Soil testing for fertilizer recommendations

The soil test report contains extensive information, but there's more you should know about how these tests are conducted and how to read the results.

Robert N. Carrow, Ph.D.

hemical soil testing is a widely used management tool in agriculture, including turfgrass science, and there are more than 400 laboratories in the United States and 200 in Canada offering this service (3). There are three types of soil test laboratories: commercial or private, stateoperated and fertilizer industry labs. Soil testing is defined as any chemical measurement of the soil for the following purposes: identifying nutrient deficiencies predicting nutrient needs for adjustment by fertilization evaluating potential excesses or imbalances of essential nutrients, heavy metals or salts assessing other important soil chemical aspects, such as pH, organic matter content, salt status and cation exchange capacity, that may influence turfgrass growth The nutrient status of turfgrass can be determined by a combination of several components, such as soil or tissue testing - either as a one-time diagnosis of a nutrient deficiency or nutrient! element toxicity, or on a continual monitoring basis. In addition, it can also include analysis of visual symptoms on an individual leaf, a single plant or across a landscape. In addition, the turfgrass manager's experience and knowledge of the turf's nutritional needs under the specific climate, soil, use patterns and budget can also playa part in the analysis. This article focuses on soil testing and the components of a soil testing program, particularly field sampling and sample preparation, extraction and chemical analysis, and interpretation of the results. For additional information, several publications are available on soil

testing (1, 2, 3, 8) and soil fertility/plant nutrition (1, 4, 5, 6, 7).

Sampling and sample preparation

Soil test results will not be accurate if samples are not carefully taken and prepared for chemical analysis. Sampling should be taken to a 4-inch depth, and the thatch should be discarded while keeping any mat (thatch containing considerable soil or topdressing). An exception to the recommended 4-inch depth is when the turf manager is applying sulfur (S) to reduce pH. In this situation, 1 inch of the soil or mat surface should be sampled separately. However, if a sample depth other than 4 inches is currently being used, that depth

should be continued so the results can be compared with previous tests. Samples can be taken at any time of the year, but not within two weeks of phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca) or magnesium (Mg) fertilizer a pplica tion. Sample similar areas together and take at least 10 subsamples from each area to make a composite sample. Each green and tee should be sampled separately. Fairways and other dissimilar areas, such as low, moist sites and upland, drained sites, also should be sampled separately . Next, the subsamples should be carefully mixed to obtain a represenContinued

Table 1. Common chemical extractants used for phosphorus

Chemical extractant Bray P1 Comments

(P).

0.03 M NH4F + 0.025 M HC!. Extracts relatively soluble CaP, FeP, and AlP mineral forms and some organic P. 0.05 M HCI + 0.0125 M H2S04, Relatively soluble Cap, FeP and AlP mineral forms. Removes excessive P in calcareous soils or if apatite is present. 0.015 M NH4F + 0.20 M CH3COOH + 0.25 M NH4N03 0.013 M HN03. Extracts relatively soluble CaP, FeP and AlP mineral forms, some organic P, and is superior on volcanic ash or loess-derived soils.

Mehlich I

Mehlich III

Olsen

0.5 M NaHC03 at pH 8.5. Extracts various CaP fractions and some FeP. A better extractant on calcareous soils than are acid extractants, but also performs well on acid soils. 0.54 M CH3COOH + 0.7 M CH3COONa (pH 4.2). Used in Northeast and Northwest. Extracts P fractions dissolved by CO2 dissolved in water.

Morgan

Golf Course Management

/ November

1995

61

SOIL TESTING

fromp.61

grass on the area. The lab will grind the sample. Extraction and chemical analysis In the soil test laboratory, a chemical extractant in liquid form is added to the soil sample. The sample is shaken, and then the liquid is collected after filtering. A number of extractants have been developed by soil chemists to extract that portion of a soil nutrient that is plant-available. The total quantity of a particular nutrient is not extracted - just the portion in chemical forms that the plant can take up. This fraction provides a measurement of soil nutrient status and allows fertilizer needs to be predicted. Extractants used for a particular nutrient are normally well-correlated with one another, but each chemical may extract different absolute quantities (8). Thus, absolute values (for example, the pounds/ A or ppm of K)

tative sample that contains sufficient soil for all analyses. Make sure you keep careful records of where you obtained the samples and the particular code used to identify them. Routine sampling may be conducted every two to three years unless you are attempting to markedly alter some soil chemical aspect, such as pH, P levels or salinity. In these situations, annual sampling may be needed. In addition, if S is being applied for pH reduction or to treat sodic soils, you should test the pH of the surface 1 inch of soil on at least an annual basis. The soil should be air-dried in an area free of fertilizer dust. To prepare the sample, make sure you use clean utensils and include all necessary information for the lab: name, address, sample identification, sample type (such as green or tee) and the type of

can only be compared from one year to another if the same extractant is used each year. Turf managers sometimes send a split sample to two different labs or change labs, resulting in reports that contain widely different values for the same nutrient. This often occurs when different chemical extractants are used. However, the ranking of the nutrient level (such as low or high) should be similar regardless of the extractant. Some extractants are recommended for certain situations, such as Olsen for P in calcareous soils, Mehlich III for P in volcanic and loessderived soils, NH40Ac at pH 4.8 (vs. pH 7.0) for CEC of acid soils and for K or Mg when hydrous micas are present, and NH4HC03 or NaHC03 for Ca on calcareous soils. For example, Mehlich I removes excessive P in calcareous soils. Turf managers with

Table 2. Common chemical extractants used in soil testing for cations, sulfur (804-) and micronutrients. Nutrient Cations
K, Ca, Mg CH3COONH4 (ammonium acetate) (1 M). Widely used as an extractant for K, Ca, Mg in the Midwest and far West. Also, the most common method to determine cations' (K, Ca, Mg, Na, H, AI) saturation on CEC sites and total CEC. Extracts primarily cations on CEC sites and in soil solution. When acidified, extracts CEC cations; soil solution cations; and relatively soluble forms of CaC03, CaMg(C03)2, CaS04; some Mg from interlayers of micaceous minerals; some K associated with hydrous micas. Used in Northeast, Northwest and Texas. Mehlich

Chemical Extractant

Comments

1*

This double acid extractant used for P is also used in the Southeast for various cations. Used for extracting P, but has become increasingly popular for various cations. These are used in calcareous central-western states.

Mehlich 111* NH4HC03(1 M) or NaHC03(0.5M) Water Dilute Acid or Salt Micronutrients Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu DTPA-TEA Mehlich 1*

Used in arid and semi-arid regions to determine available S04- versus mineral S. In humid regions, exchangeable, water-soluble and absorbed (labile) S04- can be determined by replacement with another anion from an acid or salt. 0.005 M DTPA + 0.01 M CaCI2 + 0.10 M TEA, pH 7.3 is the most widely used. DTPA is a chelating agent that forms water-soluble complexes with free metal cations. Can be used for Cu, Mn, Zn

*See Table 1 for a description

62

Golf Course Management

/ November

1995

calcareous soils (calcareous sand, soils with free CaC03) should pay particular attention to the extractants used by their laboratory. In fact, request this information if it is not provided in the soil test lab literature. Phosphorus. Phosphorus is primarily associated with Ca, iron (Fe) and Al phosphates in soils with Ca-P predominating at alkaline pH and Fel AI-P at acidic pH. Extractants used for P remove relative soluble forms of these chemicals. Cation$_(K,_Ca_arld_Mg). Cations are positively charged ions, such as K+, Ca+2, Mg+2, H+, AI+3 and Na+. These can be found in soil minerals, precipitated as various chemicals (Le., CaC03) on cation exchange sites and in soil solution. The essential cations of K, Ca and Mg are of particular interest because the quantities of these on cation exchange sites and in soil solutions comprise a major source of these nutrients for plants. The exchange sites are on clay and organic colloids and are called cation exchange sites. On a soil test report, CEC (cation exchange capacity) notation is most commonly used, but sometimes TEC (total exchange capacity) is listed, though both have the same meaning.
Two approaches

Two philosophies or approaches to assessing cation nutrient status have evolved: SLAN (sufficiency level of available nutrients) and BCSR (basic cation saturation ratio) (2, 8). Information from both approaches is often included on test reports, particularly on those from commercial and fertilizer industry labs. The SLAN approach is the traditional method used for cations. The concept is based on extensive field trials to determine sufficiency levels and expected crop response when a certain quantity of nutrient is added. Turfgrass sufficiency levels have generally been derived from other crops and adjusted over the years by turfgrass scientists. SLAN is the only approach used for some nutrients (e.g., P, Sand micronutrients) and is favored by state labs (2, 8). It is based on an extractant removing from the soil forms of the
Golf Course Management / November 1995

nutrient that are plant-available. This would include cations on the CEC sites, cations in soil solution, Ca/Mg associated with relatively soluble CaP, CaMg(C03)2, CaC03, MgC03, CaS04 and MgS04, some interlayer K associated with illite or mica clays, and some interlayer Mg from montmorillonite and vermiculite clays. Therefore, the SLAN method does not depend solely upon cations present on the CEC sites, but includes other plant-available chemical forms. SLAN attempts to measure the quantity of a nutrient in the soil, which is then ranked for its sufficiency for plant needs. This is usually expressed as very low, low, medium, high or very high. A fertilizer recommendation is then made to meet plant needs and raise the nutrient status if the nutrient is very low or low. With this method it doesn't matter if the soil is a sand with low CEC, because the total available nutrient level is determined. Laboratories that do not specialize in turfgrass tend to overestimate P recommendations and underestimate K needs (1). However, labs that routinely test turfgrass samples usually adjust their calibrations and recommendations as new information becomes available. The BCSR approach is based on determining the percent saturation of cations on the cation exchange sites - not the total quantity of available cation (2, 8). To measure cation percentages on the CEC sites, the soil sample is saturated with a high level of one cation (usually ammonium acetate) and the cations replaced from the sites are determined. Adding the cations provides a measure of soil CEC, but cations in other chemical forms are ignored. The percent saturation level for each nutrient is then ranked relative to the percent saturation of an "ideal" soil. Furthermore, two other items are generated from the percent saturation data and used for nutrient recommendations: nutrient ratios (such as Ca/Mg, Mg/K and CalK) and percent "base" saturation, where the base cations are Ca, Mg, K and Na. The cation-ratio concept evolved from work in New Jersey in 1945 that

found an ideal soil should have exchange cation levels of 65 percent to 85 percent Ca, 10 percent to 20 percent Mg, 2 percent to 7 percent K, o percent to 5 percent Na and 0 percent to 5 percent H (2). Using these levels, the ideal ratios suggested were Ca/Mg of ~6.5:1, CalK of ~13:1 and Mg/K of ..;:2:1. The percent base saturation level of 80 percent or above (Le., base cations occupying 80 percent of the CEC sites) was suggested as best. The BCSR method has gained increased use in turf, especially from commercial labs, primarily because it tends to generate more recommendations for Ca, Mg and K. Recommendations may be made to bring a particular cation up to a certain percentage on the CEC sites, to adjust a particular ratio or to raise the percent base saturation to 80 percent. However, some researchers (2) have questioned the usefulness and validity of the BCSR approach, stating: "Numerous experiments over the past 40 years ... have demonstrated that the use of the BCSR approach alone for making fertilizer recommendations is both scientifically and economically questionable." This statement is the result of several factors. Scientists have found that wide variations in percent CEC saturation for each cation and BCSR ratios occur and do not correlate well with plant response. In addition, little evidence can be found for ideal cation ratios or for an ideal percent base saturation level of 80 percent. Furthermore, measurement of the percent of a cation of the CEC does not provide a measure of the total quantity available to a plant. For example, a golf green with 10 percent K saturation and a CEC of 1.0 meq./100g will have far less total plant-available K than a soil with 10 meq./100g of CEC but only 3 percent K saturation. Therefore, to make meaningful recommendations about the quantity of fertilizer,the CEC must be known and fertilizer rates estimated to alter the base saturation and/or ratios. Some people have promoted BCSR as more accurate than the SLAN method on golf greens with
Continued

63

SOIL TESTING

jromp.63

high sand and low CEC. Actually, the SLAN approach is more accurate, but readings for K are often very low because it is easily leached in such soils and very little of it is present. However, trying to adjust a 2 percent K saturation to 6 percent K when the CEC is <2.0 meq./100g would still be insufficient K for plant growth. When nutrients are added based on the SLAN approach, percent saturation and nutrient ratio automatically adjust to acceptable levels. BCSR information is most useful for determining the severity of Na+ influence and categorizing salt-affected soils, which provides a measure of total CEC and indicates the potential for Al toxicity if Al is included in the cations - which it should be for soils of pH 4.8 or less. Of the cations, K is most likely to be deficient, especially on low CEC sandy soils where rainfall and irrigation cause frequent leaching. Whether Ca deficiency occurs under field conditions is questionable since Ca is deficient only under very low soil pH (Le.,<pH 4.5). Under such low pH, Al and Mn toxicities are expressed before any Ca deficiency. Thus, Ca is seldom (if ever) recommended for a deficiency, but Ca as lime is often required to adjust pH. In fact, liming provides ample Ca for turf needs. Although Ca deficiency is very rare, Mg deficiency can occur at acidic pH and low CEC soils subject to fre-

quent leaching. Also, Mg deficiency may be induced by heavy liming with CaC03 (use dolomitic lime of CaC03 + MgC03 to avoid this problem) or heavy use of K. The best measure of soil Mg is with the SLAN procedure using an extractant such as NH40Ac (pH 4.8), Mehlich I or II, or NH4 or NaHC03. Some labs rely on the BCSR Ca/Mg ratios to generate recommendations, but these often overestimate Mg needs. A rapid test is to apply a foliar treatment of MgS04 (epsom salts) at 1 lb. MgS04 (Le.,0.10 lb. Mg) per 1,000 sq. ft. in 3 gallons of water to see whether a greening response will occur. When Mg is truly required, application of dolomitic limestone is generally best. Other options include foliar application of MgS04, or 2 to 4 Ibs./1,000 sq. ft. of MgS04 (total product) as a granular with immediate irrigation to avoid burn. Sulfur and micronutrients S levels in soils can also be assessed using extractants. There have been more than 20 different reagents used to determine plant-available S. In arid or semi-arid regions, water is often used, while in humid areas, exchangeable and loosely bound S requires a weak salt solution. Sulfur deficiencies are not very common, but they can occur in heavily leached sands. Micronutrient levels are also evaluated based on quantities extracted from the soil by using chelating agents, neutral salts, inorganic acid or reducing

Table 3. Solution used to spot treat for micronutrient deficiencies.* lb. element lb. element per per 1,000 fl. 2 acre .025 .025 .010 .003 .001 .001 1.1 1.1 0.44 0.13 0.04 0.04

Deficient Fertilizer micronutrient source Fe Mn Zn Cu B Mo Iron sulfate Manganese sulfate Zinc sulfate Copper sulfate Borax Sodium molybdate

Product oz.lgal. .75 .50 .50 .50 .10

.01

agents (5).Chelating agent extractants, such as DTPA, are used most often in the United States. Correlations of extractable micronutrient levels to turfgrass growth are less reliable than correlations for the macro nutrients (5). Iron deficiencies are readily apparent from plant symptoms: chlorotic turf with yellowing most apparent on the new leaves, spindly and thin leaves, and chlorotic patches that are irregular rather than uniform across the turf. Application of foliar Fe at 1 lb. Fe/ A will result in rapid greening of the turf. However, grasses often respond to foliar Fe even when there isn't an Fe deficiency. For Mn, a soil test may show very low levels even when Mn is not deficient. If a Mn deficiency is expected, application of foliar Mn (at 1 lb. Mn/ A) will give a greening response when Mn is truly deficient. Other micronutrient deficiencies have not been documented under golf course or sports turf conditions. But toxicities of Cu, B, Zn, Mo and Ni are of more concern. The application of a fertilizer with a micronutrient package once or twice a year is acceptable, but routine application of these nutrients is not recommended. In such an" instance, tissue testing for the particular nutrient or applying a foliar treatment to assess response will provide better guidance (4). After extraction, various instrumentation is used for chemical analysis of P, K, Ca, Mg, Sand Na levels. The instrumentation normally used by soil test laboratories is very accurate (3). Good labs will take care to routinely calibrate their instruments for known standard solutions of the elements to be measured. Also, some labs include standard soil samples within each batch of sample. If these measure outside a range, then all samples are retested. Other soil test information In addition to SLAN (for extractable levels of P, K, Ca, Mg, S and micronutrients) and BCSR (for CEC, percent base saturation of CEC sites and cation ratios), other analyses can be conducted to evaluate the soil nutrient status or assess potential problems. Two of these routine analy-

"From: L.B. McCarty, J.B. Sartain, G.H. Snyder, J.L. Cisar. 1993. Plant nutrition, fertilizers and fertilizer programs for Florida golf courses. IFAS Bulletin 282. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

64

Golf Course Management

/ November

1995

ses are soil pH and lime requirement. Soil pH influences soil nutrient availability, potential for Al/Mn toxicities, microorganism activity and plant community composition. Sometimes thatch pH differs from the pH of underlying soil, especially in humid climates or when irrigation water is neutral to acidic. An occasional check on thatch pH may be useful because bacteria populations decline at pH levels below 6.0. Bacteria in the thatch are necessary for thatch decomposition, so if thatch pH is below 6.0, an application of hydrated lime at 2 to 4 lbs. Ca(OH)2/1,000 sq. ft. may benefit thatch decomposition. The lime requirement is the quantity of lime necessary to bring soil pH to near neutral when the soil is acidic. The lime requirement is determined by a "buffer pH" method, but the actual buffer pH values are meaningless unless the calibration curve (which indicates lime needs in lbs. CaC03/1,000 sq. ft.) is presented. Commercial labs often present the buffer pH values, as well as the lime required to adjust pH. However, the buffer pH values often confuse turf managers because they differ from actual soil pH. In areas with salt-affected soils, soil testing is very valuable in assessing the extent of a problem and providing guidance for corrective action. Two analyses are very important for saltaffected soils: some measure of total salinity and a measure of the quantity of Na present vs. other cations. Two common measures of total salinity are total dissolved salts (TDS) and electrical conductivity (EC),where both are measured in saturated soilwater pastes and TDS (ppm) = EC (mmhos/cm) x 640 The quantity of Na present vs. other cations is provided by the percent Na saturation of the CEC sites, which is often reported as ESP (exchangeable sodium percentage). Guidelines in soils for these parameters are: EC (mmhos/ cm): <0.75, no problem; 0.75-3.0 increasing problem; >3.0 severe problem. TDS (ppm): <480 no problem; 480-1920 increasing problem; >1920 severe problem.
Golf Course Management / November 1995

Table 4. Soil test information. Analysis

Routine Analyses* 1. Soil pH 2. 3. Lime requirement Plant available (extractable) nutrients P, K, Ca, Mg Predictive Predictive SLAN approach, predictive Reliable if appropriate extractant was used, traditionalapproach, predictive BCSR approach, predictive but less reliable for recommendations than SLAN data

Comments**

4. CEC (cation exchange capacity)

5.

Percent cation saturation of CEC sites by K, Ca, Mg, Na, H, AI cation ratios percent base cation saturation of CEC

Analyses by request 1. Plant available (extractable) micronutrients Fe, Mn Cu, Zn, Mo, B, Ni Total soluble salts (electrical conductivity, ppm) Exchangeable Na percentage on CEC (ESP) SLAN approach Somewhat predictive Questionable for prediction Predictive, important on salt-affected soils Predictive for salt-affected soils Predictive SLAN approach, predictive Predictive of toxicities Predictive. Important if a turf manager is planning to use S for a pH reduction program Predictive Not predictive except in arid regions for a lowfertility grass Somewhat predictive

2. 3.

4. Specific Ions (Na+,

5. 6. 7. Heavy metals (total) CaC03

cr, S04-)

Plant available S (extractable)

8. 9.

Percent organic matter Total N, N03, NH4+

10. Humic acids

**

What is included in a routine analysis package varies somewhat from lab to lab but these analyses are often routine. SLAN - use of extractants to remove a fraction of nutrient from the soil that is potentially plant available and correlates to expected plant response. BGSR - use of the cations present on the GEG sites to generate fertility recommendations.

ESP (0/0): <3.0 no problem; 3.015.0 increasing problem; >15 severe problem. In addition to routine soil analyses and analyses for salt-affected soils, a number of other chemical parameters can be determined that are useful in certain situations. Most of the analyses are predictive because most soil chemical parameters do not rapidly

change. However, some chemical components change quickly and thus, analysis at a point in time may be accurate, but not predictive of future status. A good example is soil N03levels, which can be accurately measured, but fluctuate rapidly and therefore are not beneficial for predicting soil N status.
Continued

65

SOIL TESTING

fromp.65

Determination of free calcium carbonate (precipitated CaC03) is not a routine soil test, but is essential if a turf manager anticipates using S to reduce an alkaline soil. Soils with even a small percent of free CaC03 require very high S rates to dissolvethe CaC03 before pH declines. The high quantities of S (cost and burn considerations) and the long time required for a significantpH reduction in these soils make such a program unrealistic. However, if free CaC03 is not present, S can reduce pH.
Recommendations

A valid question is, "What information on my soil test report is most useful and accurate for assessing soil nutrient status?" Here we are ignor-

ing TDS, EC and ESp, which are useful for assessing salt-affected soils but are not used to determine routine nutritional status. The following are some guidelines based on the author's experience and professional opinion. The most important. First of all, of primary importance for determining nutrient status are soil pH, the lime requirement and the plant-available (extractable) P, K, Ca and Mg (Le., SLAN data). These analyses are all accurate (with a good representative sample), repeatable and have the best scientific basis for making fertilizer recommendations. Here are some notes on using this information: Extractable levels are generally reported as 1 bs. per acre or ppm where lb. per acre = 2Xppm. Extractable levels of a particular

Common-sense

guidelines for K fertilization

Adequate K contributes to total cell solutes and therefore, cell turgidity. A Kdeficient turfgrass tends to lose stomatal control, which means the stomata remain open, transpirational loss of water is high, turgidity decreases and wilt is more prevalent. Because of this, adequate K is necessary, not only as a cell solute for turgidity, but for stomatal control of transpiration. However, when K levels in the soil become excessive, high soil salinity limits plant water uptake, induces wilt and reduces wear tolerance. Saline conditions can easily build up in sandy soils if high levels of salts are added (via fertilization or irrigation) and leaching is limited. The following are some common-sense guidelines for K fertilization: Use soil tests to determine K needs on all soils except heavily leached sands. Soil tests provide the most accurate and predictive information on which to base fertilizer recommendations. Recommendations for K are higher on recreational sites such as golf courses than general grounds to provide the extra K to enhance wear tolerance. On heavily leached sands (due to high rainfall or irrigation programmed to provide leaching), many superintendents base K fertilization on N using N:K20 ratios of about 1:1 and spoon-feeding K along with N. This approach is. used because soil test values for K are often low due to the leaching of K. However, if K is not being leached, continued application of K based on a N:K20 ratio is a major contributor to soil salinity buildup. In arid regions, turf managers often monitor total salts (salinity),but salinity can be a problem even in humid climates during dry periods when irrigation isn't sufficient for leaching. There are several implications of this. If long-term weather patterns (Le.,arid climates) favor soil K accumulation, soil test for K. Many turf managers in these climates may not be leaching a major portion of applied K and soil tests may not always read low. These managers should also. consider using soil test data rather than N:K20 ratios, unless they are consistently irrigating with sufficient water to leach K and other salts. In humid climates, a prolonged dry period should signal the superintendent to test for total salts and reduce K use if salts are accumulating. In addition, when the conditions of a high sand root zone mix and leaching are present, spoon-feeding K by using N:K20 ratios is appropriate. When using the N:K20 ratio for sandy soils and leaching conditions, consider these adjustments: - Use a 1:1.5(N:K20) ratio for annual N rates of 1 to 3 Ibs. N/l,OOOsq. ft. - Use a 1:1ratio when annual N rates are 3 to 6 Ibs./l,OOOsq. ft. - Use 1:0.75 or 1:0.5 N:K20 ratios at annual Nratesabove 6 Ibs./l,OOOsq. ft. to avoid the potential of excessive salt buildup. - In the summer, apply Kat 0.25 to 0.50 lb. K20/1,000 sq. ft. spaced at two- to six-week intervals.

nutrient should correlate well with plant response as long as a suitable extractant was used and the sufficiency-ranking scale is related to turf. In acid soils, Ca may rank as low, but Ca deficiency is very rare in turfgrass. However, the addition of lime as indicated by the lime requirement will raise soil pH and provide ample Ca. When soil pH levels are already near neutral but Ca is ranked low, you should question whether the ranking scale is used for turf or based on a Ca-sensitive vegetable crop. Mg deficiencies occur on turf as well as P and K deficiencies. Therefore, low ranking of these nutrients requires fertilization. Even though two labs may rank a soil the same for a particular nutrient, the recommendations based on lbs. nutrient/I,OOO sq. ft. required may differ. Recommendations are based on raising a nutrient up to a sufficiency range. However, recommendation variations as to how much nutrient to apply per year will exist across states due to differences in length of growing season, rainfall, temperatures, soil and grass types (1, 4). Therefore, professional turfgrass managers know their sites best and should not take all recommendations as equally applicable. Recommendations for recreational sites such as golf courses are often higher than for general grounds or home lawn areas due to high-quality expectations and growth needed to recover from traffic. The lime requirement for turfgrass soils is based on amending the soil pH to a depth of about 4 inches and not 8 inches as is common for agronomic crops. When the sample is clearly labeled as a turfgrass area, the lime requirement provided is normally for 4 inches. Dolomitic lime (Le., CaC03 + MgC03) is often used when a large quantity of lime is required and Mg levels are ranked low. Dolomitic lime would help prevent an induced Mg deficiency under these conditions. Cation percentages on the exchange sites and cation ratios willadjust to adequate ranges in two primary instances: appropriate fertilizer is applied to bring extractable p, K, Ca and Mg to within
Golf Course Management / November 1995

66

sufficiency range, and lime is applied as indicated by the lime requirement for pH adjustment. This is a more sound approach than starting with cation percentages/ cation ratios and basing fertilization on these. Second in importance. Of secondary importance are the CEC level and the extractable Fe and Mn sufficiency rankings. A soil with CEC less than 3.0 meq./IOO gm soil will be susceptible to nutrient leaching and require careful attention to maintain adequate nutrition. If extractable Fe and Mn rank low, it may mean they are deficient. As stated previously, Fe deficiency symptoms will be readily apparent if Fe is deficient, but Mn deficiency symptoms are less dramatic. Foliar treatment with Fe or Mn at lIb. Fe /A or lIb. Mn/ A will demonstrate whether these nutrients are truly needed. The third level. At the third level of importance are cation percentages on CEC sites - especially Na+, the cation ratios based on the cation percentage, and the percent base saturation. This information is interesting for monitoring CEC cation status over time to determine how your fertilization practices are affecting the soil, but is not very sound for generating fertilizer recommendations. Maintaining sufficient extractable nutrient levels will automatically result in adequate nutrient levels/ratios on exchange sites. In addition, percent Na + on the sites (Le., ESP) is a very important piece of information because it indicates the potential for a sodic or saline/ sodic soil. While this is important for identifying salt-affected soils, it is not an issue in terms of assessing routine nutrient deficiencies/ fertiliza tion. The fourth level. At the fourth level of importance are the extractable levels of In, Cu, Mo, B and Ni. While these are often included in soil tests, the rankings have not been demonstrated to be related to turfgrasses. Ranking scales are often those used for vegetable crops or agronomic crops that may be sensitive to one of these micronutrients. Since micronutrient toxicities can occur, care should be
Golf Course Management / November 1995

Table 5. Influence of soil pH in turfgrass systems.

Soil pH

~ 4.0
Potential increases for N, P, K, S,Ca,Mg deficiencies AI/Mnare~ likely to be toxic to roots
I

Acid NeutralAlkaline----' 6.0 7.0 8.0

5.0

9.0
Potential for

10.0

-l
these nutrients.

P, Fe, Mn
deficiencies

Potential for sodic soil problems

Bacteria levels decline for soil N transformations and thatch degradation; acid-loving plants favored

taken in applying

Common areas of confusion

There are five areas that turfgrass managers often find confusing when evaluating soil test recommendations: rest values vary substantially from the previous year. This may result from fertilizer or lime application changing the extractable levels and quantities on the CEC sites, sampling to a different soil depth, sending the sample to another lab that uses a different extractant, and in some cases, a nutrient may be leached (such as K) or altered into a form that is less extractable (such as P).

Micronutrient levels and rankings.

Extractants used to extract plantavailable micronutrients are not well-correlated to turf, but are usually correlated to a crop sensitive to the nutrient - perhaps a vegetable crop. Extractants for plant-available Fe and Mn are best correlated, but even these provide only a general estimate. Thus, because turfgrasses are very efficient in obtaining micronutrients, extractable levels are only a very rough estimate of the plants' needs. Confusion arises when a lab categorizes a micronutrient as excessively low (only Fe and Mn have been proved to be occasionally deficient on some turfgrass soils) or excessively

high. An excessively high micronutrient often is understood by a golf course superintendent as a potential danger, when in reality, nutrient toxicities are very rare - and they are usually due to heavy metal application via the air or by waste disposal. On the other hand, when a micronutrient is ranked very low and fertilizer application is recommended (especially for Cu, In, Mo, B, CI and Ni), the superintendent should question its validity. However, Fe deficiency is fairly common in arid and semi-arid regions, and Mn deficiency is also fairly common in Florida.

Excessively detailed information and recommendations. One example,

as previously stated, is the recommendations for micronutrients (such as Cu, In, Mo, B, CI and Ni) that have never been reported in the scientific literature to be deficient for turfgrasses (except for solution cultures carefully maintained to create a particular deficiency for the purposes of determining plant symptoms)." Another example is recommendations that arise from generating numerous nutrient ratios from the BCSR approach. Researchers have not been able to find good correlations to plant
Continued

67

SOIL TESTING

fromp.67

response. Instead, adjusting the pH to a recommended level and/or simply applying sufficient levels of any single nutrient that is determined to be deficient by SLAN extractants has provided better responses.
Recommendations not well-correlated to turfgrass response. Many

states have testing labs associated with their land-grant universities. These labs normally work closely with university turfgrass extension and

research scientists to ensure recommendations are updated for every crop. In other states, the Department of Agriculture may operate the soil test lab and its agronomists make the recommendations. Another common practice is for a fertilizer company to handle soil testing for a golf course, usually through a commercial lab or its own lab, and then recommendations are made to the turf manager. The superintendent ultimately has the responsibility for interpreting the soil test data, developing appropriate rec-

ommendations or evaluating the consultant's recommendations. For example, they should insist on receiving tables listing ranking ranges (such as low) vs. extractable levels for each nutrient or chemical analysis.
Provision of data that cannot be inter12reted. In their zeal to provide

Table 6. "Example" of a typical soil test report. Analysis*

1. Soil pH Very Very

Low

Low -

Med

High

High

= 6.8
Not applicable -

2. Lime requirement Ibs. CaC03 per 1,000 fF

3. Extractable nutrient levelt P 129 ppm** K 111 ppm** Ca 1306 ppm** Mg 176 ppm** Na 246 ppm** Fe 66.3 ppm** Mn 1.4 ppm** Zn 22.0 ppm** Cu 6.8 ppm** 4. Percent CEC saturation %K 3.0 % Ca 67.2 % Mg 13.6 % Na 12.2 %H 4.0 %AI 0 5. Percent base saturation = 96% (i.e., K, Ca, Mg, Na) 6. CEC (meq per 100 g) 7. Ratios Ca:Mg 4.9:1 Ca:K 22.4:1 Mg:K 4.5:1

more information than a competitor's lab, some labs provide meaningless information. The best example of this is the buffer pH, which is used by the lab to determine the lime requirement. However, the buffer pH data without the calibration curve that indicates the lime requirement is of no value. Since the lime requirement is already given, the buffer pH can only confuse a superintendent, especially when soil pH (a useful piece of information) is also listed. In summary, soil testing is an extremely useful tool for evaluating nutrient status and determining other chemical problems (such as pH imbalance or salt problems). A sound soil test depends on careful sampling and handling, appropriate extractants, accurate analyses and meaningful recommendations. Although much information may be included in a test report, the most important are the pH, lime requirement and plant-available P, K, Ca and Mg as determined by the SLAN approach. D
Literature cited 1. Christians, N.E. 1993. The fundamentals of soil testing. Golf Course Management 60(6): 88-99. 2. Haby, VA, M.P. Russelle, and E.O. Skogley. 1990. Testing soils for potassium, calcium and magnesium. In: R.L. Westerman (ed.). Soil testing and plant analysis, 3rd ed., Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. Book Series, No.3., SSSA, Madison, Wis. 3. Jones Jr~ J.G. 1992. Soil testing and plant analysis activities - the United States and Canada. Commun Soil &i. Plant Anal. 23:2015-2027. 4. McCarty, L.B., J.B. Sartain, GH Snyder, and J.L. Cisar. 1993. Plant nutrition, fertilizers and fertilizer programs for Florida golf courses. IFAS Bulletin 282, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 5. Mortvedt, J.J., FR Cox, L.M. Shuman, and RM. Welch (eds.). 1991. Micronutrients in agriculture, 2nd ed, Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. Book Series, No.4, SSSA, Madison, Wis. 6. Tisdale, S.L., w.L. Nelson, J.D. Beaton, and J.L. Havlin. 1993. Soil fertility and fertilizers. MacMiIlian Pub. Co., New York, NY 7. Turner. T.R, and N.W. Hummel Jr. 1992. Nutritional requirements and fertilization. In: OV. Waddington, RN. Carrow, and RC. Shearman (eds.). Turfgrass. Monograph No. 32, Amer. Soc. of Agron., Madison, Wis. 8. Westerman, RL. (ed.). 1990. Soil testing and plant analysis, 3rd ed., Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. Book Series, No.3, SSSA, Madison, Wis.

Not applicable -

= 9.4

= =

8. Salinity aspectst EC (mmhos/cm) =.52 TDS (ppm) = 333 ESP (exc. Na+ percent) = 12.1
Soil pH assessment. Items 1, 2. SLAN (extractable plant-available nutrients). Item 3. BCSR. Items 4, 5, 6, 7. Salinity evaluation. Item 8 ppm x 2 = Ibs. per acre TDS (ppm) = EC (mmhos/cm) x 640 ESP = % Na on CEC sites The extractable nutrient values are not based on a particular extractant but are for example. Thus, turf managers should not use these values to compare with or for recommendations.

**

tt

Dr. Robert Carrow 68

is a professor of crop and soil science at the University of Georgia's Georgia Station in Griffin.