Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home/isthin5/public_html/addon-domains/speleogenesis.info/include/functions1.php on line 943
Abstract:
Doline formation in karst areas has been a major concern in Florida. Recently, there has been increased interest in investigating the subsurface conditions that influences preferential flow in these karst landscapes. This information is necessary to improve transport and fate models of contaminants. In addition, there is interest in knowing if the formation and expansion of dolines can be predicted by studying subsurface conditions and flow patterns. The soils on the Newberry Limestone Plain are typically sandy above a thin or absent phosphatic, clayey Hawthorne Formation. Underlying this formation is the Crystal River Limestone. A field survey with ground-penetrating radar (GPR) was conducted on the Newberry Limestone Plain at a site with recently formed dolines. The objectives were (i) to investigate the subsurface materials, (ii) to ascertain subsurface landscape variability, (iii) to relate the subsurface landscapes to subsurface flow patterns, and (iv) to predict doline growth and formation in the study area. The results of this study indicated that the subsurface features; presence of clay over limestone, location of solution pipes and paleo-dolines are variable. In general, the subsurface landscape does not follow the surface topography. Subsurface solute movement can be estimated in these landscapes assuming the clay layer that drapes the limestone acts as an aquatarde. Thus, subsurface modeling of flow at the study site is improved. Locations of paleo-dolines and solution pipes were obvious in the radar data. Predictions, though, of future doline formation and growth at the study site were difficult with GPR. Fracture patterns, e.g. dips in the limestone, can be evaluated and weak zones where paleo-dolines have formed can be identified. This study would not have been possible without the use of the GPR. The radar was able to obtain continuous information on 16% of the site to a depth of 3 m. A highly detailed soil survey using conventional methods would have provided only 0.8% coverage of the site