Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Soil Salinity Frequency-Dependent Prediction Model Using Electrical Conductivity Spectroscopy Measurement

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a closed-form, frequency-dependent model that predicts soil salinity from electrical conductivity, moisture, frequency, and porosity.

desk verdict A genuine calibration dataset and a plausible frequency-dependent fit, but the 'prediction' claim is in-sample curve-fitting with no salinity reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03888 v1 pith:3DGR5BO3 submitted 2025-07-05 hep-ex

Javad Jafaryahya , Rasool Keshavarz , Tarou Kikuchi , Negin Shariati This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords soilsalinitypredictionelectricalconductivityspectroscopyfrequency-dependentmodelvolumetricwatercontenteffectiveporosityDAK-VNAmeasurementclosed-form
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that soil salinity can be predicted from a closed-form equation whose inputs are electrical conductivity, volumetric water content, measurement frequency, and effective porosity. The claim is built in three stages on a dataset of 40 prepared samples: a frequency-independent salinity–moisture model, a frequency-dependent correction covering 10–295 MHz, and a porosity factor fitted by comparing pure sand with a 90/10 sand–clay mix. If the claim holds, fixed-frequency commercial sensors could convert a single conductivity reading into a reliable salinity estimate, extending the method beyond agriculture to geological and hydrological monitoring. The model is entirely empirical, so its range of validity is set by the 1–15% VWC, 0–2 g/kg potassium, and two soil types used in the experiments.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the factorisation $\mathrm{EC}_w(S, \theta_w, f, n_e) = f_1(S, \theta_w) \cdot a(S, \theta_w) \cdot f^{b(S, \theta_w)} \cdot f_2(n_e)$, where $f$ is frequency in MHz. This product form carries the argument because it separates the salinity–moisture response, the frequency power-law (with coefficient $a$ and exponent $b$, both fitted polynomials in $S$ and $\theta_w$), and the porosity dependence into individually fitted functions. The result is that a single algebraic expression, rather than a set of per-frequency calibration curves, can be used to estimate salinity.

What would settle it

Prepare samples with a fixed potassium level and VWC but with varying clay content, extract the pore water by centrifuge, and compare its directly measured ECw with the DAK conductivity at several frequencies; if the ratio changes with clay content, the ECw identification—and therefore the fitted coefficients—does not transfer across soil types. A second check is to repeat the full measurement on a third soil type of independently known effective porosity and see whether the same coefficient tables reproduce the measured EC.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that soil salinity can be estimated from a closed-form, frequency-dependent formula: $\mathrm{EC}_w(S, \theta_w, f, n_e) = f_1(S, \theta_w) \cdot a(S, \theta_w) \cdot f^{b(S, \theta_w)} \cdot f_2(n_e)$, where $S$ is the salt (potassium) content in g/kg, $\theta_w$ is volumetric water content, $f$ is frequency in MHz, and $n_e$ is effective porosity. Each piece is fitted separately—$f_1$ from the base salinity–moisture data, the polynomials $a(S, \theta_w)$ and $b(S, \theta_w)$ from the full frequency sweep, and $f_2$ from a comparison of pure sand with a 90/10 sand–clay mix—so the final expression is a single algebraic relation valid on the stated range. The paper shows this expression reproducing its measured EC values across the 40 samples and argues that this makes salinity readings from commercial fixed-frequency sensors more accurate than frequency-independent models.

