Journal

of
Journal of Terramechanics 42 (2005) 339–351
Terramechanics
www.elsevier.com/locate/jterra

Scale dependent variability of soil

electrical conductivity by indirect measures of
soil properties
Asfaw Bekele a,*,1, Wayne H. Hudnall b, Jerry J. Daigle c,
Jacqueline A. Prudente b, Maurice Wolcott b
a
Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research, Tarleton State University, Stephenville,
TX 76401, USA
b
Agronomy Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
c
USDA-NRCS, Alexandria, LA 71302, USA

Accepted 14 December 2004

Available online 10 March 2005

Abstract

Knowledge of scale dependent variation of soil properties is important where upscaling and
generalization from plot scale studies to field and larger scale is desired. We used conventional
statistics, geostatistics, and fractal analysis to characterize and compare the apparent soil elec-
trical conductivity (ECa) of six contiguous agricultural fields each ranging between 9.5 and
14.0 ha in size. Factor analysis revealed that ECa was strongly related to ammonium extract-
able K, organic matter (OM), pH and Bray-2 Phosphorus, but not to ammonium extractable
Ca and sum of bases. All six fields were spatially structured and well described by exponential
semivariograms. Fractal dimensions estimated from the linear portion of the semivariogram
using a linear plateau model were statistically different (p = 0.05) among some of the fields,
and the differences may have been caused by management differences. Fractal analysis identi-
fied at least two scales of variation for the fields. The first scale of variation, common to all six
fields, was for distances less than 9 m. The second scale of variation was for distances ranging

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: abekele@stfx.ca (A. Bekele).
1
Current address: Environmental Sciences Research Center, St. Francis Xavier University, P.O. Box
5000, 1 West Street, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada, B2G 2W5. Tel.: +1 902 867 3355; fax: +1 902 867
2414.

0022-4898/$20.00 Ó 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of ISTVS.

doi:10.1016/j.jterra.2004.12.004
340 A. Bekele et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 42 (2005) 339–351

between 9 and 46 m (field NC), 9 and 79 m (fields SC and SW); and 9 and 126 m (field SE).
Two of the fields (fields NW and NE) did not have a plateau on the log–log plot of the semi-
variograms, indicating a scaling behavior at larger distances. The study showed that although
the semivariogram forms are similar among the six fields, the rate of change of the semivari-
ograms (as indicated by the fractal dimension) differs for some of the fields at distances greater
than 9 m.
Ó 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of ISTVS.

Keywords: Scale; Spatial variability; Fractal dimension; Semivariogram; Soil electrical conductivity

1. Introduction

Studies have shown that ECa is an integrated measure of many soil physical prop-
erties (clay content, moisture content, depth to clay increase, depth to fragipan, soil
temperature, soil compaction, etc.) and chemical properties (soil nutrients, salinity,
etc.) [9,13,19]. As a result, ECa has been used as a surrogate of soil properties that
affect soil productivity, especially in the context of precision farming [35]. Some stud-
ies have also indicated that ECa variation is stable over time and that there is cor-
respondence in the scale of spatial variation between ECa and other soil and crop
characteristics [21]. However, these studies cannot be generalized and applicable to
all areas because of the various soil factors that affect ECa [29].
The high density of measurement that can be made and the non-invasive nature of
soil ECa measurement make it attractive for studies requiring identification of scales
of variation. Detailed sampling of other soil properties is often impractical and
expensive. Knowledge of scale dependent variation is important especially when gen-
eralizations from point values to aerial averages (upscaling) and vise versa (down-
scaling) are required [23,30,37]. Further, spatial structures can be related to
physical features of the environment or to management input.
As the world population continues to increase, mankind is forced to meet the food
and fiber demands or face the consequences of starvation and ultimately civil war.
Meeting the food and fiber needs of the world can only be accomplished through sus-
tainable agriculture. This requires a balance between crop production, natural re-
source use, environmental impact, and economics. The future of precision
agriculture and natural resource managements rests on the reliability, reproducibility
and understanding of the technology developments upon which it is based
[10,16,22,26,38]. Real-time measurements reflect activities of the past, whereas model
predictions are the future based on a simplified set of assumptions, especially trans-
ferring technology from one application to another. For example, the transfer of
agricultural technology to agroforestry and military uses. Forecasting information
from model simulation based upon measured parameters has been used for deci-
sion-based strategies designed to conserve natural resources [18,19,21,23,27–29].
The objectives of this paper are to identify the scale of spatial variation of soil
ECa data from six contiguous precision agriculture fields and describe the
relationship between ECa and other soil characteristics. The result can be used in
 A. Bekele et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 42 (2005) 339–351 341

a predictive model that is applicable to the management of soils and natural resource
management for military purposes.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area and data set

