Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp 2904–2913 | Cite as

Rapid estimation of microbial biomass in acid red soils with and without substrate incorporation

  • Peng Su
  • Yong Liu
  • Sifan Wang
  • Zhongqi Yan
  • Shan Wang
  • Lian Zhu
  • Jun Lou
  • Fangbai Li
Soils, Sec 1 • Soil Organic Matter Dynamics and Nutrient Cycling • Research Article
  • 107 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

A rapid and alternative measurement of microbial biomass in acid red soils with and without substrate incorporation is proposed for soil quality evaluation.

Materials and methods

Soil microbial biomass C (SMBC) and N (SMBN) in 24 typical red soil samples developed from two parent materials (granite and arenaceous shale) were measured using fumigation-extraction followed by dry combustion method in comparison with ultraviolet (UV) spectrophotometry (increase in absorbance at 280 nm, ΔUV280). The reliability of microbial biomass estimation by UV spectrophotometry was verified using six representative red soils amended with biochar (0, 1, 3 and 5%) and glucose (0, 100, 500 and 1000 mg kg−1) separately.

Results and discussion

ΔUV280 was strongly correlated with SMBC and SMBN measured by dry combustion, regardless of biochar/glucose incorporation. Validated conversion equations from unamended soil data were dependent on confounding effects of organic C and particle size and can be described as follows: SMBC = 27.08 × ΔUV280 (R2 = 0.67, n = 24) and SMBN = 3.62 × ΔUV280 (R2 = 0.69, n = 24). Regression models for rapid estimation of microbial biomass in red soils from different parent materials had to be calibrated separately in case of amendments. In most cases, SMBC (R2 of 0.75–0.76 and root mean square error (RMSE) of 22.2–29.3 mg kg−1) and SMBN (R2 of 0.74–0.80 and RMSE of 2.60–14.2 mg kg−1) can be predicted from ΔUV280 in biochar/glucose-amended soils using these equations. The slope of the regression of SMBC against ΔUV280 shifted in biochar-amended granite soils, mainly due to uncoordinated changes of SMBC in response to the difference in parent material-induced nutrient availability, while shifts of SMBC (or SMBN) against ΔUV280 in glucose-amended arenaceous shale soils were attributed to particle size distribution.

Conclusions

Soil microbial biomass (SMBC and SMBN) in red soils can be rapidly predicted by fumigation-extraction with UV spectrophotometry detection and corresponding correction of calibration curves, depending on soil nutrient availability, particle size distribution and organic C levels.

Keywords

Acid red soils Biochar amendment Microbial biomass estimation Ultraviolet spectrophotometry 

Notes

Funding information

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 41471246; 41561074); the Guangdong Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 2014A030313703; 2014A030313570); the Guangzhou City Science and Technology Plan Project (grant number 201510010187); and the Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Plan Project (grant numbers 2015A020208009; 2014B020206001).

Supplementary material

11368_2018_1983_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. Brookes PC, Landman A, Pruden G, Jenkinson DS (1985) Chloroform fumigation and the release of soil nitrogen: a rapid direct extraction method to measure microbial biomass nitrogen in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 17:837–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen GC, He ZL (2004) Effect of land use on microbial biomass-C,-N and-P in red soils. In: Wilson M, He ZL, Yang XE (eds) The red soils of China: their nature, management and utilization. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cong HJ, Cheng Y, An SS, Li DH (2010) Changes of soil nutrient and soil microbial biomass C, N and P in different plant rehabilitation on the loess hilly area of Ningxia. J Soil Water Conserv 24:217–221 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  4. Dempster DN, Gleeson DB, Solaiman ZI, Jones DL, Murphy DV (2012) Decreased soil microbial biomass and nitrogen mineralisation with Eucalyptus biochar addition to a coarse textured soil. Plant Soil 354:311–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deng H, Yu YJ, Sun JE, Zhang JB, Cai ZC, Guo GX, Zhong WH (2015) Parent materials have stronger effects than land use types on microbial biomass, activity and diversity in red soil in subtropical China. Pedobiologia 58:73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Durenkamp M, Luo Y, Brookes PC (2010) Impact of black carbon addition to soil on the determination of soil microbial biomass by fumigation extraction. Soil Biol Biochem 42:2026–2029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grace C, Hart M, Brookes PC (2006) Laboratory manual of the soil microbial biomass group. Rothamsted Res:5–6Google Scholar
  8. He R, Wang JS, Shi Z, Fang YH, Xu ZK, Quan W, Zhang ZX, Ruan HH (2009) Variations of soil microbial biomass across four different plant communities along an elevation gradient in Wuyi Mountains, China. Acta Ecol Sin 29:5138–5144 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  9. Jaafar NM, Clode PL, Abbott LK (2015a) Soil microbial responses to biochars varying in particle size, surface and pore properties. Pedosphere 25:770–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jaafar NM, Clode PL, Abbott LK (2015b) Biochar-soil interactions in four agricultural soils. Pedosphere 25:729–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Joergensen RG, Anderson T-H, Wolters V (1995) Carbon and nitrogen relationships in the microbial biomass of soils in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests. Biol Fert Soils 19:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaiser EA, Mueller T, Joergensen RG, Insam H, Heinemeyer O (1992) Evaluation of methods to estimate the soil microbial biomass and the relationship with soil texture and organic matter. Soil Biol Biochem 24:675–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kooijman AM, Jongejans J, Sevink J (2005) Parent material effects on Mediterranean woodland ecosystems in NE Spain. Catena 59:55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuzyakov Y, Subbotina I, Chen H, Bogomolova I, Xu X (2009) Black carbon decomposition and incorporation into soil microbial biomass estimated by 14C labelling. Soil Biol Biochem 41:210–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ladd JN, Amato M (1989) Relationship between microbial biomass carbon in soils and absorbance (260 nm) of extracts of fumigated soils. Soil Biol Biochem 21:457–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J, Masiello CA, Hockaday WC, Crowley D (2011) Biochar effects on soil biota—a review. Soil Biol Biochem 43:1812–1836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu A (1993) Red soils in Guangdong. Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu M, Li Z, Zhang TL (2009) Changes of microbial biomass and functional diversity in red soil under different land use types. Soils 41:744–748 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  19. Lu RK (2000) Methods for soil and agricultural chemistry. Chinese Agricultural Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  20. Luo Y, Durenkamp M, De Nobili M, Lin Q, Devonshire BJ, Brookes PC (2013) Microbial biomass growth, following incorporation of biochars produced at 350 °C or 700 °C, in a silty-clay loam soil of high and low pH. Soil Biol Biochem 57:513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mage SM, Porder S (2013) Parent material and topography determine soil phosphorus status in the Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico. Ecosystems 16:284–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mondini C, Cayuela ML, Sanchez-Monedero MA, Roig A, Brookes PC (2006) Soil microbial biomass activation by trace amounts of readily available substrate. Biol Fertil Soils 42:542–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nielsen PL, Andresen LC, Michelsen A, Schmidt IK, Kongstad J (2009) Seasonal variations and effects of nutrient applications on N and P and microbial biomass under two temperate heathland plants. Appl Soil Ecol 42:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nunan N, Morgan MA, Herlihy M (1998) Ultraviolet absorbance (280 nm) of compounds released from soil during chloroform fumigation as an estimate of the microbial biomass. Soil Biol Biochem 30:1599–1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Palacios-Orueta A, Ustin SL (1998) Remote sensing of soil properties in the Santa Monica Mountains I. Spectral analysis. Remote Sens Environ 65:170–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pietri JA, Brookes PC (2008) Relationships between soil pH and microbial properties in a UK arable soil. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1856–1861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rasmussen C, Southard RJ, Horwath WR (2006) Mineral control of organic carbon mineralization in a range of temperate conifer forest soils. Glob Chang Biol 12:834–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rossel RV, McGlynn RN, McBratney AB (2006) Determining the composition of mineral-organic mixes using UV–vis–NIR diffuse reflectance spectroscopy. Geoderma 137:70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Su P, Lou J, Brookes PC, Luo Y, He Y, Xu JM (2017) Taxon-specific responses of soil microbial communities to different soil priming effects induced by addition of plant residues and their biochars. J Soils Sediments 17(3):674–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tan X, Chang SX, Kabzems R (2008) Soil compaction and forest floor removal reduced microbial biomass and enzyme activities in a boreal aspen forest soil. Biol Fert Soils 44:471–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turner BL, Bristow AW, Haygarth PM (2001) Rapid estimation of microbial biomass in grassland soils by ultra-violet absorbance. Soil Biol Biochem 33:913–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS (1987) An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol Biochem 19:703–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wu J, Joergensen RG, Pommerening B, Chaussod R, Brookes PC (1990) Measurement of soil microbial biomass C by fumigation-extraction—an automated procedure. Soil Biol Biochem 22:1167–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Xu X, Zhang T, Liu Z (2008) Calibration model of microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen concentrations in soils using ultraviolet absorbance and soil organic matter. Eur J Soil Sci 59:630–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yao H, He ZL, Wilson MJ, Campbell CD (2000) Microbial biomass and community structure in a sequence of soils with increasing fertility and changing land use. Microb Ecol 40:223–237Google Scholar
  36. Yu WT, Ma Q, Xu YG, Zhou H, Jiang CM (2012) Rapid estimation of microbial biomass nitrogen in agricultural soils by ultraviolet spectrophotometry method. Chin J Soil Sci 43:1131–1135 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  37. Zhang H, Voroney RP, Price GW (2014) Effects of biochar amendments on soil microbial biomass and activity. J Environ Qual 43:2104–2114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Guangdong Key Laboratory of Integrated Agro-Environmental Pollution Control and ManagementGuangdong Institute of Eco-Environmental Science and TechnologyGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Guangdong General Station of Agricultural Environment Protection and Rural Energy ResourceGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Zhoushan Academy of Agriculture and Forestry SciencesZhoushanChina
  4. 4.Institute of Soil and Water Resources and Environmental Science, College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Agricultural Resources and EnvironmentZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations