the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An in-situ methodology to separate the contribution of soil water content and salinity to EMI-based soil electrical conductivity
Abstract. Salt accumulation in the root zone limits agricultural productivity and can eventually lead to land abandonment. Therefore, monitoring the spatial distribution of soil water content and solution salinity is crucial for effective land and irrigation management. However, assessing soil water content and salinity at the field scale is often challenging due to the heterogeneity of soil properties.
Electromagnetic induction (EMI) offers a fast, non-invasive, in situ geophysical method to map spatial variability in soil. EMI instruments measure the apparent soil electrical conductivity (ECa), which reflects the integrated contribution of the bulk electrical conductivity (σb) of different soil layers. By inverting the measured ECa, it is possible to obtain the distribution of the σb along the soil profile, which provides indirect information on soil salinity. However, in saline soils, σb is influenced by both water content (θ) and soil solution electrical conductivity (σw) (the salinity), making it difficult to independently quantify these two variables through a single, straightforward procedure.
The objective of this study is to separate the respective contributions of θ and σw to σb, as obtained from the EMI inversion. To achieve this, ECa was measured using a CMD-MiniExplorer instrument in two maize plots irrigated with saline and non-saline water, respectively, in an agricultural field in southern Italy. The dataset was then inverted in order to obtain the σb distribution. By employing a site-specific calibrated Rhoades linear model and assuming homogeneity between the two plots, the spatial distribution of θ and σw in the saline plot was successfully estimated. To validate the results, independent measurements of soil water content by Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) and direct measurement of soil solution electrical conductivity, σw, were performed.
The proposed procedure enables the estimation of θ and σw with high accuracy along the soil profile, except in the soil surface, where EMI reliability is limited. These findings demonstrate that the integration of EMI with a site-specific θ - σb - σw model is a reliable and efficient in-situ approach for mapping soil salinity and water content at field scale, offering valuable insights for optimizing agricultural irrigation management in systems using saline water.
- Preprint
(1339 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 22 Aug 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2696', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jul 2025
reply
Review of manuscript titled “An in-situ methodology to separate the contribution of soil water
content and salinity to EMI-based soil electrical conductivity” by Autovino et al.
The manuscript is interesting, aimed to partition ECa surveyed data and untangle the influence of soil moisture and soil salinity on bulk EC. I believe the manuscript does not require significant revision. Nevertheless, the following issues should be addressed:
L22-23: It seems contradicting having an assumption that field plots are homogeneous and then consider the spatial distribution of properties within.
L43: The most common field method…
L52: Please consider the use of the word However at the beginning of the sentence. It seems misplaced there.
L69: ECa (subscript a).
L91: Please change meters to m. Also in L105-115. There is no reason for writing units in full.
L91-93: Which year? I don’t think you give it anywhere.
L97: Please understand that EC of 1.6 dS/m can hardly be referred to as non-saline. What was the source of this water?
L99-102: When? How frequently?
L118: Please add ring sizes and reasons for collecting undisturbed samples.
L157: Above, there is no information about collection of disturbed samples, only undisturbed. As I believe the authors did not make the effort to collect soil cores only to destroy them later, some additional information on soil collection seems to be missing in section 2.1.
L193: Zc (subscript c).
L279: Please revise. Everything else seems to be given in dS/m.
L438: Present.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2696-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Dario Autovino, 17 Jul 2025
reply
Review of manuscript titled “An in-situ methodology to separate the contribution of soil water content and salinity to EMI-based soil electrical conductivity” by Autovino et al.
The manuscript is interesting, aimed to partition ECa surveyed data and untangle the influence of soil moisture and soil salinity on bulk EC. I believe the manuscript does not require significant revision. Nevertheless, the following issues should be addressed:
- Reply: We thank the referee for their positive and constructive review of our manuscript. Below we address each of the specific comments in detail.
L22-23: It seems contradicting having an assumption that field plots are homogeneous and then consider the spatial distribution of properties within.
- Reply: Although the concepts of heterogeneity and spatial variability may appear contradictory, they are not. Heterogeneity refers to distinct or abrupt differences in soil classification or morphology within a given area. In contrast, spatial variability describes the continuous, often subtle variations in soil properties (e.g., pH, salinity, moisture content) that occur within or between otherwise homogeneous units. While spatial variability is intrinsic to all soils - even at fine spatial scales - our case study defines homogeneity as the overall similarity in soil type, classification, and horizon depth between saline and non-saline plots. To avoid potential confusion, we have adopted the term pedological homogeneity to emphasize this classification-based similarity.
L43: The most common field method…
- Reply: We agree with the reviewer. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will modify the sentence to begin with “The most common field method to evaluate…"
L52: Please consider the use of the word However at the beginning of the sentence. It seems misplaced there.
- Reply: We agree with the reviewer and will make this change in the revised version.
L69: ECa (subscript a).
- Reply: We agree with the reviewer and will make this change in the revised version.
L91: Please change meters to m. Also in L105-115. There is no reason for writing units in full.
- Reply: We agree with the reviewer and will make this change in the revised version.
L91-93: Which year? I don’t think you give it anywhere.
- Reply: The experiment was conducted in 2018. This information will be added to the revised manuscript.
L97: Please understand that EC of 1.6 dS/m can hardly be referred to as non-saline. What was the source of this water?
- Reply: The irrigation water with EC = 1.6 dS/m corresponds to the local well water typically used in the study area. We will reword the revised text to more clearly indicate that the "non-saline" plot was irrigated with low-salinity well water without the addition of additional salt.
L99-102: When? How frequently?
- Reply: Leaf water potential was measured nine times during the growing season from June 11 to July 29. This information will be added to the methodology in the revised manuscript.
L118: Please add ring sizes and reasons for collecting undisturbed samples.
- Reply: We thank the reviewer for noticing the typo. In the revised manuscript, we will clarify that disturbed soil was sampled at the TDR measurement points. These samples were used for laboratory determinations of soil solution salinity (σw) using the 1:2 extraction method.
L157: Above, there is no information about collection of disturbed samples, only undisturbed. As I believe the authors did not make the effort to collect soil cores only to destroy them later, some additional information on soil collection seems to be missing in section 2.1.
- Reply: As reported in the previous point, we will indicate that disturbed soil samples were collected for soil solution extraction and salinity analysis.
L193: Zc (subscript c).
- Reply: We agree with the reviewer and will make this change in the revised version.
L279: Please revise. Everything else seems to be given in dS/m.
- Reply: We will revise the unit presentation in this section and ensure that all electrical conductivity values are uniformly reported in dS/m.
L438: Present.
- Reply: We will revise the verb tenses in this section for consistency with the present tense style used elsewhere in the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2696-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Dario Autovino, 17 Jul 2025
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
167 | 27 | 9 | 203 | 3 | 13 |
- HTML: 167
- PDF: 27
- XML: 9
- Total: 203
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1