Next Article in Journal
The Coal Humic Product EldORost Shows Fertilizing and Growth Stimulating Properties on Diverse Agricultural Crops
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of Reduced Tillage, Fertilizer Placement, and Soil Afforestation on CO2 Emission from Arable Sandy Soils
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Planting Density on Root Spatial and Temporal Distribution and Yield of Winter Wheat
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fe(II)-OM Complexes Formed by Straw Returning Combined with Optimized Nitrogen Fertilizer Could Be Beneficial to Nitrogen Storage in Saline-Alkaline Paddy Soils
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Extracellular Enzyme Patterns Provide New Insights Regarding Nitrogen Transformation Induced by Alkaline Amendment of Acidic Soil

1
Beijing Key Laboratory of Farmyard Soil Pollution Prevention-Control and Remediation, College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
2
Teagasc, Environmental Research Centre, Johnstown Castle, Co. Y35 Y521 Wexford, Ireland
3
JIA Sixie Agricultural College, Weifang University of Science and Technology, Shouguang 262700, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 11 November 2022 / Revised: 27 November 2022 / Accepted: 28 November 2022 / Published: 29 November 2022

Abstract

:
Nitrogen (N) availability is generally a limiting factor in highly acidic soil, which could be improved by amending these soils with alkaline materials. Soil extracellular enzyme activity (EEA) plays an important role in N transformation; a current knowledge gap is how this occurs in acidic soils amended with alkaline material. The present 45-day incubation experiment was designed to examine the effects of different amounts of alkaline materials (urea and/or calcium–silicon–magnesium–potassium fertilizer (CSMP)) on N transformation. The results show that soil pH significantly increased after the CSMP amendment (1.2 units) and increased soil net N mineralization (Rmin), net nitrification (Rnit) rates, and net ammonification (Ramo) rates. CSMP amendment changed the different soil EEA but with differing or opposing effects, e.g., Rnit was positively correlated with the activities of L-leucine aminopeptidase, β-xylosidase, α-glucosidase, and N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase but negatively correlated with β-1, 4-glucosidase and β-cellobiosidase. A machine learning analysis indicated that the best predictor for Rmin and Ramo was soil pH, and for Rnit, it was nitrate. The results of the present study improve our understanding of N availability in acidic soils amended with materials to control soil pH. Such knowledge could lead to more bespoke nutrient management planning at the field scale, leading to better agronomic and environmental outcomes.

1. Introduction

Approximately 40% of the world’s arable soils are acidic (i.e., pH < 5.5), and this has continued to increase in recent years [1,2,3]. There is widespread concern about acidified arable land [4], because soil acidification depletes soil fertility, and thus reduces crop productivity and nitrogen (N) supply [5]. N mineralization and nitrification are two of the main reactions related to soil N supply [6]. It was widely believed that nitrification was relatively low in acidic soils since the availability of the substrate ammonia (NH3) for the ammonia monoxygenase enzyme of ammonia oxidizers would be limited [7,8]. Therefore, how to increase the N turnover in acidic soil has been the subject of considerable attention [9,10,11].
The application of alkaline amendments to acidic soils is a common approach to alleviate soil acidification by increasing pH and exchangeable base cation levels [12,13]. Recently, some researchers reported that alkaline slag (e.g., calcium–silicon–magnesium–potassium (CSMP) fertilizer) has been found to be a successful alternative to gypsum and lime for mitigating soil acidity and improving crop productivity [14,15]. Combining N fertilization with lime has been intensively proposed as a promising approach for increasing soil N use efficiency [16]. However, more convincing evidence is required to understand the effect of alkaline amendment on nitrogen transformation in acidic soils.
The organic form of N constitutes the majority of N in soil [17]. After organic N has been mineralized to inorganic N, it can be easily assimilated by plants [18]. As a result, the rate of organic N mineralization is a critical factor affecting ecosystem productivity [19]. Depolymerization, which breaks down large N-containing polymers into monomers such as amino acids and amino sugars, is an important process in N mineralization [20]. The next step is to convert those monomers to ammonium (NH4+-N) through ammonification [20]. Soil extracellular enzymes derived from microorganisms, such as N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase (NAG) and L-leucine aminopeptidase (LAP), participate in a series of biochemical reactions that catalyze the degradation of complex compounds [21]. Soil extracellular enzymes may not only affect the production of NH4+-N in soil but also further affect the nitrification of NH4+-N as a substrate. In addition, labile organic carbon (OC) is also a key factor affecting N transformation, and the changes in soil carbon (C) substrates can influence soil mineral N dynamics [22]. Evidence from field experiments with varied soil pH suggests that low soil pH limits microbial growth and extracellular enzyme activities [23]. It has been reported that the activities of phenol oxidase and dehydrogenase were increased by the addition of alkaline amendments, while catalase and urease activity was decreased [13]. A more comprehensive assessment of extracellular enzyme activity (EEA) may help to further understand N transformation under alkaline amendment.
In this study, net N mineralization and nitrification rates and the activities of six soil enzymes involved in C and N cycling were examined in highly acidic soil with different amounts of CSMP and urea treatments. It was hypothesized that the net N mineralization and nitrification rates of the acidic soil would be accelerated due to the shift in EEA after CSMP amendments.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Soil and Alkaline Mineral Amendment Properties

Topsoil (0–20 cm) was collected from a paddy field (27°49′53″ N, 113°24′55″ E) in Zhuzhou City, Hunan province, China. The field is located in a subtropical humid monsoon climate zone, with annual rainfall ranging from 1200 to 1600 mm and an annual average temperature of 18 °C. The soil has an organic carbon content of 26.6 g kg−1, a pH of 4.80, and total nitrogen of 2.42 g kg−1. Further information on soil parameters can be found in Table S1. For the incubation experiments, the sampled soil was sieved through a 2 mm mesh and air-dried. Oven-dried soil mass was used for all measurements and calculations in this study.
The alkaline mineral amendment calcium–silicon–magnesium–potassium (CSMP) fertilizer, which is a mixture of phosphorus tailings and insoluble potassium-containing rocks, was obtained from a commercial source (Kingenta Ecological Engineering Group Co., Ltd., Linyi, China). The acid buffering capacity of the amendment was 618 kg t−1 with a pH of 10.3. Table S2 contains details of the chemical composition of the amendment.

2.2. Soil Incubation Experiment

The soil microcosm was established in 0.7 L cylindrical incubation containers (80 mm diameter × 88 mm height) with 100 g of soil samples. The incubation experiment consisted of six treatments (three replicates each): (i) control (CK, no mineral amendments or urea); (ii) urea at 60 mg N kg−1 soil (U); (iii) 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil (1 CSMP); (iv) urea at 60 mg N kg−1 + 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil (U+1 CSMP); (v) 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil (10 CSMP); and (vi) 60 mg N kg−1 + 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil (U+10 CSMP). The moisture content (60% of the water holding capacity (WHC)) was replenished every 2 to 3 days by adding deionized water. The containers were covered with perforated parafilm and incubated at 25 °C for 45 days in the dark. Afterwards, the soil pH, mineral N content, and enzyme activities were measured on day 2, 7, 15, 30, and 45.

2.3. Physicochemical Analysis

The soil pH was measured using a pH meter (MP522 version 3, SANXIN, China) with a 10 g: 25 mL dry soil: distilled water slurry. Soil nitrate (NO3-N) and NH4+-N concentrations (extracted with 1M KCl) were measured via a continuous flow analyzer (AA3, Seal Analytical, Norderstedt, Germany). Soil was extracted using a 0.5 M K2SO4 solution for dissolved organic carbon (DOC) analysis, and the extract was filtered through a 0.45 μm membrane and measured using a TOC/TN analyzer (TOC-VCSH, Shimadzu, Kyoto). The N transformation rates were based on the proportion of NO3 and NH4+ using the following Equations (1)–(3) [24]:
Rmin = [(NH4+-Ni+1 − NH4+-Ni) + (NO3-Ni+1 − NO3-Ni)]/(ti+1 − ti)
Rnit = (NO3-Ni+1 − NO3-Ni)/(ti+1 − ti)
Ramo = (NH4+-Ni+1 − NH4+-Ni)/(ti+1 − ti)
where Rmin and Rnit are soil net N mineralization and net nitrification rates, respectively; ti and ti+1 are the beginning and end dates of each incubation period, respectively. NH4+-Ni, NO3-Ni and NH4+-Ni+1, NO3-Ni+1 were the concentrations of soil NH4+-N and NO3-N in the initial and incubated samples, respectively.
Soil extracellular enzyme activities were measured with fluorogenically labeled artificial substrates according with a multimode reader (Varioskan flash, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) [25]. Fluorogenic 4-methylumbelliferone (MUB)-based substrates were used to determine the activities of β-1,4-glucosidase (BG), β-cellobiosidase (CBH), N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase (NAG), β-xylosidase (XYL), and α-glucosidase (AG). Fluorogenic 7-amino-4-methylcoumarin (AMC)-based substrate was used to determine the activity of L-leucine aminopeptidase (LAP).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using Excel 2016 and SPSS 20.0 (IBM, USA). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to verify the differences between the means in the results. Prior to ANOVA, all variables were tested for normality, and data were log transformed as needed. The Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was used to evaluate the significance of the results, and all statistical tests were performed with a significance level of p < 0.05. SigmaPlot (version 12.5) and R (version 4.1.3) were used to draw graphs. The best predictors were identified using a machine learning approach implemented in the randomForest package. Random forest regression uses bootstrap sampling (bootstrap sampling; 500 trees; random seed = 123) [26].

