Advertisement

Combining N2:Ar and Bayesian Methods to Quantify Underestimation and Uncertainty of Sediment Denitrification Determined by the Acetylene Inhibition Method

  • Dongli SheEmail author
  • Xiaoqin Sun
  • Yongqiu XiaEmail author
Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Accurately determining denitrification rates is essential for estimating the nitrogen budget in flooded ecosystems. The acetylene inhibition method (AIT) is a simple and common technique for measuring sediment denitrification. However, incomplete inhibition of nitrous oxide reduction or concurrent inhibition of nitrification may lead to underestimations of denitrification rates, whereas the N2:Ar ratio method with membrane inlet mass spectrometry (MIMS) provides an accurately way quantifying denitrification rates. The objective of this study was to compare sediment denitrification rates measured by AIT and MIMS, correspondingly quantify the underestimation and the uncertainty of AIT-measured denitrification by combining a Bayesian hierarchical method. A multilevel Bayesian framework was constructed to predict the true values of sediment denitrification based on the relationships between MIMS and AIT-measured denitrification. A Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm was applied to obtain the targeted parameters and their associated uncertainties in the Bayesian. Results showed that both AIT and MIMS detected similar trends in denitrification responses to increasing NO3¯-N concentrations, but the values of denitrification measured by AIT were considerably lower than those of MIMS. These differences decreased rapidly with increasing NO3¯-N concentrations, then stabilized when NO3¯-N was greater than 2 mg N L−1 and AIT estimations of denitrification were about 21 times less than those of MIMS. The results were used to obtain a multilevel Bayesian model that quantified the underestimation and uncertainty of the AIT-based denitrification. We concluded that the AIT can be used to accurately estimate soil denitrification after quantification of system error and correction coefficients.

Keywords

Bayesian hierarchical models Sediment denitrification Acetylene inhibition Membrane inlet mass spectrometry 

Notes

Funding

This study is financially supported by the National Key Basic Research Project of China (No. 2015CB158200), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20161503), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2018B12214), and the Qing Lan Project of Jiangsu Province.

