
<!DOCTYPE article
  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD with MathML3 v1.4 20241031//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1-4-mathml3.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="1.4"><?da-xref-anchor-style superscripted?><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">Sci Rep</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="iso-abbrev">Sci Rep</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="pmc-domain-id">1579</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="pmc-domain">scirep</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-id">101563288</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Scientific Reports</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2045-2322</issn><?publisher_abbrev naturepg?><publisher><publisher-name>Nature Publishing Group</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="pmcid">PMC7248113</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmcid-ver">PMC7248113.1</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmcaid">7248113</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmcaiid">7248113</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">32451407</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/s41598-020-65501-3</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">65501</article-id><article-version article-version-type="pmc-version">1</article-version><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Effects of lime application on nitrogen and phosphorus availability in humic soils</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mkhonza</surname><given-names initials="NP">N. P.</given-names></name><address><email>pertuniamkhonza88@gmail.com</email></address><xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid" authenticated="false">http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9103-3793</contrib-id><name name-style="western"><surname>Buthelezi-Dube</surname><given-names initials="NN">N. N.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid" authenticated="false">http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5822-0290</contrib-id><name name-style="western"><surname>Muchaonyerwa</surname><given-names initials="P">P.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff1"/></contrib><aff id="Aff1"><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="ISNI">0000 0001 0723 4123</institution-id><institution-id institution-id-type="GRID">grid.16463.36</institution-id><institution>School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, </institution><institution>University of KwaZulu-Natal, </institution></institution-wrap>Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209 South Africa </aff></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>25</day><month>5</month><year>2020</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2020</year></pub-date><volume>10</volume><issue-id pub-id-type="pmc-issue-id">348898</issue-id><elocation-id>8634</elocation-id><history><date date-type="received"><day>11</day><month>9</month><year>2019</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>5</day><month>5</month><year>2020</year></date></history><pub-history><event event-type="pmc-release"><date><day>25</day><month>05</month><year>2020</year></date></event><event event-type="pmc-live"><date><day>04</day><month>06</month><year>2020</year></date></event><event event-type="pmc-last-change"><date iso-8601-date="2026-03-22 05:25:14.180"><day>22</day><month>03</month><year>2026</year></date></event></pub-history><permissions><copyright-statement>© The Author(s) 2020</copyright-statement><license license-type="OpenAccess"><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" specific-use="textmining" content-type="ccbylicense">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ali:license_ref><license-p><bold>Open Access</bold> This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link>.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" content-type="pmc-pdf" xlink:href="41598_2020_Article_65501.pdf"><?pdf-name 41598_2020_Article_65501.pdf?><?pdf-size 1431464?><?pdf-md5 ae1efdb6645beff1fa8ee103cd7bec4c?><?pdf-image-server-status NEVER_LOAD?><?pdf-cloudpmc-urn urn:app:1b32/7248113/ae1efdb6645b/41598_2020_Article_65501.pdf?></self-uri><abstract id="Abs1"><p id="Par1">There is a paucity of information on nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) mineralization in humic soils, which are highly weathered and have high carbon (C) (&gt;1.8%). This study was to determine effects of liming on N and P mineralization in humic soils. Lime was applied to reduce acid saturation to 20% of the 0–10 and 10–20 cm depths of soils from Eston and Eshowe. Soils were incubated at field capacity moisture and 25 °C temperature, with destructive sampling after 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 56, 84 and 112 days. Samples were analysed for pH, ammonium- and nitrate-N and extractable P. Phosphorus pools and soil microbial biomass C and N (SMBC and N) were analysed after 112 days only. Soil pH increased up to day 7 and decreased thereafter in Eston soil but decreased throughout the incubation in Eshowe soil. Ammonium- and nitrate-N increased with lime rate, with ammonium-N peaking after 7 and 14 days for Eston and Eshowe soils, respectively. The 0–10 cm depth had higher ammonium-N than 10–20 cm for both soils. Nitrate-N increased with corresponding decrease in ammonium-N. Extractable P decreased till day 21 and increased thereafter in Eston soil, with slight changes in Eshowe. Higher lime rate decreased Al-P, Fe-P and CBD-P and increased soluble-P, Ca-P, and SMB-C and N for both soils. The findings imply that liming humic soils increase nitrate-N and, to a lesser extent, extractable P, possibly improving productivity and exposing N to leaching.</p></abstract><kwd-group kwd-group-type="npg-subject"><title>Subject terms</title><kwd>Environmental sciences</kwd><kwd>Environmental sciences</kwd><kwd>Environmental sciences</kwd><kwd>Sustainability</kwd><kwd>Sustainability</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group><award-group><funding-source><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="FundRef">https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001321</institution-id><institution>National Research Foundation (NRF)</institution></institution-wrap></funding-source><award-id>93593</award-id><principal-award-recipient><name name-style="western"><surname>Buthelezi-Dube</surname><given-names>N. N.</given-names></name></principal-award-recipient></award-group></funding-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-status-qastatus</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-status-live</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-status-embargo</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-status-released</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-prop-open-access</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-prop-olf</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-prop-manuscript</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-prop-legally-suppressed</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-prop-has-pdf</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-prop-has-supplement</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-prop-pdf-only</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-prop-suppress-copyright</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-prop-is-real-version</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-prop-is-scanned-article</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-prop-preprint</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-prop-in-epmc</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>pmc-license-ref</meta-name><meta-value>CC BY</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>issue-copyright-statement</meta-name><meta-value>© The Author(s) 2020</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="Sec1" sec-type="introduction"><title>Introduction</title><p id="Par2">Liming is commonly used to improve the productivity of acidic soils in agricultural systems. The addition of lime increases the availability of nutrients, which would otherwise be strongly limited by low soil pH<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR1">1</xref></sup>. An increase in soil pH, as a result of liming, increases microbial activity<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR2">2</xref>–<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR4">4</xref></sup>, resulting in increased decomposition of resident SOM<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR5">5</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR6">6</xref></sup>. The decomposition could result in increased mineral N and P and losses of SOC through CO<sub>2</sub> emission<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR7">7</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR8">8</xref></sup>. Generally, increasing soil pH to &gt;5.5 would be optimum for the development and growth of nitrifiers<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR9">9</xref></sup>. High rates of nitrification have been reported when lime is applied to strongly acidic soil<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR10">10</xref></sup>. Zhao <italic toggle="yes">et al</italic>.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR11">11</xref></sup>, Lyngstad<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR12">12</xref></sup> and Yao <italic toggle="yes">et al</italic>.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR13">13</xref></sup> reported increases in nitrate-N after application of lime to forestry soils. The increase in nitrification can be explained by high microbial activity following lime application attributed to an increase in soil pH<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR2">2</xref>–<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR4">4</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR14">14</xref></sup>. However, other results have shown liming to either have no effect<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR15">15</xref></sup> or a decrease<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR16">16</xref></sup> in microbial activity of highly acidic soils. These differences could be due to soil physico-chemical properties such as total C and N, C: N ratio and soil pH. The differences in microbial response could also be due to differences in lime requirements of the soils (e.g. soils with high acid saturation would require more lime) and also differences in organic matter contents. The response of microbial communities and mineralization process to liming also varies with soil type and management conditions<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR5">5</xref></sup>. No effects or decreased mineralization with lime application could be attributed to increased protection of organic substrates due to increase aggregates stability<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR17">17</xref></sup>. In addition to increased microbial activity, lime addition increases P availability in highly acidic soils<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR18">18</xref></sup>. The lime application increases P availability by decreasing Al<sup>3+</sup> and Fe<sup>3+</sup> ions and fixation on aluminium and iron oxides while over-liming to pH values up to 8.5 could result in precipitation of calcium phosphate<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR19">19</xref></sup>. While the role of Al-organic matter complexes in fixing P is not clearly understood, the decomposition of the organic matter may release the bound Al into the soil solution, due to liming, with the possible increase in fixation of P. This effect has not been ascertained, including in humic soils of South Africa.</p><p id="Par3">Humic soils are intensely weathered and highly acidic and are characterised by high C (&gt;1.8%) content, high buffering capacity, and good drainage, low bulk density and base status<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR20">20</xref></sup>. These soils are restricted to regions receiving high rainfall and cool temperatures mostly in parts of the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga in South Africa<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR20">20</xref></sup>. There is no evidence, in literature, of the occurrence of these soils other than in South Africa. The characteristics of these soils are relatively similar to those of Andosols but the conditions on which they are formed are different, and the organic matter concentrations in some humic soils are higher. From our preliminary experiments, some humic soils have as high as 10% organic C and such levels of organic matter could results in excessive mineralization of N with potential for leaching to ground water. Like in Andosols, formation of Al-organic matter and Fe-organic matter complexes<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR21">21</xref></sup> is believed to be a major mechanism of soil organic matter (SOM) stabilisation in humic soils. These organo-mineral complexes increase the protection of SOM from microbial decomposition<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR22">22</xref></sup>. The effects of liming on nitrogen mineralization and P availability could be magnified in the highly productive humic soils.</p><p id="Par4">A large portion of humic soils in KwaZulu-Natal is under sugarcane, where treatment with lime is used to reduce the effects of acidity. The reduction in acidity could increase microbial activity, decomposition of SOM and mineralization of nutrients, making a significant contribution to crop N and P requirements, while the release of Al bound to SOM could increase exchangeable acidity or moderate effects of lime. Depending on the concentration of mineral N from decomposition of resident SOM, crop requirements could be achieved, with possible excess N contaminating ground water. The good drainage of humic soils<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR20">20</xref></sup> increases the possibilities of any excess nitrates to be leached. This effect could be particularly important with increase in demand for arable land which could result in humic soils under forestry and grassland being converted to cultivation with consequent inevitable need for lime. There is a need to understand the decomposition of SOM in humic soils especially those under forestry, which could be converted to arable land. Considering the high C content stored within these soils<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR20">20</xref></sup>, which could be altered following liming, there is a need to understand the effects of lime application on pH, concentrations mineral N and P in disturbed humic soils under forestry. The objective of the study was to determine the effects of liming on N and P availability from humic soils during incubation.</p></sec><sec id="Sec2" sec-type="results"><title>Results</title><sec id="Sec3"><title>Physicochemical properties of humic soils before liming</title><p id="Par5">Both soils had sandy clay loam texture with over 50% sand (Table <xref rid="Tab1" ref-type="table">1</xref>). The soil from Eston had 9.89% C and 0.73% N (C: N = 14:1) in the 0–10 cm depth while that from Eshowe had 6.04% C and 0.38% N (C: N = 16:1). The Eston soil had &gt;80% acid saturation for both depths while the soil from Eshowe had 3% in the 0–10 cm and 28% in the 10–20 cm depth (Table <xref rid="Tab1" ref-type="table">1</xref>). The soil from Eston had higher extractable P and exchangeable K, with lower exchangeable Ca than that from Eshowe.<table-wrap id="Tab1" position="float" orientation="portrait"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>Selected physico-chemical characteristics of the forestry humic soils used.</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th colspan="1" rowspan="1">Property</th><th colspan="2" rowspan="1">Eston</th><th colspan="2" rowspan="1">Eshowe</th><th colspan="1" rowspan="1">LSD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Depth (cm)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0–10</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">10–20</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0–10</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">10–20</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"/></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">pH<sub>(KCl)</sub></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">3.95</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">3.96</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">5.16</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">4.35</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.24</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">pH<sub>(H2O)</sub></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">4.66</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">4.79</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">5.91</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">4.62</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.50</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Carbon (%)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">9.89</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">4.26</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">6.04</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">3.80</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">1.77</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Nitrogen (%)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.73</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.21</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.38</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.18</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.18</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">C: N</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">14: 1</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">20: 1</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">16: 1</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">21: 1</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"/></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Sand (%)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">57.7</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">61</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">53. 7</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">53.7</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">23.9</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Silt (%)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">11</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">10</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">16.7</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">14.7</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">9.88</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Clay (%)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">30.7</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">29</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">30</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">33.3</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">15.1</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Extractable P (mg/kg)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">9.87</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">7.29</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">5.89</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">6.11</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.79</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Exchangeable K (cmol<sub>c</sub>/kg)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.68</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.29</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.09</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.18</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.04</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Exchangeable Ca (cmol<sub>c</sub>/kg)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.53</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.32</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">3.11</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">1.45</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.70</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Exchangeable Mg (cmol<sub>c</sub>/kg)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">3.50</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.24</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">2.96</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">1.40</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.18</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Exchangeable Na (cmol<sub>c</sub>/kg)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">1.75</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">1.90</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">1.82</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">1.76</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.08</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Exchangeable Acidity (cmol<sub>c</sub>/kg)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">4.28</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">3.89</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.20</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">1.2</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">0.08</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Acid saturation (%)</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">81</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">83</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">3</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">28</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"/></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></p></sec><sec id="Sec4"><title>Effect of liming on soil properties</title><sec id="Sec5"><title>Soil pH</title><p id="Par6">There were significant differences in pH among all lime treatments and depth, for each sampling period, throughout the incubation study except that the difference between the two depths for the recommended lime rate was only significant up to day14 in the Eston soil (Fig. <xref rid="Fig1" ref-type="fig">1A</xref>). A rapid decrease was observed between days 7 and 28 (Fig. <xref rid="Fig1" ref-type="fig">1A</xref>), followed by a slower decline until day 112 for all treatments and at both depths. The higher lime application rate had higher pH compared to the recommended rates and the control with the 0–10 cm depth, in all treatments, being higher in pH than the 10–20 cm (Fig. <xref rid="Fig1" ref-type="fig">1A</xref>). There was a slow decline in pH in the Eshowe soil up to day 42, followed by a sharp decline between days 42–56, and no further change was observed till day 112 (Fig. <xref rid="Fig1" ref-type="fig">1B</xref>).<fig id="Fig1" position="float" orientation="portrait"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p>Changes in <bold>s</bold>oil pH<sub>(1M KCl)</sub> from different application rates of lime at different depth (0–10 and 10–20 cm). The letters A and B indicates Eston and Eshowe soil, respectively. Lime was applied at a rates of 0, 12 and 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for Eston and 0, 1.5 and 4.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for Eshowe soil. Vertical error bars indicates LSD (p &lt; 0.05). The no fill and fill markers represent 0–10 and 10–20 cm depth, respectively. Symbols ◊ 12 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (0–10 cm); ♦ 12 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (10–20 cm); ∆ control (0–10 cm); ▲ control (10–20 cm); o 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (0–10 cm); • 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (10–20 cm).</p></caption><graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" id="d30e756" position="float" orientation="portrait" xlink:href="41598_2020_65501_Fig1_HTML.jpg"><?image-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig1_HTML.jpg?><?image-size 52899?><?image-md5 137d6fd90327ba6f6f1ad14b2da00ea9?><?image-image-server-status LOAD_COMPLETED?><?image-original-height 1144?><?image-original-width 996?><?image-scaled-height 763?><?image-scaled-width 664?><?image-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/137d6fd90327/41598_2020_65501_Fig1_HTML.jpg?><?thumb-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig1_HTML.gif?><?thumb-size 1889?><?thumb-md5 aa88642fe3b4095736df33b364a35528?><?thumb-image-server-status NEVER_LOAD?><?thumb-scaled-height 115?><?thumb-scaled-width 100?><?thumb-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/aa88642fe3b4/41598_2020_65501_Fig1_HTML.gif?></graphic></fig></p></sec></sec><sec id="Sec6"><title>Ammonium-N</title><p id="Par7">There was a sharp increase in ammonium-N concentration within the first 7 days in the Eston soil (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2A</xref>). Significant differences in ammonium-N concentrations, among all treatments, were observed up to day 56 (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2A</xref>). There was a higher ammonium-N concentration in amended soils from the 0–10 cm depth compared to 10–20 cm (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2A</xref>). Between days 56–112 (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2A</xref>) ammonium-N concentration in the control increased. Higher ammonium-N concentration occurred at higher application rates of lime for both depths in the Eston soil (Figure 3.2A) and for 0–10 cm depth in the Eshowe soil (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2B</xref>). At the recommended rate, the Eston soil had a maximum ammonium N concentration of 55 mg kg<sup>−1</sup>. The same trend in ammonium-N was observed for Eshowe with a maximum at day 14. Between days 56–84 ammonium-N concentrations in the control increased and then decreased from day 84–112 in all treatments (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2B</xref>). The maximum ammonium-N concentration at the recommended lime rate in Eshowe soil was 45 mg kg<sup>−1</sup>.<fig id="Fig2" position="float" orientation="portrait"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p>Ammonium-N concentration at different application rates of lime at different depth (0–10 and 10–20 cm). Lime was applied at a rates of 0, 12 and 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for Eston and 0, 1.5 and 4.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for Eshowe soil. The letters A and B indicates Eston and Eshowe soil, respectively. Vertical error bars indicates LSD (p &lt; 0.05). The no fill and fill markers represent 0–10 and 10–20 cm depth, respectively. Symbols ◊ 12 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (0–10 cm); ♦ 12 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (10–20 cm); ∆ control (0–10 cm); ▲ control (10–20 cm); o 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (0–10 cm); • 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (10–20 cm).</p></caption><graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" id="d30e814" position="float" orientation="portrait" xlink:href="41598_2020_65501_Fig2_HTML.jpg"><?image-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig2_HTML.jpg?><?image-size 50503?><?image-md5 6eb293b5a6c666fc8fe7f53c6efb27ac?><?image-image-server-status LOAD_COMPLETED?><?image-original-height 1162?><?image-original-width 998?><?image-scaled-height 774?><?image-scaled-width 665?><?image-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/6eb293b5a6c6/41598_2020_65501_Fig2_HTML.jpg?><?thumb-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig2_HTML.gif?><?thumb-size 1927?><?thumb-md5 852609bde7ea8d69663a517d4122f209?><?thumb-image-server-status NEVER_LOAD?><?thumb-scaled-height 116?><?thumb-scaled-width 100?><?thumb-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/852609bde7ea/41598_2020_65501_Fig2_HTML.gif?></graphic></fig></p></sec><sec id="Sec7"><title>Nitrate-N</title><p id="Par8">Nitrate-N concentrations were only significantly different from 14 days of incubation for the Eston soil (Fig. <xref rid="Fig3" ref-type="fig">3A</xref>). The nitrate-N rapidly increased from day 14–56, and thereafter, a slower increase was observed in all treatments except for the control, where minimal change was observed, throughout the incubation period (Fig. <xref rid="Fig3" ref-type="fig">3A</xref>). Higher nitrate-N concentration was observed at higher lime application rates for Eston soil (Fig. <xref rid="Fig3" ref-type="fig">3A</xref>). Higher nitrate-N concentration occurred in the 0–10 cm depth within each lime treatment compared to 10–20 cm depth (Figure. 3.3A). Treatment and depth differences in soil nitrate-N were significant from 21 days in the Eshowe soil (Fig. <xref rid="Fig3" ref-type="fig">3B</xref>). Higher nitrate-N concentration occurred in the 0–10 cm depth of the Eshowe soil amended with lime (Fig. <xref rid="Fig3" ref-type="fig">3B</xref>). The Eston soil had nitrate N as high as &gt;400 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> at the recommended rate and &gt;600 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> at triple the recommended lime rate. The highest nitrate-N concentration in the Eshowe soil was less than 100 mg kg<sup>−1</sup>, even at triple the recommended lime rate.<fig id="Fig3" position="float" orientation="portrait"><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p>Concentration of nitrate-N at different application rates of lime at different depth (0–10 and 10–20 cm). Lime was applied at a rates of 0, 12 and 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for Eston and 0, 1.5 and 4.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for Eshowe soil. The letters A and B indicates Eston and Eshowe soil, respectively. Vertical error bars indicates LSD (p &lt; 0.05). The no fill and fill markers represent 0–10 and 10–20 cm depth, respectively. Symbols ◊ 12 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (0–10 cm); ♦ 12 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (10–20 cm); ∆ control (0–10 cm); ▲ control (10–20 cm); o 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (0–10 cm); • 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (10–20 cm).</p></caption><graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" id="d30e872" position="float" orientation="portrait" xlink:href="41598_2020_65501_Fig3_HTML.jpg"><?image-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig3_HTML.jpg?><?image-size 56316?><?image-md5 bc241b3c9cd8ddce57b27fcf02155c05?><?image-image-server-status LOAD_COMPLETED?><?image-original-height 1191?><?image-original-width 997?><?image-scaled-height 793?><?image-scaled-width 664?><?image-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/bc241b3c9cd8/41598_2020_65501_Fig3_HTML.jpg?><?thumb-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig3_HTML.gif?><?thumb-size 2035?><?thumb-md5 61839475c867e4fa9854a0031cd44351?><?thumb-image-server-status NEVER_LOAD?><?thumb-scaled-height 119?><?thumb-scaled-width 100?><?thumb-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/61839475c867/41598_2020_65501_Fig3_HTML.gif?></graphic></fig></p></sec><sec id="Sec8"><title>Extractable P</title><p id="Par9">Extractable P decreased within the first 21 days of incubation of the soil from Eston (Fig. <xref rid="Fig4" ref-type="fig">4A</xref>). From day 21 to 42 there was an increase in extractable P in all treatments except the control (Fig. <xref rid="Fig4" ref-type="fig">4A</xref>). More extractable P occurred in the 0–10 compared to 10–20 cm depth (Fig. <xref rid="Fig4" ref-type="fig">4A</xref>). A decrease of extractable P concentration in soils amended at triple the lime rate was observed from day 56 to 84 where the P concentration was not significantly different except for the control, which had lower concentration up to 112 days (Fig. <xref rid="Fig4" ref-type="fig">4A</xref>). There was a decline in extractable P in all treatments in the soil from Eshowe up to day 14, thereafter there was a slight increase with no significant change (Fig. <xref rid="Fig4" ref-type="fig">4B</xref>). There was no significant difference in extractable P within treatment and depth from day 0–84 (Fig. <xref rid="Fig4" ref-type="fig">4B</xref>). The significant difference occurred on day 112 where the triple application rate had a significantly higher concentration than the recommended rates and control for both depths (Fig. <xref rid="Fig4" ref-type="fig">4B</xref>). The Eston soil had a maximum extractable P of about 20 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> at the recommended rate, and about 30 mg kg<sup>−1</sup>, at triple the lime rate, while for the Eshowe soil the highest was about 17 mg kg<sup>−1</sup>.<fig id="Fig4" position="float" orientation="portrait"><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p>Extractable P concentrations at different application rates of lime at different depth (0–10 and 10–20 cm). Lime was applied at a rates of 0, 12 and 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for Eston and 0, 1.5 and 4.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for Eshowe soil. The no fill and fill markers represent 0–10 and 10–20 cm depth, respectively. Symbols ◊ 12 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (0–10 cm); ♦ 12 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (10–20 cm); ∆ control (0–10 cm); ▲ control (10–20 cm); o 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (0–10 cm); • 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (10–20 cm).</p></caption><graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" id="d30e936" position="float" orientation="portrait" xlink:href="41598_2020_65501_Fig4_HTML.jpg"><?image-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig4_HTML.jpg?><?image-size 52571?><?image-md5 71ef75967e7b0a1c18db850f1a85d4c6?><?image-image-server-status LOAD_COMPLETED?><?image-original-height 1194?><?image-original-width 996?><?image-scaled-height 796?><?image-scaled-width 664?><?image-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/71ef75967e7b/41598_2020_65501_Fig4_HTML.jpg?><?thumb-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig4_HTML.gif?><?thumb-size 2151?><?thumb-md5 3bd335d51318edabc8ed2d48c95b5c8d?><?thumb-image-server-status NEVER_LOAD?><?thumb-scaled-height 120?><?thumb-scaled-width 100?><?thumb-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/3bd335d51318/41598_2020_65501_Fig4_HTML.gif?></graphic></fig></p></sec><sec id="Sec9"><title>Phosphorus fractionation</title><sec id="Sec10"><title>Eston Soil</title><p id="Par10">There were significant differences in soluble-P between depths and among treatments. Soluble P was higher in the 0–10 than the 10–20 cm depth for all lime treatments. The soluble P concentration also increased with an increase in lime rate (Fig. <xref rid="Fig5" ref-type="fig">5A</xref>). The Al-P, Fe-P and CBD-P decreased with an increase in lime application rates (Fig. <xref rid="Fig5" ref-type="fig">5B,C,E</xref>). The 0–10 cm depth had higher Al-P, Fe-P and CBD-P than the 10–20 cm depth for all lime rates except at 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> where there was no difference in Al-P (Fig. <xref rid="Fig5" ref-type="fig">5B</xref>). The Ca-P fraction was generally lower than the other fractions in all the treatments. The 0–10 cm depth had higher Ca-P than the 10–20 cm depth for the lime rates except in the control (0 t ha<sup>−1</sup>), where there was no difference (Fig. <xref rid="Fig5" ref-type="fig">5D</xref>). The 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> lime had higher Ca-P than the other rates, irrespective of depth.<fig id="Fig5" position="float" orientation="portrait"><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p>Phosphorus fractions at different application rates of lime at 112 days of incubation in the Eston soil. Figure A, B, C, D and E indicates soluble-P, Al-P, Fe-P, Ca-P and CBD-P, respectively. Lime was applied at a rates of 0, 12 and 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> at different depth of 0–10 and 10–20 cm. Diagonally striped bars and vertically dashed bars represent 0–10 and 10–20 cm depth, respectively. Bars with same letters are not significantly different.</p></caption><graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" id="d30e978" position="float" orientation="portrait" xlink:href="41598_2020_65501_Fig5_HTML.jpg"><?image-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig5_HTML.jpg?><?image-size 67317?><?image-md5 b339983edd6f26115a7e629fee40e10c?><?image-image-server-status LOAD_COMPLETED?><?image-original-height 1757?><?image-original-width 1646?><?image-scaled-height 702?><?image-scaled-width 658?><?image-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/b339983edd6f/41598_2020_65501_Fig5_HTML.jpg?><?thumb-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig5_HTML.gif?><?thumb-size 2513?><?thumb-md5 c32111ccd65978f4806df799cb5a1293?><?thumb-image-server-status NEVER_LOAD?><?thumb-scaled-height 107?><?thumb-scaled-width 100?><?thumb-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/c32111ccd659/41598_2020_65501_Fig5_HTML.gif?></graphic></fig></p></sec><sec id="Sec11"><title>Eshowe soil</title><p id="Par11">There was no significant difference in soluble P treatments except for the 4.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> in the 0–10 cm depth (Fig. <xref rid="Fig6" ref-type="fig">6A</xref>). There was a significant decrease in Al-P and Fe-P with the increase in lime rate (Fig. <xref rid="Fig6" ref-type="fig">6B.C</xref>), except that there were no differences in Al-P between the 1.5 and 4.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> in the 0–10 cm depth. Soil depth did not affect Al-P except at 4.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> rate, where the 0–10 cm depth had higher concentrations than the 10–20 cm depth. The Fe-P (Fig. <xref rid="Fig6" ref-type="fig">6C</xref>) and Ca-P (Fig. <xref rid="Fig6" ref-type="fig">6D</xref>) concentrations declined with soil depth except in the control where the 10–20 cm depth had a higher concentration. The CBD-P also decreased with the increase in application rates of lime and soil depth (Fig. <xref rid="Fig6" ref-type="fig">6E</xref>).<fig id="Fig6" position="float" orientation="portrait"><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p>Eshowe soil P fractions at different application rates of lime at 112 days of incubation. Lime was applied at a rates of 0, 1.5 and 4.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> at different depth of 0–10 and 10–20 cm. Figure A, B, C, D and E indicate soluble-P, Al-P, Fe-P, Ca-P and CBD-P, respectively. Diagonally triped bars and vertically dashed bars represent 0–10 and 10–20 cm depth, respectively. Bars with same letters are not significantly different.</p></caption><graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" id="d30e1020" position="float" orientation="portrait" xlink:href="41598_2020_65501_Fig6_HTML.jpg"><?image-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig6_HTML.jpg?><?image-size 68328?><?image-md5 a799df36cc1c1a36dbe4bb4bbe117b0b?><?image-image-server-status LOAD_COMPLETED?><?image-original-height 1611?><?image-original-width 1646?><?image-scaled-height 644?><?image-scaled-width 658?><?image-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/a799df36cc1c/41598_2020_65501_Fig6_HTML.jpg?><?thumb-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig6_HTML.gif?><?thumb-size 2563?><?thumb-md5 97d884c510ecb20f73dc159dd23e05ab?><?thumb-image-server-status NEVER_LOAD?><?thumb-scaled-height 98?><?thumb-scaled-width 100?><?thumb-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/97d884c510ec/41598_2020_65501_Fig6_HTML.gif?></graphic></fig></p></sec></sec><sec id="Sec12"><title>Soil microbial biomass carbon (SMB-C) and nitrogen (SMB-N)</title><p id="Par12">There were significant differences in SMB-C (Fig. <xref rid="Fig7" ref-type="fig">7A</xref>) among the treatments and between the depths after 112 days of incubation in the Eston soil. The SMB-C increased with an increase in lime rate at both depths (Fig. <xref rid="Fig7" ref-type="fig">7A</xref>). The 0–10 cm depth had higher SMB-C than the 10–20 cm depth. In the Eshowe soil, only the 4.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> lime rate had higher SMB-C in the 10–20 cm depth (Fig. <xref rid="Fig7" ref-type="fig">7B</xref>). There were significant differences in SMB-N (Fig. <xref rid="Fig8" ref-type="fig">8A</xref>) among the treatments and between the depths after 112 days of incubation in the Eston soil. The 0–10 cm depth had higher SMB-N than the 10–20 cm depth, except in the control where there were no differences between the depths. In the Eshowe soil, only the 4.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> lime rate had higher SMB-N at both depths (Fig. <xref rid="Fig8" ref-type="fig">8B</xref>) than all the other treatment combinations.<fig id="Fig7" position="float" orientation="portrait"><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p>Soil microbial biomass carbon at different application rates of lime at 112 days of incubation. Figure A and B indicates Eston and Eshowe soil, respectively. Lime was applied at a rates of 0, 12 and 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> and 0, 1.5 and 4.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> at different depth of 0–10 and 10–20 cm for Eston and Eshowe, respectively. The white dotted and black hatched bars represent 0–10 and 10–20 cm depth, respectively. Bars with same letters are not significantly different.</p></caption><graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" id="d30e1062" position="float" orientation="portrait" xlink:href="41598_2020_65501_Fig7_HTML.jpg"><?image-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig7_HTML.jpg?><?image-size 64694?><?image-md5 becc963b31f82c2bdedcd2fb6102e50e?><?image-image-server-status LOAD_COMPLETED?><?image-original-height 1144?><?image-original-width 999?><?image-scaled-height 763?><?image-scaled-width 666?><?image-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/becc963b31f8/41598_2020_65501_Fig7_HTML.jpg?><?thumb-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig7_HTML.gif?><?thumb-size 2174?><?thumb-md5 8adb807b70baec60e61892404844a2e9?><?thumb-image-server-status NEVER_LOAD?><?thumb-scaled-height 115?><?thumb-scaled-width 100?><?thumb-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/8adb807b70ba/41598_2020_65501_Fig7_HTML.gif?></graphic></fig><fig id="Fig8" position="float" orientation="portrait"><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p>Soil microbial biomass nitrogen at different application rates of lime at 112 days of incubation. Figure A and B indicates Eston and Eshowe soil, respectively. Lime was applied at a rates of 0, 12 and 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> and 0, 1.5 and 4.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> at different depth of 0–10 and 10–20 cm for Eston and Eshowe, respectively. The white dotted bars and black hatched bars represents 0–10 and 10–20 cm depth, respectively. Bars with same letters are not significantly different.</p></caption><graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" id="d30e1077" position="float" orientation="portrait" xlink:href="41598_2020_65501_Fig8_HTML.jpg"><?image-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig8_HTML.jpg?><?image-size 55273?><?image-md5 19e9c52ab68bbb29c035f1c54848ea1f?><?image-image-server-status LOAD_COMPLETED?><?image-original-height 1126?><?image-original-width 998?><?image-scaled-height 750?><?image-scaled-width 665?><?image-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/19e9c52ab68b/41598_2020_65501_Fig8_HTML.jpg?><?thumb-name 41598_2020_65501_Fig8_HTML.gif?><?thumb-size 2001?><?thumb-md5 af3050807eff44ef9e557076d25e43ab?><?thumb-image-server-status NEVER_LOAD?><?thumb-scaled-height 113?><?thumb-scaled-width 100?><?thumb-cloudpmc-urn urn:cdn:blobs/1b32/7248113/af3050807eff/41598_2020_65501_Fig8_HTML.gif?></graphic></fig></p></sec></sec><sec id="Sec13" sec-type="discussion"><title>Discussion</title><p id="Par13">The increase in pH with an increase in lime rate (Fig. <xref rid="Fig1" ref-type="fig">1A</xref>) was due to an increase in hydroxide ions following lime application<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR23">23</xref></sup>. The increase in pH supported greater microbial activity<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR2">2</xref></sup>, resulting in greater decomposition of organic matter<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR6">6</xref></sup>, resulting in the increase in ammonium-N concentrations in the 0–7 and 0–14 days periods for the soils from Eston and Eshowe, respectively (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2A,B</xref>). An increase in pH upon the addition of lime removes acidity as a constraint, increasing microbial activities resulting in increased mineralization of N<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR3">3</xref></sup>. Anderson<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR24">24</xref></sup>; Chagnon <italic toggle="yes">et al</italic>.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR25">25</xref></sup> reported that an increase in soil pH after liming results in a significant increase of SMB-C. Similar results were reported by several authors<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR14">14</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR26">26</xref>–<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR28">28</xref></sup>. The increase in SMB-C coincided with the increase in nitrate-N (Fig. <xref rid="Fig3" ref-type="fig">3A</xref>) and with application rate. The decrease in pH of Eshowe soil could be due to decomposition of SOM releasing humic acids initially and Al<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR19">19</xref></sup> and low level of lime applied (Fig. <xref rid="Fig1" ref-type="fig">1B</xref>) while lower ammonium-N concentrations was also available (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2B</xref>), than from the Eston soil (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2A</xref>), as SOM decomposed.</p><p id="Par14">The highest concentration of ammonium-N at day 7 for the Eston (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2A</xref>) and 14 for the Eshowe soil (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2B</xref>) suggest that upon removal of pH constraints rapid decomposition of SOM and N mineralization occurred releasing ammonium-N. Baggs <italic toggle="yes">et al</italic>.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR29">29</xref></sup> reported similar results, where ammonium-N was higher after the addition of lime due to increased mineralization rates. The decrease in pH between day 7 and day 28 (Fig. <xref rid="Fig1" ref-type="fig">1A</xref>) was attributed to nitrification, which released H<sup>+</sup> ions. The sharp decrease in ammonium-N from day 7 in the Eston soil (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2A</xref>) and 14 for the Eshowe soil (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2B</xref>), corresponds with an increase in nitrate-N concentration (Fig. <xref rid="Fig3" ref-type="fig">3A,B</xref>). These findings are coherent with Fuentes <italic toggle="yes">et al</italic>.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR9">9</xref></sup> who reported an increase in nitrate-N with increasing lime application rate. This decrease in soil pH, while lime is applied, could also be explained by aluminium released from Al-organic matter complexes during decomposition of SOM, increasing exchangeable acidity. The nitrate-N concentrations in the limed Eston soil could be more than required by crops, and could possibly leach resulting in groundwater contamination. At triple the recommended lime rate, the Eston soil had a maximum nitrate-N concentration of 623 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil, which is extremely high for crop uptake<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR30">30</xref></sup>. For example, crops like maize require 220 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup> to produce 10 t ha<sup>−1</sup> <sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR31">31</xref></sup> while spinach requires 100 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup> for optimum yields<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR30">30</xref></sup>. Conversion of humic soils from wattle forestry to arable crops, with lime applied at recommended rates, could possibly result in a concentration of 787 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup> (mineral-N) without any addition of inorganic fertiliser. Such excessive mineral-N concentrations as a result of liming could be lost as NO<sub>3</sub>-N. While lime makes N more available for crops, excessive concentrations poses risks to the environment. Although the concentrations were extremely high under conditions of continuous optimum temperature and moisture during incubation, the levels could be lower under field conditions, where wetting and drying occur and where temperatures fluctuate. Potential leaching of nitrate-N from cultivated humic soils and its concentration in groundwater needs to be evaluated since these acidic soils are usually limed when used for cropping. Generally, most crops require between ~20–400 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup> for optimum yields except for some pastures, nuts and fruits which require very low N<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR30">30</xref></sup>. The differences in nitrate-N between the two soils used could be explained by differences in lime requirements due to differences in acid saturation of &gt;80% and &lt;30% for Eston and Eshowe soil, respectively (Table <xref rid="Tab1" ref-type="table">1</xref>). The soil from Eston also had higher organic C and N than that from Eshowe, further explaining the differences in the magnitude of nitrate-N concentrations. Furthermore, the Eston soils had pH &gt;5.5 following lime application at triple rate while Eshowe had pH &lt;5.5 which inhibits nitrifiers<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR9">9</xref></sup>. Higher ammonium and nitrate-N at 0–10 cm depth could be explained by the higher total C and N contents (Table <xref rid="Tab1" ref-type="table">1</xref>) at a shallower depth, which acts as energy and nutrient source for microbes. These findings are also evidenced by the lower C: N ratio (Table <xref rid="Tab1" ref-type="table">1</xref>) at depth 0–10 than 10–20 cm, supporting the higher mineralization rates that occurred at the 0–10 cm depth. The increase in ammonium-N concentration from day 56–112 (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2A</xref>) and day 56–84 (Fig. <xref rid="Fig2" ref-type="fig">2B</xref>) in the control could possibly be due to the death of microbes releasing N as ammonium-N back into the soil solution.</p><p id="Par15">Acidic soils have high P fixation capacity due to high Al and Fe decreasing its availability<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR32">32</xref></sup>. The decrease in extractable P from day 0–28 (Fig. <xref rid="Fig4" ref-type="fig">4A,B</xref>) could be due to its immobilization by soil microorganisms and its fixation as Al- and Fe-phosphates and on Al and Fe oxide (Figs. <xref rid="Fig5" ref-type="fig">5B,C</xref> and <xref rid="Fig6" ref-type="fig">6B,C</xref>) in the highly weathered and acidic soil conditions. This is so, because addition of lime increases microbial communities<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR2">2</xref></sup>, hence, increasing decomposition of SOM and release of Fe and Al<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR19">19</xref></sup>. The increase in extractable P between days 21 and 56 for the limed treatments, in the Eston soil, with 80% initial acid saturation, shows that microbial immobilization contributed to the decline in the first 21 days, and then released the P when the microbes died. Furthermore, the lowest observed extractable P coincided with highest Al and Fe bound P. Significant P fixation recorded for the control (decrease to almost zero after 28 days) suggests a concern of limited available P and its implications for the productivity of humic soils. After application of lime microbial activities initially increased and could have led to immobilization of extractable P. The decrease in Al-P and Fe-P could be due to their precipitation as insoluble Al(OH)<sub>3</sub> and Fe(OH)<sub>3</sub> after increased addition of liming material<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR23">23</xref></sup>. In addition, Al and Fe oxides become more negatively charged with an increase in pH contributing to an increase in available P<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR33">33</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR34">34</xref></sup>. The decrease in the fractions with an increase in lime rate could be due to soil pH &gt;4 at day 112 in triple application rate for Eston soil (Fig. <xref rid="Fig1" ref-type="fig">1A</xref>) as maximum adsorption of P as Al-P or Fe-P occurs at pH &lt;4<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR18">18</xref></sup>. As a result, Fe and Al bound P decreased as pH increased. Even at triple the recommended lime rate the Al-P, Fe-P and CBD-P were still &gt;80 mg kg<sup>−1</sup>, suggesting that such high rates did not eliminate the P fixation capacity of these soils. This could be because the recommendation rate did not account for Al from Al-organic matter complexes, which are released when the organic matter is decomposed and is hydrolysed to cause acidity. This corresponds with the high extractable P available at high application rates of lime after 28 days (Fig. <xref rid="Fig4" ref-type="fig">4A</xref>). Low P was fixed on calcium because of low calcium content in highly weathered soils<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR20">20</xref></sup>. The increase in Ca-P with application rates of lime could be explained by an increase in calcium concentration after the addition of lime (calcium carbonate), especially at high pH. These findings are similar to Kiflu <italic toggle="yes">et al</italic>.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR35">35</xref></sup> observation where Ca-P increased with lime application.</p></sec><sec id="Sec14"><title>Conclusion and recommendation</title><p id="Par16">Application of lime to humic soils increases mineral-N (ammonium- and nitrate-N) and to a lesser extent, extractable P. Liming the strongly acidic humic soils at a recommended rate or higher released excessive amounts of nitrate-N when incubated under optimum conditions of temperature and moisture. Higher lime rates increased soluble P, microbial biomass C and N, and reduced P associated with Al and Fe and their oxyhydroxides. Even at triple the recommended lime rate, Al-P, Fe-P and CBD-P still occurred at &gt;80 mg kg<sup>−1</sup>. The increase in mineral-N and P could be sufficient to increase crop productivity, without the addition of fertiliser, at least in the short term. High mineral N as a result of liming could be associated with mineralization of C resulting in high CO<sub>2</sub> emissions and a decline in soil C in the long-term. Future work must be done under field conditions with up to double the recommended lime rates. Also, future research needs to be done on CO<sub>2</sub> emission and leaching of nitrates from humic soils after lime application, under field conditions, where temperature and moisture fluctuate, considering the possibilities of conversion of the forestry and grasslands on humic soils to arable land for crop production.</p></sec><sec id="Sec15" sec-type="materials|methods"><title>Methods and materials</title><p id="Par17">The incubation study was conducted under laboratory conditions at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg campus (29° 37′ 32.9″ Latitude; 30° 24′ 18.8″ Longitude) in KwaZulu-Natal Province of South Africa.</p><sec id="Sec16"><title>Soils</title><p id="Par18">Two humic soils, collected from Eshowe (−25° 53′ 18″ Latitude; 31° 26′ 10″ Longitude) and Eston (−29° 55′ 41″ Latitude; 30° 27′ 7″ Longitude) farms, were used in the study. The soils were both underlain by sandstone as a parent material. The soil from Eston was under wattle (<italic toggle="yes">Acacia pycnantha</italic>) while at Eshowe it was under natural forest. Both soils were both classified as Magwa soil form with humic A horizon overlying yellow-brown apedal B horizon over unspecified material<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR36">36</xref></sup>, which was translated to Ferralsols according to the world classification system<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR37">37</xref></sup>. These soils are highly weathered, well-drained, acidic soils with low base status and high organic carbon content &gt;1.8%<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR20">20</xref></sup>. Both soils had sandy clay loam texture. The soils were sampled from the 0–10 and 10–20 cm depth, using micropits, air-dried and sieved (&lt;2 mm) before analysis.</p></sec><sec id="Sec17"><title>Soil analysis</title><p id="Par19">The soils were analysed for pH in water and 1 M KCl, extractable phosphate, exchangeable acidity and bases, total carbon and nitrogen, particle size distribution and bases, using methods describe by Non-Affiliated Soil Analysis Work Committee<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR38">38</xref></sup>. Soil pH was determined with 10 g of air dried soil suspended in 25 ml of 1 M KCl or water. Phosphorus was extracted by the AMBIC-2 method as described by Non-Affiliated Soil Analysis Work Committee<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR38">38</xref></sup>. For each sample, soil (2.5 g) was transferred into individual centrifuge tubes and then 25 mL of Ammonium Bicarbonate (AMBIC-2) solution added. Extractable P was read on a UV/VIS spectrophotometer using the molybdenum-blue method<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR39">39</xref></sup>. Total C and N were measured using the LECO Trumac CNS Autoanalyser<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR40">40</xref></sup>. For this, the soil was grinded and allowed to pass through 250 µm sieve before analysis. A sample of 0.2 g was mounted into crucibles and subjected to temperature of 1350 °C furnace temperature for about 6 minutes for each sample. Exchangeable bases (Ca<sup>2+</sup>, Mg<sup>2+</sup>, K<sup>+</sup> and Na<sup>+</sup>) were determined using ammonium acetate (pH 7) extraction method followed by quantification with atomic adsorption spectrophotometry (Varian 2600). Exchangeable acidity was determined by extraction using 1 M KCl, followed by titration with 0.1 M NaOH with phenolphthalein indicator, as described by Jones<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR41">41</xref></sup>. Particle size distribution was determined in bulk samples (&lt;2 mm) from the 0–10 and 10–20 cm depth using the hydrometer method as modified Gee and Or<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR42">42</xref></sup>. Thereafter, textural class was determined using the textural triangle<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR36">36</xref></sup>.</p></sec><sec id="Sec18"><title>Incubation Experiment</title><p id="Par20">The experiment was a 2 ×3 factorial in a completely randomised design for each soil. The factors were soil depth (2 levels) and lime rate (3 levels). The treatment combinations was replicated three times. The liming treatments were (i) no lime, (ii) lime added at the recommended rate and (iii) lime at triple the recommended rate. The lime (CaCO<sub>3</sub>) required to reduce acid saturation of the two soils to 20% (recommended rate) was determined and calculated (Equation 1) according to Manson <italic toggle="yes">et al</italic>.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR30">30</xref></sup>. One hundred grams of soil were placed in plastic container and the lime treatments added, and moistened to 100% water holding capacity. The containers were loosely caped, to allow for gas exchange. The triple recommended rate was used to determine effects of an extreme case scenario. The incubation experiment was conducted in constant temperature room at 25 °C for 112 days, with sampling at 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 42, 56, 84, 112 days. Moisture correction was done after determining weight loss.</p><p id="Par21"><bold>Lime Requirement (t ha</bold><sup>−<bold>1</bold></sup><bold>)</bold> = [“Exch. Acidity” - (“Total cations” x PAS/100)] x FEquation 1.</p><p id="Par22">Where:</p><p id="Par23">PAS is “the permissible acid saturation for the crop in question. It is the maximum acid saturation which would allow optimum crop growth, and is used in the calculation of the lime requirement”. For this study the PAS was 20% acid tolerance. F is “a factor indicating the amount of lime required to neutralize 1 cmol<sub>c</sub>/L of exchangeable acidity”.</p><p id="Par24">Lime was applied at the rate of 0, 12 and 36 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for Eston soil and 0, 1.5 and 4.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for Eshowe soils. The recommended lime rates were 12 and 1.5 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for Eston and Eshowe soils, respectively. Calcitic lime (CaCO<sub>3</sub>) with calcium carbonates equivalent of 95% and fineness of 2500 µm, was used.</p></sec><sec id="Sec19"><title>Determination of Ammonium- and Nitrate-N, Extractable P and Soil Microbial Biomass Carbon and Nitrogen</title><p id="Par25">Ammonium- and nitrate-N were extracted with 2 M KCl and analysed using the Thermo Scientific Gallery Discrete Auto-analyser using the automate calometric hydrazine reduction<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR43">43</xref></sup>. For extraction of ammonium-N and nitrate-N, 2 g soil and 20 ml of 2 M KCl were used. Extractable phosphate was analysed using the AMBIC-2 method as described by Non-Affiliated Soil Analysis Work Committee<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR38">38</xref></sup>. Soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen (SMB-C and N) were determined only for the final day of incubation using the fumigation-extraction method<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR44">44</xref></sup>. For this, 20 g of the incubated samples was fumigated with 50 ml ethanol free chloroform in a desiccator for 24 hours at 25 °C. For extraction 0.5 M K<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub> was used to extract SMB-C, and the same extracts were used for SMB-N determination.</p></sec><sec id="Sec20"><title>Determination of soil P fractions</title><p id="Par26">Soil P fractionation was analysed as described for non-calcareous soils by Zhang and Kovar<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR45">45</xref></sup>, only for the last day of incubation (day 112). Soluble and loosely bound P fraction was extracted using 50 ml of 1 M ammonium chloride (1 M NH<sub>4</sub>Cl) for 1.0 g soil sample. The soil residue was extracted with 50 ml of 0.5 M ammonium fluoride (0.5 M NH<sub>4</sub>F) to determine P bound as aluminium phosphate. Phosphorus bound as Fe phosphate was extracted from the same soil residue using 50 ml of 0.1 M sodium hydroxide (NaOH). For CBD-P extraction, 40 ml of 0.3 M sodium citrate dihydrate (0.3 M Na<sub>3</sub>C<sub>3</sub>H<sub>6</sub>O<sub>7</sub>) and 5 ml of 1 M sodium bicarbonate (1 M NaHCO<sub>3</sub>) were added to the soil residue and heated for 15 min in a water bath at 85 °C. Thereafter, 1 g of sodium dithionate (Na<sub>2</sub>S<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub>) was added, followed by rapid stirring, and the suspension was then heated again for 15 minutes. The extracts were then filtered using Whatman No.1 filter paper and the soil residue was washed twice using 25 ml of saturated sodium chloride. These washings were combined with each extract. Calcium bound phosphorus was extracted by treating the residue with 0.25 M sulphuric acid (0.25 M H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>), shaken for one hour and centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 10 minutes. Phosphorus concentration in various solutions was determined using phosphor-molybedate method<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="CR26">26</xref></sup>.</p></sec><sec id="Sec21"><title>Statistical analysis</title><p id="Par27">Statistically analysis was done using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) which accounted for changes in soil pH, ammonium- and nitrate-N and extractable P. Followed by Least Significant Difference (LSD) using a two way ANOVA for lime × depth for each day. For soil P fractions and SMBC and N, ANOVA as with lime × depth interaction was used. Multiple comparison was done using Turkey at p &gt; 0.05 to determine differences within treatments for SMBC and N.</p></sec></sec></body><back><fn-group><fn><p><bold>Publisher’s note</bold> Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p></fn></fn-group><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We thank the Soil science technical stuff for support through laboratory analysis. This work was funded by National Research Foundation (Grant numbers: 93593; 114475) and the University of KwaZulu Natal.</p></ack><notes notes-type="author-contribution"><title>Author contributions</title><p>P. Muchaonyerwa conceived the study including the design and supervised the data collection and analysis. N.P. Mkhonza contributed in the design and performed the entire experiments, statisticalanalysis of data and writing of the first draft of the manuscript. Dr. N.N. Buthelezi-Dube supervised data collection and analysis and assisted in revision of the manuscript.</p></notes><notes notes-type="data-availability"><title>Data availability</title><p>The datasets used for graphs and table are available from the corresponding author upon request.</p></notes><notes id="FPar1" notes-type="COI-statement"><title>Competing interests</title><p id="Par28">The authors declare no competing interests.</p></notes><ref-list id="Bib1"><title>References</title><ref id="CR1"><label>1.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rastija</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Zebec</surname><given-names>V</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Rastija</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Impacts of liming with dolomite on soil pH and phosphorus and potassium availabilities</article-title><source>Novenytermeles</source><year>2014</year><volume>63</volume><fpage>193</fpage><lpage>196</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR2"><label>2.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Biasi</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><etal/></person-group><article-title>Direct experimental evidence for the contribution of lime to CO<sub>2</sub> release from managed peat soil</article-title><source>Soil Biol. Biochem.</source><year>2008</year><volume>40</volume><fpage>2660</fpage><lpage>2669</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.07.011</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR3"><label>3.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rousk</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Brookes</surname><given-names>PC</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Baath</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Investigating the mechanisms for the opposing pH relationships of fungal and bacterial growth in soil</article-title><source>Soil Biol. Biochem.</source><year>2010</year><volume>42</volume><fpage>926</fpage><lpage>934</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.02.009</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR4"><label>4.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Paradelo</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Virto</surname><given-names>I</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Chenu</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Net effect of liming on soil organic carbon stocks: a review</article-title><source>Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.</source><year>2015</year><volume>202</volume><fpage>98</fpage><lpage>107</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.005</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR5"><label>5.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Garbuio</surname><given-names>FJ</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Jones</surname><given-names>DL</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Alleoni</surname><given-names>LR</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Murphy</surname><given-names>DV</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Caires</surname><given-names>EF</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Carbon and nitrogen dynamics in an Oxisol as affected by liming and crop residues under no-till</article-title><source>Soil Sci. Soc. Am.</source><year>2011</year><volume>75</volume><fpage>1723</fpage><lpage>1730</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2136/sssaj2010.0291</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR6"><label>6.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Grover</surname><given-names>SP</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Butterly</surname><given-names>CR</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>X</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Tang</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The short-term effects of liming on organic carbon mineralization in two acidic soils as affected by different rates and application depths of lime</article-title><source>Biol. Fert. Soil</source><year>2017</year><volume>53</volume><fpage>431</fpage><lpage>443</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s00374-017-1196-y</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR7"><label>7.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Persson</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Lundkvist</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Wiren</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Hyvonen</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Wessen</surname><given-names>B</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Effects of acidification and liming on carbon and nitrogen mineralization and soil organisms in mor humus</article-title><source>Water Air Soil Pollut.</source><year>1989</year><volume>45</volume><fpage>77</fpage><lpage>96</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR8"><label>8.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Andersson</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Nilsson</surname><given-names>SI</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Influence of pH and temperature on microbial activity, substrate availability of soil-solution bacteria and leaching of dissolved organic carbon in a mor humus</article-title><source>Soil Biol. Biochem.</source><year>2001</year><volume>33</volume><fpage>1181</fpage><lpage>1191</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00022-0</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR9"><label>9.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Fuentes</surname><given-names>JP</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Bezdicek</surname><given-names>DF</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Flury</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Albrecht</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Smith</surname><given-names>JL</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Microbial activity affected by lime in a long-term no-till soil</article-title><source>Soil Tillage Res.</source><year>2006</year><volume>88</volume><fpage>123</fpage><lpage>131</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.still.2005.05.001</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR10"><label>10.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kemmitt</surname><given-names>SJ</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Wright</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Goulding</surname><given-names>KW</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Jones</surname><given-names>DL</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>pH regulation of carbon and nitrogen dynamics in two agricultural soils</article-title><source>Soil Biol. Biochem.</source><year>2006</year><volume>38</volume><fpage>898</fpage><lpage>911</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.08.006</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR11"><label>11.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>W</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>JB</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Müller</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Cai</surname><given-names>ZC</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Effects of pH and mineralization on nitrification in a subtropical acid forest soil</article-title><source>Soil Res.</source><year>2018</year><volume>56</volume><fpage>275</fpage><lpage>283</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1071/SR17087</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR12"><label>12.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lyngstad</surname><given-names>I</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Effect of liming on mineralization of soil nitrogen as measured by plant uptake and nitrogen released during incubation</article-title><source>Plant Soil</source><year>1992</year><volume>144</volume><fpage>247</fpage><lpage>253</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/BF00012881</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR13"><label>13.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yao</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Campbell</surname><given-names>CD</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Qiao</surname><given-names>X</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Soil pH controls nitrification and carbon substrate utilization more than urea or charcoal in some highly acidic soils</article-title><source>Biol. Fert. Soils</source><year>2011</year><volume>47</volume><fpage>515</fpage><lpage>522</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s00374-011-0554-4</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR14"><label>14.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mijangos</surname><given-names>I</given-names></name><etal/></person-group><article-title>Effects of liming on soil properties and plant performance of temperate mountainous grasslands</article-title><source>Environ. Manage.</source><year>2010</year><volume>91</volume><fpage>2066</fpage><lpage>2074</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi" assigning-authority="pmc">10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.05.011</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20538406</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR15"><label>15.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jezile</surname><given-names>GG</given-names></name><etal/></person-group><article-title>Effects of liming on microbial activity and N mineralization in broiler manure-amended soils from Bizana, Eastern Cape, South Africa</article-title><source>S. Africa J. Plant Soil</source><year>2009</year><volume>26</volume><fpage>18</fpage><lpage>23</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/02571862.2009.10639927</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR16"><label>16.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pawlett</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Hopkins</surname><given-names>DW</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Moffett</surname><given-names>BF</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Harris</surname><given-names>JA</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The effect of earthworms and liming on soil microbial communities</article-title><source>Biol. Fert. Soils</source><year>2009</year><volume>45</volume><fpage>361</fpage><lpage>369</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s00374-008-0339-6</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR17"><label>17.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Inagaki</surname><given-names>TM</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>de Moraes</surname><given-names>SJC</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Caires</surname><given-names>EF</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Gonçalves</surname><given-names>DRP</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Lime and gypsum application increases biological activity, carbon pools, and agronomic productivity in highly weathered soil</article-title><source>Agr. Ecosyst. Enivron.</source><year>2016</year><volume>231</volume><fpage>156</fpage><lpage>165</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.034</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR18"><label>18.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Simonsson</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><etal/></person-group><article-title>Pools and solubility of soil phosphorus as affected by liming in a long-term agricultural field experiments</article-title><source>Geoderma</source><year>2018</year><volume>315</volume><fpage>208</fpage><lpage>219</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.11.019</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR19"><label>19.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Takahashi</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Dahlgren</surname><given-names>RA</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Nature, properties and function of aluminum–humus complexes in volcanic soils</article-title><source>Geoderma</source><year>2016</year><volume>263</volume><fpage>110</fpage><lpage>121</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.032</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other">Fey, M. <italic toggle="yes">Soils of South Africa</italic> 25–34 (Cape Town, 2010).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="CR21"><label>21.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sollins</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Homann</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Caldwell</surname><given-names>BA</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Stabilization and destabilization of soil organic matter: Mechanisms and controls</article-title><source>Geoderma</source><year>1996</year><volume>74</volume><fpage>65</fpage><lpage>105</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/S0016-7061(96)00036-5</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR22"><label>22.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Giannetta</surname><given-names>B</given-names></name><etal/></person-group><article-title>The role of Fe (III) in soil organic matter stabilization in two size fractions having opposite features</article-title><source>Sci. Total Environment</source><year>2019</year><volume>653</volume><fpage>667</fpage><lpage>674</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.361</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30759592</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR23"><label>23.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Antoniadis</surname><given-names>V</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Hatzis</surname><given-names>F</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Bachtsevanidis</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Koutroubas</surname><given-names>SD</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Phosphorus availability in low-P and acidic soils as affected by liming and P addition</article-title><source>Commun. Soil Sci. Plant</source><year>2015</year><volume>46</volume><fpage>1288</fpage><lpage>1298</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/00103624.2015.1033539</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR24"><label>24.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Anderson</surname><given-names>TH</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The influence of acid irrigation and liming on the soil microbial biomass in a Norway spruce (<italic toggle="yes">Picea abies [L.] K</italic>.) stand</article-title><source>Plant Soil</source><year>1998</year><volume>199</volume><fpage>117</fpage><lpage>122</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1023/A:1004224112790</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR25"><label>25.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Chagnon</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Paré</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Hébert</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Camiré</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Effects of experimental liming on collembolan communities and soil microbial biomass in a southern Quebec sugar maple (<italic toggle="yes">Acer saccharum Marsh</italic>.) stand</article-title><source>Appl. Soil Eco.</source><year>2001</year><volume>17</volume><fpage>81</fpage><lpage>90</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00134-7</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR26"><label>26.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bezdicek</surname><given-names>DF</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Beaver</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Granatstein</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Subsoil ridge tillage and lime effects on soil microbial activity, soil pH, erosion, and wheat and pea yield in the Pacific Northwest, USA</article-title><source>Soil Tillage Res.</source><year>2003</year><volume>74</volume><fpage>55</fpage><lpage>63</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/S0167-1987(03)00091-6</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR27"><label>27.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Soon</surname><given-names>YK</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Arshad</surname><given-names>MA</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Tillage and liming effects on crop and labile soil nitrogen in an acid soil</article-title><source>Soil Tillage Res.</source><year>2005</year><volume>80</volume><fpage>23</fpage><lpage>33</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.still.2004.02.017</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR28"><label>28.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Muhlbachova</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Tlustos</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Effects of liming on the microbial biomass and its activities in soils long-term contaminated by toxic elements</article-title><source>Plant Soil Environ.</source><year>2006</year><volume>52</volume><fpage>345</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.17221/3451-PSE</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR29"><label>29.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Baggs</surname><given-names>EM</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Smales</surname><given-names>CL</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Bateman</surname><given-names>EJ</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Changing pH shifts the microbial source as well as the magnitude of N<sub>2</sub>O emission from soil</article-title><source>Biol. Fert. Soils</source><year>2010</year><volume>46</volume><fpage>793</fpage><lpage>805</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s00374-010-0484-6</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR30"><label>30.</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other">Manson, A.D. Miles, N. &amp; Farina, M.P.W. <italic toggle="yes">The Cedara computerized fertilizer advisory service (FertRec): explanatory notes and crop and soil norms</italic> 5–6 (Pietermaritzburg, 2012).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="CR31"><label>31.</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other">Fertilizer Society of South Africa. <italic toggle="yes">Fertilizer Handbook, 6</italic><sup><italic toggle="yes">th</italic></sup><italic toggle="yes">Revised addition</italic>. (Lynnwood Ridge, 2007).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="CR32"><label>32.</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other">Brady, N.C. &amp; Weil, R.R. <italic toggle="yes">Nature and properties of soils</italic> 652–667 (Dorling Kindersley, 2014).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="CR33"><label>33.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Haynes</surname><given-names>RJ</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Effect of lime and phosphate applications on the adsorption of phosphate, sulfate, and molybdate by a spodosol</article-title><source>Soil Sci.</source><year>1983</year><volume>135</volume><fpage>221</fpage><lpage>227</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1097/00010694-198304000-00003</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR34"><label>34.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Opala</surname><given-names>PA</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Influence of lime and phosphorus application rates on growth of maize in an acid soil</article-title><source>Adv. Agric.</source><year>2017</year><volume>2017</volume><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>5</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR35"><label>35.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kiflu</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Beyene</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Jeff</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Fractionation and availability of phosphorus in acid soils of Hagereselam, Southern Ethiopia under different rates of lime</article-title><source>Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric.</source><year>2017</year><volume>4</volume><fpage>21</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s40538-017-0105-9</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR36"><label>36.</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other">Soil Classification Working Group. <italic toggle="yes">Soil-classification- A Natural Anthropogenic System for South Africa</italic> 76-92 (Pretoria, 2018).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="CR37"><label>37.</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other">IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources<italic toggle="yes">. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps</italic>. <italic toggle="yes">World Soil Resources Reports No</italic>. <bold>106</bold>. 156-157 (Rome, 2014).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="CR38"><label>38.</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other">Non-Affiliated Soil Analysis Work Committee. <italic toggle="yes">Handbook of standard soil testing methods for advisory purposes</italic> (Pretoria, 1990).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="CR39"><label>39.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Murphy</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Riley</surname><given-names>JP</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters</article-title><source>Anal. Chim. Acta.</source><year>1962</year><volume>27</volume><fpage>31</fpage><lpage>36</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/S0003-2670(00)88444-5</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR40"><label>40.</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other">LECO Corporation. <italic toggle="yes">Trumac CNS/NS determinators</italic>. (St Joseph, 2012).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="CR41"><label>41.</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other">Jones, J. <italic toggle="yes">Soil analysis handbook of reference methods</italic> (ed. Jones, J. B.) 36 (Washington, 2018).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="CR42"><label>42.</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other">Gee, G.W. &amp; Or, D. <italic toggle="yes">Particle-size analysis: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4 –</italic> Physical Methods (ed. Dame, J.H. &amp; Topp, G.C.) 255-293 (Madison, 2002).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="CR43"><label>43.</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other">Rayment, G. E. &amp; Lyons, D. J. <italic toggle="yes">Soil chemical methods: Australasia</italic> 126 (Collingwood, 2011).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="CR44"><label>44.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Vance</surname><given-names>ED</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Brookes</surname><given-names>PC</given-names></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Jenkinson</surname><given-names>DS</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C</article-title><source>Soil Biol. Biochem.</source><year>1987</year><volume>19</volume><fpage>703</fpage><lpage>707</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/0038-0717(87)90052-6</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="CR45"><label>45.</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other">Zhang, H. &amp; Kovar, J.L. <italic toggle="yes">Methods of phosphorus analysis for soils, sediments, residuals, and waters</italic> (ed. Pierzynski, G. M.) 50–59, (Manhattan, 2009).</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>