Evaluation of Common Lime Requirement Methods

Godsey, Chad B.; Pierzynski, Gary M.; Mengel, D. B.; Lamond, Ray E.

doi:10.2136/sssaj2006.0121

Cited by 30 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 18 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“…Unpublished soil incubation studies conducted during the 1960s in Iowa showed better relationships between the SMP buffer and LR and were used to develop equations for LR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 Measupporting

confidence: 48%

“…The Mehlich buffer pH method, in agreement with the analysis by soü series, resulted in significantly lower values than the SMP and Sikora methods, and the intercept and slope were less than 0 and 1, respectively. A large difference between the Mehlich and SMP or Sikora methods was also shown for other soils of the Midwest (Godsey et al, 2007;Peters and Laboski, 2007). The magnitude ofthe difference varied greatly across states, however, which confirms a need for local calibrations to determine LR, as reported by Sims (1996) and Rössel and McBratney (2001).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Godsey et al (2007), working with Kansas soils reported, however, that the Mehlich buffer predicted LR better than the SMP buffer when using local calibrations. Consideration of more than one soil measurement increased the proportion of estimated LR variation that was accounted for …”

Section: Relationship Between Estimated Lime Requirement and Soil Meamentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Our results, and the general lack of field studies in the Midwest, suggest a need to validate, under field conditions, equations based on incubations to relate soil properties and buffer pH methods to LR. For example, Godsey et al (2007) compared the LR from 60-d incubations with the observed soil pH response to lime in the field and showed that the actual LR was significantly greater than that predicted by the 60-d incubation.…”

Section: Relationship Between Estimated Lime Requirement and Soil Meamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hoskins and Erich (2008) worked with incubations and showed that LRs for the original or modified Mehlich buffer were similar to those for the SMP method. Godsey et al (2007) evaluated the SMP and the modified Mehlich buffers in Kansas soils based on laboratory sou incubations and limestone application at the field. They reported that buffer pH values were significantly lower for the Mehlich buffer and that with the local calibration this method would predict LR better than the SMP buffer.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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 Measupporting

confidence: 48%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Relationship Between Estimated Lime Requirement and Soil Meamentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Relationship Between Estimated Lime Requirement and Soil Meamentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Lime requirement for agricultural soils: A review of the current and potential methods for routine use

Nguyen

2022

J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Liming is one of the key agronomic practices to improve crop yields in acid soils because, among other things, it reduces aluminum toxicity and creates favorable conditions for crop growth. For an effective liming program, the methods to determine lime requirement should be as precise as possible. This paper reviews the existing lime requirement methods and discusses the potential of a new one suitable for routine use in the laboratory to test most agricultural soils. The most widely used lime requirement methods can be categorized into four groups: titration, incubation, buffer, and field methods. Other methods such as spectroscopy method or the use of empirical equations have also been adopted. Although some methods are highly reliable, they are not optimal for routine use because they are inconvenient during the laboratory procedures or cannot be validated for all conditions. Based on the linearity between soil pH and the added base in the pH range from 4.5–6.5 in most agricultural soils, a titration‐based method on 1:1 soil:0.01 M CaCl2 slurry of a single sample appears to be a promising candidate for routine use. In further studies, this generally applicable method should be evaluated to provide a better comparison to established methods for lime requirement determination.

show abstract

A comparison of soil liming requirement methodologies in temperate, Northern European pedo‐climates

Boyko

Paton

Walker

et al. 2023

J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLiming agricultural land is essential to optimise crop yield and soil nutrients. Despite the importance of pH management in agricultural soils, liming applications have been decreasing in the United Kingdom for decades. There is no comparison of contemporary and historical liming requirement (LR) methods for Northern European, temperate climate mineral soils high in organic matter (OM).AimsThe aims of this research were to thoroughly comparatively analyse current methodologies and to ascertain which soil characteristics contribute to LR reactions.MethodsAnalysis compared methods for determining liming values common in the United Kingdom (Scottish Agricultural College [SAC] look‐up chart, RothLime model), Europe and the United States (Shoemaker–McLean–Pratt, Sikora, Modified Mehlich buffers), and the 30‐min calcium hydroxide titration developed by the University of Georgia.ResultsRothLime and SAC highly underestimated the LR value in acidic soils. The buffers highly over or underestimated LRs. The UGA titration method is a cheap, easy and accurate method which could be utilised for high OM soils but requires further calculation development. The characteristics most associated with soil–lime reactions in this experiment were measures of exchangeability (cation exchange capacity and loss on ignition, and by proxy, lime buffering capacity).ConclusionsThere is an opportunity to create buffer calculators and titration equations adapted to high OM soils. These are suggested for further development, through a larger diversity of UK soil types grouped by buffering capacity ranges. Including soil exchangeability factors in lime management calculations may contribute to more accurate values and therefore better resource management. Increasing LR accuracy for site‐specific soil pH management, used in precision agriculture technologies, is a necessary tool for the conservation of natural resources like limestone, managing resource use efficiency, and for optimising yields.

show abstract

Evaluation of Common Lime Requirement Methods

Cited by 30 publications

References 18 publications

Comparison of Methods to Determine Crop Lime Requirement Under Field Conditions

Comparison of Methods to Determine Crop Lime Requirement Under Field Conditions

Lime requirement for agricultural soils: A review of the current and potential methods for routine use

A comparison of soil liming requirement methodologies in temperate, Northern European pedo‐climates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About