Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
tAble 4.5
Correlation Matrix of Soil properties for the Six
field-Scale eC
a
Surveys
field
ln(eC
e
)
Sp
θ
w
Coachella valley Wheat field
ln(EC
e
)
1.00
0.69
0.66
SP
1.00
0.91
0
w
1.00
Coachella valley Sorghum field
ln(EC
e
) 1.00 -0.10 0.28
SP 1.00 -0.47
0
w
1.00
broadview Water district (Quarter Sections 16-2 and 16-3)
ln(EC
e
)
1.00
0.23
0.33
SP
1.00
0.82
0
w
1.00
fresno Cotton field
ln(EC
e
)
1.00
0.38
-0.37
SP
1.00
-0.78
0
w
1.00
Coachella valley—kohl Ranch field
ln(EC
e
) 1.00 -0.39 0.72
SP 1.00 -0.04
0
w
1.00
broadview Water district (Quarter Section 10-2)
ln(EC
e
)
1.00
0.08
0.14
SP
1.00
0.91
0
w
1.00
Source:
Modified from Corwin, D.L., and Lesch, S.M., Agron. J., 95,
455-471, 2003. With permission.
Note:
ECe is the electrical conductivity of the saturation extract (dS
m
-1
), SP is the saturation percentage. θ
w
is the volumetric water
content (cm
3
cm
-3
).
4.3.4.5
Coachella valley—kohl Ranch field
This field displays a range of correlations between EMI and soil properties (Table 4.2). Salinity
correlates very well, water content fairly well, and soil texture exhibits weak negative correlation
indicating that the dominant soil properties influencing the EMI reading are salinity and water
content. In addition, two secondary properties, SAR and boron, were measured. The fact that these
correlated quite well with the EMI data suggests the close association of these properties with salin-
ity in this particular field because the EMI reading does not directly measure SAR or boron but is
rather an artifact of solute flow.
4.3.4.6
broadview Water district (Quarter Section 10-2)
The dominant soil property influencing the EMI reading is salinity, with a correlation between
ln(EMI
ave
) and ln(EC
e
) of 0.80. No strong correlation was found between EMI data and a variety of
soil properties, including SP, water content, bulk density, and separates of sand, silt, and clay.
