Pressurized hot water and DTPA-Sorbitol are two relatively new soil boron (B) extraction methods with potential to replace the cumbersome hot water extraction. The objective of this research is to produce data in support of acceptance or rejection of these two alternative B extractions. The three soil tests were used to extract B from samples of calcareous sand and silt loam and limed, loamy fine sand treated with 10 levels of B and incubated for 7 and 28 d. As B application increased so did extractable B with each extraction method. High correlations (r of 0.977 to 0.999) were observed between extractable B and rate of B application with all three methods. Hot water generally extracted the least and pressurized hot water the most B regardless of soil type, rate of application or duration of incubation. Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted on one limed acid and two alkaline soils naturally low in B to test alfalfa response to B fertilizer. Values from the three soil extraction methods were correlated to yield, B tissue concentration and total B removal of alfalfa. In greenhouse studies with varying levels of soil applied B, highly significant relationships exist between extractable soil B and both tissue B concentration and total B removal. Correlations between yield and extractable soil B were impossible to obtain because of a lack of alfalfa yield responses to applied boron. All three methods accurately predict plant B tissue concentrations and total B removal. The field experiment produced a significant positive relationship between total alfalfa yield and extractable B using hot water and pressurized hot water extractions, but not using DTPA-Sorbitol. The results observed in this research support pressurized hot water extraction as the better of the two alternatives to replace hot water extraction in a broad range of soil types.

The inaccessibility 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 its broad range of soils. At least four alternatives are available but are 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, as nutrient content 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 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 content of maize leaf tissue did relate significantly with PHW-extracted P (R2=0.40), but 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 comparing P extraction methods, PHW was as good as or better than Olsen, Bray 1 and Mehlich III for relating soil P extraction to the parameters measured in these experiments, and these four alternative extraction methods were consistently better than Mehlich I. Mehlich I extraction should be replaced by one of the four alternatives tested, and PHW is the least expensive and, thus, most viable for use in Guatemala soils.