Human alteration of the nitrogen cycle has stimulated research on nitrogen cycling in many aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, where analyses of nitrate (NO3−) by standard laboratory methods are common. A recent study by Colman et al. (Biogeochemistry 84:161–169, 2007) identified a potential analytical interference of soluble iron (Fe) with NO3− quantification by standard flow-injection analysis of soil extracts, and suggested that this interference may have led Dail et al. (Biogeochemistry 54:131–146, 2001) to make an erroneous assessment of abiotic nitrate immobilization in prior 15N pool dilution studies of Harvard Forest soils. In this paper, we reproduce the Fe interference problem systematically and show that it is likely related to dissolved, complexed-Fe interfering with the colorimetric analysis of NO2−. We also show how standard additions of NO3− and NO2− to soil extracts at native dissolved Fe concentrations reveal when the Fe interference problem occurs, and permit the assessment of its significance for past, present, and future analyses. We demonstrate low soluble Fe concentrations and good recovery of standard additions of NO3− and NO2− in extracts of sterilized Harvard Forest soils. Hence, we maintain that rapid NO3− immobilization occurred in sterilized samples of the Harvard Forest O horizon in the study by Dail et al. (2001). Furthermore, additional evidence is accumulating in the literature for rapid disappearance of NO3− added to soils, suggesting that our observations were not the result of an isolated analytical artifact. The conditions for NO3− reduction are likely to be highly dependent on microsite properties, both in situ and in the laboratory. The so-called “ferrous wheel hypothesis” (Davidson et al., Glob Chang Biol 9:228–236, 2003) remains an unproven, viable explanation for published observations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
BD would like to thank Bruce Hoskins and Krzysztof Lesniewicz of the Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Analytical Laboratory for many hours of discussion and analysis regarding N and Fe determinations. This research was supported by NSF grants DEB 0212505, DEB 0212675, and DEB 0212245.
APHA (1989) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 17th edn. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
Herzsprung P, Duffek A, Friese K, de Rechter M, Schultze M, Tumpling WV Jr (2005) Modification of a continuous flow method for analysis of trace amounts of nitrate in iron-rich sediment pore-waters of mine pit lakes. Water Res 39:1887–1895. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2005.02.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huygens D, Boeckx P, Godoy R, Templer PH, Paulino L, Van Cleemput O, Oyarzún C, Müller C, Godoy R (2008) Mechanisms for retention of bioavailable nitrogen in volcanic rainforest soils. Nat Geosci 1:543–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotrario JB, Stuart BJ, Lam T, Arands RR, O’Connor OA, Kosson DS (1995) Effects of sterilization methods on the physical characteristics of soil: implications for sorption isotherm analyses. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 54:668–675. doi:10.1007/BF00206097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magill AH, Aber JD, Currie WS, Nadelhoffer KJ, Martin ME, McDowell WH et al (2004) Ecosystem response to 15 years of chronic nitrogen additions at the Harvard Forest LTER, Massachusetts, USA. For Ecol Manage 196:7–28. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.03.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micks P, Aber JD, Davidson EA, Boone RD (2004) Short-term soil respiration and nitrogen immobilization response to nitrogen applications in control and nitrogen-enriched temperate forests. For Ecol Manage 196:57–70. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.03.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulvaney RL (1996) Nitrogen—inorganic forms. In: Sparks DL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 3—chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 1123–1184Google Scholar
Patton CJ, Fischer AE, Campbell WH, Campbell ER (2002) Corn leaf nitrate reductase—a nontoxic alternative to cadmium for photometric nitrate determinations in water samples by air-segmented continuous-flow analysis. Environ Sci Technol 36:729–735. doi:10.1021/es011132aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perakis SS, Hedin LO (2001) Fluxes and fates of nitrogen in soil of an unpolluted old-growth temperate forest, southern Chile. Ecology 82:2245–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stumm W, Morgan JJ (1996) Aquatic chemistry: chemical equilibria and rates in natural waters, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
UNEP and WHRC (2007) Reactive nitrogen in the environment: too much or too little of a good thing. In: Davidson EA, Arden-Clarke C, Braun E (eds) The United Nations environment programme, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1983) Nitrogen, nitrate-nitrite. Method 353.2 (colorimetric, automated, cadmium reduction). Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020. USEPA, Cincinnati, pp 353-352.351–353-352.355Google Scholar
Van Cleemput O, Baert L (1983) Nitrite stability influenced by iron compounds. Soil Biol Biochem 15:137–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zogg P, Zak D, Pregitzer K, Burton A (2000) Microbial immobilization and the retention of anthropogenic nitrate in a northern hardwood forest. Ecology 81:1858–1866Google Scholar