4.7 Article

Metabolism of 13C-labeled glucose in aggregates from soils with manure application

期刊

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 295-300

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00152-2

关键词

soil structure; aggregates; C-13-labeled glucose; manure; microbial biomass

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil microbial biomass and microbial products play an important role in the stabilization of soil structure and, in turn, as a feedback, structure is believed to be a significant control of C dynamics in soils. We investigated the microbial mineralization and assimilation of added C-13-[U]-glucose within macro- and microaggregates from surface soils (Humic Gleysol) obtained from long-term plots amended or not with cattle manure (20 Mg ha(-1) yr(-1) for 18 yr). Slaking-resistant macroaggregates (250-1000 mu m) and microaggregates (53-250 mu m) were separated by wet sieving and incubated with C-13-labeled glucose (1000 mu g C g(-1) soil) and (NH4)SO4 (67 mu g N g(-1) soil) for 14 d at 25 degrees C following a 7-d period of conditioning at 25 degrees C. The production of C-13- labeled CO2 was measured periodically and the chloroform-labile C (microbial biomass) derived from glucose was determined at the end of the 14-d incubation. The added glucose was mineralized less but assimilated more in the microbial biomass of macroaggregates than in microaggregates, and this effect was generally greater in the manure-amended soil. Overall,the percentage of C-13-labeled glucose assimilated was inversely correlated (r = 0.59) with that mineralized during the 14-d incubation, The size of the native biomass 14 d after glucose addition followed the same trend as that of the glucose-derived biomass. Our results support the hypothesis that stable macroaggregates, especially those from manured-soil, support a greater microbial biomass than microaggregates and constitute 'hot-spots' for the metabolism of readily-available substrates, (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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