The meta-analysis study on the effects of the quality of lime materials on the soil physicochemical properties and crop yields in acid soils

Soil acidity remains a critical constraint to global agricultural productivity. Liming is a well-established management practice to ameliorate acid soils, yet the agronomic effectiveness of diverse lime materials under varying pedoclimatic conditions requires systematic evaluation. Using the response ratios from the meta-analysis approach, the study synthesizes peer-reviewed studies (2000–2023) to quantify the effects of lime material type on soil physicochemical properties, crop yield, soil pH dynamics, and nutrient availability across various climatic conditions and agronomic management practices. The systematic literature search identified 40 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed an overall positive effect size of 17.54% on soil pH, reflecting the positive influence of different lime materials applied in various soil types and management systems in remediating soil acidity. Dominant liming materials, including dolomitic lime and calcium carbonate, had positive effects of 14.12% and 15.19%, respectively. Soil available phosphorus varied widely from -17.59% to 20.9%, indicating heterogeneity of materials in acidic soil remediation. Lime materials such as Calmasil, CaCO₃, burnt dolomitic, dregs, ash, and dolomitic lime negatively impacted H+Al levels, with mean effects of -52.35%, -59.32%, -39.32%, -26.58%, -18.07%, and -14.3%, respectively. The agronomic value of lime is context-dependent, with significant influence of lime type, soil type, tillage system, crop system, and placement method across different crops. Soil conditions, including initial soil pH, exchangeable aluminum, acidity, exchangeable bases, and base saturation, were critical in determining the impact on soil properties and crop yields under field conditions. This analysis provides evidence-based guidelines for lime material selection strategies tailored to its quality and agronomic management practices for sustainable crop productivity.

1 Introduction

The progressive deterioration of agricultural soils, primarily driven by soil acidity and limited buffering capacity (1), underscores the urgent need for targeted interventions and sustainable land-management strategies to halt and reverse soil degradation and restore productive soil health (2). In the context of intensive agricultural production, sustainable soil management requires integrated strategies to enhance soil fertility through chemical, physical, and biological improvements (3, 4). Among the key constraints to soil fertility, acidity is a critical factor due to its widespread impact on essential soil properties governing crop productivity (5). Using a 250-m resolution global gridded soil information system (SoilGrids), it is estimated that approximately 4.5 billion hectares of global arable land exist, of which nearly 40% is classified as acidic (pH< 6.5) (6).

Addressing soil acidity and its implications for agricultural productivity has a direct influence on several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as it poses a significant barrier to achieving SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) due to suppression of plant nutrients, resulting in yield instability in many smallholder systems (7). Efforts required to restore soil fertility and strengthen ecosystem resilience, particularly rehabilitating acidic soils, correspond to SDG 15 (Life on Land). Integrating these perspectives reinforces sustainable soil acidity management as a pathway toward broader food, environmental, and resource sustainability. To mitigate soil acidification and improve the agronomic potential of highly acidic soils, various ameliorative technologies and management practices have been developed and recommended (8, 9). These include cultivating acid-tolerant plants (10), covering the surface with non-acidic soil (8, 11), and using organic fertilizers (12).

Among these practices, the use of lime, often called “the forgotten fertilizer,” remains the most reliable method for managing soil acidity due to its significant and lasting agronomic effects (8). Studies indicate that physicochemical processes contributing to soil acidification, such as dissociation of carbonic acids, atmospheric deposition of acidic gases or precipitation, microbial respiration or root exudates, oxidation reactions, and the formation of organic acids, are significantly counteracted, controlled, or complexed through the application of lime materials (12–14). Enesi et al. (15) demonstrated that lime application generally mitigates soil acidity and enhances crop yield and profitability. This is supported by the African Union (16), which aims to reverse land degradation and restore soil health on at least 30% of degraded soils by 2034 through lime treatment to help reduce the harmful effects of soil acidity. Notably, the practical effectiveness of lime materials depends on principles such as (i) the target pH, (ii) the desired grain yield, and (iii) the neutralizing potential of the liming material (17).

Remarkably, both liming and non-liming materials, mainly composed of hydroxides, oxides, carbonates, and silicates or sulphates of calcium and magnesium, can improve the displacement of exchangeable bases and reduce Al³⁺ toxicity by inducing the formation of ion pairs in soil solutions, such as AlSO₄⁺ (18). For instance, lime materials characterized by the (i) total relative neutralizing power (TRNP) = 83%, CaO = 44%, and MgO = 14%; TRNP = 83%, CaO = 35% and MgO = 20%, and (iii) TRNP = 77%, CaO = 47% and MgO = 14%, significantly raised soil pH, promoted crop root growth in the soil profile (up to 60 cm deep) and led to higher rainfed maize yields when placed subsurface at ≥ 9 Mg ha⁻¹ in Brazilian oxisols (19). Surface application of dolomitic lime with 92% effective neutralizing power at 2 Mg ha⁻¹ increased Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, and base saturation up to 0.40 m depth with a slight pH increase and exchangeable acidity (H + Al) decrease only in the topsoil (20). They further recorded no effect on potassium (K⁺), phosphorus (P), and soil organic matter (SOM). Non-liming materials including gypsum causes the precipitation of Al³⁺ in the form of jurbanite (AlOHSO₄.5H₂O), Alunite (KAl₃(OH)₆(SO₄)₂), and basaluminite (Al₄(O)10SO₄.5H₂O) (21). As H⁺ ions decrease, soil pH increases, Al-chemical species change, and Al³⁺ content decreases, indicating soil alkalinization. This process is attributed to the mode of placement, time, and source or quality of materials (22).

However, the response of soil and crops to lime materials is controversial and ranges from substantial to slight increases in varying soil properties and crop productivity (23). These contrasting results have been ascribed to a combination of factors, including the amount of lime required to raise soil pH, which depends on the type of lime, previous land use, and actual soil pH (4, 24). Also, applying different lime materials at the right rate, place, and time, paired with broader agronomic management practices including tillage systems and cropping systems, could potentially aid in tackling soil acidity and improve soil health, thus supporting SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) in ensuring efficient and sustainable utilization of nutrient resources (7, 25). Du Toit et al. (26) surface-placed different liming materials, including hydrated lime, calcitic agricultural lime, micro-fine lime, and molasses-granulated micro-fine lime in sand and sandy loam acid (pH_KCl< 4.1) topsoils under simulated Mediterranean climate conditions. Their findings postulated that all lime materials applied increased soil pH by 1–2 pH units above the target pH_KCl of 5.5 in the top 5 cm of both soils, while only hydrated lime increased soil pH_KCl (5.7–6.8) below 5 cm up to a depth of 15 cm. It has been revealed that granulated micro-fine lime reacted more slowly than agricultural lime, whereas hydrated lime showed the potential to ameliorate subsoil acidity in various soils (23, 26–29).

Although the processes and mechanisms of soil acidification are well documented (17, 30), the extent and agronomic implications remain dynamic and insufficiently quantified, as no meta-synthesis has systematically evaluated the heterogeneity arising from lime material quality, soil and climatic variation, and management practices, indicating a critical knowledge gap that the present study addresses. For example, previous meta-analyses demonstrated that global variations in soil pH and crop yield responses to liming and soil amendments are primarily governed by the interaction of environmental conditions with management intensity, identifying liming rate and crop species as the dominant drivers of pH change and crop yields (12, 15, 31). However, these existing studies (Table 1) and meta-analyses did not explicitly and systematically disentangle the agronomic value and/or effects of different lime materials across contrasting pedoclimatic conditions and management regimes, leaving a critical gap in understanding their context-specific performance and efficacy. To tackle this, this study used a three-way approach system that involves (i) diagnosis of acidity according to its type, extent, and severity using chemical and physical soil properties, (ii) quality of amendment measurement that contemplates the diversity of natural materials and agricultural byproducts, and (iii) the recommendation of application components (66). Therefore, a thorough examination of different lime materials, their quality, and their effects on soil physicochemical properties related to crop grain yields for the 21^st century must be established. The objective of this study is to explore the agronomic value of lime materials and understand their potential implications for soil acidity, soil improvement and crop productivity in various field crops. Specifically, the study sought to (i) compare the efficacy of diverse lime material types and qualities, (ii) evaluate their interactions with key agronomic practices, including tillage, application method, and cropping systems, and (iii) quantify the resultant soil physicochemical responses and crop grain yield. The analyses inform researchers and agricultural experts on strategies to promote lime utilization, material quality assurance, and soil acidity management for sustainable crop production systems and soil health.

Table 1

Table 1. A summary table shows the information gathered and the characteristics of lime materials applied in different experimental conditions.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Search strategy

A literature review and meta-analysis of lime-related on-farm and/or on-station field experimental studies published in the 21^st Century were recorded, i.e., from the year 2000 to October 2023. This was carried out to illustrate the impact of liming materials on different soil phyco-chemical properties, including the 4R nutrient stewardship, i.e., sources, rate, time, and place, crop types, tillage systems, fertilizer types, soil pH changes, and crop yield. The literature search was carried out in the ISI Web of Science Core Collection (https://www.webofscience.com/), Scopus (https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus), and Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/) using the following key search terms: “soil amendment or lime or amelioration” AND “acid soil* or soil acid*” AND “crop or grain yield” in ‘Article Title, Abstract or Keywords’. The references cited in, and citing the reviewed studies, were also scanned separately for relevant publications. In this study, lime materials were defined as any calcium or magnesium material applied to the soil before planting to raise soil pH, while non-lime materials include all anhydrite, gypsum, phosphogypsum, and various industrial by-products. The studies were imported into EndNote Thomson Reuters (EndNote version 20.1) for de-duplication and further screening. The remaining studies were exported into MS Excel.

2.2 Selection of studies

All references retrieved relevant to the review’s objective were assessed based on their titles and abstracts. The studies included for this analysis were based on the following criteria: (i) the experiment should have control treatments with no-lime applied, (ii) lime-treated plots compared with the no-lime-treated plots; (iii) the initial and final soil physicochemical properties; and (iv) the type of lime material used were stated. In addition, the experimental application rates applied must be reported, and at least one of the following variables must be included: soil pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), organic matter (OM), phosphorus (P), and crop yield. The initial soil pH should be lower than 6.5. On the other hand, the study was excluded when (i) it is not in English, (ii) the paper is a review that did not include data analysis, (iii) commentary, or corrigendum articles. Initially, it was found that searches of databases did not always produce pertinent content. To concentrate on the more pertinent articles, the screening process began with the title, followed by duplicate elimination, and then the abstract. From the search strategy that resulted in more than 2000 publications, studies went through filtering as indicated in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) workflow (Figure 1). As such, 720 articles were retained, of which 680 studies were discarded, including review articles (systematic or literary), duplicates, records marked as ineligible by automation tools, and records removed for other reasons, while 303 studies were included. Finally, the results of the literature screening process (including removal of non-English documents, non-accessible, and those that lack quantitative data, e.g., pot, incubation, or greenhouse studies and titration experiments) were reduced to 40 articles regardless of the field crop type, soil type, or climate across multiple nations (Figure 1; Table 1). To comprehend its functioning concerning the lime requirements and recommendations (agronomic value), data regarding the quality of lime was searched in all accepted studies (19–21, 25, 53).

Figure 1

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of studies' screening and selection.

2.3 Data extraction and analyses

Data was obtained from published tables and texts of all selected research articles, and a subset of data was extracted from published Figures using WebPlot Digitizer 4.4 (https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer/). To minimize bias, the following criteria were used: (a) paired observations between a no-liming control and a liming treatment under identical experimental conditions were included. Since it was not possible to obtain the statistics for each of the effects without the availability of all the raw data of all the replicates, an unweighted analysis was used across all included studies and maximized dataset inclusion, where the standard deviation (SD) was calculated to be the same for all datasets. This approach was employed in this study because many primary sources did not report measures of variance (e.g., standard deviation, standard error, or confidence intervals) or sample size information in a consistent format. This lack of variance structure is common in agronomic field trials, particularly when working with diverse historical datasets. Under such conditions, applying a weighted model would exclude a substantial portion of the available evidence or require imputing missing variances, which may introduce greater bias than treating all studies with equal weight.

Data was analyzed using MetaWin 2.1 software (67, 68). The effect size of each observation was calculated as the natural log of the response ratio (RR), which was calculated using the Equation 1:

$\begin{array}{ll}RR= \frac{X_T}{X_C}& (1)\end{array}$

where X_T represents the mean of the treatment, and X_C is the mean of the control. The dataset used in this systematic analysis offers a distinct foundation for a deep understanding of how lime materials and agronomic management practices affect crop yields and soil physicochemical characteristics, which cannot be deduced from previous meta-analyses. The study integrated different sources, lime placement methods, lime quality attributes (particle size distribution, calcium carbonate equivalence: %CCE, and agricultural efficiency, and agricultural value index), initial and final soil characterization (pH, aluminum, exchangeable acidity: H + Al, available phosphorus, organic carbon content: %OC, calcium: Ca²⁺, magnesium: Mg²⁺, and potassium: K⁺) among the exchangeable cations and crop yields, which were systematically differentiated by their management type (e.g., tillage systems: no-till or conventional, cropping systems: monocropping, rotations, intercropping). In the analysis, all descriptive statistics for both initial and final soil physicochemical characterization were computed. This included mean, median, mode, standard deviation (SD), sample variance (SV), standard error (SE), coefficient of variation, kurtosis, skewness, minimum, and maximum. Also, the magnitude of the yield response to lime varies for different studies and crop types. The mean effect size for each categorical variable was calculated with bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals generated by the bootstrapping procedure in MetaWin using 4999 iterations. The parameters analysed for each categorical variable were significant if the 95% confidence intervals did not overlap each other. Since it was impossible to obtain the statistics for each effect without the availability of all the raw data of all the replicates, an unweighted analysis was used where the standard deviation was considered to be the same for all data. The statistics were computed using R software, based on individual data collected from the studies.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Overview of initial soil properties prior to liming

Table 2 summarizes the initial soil characteristics, highlighting significant variability. The data covered a large degree of predominant acidity conditions, ranging from extremely acidic soils to closely neutral soils. This was prescribed by soil pH, the concentrations of exchangeable aluminum (Al), exchangeable acidity (H + Al), available phosphorus (AP), organic carbon content (%OC), calcium (Ca²⁺), magnesium (Mg²⁺), and potassium (K⁺) among the exchangeable cations (Table 2). While the kurtosis varied widely from -2.44 to 19.91, representing different data distribution shapes, the skewness values ranged from 0.00 to 1.95, indicating a combination of symmetric and highly skewed distributions. Significant variation was observed in these soil chemical properties throughout the study, with K⁺ exhibiting the largest coefficient of variation (CV = 456%), followed by exchangeable Al (CV = 146%) and calcium (CV = 141%) (Table 2). For K⁺, results suggest that exchangeable potassium levels differ extremely across sites, probably due to strong influences of soil mineralogy, weathering intensity, fertilizer history, and cropping systems (8). Similarly, exchangeable Al and Ca²⁺ also reflected pronounced variability, which reflects the contrasting degrees of soil acidity, base saturation, and liming histories represented in the dataset. This dynamic and iterative connection and trend for initial soil properties reveals their probable relationship and their interactions concerning soil fertility, nutrient acquisition, and crop productivity (1, 69, 70).

Table 2

Table 2. Summary statistics for the initial physicochemical properties of soil.

3.2 Soil physicochemical properties after liming

An explanatory analysis of different soil properties and crop yields is presented in Table 3. Soil chemical properties were analysed after the cropping season, where several parameters, including soil pH, exchangeable acidity (H + Al, cmol_c kg^–1), AP (ppm), Ca²⁺ (cmol_c kg^–1), Mg²⁺ (cmol_c kg^–1), K⁺ (cmol_c kg^–1), and cation exchange capacity (CEC) were recorded (Table 3). The soil pH varied from 3.8 to 6.9 for unlimed soil and 4.0 to 8.2 for lime-treated soils (Table 3) as compared to the initial pH (Table 2). This corresponds with Sharpley (69), who recorded a significant soil pH increase of 2.5 units resulting from changes in soil ionic composition following CaCO₃ application. The decrease in mean exchangeable acidity after lime application was noted compared to no-lime treatments, which could be related to the interaction effect between applied lime rate and particle sizes (23, 28). While these observations correspond to the existing soil mapping units, a considerable and novel variability is frequently observed, which might be influenced by different management practices, including liming, fertilization, or erosion that create new spatial patterns not captured within traditional soil mapping (24, 71). Phosphorus availability, which was measured differently (Table 3), had a minimum of 0.40 ppm for the control treatments and 2.50 ppm for limed treatments. In comparison, the maximum of 73.19 ppm and 71.47 ppm was recorded for unlimed and limed treatments, respectively.

Table 3

Table 3. Summary statistics for different soil physicochemical characteristics and crop grain yields after the application of different lime materials at different dosages.

It is noteworthy that the effectiveness of lime materials in raising soil pH largely depends on the lime properties, such as particle size distribution (PSD), neutralizing value, agricultural efficiency calculations, agricultural value index (AVI), alkaline strength, citric reactivity, and residual carbonates, which are seldom reported in the primary studies synthesized here (72–74). This lack of essential lime-quality information represents a critical limitation, underscoring the need for future liming research to adopt minimum reporting standards to enable robust comparison and mechanistic interpretation across studies. Regarding basic cations (Table 3), a decline in exchangeable Mg²⁺ following lime application may be due to the competitive exchange between the Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺ ions in the sorption complex, in which Ca dominates, and soil displaces Mg²⁺ ions by the process of mass action-reaction (75). It is, however, not surprising that these variable observations might be explained by highly fragmented, non-standard quality control strategies between countries, and often even within countries, thus revealing a limited, comprehensive global lime library. On crop yields, the maximum attainable grain yield of 20.10 t ha^–1, and a minimum of 0.11 t ha^–1 for different lime materials application rates, was globally recorded, contrary to the control treatments (Table 3). This huge change is associated with the effect of crop response variability, which ranges from small- to large-grain crops (15). These observations correspond to Pagani and Mallarino (24), who recorded a significant yield increase following pure CaCO₃, calcitic, and dolomitic lime materials incorporated at 0 – 22.4 Mg ha^–1.

3.3 Lime effect on soil properties and management practices

3.3.1 Soil pH

When standardized using the response ratio (RR), different lime materials were assessed for their influence on soil pH (Figure 2). The results revealed 17.54% of the overall effects of lime materials and their placement methods, tillage systems, crop types, cropping systems, and soil texture in response to soil pH. This concurred with Zhang et al. (12), who revealed a 15% soil pH increase with lime application. A similar range of changes in soil pH (average of 0.70 units and range of 0.45 to 1.25) has been reported with the application of ≤ 8 Mg lime ha^–1 on nitisols of Ethiopia (76). Our study revealed both strong positive and minor negative impacts of using lime materials on soil pH, emphasizing the need to refine lime recommendations based on quality and potential environmental risks. Among 1,079 observations, significant positive effects were recorded with dolomitic lime (386 iterations, 14.12%), agricultural lime (no physicochemical attributes reported) (258 iterations, 21.16%), and CaCO₃ (273 iterations, 15.19%). Dregs (3 iterations) achieved the highest positive change at 27.75% while pelletized lime (12 iterations) showed the least variability with a slight negative effect of -1.62%. (Figure 2). These findings explain the inconsistency of the quality of lime materials used globally (Supplementary Table S1) (31).

Figure 2

Figure 2. The percentage changes in soil pH effect sizes of the response of soil pH under the influence of different lime materials and agronomic practices. Responses are expressed as mean response percentages with 95% confidence intervals represented by error bars. Numbers of effect size comparisons are given as the number of data points or observations.

Even though most studies (603) focused on no-till farming systems, the greatest and significant positive effect size of 19.99% was associated with the conventional farming systems (476). This outcome is expected since lime application in the no-till system could be influenced by its vertical movement, which differs with the timing and the rates of lime, soil type, weather conditions, management of acidic fertilizers, and cropping systems (60, 77, 78). To some extent, soil response to any pH change could be explained by material reactivity. For example, Caires et al. (79) revealed discordant results of pH and reactivity of lime following surface-applied lime in a no-till system, which may be related to the quality of materials and agroecosystems management. Our findings are distinct from Tiritan et al. (80) who revealed that the incorporation of the soil acidity amendment did not result in significant changes in the main soil chemical attributes, including the active acidity (pH), exchangeable acidity (H + Al), exchangeable aluminum (Al³⁺), SOM, macronutrients levels (P, Ca²⁺, Mg^2+, and K⁺) and base saturation values between conventional and no-till system.

When comparing the effects of surface lime (no-tillage) and the incorporation of lime by plowing and disking (conventional), Rheinheimer et al. (81) found that surface lime had a limited effect on soil pH change within the profile of an Argisol dystrophic medium-textured. This was also explained by Pagani and Mallarino (24) that most soil pH changes (top 15 cm soil layer) are influenced by the application of approximately 6 Mg ha^-1 of very fine limestone (90% passing a 0.15-mm sieve) to acid soils (pH 5.1) managed with no-till. Therefore, Caires et al. (79) proposed the application of lime materials at a higher rate than calculated for the site where lime must be incorporated, to drive the leaching of bicarbonates. As depicted in this study, there was significant variability in the impact of crop types and cropping systems on soil pH under various liming materials. Results showed that maize cultivation had the highest positive effect on pH (28.63%), outperforming wheat (15%, 218 observations) and soybean (13.7%, 297 observations). While most studies focused on these three crops, fewer explored other legumes like cowpea, faba bean, and mungbean or cereals such as barley and rice. This study further observed a huge variability in the effects of cropping systems on soil pH, leading to a significant gain in soil pH changes occurring in croplands (Figure 2). Monocropping, though the most common practice, had a low positive effect (12.02%), while crop rotation showed a higher impact (20.68%) on soil pH. Importantly, intercropping produced the greatest percentage of pH change (34.36%), but with 5 observations. These findings concur with Bossolani et al. (82), who indicated that the lime treatments (≤6 Mg ha^-1) changed soil pH levels and the H+Al values when maize intercropped with palisade grass and soyabean in crop rotation compared to monocropping maize.

Additionally, the effects of soil texture, taxonomy, and placement methods were analysed in response to soil pH after liming. Loam soil showed the greatest pH change at 50.84%, significantly more than clay loam (19.88%), sandy soil (11.23%), and clay soil (7.08%) across varying taxonomies. Luvisols exhibited the highest positive response (24.38%), followed by ultisols (18.82%) and oxisols (13.91%), which were the most studied soils. This aligns with Beyene et al. (37), who showed increased soil pH from 4.55 to 6.60 in nitisols and from 5.33 to 6.51 in luvisols. Despite having the fewest observations (30), retisols exhibited the greatest pH change at 50.84%. Out of 40 papers reviewed, the incorporating-placement method proved to have a highly positive effect in increasing soil pH (20.15%), significantly different from surface placement (13.47%) (Figure 2). Even though Tiritan et al. (80) showed a significant increase in soil pH following lime incorporation (characterized by 30% Ca and 7.2% Mg, with an effective calcium carbonate equivalence (ECCE) of 82%), no increase in the movement or reaction of the bases in the degraded soil profile was recorded. On the other hand, the direct impact of drill and split lime application was relatively similar, while spot placement recorded the least pH change (3.45%) (Figure 2). Surface liming changes soil pH and reduces the contents of exchangeable Al³⁺ in the 0–5 cm layer by altering the surface chemistry of colloids due to the variable pH nature of the surface charges, lime rates applied, the reaction time of the neutralizing agent, and the soil depth (2005). By contrast, De Oliveira and Pavan (83) studied a clayey Latosol and showed that the variables related to acidity (pH and exchangeable Al³⁺) were affected at depths of up to 40 cm. The benefits observed in the shallow soil layers regarding the soil chemical attributes were also highlighted by Soratto and Crusciol (57). Although surface liming had a limited effect on the soil profile over a short period, the restrictive action can vary depending on the mobility of OH^- and HCO₃^- ions in the soil (21). These compounds in soil pH<6.5, which is a pKa value of HCO₃^-, dissociate and release accompanying cations (Ca and Mg), and HCO₃^- in solution that reacts with H⁺ to form CO₂ and H₂O, contributing to the neutralization of acidity (22).

3.3.2 Available phosphorus

By presenting both the raw baseline conditions (Table 3) and the RR-derived proportional changes, Figure 3 shows the effects of different lime materials and agronomic management practices on soil-available phosphorus (P). Lime materials had a relatively wide range of effect sizes that considerably varied from -17.59% to 20.9% on soil available P. This pronounced variability in available P responses to liming reflects the dual chemical pathways through which liming influences P dynamics (21). The highest positive effect size (20.9%) was recorded by aglime, which was closely followed by calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)₂) at 19.35% and burnt dolomitic lime at 5.17%. On the other hand, calcium carbonate (CaCO₃), dolomitic lime, and calcium oxide (CaO) all exhibit negative impact sizes and mean effects of -17.59%, -3.61%, and -1.59%, respectively. The negative effects arise primarily when liming elevates soil pH beyond the critical range for maximal P solubility, leading to increased Ca activity and the consequent precipitation of poorly soluble Ca–P minerals (e.g., hydroxyapatite), or when excessive Ca saturation reduces ligand exchange and suppresses the release of organically complexed P (84). These counterproductive effects of lime materials are most likely in soils with moderate initial pH, low organic matter, or limited buffering capacity, and when highly reactive lime sources (CaO, Ca(OH)₂) or supra-optimal lime rates are used. To minimize such responses, lime materials properties should be well-understood, and applied at rates calibrated to soil buffering capacity and be incorporated to avoid localized Ca oversaturation.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Response of P to different lime materials and agronomic practices based on random-effects model. Responses are expressed as mean response percentages with 95% confidence intervals represented by error bars. Numbers of effect size comparisons are given as the number of data points or observations.

In contrast, the positive effect sizes are strongly associated with reduced adsorption of phosphate by amphoteric soil surfaces, resulting in increased pH i.e., from 4.0 to near-neutral pH due to increased microbial activities in soils to influence net mineralization or immobilization of soil organic P (85). The beneficial effect of lime on available P is largely related to the precipitation of phytotoxic levels of soluble and exchangeable A1³⁺, Mn²⁺, and Fe²⁺, which otherwise tend to restrict phosphate uptake by plants in different soils (20, 21). Haynes (85) reported the importance of liming, which positively influences the rhizospheric soils and may result in the precipitation of adsorbed monomeric Al³⁺ in the form of amorphous polymeric hydroxy-Al species. A study by Sato and Comerford (86) showed an increased P sorption up to a pH of 5.0 following lime application in three different acid soil types. Generally, the influence of lime materials on the P-availability in acid soils has also been reported by other researchers (27, 84, 87). However, the increased P-availability in the subsurface layers is notable because phosphorus generally shows limited mobility in soil, and increasing its availability contributes greatly to increasing its interception and absorption by plant roots (88).

This corresponds to our findings, where no-till practices (-4.53%) resulted in less negative effect size as compared to conventional tillage (-8.96%). While the negative effect sizes of liming reveal a reduction in the concentration of soil available P for both incubation and field experiments, there was an increased rice P uptake in Typic Stagnic Anthrosol soils following Ca(OH)₂ (<16mm PSD) application (89). This contradicts Simard et al. (90), who observed that applying moderate lime amounts resulted in significant increases in soil phosphorus (P) extractability under all tillage intensities (i.e., minimum, chisel plow, and moldboard plow) in clay soil. Taking into account the lime placement methods, there were dramatic and significant response ratios on soil P-availability following spot placement (98.8%), which significantly outperformed drill (37.16%) and incorporated placement (12%) methods. In contrast, surface placement of lime yielded a negative effect size (-6.57%), thus underscoring the importance of placement technique in enhancing P availability. Generally, raising the soil pH indices favors the development of negative charges in different soil types, which increases phosphate mobility and decreases P adsorption due to ligand exchange (80). These authors elaborated that liming materials increased soil P-availability due to the increased action of carbonate within the 0–5 cm and 5–10 cm soil layers since increments of 0.7 – 1.5 and 0.3 – 0.6 pH units were individually observed following the application of 2.7 and 5.4 Mg lime ha-1, respectively. These findings provide significant insights for maximizing P availability by emphasizing the interaction between soil properties, management practices, and lime application methods.

3.3.3 Exchangeable acidity (H + Al)

Exchangeable acidity is an indicator of aluminum toxicity potential in acidic soil. The effects of lime materials on the availability of the exchangeable H+Al³⁺ can vary depending on the amount of carbonate and the depth that must be achieved (80). Therefore, the study explored the greatest portion of the total soil acidity that is contributed by H⁺ and Al³⁺. Our results indicated that overall, there is a negative effect of liming materials, cropping, and management systems on the exchangeable acidity, with a mean effect size of -31.95% (Figure 4), revealing the functional role of lime materials to reduce soil acidity (20). This agrees with Bossolani et al. (91), who observed a significant reduction of H+Al to its lowest concentrations within the 0–20 cm layer following surface application of dolomitic lime in an intercropped farming system. For example, calmasil (-52.35%), CaCO₃ (-59.32%), burnt dolomitic (-39.32%), aglime (-37.24%), dregs (-26.58%), ash (-18.07%), and dolomitic (-14.3%) all exhibited negative effects on H+Al. Moreover, the study showed that conventional tillage systems (-39.48%) strongly decrease the exchangeable acidity in lime-placed soils compared to the no-till systems (-13.45%) (Figure 4). This corresponds to Tiritan et al. (80) who observed a significant reduction in the H+Al³⁺ levels (≤ 2 mmol_c L^-1) in the upper soil layers (0–10 cm) when 12 Mg ha^-1 was incorporated within the 0–20 cm layer. Also, the variability of exchangeable acidity was influenced by the crop types (legumes or cereals) produced through monocropping or rotational cropping systems (Figure 4). Our results revealed that crop rotation (-38.25%) can significantly decrease H+Al more than monocropping (-31.26%), thus demonstrating the importance of diversified systems and their effectiveness on acidity reduction by the organic complexants that are released by the roots during growth and subsequent decomposition (91). Likewise, taxonomies such as nitisols recorded the highest negative effect on exchangeable acidity with insignificant differences from luvisols, acrisols, and ultisols. Research revealed that it would be interesting to relate soil texture and taxonomy as they determine the soil’s buffering capacity (17, 89). For example, fine-textured soils typically have a superior buffering capacity; therefore, changes in chemical properties caused by liming are not as pronounced as for coarse-textured oxisols (92).

Figure 4

Figure 4. The effect size of exchangeable acidity (H + Al) under lime application compared to without lime in different agronomic management practices. Responses are expressed as mean response percentages with 95% confidence intervals represented by error bars. Numbers of effect size comparisons are given as the number of data points or observations.

3.3.4 Exchangeable cations (Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, K⁺) and CEC

The exchangeable bases and cation exchange capacity (CEC) responses to lime materials and agronomic management practices have been investigated. The results revealed varying effects of the different lime materials on exchangeable Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, K^+, and CEC (Figure 5). All lime materials studied had a considerably strong positive influence on exchangeable Ca²⁺. This could be due to a higher chemical affinity for negative sites from polyvalent cations (i.e., Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺) than monovalent cations (i.e., K⁺), which means that monovalent ions are displaced and leach into the subsoil layers (21). In some cases, Mg²⁺ levels tend to decrease after different lime material applications and may be associated with greater movement of Mg²⁺ in the soil profile compared to Ca²⁺ and K⁺ (21). Our results show that all lime materials studied had positive effect sizes on the exchangeable cations and CEC (Figure 5a), except for the dregs (-1.72%) on exchangeable Mg²⁺ where lime materials had the following performance: burnt dolomitic > phosphogypsum > CaCO₃ > dolomitic > aglime > dregs (Figure 5b). A similar positive trend was also recorded for all lime materials on K⁺ and CEC except for the burnt dolomitic lime (-9.34%) (Figures 5c, d). These findings indicate that the type of lime material applied impacted the availability of bases and CEC (91). For instance, lime with a high concentration of calcium and magnesium, when applied in high doses, can promote competition for loading sites in soil colloids (17). To some extent, the competition between cations for exchange sites can explain this antagonism between cations. These findings correspond with Tiritan et al. (80), who showed greater availability of Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, and K⁺ in all soil layers after implementing the recommended lime rate of 5.4 Mg ha^–1. Taken together, these findings show that incorporated dolomitic lime provides the most balanced improvement in Ca, Mg, and CEC across acid, highly weathered soils such as Luvisols, Acrisols, Nitisols, and Ultisols, where deficits in divalent cations and pH-dependent charge are most limiting. On the contrary, CaCO₃-based lime materials significantly raised Ca and CEC in Oxisols but offer smaller Mg gains, while burnt dolomitic materials show the strongest Ca–Mg co-limitation correction in moderately buffered Luvisols. Overall, strategies that maximize Ca, Mg, and CEC simultaneously should rely on incorporated-placed dolomitic or mixed Ca–Mg lime materials, e.g., in clay- and oxide-rich soils where acidity, Al toxicity, and low base saturation constrain nutrient availability and yield.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Exchangeable bases and cation exchange capacity (CEC) response to liming compared with no-liming treatments in different categories. (A) Calcium, (B) Magnesium, (C) Potassium, and (D) CEC. Responses are expressed as mean response percentages with 95% confidence intervals represented by error bars. Numbers of effect size comparisons are given as the number of data points or observations.

Although the magnitude of the positive effects of the tillage and cropping system were established, the conventional method outperformed the no-till system on exchangeable Ca²⁺ (73.14% > 26.8%) (Figure 5a), but did not differ on exchangeable Mg²⁺ (Figure 5b), K⁺ (Figure 5c), and CEC (Figure 5d). Furthermore, intercropping and rotational cropping systems established high positive effect sizes of 115.55% and 94.59%, which significantly differ from the monocropping system (41.76%) on exchangeable Ca²⁺ (Figure 5a) and Mg²⁺ (Figure 5b). The results also revealed that crop rotation with 34.77% can relatively increase the CEC in croplands compared to monocropping (11.41%) (Figure 5d). This was confirmed by Bossolani et al. (91), who recorded significant increments of available Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, K⁺, and base saturation along the soil profile in the intercropped maize system following lime application.

The direct effects of soil texture and its taxonomy on the exchangeable bases and CEC were analyzed individually. Explicitly, a considerable positive variability was observed for both soil texture (19.7% – 265.48%) and soil taxonomy (25.95% – 265.48%) on exchangeable Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, K⁺, and CEC (Figures 5a–d). All the textures recorded, such as loam, sandy clay loam, sandy loam, and clay loam, had positive effect sizes on all exchangeable bases and CEC, which, to some extent, did not significantly differ. For example, oxisols had the least positive effect size on exchangeable Ca²⁺, but did not differ from luvisols and nitisols as compared to the cambisols (Figure 5a). Ejigu et al. (32, 33) highlighted that the higher the base cations with lime application in luvisols, the higher the precipitation of exchangeable Al³⁺ contents and reduced toxicity of Al³⁺, Fe^2+, and Mn²⁺, thus improving wheat production.

It is important to note that exchangeable K⁺ and CEC can be significantly influenced by the placement method. For instance, drill placement recorded the maximum positive effect size, which differs substantially from surface placement, with mean effects of 32.37% and 5.29%, respectively (Figure 5c). In stark contrast, placing lime by incorporation and split resulted in a negative effect on the exchangeable K⁺ (-5.77% and -4.02%) while showing a positive effect on CEC (8.65% and 27.14%), respectively (Figure 5d). The findings generally indicate that any lime placement method can positively influence the CEC, especially in wheat, maize, and soyabean crops, except for beans, which had a negative effect size of -21.98% (Figure 5d). According to De Mello Prado et al. (93), increased levels of basic cations in the soil layers resulted in significant pH increases at the soil surface, which increased the rate of movement of carbonate ions (accompanied by Ca and Mg) into deeper soil layers to neutralize or reduce the acidity of the sub-surface layers. It is also noteworthy that Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, and K⁺ have atomic charges of +2, +2, and +1; ionic radii of 0.99, 0.65. and 1.33Å, and charge densities (charge/radius ratio) of 2.02. 3.07, and 0.75, respectively. This could, therefore, affect the affinity of cations, especially Mg²⁺, for Cl^-, SO₄^2-, and NO₃^- (21). These differences influence the hydration process, implying that a large, hydrated radius of Mg2+ (1.08 nm) will lie far from the exchange surface and be less strongly retained, and more easily leached into the soil profile, compared to Ca²⁺ (0.98 nm) (94).

3.3.5 Yield response to different lime materials and agronomic management practices

The effects of various lime materials employed, their placement techniques, crop tillage system, cropping system, and soil taxonomy were examined concerning crop yield response (Figure 6; Supplementary Figure S1). Fourteen lime materials were studied, where pelletized lime, aglime, burnt dolomitic, and CaO demonstrated negative effect sizes with the mean effect of -59.86%, -11%, -0.74%, and -0.57%, respectively. These results could be due to the small responses explained by the typical high-pH subsoil (≥15 cm), characterized by high rooting depth and biomass, but minimal nutrient availability (21). These authors recorded no yield increase in maize and soyabean following lime and gypsum application, which may be attributed to the Mg²⁺ leaching when high application rates are used, hence the unavailability and deficiency of plants. This finding contradicts Crusciol et al. (88), who indicated that lime rate applied in a crop rotational system also increases the maize, oat, peanut, and wheat dry matter yield, and crude protein concentration during winter/spring in the maize-palisade grass intercropping. In return, the highest total and average net profit with the improved long-term sustainability of tropical agriculture in the Brazilian Cerrado typic Hapludox soil were established. Caires and Guimarães (95) affirmed that greater grain weight observed in the growing season could be attributed to lime and environmental conditions.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Grain yield responses to different lime materials, tillage systems, lime placement methods, cropping systems, and soil taxonomy. Responses are expressed as mean response percentages with 95% confidence intervals represented by error bars. Numbers of effect size comparisons are given as the number of iterations or observations.

Most grain yield studies were conducted on no-till (704) with the least negative mean effect size (-5.4%) compared to the conventional tillage system (567) with the maximum positive effect (20.71%). The relative increase in yield could be explained by the high CEC of roots that improved nutrient absorption by bringing the concentration of cations in the roots to a level higher than those of the surrounding aqueous solution, as it influences the relative proportion of ions with different valence states in the roots (96). Regarding the placement techniques, incorporated lime is likely to be associated with positive effect sizes (12.81%) while surface placement is recorded at -7.3% effect sizes, indicating the value of placement methods on crop yield improvements. Caires et al. (79) showed that soyabean grain yield was hardly influenced by the surface lime application, but the maximum economic yield was obtained at 4 t ha^-1 of limestone, indicating that the lime rate estimated by the soil base saturation method at 70% in the 0–20 cm depth was appropriate for surface liming. The discrepancy in the results was explained by the higher level of exchangeable Al³⁺ (8.5 mmol_c dm^-3) and the lower level of exchangeable Mg²⁺ (6.6 mmol_c dm^-3) in the surface layer of the soil studied. Minato et al. (21)Caires et al. (79) revealed that high maize and soyabean grain yields were probably obtained in the plots without lime because of the accumulation of organic matter and P in the upper few centimeters under no-till soil, which potentially reduces Al toxicity. Simultaneously, different cropping systems, including monocropping, intercropping, and rotation, were evaluated. Among these, the crop rotational system had the least grain yield response (-7.24%) compared to intercropping (42.37%) and the monocropping system (13.5%) (Figure 6). This aligns with Bossolani et al. (91), who reported improved soybean nutrition and grain yield, particularly when it was intercropped with maize following lime application due to increased P, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, and S–SO₄²⁻ availability down the soil profile. Intercropping exploits species complementarities, which results in increasing the effectiveness of surface liming under no-tillage systems, contributing to higher soybean yields in crop rotation (82, 88). The crop yield response had a wide range of effect sizes recorded from soil taxonomy. This varied from -69.43% to 68.1% with oxisols (14.77%), luvisols (15.86%), mollisols (-69.43%), and ultisols (11.93%), recording the maximum number of iterations (561, 125, 120, and 107). Overall, the combined effect of lime materials used, placement method, tillage systems, cropping systems, and soil taxonomy had a slightly negative effect of -0.28% on crop yield (Figure 6). This observation reflects the aggregation of studies across highly contrasting soil and management conditions, where positive effects in strongly acidic soils were offset by neutral or negative responses, highlighting that lime-induced improvements in soil chemical properties do not consistently translate into yield gains when other factors limit crop performance.

The heterogeneity in these results have demonstrated that lime materials drive simultaneous improvements in soil chemistry (e.g., increased soil pH and reduced exchangeable acidity) that collectively underpin the observed gains in grain yield across diverse agroecosystems (see Supplementary Material), as detoxification of Al³⁺ markedly enhances root elongation, rhizosphere exploration, and nutrient acquisition. In addition, the elevated Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺ concentrations following liming further restore base saturation and promote cation balance, while increases in pH-dependent charge contribute to higher CEC, thus improving the capacity of soil to retain and supply essential nutrients (21). Although exchangeable K⁺ showed minimal and nonsystematic responses, which is consistent with its independence from lime inputs, the strong positive effect on available P indicates that liming substantially reduces P fixation by Fe–Al oxides, increasing P mobility and plant uptake. The integrated response across soil properties confirms that lime materials act not through a single mechanism but through an interrelated chemical and biological process that collectively determines crop performance in acid soils.

3.4 Correlation between soil properties and crop yields

Liming has been the most reliable interventions for acid soils; its responses showed intricate relationships among several soil physicochemical properties and grain yield as established by Pearson’s correlation coefficients for both unlimed (–) and limed (+) treatments (Table 4). Under no lime treatment, soil pH exhibited significantly negative correlation with the exchangeable bases (Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, and K⁺). In addition, base saturation recorded significant but negative correlation with CEC. For the available phosphorus, acidic (unlimed) conditions significantly and negatively correlated with Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, base saturation, and grain yield. Similar response was observed with exchangeable acidity that significantly affected Ca²⁺, base saturation CEC and yield following no-lime application. These findings concur with Liao et al. (89) who exhibited that as pH is buffered by exchangeable and hydrolyzing aluminum, base cations are fixed and remain unavailable for plant uptake; thus, flagging dominance of aluminum and cross-site trade-off. Also, landscape mixing explains such behavior where high CEC, strongly buffered soils are highly acidic compared to weak buffered soils (31). Minato et al. (21) reflected that low soil pH is associated with strong competition on the exchange complex, resulting in Ca and Mg displacement from exchange sites. In relation to crop yields, low pH soils interfere with root development and branching due to root apices damage, thus affecting base cations and P uptake, leading to poor yields (14). In stark contrast, application of lime materials attenuates soil acidity (Table 4). Lime materials displaced Al³⁺/H⁺ from the exchange sites resulting positive correlation between soil pH (+) and Ca, Mg, and base saturation (80). As the pH rises with lime application, available phosphorus increases due to reduced Al/Fe activity and Al-P fixation (8). For the grain yield of studied crops, which is a polygenic trait influenced by both genetics, environment and management, was positively correlated with several management factors including soil pH (+), base cations, base saturation, and CEC. This trend coincides with Cyamweshi et al. (97) who observed positive influence of lime materials on soil chemical properties and coffee cherry yield in Rwanda (soil pH, r = 0.71 and CEC, r = 0.50). These findings correspond to Zhang et al. (12), who revealed the positive impact of soil amendments on crop yield related to the increase in soil CEC, soil organic matter (SOM), and base saturation. As previously reported, both raw lime, burnt lime, mixed lime, and non-lime amendments in acidic soils improve soil nutrient availability and promote nutrient uptake, thereby increasing crop yields (30). Globally, these results therefore highlight that management strategies should prioritize acidity correction and the restoration of exchangeable bases through appropriate lime selection and placement, as these factors exert a stronger and more consistent influence on crop performance than adjustments to individual nutrient pools.

Table 4

Table 4. Pearson’s correlation coefficients and significant tests of soil physicochemical properties and crop grain yield for limed (+) and unlimed or control treatments placed in different crops, soil, placement methods, cropping, and tillage systems.

4 Conclusions

In summary, this comprehensive analysis has identified both the main influence of soil acidity and its association with different soil physicochemical properties. The study provided adequate information on how soil lime interacts with various agricultural practices, which will inform farmers on how to maximize crop yields for specific crops and their pH tolerance, and better nutrient management to optimize nutrient use efficiency. Several options were identified, mainly related to the quality of lime materials to maintain or increase soil pH levels, basic cations (Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, and K⁺), and reduce soil H+Al³⁺ across different cropping systems, and improve the soil nutrient status on a global scale. In addition, the most important practice of placing lime materials was identified as incorporation within the soil, as it effectively aids in achieving significant soil pH change within the soil profile compared to the surface placement. The study proves that farmers can prioritize growing the right crops and diversify the cropping systems to include suitable crop rotational and/or intercropping sequences. Soil conditions, such as initial SOM and soil pH, were more important for increasing soil pH, while liming practices, such as lime source and placement method, were more important for improving grain yields. This confirms that lime, “the forgotten fertilizer”, has become the holy grail that remains elusive in managing global soil acidity. To operationalize these findings, future research should establish minimum reporting standards for lime quality as it instills quality assurance and confidence in the global agricultural lime market, develop spectral and analytical tools for rapid characterization, and create decision-support systems co-designed with researchers, extension agents, and the lime industry. Addressing these gaps will strengthen the precision and scalability of liming recommendations and ensure that interventions are both agronomically effective and resource efficient. Collectively, these actions contribute directly to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by improving productivity in acid soils, SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) through optimized input use, and SDG 15 (Life on Land) by supporting the restoration and long-term resilience of degraded, acid-affected soil ecosystems.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

WM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ME: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research was funded by Office Chérifien des Phosphates (OCP) grant number AS N°02.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the researchers whose data were used in this analysis. We also gratefully acknowledge Dr. Pauline Chivenge for her support with technical tools for the analysis of the study.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoil.2026.1725559/full#supplementary-material

References

1. Zingore S, Desalegn T, Diallo A, Amede T, Njoroge S, Diallo M, et al. The implication of soil acidity and management options for sustainable crop production in africa (2023).

Google Scholar

2. Bönecke E, Meyer S, Vogel S, Schröter I, Gebbers R, Kling C, et al. Guidelines for precise lime management based on high-resolution soil pH, texture and SOM maps generated from proximal soil sensing data. Precis Ag. (2021) 22:493–523. doi: 10.1007/s11119-020-09766-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Junior¹ EC, Seidel EP, Ziemer GL, Zimmermann J, De Oliveira VHD, Schwantes D, et al. Effects of liming on soil physical attributes: a review. J Agric Sci. (2020) 12:278–86. C.OMMAJ.R.X.X.X, A.C.G. doi: 10.5539/jas.v12n10p278

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Aramburu Merlos F, Silva JV, Baudron F, and Hijmans RJ. Estimating lime requirements for tropical soils: Model comparison and development. Geoderma. (2023) 432:116421. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116421

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Tiecher T, Fontoura SMV, Ambrosini VG, Araújo EA, Alves LA, Bayer C, et al. Soil phosphorus forms and fertilizer use efficiency are affected by tillage and soil acidity management. Geoderma. (2023) 435:116495. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116495

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Hengl T, Mendes de Jesus J, Heuvelink GB, Ruiperez Gonzalez M, Kilibarda M, Blagotić A, et al. SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PloS One. (2017) 12:e0169748. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169748

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Jimma TB, Chemura A, Spillane C, Demissie T, Abera W, Ture K, et al. Coupled impacts of soil acidification and climate change on future crop suitability in Ethiopia. Sustain. (Switz). (2024) 16:1–17. doi: 10.3390/su16041468

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Gurmessa B. Soil acidity challenges and the significance of liming and organic amendments in tropical agricultural lands with reference to Ethiopia. Environ Dev Sustain. (2021) 23:77–99. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-00615-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Oumer AM, Diro S, Taye G, Mamo T, and Jaleta M. Agricultural lime value chain efficiency for reducing soil acidity in Ethiopia. Soil Secur. (2023) 11:100092. doi: 10.1016/j.soisec.2023.100092

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Duncan RR. The influence of soil pH on sorghum grain yields. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. (1991) 22:1605–11. doi: 10.1080/00103629109368521

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Agegnehu G, Tilahun A, Teklu E, Chilot Y, Carol H, Robert T, et al. Extent and management of acid soils for sustainable crop production system in the tropical agroecosystems: a review. Acta Agric Scand - B. Soil Plant Sci. (2021) 71:852–69. doi: 10.1080/09064710.2021.1954239

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Zhang S, Zhu Q, de Vries W, Ros GH, Chen X, Muneer MA, et al. Effects of soil amendments on soil acidity and crop yields in acidic soils: A world-wide meta-analysis. J. Environ Manage. (2023) 345:118531. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118531

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Raza S, Zamanian K, Ullah S, Kuzyakov Y, Virto I, and Zhou J. Inorganic carbon losses by soil acidification jeopardize global efforts on carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation. J Clean. Prod. (2021) 315:128036. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128036

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Shetty R, Vidya CS-N, Prakash NB, Lux A, and Vaculík M. Aluminum toxicity in plants and its possible mitigation in acid soils by biochar: A review. Sci Tot. Environ. (2021) 765:142744. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142744

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Enesi RO, Dyck M, Chang S, Thilakarathna MS, Fan X, Strelkov S, et al. Liming remediates soil acidity and improves crop yield and profitability - a meta-analysis. Front Agron. (2023) 5:1194896. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2023.1194896

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. African Union (AU). Summary of the africa fertilizer and soil health action plan, (2024-2034). In: AUDA-NEPAD. African Union Development Agency (2024). Available online at: www.nepad.org (Accessed December 15, 2024).

Google Scholar

17. Goulding KWT. Soil acidification and the importance of liming agricultural soils with particular reference to the United Kingdom. Soil Use Manage. (2016) 32:390–9. doi: 10.1111/sum.12270

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Anderson NP, Hart JM, Sullivan DM, Christensen NW, Horneck DA, and Pirelli GJ. Applying lime to raise soil pH for crop production (Western Oregon) OSU Extension Services. (2013).

Google Scholar

19. De Moraes FA, Moreira SG, Peixoto DS, Resende Silva JC, Macedo JR, Silva MM, et al. Lime incorporation up to 40 cm deep increases root growth and crop yield in highly weathered tropical soils. Eur J Agron. (2023) 144:126763. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2023.126763

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Foloni JSS, Silva SR, Abati J, De Oliveira Junior A, De Castro C, De Oliveira FA, et al. Yield of soybean-wheat succession in no-tillage system and soil chemical properties affected by liming, aluminum tolerance of wheat cultivars, and nitrogen fertilization. Soil Till. Res. (2023) 226:105576. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2022.105576

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Minato EA, Brignoli FM, Neto ME, Besen MR, Cassim BMAR, Lima RS, et al. Lime and gypsum application to low-acidity soils: Changes in soil chemical properties, residual lime content and crop agronomic performance. Soil Till. Res. (2023) 234:105860. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2023.105860

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Vieira Fontoura SM, de Castro Pias OH, Tiecher T, Cherubin MR, de Moraes RP, and Bayer C. Effect of gypsum rates and lime with different reactivity on soil acidity and crop grain yields in a subtropical Oxisol under no-tillage. Soil Till. Res. (2019) 193:27–41. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2019.05.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. van der Nest JR, G. HA, J. L, and Swanepoel PA. Effects of form, fineness and placement of lime with and without soil tillage on barley and canola growth and development. S. Afr. J Plant Soil. (2022) 39:260–9. doi: 10.1080/02571862.2022.2086308

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Pagani A and Mallarino AP. Soil pH and crop grain yield as affected by the source and rate of lime. Soil Sci Soc Am J. (2012) 76:1877–86. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2012.0119

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Hume R, Marschner P, Mason S, Schilling RK, Hughes B, and Mosley LM. Measurement of lime movement and dissolution in acidic soils using mid-infrared spectroscopy. Soil Till. Res. (2023) 233:105807. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2023.105807

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Du Toit DJJ, A. SP, and Hardie AG. Effect of lime source, fineness and granulation on soil permeation with contrasting textures under simulated mediterranean climate rainfall conditions. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. (2024) 55:3011–24. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2024.2380485

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Mkhonza NP, Buthelezi-Dube NN, and Muchaonyerwa P. Effects of lime application on nitrogen and phosphorus availability in humic soils. Sci Rep. (2020) 10:8634. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65501-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Du Toit DJ, Swanepoel PA, and Hardie AG. Effect of lime source, fineness and granulation on neutralisation of soil pH. S. Afr. J Plant Soil. (2022) 39:163–74. doi: 10.1080/02571862.2022.2043470

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Deus ACF, Büll LT, Guppy CN, Santos SDMC, and Moreira LLQ. Effects of lime and steel slag application on soil fertility and soybean yield under a no till-system. Soil Till. Res. (2020) 196:104422. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2019.104422

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Holland JE, White PJ, Glendining MJ, Goulding KWT, and McGrath SP. Yield responses of arable crops to liming – An evaluation of relationships between yields and soil pH from a long-term liming experiment. Eur J Agron. (2019) 105:176–88. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2019.02.016

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Li Y, Cui S, Chang SX, and Zhang Q. Liming effects on soil pH and crop yield depend on lime material type, application method and rate, and crop species: a global meta-analysis. J Soil. Sed. (2019) 19:1393–406. doi: 10.1007/s11368-018-2120-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Ejigu W, Selassie YG, and Elias E. Integrated use of compost and lime enhances soil properties and wheat (Triticum aestivum l.) yield in acidic soils of Northwestern Ethiopia. Int J Recycl. Org Waste. Agric. (2023) 12:193–207. doi: 10.30486/ijrowa.2022.1941048.1343

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Ejigu W, Selassie YG, Elias E, and Molla E. Effect of lime rates and method of application on soil properties of acidic Luvisols and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields in northwest Ethiopia. Heliyon. (2023) 9:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13988

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Mockeviciene I, Karcauskiene D, Slepetiene A, Vilkiene M, Repsiene R, Braziene Z, et al. Influence of liming intensity on fractions of humified organic carbon in acid soil: A case study. Sustainability. (2022) 14:5297. doi: 10.3390/su14095297

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Alemu E, Selassie YG, and Yitaferu B. Effect of lime on selected soil chemical properties, maize (Zea mays L.) yield and determination of rate and method of its application in Northwestern Ethiopia. Heliyon. (2022) 8:e08657. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08657

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Wakwoya MB, Woldeyohannis WH, and Yimamu FK. Effects of minimum tillage and liming on maize (Zea mays L.) yield components and selected properties of acid soils in Assosa Zone, West Ethiopia. J Agric Food Res. (2022) 8:100301. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100301

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Beyene Y, Laekemariam F, Kiflu A, Gidago G, Getaneh L, and Andualem A. Phosphorus Sorption characteristics of acidic luvisols and nitisols under varying lime rates, and response validation using wheat. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. (2022) 53:2196–215. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2022.2070637

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Jiang-Ming Z. Rice yields and soil nutrients response to liming method and dosages in field cultivation. Sains. Malaysiana. (2022) 51:83–94. doi: 10.17576/jsm-2022-5101-07

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Geleta D and Bekele G. Yield response of faba bean to lime, NPSB, and rhizobium inoculation in kiremu district, western Ethiopia. Appl Environ Soil Sci. (2022) 2022:3208922. doi: 10.1155/2022/3208922

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Abeje A, Alemayehu G, and Feyisa T. Nodulation, growth, and yield of soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) as affected by bio-, organic, and inorganic NPSB fertilizers, and lime in assosa zone, western Ethiopia. Int J Agron. (2021) 2021:1285809. doi: 10.1155/2021/1285809

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Nora DD, Amado TJC, Nicoloso RDS, and Gruhn EM. Modern high-yielding maize, wheat and soybean cultivars in response to gypsum and lime application on no-till Oxisol. Rev Bras Cienc. Solo. (2017) 41:e0160504. doi: 10.1590/18069657rbcs20160504

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Pértile P, Adriano AJ, Colpo GL, André DC, and Luciano RV. Corrective potential of alkaline residue (Dregs) from cellulose industry in an acid soil cultivated under no-tillage. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. (2017) 48:1868–80. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2017.1407427

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Desalegn T, Alemu G, Adella A, Debele T, and Gonzalo J J. Effect Of Lime And Phosphorus Fertilizer On Acid Soils And Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) performance in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Exp Agric. (2017) 53:432–44. doi: 10.1017/S0014479716000491

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Carmeis Filho ACA, Crusciol CAC, and Castilhos AM. Liming demand and plant growth improvements for an Oxisol under long-term no-till cropping. J Agric Sci. (2017) 155:1093–112. doi: 10.1017/S0021859617000235

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Vigovskis J, Jermuss A, Svarta A, and Sarkanbarde D. The changes of soil acidity in long-term fertilizer experiments. Agric. (2016) 103:129–34. doi: 10.13080/z-a.2016.103.017

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Rothwell SA, Elphinstone ED, and Dodd IC. Liming can decrease legume crop yield and leaf gas exchange by enhancing root to shoot ABA signalling. J Exp Bot. (2015) 66:2335–45. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv042

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Caires EF, Haliski A, Bini AR, and Scharr DA. Surface liming and nitrogen fertilization for crop grain production under no-till management in Brazil. Eur J Agron. (2015) 66:41–53. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2015.02.008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Flower KC and Crabtree WL. Soil pH change after surface application of lime related to the levels of soil disturbance caused by no-tillage seeding machinery. Field Crops Res. (2011) 121:75–87. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2010.11.014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Ebelhar SA, D. HC, and Wyciskalla TD. Tillage and lime rate effects on soil acidity and grain yields of a ten-year corn–soybean rotation. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. (2011) 42:1415–21. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2011.577855

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Alleoni LR, Cambri MA, Caires EF, and Garbuio FJ. Acidity and aluminum speciation as affected by surface liming in tropical no-till soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J. (2010) 74:1010–7. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2009.0254

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Fageria NK, B. DSA, and Moraes MF. Influence of urea and ammonium sulfate on soil acidity indices in lowland rice production. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. (2010) 41:1565–75. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2010.485237

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Caires EF, Ferracciú ALR, Ferreira DFA, and Churka S. Surface liming and zinc availability in a long-term experiment under no-till system. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. (2009) 40:2898–911. doi: 10.1080/00103620903173871

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Shamshuddin J, Fauziah IC, and Bell L. Effect of dolomitic limestone and gypsum applications on soil solution properties and yield of corn and groundnut grown on ultisols. Malays. J Soil Sci. (2009) 13:1–12.

Google Scholar

54. Phengsouvana V, Attanandana T, and Yost RS. Lime application to two acidic upland soils for soybean production in Champasak Province, Lao PDR. Agric Nat Resour. (2009) 43:19–27.

Google Scholar

55. Rastija D, Loncaric Z, Karalic K, and Bensa A. Liming and fertilization impact on nutrient status in acid soil. Cereal Res Commun. (2008) 36:339–42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90002710.

Google Scholar

56. Freiria AC, Mantovani JR, Ferreira ME, Da Cruz MCP, and Yagi R. Changes in soil chemical attributes from lime application on the surface or soil amending/Alteracoes em atributos quimicos do solo pela aplicacao de calcario na superficie ou incorporado. Acta Sci Agron. (2008) 30:285–92.

Google Scholar

57. Soratto RP and Crusciol CAC. Methods for determining soil exchangeable calcium and magnesium and residual lime in an oxisol submitted to surface application of lime and phosphogypsum. Rev Bras Ciênc. Solo. (2008) 32:663–73. doi: 10.1590/S0100-06832008000200021

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Farhoodi A and Coventry DR. Field crop responses to lime in the mid-north region of South Australia. Field Crops Res. (2008) 108:45–53. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2008.02.013

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Costa A and Rosolem CA. Liming in the transition to no-till under a wheat–soybean rotation. Soil Till. Res. (2007) 97:207–17. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2007.09.014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Godsey CB, Pierzynski GM, Mengel DB, and Lamond RE. Management of soil acidity in no-till production systems through surface application of lime. Agron J. (2007) 99:764–72. doi: 10.2134/agronj2006.0078

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Fageria NK. Liming and copper fertilization in dry bean production on an oxisol in no-tillage system. J Plant Nutr. (2006) 29:1219–28. doi: 10.1080/01904160600767435

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Caires EF, Barth G, and Garbuio FJ. Lime application in the establishment of a no-till system for grain crop production in Southern Brazil. Soil Till. Res. (2006) 89:3–12. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2005.06.006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Quaggio J, Gallo P, Owino-Gerroh C, Abreu M, and Cantarella H. Peanut response to lime and molybdenum application in low pH soils. Rev Bras Cienc. Solo. (2004) 28:659–64. doi: 10.1590/S0100-06832004000400008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Ernani PR, Bayer C, and Maestri L. Corn yield as affected by liming and tillage system on an acid Brazilian oxisol. Agron J. (2002) 94:305–9. doi: 10.2134/agronj2002.3050

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Cifu M, Xiaonan L, Zhihong C, Zhengyi H, and Wanzhu M. Long-term effects of lime application on soil acidity and crop yields on a red soil in Central Zhejiang. Plant Soil. (2004) 265:101–9. doi: 10.1007/s11104-005-8941-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Liu M, Kissel DE, Vendrell PF, and Cabrera ML. Soil lime requirement by direct titration with calcium hydroxide. Soil Sci Soc Am J. (2004) 68:1228–33. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2004.1228

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, and Gurevitch J. MetaWin. Statistical software for meta-analysis Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. (2000).

Google Scholar

68. Chivenge P, Saito K, Bunquin MA, Sharma S, and Dobermann A. Co-benefits of nutrient management tailored to smallholder agriculture. Global Food Sec. (2021) 30:100570. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100570

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Sharpley AN. Effect of soil pH on cation and anion solubility. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. (1991) 22:827–41. doi: 10.1080/00103629109368457

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

70. Corbett D, Lynch B, Wall DP, and Tuohy P. The response of finely textured and organic soils to lime and phosphorus application: Results from an incubation experiment. Soil Use Manage. (2023) 39:368–84. doi: 10.1111/sum.12825

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Pagani A and Mallarino AP. On-farm evaluation of corn and soybean grain yield and soil pH responses to liming. Agron J. (2015) 107:71–82. doi: 10.2134/agronj14.0314

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

72. Jones JD and Mallarino AP. Influence of Source and Particle Size on Agricultural Limestone Efficiency at Increasing Soil pH. Soil Sci Soc Am J. (2018) 82:271–82. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2017.06.0207

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

73. Zama N, Anathi M, Ntuthuko M, Michelle T, and Kirkman K. Assessing long-term nutrient and lime enrichment effects on a subtropical South African grassland. Afr. J Range Forag. Sci. (2023) 40:206–18. doi: 10.2989/10220119.2021.2014964

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

74. Uwiragiye Y, Ngaba MJY, Yang M, Elrys AS, Chen Z, Cheng Y, et al. Spatial prediction of lime requirements by adjusting aluminium saturation in Sub-Saharan Africa croplands. Sci Tot. Environ. (2024) 908:167989. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167989

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

75. Chimdi A, Gebrekidan H, Kibret K, and Tadesse A. Effects of liming on acidity-related chemical properties of soils of different land use systems in Western Oromia, Ethiopia. World J Agric Sci. (2012) 8:560–7.

Google Scholar

76. Haile G, Berihun H, Abera H, Agegnehu G, and Lemenih M. Soil properties, crop yield, and economic return in response to lime application on acidic nitisols of southern highlands of Ethiopia. Int J Agron. (2023) 2023:6105725. doi: 10.1155/2023/6105725

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

77. Reeves JL and Liebig MA. Soil pH and exchangeable cation responses to tillage and fertilizer in dryland cropping systems. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. (2016) 47:2396–404. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2016.1243706

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

78. Inagaki TM, De Moraes Sá JC, Caires EF, and Gonçalves DRP. Why does carbon increase in highly weathered soil under no-till upon lime and gypsum use? Sci Tot. Environ. (2017) 599-600:523–32. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.234

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

79. Caires EF, Alleoni LRF, Cambri MA, and Barth G. Surface application of lime for crop grain production under a no-till system. Agron J. (2005) 97:791–8. doi: 10.2134/agronj2004.0207

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

80. Tiritan CS, Büll LT, Crusciol CAC, Carmeis Filho ACA, Fernandes DM, and Nascente AS. Tillage system and lime application in a tropical region: Soil chemical fertility and corn yield in succession to degraded pastures. Soil Till. Res. (2016) 155:437–47. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2015.06.012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

81. Rheinheimer DS, Tiecher T, Gonzatto R, Zafar M, and Brunetto G. Residual effect of surface-applied lime on soil acidity properties in a long-term experiment under no-till in a Southern Brazilian sandy Ultisol. Geoderma. (2018) 313:7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.10.024

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

82. Bossolani JW, E. L, L. SF, R. SI, A. MHH, F. PL, et al. Surface reapplication of lime and gypsum on maize cultivated sole and intercropped with urochloa. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. (2018) 49:1855–68. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2018.1475565

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

83. De Oliveira EL and Pavan MA. Control of soil acidity in no-tillage system for soybean production. Soil Till. Res. (1996) 38:47–57. doi: 10.1016/0167-1987(96)01021-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

84. Bouray M, Moir JL, Condron LM, and Lehto NJ. Lime-Induced pH Elevation Influences Phosphorus Biochemical Processes and Dynamics in the Rhizosphere of Lupinus polyphyllus and Lupinus angustifolius. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. (2021) 21:1978–92. doi: 10.1007/s42729-021-00495-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

85. Haynes RJ. Effects of liming on phosphate availability in acid soils. Plant Soil. (1982) 68:289–308. doi: 10.1007/BF02197935

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

86. Sato S and Comerford NB. Influence of soil pH on inorganic phosphorus sorption and desorption in a humid Brazilian Ultisol. RRev. Bras Cienc. Solo. (2005) 29:685–94. doi: 10.1590/S0100-06832005000500004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

87. Bolo P, Kihara J, Mucheru-Muna M, Njeru EM, Kinyua M, and Sommer R. Application of residue, inorganic fertilizer and lime affect phosphorus solubilizing microorganisms and microbial biomass under different tillage and cropping systems in a Ferralsol. Geoderma. (2021) 390:114962. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.114962

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

88. Crusciol CAC, Marques RR, Filho ACAC, Soratto RP, Costa CHM, Neto JF, et al. Annual crop rotation of tropical pastures with no-till soil as affected by lime surface application. Eur J Agron. (2016) 80:88–104. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2016.07.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

89. Liao P, Ros MBH, Van Gestel N, Sun Y-N, Zhang J, Huang S, et al. Liming reduces soil phosphorus availability but promotes yield and P uptake in a double rice cropping system. J Integr Agric. (2020) 19:2807–14. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63222-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

90. Simard RR, C. L, and Tran TS. Effects of tillage, lime, and phosphorus on soil pH and mehlich-3 extractable nutrients. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. (1994) 25:1801–15. doi: 10.1080/00103629409369154

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

91. Bossolani JW, Dos Santos FL, Meneghette HHA, Sanches IR, Moretti LG, Parra LF, et al. Soybean in crop rotation with maize and palisade grass intercropping enhances the long-term effects of surface liming in no-till system. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. (2021) 21:119–30. doi: 10.1007/s42729-020-00347-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

92. Fageria NK and Baligar VC. Chapter 7 ameliorating soil acidity of tropical oxisols by liming for sustainable crop production, in: advances in agronomy. Academic Press (2008) p. 345–99. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)00407-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

93. De Mello Prado R and Natale W. Effect of liming on the mineral nutrition and yield of growing guava trees in a typic hapludox soil. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. (2008) 39:2191–204. doi: 10.1080/00103620802137613

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

94. Ramos AC, Dobbss LB, Santos LA, Fernandes MS, Olivares FL, Aguiar NO, et al. Humic matter elicits proton and calcium fluxes and signaling dependent on Ca^2?+-dependent protein kinase (CDPK) at early stages of lateral plant root development. Chem Biol Technol Agric. (2015) 2:3. doi: 10.1186/s40538-014-0030-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

95. Caires EF and Guimarães AM. A novel phosphogypsum application recommendation method under continuous no-till management in Brazil. Agron J. (2018) 110:1987–95. doi: 10.2134/agronj2017.11.0642

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

96. Tiecher TL, Soriani HH, Tiecher T, Ceretta CA, Nicoloso FT, Tarouco CP, et al. The interaction of high copper and zinc doses in acid soil changes the physiological state and development of the root system in young grapevines (Vitis vinifera). Ecotoxicol. Environ Saf. (2018) 148:985–94. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.11.074

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

97. Cyamweshi R, Nabahungu N, Mukashema A, Ruganzu V, Gatarayiha M, Nduwumuremyi A, et al. Enhancing nutrient availability and coffee yield on acid soils of the central plateau of Southern Rwanda. Global J Agric Res. (2014) 2:44–55.

Google Scholar