Load-bearing premise

The model equates the probe's bulk conductivity reading with the pore-water conductivity ECw and treats potassium concentration as directly proportional to salinity ECe with an unstated constant, with no correction for surface conductivity at particle interfaces; if either identification fails, the salinity estimate is off by a soil-dependent factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single conductivity reading at any frequency in the 10–295 MHz band (including the 70 MHz used by common sensors) is enough to compute salinity with the same fitted coefficients, so no per-frequency calibration is needed.
  • Including effective porosity extends the salinity estimate beyond pure sand to at least one sand–clay mixture, which is a step toward texture-adaptive salinity sensing.
  • Because the model is closed-form, the salinity calculation can run directly on a sensor device, removing the need for laboratory analysis or iterative fitting at each measurement site.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the porosity factor is as general as its form suggests, the same equation could be inverted to estimate effective porosity from a known salinity, which would connect this work to groundwater-flow studies that the paper only mentions in passing.
  • The equivalence between potassium content and ECe is a soil-specific calibration that the paper never verifies against an independent salt-conductivity standard; testing with sodium chloride or calcium salts would reveal whether the fitted constants are KCl-specific or salt-generic.
  • The frequency-dependence functions a and b are polynomials fitted to one sand type, so a natural stress test is a third soil texture (for example a loam) with independently known porosity, to see whether f2(n_e) alone absorbs the texture shift or whether f1 must be re-fitted.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an empirical frequency-dependent model that relates soil electrical conductivity (EC) to salinity (S, expressed as added KCl mass), volumetric water content (VWC), frequency (10–295 MHz), and effective porosity (n_e). The model is built in three stages: a frequency-independent power law and a quadratic polynomial in S and VWC (Eqs. 11–12), a frequency-dependent extension with a multiplicative frequency factor whose amplitude and exponent are polynomials in S and VWC (Eqs. 14–16), and a porosity factor calibrated on a second soil dataset (90% sand / 10% clay) using literature porosity values (Eq. 17). All fitted coefficients are tabulated. The paper claims that the final model 'accurately predicts' soil salinity and is consistent with commercial sensors. However, all reported 'predictions' compare the model to the same measurements used for fitting, no independent salinity reference is used, and the model is never inverted to predict S from EC measurements.

Significance. If the model had been genuinely validated, a frequency-dependent salinity model operable over 10–295 MHz would be practically useful, particularly for sensors that operate at fixed frequencies (e.g., TEROS-12 at 70 MHz). The measurement campaign—40 samples, 58 frequencies, two soil mixtures—is a useful resource, and the staged model structure with explicit coefficient tables is transparent and reproducible. However, the paper currently demonstrates in-sample calibration, not prediction. The absence of independent validation, error bars, and goodness-of-fit statistics, together with the unverified identification of DAK bulk EC with pore-water conductivity and of added potassium mass with ECe, means that the central salinity-prediction claim is not established. The manuscript would require substantial additional experimental and statistical work before the stated conclusions could be supported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-A, Eqs. (11)–(12), Figs. 5–7 and 9] The 'measured vs. predicted' evaluations are in-sample fits. The coefficients in Tables II–VI are optimized on the same dataset that is then plotted as 'predicted,' so the agreement demonstrates only that the functional forms are flexible enough to describe the calibration data. No hold-out set, cross-validation, or independent measurements are reported, and no residual statistics, confidence intervals, or measurement uncertainties are given. This is the central evidential gap for the claim that the model 'accurately predicts' soil salinity.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 4 and following paragraph] The four zero-potassium samples are excluded because they 'do not influence the modeling.' This post hoc removal of the S=0 baseline removes the only constraint on the model's behavior at zero salinity. Because Eqs. (11) and (14) depend on S multiplicatively, the model forces EC to zero as S approaches zero, but the excluded samples—and physical surface-conductivity contributions—may contradict this. The exclusion must be justified physically, or the S=0 samples must be retained and the model re-fit.
  3. [Section III (DAK measurement) and Section IV-A, Eq. (11)] The paper identifies the DAK-measured bulk EC with the water-phase conductivity ECw even though it states that the DAK signal includes solid-liquid interface effects and no surface-conductivity correction from Eq. (1) is applied. In parallel, salinity S is defined as added potassium mass and 'assumed to be equivalent to the salinity or ECe, with a proportionality constant.' Because that proportionality constant is never specified and is absorbed by the fitted coefficients, the model is fit to EC in terms of added KCl, not to any measured salinity variable such as ECe. The manuscript never inverts the model to recover S (or ECe) from EC measurements and compare it with an independent salinity reference. The central claim of salinity prediction therefore depends on an untested equivalence.
  4. [Section IV-C, Eq. (17) and Table VI] The porosity factor f2 is calibrated using only two soil types, with effective porosity values ne taken from the literature rather than measured for the actual samples. With two soil types, the functional form in Eq. (17) and the chosen ne values are degenerate: a rescaling of ne can be compensated by the fitted exponents. The model therefore does not demonstrate that porosity, as a measured physical variable, controls EC; it only reproduces a soil-type offset. At minimum, ne must be measured on the actual samples and the model tested on more than two soils with varying porosity.
  5. [Section V (Conclusion)] The statement that 'The final proposed model demonstrated consistency with measurements from commercial sensors' is unsupported by any comparison presented in the manuscript. No commercial sensor data appear in the text or figures. This claim should be removed or supported with the relevant measurements.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section III] The abstract and Section III state that the dataset contains 40 samples, but Table I lists only the 20 sandy samples; the mixed-soil 20 samples are introduced later in Section IV-C. A single consolidated table describing both datasets would be clearer.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains a duplicated '(a)' and the axis labels are small; please correct the caption and improve legibility.
  3. [Eqs. (14)–(16)] Equations (14)–(16) use both S and ECe in the arguments of a and b, but the definitions use S only; please use one notation and define the relationship between S and ECe explicitly.
  4. [Section III and Section IV-A, Eq. (9)] The text says VWC ranged from 0% to 15%, while Eq. (9) says theta_w is in [1,15]%; please make the actual range consistent throughout.
  5. [Reference [43]] Reference [43] (TEROS 11/12 manual) is cited with only the URL and an access date; please provide the full citation, including the company and document title.
  6. [Eqs. (4) and (5)] Equation (5) defines Sp as theta/ne, which is a fraction, whereas Sp in Eq. (4) appears to be a percentage; the substitution leading to Eq. (6) should be checked for consistency of the factor 100.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Model coefficients are optimized against the same EC measurements later shown as 'predicted vs measured', while the salinity target S is the known added potassium rather than an independently measured ECe; the salinity prediction claim reduces to the fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-A, Eqs. (11)-(12), Tables II-III, Figs. 5-6]
    "After conducting numerous experiments and analyzing the type of changes and dependencies between these two parameters, two types of functions have been proposed for 𝑓1. ... The comparison between the created model and the measured values is presented in Fig. 6, demonstrating the fit of the quadratic model to the experimental data."

    The coefficients in Tables II and III are obtained by fitting the model to the exact measured EC values at the same S and theta points used in Figures 5 and 6. There is no held-out data set, cross-validation, or independent inversion to salinity. The 'measured vs predicted' agreement is therefore an in-sample goodness-of-fit, not a prediction, so the abstract's claim that the model 'can enhance salinity prediction accuracy' is forced by construction.

  2. self definitional [Section IV-A, Eq. (11) and Table II]
    "Since 𝐸𝐶𝑒 represents soil salinity and is directly proportional to the amount of potassium in the soil, in this study, the potassium level is assumed to be equivalent to the salinity or 𝐸𝐶𝑒, with a proportionality constant."

    The model's salinity variable S is not a measured salinity or saturated-extract ECe; it is the known mass of potassium added when preparing each sample. Equation (11) is fitted with S as the input, so any later 'prediction of salinity' from EC is just a restatement of the experimental dosing schedule divided by an unspecified proportionality constant. That constant is never given, and it is absorbed into the fitted coefficients, so no independent salinity reference is ever brought into the model.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-C, Eq. (17), Table VI, Fig. 9]
    "According to the data in [23], ... Clean sands, however, have lower porosity, typically ranging from 0.12 to 0.35. Therefore, a functional equation for the soil's influence on conductivity is proposed in Equation (17) and TABLE VI. The results obtained from the proposed model and the measured values are shown in Fig. 9."

    The effective-porosity correction f2(ne) is assigned literature ne values from reference [23] rather than measured for these samples, and its four coefficients e1-e4 are fitted to the same mixed-soil EC data that Fig. 9 then displays as 'measured vs predicted'. The porosity step is therefore calibrated on the very dataset it is claimed to predict, so the final model's agreement with Fig. 9 is a property of the fit, not an independent validation.

full rationale

The central derivation is an empirical curve fit, not a parameter-free prediction. Equations (11)-(17) are calibrated by optimization to the same DAK EC measurements that are later shown as 'measured vs predicted' in Figs. 5-7 and 9; no held-out set, cross-validation, or inversion to predicted salinity is presented. Section IV-A defines the target S through an assumed proportionality between added potassium and ECe, so the 'salinity' axis is the known experimental input, not an independently measured salinity. The porosity function in Eq. (17) is likewise fit to the mixed-soil data while ne is borrowed from literature [23]. These are fitting operations relabeled as predictions. The conclusion's statement that the model 'demonstrated consistency with measurements from commercial sensors' is unsupported by any data in the paper, and the exclusion of the four zero-potassium samples (Section III, Fig. 4) removes the only points that could constrain the zero-salinity intercept. The self-citation [12] is incidental and not load-bearing. The paper may be a useful empirical calibration for specific sand/KCl mixtures, but the stated salinity-prediction claim is not independently established; the agreement is forced by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model contains at least 23 fitted coefficients (a, c, d, e groups) plus assumed porosity values and an unquantified proportionality constant. The central claim relies on these fitted parameters generalizing far beyond the training data, which is not demonstrated.

free parameters (6)
  • Power model coefficients a1-a7 = 0.0116, 0.0229, 0.6915, 0.00944, 0.1372, 0.1621, 0.1186
    Fitted to the measured EC data of 16 sandy soil samples (Eq. 11, Table II).
  • Frequency amplitude coefficients c1-c6 = -0.3162, 0.7642, 0.2068, 0.01032, -0.0916, 0.7021
    Fitted to the frequency-dependent EC spectra (Eq. 15, Table IV).
  • Frequency exponent coefficients d1-d6 = -0.00326, -0.0394, 0.001538, -0.000795, 0.001263, 0.259
    Fitted to the frequency-dependent EC spectra (Eq. 16, Table V).
  • Porosity exponent coefficients e1-e4 = -1.286, -0.08176, 1.613, -2.884
    Fitted to the difference between sandy and sandy-clay measurements (Eq. 17, Table VI).
  • Effective porosity values for the two soil types = Not reported; assumed from literature ranges (e.g., clean sand 0.12-0.35)
    The paper does not measure porosity for its samples but uses literature values from [23] to fit e1-e4.
  • Proportionality constant between potassium content and ECe = Not reported
    Potassium level is 'assumed to be equivalent to the salinity or ECe, with a proportionality constant' (Section IV-A), but the constant is never quantified.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The measured bulk EC from the DAK system represents the water-phase conductivity ECw and is linearly proportional to potassium content (salinity).
    Stated in Section IV-A and Section III; ignores surface conductivity and other ions, yet it defines the model's salinity variable S.
  • ad hoc to paper The frequency effect separates multiplicatively from salinity and moisture as given in Eq. 14.
    Chosen empirically; no physical derivation is provided for the power-law form a(S,theta)^(f*b(S,theta)).
  • ad hoc to paper Differences between sandy and sandy-clay soil are due entirely to effective porosity ne, with bulk density held constant.
    Stated in Section IV-C; ne values are not measured and the paper notes 'a larger dataset and more extensive testing are needed' to fully understand soil composition effects.
  • domain assumption The linear relation ECa = ECb + ECs and ECa = ECw*theta + ECs (Eqs. 1-2) applies with fixed surface conductivity.
    Borrowed from Rhoades et al. [31]; not experimentally verified for these soils.
  • domain assumption The model is applicable within the bounded ranges S in [0,2] g/kg and theta_w in [1,15]% as defined in Eq. 9.
    The model is not tested for extrapolation beyond these ranges, yet the abstract claims broad applicability in agriculture, geology, and hydrology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Soil Salinity Frequency-Dependent Prediction Model Using Electrical Conductivity Spectroscopy Measurement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DGR5BO3

@misc{pith2026250703888,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Soil Salinity Frequency-Dependent Prediction Model Using Electrical Conductivity Spectroscopy Measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DGR5BO3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03888}
}
read the original abstract

Soil salinity is a critical factor influencing agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability, requiring precise monitoring tools. This paper focuses on developing a frequency-dependent model to predict soil salinity based on electrical conductivity (EC) and volumetric water content (VWC). A dataset of 40 soil samples with varying levels of salinity and moisture, consisting of two soil types (sandy and clayey), was experimentally measured for EC in the frequency range of 10 to 295 MHz using electrical conductivity spectroscopy (ECS) measurement with the DAK-VNA (Dielectric Assessment Kit - Vector Network Analyzer) system. A new, more comprehensive frequency-dependent model is proposed, surpassing previous models that lacked frequency considerations. This modelling approach was conducted in stages: initially, a frequency-independent model for electrical conductivity as a function of salinity and moisture was developed. Next, a frequency-dependent model was introduced. Finally, a comparison between pure sandy soil and a sandy-clay mixture led to the final model, which also incorporates effective porosity. The results of the proposed model, comparing measured and predicted values, provide a robust approach to accurately predict soil salinity. Findings demonstrate that the model can enhance salinity prediction accuracy, extending its applicability beyond agriculture to geological and hydrological applications in real-world scenarios.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mechanisms of salinity tolerance,

    R. Munns and M. Tester, "Mechanisms of salinity tolerance," Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 651-681, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Ghassemi, A

    F. Ghassemi, A. J. Jakeman, and H. A. Nix, Salinisation of land and water resources: human causes, extent, management and case studies. 1995

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    The use of saline waters for crop production,

    J. Rhoades, A. Kandish, and A. M. Mashali, "The use of saline waters for crop production," 1992

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    Rhoades, F

    J. Rhoades, F. Chanduvi, and S. Lesch, Soil salinity assessment: Methods and interpretation of electrical conductivity measurements (no. 57). Food & Agriculture Org., 1999

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    L. A. Richards, Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils (no. 60). US Government Printing Office, 1954

    work page 1954

  6. [6]

    Soil moisture measurement for ecological and hydrological watershed‐scale observatories: A review,

    D. A. Robinson et al., "Soil moisture measurement for ecological and hydrological watershed‐scale observatories: A review," Vadose zone journal, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 358-389, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    High -sensitivity and compact time domain soil moisture sensor using dispersive phase shifter for complex permittivity measurement,

    R. Keshavarz and N. Shariati, "High -sensitivity and compact time domain soil moisture sensor using dispersive phase shifter for complex permittivity measurement," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 71, pp. 1-10, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Modeling and testing of fringe -field capacitive moisture sensor under certain electrode area,

    Y . Xu, Q. Chen, D. Hu, B. Li, and H. Tang, "Modeling and testing of fringe -field capacitive moisture sensor under certain electrode area," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 71, pp. 1-10, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Precision Agriculture: Ultra-Compact Sensor and Reconfigurable Antenna for Joint Sensing and Communication,

    A. Raza, R. Keshavarz, and N. Shariati, "Precision Agriculture: Ultra-Compact Sensor and Reconfigurable Antenna for Joint Sensing and Communication," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Multi -Frame Fringing Field Capacitive Soil Moisture Sensor with Enhanced Sensitivity and Penetration Depth,

    A. Joshi, D. P . Kanungo, and R. K. Panigrahi, "Multi -Frame Fringing Field Capacitive Soil Moisture Sensor with Enhanced Sensitivity and Penetration Depth," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Self -powered soil moisture monitoring sensor using a picoampere quiescent current wake-up circuit,

    M. Kargaran, M. Habibi, and S. Magierowski, "Self -powered soil moisture monitoring sensor using a picoampere quiescent current wake-up circuit," IEEE transactions on instrumentation and measurement, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 6613-6620, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Integrating Electrical Features for Simultaneous Prediction of Soil Moisture and Potassium Levels Based on Neural 9 Network Prediction Model,

    J. Jafaryahya, R. Keshavarz, M. Abolhasan, J. Lipman, and N. Shariati, "Integrating Electrical Features for Simultaneous Prediction of Soil Moisture and Potassium Levels Based on Neural 9 Network Prediction Model," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Remote sensing of soil salinity: potentials and constraints,

    G. I. Metternicht and J. Zinck, "Remote sensing of soil salinity: potentials and constraints," Remote sensing of environment, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 1-20, 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    Remote water salinity sensor using metamaterial perfect absorber,

