Submitted:
19 October 2024
Posted:
21 October 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Soil Sampling and Analysis
2.3. Estimation of the Liming Requirement for Soils
2.4. Geostatistical Interpolation
2.5. Model Validation
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics for Soil Acidity
3.2. Principal Component Analysis of Soil Properties
3.3. Pearson’s Correlation Analysis of Soil Properties and Their Relationship with Soil Acidity
3.4. Spatial Variation of Soil Acidity in the Localities of Plaza Punta and Buenos Aires
3.5. Spatial Variation of Soil Acidity in the Localities of Huarichaca, Chagragoto and Rumichaca
3.6. Liming Requirement
4. Discussion
4.1. Soil Acidity in Potato Cultivation and Its Relationship with the Soil Physicochemical Properties
4.2. Spatial Variability of Soil Acidity and Liming Requirement
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAO Una Guía Sobre El Día Internacional de La Papa de 2024 2024.
- MIDAGRI Presentó Marco Orientador de Cultivos (MOC) de La Campaña Agrícola 2024/2025 - Noticias - Ministerio de Desarrollo Agrario y Riego - Plataforma Del Estado Peruano Available online: https://www.gob.pe/institucion/midagri/noticias/1010824-midagri-presento-marco-orientador-de-cultivos-moc-de-la-campana-agricola-2024-2025 (accessed on 9 October 2024).
- Velasquez Milla, D.Á. Peasant Strategies for In Situ Conservation of Genetic Resources in Andean Agroecosystems of the Sierra of Peru: Cajamarca and Huánuco, México, 2009.
- Egúsquiza, B.R. The Potato: Production, Transformation, and Marketing; International Potato Center, 2000.
- Documento Para Discusión Perú: Evaluación de La Seguridad Alimentaria Ante Emergencias (ESAE), 2021 - Midis Available online: https://evidencia.midis.gob.pe/esae-seguridad-alimentaria-2021-documento-discusion/ (accessed on 10 October 2024).
- Sadeghian, S. La acidez del suelo una limitante común para la producción de café. Avances Técnicos Cenicafé, 466, 1-12. 2016.
- Sanz Scovino, J.I. Sistemas Mejorados Arroz-Pasturas Para Sabana Nativa y Pasturas Degradadas En Suelos Ácidos de América Del Sur. Sistemas agropastoriles en sabanas tropicales de América Latina 1999, 232.
- Garay Canales, Ó.; Ochoa Acevedo, Á. Primera Aproximación Para La Identificación de Los Diferentes Tipos de Suelo Agrícola En El Valle Del Río Mantaro. 2010.
- Ayarza, M.A. Efecto de Las Propiedades Químicas de Los Suelos Ácidos En El Establecimiento de Las Especies Forrajeras. In Establecimiento y renovación de pasturas; Lascano, C. E: CIAT, 1991; pp. 161–185 ISBN 958-9183-26-3.
- Junior, E.C.; Jr, A.C.G.; Seidel, E.P.; Ziemer, G.L.; Zimmermann, J.; Oliveira, V.H.D. de; Schwantes, D.; Zeni, C.D. Effects of Liming on Soil Physical Attributes: A Review. Journal of Agricultural Science 2020, 12, p278. [CrossRef]
- Huanca Bizarro, A.F. Uso de La Cáscara de Huevo Molida Como Material Encalante En Suelos Ácidos Del Perú, 2018.
- Quinto Carhuancho, C.E. Propiedades físicas, químicas y biológicas del suelo bajo la influencia de tres sistemas de uso de la tierra en el Distrito José Crespo y Castillo, Leoncio Prado, 2016.
- Balta-Crisólogo, R.A.; Rodríguez-Del Castillo, Á.M.; Guerrero-Abad, R.; Cachique, D.; Alva-Plasencia, E.; Arévalo-López, L.; Loli, O. ABSORCIÓN Y CONCENTRACIÓN DE NITRÓGENO, FÓSFORO Y POTASIO EN SACHA INCHI (Plukenetia Volubilis L.) EN SUELOS ÁCIDOS, SAN MARTÍN, PERÚ. Folia Amazónica 2015, 24, 23. [CrossRef]
- Cotrina-Cabello, V.R.; Alejos-Patiño, I.W.; Cotrina-Cabello, G.G.; Córdova-Mendoza, P.; Córdova-Barrios, I.C.; Cotrina-Cabello, V.R.; Alejos-Patiño, I.W.; Cotrina-Cabello, G.G.; Córdova-Mendoza, P.; Córdova-Barrios, I.C. Efecto de Abonos Orgánicos En Suelo Agrícola de Purupampa Panao, Perú. Centro Agrícola 2020, 47, 31–40.
- Arce, A. Desarrollo Del Mercado de Fertilizantes Compuestos En El Perú y Su Impacto En Cultivos Tradicionales de La Selva Peruana, 2021.
- Chen, S.; Lin, B.; Li, Y.; Zhou, S. Spatial and Temporal Changes of Soil Properties and Soil Fertility Evaluation in a Large Grain-Production Area of Subtropical Plain, China. Geoderma 2020, 357, 113937. [CrossRef]
- R Core Team (2018) R A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. - References - Scientific Research Publishing Available online: https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers?ReferenceID=2342186 (accessed on 10 October 2024).
- Pebesma, E.J.; Bivand, R.S. Classes and Methods for Spatial Data in R. R News 2005, 5, 9–13.
- NOM-021-RECNAT-2000 NOM-021-RECNAT-2000. Natural Resources and Environment Secretary. Mexican Official Standard. Specifications of Fertility, Salinity, and Soil Classification. Study, Sampling and Analysis. Official Journal of the Federation 2002.
- EPA, U. Method 9045D: Soil and Waste PH. Soil Waste PH 2004, 1–5.
- Standardization), I.S.O. (International O. for ISO 11265:1994 Soil Quality — Determination of the Specific Electrical Conductivity 1994.
- Standardization), I.S.O. (International O. for ISO 11261:1995 Soil Quality — Determination of Total Nitrogen — Modified Kjeldahl Method 1995.
- Bazán Tapia, R. Manual de procedimientos de los análisis de suelos y agua con fines de riego. Instituto Nacional de Innovación Agraria 2017.
- Hengl, T.; Mendes De Jesus, J.; Heuvelink, G.B.M.; Ruiperez Gonzalez, M.; Kilibarda, M.; Blagotić, A.; Shangguan, W.; Wright, M.N.; Geng, X.; Bauer-Marschallinger, B.; et al. SoilGrids250m: Global Gridded Soil Information Based on Machine Learning. PLoS One 2017, 12, e0169748. [CrossRef]
- Havlin, J.L. Soil: Fertility and Nutrient Management. Landscape and Land Capacity 2020, 251–265. [CrossRef]
- Tunçay, T. Comparison Quality of Interpolation Methods to Estimate Spatial Distribution of Soil Moisture Content. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 2021, 52, 353–374. [CrossRef]
- Bock, M.; Böhner, J.; Köthe, R.; Conrad, O.; Köthe, R.; Ringeler, A. Methods for Creating Functional Soil Databases and Applying Digital Soil Mapping with SAGA GIS. RC Scientific and Technical Reports, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg 2007, 1, 31–37.
- Martínez, C.R. Modelado Geoestadístico de Fertilidad de Un Terreno Agrícola Mediante Mapas de Kriging Que Interpolan Los Datos de Análisis Químico de Suelos. Producción Agropecuaria y Desarrollo Sostenible 2021, 9, 63–84. [CrossRef]
- Gallardo Correa, A. Geostadística. 2006.
- Fu, Y.; Song, J.; Guo, J.; Fu, Y.; Cai, Y. Prediction and Analysis of Sea Surface Temperature Based on LSTM-Transformer Model. Reg Stud Mar Sci 2024, 78, 103726. [CrossRef]
- Fernández Villafañez, S. Métodos de regresión y clasificación basados en árboles. 2022.
- Burton, A. Influence of Solution Management Techniques on Nutrient Use Efficiency in Hydroponically Grown Salad-Type Plants, 2018.
- Mugo, James.N.; Karanja, N.N.; Gachene, C.K.; Dittert, K.; Nyawade, S.O.; Schulte-Geldermann, E. Assessment of Soil Fertility and Potato Crop Nutrient Status in Central and Eastern Highlands of Kenya. Sci Rep 2020, 10, 7779. [CrossRef]
- He, H.; Li, Y.; He, L.F. Aluminum Toxicity and Tolerance in Solanaceae Plants. South African Journal of Botany 2019, 123, 23–29. [CrossRef]
- George, E.; Horst, W.J.; Neumann, E. Adaptation of Plants to Adverse Chemical Soil Conditions. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants: Third Edition 2012, 409–472. [CrossRef]
- Cakmak, I.; Brown, P.; Colmenero-Flores, J.M.; Husted, S.; Kutman, B.Y.; Nikolic, M.; Rengel, Z.; Schmidt, S.B.; Zhao, F.-J. Micronutrients. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Plants; Elsevier, 2023; pp. 283–385 ISBN 978-0-12-819773-8.
- Rout, G.R.; Samantaray, S.; Das, P. Aluminium Toxicity in Plants: A Review. Agronomie 2001, 21, 3–21. [CrossRef]
- Jovovic, Z.; Dolijanovic, Z.; Spalevic, V.; Dudic, B.; Przulj, N.; Velimirovic, A.; Popovic, V. Effects of Liming and Nutrient Management on Yield and Other Parameters of Potato Productivity on Acid Soils in Montenegro. Agronomy 2021, 11, 980. [CrossRef]
- Havlin, J.L.; Tisdale, S.L.; Nelson, W.L.; Beaton, J.D. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers; Pearson Education India, 2016; Vol. 8; ISBN 978-93-325-7034-4.
- McGahan, D.G.; Southard, R.J.; Zasoski, R.J. Mineralogical Comparison of Agriculturally Acidified and Naturally Acidic Soils. Geoderma 2023, 114, 355–368. [CrossRef]
- Kome, G.K.; Enang, R.K.; Tabi, F.O.; Yerima, B.P.K.; Kome, G.K.; Enang, R.K.; Tabi, F.O.; Yerima, B.P.K. Influence of Clay Minerals on Some Soil Fertility Attributes: A Review. Open Journal of Soil Science 2019, 9, 155–188. [CrossRef]
- Bhattacharyya, T.; Pal, D.K.; Srivastava, P. Formation of Gibbsite in the Presence of 2:1 Minerals: An Example from Ultisols of Northeast India. Clay Miner 2000, 35, 827–840. [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, P.; Pal, D.K. New Criteria to Identify Argillans as Evidence of Clay Illuviation. In Micromorphology of Soils and Paleosols of India; Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2023; pp. 7–20 ISBN 978-981-9965-59-5 978-981-9965-60-1.
- Sahoo, S.; Vasu, D.; Paul, R.; Sen, T.K.; Ray, S.K.; Chandran, P. Acid Soils of Manipur of the North-Eastern Region of India: Their Mineralogy, Pedology, Taxonomy and Edaphology. Clay Research 2020, 39, 31–43. [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.R.; MacDonald, M.L. Influence of Soil Amendments on Potato Growth, Mineral Nutrition, and Tuber Yield and Quality on Very Strongly Acid Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 1977, 38, 573–577. [CrossRef]
- Bordoloi, P. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2021, p. 202.
- Wang, Y.; Liu, G.; Zhao, Z. Spatial Heterogeneity of Soil Fertility in Coastal Zones: A Case Study of the Yellow River Delta, China. J Soils Sediments 2021, 21, 1826–1839. [CrossRef]
- Campisi, N.; Kulu, H.; Mikolai, J.; Klüsener, S.; Myrskylä, M. Spatial Variation in Fertility across Europe: Patterns and Determinants. Popul Space Place 2020, 26, e2308. [CrossRef]
- Trujillo-González, J.M.; Torres-Mora, M.A.; Ballesta, R.J.; Brevik, E.C. Spatial Variability of the Physicochemical Properties of Acidic Soils along an Altitudinal Gradient in Colombia. Environ Earth Sci 2022, 81, 108. [CrossRef]
- Erraez, R.M.M.; Vásquez, E. Enmienda de Cal En Suelos Degradados Por La Ganadería En La Parroquia Panguintza, Cantón Zumbi, Provincia de Zamora Chinchipe. Bosques Latitud Cero 2023, 13, 49–67. [CrossRef]















| Parameter | min | max | mean | median | var | sd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sand (%) | 42.00 | 94.00 | 70.75 | 70.00 | 157.06 | 12.53 |
| Silt (%) | 1.00 | 37.00 | 15.52 | 15.42 | 43.38 | 6.59 |
| Clay (%) | 0.27 | 35.00 | 13.77 | 11.00 | 80.11 | 8.95 |
| pH | 3.90 | 5.80 | 4.69 | 4.60 | 0.16 | 0.39 |
| OM (%) | 1.00 | 32.90 | 9.16 | 7.40 | 47.32 | 6.88 |
| EC (dS∙m-1) | 0.01 | 0.80 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.11 |
| P (mg∙kg-1) | 0.00 | 478.98 | 41.60 | 26.30 | 3494.27 | 59.11 |
| K (mg∙kg-1) | 29.99 | 616.00 | 183.70 | 169.80 | 12267.40 | 110.76 |
| CEC (mEq∙100 g-1) | 2.85 | 22.33 | 7.96 | 7.30 | 14.72 | 3.84 |
| H+ (mEq∙100 g-1) | 0.00 | 4.90 | 1.49 | 1.40 | 1.23 | 1.11 |
| Al+3 (mEq∙100 g-1) | 0.00 | 3.40 | 0.55 | 0.30 | 0.55 | 0.74 |
| Acidity (mEq∙100 g-1) | 0.00 | 7.80 | 2.04 | 1.80 | 3.25 | 1.80 |
| Ca+2 (mEq∙100 g-1) | 0.62 | 16.56 | 3.91 | 3.10 | 10.49 | 3.24 |
| Mg+2 (mEq∙100 g-1) | 0.17 | 4.23 | 1.27 | 0.85 | 1.15 | 1.07 |
| K+ (mEq∙100 g-1) | 0.04 | 1.65 | 0.58 | 0.51 | 0.11 | 0.33 |
| Na+ (mEq∙100 g-1) | 0.00 | 1.80 | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.25 |
| ECP (%) | 11.63 | 78.99 | 44.57 | 45.95 | 364.56 | 19.09 |
| EMP (%) | 3.40 | 31.41 | 14.12 | 12.74 | 58.35 | 7.64 |
| EPP (%) | 0.36 | 21.68 | 8.15 | 6.61 | 22.10 | 4.70 |
| ESP (%) | 0.00 | 21.49 | 2.22 | 2.01 | 8.07 | 2.84 |
| EAP (%) | 0.00 | 72.75 | 30.94 | 27.82 | 618.73 | 24.87 |
| Soil Property | Model | Nugget (C0) | Sill (C0+C) | Range (m) | PSV (C / C0+C) |
Cross-validation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1R2 | 2RMSE | ||||||
| pH | Exponential | 0.0045 | 0.0387 | 7155.83 | 0.1161 | 0.20 | 0.1582 |
| P (mg∙kg-1) | Gaussian | 1.3691 | 2.3057 | 7155.83 | 0.5938 | 0.11 | 1.2467 |
| K (mg∙kg-1) | Gaussian | 1.7494 | 0.1700 | 7155.83 | 10.2925 | 0.26 | 1.1112 |
| EC (dS∙m-1) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.36 | 0.0388 |
| OM (%) | Cubic | 0.3263 | 0.5905 | 7155.83 | 0.5526 | 0.31 | 0.6909 |
| H+ (mEq∙100 g-1) | Gaussian | 0.2938 | 2.0557 | 7155.83 | 0.1429 | 0.43 | 0.6984 |
| Al+3 (mEq∙100 g-1) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.60* | 0.2301 |
| Acidity (mEq∙100 g-1) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.46 | 0.4068 |
| CIC (mEq∙100 g-1) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.51 | 0.4446 |
| Ca+2 (mEq∙100 g-1) | Gaussian | 0.0343 | 0.1405 | 7155.83 | 0.2442 | 0.76* | 0.2280 |
| Mg+2 (mEq∙100 g-1) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.87* | 0.1170 |
| K+ (mEq∙100 g-1) | Linear | 0.0234 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.38 | 0.2630 |
| Na+ (mEq∙100 g-1) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.69 | 0.0411 |
| BD (g∙cm-3) | Linear | 0.0008 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.44 | 0.0416 |
| EAP (%) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.53* | 0.6665 |
| ECP (%) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.57* | 0.5826 |
| EMP (%) | Linear | 0.1844 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.44 | 0.5295 |
| EPP (%) | Linear | 0.1844 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.44 | 0.5295 |
| ESP (%) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.42 | 0.3157 |
| Liming (t∙ha-1) | Linear | 0.0975 | 0.0000 | 7155.83 | 0.0000 | 0.52* | 0.5972 |
| Soil Property | Model | Nugget (C0) | Sill (C0+C) | Range (m) | PSV (C / C0+C) |
Cross-validation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1R2 | 2RMSE | ||||||
| pH | Exponential | 0.0307 | 0.0505 | 11349.19 | 0.6075 | 0.11 | 0.2096 |
| P (mg∙kg-1) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.27 | 1.3337 |
| K (mg∙kg-1) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.22 | 1.4363 |
| EC (dS∙m-1) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.51 | 0.0669 |
| OM (%) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.45 | 0.5599 |
| H+ (mEq∙100 g-1) | Linear | 0.1870 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.37 | 0.5132 |
| Al+3 (mEq∙100 g-1) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.32 | 0.4610 |
| Acidity (mEq∙100 g-1) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.36 | 0.6046 |
| CIC (mEq∙100 g-1) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.43 | 0.6176 |
| Ca+2 (mEq∙100 g-1) | Gaussian | 0.4994 | 0.3408 | 11349.19 | 1.4656 | 0.39 | 0.7875 |
| Mg+2(mEq∙100 g-1) | Power | 0.0883 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.18 | 0.3680 |
| K+ (mEq∙100 g-1) | Linear | 0.0558 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.39 | 0.4773 |
| Na+ (mEq∙100 g-1) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.28 | 0.2053 |
| BD (g∙cm-3) | Gaussian | 0.0009 | 0.0042 | 11349.19 | 0.2180 | 0.79* | 0.0267 |
| EAP (%) | Linear | 2.1710 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.16 | 1.7022 |
| ECP (%) | Linear | 1.1814 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.28 | 1.1638 |
| EMP (%) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.54* | 0.4758 |
| EPP (%) | Linear | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.54* | 0.4758 |
| ESP (%) | Spherical | 0.0684 | 0.6601 | 11349.19 | 0.1036 | 0.22 | 0.7406 |
| Liming (t∙ha-1) | linear | 0.7501 | 0.0000 | 11349.19 | 0.0000 | 0.30 | 1.0868 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).