Login
Toggle navigation
Home
ICPA
Conference
Abstract Management
Abstract Topic Groups
Author Instructions
Registration
Registration Information
16th ICPA - Conference Registration
Registrants Map
Hotel and Travel Information
Tour
Workshops
Exhibit Hall Map
Sponsors
Become A Sponsor
16th ICPA Sponsors
Conference Program
General Outline
Oral Program
Poster Program
Keynote
Awards
Proceedings
Leadership
ISPA Leadership
Officers
Past Presidents
Officer Responsibilities
Country Representatives
Election Candidates
Communities
Community Guidance
On-Farm Experimentation
Nitrogen
Latin America
Economics
African Association for Precision Agriculture
Membership
ISPA Member Benefits
Membership Form
Events
ISPA Events
ACPA
ACPA Proceedings
AfCPA
AfCPA Proceedings
CLAP
CLAP Proceedings
ECPA
ECPA Proceedings
ICPA
ISPA Webinars
OFE
AAPA
Latin American
Robotics and Automation Symposium
Event Overview
Registration
Program
Venue
Speakers
About ISPA
Newsletters
History
Jobs
Precision Ag Definition
Agriculture Course Database Submission
Publications
ICPA Proceedings
ECPA Proceedings
Contact Us
Members
Suggestion Form
Conference
Abstract Management
Abstract Topic Groups
Author Instructions
Registration
Registration Information
16th ICPA - Conference Registration
Registrants Map
Hotel and Travel Information
Tour
Workshops
Exhibit Hall Map
Sponsors
Become A Sponsor
16th ICPA Sponsors
Conference Program
General Outline
Oral Program
Poster Program
Keynote
Awards
Proceedings
Proceedings
Search
Authors
Topics
Years
Types
Find matching any:
Reset
» Add more topics
Add filter to result:
On-The-Go pH Sensor: An Evaluation in a Kentucky Field
1
T. Mueller,
2
E. Gianello,
1
B. Mijatovic,
1
E. Rienzi,
2
M. Rodrigues
1. University of Kentucky
2. São Paulo State University
A commercially available on-the-go soil pH sensor measures and maps subsurface soil pH at high spatial intensities across managed landscapes. The overall purpose of this project was to evaluate the potential for this sensor to be used in agricultural fields. The specific goals were to determine and evaluate 1) the accuracy with which this instrument can be calibrated, 2) the geospatial structure of soil pH measurements, and 3) interpolation quality. The study was conducted at a research farm in central Kentucky. Soil pH sensor measurements were collected and georeferenced. Prediction datasets were created from measurements collected along parallel passes separated by 12-m. Validation measurements were collected along passes that were approximately perpendicular to direction of the prediction data set measurements with passes separated by 42.67-m. Calibration datasets were collected with a hand probe (10-cm depth). Semivariograms were calculated with SAS (Cary, NC) and modeled visually. Simple relationships were strong between sensor and laboratory measurements including soil water pH (r
2
= 0.87), salt pH (r
2
= 0.85), and SMP buffer pH (r
2
= 0.84). The data were well structured spatially (i.e., relative structural variability = 78.7%; range of spatial structure = 31-m). Kriging prediction errors with the validation dataset were larger than desired (i.e., rmse = 0.418; r
2
for the relationship between predicted and measured values = 0.52). The data suggest that the on-the-go pH sensor has potential to be a useful tool in agricultural fields in Kentucky.
T. Mueller
E. Gianello
B. Mijatovic
E. Rienzi
M. Rodrigues
Spatial Variability in Crop, Soil and Natural Resources
Poster
2012
Download paper