Abstract

AbstractGeophysical methods, such as electromagnetic induction (EMI), can be effective for monitoring changes in soil moisture at the field scale, particularly in agricultural applications. The electrical conductivity (σ) inferred from EMI needs to be converted to soil moisture content (θ) using an appropriate relationship. Typically, a single global relationship is applied to an entire agricultural field; however, soil heterogeneity at the field scale may limit the effectiveness of such an approach. One application area that may suffer from such an effect is crop phenotyping. Selecting crop varieties based on their root traits is important for crop breeding and maximizing yield. Hence, high‐throughput tools for phenotyping the root system architecture and activity at the field scale are needed. Water uptake is a major root activity and, under appropriate conditions, can be approximated by measuring changes in soil moisture from time‐lapse geophysical surveys. We examine here the effect of heterogeneity in the θ–σ relationship using a crop phenotyping study for illustration. In this study, the θ–σ relationship was found to vary substantially across a field site. To account for this, we propose a range of local (plot specific) θ–σ models. We show that the large number of parameters required for these models can be estimated from baseline σ and θ measurements. Finally, we compare the use of global (field scale) and local (plot scale) models with respect to ranking varieties based on the estimated soil moisture content change.

Highlights

  • Over the past two decades, there has been a growth in the use of geophysical methods in agriculture (Allred, Daniels, & Ehsani, 2008)

  • We compare the use of global and local models with respect to ranking varieties based on the estimated soil moisture content change

  • The approach presented in this manuscript relies on apparent and not depth-specific electrical conductivity measurements to avoid the uncertainty arising from electromagnetic induction (EMI) inversion

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Over the past two decades, there has been a growth in the use of geophysical methods in agriculture (Allred, Daniels, & Ehsani, 2008). This has been driven, in part, by the need to assess variation in soil properties in a noninvasive manner over relatively large scales. (Viscarra Rossel, Adamchuk, Sudduth, McKenzie, & Lobsey, 2011) Measurements of properties, such as electrical conductivity, are typically treated as a proxy for a soil property or state of interest (e.g., soil texture, bulk density, or soil moisture content). Maps of a geophysical property are presented in a qualitative manner This can be effective in some cases, the ability to estimate quantitatively the property, or state, of interest offers greater scope for a wider range of agricultural applications.

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call