Next Article in Journal
From Field to Building: Harnessing Bio-Based Building Materials for a Circular Bioeconomy
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Organic Fertilizer Application on Microbial Community Regulation and Pollutant Accumulation in Typical Red Soil in South China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/agronomy14092151
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Successive Top-Dressing Application of Lime on a Sweet Cherry Orchard in Southern Chile

by
Pamela Artacho
1,
Daniel Schwantes
2,
Pablo Martabit
2 and
Claudia Bonomelli
2,*
1
Institute of Plant Production and Protection, Universidad Austral de Chile, Campus Isla Teja, Valdivia 5090000, Chile
2
Faculty of Agronomy and Natural Systems, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 6904411, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2024, 14(9), 2151; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092151
Submission received: 5 August 2024 / Revised: 4 September 2024 / Accepted: 18 September 2024 / Published: 21 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Soil and Plant Nutrition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Annual top-dressing application of agricultural lime is a common practice in fruit orchards on acidic soils in southern Chile, which could result in surface over-liming and base imbalances. A trial was performed in a cherry orchard with an 8-year history of surface liming to evaluate the effectiveness of lime materials in neutralizing acidity in the soil profile and the effect on the tree nutritional status. No-lime (NL), calcitic (AgL), hydrated (HL), and liquid (LL) lime treatments were applied on soil surface at commercial rates, and soil acidity variables were measured at depths of 0–5, 5–10, and 10–20 cm in samples collected at 0, 15, 30, 60, and 225 days after application. Tree nutritional status was evaluated through foliar analysis. Top-dressing application of AgL was ineffective in ameliorating subsoil acidity at depths >5 cm, even in high-rainfall conditions. HL did not exhibit greater alkalinity mobility compared to AgL, although it had a faster but shorter-lived reaction. At the manufacturer-recommended rates, LL application was ineffective. After 8 years of top-dressing liming with AgL, a significant stratification of soil pH, Al, and Ca was observed. However, foliar concentration of bases did not reflect the surface Ca accumulation in soil, discarding an antagonistic cation competition for tree uptake.

1. Introduction

In the past two decades, Chile has become the largest producer and exporter of fresh fruit in the Southern Hemisphere. Traditionally, the fruit orchards have been in the central and south-central areas (32° to 38° S latitude) where Mediterranean climate predominates. However, climate change has caused a shift towards the southern regions, where temperatures are cooler and water availability is less restricted [1,2]. Volcanic soils dominate southern Chile, which are mainly andisols with structurally disordered minerals, primarily allophane and imogolite [3]. These soils are characterized by surface horizons with acidic pH, low bulk density, high organic matter, and significant phosphate retention [4]. Low soil pH can solubilize aluminum (Al) from silicates and oxides, resulting in the formation of Al3+ ions that are toxic to plants [5,6]. This represents the most significant constraint on crop growth in these soils [7]. The toxic effects of Al on fruit crops, including the inhibition of root and shoot growth, impairment of nutrient and water uptake, and reduction in fruit yield, have been documented in many fruit species [8]. For sweet cherry, [9] demonstrated the harmful effects of soil Al on macronutrient uptake and growth in young trees in a volcanic soil in southern Chile. Therefore, soil acidity must be corrected to ensure the successful establishment of sweet cherry orchards.
Liming is the most effective practice to increase soil pH, ameliorate Al toxicity, and consequently improve crop production [10,11]. Liming materials are mostly hydroxides, oxides, carbonates, and silicates of Ca and Mg. Their dissolution produces OH− and Ca2+ that react with H+ from the soil solution and colloids, increasing soil pH and precipitating Al3+ [12,13]. Traditional agricultural lime (often referred to as aglime, ground limestone, or calcitic lime) is a finely ground material primarily composed of calcium carbonate. Another mined and ground material is dolomite, which also contains magnesium carbonate. Both materials have poor water solubility and move slowly through the soil profile. Consequently, surface-applied lime without some degree of mixing into the soil is ineffective in correcting subsoil acidity, limiting the rooting depth of the crops and consequently their productivity [13,14,15,16]. Additionally, there are calcium hydroxides (hydrated lime) and oxides (quick lime or burned lime), which are more soluble in water, so they should move faster downward through soil than carbonate forms of lime, although variable results have been reported in this regard [13]. Regardless of the material, the liming rate must be calculated considering crop requirements, the status of soil acidity, soil buffer capacity, and tillage depth [17]. Inappropriate liming rates (i.e., over-liming) can significantly reduce the micronutrient bioavailability and cause plant nutrient deficiencies [10]. Over-liming can also lead to nutrient imbalances and antagonistic cation competition for plant uptake [18,19,20].
Fruit orchards, as no-till cropping systems, share the challenges of managing subsoil acidity once the trees have been established. In southern Chile, it is common to apply surface amendments followed by conventional tillage before planting, with liming effects restricted to the plow layer. Subsequently, surface or top-dressing application of lime becomes the only option to correct or maintain soil pH within optimal ranges. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of calcitic lime, calcium hydroxide, and a commercial lime suspension in neutralizing soil acidity in terms of reaction rate and mobility within the soil profile. This evaluation aims to identify alternatives to calcitic lime that can effectively reduce subsoil acidity in no-till systems. Also, the effects of successive surface applications of agricultural lime on stratification of soil variables were studied, as well as the impact on tree nutritional status.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site and Plant Material

