Getachewetal 2019 SoilAcidityManagmnet PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/330039969
Soil Acidity Management
Book · January 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 1,156
3 authors:
Getachew Agegnehu Chilot Yirga

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
72 PUBLICATIONS 993 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 549 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Teklu Erkossa
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
80 PUBLICATIONS 647 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
AHI Project View project
Development of 15 years Soil Fertility and Health Research Strategy View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Getachew Agegnehu on 13 February 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SOIL ACIDITY
MANAGEMENT
SOIL ACIDITY
MANAGEMENT
SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT
የኢትዮጵያ የግብርና ምርምር ኢንስቲትዩት
1
©EIAR, 2019
Website: http://www.eiar.gov.et
Tel: +251-11-6462633
Fax: +251-11-6461294
P.O.Box: 2003
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Copyediting and Design: Abebe Kirub

Cover Design: Elizabeth Baslyos
ISBN: 9789994466597
Correct Citation
Getachew Agegnehu, Chilot Yirga , andTeklu Erkossa. 2019. Soil Acidity Management.
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
SOIL ACIDITY
MANAGEMENT
Our partner :
Getachew Agegnehu
Chilot Yirga
Teklu Erkossa
CONT
PREFACE ......................................................................................................... I
FOREWORD .................................................................................................... II
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
Literature Search and Data Processing .............................................................................................. 3
EXTENT OF SOIL ACIDITY ............................................................................... 4
MAJOR ACID SOILS ........................................................................................ 7
CAUSES OF SOIL ACIDITY ............................................................................. 8
Climate ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Acidic parent material furnishing aluminum and silicon ions ....................................................... 8
Application of ammonium fertilizers ................................................................................................... 9
Decomposition of organic matter ......................................................................................................... 9
Removal of elements through harvest of high yielding crops ...................................................... 9
Low buffer capacity from little clay and organic matter ............................................................... 11
Alumino-silicate minerals ..................................................................................................................... 11
EFFECT OF SOIL ACIDITY ON NUTRIENT AVAILABILITY AND CROP YIELD ........ 12
Types of soil acidity ................................................................................................................................ 12
Effect of soil acidity on nutrient availability and crop yield ........................................................ 13
MANAGEMENT OF SOIL ACIDITY ................................................................. 16
Liming ......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Amount of lime required .................................................................................................................... 18
Methods for estimating lime requirements .................................................................... 18
Length of time for lime to work ........................................................................................................ 19
Frequency of liming ............................................................................................................................. 20
Effect of lime on soil acidity and crop yield .................................................................................. 20
ENTS
Integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) ................................................................................... 24
Management of acid soils using acid tolerant crop varieties ..................................................... 25
Management of sub-soil acidity ......................................................................................................... 27
EXPERIENCE FROM BRAZIL ........................................................................ 31
Natural resource evaluation ................................................................................................................. 32
Soil and water management ................................................................................................................ 32
Production system ................................................................................................................................. 33
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 35
Benefits of amending acid soils with lime ........................................................................................ 35
Value chain and transaction costs of lime crushing ..................................................................... 39
Promotion of ISFM Approches ........................................................................................................... 43
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 45
REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 46
INDEX ........................................................................................................... 55
PREFACE
Ethiopia faces a wide range of issues in soil fertility that requires approaches beyond inorganic fertilizer
applications. The core soil-related constraints are soil erosion, soil acidification, depletion of organic matter,
deterioration of soil biophysical properties, and salinity. Soil acidity and associated low soil nutrient are
major constraints to crop production.
This publication provides ample information on causes, effects, and management of soil acidity, which is
based on a review and synthesis of a wide range of literature resources. The publication supports the need
for reclamation of soil acidity and significant improvements in soil fertility taking into account the country’s
diverse agro-ecologies, cropping systems, crop and soil types, and climate. The publication clearly indicates
that reclamation measures for soil acidity are critical to achieving the objectives of higher crop yields
contained in the strategies of the agricultural sector of the Government of Ethiopia and its development
partners. Attention to acid soil management, in which the soil acidity is controlled or monitored carefully,
has grown in research and practice. All of these situations require knowledge of soil fertility and plant
nutrient management.
The experience of Brazil also suggests that a sound knowledge and better understanding of chemical
characteristics of acid soils are vital for proper management for increased and sustainable crop production.
It also gives information on how to assess and manage soil acidity by farmers, agricultural advisers, soil
scientists, and agronomists.
The authors would like to acknowledge the German Technical Cooperation (GIZ) for supporting to
publish this handbook. Abebe Kirub is highly appreciated for editing and designing the publication. Our
appreciation also goes to Elizabeth Baslyos for managing the production of the publication.
Authors
SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT i

FOREWORD
Soil acidity is one of the major constraints affecting crop productivity. It affects about 43% of the cultivated
land in humid and sub-humid highlands of Ethiopia. To fulfill the increasing demand for food and raw
materials, soil health and fertility has remained as the major factor to increase and sustain crop yields. This
calls for proper use of knowledge of soil acidity and its amelioration to maximize agricultural productivity.
Farmers require simple and sustainable techniques to amend acid soils and improve yields of crops of their
choices. Recommendations on reclamation of acid soils need to change with new developments, such as
liming, use of acid-tolerant crop varieties, integrated soil fertility management, and better methods of
estimating lime requirements. Liming has played an important role in raising soil pH and enhancing crop
productivity. In Ethiopia, the gap between potential and actual yield is very wide because of soil acidity
and associated nutrient availability. Acidic soils are not responsive to the application of inorganic fertilizers
without amendments-it is simply wastage of resources. Thus, developing effective and efficient acid soil
management practices is indispensable for enhancing crop productivity and thereby sustaining yield gains.
The Natural Resources Management Research Directorate of the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Research has been conducting research on soil and water resources to enhance and maintain the overall
resource base, improve and sustain agricultural productivity in the country. This publication reviews the
causes and effects of soil acidity and its subsequent effect on soil fertility and crop yield. It also provides
important information on management options to amend soil acidity and improve the entire fertility of
soils, and other organic amendments that can be applied to remedy soil acidity to the desired pH level
and improve soil quality. Integrated acid soil management enhances the stability of yields and maximizes
nutrient use efficiency. The information contained in this publication unassumingly serves the interests of
policymakers, researchers, students, agronomists and users associated with acid soils management.
Mandefro Nigussie (PhD)

Director General
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR)
SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT ii

1
INTRODUCTION
Soil acidity is among the major land degradation problems, which affects ~50% of the world’s potentially
arable soils (Kochian et al., 2004). Naturally, soils tend to become acid because of the leaching mechanism
of carbonic acid (CO2 dissolved in rainwater). Acidification continues until a balance is reached between
removal and replacement. Basic cations such as calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) are removed through
leaching and crop harvest but at the same time these bases are replaced due to organic matter decomposition
and from the weathering of minerals (Abebe, 2007; Sanchez, 1977). Geologically, soil acidity increases as
rainfall increases. The availability of micronutrients such as Aluminum (Al), manganese (Mn) and iron
(Fe) increases as the pH decreases. The major causes for soils to become acid are high rainfall and leaching,
acidic parent material, organic matter decay, and harvest of high yielding crops (Eswaran et al., 1997b; Von
Uexküll and Mutert, 1995). Crop management practices, removal of organic matter, continuous application
of acid forming fertilizers and contact exchange between exchangeable hydrogen on root surfaces and the
bases in exchangeable form on soils, microbial production of nitric and sulfuric acids can also contribute to
soil acidity (Behera and Shukla, 2015; Fageria and Nascente, 2014). Roem and Berendse (2000) indicated
that increasing N: P and N: K ratios appear to have adverse effects on the abundance of endangered species
owing to soil acidification.
In the humid tropics, soils become acidic naturally due to leaching of basic cations under high rainfall
conditions. At pH below 5, Al is soluble in water and becomes the dominant ion in the soil solution. In acid
soils, excess Al primarily injures the root apex and inhibits root elongation (Sivaguru and Horst, 1998).
The poor root growth leads to reduced water and nutrient uptake, and as a result crops grown on acid soils
are constrained with poor nutrients and water availability. The net effect of which is reduced growth and
yield of crops (Marschner, 2011; Wang et al., 2006). Soil acidity is expanding in scope and magnitude in
Ethiopia, severely limiting crop production. For example, in some barley, wheat and faba bean growing
areas of central and southern Ethiopian highlands, farmers have shifted to producing oats which is more
tolerant to soil acidity than wheat and barley (Haile and Boke, 2009).
The main soil forming factors giving rise to increase in soil acidity involve climatic factors such as rainfall,
temperature, topographic and morphological features (Abebe, 2007; Brady and Weil, 2016). Nitisol/Oxisol
areas are the main soil classes dominated by soil acidity. In Ethiopia, these soils are predominantly acidic
and more than 80% of the landmasses originated from Nitisol are acidic. Some of the well-known areas
severely affected by soil acidity in Ethiopia include Gimbi, Nedjo, Hosanna, Sodo, Endibir, Chencha,
Hageremariam and Awi (Abebe, 2007; Sertsu and Ali, 1983). Generally, soils developed on non-calcareous
parent materials are inherently acidic. Acid Nitisols (pH <5.5) occur widely in Ethiopian highlands where
the rainfall intensity is high and crop cultivation has gone for many years (Agegnehu and Bekele, 2005a;
Zeleke et al., 2010).
SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 1

The management of acid soils is the major problem area in the humid tropics. The identification and
description of a problem area, however, does not justify a major research effort. An in-depth analysis of
our present knowledge of soil processes related to soil acidity and the management of acid soils is required
(Fageria and Baligar, 2008). Although many research related to the management of acid soils have been
conducted in South America , Africa (Eswaran et al., 1997a; Tully et al., 2015), Asia and Australia (Bai et
al., 2008; Eswaran et al., 1997b), there is no more detailed information and understanding of the problem
related to the management of acid soils and different management options. The focus of MAS should be
developing appropriate technologies for sustainable management of soil and water resources of acid soil
agro-ecosystems. Indiscriminate clearing, inappropriate land use and mismanagement of soil and water
resources are degrading the resource base. The loss of top soil means declining soil fertility, deterioration of
soil structure and lower productivity (Bronick and Lal, 2005; Lal, 2015). Intensive agriculture in such areas
is a viable and attractive alternative to farming the marginal lands of hillsides. Thus, management of acid
soils (MAS) needs to emphasize strategic research, integrating soil and water management with improved
germplasm to generate prototype and environmentally benign technologies for sustained food production
within a framework of appropriate socioeconomic and policy considerations. Such technologies need to
focus on organic matter depletion in acid soil, erosion control in highlands, and reclamation of acid soils.
Analysis of relationships among policies and land-use strategies needs to be made to assess the potential
impact of improved technologies on production and the environment (Lal, 2015; Thomas, 1995).
The ultimate objective of MAS should be increasing agricultural productivity to meet the needs of a
growing population, while maintaining or improving the natural resource base. Although the focus is to
alleviate biophysical constraints on soil and water resources, implementing improved technologies requires
appropriate socioeconomic and policy frameworks and active participation of farmers. Among the various
opportunities sought to increase agricultural development, exploitation of degraded lands devoid of crop
production as consequence of soil acidity is one of the area of priority to tackle. However, the research and
development approaches used so far gave little attention to this critical problem and unable to develop an
integrated solution to curb its progress. Now the extent of the problem has been realized and there is a
need to give emphasis to minimize its adverse impact and foster its contribution to food production and
natural resource management. The objective of this paper is, therefore, to review the cause and effects of
soil acidity and its mitigation measures achieved through research and development in the tropical agro-
ecosystems.

Literature Search and Data Processing
A literature search was conducted through the Web of Science (apps.webofknowledge.com), Google
Scholar (scholar.google.com), AGRIS (agris.fao.org), Research Gate (https://www.researchgate.net), the
Ethiopian Society of Soil Science (www.esss.org.et), and libraries of the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Research (EIAR) and National Soils Research Center. We searched the literature published up to 2017,
using “soil acidity”, “management of soil acidity”, “integrated soil fertility management”, and “liming” as
key terms. Although over 760 papers were retrieved, we focused on those reporting empirical results on
soil acidity and its management, and thus about 130 publications were used to develop this review paper.
Individual articles from the collected literature were grouped with respect to research objectives and
experimental types. Research objectives were further sub-categorized into articles focusing on organic
and inorganic nutrient sources, including lime, and other management practices such as acid tolerant crop
species and varieties. Crops tested for soil acidity tolerance in the field were cereals (grain crops, such as
wheat, maize, and barley), food legumes (faba bean and soybean), and root crops (potato). The information
collected from the published literature was organized into an archived database. For some data, statistical
analysis was performed using SAS-STAT software and graphical presentations were constructed using
Microsoft Excel 2010.

2
EXTENT OF SOIL ACIDITY
Soil quality is the ability of the soil to perform its functions in a sustainable manner (Lal, 2015). Soil
biophysical and chemical properties change with time and changes are accelerated through management
practices. Soil acidity is among the major land degradation problem worldwide. About 30% of the ice-free
soils (close to 4 billion ha) in the world are acidic (Sumner and Noble, 2003). Tropical and sub-tropical
regions as well as areas with moderate climatic conditions are mostly affected by soil acidity. Worldwide,
32% of all arable land is acid (Eswaran et al., 1997a). Almost two-third of all acidic soils in the world
belongs to Ultisols, Entisols and Oxisols (Rengel, 2011).
Oxisols (also referred to Ferralsols) occupy about 3.75 million km2 or 14.3% of the total land area of
Africa. About 10.76 million km2 or 35% of the total area of land in Africa is characterized by P fixation,
i.e. from slight to high fixation, and out of this 8.23 million km2 is typified by high P fixation (Eswaran
et al., 1997b). Similarly, tropical American soils are largely acid and low in reserves of nutrients available
to plants. The critical need to increase agricultural production causes great pressure on fragile soils and
natural resources. Such soils contain toxic levels of Al and Mn, are prone to compaction and erode easily
(Thomas, 1995). For example, the ‘Cerado’ (acid savanna soils) affects an area of 207 million ha in Brazil
alone (Fageria and Nascente, 2014; Thomas, 1995). The Oxisols (dusk red Latosols, dark red Latosols, red
yellow Latosols, and yellow Latosols) are the dominant soils, with about 98 million ha (Thomas, 1995). They
are very weathered deep, acid soils, with a low availability of nutrients, but with good physical properties
due to the predominance of 1:1 clay minerals, and Fe and Al oxides in the fraction (de Sant-Anna et al.,
2017).
Land degradation is a critical challenge, substantially affecting agricultural productivity and rural
livelihoods in Ethiopia (Yirga and Hassan, 2010), especially serious in the highlands, which is 44% of the
total area of the country where human and livestock pressure is high (Amede et al., 2001). It is home to 90%
of the total human population; 95% of the land under crops and 75% of livestock are also located in this
area (Amede et al., 2001). The impact of land degradation has put at risk the livelihoods, economic well-
being, and nutritional status of several people in the country (Tadesse, 2001). Land degradation not only
reduces the productive capacity of agricultural land, rangelands and forest resources but also considerably
impacts on biodiversity (Akhtar et al., 2011). It adversely affects the ecological integrity and productivity
of large areas of land, or landscapes under human use. Soil acidity and associated low nutrient availability
are key constraints to crop production in acidic soils, mainly Nitisols of Ethiopian highlands (Zeleke et al.,
2010). Haile et al. (2017) estimated that ~43% of the Ethiopian cultivated land is affected by soil acidity).
The extent of soil acidity in Ethiopia is shown in Figure 1. About 28.1% of these soils are dominated by
strong acid soils (pH 4.1-5.5) (ATA, 2014). Strongly acidic soils are usually infertile because of the possible
Al and Mn toxicities, and Ca, Mg, P, and molybdenum (Mo) deficiencies (Barber, 1984).

Figure 1. Extent and distribution of soil acidity (ATA, 2014) in Ethiopia
The clay mineralogy, pH, presence of oxides and hydroxides of Fe and Al and content of amorphous
materials seem to be the dominant factors affecting P sorption. In the case of highly weathered soils of
Chencha, Nedjo and Endibir, where the dominant minerals are Gibbsite, Goethite, Kaolinite and desilicated
amorphous materials, P sorption is high to very high (Table 1). The mechanism of phosphate adsorption
is considered to be mainly through replacement of hydroxyl ions on crystal lattices, and hydrated Fe and
Al by phosphate ions (Adams, 1990; Velayutham, 1980). Phosphorus sorption capacity increases with
increasing acidity (decreasing pH value). For instance, soils from rift valley of Ethiopia had the lowest P
sorption, which are the least weathered (with a pH value of 7.8). In contrast, the soil from the highlands
of Ethiopia (e.g. Chencha) had the highest P sorption, which has a pH of 4.5, and has higher content
of gibbsite, goethite and amorphous materials than other sites except Endibir for amorphous materials
(Sertsu and Ali, 1983).
According to Duffera and Robarge (1999), between 70 and 75% of the reddish-brown agricultural soils of
the Ethiopian highlands are highly deficient in P. Bekele and Höfner (1993) reported that yields could be
doubled, in some cases tripled, with P application. However, the high costs of high grade, water-soluble
P fertilizers, coupled with the high fixing capacities of these soils for P, caused agronomic and economic
constraints to crop production. Alisols, Nitisols and Fluvisols are among the dominant acidic soils in the
southern region, including Hosanna, Sodo, Chencha, and Hagereselam. A number of adverse effects such
as loss of crop diversity, decline in the yield of existing crops, lack of response to N and P fertilizers, and
complete failure of crop yields were reported. Yields of barley, wheat, and other crops are extremely low
under application of optimum rate of NP fertilizers on Alisols of Chencha (Haile and Boke, 2011).

Table 1. Amount of P sorbed by some Ethiopian soils at the standard solution P of 0.2 mg kg-1
Sorbed P
Fe2O3 Exch. Al Amorphous Gibbsite and

Soil origin pH
(%) (cmol (+) kg-1) material (%) Goethite (%)
mg kg-1 kg ha-1
Chencha 1200 2400 4.5 11.7 0.40 51 10
Nedjo 950 1900 4.4 16.1 6.16 32 12
Endibir 800 1600 4.8 11.7 1.69 61 0
Melko 600 1200 5.2 15.8 0.37 ND ND
Bako 400 900 6.6 14.4 0.02 41 15
Melkassa 150 300 7.8 0.20 Tr. ND ND
ND: Not determined; Tr: Trace. Source: Sertsu and Ali (1983).

3
MAJOR ACID SOILS
The predominant soil associations are Dystric Nitisols and Orthic Acrisols with inclusions of Dystric
Cambisols and Lithosols on the steepest slopes (Abebe, 1998, 2007). Eutric Nitisol is the dominant soil
type as Nitisol in the central highlands of Ethiopia where soil acidity is the problem. Nitisol is the major
soil unit that covers the western part of Ethiopia (Abebe, 2007). The soil develops on a wide range of parent
materials, such as volcanic, metamorphic, granitic, and felsic materials, sandstones and limestone. The soil
occurs on the gently sloping to steep land, on flat and undulating lands, usually with other types of soil
units such as Gleysols or Vertisols. On the other hand, the steeper slops are usually covered with shallow
soils such as Cambisols and Luvisols (Abebe, 1998, 2007). Nitisols are reddish brown to red clay, which
have been formed by strong weathering under humid conditions, which are well drained and have a strong
tendency to erosion, and their fertility depends on the base saturation and is valued to be medium to high.
Nitisols have very good potential for agriculture; they have a stable structure and a high water storage
capacity. Workability on these soils does not create any problem even shortly after precipitation or in the
dry season, land can be prepared without difficulty. These soils have a rather low CEC for their clay content
and available P are usually very low (Abebe, 2007).
Nitisols have three sub-soil units, i.e. Eutric, Dystric and Humic Nitisols. Dystric Nitisol contains relatively
high organic matter content in the top layer and high base saturation in the soil profile, especially in the
A and B-horizons, indicating the high fertility status of the soil. Eutric Nitisol has red to dusky red lower
laying horizon, with similar fertility status to that of the Dystric Nitisol. Nitisols are found in areas where
the slope is between 2-16% on undulating plains, low plateaus, gentle hills and mountains side slopes of
all areas. The problem of acidity is closely related to these soil types due to their geographical location,
intensive cultivation, and inappropriate farm management practices (Abebe, 2007).
Acrisols are generally developed from acidic parent material, which occur in the high rainfall areas associated
with Nitisols and Cambisols. These soils are found on moderate to steep slopes. They are moderately suited
for agriculture, partly they are cultivated, and partly they are left under natural vegetation for grazing
purposes. Base saturation is generally low, and pH value is generally below neutrality. Acrisols are the
results of strong weathering and depletion of bases by leaching (Abebe, 1998).

4
CAUSES OF SOIL ACIDITY
Soil acidification is a complex set of process resulting in the formation of an acid soil. In the broadest sense,
it can be considered as the summation of natural and anthropogenic processes that lower down the pH of
soil solution (Krug and Frink, 1983). Inefficient use of nitrogen is one of the causes of soil acidification,
followed by the export of alkalinity in produce (Guo et al., 2010). Ammonium based fertilizers are major
contributors to soil acidification. Ammonium nitrogen is readily converted to nitrate and hydrogen ions in
the soil. It has been recognized that there are several causes for soils to become acidic.
Climate
It has been well recognized that in soils of dry region a large supply of bases is usually present, since little
water passes through the soil. With an increase in rainfall, the contents of soluble salts are reduced to a
low level, and any calcium carbonate and gypsum present are removed. With further increase in rainfall,
a point is reached at which the rate of removal of bases exceeds the rate of their liberation from non-
exchangeable forms. Wet climates have a greater potential for acidic soils (Sanchez, 1977; Tadesse, 2001).
Over time, excessive rainfall leaches the soil profile’s basic elements (Ca, Mg, Na, and K) that prevent soil
acidity. High rainfall leaches soluble nutrients such as Ca and Mg which are specifically replaced by Al
from the exchange sites (Brady and Weil, 2016).
Acidic parent material furnishing aluminum and silicon ions
Rocks containing an excess of quartz or of silica as compared to their content of basic materials or of basic
elements are categorized as acid rocks; for example, granite and rhyolite. When rocks that are deficient in
bases are disintegrated or decomposed in the process of the accumulation of soil material is acidic, despite
no loss of base during the process of soil formation. Soils that develop from weathered granite are likely to
be more acidic than those developed from shale or limestone. There are large areas of siliceous and sandy
soils produced from acid parent rocks, which have always been in need of lime. However, most acid soils
have been developed as a result of leaching losses and crop removal of bases (Brady and Weil, 2016).
The inherent fertility of Ethiopian soils developed under varied parent materials and climate varies
depending on the origin and composition of the materials (Table 2). For instance, soils developed from
sandstones are poor sandy soils, whereas the inherent soil fertility developed over basic parent materials
is relatively high (Woldeab and Mamo, 1991). In alluvium plains, alluvium becomes rich and fertile if it
originates from relatively young materials, and less fertile if it originates from highly weathered surfaces.
The pH values in the majority of soils are in the range of 4.5 to 6.5. In most cases, soils found in high-
altitude areas of the country are acidic in reaction, poor in exchangeable cations and low in base saturation
(Bekele and Höfner, 1993; Regassa and Agegnehu, 2011).

Application of ammonium fertilizers
Continuous application of inorganic fertilizer without soil test, in the end, can increase soil acidity. The
use of N fertilizers in ammonia form is a source of acidification (Fageria and Nascente, 2014; Guo et
al., 2010). When ammonium fertilizers are applied to the soil, acidity is produced, but the form of N
removed by the crop is similar to that found in fertilizer. Hydrogen is added in the form of ammonia-based
fertilizers (NH4), urea-based fertilizers [(CO (NH2)2], and as proteins (amino acid) in organic fertilizers.
Transformation of such sources of N fertilizers into nitrate (NO3) releases hydrogen ions (H+) to create
soil acidity. In reality, N fertilizer increases soil acidity by increasing crop yields, thereby increasing the
amount of basic elements being removed. Hence, application of fertilizers containing NH4 or even adding
large quantities of organic matter to a soil can ultimately increase soil acidity and lower pH (Guo et al.,
2010; Hue, 1992).
Decomposition of organic matter
The decomposition of organic matter produces H+ ions, which are responsible for acidity. The development
of soil acidity from the decomposition of organic matter is insignificant in the short-term. Large quantities
of carbonic acid produced by microorganisms and higher plants including through other physicochemical
and biological processes are the causes of soil acidity although the effect from its dissociation is relatively
small as most of it is lost to the atmosphere as CO2 (Kochian et al., 2004; Paul, 2014). Soil organic matter
or humus contains reactive carboxylic, enolic and phenolic groups that behave as weak acids. During
their dissociation they release H+ ions. Further, the formation of CO2 and organic acids during the
decomposition also result in replacement of bases on exchange complex with H+ ions (Somani et al., 1996).
Removal of elements through harvest of high yielding crops
Removal of elements, especially from soils with small reservoir of bases due to the harvest of high
yielding crops is responsible for soil acidity. When soils are worked mechanically and crops are grown the
balance is disturbed and the soils become more acid. This is the result of base cations being removed with
crops and the simultaneous increase of leaching which takes place when soils are disturbed and worked
(Brady and Weil, 2016; Fageria, 2009). Harvest of high-yielding crops plays the most significant role in
increasing soil acidity. During growth, crops absorb basic elements such as Ca, Mg, and K to satisfy their
nutritional requirements. As crop yields increase, more of these lime-like nutrients are removed from the
field. Compared to the leaf and stem portions of the plant, grain contains minute amounts of these basic
nutrients. Therefore, harvesting high-yielding forages such as Bermuda grass and alfalfa affects soil acidity
more than harvesting grain does (Fageria and Baligar, 2008; Rengel, 2011).
Changes in land use and management practices often modify most soil physical, chemical and biological
properties to the extent reflected in agricultural productivity (Gebrekidan and Negassa, 2006). Previous
studies indicated that soil properties deteriorate due to the conversion of native forest and range land into
cultivated land (Bore and Bedadi, 2015; Lemenih et al., 2005). Such practices result in an increase in bulk
density, decline in soil organic matter (SOM) content and CEC (Conant et al., 2003), which in turn reduce
the fertility status of a certain soil type. In addition, change in land use associated with deforestation,
continuous cultivation, overgrazing, and mineral fertilization can cause significant variations in soil
properties and reduction of output (Kang and Juo, 1986; Lemenih et al., 2005).

Table 2. Physicochemical properties of some typical soils in Ethiopia
cmol (+) kg-1

OM P Silt
Clay
Parent material Soil type pH (%) N (%) (mg kg-1) (%)
Na K Ca Mg (%)
Trachy-basalt and
Chromic Luvisol 5.5 3.8 0.22 3.6 0.6 1.7 11.8 2.6 38 45
pyroclastic
Olivine basalt and

Eutric Nitisol 5.4 2.3 0.17 3.5 0.02 1.6 9.1 4.1 66 28
pyroclastic
Weathered basalt Pellic Vertisol 6.8 2.3 0.14 9.9 0.6 2.7 40.0 9.0 64 24
Pellic Vertisol, sodic

Colluvium alluvium 8.2 2.3 0.10 2.2 5.5 1.7 36.5 6.8 49 25
phase
Volcanic ash Haplic Phaeozem 6.5 2.6 0.23 11.9 0.8 1.5 20.0 8.3 23 41
10
OM: Organic matter; *Olsen method. Source: Woldeab and Mamo (1991)
Studies have emphasized the negative effect of land use or land cover change on soil properties. For
example, the study of Agoumé and Birang (2009) on the impact of land use systems on some physical
and chemical soil properties of an Oxisol in the humid forest zone of southern Cameroon showed that
land use systems significantly affected the clay, silt and sand fractions. Sand and silt decreased with soil
depth, but clay increased. Soil pH, total N, organic carbon, available P, exchangeable cations, exchangeable
Al, effective cation exchange capacity and Al saturation significantly differed with the land use systems.
Al saturation increased with soil depth, and the top soils presented acidity problems while the sub soils
exhibited Al toxicity. Likewise, Chimdi et al. (2012) indicated that a decline in total porosity in the soils of
grazing and cultivated land in comparison to soils of forest land was attributed to a reduction in pore size
distribution and the magnitude of SOM loss which in turn depends on the intensity of soil management
practices. Bore and Bedadi (2015) also reported that the amount of SOM in grazing and cultivated lands
has depleted by 42.6 and 76.5%, respectively, compared to the forest soil.
Low buffer capacity from little clay and organic matter
Another source of soil acidity is contact exchange between exchangeable hydrogen on root surfaces and the
bases in exchangeable form on soils. Where leaching is limited, microbial production of nitric and sulfuric
acids also occurs. The lime requirement of acid soil is related not only to the soil pH but also to the buffer
or CEC. The buffering or CEC is related to the amount of clay and organic matter present, the larger the
amount, the greater the buffer capacity. Soils with higher buffer capacity (clayey, peats), if acid, have high
lime requirement. Coarse textured soils with little or no organic matter will have low buffer capacity and,
even if acid, will have low lime requirement. The indiscriminate use of lime on coarse textured soil could
lead to over-liming injury (Somani et al., 1996). Therefore, the relationship between pH and percent base
saturation is important for soils representative of 1:1 and 2:1 clays, because a much higher base saturation
was required to raise the pH to 6 with montmorillonite than with kaolinite. For instance, soils with 2:1
clays (fine, mixed, and thermic Vertic (Hapludults) had to be 80% base saturated to give the same pH as the
soils with 1:1 clays (fine, loamy, siliceous thermic Typic Hapludult) at 40% base saturation as determined
by the sum of cations, pH 8.2 CEC method (Kamprath and Adams, 2010).
Alumino-silicate minerals
The principal hydrous oxides of the soils are Al and Fe that occur in amorphous, crystalline or colloidal
forms as coating on other mineral particles or as inter-layers in clay mineral structures. When the pH of
the soil decreases, these oxides get into solution and through stepwise hydrolysis release H+ ions resulting
into further acidification (Abebe, 2007; Somani et al., 1996). Soil acidity limits plant growth not only
because of the deficiencies of P, Mo, Ca, Mg, etc. but also due to toxicities of Al, Mn and H ions. Toxicities
of these elements have been recognized as one of the most common cause of yield reduction in acid soils.
Acid soil toxicity is not a single factor but a complex of factors that may affect the plant growth through
different physiological and biochemical pathways. Toxicities of Al3+, Mn2+ and low pH (H+ toxicity)
are important growth limiting factors associated with acid soil infertility. These toxicity factors may act
independently and/or together to affect plant growth (Sanchez, 1977; Somani, 1996).

5
EFFECTS OF SOIL ACIDITY ON NUTRIENT
AVAILABILITY AND CROP YIELD
Types of soil acidity
In acid soils, there are mainly two types of acidity
Active acidity: This occurs because of H+ ion concentration of the soil solution that is attributable to
carbonic acid (H2CO3), water-soluble organic acids and hydrolytically acid salts. It can be determined by
measuring the pH value of a water suspension or extract from a soil. It bears directly on the development
of plants and soil microorganisms.
Exchange acidity: This refers to those H and Al ions adsorbed on soil colloids. There exist an equilibrium
between the adsorbed and soil solution ions (i.e. active and exchange acidity), permitting the ready
movement from one form to another (Figure 2).
Such an equilibrium state is of great practical significance since it provides the basis for the soils buffering
capacity or its resistance to change in pH. Since the adsorbed H and Al ions move into the soil solution
then its acidity is also referred to as adsorbed or potential or reserve acidity. Reactions of bases (e.g. lime)
added to the soil occur first with the active acidity in soil solution. Subsequently, the pool of reserve acidity
gradually releases acidity into the active form (Somani, 1996).
Figure 2. Equilibrium relationship between exchange (reserve) and solution (active) acidity, and acid or
base inputs.
Source: (Somani, 1996)

Effect of soil acidity on nutrient availability and crop yield
The solubility and availability of important nutrients to plants is closely related to the pH of the soil
(Marschner, 2011; Somani, 1996). Soil pH affects the availability of plant nutrients. Effects of high acidity
in a soil are shortage of available Ca, P and Mo on the one hand, and excess of soluble Al, Mn and other
metallic ions on the other (Agegnehu and Sommer, 2000a; Somani, 1996). Acid soil limits the availability
of crucial nutrients such as P, K, Ca and Mg, and affects the movement of soil organisms plants need to stay
healthy. If a particular soil is too acidic for plants to grow healthy, it is necessary to raise the pH by applying
an alkaline substance.
Soil acidity and associated low nutrient availability is one of the constraints to crop production on acid
soils (Bekele and Höfner, 1993; Beyene, 1987; Mamo and Haque, 1991). If a pH of a soil is less than 5.5
phosphate can readily be rendered unavailable to plant roots as it is the most immobile of the major plant
nutrients (Agegnehu and Sommer, 2000b; Sanchez, 1977), and yields of crops grown in such soils are very
low. In soil pH between 5.5 and 7, P fixation is low and its availability to plants is higher. Toxicity and
deficiency of Fe and Mn may be avoided if the soil reaction is held within a soil pH range of 5.5 to 7; this
pH range seems to promote the most ready availability of plant nutrients (Somani, 1996). The quantity of
P in soil solution needed for optimum growth of crops lies in the range of 0.13 to 1.31 kg P ha-1 as growing
crops absorb about 0.44 kg P ha-1 per day (Lawlor, 2004). The labile fraction in the topsoil layer is in the
range of 65 to 218 kg P ha-1, which could replenish soil solution P (Lawlor, 2004).
Phosphate sorption (the loss of orthophosphate from soil solution to solid phases) takes place by specific
adsorption and precipitation reactions (Sample et al., 1980; Sanchez and Uehara, 1980). Specific adsorption
occurs when P anions replace the hydroxyl groups on the surface of Al and Fe oxides and hydrous oxides,
while precipitation reaction occurs when insoluble P compounds form and precipitate (Parfitt, 1978). At
very low soil pH (≤4.5–5.0), addition of P to soils can result in precipitation of Al and Fe phosphates,
whereas at high pH (>6.5) insoluble calcium phosphates can be formed (Haynes, 1984). In many situations,
however, specific adsorption reactions are the main regulators of soil solution P concentrations (Parfitt,
1978). Specific adsorption of P is affected by many factors including pH, ionic strength of the background
electrolyte and anion competition (Barrow, 1984).
The correct pH depends on the crop being produced as crops differ in their susceptibility to soil acidity.
For example, Uchida and Hue (2000) indicated that food and forage legumes, such as beans, peas, and
desmodium forage, possess nodules on their roots where bacteria can take N from the air and change it to a
form usable by the plant. However, some strains of the bacteria do not thrive at pH values below 6, thus pH
6 or above is best for the legumes that require those particular strains of the bacteria. In contrast, potato
scab disease is more prevalent when soil pH is above 5.5; thus, the recommended soil pH for optimum
growth of potato is 5.0 to 5.5, although potato plants can grow well at higher pH. Whereas, plants such as
azalea and camelia grow well only at pH values below 5.5 and suffer from iron (Fe) and Mn deficiencies
at higher pH. The pH of soils for best nutrient availability and crop yields is considered to be between 6.0
and 7.0, which is the most preferred range by common field crops (Duncan, 2002). A summary of crop
relation to soil reaction is given in Table 3. Cotton, alfalfa, oats and cabbage do not tolerate acid soils and
are considered suitable to neutral soils with a pH range of 7-8. Wheat, barley, maize, clover and beans grow

well on neutral to mildly acid soils (pH 6-7). Grasses tend to tolerate acidic soils better than legumes, so
liming to pH 5.5 may control acidity without limiting production. Legumes, however, need more Ca and
perform best between pH 6.5 and 7.5. Among crops tolerant to acid soils are millet, sorghum, sweet potato,
potato, tomato, flax, tea, rye, carrot and lupine (Somani, 1996). Poor plant vigor, uneven crop growth, poor
nodulation of legumes, stunted root growth, persistence of acid-tolerant weeds, increased incidence of
diseases and abnormal leaf colors are major symptoms of increased soil acidity which may lead to reduced
yields (Kang and Juo, 1986; Somani, 1996). Increased acidity is likely to lead to poor plant growth and
water use efficiency because of nutrient deficiencies and imbalance, and or induced Al and Mn toxicity.
High concentration of Al also affects uptake and translocation of nutrients (especially immobilization of P
in the roots) (Baquy et al., 2017; Fageria and Baligar, 2008), cell division, respiration, nitrogen mobilization
and glucose phosphorylation of plants (Fox, 1979; Haynes and Mokolobate, 2001).
Table 3. Crop relation to soil reaction (pH)
Optimum pH for Optimum pH for

Crop Crop
best growth best growth
Alfalfa 7.0-8.0 Sugar beet 5.8-7.0
Cotton 7.0-8.0 Millets 5.5-7.5
Oats 7.0-8.0 Sorghum 5.5-7.5
Cabbage 6.0-6.5 Sweet potato 4.5-6.5
Wheat 6.0-7.0 Potato 4.5-6.5
Barley 6.0-7.0 Tomato 5.5-7.5
Maize 6.0-7.2 Deciduous fruits 6.5-7.5
Clover 6.0-7.0 Mango 5.0-6.0
Faba bean 6.0-8.0 Papaya 6.0-6.5
Field pea 6.0-7.0 Avocado 5.0-8.0
Chickpea 7.0-8.0 Pineapple 4.5-6.5
Lentil 6.5-8.0 Flax 5.0-7.0
Soybean 6.2-7.0 Tea 4.0-6.0
Beans 5.5-8.0 Carrot 5.5-7.0
Onion 5.8-6.5 Rye 5.0-7.5
Sugarcane 5.0-8.5 Lupin 4.5-6.0
Source: Somani (1996)

Soil acidity, at pH 5.5 or lower, can inhibit the growth of sensitive plant species, though it has little effect
on insensitive species even at pH lower than 4. This pH effect is compounded and often surpassed by Al
and Mn toxicity, Ca and Mo deficiency (Baquy et al., 2017; Fox, 1979; Somani, 1996). Roots are commonly
the first organs to show injury owing to acid due to Al toxicity; they become stunted, stubbly. Stunted
roots have difficulty of getting immobile nutrients, which are frequently deficient in acid soils. The plant’s
ability to extract water and nutrients, particularly immobile nutrients such as P, is severely reduced (Fox et
al., 1979). Plants are consequently very susceptible to drought and are prone to nutrient deficiencies. The
red discolorations often associated with P deficiency are common, micronutrient deficiency symptoms
are frequently observed and, due to the direct antagonistic effect of Al on Mg absorption, Mg deficiency
symptoms provide a valuable indicator of acidity problems (Marschner, 2011). Exchangeable Al is the
dominant cation associated with soil acidity. The damage of the root growth of sensitive crop species
is caused when Al in the soil solution exceeds 1 mg kg-1. This often happens when 60% or more of the
exchangeable capacity of the soil is occupied by Al. Damage may also be caused by Mn, which becomes
very soluble at pH less than 5.5 (Somani, 1996).

6
MANAGEMENT OF SOIL ACIDITY
The management of acid soils should aim at improving the production potential by the addition of
amendments to correct the acidity and manipulate the agricultural practices to obtain optimum crop
yields. The soil’s acid/alkali balance (measured by pH) of the soil is very important in maintaining optimum
availability of soil nutrients and minimizing potential toxicities. For example, at a very low pH Al may
become more soluble and can be taken up by roots - becoming toxic, P may become unavailable and Ca
levels can be low. At high pH, Fe and other micronutrients (except Mo) are rendered unavailable since they
are locked up as insoluble hydroxides and carbonates (Somani, 1996).
The microscopic clay particles and humus in soils are so tiny that they can develop an electrical charge.
The tiny clay and humus particles in the soil attract oppositely charged minerals dissolved in water that
surrounds them. Clay and humus have a net negative charge, and thus, they attract positively charged
minerals, i.e. cations that are dissolved in water. Since soils attract mostly positive charged cations, these
are the main concerns. Some of these cations may be essential plant nutrients such as K+, Ca+2, Mg+2,
and ammonium (NH4+). There is an abundance of H+ and Al+3 in acid soils. These cations can exchange
for one another on the surface of clay and humus, a process known as cation exchange (Brown et al., 2008).
The more clay and the more organic matter (humus) in the soil, the more of these cations the soil can hold,
and the higher the soil’s CEC. This is why soils high in clay and high in organic matter are generally more
fertile than sandy soils; they have a higher CEC (Kamprath and Adams, 2010; Somani et al., 1996).
Liming
Generally, pH 7.0 represents neutrality, and values above this point represent alkaline conditions while
values below 7.0 denote acid conditions. Both strongly alkaline and strongly acid conditions are generally
detrimental to plant life (Haynes and Naidu, 1998; Rengel, 2011). This is all true, but there are few chemical
reactions in nature that occur at neutrality. Liming is the application of calcium- and magnesium-rich
materials to soil in various forms, including marl, chalk, limestone, or hydrated lime. It is a desirable
practice where soil is highly acidic and multi-cropping involving acid sensitive crops is adopted. Lime, in
its most pure form, is made up largely of Ca. Calcium carbonate is a base, and therefore, has a neutralizing
effect on acid (Edmeades et al., 2003; Kamprath, 1984). Lime improves base saturation and availability of
Ca and Mg. Fixation of P and Mo is reduced by inactivating the reactive constituents. Toxicity arising from
excess soluble Al, Fe and Mn is corrected and thereby root growth is promoted and uptake of nutrients is
improved. Liming also stimulates microbial activity and enhances N fixation and N mineralization and
hence, legumes are highly benefited from liming (Fageria and Baligar, 2008; Pilbeam and Morley, 2007).
However, over-liming can considerably reduce the bioavailability of micronutrients, such as Zn, Cu, Fe,
Mn and B, which decreases with increasing pH (Fageria and Baligar, 2008). This can produce plant nutrient
deficiencies, particularly that of Fe.

Soil acidity limits or reduces crop production primarily by impairing root growth thereby reducing nutrient
and water uptake (Marschner, 2011). Soil acidity converts available soil nutrients into unavailable forms
and soils affected by soil acidity are poor in their basic cations, such as Ca, K, Mg, and some micronutrients,
which are essential to crop growth and development (Tisdale et al., 1993; Wang et al., 2006). The extent
of damage posed by soil acidity varies from place to place depending on several factors, and there are
occasions where total crop failure occurs due to soil acidity. Thus, the main effects of liming are increasing
the available P through inactivation or precipitation of exchangeable and soluble Al and Fe hydroxides,
increase in pH, available P, exchangeable cations and percent base saturation, and enhancing the growth
density and length of root hairs for uptake of P (Marschner, 2011).
Liming is a major and effective practice to overcome soil acidity constraints and improve crop production
on acid soils. Lime is called the foundation of crop production or ‘‘workhorse’’ in acid soils (Fageria and
Baligar, 2008). Lime requirement for crops grown on acid soils is determined by the quality of liming
material, status of soil fertility, crop species and varieties, crop management practices, and economic
considerations. Soil pH, base saturation, and Al saturation are important acidity indices that are used as
a basis for determination of lime rates for reducing crop constraints on acid soils. Besides, crop responses
to lime rate are vital tools for making liming recommendations for crops grown on acid soils (Fageria and
Baligar, 2008; Rengel, 2011).
Soil acidity can be corrected easily by liming the soil, or adding basic materials to neutralize the acid
present. The most economical liming materials and relatively easy to manage are calcitic or dolomitic
agricultural limestone (Pilbeam and Morley, 2007; Rengel, 2011). Since these products are natural they
are relatively insoluble in water, agricultural limestone must be very finely ground so it can be thoroughly
mixed with the soil and allowed to react with soil’s acidity. Calcitic limestone is mostly calcium carbonate
(CaCO3). Dolomitic limestone is made from rocks containing a mixture of Ca and Mg carbonates (CaCO3
+ MgCO3). Other liming materials which are less frequently used include burned lime (CaO), hydrated
lime [Ca(OH)2] and wood ashes (Adams, 1990; Tisdale et al., 1993).
The effectiveness of lime material is expressed by the chemical guarantee as CaCO3, CaO or elemental Ca
and by the particle size of the liming materials. The less the particle sizes of the liming material the higher
the contact surface of the particle to react with the soil (Somani, 1996). The reaction of lime or calcium
carbonate with an acidic soil is described in Figure 3, which shows acidity (H+) on the surface of the soil
particles. As lime dissolves in the soil, Ca moves to the surface of soil particles, replacing the acidity. The
acidity reacts with the carbonate (CO3) to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O); the result is a soil
that is less acidic, with a higher pH (Adams, 1990; Somani et al., 1996). The rise in pH of soil is associated
with the presence of basic cations (Ca2+) and anions (CO3-2) in lime that are able to exchange H+ from
exchange sites to form H2O + CO2. Cations occupy the space left behind by H+ on the exchange leading
to the rise in pH (Abebe, 2007; Fageria et al., 2007).

Acid soil + Lime = Netural clay + Water
Carbon dioxide
Aluminum oxide
Al H Ca H
Ca
H H H H20
Ca
+ CO2
H Al Al Ca
Al2O3
Ca
H
H Ca Ca
Figure 3. Neutralizing acidic soil through lime
Amount of lime required
Although harvested crops remove copious lime-like elements each year, the soil pH does not change much
from year to year, meaning the soil is buffered, or resistant to change (Somani et al., 1996). The most
important source of buffering in an acidic soil is the exchange of the lime-like elements–mostly calcium–
attached to the surface of soil particles. As the crop removes these elements from the soil solution, attached
elements move from the soil particles to replenish the solution. Over time, reserve elements are depleted
enough to cause acidity. When lime is applied, the size of the reservoir or buffering capacity need to be
considered. Typically, clay soils have a larger reservoir than sandy ones, which means that they require
more lime to achieve a favorable pH (Fageria a nd Baligar, 2008; Rengel, 2011). Attention should be paid
to the buffer index or pH on the soil test because it is an indirect estimate of the soil reservoir’s size.
Because the lab test involves adding basic material to soils with a pH less than 6.5 and then re-measuring
pH, the buffer pH is larger when the reservoir is small. If the buffer pH is 6.8, then it will take 1.2 tons of
effective calcium carbonate equivalent (ECCE) of lime to raise the pH to 6.8 and 0.7 ton to increase it to 6.4
(Marschner, 2011; Somani, 1996). Lime requirements are expressed in terms of ECCE, which is established
on the basis of two components: the purity of the lime, determined chemically by the calcium carbonate
content in the lime material, and the fineness of the lime material, determined by how much it is ground
(Ritchey et al., 2016; Somani, 1996). The more calcium carbonate and the finer the material size, the higher
the ECCE, because the ECCE of lime is not always 100%, the amount of material required to provide that
percentage must be calculated:
ECCE Lime required x 100 = Lime required ECCE% …….. (1)
Methods for estimating lime requirements
The soil lime buffer capacity (BC) is a fundamental property of soil that has many useful applications. It is
the measure of the amount of soil acidity that must be neutralized to raise soil pH by one unit. Use of buffer
curves to determine the BC of soil groups is an alternative approach to determine the lime requirement
(LR) of soil samples. It is simple to use, but less in terms of precision. It is the amount of lime required to

raise the pH of an acid soil by one unit. BC is the reciprocal of the slope of the buffer curve. Therefore, the
LR is determined based on the BC value, target pH, and initial soil pH using the following formula
LR= (Target pH – initial pH of soil sample) x BC ………… (2)
The slope of the curve is determined from the part of the curve that can approximate a straight line. The
intercept of the curve on the y-axis is taken as the first point to determine the changes in the pH values per
unit of lime applied. The equation can provide a very good estimate of the lime requirements for the range
of soil pH classes. The formula can be valid if it is applied within the ranges of soil pH values indicated
in the equation. The use of BC method for the determination of lime requirements can be ambiguous for
some users. To avoid confusion arising from the subjective nature of BC determination, Table 8 can serve
as a guide.
It is to be noted that calcium oxide (CaO) is not usually available for users. Hence, it is necessary to convert
the weights of CaO to its equivalent carbonate. Liming materials are normally expressed in terms of calcium
carbonate equivalent values (CCE). The CCE value of CaCO3 is considered as a standard (100%). The acid
neutralizing value of CaO is normally estimated to be about 130%. The higher neutralizing capacity of
CaO, expressed in terms of CCE as 130%, means that in the case of using limestone (CaCO3) in place of
CaO, the weights of CaO have to be multiplied by 130%, indicating the need for higher rates of CaCO3
than indicated in Table 9.
There are different materials that are called lime and many can be purchased for this purpose. However,
the ground, agricultural limestone is recommended most of the time. This natural rock is ground to a
fine powder for spreading. It can be pure calcium limestone (calcium carbonate, CaCO3), or a mixture
of calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate (CaCO3 + MgCO3). The mixture is called dolomite and
is usually more desirable because it contains two essential plant nutrients (Ca and Mg) instead of just
one. Some of the other products listed here are by-products or industrial products made from limestone
(burned lime and hydrated (builders) lime (Table 9). They can all be used to raise the pH of the soil, but
some can burn living plants. To be safe, always use ground, agricultural limestone around living plants, and
lime only when the soil test shows you need it.
Length of time for lime to work
Agricultural lime is not easily soluble in water as it is a natural product. It requires water to activate the
lime reaction, so lime works slowly in dry soil (Adams, 1990; Somani et al., 1996). Even with adequate soil
moisture, it may take a year or more for a measurable change in pH. Since neutralization involves a reaction
between soil and lime particles, mixing lime with soil increases the efficiency of acidity neutralization
(Somani, 1996). Periodical soil testing is necessary when growing high-yielding annual and perennial crops
to identify lime deficiency early enough to change the pH with unincorporated broadcast applications.
Maintaining a favorable pH is extremely important in a soil fertility management plan (Ritchey et al.,
2016). Routine soil testing reveals soil pH levels and provides liming recommendations. Producers often
lose forage production by ignoring lime deficiency in soils with acidity problems.

Short-term effects of lime, i.e., less than one year are likely to be the result of physicochemical effects. On
highly-weathered acidic tropical soils, where relatively low lime rates are applied to neutralize exchangeable
Al (usually to raise pH-H2O to 5.3 -5.6), precipitation of exchangeable Al as hydroxyl-Al species will be
the main factor for improving soil structural condition (Haynes and Naidu, 1998; Somani et al., 1996).
Hydroxyl-Al has flocculating and cementing actions. For temperate soils, with a higher initial pH and low
levels of exchangeable Al, lime is often applied to raise soil pH-H2O to 6.0 or above. In such situations, the
flocculating effect of Ca2+ and the cementing action of lime itself are likely to be the dominant mechanisms
in the short-term. In the longer-term, lime-induced increases in crop yields will result in greater input
of organic material and a buildup in soil organic matter and soil biological activity both of which favor
improved aggregate stability and increased porosity (Haynes and Naidu, 1998).
Frequency of liming
The residual effects of liming are usually expected to last for five to seven years. There is an increase in
exchangeable Al with time at all but the high lime rates, possibly because of leaching of bases, uptake
of calcium by crop plants, release of H+ ions from organic matter, and residual acidity of nitrogenous
fertilizers. Application of 200-500 kg lime ha-1 year-1 has been reported to be adequate to maintain
the level of Ca and Mg in the soil under continuous cropping while keeping a check on the release of
exchangeable Al (Somani, 1996). Ground limestone when used may have liming action for several years
while hydrated lime and quick lime which are usually composed of fine particles and react quickly in the
soil may have to be applied more frequently and at lower rates. The best guide for the application of lime
is a periodic testing of the soil reaction within the root zone. Inspections at intervals not greater than two
to three years are advisable to economize the process of amelioration and to avoid over-liming injury to
plants (Rengel, 2011; Somani et al., 1996).
Effect of lime on soil acidity and crop yield
In an attempt to address soil acidity problems, the application of lime has remarkably improved the
response of barley and faba bean to P fertilizer application, which is otherwise, immobilized due to P
fixation in the central highland Nitisol areas of Ethiopia. Buni (2014) reported that soil pH increased
from 5.03 to 6.72 and exchangeable acidity (EA) was significantly reduced due to the application of 3.75 t
lime ha-1 on Nitisol with an inherent property of high P fixation in southern Ethiopia. Moreover, liming
significantly increased CEC and available P, and decreased available micronutrients except Cu. The highest
(33.34 cmol(+) kg-1) and lowest (19.18 cmol(+) kg-1) values of CEC were obtained from the highest lime
rate and control treatment, respectively (Table 4).
Table 4. Effect of lime on soil chemical properties

cmol (+) kg-1 Concentration (mg kg-1)
Treatment
pH
(lime t ha-1)
CEC Al EA1 P Fe Mn Cu Zn
0 5.03d 19.18d 0.68a 0.97a 5.36b 41.96a 70.3a 0.37d 11.67a
1.25 5.64c 25.21c 0.56b 0.75b 6.70a 33.77b 58.4b 0.77b 11.19b
2.50 6.14b 31.49b 0.33c 0.51c 7.04a 25.04b 46.0c 0.99a 9.78c
3.75 6.72a 33.34a 0.24c 0.36c 6.67a 19.01c 34.5d 0.65c 9.75c
LSD (0.05) 0.014 0.738 0.13 0.21 0.94 0.390 4.52 0.059 0.138
CV (%) 3.01 6.24 8.12 6.43 2.04 11.56 14.73 10.11 12.38
1EA: Exchangeable acidity; Source: Buni (2014).
Previous studies indicated that application of different rates of lime and P fertilizer significantly increased
barley grain yield in the central highlands of Ethiopia (Beyene, 1987; Desalegn et al., 2017). According
to Desalegn et al. (2017), the combined application of 1.65 t lime ha-1 and 30 kg P ha-1 resulted in 133%
more grain yields of barley than the control (without P and lime). The highest yield of barley was obtained
in the third year after application of lime, implying that the efficiency of lime was more in the subsequent
year than the first and second year of its application (Beyene, 1987). Normally, calcium carbonate takes
more time to be soluble in water than slaked lime which consists of mostly calcium hydroxide (Somani,
1996). Hillard et al. (1992) indicated that decreasing winter pasture productivity in un-limed Ultisols has
been associated with increased soil acidity due to N fertilizer application. Thus, over three harvest years,
rye grass yields increased 90-750% and 25-80% at the highest lime and P rates, respectively. In the second
year, yield response to applied P was significantly less at the high lime rate, indicating that liming made
soil P more plant available. Application of lime and P increased plant tissue P, Ca and Mg concentrations
(Agegnehu and Sommer, 2000b; Hillard et al., 1992). Anetor and Akinrinde (2007) reported that un-
amended soil remained acidic (pH 4.8), but liming raised pH (6.1-6.6), and resulted in maximum P release
(15.1-17.3 mg kg-1) compared to un-amended soil (4.2-7.1 mg P kg-1). The picture in Figure 4 shows the
effect of lime on growth of barley in acidic soils.
Lime +P P without lime Without lime and P
Figure 4. Growth of barley plants with lime and P, with P alone and without lime in acidic soils of Welmera
and Endibir

According to Agegnehu et al. (2006) the application of lime at the rates of 1, 3 and 5 t ha-1 resulted
significantly in linear response with mean faba bean seed yield advantages of 45, 77 and 81% over the control
(Figure 4). Desalegn et al. (2017) showed that Application of 0.55, 1.1, 1.65 and 2.2 t lime ha-1 decreased
Al3+ by 0.88, 1.11, 1.20 and 1.19 mill equivalents per 100 g of soil, and increased soil pH by 0.48, 0.71, 0.85
and 1.1 units, respectively. Agegnehu et al. (2006) also indicated that soil pH consistently increased from
4.37 to 5.91 as lime rate increased. Conversely, the exchangeable acidity was significantly reduced from
1.32 to 0.12 cmol (+) kg-1 because of lime application. Yield increments showed direct relationship with
the soil pH values and inverse relationship with exchangeable acidity, i.e. as the pH increased the yield also
increased, but as the exchangeable acidity decreased the yield of faba bean increased and vice versa. Mahler
et al. (1988) also found that seed yields of legumes were optimal between soil pH values of 5.7 and 7.2 and
yields of pea could be increased by 30% due to lime application to soils with pH values less than 5.4. The
picture in Figure 5 shows the effect of lime on growth of faba bean in acidic soils.
1800
a
a
Faba bean seed yield (kg ha-1)
1500
b
1200
900 c
600
300
0 1 3 5
Lime rate (t ha-1 )
Figure 4. Faba bean mean seed yield as influenced by the application of lime in the form of calcium
carbonate at Holetta, 998-2000
LSD at 5% = 192, Error bars represent ±1 SE. Source: Agegnehu et al. (2006)
Faba bean with lime Faba bean without lime

Figure 5. The growth of faba bean under limed and un-limed condition on acidic soils Welmera Woreda
Soil acidity and deficiency of nutrients, particularly P and K are the key soil related constraints that
account for low yield of crops in Chencha and Hagereselam areas of southern Ethiopia. The soil pH at
the testing site of Chencha ranged from 4.8-5.0 and the concentrations of P and K were 3.2 and 11.2 mg
kg-1, respectively, which are very low. Application of NP and NK fertilizers without lime did not increase
potato tuber yield, but application of PK fertilizer without lime significantly increased the tuber yield
at both locations (Haile and Boke, 2009). Addition of PK fertilizer alone increased tuber yield by 267,

151 and 198% over the untreated control, fertilizer NP and NK treatments, respectivelly at Chencha;
and 278, 46 and 61%, respectivelly at Hagereselam. This implys that K is more effective with P than N.
Likewise (Junquan et al., 2007), reported that K had no effect on pasture when applied without N, but had
a significant effect on the yield of white clover when applied with P fertilizer. The authors suggested that
this is probably due to increased retention of K when applied along with P in acid tropical soils because
of precipitation of Al as Al phosphate. Li et al. (2015) showed that significantly higher response of potato
was obtained when K fertilizer was applied with balanced N and P fertilizer. Other studies also indicated
that the application of K fertilizer on acidic soils increased yields of potato in Pakistan (Khandakhar et al.,
2004) and Nepal (Adhikari and Karki, 2006). Significantly, higher yield of potato was obtained at Chencha
(20.5 t ha-1) than at Hagereselam (13.8 t ha-1) in 2007. The tuber yield at Chencha was 42-279% higher
than at Hagereselam (Figure 5). Haile and Boke (2009) indicated that application of lime alone did not
significantly improve potato tuber yield. This implies that Chencha soil is better in fertility and more
responsive to the treatments than Hagereselam soil, which is low in soil pH, nutrient content and yield.
Application of lime improves the yield of crops if an acidic soil has essential nutrients rendered unavailable
to crops due to low pH. However, if the soils are already depleted of nutrients, limited response is expected
to lime application only (Marschner, 2011). In this study, however, application of NPK + lime resulted in
the highest potato tuber yield of 30.67 at Chencha with yield increments of 332 and 73% over NP and NPK
fertilizer treatments alone, respectively. While at Hagereselam, the same treatment resulted in the highest
tuber yield of 10.03 t ha-1 with yield increments of 82 and 59% over NP and NPK fertilizer treatments alone,
respectively(Figure 5). These marked increases in the yield of potato is due to K application along with NP,
suggesting that balanced appliction of NPK is more efficient than applying NP alone in K deficient soils.
Studies also indicated that the combined of application NPK produced significantly superior maize yield
compred to PK, NK or NP alone (Ayalew, 2007; Saıdou et al., 2003). Therefore, to enhance crop production
in acididic soils application of lime alone cannot be the sustainable solution without considering the
principle of balanced application of nutrients.
Chencha Hagereselam
35.00
30.00
Potato tuber yield (t ha-1)
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Figure 5. Lime and NPK fertilizers effects on tuber yield of Irish potato at Chencha and Hagereselam,
southern Ethiopia, 2007-2009.
Data synthesized from Haile and Boke (2009). Error bars represent ±1 SE. Note: Units of fertilizers and lime are in kg ha-1
and t ha-1, respectively.

Integrated soil fertility management (ISFM)
Integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) is one of the approaches to manage and improve soil health
and fertility status (Agegnehu and Amede, 2017; Fageria and Baligar, 1997). ISFM is one of the components
of the management of acid soils. Farmyard manure (FYM) and crop residues are among organic plant
nutrient sources, which could ameliorate the physical and chemical properties of soils. For example,
Lal (2009) indicated that returning crop residues to soil as amendments is essential for recycling plant
nutrients (20–60 kg of N, P, K, Ca per Mg of crop residues) amounting to 118 million Mg of N, P, K in
residues produced annually in the world (83.5% of world’s fertilizer consumption). In acid soils, where P
fixation is a problem application of FYM releases a range of organic acids that can form stable complexes
with Al and Fe thereby blocking the P retention sites, and as a result, the availability and use efficiency of
P is improved (Agegnehu and Amede, 2017; Prasad and Power, 1997; Sharma et al., 1990). The positive
effects of manure on crop yields have been explained on the basis of cation exchange between root surfaces
and soil colloids (Sharma et al., 1990; Walker et al., 2004).
The addition of organic fertilizers to acid soils has been effective in reducing phytotoxic levels of Al
resulting in yield increases. The major mechanisms responsible for these improvements are thought to be
the formation of organo-Al complexes that render the Al less toxic or direct neutralization of Al from the
increase in pH caused by the organic matter. The possible alternative of using organic sources such as crop
residues, manures, compost and biochar are substitutes for lime (Agegnehu and Amede, 2017; Sharma et
al., 1990). The authors demonstrated that organic sources raises pH and precipitate Al in direct proportion
to its basic cation or ash alkalinity with a correction for the acidity produced during the oxidation of the N
in the material. For instance, Cornelissen et al. (2018) found that cacao shell biochar exhibited a higher pH
(9.8 vs. 8.4), CEC (197 vs. 20 cmol kg-1) and acid neutralizing capacity (217 vs. 45 cmol kg-1) and thus had
a greater liming potential than rice husk biochar. Haile and Boke (2009) also reported that the combined
application of NP fertilizer and FYM on acid soil of Chencha, southern Ethiopia significantly increased
potato tuber yield and some soil chemical properties relative to application of NP alone.
In tropical regions, crop yields generally decrease with time, partly due to a decline in the levels of
exchangeable bases linked to acidification of the upper layers of the soil. The management of acid soils
through integrated soil fertility and plant nutrient management not only improve the yields of crops but
also the chemical properties of soils. Regular applications of organic residues can induce a long-term
increase in SOM and nutrient content. According to Haynes and Mokolobate (2001), complexation of
Al by the newly-formed organic matter tends to reduce the concentrations of exchangeable and soluble
Al. As organic residues decompose, P is released and can be adsorbed to oxide surfaces. This can reduce
the extent of adsorption of subsequently added P thus increasing P availability. The practical implication
of these processes is that organic residues may be used as a strategic tool to reduce the rates of lime and
fertilizer P required for optimum crop production on acidic, P-fixing soils. Agegnehu and Bekele (2005b)
found that the application of 4 and 8 t FYM ha-1 with 26 kg P ha-1 on acid Nitisols of Holetta, Ethiopia,
increased faba bean seed yield by 97 and 104%, respectively, compared to the control (Table 5). The same
rates increased soil pH from 4.5-5.0, N from 0.09-0.15%, P from 4.2-6.0 mg kg-1, and K, Ca and Mg from
1.25-1.45, 4.77-7.29 and 0.83-1.69 cmol (+) kg-1, respectively.

Table 5. Interaction effects of FYM by phosphorus on faba bean seed yield at Holetta, 2002-2003
Phosphorus Farmyard manure (t ha-1)

(kg ha-1)
0 4 8
0 991 1395 1981
13 1412 1701 1942
26 1317 1954 2019
39 1467 1958 2210
52 1573 2007 2191
SE 58.68
Source: Getachew et al. (2005)
Similar studies showed that the residual effects of manure and compost applications significantly increased
electrical conductivity (EC), pH levels, plant-available P and NO3-N concentrations (Eghball et al., 2004;
Walker et al., 2004). In this regard, Sharma et al. (1990) reported the use of manure might have made the
soil more porous and pulverized, so as to allow better root growth and development, thereby resulting
in higher root CEC. Insufficient fertilization of one nutrient causes the loss or the imbalance of other
essential nutrients. For example, Poss and Saragoni (1992) reported that an insufficient application of K
fertilizer increases leaching losses of Ca, Mg and N. Therefore, aapplication of organic residues not only
increase crop yield through the release of nutrients but also improve the physical, biological and chemical
properties of soils.
Management of acid soils using acid tolerant crop varieties
Over the past decade, several researchers around the world have focused their efforts on identifying and
characterizing the mechanisms employed by crop plants that enable them to tolerate Al toxic levels in acid
soils. The two distinct classes of Al tolerance mechanisms are those that operate to exclude Al from the root
apex and those that allow the plant to tolerate Al accumulation in the root and shoot symplasm (Kochian
et al., 2004; Ma et al., 2001). Although there has been considerable speculation about a number of different
Al tolerance mechanisms, most of the experimental evidence has focused on root Al exclusion based on
Al-activated organic acid (OA) exudation from the root apex. Evidence is also increasing for a second
tolerance mechanism based on internal detoxification of symplastic Al via complexation with organic
ligands, again primarily OAs (Barcelo and Poschenrieder, 2002; Garvin and Carver, 2003; Poschenrieder
et al., 2008).
A substantial number of plant species of economic importance are generally regarded as tolerant to acid
soil conditions. Many of them have their center of origin in acid soil regions, suggesting that adaptation to
soil constraints is part of the evolutionary process (Somani, 1996). Although the species as a whole does
not tolerate, some varieties of certain species also possess acid soil tolerance. Quantitative assessments of
plant tolerance to acid soil stresses include tolerance to high levels of Al or Mn, and to deficiencies of Ca,
Mg, P, etc. Species and genotypes within a species have been reported to have considerable variation in

their tolerance to Al and Mn (Kochian et al., 2004; Somani, 1996). The selection of varieties or species that
perform well at high Al saturation levels and thus need only a fraction of the normal lime requirement is
of great practical importance (Table 6).
Table 6. Crops and pasture species suitable for acid soils with minimum lime requirements
Al satura-
Lime
tion pH Crops (using tolerant varieties)
(t ha-1)
(%)
Upland rice, cassava, mango,
0.25 to
68 to 75 4.5 to 4.7 citrus, pineapple, sugarcane
0.5
Desmodium
0.5 to 1.0 45 to 58 4.7 to 5.0 Cowpeas, plantains
1.0 to 2.0 31 to 45 5.0 to 5.3 Corn, black beans
Source: (Somani, 1996)
In the highlands of Ethiopia, barley is mainly grown on Nitisols, where soil pH is low. This means that barley
has been already adapted to acid soil conditions. With this understanding five released barley varieties
were evaluated under limed and unlimed condition on acidic soils at Endibir. Barley varieties (HB-42 and
Dimtu) performed well under limed condition, i.e. yield increments of 366 and 327%, respectively over
the corresponding yields of the same barley varieties under unlimed condition were recorded. In contrast,
barley varieties (HB-1307 and Ardu) performed better under unlimed condition, i.e. lower yields of 48 and
49% compared to the corresponding yields of the same barley varieties achieved under limed condition
(Table 7).
Table 7. Performance of five released barley varieties and one local check under limed and un-limed
conditions at Endibir, 2009
Grain yield Yield increment

Variety
(kg ha-1) (%)
Limed unlimed
HB-42 1752 376 366
Shegie 1690 982 72
local 1933 1189 63
HB-1307 2162 1459 48
Ardu 2020 1355 49
Dimitu 1818 426 327
LSD (0.05) 704 1055
Source: HARC (2010)

Management of sub-soil acidity
Although top soil acidity is the major and extensive problem, amelioration of subsoil acidity is an
important agronomic objective in many areas of the world (Farina et al., 2000; Shainberg et al., 1989). It is
complicated by differences in the efficacy of lime and gypsum across the diverse soil environments where
the problem occurs. The most promising strategies available for achieving this objective include surface
incorporation of gypsum (Shainberg et al., 1989); plow-sole incorporation of lime in quantities sufficient
to ensure downward movement of the alkaline component (Helyar, 1991); and subsoil incorporation of
lime using deep moldboard plows (Farina and Channon, 1988).
Choice of the best approach to adopt is dictated by economic considerations and is also strongly soil
dependent. For example, some soils, particularly those that are sandy or have been acidified by anthropogenic
activities, may not be responsive to gypsum (Horsnell, 1985), while deep tillage is undesirable on soils with
dense sub-soils (Coventry, 1991). Evidence also suggests that gypsum application rates used with such
success in the tropical savannas of Brazil (Ritchey et al., 1995) have few beneficial effects on less intensely
weathered, but equally acidic Oxisols and Ultisols of South Africa (Farina, 1997). Likewise, the quantities
of lime required to elevate topsoil pH levels sufficiently to promote downward movement of alkalinity in
intensely weathered soils of the humid and sub-humid tropics (McKenzie et al., 1988) are much less than
those needed on soils of similar acidity in less weathered environments (Farina and Channon, 1988). In
the latter environments, soils equally acidic to their textural and morphological counterparts in the moist
tropics usually contain greater amounts of exchangeable Al, as well as substantial quantities of potentially
active Al associated with mixed layer clay mineralogy. This reserve acidity constitutes an important
component of lime buffer capacity in the pH-H2O range 4 to 6 (Kamprath, 1984) and it is conceivable
that replenishment of Al3+ from initially non-exchangeable sources is also responsible for the very high
gypsum requirements recorded on some such soils (Farina, 1997).
Studies showed the ineffectiveness of attempting to ameliorate deep-seated soil acidity with lime and also
indicated that the greater quantities of exchangeable and non-exchangeable Al associated with mixed-
layer clay mineralogy (Farina et al., 2000) similarly reduce the efficacy of gypsum. The slow movement
of gypsum also shows the need for long-term research. Benefits of gypsum were evident only in the sixth
season in the 0.60-0.75 m horizon, and acidity in the 0.75-0.90 m horizon actually increased significantly.
Farina et al. (2000) indicated that acid-subsoil amelioration in soils with Al-hydroxy–interlayer minerals
requires greater quantities of gypsum than soils that are dominated by kaolinitic minerals.

Table 8. Estimation of lime requirements for different soil pH ranges using BC method
Examples of lime rates to raise

pH ranges BC BC a given soil pH to target pH
Curve
used in the (g/100 (kg ha- Remark or recommendation on the use of BC values
slopes
curve soil) 1) pH range Lime rate
Initial Target (kg ha-1)
Estimation of BC values and lime rates (kg/ha) for soils with pH between 5.0 and 5.6 to raise the pH between 6.0 and 6.5
5.17-6.12 31.61 0.0316 644 For soils with pH 5.0-5.6 5.2 6.0 530
5.17-6.4 24.87 0.0402 844 Acceptable, but less economical for one time use 5.2 6.4 1010
Estimation of BC values and lime rates (kg ha-1) for soils with pH between 4.5 and 5.0 to raise the pH between 6.0 and 6.5
4.65-6.0 11.21 0.0892 1873 For soils above pH 4.6 4.8 6.0 2250
4.65-6.30 8.26 0.1211 2544 Expensive 4.8 6.3 3820
Cheaper for one time use, maybe with insignificant yield

4.63-5.61 12.24 0.0817 1716 reduction 4.8 5.6 1370
The rate is not recommended for split or localized application.
Estimation of BC values and lime rates (kg ha-1) for soils with pH between 3.8 and 4.5 to raise the pH between 6.0 and 6.5
Cheap for one time use; perhaps, with some level of yield
4.27-5.24 16.24 0.0616 1293 4.27 5.24 1254
penalty
Acceptable for one time use; perhaps with insignificant yield
4.27-5.61 13.48 0.0742 1557 4.27 5.6 2070
reduction
4.27-5.84 11.23 0.0891 1871 Moderately acceptable 4.27 5.8 2940
28
4.27-6.03 9.27 0.1079 2265 Expensive to bring the pH from below 4.3 to 6.0 4.27 6.0 3918
Table 9. Common liming materials and their calcium carbonate equivalent
Name Chemical formula Equivalent (%CaCO3)
Calcitic limestone CaCO3 90-100
Dolomitic limestone CaCO3+MgCO3 95-110
Oxide/burned lime CaO 150-175
Hydrated lime Ca(OH)2 120-135

Ground shells CaCO3 80-95
Basic slag CaSiO3 50-80
Wood ashes Oxides and hydroxides 30-70
Source: Michael (2000)
To be most effective, lime should be mixed with the soil well ahead of planting. Putting lime on the surface
of a lawn or garden will prevent it from getting more acid, but it will not change the pH beyond an inch or
so deep. The lime must react with the hydrogen cations attached to the surface of the clay and humus in
the soil. Ca and/or Mg replace the hydrogen on the clay. The hydrogen is then converted back into water
and the carbonate becomes carbon dioxide, which goes into the air as a gas. The same thing happens when
an acid stomach is treated with a Tums. It should always be remembered that when soils are limed plants
should be sufficiently fertilized.
Prediction models to determine LR for acid soils

A number of field trials were conducted on acidic soils in different parts of the country. The mathematical
models used to calculate LR were as follows
LR,CaCO3(kg/ha)= cmol EA / kg soil x 0.15m x 104m2 x B.D(mg / m3) x 1000 …………… (3)
2000
LR,CaCO3(kg/ha)= cmol EA / kg soil x 0.15m x 10 m x B.D(mg / m3) x 1000 x 1.5……… (4)
4 2
2000
Where LR = Lime requirement (kg ha-1); CaCO3 = Calcium carbonate; EA = Exchangeable acidity; B.D.
= Bulk density of soil
The first and second calculations were done with the assumption that 1.0 and 1.5 mole of EA would be
neutralized by the respective equivalent mole of CaCO3. Based on the first formula, experimental results
on acidic soils of Lemu Bilbilo in Arsi zone showed that application of lime at the rate of 192 kg ha-1
along with the recommended NP rate resulted in the highest yield of bread wheat (EAAPP, 2015). Similar
field trials were conducted in three Weredas (Gozamen, Sekela and Banja) of Amhara region on lime
rate and application methods. Results indicated that localized application of lime could reduce the full

recommended dose using the exchangeable acidity method to a very low level that can be well accepted by
resource poor farmers without yield reduction. For example, 25%, 20% and 12.5% of the full dose of 3763
kg lime ha-1 resulted in higher yields compared to the treatments which consisted of 1.0 and 1.5 times the
EA with broadcast application in Gozamen Wereda. This means that farmers can apply lime rates within
the ranges of 470-940 kg ha-1 in this Wereda and similar areas. In contrast, since soil acidity is severe
in Sekela Wereda, lime rates could be within the ranges of 670–1340 kg ha-1 using localized method of
application, and the same rates can be applied in Banja area.
It is vital to develop prediction tools and models for the determination of lime requirements of different acid
soils based on measurements of soil characteristics and then determination of BC. Soil physicochemical
properties, such as soil particle size distribution, minerals, pH, organic matter, bulk density, and exchangeable
acidity are required to characterize soils. The constant values for the models cannot practically be applied
for prediction of LR for any soils based on pH values of initial soil samples and predetermined target pH
values. For instance, in this case the initial pH values of the soils of interest could be used as constant values
in the prediction process. Thus, the constant values can be replaced by initial soil pH values in the models
for the soils of interest, generally designed as pHi. The following equations (1-3) are the LR predictor
models developed by linear regression.
Equation1 for pH 3.8 – 4.5: phf = pHi + 22.836 x LR – 109.968 x LR2 + 209.63 x LR1
Equation1 for pH 4.6 – 5.2: phf = pHi + 26.35 x LR – 132.52 x LR2 + 224.44 x LR1
Equation1 for pH 5.2 – 5.8: phf = pHi + 33.49 x LR – 263.43 x LR2 + 720 x LR1
pHi and pHf stand for initial and target soil pH values, respectively. For example, the target soil pH value
for wheat is 6.0. Generally, raising soil pH values by 0.5 above the target values is recommended, but
considering the cost of liming, rising above 6.0 could be expensive.

7
EXPERIENCE FROM BRAZIL
The Brazil Cerrado experience provides an important lesson in this perspective. Brazil took the approach of
launching a large-scale, well planned, focused and integrated acid soil reclamation program, and was able
to convert their low productive Cerrado region into a bread basket that has made the country one of the
top five agricultural producers in the world (Klink, 2014). It has been estimated that from the 207 million
ha, 136 million ha, which is equivalent to two-thirds of the area, could be incorporated into the productive
system (Thomas, 1995). The Brazilian initiative brought together government resources, the EMBRAPA
research institute, and international technical and financial aid to carry out an intensive rehabilitation
initiative. As a result, with the use of appropriate technology and inputs, infrastructure and policy support,
Brazil has been able to develop more than 60 million ha of the Cerrado with crops and improved pasture
(Klink, 2014). Different initiatives were taken in the development of agricultural production in the Cerrado.
• EMBRAPA, the national research institute was created shortly before the development of the Cerrado.
More importantly, the Cerrado Agricultural Research Center (CPAC), also referred to as EMBRAPA
Cerrado, was established to specifically address the research needs of the Cerrado region.
• The country established a good transportation network serving the Cerrado region to provide good
access to inputs, machinery and services for the region as well as to markets outside the region.
• EMBRAPA developed effective technical packages suitable to agricultural production in the Cerrado
– the use of lime for soil acidity reduction; management of macro- and micronutrients; organic matter
management; minimum- and conservation tillage systems; development of crop and pasture varieties
suited to the Cerrado; and development of crop-livestock systems
• Most importantly, the government developed a comprehensive finance and credit system to address
not only credit requirements for input procurement, but also financing for investment in production
infrastructure. To achieve this, it created the national program for strengthening family agriculture
(PRONAF) with a focus on family farms (Guanziroli and Basco, 2014). Its efforts on this front were
such that, in 2010 for example, over 3.5 million family farmers were accredited to take credit through
PRONAF (Antoniazzi et al., 2013). Brazil in fact had a number of different systems and policies
in place to ensure the success of the family farm, ranging from finance and credit to government
procurement programs and production insurance that were aimed to address the needs of people
across the production chain (Antoniazzi et al., 2013).

One of the characteristics of the development of the Cerrado has been that Brazil not only established
both technical and institutional components to its development, but also continually monitored progress
and revised and updated its interventions with lessons gained (Klink, 2014). A similar approach is needed
in Ethiopia whereby lessons can be learned regarding bottlenecks that have significantly curtailed the
treatment and effective management of the country’s acid soils. Research is necessary to give technical
support for the development of an ecologically sound and economically viable management of acid soils.
The research results will provide information for farmers’ decisions on sustainable land management;
develop technologies which increase the productivity of crop-livestock systems; promote the improvement
of degraded lands; and monitor changes in soils due to agricultural activities. This is expected to promote a
technology transfer through the validation and adaptation of research results. A broad diagnosis was made
of the major limitations for agricultural improvement, identifying the priority problems (‘the big six’) as a
basis for establishing the research program
• a low knowledge of the natural resources;

• the irregular distribution of rainy and dry spells
• the low fertility of the soils
• soil degradation;
• the occurrence of pests and diseases; and
• inefficient production systems.
The research projects have been organized in three programs: natural resource evaluation, soil and water
management, and production systems. The following are major achievements of these programs
Natural resource evaluation
• the characterization of the resources: soil, water, vegetation, and source of nutrients (limestone,
phosphate rocks, etc.) at the regional and local level;
• the development of remote sensing techniques and geographical information system for environmental
characterization, land use, and agro-ecological zoning;
• the characterization of rainfall and dry spell distribution;
• the characterization of resources in watersheds/landscapes;
• the characterization of the potential of native species for food and fiber; and
• the creation of a germplasm bank of native vegetation.
Soil and water management
Soil fertility: determination of the critical level, the residual effects and the source of nutrients; cycle of
macro- and micronutrients for the principal crops; recommendations for the rational use of limestone and
phosphate rocks for soil amendment.
Soil microbiology: development of methodology of application and selection of Rhyzobium strains for
legumes cultivated in acid soils (this technology represents an economy in million dollars in imported N
fertilizer).

Soil management and conservation: technologies to determine soil, water and nutrient losses under
different management systems; recommendations for conservation practices; the effect of green manure
on the chemical, physical and biological properties of soils; studies of soil organic matter dynamics
(degradation, conservation) related to changes in soil properties.
Dry spells: the development of technologies to minimize the effect of dry spells, such as varieties resistant
to drought, deep incorporation of lime, mulching, correction of acidity of deeper layers by gypsum, and
the elimination of compacted layers.
Irrigation: technologies to determine the necessity of water, the definition of irrigation momentum,
nutritional requirements, irrigation engineers, and the drainage of wetlands.
Mechanization: development of equipment such as a forage–planting machine, a garlic-planting machine,

plough/planting machines, and harvesting machines.
Production system
The main considerations under this heading are
• varieties of food legumes, wheat, barley, root crops, highland fruits and trees;
• management of dairy- and beef cattle;
• legumes for supplementing feed of cattle in native pasture;
• techniques for the recovery of degraded pastures;
• characterization, management and control of insect pests, diseases and weeds of major crops; and
• production systems for small farmers, and the orientation for organizing community associations.
Table 10 demonstrates priorities for basic, strategic, national and local research in soil, and nutrient
management, which have been practiced in Brazil and other similar countries to tackle issues related to
soil acidity and nutrient management.

Table 10. Example of priorities for basic, strategic, national and local research in soil, and nutrient
management
Types of research
Theme Basic Strategic National Local
Validating and
Developing pedo- adapting
Soil Establishing critical transfer functions Identifying cause- restorative
restoration limits for specific effect relationships measures,
ecosystems identifying policy
issues
Cultural practices
Mass balance of
of nutrient
Ecological specific nutrient
management,
Processes of nutrient research on under different
Nutrient soil-specific
cycling, modeling nutrient dynamics, management
management response
nutrient flow mechanisms of systems, bio-
functions,
nutrient cycling logical nutrient
indigenous
management
knowledge
Social and
Evaluating soil On-site and Cultural practices
cultural factors,
erosion processes, off-site effects, and soil erosion,
Erosion on-farm
standardizing ecological soil erosion-crop
management research and
methods of assessing processes and soil productivity
demonstrations,
soil erosion erosion relations
policy issues
Basic processes and

Acidity
principles, role of Cultural practices Lime
characteristics of
Soil acidity Al and Mn, charge for acidity requirements for
benchmark soils,
management properties, clay management, soil types and
genotype-soil
minerals and soil seasonal changes cropping systems.
interaction
acidity
Source: Lal (1995)

8
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Ethiopia has taken policy decisions to address the problem of soil acidity in the country. Some of these
actions, including providing lime at subsidized prices, are justified because of market failure arguments.
However, it is essential to examine whether these decisions are leading to the most efficient pathways of
achieving the policy goal, i.e., amending the country’s acidic soils in a cost-effective and welfare maximizing
way. The country has planned to rehabilitate 226,000 ha of agricultural land affected by soil acidity until
2021. Three broad aspects of cost-effectiveness analysis should be considered:
• benefits of correcting acid soils with lime,

• value chain efficiency (effectiveness of delivering lime to farmers), and
• responses of farmers to the intervention (willingness to pay and adopt the lime technology).
The following sections present results of an assessment on benefits of amending acid soils and the efficiency
of the lime value chain.
Benefits of amending acid soils with lime
Key development goals set for the agricultural sector include attaining food sovereignty - particularly
in basic agricultural commodities, supplying agricultural raw materials for the expanding domestic
agro-industry and increasing agricultural exports to generate foreign exchange. Although Ethiopia has
vast agricultural land in the lowlands, the necessary infrastructures such as irrigation have not yet been
developed. Increased agricultural productivity, therefore, at least in the short run has to come from
the already cultivated lands that are characterized by high soil acidity and declining soil fertility due to
excessive removal of nutrients by leaching and low input cropping systems (Regassa and Agegnehu, 2011).
Consequently, crop yields are not only depressed but are declining over time due primarily to worsening
soil acidity. Thus, most soils in the highlands require improved management practices to address soil
acidity problems as well as declining soil fertility.
Agricultural research and development efforts in Ethiopia, as well as elsewhere in the world, indicated that
a breakthrough in agricultural development in acid soil areas could be achieved by using integrated soil
fertility management practices involving agricultural lime. Liming is a soil management practice essential
for correcting low pH and Al toxicity with a dramatic effect on crop productivity. Various studies indicated
that liming increases soil pH and availability of P, Mo and N, and eliminates Al and Mn toxicity (Abebe,
2007; Ayalew, 2007; Yamada, 2005). Lime, used in conjunction with other complementary agricultural
practices/inputs, offers substantial yield improvements. As indicated in Table 11, productivity improvements
ranging from 50% to over 100% in wheat, barley, tef, soybean and maize are reported in Ethiopia under

moderate to severe acid soil conditions (Abewa et al., 2014; Asrat et al., 2014; Ayalew, 2007; Chimdi et al.,
2013; Kidanemariam et al., 2013). In most cases, P, K and N fertilizers should be applied together with
lime and other improved management practices to achieve substantial yield increases. Moreover, a single
application of lime has between five to seven years of productivity benefits. Evidence, therefore, suggests
that agricultural programs, with the aim of improving agricultural productivity, should ensure adequate
quantities of lime produced and made available to farmers in the most efficient way possible.
Although the government has planned to expand the production, distribution and adoption of agricultural
lime by smallholder farmers, lime use for reducing soil acidity is very low in Ethiopia, which was limited
to about 5100 ha as of 2015 production year. However, efforts in expanding lime use are expected to raise
agricultural production and will have several benefits to the national economy. First, the increase in net farm
income would affect the local, regional and even national business activity. Second, enhanced agricultural
production would mean availability of supplies of agricultural products for domestic consumption and
agro-industries. Third, increased supplies of agricultural products, such as soybean and faba bean would
likely improve the export earnings of the country. Finally yet importantly, increased agricultural production
would mean less import of basic agricultural commodities such as wheat, affecting not only food security
but also save hard-earned foreign exchange.
At the farm level, the economic rate at which farmers apply lime depends on net farm returns to lime
application. Several factors need to be considered to evaluate the costs and benefits of lime application
at the household level. These include expected yield increases, prices per unit of lime, transportation and
application stages, as well as the expected number of years of enhanced productivity. All of these factors
affect net farm returns of lime use. A rough calculation of net farm returns to lime application based
on experimental results suggest that application of lime is generally profitable particularly when used in
moderate amounts ranging from 2.0 to 2.2 t ha-1 in conjunction with other improved agricultural practices
(use of inorganic and organic fertilizers, high yielding varieties and associated better agronomic practices).
Accordingly, considering wheat and productivity improvements from 0.9 t ha-1 to 1.6 t ha-1 due to lime
use only, estimated gross and net returns are estimated at birr 7524 and birr 2324 ha-1, respectively, from
an average application of 2.2 t lime ha-1 (Table 12).

Table 11. Effect of lime and other soil fertility management on crop yield and soil properties
Treatment Yield
Crop Manure Lime % increase over Effect on soil properties and nutrient uptake Source
(t ha-1)
(t ha-1) (t ha-1) control
Wheat 0-5.0 0.0-2.20 0.90-2.69 94-199 Asrat et al. (2014)
Wheat 0-10 2.44-4.27 34-75 Liming improved soil pH and plant P uptake. Bore and Bedadi (2016)
N/P/K (kg Lime (t Yield (t % increase over
ha-1) ha-1) ha-1) control
0-46/0-
Tef 0.00-2.00 0.82-2.88 99-252 Liming increased soil pH from 5.38 to 6.17 and CEC from 14.8-20.7 Abewa et al. (2014)
26/0
Increased soil pH from 5.03-6.72, and reduced Al3+ from 0.68-0.36 cmol
Soybean 18/20/0 0.00-3.75 Buni (2014)
kg-1
Soybean 18/20/0 0.00-2.60 1.58-2.31 28.9-45.9 Increased nodule dry weight by 100%. Bekere et al. (2013)
Lime reduced Al3+ by 0.88-1.19 meq 100 g-1 soil, and raised soil pH by
Barley 50/0-30/0 0.00-2.20 2.54-4.56 52-81 Desalegn et al. (2017)
0.48-1.1 units.
Lime increased pH in the surface 15 cm, but reduced Al3+ only in the
Barley 145/00/00 0.00-7.00 2.52-4.24 15-68 Tabitha et al. (2008)
0-5-cm layer.
Liming increased soil pH from 4.53-5.61 and reduced EA from 2.2-0.23
Barley 41/20/0 0-4.5 1.28-1.83 4.0-41.2 Beyene (1987)
cmol kg-1
da Costa and Crusciol
Oat - 0.0-2.0 0.96-1.48 5-54 Liming reduced the H+ and Al3+ contents to a depth of 0.60 m.
(2016)
Maize 60/26/0 0-2.0 1.77-4.99 111-182 Opala et al. (2018)
cmol kg-1.
Faba bean 18/20/0 0.0-5.0 0.81-1.47 45-53 Agegnehu et al. (2006)
cmol kg-1.
Mucuna
- 0.0-4.0 1.39-2.82 45-103 Liming increased soil pH from 4.32-6.11. Agba et al. (2017)
flagellipes
0/0/0/- 10.03-
Potato 0.0-3.5 59-332 Liming increased soil pH from 4.8-5.47. Haile and Boke (2009)
10/40/100 30.67
NPK (kg FYM (t Yield (t % increase over
ha-1) ha-1) ha-1) control
Addition of FYM increased soil pH from 4.51-5.22, N, P, and Agegnehu and Bekele
Faba bean 18/0-52/0 0.0-8.0 0.99-2.21 42-123
exchangeable cations. (2005b)
0/0/0/-
Potato 0-20 17-54 134-217 Haile and Boke (2011)
10/40/100
Table 12. Estimated returns to lime use in wheat cultivation based on experimental results of 2015
Item Without lime With lime
Lime application (t ha-1) 0 2.2
Grain yield (t ha-1) 0.9 1.98
Adjusted grain yield (t ha-1)1 0.9 1.584
Cost of lime at farm gate (birr) 0 4,400
Labor cost for lime application at birr 50/day) 0 800
Total Cost of lime use (birr ha-1) 0 5,200
Grain price (birr t-1) 11,000 11,000
Gross value of output (birr ha-1) 9,900 17,424
Net returns to lime use (birr ha-1) 0 7,524
Net added value due to lime use (birr ha-1) 2,324
Note: 1The experimental wheat grain yield from lime application is adjusted downwards by 20% to estimate what a typical
farmer would be more likely to obtain under farmer conditions. 1USD = Birr 27.27
At a national level, widespread use of lime is expected to have remarkable economic benefits. Accurate
quantitative estimates of national benefits from the use of agricultural lime, however, are fraught with
uncertainties associated with the rate of increase in agricultural lime production, transportation and
distribution. Such estimates are also sensitive to the level of public-private partnership attained in the
provision of critical services such as credit and advisory services to farmers. Nonetheless, despite such
uncertainties, three factors are crucial to estimating the possible impact of increased agricultural lime
production and distribution in Ethiopia. The first factor relates to estimating the value added to the national
economy from the increased production resulting from the use of agricultural lime. The second factor
relates to savings in foreign exchange (lower import bills) due to decreased imports of basic agricultural
commodities. The third factor is associated with the value of possible increases in exports of agricultural
products such as soybean and coffee. Owing to lack of micro data and information, value added estimates
to the national economy are based on productivity improvements (Table 10). Accordingly, assuming wheat
is planted to all land rehabilitated and the same average returns prevail under actual production conditions
as shown in Table 13, the total gross returns from the use of lime would be about birr 38.3 million in 2015
(base scenario). Further, assuming reclamation of acid soils goes as planned by the MoANR, the same
average returns prevail under actual production conditions and current input-output prices hold in the
future, the annual total gross and net value added to the economy from the use of lime would be birr 1.7
billion and 0.53 billion, respectively, by the end of GTP II. Correspondingly, the amount of lime required
to gain the indicated value added would be about 500,000 tons. It is worth noting that only a small fraction
of the acid soil areas are planned to be rehabilitated by the end of GTP II.

Table 13. Estimated value added to the Ethiopian economy from lime use under the assumption of a single
crop, wheat
Year
Item
2015 2020
Area to be rehabilitated (000’ ha)1 5.1 226
Lime required (000’ ton) 11.22 497.2
Value added to gross national income (‘000 birr) 38,372 1,700,424
Net value added to crop production ‘000 birr)2 11,852 525,224
1Reclamation of acid soil goes as planned by MoANR and reaches 256,000 ha by end of GTP II period.
2Values for the year 2015 represents the base scenario while 2020 value refer to end of GTP II.
The other important impact of widespread use of lime in Ethiopia would be a substantial saving in foreign
exchange due to lower import bills from reduced or complete substitution of imports of basic commodities
such as wheat. In 2012, the country imported 1.1 million tons of wheat at a cost of 332.97 million USD
(FAO, 2014). Such imports, however, could be eliminated by raising wheat productivity from the current
average of 2.45 t ha-1 (CSA, 2016) to 3.13 t ha-1.
Value chain and transaction costs of lime crushing
Understanding the production of lime is based on a site visit and interview with the manager of the only
public lime crushing plant in Amhara region. The facility is situated on a 2.5 ha of land, approximately 2
km from the Addis-Bahirdar highway near the town of Dejen. The plant employs 50 casual workers, with
a wage rate of birr 35 per day; and a supervisor and a manager both paid by the Bureau of Agriculture. The
annual salaries for the supervisor and manager are assumed at birr 36,000 and birr 60,000, respectively.
The manager has been found to be very knowledgeable about the lime crushing operation, but has very
little role in the operational planning, marketing, and distribution of lime. The prices of both inputs and
outputs of the plants are administratively determined. For instance, all workers are paid a uniform wage
rate, which is half the going rate of day laborers in the area and is not based on individual work assignment
or productivity. Similarly, the price of packaged lime has been fixed at birr 75 at the factory gate. These
actions have important implications for efficiency of the value chain, which have been discussed under
three broad segments in the lime value chain: input procurement (upstream), processing (mid-stream),
and the distribution to farmers (downstream). The value chain segments, activities and costs are denoted
in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Value chain segments, activities, and costs.
Source: Warner et al. (2016)
Upstream or input procurement
The procurement of inputs for lime crushing, carried out during the rainy season, involves collection of
limestone from a nearby location. This laborious process requires digging out large lime rocks, breaking
them into smaller pieces, and loading and unloading them to a truck— all done manually. The Bureau
of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD) provides a truck with a driver for 1 to 1.5 months
depending on the projected demand. While the truck has higher capacity, due to difficult terrain and road
conditions, it ships only about 5 tons per trip and makes 5-6 trips a day. The casual employees work about
six months in input procurement. Assuming a rental cost of birr 4000/day for a truck, costs for 45 days will
be birr 180,000, manual labor costs for six months would be birr 315,000 and supervisory labor costs are
estimated at birr 48,000. Since the casual workers are also responsible for loading and unloading, there are
no additional costs involved in the transportation. Hence, with simplifying assumptions, the total cost of
procurement would be birr 543,000.

Mid-stream or processing
The processing or lime crushing is carried out during the dry season typically from January to June, with
operation peaking during March to May. Currently, the plant has a capacity of 10 tons per day, if the
operation is uninterrupted. A second crusher, with a daily capacity of 30 tons a day, is under construction
at the same location. While machinery has been imported and a building has been constructed, it was
not clear as to when the new crusher might be operational. In the 2014/15 season, the plant produced
a total of 1500 tons, which is equivalent to 150 days of operation at full capacity. Deriving a rough cost
estimate for this segment requires data on the costs of labor, electricity, depreciation, and the opportunity
costs of capital. We obtained data on labor and electricity costs only. The manual wage bill is roughly birr
315,000 (180×50×35), and administration was assumed to be birr 48,000. The electricity bill of birr 1000
was assumed to be a monthly cost and electricity use was determined by summing monthly costs and
dividing by 180 days of crusher operation, outside this period it was assumed that electricity use would
be negligible. For the crusher it was projected a one-time fixed cost of birr 1.1 million1 ($50,000 USD),
operated for five years at approximately 180 days per year. Annual spare parts/maintenance costs, etc. were
estimated to be 10% of crusher purchase cost. Bag costs are birr 10 for each bag. Finally, discussions with
experts estimated a constructed water-resistant storage facility to be birr 467 m-3. Applying this towards a
facility that is 15m×30m×5m (enough to store 2250 tons) and applying to 10 years of operation arrives at
a daily rate of birr 288. Opportunity costs were not included. The total daily rate for processing equals birr
5478 and total costs come to birr 986,000 for annual operation of 180 days.
Downstream/distribution
The manager of the plant has no role in the distribution and marketing of lime. The volume of production
and the marketing depend on an estimated demand of lime, which is generated through a multi-stage
planning process, starting at a Kebele level. The initial assessment is carried out by the extension agents at
the Kebele level, which are then aggregated up to a district level. The region reexamines district estimates
and comes up with the final official estimates. Public tenders are then issued to procure the estimated
quantity of lime, by districts, at a predetermined price (uniform/pan territorial prices). The cooperative
unions typically win these tenders. From the cooperative unions, lime is transported to the primary
cooperatives for farmers to collect. Table 14 presents some rough estimates from the field interview.
1
This estimate was obtained from a business website question and answer forum (www.quora.com/What-is-the-price-of-a-small-jaw-
crusher-for-a-limestone-crushing-plant), accessed on May 24, 2016.
Table 14. Cost of structure of agricultural lime along with the value chain
Particular Price (birr/100 kg)

Price at crushing plant 75
Transport to union 100
Transport to primary cooperative 30
Primary coop to farmers field 5
Landed costs at farm gate 210
Costs of application (the cost of oxen could be
Labor 16 man days; rental costs of a pair of
subsumed with planting but is assumed to be inde-
bullocks (2*16*50= 1600
pendent cost here)
Per hectare costs:
Moderately acidic—2 t ha-1 application 5,800
Highly acidic—4 t ha-1 application 10,000
Planning process
Lime production, marketing, and distribution depend on an elaborate planning process, involving public
officials at various administrative levels. There are six distinct steps in the planning process, as depicted
below in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Zonal level planning process

Source: Warner et al. (2016)

There are two basic problems with the process: First, the soil testing is too time-consuming. Improving
soil evaluation and remedies needs to be greatly streamlined. This will be further elaborated, but for now,
it is fair to conclude that not all these steps are necessary. In highly acidic areas, policy campaign can be
launched based on the existing information and on the assumption of an aggregate demand. The challenge
here is determining appropriate policy option(s). Policy options are either providing lime through
government channels; or exploring private-public partnerships. Both options need further assessment.
However, given the current speed of implementation, government–led interventions are likely to take a
very long time to amend Ethiopia’s acidic soils. For instance, we have learned that Awi zone alone has
177,000 ha of acidic soils. The dose of lime depends on the pH level, but ranges from about one t ha-1 in
moderately acidic soils to 3.8 t ha-1 in highly acidic soils. In 2014/15, average application rate was about 2.0
t ha-1. This implies that the total demand for Awi would be 344,000 tons. Given Dejen can produce only
1500 tons a year, even if the entire production from Dejen plant is allocated to Awi, it would take over 200
years to amend the acid soil in this zone. The other point is that demand assessment and lime distribution
are not based on up-to-date information. In fact, actions of the current year depend on the previous year.
This is clear once timing of activities is mapped. For instance, the demand for lime for main-season of a
given year is announced in September of the previous year. This is because the test results are available in
February of the previous year. After demand is announced, it takes 4-5 months for lime to be distributed to
the Cooperative Unions; and another 2-3 months to supply to the farmers through primary cooperatives.
Promotion of ISFM Approaches
Despite the production of substantial quantities of crop residues and manures in the country, they are not
returned to soil for amelioration soil fertility due to competing uses. Farmers generally use crop residues
as livestock feed because of their higher value as feed than as soil improver. Manure is used as an energy
source instead of using it as soil amendment due to lack of alternative energy sources. With the use of
compost and biochar, the organic resource can be recycled back to the farm. Composting of both crop
residues and manure together or carbonization of part of them to biochar can reduce the volume of organic
resources, which means less labor/cost to transport them back to the field. Biochar application to soils may
enable farmers to get the benefit of resistant organic matter and nutrients, if they have not been leached
out or denitrified during the composting process, but the labile carbon may be lost to the atmosphere. The
labile carbon would benefit the soil because it can feed soil organisms, which are responsible for several
beneficial processes in the soil (Agegnehu et al., 2017). In terms of liming acid soils, studies indicated that
biochar is able to raise soil pH at about one-third the rate of lime, increases Ca levels and reduce Al toxicity
on acid soils (Glaser et al., 2002; Lehmann et al., 2003; Steiner, 2007).
Appropriate policies towards sustainable land use intensification and the necessary institutions and
mechanisms to implement and evaluate these are also important to facilitate the adoption of ISFM. Specific
policies to address the restoration of degraded soils may also be required as investments to achieve, as this
may be too high to be met by farmers alone. Although the utilization of improved seeds and fertilizers has
significantly increased crop productivity, application of ISFM could considerably increase low agronomic
efficiency (Vanlauwe et al., 2010; Vanlauwe and Zingore, 2011), with all the consequent economic benefits
to farmers. While efforts to promote the seed and fertilizer technology has been under way, activities such
as development of site-specific decision guides that enable tackling more complex issues can be initiated to

guide farming communities towards complete ISFM, including suitable organic matter management and
adaptation of technologies to be achieved at the local level. Overall, in the face of climate change, adoption
of ISFM has the potential not only to improve farm productivity and farmers’ income, but also to result in
environmental benefits in tropical agro-ecosystems.

9
CONCLUSION
Sustainable soil management practices and the maintenance of soil quality are central issues to agricultural
sustainability. Soil acidity and associated low nutrient availability are among the major constraints to
crop production. Soil reaction is one of the physiological characteristics of the soil solution expressed
in terms of pH which indicates whether the soil is acid, alkaline, or neutral. It exercises significant on
many soil properties including nutrient availability, biological activity, and soil physical condition. The
practice of liming acid soils to mitigate soil acidity and reduce phytotoxic levels of Al and Mn has been
recognized as necessary for optimal crop production in acid soils. However, application of lime should be
considered as an approach to improve soil pH to optimize nutrient availability for optimum plant growth
and yield, otherwise, it is not an end goal by itself to achieve potential yield. Liming should be coupled
with the applications of optimum rates of inorganic and organic fertilizers, particularly P and K fertilizers.
Moreover, there is a need for identifying areas where lime application brings significant change and benefit
in crop yield. Overall, liming should be considered as a soil amendment to raise soil pH to the level that is
suitable for maximum nutrient availability, plant growth, and crop yield.
The rate of soil acidification can also be reduced through integrated soil and crop management. Integrated
soil fertility management approach can enhance both soil productivity and crop yield. It is evident that
application of organic residues enhances buildup of nutrients in the soil and after successive years of
application, the dose of nutrients to be applied as inorganic or organic forms will gradually decrease.
Residual effects of organic sources on crop production and soil properties may last for several years and
hence, their profitability could not be precisely estimated in the short-term, and rather their effect is clearly
seen in the long term. Application of organic residues not only increases the nutrient content of soils
but also improves their physical and biological properties. Matching applied nitrogen and sulfur with
crop needs may also reduce input costs while reducing acidification. Other practices involve choosing
less acidifying fertilizers or improving time of application although such practices may increase input
and management costs. When considering changes, these costs need to be weighed against an eventual
reduction in the cost of lime application.
Crops differ widely in their ability to tolerate acid soil conditions. Coffee, tea, tuber, pineapple, certain
pasture grasses, and legumes are tolerant of high levels of Al saturation, while legumes, sorghum, and cotton
are intolerant. Important varietal differences in relation to Al tolerance exist in rice, corn, wheat, beans,
and soybeans. These differences provide a good possibility for selection and breeding plants for improved
tolerance to soil acidity, a low cost and effective alternative to the high cost of amending acid soil using lime.
In general, the integrated use of all the available resources including acid tolerant crops and crop species,
which improve and sustain soil and agricultural productivity, is of great practical significance. Overall,
acid soil management needs to emphasize strategic research, integrating soil and water management with
improved crop varieties to generate prototype and environmentally benign technologies for sustained food
production within a framework of appropriate socio-economic and policy considerations.

REFERENCES
Abebe, M. (1998). “Nature and management of Ethiopian soils,” Alamaya University of Agriculture,
Alemaya, Ethiopia.
Abebe, M. (2007). “Nature and management of acid soils in Ethiopia,” Haramaya University, Haramaya,
Ethiopia.
Abewa, A., Yitaferu, B., Selassie, Y. G., and Amare, T. T. (2014). The role of biochar on acid soil reclamation
and yield of Teff (Eragrostis tef [Zucc] Trotter) in Northwestern Ethiopia. J. Agric. Sci. 6, 1-12.
Adams, F. (1990). “Soil acidity and liming,” Second edition/Ed. Am. Soc. Agron., Wisconsin, USA.
Adhikari, B., and Karki, K. B. (2006). Effect of potassium on potato tuber production in acid soils of
Malepatan, Pokhara. Nepal Agric. Res. J. 7, 42-48.
Agba, O., Asiegbu, J., Ikenganyia, E., Anikwe, M., Omeje, T., and Adinde, J. (2017). Effects of Lime on
Growth and Yield of Mucuna flagellipes (Vogel ex Hook) in an Acid Tropical Ultisol. J. Agric. Ecol.
Res. Int. 12, 1-14.
Agegnehu, G., and Amede, T. (2017). Integrated soil fertility and plant nutrient management in tropical
agro-ecosystems: A review. Pedosphere 27, 662-680.
Agegnehu, G., and Bekele, T. (2005a). On-farm Integrated soil fertility managment in wheat on nitisols of
centreal Ethiopian highlands. Ethiop. J. Nat. Resources 7, 141-155.
Agegnehu, G., and Bekele, T. (2005b). Phosphorus ferilizer and farmyard manure effects on the growth
and yield of Faba Bean and some soil chemical properties in acidic nitisols of the central highlands of
Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Nat. Resources. 7, 23-39.
Agegnehu, G., Fikre, A., and Tadesse, A. (2006). Cropping Systems, Soil Fertility and Crop Management
Research on Food Legumes in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. In “A Review of Major Achievements
of a Decade” (K. Ali, G. Keneni, S. Ahmed, R. S. Malhotra, S. Beniwal and K. Makkouk, eds.), pp. 135-
145. ICARDA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Agegnehu, G., and Sommer, K. (2000a). Optimization of the efficiency of phosphate fertilizers in acidic-
ferralitic soils of the humid tropics. Ethiopian Journal of Natural Resources 2, 63-77.
Agegnehu, G., and Sommer, K. (2000b). Optimization of the efficiency of phosphate fertilizers in acidic-
ferralitic soils of the humid tropics. Ethiop. J. Nat. Resources 2, 63-77.
Agegnehu, G., Srivastava, A., and Bird, M. I. (2017). The role of biochar and biochar-compost in improving
soil quality and crop performance: a review. Appl. Soil Ecol. 119, 156-170.
Agoumé, V., and Birang, A. (2009). Impact of land-use systems on some physical and chemical soil
properties of an oxisol in the humid forest zone of southern Cameroon. Tropicultura 27, 15-20.

Akhtar Schuster, M., Thomas, R. J., Stringer, L. C., Chasek, P., and Seely, M. (2011). Improving the enabling
environment to combat land degradation: Institutional, financial, legal and science‐policy challenges
and solutions. Land Degradation and Development 22, 299-312.
Amede, T., Belachew, T., and Geta, E. (2001). Reversing the degradation of arable land in the Ethiopian
highlands. In “Managing Africa’s Soils”, pp. 1-29, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Anetor, M. O., and Akinrinde, E. A. (2007). Lime effectiveness of some fertilizers in a tropical acid Alfisol.
J. Central Eur. Agric. 8, 17-24.
Antoniazzi, L., Nassar, A., Moura, P., and Kimura, W. (2013). Technologies in Brazilian agriculture and
potential for cooperation with Africa pp. 64. Institute for International Trade Negotiations, Brazil.
Asrat, M., Gebrekidan, H., Yli-Halla, M., Bedadi, B., and Negassa, W. (2014). Effet of integrated use of
lime manure and mineral P fertilizer on bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) yield, uptake and status of
residual soil P on acidic soils of Gozamin district, northwestern Ethiopia. Agric. Forest. Fish. 3, 76-85.
ATA (2014). Soil Fertility Mapping and Fertilizer blending. Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA),
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ayalew, A. (2007). The influence of applying lime and NPK fertilizers on yield of maize and soil properties
on acid soil of Areka, Southern Region of Ethiopia. Innov. Syst. Design Engin. 2, 33-42.
Bai, Z. G., Dent, D. L., Olsson, L., and Schaepman, M. E. (2008). Proxy global assessment of land degradation.
Soil Use Manage. 24, 223–234.
Baquy, M., Li, J. Y., Xu, C. Y., Mehmood, K., and Xu, R. K. (2017). Determination of critical pH and Al
concentration of acidic Ultisols for wheat and canola crops. Solid Earth 8, 149-159.
Barber, S. A. (1984). Liming materials and practices. In ‘‘Soil Acidity and Liming’’ (F. Adams, Ed.), 2nd Ed.
pp. 171–209. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin.
Barcelo, J., and Poschenrieder, C. (2002). Fast root growth responses, root exudates, and internal
detoxification as clues to the mechanisms of aluminium toxicity and resistance: a review. Environ.
Exp. Botany 48, 75-92.
Barrow, N. J. (1984). Modeling the effects of pH on phosphate sorption by soils. J. Soil Sci. 35, 283-297.
Behera, S. K., and Shukla, A. K. (2015). Spatial distribution of surface soil acidity, electrical conductivity,
soil organic carbon content and exchangeable potassium, calcium and magnesium in some cropped
acid soils of India. Land Degrad. Dev. 26, 71-79.
Bekele, T., and Höfner, W. (1993). Effects of different phosphate fertilizers on yield of barley and rapeseed
on reddish brown soils of the Ethiopian highlands. Fertilizer Res. 34, 243-250.

Bekere, W., Kebede, T., and Dawud, J. (2013). Growth and Nodulation Response of Soybean (Glycin max
L.) to Lime, Bradyrhizobium japonicum and Nitrogen Fertilizer in Acid Soil at Melko, South Western
Ethiopia. Intenational Journal of Soil Science 8, 25-31.
Beyene, D. (1987). Effects of liming and N and P Fertilizers on grain yield of barley. Ethiop. J. Agric. Sci.
9, 1-13.
Bore, G., and Bedadi, B. (2015). Impacts of land use types on selected soil physico-chemical properties of
Loma Woreda, Dawuro zone, southern Ethiopia. Sci. Technol. Arts Res. J. 4, 40-48.
Bore, G., and Bedadi, B. (2016). Response Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to Liming of Acid Soils
under Different Land Use Systems of Loma Woreda, Dawuro Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of
Environment and Earth Science 6, 99-108.
Brady, N., and Weil, R. (2016). “The nature and properties of soils,” Pearson Education, Columbus, EUA.
Bronick, C. J., and Lal, R. (2005). Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma 124, 3-22.
Brown, T. T., Koeing, R. T., Huggins, D. R., Harsh, J. B., and Rossi, R. E. (2008). Lime effects on soil acidity,
crop yield, and Al chemistry in direct-seeded cropping systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 72, 634-640.
Buni, A. (2014). Effects of Liming Acidic Soils on Improving Soil Properties and Yield of Haricot Bean. J.
Environ. Anal. Toxicol. 5, 1-4.
Chimdi, A., Gebrekidan, H., Kibret, K., and Tadesse, A. (2012). Status of selected physicochemical
properties of soils under different land use systems of western Oromia, Ethiopia. J. Biodiv. Environ.
Sci. 2, 57-71.
Chimdi, A., Gebrekidan, H., Kibret, K., and Tadesse, A. (2013). Changes in soil chemical properties as
influenced by liming and its effects on barely grain yield on soils of different land use system of East
Wollega, Ethiopia. World Applied Sciences Journal 24, 1435-1441.
Conant, R. T., Smith, G. R., and Paustian, K. (2003). Spatial variability of soil carbon in forested and
cultivated sites. J. Environ. Quality 32, 278-286.
Cornelissen, G., Nurida, N. L., Hale, S. E., Martinsen, V., Silvani, L., and Mulder, J. (2018). Fading positive
effect of biochar on crop yield and soil acidity during five growth seasons in an Indonesian Ultisol.
Sci. Total Environ. 634, 561-568.
Coventry, D. R. (1991). The injection of slurries of lime, associated with deep tillage, to increase wheat
production on soils with subsoil acidity. In “Plant–soil interactions at low pH” (R. J. e. a. Wright, ed.),
pp. 437-445. Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
CSA (2016). Report on Area and Production of Major Crops. Agricultural Sample Survey 2013/14, CSA
(Central Statistical Agency). Volume 1. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
da Costa, C. H. M., and Crusciol, C. A. C. (2016). Long-term effects of lime and phosphogypsum application
on tropical no-till soybean–oat–sorghum rotation and soil chemical properties. European Journal of
Agronomy 74, 119-132.

de Sant-Anna, S. A., Jantalia, C. P., Sá, J. M., Vilela, L., Marchão, R. L., Alves, B. J., Urquiaga, S., and Boddey,
R. M. (2017). Changes in soil organic carbon during 22 years of pastures, cropping or integrated crop/
livestock systems in the Brazilian Cerrado. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 108, 101-120.
Desalegn, T., Alemu, G., Adella, A., and Debele, T. (2017). Effect of lime and phosphorus fertilizer on Acid
soils and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) performance in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Exp. Agric.
53, 432-444.
Duffera, M., and Robarge, W. P. (1999). Soil characteristics and management effects on phosphorus
sorption by highland plateau soils of Ethiopia. Soil Sci. Soci. Am. J. 63, 1455-1462.
Duncan, M. R. (2002). Soil acidity and P deficiency: Management strategies for the northern Tablelands of
NSW. NSW Agriculture, Armidale, Australia.
EAAPP (Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Project) (2015). “Terminal report for research component.
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), EAAPP research coordination office.” Ethiopian
Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Edmeades, D., Ridley, A., and Rengel, Z. (2003). Handbook of soil acidity. Handbook of soil acidity.
Eghball, B., Ginting, D., and Gilley, J. E. (2004). Residual effects of manure and compost applications on
corn production and soil properties. Agron. J. 96, 442-447.
Eswaran, H., Almaraz, R., van den Berg, E., and Reich, P. (1997a). An assessment of the soil resources of
Africa in relation to productivity. Geoderma 77, 1-18.
Eswaran, H., Reich, P., and Beinroth, F. (1997b). Global distribution of soils with acidity. Plant-Soil
interactions at low pH, 159-164.
Fageria, N., and Baligar, V. (1997). Integrated plant nutrient management for sustainable crop production-
an overview. Int. J. Trop. Agric. 15, 1-18.
Fageria, N., and Baligar, V. (2008). Ameliorating soil acidity of tropical Oxisols by liming for sustainable
crop production. Adv. Agron. 99, 345-399.
Fageria, N., Baligar, V., and Zobel, R. (2007). Yield, Nutrient Uptake, and Soil Chemical Properties as
Influenced by Liming and Boron Application in Common Bean in a No‐Tillage System. Comm. Soil
Sci. Plant Anal. 38, 1637-1653.
Fageria, N. K. (2009). “The use of nutrients in crop plants,” CRC Press: Taylor and Francis Group, USA.
Fageria, N. K., and Nascente, A. S. (2014). Management of soil acidity of South American soils for
sustainable crop production. Adv. Agron. 128, 221-275.
FAO (2014). Analysis of price incentives for wheat in Ethiopia. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Farina, M. P. W. (1997). 1997. Management of subsoil acidity in environments outside the humid tropics.
p. 179–190. In A.C. Moniz et al. (ed.) Plant–soil interactions at low pH: Sustainable agriculture and
forestry production. Brazilian Soil Sci. Soc., Campinas, Brazil.

Farina, M. P. W., and Channon, P. (1988). Acid-subsoil amelioration: nure, Tokyo. I. A comparison of
several mechanical procedures. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52, 169–175.
Farina, M. P. W., Channon, P., and Thibaud, G. R. (2000). A Comparison of strategies for ameliorating
subsoil acidity: II. Long-term soil effects. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 652–658.
Fox, R. (1979). Soil pH, aluminum saturation, and corn grain yield. Soil Sci. 127, 330-334.
Garvin, D. F., and Carver, B. F. (2003). Role of the genotype in tolerance to acidity and aluminum toxicity.
Handbook of soil acidity. Marcel Dekker, New York, 387-406.
Gebrekidan, H., and Negassa, W. (2006). Inmpact of land use and management practices on chemical
properties of some soils of Bako area, Western Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Nat. Resources. 8, 177-197.
Glaser, B., Lehmann, J., and Zech, W. (2002). Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly
weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal–a review. Biol. Fert. Soils 35, 219-230.
Guanziroli, C. E., and Basco, C. A. (2014). Construction of agrarian policies in Brazil: the case of the
National Program to Strengthen Family Farming (PRONAF). Comuniica, 44-63.
Guo, J. H., Liu, X. J., Zhang, Y., Shen, J. L., Han, W. X., Zhang, W. F., Christie, P., Goulding, K. W. T.,
Vitousek, P. M., and Zhang, F. S. (2010). Significant Acidification in Major Chinese Croplands. Science
327, 1008-1010.
Haile, H., Asefa, S., Regassa, A., Demssie, W., Kassie, K., and Gebrie, S. (2017). Extension manual for acid
soil management (unpublished report). (A. T. A. (ATA), ed.), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Haile, W., and Boke, S. (2009). Mitigation of soil acidity and fertility decline: Challenges for sustainable
livelihood improvement: Evidence from southern region of Ethiopia. In “Sustainable land management
and poverty alleviation “, pp. 131-143. Ethiopian Development Research Institute, Addis Ababa.
Haile, W., and Boke, S. (2011). Response of Irish potato (Solanum tuberosum) to the application of
potassium at acidic soils of Chencha, Southern Ethiopia. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 13, 595-598.
Haynes, R., and Mokolobate, M. (2001). Amelioration of Al toxicity and P deficiency in acid soils by
additions of organic residues: a critical review of the phenomenon and the mechanisms involved.
Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 59, 47-63.
Haynes, R., and Naidu, R. (1998). Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on soil organic
matter content and soil physical conditions: a review. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 51, 123-137.
Helyar, K. R. (1991). The management of acid soils. p. 365–382. In R.J. Wright et al. (ed.) Plant–soil
interactions at low pH. Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Hillard, J., Haby, V., and Hons, F. (1992). Annual ryegrass response to limestone and phosphorus on an
Ultisol. J. Plant Nutr. 15, 1253-1268.
Horsnell, L. J. (1985). The growth of improved pastures on acid soils: III. Response of lucerne to phosphate
as affected by calcium and potassium sulphates and soil aluminum levels. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 25,
557–561.

Hue, N. (1992). Correcting soil acidity of a highly weathered Ultisol with chicken manure and sewage
sludge. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 23, 241-264.
Junquan, Z., Michalk, D., Yifei, W., Kemp, D., Guozhen, D., and Nicol, H. (2007). Effect of phosphorus,
potassium and lime application on pasture in acid soil in Yunnan Province, China. New Zealand J.
Agric. Res. 50, 523-535.
Kamprath, E. J. (1984). Crop response to lime on soils in the tropics. Soil acidity and liming, 349-368.
Kamprath, E. J., and Adams, F. (2010). Soil acidity and liming. In “Century of soil science”, pp. 103-107. Soil
Science Society of North Carolina, North Carolina, USA.
Kang, B., and Juo, A. (1986). Effect of forest clearing on soil chemical properties and crop performance.
Land clearing and development in the tropics, 383-394.
Khandakhar, S. M. T., Rahman, M. M., Uddin, M. J., Khan, S. A. U., and K.G., Q. (2004). 2004. Effect of
lime and potassium on potato yield in acid soil. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 7, 380- 383.
Kidanemariam, A., Gebrekidan, H., Mamo, T., and Fantaye, K. T. (2013). Wheat crop response to liming
materials and N and P fertilizers in acidic soils of Tsegede highlands, northern Ethiopia. Agric. Forest.
Fish. 2, 126-135.
Klink, C. A. (2014). Policy Intervention in the Cerrado Savannas of Brazil: Changes in the Land Use and
Effects on Conservation. A. Consorte-McCrea, & E. Ferraz Santos, Ecology and Conservation of the
Maned Wolf: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 293-308.
Kochian, L. V., Hoekenga, O. A., and Pineros, M. A. (2004). How do crop plants tolerate acid soils?
Mechanisms of aluminum tolerance and phosphorous efficiency. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 55, 459-493.
Krug, E. C., and Frink, C. R. (1983). Acid rain on acid soil: a new perspective. Science 221, 520-525.
Lal, R. (2009). Soils and food sufficiency: A review. In “Sustainable agriculture”, pp. 25-49. Springer.
Lal, R. (2015). Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability 7, 5875-5895.
Lawlor, D. (2004). Mengel, K. and Kirkby, EA Principles of plant nutrition. Oxford University Press.
Lehmann, J., da Silva, J. P., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W., and Glaser, B. (2003). Nutrient availability
and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin: fertilizer,
manure and charcoal amendments. Plant Soil 249, 343-357.
Lemenih, M., Karltun, E., and Olsson, M. (2005). Assessing soil chemical and physical property responses
to deforestation and subsequent cultivation in smallholders farming system in Ethiopia. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 105, 373-386.
Li, S., Duan, Y., Guo, T., Zhang, P., He, P., Johnston, A., and Shcherbakov, A. (2015). Potassium management
in potato production in Northwest region of China. Field Crops Research 174, 48-54.
Ma, J. F., Ryan, P. R., and Delhaize, E. (2001). Aluminium tolerance in plants and the complexing role of
organic acids. Trends Plant Sci. 6, 273-278.

Mahler, R., Saxena, M., and Aeschlimann, J. (1988). Soil fertility requirements of pea, lentil, chickpea and
faba bean. In “World crops: Cool season food legumes”, pp. 279-289. Springer.
Mamo, T., and Haque, I. (1991). Phosphorus status of some Ethiopian soils, II. Forms and distribution of
inorganic phosphates and their relation to available phosphorus. Trop Agric 68, 2-8.
Marschner, H. (2011). “Marschner’s mineral nutrition of higher plants,” Academic press, London.
McKenzie, R., Penney, D., Hodgins, L., Aulakb, B., and Ukrainetz, H. (1988). The effects of liming on an
ultisol in Northern Zambia. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 19, 1355-1369.
Michael, C. (2000). Soil acidity and liming. Part 4. Auburn University, Alabama Cooperative Extension
Sustem. USA.
Opala, P. A., Odendo, M., and Muyekho, F. N. (2018). Effects of lime and fertilizer on soil properties and
maize yields in acid soils of Western Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural Research 13, 657-663.
Parfitt, R. L. (1978). Anion adsorption by soils and soil minerals. Adv. Agron. 20, 323-359.
Paul, E. A. (2014). “Soil microbiology, ecology and biochemistry,” Third/Ed. Academic press, Elsevier Inc.,
London, UK.
Pilbeam, D. J., and Morley, P. S. (2007). Calcium. Hand book of plant nutrition. In: Barker, A.V., Pilbeam,
D.J. (eds.). CRC: Taylor and Francis, New York, pp. 121-144.
Poschenrieder, C., Gunsé, B., Corrales, I., and Barceló, J. (2008). A glance into aluminum toxicity and
resistance in plants. Sci. Total Environ. 400, 356-368.
Poss, R., and Saragoni, H. (1992). Leaching of nitrate, calcium and magnesium under maize cultivation on
an oxisol in Togo. Fertilizer research 33, 123-133.
Prasad, R., and Power, J. F. (1997). “Soil fertility management for sustainable agriculture,” CRC press.
Regassa, H., and Agegnehu, G. (2011). Potentials and limitations of acid soils in the highlands of Ethiopia:
a review. In “Barley research and development in Ethiopia” (B. Mulatu and S. Grando, eds.), pp. 103-
112. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria.
Rengel, Z. (2011). Soil pH, soil health and climate change. In “Soil health and climate change”, pp. 69-85.
Springer.
Ritchey, E. L., Murdock, L. W., Ditsch, D. C., McGrath, J. M., and Sikora, F. J. (2016). Agricultural lime
recommendations based on lime quality. In “Agricultural and Natural Resources Publication” (U. o.
Kentucky, ed.), pp. 1-7, LexIngton, KY,.
Ritchey, K. D., Feldhake, C. M., Clark, R. B., and Sousa, D. M. G. (1995). Improved water and nutrient
uptake from subsurface layers of gypsum-amended soils. p. 157–181. In Agricultural utilization of
urban and industrial by-products. ASA Spec. Publ. 58. ASA, Madison, WI.
Roem, W. J., and Berendse, F. (2000). Soil acidity and nutrient supply ratio as possible factors determining
changes in plant species diversity in grassland and heathland communities. Biol. Conserv. 92, 151-
161.

Saıdou, A., Janssen, B., and Temminghoff, E. (2003). Effects of soil properties, mulch and NPK fertilizer
on maize yields and nutrient budgets on ferralitic soils in southern Benin. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
100, 265-273.
Sample, E., Soper, R., and Racz, G. (1980). Reactions of phosphate fertilizers in soils. The role of phosphorus
in agriculture, 263-310.
Sanchez, P. A. (1977). Properties and Management of Soils in the Tropics. Soil Sci. 124, 1-187.
Sanchez, P. A., and Uehara, G. (1980). Management considerations for acid soils with high phosphorus
fixation capacity. The role of phosphorus in agriculture, 471-514.
Sertsu, S., and Ali, A. (1983). Phosphorus sorption characteristics of some Ethiopian soils. Ethiop. J. Agric.
Sci. 5, 1-12.
Shainberg, I., Sumner, M. E., Miller, W. P., Farina, M. P. W., Pavan, M. A., and M.V., F. (1989). Use of
gypsum on soils: A review. Adv. Soil Sci. 9, 1-111.
Sharma, P. K., Verma, T., and Gupta, J. (1990). Ameliorating effects of phosphorus, lime and animal manure
on wheat yield and root cation exchange capacity in degraded Alfisols of North-West Himalayas.
Fertilizer Res. 23, 7-13.
Sivaguru, M., and Horst, W. J. (1998). The distal part of the transition zone is the most aluminum-sensitive
apical root zone of maize. Plant Physiol. 116, 155-163.
Somani, L. (1996). “Crop production in acid soils,” 1st edition/Ed. Agrotech Publishing Academy, New
Delhi.
Somani, L., Totawat, K., and Sharma, R. A. (1996). “Liming technology for acid soils,” Agrotech Publishing
Academy, Udaipur, India.
Steiner, C. (2007). Soil charcoal amendments maintain soil fertility and establish carbon sink-research and
prospects. In “Soil Ecology Research Develpments” (T. X. Li, ed.), pp. 1-6. Nova, New York.
Sumner, M. E., and Noble, A. D. (2003). Soil acidification: The world story. In ‘‘Handbook of Soil Acidity’’
(Z. Rengel, Ed.), pp. 1–28. Marcel Dekker, New York.
Tabitha, T. B., Richard, T. K., David, R. H., James, B. H., and Richard, E. R. (2008). Lime effects on soil
acidity, crop yield, and aluminum chemistry in direct-Seeded cropping systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
72, 634-640.
Tadesse, G. (2001). Land Degradation: A challenge to Ethiopia. Environ. Manage. 27, 815-824.
Thomas, R. J. (1995). Management of Acid soils (MAS): an interdisciplinary and multi-institutional
collaborative undertaking. In “Proceedings of a DSE/IBSRAM International workshop on soil, water
and nutrient management research”, pp. 71-86. IBSRAM: Bangkok, DSE:Zschortau.
Tisdale, S., Nelson, W., Beaton, J., and Havlin, J. (1993). Soil acidity and basicity. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers,
5th ed. Macmillan, New York, 364-404.

Tully, K., Sullivan, C., Weil, R., and Sanchez, P. (2015). The state of soil degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Baselines, trajectories, and solutions. Sustainability 7, 6523-6552.
Uchida, R., and Hue, N. (2000). Soil acidity and liming. Plant nutrient management in Hawaiian soils,
approaches for tropical and subtropical agriculture. Edited by JA Silva, and R. Uchida. University of
Hawaii, Honolulu, 101-111.
Vanlauwe, B., Bationo, A., Chianu, J., Giller, K. E., Merckx, R., Mokwunye, U., Ohiokpehai, O., Pypers, P.,
Tabo, R., and Shepherd, K. D. (2010). Integrated soil fertility management: operational definition and
consequences for implementation and dissemination. Outlook Agric. 39, 17-24.
Vanlauwe, B., and Zingore, S. (2011). Integrated soil fertility management: An operational definition and
consequences for implementation and dissemination. Better Crops 95, 4-7.
Velayutham, M. (1980). Problem of phosphate fixation by minerals and soil colloids. Phosphorus Agric.
34, 1-8.
Von Uexküll, H., and Mutert, E. (1995). Global extent, development and economic impact of acid soils.
Plant Soil 171, 1-15.
Walker, D. J., Clemente, R., and Bernal, M. P. (2004). Contrasting effects of manure and compost on soil
pH, heavy metal availability and growth of Chenopodium album L. in a soil contaminated by pyritic
mine waste. Chemosphere 57, 215-224.
Wang, J., Raman, H., Zhang, G., Mendham, N., and Zhou, M. (2006). Aluminium tolerance in barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.): physiological mechanisms, genetics and screening methods. J. Zhejiang
University Sci. 7, 769-787.
Warner, J., Yirga, C., Gameda, S., Rashid, S., and Alemu, D. (2016). Soil Acidity Problems in Ethiopia:
Magnitude, Current Awareness and Practices, and Policy Actions. International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI), Washington, D.C.
Woldeab, A., and Mamo, T. (1991). Soil fertility management studies on wheat in Ethiopia. In “Wheat
Research in Ethiopia: A historical perspective” (H. Geberemariam, D. G. Tanner and M. Huluka,
eds.), pp. 137–172. CIMMYT, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Yamada, T. (2005). The cerrado of Brazil: a success story of production on acid soils. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.
51, 617-620.
Yirga, C., and Hassan, R. M. (2010). Social costs and incentives for optimal control of soil nutrient depletion
in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems 103, 153-160.
Zeleke, G., Agegnehu, G., Abera, D., and Rashid, S. (2010). Fertilizer and soil fertility potential in Ethiopia:
Constraints and opportunities for enhancing the system. (I. F. P. R. I. (IFPRI), ed.), pp. 63, Washington,
DC, USA.

INDEX
acidic parent material, 6, 14 Dystric Nitisols, 13
Acidification, 6, 64 Eutric, 13, 18
acid-tolerant, 24 Eutric Nitisol, 13
Acrisols, 14 Exchange acidity, 21
Active acidity, 21 exchangeable acidity, 31, 32, 42
Alisols, 12 exchangeable cations, 16, 19, 27, 50
ammonium fertilizers, 16 exchangeable hydrogen, 6, 19
Amorphous material, 12 Fluvisols, 12
anions, 23, 28 Humic Nitisols, 13
arable soils, 6 hydrated lime, 27, 28, 31
Base saturation, 14 Irrigation, 46
basic cations, 6, 27, 28 Kaolinite, 12
Basic cations, 6 Latosols, 10
basic elements, 15, 16, 17 leaching, 6, 14, 16, 17, 19, 30, 36, 48, 66
Biochar, 57 lime, 9, 16, 17, 19, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
bio-logical nutrient management, 70 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49,
buffer capacity, 19, 38 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65,
buffer index, 29 66, 67, 71
Calcitic limestone, 28, 41 limestone, 13, 16, 27, 28, 30, 39, 45, 53, 54, 65
Cambisols, 13, 14 Liming, 27, 39, 48, 50, 59, 62, 63, 64, 67
carbonic acid, 6, 16, 21 liming materials, 28, 41, 65, 67
clay, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, 29, 38, 41, 70 management of acid soils, 7, 26, 35, 44, 61, 65
clay mineralogy, 12, 38 Mechanization, 46
Colluvium alluvium, 18 micronutrients, 6, 26, 27, 31, 44, 45
correcting acid soils, 47 microorganisms, 17, 21
degraded lands, 8, 44 modeling nutrient flow, 70
desilicated amorphous materials, 12 montmorillonite, 19
Developing pedo-transfer functions, 70 natural resource management, 8
Dolomitic limestone, 28, 41 neutralization, 30, 35
dominant acidic soils, 12 Nitisol, 7, 13, 18, 31
Dry spells, 45 non-calcareous parent materials, 7
Dystric, 13 nutrient dynamics, 70
Dystric Cambisols, 13 Nutrient management, 70

of nutrient, 24, 70 48, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70
Olivine basalt, 18 Soil acidity, 6, 7, 10, 11, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 33, 59,
organic acids, 17, 21, 35, 66 61, 63, 65, 67, 70
organic matter, 6, 8, 13, 16, 17, 19, 26, 30, 35, 36, soil erosion processes, 70
42, 44, 45, 57, 58, 65 soil fertility, 7, 9, 16, 28, 30, 34, 35, 48, 50, 57, 59,
Orthic Acrisols, 13 61, 67, 68
Oxisols, 10, 38, 64 Soil fertility, 45, 66, 68
P fixation, 10, 22, 31, 35 soil forming factors, 7
P sorption, 12 Soil management and conservation, 45
parent materials, 13, 16 Soil microbiology, 45, 66
phosphate adsorption, 12 soil organisms, 22, 57
Phosphate sorption, 23 Soil quality, 10
Phosphorus sorption, 12 Soil reaction, 59
quartz, 15 Soil restoration, 70
quick lime, 31 source of buffering, 29
rate of soil acidification, 59 Trachy-basalt, 18
reclamation of acid soils, 8, 51 Volcanic ash, 18
silica, 15 water-soluble P fertilizers, 12
Soil acidification, 15, 67 Weathered basalt, 18
soil acidity, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, weathering, 6, 13, 14
21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 31, 32, 37, 38, 42, 44, 46, 47,

View publication stats

Getachewetal 2019 SoilAcidityManagmnet PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Getachewetal 2019 SoilAcidityManagmnet PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Soil Acidity Management

Book · January 2019

Getachew Agegnehu Chilot Yirga

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

AHI Project View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Copyediting and Design: Abebe Kirub

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT i

Mandefro Nigussie (PhD)

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT ii

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 1

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 2

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 3

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 4

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 5

Fe2O3 Exch. Al Amorphous Gibbsite and

Chencha 1200 2400 4.5 11.7 0.40 51 10

Nedjo 950 1900 4.4 16.1 6.16 32 12

Endibir 800 1600 4.8 11.7 1.69 61 0

Melko 600 1200 5.2 15.8 0.37 ND ND

Bako 400 900 6.6 14.4 0.02 41 15

Melkassa 150 300 7.8 0.20 Tr. ND ND

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 6

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 7

Acidic parent material furnishing aluminum and silicon ions

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 8

Decomposition of organic matter

Removal of elements through harvest of high yielding crops

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 9

cmol (+) kg-1

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT

Olivine basalt and

Pellic Vertisol, sodic

Low buffer capacity from little clay and organic matter

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 11

In acid soils, there are mainly two types of acidity

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 12

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 13

Table 3. Crop relation to soil reaction (pH)

Optimum pH for Optimum pH for

Alfalfa 7.0-8.0 Sugar beet 5.8-7.0

Cotton 7.0-8.0 Millets 5.5-7.5

Oats 7.0-8.0 Sorghum 5.5-7.5

Cabbage 6.0-6.5 Sweet potato 4.5-6.5

Wheat 6.0-7.0 Potato 4.5-6.5

Barley 6.0-7.0 Tomato 5.5-7.5

Maize 6.0-7.2 Deciduous fruits 6.5-7.5

Clover 6.0-7.0 Mango 5.0-6.0

Faba bean 6.0-8.0 Papaya 6.0-6.5

Field pea 6.0-7.0 Avocado 5.0-8.0

Chickpea 7.0-8.0 Pineapple 4.5-6.5

Lentil 6.5-8.0 Flax 5.0-7.0

Soybean 6.2-7.0 Tea 4.0-6.0

Beans 5.5-8.0 Carrot 5.5-7.0

Onion 5.8-6.5 Rye 5.0-7.5

Sugarcane 5.0-8.5 Lupin 4.5-6.0

Source: Somani (1996)

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 14

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 15

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 16

SOIL ACIDITY MANAGEMENT 17

Figure 3. Neutralizing acidic soil through lime