DOCSLIB.ORG

Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region North Central Regional Research Publication No. 221 (Revised) Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region Agricultural Experiment Stations of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Wisconsin, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station SB 1001 Revised January 1998 (PDF corrected February 2011) Foreword Over the past 30 years, the NCR-13 Soil Testing Agricultural Experiment Stations over the past five and Plant Analysis Committee members have worked decades have been used to calibrate these recom- hard at standardizing the procedures of Soil Testing mended procedures. Laboratories with which they are associated. There NCR-13 wants it clearly understood that the have been numerous sample exchanges and experi- publication of these tests and procedures in no way ments to determine the influence of testing method, implies that the ultimate has been reached. Research sample size, soil extractant ratios, shaking time and and innovation on methods of soil testing should con- speed, container size and shape, and other laboratory tinue. The committee strongly encourages increased procedures on test results. As a result of these activi- research efforts to devise better, faster, less expensive ties, the committee arrived at the recommended pro- and more accurate soil tests. With the high cost of fer- cedures for soil tests. tilizer, and with the many soil related environmental Experiments have shown that minor deviations concerns, it is more important than ever that fertilizer in procedures may cause significant differences in test be applied only where needed and in the amount of results. It is to the advantage of all laboratories that each element needed for the response goal. The best the credibility of soil testing be enhanced. The adop- hope of attaining this goal is better soil tests and bet- tion of these recommended procedures by all labora- ter correlations with plant response. NCR-13 stands tories would be a major step toward improving the ready to evaluate promising new soil tests, and with image of soil testing and, hopefully, the integrity of clear justification will move quickly to revise their rec- fertilizer recommendations based on soil tests. ommendations. Calibration studies conducted by the North Central Past Administrative Advisors of NCR-13 M. B. Russell 1966-68 R. R. Davis 1969-74 Clive Donoho, Jr. 1975-83 Leo Walsh 1984-90 Ben Jones 1991-92 H. R. Lund 1993 Jim Brown 1994 Robert Gast 1995 Don Holt 1996 Boyd Ellis 1997 Contents Acknowledgments . 2 Introduction . 3 Chapters 1. Soil Sample Preparation . 5 R. H. Gelderman and A.P.Mallarino 2. Standard Soil Scoop . 7 T. R. Peck 3. Laboratory Factors of Importance to Soil Extraction . 11 R. Eliason 4. pH and Lime Requirement . 13 M. E. Watson and J. R. Brown 5. Nitrate-Nitrogen . 17 R. H. Gelderman and D. Beegle 6. Phosphorus . 21 K. Frank, D. Beegle and J. Denning 7. Potassium and Other Basic Cations . 31 D. Warncke and J. R. Brown 8. Sulfate-Sulfur . 35 S. Combs, J. Denning and K.D. Frank 9. Micronutrients: Zinc, Iron, Manganese and Copper . 41 D. A. Whitney 10. Boron . 45 M. E. Watson 11. Chlorides . 49 R. H. Gelderman, J. L. Denning and R. J Goos 12. Soil Organic Matter . 53 S. M. Combs and M. V. Nathan 13. Soil Salinity . 59 D. A. Whitney 14. Greenhouse Root Media . 61 D. Warncke 15. Laboratory Quality Assurance Program . 65 B. Hoskins and A. Wolf Glossary of Soil Testing Terms . 71 D. Warncke and K. Frank for the North Central Region 1 Acknowledgments Official NCR-13 Representatives This publication is sponsored by the Agricultur- North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and al Experiment Stations of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin. The 1996-97 official representatives are Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, listed below. Boyd Ellis, Administrative Advisor J. R. Brown, Editor Illinois – T.R. Peck Indiana – Sylvie Brouder Iowa – Antonio Mallarino Kansas – David Whitney Michigan –Daryl D. Warncke Minnesota – George Rehm Missouri – J. R. Brown* Nebraska – Ken Frank North Dakota – Larry J. Cihacek Ohio – Maurice Watson Pennsylvania – Douglas Beegle South Dakota – Ron Gelderman Wisconsin – Sherry Combs Authorship The authors and co-authors of the chapters in resentatives to the NCR-13 committee with the fol- this edition of Recommended Chemical Soil Test Pro- lowing exceptions: cedures for the North Central Region are official rep- J. Denning – University of Nebraska Soil and Plant Analytical Laboratory R. Eliason – University of Minnesota Soil Testing and Research Analytical Laboratory R. J. Goos – Soil Science Department, North Dakota State University B. Hoskins – Plant, Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Maine M. V. Nathan – Soil and Plant Testing Services, Missouri Extension Service A. Wolf – Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University *Manjula Nathan after 9-1-97 2 Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures Introduction Following printing in January 1998, errors were discovered on pages 26 and 56 and corrected on the PDF file. Some printed copies were corrected with stickers. An error on page 24 of the PDF was discovered and corrected in February 2011. This error was not in the printed version. 1997 Revision J. R. Brown This publication was revised in 1980 and 1988 Users of this edition should read Dr. Dahnke’s under the leadership of Bill Dahnke who was the comments carefully and spend some time reflecting North Dakota representative to the NCR-13 commit- upon them. Time has passed and some tend to tee until his retirement. His introduction to those two underestimate the importance of efforts put into soil revisions is included below without change. testing during the past 100 years. The contributions The NCR-13 committee on Soil Testing and of those such as Emil Truog (Wis.), Roger Bray (Ill.), R. Plant Analysis asked me to serve as editor for this A. “Prof.” Olson (Neb.), E. O. McLean (Ohio), E. R. revision, which I deemed an honor and a climax to Graham (Mo.), John Grava (Minn.), Stan Barber (Ind.) my activities in soil testing and soil fertility since Touby Kurtz (Ill.), and many others in the North Cen- 1963. The committee made some changes in this edi- tral Region made to our understanding of soil test tion, which includes the addition of the Mehlich 3 measurements and plant growth relationships must extractant to the recommended phosphorus proce- not be discounted. Learning is a progressive activity; dures (Chapter 6), a chapter on Quality Assurance we must never forget that. and Quality Control (Chapter 15), a glossary, and changes of a lesser nature in other chapters. 1980 and 1988 Edition W. C. Dahnke For more than a century, soil and plant scien- most departments one or more prominent soils tists have been developing methods for determining scholars have been associated with soil testing the levels of plant-available nutrients in soils. One of research over considerable periods of time. This, plus the first quick soil tests for “active” (available) nutri- the fact that many soils in this region are amenable to ents was that of Daubeny (1) in 1845. It involved corrective management, has resulted in the extensive extracting the soil with carbonated water. His sug- use of soil testing in the NCR-13 region. gested test, however, was never put to practical use The preliminary work for this bulletin was done because of analytical difficulties. The first known fer- several years ago when a soil sample exchange was tilizer recommendations based on a soil test were conducted among the member states. The results of made by Dr. Bernard Dyer (2) in 1894. He recom- this exchange indicated that differences in procedure mended that phosphate fertilizer be applied to soils were possibly causing significant differences in soil releasing less than 0.01percent P2O5 (.0044 percent P) test results. A cooperative study among several of the when extracted with 1 percent citric acid. states was conducted to determine the importance of Since 1845, many extracting solutions have procedural differences. For example, temperature, been suggested and tried. Some of the tests have time and speed of shaking, and shape of extraction proved to be very successful in spite of the fact that vessel were found to have an influence on the many different chemical forms of each nutrient amount of phosphorus and potassium extracted (see occur in the soil, each having a different level of avail- Chapter 4). Soil scoops of the same volume but dif- ability to plants. ferent depth and diameter were found to influence Research efforts in developing soil testing as a the amount of soil they hold. To solve this variability useful guide to soil management have been extensive problem, a standard soil scoop was suggested and is in soils and agronomy departments in the region. In described in Chapter 2. for the North Central Region 3 Another purpose of this bulletin is to describe innovation is developed, it will be studied; and, if it the detailed procedures based partly on the above offers improvements over a procedure in this bul- studies for soil pH, lime requirement, phosphorus, letin, it will be adopted in place of or as an alternative potassium nitrate-nitrogen, calcium, magnesium, to the one described herein. In addition to our CEC, zinc, iron, manganese, copper, boron, chloride, research on soil testing procedures we plan to spend sulfate-sulfur, soil organic matter, soluble salts and a substantial amount of time on soil test interpreta- greenhouse media. We believe that use of these pro- tion and fertility recommendations. cedures by all public, private and industrial soil test- A word of caution to readers of this bulletin: A ing laboratories in our region will do much to reduce soil test is only as successful and usable for a region any confusion connected with soil testing and thus as the degree to which it is correlated and calibrated lend greater credibility to its role in the fertility man- for the soils and crops of the area.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Basic Soil Science W
    Basic Soil Science W. Lee Daniels See http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/430/430-350/430-350_pdf.pdf for more information on basic soils! [email protected]; 540-231-7175 http://www.cses.vt.edu/revegetation/ Well weathered A Horizon -- Topsoil (red, clayey) soil from the Piedmont of Virginia. This soil has formed from B Horizon - Subsoil long term weathering of granite into soil like materials. C Horizon (deeper) Native Forest Soil Leaf litter and roots (> 5 T/Ac/year are “bio- processed” to form humus, which is the dark black material seen in this topsoil layer. In the process, nutrients and energy are released to plant uptake and the higher food chain. These are the “natural soil cycles” that we attempt to manage today. Soil Profiles Soil profiles are two-dimensional slices or exposures of soils like we can view from a road cut or a soil pit. Soil profiles reveal soil horizons, which are fundamental genetic layers, weathered into underlying parent materials, in response to leaching and organic matter decomposition. Fig. 1.12 -- Soils develop horizons due to the combined process of (1) organic matter deposition and decomposition and (2) illuviation of clays, oxides and other mobile compounds downward with the wetting front. In moist environments (e.g. Virginia) free salts (Cl and SO4 ) are leached completely out of the profile, but they accumulate in desert soils. Master Horizons O A • O horizon E • A horizon • E horizon B • B horizon • C horizon C • R horizon R Master Horizons • O horizon o predominantly organic matter (litter and humus) • A horizon o organic carbon accumulation, some removal of clay • E horizon o zone of maximum removal (loss of OC, Fe, Mn, Al, clay…) • B horizon o forms below O, A, and E horizons o zone of maximum accumulation (clay, Fe, Al, CaC03, salts…) o most developed part of subsoil (structure, texture, color) o < 50% rock structure or thin bedding from water deposition Master Horizons • C horizon o little or no pedogenic alteration o unconsolidated parent material or soft bedrock o < 50% soil structure • R horizon o hard, continuous bedrock A vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Hydrogeology Maps (GLHYMPS) of Permeability and Porosity
    UVicSPACE: Research & Learning Repository _____________________________________________________________ Faculty of Engineering Faculty Publications _____________________________________________________________ A glimpse beneath earth’s surface: Global HYdrogeology MaPS (GLHYMPS) of permeability and porosity Tom Gleeson, Nils Moosdorf, Jens Hartmann, and L. P. H. van Beek June 2014 AGU Journal Content—Unlocked All AGU journal articles published from 1997 to 24 months ago are now freely available without a subscription to anyone online, anywhere. New content becomes open after 24 months after the issue date. Articles initially published in our open access journals, or in any of our journals with an open access option, are available immediately. © 2017 American Geophysical Unionhttp://publications.agu.org/open- access/ This article was originally published at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059856 Citation for this paper: Gleeson, T., et al. (2014), A glimpse beneath earth’s surface: Global HYdrogeology MaPS (GLHYMPS) of permeability and porosity, Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 3891–3898, doi:10.1002/2014GL059856 PUBLICATIONS Geophysical Research Letters RESEARCH LETTER A glimpse beneath earth’s surface: GLobal 10.1002/2014GL059856 HYdrogeology MaPS (GLHYMPS) Key Points: of permeability and porosity • Mean global permeability is consistent with previous estimates of shallow crust Tom Gleeson1, Nils Moosdorf 2, Jens Hartmann2, and L. P. H. van Beek3 • The spatially-distributed mean porosity of the globe is 14% 1Department of Civil Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2Institute for Geology, Center for Earth • Maps will enable groundwater in land 3 surface, hydrologic and climate models System Research and Sustainability, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany, Department of Physical Geography, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands Correspondence to: Abstract The lack of robust, spatially distributed subsurface data is the key obstacle limiting the T.
    [Show full text]
  • Simple Soil Tests for On-Site Evaluation of Soil Health in Orchards
    sustainability Article Simple Soil Tests for On-Site Evaluation of Soil Health in Orchards Esther O. Thomsen 1, Jennifer R. Reeve 1,*, Catherine M. Culumber 2, Diane G. Alston 3, Robert Newhall 1 and Grant Cardon 1 1 Dept. Plant Soils and Climate, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA; [email protected] (E.O.T.); [email protected] (R.N.); [email protected] (G.C.) 2 UC Cooperative Extension, Fresno, CA 93710, USA; [email protected] 3 Dept. Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 September 2019; Accepted: 26 October 2019; Published: 29 October 2019 Abstract: Standard commercial soil tests typically quantify nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, pH, and salinity. These factors alone are not sufficient to predict the long-term effects of management on soil health. The goal of this study was to assess the effectiveness and use of simple physical, biological, and chemical soil health indicator tests that can be completed on-site. Analyses were conducted on soil samples collected from three experimental peach orchards located on the Utah State Horticultural Research Farm in Kaysville, Utah. All simple tests were correlated to comparable lab analyses using Pearson’s correlation. The highest positive correlations were found between Solvita®respiration, and microbial biomass (R = 0.88), followed by our modified slake test and microbial biomass (R = 0.83). Both Berlese funnel and pit count methods of estimating soil macro-organism diversity were fairly predictive of soil health. Overall, simple commercially available chemical tests were weak indicators of soil nutrient concentrations compared to laboratory tests.
