TEMPORAL STABILITY OF SOIL ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY

IN IRRIGATED SANDY FIELDS IN COLORADO

H. J. Farahani, G. W. Buchleiter

ABSTRACT. The utility of apparent soil electrical conductivity (ECa ) remains elusive because of its complex interactions with
soil properties. Nonetheless, a significant interest is emerging to utilize the spatial variability in ECa to guide direct soil
sampling and develop varying site-specific management. While the spatial variability of ECa is of significant importance,
understanding its temporal variability is equally important. That is particularly true if delineated ECa zones are to be used
to manage agricultural inputs across the field for multiple years. We present multi-year (1998 to 2002) measurements of
shallow (top 0.3 m of soil) and deep (top 0.9 m of soil) ECa from three irrigated sandy fields in eastern Colorado and quantify
their degree of temporal change. During the study period, the fields were managed uniformly, including all farm operations
and the applied inputs. For each field, soil ECa values were highly correlated between measurement days (for periods of a
few days to four years between measurements) with coefficients ranging between 0.71 and 0.92 for shallow and 0.87 and 0.96
for deep ECa , but significant deviations from the 1:1 line (indicative of temporal variability) were exhibited by shallow ECa .
In these non-saline and sandy fields, delineating spatial patterns of ECa into low, medium, and high zones was highly stable
over time, mainly because they reflect the stable soil properties. Grid-by-grid comparison of the low, medium, and high ECa
patterns from different measurement days showed mean matching percentages of 87, 74, and 78 for shallow and 93, 85, and
89 for deep ECa patterns, respectively, for the three fields. When salt concentration and buildup are low (as was the case
herein), results suggest that single ECa mapping should suffice to delineate stable low, medium, and high ECa zones without
a need for remapping.
Keywords. Management zone, Precision agriculture, Soil electrical conductivity, Soil variability, Temporal stability.

A
mong the many advanced sensors recently
introduced in precision agriculture, bulk or appar-
ent soil electrical conductivity (ECa ) measuring
devices provide the simplest and least expensive
soil variability measurement. Mapping the spatial variability
of soil parameters is key to the successful application of pre-
cision agriculture (Robert, 1999). The practical utility of
ECa , however, remains elusive because of its complex inter-
actions with soil physical and chemical properties. Nonethe-
less, a significant interest is emerging to utilize the spatial
variability in ECa for the purposes of guiding direct soil sam-
pling (as opposed to systematic grid sampling) and develop-
ing management zones to vary agricultural inputs.
The strong response of ECa to soil ionic concentration
(salts and exchangeable ions) has been used extensively for
in-situ soil salinity surveys (Halvorson and Rhoades, 1974;
Rhoades et al., 1990). In the absence of salinity, research
shows that ECa responds well to soil texture and particularly
clay content (Buchleiter, 2000; Kitchen et al., 2000; Schmid-
halter et al., 2001; Nehmdahl and Greve, 2001; Farahani and
Article was submitted for review in December 2002; approved for
publication by the Soil & Water Division of ASAE in November 2003.
Commercial product names are mentioned for the convenience of the
reader and do not imply endorsement by USDA-ARS.
The authors are Hamid J. Farahani, ASAE Member, Agricultural
Engineer, and Gerald W. Buchleiter, Agricultural Engineer, USDA-ARS
Water Management Unit, Fort Collins, Colorado Corresponding author:
Hamid J. Farahani, USDA-ARS Water Management Unit, 2150 Centre
Avenue, Building D, Suite 320, Fort Collins, CO 80526; phone:
970 -492 -7413; e-mail: hamid.farahani@ars.usda.gov.
Buchleiter, 2002; Sudduth et al., 2002), depth of topsoil
above claypans and depth of depositional sand (Doolittle et
al., 1994; Sudduth et al., 1995; Kitchen et al., 1996), soil
water content (Kachanoski el al., 1988, 1990; Sheets and
Hendrickx, 1995; Hartsock et al., 2000; Schmidhalter et al.,
2001), soil organic carbon (Jaynes et al., 1995), and different
exchange cations (McBride et al., 1990). The fact that
researchers have found ECa to respond to different soil
properties at different sites implies that field characterization
of ECa variability versus soil properties must be evaluated for
site-specific areas. There are two main methods to measure
soil ECa : non-contact electromagnetic induction (EMI), and
the contact methods that induce electrical current into the soil
through insulated metal electrodes, which penetrate the soil
surface. Although many of the above researchers used EMI
methods to measure ECa , side-by-side measurements of soil
ECa by contact electrodes and EMI methods has given
comparable values (Sudduth et al., 1999; Buchleiter and
Farahani, 2002) and has yielded similar maps (Doolittle et
al., 2002).
While the spatial variability of ECa and its causative
factors are of significant importance, understanding the
temporal variability of both location-specific ECa values and
the field-scale ECa patterns is equally important. For ECa
maps to have utility in site-specific management, multiple
ECa mappings should yield similar delineations at a relative
scale, regardless of external factors (Hartsock et al., 2000;
King et al., 2001; Nehmdahl and Greve, 2001). That is
particularly important if zones developed based on ECa
patterns are to be used to vary agricultural inputs across the
field for multiple years. Lack of temporal stability in ECa