The study was conducted in an 8-year-old sweet cherry orchard with the cultivars “Regina” and “Kordia” on Gisela®6 rootstock, owned by “Fruticola Puerto Octay”, located in Chile’s southern region (40°88′ S, 72°83′ W, 150 m a.s.l.). The orchard was ridge-planted in 2014, with trees spaced 4.5 m apart within rows and 2.0 m apart between rows (1111 trees ha−1). The trees were trained to a central leader system. Irrigation was applied through a double-drip line system with 2.3 L h−1 emitters located every 0.25 m along the rows and was designed to maintain the soil water content near field capacity. Fertilization and liming management have followed commercial practices, including annual fertilization with nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium through fertigation, and annual top-dressing application of dolomitic lime in rates of 1000 to 2000 kg ha−1.
The climate of the area, according to the Köppen–Geiger Climate Classification [21], is warm temperate with dry and warm summer. The monthly average temperature ranges from a maximum of 21.8 °C in January to a minimum of 3.4 °C in July. The area records 826 growing degree days annually (10–30 °C) and accumulates 1171 chill hours (<7.2 °C) until July 31. The 30-year average annual precipitation is 1516 mm, with no dry months [22]. The soil is classified as Aquic Hapludands (Rupanquito Series) according to USDA soil taxonomy. It is a moderately deep soil, formed by volcanic ash redeposited by water on cemented fluvioglacial materials. The soil features flat topography and imperfect drainage due to the presence of an impermeable layer locally known as “fierrillo” [23]. To address the drainage issue in the orchard, a drainage system was constructed.
Relevant environmental variables, such as precipitation and soil temperature, were obtained from the Puerto Octay meteorological station (40°57′ S, 72°52′ W, 178 m.a.s.l.), which is located 8.9 km from the experimental site. This station is part of the network of agrometeorological stations of the Chilean Agricultural Research Institute (INIA): https://agrometeorologia.cl/ (accessed on 5 May 2024).

2.2. Experimental Design

The experiment was designed as a completely randomized block design with three replications, including three individual lime treatments and plots receiving no-lime (NL or control), resulting in a total of twelve experimental units covering an area of 864 m2. Each experimental unit consisted of 12 × 1.2 m plots, comprised of six consecutive trees. The lime treatments involved different liming materials applied at commercial rates: calcitic lime (AgL) and hydrated lime (HL) at a rate of 2500 kg ha−1 calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE), and liquid-lime emulsion (LL) at a rate of 50 L ha−1 in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendation for fruit orchards on acidic soils. The chemical and physical characteristics of the liming materials are shown in Table 1. The rates of AgL and HL were adjusted based on the neutralizing value of each material and the effective surface area of the ridges. These materials were hand-broadcast over the ridges and around the sweet cherry trees. The liquid-lime rate was adjusted according to the number of drippers in each experimental plot (48 drippers = 273 cm3 of liquid lime per experimental plot) and applied diluted in water using a 15 L back-sprayer, targeting the drip lines to simulate application via irrigation water. All liming materials were applied over the undisturbed soil on 20 September 2022.

2.3. Soil and Foliar Sampling and Analysis

Prior to the establishment of the treatments in August 2022, soil samples were taken from a depth of 0–30 cm to determine the basic chemical properties of the soil. Subsequently, soil samples were collected at 0, 15, 30, 60, and 225 days after treatment application (DAA) to evaluate the effect of liming materials on soil acidity variables (pH, exchangeable bases, and Al). The only exception was the control soil, which was sampled at 0 and 225 DAA. At each sampling time, soil samples were taken at depths of 0–5 cm, 5–10 cm, and 10–20 cm from the central strip of a vertical slice of soil obtained with a narrow shovel. Soil samples from each depth were composited by four subsamples obtained from each side of the four central trees in each experimental plot. On the same day of sampling, the samples were transported to the Agroanalysis Laboratory of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, where the chemical analyses were conducted according to Chilean standard methods [24]. Samples were air-dried, ground to pass through a 2 mm sieve, and analyzed for the following parameters: pH (potentiometric measurements in a 1:2.5 soil/water suspension), organic matter content (Walkley–Black wet oxidation method); available P (sodium bicarbonate extraction—Olsen method); exchangeable Al (1 M potassium chloride extraction); and exchangeable bases (1 N ammonium acetate at pH 7.0 extraction). The extracts were analyzed for Al and bases using an inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometer (ICP-OES 5110, Agilent Technologies, Victoria, Australia).
The nutritional status of the trees was evaluated through foliar analysis of leaves collected in mid-summer (early February 2023) from the middle-third portion of newly formed shoots. The chemical analyses were performed at the Agroanalysis Laboratory of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, where the vegetal samples were taken and oven-dried for 48 h at 65 °C. The samples were ashed at 500 °C, and the resulting residues were dissolved in acid solution (2 M hydrochloric acid). The mineral content in the extracts was determined by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES 5110, Agilent Technologies, Victoria, Australia).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Based on triplicate measurements per treatment, the mean and standard error (SE) for the studied soil variables were calculated. The treatment effects were evaluated using factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA). The data were analyzed for each factor separately as there were significant interactions between liming material and soil depth. When the F test was significant, the means were separated using Tukey’s honestly significant difference test with a 0.05 significance level. To examine the reaction timing of the different liming materials, the data for soil levels of pH, Al, and Ca were analyzed separately by soil depth using a repeated measures ANOVA, with sampling time as the within-subject effect. A Dunnett’s test was employed to separate the means by comparing each measurement against a preselected measurement or control group; in this case, the value of soil analysis before the liming material application (0 DAA). All analyses were performed with the STATISTICA 12.0 software (Statsoft Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Pre-Treatment Results and Climatic Variables

Prior to trial installation, chemical analysis at 0–30 cm depth showed that the surface soil had a high content of organic matter and available P and K but exhibited an acidic pH, high levels of exchangeable Al and Al saturation, and low availability of Ca and Mg. At the beginning of the trial, soil sampling at small depth increments in control plots revealed a strong stratification of the chemical properties, particularly at the depths of 0–5 cm and 5–10 cm. In general terms, soil pH and availability of P and bases decreased, while Al availability and saturation increased with soil depth. However, these trends were not linear, and the uppermost soil layers (0–5 cm and 5–10 cm) had disproportionate values of chemical analysis compared to the nethermost layers (Table 2).
Regarding climatic data, records from the weather station closest to the experimental site showed a rainfall of 55 mm during the 5 days before treatment application, ensuring the soil was moist at the beginning of the trial. Subsequently, from the treatment application until the last soil sampling, the accumulated precipitation reached 505 mm, and the surface soil temperature ranged from 5.3 to 20.3 °C (Figure 1).

