“…A perfect match is not possible, because the 150 m radius footprint of the AEM system encompasses much more inherent variation than the 1 m radius footprint of the EM39 instrument, but r 2 was improved to 0.33-0.47 for the 0-5 and 5-10 m slices, rising to 0.87 for deeper layers. The significance of these advances cannot be exaggerated; earlier applications of AEM to salt mapping (Duncan et al, 1993) met with scepticism because of the imprecision and inaccuracy of the vertical dimension, especially in the near-surface layer; now, a detailed, accurate, three-dimensional picture of conductivity may be had at a cost of a US$ a hectare. Conductivity may be expressed in terms of salt load, either using pore fluid from undisturbed samples or a water extract such as EC 1:5 .…”