The study site is a 68 ha precision agriculture field at the Dean Lee Experiment
Station, Alexandria, LA, USA. The study site consists of six contiguous fields sep-
arated by drainage ditches or turn rows (Fig. 1). The site is relatively flat with a
slope of <1%, and it has been under corn and soybean cultivation. The soil is pre-
dominantly Norwood silt loam (fine-silty, mixed superactive, hyperthermic Fluven-
tic Eutrudepts). The Norwood series consists of very deep, well-drained,
moderately permeable soils on flood plains. In 1997, 168 soil samples were col-
lected from 0–15 cm depth by a random unaligned pattern sampling on a 0.405
ha grid basis. Using the same sampling method, 68 additional samples were ob-
tained on a 1.0 ha grid basis on the same day. The two sets of samples were com-
bined to give 236 observations.
The collected soil samples were analyzed for pH (1:1 soil to water ratio), P
(Bray-2) exchangeable K, Ca, sum of bases (1 M NH4AOc at pH 7.0) and organ-
ic matter (OM) (K2Cr2O7 and concentrated H2SO4) at the Louisiana State Uni-
versity soil test lab. The soil ECa was measured using a Veris 3100 Soil
Electrical Conductivity Mapping unit representing a depth of 0–30 cm. The
instrument was operated on transects of approximately 7.7 m distance, collecting
geo-referenced data at 1 s intervals. This resulted in 19,053 data points on the 68
ha. A subsample of ECa data was taken at the locations where the soil samples
were taken to examine the relationships between ECa and the measured soil
properties. Since not all ECa measurement locations coincided with the location
where the soil samples were taken, ECa values that were closest in distance to

Fig. 1. Study field (DOQQ) showing field boundaries and designations.

342 A. Bekele et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 42 (2005) 339–351

the location of the soil samples (nearest neighbor concept) were used to obtain
the subsample ECa values.

2.2. Statistical, geostatistical and fractal methods

Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) [36] was performed to gain understanding of

the characteristics of the data. The magnitude of between field variability of ECa
was evaluated by a one-way ANOVA after evaluating the data for normality and
equal variance. The relationship between ECa and the other soil properties was eval-
uated using correlation analysis and exploratory factor analysis. The factor analyses
were performed by computing eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the data via principal
components methods. Factors with eigenvalues higher than one were retained. The
extracted factor scores were related to ECa through correlation analysis to investi-
gate which of the soil properties best correlates with ECa [34]. All statistical analyses
were carried out using SAS, version 8.1 [33].
Semivariogram and fractal analyses were used to describe the within field spatial
variability of ECa. The empirical semivariogram, c(h) is estimated using the equation
[18]
1 X
cðhÞ ¼ ½Zðsi Þ
Zðsj Þ2 : ð1Þ
2jN ðhÞj N ðhÞ