3.2. Reaction Velocity and Mobility of Lime within the Soil Profile

The factorial ANOVA for soil pH responses indicated that liming material (LM), soil depth (D), and their interaction (LMxD) were significant factors at every sampling time, except for 60 days after application (DAA), when the LM effect disappeared (Table 3). Comparing liming materials based on their effects on soil pH and excluding the sampling time at 60 DAA, a rapid reaction of the calcium hydroxide (HL) was observed, detectable at 15 DAA at depths of 0–5 cm, 5–10 cm, and even at 10–20 cm depth. However, this effect disappeared later at depths greater than 10 cm. At 15 DDA, HL-treated soil showed higher pH values compared to soils treated with AgL and LL, with the latter two not differing significantly from the control soil (Table 3). At 30 DAA, the AgL effect on soil pH was similar to LL at 0–5 cm depth but higher than LL at 5–10 cm. At 225 DAA, pH values remained significantly higher in AgL-treated soil at 0–5 and 5–10 cm compared to control soil, HL and LL, with the latter two showing pH values similar to the control soil (Table 3).
The repeated measures ANOVA (Figure 2a) confirmed that top-dressing application of HL caused an early and significant peak in pH at 15 DAA at depths of 0–5 cm and 5–10 cm, compared to the pH value before lime application (0 DAA). Subsequently, pH values decreased over time, although at the 0–5 cm layer remained higher than the pH value before lime application. The AgL reaction resulted in a gradual increment in soil pH during the experimental period at 0–5 cm and 5–10 cm layers. At a depth of 0–5 cm, soil pH was significantly higher than before liming from 30 DAA onwards. A similar trend was observed at 5–10 cm depth, but the differences were not significant. The application of LL did not induce significant changes in soil pH compared to pre-liming soil levels at any sampling time and depth (Figure 2a).
Regarding exchangeable Al, the effects of the experimental factors were less pronounced, with soil depth being the most significant factor and no interaction with liming material observed (Table S1). In general terms, the application of the different lime materials did not change the Al availability, which was similar to that of the control soil. The repeated measures ANOVA (Figure S1) confirmed no temporal variation at each soil depth of the exchangeable Al after the lime application, regardless of the lime material (Figure S1).
Soil exchangeable Ca exhibited a similar response to pH, predominantly affecting the surface 0–5 cm layer. Liming material (LM) and soil depth (D) were the most significant factors affecting this variable. Only at 15 and 30 DAA, the HL application significantly increased the soil Ca at 5–10 cm, causing LMxD interactions to be significant (Table 4). The application of HL resulted in an early rise in soil Ca availability observable after 15 and 30 DAA at depths of 0–5 cm and 5–10 cm. However, this effect disappeared later at depths greater than 5 cm. At 30 DDA, soil Ca at the layer of 0–5 cm was similar in HL- and AgL-treated soils but higher than in LL-treated soil. Surprisingly, at 60 DAA, no differences were detected between lime materials at any soil depth. At the end of the experiment, exchangeable Ca remained significantly higher in AgL-treated soil, while no differences were observed among the remaining treatments, including the control soil. It should be noted that the 10–20 cm layer was not affected by the application of the different liming materials at any sampling time (Table 4). The repeated measures ANOVA also reflects the faster dissolution rate of HL, with peak Ca availability observed at 15 DAA in both the 0–5 cm and 5–10 cm layers (Figure 2b). In contrast, the AgL effect was only detected at 225 DAA and specifically in the 0–5 cm layer. Once again, the LL did not induce changes in exchangeable Ca compared to pre-liming soil levels at any sampling depth (Figure 2b).
A strong and highly resolved stratification of soil pH, Al, and Ca was observed within the top 20 cm of soil, which remained unaltered by the application of various liming materials, as evidenced by the similarity with the control soil (Table 3 and Table 4). Regardless of treatment, soil pH decreased significantly with depth, with each soil layer exhibiting distinct pH values at every sampling time. Soil pH varied from near neutral at 0–5 cm to moderately acidic at 10–20 cm (Table 3 and Figure 2a). Similarly, soil Ca decreased significantly with depth, with Ca values at 0–5 cm depth being two times greater than at the 5–10 cm layer and four to six times greater than at the 10–20 cm layer (Table 4 and Figure 2b). Exchangeable Al increased with the soil depth as pH decreased, but the soil stratification was less pronounced. There were no differences in the soil Al between the depths 0–5 cm and 5–10 cm, but the 10–20 cm layer showed Al values significantly higher than the more superficial layers (Table S1 and Figure S1).

3.3. Tree Nutritional Status

The liming treatments did not significantly affect the foliar concentration of Al, macro, and micronutrients, except for P (Table 5 and Table 6). Trees in HL-treated soil had significantly lower foliar concentrations of P compared to those in untreated soil, with the remaining treatments showing intermediate values (Table 5). According to [25], the leaves from all liming treatments (including no lime) showed normal values of P, K, Fe, Mn, Zn, and B but had low concentrations of Ca and Mg and slightly high concentrations of N (>3.0%) and Cu (>19 mg kg−1) (Table 5 and Table 6).

4. Discussion

Top-dressing application of AgL, as a common management practice in fruit orchards on volcanic soils in southern Chile, proved to be ineffective to ameliorate the soil acidity at depths greater than 5 cm in the short term (<1 year), even in high rainfall areas favorable for downward lime movement like ours [26,27]. Specifically, the anions HCO3− and OH−, which originated from the lime dissolution, must be transported downward by mass flow from surface layers to significantly impact subsoil acidity [28]. Given the high pH of the surface soil, near to 7.0 at 0–5 cm depth (Table 2), an undetermined portion of surface-applied lime likely remained undissolved [27], thereby limiting its effectiveness in deeper soil layers. Our findings align with previous studies indicating challenges in altering soil pH below depths of 5 cm in no-till systems, particularly in dryland areas [27,29,30], but also for high rainfall areas or watering regimes [31]. Studies reporting lime penetration beyond 20 cm suggest that to raise pH levels deeper within the soil profile, continuous application of agricultural lime at high rates (>4 Mg ha−1) over several years (> 5 years) is necessary [27,28,31,32,33]. Despite its higher water solubility [13] and fineness (Table 1), the use of HL did not result in a higher profile mobility of alkalinity compared to AgL (Table 3). Similar results were noted by [34] in their comparison of surface applications of calcitic lime and calcium oxide on an Inceptisol, albeit under relatively low annual precipitation (~600 mm). However, it cannot be ruled out that incomplete lime dissolution occurred due to the high pH of the surface soil (6.86, Table 3). Regarding LL, the applied rate did not induce pH variations over time in any soil layers (Table 3 and Figure 2a). Clearly, the applied rate (50 L ha−1), recommended by the manufacturer for fruit orchards on acidic soils, was insufficient to significantly neutralize acidity. Based on the chemical characteristics of the LL (Table 1), the applied rate contributed approximately 30 kg CaO per hectare, equivalent to 170 kg of pure CaCO3 per hectare. Therefore, for effective results, LL would need to be applied at much higher rates, which could prove uneconomical given its higher cost—7.3 and 4.6 times higher per CCE compared to AgL and HL, respectively. Additionally, our results do not support greater depth mobility, consistent with observations that LL does not penetrate the soil profile with water due to its suspension nature rather than solution [13].
HL had a faster but short-lived reaction compared to AgL, with a peak in pH at 15 DAA at depths less than 10 cm. Subsequently, pH values decreased over time, although a residual effect of +0.30 pH units remained only in the 0–5 cm layer. Instead, the AgL reaction was slower but steadily increased until the end of the experiment at 0–5 cm layer, with differences of +0.34 and +0.58 pH units at 30 and 225 DAA, respectively (Figure 2a). Various studies have shown that maximum soil pH change occurs within 2 to 4 months after liming with very fine limestone, even in no-till systems [14,35]. Therefore, the time to reach maximum pH after liming in our study was likely less than 225 days, although this could not be confirmed due to the trial’s sampling frequency. Different to the soil pH, the response of the soil exchangeable Al to the liming treatments was less pronounced, with soil depth being the most significant factor (Table S1 and Figure S1). The lack of response of exchangeable Al to liming was expected, given the high pH of surface soil (6.86, Table 2) and the inverse exponential relationship with soil pH. This relationship indicates that increases in soil pH above 6.0 result in minimal variations in exchangeable Al, as most of it is already precipitated as insoluble gibbsite [6,17].
Soil acidity variables showed a strong and highly resolved stratification of acidity variables in the first 20 cm of soil of the experimental site (Table 3 and Table 4). Regardless of liming treatment, soil pH diminished as depth increased, being near neutrality at 0–5 cm, slightly acidic at 5–10 cm, and moderately acidic at 10–20 cm (Table 3). This pattern does not agree with the typical pH variation in Chilean young andisol, which is characterized by pH values strong to moderately acidic (close to 5.5) in the first 0–30 cm and slightly acidic (higher than 6.0) in deeper layers [23]. The predominance of amorphous silicates in the clay-size fractions in the soil profile and the high content of organic matter in the most superficial horizon determine the aforementioned pH variation [36]. Therefore, the pH pattern in the experimental soil is the result of successive top-dressing applications of agricultural lime over 8 years in this orchard. An additional consequence of this practice is the accumulation of Ca in the uppermost soil layers (Table 4), which could cause nutrient imbalances and antagonistic cation competition for plant uptake [18,19,20]. For instance, applications of K and Ca fertilizers often induce Mg deficiency in crop plants because of the inhibition of Mg2+ uptake by roots by K+ and Ca2+ [37,38]. In this context, the use of soil “balanced” Ca, Mg, and K ratios, as advocated by the basic cation saturation ratio (BCSR) concept developed by Bear and colleagues in the 1940s [39,40], could help mitigate cation imbalances resulting from inadequate fertilization practices or absolute deficiencies in soils, as it has been demonstrated in herbaceous crops like maize, soy, and tomato, among others [41,42,43,44]. According to the BCSR concept, an ideal soil should have a Ca/Mg ratio of 6.5:1, a Ca/K ratio of 13:1, and a Mg/K ratio of 2:1 [40]. Surprisingly, the Ca/Mg ratio in the control soil was near the optimum ratio at 0–5 cm layer by the end of this study, while the Ca/K ratio was far from the optimum at 0–5 cm depth but near the optimum at 5–10 cm (Figure 3). Only the residual effect of the application of AgL consistently increased Ca/Mg and Ca/K ratios along the soil profile (Figure 3). Deviations from optimal values in soil cation ratios did not translate into variations in tree nutritional status as measured by foliar analysis. Indeed, the foliar concentrations of Ca, Mg, and K were statistically similar among liming treatments (Table 5 and Table 6). Regardless of treatments, deficient foliar concentrations for Ca were registered, while K concentrations were within normal levels [25]. Therefore, the BCSR concept may not be directly applicable to fruit trees as it is for herbaceous crops, for several reasons. These include the ability of trees for nutrient reallocation within a single year and between years [45] and their deeper rooting depths [46], which allow them to explore different fertility conditions along the soil profile. Specifically, for sweet cherry trees on Gisela®6, the rooting depths can exceed one meter, and depending on soil environment, root production can be concentrated below 25 cm depth [47].
Returning to the topic of the response of foliar concentration of nutrients to liming treatments, P was the only one significantly affected (Table 5 and Table 6). Trees in HL-treated soil have significantly lower foliar concentrations of P compared to those in untreated soil. Liming can increase phosphate availability by stimulating mineralization of soil organic P. However, at high soil pH, the precipitation of insoluble calcium phosphates and the adsorption by newly formed surfaces on polymeric hydroxy-Al species can decrease phosphate availability. Additionally, plant uptake can decrease because roots primarily absorb P as the H2PO4− ion, whose presence in soil solution strongly diminishes when the pH exceeds 7.0 [48,49]. Therefore, the high pH reached early at 0–5 cm and 5–10 cm layers by the HL-treated soil, compared to other treatments, could explain the lower foliar concentration of P. Nonetheless, the values of foliar concentration of P were within adequate ranges for all liming treatments [25]. This suggests that P was also removed from subsurface soil with lower pH, albeit with lower P content (Table 2 and Table 3), coinciding with the findings of [50], who concluded that available P in the subsurface layer can supply P to the crop, especially if the surface layer cannot meet the P crop demand. Additionally, the foliar concentrations of Ca and Mg were deficient [29], despite the very high levels in the soil at 0–5 and 5–10 cm depths (Table 2 and Table 4). This supports the hypothesis that roots were exploring and absorbing nutrients from deeper soil layers.
Finally, our results emphasize the need to fine-tune the soil sampling schemes applied in no-till systems such as fruit orchards. In Chile, soil samples for characterizing soil chemistry in fruit trees are taken at depths ranging from 0–20 cm to 0–30 cm as composite samples or in large depth increments within the soil profile (i.e., 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm). These methods ignore the stratification of chemical soil properties resulting from surface liming and/or fertilization without the subsequent mixing with the soil, leading to incorrect fertilization or amendment decisions. For instance, the analysis of a composite soil sample taken at 0–30 cm depth in the experimental soil (Table 1) showed an acidic pH, a high level of exchangeable Al, and low levels of Ca and Mg, indicating a clear need for soil liming. However, when the same soil was sampled at small depth increments, the soil analysis revealed pH values from near neutrality to slightly acidic in the top 20 cm of soil (Table 1), and therefore, the liming decision should consider the possibility of using more mobile lime alternatives or deep lime placement to avoid intensifying soil surface alkalinization and Ca accumulation. Thus, to capture the variation of soil properties over depth and consequently make proper decisions on fertilization and liming management in no till systems, soil sampling at discrete depth increments should be preferred.

5. Conclusions

The evaluation of different commercial alternatives to AgL for reducing subsoil acidity in a sweet cherry orchard in southern Chile revealed that using HL did not offer an advantage over AgL in terms of alkalinity mobility within the soil profile. Both materials were effective only at 0–5 cm layer. HL has a faster but shorter-lived reaction compared to AgL, suggesting that liming with HL would likely need to be repeated more frequently. While the application of LL at commercial rates was useless, indicating that much higher rates would be necessary. On the other hand, successive top-dressing liming with AgL in the orchard caused a strong and highly resolved stratification of soil pH, Al, and Ca in the first 20 cm of soil, which did not cause antagonistic cation competition for uptake. Instead, the deficient Ca concentration in the leaves suggests that roots were exploring and absorbing nutrients from deeper soil layers. Therefore, our results underscore the importance of providing sufficient levels of basic cations throughout the soil profile rather than focusing on “optimum” soil cation ratios to ensure an adequate tree uptake.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy14092151/s1, Table S1: Effect of liming material on soil exchangeable Al (cmol kg−1) by depth and sampling time. Standard error is given in parentheses; Figure S1: Change over time (0–225 days) of soil exchangeable Al (cmol kg−1) after top-dressing liming with different liming materials for different sampling depths. * Indicates a value significantly higher than in control group (CG) (Dunnett’s test, p ≤ 0.05). Sampling time of 60 DAA was excluded.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.A., P.M. and C.B.; data curation, P.A. and P.M.; formal analysis, P.A. and C.B.; funding acquisition, C.B.; investigation, P.M.; methodology, P.A. and C.B.; project administration, C.B.; resources, C.B.; supervision, C.B.; validation, P.A. and D.S.; visualization, P.A. and C.B.; writing—original draft, P.A.; writing—review and editing, D.S. and C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID), through the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (FONDECYT), Chile, grant number 1231665.

Data Availability Statement

Dataset available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Araya-Osses, D.; Casanueva, A.; Román-Figueroa, C.; Uribe, J.M.; Paneque, M. Climate change projections of temperature and precipitation in Chile based on statistical downscaling. Clim. Dyn. 2020, 54, 4309–4330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pefaur, J. Evolución de la Fruticultura Chilena en los Últimos 20 Años; Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias (ODEPA): Santiago, Chile, 2020; Available online: https://bibliotecadigital.odepa.gob.cl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12650/70234/evolucionFruticulturachilena.pdf (accessed on 6 April 2024).
  3. Besoain, E. Mineralogía de los suelos volcánicos del centro sur de Chile. In Suelos volcánicos de Chile, 1st ed.; Tosso, J., Ed.; Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA): Santiago, Chile, 1985; pp. 109–151. [Google Scholar]
  4. Dörner, J.; Dec, D.; Peng, X.; Horn, R. Effect of land use change on the dynamic behaviour of structural properties of an Andisol in southern Chile under saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conditions. Geoderma 2010, 159, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Delhaize, E.; Ryan, P.R. Aluminum Toxicity and Tolerance in Plants. Plant Physiol. 1995, 107, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kinraide, T.B. Identity of the Rhizotoxic Aluminium Species. Plant Soil 1991, 134, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dahlgren, R.A.; Saigusa, M.; Ugolini, F.C. The Nature, Properties and Management of Volcanic Soils. Adv. Agron. 2004, 82, 113–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, L.S.; Yang, L.T.; Guo, P.; Jiang, H.X.; Tang, N. Aluminum Toxicity and Fruit Nutrition. In Fruit Crops: Diagnosis and Management of Nutrient Constraints; Srivastava, A.K., Hu, C., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 223–240. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bonomelli, C.; Artacho, P. Aluminum toxicity in sweet cherry trees grown in an acidic volcanic soil. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fageria, N.K.; Baligar, V.C. Ameliorating soil acidity of tropical Oxisols by liming for sustainable crop production. Adv. Agron. 2008, 99, 345–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Enesi, R.O.; Dyck, M.; Chang, S.; Thilakarathna, M.S.; Fan, X.; Strelkov, S.; Gorim, L.Y. Liming remediates soil acidity and improves crop yield and profitability-a meta-analysis. Front. Agron. 2023, 5, 1194896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Goulding, K.W.T. Soil acidification and the importance of liming agricultural soils with particular reference to the United Kingdom. Soil Use Manag. 2016, 32, 390–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Anderson, N.P.; Hart, J.M.; Sullivan, D.M.; Christensen, N.W.; Horneck, D.A.; Pirelli, G.J. Applying Lime to Raise Soil pH for Crop Production (Western Oregon); Oregon State University Extension Publication EM: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2013; p. 9057. [Google Scholar]
  14. Pagani, A.; Mallarino, A.P. Comparison of methods to determine crop lime requirement under field conditions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2012, 76, 1855–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Doss, B.D.; Dumas, W.T.; Lund, Z.F. Depth of lime incorporation for correction of subsoil acidity. Agron. J. 1979, 71, 541–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Farina, M.P.W.; Channon, P. Acid-subsoil amelioration: I. A comparison of several mechanical procedures. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1988, 52, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pinochet, D.; Artacho, P.; Maraboli, A. Manual de Fertilización de Arándanos Cultivados en el Sur de Chile; Imprenta América: Valdivia, Chile, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  18. Edmeades, D.C.; Smart, C.E.; Wheeler, D.M.; Rys, G. Effects of lime on the chemical composition of ryegrass and white clover grown on a yellow-brown loam. N. Z. J. Agr. Res. 1983, 26, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Loide, V. About the effect of the contents and ratios of soil’s available calcium, potassium and magnesium in liming of acid soils. Agron. Res. 2004, 2, 71–82. [Google Scholar]
  20. Nguyen, H.H.; Maneepong, S.; Suraninpong, P. Effects of potassium, calcium, and magnesium ratios in soil on their uptake and fruit quality of pummelo. J. Agric. Sci. 2017, 9, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kottek, M.; Grieser, J.; Beck, C.; Rudolf, B.; Rubel, F. World Map of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Updated. Meteorol. Z. 2006, 15, 259–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Santibáñez, F.; Santibáñez, P.; Caroca, C.; González, P. Atlas Agroclimático de Chile. Estado Actual y Tendencias del Clima. Tomo V: Regiones de Los Ríos y Los Lagos; AGRIMED, Universidad de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  23. Centro de Información de Recursos Naturales. Estudio Agrológico de la X Región. Descripciones de Suelos, Materiales y Símbolos; Centro de Información de Recursos Naturales (CIREN): Santiago, Chile, 2003; ISBN 956-7153-48-5. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sadzawka, A.; Carrasco, M.; Grez, R.; Mora, M.L.; Flores, H.; Neaman, A. Métodos de Análisis de Suelo Recomendados Para los Suelos de Chile; Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias: Santiago, Chile, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  25. Reuter, D.; Robinson, J.B. Plant Analysis: An Interpretation Manual, 2nd ed.; CSIRO publishing: Collingwood, VIC, Australia, 1997; ISBN 0-643-05938-5. [Google Scholar]
  26. Godsey, C.B.; Pierzynski, G.M.; Mengel, D.B.; Lamond, R.E. Management of soil acidity in no-till production systems through surface application of lime. Agron. J. 2007, 99, 764–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Azam, G.; Gazey, C. Slow movement of alkali from surface-applied lime warrants the introduction of strategic tillage for rapid amelioration of subsurface acidity in south-western Australia. Soil Res. 2020, 59, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sumner, M.E. Amelioration of subsoil acidity with minimum disturbance. In Subsoil Management Technique; Jayawardane, N.S., Stewart, B.A., Eds.; Lewis Publishers Inc.: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1995; pp. 147–185. ISBN 978-1-56670-020-7. [Google Scholar]
  29. Conyers, M.K.; Heenan, D.P.; McGhie, W.J.; Poile, G.P. Amelioration of acidity with time by limestone under contrasting tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 72, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Barth, V.P.; Reardon, C.L.; Coffey, T.; Klein, A.M.; McFarland, C.; Huggins, D.R.; Sullivan, T.S. Stratification of soil chemical and microbial properties under no-till after liming. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 130, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Caires, E.F.; Alleoni, L.R.; Cambri, M.A.; Barth, G. Surface application of lime for crop grain production under a no-till system. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 791–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tao, H.; Pan, W.L.; Carter, P.; Wang, K. Addition of lignin to lime materials for expedited pH increase and improved vertical mobility of lime in no-till soils. Soil Use Manag. 2019, 35, 314–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nunes, M.R.; Denardin, J.E.; Vaz, C.M.; Karlen, D.L.; Cambardella, C.A. Lime movement through highly weathered soil profiles. Environ. Res. Commun. 2019, 1, 115002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Moir, J.L.; Moot, D.J. Soil pH, exchangeable aluminium and lucerne yield responses to lime in a South Island high country soil. In Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association Conference, Lincoln, New Zealand, 14–18 November 2010; pp. 191–196. [Google Scholar]
  35. Beegle, D.B. Liming in no-till systems. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh North Central Extension-Industry Soil Fertility Conference, St. Louis, MO, USA, 19–20 November 1997; pp. 19–20. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sadzawka, M.A.; Carrasco, M.A. Química de los suelos volcánicos. In Suelos Volcánicos de Chile, 1st ed.; Tosso, J., Ed.; Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA): Santiago, Chile, 1985; pp. 337–434. [Google Scholar]
  37. Coskun, D.; White, P.J. Ion-uptake mechanisms of individual cells and roots: Short-distance transport. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Plants, 4th ed.; Rengel, Z., Cakmak, I., White, P.J., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2023; pp. 11–71. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gransee, A.; Führs, H. Magnesium mobility in soils as a challenge for soil and plant analysis, magnesium fertilization and root uptake under adverse growth conditions. Plant Soil 2013, 368, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chaganti, V.N.; Culman, S.W. Historical perspective of soil balancing theory and identifying knowledge gaps: A review. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag. 2017, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kopittke, P.M.; Menzies, N.W. A review of the use of the basic cation saturation ratio and the “ideal” soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 259–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jakobsen, S.T. Interaction between plant nutrients: III. Antagonism between potassium, magnesium and calcium. Acta Agric. Scand.—B Soil Plant Sci. 1993, 43, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Osemwota, I.O.; Omueti, J.A.I.; Ogboghodo, A.I. Effect of calcium/magnesium ratio in soil on magnesium availability, yield, and yield components of maize. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2007, 38, 2849–2860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Takamoto, A.; Takahashi, T.; Nira, R. Soil chemical properties affecting soybean yield on a nationwide scale in Japan. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 66, 900–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yang, M.; Zhou, D.; Hang, H.; Chen, S.; Liu, H.; Su, J.; Lv, H.; Jia, H.; Zhao, G. Effects of balancing exchangeable cations Ca, Mg, and K on the growth of tomato seedlings (Solanum lycopersicum L.) based on increased soil cation exchange capacity. Agronomy 2024, 14, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kalcsits, L.; Lotze, E.; Tagliavini, M.; Hannam, K.D.; Mimmo, T.; Neilsen, D.; Neilsen, G.; Atkinson, D.; Casagrande, E.; Borruso, L.; et al. Recent achievements and new research opportunities for optimizing macronutrient availability, acquisition, and distribution for perennial fruit crops. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Schenk, H.J.; Jackson, R.B. Rooting depths, lateral root spreads and below-ground/above-ground allometries of plants in water-limited ecosystems. J. Ecol. 2002, 90, 480–494. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3072232 (accessed on 10 June 2024). [CrossRef]
  47. Artacho, P.; Bonomelli, C. Changes in fine-root production, phenology and spatial distribution in response to N application in irrigated sweet cherry trees. Tree Physiol. 2016, 36, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Barrow, N.J. The effects of pH on phosphate uptake from the soil. Plant Soil 2017, 410, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Haynes, R.J. Effects of liming on phosphate availability in acid soils: A critical review. Plant Soil 1982, 68, 289–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pothuluri, J.V.; Kissel, D.E.; Whitney, D.A.; Thien, S.J. Phosphorus uptake from soil layers having different soil test phosphorus levels. Agron. J. 1986, 78, 991–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 14 02151 g001
Figure 1. Daily precipitation and soil temperature at surface and at 10 cm depth at the Puerto Octay Agrometeorological Station (https://www.agrometeorologia.cl/ (accessed on 5 May 2024)), located 8.9 km from the experimental site. Dotted vertical lines at 0, 15, 30, 60 and 225 DAA (days after treatment application) indicate soil sampling events following lime application on 20 September 2022.
Figure 1. Daily precipitation and soil temperature at surface and at 10 cm depth at the Puerto Octay Agrometeorological Station (https://www.agrometeorologia.cl/ (accessed on 5 May 2024)), located 8.9 km from the experimental site. Dotted vertical lines at 0, 15, 30, 60 and 225 DAA (days after treatment application) indicate soil sampling events following lime application on 20 September 2022.
Agronomy 14 02151 g001
Agronomy 14 02151 g002
Figure 2. Change over time (0–225 days) of (a) soil pH and (b) exchangeable Ca after top-dressing liming with different liming materials for different sampling depths. * Indicate a pH o Ca value significantly higher than in control group (CG) (Dunnett’s test, p ≤ 0.05). Sampling time of 60 DAA was excluded.
Figure 2. Change over time (0–225 days) of (a) soil pH and (b) exchangeable Ca after top-dressing liming with different liming materials for different sampling depths. * Indicate a pH o Ca value significantly higher than in control group (CG) (Dunnett’s test, p ≤ 0.05). Sampling time of 60 DAA was excluded.
Agronomy 14 02151 g002
Agronomy 14 02151 g003
Figure 3. (a) Ca/Mg and (b) Ca/K ratios at different soil depths after top-dressing liming with different liming materials, measured 225 days after lime application. Different letters for a given analysis in the same soil depth indicate significant differences between liming materials (Tukey’s test, p ≤ 0.05). Dotted lines indicate the optimum ratios according to BCSR concept.
Figure 3. (a) Ca/Mg and (b) Ca/K ratios at different soil depths after top-dressing liming with different liming materials, measured 225 days after lime application. Different letters for a given analysis in the same soil depth indicate significant differences between liming materials (Tukey’s test, p ≤ 0.05). Dotted lines indicate the optimum ratios according to BCSR concept.
Agronomy 14 02151 g003
Table 1. Chemical and physical characteristics of the liming materials used in the experiment.
Table 1. Chemical and physical characteristics of the liming materials used in the experiment.
Liming
Material		Main
Constituent		Purity
(% Main Constituent)		Water
Content (%)		Other Characteristics
Calcitic lime (AgL)Calcium
Carbonate		91<1−100 Tyler sieve 2; density 1.0–1.2 g cm−3
Hydrated lime (HL)Calcium
Hydroxide		89<1−170 Tyler sieve 2; density 0.4–0.5 g cm−3
Liquid lime (LL)Calcium oxide suspension60 1Nd 3Granulometry Nd 3; density 1.71 g cm−3; pH 10; not water soluble
1 % weight/volume. 2 ≥90% material passes through 100 or 170 Tyler sieve (particles smaller than 0.149 or 0.088 mm, respectively). 3 Not declared by manufacturer.
Table 2. Soil acidity variables in the experimental site before trial establishment in August 2022 (0–30 cm depth), and in control plots separated by depth in September 2022.
Table 2. Soil acidity variables in the experimental site before trial establishment in August 2022 (0–30 cm depth), and in control plots separated by depth in September 2022.
Soil VariablesPre-Trial
August 2022		Control Plots after Trial Installation 1
September 2022
0–30 cm0–5 cm5–10 cm10–20 cm20–30 cm
Organic matter (%)18- 2---
Olsen-P (mg kg−1)2141281113
K (mg kg−1)176322312250217
Na (cmol kg−1)0.030.050.030.050.05
Ca (cmol kg−1)2.4624.0512.354.262.39
Mg (cmol kg−1)0.413.732.200.860.48
Sum of bases (cmol kg−1)3.3528.6515.375.813.47
pH water5.506.866.385.855.14
Exchangeable Al (cmol kg−1)0.310.010.020.090.27
Al saturation (%)8.470.040.111.487.22
1 In the control plots, the value of the analysis at each depth is a mean of three replications. 2 Not measured.
Table 3. Effect of liming material on soil pH (water) by depth and sampling time.
Table 3. Effect of liming material on soil pH (water) by depth and sampling time.
Sampling Time
(DAA) 1		Depth (cm)
(D)		Liming Material (LM)
No Lime (NL)Calcitic Lime (AgL)Hydrated Lime (HL)Liquid Lime (LL)
150–56.86 Ca7.03 Ca7.42 Cc6.90 Ca
5–106.38 Ba6.37 Ba6.90 Bb6.37 Ba
10–205.85 Aab5.81 Aab5.94 Ab5.74 Aa
300–5- 27.20 Cb7.13 Cb6.71 Ca
5–10-6.47 Bb6.26 Ba6.25 Ba
10–20-5.65 Aa5.63 Aa5.64 Aa
600–5-6.85 Cc6.75 Cb6.57 Ca
5–10-5.95 Ba5.88 Ba6.17 Bb
10–20-5.35 Aa5.35 Aa5.26 Aa
2250–57.05 Cab7.43 Cc7.15 Cb6.82 Ca
5–106.22 Ba6.60 Bb6.40 Bab6.39 Bab
10–205.77 Aa5.77 Aa5.68 Aa5.65 Aa
15p-valueLM p = 0.000; D p = 0.000; LM × D p = 0.000
30p-valueLM p = 0.000; D p = 0.000; LM × D p = 0.005
60p-valueLM p = 0.145; D p = 0.000; LM × D p = 0.000
225p-valueLM p = 0.000; D p = 0.000; LM × D p = 0.004
Different uppercase letters for a given analysis in the same liming material and sampling time indicate significant differences between soil depths (Tukey’s test, p ≤ 0.05). Different lowercase letters for a given analysis in the same soil depth and sampling time indicate significant differences between liming materials (Tukey’s test, p ≤ 0.05). 1 Days after treatment application. 2 Not measured.
Table 4. Effect of liming material on soil exchangeable Ca (cmol kg−1) by depth and sampling time.
Table 4. Effect of liming material on soil exchangeable Ca (cmol kg−1) by depth and sampling time.
Sampling Time
(DAA) 1		Depth (cm)
(D)		Liming Material (LM)
No Lime (NL)Calcitic Lime (AgL)Hydrated Lime (HL)Liquid Lime (LL)
150–524.04 Ca29.48 Cab34.78 Cb23.67 Ca
5–1012.34 Ba11.28 Ba19.43 Bb12.10 Ba
10–204.25 Aa3.74 Aa4.89 Aa4.41 Aa
300–5- 229.72 Cb31.47 Cb22.98 Ca
5–10-11.88 Ba15.23 Bb12.74 Ba
10–20-3.04 Aa3.60 Aa4.12 Aa
600–5-28.49 Ca35.00 Ba25.66 Ba
5–10-11.06 Ba12.78 Aa13.92 Aa
10–20-4.04 Aa4.09 Aa4.46 Aa
2250–524.05 Ca31.42 Cb28.76 Cab22.85 Ca
5–1011.07 Ba15.35 Ba14.81 Ba12.69 Ba
10–203.87 Aa5.82 Aa4.64 Aa5.08 Aa
15p-valueLM p = 0.078; D p = 0.000; LM × D p = 0.123
30p-valueLM p = 0.000; D p = 0.000; LM × D p = 0.000
60p-valueLM p = 0.222; D p = 0.000; LM × D p = 0.172
225p-valueLM p = 0.957; D p = 0.000; LM × D p = 0.745
Different uppercase letters for a given analysis in the same liming material and sampling time indicate significant differences between soil depths (Tukey’s test, p ≤ 0.05). Different lowercase letters for a given analysis in the same soil depth and sampling time indicate significant differences between liming materials (Tukey’s test, p ≤ 0.05). 1 Days after treatment application. 2 Not measured.
Table 5. Effect of liming material on foliar concentrations of macronutrients (% in dry matter) in sweet cherry trees on Gisela®6 rootstock.
Table 5. Effect of liming material on foliar concentrations of macronutrients (% in dry matter) in sweet cherry trees on Gisela®6 rootstock.
Liming Material (LM)NPKCaMg
No lime (NL)3.170.23 b2.600.790.24
Calcitic lime (AgL)3.000.22 ab2.480.800.23
Hydrated lime (HL)3.090.21 a2.300.790.23
Liquid lime (LL)3.090.23 ab2.670.910.24
p-value0.4130.0310.1970.3470.784
Different letters for a given analysis indicate significant differences between liming materials (Tukey’s test, p ≤ 0.05).
Table 6. Effect of liming material on foliar concentrations of Al and micronutrients (mg kg−1 dry matter) in sweet cherry trees on Gisela®6 rootstock.
Table 6. Effect of liming material on foliar concentrations of Al and micronutrients (mg kg−1 dry matter) in sweet cherry trees on Gisela®6 rootstock.
Liming Material (LM)AlCuFeMnZnB
No lime (NL)10219118502642
Calcitic lime (AgL)11519118553140
Hydrated lime (HL)10819115522939
Liquid lime (LL)11822127573544
p-value0.7000.2660.7830.8830.4470.237
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Artacho, P.; Schwantes, D.; Martabit, P.; Bonomelli, C. Effects of Successive Top-Dressing Application of Lime on a Sweet Cherry Orchard in Southern Chile. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092151

AMA Style

Artacho P, Schwantes D, Martabit P, Bonomelli C. Effects of Successive Top-Dressing Application of Lime on a Sweet Cherry Orchard in Southern Chile. Agronomy. 2024; 14(9):2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092151

Chicago/Turabian Style

Artacho, Pamela, Daniel Schwantes, Pablo Martabit, and Claudia Bonomelli. 2024. "Effects of Successive Top-Dressing Application of Lime on a Sweet Cherry Orchard in Southern Chile" Agronomy 14, no. 9: 2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092151

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop