HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (27) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Corwin, D. L. Articles by Ayars, J. E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Corwin, D. L. Articles by Ayars, J. E. Agricola Articles by Corwin, D. L. Articles by Ayars, J. E. Related Collections Watershed and Landscape Processes Sustainable Agriculture Plant and Soil Interactions Cotton Field-Scale Studies Other Geophysical Methods Spatial Variability Crop Models Production Agriculture Site-Specific Analysis Soil Fertility and Productivity Spatial Distribution

Identifying Soil Properties that Influence Cotton Yield Using Soil Sampling Directed by Apparent Soil Electrical Conductivity

^a USDA-ARS, George E. Brown, Jr., Salinity Lab., 450 West Big Springs Rd., Riverside, CA 92507-4617
^b USDA-ARS, Water Manage. Res. Lab., 9611 S. Riverbend Ave., Parlier, CA 92648

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Map showing the location of the Broadview Water District in California's Fresno County, which lies in the San Joaquin Valley.

View larger version (99K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Map of the intensive apparent soil electrical conductivity (ECa) survey and the 60 soil-core sites. Positions of the soil-core sites are indicated with an asterisk (*). Dashed line indicates the temporary flood irrigation canal.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Calculated semivariogram of cotton yield. The points are the experimental variogram for all 7706 points while the solid line represents the fitted variogram.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Scatter plots of selected soil properties and cotton yield: (a) electrical conductivity of the saturation extract (ECe, dS m-1), (b) leaching fraction, (c) percentage clay, (d) pH, (e) gravimetric water content (kg kg-1), and (f) bulk density (Mg m-3).

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Residual variogram for ordinary least-squares yield regression model (Eq. [2]). The points are the experimental variogram for the 59 points while the solid line represents the fitted variogram.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Observed vs. predicted cotton yield estimates using Eq. [3]. Dotted line is a 1:1 relationship.

View larger version (79K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Comparison of measured cotton yield based on 7706 yield measurements, kriged data at 59 sites for measured cotton yield, and kriged data at 59 sites for predicted cotton yields based on Eq. [3].

View larger version (85K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Maps of the four most significant factors (0–1.5 m) influencing cotton yield: (a) electrical conductivity of the saturation extract (ECe, dS m-1), (b) leaching fraction (LF), (c) gravimetric water content (kg kg-1), and (d) pH.