References

  1. Beck, J. L., & Au, S. K. (2002). Bayesian updating of structural models and reliability using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128(4), 380–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergsma, T. T., Ostrom, N. E., Emmons, M., & Robertson, G. P. (2001). Measuring simultaneous fluxes from soil of N2O and N2 in the field using the 15N-Gas “nonequilibrium” technique. Environmental Science & Technology, 35, 4307–4312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernot, M. J., Dodds, W. K., Gardner, W. S., McCarthy, M. J., Sobolev, D., & Tank, J. L. (2003). Comparing denitrification estimates for a Texas estuary by using acetylene inhibition and membrane inlet mass spectrometry. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 69(10), 5950–5956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, S. P., & Gelman, A. (1998). General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 7(4), 434–455.Google Scholar
  5. Colt, J. (1984). Computation of dissolved gas concentrations in water as functions of temperature, salinity, and pressure. (p. 14). Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society Special Publication.Google Scholar
  6. Eyre, B. D., Rysgaard, S., Dalsgaard, T., & Christensen, P. B. (2002). Comparison of isotope pairing and N2/Ar methods for measuring sediment denitrification: Assumptions, modifications, and implications. Estuaries, 25, 1077–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gallagher, M., & Doherty, J. (2007). Parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis for a watershed model. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22, 1000–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Groffman, P. M., Altabet, M. A., Bhlke, J., Butterbach-Bahl, K., David, M. B., Firestone, M. K., Giblin, A. E., Kana, T. M., Nielsen, L. P., & Voytek, M. A. (2006). Methods for measuring denitrification: Diverse approaches to a difficult problem. Ecological Applications, 16, 2091–2122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Groffman, P. M., Holland, E., Myrold, D. D., Robertson, G. P., & Zou, X. (1999). Denitrification. In G. P. Robertson, C. S. Bledsoe, D. C. Coleman, & P. Sollins (Eds.), Standard soil methods for long term ecological research (pp. 272–288). New York: Oxford University press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Kana, T. M., Darkangelo, C., Hunt, M. D., Oldham, J. B., Bennett, G. E., & Cornwell, J. C. (1994). Membrane inlet mass spectrometer for rapid high precision determination of N2, O2, and Ar in environmental water samples. Analytical Chemistry, 66, 4166–4170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kana, T. M., Sullivan, M. B., Cornwell, J. C., & Groszkowski, K. M. (1998). Denitrification in estuarine sediments determined by membrane inlet mass spectrometry. Limnology and Oceanography, 43, 334–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laverman, A. M., Garnier, J. A., Mounier, E. M., & Roose-Amsaleg, C. L. (2010). Nitrous oxide production kinetics during nitrate reduction in river sediments. Water Research, 44, 1753–1764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li, X. B., Xia, Y. Q., Li, Y. F., Kana, T. M., Kimura, S. D., Saito, M., & Yan, X. Y. (2013). Sediment denitrification in waterways in a rice-paddy-dominated watershed in eastern China. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 13, 783–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Qin, S. P., Hu, C. S., & Oenema, O. (2012). Quantifying the underestimation of soil denitrification potential as determined by the acetylene inhibition method. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 47, 14–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Richards, F. A., & Benson, B. B. (1961). Nitrogen/argon and nitrogen isotope ratios in two anaerobic environments, the Cariaco Trench in the Caribbean Sea and Dramsfjord, Norway. Deep-Sea Research, 7, 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rudolph, J., Frenzel, P., & Pfenning, N. (1991). Acetylene inhibition technique underestimates in situ denitrification rates in intact cores of freshwater sediments. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 85, 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seitzinger, S. P. (1998). Denitrification in freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems: Ecological and geochemical significance. Limnology and Oceanography, 33, 702–724.Google Scholar
  18. Seitzinger, S. P., Nielsen, L. P., Caffrey, J., & Christensen, P. B. (1993). Denitrification measurements in aquatic sediments: A comparison of three methods. Biogeochemistry, 23, 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sgouridis, F., Stott, A., & Ullah, S. (2016). Application of the 15N gas-flux method for measuring in situ N2 and N2O fluxes due to denitrification in natural and semi-natural terrestrial ecosystems and comparison with the acetylene inhibition technique. Biogeosciences, 13, 1821–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, L. K., Voytek, M. A., Bòhlke, J. K., & Harvey, J. W. (2006). Denitrification in nitrate-rich streams: Application of N2:Ar and 15N-tracer methods in intact cores. Ecological Applications, 16(6), 2191–2207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van den Heuvel, R. N., Bakker, S. E., Jetten, M. S. M., & Hefting, M. M. (2011). Decreased N2O reduction by low soil pH causes high N2O emissions in a riparian ecosystem. Geobiology, 9, 294–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Watts, S. H., & Seitzinger, S. P. (2000). Denitrification rates in organic and mineral soils from riparian sites: A comparison of N2 flux and acetylene inhibition methods. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 32, 1383–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Xia, Y. Q., Li, Y. F., Li, X. B., Guo, M., She, D. L., & Yan, X. Y. (2013). Diurnal pattern in nitrous oxide emissions from a sewage-enriched river. Chemosphere, 92(4), 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Xia, Y. Q., Weller, D. E., Williams, M. N., Jordan, T. E., & Yan, X. Y. (2016). Using Bayesian hierarchical models to better understand nitrate sources and sinks in agricultural watersheds. Water Research, 105, 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yan, X. Y., Cai, Z. C., Yang, R., Ti, C. P., Xia, Y. Q., Li, F. Y., Wang, J. Q., & Ma, A. J. (2011). Nitrogen budget and riverine nitrogen output in a rice paddy dominated agricultural watershed in eastern China. Biogeochemistry, 106(3), 489–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yoshinari, T., Hynes, R., & Knowles, R. (1977). Acetylene inhibition of nitrous oxide reduction and measurement of denitrification and nitrogen fixation in soil. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 9, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhao, Y. Q., Xia, Y. Q., Li, B. L., & Yan, X. Y. (2014). Influence of environmental factors on net N2 and N2O production in sediment of freshwater rivers. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 21(16), 9973–9982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhou, S., Sakiyama, Y., Riya, S., Song, X. F., Terada, A., & Hosomi, M. (2012). Assessing nitrification and denitrification in a paddy soil with different water dynamics and applied liquid cattle waste using the 15N isotopic technique. Science of the Total Environment, 430, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Efficient Irrigation-Drainage and Agricultural Soil-Water Environment in Southern China, Ministry of Education, College of Agricultural EngineeringHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable AgricultureInstitute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of SciencesNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations