Browse > Article

Relationship of soil profile strength and apparent soil electrical conductivity to crop yield  

Jung, Won-Kyo (National Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology)
Kitchen, Newell R. (United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Services)
Sudduth, Kenneth A. (United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Services)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer / v.39, no.2, 2006 , pp. 109-115 More about this Journal
Abstract
Understanding characteristics of claypan soils has long been an issue for researchers and farmers because the high-clay subsoil has a pronounced effect on grain crop productivity. The claypan restricts water infiltration and storage within the crop root zone, but these effects are not uniform within fields. Conventional techniques of identifying claypan soil characteristics require manual probing and analysis which can be quite expensive; an expense most farmers are unwilling to pay. On the other hand, farmers would be very interested if this information could be obtained with easy-to-use field sensors. Two examples of sensors that show promise for helping in claypan soil characterization are soil profile strength sensing and bulk soil apparent electrical conductivity (ECa). Little has been reported on claypan soils relating the combined information from these two sensors with grain crop yield. The objective of this research was to identify the relationships of sensed profile soil strength and soil EC with nine years of crop yield (maize and soybean) from a claypan soil field in central Missouri. A multiple-probe (five probes on 19-cm spacing) cone penetrometer was used to measure soil strength and an electromagnetic induction sensor was used to measure soil EC at 55 grid site locations within a 4-ha research field. Crop yields were obtained using a combine equipped with a yield monitoring system. Soil strength at the 15 to 45 cm soil depth were significantly correlated to crop yield and ECa. Estimated crop yields from apparent electrical conductivity and soil strength were validated with an independent data set. Using measurements from these two sensors, standard error rates for estimating yield ranged from 9 to 16%. In conclusion, these results showed that the sensed profile soil strength and soil EC could be used as a measure of the soil productivity for grain crop production.
Keywords
Soil strength; Apparent electrical conductivity; Claypan soil;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Chung, S.O., K.A. Sudduth, Carol Plouffe, Newell R. Kitchen. 2004. Evaluation of an On-the-go Soil Strength Profile Sensor Using Soil Bin and Field Data. ASAE Annual Meeting Paper number 041039
2 Jung, W.K., N.R. Kitchen, K.A. Sudduth, R.J. Kremer, and P.P. Motavalli. 2005. Relationship of apparent soil electrical conductivity to claypan soil properties. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69:883-892   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Kitchen, N.R., S.T. Drummond, E.D. Lund, K.A. Sudduth, and G.W. Buchleiter. 2003. Soil electrical conductivity and topography related to yield for three contrasting soil-crop systems. Agron. J. 95:438-449
4 Kitchen, N.R., D.F. Hughes, W.W. Donald, and E.E. Alberts. 1998. Agrichemical movement in the root zone of claypan soils: Ridge and mulchtillage systems compared. Soil Tillage Res. 48:179193   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Kitchen, N.R., K.A. Sudduth, and S.T. Drummond. 1999. Soil electrical conductivity as a crop productivity measure for claypan soils. J. Prod. Agric. 12:607-617   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Raper, R.L., B.H. Washington, J.D. Jarrell. 1999. A tractor-mounted multiple probe soil cone penetrometer. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. VOL. 15(4): 287-290   DOI
7 Soil Survey Staff. 1981. Land resource region and major land resource areas of the United States. USDA-SCS Agric. Handb. 296, U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC
8 Christy, C., K. Collings, P. Drummond, E. Lund. 2004. A Mobile Sensor Platform for Measurement of Soil pH and Buffering. ASAE Annual Meeting. Paper number 041042
9 Sudduth, K.A., N.R. Kitchen, G.A. Bollero, D.G.Bullock, and W.J. Wiebold. 2003. Comparison of electromagnetic induction and direct sensing of soil electrical conductivity. Agron. J. 95:472-482   DOI   ScienceOn
10 USDA-NRCS. 1995. Soil survey of Audrain County. Missouri (1995387974/00537/SCS). U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC
11 Johnson, C.K., K.M. Eskridge, B.J. Wienhold, J.W. Doran, G.A. Peterson, and G.W. Buchleiter. 2003. Using electrical conductivity classification and withinfield variability to design fieldscale research. Agron. J. 95:602-613   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Rhoades, J.D., P.A.C. Raats, and R.J. Prather. 1976. Effects of liquid-phase electrical conductivity, water content, and surface conductivity on bulk soil electrical conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40:651-655   DOI
13 Chung, S.O., K.A. Sudduth, S.T. Drummond. 2002. Determining yield monitoring system delay time with geostatistical and data segmentation approaches. Transactions of the ASAE. 45(4): 915-926
14 Nikiforoff, C.C., and M. Drosdoff. 1943. Genesis of claypan soil. Soil Sci. 53:459-482
15 Geonics Limited. 1997. Applicationsof electromagnetic methods: Soils Salinity. Jan. Mississanga, Ontario, Canada