4.5 Article

Oxytetracycline, copper, and zinc effects on nitrification processes and microbial activity in two soil types

期刊

FOOD AND ENERGY SECURITY
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/fes3.248

关键词

ammonia-oxidizing microorganisms; antibiotics; heavy metals; microbial activity; nitrification; nitrous oxide

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFD0200100, 2018YFC0213300]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41961124004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The distribution, fate, and effects of antibiotics and heavy metal residues in agricultural soil caused by long-term application of organic fertilizers are of increasing concern. However, the ecotoxic effects of the interaction between antibiotics and heavy metals vary with the physicochemical properties of the soil, and it is still unclear how these substances interact with soil microbial functions. A short-term microcosm experiment was conducted to investigate effects of the typical antibiotic oxytetracycline (OTC) with heavy metals (zinc [Zn] and copper [Cu]) alone or in combination on nitrification process and soil microbial activity in two different types of soil (FQ: sandy loam soil and NB: clay loamy soil). Results indicated that soil types influenced the toxic effects of antibiotics and heavy metals. Zn and Cu alone and when combined with OTC inhibited and retarded nitrification processes and reduced nitrous oxide emissions, which were mainly attributed to the inhibitory effects on ammonia-oxidizing microorganisms. Moreover, Zn and Cu alone or combined with OTC increased soil respiration, but decreased the abundances of bacteria and fungi. In contrast, OTC alone had no significant effect on soil respiration but increased the abundance of fungi in both soils. Together, our results suggest that the widespread occurrence of antibiotics and heavy metals in agriculture soils may pose significant eco-environmental risks by altering nitrification process and soil microbial activity.

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

4.5
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