Comparison of Shoemaker–McLean–Pratt and Modified Mehlich Buffer Tests for Lime Requirement on Pennsylvania Soils

Wolf, Ann Marie; Beegle, D. B.; Hoskins, Bruce R.

doi:10.1080/00103620802073834

Cited by 28 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unpublished soil incubation studies conducted during the 1960s in Iowa showed better relationships between the SMP buffer and LR and were used to develop equations for LR that have been used since then. Other research that evaluated buffer pH methods using laboratory incubations also has reported better relationships between buffer pH and estimated LR than in our study Bhumbla and McLean, 1965;Jones, 2001 ;Sikora, 2006;Godsey et al, 2007;Hoskins and Erich, 2008;Wolf et al, 2008;Dietzel et al, 2009). For example.…”

Section: Relationship Between Estimated Lime Requirement and Soil Meacontrasting

confidence: 49%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Methods to Determine Crop Lime Requirement Under Field Conditions

Pagani

Mallarino

2012

Soil Science Society of America Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little field research has evaluated the effectiveness of pH buffer methods free of hazardous chemicals, such as Sikora and Mehlich methods, for estimating lime requirement (LR). This study assessed how Shoemaker-McLean-Pratt (SMP), Sikora, and Mehlich buffers, titratable acidity (TA), and soil properties relate to the LR under on-farm conditions. Experiments were established in 2.54-to 6.42-ha areas of 14 Iowa fields. Replicated treatments were a control and 6.7 Mg ha-' of effective CaCOj equivalent. Soil samples (19-48 per site, 15-cm depth) were collected before liming and afi;er a crop harvest (6-12 mo after liming). Soil pH ranged from 4.60 to 8.05 across all samples. Mean SMP, Sikora, and Mehlich buffer pH values differed (P < 0.05) and were 6.43, 6.36, and 5.77, respectively. The mean difference between SMP and Sikora buffers was explained by small differences in six of eight loess-derived soils and increasing difference with increasing soil organic matter (OM) and clay. The Mehlich buffer showed the best relationship with LR (r^ = 0.28), which was followed by Sikora (t^ = 0.18) and SMP (r^ = 0.12). Sikora and Mehlich buffers performed better than SMP or TA and include no hazardous chemicals. Consideration of OM increased the proportion of LR variation accounted for by the Mehlich or Sikota buffers to r^ = 0.32 and 0.24, respectively. The improvement, although small, can be easily implemented for routine estimation of LR because OM is measured together with pH and buffer pH in samples submitted to laboratories.Abbreviations: DGPS, differential global positioning system; GIS, geographical information system; ECCE, effective calcium carbonate equivalent; LR, lime requirement; MES, 2-(/V-morpholino) ethanesulfonic acid monohydrate; SMP, Shoemaker-McLeanPratt; OM, soil organic matter; TA, titratable acidity.

show abstract

Section: Relationship Between Estimated Lime Requirement and Soil Meacontrasting

confidence: 49%

“…Such a linear response was observed in several studies (Liu et al, 2005;Hoskins and Erich, 2008;Wolf et al, 2008). A target pH of 6.5 is recommended for corn and soybean in Iowa (Sawyer et al, 2002).…”

Section: Sitementioning

confidence: 77%

Comparison of Methods to Determine Crop Lime Requirement Under Field Conditions

Pagani

Mallarino

2012

Soil Science Society of America Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The buffer exhibited nearly the same buffering capacity as the Mehlich buffer (0.414 meq acidity/pH depression of 10 mL of buffer pH) and did not show statistically significant differences from the SMP LR rates. The only considerable disadvantage of the modified Mehlich buffer is that it cannot be stored for more than 3 weeks (Wolf, Beegle, and Hoskins 2005;Hoskins 2005). This relatively short shelf-life is a result of barium removal from the solution, and it has the potential for fungal growth because the buffer is an excellent medium for microbial growth [i.e., it contains high concentrations of ammonia nitrogen (N) and carbon (C)].…”

Section: Evaluation Of Four Buffer Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was developed to estimate the exchangeable acidity of the soil and to correlate it with the LR recommendation (Mehlich 1976;Wolf, Beegle, and Hoskins 2005). As stated by van Lierop (1990), it is well suited to predicting the LR to reach a target pH just above 5.5, which is sufficient to eliminate possible Al toxicity.…”

Section: Evaluation Of Four Buffer Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Four Buffer Solutions for Determining the Lime Requirement for Ohio Soils

Viswakumar¹,

Mullen²,

Diedrick³

et al. 2010

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lime is used as a soil amendment to achieve the optimum pH suitable for good crop growth. Buffer pH (BpH) measurements have been calibrated to relate the linear drop in pH of the soil-buffer system to the amount of lime needed to neutralize soil to a certain pH level. The amount of lime required to neutralize soil acidity, called the lime requirement (LR), is obtained from soil-limestone (CaCO 3 ) incubations. In this study, 13 soils from Ohio were incubated with CaCO 3 for a period of 1 month to determine the LR to achieve different target pHs. This LR was then regressed with the different BpHs of four buffer solutions [(1) Shoemaker, McLean, and Pratt (SMP), (2) Sikora, (3) Mehlich, and (4) modified Mehlich] to obtain calibration equations. The Sikora and modified Mehlich buffers are variations of the SMP and Mehlich buffers, respectively, but they are designed to promote buffering without use of any hazardous constituents [i.e., chromium(VI) in SMP buffer and barium in the Mehlich buffer]. This study was done to verify the applicability of the buffers that do not contain any hazardous constituents and to calibrate these buffers for predicting lime requirement needs for Ohio soils. Comparing the calibrated equations of the SMP and Sikora buffers with CaCO 3 -incubation LR recommendations revealed that the SMP and Sikora buffer solutions were not significantly different, and a single calibrated equation can be used for these two buffers to determine LR predictions in Ohio. The Mehlich and modified Mehlich calibration equations differed significantly from the SMP calibration equations and were not as highly correlated with CaCO 3 -incubation LR recommendations using a linear model (r 2 , 0.54). Thus, it is possible to use the Mehlich and modified Mehlich for determining lime recommendations, but they require a correction factor such as inclusion of the initial soil pH to improve the precision of the LR prediction. We also found the various buffers tested in this study were better able to predict LR rates for greater LR soils than low LR soils. In conclusion, successful laboratory tests to predict LR for Ohio soils are possible using alternative buffers that do not contain hazardous constituents.

show abstract

“…In the literature, solutions have been described with similar behavior to some of the most commonly used buffers, in which the toxic substances were substituted by species without health or environmental risks, based on the similar buffer capacity of substitute and substituted species (Huluka, 2005;Sikora, 2006;Sikora & Moore, 2008;Wolf et al, 2008). In relation to the SMP buffer, Vaughan (2004) suggested that the compounds imidazole or ethylenediamine could replace p-nitrophenol, while nitric or succinic acids could substitute the chromate salt.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%