HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Abdu, H. Articles by Jones, S.B. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Abdu, H. Articles by Jones, S.B. Agricola Articles by Abdu, H. Articles by Jones, S.B. Related Collections Soil Methods/Instrumentation Electromagnetic Induction, EMI Soil Classification and Mapping

SOIL & WATER MANAGEMENT & CONSERVATION

Comparing Bulk Soil Electrical Conductivity Determination Using the DUALEM-1S and EM38-DD Electromagnetic Induction Instruments

Dep. of Biological and Irrigation Engineering Utah State Univ. Logan, UT 84322

D.A. Robinson

Dep. of Plants, Soils and Biometeorology Utah State Univ. Logan, UT 84322-4820
Currently at: Dep. of Geophysics, Stanford Univ. 397 Panama Mall Stanford, CA 94305

S.B. Jones

Dep. of Plants, Soils and Biometeorology Utah State Univ. Logan, UT 84322-4820

^* Corresponding author (hiruyabdu{at}cc.usu.edu).

Earth conductivity instruments based on the principle of electromagnetic induction (EMI) are extensively used for mapping soil salinity and, increasingly, for mapping soil texture. Environmental variables such as temperature can impact sensor response beyond the effect of soil solution electrical conductivity. This study was conducted to compare the bulk soil electrical conductivity (EC_a)–depth relationship between the DUALEM-1S and Geonics EM38-DD devices and to determine the effect of variable temperature environments on instrument response. The relationship of EC_a to the depth below ground was investigated by raising each instrument in increments of 0.15 m up to 1.8 m above ground level. The effect of temperature on both instruments was investigated under two soil salinity levels at two sites. The instruments corresponded reasonably with theoretical models describing the EC_a–depth relationships, which are primarily coil-orientation dependent. Under the effect of variable-temperature test conditions, both instruments were prone to a higher margin of error (10–40%) at lower EC_a readings while the error became less significant (5%) at higher EC_a (>100 mS m^–1). The difference in response of the instruments can be ascribed to the temperature-dependent change in soil EC_a due to a 20°C diurnal temperature variation in addition to instrumental drift caused by temperature effects on the processing circuitry. The EM38-DD's real-time display and internal powering are its advantages while the lower priced DUALEM-1S does not need instrument calibration and can store data internally

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. A. Robinson, H. Abdu, S. B. Jones, M. Seyfried, I. Lebron, and R. Knight Eco-Geophysical Imaging of Watershed-Scale Soil Patterns Links with Plant Community Spatial Patterns Vadose Zone J., November 1, 2008; 7(4): 1132 - 1138. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]