IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i5p3017-d764255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Data Integration Analysis Indicates That Soil Texture and pH Greatly Influence the Acid Buffering Capacity of Global Surface Soils

Author

Listed:
  • Hui Wei

    (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Eco-Circular Agriculture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
    Key Laboratory of Agro-Environment in the Tropics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
    Department of Ecology, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Jiayue Yang

    (Department of Ecology, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Ziqiang Liu

    (Department of Ecology, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Jiaen Zhang

    (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Eco-Circular Agriculture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
    Key Laboratory of Agro-Environment in the Tropics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
    Department of Ecology, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

Abstract

Soil acidification is a global environmental issue that decreases soil functions, and it has been significantly accelerated by anthropogenic activities in recent decades. Soils can resist acidification upon receiving acid inputs due to the resistance or/and resilience capacity of soils, which is termed the acid buffering capacity of soils, and it is often indicated by the soil pH buffering capacity (pHBC). An increasing number of studies have been conducted to quantify soil pHBC at various sites, but to date, integration of global data is lacking; therefore, the variations in large-scale soil pHBC and the factors that influence these variations are still unclear. In this study, we collected previously published data on soil pHBC to analyze its variations on a large scale, as well as investigate the underlying factors influencing these variations. The results showed that soil pHBC varied substantially from site to site, with a mean of 51.07 ± 50.11 mmol kg −1 pH −1 . Soil texture and pH, separately or collectively, explained a considerable proportion of the total variation of global soil pHBC. It is well-established that a series of processes contribute to the soil acid buffering capacity in different pH ranges, and the global data analyses showed that pH 5.5 could be a key threshold value; different buffering systems may be active at pH > 5.5 and pH < 5.5. Moreover, tropical soils were more acid-sensitive than temperate and subtropical soils, and forest soils had significantly lower soil pHBCs than grassland and cropland soils. This could be attributed in part to the different soil properties, such as soil texture or pH, among the different climatic zones and ecosystems.

Suggested Citation

  • Hui Wei & Jiayue Yang & Ziqiang Liu & Jiaen Zhang, 2022. "Data Integration Analysis Indicates That Soil Texture and pH Greatly Influence the Acid Buffering Capacity of Global Surface Soils," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-11, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:3017-:d:764255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/3017/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/3017/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hui Wei & Yalan Liu & Huimin Xiang & Jiaen Zhang & Saifei Li & Jiayue Yang, 2019. "Soil pH Responses to Simulated Acid Rain Leaching in Three Agricultural Soils," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Nur Hidayah Hamidi & Osumanu Haruna Ahmed & Latifah Omar & Huck Ywih Ch’ng & Prisca Divra Johan & Puvan Paramisparam & Mohamadu Boyie Jalloh, 2021. "Acid Soils Nitrogen Leaching and Buffering Capacity Mitigation Using Charcoal and Sago Bark Ash," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Zhenghu Zhou & Chuankuan Wang & Yiqi Luo, 2020. "Meta-analysis of the impacts of global change factors on soil microbial diversity and functionality," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. William R.L. Anderegg & Anna T. Trugman & Grayson Badgley & Christa M. Anderson & Ann M. Bartuska & Philippe Ciais & Danny Cullenward & Christopher B. Field & Jeremy Freeman & Scott J. Goetz & Jeffrey, 2020. "Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests," Post-Print hal-02883164, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guillaume Patoine & Nico Eisenhauer & Simone Cesarz & Helen R. P. Phillips & Xiaofeng Xu & Lihua Zhang & Carlos A. Guerra, 2024. "Reply to: Field experiments show no consistent reductions in soil microbial carbon in response to warming," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-3, December.
    2. Yanling Liu & Meng Zhang & Yu Li & Yarong Zhang & Xingcheng Huang & Yehua Yang & Huaqing Zhu & Han Xiong & Taiming Jiang, 2023. "Influence of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application on Soil Acidification Characteristics of Tea Plantations in Karst Areas of Southwest China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Chao Yue & Jinshi Jian & Philippe Ciais & Xiaohua Ren & Juying Jiao & Shaoshan An & Yu Li & Jie Wu & Pengyi Zhang & Ben Bond-Lamberty, 2024. "Field experiments show no consistent reductions in soil microbial carbon in response to warming," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-5, December.
    4. Grubert, E. & Zacarias, M., 2022. "Paradigm shifts for environmental assessment of decarbonizing energy systems: Emerging dominance of embodied impacts and design-oriented decision support needs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    5. Callesen, I. & Magnussen, A., 2021. "TransparC2U–A two-pool, pedology oriented forest soil carbon simulation model aimed at user investigations of multiple uncertainties," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 453(C).
    6. Dandan Song & Yuanquan Cui & Dalong Ma & Xin Li & Lin Liu, 2022. "Spatial Variation of Microbial Community Structure and Its Driving Environmental Factors in Two Forest Types in Permafrost Region of Greater Xing′an Mountains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-15, July.
    7. Maru Ali & Osumanu Haruna Ahmed & Mohamadu Boyie Jalloh & Walter Charles Primus & Adiza Alhassan Musah & Ji Feng Ng, 2023. "Co-Composted Chicken Litter Biochar Increases Soil Nutrient Availability and Yield of Oryza sativa L," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    8. Sarah M. Anderson & Linda S. Heath & Marla R. Emery & Jeffrey A. Hicke & Jeremy S. Littell & Alan Lucier & Jeffrey G. Masek & David L. Peterson & Richard Pouyat & Kevin M. Potter & Guy Robertson & Jin, 2021. "Developing a set of indicators to identify, monitor, and track impacts and change in forests of the United States," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-16, March.
    9. Andrea Duane & Marc Castellnou & Lluís Brotons, 2021. "Towards a comprehensive look at global drivers of novel extreme wildfire events," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 1-21, April.
    10. Charlotte J. Alster & Allycia Laar & Jordan P. Goodrich & Vickery L. Arcus & Julie R. Deslippe & Alexis J. Marshall & Louis A. Schipper, 2023. "Quantifying thermal adaptation of soil microbial respiration," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, December.
    11. Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz & Janusz Olejnik & Marek Urbaniak & Klaudia Ziemblińska, 2023. "Storing Carbon in Forest Biomass and Wood Products in Poland—Energy and Climate Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-18, August.
    12. Xiaojuan Xu & Fusheng Jiao & Dayi Lin & Jing Liu & Kun Zhang & Ruozhu Yang & Naifeng Lin & Changxin Zou, 2023. "Carbon Sink Trends in the Karst Regions of Southwest China: Impacts of Ecological Restoration and Climate Change," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, October.
    13. Xiaogang Li & Dele Chen & Víctor J. Carrión & Daniel Revillini & Shan Yin & Yuanhua Dong & Taolin Zhang & Xingxiang Wang & Manuel Delgado-Baquerizo, 2023. "Acidification suppresses the natural capacity of soil microbiome to fight pathogenic Fusarium infections," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, December.
    14. Guillaume Patoine & Nico Eisenhauer & Simone Cesarz & Helen R. P. Phillips & Xiaofeng Xu & Lihua Zhang & Carlos A. Guerra, 2022. "Drivers and trends of global soil microbial carbon over two decades," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Gaowen Yang & Masahiro Ryo & Julien Roy & Daniel R. Lammel & Max-Bernhard Ballhausen & Xin Jing & Xuefeng Zhu & Matthias C. Rillig, 2022. "Multiple anthropogenic pressures eliminate the effects of soil microbial diversity on ecosystem functions in experimental microcosms," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-8, December.
    16. Tessa Camenzind & Carlos A. Aguilar-Trigueros & Stefan Hempel & Anika Lehmann & Milos Bielcik & Diana R. Andrade-Linares & Joana Bergmann & Jeane Cruz & Jessie Gawronski & Polina Golubeva & Heike Hasl, 2024. "Towards establishing a fungal economics spectrum in soil saprobic fungi," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Gren, Ing-Marie, 2024. "A trading market for uncertain carbon removal by land use in the EU," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    18. Mehnaz Mosharrof & Md. Kamal Uddin & Shamshuddin Jusop & Muhammad Firdaus Sulaiman & S. M. Shamsuzzaman & Ahmad Numery Ashfaqul Haque, 2021. "Changes in Acidic Soil Chemical Properties and Carbon Dioxide Emission Due to Biochar and Lime Treatments," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, March.
    19. M.J. Mace & Claire L. Fyson & Michiel Schaeffer & William L. Hare, 2021. "Large‐Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal to Meet the 1.5°C Limit: Key Governance Gaps, Challenges and Priority Responses," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S1), pages 67-81, April.
    20. Qingzhi He & Mao Ye & Xin Zhao & Xiaoting Pan, 2023. "Environmental Factors’ Effects on Stem Radial Variations of Populus euphratica in the Lower Reaches of the Tarim River in Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-14, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:3017-:d:764255. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.