Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Assessment of the Effects of Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Amendment on Subsurface Soil pH, Eh and Sulfate Content of Acid Sulfate Soils

  • Soil Chemistry
  • Published:
Eurasian Soil Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The harmful impacts of acid sulfate soils (ASS) on various ecosystems are diverse and management of the impacts needs ecosystem-specific strategies. The importance of subsurface soil carbon and nitrogen for amelioration of sulfuric soil and curtailing of sulfidic soil oxidation as an option for ASS management was investigated in this study. The results showed the mechanisms involved in amelioration of sulfuric soil and curtailing of sulfidic soil oxidation were dependent on amendment and the microbial ecology the resources were capable of supporting microbial metabolism. Glucose as a single nutrient source capable of engaging a few soil microbes was ineffective in ameliorating the sulfuric soil, compared to complex organic matter, which is a source of multiple nutrients and is capable of engaging a diversity of soil microbes. Addition of complex organic matter effectively ameliorated the sulfuric soil and prevented sulfidic soil oxidation. The alkalization processes was limited by resource availability and the processes ceased as resources got depleted. Polynucleotide analysis of at least one group of sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB, Desulfovibrio) showed that the concentrations of these polynucleotides is high when availability of resources is high and decreases as the resource is limited over time. A three-fold increase in RNA and a ten-fold increase in DNA concentrations of the target SRB were measured in soil amended with organic matter and incubated for four weeks; after six weeks, they decreased.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. C. R. Ahern, A. E. McElnea, and L. A. Sullivan, Acid Sulfate Soils Laboratory Methods Guidelines (Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines, and Energy, Indooroopilly, 2004), p.132.

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. K. M. Baker, P. Shand, and R. W. Fitzpatrick, Recovery of Re-Flooded Acid Sulfate Soil Environments Around Lakes Alexandrina and Albert, South Australia (CSIRO, Adelaide, 2013), p. 395. https://doi.org/www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/4e25bdec-a4fa-4e3a-9d04-a27300f31320/recovery-reflooded-acid-sulfate-soil-lakes-2011-12-rep.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  3. D. S. Baldwin, and M. Fraser, “Rehabilitation options for inland waterways impacted by sulfidic sediments—a synthesis,” J. Environ. Manage. 91, 311–319 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. T. T. Chao, M. E. Harward, and S. C. Fang, “Adsorption and desorption phenomena of sulfate ions in soils,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 26, 234–237 (1962).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. L. Condron, C. Stark, M. O’Callaghan, P. Clinton, and Z. Huang, “The role of microbial communities in the formation and decomposition of soil organic matter,” in Soil Microbiology and Sustainable Crop Production, Ed. by G. R. Dixon and E. L. Tilston (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2010), pp. 81–118. doi 10.1007/978-90-481-9479-7_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. N. L. Creeper, W. S. Hicks, P. Shand, and R. W. Fitzpatrick, “Geochemical processes following freshwater reflooding of acidified inland acid sulfate soils: an in situ mesocosm experiment,” Chem. Geol. 411, 200–214 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. K. Daly, R. J. Sharp, and A. J. McCarthy, “Development of oligonucleotide probes and PCR primers for detecting phylogenetic subgroups of sulfate-reducing bacteria,” Microbiology 146, 1693–1705 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. D. S. Fanning, “Acid sulfate soils,” in Encyclopedia of Environmental Management (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2012), pp. 26–30. doi 10.1081/E-EEM-120046326

