the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 09 Jan 2026
Landslide evaluation applying electrical tomography techniques: study case San José de Aloburo, Pimampiro, Imbabura
Abstract. Landslides pose a significant risk in mountainous regions, particularly in the Ecuadorian Andes. This study investigates the internal dynamics of a complex rotational landslide in San José de Aloburo, Imbabura province, using an integrated approach of Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) and geological analysis. Four ERT profiles were acquired along the landslide, reaching depths of up to 40 m, revealing zones of low resistivity (4–45 Ωm). These zones correlate with saturated and poorly consolidated materials and identify possible rupture surfaces. The integration of ERT data with stratigraphic columns and grain size analysis demonstrated that the instability of the landslide is due to a combination of high water content and weak, fine-grained deposits. The findings highlight the effectiveness of this low-cost, multi-method approach to characterizing landslide geometry and assessing failure mechanisms, providing a valuable framework for risk assessments in similar contexts.
- Preprint
(78103 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 19 Apr 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5577', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Feb 2026
reply
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Dr. Arkoprovo Biswas, 19 Mar 2026
reply
This study presents a well-structured and methodologically sound investigation of a complex landslide using an integrated geophysical and geological approach. The combination of Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT), stratigraphic analysis, and granulometry provides a comprehensive understanding of subsurface conditions, successfully identifying rupture zones and highlighting the role of water saturation in slope instability. The use of low-cost equipment and a real-world case study enhances the practical relevance of the work. While the interpretations are coherent and supported by field data, deeper engagement with existing literature and more rigorous data analysis would further strengthen the scientific contribution. Below are my comments for the authors to improve the work.
1. The work's main problems are with how clear it is, how deep the analysis is, and how it is presented. First, the writing quality needs improvement, as the manuscript contains grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and some inconsistencies in terminology, which can make certain sections difficult to follow and reduce its overall academic polish. Additionally, there is noticeable redundancy, particularly in the introduction and theoretical background, where concepts such as the role and advantages of Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) are repeated rather than synthesized concisely.
2. From a scientific perspective, the study relies heavily on qualitative interpretation of resistivity profiles and visual correlations, with limited quantitative analysis or uncertainty assessment; for instance, while an average inversion error is reported, there is little deeper discussion of data reliability or sensitivity.
3. The figures, such as the ERT profiles and 3D model on pages 11–12, are useful, but they don't always fit in with the rest of the discussion. Occasionally, their effects are only briefly described rather than critically analyzed.
4. Furthermore, the discussion could be strengthened by a more robust comparison with prior studies, which would better situate the work within the existing literature and highlight its novelty. Methodological limitations, including the diminished lateral sensitivity of the Wenner array and ERT's incapacity to delineate thin layers (as indicated in the conclusions), are recognized but not sufficiently examined to evaluate their influence on the results.
5. Finally, the granulometric analysis is underdeveloped, as it focuses on a limited number of samples, which constrains the strength of correlations drawn between sediment properties and resistivity patterns. Addressing these issues would significantly enhance the rigor, clarity, and overall impact of the study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5577-CC1
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Dr. Arkoprovo Biswas, 19 Mar 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 201 | 58 | 19 | 278 | 24 | 23 |
- HTML: 201
- PDF: 58
- XML: 19
- Total: 278
- BibTeX: 24
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
## Summary
This manuscript investigates a complex landslide in San José de Aloburo, Pimampiro (Imbabura Province, Ecuador). The main event is reported in late November 2021, and the field/geological campaign was conducted in September 2024. The authors integrate Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT; four profiles, Wenner array, imaging to ~40 m) with stratigraphic observations and grain-size (sieving) analysis to interpret subsurface structure and potential instability-related features. The study reflects substantial field and processing effort, and the integrated approach is a clear strength. With minor revisions, the manuscript should be suitable for publication.
## Strengths
- The Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion is logically structured and the citation practice is generally appropriate.
- The work is supported by multiple measurements and complementary methods, which strengthens the interpretation.
- Although the datasets are not publicly archived (reported as available upon reasonable request), the methodological workflow is described in sufficient detail for readers to evaluate the approach.
## Minor revisions requested
- Improve reference accessibility. Some references (e.g., institutional reports) may be difficult to locate. Please add DOIs and/or stable URLs where available.
- Seasonality (rainy-season failure vs. drier-season ERT): add a short qualitative discussion. The landslide occurred in a rainy-season window, whereas ERT was conducted in a comparatively drier period. The statement that “moderate moisture” may enhance resistivity contrast is reasonable. For clarity to readers, please add 1–2 paragraphs (no new data required) describing what additional insights could be gained if wet-season ERT were available alongside dry-season ERT (e.g., changes in extent/continuity of low-resistivity zones, persistence of saturated zones).
- Figure 10(a,b): unclear location relative to maps. Please add an inset/annotation showing where Figure 10(a,b) corresponds on the site maps (ERT layout / stratigraphic points), including viewpoint/orientation if possible.
- Low-cost custom ERT system: provide minimal reproducibility details (appendix is fine). Since resistivity depends directly on ΔV/I, please add a brief appendix summarizing:
- injection signal (frequency and waveform)
- how current (A–B injection) and voltage (M–N potential difference) were measured
- multimeter model numbers and key specs (accuracy/ranges; for AC: True-RMS/bandwidth)
- current transformer (CT) ratio
- a simple calibration/verification check (e.g., using known resistors)
(A short appendix (e.g., ~1 page) is sufficient; no additional field data are required.)