<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">AS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Agricultural Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2156-8553</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/as.2021.129059</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AS-111668</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject><subject> Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Comparison of Highly-Weathered Acid Soil CEC Determined by NH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;OAc (pH = 7.0) Exchange Method and BaCl&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-MgSO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; Forced-Exchange Method
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Xiangzheng</surname><given-names>Kong</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Decheng</surname><given-names>Li</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Xiaodong</surname><given-names>Song</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ganlin</surname><given-names>Zhang</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>02</day><month>09</month><year>2021</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>09</issue><fpage>917</fpage><lpage>927</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>28,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2021</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>30,</day>	<month>August</month>	<year>2021</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>2,</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2021</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial International License (CC BY-NC).http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is one of the most important properties of soils. The NH
  <sub>4</sub>OAc (pH = 7.0) exchange method is usually recommended to determine CEC (CEC
  <sub>1</sub>) of all soils with different pH values, particularly for studies on soil taxonomy. But comparatively the BaCl
  <sub>2</sub>-MgSO
  <sub>4</sub> forced-exchange method is more authentic in determining CEC (CEC
  <sub>2</sub>) of tropical and subtropical highly-weathered acid soils. But so far little is known about the difference between CEC
  <sub>1</sub> and CEC
  <sub>2</sub>. In this study, the physiochemical data of 114 acid B horizon soils from 112 soil series of tropical and subtropical China were used, CEC
  <sub>1</sub> and CEC
  <sub>2</sub> were determined and compared, the influencing factors were analyzed for the difference between CEC
  <sub>1</sub> and CEC
  <sub>2</sub>, and then a regression model was established between CEC
  <sub>1</sub> and CEC
  <sub>2</sub>. The results showed that CEC
  <sub>2</sub> was significantly lower than CEC
  <sub>1</sub> (p &lt; 0.01), CEC
  <sub>2</sub> was 14.76% - 63.31% with a mean of 36.32% of CEC
  <sub>1</sub>. In view of the contribution to CEC from other properties, CEC
  <sub>2</sub> was mainly determined by pH (45.92%), followed by silt (21.05%), free Fe
  <sub>2</sub>O
  <sub>3</sub> (17.35%) and clay contents (12.76%), CEC
  <sub>1</sub> was mainly decided by free Fe
  <sub>2</sub>O
  <sub>3</sub> content (40.38%), followed by pH (28.39%) and silt content (27.29%; and the difference between CEC
  <sub>1</sub> and CEC
  <sub>2</sub> was mainly affected by free Fe
  <sub>2</sub>O
  <sub>3</sub> (50.92%), followed by silt content (26.46%) and pH (21.80%). The acceptable optimal regression model between CEC
  <sub>2</sub> and CEC
  <sub>1</sub> was established as CEC
  <sub>2</sub> = 2.3114 &#215; CEC
  <sub>1</sub>
  <sup>1.1496</sup> (R
  <sup>2</sup> = 0.410, P &lt; 0.001, RMSE = 0.15). For the studies on soil taxonomy, the BaCl
  <sub>2</sub>-MgSO
  <sub>4</sub> forced-exchange method is recommended in determining CEC of the highly-weathered acid soils in the tropical and subtropical regions.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Acid Soil</kwd><kwd> CEC Determination</kwd><kwd> NH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;OAc (pH = 7.0) Exchange Method</kwd><kwd> BaCl&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-MgSO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; Forced-Exchange Method</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) is one of the most important chemical characteristics of agricultural lands [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref1">1</xref>], which can influence the stability of soil structure, nutrient availability, soil pH and the soil’s reaction to fertilizers and other ameliorants, provide a buffer against soil acidification [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref2">2</xref>]. CEC is often used as a measure of soil fertility, nutrient retention capacity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref3">3</xref>], and also used as an identification and classification index of soil types in soil taxonomy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref5">5</xref>], in which the NH<sub>4</sub>OAc (pH = 7.0) exchange method [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref7">7</xref>] is recommended to determine CEC for all soils with different pH values. However, for highly-weathered acid soils in the tropical and subtropical regions, the BaCl<sub>2</sub>-MgSO<sub>4</sub> forced-exchange method [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref8">8</xref>], which doesn’t adjust pH of soil samples, is recommended to determining CEC. Comparatively, because the buffer salt system (pH = 7.0) in the first method will increase soil pH, thus will increase the charge of soil colloids and result in higher measurement results [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref10">10</xref>], which may lead to the misjudgment of soil types [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref11">11</xref>].</p><p>But so far, little is known about the difference in CEC values determined by the two methods, thus, in this study the physiochemical data of 114 acid B horizon soils from 112 soil series in the tropical and subtropical regions of south China were used to: 1) disclose the difference in CEC values determined by the two methods, 2) clarify the influencing factors of the difference, and 3) setup the regression model for predicting CEC<sub>2</sub> by CEC<sub>1</sub>.