Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(1997)
Preliminary experiments towards the evaluation of a suitable soil sensor for continuous ‘on-the-go’ field pH measurements. In: Stafford JV (ed) Precision agriculture ‘97
V. Adamchuk, E. Lund, B. Sethuramasamyraja, M. Morgan, A. Dobermann, D. Marx (2005)
Direct measurement of soil chemical properties on-the-go using ion-selective electrodesComputers and Electronics in Agriculture, 48
R. Webster (2000)
Is soil variation randomGeoderma, 97
V. Adamchuk, M. Morgan, D. Ess (1999)
AN AUTOMATED SAMPLING SYSTEM FOR MEASURING SOIL pH
R. Mcbride, S. Shrive, A. Gordon (1990)
Estimating Forest Soil Quality from Terrain Measurements of Apparent Electrical ConductivitySoil Science Society of America Journal, 54
G. Thomas (1996)
Soil pH and Soil AciditySSSA Book Series
R. Rossel, M. Gilbertson, L. Thylén, O. Hansen, S. McVey, A. McBratney, J. Stafford (2005)
Field measurements of soil pH and lime requirement using an on-the-go soil pH and lime requirement measurement system.
G. Laslett, A. McBratney (1990)
Further Comparison of Spatial Methods for Predicting Soil pHSoil Science Society of America Journal, 54
F. Pierce, E. Sadler (1997)
The state of site specific management for agriculture.
M. Rad, N. Toomanian, F. Khormali (2018)
Digital Soil MappingHandbook of Soil Sciences (Two Volume Set)
(1996)
Development of an automated system for field measurement of soil nitrate
D. Mulla, A. McBratney (2000)
Soil spatial variability
H. Blume, P. Felix‐Henningsen, W. Fischer, H. Frede, R. Horn, K. Stahr (1996)
Handbook of soil science.
N. Wollenhaupt, D. Mulla, C. Crawford (1997)
Soil sampling and interpolation techniques for mapping spatial variability of soil properties.
A. Bianchini, A. Mallarino (2002)
Soil-sampling alternatives and variable-rate liming for a soybean-corn rotationAgronomy Journal, 94
E. Bresler (2015)
Soil Spatial VariabilityHandbook of Soil Sciences (Two Volume Set)
C. Christy, K. Collings, P. Drummond, E. Lund (2004)
A Mobile Sensor Platform for Measurement of Soil pH and Buffering
GW Thomas (1996)
Methods of soil analysis. Part 3 chemical methods
Since conventional sampling and laboratory soil analysis do not provide a cost effective capability for obtaining geo-referenced measurements with adequate frequency, different on-the-go sensing techniques have been attempted. One such recently commercialized sensing system combines mapping of soil electrical conductivity and pH. The concept of direct measurement of soil pH has allowed for a substantial increase in measurement density. In this publication, soil pH maps, developed using on-the-go technology and obtained for eight production fields in six US states, were compared with corresponding maps derived from grid sampling. It was shown that with certain field conditions, on-the-go mapping can significantly increase the accuracy of soil pH maps and therefore increase the potential profitability of variable rate liming. However, in many instances, these on-the-go measurements need to be calibrated to account for a field-specific bias. After calibration, the overall error estimate for soil pH maps produced using on-the-go measurements was less than 0.3 pH, while non-calibrated on-the-go and conventional field average and grid-sampling maps produced errors greater than 0.4 pH.
Precision Agriculture – Springer Journals
Published: Jun 6, 2007
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.