Delineation of Site-Specific Soil Management Zones Using

Multivariate Analysis and Geospatial Techniques

AMIN, M.1* – KHAN, R. F.A.2 – Imran, M.3 – Aqib, M.4
1
Institute of Geo-Information & Earth Observation, PMAS Arid Agriculture University,
Rawalpindi, Pakistan*E-mail: m.amin@uaar.edu.pk
2
Institute of Geo-Information & Earth Observation, PMAS Arid Agriculture University,
Rawalpindi, Pakistan
3
Institute of Geo-Information & Earth Observation, PMAS Arid Agriculture University,
Rawalpindi, Pakistan
4
University Institute of Information Technology, PMAS Arid Agriculture University,
Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Abstract. The establishment of soil management zones (MZ) capable of defining subfields
with homogeneous soil qualities serves as the foundation for successful site-specific
management. The primary goals of this study were: 1) to determine the spatial variability of
soil parameters using principal components analysis and 2) delineation and mapping of site-
specific soil management zones using the geostatistical approach for orchard crops (olive &
citrus). 43 geo-referenced representative soil samples were obtained from a university research
farm (koont, Rawalpindi, Pakistan) from 0 to 30 cm depth. Soil properties were determined by
preparing and analyzing these samples, such as potassium, iron, copper, total nitrogen,
electrical conductivity, total organic carbon, pH, zinc, manganese, phosphorus, organic matter,
and soil saturation. First of all, spatial distribution maps were generated using a geo-statistics
tool that is Empirical Bayesian Kriging. Then, using standardized data on the soil parameters
of the study area, principal component analysis was performed to create maps showing soil
spatial variation. After that, to delineate management zones, the ISO clustering algorithm was
applied. For further analysis, three PCs with eigenvalues > 1 were used, with PCs explaining
83.22 percent of the variance for the orchard field. Using an iterative self-organizing data
approach, three MZs were determined based on cluster analysis. MZ1, MZ2, and MZ3
contributed 44.93 (9510 sqm), 32.35 (6846 sqm), and 22.72% (4808 sqm) of the total area
(21164 sqm) for the orchard field. Making effective agricultural decisions about crop selection,
irrigation, and fertilization should be greatly helped by these subfields.
Keywords: Soil Management Zones; Multivariate Analysis; Geospatial techniques; Principal
Component Analysis
Introduction
Precision agriculture (PA) or site-specific crop management seeks to observe, identify
and manage within-field spatial variability in soils, crops, pests, and diseases. As the world
experiences increases in the price of agricultural inputs of chemicals and fuel, the need for
precision agriculture to reduce economic and environmental costs is getting more critical. The
positive outcomes of PA are expected in two domains: optimization of profitability for

