Estimating subsurface water mass changes with ground-based gravimetry

Schmidt, Isabelle; Ang’ong’a, Jackson; Bauer-Gottwein, Peter; Costabel, Stephan; Freier, Christian; Leykauf, Bastian; Lundgren, Tina; Martinez-Dorantes, Miguel; Peters, Achim; Rasel, Ernst; Vogt, Enrico; Willkommen, Gregor; Schkolnik, Vladimir

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-5091

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5091

Preprints

05 Oct 2026

| 05 Oct 2026

Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).

Estimating subsurface water mass changes with ground-based gravimetry

Isabelle Schmidt, Jackson Ang’ong’a, Peter Bauer-Gottwein, Stephan Costabel, Christian Freier, Bastian Leykauf, Tina Lundgren, Miguel Martinez-Dorantes, Achim Peters, Ernst Rasel, Enrico Vogt, Gregor Willkommen, and Vladimir Schkolnik

Abstract. Gravitational force is proportional to the mass of an attracting body; therefore, changes in subsurface mass can be detected using gravimetry. In the near subsurface, mass variations are primarily driven by changes in water storage, meaning that gravity measurements provide direct information on variations in water mass. Traditionally, groundwater and soil water dynamics are monitored using point-scale instruments that require direct installation into the subsurface. In contrast, gravimetry is a non-invasive method that integrates signals over a larger spatial extent. Recent advancements in gravimeter technology have significantly improved measurement accuracy and long-term stability under field conditions, thereby expanding their potential for hydrological applications. This review summarizes recent developments in gravimetric instrumentation and provides essential background on gravimeters used for ground-based measurements and their application in hydrology, aiming to facil-itate their broader use. In addition, it presents an overview of studies in hydrology and hydrogeology that have successfully applied gravimetry to quantify subsurface water storage changes, estimate hydrological parameters, and constrain numerical models. A perspective on future advancement in gravimetry and resulting potential applications is given.

Received: 25 Aug 2026 – Discussion started: 05 Oct 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Status: open (until 16 Nov 2026)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-5091', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Oct 2026 reply
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the work entitled : « Estimating subsurface water mass changes with ground-based gravimetry » for publication in HESS. In this review article, the authors describe the principles of ground-based gravimetry for hydrological monitoring of water storage changes, its data processing with a long focus on gravity modeling, main instruments and new developments, hydrological applications, limitations and future directions. The cited litterature, although sometimes incomplete, remains extensive, which is the main strength of this article.
I have, however, major concerns about its relevance for HESS. First, I do not clearly understand what novelty it brings to the field of hydro-gravimetry, as I do not see any significant or new conclusion drawn from all the cited litterature. As stated in the abstract but not in the main text, I would expect a review focused on the potential of new device types to discuss pros and cons of these instruments with respect to 1) older ones and 2) to the abundance of hydrological issues (and dedicated gravity monitoring) found in the litterature. Gravimeters are high-technology devices, costly and consume manpower and energy and as such require caution and relevance assessment before commiting to such technology for water storage monitoring. These dimensions are largely overlooked in this review. This is clearly lacking, and only general statements (as for instance L. 599-602) are brought without litterature backup. I do not read anything new from the conclusion.
More surprisingly, it reads in the abstract that « This review summarizes recent developments in gravimetric instrumentation [...] aiming to facilitate their broader use ». I suspect that I misunderstands what the authors mean here, but as several co-authors are affiliated to commercial companies selling modern gravimeters or gravimeter components, this declared intention raise concern, together with the fact that the authors declared no competing interest, which is highly doubtful. Mobilizing gravimetry instead of classical hydrological devices for hydrological monitoring has several implications beyond its cost, manpower requirement, processing complexity and technological commitment : hydrologically, it brings a distinct information from classical hydrological devices, needed or not depending on the scientific question. These aspects are not discussed and balanced here, which is not acceptable when some contributing authors represent companies that have a financial interest in the dissemination of gravimeters.
Also, the writing contains imprecisions and descriptions that lack scaling up or generalization as one would expect from a review paper. I suggest to re-work the scientific content of the paper before resubmitting, to focus on pros and cons of new vs. old gravimeters (along several dimensions, from precision and field practicability to cost, manpower or even sustainability) for specific hydrological targets already brought up from the litterature, building a scientific analysis from tables 1, 2 and 3. There may be other ways but from my point of view this would be the most relevant scientific re-working from the actual manuscript. I also suggest the author to take the competing interest issue with the greatest care.
Specific comments :
The article contains many imprecisions and cite litterature without drawing conclusions or supporting an idea, a scaling up or a generalization attempt : One example L319-321 : « (Chen et al., 2020) measured the difference in groundwater table during the wet and dry seasons at 10 different sites. The depth to groundwater is between 10-20 m below surface level (b.s.l.), and the difference in groundwater level (peak to trough) was between ∆h = 0.5-8 m. »