Transactions of the ASAE

Vol. 47(1): 79-90 2004 American Society of Agricultural Engineers ISSN 0001-2351 79
maps would dictate a need for repeated mappings that
increases cost and complicates management.
Literature on the temporal variability of ECa is relatively
sparse and mostly qualitative, particularly for large-scale
time frames. Hartsock et al. (2000) reported the magnitudes
of ECa vary in time, being more pronounced for the
near -surface soil layer. Eigenberg et al. (2002) documented
significant seasonal change in weekly ECa values in a field
of corn, with the sequential measurements of ECa identifying
the dynamic changes in available soil N as affected by animal
manure and N fertilizer treatments. Visual comparisons of
ECa maps were found to be similar over time (Lund et al.,
1999), even with dramatic changes in soil water and
temperature (Dabas et al., 2001; King et al., 2001).
Pixel -by-pixel correlation of interpolated ECa maps (Nehm-
dahl and Greve, 2001) and ECa classification based on equal
numbers of observations (Hartsock et al., 2000) yielded
largely the same delineations at different measurement days,
with dissimilarities found at a scale smaller than is important
for practical applications. Research in soils with low salt
concentrations, as summarized above, shows that the spatial
patterns in ECa are more influenced by the stable soil
properties of clay, sand, and organic matter contents,
exchange cations, and subsoil structure than the transient
properties of soil water and temperature. The continual
changes in soil transient properties alter the absolute
magnitudes of ECa values. Field spatial patterns of ECa are
thus expected to be less prone to changes over time, just like
their surrogate soil stable properties.
The stability of field-scale ECa over long periods of time
(i.e., a few years) on fields that have been exposed to different
cultural and cropping practices has not been examined in
detail. Our objective was to quantify the degree and nature of
temporal changes in both ECa magnitudes and field patterns
using multi-year measurements from three sandy and
center -pivot irrigated fields in eastern Colorado. Detailed
discussion of the causes of the observed ECa variability is not
presented herein. For the purposes of comparing ECa patterns
over time, an unsupervised ECa classification method was
applied to all data sets. In the future, a more practical
approach for developing production-important zones based
on ECa data may require a multivariate approach, for
instance similar to Fraisse et al. (2001), that includes soil
properties and topographic attributes.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
This study is part of a larger multi-disciplinary precision
farming research study (Heermann et al., 2002), established
in 1997 on farmer-owned and operated production fields in
eastern Colorado. The overall objective of the broader study
is to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of
precision farming on three center-pivot fields: two near the
town of Wiggins, Colorado (called Wiggins1 and Wiggins2),
and one near Yuma, Colorado (called Yuma). During the
study period (1998 to 2002 at the Wiggins fields and 2000 and
2001 at Yuma), farm cooperators conducted all field
operations and applied all production inputs uniformly across
each field. The fields were planted in corn (Zea mays C.)
every year, except Wiggins2, which was planted in onions in
spring of 2001. The climate is semi-arid with average annual
80
precipitation of 356 to 406 mm, falling mostly in the spring
and summer months.
The landscape is flat to rolling topography, and soils are
formed in a mix of stabilized sand dunes, sand mantled South
Platte River terrace, swales, and drainages. The Wiggins1
and Wiggins2 fields are 71 and 52 ha, respectively, and are
a few kilometers apart, with soils including a Bijou loamy
sand (coarse loamy, mixed, mesic Mollic Haplargid),
Valentine sand (sandy, mixed, mesic Typic Ustipsamment),
and Truckton loamy sand (coarse loamy, mixed, superactive,
mesic Aridic Argiustoll). The Yuma field is 57 ha with soils
including Haxtun loamy sand, Albinas loam and Ascalon fine
sandy loam (fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Pachic
Argiustolls).
Measurements of ECa were taken between 1998 and 2002
using the Veris 3100 Soil EC Mapping System (Veris
Technologies, Salina, Kansas). The Veris unit has six coulter
electrodes mounted on an implement that can be pulled by a
pickup truck. It uses a modified Wenner configuration to
measure ECa by inducing current in the soil through two
coulter electrodes and measuring the voltage drop across the
two pairs of coulters that are spaced to measure ECa for the
top 0.3 m and 0.9 m soil (Lund et al., 2000). During field
measurements, the coulters penetrate the soil 20 to 50 mm
(more penetration for drier and looser soil surface condi-
tions). The Veris unit interfaces with a differential GPS and
provides simultaneous and geo-referenced readings of ECa
for the shallow (0 to 0.3 m) and deep (0 to 0.9 m) soil depths.
For simplicity, we will use the terms “shallow” and “deep”
to refer to these readings.
Field -scale ECa mappings were conducted in the spring
prior to tillage and planting operations and/or in the fall after
harvest. We experienced no difficulty with the Veris unit in
bare soil to low surface residue conditions during pre-plant
spring measurements (March to May) and in heavy standing
and flat-lying surface residue conditions after fall harvest
(September to November). For ease of maneuvering, fields
were traversed in the direction of crop rows in the fall, but
direction of travel changed at some spring measurements. On
average, travel speeds through the field ranged between 7 and
16 km h -1 with measurements taken every second, corre-
sponding to 2 to 4 m spacing between measurements in the
direction of travel, respectively. A parallel swather (AgGPS
Parallel Swathing Option, Trimble Navigation Ltd., Sunny-
vale, Cal.) mounted inside the truck guided parallel passes
through the field at 12 to 18 m swath widths with a GPS unit
(AgGPS 132, Trimble Navigation Ltd., Sunnyvale, Cal.)
with sub-meter accuracy, providing spatial coordinates for
each ECa measurement. Changes in soil water content were
monitored during a few of the ECa measurement days (i.e.,
spring and fall of 2001 at all fields, except no fall
measurements at Wiggins1, and spring of 2002 at both
Wiggins fields). A total of 20 to 40 sample locations were
identified in each field (randomly selected from delineated
ECa zones), and 0.9 m soil profile cores were collected, with
each 0.3 m long section subsequently analyzed for water
content and other soil properties (not discussed herein).
To evaluate ECa variability over time, three levels of
spatial data representation were developed for each field-
scale ECa dataset. Examples are presented in figure 1 for the
1999 deep ECa data at Wiggins1, including: a non-interpo-
lated 15 × 15 m grid surface (fig. 1a) with each grid assigned
the mean ECa value of all data points falling within that grid,
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE
an interpolated 5 × 5 m grid surface (fig. 1b) using the method
of inverse distance weighting (IDW), and a smoothed version
of the 5 × 5 m grid surface (fig. 1c) using neighborhood
analysis that reassigns each grid a new value represented by
the mean of the grids within a specified neighborhood (in this
case, a moving 7 × 7 grid window). The 15 × 15 m grid surface
(fig. 1a) was used to examine temporal changes in ECa
values. Interpolating spatially dense point data into a
continuous surface is a suggested practice in GIS (Burrough,
1986). Because of the high density of measured ECa data