The plot of c(h) versus h, the semivariogram, can be described by three parameters: the
sill, correlation length (or range), and nugget. The sill is the level at which the variogram
flattens out. If a sill exists, the soil ECa variability is stationary and the sill can be
thought of as the spatial variance of two distantly separated points. The correlation
length (or range) is a measure of the spatial continuity of soil ECa. The range can be
used as a measure of homogeneity or spatial dependency [8]. The nugget relates to
the variance between pairs of points separated by very small distances, and can be
due either to sampling error, to short scale variability, or both.
Geostatistical analyses were conducted using GS+, version 5.1.7 [12]. Only isotro-
pic semivariograms were considered and the semivariance parameters of the best fit-
ting models (linear, spherical, exponential, Gaussian) were reported for the
exhaustive ECa data from each field. The spatial relationship between the measured
soil properties, subsampled ECa and the exhaustive ECa data were evaluated by
mapping the factor scores extracted from the correlation matrix of the measured soil
properties and comparing them to the maps obtained for the subsampled ECa and
the exhaustive ECa data [34]. The Surfer software, version 7 [14] was used for map-
ping. Ordinary kriging using the appropriate semivariograms was employed to ob-
tain the data grids used to generate the maps.
Estimates of quantities such as soil properties vary with the scale at which mea-
surements are made [6]. Scale dependence can be inferred from a nested semivario-
gram model [15], but fractal analysis provides a means for directly examining and
quantifying scale-dependent variation [26]. Fractals have been used to model spatial
and temporal variations in a variety of disciplines [1,2,4,17], including soil variability
 A. Bekele et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 42 (2005) 339–351 343

[5,6,11]. A full explanation of fractals and their potential applications in soil science
can be found in [31]. The key concept underlying fractals is self-similarity at all
scales. Self-similarity implies the existence of a power law scaling relationship. The
spatial structure of a stationary Gaussian process can be described by the following
fractal function [11]:

cðhÞ / khH ; 0 < H 6 2; ð2Þ

where c(h) is the semivariogram, h is the lag, H is the codimension, and k is a con-
stant related to the extent of variation.
Fractal dimension of a two dimensional data is calculated based on the following
relationship [25]:

D ¼ 3
1=2H : ð3Þ

Regression of log c(h) versus log h provides an estimation of fractal dimension, D,

with H as the slope of the straight-line section of the log–log semivariogram. A linear
plateau model as employed in the NLIN procedure of SAS was used to estimate the
slope of the straight-line section of the log–log semivariogram. The equality of slopes
and planned comparisons of slopes were tested using the GLM procedure and the
CONTRAST statement of SAS [33].

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Exploratory data analysis

Summary statistics for each field for ECa and the other soil properties considered
is given in Table 1. All of the soil properties were normally distributed but variances
were unequal. Field NE showed the greatest variability. A one-way ANOVA of the
exhaustive ECa data as well as the subsample assuming unequal variance indicated
that the means were different among the fields with a distinct increasing trend from
west to east. Although the magnitude of the increase was lower, there was a general
south to north increase in ECa.
Among the measured soil properties, K and OM showed the greatest variability as
indicated by the relatively higher coefficient of variation (CV). The highest CV
(37.6%) was exhibited by soil P in the SW field while the CVs for sum
of bases (5.0%) and Ca (7.1%) was the lowest when compared with the other fields.
The strength and significance of correlation between ECa and other soil proper-
ties are not consistent among the fields (Table 2). Soil K was the nutrient most cor-
related with ECa, and Field NE showed the highest and significant correlation of
ECa with the other soil properties except for sum of bases (Table 2). Factor analysis
of the other soil properties extracted two factors, with the first and second factors
explaining 45% and 31%, respectively, of the data variation. The first factor has
the greatest loadings on exchangeable K (0.91), organic matter (0.84), pH (
0.79),
344 A. Bekele et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 42 (2005) 339–351

