Show simple item record

dc.contributorKhosla, Rajen_US
dc.contributorBrodahl, M.en_US
dc.contributorBuchleiter, Gerald W.en_US
dc.contributorFarahani, Hamiden_US
dc.creatorShaner, Daleen_US
dc.date2008-09-01en_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-19T19:35:12Z
dc.date.available2020-11-19T19:35:12Z
dc.identifierhttps://mel.cgiar.org/dspace/limiteden_US
dc.identifier.citationDale Shaner, Raj Khosla, M. Brodahl, Gerald W. Buchleiter, Hamid Farahani. (1/9/2008). How well does zone sampling based on soil electrical conductivity maps represent soil variability. Agronomy Journal, 100 (5), pp. 1472-1480.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/12050
dc.description.abstractIn zone soil sampling a field is divided into homogenous areas using an easy to measure ancillary attribute (e.g., apparent soil electrical conductivity [ECa]) and a few samples are taken from each zone to estimate the soil characteristics in each zone. This study determined if ECa-directed zone sampling in two fields in northeastern Colorado could correctly predict soil texture and soil organic matter (SOM) patterns of samples taken by a more intensive grid sample method. Each field, which were predominantly Bijou loamy sand (coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Ustic Haplargids), and Valentine sand (mixed, mesic Typic Ustipsamments), was divided into three ECa zones and soil texture and OM content in the top 30 cm of soil were measured. There was a significant difference in the soil texture and SOM in both fields between ECa Zone 1 and Zone 3. Logistic regression showed that in both fields, approximately 80% of the grid sample sites in ECa Zone 1 were correctly predicted. Only 50% of the grid sample sites in ECa Zone 3 were correctly predicted as Zone 3 in one field whereas 77% of the grid sites in ECa Zone 3 were correctly predicted in the other field. However, approximately 80% of the samples in the grid sites :10 m from the zone boundaries were classified correctly as compared to the samples that were <10 m from the boundary in which only 50 to 54% were classified correctly. These results support the utilization of ECa-directed zone sampling as an alternative to grid soil sampling if the transition zones arc avoided.en_US
dc.formatPDFen_US
dc.languageenen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.rightsCopyrighted; all rights reserveden_US
dc.sourceAgronomy Journal;100,(2008) Pagination 1472,1480en_US
dc.subjectsoil electrical conductivityen_US
dc.titleHow well does zone sampling based on soil electrical conductivity maps represent soil variability?en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
cg.subject.agrovocsoilen_US
cg.subject.agrovocsoil samplingen_US
cg.contributor.centerInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.contributor.centerColorado State University - COLOSTATEen_US
cg.contributor.centerUSDA-ARS Water Management Researchen_US
cg.contributor.funderInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.contributor.projectCommunication and Documentation Information Services (CODIS)en_US
cg.contributor.project-lead-instituteInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.date.embargo-end-dateTimelessen_US
cg.coverage.regionNorthern Americaen_US
cg.coverage.countryUSen_US
cg.contactraj.khosla@colostate.eduen_US
cg.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0060en_US
dc.identifier.statusTimeless limited accessen_US
mel.impact-factor1.683en_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Disclaimer:
MELSpace content providers and partners accept no liability to any consequence resulting from use of the content or data made available in this repository. Users of this content assume full responsibility for compliance with all relevant national or international regulations and legislation.
Theme by 
Atmire NV