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Background of Tested Soil Samples</title><p><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref> shows the spatial distribution of used 112 soil series in the tropical and subtropical regions of south China [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref12">12</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref22">22</xref>]. For a soil sample, the particle size distribution was determined by the pipette method, pH was measured with by the potentiometer method (soil:water = 1:2.5), organic matter was obtained by the Walkley-Black wet oxidation method, free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> was determined by the phenanthroline colorimetry method, CEC was analyzed by the NH<sub>4</sub>OAc (pH = 7.0) exchange method (CEC<sub>1</sub>) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref7">7</xref>] and the BaCl<sub>2</sub>-MgSO<sub>4</sub> forced-exchange method (CEC<sub>2</sub>) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref8">8</xref>], respectively.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Data Statistical Analysis</title><p>Microsoft Excel 2016 and IBM Statistics SPSS 22.0 software were used for statistical analysis of the data, and Duncan test method (2-tailed) was used for variance analyses and multiple comparisons.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Statistical Results of Soil Physiochemical Properties</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> lists the measured values of soil physiochemical properties, it showed that CEC<sub>1</sub> ranged from 5.12 to 35.41 cmol(+) kg<sup>−1</sup> with a mean of 12.40 cmol(+) kg<sup>−1</sup>, while CEC<sub>2</sub> ranged from 2.22 to 6.60 cmol(+) kg<sup>−1</sup> with a mean of 4.16 cmol(+) kg<sup>−1</sup>. Comparatively, CEC<sub>2</sub> was significantly lower than CEC<sub>1</sub> (p &lt; 0.01), CEC<sub>2</sub> was 14.76% - 63.31% with a mean of 36.32% of CEC<sub>1</sub>.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> also showed that clay content was meanly 412 g&#183;kg<sup>−1</sup>, while sand content was meanly 281 g&#183;kg<sup>−1</sup>; meanwhile, free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> content was meanly 44.01 g&#183;kg<sup>−1</sup>, which prove further that soils in the tropical and subtropical regions of south China are clayey and rich in free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref23">23</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Factors Influencing CEC<sub>1</sub>, CEC<sub>2</sub> and Their Difference</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> lists the correlation between CEC<sub>1</sub>, CEC<sub>2</sub> and the difference between CEC<sub>1</sub> and CEC<sub>2</sub> (ΔCEC, CEC<sub>1</sub>-CEC<sub>2</sub>) with other properties. It could be found that pH had significant positive correlation with CEC<sub>1</sub> (p &lt; 0.01), CEC<sub>2</sub> (p &lt; 0.01) and ΔCEC (p &lt; 0.05), free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> had significant positive correlation with CEC<sub>1</sub> and ΔCEC (p &lt; 0.01), sand content had significant negative correlation with CEC<sub>1</sub> and ΔCEC (p &lt; 0.05), silt content had significant positive correlation with CEC<sub>1</sub> (p &lt; 0.05) and CEC<sub>2</sub>(p &lt; 0.01), while clay content had significant negative correlation with CEC<sub>2</sub> (p &lt; 0.05).</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Statical descriptions of soil chemical properties</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Soil property</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Minimum</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Maximum</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mean &#177; S.D.</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C.V. (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Skewness</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Kurtosis</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CEC<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.40 &#177; 4.81A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.20</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CEC<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.16 &#177; 0.81B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.51</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >pH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.13 &#177; 0.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SOM</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.24 &#177; 5.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >105.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.01 &#177; 18.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.20</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sand</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >640</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >281 &#177; 157</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.75</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Silt</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >664</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >306 &#177; 111</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Clay</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >815</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >412 &#177; 146</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.14</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: 1) Sand, silt, clay, SOM and free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>, g&#183;kg<sup>−1</sup>; CEC<sub>1</sub> and CEC<sub>2</sub>, cmol(+) kg<sup>−1</sup>; 2) CEC<sub>1</sub> and CEC<sub>2</sub>, determined by the methods of NH<sub>4</sub>OAc (pH = 7.0) and BaCl<sub>2</sub>-MgSO<sub>4</sub>, respectively. The same below; 3) data of CEC<sub>1</sub> and CEC<sub>2</sub> followed by different capitals are significantly different at p &lt; 0.01 level.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Pearson correlation between soil CEC and other properties</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >CEC</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Correlation</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pH</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >SOM</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sand</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Silt</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Clay</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CEC<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pearson Correlation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.248**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.069</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.263**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.193*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.195*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.060</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sig. (2-tailed)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.008</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.468</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.039</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.038</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.528</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CEC<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pearson Correlation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.373**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.142</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.012</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.272**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.220*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sig. (2-tailed)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.990</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.131</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.896</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.003</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.019</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ΔCEC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pearson Correlation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.203*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.075</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.314**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.214*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.163</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.106</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sig. (2-tailed)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.030</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.427</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.022</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.261</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: 1) *, **, Correlation is significant at p &lt; 0.05 or 0.01 level (2-tailed)l; 2) ΔCEC = CEC<sub>1</sub> − CEC<sub>2</sub>.</p><p>The contribution of one property to CEC was calculated as the follows: firstly, all properties were normalized by the Z-score method with IBM Statistics SPSS 20.0 to ensure them with the same magnitude, and then the regression coefficients between each property with CEC was used to indicate their contribution to CEC [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref24">24</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref25">25</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref26">26</xref>]. The contribution of one property (C<sub>i</sub>) to CEC was calculated as C<sub>i</sub> = K<sub>i</sub>/K<sub>sum</sub>, in which K<sub>i</sub> is the regression coefficient of the i property, and K<sub>sum</sub> is the total sum of all coefficients, the obtained linear regression models of CEC with other properties were listed in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>, and the calculated contribution of other properties to CEC were listed in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>.</p><p>In view of the contribution of other properties to CEC, it can be seen from <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> that CEC<sub>1</sub> was mainly decided by free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> (40.38%), followed by pH and silt content (28.39% and 27.29%, respectively); CEC<sub>2</sub> was mainly determined by pH (45.92%), followed by silt content (21.05%), then followed by free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> and clay content (17.35% and 12.76%, respectively), and ΔCEC was mainly affected by free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> (50.92%), followed by silt content and pH (26.46% and 21.80%, respectively).</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Linear regression model between CEC and other soil properties</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Liner regression model</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >R<sup>2 </sup></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >RMSE</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >F</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sig.</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CEC<sub>1</sub> = 0.180pH + 0.009SOM + 0.256Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> + 0.173Silt − 0.016Clay + 1.672 &#215; 10<sup>−5</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.145</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.004</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CEC<sub>2</sub> = 0.360pH + 0.023SOM − 0.136Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> + 0.165Silt − 0.100Clay + 1.581 &#215; 10<sup>−5</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ΔCEC = 0.131pH + 0.005SOM + 0.306Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> + 0.159Silt + 1.536 &#215; 10<sup>−5 </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.149</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.003</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Contribution of other soil properties to CEC</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Property</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pH</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >SOM</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3 </sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sand</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Silt</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Clay</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CEC<sub>1</sub> (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CEC<sub>2</sub> (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ΔCEC (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.00</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. CEC<sub>2</sub> Predicting Model Based on CEC<sub>1</sub></title><p>The scatter diagram of CEC<sub>2</sub> and CEC<sub>1</sub> are shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>, and IBM statistics SPSS 20.0 was used to obtain the optimal regression model between CEC<sub>2</sub> and CEC<sub>1</sub>. It could be found from <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref> that a significant positive power correlation between CEC<sub>2</sub> and CEC<sub>1</sub>, and the optimal regression model was as CEC<sub>2</sub> = 2.3114 &#215; CEC 1 1.1496 (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.410**, P &lt; 0.001 F = 77.99, RMSE = 0.15, RMSE/S.D = 0.19).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussions</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Value Difference CEC Determined by Different Methods</title><p>For highly-weathered acid soils in the subtropical and tropical regions, because the buffer salt system (pH = 7.0) could increase soil pH, thus would increase the charge of soil colloids, so CEC determined by the NH<sub>4</sub>OAc (pH = 7.0) exchange method (CEC<sub>1</sub>) usually is higher than that determined by the BaCl<sub>2</sub>-MgSO<sub>4</sub> forced-exchange method (CEC<sub>2</sub>) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref10">10</xref>]. Our study quantitatively assessed this phenomenon, for the acid B horizon soils in the subtropical and tropical regions of south China, CEC<sub>2</sub> was significantly lower (P &lt; 0.01) than CEC<sub>1</sub>, the former meanly 36.32% of the latter (see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p><p>Our study also disclosed the differences in the influencing factors of CEC<sub>1</sub> and CEC<sub>2</sub>, in which pH and silt content were the common factors of CEC<sub>1</sub> and CEC<sub>2</sub>, but CEC<sub>1</sub> was also influenced by free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> and sand content, while CEC<sub>2</sub> was also affected by clay content (see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). Furthermore, our study proved further that the difference between CEC<sub>1</sub> and CEC<sub>2</sub> was mainly decided by free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> content (the contribution was 50.92%, see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>), followed by silt content and pH (the contributions were 26.46% and 21.80%, respectively, see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>), while little or no effect from sand and clay contents.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Influencing Factors of CEC<sub> </sub></title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref> lists the correlation between CEC and other properties of soils found in</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Correlation between soil CEC and other properties in published literatures</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Property</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Negative correlation</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Positive correlation</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >pH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref30">30</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref32">32</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref33">33</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref34">34</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref35">35</xref>]</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SOM or SOC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref30">30</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref40">40</xref>]</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sand</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref38">38</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref40">40</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref41">41</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Silt</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref32">32</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref34">34</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref32">32</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref34">34</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref38">38</xref>]</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Clay</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref38">38</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref30">30</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref32">32</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref34">34</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref37">37</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref38">38</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref39">39</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref40">40</xref>]</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>some previous studies. pH usually has significant negative correlation with CEC for soils with high pH (for example, higher than 7.0) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref30">30</xref>] but has positive correlation with CEC for soils with low pH (for example, lower than 7.0) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref32">32</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref33">33</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref34">34</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref35">35</xref>]. Since all soil samples used in our study were acid (pH &lt; 7.0), so significant positive correlation was found in our study between pH and CEC<sub>1</sub> and CEC<sub>2</sub>.</p><p>SOM usually has significant positive correlation with CEC [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref30">30</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref40">40</xref>], but our results showed that SOM had no significant correlation with CEC<sub>1</sub> and CEC<sub>2</sub> (Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.069 and 0.001, respectively, See <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>; contribution to CEC was 1.42% and 2.93%, respectively, see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>), which could be attributed to the low SOM content [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref37">37</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref38">38</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref41">41</xref>] in B horizon soils in the subtropical and tropical regions of south China (mean SOM content was 8.24 g&#183;kg<sup>−1</sup> in our study).</p><p>Clay content usually also has significant positive correlation with CEC of humid soils [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref28">28</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref40">40</xref>], but our results showed that clay had no significant correlation with CEC<sub>1</sub> (R was 0.060, see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>; contribution to CEC was 2.52%, see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) and had weak negative significant correlation with CEC<sub>2</sub> (R was 0.220, p &lt; 0.05, see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>; contribution to CEC was 12.76%, see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>), which could be attributed to greater microaggregating effect of Fe oxides in highly-weathered soils in the tropical and subtropical regions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref42">42</xref>], which enhanced the participation of clay in the microaggregation, reduced the amount of “free” clay particles, thus decreased clay contribution to CEC [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref40">40</xref>]. Few studies analyzed the correlation between free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> and CEC because free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> in subtropical and tropical highly-weathered soils usually exist as clay fraction or strongly cemented with clays [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref42">42</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref43">43</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref44">44</xref>], so more attentions were paid to the correlation between clay content rather than free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> with CEC (p &lt; 0.01). However, our studies found that free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> was significantly correlated with CEC<sub>1</sub>, while clay content was significantly correlated with CEC<sub>2</sub> (p &lt; 0.05).</p><p>Our study also found that CEC<sub>1</sub> had negative correlation with sand content, which is consist with the previous studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref38">38</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref40">40</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref41">41</xref>], while CEC<sub>2</sub> had significant positive correlation with silt content as found in other studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref32">32</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref34">34</xref>], which could be attributed to that in subtropical and tropical humid climate soils, sand fraction is mainly composed of quartz and iron concretions which present low charge density [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref45">45</xref>], while the silt fraction is often composed of vermiculite and mica minerals which can hold negative charges [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref46">46</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s4_3"><title>4.3. Recommendation Using CEC<sub>2</sub> Predicting Model for Soil Taxonomy</title><p>In Chinese Soil Taxonomy, the LAC-ferric horizon is the diagnostic horizon for Ferrosols, one of its requirements is that CEC<sub>7</sub> &lt; 24 cmol (+) kg<sup>−1</sup> clay in partial B horizons (≥10 cm in thickness) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref4">4</xref>]. However, CEC<sub>7clay</sub> is not directly measured by the extracted clays, it was calculated as: soil CEC<sub>7</sub> &#215; 1000/clay content [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref4">4</xref>]. Our study shows that for B horizons of the highly-weathered acid soils in the tropical and subtropical regions of south China, CEC determined by the NH<sub>4</sub>OAc (pH = 7.0) exchange method is 1.58 - 6.78 times with a mean of 2.96 times of that decided by the BaCl<sub>2</sub>-MgSO<sub>4</sub> forced-exchange method. This obvious overestimation of CEC [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref9">9</xref>] is most likely to lead to some authentic LAC-ferric horizons being misjudged as other diagnostic horizons, thus leading to misjudgment of soil types [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.111668-ref10">10</xref>]. However, since the NH<sub>4</sub>OAc (pH = 7.0) exchange method was used in almost all previous studies on soil taxonomy, thus, to verify the identification accuracy of soil types in the previous studies, the CEC<sub>2</sub> predicting model established in our study based on CEC<sub>1</sub> is recommended to obtain CEC of highly-weathered acid soils in the tropical and subtropical regions in order to ensure the accurate identification of soil types. Nevertheless, for the future studies, it is recommended to using the BaCl<sub>2</sub>-MgSO<sub>4</sub> forced-exchange method for CEC determination of the highly-weathered acid soils in the tropical and subtropical regions.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>Our study quantitatively proved that for the highly-weathered acid soils in the tropical and subtropical regions of south China, CEC determined by the NH<sub>4</sub>OAc (pH = 7.0) exchange method was significantly higher than that determined by the BaCl<sub>2</sub>-MgSO<sub>4</sub> forced-exchange method. CEC of the former method was mainly affected by free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> and pH, followed by silt and sand contents, while CEC of the latter method was mainly affected by pH, followed by silt and clay contents. CEC differences between the two methods were mainly influenced by free Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>, followed by sand content and pH. For the studies on soil taxonomy, the BaCl<sub>2</sub>-MgSO<sub>4</sub> forced-exchange method is recommended for CEC determination of the highly-weathered acid soils in the tropical and subtropical regions.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This study was supported by projects of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41877008) and the National S&amp;T Basic Special Foundation Project (No. 2014FY110200). We would like to express thanks to the contribution of all colleagues in the data preparation and the establishment of the soil series.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Kong, X.Z., Li, D.C., Song, X.D. and Zhang, G.L. (2021) Comparison of Highly-Weathered Acid Soil CEC Determined by NH<sub>4</sub>OAc (pH = 7.0) Exchange Method and BaCl<sub>2</sub>-MgSO<sub>4</sub> Forced-Exchange Method. Agricultural Sciences, 12, 917-927. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2021.129059</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.111668-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ghaemi, M., Astaraei, A.R., Sanaeinejad, S.H., et al. (2013) Using Satellite Data for Soil Cation Exchange Capacity Studies. The International Agrophysics, 27, 409-417. https://doi.org/10.2478/intag-2013-0011</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hazelton, P.A. and Murphy, B.W. (2007) Interpreting Soil Test Results: What Do All the Numbers Mean? CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. https://doi.org/10.1071/9780643094680</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Robertson, G.P., Sollins, P., Ellis, B.G., et al. (1999) Exchangeable Ions, pH, and Cation Exchange Capacity. In: Robertson, G.P., Coleman, D., Bledsoe, C., et al., Eds., Standard Soil Methods for Long-Term Ecological Research, Oxford University Press, New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">CRG-CST (2001) Chinese Soil Taxonomy. Science Press, Beijing.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Twelfth Edition, USDA, Washington DC.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhang, G.L. and Gong, Z.T. (2012) Soil Survey Laboratory Methods. Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Soil Survey Staff (2014) Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 5.0. R. Burt and Soil Survey Staff (ed.). USDA &amp;NRCS.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bao, S.D. (2000) Analysis for Soil and Agro-Chemistry. 3rd Edition, China Agriculture Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yu, T.R., et al. (1976) Soil Electrochemical Properties and Its Research Methods (Revised Edition). Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngewih, Z.S., Taylor, R.W. and Shuford, J.W. (1989) Exchangeable Cations and CEC Determinations of Some Highly Weathered Soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 20, 1833-1855. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103628909368187</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yang, J.W., Wang, T.W., Bao, Y.Y., et al. (2021) Optimization of the Model for Predicting Cation Exchange Capacity of Clays. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 58, 514-525. (in Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lu, Y. (2017) Soil Series of China, Guangdong Volume. Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wang, T.W. and Chen, J.Y. (2020) Soil Series of China, Jiangxi Volume. Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhang, M.K. and Ma, W.C. (2017) Soil Series of China, Fujian Volume. Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhang, Y.Z., Zhou, Q., Sheng, H., et al. (2020) Soil Series of China, Hunan Volume. Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ma, W.C. and Zhang, M.K. (2017) Soil Series of China, Zhejiang Volume. Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Huang, B. and Lu, S.G. (2020) Soil Series of China, Yunnan Volume. Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Qi, Z.P., Wang, D.F. and Wei, Z.Y. (2018) Soil Series of China, Hainan Volume. Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lu, Y. and Wei, X.H. (2020) Soil Series of China, Guangxi Volume. Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ci, E. (2020) Soil Series of China, Chongqing Volume. Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wang, T.W. (2017) Soil Series of China, Hubei Volume. Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yuan, D.G. (2020) Soil Series of China, Sichuan Volume. Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Xiong, Y. and Li, Q.K. (1990) Soil of China. 2nd Edition, Science Press, Beijing. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Weisberg, S. (1985) Applied Linear Regression. John Wiley &amp; Sons, New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Meghdadi, A. and Javar, N. (2018) Evaluation of Nitrate Sources and the Percent Contribution of Bacterial Denitrification in Hyporheic Zone Using Isotope Fractionation Technique and Multi-Linear Regression Analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 222, 54-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.022</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhang, G., Liu, X., Lu, S., et al. (2020) Occurrence of Typical Antibiotics in Nansi Lake’s Inflowing Rivers and Antibiotic Source Contribution to Nansi Lake Based on Principal Component Analysis-Multiple Linear Regression Model. Chemosphere, 242, Article ID: 125269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125269</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhao, J.H., Xu, B.Y., Zhao, J.J., et al. (2019) Distribution Characteristics of Soil Cation Exchange Capacity in Haxi Forest of Qilian Mountains, Gansu Province. Forest Science and Technology, No. 6, 41-43. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shekofteh, H., Ramazani, F. and Shirani, H. (2017) Optimal Feature Selection for Predicting Soil CEC: Comparing the Hybrid of Ant Colony Organization Algorithm and Adaptive Network-Based Fuzzy System with Multiple Linear Regression. Geoderma, 298, 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.03.010</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Khaledian, Y., Brevik, E.C., Pereira, P., et al. (2017) Modeling Soil Cation Exchange Capacity in Multiple Countries. Catena, 158, 194-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.07.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhang, Q., Fang, H.L., Huang, Y.Z., et al. (2005) Application of Soil CEC to Evaluation of Soil Quality in Shanghai. Soils, 37, 679-682. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Liao, K., Xu, S. and Zhu, Q. (2015) Development of Ensemble Pedotransfer Functions for Cation Exchange Capacity of Soils of Qingdao in China. Soil Use and Management, 31, 483-490. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12207</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Seybold, C.A., Grossman, R.B. and Reinsch, T.G. (2005) Predicting Cation Exchange Capacity for Soil Survey Using Linear Models. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 69, 856-863. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.0026</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Oorts, K., Vanlauwe, B. and Merckx, R. (2003) Cation Exchange Capacities of Soil Organic Matter Fractions in a Ferric Lixisol with Different Organic Matter Inputs. Agriculture, Ecosystems &amp; Environment, 100, 161-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00190-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Krogh, L.H., Breuning, M. and Greve, H.M. (2000) Cation-Exchange Capacity Pedotransfer Functions for Danish Soils. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B—Soil and Plant Science, 50, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/090647100750014358</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Meyer, W.L., Marsh, M. and Arp, P.A. (1994) Cation Exchange Capacities of Upland Soils in Eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 74, 393-408. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjss94-053</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Li, Y., Hao, Z.K., Shi, Q., et al. (2020) Distribution Characteristics of Soil pH, Cation Exchange Capacity and Organic Matter in the Area of Western Heilongjiang Province. Protection Forest Science and Technology, No. 4, 20-22. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Khodaverdiloo, H., Momtaz, H. and Liao, K.H. (2018) Performance of Soil Cation Exchange Capacity Pedotransfer Function as Affected by the Inputs and Database Size. Clean-Soil Air Water, 46, Article ID: 1700670. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201700670</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Seyedmohammadi, J. and Matinfar, H.R. (2018) Statistical and Geostatistical Techniques for Geospatial Modeling of Soil Cation Exchange Capacity. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 49, 2301-2314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2018.1499765</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Manrique, L.A., Jones, C.A. and Dyke, P.T. (1991) Predicting Cation-Exchange Capacity from Soil Physical and Chemical Properties. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 55, 787-794. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1991.03615995005500030026x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Obalum, S.E., Watanabe, Y., Igwe, C.A., et al. (2013) Improving on the Prediction of Cation Exchange Capacity for Highly Weathered and Structurally Contrasting Tropical Soils from Their Fine-Earth Fractions. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 44, 1831-1848. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2013.790401</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rahal, N.S. and Alhumairi, B.A.J. (2019) Modelling of Soil Cation Exchange Capacity for Some Soils of East Gharaf Lands from Mid-Mesopotamian Plain (Wasit Province/Iraq). International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 16, 3183-3192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-1913-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hu, G.C. and Zhang, M.K. (2002) Mineralogical Evidence for Strong Cementation of Soil Particles by Iron Oxides. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 33, 25-27. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Martín-García, J.M., Sánchez-Mara&amp;#241;ón, M., Calero, J., et al. (2016) Iron Oxides and Rare Earth Elements in the Clay Fractions of a Soil Chronosequence in Southern Spain. European Journal of Soil Science, 67, 749-762. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12377</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Silva, L.S., Júnior, J.M., Barrón, V., et al. (2020) Spatial Variability of Iron Oxides in Soils from Brazilian Sandstone and Basalt. Catena, 185, Article ID: 104258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104258</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Soares, M.R. and Alleoni, L.R.F. (2008) Contribution of Soil Organic Carbon to the Ion Exchange Capacity of Tropical Soils. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 32, 439-462. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440040802257348</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.111668-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhang, M.K. and Zhu, Z.X. (1993) Effect of Slits on Cation Exchange Capacity of Soils. Soils and Fertilizers, 4, 41-43. (In Chinese)</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>