Predicting Maize Yield, Nutrient Concentration, and Uptake in Phosphorus- and Potassium-Fertilized Soils: Pressurized Hot Water and Other Alternatives to Mehlich I Extraction in Guatemala Soils

Abstract

Poor accessibility and cost of soil testing reduce effectiveness of fertilizer use on small‐scale subsistence farms, and inadequate funding promotes adoption of soil tests in developing countries with minimal validation. For example, Mehlich I extraction of phosphorus (P) currently used extensively in Guatemala may not be suitable for Guatemala's broad range of soils. At least four alternatives are available but relatively untested [Bray 1, Mehlich III, Olsen, and pressurized hot water (PHW)]. Pressurized hot water is relatively simple and inexpensive but is not yet tested against other extraction methods under variable P or potassium (K) fertilization levels. To determine whether PHW‐extracted nutrients could be used to predict maize yield and nutrient concentration and uptake, soil, plant tissue and grain samples were obtained from a multiple‐site field study, and calibration studies were conducted using five rates of P and three rates of K on soils incubated without plants or cropped with maize in greenhouse and field conditions. In the multiple‐site field study, maize yield related significantly to PHW‐extractable P (r²=0.36) and to leaf P concentration (r²=0.23), but Mehlich I–extractable P did not. In the two soils used in the greenhouse study, maize yield, vegetative P concentration, and total P uptake by maize were predicted by PHW‐extractable P (R²=0.72, 0.75, and 0.90, respectively). In the field experiment, grain yield was not improved by P or K application, but P concentration of maize leaf tissue did relate significantly with PHW‐extracted P (R²=0.40). Mehlich I did not. There were no yield responses to K application in any experiment, but relationships defined between extractable K for all five K‐extraction procedures and soil‐applied K were similarly significant. In comparison, PHW was as good as or better than Olsen whereas Bray 1 and Mehlich III were less consistent. Mehlich I was overall the poorest P extractant. Mehlich I extraction of P should be replaced by one of the four alternatives tested. PHW is the least expensive and, therefore, most viable for use in Guatemala soils.

Keywords:

• Bray 1
• fertilized soils
• Guatemala
• international agriculture
• maize
• Mehlich I
• Mehlich III
• nutrient extraction
• Olsen
• phosphorus
• potassium
• pressurized hot water
• small‐scale farming
• soil testing

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this research was contributed by the Benson Food and Agriculture Institute, the Potash and Phosphate Institute, and the Plant and Animal Sciences Department at Brigham Young University. Research and technical help were contributed by Angela Rampton, Fredy Coronado, Dany Arbizú, and others in Guatemala.