Advertisement

Wetlands

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 205–216 | Cite as

Application of ground penetrating radar to aid restoration planning for a drained Carolina bay

  • Ryan P. Szuch
  • Jeffrey G. White
  • Michael J. Vepraskas
  • James A. Doolittle
Article

Abstract

Clayey subsurface strata in precipitation-driven wetlands act as aquitards that retain water and can affect wetland hydrology. If the aquitard layers have been cut through by drainage ditches, then restoring wetland hydrology to such sites may be more difficult because of the need to fill ditches completely with low hydraulic conductivity material. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveys were conducted to determine the depth and continuity of shallow clay layers and identify those that have been pierced by drainage ditches at Juniper Bay, a 300-ha drained Carolina bay in North Carolina, USA that will be restored. Carolina bays are a wetland type that occur as numerous, shallow, oval-shaped depressions along the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The GPR interpretations found that moderately fine-textured (clay loam, sandy clay loam, silty clay loam) and fine-textured (sandy clay, silty clay, clay) aquitards underlay coarser-textured horizons in most of the bay at an average depth of 1.6 m. Extensive ground truthing showed that, on average, GPR predicted the depth to these aquitards to within 16% of their actual depth. An atypical GPR reflection in the southeast sector of the bay was interpreted as a fluvial deposit without aquitards until a depth of 3 to 5 m. This area may require different restoration strategies than the rest of the bay. By comparing the depths of aquitards and drainage ditches, several areas were identified as likely locations of ditch-induced aquitard discontinuity that may require filling or lining of suspect ditches to prevent potential water losses if there are downward hydraulic gradients. Cost estimates by two professional firms indicated that GPR could provide large volumes of data with cost and time efficiency. GPR surveys are proposed as a useful tool for characterizing potential wetland restoration sites on the Atlantic Coastal Plain and other regions with similar soils.

