4.7 Article

Peat Mapping Associations of Airborne Radiometric Survey Data

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 521-539

出版社

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/rs6010521

关键词

remote sensing; airborne geophysical; radiometric; peat; wetland; mapping

资金

  1. DETI
  2. Building Sustainable Prosperity scheme of the Rural Development Programme (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of Northern Ireland)
  3. INTERREG IV development programme of the European Regional Development Fund
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [bgs05001] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. NERC [bgs05001] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study considers recent airborne radiometric (gamma ray) survey data, obtained at high-resolution, across various regions of the UK. The datasets all display a very evident attenuation of signal in association with peat, and intra-peat variations are observed. The geophysical response variations are examined in detail using example data sets across lowland areas (raised bogs, meres, fens and afforested peat) and upland areas of blanket bog, together with associated wetland zones. The radiometric data do not map soils per se. The bedrock (the radiogenic parent) provides a specific amplitude level. Attenuation of this signal level is then controlled by moisture content in conjunction with the density and porosity of the soil cover. Both soil and bedrock variations need to be jointly assessed. The attenuation theory, reviewed here, predicts that the behaviour of wet peat is distinct from most other soil types. Theory also predicts that the attenuation levels observed across wet peatlands cannot be generally used to map variations in peat thickness. Four survey areas at various scales, across England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland are used to demonstrate the ability of the airborne data to map peat zones. A 1:50 k national mapping of deep peat is used to provide control although variability in the definition of peat zones across existing databases is also demonstrated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据