A selection of our members:
1. Nobes, David C., 2011. Ground penetrating radar measurements over glaciers. In Singh, V. P., Singh, P., and Haritashya, U. K. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Snow, Ice and Glaciers, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg: 490-504.
Papers 1-3 are in the field of glaciology. Paper #1 is a chapter that I think summarises GPR in glaciers well, and also includes some previously unpublished research results, and some ideas that are also not otherwise published elsewhere.
2. Nobes, David C., 1999. The directional dependence of the ground penetrating radar response on the accumulation zones of temperate alpine glaciers, First Break, 17(7): 249-259.
Paper #2 deals with the directionality of the radar response, showing a strong directionality in the amplitude but not in the velocity.
3. Nobes, D. C., Leary, S. F., Hochstein, M. P. & Henrys, S. A., 1994. Ground penetrating radar profiles of debris-covered glaciers: Results from the Tasman and Mueller Glaciers of the Southern Alps of New Zealand. Society of Exploration Geophysicists Annual Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 64:826-829.
So far as I can determine, Paper #3 was the first GPR done on a debris-covered or debris-laden glacier. Previously everyone had thought it wouldn't work!
4. Wallace , Shamus C., Nobes, David C., Davis, Kenneth J., Burbank, Douglas W., & White, Antony, 2010. Three-dimensional GPR imaging of the Benmore Anticline and step-over of the Ostler Fault, South Island, New Zealand. Geophysical Journal International, 184: 465-474, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04400.x.
Papers #4 is in the field of neotectonics and structures. Paper #4 shows nicely what can be done to get a 3D picture of the tectonic structures using a pseudo-3D GPR survey.
5. Nobes, David C., 2007. Effect of grain size on the geophysical responses of indigenous burial sites. In Proceedings of Near Surface 2007: 13th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Istanbul, Turkey: Paper P33.
Papers 5-7 are in the field of archaeology and forensic science. Paper #5 summarises many years of work on burial sites.
6. Nobes, David C. & Wallace, Lynda R., 2007. Geophysical Imaging of an Early 19th Century Colonial Defensive Blockhouse. In Proceedings of Near Surface 2007: 13th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Istanbul, Turkey: Paper B10.
Paper #6 contains some of the best GPR results I have managed to acquire across an archaeological site. The results were so clear and conclusive that the agency in charge would not allow us to excavate to confirm the results: they said that the results were so good, they did not need to excavate!
7. Nobes, David C., 1999. Geophysical surveys of burial sites: a case study of the Oaro urupa, Geophysics, 64(2): 357-367.
Paper #7 is one of only a few early papers on geophysical imaging of burial sites, illustrating that more detail (higher frequency) does not equate to more information. In fact, a lower frequency is often better, because there is less clutter from such features as trees and bushes.
8. Nobes, D. C., Ferguson, R. J. & Brierley, G. J., 2001. Ground-penetrating radar and sedimentological analysis of Holocene floodplains: insight from the Tuross valley, New South Wales. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 48: 347-355.
Papers 8 and 9 are in sedimentology. Paper #8 is a sort of review and research results paper combined, illustrating the results we obtained, but also showing how the different frequencies and different kinds of processing and presentation (e.g., AGC versus maintaining the relative reflection amplitudes which Sensor & Software call SEC or spreading and exponential compensation).
9. Theimer, Brian D., Nobes, David C. & Warner, Barry G., 1994. A study of geoelectric properties of peatlands and their influence on ground penetrating radar surveying. Geophysical Prospecting, 42:179-209.
Paper #9 showed the importance and control of the electrical properties on the radar results, specifically for peatlands but the principles are far more general. We also showed how well the radar range equation worked.