This article was downloaded by: [University of New Mexico]On: 29 November 2014, At: 11:16Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communications in Soil Science and Plant AnalysisPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

Soil pH Variation Within a Soil. III. pH Variation inLimed SoilShih-Lin Hsu a , Joe Hung b d & Arthur Wallace c ea Department of Environmental Studies (Soil Science) , The Union Institute , Cincinnati,Ohio, USAb Department of Agricultural Engineering/Irrigation Science , Cal-Poly University ,Pomona, California, USAc Department of Agricultural Sciences (Soil Science and Plant Nutrition) , UCLA ,California, USAd Modern Irrigation Co. , Upland, California, USAe Wallace Laboratory , El Seguendo, California, USAPublished online: 05 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Shih-Lin Hsu , Joe Hung & Arthur Wallace (2004) Soil pH Variation Within a Soil. III. pH Variation inLimed Soil, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 35:3-4, 337-344, DOI: 10.1081/CSS-120029716

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/CSS-120029716

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS

Vol. 35, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 337–344, 2004

Soil pH Variation Within a Soil. III. pH

Variation in Limed Soil

Shih-Lin Hsu,1,* Joe Hung,2,# and Arthur Wallace3,z

1Department of Environmental Studies (Soil Science),

The Union Institute, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA2Department of Agricultural Engineering/Irrigation Science,

Cal-Poly University, Pomona, California, USA3Department of Agricultural Sciences

(Soil Science and Plant Nutrition), UCLA, California, USA

ABSTRACT

There are many methods for determining lime requirement, but no

single method is suitable for all soils. A fast and efficient method to

evaluate lime effect is needed. Soil buffering capacity tests and

column-leaching tests were applied to the limed Van Rockel soil at

*Correspondence: Shih-Lin Hsu, Department of Environmental Studies (Soil

Science), The Union Institute, Cincinnati, OH 45206, USA; E-mail: shih-linhsu@

msn.com.#Current address: Joe Hung, Modern Irrigation Co., Upland, California, USA.zCurrent address: Arthur Wallace, Wallace Laboratory, El Seguendo, California,

USA.

337

DOI: 10.1081/CSS-120029716 0010-3624 (Print); 1532-2416 (Online)

Copyright & 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

16 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

the depth of 0–30 cm to evaluate pH distribution after liming. Two

groups of the Van Rockel soil were taken for soil buffering capacity

test and two replicates were applied to each column-leaching test.

The objective of this study was to evaluate some relationships in pH

variation in soil after liming. The buffering capacity of a soil depends

on the rate of acidification of the soil. Equilibrium of pH value was

reached at about collector #7 after which there was no change of pH

value. It was concluded that pH differentials of the lowest and the

highest fractions of 0.5 units indicated that liming had an influenced

effect. Although adequate, more lime decreased soil pH differential

not less than 0.3 units in all fractions.

INTRODUCTION

The soil acidification in many cropped soils has vastly increaseddue to a combination of factors, such as loss of basic cations, cropsremoval, and the addition of acid-forming fertilizers.[1] Excessive soilacidity must be neutralized to attain a desired soil pH for optimumnutrient availability and crop growth. There are many methods fordetermining lime requirement,[2–4] but no single method is suitable for allsoils in all conditions.[5] The Ca(OH)2 titration method[6] is probably themost accurate method for determining lime requirements in treatingacid soils. However, this method is not suitable for assay of a large numberof samples or for obtaining quick results. Several more rapid and easierbuffer solution methods have been developed to determine lime require-ments. However, the chemistry behind these methods is complicated. Theapplication of these methods was limited to certain soil properties.[7] Manylaboratories rely on rapid buffer solution test methods to facilitate andexpedite their results. The results obtained from the rapid test methods canbe negatively influenced by the mere choice of electrode to determinebuffer solution pH.[5] Consequently, there is no universal consensus as towhich buffer solutionmethod should be used as a standard for determininglime requirements. A fast and efficient method to evaluate lime effect andits longevity is needed.

Although soil pH value gives no measure of the lime requirement,low pH in soils can alert the grower to the need for lime. The amount ofexchangeable acidity is a complicated factor. The soil pH is a logarithmicscale, much more acid is needed to lower the pH from 5 to 4 than isneeded when lowering pH from 6 to 5. Therefore, low pH (less than 5.5)values in soil, which cannot be detected from the common pH testingmethods, may play a significant role in the process of soil acidification.

338 Hsu, Hung, and Wallace

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

16 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

Such testing could be an important guide for improving the productivityof acid soil.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationships betweenpH variations in soil described in the column-leaching technique[8] afterliming.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The soil used in this study was obtained from the Van Rockel vineyardin Temecula, CA. The soil was classified as a loamy sand (hyperthermiccoated typic quartzipsamment). Soil samples at the depth of 0–30 cmwere taken from four random close by sites within 5m of each other withtwo replicates.

Soil Buffering Capacity Tests

The procedure of determining soil buffering capacity by Magdoff andBartlett[9] and Aitken[10] was followed. One hundred gram of moist VanRockel soil samples were obtained at the depth of 0–30 cm and placed inpolyethylene bags. Two groups of Van Rockel soil with similar pH valueswere taken for soil buffering capacity tests by addition of lime. Group Asoil was the mixture of the soils from sites A and C at the depth of 0–30 cmand group B soil was the mixture of the soils from sites B and D at thedepth of 0–30 cm. At sites A and C mixed (group A), the pH valuesincreased with depth within each site. At sites B and D mixed (group B),the pH values at the depth of 0–30 cm were almost the same withineach site.[8]

Six lime treatments were added to soil group A (CaCO3 g/100 g soil:0.015, 0.030, 0.045, 0.065, 0.150, and 0.300, respectively) and soil group B(CaCO3 g/100 g soil: 0.007, 0.020, 0.040, 0.060, 0.085, and 0.150,respectively). The soil mixed with CaCO3 was shaken vigorously in eachbag, and then was moistened (the soil sample was sprayed with water andkept moist but not dry) to approximately 0.1 bar soil water potential andincubated at 25�C for 1month. Soil water content was maintained at0.1 bar by periodic watering during the incubation. At the end of theincubation, each soil sample was air-dried, mixed, and passed through a2-mm sieve. Soil pH was then determined on a 10 g subsample with 20mLof deionized water.[11]

Soil pH Variation Within a Soil. III 339

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

16 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

Column-Leaching Tests for the Limed Soils

A column-leaching method[8] was applied to measure pH values inthe solution of four limed (two lowest limed incubated and two highestlime incubated) Van Rockel soil samples at the depth of 0–30 cm with tworeplicates (Table 1). The desired smallest pH differentials between thehighest pH value and the lowest pH value in the limed soil weredetermined. The mean pH values of the two replicates vs. time were thenplotted to examine the liming effect on acid soils.

Statistical Analysis

Correlation and regression analyses were used to study the relation-ship between soil pH values and leaching fractions from the column-leaching method, and the relationships between lime rate and pH values.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Soil Buffering Capacity

Figure 1A showed that traditional pH values for the Van Rockel soilgroup A increased rapidly from 5.7 to 7.9 (ratio of pH/CaCO3 g¼ 34) inresponse to the increase of the rate of lime applied, but the rate ofincrease slowed down as the pH value exceeded 7.9. Figure 1B showedthat the pH values for Van Rockel soil group B increased rapidly from6.3 to 7.0 (ratio of pH/CaCO3 g¼ 101), and then increased gradually

Table 1. The amounts of the two lowest lime and two highest lime

added toGroupA soil (Sites A andC) andGroupB soil (Sites B andD).

Soil group

A B

Lime rates Lime rates

Low (g) High (g) Low (g) High (g)

0.015 0.15 0.007 0.085

0.030 0.30 0.020 0.15

340 Hsu, Hung, and Wallace

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

16 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

from 7.0 to 7.8 (ratio of pH/CaCO3 g¼ 21) and finally increased

parabolically with respect to the rate of lime applied. It was found thatliming increased the soil pH values effectively from 6.3 to 7.0 at group B

and from 5.7 to 7.9 at group A. Just a little amount of lime (0.065 g

CaCO3/100 g soil) was needed to elevate soil pH from 5.7 to 7.9 atgroup A. The buffering capacity of the soils depended on the rate of

acidification in the soil (Fig. 1A vs. 1B). To find the difference of soil

buffering capacity by the traditional soil buffering capacity test methodwould be difficult, because the pH distribution within the soil was not

obtained.

5.3

5.7

6.1

6.5

6.9

7.3

7.7

8.1

8.5(A)

(B)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

CaCO3g/ 100 g Soil

CaCO3g/ 100 g Soil

pH

y = 2040.4x3− 578.47x2 + 52.857x + 6.5173

R2

= 0.9701

y = 537.7x3− 300.72x2 + 50.964x + 5.5442

R2

= 0.9856

6.2

6.6

7.0

7.4

7.8

8.2

8.6

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

pH

Figure 1. Traditional pH values vs. the amount of lime applied for Van Rockel

soil (group A group B) at the depth of 0–30 cm. (View this art in color at

www.dekker.com.)

Soil pH Variation Within a Soil. III 341

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

16 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

pH Distribution for Limed Soils

After liming, pH values in soil pores were elevated in differentfractions (Fig. 2A). In soil group A or group B, the pH differentialsbetween the highest pH value and the lowest pH value were 0.3 or 0.4 pHunits using four different liming treatments (Fig. 2A). Although theadded lime was mixed thoroughly with soil, the pH differentials betweenthe highest pH value and the lowest pH value still existed and were no lessthan 0.3 pH units (Fig. 2A). This pH differential should be the lowest onein any other column-leaching test.

The maximum traditional pH value that can be elevated by limingVan Rockel soil was 8.3 (Fig. 1). The highest pH value obtained fromcolumn-leaching test was also 8.3 for this soil (Fig. 2A). It was shown

7.7

7.8

7.9

8.0

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

Collector Number

pH Group A-Lime 1

Group A-Lime 2

Group B-Lime 1

Group B-Lime 2

5.65.86.06.26.46.66.87.07.27.47.6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

Collector Number

y = 3E−05x3 − 0.0024x2 + 0.0507x + 7.1105 R2 = 0.7661

y = 3E−05x3 − 0.0019x2 + 0.0442x + 8.051 R2 = 0.9011 y = 2E−05x3 − 0.0016x2 + 0.0372x + 8.0876

R2 = 0.8383y = 3E−05x3 − 0.0025x2 + 0.0578x + 7.854

R2 = 0.9184

y = 3E−05x3 − 0.0019x2 + 0.0422x + 7.8868 R2 = 0.7411

y = 3E−05x3 − 0.0023x2 + 0.0483x + 6.8192 R2 = 0.6744

y = 3E−05x3 − 0.0024x2 + 0.0514x + 6.3842 R2 = 0.7116

y = 4E−05x3 − 0.0026x2 + 0.0566x + 5.8435 R2 = 0.7983

pH Group A-Lime 1

Group A-Lime 2

Group B-Lime 1

Group B-Lime 2

(A)

(B)

Figure 2. (A) pH distribution for lime Van Rockel soil after two lowest levels of

lime treatments (Lime 1: 0.015 g/100 g, Lime 2: 0.030 g/100 g for group A soils;

Lime 1: 0.007 g/100 g, Lime 2: 0.020 g/100 g for group B soils); (B) pH distribution

for limed Van Rockel soil after two highest levels of lime treatments (Lime 1:

0.15 g/100 g, Lime 2: 0.30 g/100 g for group A soils; Lime 1: 0.085 g/100 g, lime 2:

0.15 g/100 g for group B soils).

342 Hsu, Hung, and Wallace

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

16 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

that the pH variation still existed in the Van Rockel soil even with the two

highest lime treatments (Fig. 2A). Even though the soils had been

overlimed, the pH values of the early fractions were lower than the later

fractions. Therefore, the column-leaching test can clearly reflect pH

variation in soil that cannot be vanished by overliming soil. More

advanced studies are needed to realize the formation of soil pH variation.

Furthermore, the column test added information beyond traditional pH

determination in that the column-leaching method showed the point of

pH equilibrium. During these four column tests, it took 20min (Fig. 2) to

reach the final steady pH values. These data indicated a promising future

for using the column-leaching method to determine liming effect and lime

longevity for many kinds of soils.

CONCLUSIONS

From the results of this study, the column-leaching method has been

shown to be a possible and better method for observing effects of liming

and lime longevity. For limed soils, the magnitude of soil pH variation

can be used to evaluate liming effects. We concluded that pH differentials

of lowest and highest fractions of 0.5 units indicated that liming had an

influenced effect. Although adequate, more lime decreased soil pH

differentials not less than 0.3 units in all fractions. From the results of this

study and previous study,[8] it can be concluded that when the initial soil

pH value was lower than 5.5 or the pH differential between the initial pH

value and the final pH value was greater than 1.5 pH units, liming was

required to bring up soil pH value to higher pH level in acidified soils.

Traditional pH value does not give this information.

REFERENCES

1. Heenan, D.P.; Taylor, A.C. Soil pH decline in relation to rotation,

tillage, stubble retention and nitrogen fertilizer in S.E. Australia. Soil

Use Mgt. 1995, 11, 4–9.2. Eckert, D.; Sims, J.T. In Recommended Soil pH and Lime Requirement

Tests: Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern

United States; Sims, J.T., Wolf, A., Eds.; Northeastern Regional Publ.

No. 493, University of Delaware: Newark, DE, 1995; 16–21.

Soil pH Variation Within a Soil. III 343

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

16 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

3. Council on soil testing and plant analysis. Handbook on ReferenceMethods for Soil Analysis; Council on Soil Testing and PlantAnalysis: Athens, GA, 1992; 51–69.

4. McLean, E.O. In Soil pH and Lime Requirements. Methods of SoilAnalysis: Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd Ed.; Page,A.L., Ed.; ASA, SSSA: Madison, WI, 1982; 199–224.

5. Quigley, M.N. Testing soils for lime requirement. In Handbookof Soil Conditioners, 1st Ed.; Wallace, A., Terry, R.E., Eds.; MarcelDekker, Inc.: New York, 1997; 293–308.

6. Abruna, F.; Vicente, J. Criteria of base saturation in soils. Univ.Puerto Rico J. Agric. 1955, 39, 41.

7. McLean, E.O. Principles underlying the practice of determining limerequirements of acid soils by use of buffer methods. Commun. SoilSci. Plant Anal. 1978, 9, 699–715.

8. Hsu, S.L.; Hong, J.; Wallace, A. Soil pH variation within a soil I.pH variation in soil pores observed in a column leaching method.Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2004, 35 (3&4), 319–329.

9. Magdoff, F.R.; Bartlett, R.J. Soil pH buffering revised. Soil Sci.Soc. Am. J. 1985, 49, 145–148.

10. Aitken, R.L. Relationship between extractable Al, selected soilproperties, pH buffer capacity and lime requirement in some acidicQueens and soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 1990, 30, 119–130.

11. Neilsen, D.; Hoyt, P.B.; Parchomchuk, P.; Neilsen, G.H.; Hogue,E.J. Measurement of the sensitivity of orchard soils to acidification.Can. J. Soil Sci. 1995, 75, 391–395.

344 Hsu, Hung, and Wallace

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

16 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Request Permission/Order Reprints

Reprints of this article can also be ordered at

http://www.dekker.com/servlet/product/DOI/101081CSS120029716

Request Permission or Order Reprints Instantly!

Interested in copying and sharing this article? In most cases, U.S. Copyright Law requires that you get permission from the article’s rightsholder before using copyrighted content.

All information and materials found in this article, including but not limited to text, trademarks, patents, logos, graphics and images (the "Materials"), are the copyrighted works and other forms of intellectual property of Marcel Dekker, Inc., or its licensors. All rights not expressly granted are reserved.

Get permission to lawfully reproduce and distribute the Materials or order reprints quickly and painlessly. Simply click on the "Request Permission/ Order Reprints" link below and follow the instructions. Visit the U.S. Copyright Office for information on Fair Use limitations of U.S. copyright law. Please refer to The Association of American Publishers’ (AAP) website for guidelines on Fair Use in the Classroom.

The Materials are for your personal use only and cannot be reformatted, reposted, resold or distributed by electronic means or otherwise without permission from Marcel Dekker, Inc. Marcel Dekker, Inc. grants you the limited right to display the Materials only on your personal computer or personal wireless device, and to copy and download single copies of such Materials provided that any copyright, trademark or other notice appearing on such Materials is also retained by, displayed, copied or downloaded as part of the Materials and is not removed or obscured, and provided you do not edit, modify, alter or enhance the Materials. Please refer to our Website User Agreement for more details.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

16 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014