    M. Amiri, M. Abolhasan, N. Shariati, and J. Lipman, "Remote water salinity sensor using metamaterial perfect absorber," IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 6785- 6794, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Road tracking from high resolution satellite images using a new set of profiles and Bayesian filtering,

    J. Jafaryahya, A. Moghaddamjoo, A. Tavakoli, and A. Bahadori, "Road tracking from high resolution satellite images using a new set of profiles and Bayesian filtering," in 2011 19th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering, 2011: IEEE, pp. 1-5

    2011

  8. [16]

    The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics,

    G. E. Archie, "The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics," Transactions of the AIME, vol. 146, no. 01, pp. 54-62, 1942

    1942

  9. [17]

    Highly sensitive differential microwave sensor for soil moisture measurement,

    R. Keshavarz, J. Lipman, D. M. -P . Schreurs, and N. Shariati, "Highly sensitive differential microwave sensor for soil moisture measurement," IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 21, no. 24, pp. 27458 - 27464, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    In Situ Wide -Range Permittivity Measurement: Compact, Cost -Effective, and Highly Sensitive Sensor Using Reconfigurable Phase Shifter,

    R. Keshavarz, N. Nikkhah, and N. Shariati, "In Situ Wide -Range Permittivity Measurement: Compact, Cost -Effective, and Highly Sensitive Sensor Using Reconfigurable Phase Shifter," IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Compact Multi-Service Antenna for Sensing and Communication Using Reconfigurable Complementary Spiral Resonator,

    A. Raza, R. Keshavarz, E. Dutkiewicz, and N. Shariati, "Compact Multi-Service Antenna for Sensing and Communication Using Reconfigurable Complementary Spiral Resonator," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Highly Sensitive Differential Microwave Sensor Using Enhanced Spiral Resonators for Precision Permittivity Measurement,

    N. Nikkhah, R. Keshavarz, M. Abolhasan, J. Lipman, and N. Shariati, "Highly Sensitive Differential Microwave Sensor Using Enhanced Spiral Resonators for Precision Permittivity Measurement," IEEE Sensors Journal, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Laboratory Evaluation of a Low -Cost Soil Moisture and EC Sensor in Different Soil Types,

    V . K. Bodasingi, B. Rao, and H. K. Pillai, "Laboratory Evaluation of a Low -Cost Soil Moisture and EC Sensor in Different Soil Types," IEEE Transactions on AgriFood Electronics, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Apparent soil electrical conductivity measurements in agriculture,

    D. L. Corwin and S. M. Lesch, "Apparent soil electrical conductivity measurements in agriculture," Computers and electronics in agriculture, vol. 46, no. 1-3, pp. 11-43, 2005

    2005

  15. [23]

    Soil properties influencing apparent electrical conductivity: a review,

    S. P. Friedman, "Soil properties influencing apparent electrical conductivity: a review," Computers and electronics in agriculture, vol. 46, no. 1-3, pp. 45-70, 2005

    2005

  16. [24]

    Application of soil electrical conductivity to precision agriculture: theory, principles, and guidelines,

    D. Corwin and S. Lesch, "Application of soil electrical conductivity to precision agriculture: theory, principles, and guidelines," Agronomy journal, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 455-471, 2003

    2003

  17. [25]

    Determining salinity in field soils with soil resistance measurements,

    J. Rhoades and R. Ingvalson, "Determining salinity in field soils with soil resistance measurements," Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 54-60, 1971

    1971

  18. [26]

    Influence of water content on electrical conductivity of the soil,

    S. Gupta and R. Hanks, "Influence of water content on electrical conductivity of the soil," Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 855-857, 1972

    1972

  19. [27]

    Apparent soil electrical conductivity mapping as an agricultural management tool in arid zone soils,

    S. Lesch, D. Corwin, and D. Robinson, "Apparent soil electrical conductivity mapping as an agricultural management tool in arid zone soils," Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 46, no. 1-3, pp. 351-378, 2005

    2005

  20. [28]

    Soil electrical conductivity and soil salinity: new formulations and calibrations,

