1887
Volume 7, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

In precision agriculture geoelectrical methods have shown their capability to detect spatial variation of important physico‐chemical soil parameters in an efficient way. Nevertheless, relationships between the electrical parameters (electrical conductivity or resistivity) and other soil properties are not always consistent over different fields. This can, to some extent, be due to the characteristics of instruments used for soil mapping. However, a limited amount of research has addressed this issue. In this study, seven instruments for mobile mapping (continuous geoelectrical measurements) available on the market were tested (ARP 03, CM‐138, EM38, EM38‐DD, EM38‐MK2, OhmMapper and Veris 3100). Instruments were employed on a sandy site in north‐east Germany. Measurements were compared to a profile, which has been investigated with a high accuracy reference. Additional investigations were conducted concerning the influences of temperature drift, seasonal variations and soil properties on soil EC. Marked differences between the instruments were found with respect to depth of investigation, accuracy and handling that have to be taken into account when geoelectrical surveys are planned or interpreted. Regarding depth of investigation and robustness of the measurements, ARP 03 and Veris 3100 seem to be the most suitable instruments for precision agriculture.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009011
2009-03-01
2020-04-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AllredB.J., DanielsJ.D. and EhsaniM.R.2008. Handbook of Agricultural Geophysics. CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AllredB., EhsaniM.R. and SaraswatD.2006. Comparison of electromagnetic induction, capacitively‐coupled resistivity and galvanic contact resistivity methods for soil electrical conductivity measurement.Applied Engineering in Agriculture22, 215–230.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson‐CookC.M., AlleyM.M., RoygardJ.K.F., KhoslaR., NobleR.B. and DoolittleJ.A.2002. Differentiating soil types using electrical conductivity and yield maps.Soil Science Society of America Journal66, 1562–1570.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. CorwinD.L. and LeschS.M.2005. Application of soil electrical conductivity measurements in agriculture.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture46, 11–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CorwinD.L. and LeschS.M.2008. Trends of soil electrical conductivity measurement using geophysical methods. In: Handbook of Agricultural Geophysics (eds B.J.Allred , J.DDaniels and M.R.Ehsani ), pp. 17–44.CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DabasM. and TabbaghA.2002. A comparison of EMI and DC methods used in soil mapping – theoretical considerations for precision agriculture. In: Precision Agriculture (eds J.Stafford and A.Werner ), pp. 121–129. Wageningen Academic Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DanielsJ.J., VendlM., Ehsani, R.M. and AllredB.J.2008. Electromagnetic induction methods. In: Handbook of Agricultural Geophysics (eds B.J.Allred , J.DDaniels and M.R.Ehsani ), pp. 109–128. CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DollW.E., GameyT.J., NyquistJ.E., MandellW., GroomD. and RohdewaldS.2001. Evaluation of new geophysical tools for investigation of a landfill, Camp Roberts, California.Proceedings of the 2001 Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), Denver, Colorado, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DomschH. and GiebelA.2004. Estimation of soil textural features from soil electrical conductivity recorded using the EM38.Precision Agriculture3, 389–409.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. EdwardsL.S.1977. A modified pseudosection for resistivity and IP.Geophysics42, 1020–1036.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Eijkelkamp2003. Operating Instructions. 14.01 EC‐probe Set for Soil Conductivity Measurements.Eijkelkamp Agrisearch Equipment.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. FarahaniH.J. and FlynnR.L.2007. Map quality and zone delineation as affected by width of parallel swaths of mobile agricultural sensors.Biosystems Engineering96, 151–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. GebbersR. and LückE.2005. Comparison of geoelectrical methods for soil mapping. In: Precision Agriculture ’05 (ed. J.V.Stafford ), pp. 473–479. Wageningen Academic Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GebbersR. and LückE.2007. Der OhmMapper – Geoelektrik‐Kartierung mit kapazitiver Ankopplung. (The OhmMapper – geoelectrical mapping based on capacitive coupling).Landtechnik2, 82–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. GebbersR. and LückE.2008. Comparison of geoelectrical instruments in different soilscapes. In: Handbook of Agricultural Geophysics (eds B.J.Allred , J.DDaniels and M.R.Ehsani ), pp. 295–302. CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Geometrics2001. OhmMapper TR1 29005‐01 REV.F Operation Manual. Geometrics Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. ISO1995. Soil Quality Determination of Potential Cation Exchange Capacity and Exchangeable Cations Using Barium Chloride Solution Buffer at pH 8.1. International Organization for Standardization.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. de JongE., BallantyneA.K., CameronD.R. and ReadD.W.L.1979. Measurement of apparent electrical conductivity of soils by an electromagnetic induction probe to aid salinity surveys.Soil Science Society of America Journal43, 810–812.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. KachanoskiR.G., GregorichE.G. and van WesenbeckJ.1988. Estimating spatial variations of soil water content using noncontacting electromagnetic induction methods.Canadian Journal of Soil Science68, 715–722.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. KerryR. and OliverM.2003. Variograms of ancillary data to aid sampling for soil surveys.Precision Agriculture4, 261–278.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. KingJ.A., DampneyP.M.R., LarkR.M., WheelerH.C., BradleyR.I. and MayrT.R.2005. Mapping potential crop management zones within fields: Use of yield‐map series and patterns of soil physical properties identified by electromagnetic induction.Precision Agriculture6, 167–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. KurasO., BeamishD., MeldrumP.I. and OgilvyR.D.2006. Fundamentals of the capacitive resistivity technique.Geophysics70, G135–G152.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. LandonJ.R.1991. Booker Tropical Soil Manual. A Handbook for Soil Survey and Agricultural Land Evaluation in the Tropics and Subtropics. Longman Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. LundE., ChristyC. and DrummondP.1999. Practical applications of soil electrical conductivity mapping. In: Precision Agriculture ’99 (ed. J.Stafford ), pp. 771–779. Sheffield Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. McNeillJ.D.1980. Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurements at low induction numbers.Geonics Technical Note TN‐6.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. OldenbourgD.W. and LiY.1998. Estimating depth of investigation in dc resistivity and IP surveys.Geophysics64, 403–416.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. PanissodC., DabasM., JolivetA. and TabbaghA.1997. A novel mobile multipole system (MUCEP) for shallow (0–3 m) geoelectrical investigation: The ‘Vol‐de‐canards’ array.Geophysical Prospecting45, 983–1002.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. RoyA. and ApparaoA.1971. Depth of investigation in direct current methods.Geophysics36, 943–959.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. SamouëlianA., CousinI., TabbaghA., BruandA. and RichardG.2005. Electrical resistivity survey in soil science: a review.Soil and Tillage Research83, 173–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. SchefferF. and SchachtschabelP.2002. Lehrbuch der Bodenkunde (Textbook of Soil Science).Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
  31. SchmidhalterU., ZintelA. and NeudeckerE.2003. Calibration of electromagnetic induction measurements to survey the spatial variability of soils. In: Proceedings of the Third Conference on Precision Agriculture (eds G.Grenier and S.Blackmore ), pp. 479–484. Agro Montpellier.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. SiegelS.1985. Nichtparametrische statistische Methoden. Fachbuchhandlung fuer Psychologie.(Translation of Siegel S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.McGraw‐Hill)
    [Google Scholar]
  33. SudduthK.A., KitchenN.R., BolleroG.A., BullockD.G. and WieboldW.J.2003. Comparison of electromagnetic induction and direct sensing of soil electrical conductivity.Agronomy Journal95, 472–482.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. SudduthK.A., KitchenN.R., WieboldW.J., BatchelorW.D., BolleroG.A., BullockD.G. et al. 2005. Relating apparent electrical conductivity to soil properties across the north‐central USA.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture46, 263–283.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. TarrA.B., MoorK.J, BurrasC.L., BullockD.G. and DixonP.M.2005. Improving map accuracy of soil variables using soil electrical conductivity as a covariate.Precision Agriculture6, 255–270.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Veris2002. Veris Technologies 3100 Soil EC Mapping System.Operating Instructions. Pub. #OM 1CM02–1. Veris Technologies.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. WhiteR.E.2006. Principles and Practices of Soil Science. Blackwell Publishing.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009011
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009011
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error