4.6 Article

Impacts of Organic and Conventional Crop Management on Diversity and Activity of Free-Living Nitrogen Fixing Bacteria and Total Bacteria Are Subsidiary to Temporal Effects

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052891

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities, for the Integrated Project [NUE CROPS EU-FP7 222-645]
  2. The Yorkshire Agricultural Society [NPD/JMD/08/72]
  3. Nafferton Ecological Farming Group
  4. Northumbria University Research Development Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A three year field study (2007-2009) of the diversity and numbers of the total and metabolically active free-living diazotophic bacteria and total bacterial communities in organic and conventionally managed agricultural soil was conducted using the Nafferton Factorial Systems Comparison (NFSC) study, in northeast England. Fertility management appeared to have little impact on both diazotrophic and total bacterial communities. However, copy numbers of the nifH gene did appear to be negatively impacted by conventional crop protection measures across all years suggesting diazotrophs may be particularly sensitive to pesticides. Impacts of crop management were greatly overshadowed by the influence of temporal effects with diazotrophic communities changing on a year by year basis and from season to season. Quantitative analyses using qPCR of each community indicated that metabolically active diazotrophs were highest in year 1 but the population significantly declined in year 2 before recovering somewhat in the final year. The total bacterial population in contrast increased significantly each year. It appeared that the dominant drivers of qualitative and quantitative changes in both communities were annual and seasonal effects. Moreover, regression analyses showed activity of both communities was significantly affected by soil temperature and climatic conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据