Table 1
Summary statistics of ECa and other soil properties for six contiguous fields
Statistic Field Soil property
K OM SB Ca pH P ECa (ss)A ECa (exh)B
(mg/kg) (%) (cmol/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mS/m) (mS/m)
N NC 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 2979
NE 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 3840
NW 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 2900
SC 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 2785
SE 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 3807
SW 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 2742
Mean NC 118.5 0.7 24.3 4342.3 8.0 227.6 39.9a 40.2a
NE 164.4 0.9 26.7 4638.5 7.9 234.6 47.6b 47.6b
NW 78.9 0.7 24.5 4224.5 8.1 226.7 35.3c 34.2c
SC 118.7 0.7 25.6 4609.7 8.0 214.5 35.6c 36.6d
SE 146.2 0.8 24.6 4318.2 7.9 222.5 43.1d 42.6e
SW 67.7 0.7 25.5 4278.1 8.3 208.9 32.9e 32.3f
Min NC 76.0 0.4 19.2 3339.0 7.8 131.0 29.0 22.5
NE 94.0 0.4 20.3 3441.0 7.7 141.0 32.7 25.0
NW 52.0 0.4 18.9 3294.0 7.8 131.0 23.6 18.0
SC 63.0 0.5 21.1 3816.0 7.7 129.0 25.5 17.6
SE 90.0 0.4 17.2 2881.0 7.6 150.0 23.4 22.9
SW 42.0 0.5 23.0 3768.0 7.8 107.0 22.0 5.2
Max NC 189.0 0.9 32.5 5729.0 8.1 289.0 59.6 81.6
NE 248.0 1.3 33.5 5961.0 8.3 322.0 67.5 81.7
NW 111.0 1.1 29.2 5118.0 8.3 307.0 51.5 57.8
SC 156.0 1.0 30.7 5534.0 8.3 288.0 50.3 63.4
SE 241.0 1.2 31.1 5415.0 8.2 327.0 68.7 76.2
SW 147.0 1.0 27.8 4979.0 8.7 495.0 50.8 78.1
Variance NC 800.7 0.02 6.8 247395.5 0.01 1301.8 43.8 45.5
NE 2441.8 0.06 8.7 381103.2 0.02 1522.3 81.6 88.0
NW 310.8 0.02 6.6 216653.9 0.02 1871.9 50.8 38.0
SC 424.5 0.02 6.3 220277.8 0.02 1624.7 34.2 54.7
SE 1062.3 0.02 10.8 443554.5 0.03 1656.1 74.9 47.7
SW 450.4 0.02 1.6 92558.8 0.03 6168.2 43.1 34.5
CVC NC 23.9 18.9 10.7 11.5 1.1 15.9 16.6 16.8
NE 30.1 28.4 11.0 13.3 1.7 16.6 19.0 19.7
NW 22.3 23.5 10.4 11.0 1.7 19.1 20.2 18.0
SC 17.4 18.9 9.8 10.2 1.6 18.8 16.4 20.2
SE 22.3 17.8 13.4 15.4 2.1 18.3 20.1 16.2
SW 31.4 20.9 5.0 7.1 2.2 37.6 20.0 18.2
A
ECa (ss): ECa of subsample data.
B
ECa (exh): ECa of exhaustive data (means with the same letters are not statistically different (a = 0.05)).
C
CV, coefficient of variation.

and P (0.63). The second factor has the greatest loading on sum of bases (0.99) and
Ca (0.98) (Table 3). The second factor can be considered as a base factor since the
sum of bases constitutes Ca, Mg, and K. We expected that K would have greater
 A. Bekele et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 42 (2005) 339–351 345

Table 2
Correlation between ECa and other soil properties for each field
Soil property Field
NC NE NW SC SE SW Entire Field
pH 0.13
0.52***
0.22
0.25
0.21
0.53**
0.50***
P 0.23 0.58*** 0.33* 0.15 0.22
0.03 0.27***
K 0.38* 0.73*** 0.55** 0.49** 0.63*** 0.30 0.71***
Ca
0.03
0.40** 0.18 0.12 0.01 0.30 0.04
SB 0.04
0.28 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.07
OM 0.21 0.65*** 0.37* 0.09 0.57*** 0.16 0.55***
*, **, *** Significant at 0.05, 0.01, 0.001 probability level, respectively.

Table 3
Rotated factor pattern for soil properties of the six fields (n = 168)
Soil property Factor-1 Factor-2
pH
0.79 0.14
P 0.63
0.08
K 0.91 0.13
OM 0.84
0.13
Sum of bases
0.06 0.99
Ca
0.09 0.98
Explained variance (%) 44.9 31.1

60 1.5
ECa
Factor 1
50 1
Factor 2
Factor 1 or Factor 2

40 0.5
ECa (mS/m)

30 0

20 -0.5

10 -1

0 -1.5
NE SE NC SC NW SW
Field

Fig. 2. Mean ECa and factor scores obtained from measured soil properties for each field. Error bars
represent standard errors.
346 A. Bekele et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 42 (2005) 339–351

