Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T03:04:31.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inversion of soil electrical conductivity data to estimate layered soil properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2017

K. A. Sudduth ,
N. R. Kitchen  and
S. T. Drummond
K. A. Sudduth*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 269 Ag. Eng. Bldg., Columbia, MO, 65211, USA
N. R. Kitchen
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 269 Ag. Eng. Bldg., Columbia, MO, 65211, USA
S. T. Drummond
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 269 Ag. Eng. Bldg., Columbia, MO, 65211, USA
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Bulk apparent soil electrical conductivity (ECa) sensors respond to multiple soil properties, including clay content, water content, and salt content (i.e. salinity). They provide a single sensor value for an entire soil profile down to a sensor-dependent measurement depth, weighted by a nonlinear response function. Because of this, it is generally difficult to elucidate strong relationships between ECa and the measured properties of individual soil layers. This research investigated inversion of the equations that govern the ECa-depth response relationship to reconstruct the soil conductivity in profile layers using data collected in multiple fields in the Midwest US. Layer conductivities obtained by inversion were first validated by comparison with true conductivities measured as a function of depth with an ECa-sensing penetrometer. Then, the validated layer conductivities were related to laboratory- measured soil properties. Inversion worked well but sometimes required iterative adjustment of initial conditions and other input parameters to obtain best results. Strong linear relationships (r2≥0.76) were obtained between inversion-estimated and measured layer conductivity data in all cases, sometimes with a truncated depth range. Layer conductivity data was successfully used to estimate soil texture fractions in the two alluvial fields examined. This was not the case for a claypan soil field, where there appeared to be parameters other than texture strongly affecting the EC response. Further examination of this approach is warranted to potentially provide improved ways to estimate depth-variable soil properties using ECa.

Keywords

soil electrical conductivitysoil texturemodel inversion
Type
Soil Sensing and Variability
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 8 , Special Issue 2: Papers presented at the 11th European Conference on Precision Agriculture (ECPA 2017), John McIntyre Centre, Edinburgh, UK, July 16–20 2017 , July 2017 , pp. 433 - 438
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017. This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barker, RD 1989. Depth of investigation of collinear symmetrical four-electrode arrays. Geophysics 54, 1031–1037.Google Scholar
Corwin, DL and Lesch, SM 2005. Apparent soil electrical conductivity measurements in agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 46, 11–43.Google Scholar
Hendrickx, JMH, Borchers, B, Corwin, DL, Lesch, SM, Hilgendorf, AC and Schlue, J 2002. Inversion of soil conductivity profiles from electromagnetic induction measurements: Theory and experimental verification. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66, 673–685.Google Scholar
Monteiro Santos, FA 2004. 1-D laterally constrained inversion of EM34 profiling data. Journal of Applied Geophysics 56, 123–134.Google Scholar
Monteiro Santos, FA, Triantafilis, J, Bruzgulis, KE and Roe, JAE 2010. Inversion of multiconfiguration electromagnetic (DUALEM-421) profiling data using a one- dimensional laterally constrained algorithm. Vadose Zone Journal 9, 117–125.Google Scholar
Monteiro Santos, FA, Triantafilis, J and Bruzgulis, K 2011. A spatially constrained 1D inversion algorithm for quasi-3D conductivity imaging: Application to DUALEM-421 data collected in a riverine plain. Geophysics 76, B43–B53.Google Scholar
Rhoades, JD, Manteghi, NA, Shrouse, PJ and Alves, WJ 1989. Soil electrical conductivity and soil salinity: New formulations and calibrations. Soil Science Society of America Journal 53, 433–439.Google Scholar
Sudduth, KA, Kitchen, NR, Bollero, GA, Bullock, DG and Wiebold, WJ 2003. Comparison of electromagnetic induction and direct sensing of soil electrical conductivity. Agronomy Journal 95, 472–482.Google Scholar
Sudduth, KA, Kitchen, NR, Wiebold, WJ, Batchelor, WD, Bollero, GA, Bullock, DG et al. 2005. Relating apparent electrical conductivity to soil properties across the north- central USA. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 46, 263–283.Google Scholar
Triantafilis, J and Monteiro Santos, FA 2010. Resolving the spatial distribution of the true electrical conductivity with depth using EM38 and EM31 signal data and a laterally constrained inversion model. Australian Journal of Soil Research 48, 434–446.Google Scholar
Williams, BG and Baker, GC 1982. An electromagnetic induction technique for reconnaissance surveys of soil salinity hazards. Australian Journal of Soil Research 20, 107–118.Google Scholar