´
peu coherent’’ SPC layer. or high cohesion Ž ‘‘sol tres` coherent’’
´ STC layer or
hardpan. . The presence of a hardpan is an obstacle to excavation and auger
drilling. The type of vegetation cover has proven to be correlated with the
location and depth of the hardpan layer. When hardpan is at very shallow depth,
the ground surface is barren. An electrical resistivity survey was undertaken in
order to describe the distribution of the hardpan. Several soil profiles allowed
396 A. Tabbagh et al.r Geoderma 97 (2000) 393–404

sample collection for analyses and explanation of its mechanical and electrical
properties ŽLamotte 1993; Lamotte et al., 1994. .
Using a Septa RMCA3 resistivity meter, the surveyed area Ž 50 = 300 m. was
covered by a 4 = 4 m 2 measurement grid, Wenner arrays with a s 1, 2 and 4 m
spacing; a 8 = 8 m grid was used for the a s 8 m spacing. Four different depths
of investigation were thus obtained, they correspond roughly to a soil thickness

Fig. 1. Resistivity maps obtained with four different Wenner arrays and electrode spacings, as1
m Ža., as 2 m Žb., as 4 m Žc. and as8 m Žd. at the Lagadge´ site ŽNorthern Cameroon..
Location of anomalies A, AX , AY , and B are shown in Ža..
 A. Tabbagh et al.r Geoderma 97 (2000) 393–404 397

between a and ar2 Žthe depth of investigation corresponds to the thickness of

the soil taken into account by measurements; a 2-m depth of investigation
corresponds, for instance, to the soil between 0 and an extreme limit of 2 m..
The resistivity range is very large Ž7 to 10,000 V m., i.e. conductivities
ranging from 140 to 0.01 mSrm ŽFig. 1. . The largest resistivity variations were
found with 1- and 2-m electrode spacing. In the highest resistivity zones, noted
A, AX and AY in Fig. 1, the resistivity, D , is higher than 1000 V m. The
magnitude of these variations decreases as the electrode spacing increases. The
presence of SPC is associated with high resistivity while the presence of STC
with low resistivity and this suggests the presence of clay in the hardpan. Two
resitivity pseudo-sections corresponding to A and B anomalies are presented in
Fig. 2, together with the soil sequence and vegetation observations. The
pseudo-sections show that A anomaly corresponds to an extension at depth of a
limited volume of SPC. Such an extension does not exist at B. A 3D inversion
ŽDabas et al., 1994; Panissod, 1997. of a part the data Ž over 0.5 ha. confirms

Fig. 2. Electrical resistivity pseudo-section profiles of anomalies A and B and the corresponding
organisation of soil horizons at Lagadge´ site: Ž1. isoresistivity curves Ž V m., Ž2. bare zone ŽZN.,
herbaceous zone ŽZH., arboreous zone ŽZA., Ž3. homogeneous upper material Žfine sand., Ž4.
heterogeneous lower material ŽA coarse sand, B fine sand, C clay., Ž5. sandy horizon with low
cohesion, Ž6. sandy horizon with high cohesion Žhardpan..
398 A. Tabbagh et al.r Geoderma 97 (2000) 393–404

these results ŽFig. 3. . Contrasts are reinforced and contours of the bodies more
precise. We can observe some detailed resistive features in the middle layer
ŽFig. 3b. . Electron microscope observations Ž Lamotte, 1993. explain the low
resistivity of STC sand by the presence of clay particles in electrical contact at
the inner surface of the pores. The clay particles also play a mechanical role by
limiting possible strains on the pores.
This experimental survey has shown that resistivity is a very relevant tool to
characterise STC soils. The electrical survey allows the description of this 3D
distribution and the explanation for the surface repartition of vegetation.

Fig. 3. Electrical 3D inversion aver a part of the data acquired at Lagadge´ site: Ža. apparent
resistivity data Žb. 3D inversion showing the extension of the main body and smaller features in an
intermediate layer Žbetween 1.7 and 3.7 m..
 A. Tabbagh et al.r Geoderma 97 (2000) 393–404
Fig. 4. Ža. Picture of the ‘‘Vol de canards’’ ŽV-MUCEP. electrical multipole system, Žb. position of the poles in the V-MUCEP array.

399
400 A. Tabbagh et al.r Geoderma 97 (2000) 393–404

3. Location of clay layers in a deltaic sandy environment, Fleury ( Loiret,

France)

´ where a pesticide migration

The parcel studied is located just beside Orleans
experiment is planned. The geological setting consists of Miocene deltaic
formations whereby the presence of clay may drastically change the soil
permeability. It is thus necessary to describe the structure of the soil and to

Fig. 5. Resistivity maps obtained with the V-MUCEP at the Fleury site ŽLoiret, France..
 A. Tabbagh et al.r Geoderma 97 (2000) 393–404 401

delineate clay volumes in order to define the locations for injections and water
sampling Ž Dabas et al., 1995. .
Two different electrical surveys were performed. The first one ŽDecember
1994. was carried out with a simple square array continuously moved along
profiles with automatic data recording; the second one Ž December 1995. with a
multipole system, the V-MUCEP ŽMultipole Continuous Electrical Profiling
with a ‘‘Vol de Canards’’ configuration. , corresponding to three different depths
of investigation: 0.5, 1 and 2 m. This system is presented in Fig. 4a and b. The
surveyed parcel has a 0.75 ha area; the profiles are measured 1 m apart, with a
spacing of 0.1 m down each profile. The survey took 3 h. The resistivity ranges
between 30 and 600 V m. The comparison between the maps ŽFig. 5. for the
three spacings suggests the existence of a resistive deep layer at a depth of 1 m
or more. The clayey zone is clearly located in the south-western part of the area.
If one considers a three-layer model made of a superficial cultivated layer of

Fig. 6. Comparison between electrical 1D inversion Ža. and auger data Žb. for the thickness of the
clay layer at the Fleury site.
402 A. Tabbagh et al.r Geoderma 97 (2000) 393–404

150-V m resistivity and 0.35-m thickness, a clay layer of 20-V m resistivity

with varying thickness, and a sandy bottom layer of 1000 V m, it is thus
possible to convert the apparent resistivity data into thickness of the clay layer
using a 1D approximate inversion algorithm ŽMeheni et al., 1996. . The agree-
ment with the thicknesses obtained by auger drilling is very good Ž Fig. 6. . The
correlation coefficient is of 0.42, which is higher than the 1% threshold Ž beyond
a correlation coefficient of 0.225 for 131 samples, the correlation is sure for

Fig. 7. Ža. apparent resistivity data, Žb. 3D inversion of the A3 anomaly showing that the resistive
N–S body has no extension at depth at the Fleury site.
 A. Tabbagh et al.r Geoderma 97 (2000) 393–404 403

more than 99%.. This simplified inversion is sufficient for a global description
of the soil structure. A more precise 3D inversion can be applied over limited
areas where more details are needed. For the anomaly A3 ŽFig. 5., which
structure corresponds to a major flow direction from North to South, this
procedure allows to establish that the resistive sandy body 2 m wide is limited in
depth to about 1m Ž Fig. 7. .

4. Conclusion

Resistivity mapping using several array sizes allows a good description of the
3D soil structure, without any damage. Measurements are easy to undertake and
interpretation can be performed to a sufficient level of significance. In the two
case studies presented above, resistivity delivered a precise delineation of the
changes in clay content which determines the mechanical and hydrological
characteristics of the soil.
Resistivity Žor conductivity. which exhibits a very wide range of values and
allows easy measurements, remains the most suitable geophysical parameter for
routine soil surveys, but interesting new avenues exist in magnetic measure-
ments and, when more detail is needed about feature geometry, in Ground
Penetrating Radars.

References

Benson, A.K., Payne, K.L., Stubben, M.A., 1997. Mapping ground water contamination using d.c.
resistivity and V.L.F. geophysical methods — a case study. Geophysics 62, 80–86.
´
Bottraud, J.C., Bornand, M., Servat, E., 1984. Mesures de resistivite ´ appliquees
´ a` la cartographie
´
en pedologie. Sci. Sol 4, 279–294.
Dabas, M., Hesse, A., Jolivet, A., Tabbagh, A., 1989. Interet ´ ˆ de la cartographie de la resistivite
´ ´
´
electrique pour la connaissance du sol a` grande echelle.
´ Sci. Sol 27 Ž1., 67–68.
Dabas, M., Tabbagh, A., Tabbagh, J., 1994. 3-D inversion in subsurface electrical surveying: I.
Theory. Geophys. J. Int. 119, 975–990.
Dabas, M., Duval, O., Bruand, A., Verbeque,` ´
B., 1995. Cartographie electrique en continu: apport
a` la connaissance d’une couverture de sol developpee
´ ´ sur materiaux
´ ¨
deltaıques. Etude Gest.
Sols 2–4, 257–268.
´
Dabas, M., Aubry, L., Rouiller, D., Larcher, J.M., 1999. Caracterisation de la variabilite´ spatiale
´
intraparcellaire des sols agricoles ŽMethode ´
MUCEP.: une gestion predictive des rendements
´
dans le cadre de l’agriculture de precision. ` Colloque de Geophysique
Actes du 2eme ´ des Sols
et des Formations Superficielles, Orleans ´ 21–22 Septembre 1999. pp. 125–129, Editions
BRGM.
´
Gras, F., Hesse, A., Tillier, C., Tessier, D., Zimmer, D., 1997. La prospection electrique: une
´
methode ´ a` la cartographie et a` la connaissance de l’etat
adaptee ´ hydrique des sols, cas des sols
de Lorraine. Etude Gest. Sols 4 Ž3., 161–173.
404 A. Tabbagh et al.r Geoderma 97 (2000) 393–404

Halvorson, A.D., Rhoades, J.D., 1976. Field mapping soil conductivity to delineate dryland saline
seeps with four-electrode technique. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40, 571–575.
Lamotte, M., 1993. Les sols sableux a` forte cohesion
´ des zones tropicales arides. Etude du harde´
de Lagadge´ au Nord Cameroun. These ` de doctorat, Universite´ Paris 6, 315 pp.
Lamotte, M., Bruand, A., Dabas, M., Donfack, P., Gabalda, G., Hesse, A., Humbel, F.X., Robain,
H., 1994. Distribution d’un horizon a` forte cohesion
´ au sein d’une couverture de sol aride du
´
Nord–Cameroun: apport d’une prospection electrique. Geosci. CR Acad. Sci. Paris 318 ŽII.,
961–968.
Lesch, S.M., Rhoades, J.D., Lund, L.J., Corwin, D.L., 1992. Mapping soil salinity using calibrated
electromagnetic measurements. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56, 540–548.
Lund, E.D., Christy, C.D., Drummond, P.E., 1999. Practical applications of soil electrical
conductivity mapping. In: Stafford, J.V. ŽEd.., 2nd European Conference on Precision Agricul-
ture. Sheffield University Press, pp. 771–779, Part II.
´
Meheni, Y., Guerin, R., Benderitter, Y., Tabbagh, A., 1996. Subsurface DC resistivity mapping:
approximate 1-D interpretation. J. Appl. Geophys. 34, 255–270.
´
Panissod, C., 1997. Prospection electrique ´
et electrostatique a` faible profondeur a` l’aide de
` multipole
systeme ˆ permettant la description directe des structures en 3D. These ` de doctorat,
Universite´ Paris 6, 238 pp.
Scollar, I., Tabbagh, A., Hesse, A., Herzog, I., 1990. Archaeological Prospecting and Remonte
Sensing. Cambridge Univ. Press, 674 pp.
Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., Keys, D.A., 1976. Applied Geophysics. Cambridge
Univ. Press, 860 pp.
Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L., Annan, P., 1980. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content:
measurement in coaxial transmission lines. Water Resources Research 16 Ž3., 574–582.
Verosub, K.L., Roberts, A.P., 1995. Environmental magnetism: past, present and future. J.
Geophys. Res. 100 ŽB2., 2175–2192.