Comparing apparent electrical conductivity measurements on a paddy field under flooded and drained conditions

Precision Agriculture

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 384-392

  Islam, Mohammad Monirul ^a   Meerschman, Eef ^a   Saey, Timothy ^a   de Smedt, Philippe ^a   van de Vijver, Ellen ^a   van Meirvenne, Marc ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Electromagnetic induction sensor; EM38; Paddy field; Within field spatial variation

Indexed keywords

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY; FLOODPLAIN; GROWING SEASON; MEASUREMENT METHOD; PADDY FIELD; PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTY; SOIL MANAGEMENT; SOIL MOISTURE; SOIL SURVEY; SOIL TEXTURE;

BANGLADESH; BRAHMAPUTRA BASIN;

EID: 84860519719     PISSN: 13852256     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11119-011-9253-2     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Brammer, H. (1981). Reconnaissance soil survey of Dhaka district. Revised edition (pp. 6-19). Dhaka: Soil Resources Development Institute.
2. Brammer, H. (1996). The geography of the soils of Bangladesh (p. 25). Dhaka: The University Press Limited.
3. Brevik, E. C., Fenton, T. E., & Lazari, A. (2006). Soil electrical conductivity as a function of soil water content and implications for soil mapping. Precision Agriculture, 7, 393-404.
4. Goovaerts, P. (1997). Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5. IRRI. (1987). Physical measurements in flooded rice soils: The Japanese methodologies. Los Baños, Manila: International Rice Research Institute.
6. Islam, M. M., & van Meirvenne, M. (2011). FloSSy: A floating sensing system to evaluate soil variability of flooded paddy fields. In J. V. Stafford (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th European conference on precision agriculture (pp. 60-66). Prague, Czech Republic: University of Life Sciences.
7. McNeill, J. D. (1980). Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurement at low induction numbers. Technical Note TN-6. Missisauga, ON: Geonics Limited.
8. Rhoades, J. D., Chanduvi, F., & Lesch, S. M. (1999). Soil salinity assessment: Methods and interpretation of electrical conductivity measurements. FAO Rep. 57. Rome: FAO.
9. Saey, T., Simpson, D., Vermeersch, H., Cockx, L., & van Meirvenne, M. (2008). Comparing the EM38DD and DUALEM-21S sensors for depth-to-clay mapping. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 73, 7-12.
10. Saey, T., van Meirvenne, M., Vermeersch, H., Ameloot, N., & Cockx, L. (2009). A pedotransfer function to evaluate the soil profile textural heterogeneity using proximally sensed apparent electrical conductivity. Geoderma, 150(3-4), 389-395.
11. Sheets, K. R., & Hendrickx, J. M. H. (1995). Non-invasive soil water content measurement using electromagnetic induction. Water Resource Research, 31, 2401-2409.
12. Simpson, D., Lehouck, A., Verdonck, L., Vermeersch, H., van Meirvenne, M., Bourgeois, J., et al. (2009). Comparison between electromagnetic induction and fluxgate gradiometer measurements on the buried remains of a 17th century castle. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 68(2), 294-300.
13. Sudduth, K. A., Hummel, J. W., & Birrell, S. J. (1997). Sensors for site-specific management. In F. J. Pierce & E. J. Sadler (Eds.), The state of site-specific management for agriculture (pp. 183-210). Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA.
14. Triantafilis, J., Laslett, G. M., & McBratney, A. B. (2000). Calibrating an electromagnetic induction instrument to measure salinity in soil under irrigated cotton. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 64, 1008-1017.