    J. Rhoades, N. Manteghi, P. Shouse, and W. Alves, "Soil electrical conductivity and soil salinity: new formulations and calibrations," Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 433-439, 1989

    1989

  21. [29]

    Determining soil electrical conductivity‐depth relations using an inductive electromagnetic soil conductivity meter,

    J. Rhoades and D. Corwin, "Determining soil electrical conductivity‐depth relations using an inductive electromagnetic soil conductivity meter," Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 255-260, 1981

    1981

  22. [30]

    Current status of and future opportunities for digital agriculture in Australia,

    B. D. Hansen et al., "Current status of and future opportunities for digital agriculture in Australia," Crop and Pasture Science, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Effects of liquid‐phase electrical conductivity, water content, and surface conductivity on bulk soil electrical conductivity,

    J. Rhoades, P. Raats, and R. Prather, "Effects of liquid‐phase electrical conductivity, water content, and surface conductivity on bulk soil electrical conductivity," Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 651-655, 1976

    1976

  24. [32]

    Identifying soil properties that influence cotton yield using soil sampling directed by apparent soil electrical conductivity,

    D. Corwin, S. Lesch, P. Shouse, R. Soppe, and J. Ayars, "Identifying soil properties that influence cotton yield using soil sampling directed by apparent soil electrical conductivity," Agronomy Journal, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 352-364, 2003

    2003

  25. [33]

    Estimation of soil solution electrical conductivity from bulk soil electrical conductivity in sandy soils,

    G. Amente, J. M. Baker, and C. F. Reece, "Estimation of soil solution electrical conductivity from bulk soil electrical conductivity in sandy soils," Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 1931-1939, 2000

    1931

  26. [34]

    Theoretical prediction of electrical conductivity in saturated and unsaturated soil,

    Y . Mualem and S. Friedman, "Theoretical prediction of electrical conductivity in saturated and unsaturated soil," Water Resources Research, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 2771-2777, 1991

    1991

  27. [35]

    Determining soil salinity from soil electrical conductivity using different models and estimates,

    J. Rhoades, P. Shouse, W. Alves, N. A. Manteghi, and S. Lesch, "Determining soil salinity from soil electrical conductivity using different models and estimates," Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 46-54, 1990

    1990

  28. [36]

    A general form of Archie’s model for estimating bulk soil electrical conductivity,

    Y . Fu, R. Horton, T. Ren, and J. Heitman, "A general form of Archie’s model for estimating bulk soil electrical conductivity," Journal of Hydrology, vol. 597, p. 126160, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    A modified Archie’s law for two conducting phases,

    P. W. Glover, M. J. Hole, and J. Pous, "A modified Archie’s law for two conducting phases," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, vol. 180, no. 3-4, pp. 369-383, 2000

    2000

  30. [38]

    A new theoretical interpretation of Archie's saturation exponent,

    P. W. Glover, "A new theoretical interpretation of Archie's saturation exponent," Solid Earth, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 805-816, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Using the dual‐pathway parallel conductance model to determine how different soil properties influence conductivity survey data,

    S. Lesch and D. Corwin, "Using the dual‐pathway parallel conductance model to determine how different soil properties influence conductivity survey data," Agronomy Journal, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 365-379, 2003

    2003

  32. [40]

    Water content effect on soil salinity prediction: a geostatistical study using cokriging,

    P. J. V aughan, S. M. Lesch, D. L. Corwin, and D. G. Cone, "Water content effect on soil salinity prediction: a geostatistical study using cokriging," Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1146-1156, 1995

    1995

  33. [41]

    W. W. Woessner and E. P . Poeter, Hydrogeologic properties of earth materials and principles of groundwater flow. Groundwater Project, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    ECWS: Soil Salinity Measurement Method Based on Electrical Conductivity and Moisture Content,

    W. Mu et al., "ECWS: Soil Salinity Measurement Method Based on Electrical Conductivity and Moisture Content," Agronomy, vol. 14, no. 7, p. 1345, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    TEROS 11/12

    M. G. Company. "TEROS 11/12." Meter Group Company. http://www.misure.net/sites/default/files/pdf/20587_TEROS11- 12_Manual_Web.pdf (accessed

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.