The objective of this study was to compare several commonly used lime requirement tests and soil capacity factors for their ability to predict pH change following wood-ash amendment. The ability to predict pH change is important because it is one of the criteria used to prescribe rates of ash amendment to forest soils.https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_techbulletin/1070/thumbnail.jp

Fernandez, Ivan J.

Unger, Yvonne L.

English

University of Maine

The University of MaineDigitalCommons@UMaineTechnical Bulletins Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station2-1-1989TB134: A Laboratory Study to Assess Methods forPredicting pH Change of Ash Amended ForestSoilsYvonne L. UngerIvan J. FernandezFollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_techbulletinPart of the Soil Science CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Bulletins by anauthorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact um.library.technical.services@maine.edu.Recommended CitationUnger, Y.L., and I.J. Fernandez. 1989. A laboratory study to assess methods for predicting pH change of ash amended forest soils.Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 134.ISSN 0734-9556 A LABORATORY STUDY TO ASSESS METHODS FOR PREDICTING pH CHANGE OF ASH AMENDED FOREST SOILS Yvonne L. Unger and Ivan J. Fernandez MAINE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION UNIVERSITY OF MAINE ORONO, MAINE 04469 Technical Bulletin 134 February 1989 A LABORATORY STUDY TO ASSESS METHODS FOR PREDICTING pH CHANGE OF ASH AMENDED FOREST SOILS By Yvonne L. Unger Graduate Assistant and Ivan J. Fernandez Associate Professor Department of Plant and Soil Sciences University of Maine Orono, Maine 04469 Technical Bulletin 134 February 1989 MAES TECHNICAL BULLETIN 134 1 INTRODUCTION Site characterization and monitoring procedures for soils have been oudined by Maine's Department of Environmental Protection due to increased land spreading of wood-ash. Required procedures include determination of lime re-quirement Several methods for determining lime requirement exist. However, available lime requirement tests were developed for use in traditional agricul-ture, and the accuracy of these methods when used to predict the response of forest soils has not been investigated. Lime requirement testing is important for land spreading of wood-ash because it describes the amount of lime required to raise soil pH a given amount. Knowing the liming potential of wood-ash, the lime requirement test can be used to prescribe wood-ash loading rates to soils and to predict the resultant change in soil pH. The objective of this study was to compare several commonly used lime requirement tests and soil capacity fac-tors for their ability to predict pH change following wood-ash amendment The ability to predict pH change is important because it is one of the criteria used to prescribe rates of ash amendment to forest soils. MATERIALS AND METHODS Soils The six forest soils used in this experiment were the O and B horizons from a Marlow (coarse-loamy, mixed, frigid Typic Haplorthod) and Telos (coarse-loamy, mixed, frigid Aquic Haplorthod) soil, and the B horizon from both a Her-mon (sandy, mixed, frigid Typic Haplorthod) and Buxton (fine-silty, mixed, mesic Dystric Eutrochrept) soil. Marlow, Telos, and Hermon soils are all derived from basal till, whereas Buxton soils are derived from marine sediments. The soils, once collected, were air-dried on paper-covered benches in the greenhouse and thoroughly homogenized. Lime Requirement Tests Soil lime requirement (LR) was determined by five different methods on each of the six soil horizon materials. All five methods were assessed for their abil-ity to predict pH change following ash amendment and were therefore con-sidered potential "lime requirement" (LR) methods. Methods used to measure LR included the Schoemaker, McLean, and Pratt single buffer (SMP-SB) and double buffer (SMP-DB) (McLean 1982), and the Mehlich pH method (Refer-ence Methods for Soil Testing 1980). The SMP-SB method is based on a rela-tionship generalized for all soils and developed by calibrating the calculated LR from the buffer pH against actual changes in soil pH measured following CaC03 amendments. SMP-DB is similar to the SMP-SB, but takes into consideration 2 MAES TECHNICAL BULLETIN 134 the buffering capacity of the soil (McLean 1982). In both the SMP-SB and SMP-DB methods the desired pH level can be selected. The Mehlich method is cali-brated against salt-exchangeable acidity, and the target pH is not preselected. Instead, lime is applied at a rate that neutralizes all or a portion of the salt-ex-changeable acidity that has been experimentally determined to be optimum for plant growth. The soil capacity factors measured were Aluminum (Al-P) and Lime (L-P) potential (Arberg 1986), both theoretically based soil properties governed by soil-solution chemical equilibria. Both Al-P and L-P were calculated using so-lution concentrations of Al and Ca after the soil was equilibrated with dilute 0.002 M CaCh. Al-P is defined as (3pH - pAl) and L-P as (pH -1/2 pCa). Experimental Design Twelve 50 g samples of each soil horizon were placed in 400 ml beakers. Of the 12 samples, six were treated with the equivalent of 8 Mg ha" wood-ash (on a mass equivalent basis). The remaining untreated samples served as controls. After thoroughly mixing the soil and ash, all of the samples were gravimetri-cally brought to 75% of the predetermined field capacity with distilled-deion-ized water (DDI). The beakers were loosely covered with Parafilm and allowed to incubate at room temperature. Incubation times were 1, 7, and 30 days. At the end of each incubation period, the pH of 2 treated samples and 2 control samples was determined. Soil pH was measured in DDI water using a 1:2 soil solution ratio and in 0.01 M CaCl2 (pHs) using a 1:2.5 dilution for mineral soil. For organic horizon materials, dilutions were 1:5 (soil:solution) with DDI water and 1:7.5 with 0.01 M CaCh. Soil pH was determined using a glass electrode and a Coming Model 145 pH meter. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results from the lime requirement tests were regressed against changes in the pH of the soils following ash amendment and are shown in Table 1. The highest coefficient of determination existed between the pH change over one day of in-cubation (pHw) and the Mehlich method. When the analysis was performed on all soils the r value of 0.43 increases to 0.90 when the regression is performed using results from mineral soils only. Although a low sample size indicates a need for caution in drawing conclusions from this data, the results call into ques-tion the use of traditional, agricultural methods on forest soils and identify the Mehlich method as worthy of further evaluation. Errors in LR values can occur with the SMP-SB method as a result of decreased reactivity of H* in high organic matter soils and an increased reac-tivity of H* in acid-leached soils (McLean 1982). Using SMP-SB to determine MAES TECHNICAL BULLETIN 134 3 the LR of organic forest floor and acid-leached subsurface mineral horizons does not appear to be a suitable method given these results and indications from the literature. The SMP-DB method was designed to improve the accuracy of LR predic-tions for soils having low LR. Results from the regression analysis (Table 1) in-dicated that SMP-DB was better correlated with change in pH than the SMP-SB method, but both methods appeared highly ineffective for forest soils. Tran and van Lierop (1982) also found, after recalibration, that the SMP-DB was not substantially more accurate than SMP-SB. In either case the correlations were poor and indicated little practical utility for these methods for forest soil test-ing. The weak relationship between Al-P results and pH change from ash amend-ment indicates that it, also, is not a suitable soil parameter for predicting forest soil pH change from ash amendment. Extractable Al is sometimes used as an index for LR in agriculture; however, the extracting solution typically used (1 N KC1) has a much higher ionic strength (McLean 1982) and probably extracts much more Al, than does the 0.002 M CaCte used for Al-P. A similarly poor cor-relation existed using L-P indicating it also is not a potentially useful forest soil measurement for predicting LR. Table 1. Coefficients of Determination (I.e. T) for regressions between results of lime requirement tests and pH change from ash amendment (n=6). *For Al potential n = 3 for mineral soils and n = 5 for all soils. Days pH Mehlich SMP-SB SMP-DB Al-P* L-P r prob>F r prob>F r2 prob>F r prob>F r prob>F Mineral soils (: n=4) 1 pHw 0.90 0.05 0.10 0.78 0.14 0.62 0.85 0.25 0.07 0.73 pHs 0.81 0.10 0.18 