Evaluation and Validation of Simple and Quick Methods of Lime Rate Determination under Acid Soil-Affected Areas of West Shewa Zone, Ethiopia

Tolossa Ameyu, Diriba Megersa, Gizaw Tesfaye
{"title":"Evaluation and Validation of Simple and Quick Methods of Lime Rate Determination under Acid Soil-Affected Areas of West Shewa Zone, Ethiopia","authors":"Tolossa Ameyu, Diriba Megersa, Gizaw Tesfaye","doi":"10.36348/merjafs.2024.v04i01.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Liming acid soils is one of the available intervention options to amend soil acidity and increase crop production and productivity. The selection of a lime requirement determination easy and cheap method that is suitable to the soil conditions in a particular area is a pressing issue. Three lime requirement (LR) estimation methods i.e. (Exchangeable acidity, laboratory pH, and portable pH/Artikilee 3000) methods with one control treatment were tested in acid soils of the dhumuga learning watershed. A field study was conducted to verify the lime requirement (LR) by using portable pH methods and investigate the wheat response to lime. The treatments were laid out in an RCBD design with two farmers’ replications. The result showed that there a was significant (p<0.05) yield response to the liming. The highest grain yield of 5512.3kg ha 1 was obtained from lime treated with the pH method statistically at par with Exchangeable acidity and article 3000 methods. LR rates estimated by the Exchangeable acidity method were lower than those estimated by laboratory pH and portable pH/ Artikilee 3000. However, both methods (laboratory pH and portable pH/ Artikilee 3000) overestimated the lime requirements of the study soil. The exchangeable acidity method was lower than the LR estimated with the article 3000 method by an average of 38 %, which indicates article 3000 methods overestimated the LR for the present study area, while exchangeable acidity methods were found to be reliable estimation LR. Lime rates determined with the three lime testing methods (pH method, Portable pH or Artikilee 3000 and exchangeable acidity) gave yield advantages of 31.94, 24.93 and 20.45%, respectively over the non-limed treatment. From the results of this study, it was concluded that the exchangeable acidity method gives a more reliable estimation of the lime requirements of acid soils of the study area.","PeriodicalId":508192,"journal":{"name":"Middle East Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science","volume":"4 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Middle East Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36348/merjafs.2024.v04i01.005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Liming acid soils is one of the available intervention options to amend soil acidity and increase crop production and productivity. The selection of a lime requirement determination easy and cheap method that is suitable to the soil conditions in a particular area is a pressing issue. Three lime requirement (LR) estimation methods i.e. (Exchangeable acidity, laboratory pH, and portable pH/Artikilee 3000) methods with one control treatment were tested in acid soils of the dhumuga learning watershed. A field study was conducted to verify the lime requirement (LR) by using portable pH methods and investigate the wheat response to lime. The treatments were laid out in an RCBD design with two farmers’ replications. The result showed that there a was significant (p<0.05) yield response to the liming. The highest grain yield of 5512.3kg ha 1 was obtained from lime treated with the pH method statistically at par with Exchangeable acidity and article 3000 methods. LR rates estimated by the Exchangeable acidity method were lower than those estimated by laboratory pH and portable pH/ Artikilee 3000. However, both methods (laboratory pH and portable pH/ Artikilee 3000) overestimated the lime requirements of the study soil. The exchangeable acidity method was lower than the LR estimated with the article 3000 method by an average of 38 %, which indicates article 3000 methods overestimated the LR for the present study area, while exchangeable acidity methods were found to be reliable estimation LR. Lime rates determined with the three lime testing methods (pH method, Portable pH or Artikilee 3000 and exchangeable acidity) gave yield advantages of 31.94, 24.93 and 20.45%, respectively over the non-limed treatment. From the results of this study, it was concluded that the exchangeable acidity method gives a more reliable estimation of the lime requirements of acid soils of the study area.
埃塞俄比亚西谢瓦区受酸性土壤影响地区石灰率简单快速测定方法的评估与验证
对酸性土壤施石灰是修正土壤酸度、提高作物产量和生产率的可用干预方案之一。选择一种适合特定地区土壤条件、简便廉价的石灰需求量测定方法是一个亟待解决的问题。三种石灰需求量(LR)估算方法,即(可交换酸度法、实验室 pH 值法、便携式 pH 值法/Artikilee 3000)和一种对照处理方法,在 dhumuga 学习流域的酸性土壤中进行了测试。为了验证石灰需求量(LR),采用了便携式 pH 值法,并调查了小麦对石灰的反应。处理采用 RCBD 设计,两个农户重复。结果表明,小麦对石灰的产量反应显著(p<0.05)。用 pH 值法处理石灰的谷物产量最高,为 5512.3kg ha 1,与可交换酸度法和 article 3000 法的谷物产量相当。用可交换酸度法估算的 LR 率低于用实验室 pH 值法和便携式 pH 值/Artikilee 3000 估算的 LR 率。然而,这两种方法(实验室 pH 值法和便携式 pH 值法/Artikilee 3000)都高估了研究土壤的石灰需求量。可交换酸度法比第 3000 条方法估算的石灰需求量平均低 38%,这表明第 3000 条方法高估了本研究区域的石灰需求量,而可交换酸度法被认为是可靠的估算石灰需求量的方法。用三种石灰测试方法(pH 值法、便携式 pH 值法或 Artikilee 3000 和可交换酸度)确定的石灰率分别比未加石灰的处理增产 31.94%、24.93% 和 20.45%。从研究结果中可以得出结论,可交换酸度法能更可靠地估算出研究地区酸性土壤对石灰的需求量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信