4.7 Article

Does microbial centimeter-scale heterogeneity impact MCPA degradation in and leaching from a loamy agricultural soil?

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 472, 期 -, 页码 90-98

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.009

关键词

Spatial biodegradation; Monod-kinetics; Preferential transport; MCPA leaching; COMSOL simulations

资金

  1. Villum Kann Rasmussen Foundation via the Center for Environmental and Agricultural Microbiology (CREAM)
  2. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland via the Danish Pesticide Leaching Assessment Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The potential for pesticide degradation varies greatly at the centimeter-scale in agricultural soil. Three dimensional numerical simulations were conducted to evaluate how such small-scale spatial heterogeneity may affect the leaching of the biodegradable pesticide 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) in the upper meter of a variably-saturated, loamy soil profile. To incorporate realistic spatial variation in degradation potential, we used data from a site where 420 mineralization curves over 5 depths have been measured. Monod kinetics was fitted to the individual curves to derive initial degrader biomass values, which were incorporated in a reactive transport model to simulate heterogeneous biodegradation. Six scenarios were set up using COMSOL Multiphysics to evaluate the difference between models having different degrader biomass distributions (homogeneous, heterogeneous, or no biomass) and either matrix flow or preferential flow through a soil matrix with a wormhole. MCPA leached, within 250 days, below 1 m only when degrader biomass was absent and preferential flow occurred. Both biodegradation in the plow layer and the microbially active lining of the wormhole contributed to reducing MCPA-leaching below 1 m. The spatial distribution of initial degrader biomass within each soil matrix layer, however, had little effect on the overall MCPA-leaching. (c) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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