Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Progress in Physical Geography
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vonder Mühll, D.
Right arrow Articles by Gubler, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Mapping of mountain permafrost using geophysical methods

Daniel Vonder Mühll

Laboratory for Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology (VAW), ETH-Zentrum, CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland, Daniel.VonderMuehll{at}UniBas.ch

Christian Hauck

Laboratory for Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology (VAW), ETH-Zentrum, CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland

Hansueli Gubler

ALPUG, Richstattweg 2, CH-7260 Davos, Switzerland

Permafrost distribution in nonpolar mountain areas is strongly influenced by topo-graphical effects. Conditions therefore change within short distances and consequently the permafrost pattern is often very complex. Warm permafrost with temperatures between -2°C and 0°C is sensitive in terms of slope failures. It is also crucial to determine the lower permafrost boundary by geophysical means in order to calibrate models. Various geophysical methods have been applied to the mapping of mountain permafrost, including bottom temperature of the snow cover (BTS), refraction seismics, DC resistivity, ground penetrating radar (GPR), electromagnetic induction and radiometry.

This paper gives an overview of investigations to map mountain permafrost distribution showing the potential of the modern use of geophysical methods. The two-dimensional DC resistivity tomography makes it possible to get an impression of internal structures. Electromagnetic induction methods showed good results, in particular the EM-31 for determining the permafrost distribution and the PROTEM to assess the overall permafrost thickness. Using passive microwave (11.4 GHz), the BTS, which is used as an indicator for the presence of permafrost, was measured. After ground surveys, an airborne test measurement from a helicopter was made. Traditional BTS measurements agreed very well with the BTS determined by radiometry.

Key Words: DC resistivity • distribution mapping • Europe • geophysics • mountain permafrost • PACE • radiometry • refraction seismics

Progress in Physical Geography, Vol. 26, No. 4, 643-660 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0309133302pp356ra
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Progress in Physical GeographyHome page
J. A. Heginbottom
Permafrost mapping: a review
Progress in Physical Geography, December 1, 2002; 26(4): 623 - 642.
[Abstract] [PDF]