SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Research in Agricultural Sciences / 2026 / Volume: 57 Issue: 3

Contrasting Covariance Patterns of Soil-Test Phosphorus and Potassium in Routine Agricultural Soil Records

Rutin Tarımsal Toprak Kayıtlarında Toprak Test Fosforu ve Potasyumunun Karşıt Kovaryans Desenleri

Volkan Atav(Atatürk Soil Water and Agricultural Meteorology Research Institute)0000-0003-2719-8398
Emel Kayalı(Atatürk Soil Water and Agricultural Meteorology Research Institute)0000-0001-7682-3060
Mehmet Ali Gürbüz(Atatürk Soil Water and Agricultural Meteorology Research Institute)0009-0004-9443-6901
Tuğçe Ayşe Kardeş(Soil, Fertilizer and Water Resources Central Research Institute)0000-0001-6655-3669
Pelinsu Demirci(Atatürk Soil Water and Agricultural Meteorology Research Institute)0009-0007-7012-0904
Barış Can Körükçü(DOKUZ EYLUL UNIVERSITY, EFES VOCATIONAL SCHOOL, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD PROCESSING)0000-0003-1501-933X
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-16
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall, available potassium fitted the broader multivariate structure more consistently, whereas available phosphorus required direct contextual interpretation rather than being treated as a simple component of a general fertility axis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Routine soil analysis reports are widely generated, yet they are commonly interpreted one indicator at a time.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, a cleaned analytical database was compiled from routine soil analysis records from northwestern Türkiye to examine the joint behavior of saturation percentage, pH, electrical conductivity, organic matter, available phosphorus, and available potassium.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, available potassium fitted the broader multivariate structure more consistently, whereas available phosphorus required direct contextual interpretation rather than being treated as a simple component of a general fertility axis.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:available phosphorus · available potassium · organic matter

Abstract

Routine soil analysis reports are widely generated, yet they are commonly interpreted one indicator at a time. When such records are compiled into databases, it becomes important to determine whether different soil-test indicators reflect the same general soil condition gradient or require context-specific interpretation. In this study, a cleaned analytical database was compiled from routine soil analysis records from northwestern Türkiye to examine the joint behavior of saturation percentage, pH, electrical conductivity, organic matter, available phosphorus, and available potassium. The extraction workflow yielded 1,450 rows from the uppermost reported soil layer, and a complete-case subset of 905 observations was retained for the main multivariate analyses. Descriptive review, Pearson and Spearman correlation analyses, targeted phosphorus pairwise analysis, principal component analysis, and grouped pH × organic matter summaries were used to evaluate co-variation. The results did not support a single fully coherent soil-property pattern. Saturation, pH, organic matter, and available potassium showed a comparatively regular shared structure, whereas available phosphorus was only partly aligned with that broader pattern. Phosphorus showed its clearest association with potassium and a weaker relation with organic matter, while its links with pH, saturation, and electrical conductivity were weak and scattered. Grouped pH × organic matter summaries further showed that potassium increased more regularly across contextual classes, whereas phosphorus behaved more unevenly. Overall, available potassium fitted the broader multivariate structure more consistently, whereas available phosphorus required direct contextual interpretation rather than being treated as a simple component of a general fertility axis.

Özet

Rutin toprak analiz raporları tarımsal uygulamada yaygın olarak üretilmekte, ancak çoğu zaman her gösterge ayrı ayrı yorumlanmaktadır. Bu kayıtlar daha büyük veri tabanları halinde bir araya getirildiğinde, farklı toprak testi göstergelerinin aynı genel toprak durumu gradyanını yansıtıp yansıtmadığını veya daha bağlama özgü yorum gerektirip gerektirmediğini değerlendirmek önem kazanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, kuzeybatı Türkiye'deki rutin toprak analiz kayıtlarından temizlenmiş bir analitik veri tabanı oluşturulmuş ve saturasyon yüzdesi, pH, elektriksel iletkenlik, organik madde, yarayışlı fosfor ve yarayışlı potasyumun birlikte davranışı incelenmiştir. Veri çıkarım süreci en üst bildirilen toprak katmanından 1.450 satır üretmiş, ana çok değişkenli analizler için 905 tam gözlem içeren alt veri seti kullanılmıştır. Tanımlayıcı inceleme, Pearson ve Spearman korelasyon analizleri, fosfor odaklı ikili karşılaştırmalar, temel bileşen analizi ve gruplanmış pH × organik madde özetleri kovaryasyon yapısını değerlendirmek için kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, tüm göstergelerin tek ve tam uyumlu bir toprak özelliği deseni oluşturmadığını göstermiştir. Saturasyon, pH, organik madde ve yarayışlı potasyum daha düzenli ortak bir yapı sergilerken, yarayışlı fosfor bu yapıyla yalnızca kısmen hizalanmıştır. Fosforun en belirgin ilişkisi potasyumla, daha zayıf ilişkisi ise organik maddeyle gözlenmiş; pH, saturasyon ve elektriksel iletkenlikle ilişkileri zayıf ve dağınık kalmıştır. Genel olarak, yarayışlı potasyum çok değişkenli yapıya daha tutarlı biçimde uyarken, yarayışlı fosforun genel bir verimlilik ekseninin basit bir bileşeni olarak değil, doğrudan ve bağlama duyarlı biçimde yorumlanması gerektiği belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Atav, V., Kayalı, E., Gürbüz, M. A., Kardeş, T. A., Demirci, P., Körükçü, B. C. (2026). Contrasting Covariance Patterns of Soil-Test Phosphorus and Potassium in Routine Agricultural Soil Records. Research in Agricultural Sciences, Volume: 57 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.17097/agricultureatauni.1977316

