On the Description of Soil Variability Through EMI Sensors and Traditional Soil Surveys in Precision Agriculture

  • Bianca OrtuaniEmail author
  • Enrico Casati
  • Camilla Negri
  • Arianna Facchi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 67)


In Precision Agriculture electromagnetic induction (EMI) sensors are generally used to obtain soil electrical conductivity (EC) maps for the delineation of homogeneous management zones (MZ). EC measurements are related to many physical-chemical soil properties and, moreover, are average values referred to the soil depth explored by the sensor. Consequently, the following questions arise: how reliable are EC measurements to describe soil variability, compared to the data provided by a pedological survey? To which extent MZs correspond to pedological units in a soil map? Texture analysis was conducted on 38 soils samples collected at three depths with a manual auger in a rice farm (province of Pavia, Italy) characterized by sandy-loamy soils. Four pedological units were recognized, mainly based on differences in clay content distribution with depth. Four MZs were recognized from the EC maps. MZ and pedological soil maps showed similar spatial distributions of soil types, particularly at field scale. However, at the farm scale, different MZs may correspond to the same pedological unit, because of the different soil properties to which the two classification approaches are sensitive: clay contents for pedological soil mapping, and sand contents for MZ mapping. Finally, ANOVA was carried out to evaluate the statistical significance of this result.


Traditional soil survey EMI sensor Precision agriculture Homogeneous management zones 



The activity presented is conducted in the context of the RISTEC project, co-funded by Regione Lombardia (Operation 1.2.01—EU-RDP 2014–2020).


  1. André, F., van Leeuwen, C., Saussez, S., van Durmen, R., Bogaert, P., Moghadas, et al. (2012). High-resolution imaging of a vineyard in south of France using ground-penetrating radar, electromagnetic induction and electrical resistivity tomography. The Journal of Applied Geophysics.Google Scholar
  2. Colombo, C., Miano, T. (2015) Metodi di Analisi Chimica del Suolo, 3rd version, Bari.Google Scholar
  3. Corwin, D. L., Lesch, S. M., Shouse, P. J., Soppe, R., & Ayars, J. E. (2003). Identifying soil properties that influence cotton yield using soil sampling directed by apparent soil electrical conductivity. Agronomy Journal, 95, 352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Doolittle, J. A., Indorante, S. J., Potter, D. K., Hefner, S. G., & McCauley, W. M. (2002). Comparing three geophysical tools for locating sand blows in alluvial soils of southeast Missouri. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 57, 175–182.Google Scholar
  5. Fortes, R., Millán, S., Prieto, M. H., & Campillo, C. (2015). A methodology based on apparent electrical conductivity and guided soil samples to improve irrigation zoning. Precision Agriculture, 16, 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fridgen, J. J., Kitchen, N. R., Sudduth, K. A., Drummond, S. T., Wiebold, W. J., & Fraisse, C. W. (2004). Management zone analyst (MZA): Software for subfield management zone delineation. Agronomy Journal, 96, 9.Google Scholar
  7. Hedley, C. B., Bradbury, S., Ekanayake, J., Yule, I. J., Carrick, S. (2010). Spatial irrigation scheduling for variable rate irrigation. In Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association (vol. 72, pp. 97–102).Google Scholar
  8. Hedley, C. B., Roudier, P., Yule, I. J., Ekanayake, J., & Bradbury, S. (2013). Soil water status and water table depth modelling using electromagnetic surveys for precision irrigation scheduling. Geoderma, 199, 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McNeil, J. D. (1990). Geonics EM38 ground conductivity meter: EM38 operating manual. Ontario, Canada: Geonics Limited.Google Scholar
  10. Moral, F. J., Terrón, J. M., & Marques da Silva, J. R. (2010). Delineation of management zones using mobile measurements of soil apparent electrical conductivity and multivariate geostatistical techniques. Soil and Tillage Research, 106, 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Priori, S., Martini, E., Andrenelli, M. C., Magini, S., Agnelli, A. E., Bucelli, P., et al. (2013). Improving wine quality through harvest zoning and combined use of remote and soil proximal sensing. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 77, 1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Scudiero, E., Teatini, P., Corwin, D. L., Deiana, R., Berti, A., & Morari, F. (2013). Delineation of site-specific management units in a saline region at the Venice Lagoon margin, Italy, using soil reflectance and apparent electrical conductivity. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 99, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Soil Survey Staff. (2014). Key to soil taxonomy (12th ed.).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bianca Ortuani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Enrico Casati
    • 1
  • Camilla Negri
    • 1
  • Arianna Facchi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali – Produzione, Territorio, AgroenergiaUniversità degli Studi di Milano (DiSAA-UNIMI)MilanItaly

Personalised recommendations