Key Words

wetland hydrology aquitards lacustrine deposits fluvial deposits 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Asmussen, L. E., H. F. Perkins, and H. D. Allison. 1986. Subsurface descriptions by ground penetrating radar for watershed delineation. The Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA. Bulletin 340.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, S. H. and J. B. Nelson. 1991. Distribution and status of Carolina bays in South Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Columbia, SC, USA. Nongame and Heritage Trust Publication Number 1.Google Scholar
  3. Birkhead, A. L., G. L. Heritage, H. White, and A. W. van Niekerk. 1996. Ground penetrating radar as a tool for mapping the phreatic surface, bedrock profile, and alluvial stratigraphy in the Sabie River, Kruger National Park. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 51: 234–240.Google Scholar
  4. Bliley, D. J. and D. E. Pettry. 1979. Carolina bays on the eastern shore of Virginia. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43: 558–564.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, M. E. and J. A. Doolittle. 1987. Using ground penetrating radar to study soil microvariability. Soil Science Society of America Journal 51: 491–493.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, M. E., J. A. Doolittle, and R. V. Rourke. 1989. Mapping depth to bedrock on a glaciated landscape with ground penetrating radar. Soil Science Society of America Journal 53: 1806–1812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conyers, L. B. and D. Goodman. 1997. Ground Penetrating Radar: an Introduction for Archaeologists. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Daniels, D. J. 2004. Ground Penetrating Radar, second edition. Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Dominic, D. F., K. Egan, C. Carney, P. J. Wolfe, and M. R. Boardman. 1995. Delineation of shallow stratigraphy using ground penetrating radar. Journal of Applied Geophysics 33: 167–175.Google Scholar
  10. Doolittle, J. A. 1987. Using ground penetrating radar to increase the quality and efficiency of soil surveys. p. 11–32. In W. U. Reybold and G. W. Peterson (ed.) Soil Survey Techniques. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA. Special Publication Number 20.Google Scholar
  11. Doolittle, J. A., G. Hoffmann, P. McDaniel, N. Peterson, B. Gardner, and E. Rowan. 2000. Ground penetrating radar interpretations of a fragipan in northern Idaho. Soil Survey Horizons 41: 73–82.Google Scholar
  12. Ewing, J. M., C. W. Zanner, M. J. Vepraskas, and D. A. Wysocki. 2001. Stratigraphy below a migrating Carolina bay. Abstracts with Programs—Geological Society of America 33: 2.Google Scholar
  13. Frey, D. G. 1950. Carolina bays in relation to the North Carolina Coastal Plain. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Science Society 66: 44–52.Google Scholar
  14. Gee, G. W. and J. W. Bauder. 1986. Particle-size analysis. p. 383. In A. Klute (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1, second edition. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Grant, J. A., M. J. Brooks, and B. E. Taylor. 1998. New constraints on the evolution of Carolina bays from ground penetrating radar. Geomorphology 22: 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hubbard, R. K., L. E. Asmussen, and H. F. Perkins. 1990. Use of ground penetrating radar on upland Coastal Plain soils. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45: 399–404.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, D. W. 1942. The Origin of the Carolina Bays. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Kettles, I. M. and S. D. Robinson. 1997. A ground penetrating radar study of peat landforms in the discontinuous permafrost zone near Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories, Canada. p. 147–160. In C. C. Trettin, M. F. Jurgensen, D. F. Grigal, M. R. Gale, and J. K. Jeglum (ed.) Northern Forested Wetlands: Ecology and Management. CRC Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Lapen, D. R., B. J. Moorman, and J. S. Price. 1996. Using ground penetrating radar to delineate subsurface features along a wetland catena. Soil Science Society of America Journal 60: 923–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lide, R. F., V. G. Meentemeyer, J. E. Pinder, III, and L. M. Beatty. 1995. Hydrology of a Carolina bay located on the upper Coastal Plain of western South Carolina. Wetlands 15: 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luginbuhl, S. C. 2003. Surface and subsurface hydrology of a drained Carolina Bay prior to restoration. M.S. Thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  22. McCachren, C. M. 1978. Soil survey of Robeson County, North Carolina. USDA-Soil Conservation Service, North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station and Robeson County Board of Commissioners, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Melton, F. A. and W. Schriever. 1933. The Carolina bays: are they meteorite scars? Journal of Geology 41: 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mokma, D. L. and J. A. Doolittle. 1993. Mapping some loamy alfisols in southwestern Michigan using ground penetrating radar. Soil Survey Horizons 34: 71–77.Google Scholar
  25. Mokma, D. L., R. J. Schaetzl, J. A. Doolittle, and E. P. Johnson. 1990. Ground penetrating radar study of ortstein continuity in some Michigan haplaquods. Soil Science Society of America Journal 54: 936–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nobes, D. C., R. J. Ferguson, and G. J. Brierley. 2001. Ground penetrating radar and sedimentological analysis of Holocene floodplains: insight from the Tuross valley, New South Wales. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 48: 347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prouty, W. F. 1952. Carolina bays and their origin. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63: 167–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reese, R. E. and K. K. Moorhead. 1996. Spatial characteristics of soil properties along an elevation gradient in a Carolina bay wetland. Soil Science Society of America Journal 60: 1273–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saunders, C. L., III. 1990. Substrate variability and internal sediments of three Carolina bays, south-central Coastal Plain, North Carolina. M.S. Thesis. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Sharitz, R. R. 2003. Carolina bay wetlands: unique habitats of the southeastern United States. Wetlands 23: 550–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharitz, R. R. and J. W. Gibbons. 1982. The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs (Pocosins) and Carolina bays: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, Slidell, LA, USA. FWS/OBS-82/04.Google Scholar
  32. Sharitz, R. R. and C. A. Gresham. 1998. Pocosins and Carolina bays. p. 343–377. In M. M. Messina and W. H. Conner (ed.) Southern Forested Wetlands: Ecology and Management. Lewis CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  33. Skaggs, R. W. 1999. Drainage simulation models. p. 461–492. In R. W. Skaggs and J. van Schilfgaarde (eds.) Agricultural Drainage. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA. Agronomy Monograph Number 38.Google Scholar
  34. Szuch, R. P. 2004. Application of ground-penetrating radar to map stratigraphy of a drained Carolina bay and aid its wetland restoration. M.S. Thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Szuch, R. P., J. G. White, M. J. Vepraskas, J. A. Doolittle, C. W. Zanner, and L. Paugh. 2002. Stratigraphy of a North Carolina Carolina bay using ground penetrating radar. In Annual Meetings Abstracts [CD-ROM]. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Tomer, M. D., J. Boll, K. J. S. Kung, T. Steenhius, and J. L. Anderson. 1996. Detecting illuvial lamellae in fine sand using ground penetrating radar. Soil Science 161: 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Dam, R. L. and W. Schlager. 2000. Identifying causes of ground penetrating radar reflections using time-domain reflectometry and sedimentological analyses. Sedimentology 47: 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vandenberghe, J. and R. A. van Overmeeren. 1999. Ground penetrating radar images of selected fluvial deposits in the Netherlands. Sedimentary Geology 128: 245–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Overmeeren, R. A. 1998. Radar facies of unconsolidated sediments in The Netherlands: a radar stratigraphy interpretation method for hydrogeology. Journal of Applied Geophysics 40: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vepraskas, M. J., R. L. Huffman, and G. S. Kreiser. 2005. Hydrologic models for altered landscapes. Geoderma (in press).Google Scholar
  41. Vogt, K., J. Doolittle, and R. Fenwick. 1996. Mapping the thickness of flood-plain splay deposits with ground penetrating radar techniques. Soil Survey Horizons 37: 93–100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan P. Szuch
    • 1
  • Jeffrey G. White
    • 1
  • Michael J. Vepraskas
    • 1
  • James A. Doolittle
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Soil ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.USDA-NRCS c/o USDA Forest ServiceNewton SquareUSA

Personalised recommendations