    [Show full text]
  • Port Silt Loam Oklahoma State Soil
    PORT SILT LOAM Oklahoma State Soil SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA Introduction Many states have a designated state bird, flower, fish, tree, rock, etc. And, many states also have a state soil – one that has significance or is important to the state. The Port Silt Loam is the official state soil of Oklahoma. Let’s explore how the Port Silt Loam is important to Oklahoma. History Soils are often named after an early pioneer, town, county, community or stream in the vicinity where they are first found. The name “Port” comes from the small com- munity of Port located in Washita County, Oklahoma. The name “silt loam” is the texture of the topsoil. This texture consists mostly of silt size particles (.05 to .002 mm), and when the moist soil is rubbed between the thumb and forefinger, it is loamy to the feel, thus the term silt loam. In 1987, recognizing the importance of soil as a resource, the Governor and Oklahoma Legislature selected Port Silt Loam as the of- ficial State Soil of Oklahoma. What is Port Silt Loam Soil? Every soil can be separated into three separate size fractions called sand, silt, and clay, which makes up the soil texture. They are present in all soils in different propor- tions and say a lot about the character of the soil. Port Silt Loam has a silt loam tex- ture and is usually reddish in color, varying from dark brown to dark reddish brown. The color is derived from upland soil materials weathered from reddish sandstones, siltstones, and shales of the Permian Geologic Era.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Testing Can Help Nutrient Deficiencies Or Imbalances
    Do You Have Problems With: • Nutrient deficiencies in crops • Poor plant growth and response from applied fertilizers • Hard to manage weeds • Low crop yields • Poor quality forages • Irregular plant growth in your fields • Managing manure or compost applications Soil tests help to identify production problems related to Soil Testing Can Help nutrient deficiencies or imbalances. Above: Nitrogen defi- ciency in corn (photo: Ryan Stoffregen, Illinois). Below: Phosphorus deficiency in corn. Source: www.ipni.net Benefits of Soil Testing: • Determines nutrient levels in the soil • Determines pH levels (lime needs) • Provides a decision making tool to determine what nutrients to apply and how much • Potential for higher yielding crops • Potential for higher quality crops • More efficient fertilizer use Costs: Generally soil tests cost $7 to $10.00 per sample. The costs of soil tests vary depending on: 1. Your state (some states offer free soil testing) 2. The lab that is used. 3. The items being tested for (the cost increases as more nutrients are being analyzed). NOTE: Some state agencies and land grant universities provide free soil testing for the basic soil test items (pH, available phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium, and organic matter). Additional costs may be charged for testing for micronutrients. In other states, all soil testing is done by private labs and generally charge $7-$10 for the basic test. One soil test should be taken for each field, or for each 20 acres within a field. See example on page 3. Soil Testing How Often Should I Soil Test? Generally, you should soil test every 3-5 years or more often if manure is applied or you are trying to make large nutrient or pH changes in the soil.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Test Handbook for Georgia
    SOIL TEST HANDBOOK FOR GEORGIA Georgia Cooperative Extension College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences The University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602-9105 EDITORS: David E. Kissel Director, Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratories & Leticia Sonon Program Coordinator, Soil, Plant, & Water Laboratory The University of Georgia and Ft. Valley State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and counties of the state cooperating. The Cooperative Extension, the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences offers educational programs, assistance and materials to all people without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. An Equal Opportunity Employer/Affirmative Action Organization Committed to a Diverse Work Force Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. Dr. Scott Angle, Dean and Director Special Bulletin 62 September 2008 i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................2 SOIL TESTING...........................................................................................................................................................4 SOIL SAMPLING .......................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing Pasture Compaction
    Addressing Pasture Compaction Weighing the Pros and Cons of Two Options UVM Project team: Dr. Josef Gorres, Dr. Rachel Gilker, Jennifer Colby, Bridgett Jamison Hilshey Partners: Mark Krawczyk (Keyline Vermont) and farmers Brent & Regina Beidler, Guy & Beth Choiniere, John & Rocio Clark, Lyle & Kitty Edwards, and Julie Wolcott & Stephen McCausland Writing: Josef Gorres, Rachel Gilker and Jennifer Colby • Design and Layout: Jennifer Colby • Photos: Jennifer Colby and Rachel Gilker Additional editing by Cheryl Herrick and Bridgett Jamison Hilshey Th is is dedicated to our farmer partners; may our work help you farm more productively, profi tably, and ecologically. VT Natural Resources Conservation Service UVM Center for Sustainable Agriculture http://www.vt.nrcs.usda.gov http://www.uvm.edu/sustainableagriculture UVM Plant & Soil Science Department http://pss.uvm.edu Financial support for this project and publication was provided through a VT Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG). We thank VT-NRCS for their eff orts to build a 2 strong natural resource foundation for Vermont’s farming systems. Introduction A few years ago, some grass-based dairy farmers came to us with the question, “You know, what we really need is a way to fi x the compaction in pastures.” We started digging for answers. Th is simple request has led us on a lively journey. We began by adapting methods to alleviate compac- tion in other climates and cropping systems. We worked with fi ve Vermont dairy farmers to apply these practices to their pastures, where other farmers could come and observe them in action. We assessed the pros and cons of these approaches and we are sharing those results and observations here.
    [Show full text]
  • International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
    INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SOIL MECHANICS AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is available here: https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library This is an open-access database that archives thousands of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and maintained by the Innovation and Development Committee of ISSMGE. Interaction between structures and compressible subsoils considered in light of soil mechanics and structural mechanics Etude de l’interaction sol- structures à la lumière de la mécanique des sols et de la mécanique des stuctures Ulitsky V.M. State Transport University, St. Petersburg, Russia Shashkin A.G., Shashkin K.G., Vasenin V.A., Lisyuk M.B. Georeconstruction Engineering Co, St. Petersburg, Russia Dashko R.E. State Mining Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia ABSTRACT: Authors developed ‘FEM Models’ software, which allows solving soil-structure interaction problems. To speed up computation time this software utilizes a new approach, which is to solve a non-linear system using a conjugate gradient method skipping intermediate solution of linear systems. The paper presents a study of the main soil-structure calculations effects and contains a basic description of the soil-structure calculation algorithm. The visco-plastic soil model and its agreement with in situ measurement results are also described in the paper. RÉSUMÉ : Les auteurs ont développé un logiciel aux éléments finis, qui permet de résoudre des problèmes d’interactions sol- structure. Pour l’accélération des temps de calcul, une nouvelle approche a été utilisée: qui consiste a résoudre un système non linéaire par la méthode des gradients conjugués, qui ne nécessite pas la solution intermédiaire des systèmes linéaires.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 2.3, Soil Biology and Ecology
    2.3 Soil Biology and Ecology Introduction 85 Lecture 1: Soil Biology and Ecology 87 Demonstration 1: Organic Matter Decomposition in Litter Bags Instructor’s Demonstration Outline 101 Step-by-Step Instructions for Students 103 Demonstration 2: Soil Respiration Instructor’s Demonstration Outline 105 Step-by-Step Instructions for Students 107 Demonstration 3: Assessing Earthworm Populations as Indicators of Soil Quality Instructor’s Demonstration Outline 111 Step-by-Step Instructions for Students 113 Demonstration 4: Soil Arthropods Instructor’s Demonstration Outline 115 Assessment Questions and Key 117 Resources 119 Appendices 1. Major Organic Components of Typical Decomposer 121 Food Sources 2. Litter Bag Data Sheet 122 3. Litter Bag Data Sheet Example 123 4. Soil Respiration Data Sheet 124 5. Earthworm Data Sheet 125 6. Arthropod Data Sheet 126 Part 2 – 84 | Unit 2.3 Soil Biology & Ecology Introduction: Soil Biology & Ecology UNIT OVERVIEW MODES OF INSTRUCTION This unit introduces students to the > LECTURE (1 LECTURE, 1.5 HOURS) biological properties and ecosystem The lecture covers the basic biology and ecosystem pro- processes of agricultural soils. cesses of soils, focusing on ways to improve soil quality for organic farming and gardening systems. The lecture reviews the constituents of soils > DEMONSTRATION 1: ORGANIC MATTER DECOMPOSITION and the physical characteristics and soil (1.5 HOURS) ecosystem processes that can be managed to In Demonstration 1, students will learn how to assess the improve soil quality. Demonstrations and capacity of different soils to decompose organic matter. exercises introduce students to techniques Discussion questions ask students to reflect on what envi- used to assess the biological properties of ronmental and management factors might have influenced soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Controls on Carbon Accumulation and Storage in the Mineral Subsoil Beneath Peat in Lakkasuo Mire, Central Finland