=> Imprecision : « The depth to groundwater is between 10-20 m » : the precision : « in their study » should be added to the sentence.
=> these numbers (and the ones of the sentences that follow) are of lttle use as they are so much local and confined to the study described : a scaling up or generalization seem to be broadly lacking for each section.
I did not list all those imprecisions and generalization lack because I found that they are disseminated everywhere, particularly in the hydrology sections : I suggest to first identify some key messages from the litterature and then to organize the article around these and / or focus the review on the potential of new gravimeters for a list of typical hydrological applications, based on their added skills and precisions with respect to earlier gravimeters and the requirements for the hydrological applications. To this respect, table 1 could be refined with more details, and discussed together with table 2 and 3 more extensively : this is probably where this work holds its best potential, but currently those tables are hardly discussed.
There are some concepts that are not discussed in the review paper : the importance of station local elevation monitoring because of the free-air gradient (about -0.3µGal/mm), hybrid gravimetry concepts...

L3-4 : Abstract : gravimeters are indeed non-invasive (underground, although they may be so on the surface), but they can also not distinguish between saturated (e.g. Groundwater) and unsaturated (e.g. Vadose zone) water storage components. For a review, I would expect a more balanced statement on the practical and scientific pros and cons of using gravimeters for estimating subsurface water mass changes.

L. 8-9 : « aiming to facilitate their broader use ». I have some concerns about the scientific relevance of this claim. Gravimeters are high-technology devices, costly and consume manpower and energy and as such require caution and relevance assessment before commiting to such technology for water storage monitoring. While I understand the claim for broader use for marketing purposes, I would expect a balanced a thorough discussions of pros and cons for scientific purposes.

L. 13-18 : this paragraph is broadly true, but does not seem relevant to the present review paper : 1) it is restricted to a specific component of water storage, namely groundwater, which gravimetry cannot discriminate from non-saturated components, 2) proving that protecting water resources requires strategic water management through monitoring of point scale water storage change is far from easy. The underlying causes of global changes are much more deeply rooted than this (see e.g. For biodiversity loss Figure SPM1 from the last IPBES report (SPM, O’Brien et al., 2025). My advice here is to introduce the intention of the review paper much more directly : « gravimetry has emerged within a few decades as a different tool to monitor water storage changes. As studies accumulate and instrument capacities evolve, this paper intend to review the last developments in the field... ».

O’Brien, K., Garibaldi, L. A., Agrawal, A., Bennett, E., Biggs, R., Calderón Contreras, R., Carr, E. R., Frantzeskaki, N., Gosnell, H., Gurung, J., Lambertucci, S. A., Leventon, J., Chuan, L., Reyes García, V., Shannon, L., Villasante, S., Wickson, F., Zinngrebe, Y., and Périanin, L.: IPBES Transformative Change Assessment: Summary for Policymakers, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17099400, 2025.
L. 19-21 : This is not very clear : in hard rocks, groundwater is predominantly stored in the weathered zone when it exists which, although usually more heterogeneous than sedimentary aquifers, behaves very similarly. See e.g. Lachassagne et al., 2021 that you already cite. There, but even within fissures of the saprock, groundwater « is stored in and flows through the pores between the grains ».

