A comparison of analytical methods for the determination of soil pH: case study on burned soils in Northern Portugal

• Autor(a) principal: Faria, Maria
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: Bertocco, Tamires, Barroso, Ana, Carvalho, Manuela, Fonseca, Felícia, Matos, Cristina Delerue, Figueiredo, Tomás de, Braga, Amalia Sequeira, Valente, Teresa, Jimenez-Ballesta, Raimundo
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10198/21172
• topic: pH; Analytical protocols; Forest fires; Burned soil; ANOVA; Cost-effective method

Wildfires can cause serious imbalances in ecosystems, primarily at the soil level, making it vulnerable to degradation processes such as erosion. During and after a fire, changes occur in soil properties, including pH, which affects the solubility and availability of nutrients. Currently, there is a great diversity of protocols, some involving normalized standards, to determine soil pH, but there is no consensual or universal analytical method for this parameter, especially in burned soils, in which mineral and organic fractions could have been modified. Therefore, the objective of the present work is to evaluate the effect that variations in these analytical protocols may have on pH results. For this, five methods commonly found in the international bibliography for the analysis of pH of soil in water (pH(H2O)) were selected and compared to propose the most precise procedure. The analytical methods were applied to 43 soil samples, collected in a plot subjected to prescribed burning in the Parque Natural de Montesinho (Northern Portugal). The studied methods differ in the following protocol items: water suspension ratio (1:2.5 or 1:5), mechanical stirring time in the suspension (10 min or 1 h), and in the resting time for the solid particles to settle (15 min or 8 h). The obtained results point to the suitability of the five methods used for soil pH analysis, indicating that there are no statistically significant differences. However, results also allow suggesting a more appropriate method concerning practical reasons, such as labor in a lab. Thus, to make the analysis process more profitable, M2 is a good option because it uses a small amount of sample (5 g), short agitation (10 min) and settling time (15 min). In turn, M1 and M5, which use a lower proportion of soil (1:2.5) show lower pH variation in the measurements. This fact may be explained by a smaller dilution effect. Considering that these two methods differ in the settling time, it is suggested to apply M1, because only 15 min are required. Therefore, the main conclusion reached with this work is that the measurement of soil pH using M1, i.e., a soil:water ratio of 1:2.5, with agitation of 10 min and settling time of 15 min, is a robust and more expeditious protocol to be applied to soil samples after a fire.