1
agricultural production and protecting the environment (Zhang, Wang, & Wang, 2002). These
two benefits are accomplished mainly by avoiding over and underuse of nutrients, lime,
herbicides, and pesticides. The importance of PA has been recognized by farmers and farm
managers because it can be pretty efficient to manage within-field variability on a site-specific
basis rather than the traditional whole-field approach (Li, Shi, Wu, Li, & Li, 2008). The
objectives of this research were to determine the spatial variability of soil parameters using
principal components analysis and Delineation and mapping of site-specific soil management
zones using the geostatistical approach for orchard crops (Olive & Citrus). The magnitude of a
soil property's change in space is often determined by its spatial variability. This shift is noticed
at various geographical locations on the land surface or different soil depths (Wendroth,
Ritchey, Nambuthiri, Grove, & Pearce, 2011). Uneven litter decomposition, vegetation
composition, soil moisture content, topographic position, historical land use, and soil
management technique can all contribute to soil spatial variability (Baldrian, 2014). Soil
parameters fluctuate over time due to the combined action of biological, physical, and chemical
processes (Panday, Ojha, Chalise, Das, & Twanabasu, 2019). Soil qualities are greatly
influenced by land use and management approaches (Spurgeon, Keith, Schmidt, Lammertsma,
& Faber, 2013), and knowledge of soil property variation within farmland usage is critical in
determining productivity limits related to soil nutrients. To fulfill the evolving requirements of
people and preserve the long-term productivity of farms, sustainable land management
techniques are required (Hălbac-Cotoară-Zamfir, Keesstra, & Kalantari, 2019). Much precision
agricultural research has focused on employing management zones (MZs) to apply variable-
rate fertilizer (Zhang et al., 2002). An MZ is a sub-area of an agricultural field with similar
characteristics, such as assoil fertility, which means that a single fertilizer rate is suitable to
optimize efficacy (Vrindts et al., 2005). Several studies have demonstrated that MZs can be
used in place of grid soil sampling and to manage agricultural fields with variable rate
technologies (VRT); Khosla et al., 2002). Additionally, style agricultural farming requires
fewer soil samples and analyses compared to grid sampling since each MZ contains similar
soils, which can potentially be sampled as homogenous (Flowers, Weisz, & White, 2005). As
input information to be processed for MZ delineation, many studies used several years of soil
tests and yield data (Li et al., 2008). Kravchenko & Bullock (2000) and Wibawa, Dludlu,
Swenson, Hopkins, & Dahnke (1993) used topography and soil map units to delineate MZs.
Fraisse, Sudduth, & Kitchen (2001) used a combination of soil EC, elevation, and slope to
delineate MZs.
Another typical method for delimiting MZs is to use soil test data and maps generated
from interpolated soil data, especially when yield maps are not available (Amer, Moussa,
Sheha, & Fattah, 2021; Georgi, Spengler, Itzerott, & Kleinschmit, 2018). They concluded that
this approach precisely delineates MZs in a field.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Study Sites
The study was on a 5-acre field at the Chakwal Road Koont farm (latitude: 33.116631°,
longitude: 73.011145°) at 524 meters above sea level. The climate in the research area is arid,
with an annual rainfall of around 10.1 mm, most of which falls during the monsoon season.

2
(“Climate & Weather Averages in Rawalpindi, Pakistan,” n.d.). June is the hottest month, with
an average high temperature of 38°C (“Climate & Weather Averages in Rawalpindi, Pakistan,”
n.d.). In contrast, January is the coldest month, with a high average of 18°C (“Climate &
Weather Averages in Rawalpindi, Pakistan,” n.d.).

Figure 1: Layout of Samplings Locations of Orchard Field

Soil Sampling and Analysis
Citrus, olive, have all been grown on the farm. Soil samples were acquired from 43
places in a grid pattern of about 1 Kanal at a depth of 0–30 cm. Each sample’s location (x,y)
was recorded using a hand-held GPS receiver. The samples were transported to the lab, air
dried before being crushed and powdered through a 2 mm sieve. The samples were subjected
to mechanical analysis (Gee, G.W. and J.W. Bauder, 1986.). Then there are the physical and
chemical parameters of the soil, which have been gathered and saved in a CSV file.
Statistical Analysis
The acquired soil and crop characteristics were prepared for statistical and geo-
statistical studies. Using Histogram in Arcmap 10.8, the values for variable means, standard
deviation from means (SD), minimum, maximum, Kurtosis, and Skewness were determined
(“Histograms—ArcMap | Documentation,” n.d.).
Table 1 summarizes the soil parameters of the orchard land under investigation. The
results show that the characteristics of the soil differed considerably. The mean values of Total
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Soil Saturation, Organic Matter, Total Organic Carbon, Electrical

3
Conductivity, pH, Manganese, Zinc, Copper, Iron, and Potassium were 0.0926+0.0396,
3.0188+1.334, 28.8+9.9903, 4.1894+0.2901, 2.4301+0.1682, 0.1198+0.0112, 7.5419+0.1932,
49.676+8.4644, 1.3453+0.3411, 1.5277+0.1511, 46.95+12.191, 83.717+16.325, respectively.
Table 1: Summary Statistics of Soil Properties of Orchard Field

Variable Count Min Max Mean±SD Median Skewness Kurtosis

Total
43 0.014 0.1681 0.0926+0.0396 0.084 0.4451 2.6599
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
43 0.48 5.64 3.0188+1.334 2.72 0.5051 2.5071
(ppm)
Soil
Saturation 43 13.5 48.642 28.8+9.9903 27.661 0.209 1.953
(%)
Organic
43 3.795 4.7606 4.1894+0.2901 4.1397 0.538 2.0776
Matter
Total Organic
43 2.201 2.7614 2.4301+0.1682 2.4012 0.538 2.0776
Carbon
Electrical
Conductivity 43 0.098 0.1418 0.1198+0.0112 0.1192 0.0845 2.393
(dS/m)
pH 43 7.19 7.91 7.5419+0.1932 7.55 -0.2102 2.0637
Manganese
43 33.13 65.69 49.676+8.4644 48.94 0.162 2.1874
(ppm)
Zinc (ppm) 43 0.7 2.02 1.3453+0.3411 1.42 -0.1251 2.3614
Copper (ppm) 43 1.25 1.8 1.5277+0.1511 1.54 -0.1758 2.2794
Iron (ppm) 43 25.16 70.48 46.95+12.191 45.09 0.1759 2.1031
Potassium
43 56.22 113.83 83.717+16.325 85.32 0.057 2.0231
(ppm)
Flow Diagram

Figure 2: Methodology flow chart

4
PCA and Cluster Analysis

A satellite image of the research area was taken from the USGS website. The field
boundaries were digitized and then cropped from the image to limit the interpolation extent and
additional analysis. Using ArcGIS, the Empirical Bayesian Kriging method utilized to estimate
the findings to the entire region from the point data (software version 10.8). Quantiles were
used to classify soil qualities. ArcGIS (software version 10.8) was used for multivariate
analysis (principal component and Iso clustering analysis). The data were normally distributed
before doing the multivariate analysis using the equation:
𝑥−𝜇
z=
𝛿
Z stands for the standardized value, X represents the soil property value, µ stands for
the mean, and δ stands for the standard deviation (Ali & Ibrahim, 2020). The process of
standardizing each value in a set of data so that the mean of all the values is 0 and the standard
deviation is 1 is known as Z-score standardization. One- way ANOVA test is used to find the
means value of soil nutrients in each MZ.
Null: The means of all MZ are same.
Alternative: The means of various MZ vary.
Reject the null hypothesis if the p-value is lesser than your significance level (0.05).
The idea that the means of at least one group are distinct from those of the other populations is
supported by sample data (Frost Jim, 2019).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Soil Spatial Distribution
According to the spatial distribution map, approximately 25, 25, 25, and 25% of the
study area had soil potassium values ranging from 65.11 to 77.43, 77.43 to 83.10, 83.10 to
86.83, and 86.83 to 106.44, respectively and soil Iron values ranging from 33.05 to 39.58, 39.58
to 45.74, 45.74 to 52.76, and 52.76 to 64.47, respectively. soil copper values ranging from 1.43
to 1.48, 1.53 to 1.58, and 1.58 to 1.61, respectively. soil zinc values ranging from 0.92 to 1.21,
1.21 to 1.30, 1.30 to1.42, and 1.42 to 1.84, respectively. soil manganese values ranging from
44.18 to 47.53, 47.53 to 49.77, 49.77 to 51.40, and 51.40 to 56.37, respectively. soil pH values
of 7.47 to 7.52, 7.52 to 7.54, 7.54 to 7.57, and 7.57 to 7.62, respectively. soil EC values of
0.114 to 0.118, 0.118 to 0.119, 0.119 to 0.120, and 0.120 to 0.126, respectively. soil total
organic carbon values of 2.34 to 2.40, 2.40 to 2.41, 2.41 to 2.43, and 2.43 to 2.48, respectively.
soil organic matter values ranging from 4.05 to 4.14, 4.14 to 4.16, 4.16 to 4.19, and 4.19 to
4.27, respectively. soil saturation values of 4.05 to 4.14, 4.14 to 4.16, 4.16 to 4.19, and 4.19 to
4.27, respectively. soil Phosphorus values ranging from 2.10 to 2.66, 2.66 to 2.85, 2.85 to 3.07,
and 3.07 to 4.55, respectively. soil total nitrogen values of 0.07 to 0.08, 0.08 to 0.09, and 0.09
to 0.11, respectively.

