4.7 Article

Contrasting effects of inorganic and organic fertilisation regimes on shifts in Fe redox bacterial communities in red soils

期刊

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 117, 期 -, 页码 56-67

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.11.003

关键词

Inorganic and organic fertilisation; Soil Fe cycling; Poorly crystalline Fe oxides; Fe(III) reducers; Fen oxidisers

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41371248, 41371299, 41671294]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China (973 Program) [2015CB150500]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China [BK20150059]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the precipitation and dissolution of iron (Fe)-containing-minerals are driven by microbially-mediated iron-redox cycling, we still have a limited understanding of complex response of such microbial communities to fertilisation. Here, using chemical and synchrotron-based spectral analyses, we show that the distribution of poorly crystalline Fe minerals and crystalline Fe minerals is different in organically- and inorganically-fertilised soils, and that compared to no fertilisation (Control), Fe redox cycling bacteria were present at higher abundance and diversity in organically-fertilised soils but lower in inorganically-fertilised soil. During Fe(III) reduction, Geobacter were important active Fe(III) reducers, with a higher relative abundance in both organically- and inorganically-fertilised soils than in Control, and their higher abundance was responsible for greater dissolution of ferrihydrite in inorganically-fertilised soil than in organically-fertilised soil. However, during the Fe(II) oxidation, Pseudomonas and Anaerolinea were more abundant, and produced higher levels of poorly crystalline Fe oxides under organic fertilisation. Thus, for the first time, we demonstrate that inorganic and organic fertilisation regimes have contrasting effects on the Fe redox bacterial communities, which then influence Fe cycling in soils.

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