John Breker

Soil Sensors: Helpful Gadgets or Hapless Gimmicks?

in , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Winter 2024 Newsletter.

A number of new handheld sensors have hit the market, claiming to accurately and precisely measure soil nutrient content in the field, similar to traditional wet chemistry analysis at a soil testing laboratory. The draw for any person soil sampling is the ability to receive soil analysis results right in the field in real time. We know that our clients have a lot of questions about these types of sensors because we are getting these questions too. For almost 50 years, AGVISE has been an early adopter and innovator of new technologies in soil and plant analysis, and these new soil sensors are among the newest to gain popular attention in agriculture.

First, handheld sensors in general are nothing new for soil analysis. There are a number of handheld pH and electrical conductivity (EC) sensors available on the market that are often used for assessing and mapping environmental sites for reclamation and remediation projects. The environmental consultants still need to collect field soil samples and send them to the laboratory for calibration and validation in their official reports. The handheld sensors are used to help them assess the site size and variability.

Second, the type of sensor for the intended soil nutrient or property for measurement is important. After all, you should not try to measure something that the sensor cannot detect, right? The new handheld soil nutrient sensors often rely on near-infrared (NIR), mid-infrared (MIR), or X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy methods. These technologies have long existed as benchtop instruments in analytical laboratories for various applications, and each method has its strengths and limitations.

For example, NIR spectroscopy is widely used in feed and forage analysis, food processing, and even meat science. The American Society of Agronomy compiled an 800-page book on NIR applications in agriculture (https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr44.c10). There is one chapter on soil analysis at the end of the book. The strengths of NIR for soil analysis include soil organic matter, total carbon, organic carbon, organic nitrogen, and even pH. However, it does not perform well for nitrate-N, P, K, sulfate-S, Ca, Mg, Na, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn, or soluble salts (EC). Simply put, NIR fails at measuring the actual soil nutrients we are trying to manage! This is why we do not use benchtop NIR for any soil analyses at AGVISE, let alone a handheld unit with less accuracy or precision. You might see handheld NIR sensors being used for some things, but you will not see them replace soil sampling or soil nutrient analysis soon.

Third, the handheld sensor outputs are often correlated and converted, in the end, to traditional wet chemistry analysis methods, like Bray P, Olsen P, or ammonium acetate K. These are the plant-available soil test methods that we are all familiar with and have decades of soil test calibration research behind them, which allow us to make fertilizer guideline calculations from the soil test result. Whenever a correlation and conversion step takes place, this introduces error for any subsequent calculations, like fertilizer rates. It is important to know what is actually being measured versus what is being reported.

As new sensors hit the market, a person thinking about trying them should be asking a lot of questions. AGVISE is always evaluating new analysis technologies, which can help us do a better or faster job while providing high-quality data to our clients. The questions outlined above are those that we use when we evaluate new analysis technologies for our own operation, and we hope the same questions can help guide you through the gamut of new soil sensors too.

Cindy Evenson

Choosing the Right Phosphorus Method

in , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Spring 2023 Newsletter under President’s Corner

The phosphorus soil test debate never ends. Should I use the Olsen test, or maybe Bray-1 would be better? What about the Mehlich-3 method, and should that extract be analyzed on an ICP or with a colorimetric method? Perhaps, Bray-2 or the Haney extractable P is something to consider? This whole phosphorus test dilemma can be quite confusing; however, the answer is quite simple. Use the soil phosphorus test that is calibrated for your region!

In the upper Midwest, the Olsen test is the most reliable method to determine phosphorus availability and has the most correlation and calibration data with field trials. Many hours have been spent by university researchers putting out field trials to determine phosphorus fertilizer rates for various crops. The researchers have evaluated various phosphorus methods, and the two most common methods are the Bray-1 and Olsen extractants. The Bray-1 method is the older method, developed in Illinois. It works well on soils with pH below 7.3. Once the soil pH is above 7.3, the extractant may fail. If the test fails, it will produce a result near zero.

The Olsen method is required on calcareous soils (pH > 7.3), but it also works well on acidic soils. There is a common misconception that the Olsen method is only suitable on calcareous soils. In fact, the Olsen method is widely used across the world because of its versatility on acidic and calcareous soils. It is a perfect fit for our region because it works so well across a wide soil pH range and on diverse soil types. In the AGVISE Newsletter Spring 2017 issue, retired AGVISE President Robert Deutsch compiled soil test data for the Bray-1 and Olsen methods with over 25,000 soil samples. The graphs highlight how robust the Olsen phosphorus method is, working on acidic and calcareous soils alike.

The Mehlich-3 method has gained popularity in the southeast United States and the central Midwest. In these regions, the soils are more weathered and often do not have problems with high calcium carbonate content. At the University of Minnesota, Dr. Dan Kaiser has worked on Mehlich-3 method correlation on Minnesota soils for quite a few years. For some soils, the Mehlich-3 method performed as expected, while some others had Mehlich-3 results 8 to 10 times higher than expected. For these reasons, the Mehlich-3 method has not been approved for use in the upper Midwest or northern Great Plains.

As of this time the only phosphorus soil tests recommended for soils in the upper Midwest are the Olsen and Bray-1 extracts. If someone mentions using any other phosphorus soil test, it has not been tested or correlated to the soils in this region.

John Breker

Active carbon (POXC): What does it measure?

in , /by

Carbon is the currency of nature: the backbone of soil organic matter and the energy source for soil microorganisms. Therefore, much interest in soil health focuses on increasing carbon storage in soil. When you reduce tillage or increase crop rotation diversity, you expect soil organic matter to increase. However, soil organic matter often changes slowly for several years. In fact, less than 1% of plant biomass carbon returned to soil eventually becomes stable humus organic carbon.

Active carbon, also known as permanganate-oxidizable carbon (POXC), is a sensitive tool for measuring soil carbon change. This portion of soil organic matter is actively involved in nutrient cycling and changes more quickly when cropping systems are changed (e.g. reduced tillage, diversified crop rotation, cover crop inclusion). Active carbon is a quick, repeatable soil test that measures the easily oxidizable, biologically active carbon fraction.

Why is active carbon important?

Active carbon typically comprises about 1 to 4% of total organic carbon in soil. It represents the microbially available carbon energy sources, that is microorganism food. As one component of the total organic carbon pool, active carbon has a strong relationship with overall soil organic matter (r = 0.80, Fig. 1), but it responds more quickly to changes in crop and soil management. It helps explain why two soils with 3% soil organic matter, for example, may behave differently regarding biological activity or nutrient cycling.

​Active carbon should be utilized as a tracking tool to measure improvement in soil quality. In a 17-year tillage experiment in Mandan, ND, total organic carbon did not change much after conversion to no-till; however, active carbon increased significantly from 470 to 600 ppm (Weil et al., 2003). Recall that soil organic matter includes all forms of organic carbon (i.e. microbial biomass, recently decomposed plant material, stable humus) and requires large carbon inputs to change that total measurement. In contrast, the active carbon fraction increases much more quickly and detects improvements in soil quality sooner. This is why active carbon is considered a “leading” soil health indicator.

What do the numbers mean?

In agricultural soils of the upper Midwest and northern Great Plains, active carbon commonly ranges from less than 300 ppm to 1000 ppm (Fig. 2). As with soil organic matter, soil texture is a major factor controlling active carbon. Coarse-textured soils generally contain less active carbon than medium- or fine-textured soils. Native prairie soils may contain active carbon as high as 1500 ppm.

While these are the common active carbon values you may expect, each field and its history is different; therefore, making comparisons between fields is not advised. There are no index ranges for active carbon because different climatic regions and soil types cannot be judged by the same standard. Active carbon should be utilized as a tracking tool in improving the soil quality of that field or zone, rather than making broadscale comparisons.

Cropping systems that include reduced tillage or no-till, diversified crop rotations, and cover crops will help increase active carbon. In addition, any system with greater organic matter inputs (e.g., plant biomass, manure) helps build active carbon and soil organic matter. Under perennial grass, active carbon can easily exceed 1000 ppm.

With sensitive soil health tools like active carbon, you can more easily quantify positive changes achieved through better soil management.

How to soil sample

Active carbon can be added to any standard soil fertility analysis, simply requested as an analysis add-on. Collect the soil sample with standard soil probe. The standard soil sampling depth of 0-6 inches is most common. In reduced tillage and no-till systems, stratification may warrant 0-2 or 0-4 inch soil sampling depths. Like any soil health test, it is a tracking tool measuring soil quality improvement, so make sure you are using GPS-marked soil sampling points.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Q: Does higher active carbon (POXC) indicate better crop yield?

A: Not necessarily. Crop yield is comprised of numerous determinants: genetics, climate, soil type, soil fertility, crop pests, etc. Active carbon measures the carbon sources available to microorganisms as food. This is only one factor within a wide range of various soil biological functions and yield-determining factors. Soil management practices that can improve crop production, such as no-till in water-limited environments, also work to improve soil properties like active carbon.

Q: Can I use active carbon to reduce fertilizer rates or modify plant population?

A: Active carbon has NOT been calibrated with fertilizer rate or plant population trials. So far, active carbon provides information on soil management . The relationships with crop productivity remain unclear. We must wait for more research to answer these yield-focused questions.

References

Weil, R.R., K.R. Islam, M.A. Stine, J.B. Gruver, and S.E. Samson-Liebig. 2003. Estimating active carbon for soil quality assessment: A simplified method for laboratory and field use. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 18(1):3–17.

John Breker

Soil aggregate stability: What does it measure?

in , /by

Soil aggregates are the building blocks of soil structure. Soil texture is the relative percentage of sand, silt, and clay in soil, but soil structure describes how those particles are arranged in the soil profile. Soil aggregates are glued together with soil organic matter, plant root exudates, and microorganisms like fungi.

We classify soil aggregates by their size: large macroaggregates (>2000 μm), macroaggregates (250-2000 μm), microaggregates (53-250 μm), and free particles (<53 μm). A large macroaggregate is bigger than a sand particle. A microaggregate has the thickness of one or two human hairs. A macroaggregate lies in between.

Multiple soil management practices come together to improve soil aggregate stability. These include reduced tillage or no-till, greater crop rotation diversity, more plant roots, greater earthworm and microbial activity, and more soil organic matter. This is what makes soil aggregate stability such an attractive soil health indicator. Stable soil aggregates take time to form, so you should consider measuring soil aggregate stability every 3 to 5 years.

Why is soil aggregate stability important?

Soil aggregate stability is a comprehensive soil quality measurement. Soil aggregates provide numerous soil ecosystem services:

● Resistance to water and wind erosion
● More pore space for air and water movement, allowing deep root exploration
● Faster water infiltration, reduced runoff
● Less surface crusting
● Improved equipment trafficability and reduced soil compaction, especially on wet soils
● Diverse habitat for soil microorganisms

Strong soil aggregates form naturally with plant root and microbial activity. However, disturbances like tillage quickly break soil aggregates apart. If soil aggregates are broken apart by tillage, the soil pores fill with small particles that can clog and restrict air and water movement. Loose soil particles can also plug the surface pore network to reduce water infiltration and cause surface crusting.

Cropping systems that include reduced tillage or no-till are necessary to improving soil aggregate stability (Figure 2). Tillage also reduces soil organic matter that is needed to bind soil particles into larger soil aggregates. Diversified crop rotations, cover crops, and manure help improve soil aggregate formation.

Soil texture is a major factor in soil aggregate formation. Coarse-textured soils may take longer to develop soil aggregates. Fine-textured soils tend to develop soil aggregates quickly. This is important because good soil structure with large pore spaces is essential to air and water movement through fine-textured soils.

What do the numbers mean?

You can see large soil aggregates (>2000 μm) with the naked eye, but quantifying the different water-stable soil aggregate sizes must be done in the laboratory. This requires special wet sieving equipment that sorts the water-stable soil aggregates by size.

If you see the water-stable macroaggregate fractions increasing, you know that you are making real improvements in soil quality. Soils with high soil aggregate stability have less soil erosion, better equipment trafficability, faster water infiltration, and more diverse habitat for soil microorganisms. Increasing soil aggregate stability should be a long-term goal in all cropping systems.

Soil aggregate stability should be utilized as a tracking tool in improving soil quality. Each field has a different cropping history and soil type (e.g. soil texture); therefore, making broadscale comparisons between fields is not advised.

How to soil sample

A separate soil sample must be taken for soil aggregate stability. Unlike routine soil fertility analysis, this soil sample cannot be dried and ground (destroys soil aggregates). Soil aggregate stability requires special equipment and more labor than routine soil fertility analysis; ask about turnaround time when submitting soil samples.

Collect an undisturbed soil slice with tiling spade or tulip bulb planter (Figure 3); this helps prevent destruction of soil aggregates. Do not collect the soil sample with a soil probe because the soil probe will destroy or compress soil aggregates. Place the soil sample in one-quart plastic bag and clearly mark with permanent marker “SOIL AGGREGATE STABILITY. DO NOT GRIND.” Like any soil health test, it is a tracking tool measuring soil quality improvement, so make sure you are using GPS-marked soil sampling points.

References

Mikha, M.M., and C.W. Rice. 2004. Tillage and manure effects on soil and aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68(3):809–816.

John Breker

High soil pH and calcium carbonate inflate base cation saturation and cation exchange capacity (CEC)

in , , , /by

Soil pH is a soil chemical property that measures soil acidity or alkalinity, and it affects many soil chemical and biological activities. Soils of the northern Great Plains and Canadian Prairies often have high soil pH (>7.3) and contain calcium carbonate (free lime) at or near the soil surface. It is the calcium carbonate in soil that maintains high soil pH and keeps it buffered around pH 8.0. The calcium carbonate originates from soil formation processes since the latest glacial period.

Soils with high pH and calcium carbonate create analytical challenges in determining cation exchange capacity (CEC) and subsequent base cation saturation ratio (BCSR) calculations. Cation exchange capacity is the amount of positive-charged cations (e.g. ammonium, calcium, hydrogen, magnesium, potassium, sodium) held on negative-charged soil particles, like clay and organic matter. Fine-textured soils (high clay content) and organic soils (high organic matter content) have high CEC, while coarse-textured soils (low clay content) have low CEC. The BSCR is the relative proportion of base cations in soil.

The routine laboratory method to determine CEC is the summation method, where all extractable cations on soil particles are added together. The assumption is that all positive-charged cations extracted are held on negative-charged exchange sites on soil particles. The assumption falls apart in soils with pH > 7.3 because the soil test method also extracts calcium from the naturally occurring soil mineral calcium carbonate, which is not held on cation exchange sites. The resulting amount of extractable calcium is inflated. The summation procedure still sums together the inflated calcium result, producing an inaccurate and inflated CEC result. Any subsequent base cation saturation calculations are similarly flawed.

To illustrate the inflated CEC problem, AGVISE Laboratories conducted a laboratory experiment. The experiment showed that more calcium carbonate in soil increased the amount of extractable calcium (Table 1). Furthermore, the inflated amount of extracted calcium also inflated the CEC because all the extractable cations are summed together. The correct CEC is 24 cmolc/kg, yet the inflated CEC could be 150 to 200% higher with increasing calcium carbonate content. Adding calcium carbonate to soil did not increase the inherent CEC sources, i.e. clay and organic matter, yet the laboratory CEC result increased. In reality, the ability to hold more cations did not change. This highlights the analytical challenge in determining CEC via summation method on soils with high pH and calcium carbonate.

Table 1. Effect of calcium carbonate addition on extractable cations and cation exchange capacity.
Calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE) pH EC Ca Mg K Na CEC
% dS/m —————– ppm —————– cmolc/kg
0 7.5 0.43 3350 730 220 45 24
1 7.6 0.51 6150 730 220 50 37
5 7.7 0.52 7480 720 215 45 44
10 7.8 0.50 7240 650 180 40 42
Abbrev.: pH (1:1); EC, electrical conductivity (1:1); Ca, calcium; Mg, magnesium; K, potassium; Na, sodium; CEC, cation exchange capacity via summation of cations.

The subsequent base cation saturation calculations were also affected, showing much lower percent potassium saturation as calcium carbonate content increased (Table 2). This presents a major challenge in using the base cation saturation ratio (BCSR) concept to guide soil fertility and plant nutrition on soils with high pH and calcium carbonate. Without an accurate analytical method, the BCSR concept loses its grounding and any practical application.

Table 2. Effect of calcium carbonate addition on base cation saturation ratio and cation exchange capacity.
Calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE) Ca sat. Mg sat. K sat. Na sat. CEC
% ————————– % ————————– cmolc/kg
0 71 26 2.4 0.8 24
1 82 16 1.5 0.6 37
5 85 14 1.2 0.4 44
10 86 13 1.1 0.4 42
Abbrev.: Ca, calcium; Mg, magnesium; K, potassium; Na, sodium; CEC, cation exchange capacity via summation of cations.

In general, the routine CEC method via summation of cations is quite accurate on soils with pH less than 7.3 and no calcium carbonate. However, the routine method has clear challenges on soils with pH greater than 7.3. The resulting CEC and subsequent base cation saturation calculations are inflated and/or flawed. This is why the BCSR concept is extremely misleading on soils with high pH.

John Breker

The Meaning of Soil Health Testing and the Big Picture

in , , /by

This submission is courtesy of Dr. Caley Gasch, Assistant Professor of Soil Health, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. It was originally published in the AGVISE Newsletter Winter 2017.

Multiple definitions of “soil health” exist. In general, they all recognize that soil is a complex system, with interacting physical, chemical, and biological factors, which should be managed in a manner that sustains its function and integrity over the long term. Conceptually, soil health is a topic that is easy to understand and support.

Yet, it has been difficult to capture this definition with measurements. Soil scientists can choose from hundreds of field- or laboratory-based methods to quantify different properties in the soil, but there is no single best test for assessing soil health. Research and commercial labs and focus groups across the country have compiled lists of properties that are being used to assess soil health, but we still have a lot to learn about how these suites of measurements can guide management decisions.

As much as we desire hard numbers that support the concept of soil health, I argue that we should keep the big picture in mind. Last summer, I heard a perfect analogy that demonstrates the disparity between the concept of soil health and the push for soil health testing. The idea solidified for me on a recent doctor visit.

You visit your doctor for a routine check-up. The doctor will ask you about your lifestyle: How often do you exercise? Do you smoke? What do you eat? How many drinks do you have per week? Which medications are you taking? What is your family history? They’ll take your weight, pulse, blood pressure, and temperature. They may order a few more tests, and they’ll most likely give you some advice: Wear sunscreen, eat more oatmeal, and come back in a year.

The doctor learns something from your vital signs and can compare them to the past; however, the doctor learns more about your overall health after understanding your eating habits and levels of activity. After all, it wouldn’t be good practice for the doctor to prescribe blood pressure medication solely based on a single blood pressure reading, or claim to know your heart condition based on your pulse alone (what if you ran up a flight of stairs on your way to the doctor’s office?). You are not given a mathematical health score or rank. The doctor knows that your body is a complex system, and that to understand its overall condition, we need to consider how you care for yourself, any risky behaviors, and the results of some routine tests. Certainly, if you have a specific complaint, or if the doctor identifies a particular problem, appropriate tests are available to diagnose and monitor the malady.

I propose that we take a similar approach to soil health. First, understand the “lifestyle” of a soil: What is the rotation? What kind of tillage do you use and how frequently? Do you ever use cover crops? What is your fertility plan? What are the “genetic” limitations of the soil? Second, identify specific barriers to overall health: salinity, erosion, poor drainage, disease issues, etc. Third, identify areas for improvement, address them with a lifestyle adjustment, and develop a monitoring plan to track specific problem areas, realizing that it may take a few years to see change.

For humans and soils alike, we know that there are certain risk factors associated with health and condition. We know a great deal about how practices influence soil properties,
and we don’t usually need a test to detect whether or not a practice is healthy. The testing becomes meaningful only after we focus on a specific challenge area, which will differ from person to person and from field to field. Targeted testing and acute treatments are useful and necessary, but they should not be the basis for managing a complex system.

I’m grateful that soil health is a popular topic, because it is helping us all to think about soil in a way that recognizes its true value and potential. But I challenge us to remember our overall goal for soil health, rather than focusing solely on the vital signs. Approach each field with a broad view, understanding that it is a unique case that reflects its own history and management. From this perspective, we can identify and adopt practices that will protect our soil and improve its value throughout our region.

John Breker

Soil Salinity Analysis: Which method to choose?

in , , /by

This submission is courtesy of Dr. Heather Matthees, Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS, Morris, MN. It was originally published in the AGVISE Newsletter Fall 2017.

Salt-affected soils are a major problem for agricultural producers, resulting in $12 billion annual losses in crop production across the world. In the northern Great Plains and Canadian Prairies, soil salinity has always existed in some soils of the region, but the problem has become more widespread and severe since a hydrological wet period began in the 1990s.

Salinity is the overall abundance of soluble salts, which compete with plant water uptake and reduce crop productivity. The soluble salts pull soil water toward themselves in the soil solution, which leaves less soil water available for plant uptake. This causes an apparent drought stress, reducing crop productivity and sometimes may kill the plant. Soluble salts are naturally occurring and a product of regional geology in the northern Great Plains and Canadian Prairies. Since the 1990s, the hydrological wet period has raised the groundwater level and allowed saline groundwater to rise toward the soil surface, causing soil salinization. Saline soils are often called “salty,” “sour”, or “white alkali.”

The severity of soil salinity will control which plant species are suitable for crop or forage production. Some crop species like dry bean and soybean are very sensitive to salinity, whereas other crop species like barley and sunflower have good tolerance to salinity. For soils with very high salinity, the only practical forage option may be salt-tolerant perennial grasses. To assess soil salinity, there are two soil analysis methods: saturated paste extraction and routine 1:1 soil water methods.

Saturated Paste Extraction Method

The gold standard in soil salinity research is the saturated paste extraction method. The method requires a trained laboratory technician to mix soil and water into a paste, just reaching the saturation point, which is about the consistency of pudding. The saturated paste rests overnight to dissolve the soluble salts. It is then is placed under vacuum to draw the saturated paste extract. Soil salinity is then determined by measuring the electrical conductivity (EC) of the saturated paste extract.

The saturated paste extraction method is fairly straightforward, but it requires a trained technician, specialized equipment, and over 24 hours to complete the procedure. The procedure is labor intensive and difficult to automate, so it is considered a special analysis service in commercial soil testing. Therefore, it is more expensive than routine soil testing methods. Among soil salinity determination methods, it is considered the most accurate because the soil:water ratio at saturation controls for differences in soil texture and water holding capacity.

Routine 1:1 Soil:Water Method

The routine method for soil salinity assessment is the 1:1 soil:water method, which mixes standard mass of soil (10 g) and volume of water (10 mL) in a soil-water slurry. Soil salinity is then determined by measuring the electrical conductivity (EC) of the soil-water slurry. It is most commonly abbreviated EC1:1.

The method is fast and inexpensive (only 5-10% of saturated paste extraction cost). The low cost per soil sample allows a person to collect more soil samples from various soil depths and multiple locations within a field (e.g. zone soil sampling), which can create a more comprehensive and detailed soil salinity map to evaluate soil salinity presence, severity, and variability. Since soil salinity is so intimately related to soil water movement across the landscape, the soil salinity map also provides information about soil water accumulation and leaching, soil nutrient movement (e.g. chloride, nitrate-nitrogen, sulfate-sulfur), and crop productivity potential.

A general caveat about the 1:1 soil:water method is that the reported values will be lower than the saturated paste extraction method. Fortunately, the two methods are highly correlated. AGVISE Laboratories worked with soil science researchers at North Dakota State University and South Dakota State University to validate the correlation between the two methods using over 2,300 soil samples from the northern Great Plains. You can convert the two methods by multiplying the 1:1 soil:water result by 2.26 to estimate the saturated paste extraction result (Figure 1).

The simple method conversion enables you to quickly and cheaply monitor soil salinity using the 1:1 soil:water method and still utilize the historical soil salinity interpretation criteria based on the saturated paste extraction method.

Figure 1. Soil salinity method conversion between saturated paste extraction and 1:1 soil:water methods.

References

Matthees, H. L., He, Y., Owen, R. K., Hopkins, D., Deutsch, B., Lee, J., Clay, D. E., Reese, C., Malo, D. D., & DeSutter, T. M. 2017. Predicting soil electrical conductivity of the saturation extract from a 1:1 soil to water ratio. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 48(18), 2148–2154.

John Breker

Estimating soil texture with cation exchange capacity (CEC)

in , /by

Soil texture is a basic physical soil property that describes the proportion of sand-, silt-, and clay-sized particles in soil. It controls the ability of soil to retain water and nutrients and the movement of water and nutrients through the soil profile. Soil texture is a fundamental soil property, but measuring soil texture requires time-consuming and expensive laboratory analysis procedures. An alternative option is estimating soil texture from cation exchange capacity (CEC), which is a rapid, routine procedure in commercial soil analysis.

Cation exchange capacity is the amount of positive-charged cations (e.g. ammonium, calcium, hydrogen, magnesium, potassium, sodium) held on negative-charged soil particles, like clay and organic matter. Since soil texture and CEC are intimately related, we can use each soil property to make predictions about the other. Soils with more large soil particles are coarse-textured (sandy), whereas soils with more small soil particles are fine-textured (clayey). Each soil particle has some surface area, which controls the CEC. Fine-textured soils have more soil particle surface area, so their CEC is greater (Table 1).

Table 1. Estimating soil texture from cation exchange capacity (CEC).
Cation exchange capacity (CEC), cmolc/kg Soil organic matter, % Particle size family Soil texture class
≤10 <20 coarse sandy
11-20 <20 medium coarse loam
21-30 <20 medium fine loam
>30 <20 fine clayey
— >20 organic peat or muck

The soil texture estimation procedure is valid on soils with pH < 7.3 and no salinity. For soils with high pH or salinity, analytical challenges in routine laboratory CEC determination make soil texture estimation inaccurate.

John Breker

Soil Science Review: Soil pH, Acidity, and Alkalinity

in , /by

Soil pH is a basic soil property that affects many biological and chemical processes in soil. Simply knowing if a soil is acidic or alkaline can tell us a lot about how it behaves and how we can manage it. This is why soil pH is often called the master variable of biological and chemical reactions.

Soil pH is the activity of hydrogen ions (H+) in the soil solution, expressed on a logarithmic scale. A neutral soil has pH 7.0 and contains equal parts hydrogen (H+) and hydroxide (OH–) ions. An acidic soil has more H+ ions. An alkaline soil has more OH– ions. The relative acidity or alkalinity is shown in Table 1. In the laboratory, soil pH is analyzed using the 1:1 soil:water ratio routine method. Other soil pH methods include CaCl2, KCl, and saturated paste.

Table 1. Relative soil acidity or alkalinity range from soil pH.
pH (1:1) Relative Acidity or Alkalinity
≤ 4.4 Extremely acidic
4.5-4.9 Very strongly acidic
5.0-5.4 Strongly acidic
5.5-5.9 Moderately acidic
6.0-6.4 Slightly acidic
6.5-7.5 Neutral
7.6-7.9 Slightly alkaline
8.0-8.4 Moderately alkaline
8.5-8.9 Strongly alkaline
≥ 9.0 Very strongly alkaline

 

The optimal pH range for most plant species is near neutral or slightly acidic. In the optimal pH range, most plant nutrients are at or near their highest solubility in the soil solution. If soil pH is too low or too high, the availability of plant nutrients decreases; therefore, soil pH may be corrected with soil amendments or other strategies to mitigate reduced nutrient availability.

To demonstrate the importance of soil pH, let’s look at soil pH and aluminum. Aluminum is a natural component of soil clay particles, and it is insoluble above pH 5.5. In strongly acidic soils (pH < 5.5), aluminum solubility increases, so aluminum begins to dissolve and enter the soil solution. Soluble aluminum is very toxic to plant root growth and development, and it may cause reduced plant production or plant death. Soluble aluminum also binds with phosphate in the soil solution to create insoluble aluminum phosphate compounds, which then reduce soil phosphorus availability and plant uptake.

Soil acidity and aluminum toxicity is often the primary limitation of crop production in tropical and subtropical regions. Acidic soils are frequently amended with lime (calcium carbonate) to increase soil pH, improve nutrient availability, and increase crop production. On the glaciated plains of North America, soil acidity is not a common phenomenon. However, some localized areas of long-term no-till crop production on coarse-textured soils has produced more soils with very low pH (<5.0) and new aluminum toxicity problems.

Soil alkalinity similarly reduces the availability of plant nutrients in soil. In moderately alkaline soils (pH > 8.0), phosphorus binds with calcium to create insoluble calcium phosphate compounds, which then reduce soil phosphorus availability and plant uptake. Similarly, the micronutrients iron and zinc are less soluble. To improve nutrient availability in alkaline soils, farmers apply fertilizer in narrow bands. These bands decrease the volume of soil with which the fertilizer can react, thus keeping more nutrients available in the soil solution. It is generally uneconomical to lower alkaline soil pH to the optimal pH range in crop production.

Soil pH goes beyond inorganic soil chemistry. It also controls the biological activity of soil microorganisms that help create soil structure, cycle organic nutrients, and fix nitrogen in the nodules on legume roots. Soil pH also controls the degradation of many pesticides in soil. If there is something going on in soil, it probably starts with pH.

John Breker

Soil Science Review: Organic Matter

in , /by

Soil organic matter is a fundamental component of soil. It is comprised of living microorganisms, recently decomposed plant material, and stable humus organic compounds. Soil organic matter influences numerous biological, chemical, and physical properties of soil. It influences soil structure, water holding capacity, nutrient cycling, biological activity, and chemical fate and transport (e.g. pesticides). Soil organic matter is so important, you cannot really call something soil unless there is some organic matter present.

In the laboratory, soil organic matter can be measured via three different methods: Walkley-Black wet oxidation, estimation from organic carbon dry combustion, or loss-on-ignition (LOI) dry combustion. Each method has advantages and disadvantages. The LOI method is the routine method in commercial soil analysis.

Walkley-Black Wet Oxidation

The Walkley-Black wet oxidation method is the classic soil organic matter method developed in 1934. The method measures easily oxidizable carbon using sulfuric acid and potassium dichromate. The Walkley-Black method works very well on soils with low organic matter (<2.0%); however, the method is less suitable on soils with very high organic matter (>8.0%) as the dichromate reagent is consumed and may not oxidize all organic carbon. Soils with high chloride may interfere with the Walkley-Black method.

The Walkley-Black method has been phased out since the 1980s because the method requires hazardous chemicals and additional labor; therefore, the Walkley-Black method is more expensive than other methods. As the standard method, it is still required for some pesticide registration studies and regulatory soil characterization work.

Estimation from Organic Carbon Dry Combustion

Soil organic matter is a large complex organic compound containing hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and other elements. Soil organic matter contains about 58% organic carbon on average. We can estimate soil organic matter content from the amount of organic carbon measured in soil. Soil organic carbon is easily measured using a dry combustion carbon analyzer. The analyzer heats soil at high temperature to oxidize all carbon as carbon dioxide, which is then measured with an infrared detector. Since the method requires specialized instrumentation, it is more expensive than the LOI method.

The organic carbon dry combustion method is preferred in carbon sequestration research because organic carbon is measured directly. Estimating organic carbon from Walkley-Black or loss-on-ignition methods introduces unneeded calculation error.

For calcareous soils (pH > 7.3), inorganic carbon (carbonate) must also be analyzed. The dry combustion carbon analyzer measures total carbon, which combines inorganic and organic carbon. The inorganic carbon is measured separately, then subtracted from total carbon to calculate organic carbon.

Loss-on-Ignition Dry Combustion

The loss-on-ignition (LOI) dry combustion method is the routine soil organic matter method used in commercial soil analysis. The amount of soil organic matter is measured directly as the weight loss upon combustion at 360 deg C. The LOI method is simple, affordable, and safe. It also requires no hazardous chemicals. The method works well on soils with high organic matter content since there is no consumable reagent (like Walkley-Black method).

For soils containing hydrated salts (e.g. gypsum, CaSO4∙2H2O; Epsom salt, MgSO4∙7H2O), the LOI method may overestimate soil organic matter upon loss of water from hydrated salts. Soil is preheated at 105 deg C to remove structural water from clay minerals and hydrated salts, but some hydrated salts may retain water above the 105 deg C preheating process.

 

Soil organic matter affects various soil properties and processes. In return, various soil properties and soil formation factors affect soil organic matter.

Soil Texture

Soil clay particles protect soil organic matter from microbial decomposition (i.e. formation of protective clay-humus complexes). Soils with more clay generally have greater soil organic matter. In addition, soils with more clay also can store more plant available water, so plant biomass production and organic material addition to soil is greater.

Cation Exchange Capacity

Cation exchange capacity is derived from negative-charged soil particles, like clay minerals and soil organic matter. Soils with more soil organic matter will have higher cation exchange capacity.

Bulk Density

Bulk density is the amount of soil mass per unit volume. Soils with high bulk density may be compacted, which can inhibit plant root growth and exploration of the entire soil volume. A compacted soil also has less open pore space for air and water storage and movement in soil. Soil organic matter has low particle density, and it helps alleviate soil compaction and high bulk density. Soils with low bulk density likely contain high soil organic matter.

Water Holding Capacity

The amount of soil organic matter in soil is closely associated with soil texture and bulk density. The association also extends to water holding capacity. Like clay particles, soil organic matter has a lot of surface area on which water films can adhere, thus increasing the water holding capacity. Soils with more soil organic matter will hold more plant available water than soils with low organic matter.

Soil pH

Soil microorganisms breakdown soil organic matter into its constituent nutrient components; this is called nutrient cycling. The type and species of soil microorganism present depend on soil pH. In neutral to alkaline soils, the soil microorganism community is comprised of diverse bacteria and fungi to decompose soil organic matter. In acidic soils, the soil microorganism community is mostly fungi, so decomposition processes occur slower. In acidic soils, soil organic matter accumulates faster, producing soils with high soil organic matter. Soils with very alkaline pH also have reduced soil microorganisms activity and decomposition rates.

Soil Microorganism Biomass

Soil organic matter is the primary carbon food source for soil microorganisms. To maintain a high amount of soil microorganism biomass and biological activity, a significant amount of soil organic matter is required. Soils with low organic matter generally have reduced biological activity.