Fig. 3. Spatial variability of (a) Factor-1, (b) subsampled ECa, (c) exhaustive ECa, and (d) Factor-2.
 A. Bekele et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 42 (2005) 339–351 347

loading on the second factor rather than the first factor. This did not happen prob-
ably due to a small contribution of K to the sum of bases relative to the other two
cations. The small contribution of K to the sum of bases was inferred from the poor
correlation (r = 0.05, p = 0.32) between K and sum of bases. Whereas Ca was highly
correlated (r = 0.95, p < 0.001) with sum of bases. Soil ECa was significantly corre-
lated with the first factor (r = 0.67, p < 0.0001) indicating that, for the entire field,
ECa is an integrated measure of pH, K, P, and OM. The poor correlation of ECa
with the second factor (r = 0.12, p = 0.07) indicates that ECa cannot be used as a sur-
rogate for exchangeable Ca and sum of bases for this site.
Fig. 2 compares the mean values of ECa, Factor-1, and Factor-2 for each field.
The patterns in the mean values of ECa and Factor-1 are identical. Fields with high-
est mean ECa values (NE and SE) showed relatively higher and positive mean values
in the first factor. Since ECa is significantly correlated with Factor-1, we wanted to
further investigate if there is correspondence in the spatial pattern of ECa and Fac-
tor-1. Figs. 3(a)–(c) show the similarity in the spatial patterns of ECa and Factor-1.
ECa and Factor-2 lack such similarity (Figs. 3(b)–(d)).

3.2. Semivariogram and fractal analysis

Exponential semivariogram model described the variability in ECa within each of

the fields. The exponential model represents a spatial pattern associated with abrupt
changes at all distances [32]. The proportion of the structural variance (C/(Co + C))
was high for all six fields (Table 4). According to the classification proposed by Cam-
bardella et al. [7], the spatial dependence of ECa within each field can be considered
strong. The range was smaller for fields NC and SW. Detection of variation of ECa
would be more difficult for fields with smaller ranges since detection of variation at
this scale generally require a sampling interval that is less than half the range of the
semivariogram [21].
Figs. 4(a)–(f) show the log–log plots of the semivariograms for each of the plots
from which the fractal dimension was computed (Table 4). Fig. 4(g) presents an
overlay of the log–log plots on a single graph for comparison purpose. The log–
log plots show that at least two scales of variation existed in ECa variation within

Table 4
Parameters of the semivariogram models (exponential with a nugget) and fractal dimension for ECa for
each field
Field Nugget (Co) Sill (Co + C) Range C/(Co + C)A D (SE)B
NC 0.2 46.5 10.5 0.996 2.887 (0.010)a
NE 23.7 105.5 127.1 0.775 2.826 (0.002)d
NW 13.2 52.7 186.4 0.749 2.843 (0.004)cd
SC 4.8 56.9 31.6 0.916 2.793 (0.005)b
SE 10.9 46.7 32.3 0.766 2.888 (0.005)a
SW 2.5 33.3 19.7 0.924 2.852 (0.008)c
A
The proportion of variance explained by spatial dependence.
B
D, fractal dimension; SE, standard error.
348 A. Bekele et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 42 (2005) 339–351

(a) log-log semivariogram plot, Field:NC (b) log-log semivariogram plot, Field:NE

Log (Distance), m Log (Distance), m

(c) log-log semivariogram plot, Field:NW (d) log-log semivariogram plot, Field:SC

Log (Distance), m Log (Distance), m

(e) log-log semivariogram plot, Field:SE (f) log-log semivariogram plot, Field:SW

Log (Distance), m Log (Distance), m

(g) log-log semivariogram plot

Log (Distance), m

Fig. 4. Log–log semivariogram plots of each field.

 A. Bekele et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 42 (2005) 339–351 349

each of the fields. The first scale of variation, at distances less than approximately 9
m, was common to all fields. The second scale of variation varied from field to field.
Fields NE and NW showed fractal characteristics (self-similarity) at all ranges greater
than 9 m. This is partly a result of the presence of a trend within these two fields. The
other fields showed limited self-similarity. The test of comparison of slopes showed
that the fractal dimensions differ among some of the fields (Table 4). The fractal
dimensions were identical for fields NC and SE, fields NE and NW, and fields
NW and SW. The observed high fractal dimensions and the limited range over which
ECa was self-similar implies that scaling-up this soil characteristics may be difficult.
According to Eq. (3), the fractal dimension of a surface ranges between 2 and 3. A
fractal dimension of 2 indicates a smooth surface with a dominance of long-range
variation. A fractal dimension of 3 represents a surface that is irregular and random
[25]. A fractal dimension close to 3 implies that observations are independent and the
entire area can be estimated by the mean of the soil property under consideration.
Under such circumstances the benefit of kriging over other methods of interpolation
(e.g., inverse distance weighting) would be minimal. However, the significant corre-
lation between ECa and Factor-1 (K, OM, pH, P) indicate that information about
these measured soil properties can be gained through the exhaustive measurement
of ECa. Bekele et al. [3] showed that this is true for soil K for this site.
Similar results have been published from sustainable agricultural studies that
show crop yields are proportional to EC data using terrain model [20,24,27]. Our re-
sults are an extension of these models and data, which can be utilized to predict or
simulate the management of natural resources.

4. Conclusion

The study showed that ECa variability was scale dependent. The extent of scale
dependency varied from field to field for the six contiguous fields. The similarity
in the form of the semivariogram models (exponential) used to describe the fields
was indicative that similar processes control the ECa variability within all the fields.
The relatively high fractal dimensions obtained for each of the fields indicate that
short-range variation was dominant. For this study site, ECa could be used as a
proxy to soil K, OM, pH, and P where by upscaling of these expensive to measure
soil properties could be achieved through the knowledge of the spatial variability of
ECa. Future study must investigate if the spatial pattern shown by ECa and the first
factor correspond to crop yield patterns for this site. These results are first-order
data that can be utilized in a predictive model to predict the management of natural
resources, especially soils used for military purposes.

References

[1] Barton C, La Pointe PR, editors. Fractals in petroleum geology and earth processes. New York,
NY: Plenum Press; 1995. p. 317.
350 A. Bekele et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 42 (2005) 339–351

[2] Bassingthwaighte JB, Liebovitch LS, West BJ. Fractal physiology. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press Inc.; 1994. 364 p.
[3] Bekele A, Downer RG, Wolcott MC, Hudnall WH, Moore SH. Comparative evaluation of spatial
prediction methods in a field experiment for mapping soil potassium. Soil Sci 2003;168(1):15–28.
[4] Biridi KS. Fractals in chemistry, geochemistry, and biophysics: an introduction. New York,
NY: Plenum Press; 1993. 263 p.
[5] Burrough PA. Fractal dimensions of landscapes and other environmental data. Nature
1981;294:240–2.
[6] Burrough PA. Multiscale sources of spatial variation in soil. I. The application of fractal concepts to
nested levels of soil variation. J Soil Sci 1983;34:577–97.
[7] Cambardella CA, Moorman TB, Novak JM, Parkin TB, Karlen DL, Turco RF, et al. Field-scale
variability of soil properties in central Iowa soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 1994;58:1501–11.
[8] Cohen WB. GIS applications perspective: current research on remote sensing of forest structure. In:
Sample VA, editor. Remote sensing and GIS in ecosystem management. Washington, DC: Island
Press; 1994. p. 91–107.
[9] Corwin DL, Kaffka SR, Hopmans JW, Mori Y, van Groenigen JW, van Kessel C, et al. Assessment
and field-scale mapping of soil quality properties of a saline-sodic soil. Geoderma 2003;
114(3–4):231–59.
[10] Corwin DL, Lesch SM. Application of soil electrical conductivity to precision agriculture: theory,
principles and guidelines. Agron J 2003;95:455–71.
[11] Eghball B, Hergert GW, Lesoing GW, Ferguson RB. Fractal analysis of spatial and temporal
variability. Geoderma 1999;88:349–62.
[12] Gamma Design Software. GS+, version 5.1.7. Geostatistics for the environmental sciences. Plainwell,
MA; 1998.
[13] Godwin RJ, Miller PCH. A review of the technologies for mapping within-field variability. Biosyst
Eng 2003.
[14] Golden Software Inc. Surfer, version 7. Golden, CO; 1999.
[15] Goovaerts P. Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press; 1997.
[16] Hartsock NJ, Mueller TG, Thomas GW, Barnhisel RI, Wells KL, Shearer SA. Soil electrical
conductivity variability. In: Robert PC, et al, editors. Proc 5th international conference on precision
agriculture. Madison, WI: ASA Misc. Publ., ASA, CSSA, and SSSA; 2000.
[17] Hastings HM, Sugihara G. Fractals: a userÕs guide for the natural sciences. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press; 1993. 233 p.
[18] Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM. An introduction to applied geostatistics. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press; 1989. 561 p.
[19] Kachanoski KG, Gregorich EG, Van Wasenbeeck IJ. Estimating spatial variations of soil water
content using noncontacting electromagnetic inductive methods. Can J Soil Sci 1988;68:715–22.
[20] Kaspar TC, Pulido DJ, Fenton TE, Colvin TS, Karlen DL, Jaynes DB, et al. Relationship of corn
and soybean yield to soil and terrain properties. Agron J 2004;96:700–9.
[21] Kerry R, Margaret MA. Variograms of ancillary data to aid sampling for soil surveys. Precis Agric
2003;4:261–78.
[22] Kravchenko AN, Bullock DG. Correlation of corn and soybean gain yield with topography and soil
properties. Agron J 2000;92:75–83.
[23] McBratney, Alex B. Some considerations on methods for spatially aggregating and disaggregating soil
information. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 1998;50(1):51–62.
[24] McBride RA, Garden AM, Shrive SC. Estimating forest soil quality from terrain measurements of
apparent electrical conductivity. Soil Sci Soc Am J 1990;54:290–3.
[25] McClean CJ, Evans IS. Apparent fractal dimensions from continental scale digital elevation models
using variogram methods. Trans GIS 2000;4(4):361–78.
[26] Milne BT. Heterogeneity as a multiscale characteristic of landscapes. In: Kolasa J, Pickett STA,
editors. Ecological heterogeneity Ecological studies, vol. 86. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1991.
p. 69–84.
 A. Bekele et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 42 (2005) 339–351 351