Lachassagne, P., Dewandel, B., and Wyns, R.: Review: Hydrogeology of weathered crystalline/hard-rock aquifers—guidelines for the operational survey and management of their groundwater resources, Hydrogeol J, 29, 2561–2594, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-021-02339-7, 2021.
L. 29 : this also needs precision : The Sy is not needed as such to effectively manage groundwater : it may be needed for groundwater modeling (that is sometimes used for groundwater management), or for converting water table level changes to water storage changes (which is relevant to your research topic here).

L. 40-41 : GRACE and other gravity measurement devices, cannot discriminate between all the cited components (surface water, soil moisture...): the raw data include the sum of all contributions. This should be made clear early in your paper to avoid confusion for the reader. Only through hypotheses usually involving other data or models than gravity data, may it be possible to discriminate between different contributions. Furthermore, the transition between the first paragraphs of the introduction focusing on groundwater and this one is not clear to me. Again, I would suggest to replace the early paragraph by a more direct introduction to gravity for hydrology, but this is really just an editorial advice, not scientifically sound.

L. 49 : I am confused by the term « regional » which usually adress meso-scale, country-wide or even continental scales. Is this what is meant here ? If so, please change « up to kilometers » by « down to a few kilometers ». If not, maybe consider replacing « regional » by « local » ? In particular, gravity is influenced by global processes, but also regional (here different than local), as for instance the atmospheric effect (see e.g. Klügel and Wziontek, 2009, Boy et al., 2009 or Hinderer et al., 2014).

References :
Klügel, T. and Wziontek, H.: Correcting gravimeters and tiltmeters for atmospheric mass attraction using operational weather models, J. Geodyn., 48, 204–210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2009.09.010, 2009.
Boy, J.-P., Longuevergne, L., Boudin, F., Jacob, T., Lyard, F., Llubes, M., Florsch, N., and Esnoult, M.-F.: Modelling atmospheric and induced non-tidal oceanic loading contributions to surface gravity and tilt measurements, J. Geodyn., 48, 182–188, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2009.09.022, 2009.
Hinderer, J., Hector, B., Boy, J.-P., Riccardi, U., Rosat, S., Calvo, M., and Littel, F.: A search for atmospheric effects on gravity at different time and space scales, J. Geodyn. accepted, 2014.
L. 53 : ... But this is highly challenging, please see Carrière et al., 2021 and the litterature they cite in their introduction. Please discuss how challenging this is, to not flaw the reader on the ability to record evapotranspiration. Please note that there is also the recent work of Pendiuk et al., 2023.

Carrière, S. D., Loiseau, B., Champollion, C., Ollivier, C., Martin‐StPaul, N. K., Lesparre, N., Olioso, A., Hinderer, J., and Jougnot, D.: First Evidence of Correlation Between Evapotranspiration and Gravity at a Daily Time Scale From Two Vertically Spaced Superconducting Gravimeters, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL096579, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL096579, 2021.
Pendiuk, J. E., Guarracino, L., Reich, M., and Güntner, A.: Estimating cumulative evapotranspiration using superconducting gravimeter data: a study in Buenos Aires Province, Argentina, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 68, 2262–2275, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2023.2264283, 2023.
L. 55 : « Superconducting gravimeters can also capture infiltration processes (Gettings et al., 2008), » : this is a wrong citation. Gettings et al, use a Scintrex CG3. This article is however worth citing in the relative gravimeters section for drift control.

L. 57 - 58 : « Due to the current developments of new technologies in gravimetry and the resulting possibilities in hydrogeological applications, the objectives of this review are... » I would expect the earlier paragraphs to introduce instead these new technologies and the gaps in hydrogeology that they may respond to.

L. 112 -114 : I do not understand this sentence, more precisely, what is the link between the hydrological process that topography influences water redistribution and the transposition of forward modelling of bouguer anomaly to the specific water storage change contribution ?