    European Journal of Soil Science, June 2003, 54, 279–286 Controls on carbon accumulation and storage in the mineral subsoil beneath peat in Lakkasuo mire, central Finland J. T URUNEN &T.R.MOORE Department of Geography and the Centre for Climate and Global Change Research, McGill University, 805 Sherbrooke Street West, Montre´al, Que´bec H3A 2K6, Canada Summary What processes control the accumulation and storage of carbon (C)in the mineral subsoil beneath peat? To find out we investigated four podzolic mineral subsoil profiles from forest and beneath peat in Lakkasuo mire in central boreal Finland. The amount of C in the mineral subsoil ranged from 3.9 to 8.1 kg mÀ2 over a thickness of 70 cm and that in the organic horizons ranged from 1.8 to 144 kg mÀ2. Rates of increase of subsoil C were initially large (14 g mÀ2 yearÀ1)as the upland forest soil was paludified, but decreased to < 2gmÀ2 yearÀ1 from 150 to 3000 years. The subsoils retained extractable aluminium (Al)but lost iron (Fe)as the surrounding forest podzols were paludified beneath the peat. A stepwise, ordinary least-squares regression indicated a strong relation (R2 ¼ 0.91)between organic C concentration of 26 podzolic subsoil samples and dithionite–citrate–bicarbonate-extractable Fe (nega- tive), ammonium oxalate-extractable Al (positive) and null-point concentration of dissolved organic C (DOCnp)(positive).We examined the ability of the subsoil samples to sorb dissolved organic C from a solution derived from peat. Null-point concentration of dissolved C (DOCnp)ranged from 35 to 83 mg lÀ1, and generally decreased from the upper to the lower parts of the profiles (average E, B and À1 C horizon DOCnp concentrations of 64, 47 and 42 mg l ).
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Chemistry Factors Confounding Crop Salinity Tolerance—A Review
    agronomy Review Soil Chemistry Factors Confounding Crop Salinity Tolerance—A Review Pichu Rengasamy School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, Prescott Building, Waite Campus, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 5005 SA, Australia; [email protected] Academic Editor: Matthew Gilliham Received: 26 August 2016; Accepted: 25 October 2016; Published: 29 October 2016 Abstract: The yield response of various crops to salinity under field conditions is affected by soil processes and environmental conditions. The composition of dissolved ions depend on soil chemical processes such as cation or anion exchange, oxidation-reduction reactions, ion adsorption, chemical speciation, complex formation, mineral weathering, solubility, and precipitation. The nature of cations and anions determine soil pH, which in turn affects crop growth. While the ionic composition of soil solution determine the osmotic and ion specific effects on crops, the exchangeable ions indirectly affect the crop growth by influencing soil strength, water and air movement, waterlogging, and soil crusting. This review mainly focuses on the soil chemistry processes that frustrate crop salinity tolerance which partly explain the poor results under field conditions of salt tolerant genotypes selected in the laboratory. Keywords: soil chemistry; saline soils; dispersive soils; soil physical conditions 1. Introduction The aqueous components of a soil at different water contents in the field determine the abiotic stress experienced by plants during their growth, consequently affecting the crop yield [1]. In salt-affected soils, the total concentration of dissolved salts in soil solutions, generally measured as the electrical conductivity (EC) of the soil solutions, is considered as the primary criterion affecting the yield (e.g., [2]).
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Test Handbook for Georgia
    SOIL TEST HANDBOOK FOR GEORGIA Georgia Cooperative Extension College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences The University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602-9105 EDITORS: David E. Kissel Director, Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratories & Leticia Sonon Program Coordinator, Soil, Plant, & Water Laboratory TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................2 SOIL TESTING...........................................................................................................................................................4 SOIL SAMPLING .......................................................................................................................................................4 SAMPLING TOOLS ......................................................................................................................................................5 SIZE OF AREA TO SAMPLE..........................................................................................................................................5 Traditional Methods.............................................................................................................................................5 Precision Agriculture Methods.............................................................................................................................5 AREAS NOT TO SAMPLE ............................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]