points per unit area (a few hundred points per hectare), the
IDW interpolation technique was adequate for creating a
continuous ECa map (fig. 1b). For pattern comparison, we
used the smoothed version of the interpolated 5 × 5 m grid
surface (fig. 1c), which provides better-defined and crisp
delineations with fewer numbers of isolated and small
patches.
Field -scale ECa data, either solely or in combination with
other soil and field attributes, have been used to classify
(delineate) field variability (Fridgen et al., 2000; Johnson et
al., 2001; Fraisse et al., 2001; King et al., 2001). The two
main requirements in any classification scheme are identify-
ing the number of desired classes and defining the method by
which classes are assigned. The number of classes is
dependent on the objective of the analysis. For instance,
defining low, medium, and high management zones (Fleming
et al., 2000) seems appropriate if the goal is practicality and
ease of management. As summarized by Burrough (1986)
based on a thorough study by Evans (1977), class intervals for
univariate data are best defined using class boundaries that
are either selected based on some aspect of the data set (such
Figure 1. Spatial representations for the 1999 deep ECa data at Wiggins1: (a) a non-interpolated 15 × 15 m grid surface with each grid assigned the
mean ECa value of all data points falling within that grid, (b) an interpolated 5 × 5 m grid surface using IDW, and (c) a smoothed version of the 5 × 5
m grid surface using neighborhood analysis.
Vol. 47(1): 79-90
as natural breaks) or that have limits that are in direct
mathematical relation to each other, such as equal intervals,
equal number of observations, or standard deviation. For
multivariate data sets, clustering techniques have become the
standard (Lark and Stafford, 1997). Clustering methods are
not immune from the difficulties experienced with univariate
classification, but they are considered more objective.
Generally speaking, delineating spatial data involves more
art than science and thus is subjective in nature.
In this study, data distributions were plotted for the three
sites (fig. 2). The distribution of the shallow and deep ECa
data at Wiggins1 was skewed and truncated to the left while
nearly normally distributed at Yuma. Wiggins2 gave mixed
distributions for the shallow and deep data, which were
generally skewed and/or bimodal. Among the univariate
classification methods examined herein, natural breaks
(Jenks, 1977) in ArcGIS (ArcMap, V8.2. ESRI, Redlands,
CA) was least sensitive to the shape of the frequency
distribution, and thus used to produce three ECa delineations
for each dataset represented by the smoothed version of the
5 × 5 m grid surface. For diagnostic purposes of ECa and soil
variability studies, more delineations may be required, but
three rankings were selected in this study to resemble low,
medium, and high ECa . The method of natural breaks
delineates the boundaries statistically by finding adjacent
feature pairs, between which there is a relatively large
difference in data values. The method is a robust scheme of
grouping values on the basis of least-variance within class
and maximum variance between the classes. To quantify the
temporal variability of the ECa patterns across each field, we
defined an ECa index given by:
81
 EC a (actual) − EC a (min) 
EC a ( Index) =   × 100 (1)
 EC a (max) − EC a (min) 
which was used to normalize measured ECa data (ECa(actual))
to a range between zero and 100. In equation 1, ECa(max) and
ECa(min) represent maximum and minimum ECa values,
respectively, for a given field and measurement day.
Equation 1 is particularly helpful when the range of values
that define a given ECa delineation change over time. It is
noted that normalization, using the above index or other
common approaches such as the standard normal variable, is
simply a one-to-one mapping of the original (raw) ECa data,
with no effect on the shape of the ECa patterns across the
field.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
TEMPORAL VARIABILITY OF ABSOLUTE VALUES OF ECa
MEASUREMENTS
Summary statistics of ECa data for measurement days
between 1998 and 2002 are presented in table 1. Due to
equipment malfunction, deep ECa readings for the spring of
2001 were found unreliable (erratic measurements caused by
loose wiring) and thus are not reported. The spring 2002
shallow readings at Wiggins2 are also not included in the
final analysis (but given in table 1) since part of the field was
disked as ECa mapping was taking place. Disking lowered
Figure 2. Frequency distribution of shallow and deep ECa measurements at Wiggins1 (1999), Wiggins2 (1999), and Yuma (2000).
82
the shallow ECa values but did not appreciably alter the deep
readings. The total number of ECa measurement points (n)
per field varied between 8,000 and 20,000 due to changes in
travel speeds and the width of parallel swaths for different
measurement days. Whole-field mean ECa values across all
years were 14.3, 19.0, and 27.5 mS m -1 (milli-Siemen per
meter) for shallow and 22.9, 22.7, and 33.3 mS m -1 for deep
at Wiggins1, Wiggins2, and Yuma, respectively. The higher
ECa values at Yuma are mostly due to higher clay and organic
matter contents (Farahani and Buchleiter, 2002). Deep ECa
values were mostly higher than shallow values (except the
fall of 2001 at Wiggins2), largely due to higher exchange
cations and, to some extent, water and clay contents at deeper
depths (data not shown). The ECa data in these irrigated
fields ranged from 2 to 72 mS m -1. Conductivity values of a
few hundred mS m -1 or greater would be required to indicate
salinity, a condition not encountered in these fields. Spatial
variability, as quantified by coefficient of variation (CV),
was generally high at all sites, ranging from 27% at Yuma to
50% at Wiggins1. A positive correlation was observed
between shallow and deep ECa measurements in each field
and for all measurement days. That suggests lack of
heterogeneity of horizons, although the positive correlation
is partly due to deep ECa integrating the 0.9 m soil that
includes the 0.3 m soil layer represented by shallow readings.
As given in table 1, whole-field mean ECa values
exhibited variations over time, ranging from 12.3 to
17.9 mS m -1 for shallow and 22.3 to 23.2 mS m -1 for deep
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE
 Table 1. Summary statistics of ECa measurements at Wiggins1, Wiggins2, and Yuma center-pivot fields in eastern Colorado.[a]
Measurement Date Shallow ECa (mS m -1) Deep ECa (mS m -1)
Previous
Year Season Crop[b] Mean Std Min Max CV Mean Std Min] Max CV n
Wiggins1
1998 Spring Maize 12.3 4.0 5.6 34.9 33 22.3 9.3 7.6 68.8 42 11290
1999 Spring Maize 13.3 6.0 4.0 44.6 45 23.2 10.9 7.1 70.9 47 9948
2001 Spring Maize 13.5 6.4 3.1 51.8 47 - - - - - 14499
2002 Spring Maize 17.9 9.0 3.0 69.6 50 23.2 9.4 7.2 71.7 41 14989
Mean 14.3 6.4 3.9 50.2 44 22.9 9.9 7.3 70.5 43 12682
Wiggins1
1998 Spring Maize 10.0 2.4 4.0 21.8 24 18.4 6.3 0.9 47.9 34 8934
1999 Spring Maize 16.5 4.8 6.6 37.7 29 21.2 7.6 7.2 49.9 36 8417
2001 Spring Maize 16.4 5.3 4.0 41.9 32 - - - - - 11124
2001 Fall Onions 35.9 8.6 10.3 70.9 24 30.4 9.2 3.4 68.6 30 11874
2002 Spring Onions 16.4 4.0 3.1 32.8 24 20.8 6.1 1.5 49.6 29 19620
Mean 19.0 5.0 5.6 41.0 27 22.7 7.3 3.3 54.0 32 11994
Yuma
2000 Spring Maize 28.9 7.9 9.5 57.7 27 34.5 9.5 12.3 67.7 28 12732
2001 Spring Maize 26.2 7.1 9.1 48.5 27 - - - - - 11798
2001 Fall Maize 27.5 7.3 8.7 50.9 27 32.0 9.0 10.5 60.7 28 17169
Mean 27.5 7.4 9.1 52.4 27 33.3 9.3 11.4 64.2 28 13900
[a] Std = standard deviation, Min = minimum, Max = maximum, CV = coefficient of variation (%), and n = number of observations (grids).
[b] Previous crop = crop grown at the last growing season and prior to ECa .

at Wiggins1, 10.0 to 35.9 mS m -1 for shallow and 18.4 to
30.4 mS m -1 for deep at Wiggins2, and 26.2 to 28.9 mS m -1
for shallow and 32.0 to 34.5 mS m -1 for deep at Yuma. The
variations over time were generally small, except that the fall
2001 ECa measurements at Wiggins2 were found to be un-
usually much higher (fig. 3) for both shallow and deep ECa
than on any other measurement date. For instance, mean shal-
low ECa measurements more than doubled (from 16.4 to 35.9
mS m -1) between the spring and fall of 2001, during which
time a crop of onions was grown. Although the exact reasons
for such increases are not known, laboratory-measured soil
saturated paste extract conductivity (ECe ) for soil samples
collected on 27 September 2001 revealed increased levels in
ECe (by a factor of two, from 70 mS m -1 in spring of 1999 to
140 mS m -1 in fall of 2001). The elevated soil solution con-
centration could have been caused by solutes in the nitrogen
fertilizer (UAN) and irrigation water (groundwater from a
depth of 20 m) applications to onions during the 2001 grow-
ing season. From literature, the effect of N fertilizer and sol-
utes on ECa has been pronounced (Halvorson and Rhoades,
1974; Eigenberg et al., 2002). For the fall 2001 mapping day,
measured soil water content values were significantly lower
in the fall (0.105 m3 m -3) than in the spring (0.168 m3 m -3)
of 2001, and thus not a causative factor of the elevated ECa
values. Equipment malfunction was also ruled out as a caus-
ative factor for the elevated ECa values in the fall of 2001
since the integrity and accuracy of the Veris unit was verified
(using the procedure outlined in the Veris manual) prior to
each mapping. Furthermore, ECa values similar to the Veris
data were measured on the same day (27 September 2001) us-
ing EM-38 equipment (Geonics Limited, Ontario, Canada)
at 38 locations across Wiggins2 (Buchleiter and Farahani,
2002). Interestingly, the causes of the elevated ECa measure-
ments in the fall of 2001 apparently disappeared by the spring
of 2002, as ECa values decreased significantly (fig. 3).
Leaching of potential solutes (presumably added during the
2001 growing season) below 0.9 m depth by snow melt and
spring rain (i.e., low in solutes) offers a plausible explanation
for the reduced ECa measurements in spring of 2002.
The 15 × 15 m grid data was used to evaluate variability
of ECa values across measurement days. A complete
summary of grid-by-grid correlation coefficients and regres-
sion slopes between all measurement days is given in table 2,
with a few graphical examples presented in figure 4.
Correlation was generally high, but lower for shallow than for
deep (particularly at Wiggins2), ranging between 0.71 and
0.92 for shallow and 0.87 and 0.96 for deep ECa . There were,
however, significant deviations from the 1:1 line, with slope
values in table 2 ranging from 0.69 to 2.75 for shallow and
0.64 to 1.29 for deep ECa . That is indicative of temporal
variability of absolute values of ECa being particularly
pronounced for shallow ECa . That is explained by the fact
that the surface soil layer is subjected to significantly more
disturbances within the soil by prevailing climate, agricultur-
al implements, chemical applications, and microbial activity
than the subsurface soil.
Date of measurement changed spatial statistics of field
ECa data in Kentucky (Hartsock et al., 2000) when the soil
water was high. For instance, the portion of the field with
Vertrees soil series (high clay content) had higher ECa values
Figure 3. Mean shallow and deep ECa values and error bars at Wiggins2
for measurement days between 1998 and 2002 (the 2002 shallow ECa ex-
cludes the field areas where the farmer disked during ECa mapping).

