4.7 Article

New Perspectives on Nitrogen Fixation Measurements Using 15N2 Gas

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MARINE SCIENCE
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00120

关键词

N-15(2) fixation; enriched water method; bubble method; diazotrophs; meta-analysis

资金

  1. Danish Council for independent research [6108-00013]
  2. German Academic Exchange Service [A1371347]
  3. German Ministry of Science and Technology, BIOACID grant [03F0728F]
  4. National Science Foundation [NSF-OCE-1737078]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, the method widely used to determine N-15(2) fixation rates in marine and freshwater environments was found to underestimate rates because the dissolution of the added N-15(2) gas bubble in seawater takes longer than theoretically calculated. As a solution to the potential underestimate of rate measurements, the usage of the enriched water method was proposed to provide constant N-15(2) enrichment. Still, the superiority of enriched water method over the previously used bubble injection remains inconclusive. To clarify this issue, we performed laboratory based experiments and implemented the results into an error analysis of N-15(2) fixation rates. Moreover, we conducted a literature search on the comparison of the two methods to calculate a mean effect size using a meta-analysis approach. Our results indicate that the error potentially introduced by an equilibrium phase of the N-15(2) gas is -72% at maximum for experiments with very short incubation times of 1 h. In contrast, the underestimation was negligible for incubations lasting 12-24 h (error is -0.2%). Our meta-analysis indicates that 84% of the measurements in the two groups will overlap and there is a 61% chance that a sample picked at random from the enriched water group will have a higher value than one picked at random from the bubble group. Overall, the underestimation of N-2 fixation rates when using the bubble method relative to the enriched water method is highly dependent on incubation time and other experimental conditions and cannot be generalized.

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