Group Title: TropSoils field research brief ;, 10
Title: Lime reaction rate and effectiveness
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080588/00001
 Material Information
Title: Lime reaction rate and effectiveness
Series Title: TropSoils field research brief ;, 10
Physical Description: 2, 4 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Al-Jabri.
Wade, M. K. (Michael Karl)
Soil Management Collaborative Research Support Program.
Publisher: Soil Management Collaborative Research Support Program, North Carolina State University,
Publication Date: 1985
 Subjects
Subject: Liming of soils -- Indonesia.
Soil management -- Indonesia.
Spatial Coverage: Indonesia.
 Notes
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: "June, 1985."
General Note: At head of title: TropSoils-Indonesia.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00080588
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 156912730

Full Text




-POPSOILS-Indonesia
Field Research Brief No. 10
June, 1985

TITLE: _ime Reaction Rate and Effectiveness., 4s 1002, 1103. L4)4

ESEA RCHERS: Ai-jabri ana Mike Wade


.jBJECTIVES:


1. Determine the rate of reaction of applied lime
in field conditions,
2. Study the effect of lime on various soil
chemical parameters and their interaction, eg
oH. Al. Al+H, CatMg, O.M.
T. Evaluate metnod3 of predicting 2ime require-
nents of soybeans,
4. Stucv the above c.jectives .n three major soils
in the Sitiung area, ie u.ltisol, o;isol and
inceptisol.


_OIL: Ultisol. LCeak, forest station, cleared in 1984, ist crop
xi sol, Ceak, Sitiung IVb, cleared in 1980, abanornrsd
inceptisol, Cak, Sitiung Ia, cleared in 1976, barr-en


-oil
Ultisol

O i sol

incepti sol


Pre-Treatment Soil Analysis
Deoth lH AI+H Ca+Mg
0-15 4.2 1.9 1.2
15-30 4.4 1.7 0.8
0-15 4.4 2.6 0.3
15-30 4.3 2.6 0.3
0-15 4.7 3.0 0.
15-30 4.8 4.2 0.S


TREATMENTS: RC3, 3 replications, 4 X 6m plots
Lime rates-0, .75, 1.5, 2.25, 3.0, 4.5, 6.0 t/ha
Sampling dates-0, 3. 7, 15, 30. 60, 120, 24:., 60
days after application


CROP: 1 st


Soybeans, cv. Orba, 20 x 40 x 3 seeds/hole
Planted January, Harvested April, 1985
Pesticides:. carbofuran at planting 20 kg 3G/ha
endosulfan weekly after flowering for pod
borers at 1-1.5- 1/ha (35EC)
Base fertilizers: 150 kg P, 100 kg K, 16 kg Mg, 24 kg
5, 5 kg Zn and 1 kg B/ha
Inoculum (Niftal) with seed at planting


RESULTS: A three-week drought in February shortly after planting
started the beans off under stress. Those on the very
e'xcessively?) well rained oxisol and inceptisol suffered the
most. The argillic of the ultisol seemed to retain more moisture
as early growth at this site was more or less normal. Also
insect pressures were most severe at the inceptisol site leaf
-ollers early and pod borers after flowering g), and prevented


O.M.
5.2








:Qni+icant grain yield. Thus fields from the inceptisol site
.re oi0mass yields rather t-han grain yields. Max imum fields at
_ne .iltisoi site were .2 t/ha. wnereas maximum yields of the
::;isol were only 1 1/4 t/ha. For comparisons in this report
-elative yields (within locations) are used.
Figure 1 shows the lime response of the three locations.
"'e oxisol and .nceptisoi gave nearly identical curves showing
rainatic responses to lime. The ultisol was quite different as
-o consistent nor significant yield response was produced by the
P .ed lime. It should be noted that tnis ultisol site was
-ecently cleared, unlike the others that had been cleared several
.ears earlier. It is often observed that crops grown on recently
__eared soils will not respond lime even if the soil is Quite
.cid as this one is. Apparently the flush of organic matter from
:ne previous forest litter may complex with Al rendering it non-
c :ic, as well as the decomposition releasing bases that would
l.wer the Al saturation. The point is that the lack of lime
-"soonse at this location was probably due to the recent clearing
-ather ntan the soil type Ber se.
Indeed by combining data from all three locations, Figure 2
snows a good linear-plateau relationship between relative yield
and acid saturation, with a critical value of 29%. The reader
-av Question the term "acid" saturation rather than the usual Al
saturation. A orief digression and explanation is in order. The
normal laboratory procedure for measuring exch. Al is extraction
-ith N KC1 and an aliquot titrated with NaOH to phenolphthalien
end-point. This result technically produces exchangeable acidity
A1 + H). However it has been observed on some (if not many)
-.gniv weathered soils, eg ultisols of the Amazon Basin (Yurima-
-,uas, Peru) and ultisols of the SE USA (North Carolina), that
separation of the extracted Al and H shows the H to be negligible.
-herefore the exch acidity (Al + H) is assumed to be equal to Al
n!vy. Thus Al saturation is calculated directly from the exch
acidity measurement without the need to separate the Al and H.
s .a result of this experiment we nave found that in Sitiung we
io in fact have measureable and significant amounts of H in the
excn acidity extract. 3y separating the two we have found H
ranging from 0 to 0.6 meq/100ml soil, which on the average was 24%
of the Al, and that it was highly correlated with Al values
=.81). However when comparing the relationship of Al and
Al+H to soybean yield, applied lime, pH, or ECEC no significant
differences were found, just the absolute values of Al
-:nsistently and slightly lower than the Al+H. For instance when
Al saturation was compared to relative soybean yield (as was acid
saturation in Fig 2) the relationship was nearly identical with a
slightly steeper slope on the linear portion and a critical value
nf 24 %. Such slight differences, in our opinion, are not worth the
extra time, effort and materials required to separate the Al and
A in the KC1 extract. On the other hand, knowing that the exch
aciaity does indeed contain both Al and H we can not correctly
nall it Al nor can we use the value to calculate A1 saturation.
Therefore-until convinced to do otherwise we will measure only
exch acidity (Al + H) and will calculate acid saturation (acid
mat =((Al+H)/ECEC)*100). It may be arguable that the H is
actually an artifact of the lab procedure. The KC1 may be harsh













in these oxidic soils with their low activity clays, thereby
generatingg H that may not truly exist on the exchange sites.
Even so, as long as it does not interfere with interpretation of
-esults and prediction of lime requirements then the efforts
-equired to get only Al do not seem warranted.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between added Ca (lime) and
excn acidity for each of the three soils. The slope of these
lines is the effectiveness or efficiency of the lime in removing
acidity from the soil. All soils showed a two-segment
relationship, ie a steep slope at high acidity levels and a much
reduced slope at low levels. The steep portions (generally
10U. acio saturation) show similar slopes. +/- 0.5, for all
soils, wnich means more or less 2 meq Ca were required to reduce
acidity by 1 meq. This would suggest that a factor of 2 X exch
acidity rather than the more common 1.5 X might be appropriate
-or Sitiung. If it is desired to reduce the acid or Al
saturation to zero, an even nigher factor would have to be used
to accommodate the very low efficiency of getting rid of that
last half mea or so of acidity.
Figure 4 shows the same concept except that the units are
ions of lime vs acid saturation. The slopes again are quite
similar for the three soils, with an average of slightly less
than 20. This means we can expect a ton of lime to reduce acid
saturation by aoout 20/., at least in the range of 80 to 20%.
ilMuch more Oata is coming out of this set of trials, but it
-s not within the scope of the Research Brief to detail all of
i-. Valuable information is being gathered regarding the
-elationsnips of the various soil chemical parameters as affected
by liming on these three distinct soil tvaes. This data will be
:omoiled for manuscriot(s).



















_____----- ______- -.-----I- --. --. ~
______ ----- ----- L/---T--.z-----

------- -----'_-.-- __________
___________________________ ___________ /---~
_______ -.~--- _____ LI~~_~ __ ~
___~ -----'S.
____- _________ ____ -- _-- -~----- 4 -- -
________________ .2 --- ---- ----- --------


-cr- 2i -- -- ---

z~Z\ -J


*. X 1


II




,-, ~ _____________

*1-~ ____* _



____________ 1II
































-.~~ -- -- --






____c---- I ----4 I -___


___ __ ___ __ --- Lr 7

_____- ---,'---~~~~,---- --____ _______________________


1K.


-------i------i


-
--
--~-----


-- --


l __-









- I --S---.- --4 Ci--- --


-L--l--- -----_--4-


2--- ----


__________ -L Ir- -~--- -
I --
- -- -----r---

~- --- -r- -i_----r


- *--- -









-H -- I



S_ -. I -- --



*1 4

~- 4--
J---


- I .,' iV -.


---~4 --~~


















__ __ __ -Vt




____ ___ ____ ___ ____ ___ ___ ____ ___ ____ I ____ ___ ___
.4-.- -

-- -1-- __ _ _ _


_______ C- --- -r~---' -*-- ---- __ _

________- -c .- ~ "- e I- -T~t~


_ _ __ *--
__ -------- --- -- - -. -


7--7 -


.


/i

J


J1




I 1-


* 'TI
I, I
.
*1








0


TI--


'p


I-i


* A


I.-- I ,, I


I t




0 IA
t f1



-__I II








77.
I K -
I. I .,- :i

I 1I


Ii i 1I/i.I-~ I. I ~ 1i-
1r I- ri ',4p I
II *,..e- --: /j A'ui II I-.' i
I" i I- iti

L' ?l~'I
-r ..I


i~~Ah --- --0


S- 3.2 L/rt

o O.37s1A L


I I II~ --
77-r
7- 7 1 1 1i
I II


Qi


r f;6 L bC~


- -


LD


I
























* *1

'I






i 'ts~ '/rc

a ;/


frJISc;




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs