Next Article in Journal
Spatiotemporal Variation of Outdoor Heat Stress in Typical Coastal Cities Under the Influence of Summer Sea Breezes: An Analysis Based on Thermal Comfort Maps
Previous Article in Journal
Prospecting Araucaria-Associated Yeasts for Second-Generation Biorefineries
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 18
10.3390/su17188135
sustainability-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mitigating Soil Acidity: Impact of Aglime (CaCO3) Particle Size and Application Rate on Exchangeable Aluminium and Base Cations Dynamics

by
Alina Lațo
,
Adina Berbecea
*,
Iaroslav Lațo
,
Florin Crista
,
Laura Crista
,
Florin Sala
and
Isidora Radulov
*
Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Soil Sciences, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timisoara, 300645 Timisoara, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(18), 8135; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188135
Submission received: 11 July 2025 / Revised: 15 August 2025 / Accepted: 5 September 2025 / Published: 10 September 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Liming is an essential practice for neutralizing soil acidity, influenced by factors like lime particle size and application rate, addressing challenges from climate change, acid rain, nitrate leaching, and mineral oxidation. This study evaluated the efficiency of fine (0.1 mm) and coarse lime (1–2 mm) applied at rates of 3 t/ha and 6 t/ha in mitigating soil acidity, with a particular focus on their impact on subsoil characteristics. Over two years, key soil parameters were monitored, including pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), and exchangeable base cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, K+), along with exchangeable aluminum (Al3+). Fine lime particles demonstrated superior effectiveness compared to coarser ones, leading to faster and more uniform pH increases due to their greater surface area and higher solubility. Lime application significantly improved CEC by reducing exchangeable aluminum and increasing calcium availability, particularly in the topsoil. While these effects were most pronounced in surface layers, aluminum toxicity remained a concern in deeper soil levels. Strong positive correlations were observed between lime application and soil parameters such as pH, CEC, and exchangeable cations, while aluminum showed a negative correlation. Principal component analysis confirmed the benefits of higher lime doses, with fine lime producing rapid improvements and coarse lime offering a slower but sustained effect on soil health.

1. Introduction

Soil acidification has a significant impact on reducing crop productivity and damaging terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Approximately 4 billion hectares of land worldwide are estimated to suffer from varying levels of acidity [1]. While soil acidity typically increases gradually in natural ecosystems, studies have revealed that soil pH can shift rapidly from alkaline to acidic when annual precipitation surpasses annual potential evapotranspiration [2,3]. Major factors driving soil acidification include nitrate leaching, caused by ammonium fertilizers and biological nitrogen fixation, removal of crop products, accumulation of organic matter, acid rain and oxidation of sulfide minerals [4,5,6].
Acidic soils are characterized by low pH, reduced cation exchange capacity (CEC), and decreased base saturation [4]. Natural processes like the leaching of cations and decomposition of organic matter alter soil pH. The displacement of essential basic cations, which move deeper into the soil, is harmful as they are replaced by elements like aluminum, iron, manganese, and hydrogen [7]. This chemical shift reduces nutrient availability, thereby lowering crop yields [1].
The chemical properties of soil, including plant nutrient availability, are heavily influenced by pH. When soil pH falls below 5.5, deficiencies in nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, calcium, magnesium and molybdenum occur, making a pH increase necessary for optimal crop growth [8]. Soil fertility depends heavily on CEC, with lower CEC leading to faster pH changes and weaker buffering capacity [9].
Dashuan and Shuli [10] conducted a meta-analysis of 106 studies to identify global patterns of soil acidification. Their findings revealed that nitrogen addition globally reduced soil pH by an average of 0.26, shifting soils into the Al3+ buffering phase. In Romania, acid-prone soils represent a significant constraint to agricultural productivity, with approximately 37% of arable land classified as amendable acidic soils. Despite this, the national liming rate has declined, while the application of chemical fertilizers has increased by 63.33% from 60 kg a.s. ha−1 in 2007 to 98 kg a.s. ha−1 in 2020, with 60 kg a.s. ha−1 being nitrogen primarily applied as ammonium nitrate and urea [11]. The annual application of nitrogen fertilizers contributes to soil acidification, primarily through nitrate leaching and the release of hydrogen ions during the conversion of ammonium-based fertilizers [12]. Over time, these processes lower soil pH, reduce cation exchange capacity, and decrease base saturation. Base cations such as Ca2+, Mg2+, and K+ play a crucial role in buffering against nitrogen-induced soil acidification in its early stages.
Liming is a widely adopted method for improving the quality of acidic soils, providing both direct and indirect benefits. It influences soil acidity, nutrient mobility, heavy metal behavior, aggregate stability, and biological activity [13,14,15,16]. Research by Daba et al. [17] highlights the significant improvement in wheat and maize yields due to lime’s role in elevating soil pH, increasing exchangeable base cations (e.g., Ca2+ and Mg2+), and reducing aluminum toxicity, with pH adjustment being the most impactful. The required lime amount depends on factors such as soil acidity severity, soil properties, land use, and fertilizer application methods. A study conducted by Li et al. based-on data collected from 175 published studies worldwide between 1980 and 2017 [14] examined the effects of liming rate, lime application method, and liming material type on various soil chemical properties and crop yield, their findings indicate that, for effective soil acidity neutralization, the optimal liming duration should be less than three years, with an application rate of 3–6 Mg ha−1. The field efficiency of lime application is largely determined by the fineness of the material, its uniform distribution, and the extent of soil incorporation. However, under practical field conditions, these factors often fall short of optimal performance, leading to the common practice of doubling application rates to achieve desired outcomes. Sufficient soil moisture is critical for lime dissolution and downward movement through the profile [17,18]. In regions with irregular rainfall patterns, such as Western Romania—where annual precipitation averages around 600 mm but is unevenly distributed with frequent dry spells—lime often remains undissolved in the upper soil layers [4]. This significantly limits its capacity to correct subsoil acidity. As a result, addressing acidity in deeper horizons remains a major agronomic challenge.
Given the limited vertical mobility of lime and the economic and environmental costs associated with over-application, there is a pressing need to evaluate the effectiveness of different lime particle sizes in ameliorating both topsoil and subsoil acidity under these conditions.
This study investigated the comparative effectiveness of fine and coarse agricultural lime applied at rates of 3 t ha−1 and 6 t ha−1 in alleviating soil acidity over a two-year period. The research focused on monitoring changes in soil pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), and concentrations of exchangeable base cations (Caexch, Mgexch, and Kexch), as well as exchangeable aluminum (Alexch). Additionally, it aimed to determine whether lime particle size or application rate exerted a greater influence on improving subsoil chemical properties.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site

The experimental field GPS coordinates are: 45°25′31.8″ N 21°23′51.8″ E, located in Barzava Plain, in the West part of Romania as shown in Figure 1.
The experimental field was situated in a region characterized by a temperate climate, with a mean annual temperature of 10.5 °C and average annual precipitation ranging between 600 and 700 mm. Due to the area’s geographical location, precipitation is distributed unevenly throughout the year [19].
The study was conducted on a Gleyic Fluvisol (FLgl), classified according to the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (IUSS, 2007) [20]. The principal properties of this soil are presented in Table 1. Gleyic Fluvisols are considered young soils with minimal horizon development, typically exhibiting AC-profile structures [21]. This soil type was selected for investigation due to its extensive distribution in western Romania, a region characterized by intensive agricultural activity.
The study was conducted over two consecutive agricultural years (2022–2023 and 2023–2024) on randomized experimental plots (50 m × 30 m) cultivated with maize under rainfed conditions, without the use of fertilizers or pesticides, to avoid interference with the effects of lime treatments. A randomized complete block design (RCBD) was employed, consisting of four amendment treatments arranged in three replications.
Figure 2 provides a clear visual representation of the experimental treatments and sampling depths, which is essential for understanding the spatial and temporal dynamics of lime application effects. It supports methodological transparency and facilitates interpretation of the statistical outcomes presented in the study.
The amendment used was agricultural limestone (aglime) containing 98% CaCO3, sourced from a local quarry and mechanically processed into two particle size fractions—coarse (1–2 mm) and fine (0.1 mm)—and deemed suitable for ecological agriculture. Aglime was applied at two application rates—3 t/ha and 6 t/ha—defined as the quantity of lime (CaCO3) distributed per hectare of soil surface. These rates were selected based on prior field research, manufacturer recommendations, and initial soil concentrations of exchangeable base cations and aluminum, aligning with amendment levels previously demonstrated to be effective for acidic soils [6,14,22].
The application was performed using a broadcast method, followed by mechanical incorporation (15 cm soil depth). Specialized equipment with adjustable working width was used to ensure uniform distribution and incorporation of the amendment.
To assess the effects of the treatments, soil pH, exchangeable base cations, and exchangeable aluminum were monitored at two depths: 0–20 cm (topsoil) and 20–40 cm (subsoil).

2.2. Soil Sampling

To determine the influence of aglime on pH, CEC, and the exchangeable forms of Ca, Mg, K, and Al, four soil sampling periods were established: BA—September 2022 (before aglime application), 6MAA—March 2023 (6 months after application), 12MAA—September 2023 (12 months after application), 18MAA—March 2024 (18 months after application).
Soil sampling was conducted diagonally within each replication of every aglime treatment variant, at two depths—topsoil (0–20 cm) and subsoil (20–40 cm)—across four sampling periods, yielding a total of 96 soil samples. Subsamples were collected uniformly in both quantity and volume to ensure consistency. Following collection, samples from each depth were placed in labeled polyethylene bags. Prior to laboratory analysis, all samples were air-dried at room temperature and sieved through a 2 mm mesh to isolate the fine soil fraction [23].

2.2.1. pH Determination

Soil pH was measured according to the FAO, [24], which recommends a 1:2.5 soil-to-water ratio. For the measurements a Mettler Toledo digital pH-meter was used, bearing a combine glass electrode, which had been previously calibrated with buffer solutions of pH = 4, pH = 7, pH = 10, using reagents of analytical grade (Merck).

2.2.2. Exchangeable Ca (Caexch), Mg (Mgexch), and K (Kexch) Determination

The exchangeable forms of Caexch, Mgexch, and Kexch were determined from the 0.1M BaCl2·2H2O soil extract using atomic absorption spectrometry. A 2 g soil sample (<2 mm sieved) was subjected to repeated extraction with 20 mL of 0.1M BaCl2·2H2O to obtain a final volume of approximately 100 mL. Merck-grade reagents were used [25]. After filtration and adjusting the extract to a final volume of 100 mL, the concentrations of Caexch, Mgexch, and Kexch were determined using a Varian 240 FS (USA) atomic absorption spectrophotometer. The working conditions were as follows: air:acetylene ratio = 13.50:2, Nebulizer uptake rate = 5 mL min−1, Wavelengths: λCa = 422.7 nm, λMg = 282.5 nm, λK = 766.5 nm. For calibration were used standard solutions with the concentration ranging from 0.3 to 3 mg L−1, prepared from multielement solution ICP Standard solution 1000 mg L−1 (Merck).

2.2.3. Exchangeable Al (Alexch) Determination

Alexch was determined using ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry) on a PlasmaQuant Elite—Analytik Jena instrument with an AIM3300 autosampler (Germany), from a 1 M KCl extract, using a soil-to-solution ratio of 1:10. The instrument’s operating conditions were as follows: plasma flow: 9 L min−1, auxiliary flow: 1.50 L min−1, nebulizer flow: 1.05 L min−1, sampling depth: 5 mm, RF power: 1.40 kW. For calibration, standards with concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 100 µg L−1 were prepared from a multi-element ICP standard solution (1000 mg L−1, Merck). A 10 µg L−1 Sc internal standard (Analytik Jena) was used.

2.2.4. CEC Determination

CEC was calculated based on the exchangeable forms of the base cations: Ca, Mg, K, and Al, using the following equation [26]:
CEC(cmol kg−1) = [Caexch/20] + [Mgexch/12] + [Kexch/39] + [Alexch/9]

2.3. Data Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel, SPSS 12.0, and OriginPro 2024b. Statistical significance level was determined at 0.05 (α value). The results for pH, Caexch, Mgexch, Alexch and Kexch were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) (n = 3). Correlation analysis was carried out to determine the association between soil parameters at different time intervals after the application of the two aglime doses with two different granulometries. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and mean separation (Tuckey test) were carried out to identify the statistical significance of the effect of aglime rate and granulation on some soil parameters. For dimensionality reduction, principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was performed to provide a concise and optimal description of the data.

3. Results

The values obtained for the investigated parameters, expressed as the mean of three distinct determinations ± SD, are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

3.1. Modification in Soil pH Values

In variant 3C (Table 2), soil pH increased from 5.08 to 6.47 in the topsoil (TS) and from 5.15 to 5.85 in the subsoil (SS). The highest pH value for 3C was measured at 12MAA in the TS, while in the SS it peaked at 18MAA. In variant 3F, the maximum pH values, 6.55 for TS and 5.85 for SS, were both reached at 12MAA. For 6C, the highest pH in the TS (6.60) was observed at 18MAA, whereas the SS’s maximum pH (5.70) occurred at 12MAA.
At 12MAA, statistical analysis (α = 0.05) showed significant differences in the highest pH values between 3F (TS) and 6C (SS), as well as between 3C (TS) and 3F (SS). Similarly, at 18MAA, significant differences were noted between 6F (SS) and 6C (TS), as well as within 6F (TS and SS). In variant 6F, pH values rose from 5.06 to 6.60 in the topsoil and from 5.17 to 5.60 in the subsoil, with the highest pH levels for both depths recorded at 18 MAA.
During 6MAA, 3F exhibited the most significant pH increase, rising by 12% in the TS and 6% in the SS (Table S1). At 12MAA, 6F showed the largest pH increase in the TS, with a 23% rise compared to BA, while in the SS, 3F recorded the greatest increase, an 8% rise relative to BA. Fine lime applied to the topsoil resulted in the highest pH increase at 12MAA, regardless of the quantity applied, whereas coarse lime was most effective at 18MAA. In the subsoil, the greatest pH increase was observed at 18MAA following the application of 3 t/ha fine lime (3F).

3.2. CEC Values After Lime Application

The cation exchange capacity (CEC) rises as pH values increase, because of the deprotonation of pH-dependent charges. These charges originate from either the carboxylic or phenolic groups in organic matter, or from aluminum or iron hydroxides [27,28]. The greatest increases in CEC values were observed with the application of 6 tons per hectare of fine lime (6F), regardless of the time elapsed since the amendment was applied (Table 2). In this variant, the increases compared to BA are 16% at 6MAA, 18% at 12MAA, and 24% at 18MAA. When the same amount of amendment is applied for the same duration, fine lime results in greater increases in CEC compared to coarse lime. The highest CEC value recorded was 12.43 cmol/kg with the application of 6 tons per hectare of fine lime at 18MAA, at TS. In SS, the maximum CEC value was 12.21 cmol/kg in 6C at 18MAA. Between the two mentioned values, there are no significant differences at a statistical significance level of α = 0.05. However, the increase in CEC values compared to BA is roughly the same for both 6C and 6F, at 23.9% and 23.3%, respectively (Table S1).

3.3. Modification of Exchangeable Ca, Mg and K Values

The studied soil exhibits a basification of the colloidal complex due to both pH-dependent and permanent charges of mineral colloids, resulting in aluminum ions (Al3+, Al(OH)2+, Al(OH)2+) replacing basic cations in the cation exchange capacity [29]. The Caexch content is reduced, ranging from 4.62 to 4.71 cmol/kg at BA (Table 3). The application of aglime increased this content, with a maximum value of 9.06 cmol/kg observed in 6F 18MAA in TS, which is 48% higher than in 6C at BA. Over time, the calcium content retained by the colloidal complex increases following aglime application. This gradual effect is due to the slow reactivity of lime in releasing Ca2+ ions, resulting in a longer-lasting impact. Similar values were found in 3C at 18MAA and 6C at 18MAA, with 8.1 cmol/kg (41.9% higher than BA) and 8.2 cmol/kg (42.5% higher than BA (Table S1), respectively. Statistically, there are no significant differences between these maximum values at a significance level of α = 0.05. Caexch at SS are significantly lower compared to TS, with the highest value recorded in the 6C at 18MAA variant at 7.85 cmol/kg.
The application of lime resulted in an increase in exchangeable magnesium (Mgexch) content, which rose from 0.74 cmol/kg to 1.15 cmol/kg at TS in variant 6C at 18MAA (Table 3). Lower increases in Mgexch were observed in SS, with the highest value being 1.03 cmol/kg in variant 3F at 18MAA. Regardless of the lime amount, the content of Mgexch increases with time after its application. In TS, the most significant increases in Mgexch compared to BA were at doses of 6 t/ha, with coarse lime showing an increase of 34.7% and fine lime an increase of 31.8% (Table S1). In SS, the largest increases compared to BA were at doses of 3 t/ha, with coarse lime showing an increase of 18.6% and fine lime 19.4%. The mean values determined for Mgexch, regardless of the experimental variant and depth, do not differ significantly at a statistical level of assurance α = 0.05, at any of the time intervals: 6MAA (P = 0.666), 12MAA (P = 0.116), 18MAA (P = 0.318).
Figure 3 illustrates the temporal progression of the Ca/Mg ratio in the topsoil following lime application, providing valuable insight into nutrient balance shifts induced by varying lime treatments. The figure emphasizes the distinct behavior of fine versus coarse lime particles applied at rates of 3 t/ha and 6 t/ha. Notably, treatments 3F and 6F exhibited a rapid increase in the Ca/Mg ratio, peaking between 6 and 12 months after application (MAA), followed by a slight decline observed at 18 MAA. This indicates that fine lime dissolves quickly, releasing calcium (Ca) into the soil at an accelerated rate and temporarily boosting the Ca/Mg ratio. The 6 t/ha F treatment exhibits a more pronounced effect than 3 t/ha F, achieving the highest peak. In contrast, the 3C and 6C treatments display a steadier rise in the Ca/Mg ratio without a sharp peak. The 6C treatment has the lowest R2 value (0.4425), reflecting higher variability, likely due to its slower soil breakdown. The 3C treatment follows a consistent linear trend (R2 = 0.952), resulting in a gradual, predictable increase in Ca/Mg over time.
Exchangeable potassium (Kexch) content also increased with depth, lime additions, and time since application. The values ranged from 0.110 cmol/kg to 0.360 cmol/kg (Table 3). Although lower compared to Mgexch values, the increases relative to BA ranged from 23.2% in variant 6MAA3C to 60.5% in variant 6F at 18MAA. Like Caexch and Mgexch, Kexch content in TS was higher than in SS, regardless of the fertilization variant. The application of fine lime, at both doses and depths, resulted in higher increases in Kexch content, particularly at 6MAA and 12MAA. At 18MAA, the highest content at both depths was achieved with the application of 6F (an increase of 60.5% at 6MAA and 56.2% at 12MAA) and 6C (an increase of 55.1% at 6MAA and 49.2% at 12MAA) (Table S1). It was observed that there were no significant differences between the mean values determined in the 4 experimental variants, in TS and SS at α = 0.05, both at the time interval 6MAA (P = 0.434) and 12MAA (P = 0.137).
Sustainability 17 08135 g003
Figure 3. Influence of lime application on Ca/Mg ratio in TS. Abbreviations: BA-before application, 6MAA-six months after application, 12MAA-12 months after application, 18MAA-18 months after application, C—course, F—fine.
Figure 3. Influence of lime application on Ca/Mg ratio in TS. Abbreviations: BA-before application, 6MAA-six months after application, 12MAA-12 months after application, 18MAA-18 months after application, C—course, F—fine.
Sustainability 17 08135 g003

3.4. Exchangeable Aluminum

Alexch is present in significant quantities in acidic soils with pH levels below 5.5. Analysis of the samples indicates that (Table 2) the Alexch content decreases as soil acidity diminishes, with values ranging from 3.3 cmol/kg soil at 6C BA (TS) to 0 cmol/kg soil in 6C 18MAA (TS) and 6F 18MAA (TS). At the highest amount of aglime applied, Alexch content declines further over time following amendment application. At 6MAA, Alexch content decreases in TS by 32.12% at 6C and 37.14% at 3F, and in SS between 4.29% in 6C and 12.90% in 3C. It was observed that there were no significant differences between the mean values determined in the 4 experimental variants, in TS and SS at α = 0.05, at 6MAA (P = 0.2665). At 12MAA, regardless of depth, the reduction in Al3+ content in the colloidal complex doubles, reaching 89.3% at 6F in TS and 29.03% at 6C in SS (Table S1). Although the findings reveal that fine lime is more effective than coarse lime in reducing Alexch content, in subsoil this phenomenon is reduced.

3.5. Pearson Correlations

Examining the Pearson correlation coefficients (Table 4) across three-time intervals (6MAA, 12MAA, and 18MAA) within the four experimental variants (3C, 3F, 6C, 6F) and two soil depths: topsoil TS (0–20 cm) and subsoil SS (20–40 cm), several trends are observed:
At 6 MAA (6Months After Application), in TS (topsoil), moderate positive correlations are observed between CEC and exchangeable Ca (Caexch) (R = 0.521), as well as between exchangeable Ca and exchangeable Al (Caexch-Alexch) (R = 0.501). In SS (subsoil), a moderate positive correlation is observed Caexch-Kexch (R = 0.614) and a strong correlation between Kexch-Mgexch (R = 0.888). In both TS and SS, a moderate negative correlation is observed between pH and CEC: R = −0.442 (TS) and R = −0.537 (SS), indicating that as pH increases, the soil’s ability to retain and exchange cations diminishes. In TS, a strong negative correlation between pH-Alexch (R = −0.734) is observed.
At 12 MAA, in TS, moderate positive correlations are observed between Caexch and pH (R = 0.440), Caexch and Kexch (R = 0.596) and CEC and Caexch (R = 0.685). In SS, the number of moderate and strong positive correlations increases, including pH-Caexch (R = 0.415), CEC-Kexch (R = 0.452), Caexch-CEC (R = 0.479), and Caexch-Mgexch (R = 0.840). Moderate negative correlations are observed between Alexch and pH and Alexch and Caexch both in TS and SS. Strong negative correlations appeared in TS between Alexch-Kexch (R = −0.804) and in SS between Alexch and Mgexch (R = −0.823).
At 18 MAA, as the aglime becomes almost completely solubilized, strong positive correlations appear in TS—CEC-Caexch (R = 0.766); CEC-pH (R = 0.909), alongside moderate positive correlations between Caexch-Mgexch (R = 0.453), CEC-Kexch (R = 0.487), Caexch-Kexch (R = 0.655), pH-Caexch (R = 0.657), pH-Kexch (R = 0.662). SS is characterized by strong positive correlations between CEC-Caexch, CEC-Kexch, and Caexch-Kexch. Moderate negative correlations were found in TS and SS mainly between Alexch and pH, CEC and Kexch.

3.6. Principal Component Analysis

Figure 4 and Figure 5 display Principal Component Analysis (PCA) boxplots for topsoil and subsoil, respectively, capturing the multivariate variation in soil chemical properties across lime treatment regimes. These visualizations emphasize the contrasting sensitivity of soil layers to surface-applied amendments and reinforce the role of lime particle size and application rate in influencing nutrient dynamics and soil chemical composition. Principal component analysis (PCA), Figure 4—applied to data obtained at intervals 6MAA, 12MAA and 18MAA, in TS extracted 2 components with Eigenvalue >1 that provide in total 95.08% of the total variation. PC1 contributing with 82.27% of the total variance is strongly correlated with pH and the exchangeable content of Ca, Mg and K. This indicates that both pH and Caexch, Mgexch and Kexch are strongly and directly influenced by the addition of aglime in the soil. PC2 accounts for the next 12.81% and its correlated with CEC and Alexch. Analyzing Figure 4 it is observed that aglime, at a dose of 6t/ha (6C and 6F), regardless of granulation, at 18MAA determines the highest values for Caexch, respectively, Kexch. The Alexch content, on the other hand, is strongly influenced by the same 6C and 6F variants, at 6MAA time interval.
PCA (Principal Component Analysis) applied to the data obtained under the same conditions but in subsoil (SS) extracted two components with Eigenvalues >1, which together account for 86.07% of the total variance (Figure 5). PC1 contributes 63.10% and is strongly correlated with exchangeable Ca (Caexch), K (Kexch), and Mg (Mgexch). These parameters show the highest values in the 18MAA6C and 18MAA6F variants. PC2 contributes the remaining 22.67% and is correlated with CEC and exchangeable Al (Alexch). Similarly to the situation in the topsoil (TS), Alexch is most strongly influenced at 6 MAA, in the 6C and 6F variants. A strong negative influence is observed for pH, which is most strongly affected at 18 MAA in the 3C and 3F variants.

4. Discussion

The effectiveness of calcium carbonate in raising pH levels depends on factors such as soil texture, organic matter, and the size of lime particles [30]. While the greatest pH increases at 6 months after application occurred with 3 t/ha of fine lime, the most notable differences compared to BA at 12MAA and 18MAA were observed with 6 t/ha of fine lime. Enesi et al. [6] demonstrated that higher lime application rates yielded greater pH increases and improved yields, while Oliver et al. [31] emphasized liming rate as the most influential factor for pH and yield changes in acidic soils. The soil’s buffering capacity, or its resistance to pH alterations, dictates the lime quantity required for significant changes. Although higher lime amounts can more effectively overcome buffering capacity, the resulting pH increase can vary with management practices [32]. Greater lime application neutralizes more acidity, producing a higher final pH. Our findings align with [33], who found that changes in soil pH depended on lime rates, time post-application, and soil depth (topsoil and subsoil).
Finer lime particles have a greater surface area in contact with the soil, enabling a faster and more efficient reaction with soil acids, which accelerates the pH increase. Their smaller size allows them to dissolve more quickly, ensuring a prompt adjustment in soil pH. Additionally, finer particles distribute more evenly throughout the soil, promoting a consistent pH adjustment, while coarser particles may lead to uneven changes. Overall, finer lime particles contribute to a quicker and more uniform rise in soil pH, whereas coarser particles offer a slower yet sustained effect. This conclusion aligns with findings from [34], which highlighted that powdered lime was the most effective, achieving the highest pH increase in both severely acidic (+19%) and moderately acidic (+14%) environments. In a study examining lime particle sizes ranging from 3 mm to 0.005 mm, Scott et al. [35] observed that finer particles consistently caused larger pH increases, with no minimum particle size for maximum efficacy identified.
Improving subsoil acidity is notably challenging, as liming often proves ineffective due to the slow downward movement of lime within soil profiles. Our study revealed only a modest increase in subsoil pH following liming. Lime predominantly impacts the topsoil, moving through the profile at a very gradual pace. Over time, it can incrementally enhance subsoil pH by neutralizing acidity, provided it is applied in adequate amounts and properly incorporated. du Toit et al. [36] demonstrated that liming raised soil pH above the target level of 5.5 at depths of 5–10 cm (pH 6.83) and 10–15 cm (pH 5.73), but showed no significant effect at depths of 15–40 cm. Research made in New Zeeland showed that lime application at 8 t/ha increased soil pH by about 0.5 pH units in the 7.5–15 and 15–30 cm soil horizons [37].
The mineralogical study conducted by [38], utilizing X-ray diffraction of the soil, revealed that the upper horizons contain illitic (30%), chloritic (50%), and kaolinitic minerals (<15%). Due to the soil’s acidic nature, the cation exchange capacity (CEC) is low because of the presence of H+ and Al3+ ions, which occupy exchange sites and reduce the overall CEC. At low pH values (pH < 5.5), only the permanent charges of 2:1 type clay and a small portion of the pH-dependent charges of organic colloids and 1:1 type clay holds exchangeable ions.
After lime application, as the pH increases, the negative charges of 1:1 type clay (such as kaolinite), humus, and even Fe and Al oxides increase, thereby enhancing the cation exchange capacity [39]. The effect of calcium carbonate application in this study on cation exchange capacity aligns with previously reported results [40]. These effects mainly involve a decrease in the Al level in the soil and, consequently, a decrease in the effective saturation of Al in the exchange complex, as well as an increase in the proportion of Ca in the exchange complex for both studied soils [13,15,41]. Fine lime particles react more quickly, increasing soil pH relatively fast. As the pH increases, the negative charge on clay minerals and organic matter may slightly increase, enhancing the soil’s CEC. Coarse lime particles dissolve more slowly, having minimal immediate effect on pH and CEC. Lime application promotes microbial activity and organic matter breakdown, leading to the formation of new functional groups (such as carboxyl and phenol groups), which can contribute additional cation exchange sites, further increasing CEC.
Applying lime to the soil generally increases the calcium content in the topsoil, and this increase is directly proportional to the amount of lime applied. Similar results were observed in [42], which showed that the highest exchangeable levels of Ca, Mg, and K were recorded in plots that received the highest dose of lime. Lime primarily affects the soil layers where it is incorporated [43]. In our study, lime was applied and mixed into the topsoil, resulting in the most significant immediate increase in calcium content there. Over time, some calcium from the lime leached into the subsoil, particularly with substantial autumn rainfall. Fine lime particles provided relatively faster calcium release and movement even in the subsoil, as their smaller size allows easier transport by water moving through the soil profile, enabling deeper layer penetration. Coarser lime particles dissolve and release calcium more slowly. However, due to their limited movement through the soil, calcium release is more gradual and sustained over a longer period. Because of the sandy loam texture of the studied soil, calcium may leach faster compared to clay-rich soils, leading to an increase in calcium content in the subsoil.
Aluminum toxicity poses a significant challenge in acidic soils, as pH levels below 5.5 cause aluminum to be solubilized into toxic ionic forms like Al3+, which hinder plant root growth and nutrient absorption [44,45]. At pH levels between 5.0 and 5.25, Al(OH)2+ species dominate, while between 5.25 and 6.50, Al(OH)2+ becomes predominant. According to Sparks et al. [4], 6–28% of the total aluminum in soil solution occurs as free Al3+. Post-liming, as pH rises, the concentration of monomeric Al3+ ions decrease, giving way to Al-hydroxy species. In the topsoil layer (0–20 cm), as pH exceeds 5.5 beginning at 12MAA (12 months after application), Al-hydroxy ions likely polymerize, forming large, positively charged structures tightly bound to the negatively charged colloidal sites, rendering them non-exchangeable. By 18MAA, the increasing concentration of Ca2+ ions raise the pH to values between 6.3 and 6.63. Calcium ions from lime exhibit a higher affinity for exchange sites on soil colloids compared to Al3+, displacing Al ions, which subsequently precipitate as Al(OH)3. This displacement frees the negative colloidal sites for further cation exchange.
A study by Moir and Moot [37] demonstrated that liming reduced Alexch levels in the surface soil horizon (0–7 cm) from 0.9 to 0.1–0.2 meq/100 g. However, the effects were less pronounced in deeper horizons, showing only modest reductions in Alexch. This increase in pH resulted in a decline of exchangeable aluminum, from around 1.0 meq/100 g at an 8 t/ha lime rate to approximately 0.45 and 1.1 meq Al/100 g in the 7.5–15 cm and 15–30 cm soil horizons, respectively. Literature indicates that aluminum toxicity remains a concern in soils with pH below 5.5, while Whitley et al. [46] reported that soils with pH (H2O) up to 5.9 may still exhibit aluminum concentrations toxic to plants.
By analyzing PCA for topsoil can be observed that 6C and 6F generally show stronger effects on improving soil properties like pH, calcium (Caexch), magnesium (Mgexch), and potassium (Kexch), as indicated by their alignment with vectors for these parameters in the PCA biplot. The higher lime dose likely enhances nutrient availability and neutralizes acidity more effectively. 3C (3 t/ha coarse lime) and 3F (3 t/ha fine lime) show a milder impact, with less pronounced changes in soil properties. However, fine lime 3F may exhibit quicker reactivity compared to coarse lime (3C), due to its finer granulometry. In TS, lime application tends to have a greater influence, as reflected by stronger positive correlations with properties like pH, Caexch, and CEC. This aligns with the common observation that lime primarily affects the topsoil layer. In SS, the effects are less pronounced but still visible, suggesting residual or gradual lime influence over time. The initial changes 6 months after lime application (6MAA) are evident but less stable, as lime begins to dissolve and interact with the soil. Twelve months after application (12MAA) the strongest improvements are observed, with significant increases in pH and nutrient availability (Caexch, Mgexch, Kexch) and a marked reduction in exchangeable aluminum (Alexch). Eighteen months after lime application (18MAA) effects remain, but there is slight attenuation compared to 12MAA, reflecting potential leaching or stabilization over time.
Principal component analysis of the subsoil data (Figure 5) revealed a more gradual and attenuated response to lime application compared to the topsoil. Prior to treatment (BA), samples clustered closely, indicating similar initial conditions across plots. At six months after application (6MAA), minimal separation was observed regardless of lime type or dose, suggesting limited short-term mobility of amendments into the subsoil.
However, at 12 and especially 18 months post-application (12MAA and 18MAA), clearer divergence among treatments became evident. Treatments with higher lime doses (6F, 6C) began to shift notably along the first principal component, associated with variables indicative of increased cationic exchange capacity and decreased exchangeable aluminum. Fine lime at 6 t ha−1 (6F) exhibited the most pronounced effect, reflecting its enhanced reactivity and solubility. In contrast, low-dose coarse lime treatments (3C) remained closely associated with the baseline (BA), underscoring their limited effectiveness in influencing subsoil chemistry within the observed timeframe. These results confirm that lime-induced alterations in subsoil properties are time-dependent and influenced significantly by both particle size and application rate.
Across all treatments, PCA revealed that fine lime applications at higher rates elicited the most substantial and rapid improvements in soil chemical parameters, particularly in surface horizons. In contrast, subsoil amelioration required both greater lime quantities and longer time frames, with clear responses emerging more distinctly after 12 to 18 months. The interaction of lime particle size and dose generated nonlinear trends over time, supporting the use of polynomial modeling approaches for accurately describing soil response dynamics [47].

5. Conclusions

The capacity of calcium carbonate to correct soil acidity is determined by several factors, including soil texture, organic matter content, lime particle size, and application rate. Our findings indicate that fine lime particles outperform coarser ones, as their greater surface area and faster solubility accelerate pH increases. The most significant pH improvements were observed with high-dose applications of fine lime, particularly over extended periods, confirming its effectiveness in enhancing soil conditions and crop productivity.
Beyond pH regulation, liming was found to improve cation exchange capacity (CEC) by reducing exchangeable aluminum (Al3+) and increasing calcium (Ca2+) availability, mainly in the topsoil. While lime’s movement within the soil profile tends to be slow, finer particles contributed to slight improvements in subsoil pH, especially in sandy loam soils prone to leaching. As soil pH rose following liming, the negative charge of soil colloids increased, further boosting CEC and microbial activity. Lime application also elevated calcium concentrations in the upper soil layers, with the rate of increase corresponding to the applied dose. Fine lime facilitated a quicker calcium release and deeper mobility, while coarser particles provided a prolonged supply. Over time, leaching—particularly in sandy loam soils—allowed calcium to reach deeper horizons.
Additionally, liming mitigated aluminum toxicity by increasing pH levels, transforming harmful Al3+ ions into less toxic hydroxy-aluminum species. Aluminum was displaced from exchange sites and precipitated as Al(OH)3, enabling calcium uptake. However, aluminum toxicity may persist in deeper soil layers or where pH remains below 5.5. Correlations between soil parameters revealed that pH, CEC, and nutrient cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, K+) responded positively to liming, especially at higher rates, whereas ex-changeable aluminum showed a negative correlation with pH and cation availability. Principal component analysis reinforced the benefits of higher lime doses in improving soil health. Fine lime provided rapid improvements, while coarser lime ensured long-term stability. These results underscore liming’s role in enhancing soil fertility and addressing acidity-related challenges. Further research is needed to develop strategies to mitigate aluminum toxicity in deeper soil layers, including the use of different lime types or combinations with other soil amendments.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17188135/s1, Table S1: Percentage variation in monitored parameters.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.L. and I.R.; methodology, A.L. and L.C.; formal analysis, I.R. and A.B.; investigation, I.L. and F.C.; resources, I.L. and F.C.; data curation, A.B. and F.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.L., F.S. and L.C.; writing—review and editing, I.R. and A.B.; visualization, L.C.; supervision, I.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AglimeAgricultural lime (CaCO3)
Kg a.s./haKg active substance/ha

References

  1. Ji, F.N.; Osumanu, H.A.; Mohamadu, B.J.; Latifah, O.; Yee, M.K.; Adiza, A.M.; Ken, H.P. Soil nutrient retention and pH buffering capacity are enhanced by calciprill and sodium silicate. Agronomy 2022, 12, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Slessarev, E.; Lin, Y.; Bingham, N.J.; Johnson, E.; Dai, Y.; Schimel, J.P. Water balance creates a threshold in soil pH at the global scale. Nature 2016, 540, 567–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nagasinghe, I.U.; Saito, T.; Takemura, T.; Kawamoto, K.; Komatsu, T.; Watanabe, N.; Kawabe, Y. Applicability of alkaline waste and by-products as low cost alternative neutralizers for acidic soils. ISIJ Int. 2022, 63, 228–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sparks, D.L.; Singh, B.; Siebecker, M.G. Environmental Soil Chemistry, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; pp. 351–360. [Google Scholar]
  5. Toth, G.; Montanarella, L.; Stolbovoy, V.; Mate, F.; Bodis, K.; Jones, A.; Panagos, P.; van Liedekerke, M. Soils of the European Union; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2008; pp. 28–32. ISBN 978-92-79-09530-6. [Google Scholar]
  6. Enesi, R.O.; Dyck, M.; Chang, S.; Thilakarathna, M.S.; Fan, X.; Strelkov, S.; Gorim, L.Y. Liming remediates soil acidity and im-proves crop yield and profitability—A meta-analysis. Front. Agron. 2023, 5, 1194896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Holland, J.E.; White, P.J.; Glendining, M.J.; Goulding, K.W.T.; McGrath, S.P. 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, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Neina, D. The role of soil pH in plant nutrition and soil remediation. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2019, 2019, 5794869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Corbett, D.; Wall, D.P.; Lynch, M.B.; Tuohy, P. The influence of lime application on the chemical and physical characteristics of acidic grassland soils with impeded drainage. J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 159, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dashuan, T.; Shuli, N. A global analysis of soil acidification caused by nitrogen addition. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 024019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Popescu, A.; Dinu, T.A.; Stoian, E.; Şerban, V. The use of chemical fertilizers in Romania’s agriculture. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2021, 21, 469–476. [Google Scholar]
  12. Vicar, N.; Lațo, A.; Lațo, I.; Crista, F.; Berbecea, A.; Radulov, I. Effect of Urease and Nitrification Inhibitors on Heavy Metal Mobility in an Intensively Cultivated Soil. Agronomy 2025, 15, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jaskulska, I.; Jaskulski, D.; Kobierski, M. Effect of liming on the change of some agrochemical soil properties in a long-term fertilization experiment. Plant Soil Environ. 2014, 60, 146–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Li, Y.; Cui, S.; Chang, S.X.; 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. Soils Sediments 2019, 19, 1393–1406. [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. Brown, T.T.; Koenig, R.T.; Huggins, D.R.; Harsh, J.B.; Rossi, R.E. Lime effects on soil acidity, crop yield, and aluminum chemistry in direct-seeded cropping systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2008, 72, 634–640. [Google Scholar]
  17. Daba, N.A.; Li, D.; Huang, J.; Han, T.; Zhang, L.; Ali, S.; Khan, M.N.; Du, J.; Liu, S.; Legesse, T.G. Long-term fertilization and lime-induced soil pH changes affect nitrogen use efficiency and grain yields in acidic soil under wheat-maize rotation. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yu, X.; Keitel, C.; Dijkstra, F.A. Ameliorating soil acidity with calcium carbonate and calcium hydroxide: Effects on carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus dynamics. J. Soil. Sci. Plant. Nutr. 2023, 23, 5270–5278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Herbei, M.V.; Sala, F. Evaluation of urban areas by remote sensing methods in relation to climatic conditions: Case study city of Timisoara. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 15, 327–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006; First Update 2007; World Soil Resources Reports No.103; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  21. Simansky, V. Can soil properties of Fluvisols be influenced by river flow gradient? Acta Fytotech. Zootech. 2018, 21, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abraham, Y. Evaluation of micro-dosing lime application on selected soil chemical properties and barley crop performance at Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia. Am. J. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Henderson, W.H.; Lalande, H.; Duquette, M. Soil reaction and exchangeable acidity. In Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007; pp. 173–178. [Google Scholar]
  24. FAO. Standard Operating Procedure for Soil pH Determination; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jönsson, U.; Rosengren, U.; Bengt, N.; Thelin, G. A comparative study of two methods for determination of pH, exchangeable base cations, and aluminum. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2002, 33, 3809–3824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ross, D.S.; Ketterings, Q. Recommended methods for determining, soil cation exchange capacity. In Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States; University of Delaware: Newark, DE, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ćirić, V.P.; Šeremešić, N.; Vojnov, S.; Pejic, B.; Radovanović, B.; Marinkovic, D. The Implication of Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) Assessment for Soil Quality Management and Improvement. J. Agric. Forest. 2023, 69, 113–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. 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]
  29. Weil, R.; Brady, N. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 15th ed.; Pearson Education Inc.: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  30. Jones, J.D.; Mallarino, A.P. Influence of source and particle size on agricultural limestone efficiency at increasing soil pH. In Proceedings of the North Central Extension-Industry Soil Fertility Conference, Des Moines, IA, USA, 17–18 November 2016. [Google Scholar]
  31. Oliver, Y.M.; Gazey, C.; Fisher, J.; Robertson, M. Dissection of the contributing factors to the variable response of crop yield to surface applied lime in Australia. Agronomy 2021, 11, 829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tutivén, J.C.B.; Suarez, H.O.E.; Montúfar, G.H.V. Buffer capacity as a method to estimate the dose of liming in acid. Agro Product. 2022, 15, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Caires, E.F.; Haliski, A.; Bini, A.R.; Scharr, D.A. Surface liming and nitrogen fertilization for crop grain production under no-till management in Brazil. Eur. J. Agron. 2015, 66, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kibet, P.K.; Mugwe, J.N.; Korir, N.K.; Mucheru-Muna, M.W.; Ngetich, F.K. Granular and powdered lime improves soil properties and maize (Zea mays L.) performance in humic Nitisols of central highlands in Kenya. Heliyon 2023, 9, e17286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Scott, B.J.; Conyers, M.K.; Fisher, R.; Lill, W. Particle size determines the efficiency of calcitic limestone in amending acidic soil. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1992, 43, 1175–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. du Toit, D.J.J.; Swanepoel, P.A.; Hardie, A.G. 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, 3011–3024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. 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, Lincoln, NE, USA, 5 October 2010; Volume 72, pp. 191–196. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ianos, G.; Pusca, I.; Goian, M. Banat Soils—Part II—Natural Conditions and Fertility; Mirton: Timisoara, Romania, 1997; pp. 118–130. [Google Scholar]
  39. Brady, N.C.; Weil, R.R. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 14th ed.; Pearson Education Inc.: London, UK, 2008; pp. 423–444. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, X.; Tang, C.; Baldock, J.A.; Butterly, C.R.; Gazey, C. Long-term effect of lime application on the chemical composition of soil organic carbon in acid soils varying in texture and liming history. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2016, 52, 295–306. [Google Scholar]
  41. Olego, M.Á.; Quiroga, M.J.; Mendaña-Cuervo, C.; Cara-Jiménez, J.; López, R.; Garzón-Jimeno, E. Long-term effects of calcium-based liming materials on soil fertility sustainability and rye production as soil quality indicators on a Typic Palexerult. Processes 2021, 9, 1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Workineh, E.; Yihenew, G.S.; Eyasu, E.; Eyayu, M. 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, e13988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Miyazawa, M.; Pavan, M.A.; Ziglio, C.O.; Franchini, J.C. Reduction of Exchangeable Calcium and Magnesium in Soil with Increasing pH. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2001, 44, 149–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rahman, R.; Upadhyaya, H. Aluminium Toxicity and Its Tolerance in Plant: A Review. J. Plant Biol. 2021, 64, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Munyaneza, V.; Zhang, W.; Haider, S. Strategies for alleviating aluminum toxicity in soils and plants. Plant Soil 2024, 504, 167–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Whitley, A.E.; Moir, J.L.; Almond, P.C.; Moot, D.J. Soil pH and exchangeable aluminium in contrasting New Zealand high and hill country soils, Hill Country. Grassl. Res. Pract. Ser. 2016, 16, 169–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Caires, E.F.; Churka, S.; Barth, G.; Garbuio, F.J. Different limestone particle sizes for soil acidity correction, Ca and Mg supply and corn yield. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2006, 30, 275–286. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 08135 g001
Figure 1. Field experiment location.
Figure 1. Field experiment location.
Sustainability 17 08135 g001
Sustainability 17 08135 g002
Figure 2. Field experiences description. 3C-3 t ha−1 coarse, 3F-3 t ha−1 fine, 6C-6 t ha−1 coarse, 6F-6 t ha−1 fine, topsoil—TS (0–20 cm), subsoil—SS (20–40 cm).
Figure 2. Field experiences description. 3C-3 t ha−1 coarse, 3F-3 t ha−1 fine, 6C-6 t ha−1 coarse, 6F-6 t ha−1 fine, topsoil—TS (0–20 cm), subsoil—SS (20–40 cm).
Sustainability 17 08135 g002
Sustainability 17 08135 g004
Figure 4. PCA-Boxplot and Correlation coefficients matrix for TS. Abbreviations 6MAA-six months after application, 12MAA-12 months after application, 18MAA-18 months after application.
Figure 4. PCA-Boxplot and Correlation coefficients matrix for TS. Abbreviations 6MAA-six months after application, 12MAA-12 months after application, 18MAA-18 months after application.
Sustainability 17 08135 g004
Sustainability 17 08135 g005
Figure 5. PCA-Boxplot and Correlation coefficients matrix for SS. Abbreviations 6MAA-six months after application, 12MAA-12 months after application, 18MAA-18 months after application.
Figure 5. PCA-Boxplot and Correlation coefficients matrix for SS. Abbreviations 6MAA-six months after application, 12MAA-12 months after application, 18MAA-18 months after application.
Sustainability 17 08135 g005
Table 1. Main characteristics of Gleyic Fluvisol.
Table 1. Main characteristics of Gleyic Fluvisol.
CharacteristicHorizon Ap/A (0–20 cm)Horizon Eg (20–40 cm)
TextureLoamy sandClay loam
StructureGranularLamellar/weakly structured
Humus content2.82 ± 0.02%2.16 ± 0.03%
pH (H2O)5.07 ± 0.035.17 ± 0.04
CEC (cation exchange capacity)9.38 ± 0.06 cmol kg−19.17 ± 0.02 cmol kg−1
Caexch (exchangeable Ca)4.68 ± 0.03 cmol kg−14.64 ± 0.01 cmol kg−1
Mgexch (exchangeable Mg)0.77 ± 0.05 cmol kg−10.87 ± 0.05 cmol kg−1
Kexch (exchangeable K)0.145 ± 0.004 cmol kg−10.120 ± 0.007 cmol kg−1
Alexch (exchangeable Al)3.11 ± 0.21 cmol kg−12.62 ± 0.18 cmol kg−1
Table 2. pH, CEC and Alexch values before and after lime application. Abbreviations: BA-before application, 6MAA-six months after application, 12MAA-12 months after application, 18MAA-18 months after application; TS-topsoil, SS-subsoil; 3C-3 t ha−1 coarse, 3F-3 t ha−1 fine, 6C-6 t ha−1 coarse, 6F-6 t ha−1 fine.
Table 2. pH, CEC and Alexch values before and after lime application. Abbreviations: BA-before application, 6MAA-six months after application, 12MAA-12 months after application, 18MAA-18 months after application; TS-topsoil, SS-subsoil; 3C-3 t ha−1 coarse, 3F-3 t ha−1 fine, 6C-6 t ha−1 coarse, 6F-6 t ha−1 fine.
DateDose AndpHCEC (cmol kg−1)Alexch (cmol kg−1)
GranulationTSSSTSSSTSSS
BA3C5.08 ± 0.105.15 ± 0.049.4 ± 0.189.31 ± 0.123.10 ± 0.3102.79 ± 0.470
3F5.12r ± 0.025.24 ± 0.059.27 ± 0.039.24 ± 0.162.78 ± 0.2502.590 ± 0.140
6C5.03 ± 0.055.13 ± 0.039.42 ± 0.119.3 ± 0.253.300 ± 0.5902.330 ± 0.540
6F5.06 ± 0.125.17 ± 0.039.41 ± 0.199.26 ± 0.063.290 ± 0.3602.790 ± 0.630
6MAA3C5.62 ± 0.06 ab5.39 ± 0.02 cde9.71 ± 0.05 c9.62 ± 0.04 c1.98 ± 0.0502.43 ± 0.460
3F5.80 ± 0.06 a5.6 ± 0.12 abc9.92 ± 0.08 c9.93 ± 0.03 c1.74 ± 0.2902.29 ± 0.440
6C5.49 ± 0.04 abc5.21 ± 0.1 cde10.61 ± 0.06 a10.47 ± 0.24 a2.24 ± 0.5402.23 ± 0.190
6F5.62 ± 0.08 ab5.31 ± 0.08 de11.22 ± 0.20 b11.05 ± 0.16 b2.19 ± 0.4802.61 ± 0.370
12MAA3C6.47 ± 0.05 a5.43 ± 0.08 d10.21 ± 0.10 d10.12 ± 0.24 d0.43 ± 0.080 b1.98 ± 0.250 a
3F6.55 ± 0.03 a5.72 ± 0.04 c10.79 ± 0.27 c11.1 ± 0.15 abc0.31 ± 0.030 b1.84 ± 0.230 a
6C6.28 ± 0.04 b5.39 ± 0.06 d11.04 ± 0.15 a10.75 ± 0.08 abc0.44 ± 0.210 b1.94 ± 0.300 a
6F6.57 ± 0.03 a5.45 ± 0.07 d11.55 ± 0.13 bc11.44 ± 0.170.35 ± 0.130 b2.1 ± 0.210 a
18MAA3C6.39 ± 0.04 b5.64 ± 0.05 d10.88 ± 0.14 b10.05 ± 0.16 c0.08 ± 0.060 b1.71 ± 0.530 a
3F6.33 ± 0.05 b5.85 ± 0.06 c10.37 ± 0.08 c10.19 ± 0.19 c0.05 ± 0.010 b1.61 ± 0.260 a
6C6.6 ± 0.05 a5.36 ± 0.05 a12.43 ± 0.17 a12.21 ± 0.19 a-1.7 ± 0.400 a
6F6.63 ± 0.08 a5.6 ± 0.14 d12.09 ± 0.19 a12.13 ± 0.15 a-1.86 ± 0.460 a
Means (n = 3) (calculated at the same date: before application, 6 months before application, 12 months before application and 18 months before application) marked with the same letters show no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05), while means associated with different letters demonstrate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Exchangeable Ca, Mg and K values before and after lime application. Abbreviations: BA-before application, 6MAA-six months after application, 12MAA-12 months after application, 18MAA-18 months after application; TS-topsoil, SS-subsoil; 3C-3 t ha−1 coarse, 3F-3 t ha−1 fine, 6C-6t ha−1 coarse, 6F-6 t ha−1 fine.
Table 3. Exchangeable Ca, Mg and K values before and after lime application. Abbreviations: BA-before application, 6MAA-six months after application, 12MAA-12 months after application, 18MAA-18 months after application; TS-topsoil, SS-subsoil; 3C-3 t ha−1 coarse, 3F-3 t ha−1 fine, 6C-6t ha−1 coarse, 6F-6 t ha−1 fine.
DateDose AndCaexch (cmol kg−1)Mgexch (cmol kg−1)Kexch (cmol kg−1)
GranulationTSSSTSSSTSSS
BA3C4.70 ± 0.324.65 ± 0.390.85 ± 0.0850.740 ± 0.1230.151 ± 0.0220.122 ± 0.013
3F4.63 ± 0.504.62 ± 0.390.740 ± 0.0280.830 ± 0.0460.140 ± 0.0350.110 ± 0.019
6C4.71 ± 0.314.65 ± 0.370.750 ± 0.0510.840 ± 0.0620.150 ± 0.0230.129 ± 0.024
6F4.70 ± 0.304.65 ± 0.370.75 ± 0.0730.840 ± 0.1130.142 ± 0.0130.120 ± 0.011
6MAA3C5.82 ± 0.79 ab5.69 ± 0.44 ab0.97 ± 0.1740.77 ± 0.1470.212 ± 0.0170.159 ± 0.024
3F6.45 ± 0.56 ab5.45 ± 0.46 b0.82 ± 0.0600.89 ± 0.1020.225 ± 0.050.172 ± 0.021
6C6.47 ± 0.56 ab5.28 ± 0.51 b0.85 ± 0.0160.92 ± 0.1980.231 ± 0.0420.18 ± 0.095
6F6.95 ± 0.26 a5.96 ± 0.31 ab0.85 ± 0.0510.9 ± 0.1500.246 ± 0.0480.21 ± 0.069
12MAA3C7.25 ± 0.56 ab6.18 ± 0.71 b1.03 ± 0.0690.82 ± 0.1820.264 ± 0.0380.191 ± 0.017
3F7.66 ± 0.54 ab6.54 ± 0.28 b1.04 ± 0.060.93 ± 0.1150.267 ± 0.0270.213 ± 0.014
6C7.50 ± 0.49 ab6.20 ± 0.80 b1.1 ± 0.1010.99 ± 0.0910.283 ± 0.0540.22 ± 0.065
6F8.20 ± 0.38 a7.00 ± 0.52 b1.03 ± 0.1260.88 ± 0.1220.289 ± 0.0630.243 ± 0.046
18MAA3C8.10 ± 0.30 ab7.03 ± 0.30 bc1.12 ± 0.1880.91 ± 0.0580.286 ± 0.082 abc0.209 ± 0.023 c
3F7.46 ± 0.47 bc6.82 ± 0.20 c1.06 ± 0.0641.03 ± 0.0470.297 ± 0.029 abc0.215 ± 0.016 bc
6C8.20 ± 0.75 ab7.65 ± 0.43 bc1.15 ± 0.0681.02 ± 0.1270.334 ± 0.044 ab0.254 ± 0.04 abc
6F9.06 ± 0.26 a7.85 ± 0.43 bc1.1 ± 0.2021.01 ± 0.0160.36 ± 0.041 a0.274 ± 0.028 abc
Means (n = 3) (calculated at the same date: before application, 6 months before application, 12 months before application and 18 months before application) marked with the same letters show no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05), while means associated with different letters demonstrate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients (only moderate correlations 0.4 ≤ R < 0.7 and strong correlations 0.7 ≤ R ≤ 0.99 are taken into account).
Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients (only moderate correlations 0.4 ≤ R < 0.7 and strong correlations 0.7 ≤ R ≤ 0.99 are taken into account).
DateTS (Topsoil)SS (Subsoil)
6MAA (6months after application)Positive moderate correlations: Ca-CEC (R = 0.521); CEC-Al (R = 0.501)Positive moderate and strong correlations: Ca-K (R = 0.614), Mg-K (R = 0.888)
Negative moderate and strong correlations: pH-CEC (R = −0.442), pH-Al (R = −0.734)Negative moderate correlations: Al-Ca (R = −0.434), Al-Mg (R = −0.446)
pH-CEC (R = −0.537),
12MAA (12 months after application)Positive moderate correlation: pH-Ca (R = 0.440), Ca-K (R = 0.569), CEC-Ca (R = 0.569)Positive moderate and strong correlations: pH-Ca (R = 0.415), CEC-K (R = 0.452), CEC-Ca (R = 0.479), Ca-Mg (R = 0.840)
Negative moderate and strong correlations: pH-Al (R = −0.552), Ca-Al (R = −0.650), K-Al (R = −0.804)Negative moderate and strong correlations: pH-Al (R = −0.586), Ca-Al (R = −0.609), Mg-Al (R = −0.823)
18MAA (18 months after application)Positive moderate and strong correlations: Ca-Mg (R = 0.453), CEC-K (R = 0.487), Ca-K (R = 0.655), pH-ca (R = 0.657), pH-K (R = 0.662), CEC-Ca (R = 0.766), pH-CEC (R = 0.909)Positive moderate and strong correlations: Ca-Mg (R = 0.518), K-Mg (R = 0.699), CEC-K (R = 0.766), CEC-Ca (R = 0.813), Ca-K (R = 0.967)
Negative moderate correlations: Ca-Al (R = −0.468), CEC-Al (R = −0.622), Al-K (R = −0.658), pH-Al (R = −0.663)Negative moderate correlations: pH-Al (R = −0.401), K-Al (R = −0.445), Al-Mg (R = −0.621), pH-CEC (R = −0.669)
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

Lațo, A.; Berbecea, A.; Lațo, I.; Crista, F.; Crista, L.; Sala, F.; Radulov, I. Mitigating Soil Acidity: Impact of Aglime (CaCO3) Particle Size and Application Rate on Exchangeable Aluminium and Base Cations Dynamics. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8135. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188135

AMA Style

Lațo A, Berbecea A, Lațo I, Crista F, Crista L, Sala F, Radulov I. Mitigating Soil Acidity: Impact of Aglime (CaCO3) Particle Size and Application Rate on Exchangeable Aluminium and Base Cations Dynamics. Sustainability. 2025; 17(18):8135. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188135

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lațo, Alina, Adina Berbecea, Iaroslav Lațo, Florin Crista, Laura Crista, Florin Sala, and Isidora Radulov. 2025. "Mitigating Soil Acidity: Impact of Aglime (CaCO3) Particle Size and Application Rate on Exchangeable Aluminium and Base Cations Dynamics" Sustainability 17, no. 18: 8135. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188135

APA Style

Lațo, A., Berbecea, A., Lațo, I., Crista, F., Crista, L., Sala, F., & Radulov, I. (2025). Mitigating Soil Acidity: Impact of Aglime (CaCO3) Particle Size and Application Rate on Exchangeable Aluminium and Base Cations Dynamics. Sustainability, 17(18), 8135. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188135

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