HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tran, T. S. Articles by van Lierop, W. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Tran, T. S. Articles by van Lierop, W. Agricola Articles by Tran, T. S. Articles by van Lierop, W.

Lime Requirement Determination for Attaining pH 5.5 and 6.0 of Coarse-textured Soils using Buffer-pH Methods¹

ABSTRACT

In this experiment, we sought to verify the precision of the Shoemaker et al. (SMP), Yuan, Woodruff, and Mehlich lime requirement (LR) methods as proposed and modified for measuring the LR of 37 acid coarse-textured soils to attain pHs 5.5 and 6.0. The SMP buffer was tried at initial buffer pH levels of 7.5, 7.0, 6.5, 6.0, and 5.5 as a single-buffer (SB) method or double-buffer (DB; McLean et al.) modification. Results indicate that linearity of the relationship between incubation LR and soil-buffer pH increased as the initial buffer pH approached the desired soil pH. This comparison also disclosed that after recalibration the SMP-SB method was as accurate and precise as the more complex SMP-DB procedure for determining LR (5.5) and LR (6.0) rates. The most advantageous way of using the SMP-SB method for determining these LR rates was with the customary initial buffer pH of 7.5 but calculating the prescribed rates with a curvilinear instead of the more common linear buffer calibrations.

The Yuan buffer was evaluated at initial buffer pH levels of 7.0, 6.5, and 6.0 both with single- and double-buffer methodologies. This comparison revealed that the Yuan-DB procedure, though among the most precise tested for LR (6.0), was appreciably less precise for determining LR (5.5) rates. Nonetheless, the Yuan buffer was as precise for determining LR (6.0) rates and substantially more precise for prescribing LR (5.5) rates when used as a SB instead of its usually proposed more complex DB methodology.

The Woodruff buffer was as precise as any for determining LR (6.0) rates, but its precision was substantially lower for LR (5.5). As proposed, the Mehlich method was probably the most accurate method tested for determining LR (5.5) rates, because this method prescribed on the average 111% of the incubation values and the prescribed and incubation values were closely related (r = 0.938**). This study revealed that most buffers can be used for determining LR (5.5) or LR (6.0) rates after appropriate calibration. Regression equations are, accordingly, provided for calculating or adjusting LR rates to pH 5.5 or 6.0 for the methods and modifications tested. Results also indicate that buffer calibrations are valid for a wider range of mineral soils than used in this study.

¹ Soil Research Service Contribution no. 312, Quebec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada.

² Soil Scientists, Soil Research Service, 2700 Einstein Street, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada, G1P 3W8.

Received for publication March 26, 1982. Accepted for publication June 3, 1982.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. B. Godsey, G. M. Pierzynski, D. B. Mengel, and R. E. Lamond Evaluation of Common Lime Requirement Methods Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., April 5, 2007; 71(3): 843 - 850. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]