4.7 Article

Relative activity of ammonia oxidizing archaea and bacteria determine nitrification-dependent N2O emissions in Oregon forest soils

Journal

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 139, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.107612

Keywords

Acid forest soils; Nitrification; Ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and archaea; Nitrous oxide production; N2O yield; Soil pH

Categories

Funding

  1. program Scholarships of State Scholarships Foundation (IKY), Greece, in the Marine and Inland Management of Water Resources - EEA grants financial Mechanism 2009-2014
  2. General Secretariat for Investments and development
  3. FACCE-ERA-GAS project MAGGE-pH [696356]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using oxic soil slurry incubations supplemented with either the selective AOB inhibitor 1-octyne or the nonspecific nitrification inhibitor acetylene, we investigated the relative contributions of ammonia oxidizing archaea (AOA) and bacteria (AOB) to nitrification-dependent N2O production in six Oregon forest soils (pH 3.7-5.3), collected from three different sites (Cascade Head, H.J. Andrews, and McDonald Forest), each under two different tree species (Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii and red alder, Alnus rubra). We found that nitrification-dependent N2O production across a range of acid forest soils depends on the site-specific contribution of AOB and AOA to nitrification because of their inherently distinct N2O yields. The latter were determined to be similar to 0.15 +/- 0.01% for AOB and 0.06 +/- 0.01% for AOA. Soil pH regulated the nitrifier-specific N2O production by affecting the nitrifier activity. ADA-dependent N2O production dominated at low pH (<4.5), while AOB-dependent N2O production was favored in less acidic soils. Increase in relative contribution of the AOB nitrifying activity, favored by the increase in soil pH, was accompanied by higher total N2O yields.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available