/
Blog Posts
Data extracted in February 2021
Fiche created in May 2024
Note to the reader: This general fiche summarises all the environmental and climate impacts of SOIL AMENDMENT WITH LIME AND GYPSUM found in a review of 7 synthesis papers[1]. These papers were selected from an initial number of 35 obtained through a systematic literature search strategy, according to the inclusion criteria reported in section 4. The impacts reported here are those for which there is scientific evidence available in published synthesis papers, what does not preclude the farming practice to have other impacts on the environment and climate still not covered by primary studies or by synthesis papers.
The synthesis papers review a number of primary studies ranging from 19 to 175. Therefore, the assessment of impacts relies on a large number of results from the primary studies, obtained mainly in field conditions, or sometimes in lab experiments or from model simulations.
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE FARMING PRACTICE
- Description:
- Soil amendments are the practices used to improve the soil quality in terms of its structure and biochemical function. Most amendments use calcium-containing minerals, such as lime or gypsum. Both types of amendment have different chemical properties, as explained in Key descriptors.[2]
- Key descriptors:
- Different types of calcium-containing minerals are used in practice, in particular:[3]
- Lime refers to a material that can come in different forms, especially calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and magnesium carbonate (MgCO3). It is used to reduce soil acidity and to add calcium or magnesium to the soil. [4]
- Gypsum, or calcium sulfate dihydrate, (CaSO4 ·2H₂O), is a neutral salt. It can be used to improve soil calcium and sulphur levels. Gypsum is about 200 times more soluble than agricultural lime, allowing it to move readily down the soil profile where it can help to alleviate a range of subsoil problems. In some acid soils, gypsum can be used to ameliorate subsoil aluminium toxicity, while in saline alkaline soils to alleviate sodium toxicity and to regulate soil pH, bulk density and water infiltration.
- NA
2. EFFECTS OF THE FARMING PRACTICE ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(table 1)
The table below shows the number of synthesis papers with statistical tests reporting i) a significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator, that is to say, a significant statistical effect, which can be positive or negative; or ii) a non-statistically significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator. In addition, we include, if any, the number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects. Details on the quality assessment of the synthesis papers can be found in the methodology section of this WIKI.
Out of the 7 selected synthesis papers, 2 included studies conducted in Europe, and 6 have a quality score higher than 50%.
Table 1: Summary of effects. Number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or non-statistically significant effects on environmental and climate impacts. The number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects are also provided. When not all the synthesis papers reporting an effect are of high quality, the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50% is indicated in parentheses. Some synthesis papers may report effects for more than one impact, or more than one effect for the same impact.
|
|
|
| Statistically tested | Non-statistically tested | ||
Impact | Metric | Intervention | Comparator | Significantly positive | Significantly negative | Non-significant | |
Increase Carbon sequestration | Soil organic carbon | Gypsum | No gypsum | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Lime | No lime | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Decrease GHG emissions | yield-scaled aggregated GHGs emissions (as CO2eq) | Lime | No lime | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Decrease Heavy metals pollution | Bioavailability and plant uptake of toxic compounds | Gypsum | No gypsum | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Lime | No lime | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Increase Soil biological quality | Soil biological quality | Gypsum | No gypsum | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Increase Soil nutrients | Soil nutrients | Gypsum | No gypsum | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Increase Soil physico-chemical quality | Soil physical-chemical quality | Gypsum | No gypsum | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Lime | No lime | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Increase Crop yield | Crop yield | Gypsum | No gypsum | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) |
Lime | No lime | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
3. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFECTS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The factors significantly influencing the size and/or direction of the effects on the impacts, according to the synthesis papers included in this review, are reported below. Details about the factors can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses available in this WIKI.
Table 2: List of factors reported to significantly affect the size and/or direction of the effects on environmental and climate impacts, according to the synthesis papers reviewed. The reference number of the synthesis papers where those factors are explored is given in parentheses.
Impact | Factors |
Carbon sequestration | Aplication season (Ref3), Climate (Ref6), Liming duration (Ref6), NA (Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3), Soil depth (Ref3) and Soil salinity (Ref3) |
GHG emissions | NA (Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2 and Ref2) |
Heavy metals pollution | Liming rate (Ref1), NA (Ref1, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3), Rice cultivar (Ref1), Scale of experiment (Ref1), Soil Cd concentration (Ref1), Soil texture (Ref1), Soil Zn concentration (Ref1) and Type of lime (Ref1) |
Soil biological quality | NA (Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3 and Ref3) |
Soil nutrients | NA (Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3 and Ref3) |
Soil physico-chemical quality | Incorporation depth (Ref3), Liming rate (Ref1, Ref5), NA (Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3), Scale of experiment (Ref1, Ref5), Soil organic matter (Ref5), Soil salinity (Ref3), Soil texture (Ref5) and Time scale (Ref5) |
Crop yield | Al saturation (Ref4), Crop species (Ref5, Ref4), Incorporation depth (Ref3), Irrigation (Ref3), NA (Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3), Plowing (Ref5), Soil pH (Ref2), Soil texture (Ref5), Water deficiency (Ref4) and Water table (Ref3) |
4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY
Table 3: Systematic review search strategy - methodology and search parameters.
Parameter | Details |
Keywords | WOS: TOPIC: ("liming" OR "limest*" OR "chalk*" OR "marl*" OR "gypsum") AND TOPIC: (soil) AND TOPIC: ("meta-analy*" OR "systematic* review*" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") |
Time reference | No time restriction. |
Databases | Web of Science and Scopus: run on 01 February 2021 |
Exclusion criteria | The main criteria that led to the exclusion of a synthesis paper are: |
5. SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW
Table 4: List of synthesis papers included in this review. More details can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses.
Ref Num | Author(s) | Year | Title | Journal | DOI |
Ref1 | Kong L, Guo Z, Peng C, Xiao X, He Y | 2021 | Factors influencing the effectiveness of liming on cadmium reduction in rice: A meta-analysis and decision tree analysis | Sci Total Environ. 779:146477 | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146477 |
Ref2 | R.Hijbeek; M.P.van Loon; W.Ouaret; B.Boekelo; M.K.van Ittersum | 2021 | Liming agricultural soils in Western Kenya: Can long-term economic and environmental benefits pay off short term investments? | Agricultural Systems 190, 103095 | 10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103095 |
Ref3 | Wang Y, Wang Z, Liang F, Jing X, Feng W | 2021 | Application of flue gas desulfurization gypsum improves multiple functions of saline-sodic soils across China. | Chemosphere. 277:130345 | 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130345 |
Ref4 | Pias, OHD; Tiecher, T; Cherubin, MR; Silva, AGB; Bayer, C | 2020 | Does gypsum increase crop grain yield on no-tilled acid soils? A meta-analysis | Agronomy Journal 112, 675–692. | 10.1002/agj2.20125 |
Ref5 | Li Y.; Cui S.; Chang S.X., Zhang Q. | 2019 | Liming effects on soil pH and crop yield depend on lime material type, application method and rate, and crop species: a global meta-analysis. Journal of Soils and Sediments 19(4) | J Soils Sediments 19:1393–406 | 10.1007/s11368-018-2120-2 |
Ref6 | Eze, S; Palmer, SM; Chapman, PJ. | 2018 | Soil organic carbon stock in grasslands: Effects of inorganic fertilizers, liming and grazing in different climate settings | Journal of Environmental Management 223, 74-84 | 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.013 |
Ref7 | Tiecher, T; Pias, OHD; Bayer, C; Martins, AP; Denardin, LGD; Anghinoni, I | 2018 | Crop Response to Gypsum Application to Subtropical Soils Under No-Till in Brazil: a Systematic Review | Revista Brasileira de Ciencia do Solo 42:170025 | 10.1590/18069657rbcs20170025 |
Disclaimer: These fiches present a large amount of scientific knowledge synthesised to assess farming practices impacts on the environment, climate and productivity. The European Commission maintains this WIKI to enhance public access to information about its initiatives. Our goal is to keep this information timely and accurate. If errors are brought to our attention, we will try to correct them. However, the Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the information on these fiches and WIKI.
[1] Synthesis research papers include either meta-analysis or systematic reviews with quantitative results. Details can be found in the methodology section of the WIKI.
[2] https://agbmps.osu.edu/bmp/amending-soils-lime-or-gypsum-nrcs-333
[3] https://www.kzndard.gov.za/images/Documents/researchandtechnologydevelopment/publications/researchreports/2015_13_Agricultural_uses_of_lime_and_gypsum.pdf