Vol. 47(1): 79-90 83

 Table 2. Grid-by-grid correlation coefficients and slopes (in parentheses) of simple linear regressions of ECa values between
measurement days and percent matching of delineated ECa grids between individual delineations of low,
medium, and high ECa rankings between measurement days at the three fields in Colorado.
Shallow ECa Deep ECa
Percent Matching Percent Matching
Correlation Correlation
Coefficient Whole Coefficient Whole
Measurement Date (Slope) Low Medium High Field (Slope) Low Medium High Field
Wiggins1
Spring 98 vs. Spring 99 0.92 (1.30) 95 82 84 88 0.96 (1.07) 99 89 93 94
Spring 98 vs. Spring 01 0.88 (1.29) 94 83 77 87 -- -- -- -- --
Spring 98 vs. Spring 02 0.83 (1.82) 98 73 69 84 0.95 (0.92) 93 94 94 93
Spring 99 vs. Spring 01 0.89 (0.92) 91 86 80 88 -- -- -- -- --
Spring 99 vs. Spring 02 0.82 (1.27) 93 74 70 83 0.96 (0.83) 88 95 90 92
Spring 01 vs. Spring 02 0.82 (1.23) 95 76 78 85 -- -- -- -- --
Mean 94 79 76 86 93 93 92 93
Wiggins2
Spring 98 vs. Spring 99 0.84 (1.76) 97 61 81 74 0.89 (1.15) 93 82 92 89
Spring 98 vs. Spring 01 0.71 (1.48) 94 52 56 61 -- -- -- -- --
Spring 98 vs. Fall 01 0.77 (2.75) 89 65 84 76 0.87 (1.29) 91 82 82 86
Spring 98 vs. Spring 02 -- -- -- -- -- 0.87 (0.87) 93 77 87 86
Spring 99 vs. Spring 01 0.83 (0.82) 93 76 67 79 -- -- -- -- --
Spring 99 vs. Fall 01 0.86 (1.45) 74 76 91 80 0.95 (1.10) 94 92 86 91
Spring 99 vs. Spring 02 -- -- -- -- -- 0.95 (0.74) 96 87 91 92
Spring 01 vs. Fall 01 0.72 (1.24) 63 56 87 66 -- -- -- -- --
Fall 01 vs. Spring 02 -- -- -- -- -- 0.95 (0.64) 97 83 93 91
Mean 85 64 78 73 94 84 89 89
Yuma
Spring 00 vs. Spring 01 0.83 (0.72) 77 75 83 77 -- -- -- -- --
Spring 00 vs. Fall 01 0.80 (0.69) 81 75 80 78 0.89 (0.82) 92 77 87 84
Spring 01 vs. Fall 01 0.80 (0.83) 91 83 81 84 -- -- -- -- --
Mean 83 77 81 80 92 77 87 84

at high water contents than the rest of the field with lower clay
content. This anisotropic behavior was not apparent in the
measurements taken during the drought of 1999 and was
much less pronounced in the deep than in the shallow ECa .
Anisotropic (or directional) behavior was not apparent in our
data, but non-stationarity or varying degree of relative
change was observed in location-specific ECa values be-
tween measurement days (fig. 5). The ratio of location-spe-
cific shallow ECa values between two measurement days had
a spatial component, as highlighted by the gray-scale maps
in figure 5, implying that the causes of the mostly increased
ECa values during the second mappings were more pro-
nounced in the darker grid areas than in the lighter areas. The
darker grid areas correspond to higher clay and organic mat-
ter contents. The non-stationarity was much less pronounced
for deep ECa , which exhibited more uniform shift in whole-
field ECa , if any, between measurement days (see fig. 4 for
an example shift of deep ECa at Wiggins2 during the fall of
2001 measurements).
TEMPORAL VARIABILITY OF ECa PATTERNS
Examples of temporal variation in ECa patterns between
the measurement days in 1998 and 2002 (Wiggins1 and
Wiggins2) and 2000 and 2001 (Yuma) are depicted in
figure 6. Visual examination reveals a striking similarity in
the delineated patterns, particularly for deep ECa , over a span
of five years. Although there exist dissimilarities between
maps, the overall shapes of the three delineations are
preserved over time. Figure 6 also shows the ranges of the
normalized ECa (or ECa(Index)) values for the delineation
boundaries of low, medium, and high ECa , with index values
ranging from zero to 35 for low, 35 to 50 for medium, and
greater than 50 for the high ECa delineations across all fields.
It is important to note that the maps shown in figure 6 are
interpolated surfaces, and thus the patterns (or the boundaries
of the low, medium, and high ECa areas) are affected by
differences in the density of the ECa data per unit area at
different mapping days (due to varying travel speeds and the
width of the parallel passes). This contributes to the observed
dissimilarities in ECa maps across time. To quantify the
degree of similarities between ECa patterns, each 5 × 5 m grid
was assigned the appropriate delineation ranking of low,
medium, and high. Grid-by-grid comparison of maps
between two measurement days was used to quantify the total
number of grids that matched (overlaid) and did not match
(i.e., changed rank and thus did not overlay) each other’s
delineation ranking. A tabular summary of the pattern
comparison results is given table 2, showing whole-field
matching percentages of 86 and 93 at Wiggins1, 73 and 89 at
Wiggins2, and 80 and 84 at Yuma for the shallow and deep
ECa patterns, respectively. It is obvious that while both the
shallow and deep ECa exhibit large-scale temporal stability
in patterns, the patterns for the 0.9 m soil profile (or deep
ECa ) remained more stable over time and thus are better
suited for soil management zone delineation. When salt
concentration and buildup is low (as was the case herein), the
results suggest that low, medium, and high ECa zones
developed based on deep ECa are very similar and indepen-
dent of time of measurement. Single ECa mapping should
thus suffice to define stable zones without a need for
remapping.

84 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE

Figure 4. Temporal variability of shallow and deep ECa values (each point represents average of all ECa sample points within a 15 × 15 m grid) between
measurement days at the three fields.
Percent matching between individual ECa delineations of
low, medium, and high is also presented in table 2, suggesting
that the low ECa ranking had higher stability over time. For
instance, mean percentages of matching grids among the low
shallow ECa rankings were 94, 85, and 83, as compared to 79,
64, and 77 for the medium ranking and 76, 78, and 81 for the
high ranking in Wiggins1, Wiggins2, and Yuma, respectively.
The delineated low ECa areas correspond to higher sand
contents, suggesting that sandy soils bear a greater stability
in ECa patterns than clay soils. Due to greater interactions
with soil water and chemistry, soil ECa is expected to be more
dynamic and varying in the presence of clay than sand
particles.
Small -scale temporal variability was examined by ex-
ploring changes in shallow ECa measured two days apart on
25 and 27 September 2001 at Wiggins2. Deep ECa readings
were not available on 25 September for comparison. The
magnitudes of shallow ECa , even when averaged for 15 ×
Vol. 47(1): 79-90
15 m grids, changed appreciably over a two-day period
(summarized in table 3), with mean ECa grid values of 38.2
and 36.0 mS m -1 for 25 and 27 September, respectively. The
measurements between the two days were highly correlated
(coefficient of 0.89) but unexpectedly deviated from the 1:1
line (the slope and intercept of the simple regression line were
0.88 and 2.3 mS m -1, respectively), as shown in figure 7. On
both days, the field was mapped by driving over exact passes
or tracks that were parallel to the pivot road, which runs
through the center of field from southwest to northeast. There
were no precipitation events between these measurement
days, but September 27 was hotter and drier than September
25, as measured with an on-site weather station. Average
daily air temperature was 16.5°C and 21°C, near-surface soil
temperature was 16.4°C and 17.7°C, and humidity was 22%
and 11% on 25 and 27 September, respectively.
The increase in soil temperature does not explain the
decrease in ECa between the measurement days since
85
Figure 5. Maps of the ratio of location-specific shallow ECa values between two measurement days at each field. The three delineations of the ECa ratio
are based on the method of natural breaks.
literature attributes a 2% increase in ECa per 1°C increase in
soil temperature (Rhoades et al., 1990). Differences in soil
water are not known since soil water content was only mea-
sured on 27 September. The increased air temperature
coupled with the decreased humidity on 27 September could
have enhanced evaporation (and thus near-surface soil water
and solute redistribution), which may explain the 2.2 mS m -1
decrease in mean ECa . Small-scale variability in ECa mea-
surements between two consecutive days was previously
documented by Hartsock et al. (2000), who attributed a major
portion to measurement errors. Differences in soil water and
temperature between the two days were not discussed. In our
study, it is possible that the coulter electrodes opened up the
soil, allowing drying and increasing resistivity between coul-
ters on the second pass (27 September), which retraced the
first pass through the field. While it is difficult to quantify the
contribution of the many possible factors to the observed
changes in ECa , 75% of the changes in ECa values between
25 and 27 September were within ±5 mS m -1. The important
point is that the level of changes in shallow ECa measured
two days apart is comparable to changes observed in deep
ECa over a span of few years (i.e., between 1998 and 2002,
as given in table 3).
In spite of the varying ECa values between the two
measurement days, the general patterns of ECa (shown in
figures 8a and 8b as ECa(Index) of the 15 × 15 m grid data)
were not significantly distorted. Comparing the delineated
ECa patterns between the two measurement days of 25 and
27 September yielded a whole-field matching of 80% (with
79%, 71%, and 92% matching for the low, medium, and high
ECa rankings). A spatial view of the matching patterns is
presented in figure 8c, where white marks the matching and
86
black marks the non-matching field areas. The majority of
the non-matching grids (black areas) were near the bound-
aries of the delineated zones in each field, as was the case for
large-scale variability in ECa patterns. In this study, the
highest matching between delineated ECa patterns was
expected for the small-scale time frame between 25 and
27 September. However, we only obtained 80% matching
between the ECa patterns, reflecting the difficulties of
comparing interpolated surfaces of temporally varying ECa
values and possibly the realities of a measurement system
that disturbed the soil.
The dissimilarities in patterns near their boundaries is
additionally complicated by the varying upper and lower
boundary values of ECa delineations, as dictated by the
unsupervised classification method of natural breaks. The
classification method of natural breaks derives such bound-
ary limits from the data set itself, and thus is free from
subjectivity but biased toward the data set. Since the
boundaries of ECa patterns are influenced by data density,
interpolation, smoothing, and classification techniques, and
thus not unique, it is doubtful that other similar geographical
methods would identify much greater similarities between
ECa maps. That is supported by past research showing similar
dissimilarities among ECa maps using other classification
techniques (Dabas et al., 2001; King et al., 2001; Nehmdahl
and Greve, 2001; Hartsock et al., 2000). The choice of abrupt
ECa pattern boundaries and discrete number of classes
(as commonly used in practice) limits the accuracy of pattern
delineation and comparison, particularly since true patterns
of ECa are continuous, and not discrete, surfaces and are
defined by subtle transitions from one soil type and condition
to the next (as depicted in fig. 8d).
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE
Figure 6. Delineated field-scale deep ECa(Index) maps at the three fields for measurement days in 1998 and 2002 at Wiggins fields and 2000 and 2001
at Yuma.
Table 3. Summary statistics (using 15 × 15 m grid values) of temporal
small-scale (shallow ECa on 25 and 27 September 2001) and
large -scale variability (deep ECa on 30 April 1998
and 15 April 2002) at Wiggins2.[a]
Measurement Date Mean Std Min Max CV n
Shallow ECa (mS m -1)
25 Sept. 2001 38.2 8.1 19.8 70.3 21 2073
27 Sept. 2001 36.0 8.1 15.5 64.0 23 2073
Difference[b] 2.2 3.8 -14.2 16.5 173 2073
Deep ECa (mS m -1)
30 April 1998 18.5 5.9 1.2 45.5 32 2073
15 April 2002 20.3 5.9 9.2 43.3 29 2073
Difference[b] -1.8 3.1 -23.8 17.8 172 2073
[a] Std = standard deviation, Min = minimum, Max = maximum, CV = coef-
ficient of variation (%), and n = number of observations (grids).
[b] Statistics for dataset of grid-by -grid differences in EC values between
a
the two measurement days.

Figure 7. Comparison of shallow ECa measured two days apart (25 and
27 September 2001) at Wiggins2 (thick line is the best-fit linear regression
line).

Vol. 47(1): 79-90 87

Figure 8. Maps representing (a and b) 15 × 15 m grid shallow ECa(Index) at Wiggins2 on 25 and 27 September 2001, (c) matching and non-matching
patterns of ECa between the measurement days of 25 and 27 September, and (d) gray-scale representation of shallow ECa on 27 September highlighting
the continuity of ECa patterns.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this study, ECa data were collected from three
center -pivot irrigated, sandy fields in eastern Colorado from
1998 to 2002. During the study period, farm cooperators
conducted all field operations and applied all production
inputs uniformly across each field. Apparent soil electrical
conductivity values and maps were compared over several
days and years to determine if values and patterns were
temporally stable. Both small- and large-scale temporal
variability (i.e., for periods of a few days to years between
measurements) were found in the absolute magnitudes of
ECa . For each field, grid-by-grid comparison of ECa values
across time yielded high correlations, but correlations were
lower for shallow ECa than deep ECa , with coefficients
ranging between 0.71 and 0.92 for shallow and 0.87 and 0.96
for deep. The comparison of ECa from one measurement day
to the next showed deviations from the 1:1 line (indicative of
temporal variability), particularly for shallow ECa measure-
ments.
Results show that in the sandy and non-saline fields
examined in this study, delineated ECa patterns into low,
medium, and high zones remained largely unchanged
between 1998 and 2002, even though the absolute values of
ECa varied. The stability was stronger for the 0.9 m soil than
for the shallower 0.3 m topsoil, suggesting care in using soil
management zones based on near-surface (or shallow) ECa
data. Results suggest that deep ECa is better suited for
long-term soil management zone delineation. The higher
temporal variability of shallow ECa values and patterns is
explained by the surface soil layer (represented by the
shallow ECa ) being subjected to significantly more distur-
bances within the soil by prevailing climate, agricultural
implements, chemical applications, and microbial activity
than the subsurface soil. When salt concentration and buildup
are low (as was the case herein), results show that zones
developed based on deep ECa are very similar and indepen-
dent of time of measurement. Single ECa mapping thus
should suffice to define stable zones without need for
remapping.

88 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE

 The temporal stability of ECa patterns is attributed to the
underlying stability in the soil factors, such as clay, sand, and
organic matter contents and major exchange ions. While the
transient soil properties of solution concentration, water
content, and temperature were not examined in detail in this
study, others have found equally stable ECa maps over time,
even with dramatic changes in soil water and temperature
(Dabas et al., 2001; King et al., 2001). These findings justify
ECa measurements as an economical tool to create potential
field areas that may benefit from varying management inputs
and practices. In this study, we did not explore in detail the
causes of the observed temporal variability of ECa , but we
recognize its importance in using delineated ECa maps to
develop site-specific management. Results from this study
apply to fields with similar non-saline and sandy soils. Other
soils and salinity levels may demonstrate different temporal
characteristics.
REFERENCES
Buchleiter, G. W. 2000. Advances in soil mapping for improved
irrigation management. In Central Plains Irrigation Short
Course and Exposition Proceeding, 48-57. Colby, Kansas:
Central Plains Irrigation Association.
Buchleiter, G. W., and H. J. Farahani. 2002. Comparison of
electrical conductivity measurements from two different sensing
technologies. ASAE Paper No. 021056. St. Joseph, Mich.:
ASAE.
Burrough, P. A. 1986. Principles of Geographical Information
Systems for Land Resources Assessment. New York, N.Y.:
Oxford University Press.
Dabas, M., J. Tabbagh, and D. Boisgontier. 2001. Multi-depth
continuous electrical profiling (MuCEP) for characterization of
in-field variability. In Third European Conference on Precision
Agriculture, 1: 361-366. Agro Montpellier, France: Agro
Montpellier.
Doolittle, J. A., K. A. Sudduth, N. R. Kitchen, and S. J. Indorante.
1994. Estimating depth to claypans using electromagnetic
induction methods. J. Soil and Water Cons. 49(6): 572-575.
Doolittle, J. A., S. J. Indorante, D. K. Potter, S. G. Hefner, and W.
M. McCauley. 2002. Comparing three geophysical tools for
locating sand blows in alluvial soils of southeast Missouri. J.
Soil and Water Cons. 57(3): 175-182
Eigenberg, R. A., J. W. Doran, J. A. Nienaber, R. B. Ferguson, and
B. L. Woodbury. 2002. Electrical conductivity monitoring of
soil condition and available N with animal manure and a cover
crop. Agric., Ecosystems, and Environ. 88(2): 183-193.
Evans, I. S. 1977. The selection of class intervals. Trans. Inst.
British Geographers (N.S.) 2(1): 98-124.
Farahani, H. J., and G. W. Buchleiter. 2002. Practical utility of bulk
soil electrical conductivity. In Proc. 23rd Annual International
Irrigation Show and Conference: Understanding and
Addressing Conservation and Recycled Water Irrigation,
CD-ROM. Falls Church, Va.: The Irrigation Association.
Fleming, K. L., D. G. Westfall, D. W. Wiens, and M. C. Brodahl.
2000. Evaluating farmer defined management zone maps for
variable rate fertilizer application. In Precision Agriculture, 2:
201 -215. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Fraisse, C. W., K. A. Sudduth, and N. R. Kitchen. 2001. Delineation
of site-specific management zones by unsupervised
classification of topographic attributes and soil electrical
conductivity. Trans. ASAE. 44(1): 155-166.
Fridgen, J. J., N. R. Kitchen, and K. A. Sudduth. 2000. Variability
of soil and landscape attributes within sub-field management
zones. In Proc. 5th International Conference on Precision
Vol. 47(1): 79-90
Agriculture, CD-ROM. P. C. Robert et al., eds. Madison, Wisc.:
ASA-CSSA-SSSA.
Halvorson, A. D., and J. D. Rhoades. 1974. Assessing soil salinity
and identifying potential saline-seep areas with field soil
resistance measurements. SSSA Proc. 38(4): 576-581.
Hartsock, N. J., T. G. Mueller, G. W. Thomas, R. I. Barnhisel, K. L.
Wells, and S. A. Shearer. 2000. Soil electrical conductivity
variability. In Proc. 5th International Conference on Precision
Agriculture, CD-ROM. P. C. Robert et al., eds. Madison, Wisc.:
ASA-CSSA-SSSA.
Heermann, D. F., J. Hoeting, S. E. Thompson, H. R. Duke, D. G.
Westfall, G. W. Buchleiter, P. Westra, F. B. Peairs, and K.
Fleming. 2002. Interdisciplinary irrigated precision farming
research. Precision Agric. 3(1): 47-61.
Jaynes, B. D., J. M. Novak, T. B. Moorman, and C. M.
Cambardella. 1995. Estimating herbicide partition coefficients
from electromagnetic induction measurements. J. Environ.
Quality 24(1): 26-41.
Jenks, G. 1977. Optimal data classification for choropleth maps.
Occasional Paper 2. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas,
Department of Geography.
Johnson, C. K., J. W. Doran, H. R. Duke, B. J. Wienhold, K. M.
Eskridge, and J. F. Shanahan. 2001. Field-scale electrical
conductivity mapping for delineating soil condition. SSSA J. 65:
1829 -1837.
Kachanoski, R. G., E. G. Gregorich, and I. J. van Wesenbeeck.
1988. Estimating spatial variations of soil water content using
noncontacting electromagnetic inductive methods. Canadian J.
Soil Science 68(4): 715-722.
Kachanoski, R. G., E. deJong, and I. J. van Wesenbeeck. 1990.
Field-scale patterns of soil water storage from non-contacting
measurements of bulk electrical conductivity. Canadian J. Soil
Science 70(3): 537-541.
King, J. A., P. M. R. Dampney, M. Lark, T. R. Mayr, and R. I.
Bradley. 2001. Sensing soil spatial variability by
electro-magnetic induction (EMI): Its potential in precision
agriculture. In Third European Conference on Precision
Agriculture, 1: 419-424. Montpellier, France: Agro Montpellier.
Kitchen, N. R., K. A. Sudduth, and S. T. Drummond. 1996.
Mapping of sand deposition from 1993 midwest floods with
electromagnetic induction measurements. J. Soil and Water
Cons. 51(4): 336-340.
Kitchen, N. R., K. A. Sudduth, and S. T. Drummond. 2000.
Characterizing soil physical and chemical properties influencing
crop yield using soil electrical conductivity. In Second
International Geospatial Information in Agriculture and
Forestry Conference, 2: 122-131. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Altarum.
Lark, R. M., and J. V. Stafford. 1997. Classification as a first step in
the interpretation of temporal and spatial variation of crop yield.
Ann. Applied Biology 130(1): 111-121.
Lund, E. D., C. D. Christy, and P. E. Drummond. 1999. Practical
applications of soil electrical conductivity mapping. In Precision
Agriculture 99: Proc. 2nd European Conference on Precision
Agriculture, 771-779. J. V. Stafford, ed. Oxford, U.K.: BIOS
Scientific Publishers.
Lund, E. D., C. D. Christy, and P. E. Drummond. 2000. Using yield
and soil electrical conductivity (EC) maps to derive crop
production performance information. In Proc. 5th International
Conference on Precision Agriculture, CD-ROM. P. C. Robert et
al., eds. Madison, Wisc.: ASA-CSSA-SSSA.
McBride, R. A., A. M. Gordon, and S. C. Shrive. 1990. Estimating
forest soil quality from terrain measurements of apparent
electrical conductivity. SSSA J. 54: 290-293.
Nehmdahl, H., and M. H. Greve. 2001. Using soil electrical
conductivity measurements for delineating management zones
on highly variable soils in Denmark. In Third European
Conference on Precision Agriculture, 1:461-464. Montpellier,
France: Agro Montpellier.
89
Rhoades, J. D., P. J. Shouse, W. J. Alves, N. A. Manteghi, and S. M.
Lesch. 1990. Determining soil salinity from electrical
conductivity using different models and methods. SSSA J. 54:
46-54.
Robert, P. C. 1999. Status and research needs. In Precision
Agriculture 99: Proc. 2nd European Conference on Precision
Agriculture, 12-15. J. V. Stafford, ed. Oxford, U.K.: BIOS
Scientific Publishers.
Schmidhalter, U., A. Zintel, and E. Neudecker. 2001. Calibration of
electromagnetic induction measurements to survey the spatial
variability of soils. In Third European Conference on Precision
Agriculture, 1: 479-484. Montpellier, France: Agro Montpellier.
Sheets, K. R., and J. M. H. Hendrickx. 1995. Noninvasive soil
water measurement using electromagnetic induction. Water
Resources Research 31(10): 2401-2409.
90
Sudduth, K. A., N. R. Kitchen, D. F. Hughes, and S. T. Drummond.
1995. Electromagnetic induction sensing as an indicator of
productivity on claypan soils. In Proc. Site-Specific
Management for Agricultural Systems, 671-681. P. C. Robert,
R. H. Rust, and W. E. Larson, eds. Madison, Wisc.:
ASA-CSSA-SSSA.
Sudduth, K. A., N. R. Kitchen, and S. T. Drummond. 1999. Soil
conductivity sensing on claypan soils: Comparison of
electromagnetic induction and direct methods. In Proc. 4th
International Conference on Precision Agriculture, 979-990. P.
C. Robert, R. H. Rust, and W. E. Larson, eds. Madison, Wisc.:
ASA-CSSA-SSSA.
Sudduth K. A., N. R. Kitchen, W. D. Batchelor, G. A. Bollero, D.
G. Bullock, D. E. Clay, H. L. Palm, F. J. Pierce, R. T. Schuler, K.
Thelen, and W. J. Wiebold. 2002. Characterizing field-scale soil
variability across the midwest with electrical conductivity. In
Proc. 6th International Conference on Precision Agriculture and
Other Precision Resource Management, 54-69. Madison, Wisc.:
ASA-CSSA-SSSA.
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE