Logo do repositório
 
Publicação

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

2023Artigo científico Acesso aberto
Ver registo simples
dc.contributor.authorFaria, Maria
dc.contributor.authorBertocco, Tamires
dc.contributor.authorBarroso, Ana
dc.contributor.authorCarvalho, Manuela
dc.contributor.authorFonseca, Felícia
dc.contributor.authorMatos, Cristina Delerue
dc.contributor.authorFigueiredo, Tomás de
dc.contributor.authorBraga, Amalia Sequeira
dc.contributor.authorValente, Teresa
dc.contributor.authorJimenez-Ballesta, Raimundo
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-30T09:18:39Z
dc.date.available2020-03-30T09:18:39Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractWildfires can cause serious imbalances in ecosystems, primarily at the soil level, making it vulnerable to degradation processes such as erosion. During and after a fire, changes occur in soil properties, including pH, which affects the solubility and availability of nutrients. Currently, there is a great diversity of protocols, some involving normalized standards, to determine soil pH, but there is no consensual or universal analytical method for this parameter, especially in burned soils, in which mineral and organic fractions could have been modified. Therefore, the objective of the present work is to evaluate the effect that variations in these analytical protocols may have on pH results. For this, five methods commonly found in the international bibliography for the analysis of pH of soil in water (pH(H2O)) were selected and compared to propose the most precise procedure. The analytical methods were applied to 43 soil samples, collected in a plot subjected to prescribed burning in the Parque Natural de Montesinho (Northern Portugal). The studied methods differ in the following protocol items: water suspension ratio (1:2.5 or 1:5), mechanical stirring time in the suspension (10 min or 1 h), and in the resting time for the solid particles to settle (15 min or 8 h). The obtained results point to the suitability of the five methods used for soil pH analysis, indicating that there are no statistically significant differences. However, results also allow suggesting a more appropriate method concerning practical reasons, such as labor in a lab. Thus, to make the analysis process more profitable, M2 is a good option because it uses a small amount of sample (5 g), short agitation (10 min) and settling time (15 min). In turn, M1 and M5, which use a lower proportion of soil (1:2.5) show lower pH variation in the measurements. This fact may be explained by a smaller dilution effect. Considering that these two methods differ in the settling time, it is suggested to apply M1, because only 15 min are required. Therefore, the main conclusion reached with this work is that the measurement of soil pH using M1, i.e., a soil:water ratio of 1:2.5, with agitation of 10 min and settling time of 15 min, is a robust and more expeditious protocol to be applied to soil samples after a fire.pt_PT
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research was funded by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) through the Interreg V-A Spain-Portugal program (POCTEC) 2014–2020 (Project 0701_TERRAMATER_1_E). This work was also co-funded by Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal) through projects UIDB/04683/2020, UIDP/04683/2020 (ICT); and by national funds FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC) to CIMO (UIDB/00690/2020 and UIDP/00690/2020), and SusTEC (LA/P/0007/2020).
dc.description.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionpt_PT
dc.identifier.citationFaria, Maria; Bertocco, Tamires; Barroso, Ana; Carvalho, Manuela; Fonseca, Felícia; Matos, Cristina Delerue; Figueiredo, Tomás de; Braga, Amalia Sequeira; Valente, Teresa; Jimenez-Ballesta, Raimundo (2023). A comparison of analytical methods for the determination of soil pH: case study on burned soils in Northern Portugal. Fire. ISSN 2571-6255. 6:6, p. 1-13pt_PT
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/fire6060227
dc.identifier.issn2571-6255
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10198/21172
dc.language.isoengpt_PT
dc.peerreviewedyespt_PT
dc.publisherMDPIpt_PT
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/pt_PT
dc.subjectpHpt_PT
dc.subjectAnalytical protocolspt_PT
dc.subjectForest firespt_PT
dc.subjectBurned soilpt_PT
dc.subjectANOVA
dc.subjectCost-effective method
dc.titleA comparison of analytical methods for the determination of soil pH: case study on burned soils in Northern Portugalpt_PT
dc.typejournal article
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.titleFirept_PT
person.familyNameBertocco
person.familyNameFonseca
person.familyNameFigueiredo
person.givenNameTamires
person.givenNameFelícia
person.givenNameTomás d'Aquino
person.identifier1297327
person.identifier.ciencia-idE216-BDE6-C486
person.identifier.ciencia-id961D-607D-51CC
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5744-8530
person.identifier.orcid0000-0001-7727-071X
person.identifier.orcid0000-0001-7690-8996
person.identifier.scopus-author-id36970960500
person.identifier.scopus-author-id54790554500
rcaap.rightsopenAccesspt_PT
rcaap.typearticlept_PT
relation.isAuthorOfPublication89f51fd8-1c13-442f-92be-99fd6f40aad5
relation.isAuthorOfPublication4f6f8be1-73c1-45bb-b159-ce3f8ff96c84
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationdb897e48-ecf7-4ce1-ba27-369260337510
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoverydb897e48-ecf7-4ce1-ba27-369260337510

Ficheiros

Principais
A mostrar 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura indisponível
Nome:
A comparison of analytical methods for the determination of soil pH.pdf
Tamanho:
3.06 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Ver/Abrir
Licença
A mostrar 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura indisponível
Nome:
license.txt
Tamanho:
1.75 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descrição:
Ver/Abrir

Coleções

CIMO - Artigos em Revistas Indexados à WoS/Scopus