1981
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1981.03615995004500040032x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparisons of Arithmetic Average Soil pH Values with the pH Values of Composite Samples

Abstract: Close agreement was found between arithmetic mean pH values of limed samples and the pH values of composited samples. Agreement was consistently and considerably poorer when pH values were converted to H‐ion activities [(H+)] before averaging. Results are explained by the greater linearity between soil pH and base saturation (BS) in the acid range of mineral soils than between (H+) and BS. Linearity can be assessed by comparing average pH values with those of composited samples.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1989
1989
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Mean pH, based on the average of the pH data (Baker et al, 1981), and Ca concentrations for the upper forest floor (Oi + Oe) and the humus/mineral soil transition layer (Oa + A) are given in Table I for 1990 and 1991. Both pH and Ca concentrations were greater (P _<0.01) in the upper forest floor of limed than reference subcatchments during both years.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mean pH, based on the average of the pH data (Baker et al, 1981), and Ca concentrations for the upper forest floor (Oi + Oe) and the humus/mineral soil transition layer (Oa + A) are given in Table I for 1990 and 1991. Both pH and Ca concentrations were greater (P _<0.01) in the upper forest floor of limed than reference subcatchments during both years.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The total number of composite surface samples was 66 (one per site per year). Compositing has been shown not to diminish sampling efficacy in accounting for pH spatial variability (BAKER, et al 1981). Surface bulk density samples were taken from each land parcel with a core sampler, using a slide hammer.…”
Section: Samplingmentioning
confidence: 99%