A spatially explicit dataset of agriculture liming across the contiguous United States
Abstract. Agricultural lime has historically been applied to croplands in the United States to counteract soil acidification and enhance soil fertility, with important consequences for crop productivity and Earth’s carbon cycle. Previous work on agricultural liming has largely focused on either region-specific case studies or national-level estimates of total application rates, leaving a major gap in understanding the spatial variability in lime application. This study addresses this gap by presenting the first spatially explicit dataset of agricultural lime application across the contiguous United States. The dataset comprises state-level data for 1930–1950 and a more detailed county-level dataset for 1954–1987, enabling comprehensive spatial-temporal analyses at multiple scales. Counties in the Midwest region exhibited the highest total amounts of lime applied in the latter half of the twentieth century, reflecting intensive agricultural activity. These counties were characterized by higher overall lime application rates (amount of lime applied per unit of limed area each year) but relatively lower liming frequency (ratio of limed area to total agricultural land area each year). In contrast, counties in the southeastern coastal region exhibited lower lime application rates per unit of limed area but more frequent lime applications. We used a machine learning framework, to elucidate key environmental and agricultural drivers of lime application. Our results show that the total amount of lime applied, as well as the application rate and frequency, are strongly associated with regional climatic conditions and soil properties. However, we also found evidence that agricultural management practices (such as crop production, fertilizer use, and soil pH recommendations) played a key role in shaping liming applications. Spatiotemporal integration of the data product results in a revised national estimate of total lime application, with a range of 15–25 million tons (Mt) per year. This study establishes a critical observational baseline for assessing the potential of agricultural lime application as a climate mitigation strategy and highlights the need for further research into its long-term environmental impacts.
This manuscript describes a methodology that created a CONUS scale dataset related to agricultural lime application (mass, area, and rate) from 1930 to 1987 based on state and county-level census of agriculture datasets. Further, the authors analyze some of the environmental predictors of lime application using statistical methods. Overall, this study fills an important gap in better understanding the spatio-temporal variation in agricultural lime application and the authors write in a clear and organized manner. Therefore, I recommend acceptance with minor revisions.
My main concern is related to the scope of ESSD. This is my first review for this journal so I am not sure how the scope is enforced but the statistical analysis aimed at determining the main drivers/predictors of lime application seemed like it could be interpreted as outside the scope. In particular, the journal website states: "Any interpretation of data is outside the scope of regular articles". It appears that many currently published articles could reasonably violate a strict interpretation of this scope statement. But I raise this issue because the statistical analysis presented is entirely separate from the development of the dataset. It is interesting and the methods are sound, but it doesn't directly contribute to the production of the dataset. Therefore, I would appreciate more guidance from the editors to determine whether that part of the manuscript is out of scope or not.
Another broader point that I suggest the authors make is related to the data availability at the county scale. As the authors note, the county-scale data is no longer available beyond the year 1987. In the interest of better scientific understanding and more open public datasets, I would recommend that the authors highlight the need to restart the collection of this specific county-scale dataset by the USDA. Otherwise, researchers are severely limited as we move forward into the future, especially as liming is potentially seen as a carbon sequestration practice. A good citation to include here would be Rissing et al. (2023) (https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00711-2) who discuss the importance of USDA data collection policies and the need to include datasets that better help us manage our agricultural landscape in a more sustainable manner.
Specific comments:
Line 53: What time period is associated with this range? Please specify.
Lines 104-106: Need a citation to support this sentence.
Lines 106-108: This is confusing. You just said that the historical consensus has been that carbonate amendments are net CO2 sources but now you're citing sources that argue that carbonate amendments "contribute substantially to carbon...sequestration"?
Line 122: "where it can be marketed". I would avoid unnecessarily inserting the idea that this research is essential to develop a carbon market. I recommend just stating something like "it will be important to develop a better understanding of when and where it will likely be a robust and reliable carbon removal practice." or similar
Lines 135-139: This paragraph is not appropriate at the end of the introduction because it discusses the results. Suggest removing or moving to discussion/conclusion section.
Lines 174-177: This description of the pH recommendations is confusing. Where exactly is this information coming from? How exactly were these pH recommendations estimated? Please provide some context on how those recommendations are determined by agronomists.
Line 259: Please add that this was done using Python.
Line 463: Don't you have this total ag land area data compiled and available to better determine this?
Line 524: suggest replacing "cause" with "driver"
Technical comments:
Lines 85-87: Suggest rewording because "depends on the pH of the soil" and "Depending on soil pH" sounds repetitive. Also, "through equilibration of the carbonic acid system" tripped me up while reading and I'm not sure that it's necessary here.
Line 114: remove the "a" after "high"
Line 149: change "years" to "year"
Line 338: replace "which" with "with"
Line 400: I would prefer the font size to be uniform across this figure.
Line 462: missing end parentheses
Line 535: Please be consistent with capitalizing regions like "Southeastern"