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Abdel-Fattah, M., Mohamed, E., Wagdi, E., Shahin, S., Aldosari, A., Lasaponara, R., & Alnaimy, M. (2021). Quantitative Evaluation of Soil Quality Using Principal Component Analysis: The Case Study of El-Fayoum Depression Egypt. Sustainability, 13(4), 1824. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041824.
  2. Andrews, S. S., Karlen, D. L., & Mitchell, J. P. (2002). A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 90(1), 25-45.
  3. Andrews, S. S., Karlen, D. L., & Cambardella, C. A. (2004). The soil management assessment framework: A quantitative soil quality evaluation method. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68(6), 1945-1962.
  4. Atav, V., Gürbüz, M. A., Kayali, E., & Yalinkiliç, E. (2025). Optimizing Nitrogen Management in Maize (Zea mays L.) Using Urease and Nitrification Inhibitorss. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 56(4), 528-541. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2024.2424236
  5. Bağdatlı, M. (2023). Spatial evaluation of land and soil properties with Geographic Information Systems (GIS): The case study from Meriç District of Thrace Region in Türkiye. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 11(12), 2394-2401. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v11i12.2394-2401.6466
  6. Barrow, N. J., & Hartemink, A. E. (2023). The effects of pH on nutrient availability depend on both soils and plants. Plant and Soil, 487(1-2), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-023-05960-5
  7. Bouabid, R., Badraoui, M., & Bloom, P. (1991). Potassium Fixation and Charge Characteristics of Soil Clays. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 55, 1493-1498. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1991.03615995005500050049x Bayram, S., Çayir, E. S., İlhan, E., Arslan, İ., & Gökpınar, E. (2025). The Language of Soil: Soil Analysis with a Machine Learning Approach. Research in Agricultural Sciences, 56(3), 243-255. https://doi.org/10.17097/agricultureatauni.1738386
  8. Bünemann, E. K., Bongiorno, G., Bai, Z., Creamer, R. E., De Deyn, G., de Goede, R., Fleskens, L., Geissen, V., Kuyper, T. W., Mäder, P., Pulleman, M., Sukkel, W., van Groenigen, J. W., & Brussaard, L. (2018). Soil quality - A critical review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 120, 105-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.030
  9. Doydora, S., Gatiboni, L., Grieger, K., Hesterberg, D., Jones, J., McLamore, E., Peters, R., Sozzani, R., Van Den Broeck, L., & Duckworth, O. (2020). Accessing Legacy Phosphorus in Soils. Soil Systems, 4(4), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems4040074
  10. Gewers, F., Ferreira, G., Arruda, H., Silva, F., Comin, C., Amancio, D., & Costa, L. (2018). Principal Component Analysis: A Natural Approach to Data Exploration. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447755. Grando, D. L., Martins, C. G., Deponti, L. P., Rodrigues, M. L., Mumbach, G. L., Schmitt, D. E., Moterle, D. F., Tiecher, T. L., Garlet, L. P., Dunker, L. S., Papalia, D. G., & Brunetto, G. (2025). Potassium buffer capacity in subtropical soils with high organic matter content. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, 49, e0240201. https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20240201
  11. Guadalix, M., Pardo, M., & Hernando, V. (1988). Evaluation of cation exchange capacity measurements for variable charge soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 19, 271-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103628809367938
  12. Gürbüz, M. A., Kayalı, E., Bahar, E., Öz, T. A., & Kurşun, İ. (2019). Composing the database of thrace soils and some soil characteristics. Toprak Bilimi ve Bitki Besleme Dergisi, 7(1), 28-36. https://doi.org/10.33409/tbbbd.595133 Hinsinger, P. (2001). Bioavailability of soil inorganic P in the rhizosphere as affected by root-induced chemical changes: A review. Plant and Soil, 237(2), 173-195.
  13. Holford, I. C. R. (1997). Soil phosphorus: Its measurement, and its uptake by plants. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 35(2), 227-240.
  14. Jackson, M. L. (1979). Soil Chemical Analysis: Advanced Course. Dept. Soil Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
  15. Jindo, K., Audette, Y., Olivares, F. L., Canellas, L. P., Smith, D. S., & Voroney, R. P. (2023). Biotic and abiotic effects of soil organic matter on the phytoavailable phosphorus in soils: A review. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 10, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-023-00401-y
  16. Kumbasli, M., Makineci, E., Keten, A., Beskardes, V., & Özdemir, E. (2017). Effects of parent material, stand type and oak species on defoliation of coppice-originated oak forests in Northern Turkish Thrace. Bosque, 38, 299-306. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-92002017000200007
  17. Lehmann, J., Bossio, D. A., Kögel-Knabner, I., & Rillig, M. C. (2020). The concept and future prospects of soil health. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(10), 544-553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0080-8
  18. Lyons, S. E., Osmond, D. L., Slaton, N. A., Spargo, J. T., Kleinman, P. J. A., Arthur, D. K., & McGrath, J. M. (2020). FRST: A national soil testing database to improve fertility recommendations. Agricultural and Environmental Letters, 5(1), e20008. https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20008
  19. Lyons, S. E., Clark, J. D., Osmond, D. L., Parvej, M. R., Pearce, A. W., Slaton, N. A., & Spargo, J. T. (2023). Current status of US soil test phosphorus and potassium recommendations and analytical methods. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 87(4), 985-998. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20536
  20. Martinengo, S., Schiavon, M., Santoro, V., Said-Pullicino, D., Romani, M., Miniotti, E., Celi, L., & Martin, M. (2023). Assessing phosphorus availability in paddy soils: the importance of integrating soil tests and plant responses. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 59, 391-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-023-01714-8
  21. McLean, E., Reicosky, D., & Lakshmanan, C. (1965). Aluminum in Soils: VII. Interrelationships of Organic Matter, Liming, and Extractable Aluminum with “Permanent Charge” (KCl) and pH-Dependent Cation-Exchange Capacity of Surface Soils 1. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 29, 374-378. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1965.03615995002900040010x
  22. Niskanen, R., & Jaakkola, A. (1986). Estimation of cation-exchange capacity in routine soil testing. Agricultural and Food Science, 58, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.72214
  23. Oorts, K., Vanlauwe, B., & Merckx, R. (2003). Cation exchange capacities of soil organic matter fractions in a Ferric Lixisol with different organic matter inputs. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 100(2-3), 161-171.
  24. Orgiazzi, A., Ballabio, C., Panagos, P., Jones, A., & Fernández-Ugalde, O. (2018). LUCAS Soil, the largest expandable soil dataset for Europe: A review. European Journal of Soil Science, 69(1), 140-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12499
  25. Özdemir, N., Gülser, C., Ekberli, İ., & Kop, Ö. T. (2014). Effects of conditioner applications in an acidic soil on some soil properties and yield. Toprak Bilimi ve Bitki Besleme Dergisi, 2(1), 27-32. https://izlik.org/JA68NP94AR
  26. Penn, C. J., & Camberato, J. J. (2019). A critical review on soil chemical processes that control how soil pH affects phosphorus availability to plants. Agriculture, 9(6), 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9060120
  27. Qiu, J., Zhi, R., Boughton, E., Li, H., Henderson, C. R. B., Petticord, D. F., Sparks, J. P., Saha, A., & Reddy, K. R. (2024). Unraveling spatial heterogeneity of soil legacy phosphorus in subtropical grasslands. Ecological Applications, 34(6), e3007. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.3007
  28. Reijneveld, J. A. (2013). Unravelling changes in soil fertility of agricultural land in the Netherlands. Wageningen University and Research.
  29. Ro, K., Szogi, A., & Sigua, G. (2020). Innovative Animal Manure Management for Environmental Protection, Improved Soil Fertility, and Crop Production. Environments, 7, 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-03921-957-5
  30. Ros, G., Verweij, S., Janssen, S., De Haan, J., & Fujita, Y. (2022). An Open Soil Health Assessment Framework Facilitating Sustainable Soil Management. Environmental Science & Technology, 56, 17375-17384. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c04516
  31. Sims, J. T. (2000). Soil test phosphorus: Olsen P. In: Pierzynski, G.M., Ed., Methods for Phosphorus Analysis for Soils, Sediments, Residuals and Water, Kansas State University, Manhttan, 20-21.
  32. Slaton, N. A., Lyons, S. E., Osmond, D. L., Brouder, S. M., Culman, S. W., Drescher, G., Gatiboni, L. C., Hoben, J., Kleinman, P. J. A., McGrath, J. M., Miller, R. O., Pearce, A., Shober, A. L., Spargo, J. T., & Volenec, J. J. (2022). Minimum dataset and metadata guidelines for soil-test correlation and calibration research. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 86(1), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20338
  33. Soffianian, A., Madani, E., & Arabi, M. (2014). Risk assessment of heavy metal soil pollution through principal components analysis and false color composition in Hamadan Province, Iran. Environmental Systems Research, 3, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-2697-3-3
  34. Soil Survey Laboratory, USDA. (1975). Soil Taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys (No. 436.4 So3). US Govt. Print. Off.
  35. Svedin, J. (2022). Utilization and limitations of soil health metrics in Missouri corn production decisions. [PhD Thesis, University of Missouri]. https://doi.org/10.32469/10355/91628
  36. Wang, J., Harrell, D., & Bell, P. (2004). Potassium Buffering Characteristics of Three Soils Low in Exchangeable Potassium. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68, 654-661. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.6540
  37. Yuksel, O., Atav, V., & Namli, A. (2025). Nitrogen fertilization modulates soil microbial biomass and plant nutrient dynamics in maize. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 62(3), 683-692. https://doi.org/10.21162/PAKJAS/25.782
  38. Zhang, H., Antonangelo, J., Grove, J., Osmond, D., Slaton, N. A., Alford, S., Florence, R., Huluka, G., Hardy, D. H., Lessl, J., Maguire, R., Mylavarapu, R., Oldham, J. L., Pena-Yewtukhiw, E. M., Provin, T., Sonon, L., Sotomayor, D., & Wang, J. (2021). Variation in soil-test-based phosphorus and potassium rate recommendations across the southern USA. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 85(4), 975-988. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20280
  39. Zhang, Y., Chen, D., Zhu, L., Zhou, W., Campbell, S., Wang, P., Menzies, N., & Dalal, R. (2025). Comparison of plant response and phosphorus uptake by ion exchange desorption and chemical extraction for soils under different land uses. Plant and Soil, 515, 1027-1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-025-07641-x
  40. Zörb, C., Senbayram, M., & Peiter, E. (2014). Potassium in agriculture - Status and perspectives. Journal of Plant Physiology, 171(9), 656-669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2013.08.008