0.58 0.23 0.52 0.94 0.88 0.03 0.89 7 pHw 0.68 0.17 0.05 0.77 0.02 0.84 0.98 0.76 0.56 0.23 pHs 0.71 0.16 0.04 0.81 0.07 0.74 0.99 0.04 0.20 0.55 30 pHw 0.96 0.02 0.03 0.84 0.01 0.90 0.30 0.63 0.63 0.38 pHs 0.99 0.003 0.001 0.97 0.01 0.91 0.46 0.52 0.21 0.92 All soils (n = 6) 1 pHw 0.43 0.16 0.02 0.78 0.05 0.67 0.03 0.78 0.01 0.97 pHs 0.24 0.32 0.06 0.63 0.11 0.51 0.05 0.71 0.01 0.85 7 pHw 0.26 0.31 0.002 0.94 0.02 0.77 0.004 0.92 0.01 0.82 pHs 0.18 0.40 0.01 0.82 0.05 0.68 0.004 0.91 0.002 0.94 30 pHw 0.35 0.22 0.00010.98 0.01 0.83 0.001 0.96 0.01 0.84 pHs 0.17 0.42 0.02 0.79 0.06 0.64 0.008 0.89 0.005 0.89 4 MAES TECHNICAL BULLETIN 134 Only the LR results from the Mehlich method were significantly correlated with pH change from ash amendment. The Mehlich method differs from the other methods in that it was designed to react preferentially with salt-extractable acidity (primarily H and Al), while other methods also react with weaker forms of soil acidity. Tran and van Lierop (1981) reported that this buffer seemed more sensitive to KC1 exchangeable acidity in their study, but concluded that it also reacted with other forms of soil acidity as well. Exchangeable acidity is of less consequence in limed, fertilized agricultural soils; however, in forest soils there is often a substantial amount of potential acidity (Pritchett and Fisher 1987). Thus, the Mehlich method may be superior for use with forest soils. In the study reported by Tran and van Lierop (1982), the Mehlich method was also deter-mined to be the most accurate for determining LR (pH 5.5) when the unmod-ified SMP-SB, SMP-DB, Yuan, Woodruff, and Mehlich methods were com-pared using coarse textured soils. This study indicates the Mehlich method yields LR values most closely corre-lated to pH change following wood-ash amendment; the practical disadvantage of this method, however, is that a target pH can not be selected and empirical data need to be collected to define expected pH changes for different forest soils. This method was designed to provide LR values that would neutralize all or a large proportion of the effective exchangeable acidity; modifications to the method may be called for when it is used to prescribe wood-ash amendment rates on forested sites. CONCLUSIONS The traditional LR tests used in agriculture may not be suitable for use on for-est soils; the Mehlich method, however, appears to have potential for use in pre-dicting forest soil pH change following ash amendment Further research should be conducted under controlled laboratory and field conditions to evaluate the Mehlich method. Other lime requirement tests not studied here should also be considered. Investigations are also needed that incorporate a wider range of soil types across a gradient of organic matter content, drainage, and textural charac-teristics. Consideration should be given to developing different protocols for mineral versus organic soil materials. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was supported by Mclntire-Stennis funds. The authors wish to thank Rachael Beemer for her technical assistance and Mary Thibodeau for her help in preparing the manuscript. MAES TECHNICAL BULLETIN 134 5 LITERATURE CITED Arberg, P.A. 1986. Lime and aluminum potential. Statement of work National Acid Deposition Soil Survey, pp. A9-1 - A9-6. Council on Soil Testing and Plant Analysis. 1980. Reference methods for soil testing. Revised ed. Athens, GA. McLean, E.O. 1982. In A.L. Page et al. (ed.) Methods of soil analysis, part 2. No. 9:199-223. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. Tran, T.S., and W. van Lierop. 1982. Lime requirement determination for attain-ing pH 5.5 and 6.0 of coarse-textured soils using buffer-pH methods. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46:1008-1014. Tran, T.S., and W. van Lierop. 1981. Evaluation and improvement of buffer-pH lime requirement methods. Soil Sci. 131:178-188. Pritchett, W.L., and R.F. Fisher. 1987. Properties and management of forest soils. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

TB134: A Laboratory Study to Assess Methods for Predicting pH Change of Ash Amended Forest Soils

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&amp;context=aes_techbulletin

TB134: A Laboratory Study to Assess Methods for Predicting pH Change of Ash Amended Forest Soils

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Maine