3. Results

3.1. Soil pH

As shown in Figure 1, the soil pH of each treatment increased in the first 15 days and decreased thereafter. During the first 30 days, the soil pH in the treatments with urea application (U, U+1 CSMP, and U+10 CSMP) was higher than in the corresponding treatments without urea application (CK, 1 CSMP, and 10 CSMP), especially the pH of the U treatment was significantly higher than CK (p < 0.01). In comparison to CK and U, the low amount (1 g kg−1) of amendment (1 CSMP and U+1 CSMP) had small effects on soil pH, while the high amount (10 g kg−1) of amendment (10 CSMP and U+10 CSMP) significantly increased the soil pH to >6 (p < 0.05).

3.2. Soil Mineral Nitrogen

In all treatments, concentrations of soil NH4+-N significantly increased for the first 15 days and then decreased until the end of the incubation period (Figure 2). The application of urea increased soil NH4+-N concentrations. With the addition of amendment at 10 g kg−1 (10 CSMP), the NH4+-N content increased in the first 15 days and then significantly decreased compared to the other treatments (p < 0.05). The same result occurred in the addition of amendment at 1 g kg−1 (CSMP), but its effect was far less than 10 CSMP.
The effects of different amendment dosages on the change in NO3-N concentration in the acidic soil are shown in Figure 2. During the whole incubation period, the soil NO3-N content of each treatment showed no significant change in the first seven days. The soil NO3-N content began to increase continuously on day 15 with the addition of amendment at 10 g kg−1 treatment (10 CSMP and U+10 CSMP), while the NO3-N contents of other treatments increased significantly on day 30 (p < 0.05). After 45 days of incubation, the accumulation of NO3-N in 10 CSMP (163 mg N kg−1) and U+10 CSMP (220 mg N kg−1) treatments increased by 4.58 and 2.75 times compared with CK (29.3 mg N kg−1) and U (58.7 mg N kg−1), respectively.

3.3. Dissolved Organic Carbon

The DOC contents of soils were influenced by the CSMP addition of 10 g kg−1 and fluctuated over the course of the incubation period (Figure 3). In comparison with CK (609 mg kg−1) and U (675 mg kg−1), the DOC content was significantly decreased to 380 mg kg−1 in 10 CSMP and 346 mg kg−1 in U+10 CSMP treatments on day 7 (p < 0.05). On day 15, the DOC contents were significantly higher in the 10 CSMP (434 mg kg−1) and U+10 CSMP (483 mg kg−1) treatments than in the CK (304 mg kg−1) and U (293 mg kg−1) treatments (p < 0.05).

3.4. Soil Extracellular Enzyme Activity

The activities of extracellular enzymes NAG and LAP, which are involved in organic N decomposition, were significantly increased in the 10 CSMP and U+10 CSMP treatments compared to CK (p < 0.05) (Figure 4). Both NAG and LAP activities peaked on day 45 and day 15, respectively.
The activities of extracellular enzyme involved in the OC decomposition were influenced by soil amendment, but trends relating to BG and CBH activities were not consistent. For example, the addition of 10 g kg−1 CSMP showed negative effects on BG and CBH activities. The activities of BG and CBH were lower in the 10 CSMP and U+10 CSMP treatments than in the other treatments, especially with 2 days of incubation, and the effect decreased with incubation days. In addition, the XYL and AG activities were significantly increased in the 10 CSMP and U+10 CSMP treatments compared with CK (p < 0.05).

3.5. Soil Nitrogen Transformation Rate

The effects of soil amendment on Rmin, Rnit, and Ramo are shown in Figure 5. In the whole incubation period, Rmin and Ramo decreased first and then stabilized with the increase in incubation time. The difference between treatments was mainly manifested between day 2 and 7, in which the Rmin of the U+10 CSMP treatment was the highest (17.9 mg N kg−1 d−1), followed by the 10 CSMP treatment. The results show an upward trend in the Rmin and Ramo of the corresponding N application treatments compared with the three treatments without urea application. The Rnit of the 10 CSMP and U+10 CSMP treatments were higher than those of the other treatments, and the effects peaked on day 30 of incubation. The Rnit of the other treatments, although only slight, increased continuously throughout the incubation period.
The contributions of soil variables to the dissimilarities of the N transformation rate are shown in Figure 6. The Rnit (91% explanation) showed stronger environmental associations than Rmin (57.5% explanation) and Rmin (67.3% explanation). Soil pH, NO3−N, NH4+-N, and AG activity were strong predictors of Rmin and Ramo. Rnit was mainly explained by soil NO3-N concentration and LAP activity, with a significant positive relationship. In addition, Rnit was significantly positively correlated with the activities of LAP (R = 0.770 **), XYL (R = 0.605 **), AG (R = 0.569 **), and NAG (R = 0.533 **), and was significantly negatively correlated with BG (R = −0.601 **) and CBH (R = −0.515 **).

4. Discussion

4.1. Nitrogen Transformation Regulation by Alkaline Amendment

In this study, the soil pH of all treatments increased initially and then decreased (Figure 1). The increase in soil pH in the initial period of incubation could be due to the combined effect of organic N mineralization and decarboxylation of organic anions [27], and then pH decreased due to the release of H+ by soil nitrification and the buffering effect of soil [28]. Compared with CK, 10 CSMP significantly increased the soil pH from 4.8 to more than 6.0, which confirmed the positive effect of amendment addition in reducing soil acidity (Figure 1). The basic cations were found to be the main contributor to soil pH increases, and their concentrations were significantly correlated with pH [29]. Composed of potassium gypsum, dolomite and calcium magnesium silicate minerals carrying salt-based ions, CSMP amendments can decrease exchangeable acids and reduce soil acidity [30]. In addition, it contains large amounts of carbonates and silicates that can neutralize H+ and Al3+ in soil by hydrolysis or specific adsorption and increase soil pH [31]. The improved effect of amendments on soil acidity was also related to the application amounts [32]. The results show that a lower dosage of amendment (1 g kg−1) had no significant effect on soil pH. A field experiment showed that, when the amount of amendment is low, it needs to be applied repeatedly to significantly decrease soil acidity [33].
On the first 7 days of the whole incubation, a 10 g kg−1 CSMP application could significantly promote the accumulation of NH4+-N in acidic soil, especially when it was combined with urea (Figure 2). At the same time, the 10 g kg−1 CSMP treatment was able to significantly improve Rmin and Ramo, but had little effect on Rnit (Figure 5). The mineralization of soil organic N may be the primary source of N transformation in early incubation. Furthermore, the hydrolysis of urea accelerates with the alkaline amendment. As the incubation went on, it could be observed that the Rnit under 10 g kg−1 CSMP application increased rapidly, and the peak value was significantly higher than that of CK (Figure 5). At the same time, the NH4+-N content increased significantly and the NO3-N content decreased significantly (Figure 2). This result may be due to the 10 CSMP treatment increasing the Ramo, thereby increasing the NH4+-N content in the soil, thus providing a reaction substrate for soil nitrification.

4.2. N Transformation and EEA

A protease LAP can release amino compounds by the hydrolysis of proteins [34]. During the whole incubation period, the LAP activity of the 10 CSMP treatment was significantly higher than that of CK, indicating that 10 CSMP can promote the hydrolysis of macromolecular organic N. At the same time, 10 CSMP also significantly increased the NAG activity in acidic soil, and its activity increased as incubation time went on. NAG is involved in the degradation of amino acids and is one of the ways for microorganisms to obtain N sources [35]. It indicates that 10 CSMP promoted the stepwise mineralization of macromolecular organic N to mineral N in soil by increasing the activities of LAP and NAG. The increase in LAP and NAG activities by 10 CSMP provides a substrate for nitrification.
The activities of enzymes mainly related to C decomposition is very important to maintain labile C and energy sources in soil and is closely related to the abundance of microorganisms [36]. The DOC contents were significantly influenced by 10 g kg−1 CSMP application (Figure 3); the decrease and increase effect may be due to the macromolecule OC polymerization and DOC decomposition. The results of this study show that 10 CSMP significantly increased the activities of AG and XYL in soil, while it significantly decreased the activities of BG and CBH. The role of BG and CBH in soil were to catalyze the decomposition of cellobiose and cellulose, respectively [37]. A similar result reported by [23] shows a decrease in BG activity in response to increased soil pH. In general, microorganisms give priority to utilize easily decomposed C sources in soil [38]. For example, 10 CSMP may promote the increase in available C sources for microorganisms, resulting in the decrease in cellulose utilization and enzyme secretion, thereby reducing related enzyme activity. In addition, increased soil pH may often enhance the solubility and degradability of soil organic matter (SOM) by increasing the number of negative charges in the soil components and the repulsive forces between molecules [39]. Substrate diffusion, an important factor regulating the reaction rates between extracellular enzymes and organic substrates, would be less limited with increased SOM solubility, resulting in a smaller investment of resources from soil microorganisms to extracellular enzymes [23]. It is known that AG and XYL release glucose by participating in the metabolic hydrolysis of starch, glycogen, and xylan, respectively. The results herein suggest that the utilization of soil C was achieved by secretion of AG and XYL, thereby increasing microbial activity. This process mainly affected N transformation but had no significant effect on Rnit. The mineralization of soil organic N may be the primary source of N transformation in early incubation. As the incubation went on, it could be observed that the Rnit of the 10 CSMP treatment increased rapidly, and the peak value was significantly higher than that of CK. At the same time, the NH4+-N content increased significantly and the NO3-N content decreased significantly. This result may be due to the 10 CSMP treatment increasing the Rmin, thereby increasing the NH4+-N content in the soil, thus providing a reaction substrate for soil nitrification.

5. Conclusions

The present study shows that 10 g kg−1 CMSP amendment increased soil pH, which in turn accelerated the N supply and maintained the mineral N content in acidic soil. Soil mineralization, ammonification, and nitrification rates increased with increased NAG, ALP, XYL, and AG, and decreased BG and CBH under the 10 g kg−1 CMSP amendment. Such knowledge should inform N availability in acidic soils and aid growers with respect to better agronomic and environmental outcomes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/agronomy12123015/s1, Table S1: Physical and chemical properties of the soil used in this study. Table S2: Chemical composition of the mineral soil amendment used in the present study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.F. and Q.C.; methodology, W.C.; software, J.Y.; validation, X.B., S.C. and Y.M.; formal analysis, J.Y.; investigation, X.B.; data curation, S.Z. and S.D.; writing—original draft preparation, J.Y.; writing—review and editing, J.Y. and B.T.; visualization, J.Y.; supervision, Q.C.; project administration, R.L.; funding acquisition, R.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42007031).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments, which greatly improved the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bian, M.; Zhou, M.; Sun, D.; Li, C. Molecular approaches unravel the mechanism of acid soil tolerance in plants. Crop J. 2013, 1, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Gu, X.; Wang, Y.; Laanbroek, H.J.; Xu, X.; Song, B.; Huo, Y.; Chen, S.; Li, L.; Zhang, L. Saturated N2O emission rates occur above the nitrogen deposition level predicted for the semi-arid grasslands of Inner Mongolia, China. Geoderma 2019, 341, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cheng, Y.; Zhang, H.; Chen, Z.; Wang, J.; Cai, Z.; Sun, N.; Wang, S.; Zhang, J.; Chang, S.X.; Xu, M.; et al. Contrasting effects of different pH-raising materials on N2O emissions in acidic upland soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2021, 72, 432–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Guo, J.H.; Liu, X.J.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, J.L.; Han, W.X.; Zhang, W.F.; Christie, P.; Goulding, K.W.T.; Vitousek, P.M.; Zhang, F.S. Significant Acidification in Major Chinese Croplands. Science 2010, 327, 1008–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Kunhikrishnan, A.; Thangarajan, R.; Bolan, N.S.; Xu, Y.; Mandal, S.; Gleeson, D.B.; Seshadri, B.; Zaman, M.; Barton, L.; Tang, C.; et al. Chapter One—Functional Relationships of Soil Acidification, Liming, and Greenhouse Gas Flux. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; pp. 1–71. [Google Scholar]
  6. Prommer, J.; Wanek, W.; Hofhansl, F.; Trojan, D.; Offre, P.; Urich, T.; Schleper, C.; Sassmann, S.; Kitzler, B.; Soja, G.; et al. Biochar Decelerates Soil Organic Nitrogen Cycling but Stimulates Soil Nitrification in a Temperate Arable Field Trial. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e86388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. De Boer, W.; Kowalchuk, G. Nitrification in acid soils: Micro-organisms and mechanisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2001, 33, 853–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, Y.; Chapman, S.J.; Nicol, G.W.; Yao, H. Nitrification and nitrifiers in acidic soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 116, 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dimkpa, C.O.; Fugice, J.; Singh, U.; Lewis, T.D. Development of fertilizers for enhanced nitrogen use efficiency—Trends and perspectives. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 731, 139113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Menge, D.N.L.; Hedin, L.O.; Pacala, S.W. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Limitation over Long-Term Ecosystem Development in Terrestrial Ecosystems. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e42045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gao, S.; DeLuca, T.H.; Cleveland, C.C. Biochar additions alter phosphorus and nitrogen availability in agricultural ecosystems: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 654, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Xu, H.-J.; Wang, X.-H.; Li, H.; Yao, H.-Y.; Su, J.-Q.; Zhu, Y.-G. Biochar Impacts Soil Microbial Community Composition and Nitrogen Cycling in an Acidic Soil Planted with Rape. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 9391–9399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Shen, Y.; Xu, Y.; Liu, Z.; Lin, H.; Zhang, Y.; Song, X.; Liu, P.; Li, Y.; Chen, J.; Chen, H.; et al. Effects of Byproduct Amendment on Enzyme Activities and Physicochemical Properties of Acidic Orchard Soil from Jiaodong Peninsula of China. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2018, 49, 913–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Li, J.-Y.; Wang, N.; Xu, R.-K.; Tiwari, D. Potential of Industrial Byproducts in Ameliorating Acidity and Aluminum Toxicity of Soils Under Tea Plantation. Pedosphere 2010, 20, 645–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shi, R.; Lai, H.; Ni, N.; Nkoh, J.N.; Guan, P.; Lu, H.; He, X.; Zhao, W.; Xu, C.; Liu, Z.; et al. Comparing ameliorative effects of biomass ash and alkaline slag on an acidic Ultisol under artificial Masson pine: A field experiment. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 297, 113306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zheng, J.; Luan, L.; Luo, Y.; Fan, J.; Xu, Q.; Sun, B.; Jiang, Y. Biochar and lime amendments promote soil nitrification and nitrogen use efficiency by differentially mediating ammonia-oxidizer community in an acidic soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 180, 104619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Schulten, H.-R.; Schnitzer, M. The chemistry of soil organic nitrogen: A review. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1997, 26, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ashton, I.W.; Miller, A.E.; Bowman, W.D.; Suding, K.N. Niche complementarity due to plasticity in resource use: Plant partitioning of chemical N forms. Ecology 2010, 91, 3252–3260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Keuper, F.; Dorrepaal, E.; van Bodegom, P.M.; van Logtestijn, R.; Venhuizen, G.; van Hal, J.; Aerts, R. Experimentally increased nutrient availability at the permafrost thaw front selectively enhances biomass production of deep-rooting subarctic peatland species. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 4257–4266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schimel, J.P.; Bennett, J. Nitrogen mineralization: Challenges of a changing paradigm. Ecology 2004, 85, 591–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ouyang, Y.; Reeve, J.R.; Norton, J.M. Soil enzyme activities and abundance of microbial functional genes involved in nitrogen transformations in an organic farming system. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2018, 54, 437–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. E Compton, J.; Boone, R.D. Soil nitrogen transformations and the role of light fraction organic matter in forest soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002, 34, 933–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Stark, S.; Männistö, M.K.; Eskelinen, A. Nutrient availability and pH jointly constrain microbial extracellular enzyme activities in nutrient-poor tundra soils. Plant Soil 2014, 383, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hook, P.B.; Burke, I.C. Evaluation of Methods for Estimating Net Nitrogen Mineralization in a Semiarid Grassland. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1995, 59, 831–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Turner, B.L. Variation in pH Optima of Hydrolytic Enzyme Activities in Tropical Rain Forest Soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 6485–6493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Liaw, A.; Wiener, M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2002, 2, 18–22. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yan, F.; Schubert, S.; Mengel, K. Soil pH increase due to biological decarboxylation of organic anions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1996, 28, 617–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wrage, N.; Velthof, G.L.; van Beusichem, M.L.; Oenema, O. Role of nitrifier denitrification in the production of nitrous oxide. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2001, 33, 1723–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pocknee, S.; Sumner, M.E. Cation and Nitrogen Contents of Organic Matter Determine Its Soil Liming Potential. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997, 61, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shen, Y.; Lin, H.; Song, X.; Liu, P.; Bo, L.; Chen, J.; Yang, L. Short-term effects of byproduct amendments and lime on physicochemical and microbiological properties of acidic soil from Jiaodong Peninsula of China. Ciência Rural. 2019, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Castro, G.; Crusciol, C. Effects of superficial liming and silicate application on soil fertility and crop yield under rotation. Geoderma 2013, 195–196, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Rheinheimer, D.S.; Tiecher, T.; Gonzatto, R.; Zafar, M.; Brunetto, G. Residual effect of surface-applied lime on soil acidity properties in a long-term experiment under no-till in a Southern Brazilian sandy Ultisol. Geoderma 2018, 313, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ji, J.H.; Li, X.H.; Liu, X.M.; Hou, H.Q.; Liu, Y.R.; Lyu, Z.Z.; Lan, X.J.; Chen, J.Q. Effects of fertilizer of calcium silicon magnesium potassium on the dynamics of soil acidity and exchangeable base cation in paddy field of southern China. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 30, 583–592. [Google Scholar]
  34. Salazar, A.; Rousk, K.; Jónsdóttir, I.S.; Bellenger, J.; Andrésson, S. Faster nitrogen cycling and more fungal and root biomass in cold ecosystems under experimental warming: A meta-analysis. Ecology 2020, 101, e02938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Geisseler, D.; Horwath, W.R.; Joergensen, R.G.; Ludwig, B. Pathways of nitrogen utilization by soil microorganisms—A review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010, 42, 2058–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ahmed, A.; Nasim, F.U.; Batool, K.; Bibi, A. Microbial β-glucosidase: Sources, production and applications. Appl. Env. Microb. 2017, 5, 31–46. [Google Scholar]
  37. Saiya-Cork, K.; Sinsabaugh, R.; Zak, D. The effects of long term nitrogen deposition on extracellular enzyme activity in an Acer saccharum forest soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002, 34, 1309–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Horwath, W.; Paul, E.A. Carbon cycling: The dynamics and formation of organic matter. Soil Microbiol. Ecol. Biochem. 2015, 4, 339–382. [Google Scholar]
  39. Whittinghill, K.A.; Hobbie, S. Effects of pH and calcium on soil organic matter dynamics in Ala -skan tundra. Biogeochemistry 2012, 111, 569–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Soil pH as affected by the amendment during the incubation. CK, no mineral amendments or urea; U, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 soil; 1 CSMP, 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+1 CSMP, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 + 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; 10 CSMP, 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+10 CSMP, 60 mg N kg−1 + 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (n = 3).
Figure 1. Soil pH as affected by the amendment during the incubation. CK, no mineral amendments or urea; U, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 soil; 1 CSMP, 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+1 CSMP, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 + 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; 10 CSMP, 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+10 CSMP, 60 mg N kg−1 + 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (n = 3).
Agronomy 12 03015 g001
Figure 2. Soil ammonium (a) and nitrate (b) concentrations as affected by the amendment during the incubation. CK, no mineral amendments or urea; U, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 soil; 1 CSMP, 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+1 CSMP, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 + 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; 10 CSMP, 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+10 CSMP, 60 mg N kg−1 + 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (n = 3). Different lowercases indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Soil ammonium (a) and nitrate (b) concentrations as affected by the amendment during the incubation. CK, no mineral amendments or urea; U, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 soil; 1 CSMP, 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+1 CSMP, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 + 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; 10 CSMP, 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+10 CSMP, 60 mg N kg−1 + 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (n = 3). Different lowercases indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 12 03015 g002
Figure 3. Soil dissolved organic carbon as affected by the amendment during the incubation. CK, no mineral amendments or urea; U, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 soil; 1 CSMP, 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+1 CSMP, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 + 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; 10 CSMP, 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+10 CSMP, 60 mg N kg−1 + 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (n = 3). Different lowercases indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Soil dissolved organic carbon as affected by the amendment during the incubation. CK, no mineral amendments or urea; U, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 soil; 1 CSMP, 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+1 CSMP, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 + 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; 10 CSMP, 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+10 CSMP, 60 mg N kg−1 + 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (n = 3). Different lowercases indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 12 03015 g003
Figure 4. Soil extracellular enzyme activities (EEAs) as affected by the amendment during the incubation. CK, no mineral amendments or urea; U, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 soil; 1 CSMP, 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+1 CSMP, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 + 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; 10 CSMP, 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+10 CSMP, 60 mg N kg−1 + 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil. NAG, β−1,4−N−acetylglucosaminidase; LAP, leucine aminopeptidase; BG, β−1,4−glucosidase; CBH, β−D−cellobiosidase; AG, α−1,4−glucosidase; XYL, β−xylosidase. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (n = 3). Different lowercases indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Soil extracellular enzyme activities (EEAs) as affected by the amendment during the incubation. CK, no mineral amendments or urea; U, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 soil; 1 CSMP, 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+1 CSMP, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 + 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; 10 CSMP, 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+10 CSMP, 60 mg N kg−1 + 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil. NAG, β−1,4−N−acetylglucosaminidase; LAP, leucine aminopeptidase; BG, β−1,4−glucosidase; CBH, β−D−cellobiosidase; AG, α−1,4−glucosidase; XYL, β−xylosidase. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (n = 3). Different lowercases indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 12 03015 g004
Figure 5. Soil net nitrogen mineralization rate (Rmin) (a), soil net nitrification rate (Rnit) (b) and soil net annonification rate (Ramo) (c) during the incubation period for different treatments. CK, no mineral amendments or urea; U, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 soil; 1 CSMP, 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+1 CSMP, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 + 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; 10 CSMP, 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+10 CSMP, 60 mg N kg−1 + 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (n = 3). Different lowercases indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Soil net nitrogen mineralization rate (Rmin) (a), soil net nitrification rate (Rnit) (b) and soil net annonification rate (Ramo) (c) during the incubation period for different treatments. CK, no mineral amendments or urea; U, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 soil; 1 CSMP, 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+1 CSMP, urea at 60 mg N kg−1 + 1 g CSMP kg−1 soil; 10 CSMP, 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil; U+10 CSMP, 60 mg N kg−1 + 10 g CSMP kg−1 soil. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (n = 3). Different lowercases indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 12 03015 g005
Figure 6. Random Forest heatmap indicating relationship of nitrogen transformation rate and soil variables. Circle size represents the variable importance (that is, proportion of explained variability calculated via multiple regression modeling and variance decomposition analysis based on out−of−bag CV). Colors represent Spearman correlations (n = 90). Rmin, Soil net N mineralization rate; Rnit soil net nitrification rate; NAG, β−1,4−N−acetylglucosaminidase; LAP, leucine aminopeptidase; BG, β−1,4−glucosidase; CBH, β−D−cellobiosidase; AG, α−1,4−glucosidase; XYL, β−xylosidase.
Figure 6. Random Forest heatmap indicating relationship of nitrogen transformation rate and soil variables. Circle size represents the variable importance (that is, proportion of explained variability calculated via multiple regression modeling and variance decomposition analysis based on out−of−bag CV). Colors represent Spearman correlations (n = 90). Rmin, Soil net N mineralization rate; Rnit soil net nitrification rate; NAG, β−1,4−N−acetylglucosaminidase; LAP, leucine aminopeptidase; BG, β−1,4−glucosidase; CBH, β−D−cellobiosidase; AG, α−1,4−glucosidase; XYL, β−xylosidase.
Agronomy 12 03015 g006
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yin, J.; Bai, X.; Fenton, O.; Tang, B.; Chen, S.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, S.; Cao, W.; Ding, S.; Liu, R.; et al. Extracellular Enzyme Patterns Provide New Insights Regarding Nitrogen Transformation Induced by Alkaline Amendment of Acidic Soil. Agronomy 2022, 12, 3015. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy12123015

AMA Style

Yin J, Bai X, Fenton O, Tang B, Chen S, Ma Y, Zhang S, Cao W, Ding S, Liu R, et al. Extracellular Enzyme Patterns Provide New Insights Regarding Nitrogen Transformation Induced by Alkaline Amendment of Acidic Soil. Agronomy. 2022; 12(12):3015. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy12123015

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yin, Junhui, Xin Bai, Owen Fenton, Bingbing Tang, Shuo Chen, Yan Ma, Shuai Zhang, Wenchao Cao, Shuai Ding, Rui Liu, and et al. 2022. "Extracellular Enzyme Patterns Provide New Insights Regarding Nitrogen Transformation Induced by Alkaline Amendment of Acidic Soil" Agronomy 12, no. 12: 3015. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy12123015

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop