Review of manuscript titled “An in-situ methodology to separate the contribution of soil water

content and salinity to EMI-based soil electrical conductivity” by Autovino et al.

The manuscript is interesting, aimed to partition ECa surveyed data and untangle the influence of soil moisture and soil salinity on bulk EC. I believe the manuscript does not require significant revision. Nevertheless, the following issues should be addressed:

L22-23: It seems contradicting having an assumption that field plots are homogeneous and then consider the spatial distribution of properties within.

L43: The most common field method…

L52: Please consider the use of the word However at the beginning of the sentence. It seems misplaced there.

L69: ECa (subscript a).

L91: Please change meters to m. Also in L105-115. There is no reason for writing units in full.

L91-93: Which year? I don’t think you give it anywhere.

L97: Please understand that EC of 1.6 dS/m can hardly be referred to as non-saline. What was the source of this water?

L99-102: When? How frequently?

L118: Please add ring sizes and reasons for collecting undisturbed samples.

L157: Above, there is no information about collection of disturbed samples, only undisturbed. As I believe the authors did not make the effort to collect soil cores only to destroy them later, some additional information on soil collection seems to be missing in section 2.1.

L193: Zc (subscript c).

L279: Please revise. Everything else seems to be given in dS/m.

L438: Present.

This paper (“An in-situ methodology to separate the contribution of soil water content and salinity to EMI-based soil electrical conductivity”) addresses a critical challenge in agricultural management: monitoring soil water content (θ) and solution salinity (σ_w) at the field scale. While Electromagnetic Induction (EMI) is a non-invasive geophysical method used to map soil spatial variability by measuring apparent soil electrical conductivity (ECa), the bulk electrical conductivity (σ_b) derived from EMI is influenced by both θ and σ_w. This dual dependency makes it difficult to quantify these two variables independently.

The study's primary objective is to develop and validate an EMI-based methodology capable of separating the respective contributions of θ and σ_w to σ_b. To achieve this, the authors conducted an experiment using two adjacent maize plots, one irrigated with saline water and the other with non-saline water. The proposed procedure involves measuring ECa with a CMD-MiniExplorer, inverting the data to obtain the spatial σ_b distribution, and then employing a site-specific calibrated Rhoades linear model, alongside an assumption of homogeneity in water content between the two plots, to estimate the spatial distribution of θ and σ_w in the saline plot. The results indicate that this integrated approach estimates θ and σ_w along the soil profile with reasonable accuracy, except at the immediate soil surface where EMI reliability is limited.

That said, I have several major concerns and questions regarding the methodology, assumptions, and interpretation of results:

• Which linear form of Topp’s equation do you use to compare your results to in Fig. 3? It does not seem correct. This is the correct Topp equation: swc = -5.3*10**(-2) + 2.92*10**(-2)*eps - 5.5*10**(-4)*eps**2 + 4.3*10**(-6)*eps**3. The linear form of Ferre is: swc = 0.1181*√(eps)-0.1841. Based on my calculations, the curve (or line in case of linearization) should be around the Ap line on your plot. E.g., for √(eps) = 4, SWC = 0.29 cm3 cm-3 (see figure attached). Please verify, correct and clarify this.
• Methodology of lab analyses: both 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 use PVC cylinders with 15 cm height.
  • 2.2.1: Is it common to saturate the soil column from the bottom, hoping for a uniform wetting, instead of packing the soil with pre-homogenized soil? Similar question for the evaporation process, during which the measurements were taken: I would expect the risk of a vertical SWC gradient to be high?
  • 2.2.2: Here you state that each sample was wetted with 15 ml of a solution. How was this done? From the top or bottom? Or was the soil homogenized first and then put in the PVC cylinder? The latter one would be the optimal approach I think, since top or bottom wetting may result in non-uniform distribution of water and salinity.
• θ(σ_b) relation
  
  Fig. 4: the data range is very limited (0.3-0.45 cm3 cm-3); do you think these ranges are sufficient? Do you assume that you can extrapolate the linear relation?
  • Why can you assume that this relation would be linear? I would expect a sigmoidal/concave upward curve, starting flat at low θ, rising sharply, then flattening again near saturation. You can see this also in your Eq. 1, if you write theta in function of σ_b, in principle you assume that the ratio of σ_s and σ_w is constant and independent of theta, which is not the case I think.
  • This range is in contrast with your experiment description in 2.2.2, where you mention SWCs of 0.06 to 0.46 cm3 cm-3.
  • In Fig. 7, you estimated SWC based on this relation, and here you get a SWC range of 0.19-0.25 cm3 cm-3; which was not in the range of the soil-specific θ(σ_b) calibration relation. How can you be sure this is correct?
  • --> I would propose to redo the experiment to know the relation over a wider range of SWCs.

Some smaller comments or questions that I have after reading the manuscript:

• L56: abbreviate TDR
• L75: over time and space
• L80-82: add comma or start new sentence
• L111: TDR with abbreviation
• You mention taking undisturbed soil samples in the saline plot – what happened with them? Later you also mention soil samples from the non-saline plot? Clarify this.
• Figure 1: Improve this figure.
  
  
  • Add subplot letters
  • Plant row is not visible
  • North arrow unclear what it belongs to. If it belongs to the map, improve the map (lat, lon) or don’t show Italy at all. The Wikipedia reference is not optimal.
  • σ_w measurement?
  • TDR measurement are not on here?
• Why only measure 1-2 rows?
• Why no σ_w or TDR measurements in non-saline plot?
• L184: Clarify that Tektronix = TDR
• The steps are not very clear and it’s confusing that they are not in the same order in the results section. Also, step 6 is spread over 3 parts. Please improve structure.
• It is unclear how you calibrated or fitted the parameters in Table 1: is this based on a least squares method? Also, the last paragraph of 2.2.3 is quite vague and is based on reading another paper (“In order to calibrate the model for deriving the soil-specific a, b and σs parameters, the procedure reported in Malicki and Walczak (1999) was applied, by using the same experiment reported therein at the point 2.2.2. Finally, the obtained θ - σb - σw data were fitted to the Rhoades model to finalize the calibration procedure.”)
• L239: Check sentence.
• L242-243: R² is sensitive to the range of the data!
• Figure 6
  
  
  • Add subplot letters. C is not in the caption.
  • What are the lines in Fig. 6a-b? They don’t seem to fit the data points – is this the result of a moving average filter? Clarify in the text and caption.
  • Fig. 6c: You have ECa measurements at 30 cm depth; how does the model extrapolate to the top 20 cm? You have ECa measurements at 1.2 m depth, why does the inverse model results only go up to 1.05 m depth?
  • Consider using a different colormap; this one is not greyscale (printer) friendly.
• You say the 0-30 cm layer is influenced by surface drip irrigation, while also the 30-80 cm is ‘directly wetted by drip irrigation’. At what depth was the drip line?
• Be consistent in the plots: horizontal position of 0-16 m (Fig. 6) or 1-17 m (Fig. 7)
• Fig. 8: Add subplot letters.
• L347: Fig. 9, not 10
• L349 & Fig. 9: You applied a moving average filter to the sigma_w-SS measurements; which window size did you use and why? Is this necessary? It feels like you might be artificially changing measurement data.
• L360: 0.23 is not in the figure? I read 0.10
• L376: Variance of wSS does not increase? It even slightly decreases with depth. (Table 2)
• Check consistency in symbols! (sigma_w,SS or sigma_w-SS, sigma_w^SS-f)
• Fig. 10: incomplete legend (thick solid line, thin solid line), unclear what are the two theta-EMI, the two X’s, not all plots have both?
• L402: Check sentence.
• L467: Check sentence.

Overall, the manuscript addresses an important problem and proposes a creative approach, but at present the methodology and interpretation are not sufficiently clear or convincing. In particular, the assumptions about the θ–σb relation, the limited calibration range, and the lack of detail in sample preparation raise doubts about the robustness of the conclusions.

Furthermore, the practical applicability of the method seems constrained: it requires a non-saline plot immediately adjacent to a saline one, with identical soil properties and moisture conditions; a situation that is rarely feasible in practice.

I encourage the authors to clarify the methodology, provide additional experimental data across a broader SWC range, and carefully reconsider the assumptions that are made. With these improvements, the study could make a valuable contribution to EMI-based soil monitoring.