5
Figure 3: Soil spatial distribution maps of orchard field

6
SOIL SPATIAL VARIATION
With a significance level of alpha = 0.05, the values in bold deviate from 0. Observed
outputs in Table 2 found positive correlations between Total Nitrogen with Soil Saturation (r =
0.71), EC (r = 0.20), Mn (r = 0.63), Cu (r = 0.66), and K (r = 0.08), While there was a negative
correlation with P (r = -0.23), OM (r = -0.01), TOC (r = -0.01), pH (r = -0.12), Zn (r = -0.54),
and Fe (r = -0.67). Positive associations were discovered between Phosphorus with OM (r =
0.04), TOC (r = 0.04), EC (r = 0.07), pH (r = 0.16), Zn (r = 0.82), Fe (r = 0.63), and K (r =
0.73), While there was a negative relationship between Phosphorus with Soil Saturation (r = -
0.23), Mn (r = -0.25), and Cu (r = -0.49). The correlation was positive between Soil Saturation
and EC (r = 0.45), Mn (r = 0.86), Cu (r = 0.78), K (r = 0.20) and its was negative between Soil
Saturation with OM (r = - 0.01), TOC (r = - 0.01), pH (r = - 0.55), Zn (r = - 0.33), and Fe (r =
-0.80). There is also a positive association between OM with TOC (r = 1.0), EC (r = 0.54), Zn
(r = 0.06), and Cu (r =0.03) and negative relationship between OM with pH (r = -0.29), Mn (r
= -0.16), Fe (r = -0.01), and K (r = -0.14). The association between TOC with EC (r = 0.54),
Zn (r = 0.06), and Cu (r =0.03) was positive and negative relationship between TOC with pH
(r = -0.29), Mn (r = -0.16), Fe (r = -0.01), and K (r = -0.14). The relationship was positive
between Electrical Conductivity and Mn (r = 0.21), Zn (r = 0.10), Cu (r = 0.45), K (r = 0.10)
and its was negative between Electrical Conductivity with pH (r = - 0.50), and Fe (r = -0.37).
There is also a positive relationship between pH with Zn (r = 0.10), and Fe (r =0.50) and
negative relationship between pH with Mn (r = -0.43), Cu (r = -0.50), and K (r = -0.04). The
association between Manganese with Cu (r = 0.74), and K (r =0.19) was positive and negative
relationship between Manganese with Zn (r = -0.33), and Fe (r = -0.68). The association was
positive between Zinc and Fe (r = 0.74), K (r = 0.67) and its was negative between Zinc with
Cu (r = - 0.64). All other soil property pairs have positive correlations.
Table 2: Correlation matrix of the soil properties of orchard field
Laye TO
r TN P SS OM C EC pH Mn Zn Cu Fe K
- - - - - -
TN 1.00 0.23 0.71 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.12 0.63 0.54 0.66 0.67 0.08
- - - -
P 0.23 1.00 0.23 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.16 0.25 0.82 0.49 0.63 0.73
- - - - - -
SS 0.71 0.23 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.45 0.55 0.86 0.33 0.78 0.80 0.20
- - - - - -
OM 0.01 0.04 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.29 0.16 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.14
- - - - - -
TOC 0.01 0.04 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.29 0.16 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.14
- -
EC 0.20 0.07 0.45 0.54 0.54 1.00 0.50 0.21 0.10 0.45 0.37 0.10
- - - - - - - -
pH 0.12 0.16 0.55 0.29 0.29 0.50 1.00 0.43 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.04
- - - - - -
Mn 0.63 0.25 0.86 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.43 1.00 0.33 0.74 0.68 0.19
- - - -
Zn 0.54 0.82 0.33 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.33 1.00 0.64 0.74 0.67

7
 - - - - -
Cu 0.66 0.49 0.78 0.03 0.03 0.45 0.50 0.74 0.64 1.00 0.92 0.22
- - - - - - -
Fe 0.67 0.63 0.80 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.50 0.68 0.74 0.92 1.00 0.31
- - - -
K 0.08 0.73 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.04 0.19 0.67 0.22 0.31 1.00

Table 3: Summarization of PCA results of orchard field

PC Layer PC 1 PC 2 PC 3
Eigen value 2.50 1.30 1.09
Variability (%) 42.54 22.08 18.60
Cumulative (%) 42.54 64.62 83.22
Factor loadings
Total Nitrogen 0.33 -0.04 -0.16
Phosphorus -0.26 0.25 -0.39
Soil Saturation 0.38 0.08 -0.29
Organic Matter 0.04 0.51 0.32
Total Organic Carbon 0.04 0.51 0.32
Electrical Conductivity 0.18 0.46 -0.03
pH -0.24 -0.28 0.06
Manganese 0.34 -0.04 -0.32
Zinc -0.31 0.27 -0.31
Copper 0.42 0.00 -0.03
Iron -0.11 0.18 -0.58
Potassium -0.43 0.05 -0.04

The PC1, PC2, and PC3 can each explain 42.54, 22.08, and 18.60 percent of the overall
variance, whereas these PCs can explain 83.22 percent of the variability (Table 3). The
association between various soil characteristics and Generated PCs is determined by the factor
loadings values (Amer et al., 2021). Moderate correlations existed between the variables
"Potassium," "Copper," and "Soil Saturation" and PC1. Organic matter, total organic carbon,
and electrical conductivity were all closely related to PC2. Moderate correlations between PC3
and "Iron," and "Phosphorus" were found.

SOIL MANAGEMENT ZONES

The iterative self-organizing data clustering (ISO) technique was used to analyse each
sample's factor scores of PCs, which come from PCA, to group the data into distinct clusters
that share a characteristic. Three clusters were created from the data (Figure 4). The research
area was divided into three zones using these clusters, and the management zones were then

8
mapped (Figure 4). The properties of each MZ are presented in Table 4. To compare the various
MZs, a one-way ANOVA test was used (Table 4). According to the ANOVA results (Table 4),
there are statistical differences between the various MZs (p<0.05). MZ1, MZ2, and MZ3
contributed 45.01 (9528 sqm), 34.12 (7220 sqm), and 20.87% (4416 sqm) of the total area
(21164 sqm). Varied soil characteristics in various MZs have statistically different values. The
content of soil saturation followed the order MZ2 (32.99) > MZ3 (27.45) > MZ1 (27.18).
Regarding the range of Organic matter, the highest value was recorded with MZ1 (4.1685),
while the lowest value was recorded with MZ3(4.1636) with statistically differences order MZ1
(4.1685) > MZ2 (4.1684) > MZ3(4.1636). The highest Total Organic Carbon was in MZ1
(2.4179), and MZs can be arranged according to soil Total Organic Carbon values as follows,
MZ1 (2.4179) > MZ2 (2.4178) > MZ3 (2.4151), while the soil Electrical conductivity followed
the order MZ2 (0.1209) > MZ3 (0.1192) > MZ1 (0.1187). Regarding the content of pH, the
highest value was recorded with MZ3(7.5565), while the lowest value was recorded with
MZ2(7.5320) with statistically differences order MZ3 (7.5565) > MZ1 (7.5538) > MZ2
(7.5320). The highest Manganese was in MZ2 (52.3837), and MZs can be arranged according
to soil manganese values as follows, MZ2 (52.3837) > MZ3 (48.4416) > MZ1 (48.3361), while
the Zinc followed the order MZ3 (1.6173) > MZ1 (1.2882) > MZ2 (1.2259). The content of
copper followed the order MZ2 (1.5844) > MZ1 (1.5171) > MZ3 (1.4705). Regarding the
content of Iron, the highest value was recorded with MZ3 (57.7129), while the lowest value
was recorded with MZ2 (37.6835) with statistically differences order MZ3 (57.7129) > MZ1
(47.9446) > MZ2 (37.6835).
The concentration of Total Nitrogen, P, and K was the highest in MZ2 (0.1018), MZ3
(3.5974), and MZ3 (94.5613), respectively, and the lowest in MZ1 for T_Nitr (0.0844), P
(2.7838) and K (77.2203). These findings indicate that the limiting variables for crop
production are the low concentrations of nutrients and organic matter in the soil and the high
concentrations of soil salinity in the MZs, which vary in extent between MZs. As a result,
efforts must be undertaken to enhance crop output constraints. Thus, agricultural production
constraints must be strengthened by incorporating adequate nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium
fertilisers, focusing on inorganic fertilisers, and a soil leaching procedure to lower salt
concentrations to an acceptable level for crops. These results are in agreement (Ibrahim,
Sallam, & Shaban, 2015; Mohaseb, Kenawy, & Shaban, 2019; Nasef, Shaban, & Abd El-
Hamid, 2009; Saad, Arafat, & Kh, 2019; Shaban, Attia, & Mahmoud, 2010) who all shown
that the research region responds positively to nitrogenous, phosphorous, and potassium
fertilisation. Because each MZ has various requirements and amounts, using this method to
delineate the MZs will help people working in agriculture determine the necessary quantities
of mineral and organic fertilizers for each MZ without getting creative.

9
Figure 4: Soil management zones of orchard field

Table 4: Average values of the soil characteristics in different site-specific management

zones of orchard field
Property MZ 1 MZ 2 MZ 3 Significant
Total Nitrogen (%) 0.0844 0.1018 0.0846 Yes
Phosphorus (ppm) 2.7838 2.7949 3.5974 Yes
Soil Saturation (%) 27.1831 32.9948 27.4599 Yes
Organic Matter (%) 4.1685 4.1684 4.1636 Yes
Total Organic Carbon (%) 2.4179 2.4178 2.4151 Yes
Electrical Conductivity (dS/m) 0.1187 0.1209 0.1192 Yes
pH 7.5538 7.5320 7.5565 Yes
Manganese (ppm) 48.3361 52.3837 48.4416 Yes
Zinc (ppm) 1.2882 1.2259 1.6173 Yes
Copper (ppm) 1.5171 1.5844 1.4705 Yes
Iron (ppm) 47.9446 37.6835 57.7129 Yes
Potassium (ppm) 77.2203 84.5604 94.5613 Yes
Area (sqm) 9510 6846 4808 Total=21164

CONCLUSIONS
The study confirmed that utilizing multivariate analysis and geospatial approaches, this
methodology may be utilized to delineate site-specific management zones. The investigation
discovered a wide range of soil attributes values in a university research farm (koont,
Rawalpindi, Pakistan). Three MZs were found using the cluster analysis approach and PCA.
significant statistical variations among those MZs were detected (p 0.05). MZ1, MZ2, and MZ3
contributed 44.93 (9510 sqm), 32.35 (6846 sqm), and 22.72% (4808 sqm) of the total area

10
(21164 sqm) for the orchard field. The soil's low level of organic matter and nutrients between
distinct MZs is an obstacle to crop production. Therefore, efforts must be made to increase
these crop output constraints. As a result, it is necessary to increase these crop production
constraints by including the proper amounts of organic fertilizer together with phosphate,
potassium, and nitrogen fertilizers. Making management choices for issues like crop selection,
irrigation, and fertilization should be made easier with the help of the specified MZ.
LITERATURE CITED

Ali, A. M., & Ibrahim, S. M. (2020). Establishment of Soil Management Zones Using
Multivariate Analysis and GIS. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis,
51(19), 2491–2500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2020.1836207

Amer, B. S., Moussa, K. F., Sheha, A. A., & Fattah, M. K. A.-. (2021). Delineation of Site-
Specific Management Zones Using Multivariate Analysis and Geographic Information
System Technique. Plant Archives, 21(No 1).
https://doi.org/10.51470/plantarchives.2021.v21.no1.185

Baldrian, P. (2014). Distribution of Extracellular Enzymes in Soils: Spatial Heterogeneity and

Determining Factors at Various Scales. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 78(1),
11–18. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2013.04.0155dgs

Climate & Weather Averages in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2021,
from https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/pakistan/rawalpindi/climate

Flowers, M., Weisz, R., & White, J. G. (2005). Yield-based management zones and grid
sampling strategies: describing soil test and nutrient variability. Reproduced from
Agronomy Journal. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.0224

Fraisse, C. W., Sudduth, K. A., & Kitchen, N. R. (2001). Delineation of Site-Specific

Management Zones by Unsupervised Classification of Topographic Attributes and Soil
Electrical Conductivity. Transactions of the ASAE, 44(1), 155-.
https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.2296

Frost Jim. (2019). How to do One-Way ANOVA in Excel - Statistics By Jim. Retrieved August
9, 2022, from https://statisticsbyjim.com/anova/one-way-anova-excel/

Gee, G. W. and J. W. B. (1986). Particle Size Analysis. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part A.
Klute (Ed.). 2 Ed., Vol. 9 Nd . Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI, 383–411. Retrieved from
http://www.sciepub.com/reference/135479

Georgi, C., Spengler, D., Itzerott, S., & Kleinschmit, B. (2018). Automatic delineation
algorithm for site-specific management zones based on satellite remote sensing data.
Precision Agriculture, 19(4), 684–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-017-9549-y

Hălbac-Cotoară-Zamfir, R., Keesstra, S., & Kalantari, Z. (2019). The impact of political, socio-
economic and cultural factors on implementing environment friendly techniques for

11
 sustainable land management and climate change mitigation in Romania. Science of the
Total Environment, 654, 418–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.160

Histograms—ArcMap | Documentation. (n.d.). Retrieved July 22, 2022, from

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/geostatistical-
analyst/histograms.htm

Ibrahim, H. I. M., Sallam, A. M., & Shaban, K. A. (2015). Impact of Irrigation Rates and
Potassium Silicate Fertilizer on Seed Production and Quality of Fahl Egyptian Clover and
Soil Properties under Saline Conditions. Field Crops Res. Inst, 15(7), 1245–1255.
https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.aejaes.2015.15.7.12708

Kravchenko, A. N., & Bullock, D. G. (2000). Correlation of corn and soybean grain yield with
topography and soil properties. Agronomy Journal, 92(1), 75–83.
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2000.92175x

Li, Y., Shi, Z., Wu, C. F., Li, H. Y., & Li, F. (2008). Determination of potential management
zones from soil electrical conductivity, yield and crop data. Journal of Zhejiang
University: Science B, 9(1), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B071379

Mohaseb, M. I., Kenawy, M. H. M., & Shaban, K. A. H. (2019). Role of Mineral and Bio-
fertilizers on Some Soil Properties and Rice Productivity under Reclaimed Saline Soils.
Asian Soil Research Journal, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.9734/asrj/2019/v2i130041

Nasef, M. A., Shaban, K. A., & Abd El-Hamid, A. F. (2009). Effect of Compost, Compost Tea
and Bio-Fertilizer Application on Some Chemical Soil Properties and Rice Productivity
Under Saline Soil Condition. Journal of Agricultural Chemistry and Biotechnology,
34(4), 2609–2623. https://doi.org/10.21608/jacb.2009.90823

Panday, D., Ojha, R. B., Chalise, D., Das, S., & Twanabasu, B. (2019). Spatial variability of
soil properties under different land use in the Dang district of Nepal. Cogent Food and
Agriculture, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2019.1600460

Saad, S. A., Arafat, A. A., & Kh, S. (2019). Effect of different irrigation period and potassium
humate on some soil properties and carrot productivity under saline soil conditions.
Middle East Journal of Applied Sciences. https://doi.org/10.36632/mejas/2019.9.4.25

Shaban, K. A. H., Attia, M. A., & Mahmoud, A. A. (2010). Response of Rice Plant Grown on
Newly Reclaimed Saline Soil to a Mixture of Chelated Fe, Mn And Zn Applied by
Different Method and Rates. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 1(2),
123–134. https://doi.org/10.21608/jssae.2010.60437

Spurgeon, D. J., Keith, A. M., Schmidt, O., Lammertsma, D. R., & Faber, J. H. (2013). Land-
use and land-management change: Relationships with earthworm and fungi communities
and soil structural properties. BMC Ecology, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-13-
46

12
Vrindts, E., Mouazen, A. M., Reyniers, M., Maertens, K., Maleki, M. R., Ramon, H., & De
Baerdemaeker, J. (2005). Management zones based on correlation between soil
compaction, yield and crop data. Biosystems Engineering, 92(4), 419–428.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.08.010

Wendroth, O., Ritchey, E. L., Nambuthiri, S., Grove, J. H., & Pearce, R. C. (2011). Spatial
variability of soil physical properties. In Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series: Vol. Part
4 (pp. 827–839). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3585-1_163

Wibawa, W. D., Dludlu, D. L., Swenson, L. J., Hopkins, D. G., & Dahnke, W. C. (1993).
Variable Fertilizer Application Based on Yield Goal, Soil Fertility, and Soil Map Unit.
Journal of Production Agriculture, 6(2), 255–261. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1993.0255

Zhang, N., Wang, M., & Wang, N. (2002). Precision agriculture - A worldwide overview.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 36(2–3), 113–132. Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1699(02)00096-0

13