Advertisement

Real time soil sensing for determination of tropical soils pH

Conference paper
  • 3.3k Downloads

Abstract

One of the most limiting factors in crop productivity, not only in Brazil but in many parts of the world, is soil acidity. In search of automatic detection of changes in soil chemical elements and also speed and efficiency in the sampling and soil analysis soil, many different soil sensing techniques have been studied. This study evaluated the performance of an ion-selective sensor in determining the hydrogen ion concentration (pH) in two areas with physically and chemically distinct soils through comparative analysis of measured data from sensing while laboratory data was used as reference. Statistical analysis showed differences between manual and automatic methods of the sensor operation, manual operation being the one that showed better performance. In both of the operations, pH determination in soils with low clay content showed highest correlation with known true values.

Keywords

soil sensing on the-go mapping ion-selective electrodes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

To the FINEP – PROSENSAP Project for the financial support for this project, to the Improvement coordination of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES) for the Master’s first author scholarship.

References

  1. Adamchuk, V.I., Morgan, M.T., Ess, D.R. 1999. An automated sampling system for measuring soil pH. Transactions of the ASAE 42 885–891.Google Scholar
  2. Adamchuk, V.I.; Lund, E.D.; Reed, T.M.; Ferguson, R.B. 2007. Evaluation of an on-the-go technology for soil pH mapping. Precision Agriculture 8 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alleoni, L.R.F.; Cambri, M.A.; Caires, E.F. 2010. Acidity and aluminum speciation as affected by surface liming in tropical no-till soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74 1010–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Leithold, T.; Wagner, P.; Schneider, M. 2012. Improvement of the quality of ‘on-the-go’ recorded soil pH. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Precision Agriculture, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  5. Little, I.P. 1992. The relationship between soil pH measurements in calcium-chloride and water suspensions. Australian Journal of Soil Research 30 587–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lund, E.D., Adamchuk,V.I.; Collings, K.L.; Drummond, P.E.; Christy, C.D. Development of soil pH and lime requirement maps using on-the-go soil sensors. In: Stafford, J.V. (ed.), Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, Wageningen Academic Publishers, the Netherlands, pp. 457–464.Google Scholar
  7. Miller, R.O.; Kissel, D.E. 2010. Comparison of soil pH methods on soil of North America. Nutrient Management & Soil & Plant Analysis 74 310–316.Google Scholar
  8. Rossel, V.R.A.; Gilbertson, M.; Thylen, L.; Hansen, O.; Mcvey, S.; Mcbratney, A.B. 2005. Field measurements of soil pH and lime requirement using an on-the-go soil pH and lime requirement measurement system. In: Stafford, J.V. (ed.): Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, Wageningen Academic Publishers, the Netherlands, pp. 511–519.Google Scholar
  9. Shirrman, M.; Gebbers, R.; Kramer, E.; Seidel, J. 2011. Soil pH Mapping with On-the-Go Sensor. Sensors 11 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Wageningen Academic Publishers The Netherlands 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biosystems Engineering DepartmentUniversity of São PauloPiracicabaBrazil

Personalised recommendations