L. 171 and below : here the discussion on the presented paper lacks strong warnings : what the software seems to allow to is the direct computation of gravity change from uniform water storage change distributed on a non-flat terrain (forward modelling) –and not the other way round. This work supports theoretical studies and sensitivity analyses, including topographic admittances and so on. However, as the hypotheses of a uniform water storage change accross a topographic terrain almost never holds true, and as water table is only a replica of the topography in some limited cases (Haitjema, H. and Mitchell-Bruker, 2005), and because the equivalence issue is huge in gravimetry (e.g. A gravity increase can happen because of a loss of water at higher elevations than the gravimeter, or because of a gain in water at lower elevations), this software cannot be used to retrieve water storage change in complex terrain (i.e. The inverse modeling).

Haitjema, H. and Mitchell-Bruker, S.: Are water tables a subdued replica of the topography?, Ground Water, 43, 781–786, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2005.00090.x, 2005.
L. 220-222 : As for hydrological targets, this remains true for all gravimeter types, I suggest to remove this sentence.

L. 235-249 : I suggest to also mention the great care that should be taken for achieving the best surveys (Seigel et al., 1995)

Seigel, H. O., Brcic, I., and Mistry, P.: A guide to high precision land gravimeter surveys, Concord, Ontario, 1995.
Table 1 : What do « special conditions » refer to ?

L. 268 : I do not know why this is an advantage that they can be can be « produced using semiconductor processes », can you clarify ?

L. 278 : the hybrid approach should be described earlier as a specific methodology for gravimetry (e.g. Hinderer et al., 2016, Shettel et al., 2024)

Hinderer, J., Hector, B., Mémin, A., and Calvo, M.: Hybrid gravimetry as a tool to monitor surface and underground mass changes, International Association of Geodesy Symposia, https://doi.org/10.1007/1345_2016_253, 2016.
Shettell, N., Lee, K. S., Oon, F. E., Maksimova, E., Hufnagel, C., Wei, S., and Dumke, R.: Geophysical survey based on hybrid gravimetry using relative measurements and an atomic gravimeter as an absolute reference, Sci Rep, 14, 6511, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57253-1, 2024.
L. 286 : for the sake of completeness, could you describe any disadvantage of these devices, and if there really is none, which I doubt, to specify it clearly ?

L. 290 - 294 : as some AQG companies are listed here, I recommand to also cite companies producing the other gravimeters listed (such as the A10, FG5, SGs, etc), or to remove reference to companies here, which does not seem relevant for the scientific message here.

L. 304-307 : Among the litterature, I also note :

Kazama, T., Tamura, Y., Asari, K., Manabe, S., and Okubo, S.: Gravity changes associated with variations in local land-water distributions: Observations and hydrological modeling at Isawa Fan, northern Japan, Earth, Planets and Space, 64, 309–331, https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.11.003, 2012.
Kennedy, J., Ferré, T. P. A., Güntner, A., Abe, M., and Creutzfeldt, B.: Direct Measurement of Sub-surface Mass Change Using the Variable-Baseline Gravity Gradient Method, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2014GL059673, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059673, 2014.
Pfeffer, J., Boucher, M., Hinderer, J., Favreau, G., Boy, J., de Linage, C., Cappelaere, B., Luck, B., Oi, M., and Le Moigne, N.: Local and global hydrological contributions to time‐variable gravity in Southwest Niger, Geophys. J. Int., 184, 661–672, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04894.x, 2011.

