Investigating the accuracy and comparability of various lime prediction methods for Irish grassland mineral soils

IF 5 3区 农林科学 Q1 SOIL SCIENCE Soil Use and Management Pub Date : 2024-03-17 DOI:10.1111/sum.13034
F. Mackessy, E. McCarthy, E. Broderick, B. O'Donnell, P. Quille
{"title":"Investigating the accuracy and comparability of various lime prediction methods for Irish grassland mineral soils","authors":"F. Mackessy, E. McCarthy, E. Broderick, B. O'Donnell, P. Quille","doi":"10.1111/sum.13034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Soil pH is a foundational element of agronomy, profoundly influencing biological, chemical and physical soil processes. Adjusting soil pH is a paramount factor for enhancing soil health and productivity with far-reaching environmental benefits. Over time soil naturally tends towards acidity, a process expedited by intensive agriculture practices. To determine the extent of necessary pH corrections, precise soil pH testing is imperative. Various methods including buffer systems, titrations, lime incubations and algorithms considering soil texture are used to assess a soil's lime requirement and each method carries distinct advantages and disadvantages. The Shoemaker–McLean–Pratt (SMP) buffer method is extensively used in Ireland and internationally; however, safety concerns owing to the use of hazardous chemicals required within the method have been highlighted. This study investigates various soil lime requirement tests and compares their performance against a lime incubation study. A proposed alternative to the SMP buffer test for Irish grassland soils is also investigated. Analysis of results obtained indicates that the SMP buffer method demonstrated the highest <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> value of .497 when correlated with lime incubation results, while the calcium hydroxide titration method closely aligns with the SMP buffer method with an <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> value of .816, followed by the modified Mehlich buffer method with an <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> value of .763.","PeriodicalId":21759,"journal":{"name":"Soil Use and Management","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil Use and Management","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.13034","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Soil pH is a foundational element of agronomy, profoundly influencing biological, chemical and physical soil processes. Adjusting soil pH is a paramount factor for enhancing soil health and productivity with far-reaching environmental benefits. Over time soil naturally tends towards acidity, a process expedited by intensive agriculture practices. To determine the extent of necessary pH corrections, precise soil pH testing is imperative. Various methods including buffer systems, titrations, lime incubations and algorithms considering soil texture are used to assess a soil's lime requirement and each method carries distinct advantages and disadvantages. The Shoemaker–McLean–Pratt (SMP) buffer method is extensively used in Ireland and internationally; however, safety concerns owing to the use of hazardous chemicals required within the method have been highlighted. This study investigates various soil lime requirement tests and compares their performance against a lime incubation study. A proposed alternative to the SMP buffer test for Irish grassland soils is also investigated. Analysis of results obtained indicates that the SMP buffer method demonstrated the highest r2 value of .497 when correlated with lime incubation results, while the calcium hydroxide titration method closely aligns with the SMP buffer method with an r2 value of .816, followed by the modified Mehlich buffer method with an r2 value of .763.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
调查爱尔兰草地矿质土壤各种石灰预测方法的准确性和可比性
土壤 pH 值是农艺学的基础要素,对土壤的生物、化学和物理过程有着深远的影响。调节土壤 pH 值是提高土壤健康和生产力的一个重要因素,对环境具有深远的益处。随着时间的推移,土壤会自然趋向酸性,而集约化农业生产方式会加速这一过程。为了确定必要的 pH 值调整范围,必须进行精确的土壤 pH 值测试。评估土壤石灰需求的方法多种多样,包括缓冲系统、滴定法、石灰培养法和考虑土壤质地的算法,每种方法都有各自的优缺点。Shoemaker-McLean-Pratt (SMP)缓冲法在爱尔兰和国际上被广泛使用;然而,由于该方法需要使用有害化学物质,其安全问题也备受关注。这项研究调查了各种土壤石灰需求测试,并将其性能与石灰培养研究进行了比较。此外,还对爱尔兰草地土壤 SMP 缓冲测试的替代方法进行了研究。对所得结果的分析表明,当与石灰培养结果相关联时,SMP 缓冲溶液法的 r2 值最高,为 0.497,而氢氧化钙滴定法与 SMP 缓冲溶液法密切相关,r2 值为 0.816,其次是改进的 Mehlich 缓冲溶液法,r2 值为 0.763。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Soil Use and Management
Soil Use and Management 农林科学-土壤科学
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
13.20%
发文量
78
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Soil Use and Management publishes in soil science, earth and environmental science, agricultural science, and engineering fields. The submitted papers should consider the underlying mechanisms governing the natural and anthropogenic processes which affect soil systems, and should inform policy makers and/or practitioners on the sustainable use and management of soil resources. Interdisciplinary studies, e.g. linking soil with climate change, biodiversity, global health, and the UN’s sustainable development goals, with strong novelty, wide implications, and unexpected outcomes are welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Phosphorus acquisition by faba bean, blue lupin, and chickpea in relation to soil phosphorus status Approaching soil health from a practitioner perspective – Placing practices before indicators for Australian cotton and other producers Soil carbon in the boreal region under climate and land use change Remediation of Pb, Cd, and Cu contaminated soil with Mg‐Fe‐Al layered double hydroxides (LDHs) synthesized from waste red mud Effects of unbalanced fertilizer use on system productivity and profitability under rice‐based cropping systems: Evidence from Eastern Gangetic Plain
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1