EC conversion for 1:5 extracts and standard saturated soil–water pastes in the assessment of arid land salinization: Classical methodologies revisited

1Citations
Citations of this article
2Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The common assessment of soil salinity posits a linear function, which transfers the electrical conductivity (EC) of highly diluted extracts to the standard state of soil paste. Our study examines this assumption and explains its limitations in a wide range of EC for highly saline soils of the Aral region in Uzbekistan. For a comparative EC assessment in the liquid phase from standard soil pastes and 1:5 aqueous extracts we used portable EC–meters. The dependences of EC, total dissolved solids (TDS), and soil–water potential on the pore water content were evaluated using centrifugation to separate the liquid phase from the soil matrix. The non-linearity of the relationship between the EC of water from soil pastes and 1:5 water extracts for both average and median data over a broad (0.4–160 dS/m) range of their variation is detected. A strong retention and concentration of electrolytes in fine pores and water films resistant to vacuum extraction, as well as the nonlinear EC versus TDS relationship in highly saline soils are attributed to this nonlinearity. A comprehensive statistical analysis showed that despite the general non-linearity, in the EC range from 0 to 30–35 dS/m, the results for 1:5 extract can be reliably converted to the standard state using the dilution model for the liquid phase of the soil with one basic parameter of soil bulk density. For hypersaline soils (EC > 30–35 dS/m), conversion based on the dilution theory is unacceptable due to a strong underestimation of TDS.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Smagin, A., Kacimov, A., & Sadovnikova, N. (2024). EC conversion for 1:5 extracts and standard saturated soil–water pastes in the assessment of arid land salinization: Classical methodologies revisited. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 23(4), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2023.12.005

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free