L. 355 : Among the litterature, I also note

Creutzfeldt, B., Troch, P. A., Güntner, A., Ferré, T. P. A., Graeff, T., and Merz, B.: Storage-discharge relationships at different catchment scales based on local high-precision gravimetry, Hydrol. Process., 28, 1465–1475, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9689, 2014.
Creutzfeldt, B., Ferré, T., Troch, P., Merz, B., Wziontek, H., and Güntner, A.: Total water storage dynamics in response to climate variability and extremes: Inference from long-term terrestrial gravity measurement, Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016472, 2012.
Creutzfeldt, B., Güntner, A., Thoss, H., Merz, B., and Wziontek, H.: Measuring the effect of local water storage changes on in situ gravity observations: Case study of the Geodetic Observatory Wettzell, Germany, Water Resour. Res, 46, W08531, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008359, 2010.
Kazama, T. and Okubo, S.: Hydrological modeling of groundwater disturbances to observed gravity: Theory and application to Asama Volcano, Central Japan, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 114, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JB006391, 2009.
Abe, M., Takemoto, S., Fukuda, Y., Higashi, T., Imanishi, Y., Iwano, S., Ogasawara, S., Kobayashi, Y., Dwipa, S., and Kusuma, D. S.: Hydrological effects on the superconducting gravimeter observation in Bandung, Journal of Geodynamics, 41, 288–295, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2005.08.030, 2006.
Jacob, T., Chery, J., Bayer, R., Le Moigne, N., Boy, J.-P., Vernant, P., and Boudin, F.: Time-lapse surface to depth gravity measurements on a karst system reveal the dominant role of the epikarst as a water storage entity, Geophysical Journal International, 177, 347–360, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04118.x, 2009.
Jacob, T., Bayer, R., Chery, J., Jourde, H., Moigne, N. L., Boy, J.-P., Hinderer, J., Luck, B., and Brunet, P.: Absolute gravity monitoring of water storage variation in a karst aquifer on the larzac plateau (Southern France), J. Hydrol., 359, 105–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.06.020, 2008.
Van Camp, M., Meus, P., Quinif, Y., Kaufmann, O., van Ruymbeke, M., Vandiepenbeck, M., and Camelbeeck, T.: Karst aquifer investigation using absolute gravity, Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 87, 298–298, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006EO300005, 2006.
Fores, B., Champollion, C., Le Moigne, N., Bayer, R., and Chéry, J.: Assessing the precision of the iGrav superconducting gravimeter for hydrological models and karstic hydrological process identification, Geophys J Int, 208, 269–280, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw396, 2017.
Piccolroaz, S., Majone, B., Palmieri, F., Cassiani, G., and Bellin, A.: On the use of spatially distributed, time-lapse microgravity surveys to inform hydrological modeling, Water Resour. Res., n/a-n/a, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR016994, 2015.
L. 401-404 : this is somewhat confusing, and I do not really understand the need for separating UZ and SZ here, as gravimetry does not distinguish between both : when a water table lowers, for instance, the UZ deepens, and the SZ gets thinner. And if one considers the « always unsaturated zone » as the UZ (which is debatable because on fine time scales, saturation may happen even close to the surface), and the « always saturated zone » as the SZ, then storage changes in the SZ remain close to zero (depending on the elasticity) while storage changes in the UZ are higher... Those examples to show that I do not think it is relevant to try to comparate water storage changes in respective compartments. While some study do so for practical reasons and assuming these hypotheses, I recommand that a review paper as this one should remain as general as possible. I suggest removing these lines which do not add much anyway.

L. 472 : Here I recommand to also cite, and maybe describe as they propose specific approaches :

Fores, B., Champollion, C., Le Moigne, N., Bayer, R., and Chéry, J.: Assessing the precision of the iGrav superconducting gravimeter for hydrological models and karstic hydrological process identification, Geophys J Int, 208, 269–280, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw396, 2017.
Hector, B., Cohard, J.-M., Séguis, L., Galle, S., and Peugeot, C.: Hydrological functioning of western African inland valleys explored with a critical zone model, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22, 5867–5888, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5867-2018, 2018.
Kazama, T., Tamura, Y., Asari, K., Manabe, S., and Okubo, S.: Gravity changes associated with variations in local land-water distributions: Observations and hydrological modeling at Isawa Fan, northern Japan, Earth, Planets and Space, 64, 309–331, https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.11.003, 2012.
Kazama, T. and Okubo, S.: Hydrological modeling of groundwater disturbances to observed gravity: Theory and application to Asama Volcano, Central Japan, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 114, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JB006391, 2009.
L. 474-476 : I disagree : groundwater flow may happen without any storage change. I suggest not to over-emphasise water storage. It is as much a « key » variable as all other hydrological variables. I am not sure that in the litterature the theoretical added value of water storage change for hydrological model calibration has been demonstrated. I am myself convinced that gravity data may bring valuable information for constraining hydrological model, but I have no idea how to prove this in the general case : given the huge amount of effort to acquire gravity data, is the added value (with respect to more classical hydrological monitoring) worth the effort ?

L. 549- 556 : see also :

Deville, S., Jacob, T., Chéry, J., and Champollion, C.: On the impact of topography and building mask on time varying gravity due to local hydrology, Geophys. J. Int., ggs007, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggs007, 2012.

L. 565 - 580 : this section contains a lot of technical and physical considerations that are obviously outside the disciplinary field of hydro-geophysics. I myself do not understand much of this section : I would therefore recommand to describe those concepts to a broader audience to favor readability. As such, I do not understand the real limitations of AQG, nor that I understand the relevance of the possibility to overcome these limitations in a near future.

L. 593-598 vs. L. 599-605 : typically, I am not convinced by the comparison. Although I reckon that typical RG/AG/SG are challenging to deploy in the field for relevant water storage monitoring target, I would expect here a much more sourced and detailed comparison between those devices and AQGs, element by element (accuracy, field portability, manpower, repeatability, drift correction, cost,...) maybe in a specific table ? The economic gains and so forth are not demonstrated here either. Also, I do not understand the need to focus on groundwater here, as these devices are not able to measure groundwater directly.

616 - 617 : « Recently published software and calculation approaches to determine the gravity changes caused by GWSC additionally foster the use of gravimeters.» I do not understand what is meant here : is this a statement ? Based on what ? Or is this a wish ? I suggest to remove this sentence.

L. 618-619 : These concepts are presented here but not thoroughly discussed in the paper. Also, I see no references of combining « classical » gravity devices (e.g. Hinderer et al., 2016)

Hinderer, J., Hector, B., Mémin, A., and Calvo, M.: Hybrid gravimetry as a tool to monitor surface and underground mass changes, International Association of Geodesy Symposia, https://doi.org/10.1007/1345_2016_253, 2016.
L. 624-626 : please remove these two sentences as they are insufficiently backed up (see my earlier comment). Gravimeters are high technology devices that I believe hold a significant footprint from their manufacturing to their use and manpower requirement, together with the industrial and heteronomous society they rely on to be produced. Is this compatible with sustainable water management ? This cannot be scientifically stated without being demonstrated or at least discussed.

Technical corrections :
Figure 1 : some elements of the Figure are not so clear : what does represent the upside-down triangle on the right side ? In borehole logs it usually describes the static level, but here it seems located above the water level ? Also, I wonder what does «unsaturated zone » refers to ? It should also include the unsaturated area right above the water table (in the grey part). Hence, to avoid confusion, I recommand to sligthly shift the « unsaturated zone » box at the interface between what you call « Aquifer » and the brown area. I reckon the brown area iis the top soil, but you may also want to split it in two laterally, as the underlying aquifers, because it is generally not independent from the underneath deeper soil.

L. 65 : « ...of all Earths’... » : « ...and non –terrestrial... » ? Maybe add non-terrestrial masses ?

L. 101 : « ... Due to the weight of water » . Please add « ... Or atmosphere »

L. 233 : please remove brackets as µGal are not equivalent to nm/s²

L. 296 : please remove « and », as there is no apparent link between the first and last sections of the sentence.

L. 406-407 : please correct : ‘the reported gravity signal... ‘ as amounts may be much higher depending on precipitation (and negative if the gravimeter is below the ground).

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5091-RC1

Viewed

Total article views: 327 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
229	72	26	327	29	25

HTML: 229
PDF: 72
XML: 26
Total: 327
BibTeX: 29
EndNote: 25

Views and downloads (calculated since 05 Oct 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2026	229	72	26	327

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 05 Oct 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2026	229	72	26	327

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 327 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 327 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 26 Oct 2026

Short summary

Gravitational force is proportional to the mass of the attracting body; therefore, temporal changes in subsurface mass can be detected through variations in the measured gravity. Instrument development in recent years has provided higher accuracy, even for mobile devices. This leads to more potential applications, including small mass changes like soil water and groundwater. The review provides an overview of the ongoing gravimeter development and of hydrological studies applying gravimeters.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0