4.7 Article

Estimating phosphorus availability for microbial growth in an emerging landscape

期刊

GEODERMA
卷 163, 期 1-2, 页码 135-140

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.04.014

关键词

Biological weathering; Phosphorus limitation

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. National Geographic Society Committee for Research and Exploration
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology [0922267, 0922306, 0921940] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Estimating phosphorus (P) availability is difficult particularly in infertile soils such as those exposed after glacial recession because standard P extraction methods may not mimic biological acquisition pathways. We developed an approach, based on microbial CO2 production kinetics and conserved carbon:phosphorus (C:P) ratios, to estimate the amount of P available for microbial growth in soils and compared this method to traditional, operationally-defined indicators of P availability. Along a primary succession gradient in the High Andes of Peru, P additions stimulated the growth-related (logistic) kinetics of glutamate mineralization in soils that had been deglaciated from 0 to 5 years suggesting that microbial growth was limited by soil P availability. We then used a logistic model to estimate the amount of C incorporated into biomass in P-limited soils, allowing us to estimate total microbial P uptake based on a conservative C:P ratio of 28:1 (mass:mass). Using this approach, we estimated that there was <1 mu g/g of microbial-available P in recently de-glaciated soils in both years of this study. These estimates fell well below estimates of available soil P obtained using traditional extraction procedures. Our results give both theoretical and practical insights into the kinetics of C and P utilization in young soils, as well as show changes in microbial P availability during early stages of soil development. (C) 2011 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