Soil & Water Res., 2021, 16(3):180-190 | DOI: 10.17221/53/2020-SWR

The effect of soil physicochemical characteristics on zinc analysis methodsOriginal Paper

Viktoria Vona1, Endre Andor Tóth1, Csaba Centeri2, Zsolt Giczi1, Zsolt Biró2, Gergely Jakab3, Gabor Milics*,1, Istvan Mihaly Kulmány4, Renato Kalocsai1, Attila Jozsef Kovács1
1 Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Széchenyi István University, Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary
2 Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE), Gödöllő, Hungary
3 Geographical Research Institute, Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary
4 Research Institute of Agricultural Economics, National Agricultural Research and Innovation Center, Budapest, Hungary

Zn is an essential micronutrient involved in a wide variety of physiological processes. Soils are tested for zinc in many countries with several extractants. Each country has its validated methods, best-suited for its soils. The current study was designed to compare different zinc content measuring methods with seventy-one samples from Hungary. The data were first compared for the whole dataset and then in certain categories such as CaCO3-content, pH, texture and clay content. The zinc content was determined by the water extraction, KCl-EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), Mehlich 3, CoHex (cobalt hexamine trichloride), and XRF (X-ray fluorescence) methods. Based on the analyses of all the data, we can conclude that all the methods are different. However, further analyses during the comparison of the methods based on the influencing factors, such as the pH, lime content, texture class, and clay content proved that, in some of the cases, there are similarities among the methods and, this way, we can get more knowledge on the measurements and the results provided. Farmers can gain extra knowledge from the comparison of the influencing factors to know where intervention is needed to use extra Zn for the proper fertilisation of their plants.

Keywords: comparative analyses; extraction methods; soil test

Published: June 23, 2021  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Vona V, Tóth EA, Centeri C, Giczi Z, Biró Z, Jakab G, et al.. The effect of soil physicochemical characteristics on zinc analysis methods. Soil & Water Res. 2021;16(3):180-190. doi: 10.17221/53/2020-SWR.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Abreu C.A., Raij B.V., Gabe U., Abreu M.F., Gonzalez A.P. (2002): Efficiency of multinutrient extractants for the determining of available zinc in soil. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 33: 3313-3324. Go to original source...
    2. Alloway B. (2009): Soil factors associated with zinc deficiency in crops and humans. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 31: 537-548. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    3. Alva A.K. (1993): Comparison of Mehlich 3, Mehlich 1, ammonium bicarbonateDTPA, 1.0M ammonium acetate, and 0.2M ammonium chloride for the extraction of calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium for a wide range of soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 24: 603-612. Go to original source...
    4. Baranyai F., Fekete A., Kovács I. (1987): Results of Hungarian Nutrient Examinations. Budapest, Mezőgazdasági Kiadó: 8-11, 19-27, 37-40, 75-79. (in Hungarian)
    5. Borkert C.M., Cox F.R., Tucker M.R. (1998): Zinc and copper toxicity in peanut, soybean, rice, and corn in soil mixtures. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 29: 2991-3005. Go to original source...
    6. Ciesielski H., Sterckeman T., Santerne M., Willery J.P. (1997): Determination of cation exchange capacity and exchangeable cations in soils by means of cobalt hexamine trichloride. Effects of experimental conditions. Agronomy, 17: 1-8. Go to original source...
    7. Diatta J., Kocialkowski W. (1998): Adsorption of zinc in some selected soils. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 7: 195-200.
    8. Fotyma M., Dobers E.S. (2008): Soil testing methods and fertilizer recommendations in Central-Eastern European countries. Fertilizer and Fertilization, 30: 6-93.
    9. Haddad K.S., Evans J.C. (1993): Assessment of chemical methods for extracting zinc, manganese, copper, and iron from New South Wales soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 24: 29-44. Go to original source...
    10. Junus M.A., Cox F.R. (1987): A zinc soil test calibration based upon Mehlich 3 extractable Zn, pH, and cation exchange capacity. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 51: 678-683. Go to original source...
    11. Mamo T., Richter C., Heiligtag B. (1996): Comparison of extractants for the determination of available P, K, Ca, Mg, and Na in some Ethiopian and German soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 27: 2197-2212. Go to original source...
    12. Matejovic I., Durackova A. (1994): Comparison of Mehlich 1-, 2-, and 3-, calcium chloride, bray, olsen, egner, and schactschabel extractants for determination of nutrient in two soil types. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 25: 1289-1302. Go to original source...
    13. Mehlich A. (1953): Determination of P, Ca, Mg, K, Na, and NH4. Mimeo. Raleigh, North Carolina Soil Testing Division.
    14. Mehlich A. (1978): New extractant for soil test evaluation of P, K, Mg, Ca, Na, Mn, and Zn. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 9: 477-492. Go to original source...
    15. Mehlich A. (1984): Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: A modification of the Mehlich 2 extractant. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 15: 1409-1416. Go to original source...
    16. MÉM NAK (1979): Fertilizing Manual and Calculation Method. Budapest, MÉM NAK. (in Hungarian)
    17. Minasny B., McBratney A. (2006): A conditioned Latin hypercube method for sampling in the presence of ancillary information. Computers & Geosciences, 32: 1378-1388. Go to original source...
    18. Pradhan A.K., Beura K.S., Das R., Padhan D., Hazra G.C., Mandal B., De N., Mishra V.N., Polara K.B., Sharma S. (2015): Evaluation of extractability of different extractants for zinc and copper in soils under long-term fertilization. Plant, Soil and Environment, 61: 227-233. Go to original source...
    19. Reed S.T., Martens D.C. (1996): Copper and zinc. In: Bigham J.M. (ed.): Methods of Soil Analysis. Madison, Soil Science Society of America: 703-722. Go to original source...
    20. Roudier P., Hedley C.B. (2013): Smart sampling to assist onfarm nutrient management. In: Currie L.D., Christensen C.L. (eds.): Accurate and Efficient Use of Nutrients on Farms. Occasional Report No. 26. Palmerston North, Fertilizer and Lime Research Centre, Massey University.
    21. Schmisek M.E., Cihacek L.J., Swenson L.J. (1998): Relationship between the Mehlich 3 soil test extraction procedure and standard soil test methods in North Dakota. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 29: 1719-1729. Go to original source...
    22. Sharma P.N., Kumar P., Tewari R. (2004): Early signs of oxidative stress in wheat plants subjected to zinc deficiency. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 27: 449-461. Go to original source...
    23. Sims J.T., Johnson C.V. (1991): Micronutrient soil tests. In: Mortvedt J.J., Cox F.R., Shuman L.M., Welch R.M. (eds.): Micronutrients in Agriculture. Book Series No. 4. Madison, Soil Science Society of America: 427-476. Go to original source...
    24. Stefanovits P., Filep Gy., Füleky Gy. (1999): Soil Science. Budapest, Mezőgazda Kiadó. (in Hungarian)
    25. Tran T.S., Giroux M., Guilbeault J., Audesse P. (1990): Evaluation of Mehlich 3 extractant to estimate the available P in Quebec soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 21: 1-28. Go to original source...
    26. Tucker M.R. (1988): A review and update on the Mehlich 3 extractant. Presented at: Annual meeting of Mid-Atlantic soil test workgroup southern states building, 6506 West Broad St., Richmond, Virginia 23260.
    27. Tucker M.R., Messick J.K., Carter C.C. (1996): Crop Fertilisation Based on North Carolina Soil Tests. Circular No. 1 (Revised). Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
    28. van Raij B. (1994): New diagnostic techniques, universal soil extractants. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 25: 799-816. Go to original source...
    29. Vidal-Vázquez E., Caridad-Cancela R., Taboada-Castro M.M., PazDonzález A., Abreu C.A. (2005): Trace elements extracted by DTPA and Mehlich-3 from agricultural soils with and without compost additions. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 36: 717-727. Go to original source...
    30. Viets Jr. F.G. (1962): Available pools of micronutrients in soils. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 10: 174-178. Go to original source...
    31. Weindorf D.C., Bakr N., Zhu Y. (2014): Advances in portable Xray fluorescence (PXRF) for environmental, pedological, and agronomic applications. Advances in Agronomy, 128: 1-45. Go to original source...
    32. Wolf A., Beegle D. (eds.) (2009): Recommended soil tests for macro and micronutrients. In: Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States. 3rd Ed. Northeastern Regional Publication No. 493. Newark, University of Delaware: 39-48.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content