the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 05 Nov 2024
Exploring the link between cation exchange capacity and magnetic susceptibility
Abstract. This study explores the relationship between soil magnetic susceptibility (π ) and cation exchange capacity (πΆπΈπΆ) across diverse European soils, aiming to enhance pedotransfer functions (PTFs) for soil πΆπΈπΆ using near-surface electromagnetic geophysics. We hypothesize that soil π , can improve the prediction of πΆπΈπΆ by reflecting the soil’s mineralogical composition, particularly in sandy soils.
We collected data from 49 soil samples in vertical profiles across Belgium, the Netherlands, and Serbia, including π in field conditions (π ∗), low and high frequency π in the laboratory, in-site electrical conductivity (π), iron content, soil texture, humus content, bulk density, water content, water pH, and πΆπΈπΆ. We used these properties as features to develop univariable and multivariable (in pairs) polynomial regressions to predict πΆπΈπΆ for sandy and clayey soils.
Results indicate that π ∗ significantly improves πΆπΈπΆ predictions in sandy soils, independent of clay content, with a combined π ∗ - π model achieving the highest predictive performance (R2 = 0.94). In contrast, laboratory-measured π was less effective, likely due to sample disturbance.
This study presents a novel πΆπΈπΆ PTF based on π and π ∗, offering a rapid, cost-effective method for estimating πΆπΈπΆ in field conditions. While our findings underscore the value of integrating geophysical measurements into soil characterization, further research is needed to refine the π - πΆπΈπΆ relationship and develop a more widely applicable model.
- Preprint
(1066 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 15 Jan 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3306', Danilo Mello, 22 Nov 2024
reply
Dear authors
I hope this message finds you well. I have had the opportunity to review your manuscript and would like to provide my feedback. The study presents an interesting and innovative approach with significant potential within the scope of the journal. However, several issues need to be addressed, where revisions could greatly improve the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the work, and I recommend further revisions:
- Language and Editing: To enhance the readability and accuracy of the manuscript, I recommend having it reviewed by a professional English editing service with expertise in geosciences or soil science. This will help ensure the language meets the standards expected for a publication of this nature.
- Clarity of the Research Gap: While the manuscript addresses an important topic, the research gap could be more clearly articulated. A more concise explanation of the gap, along with a discussion of how this study contributes to soil science and its innovative aspects, would help strengthen the introduction.
- Objectives and Hypotheses: The objectives need to be better defined and aligned with the research gap. In addition, it would be more appropriate to position the hypotheses after the objectives for better coherence.
- Methodology: The methodology section would benefit from a more detailed and logical presentation, ensuring that it follows a clear, chronological sequence. Some aspects of the methodology are unclear, and it would be helpful to clarify the reasoning behind the chosen procedures to ensure the study is reproducible.
- Results and Discussion: The results and discussion section could be revised to better adhere to scientific writing standards. The results should be presented clearly, followed by a more in-depth and up-to-date discussion. The current structure of the section could be improved to ensure a smoother flow and better integration of the findings.
- Limitations: The limitations of the study could be explored in more depth. There are additional factors that were not addressed in the manuscript, such as mineralogical analysis, soil types and classes, and landscape dynamics, which could impact the findings, particularly with respect to the magnetic susceptibility of the soil.
- Conclusions: The conclusions section could be more concise and focused on the main findings of the study. At present, the conclusions do not fully align with the research objectives or the results, and further clarification is needed to reflect the study's actual contributions.
I believe that with these revisions, the manuscript will be much stronger and more aligned with the expectations of the journal. I appreciate the opportunity to review this work and hope my feedback proves helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you need further clarification.
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3306', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Dec 2024
reply
General Summary
The manuscript investigates the relationship between soil magnetic susceptibility (ΞΊ) and cation exchange capacity (CEC) beyond the site level across various European soils to improve pedotransfer functions (PTFs) for CEC using near-surface electromagnetic geophysics. βThe authors considered several properties to develop univariable and multivariable regressions.Β
I appreciate the authors' valuable contribution to developing PTFs for CEC, considering the wide range of samples and properties. I believe this manuscript is suitable for inclusion in the special issue - Agrogeophysics: illuminating soil's hidden dimensions, as it provides important insights into the performance of geophysical methods in soil. However, I believe that some points can be improved. Therefore, I recommend a minor revision.
All the best!
General comments βΒ
1. Β Β The introduction is detailed and covers key concepts effectively. However, the flow could be streamlined to ensure a clear connection between the hypothesis and the motivation for the study.Β
2. Β Β The Results and Discussion section should be improved by incorporating in-depth discussions
3. Β Β Future improvements should be discussed with identified limitationsSpecific comments β
Lines 37-38 β βDefined as the ability of a soil to hold and exchange cations ..β Please rewrite the sentence for clarity.
Line 70 β The statement highlighted the novelty of the study. Could you please explain the research gap further and include why the study is significant in addressing this research gap? It would be nice to highlight the importance of this study.
Lines 74-77 β Please rephrase the objectives for clarity β the way objectives are presented in the manuscript is a bit complicated.
Line 79 β β(Mendoza Veirana, 2024)β β please remove the brackets
Lines 83 β Please provide how many sites and samples from each country.
Lines 92-93 β βUndisturbed soil samples (100 cmΒ³) were collected manually, by pushing standard steel rings horizontally into the soil profile wall at the same locations where π β was measuredβ β slight suggestion for rephrasing.
Lines 93-94 β Volumetric or gravimetric water content? βAfter drying them for 24 hours at 105 Β°πΆ β β this should be gravimetric water content.
Grossman and Reinsch, 2002 and Ciesielski et al., 1997a, 1997b β the fonts are different from the rest
Lines 126-128 β Please move the first sentence to the introduction or discussion. This content is more appropriate under the introduction and discussion sections than the methodology.
Equation 2 β βπ 2=0.94β should be corrected as βπ 2 = 0.94β
Figure 5 β 0,0 and 0,40 overlapped in the CEC axis and s axis β please correct them. That is a very nice figure.
Lines 204 β β(Glover, 2015; Wunderlich et al., 2013)β Please change the font.
Results and discussion β This section should be improved with in-depth discussions of the results, especially in the 3.3 and 3.4 sections. Please expand the potential reasons for your results a little bit further by considering relevant literature.
Line 214 β It would be nice if you could change the β4. Limitationsβ to β4. Limitations and future directionsβ and discuss future improvements of the proposed methodology.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3306-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 137 | 39 | 11 | 187 | 5 | 4 |
- HTML: 137
- PDF: 39
- XML: 11
- Total: 187
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1