[27] Moore ID, Gessler PE, Nielsen GA, Peterson GA. Soil attribute prediction using terrain analysis. Soil
Sci Soc Am J 1993;57:443–52.
[28] Mueller TG, Hartsock NJ, Stombaugh TS, Shearer SA, Cornelius PL, Barnhisel RI. Soil electrical
conductivity map variability in limestone soils overlain by loess. Agron J 2003;95:496–507.
[29] Nugteren W, Malo DD, Schumacher TE, Schumacher JA, Carlson CG, Clay DE, et al. Hillslope
chronosequence of EM-38, soil temperature, and soil moisture readings as influenced by selected soil
properties. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on precision agriculture, Minneapolis,
MN, July 16–19, 2000.
[30] Odeh IOA, Todd AJ, Triantafilis J, McBratney AB. Status and trends of soil salinity at different
scales: the case for the irrigated cotton growing region of eastern Australia. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst
1998;50(1):99–107.
[31] Pachepsky Y, Crawford JC, Rawls WJ, Rawls WJ, editors. Fractals in soil science. Developments in
soil science, vol. 27. New York, NY: Elsevier; 2000.
[32] Saldana A, Stein A, Zinck JA. Spatial variability of soil properties at different scales within three
terraces of the Henares river (Spain). Catena 1998;33:139–53.
[33] SAS Institute. The SAS system for Windows. Release 8.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 1999.
[34] Taylor JC, Wood GA, Earl R, Godwin RJ. Soil factors and their influence on within-field crop
variability, part II: spatial analysis and determination of management zones. Biosyst Eng
2003;84(4):441–53.
[35] Tao S. Factor score mapping of soil trace element contents for the Shenzhen area. Water Air Soil
Pollut 1998;102:415–25.
[36] Tukey JW. Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1977.
[37] Western AW, Blöschl G. On the spatial scaling of soil moisture. J Hydrol 1999;217(3–4):203–24.
[38] Williams BG, Hoey D. The use of electromagnetic induction to detect the spatial variability of salt
and clay contents of soils. Aust J Soil Res 1987;25:21–7.