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. Fiedler, M. J. Vepraskas, and J. L. Richardson, “Soil redox potential: importance, field measurements, and observations,” in Advances in Agronomy, Ed. by D. L. Sparks (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007), Vol. 94, pp. 1–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. R. W. Fitzpatrick, “Demands on soil classification and soil survey strategies: special-purpose soil classification systems for local practical use,” in Developments in Soil Classification, Land Use Planning and Policy Implications, Ed. by S. A. Shahid, F. K. Taha, and M. A. Abdelfattah (Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht, 2013), pp. 51–83.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. R. W. Fitzpatrick, B. Powell, and S. Marvanek, “Atlas of Australian acid sulfate soils,” in Inland Acid Sulfate Soil Systems Across Australia, CRC LEME Open File Report no. 249, Ed. by R. W. Fitzpatrick and P. Shand, (CRC LEME, Perth, 2008), pp. 75–89.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R. W. Fitzpatrick, P. Shand, and W. Hicks, Technical Guidelines for Assessment and Management of Inland Freshwater Areas impacted by Acid Sulfate Soils (CSIRO, Adelaide, 2011), p.171.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. W. Fitzpatrick, G. Grealish, P. Shand, S. L. Simpson, R. H. Merry, and M. D. Raven, Acid Sulfate Soil in Finniss River, Currency Creek, Black Swamp, and Goolwa Channel, South Australia, CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 26/09 (CSIRO, Canberra, 2009), p. 213. https://doi.org/www.clw.csiro.au/publications/science/2009/sr26-09.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  14. B. S. Griffiths, K. Ritz, R. D. Bardgett, R. Cook, S. Christensen, F. Ekelund, et al., “Ecosystem response of pasture soil communities to fumigation-induced microbial diversity reductions: an examination of the biodiversity-ecosystem function relationship,” Oikos 90, 279–294 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. B. S. Griffiths, K. Ritz, R. Wheatley, H. L. Kuan, B. Boag, S. Christensen, et al., “An examination of the biodiversity-ecosystem function relationship in arable soil microbial communities,” Soil Biol. Biochem. 33, 1713–1722 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. W. A. Hamilton, “Sulfate-reducing bacteria: physiology determines their environmental impact,” Geomicrobiol. J. 15, 19–28 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. R. G. Hoeft, L. M. Walsh, and D. R. Keeney, “Evaluation of various extractants for available soil sulfur1,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 37, 401–404 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. N. V. Hue, “Correcting soil acidity of a highly weathered utisol with chicken manure and sewage sludge,” Com. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 23, 241–264 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. M. Koschorreck, “Microbial sulphate reduction at a low pH,” FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 64, 329–342 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. A. B. Lloyd, and M. J. Sheaffe, “Urease activity in soils,” Plant Soil 39, 71–80 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. S. E. Lowe, M. K. Jain, and J. G. Zeikus, “Biology, ecology, and biotechnological applications of anaerobic bacteria adapted to environmental stresses in temperature, pH, salinity, or substrates,” Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 57, 451 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  22. B. Marschner, S. Brodowski, A. Dreves, G. Gleixner, et al., “How relevant is recalcitrance for the stabilization of organic matter in soils?” J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 171, 91–110 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. E. O. McLean, “Soil pH and lime requirement,” in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties, Agronomy Monograph 9.2, Ed. by A. L. Page (American Society of Agronomy, American Soil Science Society, Madison, WI, 1982). doi 10.2134/agronmonogr9.2.2ed

    Google Scholar 

  24. M. D. Melville, and I. White, “Acid sulfate soils: management,” in Encyclopedia of Environmental Management (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2012), p. 6. doi 10.1081/E-EEM-120046329

    Google Scholar 

  25. B. Meyer, and J. Kuevert, “Phylogeny of the alpha and beta subunits of the dissimilatory adesosine-5'-phosphate (APS) reductase from sulfate-reducing prokaryotes—origin and evolution of the dissimilatory sulfatereduction pathway,” Microbiology 153, 2026–2044 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. P. S. Michael, R. Reid, and W. R. Fitzpatrick, “Amelioration of slowly permeable hypersaline peaty-clayey sulfuric and sulfidic materials in acid sulfate soils by mixing with friable sandy loam soil,” in Proceedings of the 5th Joint Australian and New Zealand Soil Science Conference “Soil Solutions for Diverse Landscapes,” Ed. by L. L. Burkittand and L. A. Sparrow (Hobart, Australia, 2012) pp. 146–149.

    Google Scholar 

  27. P. S. Michael, “Ecological impacts and management of acid sulphate soil: a review,” Asian J. Water, Environ. Pollut. 10, 13–24 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  28. P. S. Michael, “Effects of alkaline sandy loam on sulfuric soil acidity and sulfidic soil oxidation,” Int. J. Environ. 4, 42–54 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. P. S. Michael, R. W. Fitzpatrick, and R. Reid, “The role of organic matter in ameliorating acid sulfate soils with sulfuric horizons,” Geoderma 225, 42–49 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. P. S. Michael, R. W. Fitzpatrick, and R. Reid, “The importance of soil carbon and nitrogen in amelioration of acid sulfate soils,” Soil Use Manage. 32, 97–105 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. P. Nannipieri, J. Ascher, M. T. Ceccherini, L. Landi, G. Pietramellara, and G. Renella, “Microbial diversity and functions,” Eurasian J. Soil Sci. 54, 655–670 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. W. H. Patrick, and R. D. De Laune, “Chemical and biological redox systems affecting nutrient availability in the coastal wetlands,” Geosci. Manage. 18, 137 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  33. R. M. Poch, B. P. Thomas, R. W. Fitzpatrick, and R. H. Merry, “Micromorphological evidence for mineral weathering pathways in a coastal acid sulphate soil sequence with Mediterranean-type climate, South Australia,” Austral. J. Soil Res. 47, 403–422 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. F. N. Ponnamperuma, “The chemistry of submerged soil,” Adv. Agron. 24, 29–96 (1972).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. F. N. Ponnamperuma, “The effects of flooding on soils,” in Flooding and Plant Growth, Ed. by T. T. Kozlowski (Academic, New York, 1984), pp. 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  36. L. J. Pons, “Outline of the genesis, characteristics, classifications and improvement of acid sulphate soils,” in International Symposium on Acid Sulphate Soils “Introductory Papers and Bibliography,” Ed. by H. Dost (International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen, 1972), pp. 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  37. M. C. Rabenhorst, W. D. Hively, and B. R. James, “Measurements of soil redox potential,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73, 668–674 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. R. Rabus, A. Ruepp, T. Frickey, T. Rattei, et al., “The genome of Desulfotalea psychrophila, a sulfate-reducing bacterium from permanently cold Arctic sediments,” Environ. Microbiol. 6, 887–902 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. G. S. P. Ritchie, and P. J. Dolling, “The role of organic matter in soil acidification,” Soil Res. 23, 569–576 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. E. E. Schulte, and B. G. Hopkins, “Estimation of soil organic matter by weight loss-on-ignition,” in Soil Organic Matter: Analysis and Interpretation, Ed. by F. R. Magdoff, M. A. Tabatabai, and E. A. Hanlon (Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, 1996), pp. 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  41. C. Schleper, G. Puhler, B. Kuhlmorgen, and W. Zillig, “Life at extremely low pH,” Nature 375, 741–742 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. J. P. Schimel, and J. Gulledge, “Microbial community structure and global trace gases,” Glob. Change Biol. 4, 745–758 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. J. Shamshuddin, S. Muhrizal, I. Fauziah, and M. H. A. Husni, “Effects of adding organic materials to an acid sulfate soil on the growth of cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) seedlings,” Sci. Tot. Environ. 323, 33–45 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. H. Simpson, and P. Pedini, “Brackish water aquaculture in the tropics: the problem of acid sulfate soil environment,” Appl. Geochem. 19, 1837–1853 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Soil Survey Staff, Keys to Soil Taxonomy (United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, 2014).

  46. C. Tang, and Q. Yu, “Impact of chemical composition of legume residues and initial soil pH on pH changes of a soil after residue incorporation,” Plant Soil 215, 29–38 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. P. R. Teasdale, A. L. Minett, K. Dixon, T. W. Lewis, and G. E. Batley, “Practical improvements for redox potential (Eh) measurements and the application of a multiple-electrode redox probe (MERP) for characterizing sediment in situ,” Anal. Chim. Acta 367, 201–213 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Z. P. Wang, R. D. De Laune, W. H. Patrick, and P. H. Masscheleyn, “Soil redox and pH effects on methane production in a flooded rice roil,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57, 382–385 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia

    Patrick S. Michael

  2. Department of Agriculture, PNG University of Technology, Lae, MP 411, Papua New Guinea

    Patrick S. Michael

  3. Acid Sulfate Soils Centre (ASSC), The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia

    Patrick S. Michael

Authors
  1. Patrick S. Michael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick S. Michael.

Additional information

The article is published in the original.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Michael, P.S. Comparative Assessment of the Effects of Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Amendment on Subsurface Soil pH, Eh and Sulfate Content of Acid Sulfate Soils. Eurasian Soil Sc. 51, 1181–1190 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229318100083

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229318100083

Keywords

Search

Navigation