% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Kaufmann:1041116,
      author       = {Kaufmann, Manuela and Klotzsche, Anja and van der Kruk, Jan
                      and Langen, Anke and Vereecken, Harry and Weihermüller,
                      Lutz},
      title        = {{A}ssessing soil fertilization effects using
                      time-lapseelectromagnetic induction},
      journal      = {Soil},
      volume       = {11},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {2199-3971},
      address      = {Göttingen},
      publisher    = {Copernicus Publ.},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2025-02150},
      pages        = {267–285},
      year         = {2025},
      abstract     = {Adding mineral fertilizers and nutrients is a common
                      practice in conventional farming and is fun-damental to
                      maintain optimal yield and crop quality; nitrogen is the
                      most applied fertilizer and is often used excessively,
                      leading to adverse environmental impacts. To assist farmers
                      in optimal fertilization and crop man-agement, non-invasive
                      geophysical methods can provide knowledge about the spatial
                      and temporal distribution of nutrients in the soil. In
                      recent years, electromagnetic induction (EMI) has been
                      widely used for field charac-terization, to delineate soil
                      units and management zones, or to estimate soil properties
                      and states. Additionally, ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and
                      electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) have been used in
                      local studies to measure changes in soil properties.
                      Unfortunately, the measured geophysical signals are
                      confounded by horizon- tal and vertical changes in soil
                      conditions and parameters, and the individual contributions
                      of these conditions and parameters are not easy to
                      disentangle. Within fields, and also between fields,
                      fertilization management might vary in space and time, and,
                      therefore, the differences in pore fluid conductivity caused
                      directly by fertilization or indirectly by different crop
                      performance make the interpretation of large-scale
                      geophysical surveys over field borders complicated. To study
                      the direct effect of mineral fertilization on the soil
                      electrical conductivity, a field experiment was performed on
                      21 bare-soil plots with seven different fertilization
                      treatments. As fertilizers, calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN)
                      and potassium chloride (KCl) were chosen and applied in
                      three dosages. Soil water content, soil temperature, and
                      bulk electrical conductivity were recorded continuously over
                      450 d. Additionally, 20 EMI, 7 GPR, and 9 ERT surveys were
                      performed, and on days of ERT measurements, soil samples for
                      nitrate and reference soil electrical conductivity
                      measurements were taken. The results showed that (1) the
                      commonly used CAN application dosage did not impact the
                      geophysical signals significantly. (2) EMI and ERT were able
                      to trace back the temporal changes in nitrate concentrations
                      in the soil profile over more than 1 year. (3) Both
                      techniques were not able to trace the nitrate concentrations
                      in the very shallow soil layer of 0–10 cm, irrespective of
                      the low impact of fertilization on the geophysical signal.
                      (4) The results indicated that past fertilization practices
                      cannot be neglected in EMI studies, especially if surveys
                      are performed over large areas with different fertilization
                      practices or on crops grown with different fertilizer
                      demands or uptake},
      cin          = {IBG-3},
      ddc          = {550},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
      pnm          = {2173 - Agro-biogeosystems: controls, feedbacks and impact
                      (POF4-217) / BonaRes (Modul A): Nachhaltiges
                      Unterbodenmanagement - Soil³, Teilprojekt 3 (031B0026C)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-2173 / G:(BMBF)031B0026C},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:001455580100001},
      doi          = {10.5194/soil-11-267-2025},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1041116},
}