Assessing Electrical Conductivity and Sodium Adsorption Ratio as Soil Salinity Indicators in Reclaimed Well Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical conductivity (EC) and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) are the two most widely used indicators of soil salinity worldwide. However, concerns regarding the use of EC and SAR for assessing soil salinity have been raised by industry, scientists, and regulators. This study examines 22 well sites across two ecoregions, sampling soils from 0 to 1.5 m depths, and hypothesized that EC and SAR may be insufficient indicators of soil salinity during reclamation. Both ecoregions had distinct soil salinity profiles, with greater variability in the upper 0.3 m. Across ecoregions, EC was 1.0–8.4 dSm−1 and SAR was 0.7–9.1. In the dry mixed-grass ecoregion, EC was moderately correlated with SAR from 0 to 0.45 m depths and significantly correlated with all ions above 0.6 m. EC explained 44–56% of chloride variation and up to 51% of sulfate in topsoil. In central parkland, EC correlated with chloride and magnesium at all depths and with calcium at most depths. SAR was strongly correlated with sodium at all depths in both ecoregions, explaining 6–82% of variation, and poorly predicted chloride and sulfate. SAR and EC did not always represent potentially toxic sodium, chloride, and sulfate ions; thus, these ions could be included as indicators, and current reclamation criteria should be modified or interpreted differently based on ecoregions and soil depths.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".