Unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration while measuring the effect of a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity

Gabriela Bautista; Bence Mátyás; Isabel Carpio; Richard Vilches; Karina Pazmino

doi:10.12688/f1000research.12936.2

Home Browse Unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration while measuring the...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Note

Revised

Unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration while measuring the effect of a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Gabriela Bautista ^1,2, Bence Mátyás^2,3, Isabel Carpio², Richard Vilches³, Karina Pazmino^4,5

Gabriela Bautista ^1,2, Bence Mátyás^2,3, [...] Isabel Carpio², Richard Vilches³, Karina Pazmino^4,5

PUBLISHED 18 Dec 2017

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Sciences, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
² Grupo de Investigación Mentoria y Gestión del Cambio, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Cuenca, Ecuador
³ Grupo de Investigación en Ciencias Ambientales, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Quito, Ecuador
⁴ Ingeneria Ambiental, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Quito, Ecuador
⁵ Grupo de Innovación Educativa UPS en Ciencas Básicas, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Quito, Ecuador

Gabriela Bautista
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Bence Mátyás
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Isabel Carpio
Roles: Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

Richard Vilches
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Karina Pazmino
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

The number of studies investigating the effect of bio-fertilizers is increasing because of their importance in sustainable agriculture and environmental quality. In our experiments, we measured the effect of different fertilizers on soil respiration. In the present study, we were looking for the cause of unexpected changes in CO2 values while examining Chernozem soil samples. We concluded that CO2 oxidizing microbes or methanotrophs may be present in the soil that periodically consume CO2 . This is unusual for a sample taken from the upper layer of well-ventilated Chernozem soil with optimal moisture content.

Keywords

bio-fertilizer, soil respiration, Chernozem, OxiTop

Corresponding author: Gabriela Bautista

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2017 Bautista G et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

How to cite: Bautista G, Mátyás B, Carpio I et al. Unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration while measuring the effect of a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1950 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12936.2) First published: 03 Nov 2017, 6:1950 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12936.1) Latest published: 18 Dec 2017, 6:1950 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12936.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Taking the referees’ advice:

We extended the Introduction chapter to clarify the importance of measuring physical and chemical soil properties when examining soil microbiological activities.

We extended the Methods chapter and named the methods and required sample preparations that were applied for measuring the main soil properties.

Dataset 1 was replaced with table 1 in the main text. This was also updated with a new parameter, Total Nitrogen, according to Prof. Muhammad Aslam Ali's advice.

We responded by comments to Prof. Muhammad Aslam Ali's questions related to the experimental setups, and marks of the figures.

We named 3 more co-authors who strongly contributed to the measurements of the physical and chemical soil properties.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Muhammad Aslam Ali

Introduction

The soil can be characterized by physical, chemical and microbiological properties^1–4. The quantitative (microbial biomass, number of bacteria)^5,6 and qualitative (enzymatic activity, soil respiration)^7,8 microbiological properties of the soil greatly contribute to the impact analysis of land use^9–11, nutrition¹² and soil management¹³. Research related to the benefits of microbes as biofertilizer has become increasingly important in the agricultural sector. This is due to the possibility of achieving higher crop yields while minimizing negative impact on the environment. It is well known that bio-fertilizers increase plant yield and improve soil fertility^14–16. Soil respiration is an important indicator of soil microbial activity^17,18. In our experiments, we measured the effect of different chemicals^19–22 and a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity, using both well-established and novel methods under laboratory conditions. We present some unexpected results from a setup in which Chernozem soil samples were examined.

Methods

Sampling site

A total of 24 soil samples were collected near Debrecen, Hungary, on the 19th April 2016, from an upper layer (0–20 cm) of Chernozem soil (47°33’ 55.36” N; 21°28’ 12.27” E).

Treatment

The phylazonit bio-fertilizer (produced by Phylazonit.Ltd, Hungary) with the following composition: Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus circulans, Pseudomonas putida, was tested (15 l/ha) in an optimized ratio for soil injection. Number of bacteria: 10⁹ piece/cm³.

Soil properties

Soil moisture content was determined gravimetrically, drying the soil at 105°C for 24 hours according to Klimes-Szmik’s method (1970)²³. Silt and clay fractions were measured by the settling method²⁴. We measured the Arany-type plasticity index according to Stefanovits (1975)^25–27, while the minimal water capacity and soil texture were determined by Klimes-Szmik’s method²³. To measure the chemical properties of the soil, the samples were sieved through 2mm mesh and pre-incubated at 25°C for 72 hours. Soil pH in distilled water and in 1M potassium chloride KCl (soil/water, 1/2.5, w/w) were determined according to Buzás (1988)²⁴. The electrical conductivity (EC) (soil/water, 1/5, w/w) was then determined with a glass electrode according to Kong et al, 2013²⁸. The hydrolytic acidity (y1) was measured according to Buzás (1988)²⁴, while the concentration of NO₃⁻ -N was determined according to Felföldy (1987)²⁹. Total nitrogen was determined according to Kong et al. (2013)²⁸. Nitrate exploration was carried out after 14 days incubation according to Felföldy (1987)²⁹. We determined AL-P₂O₅ and ALK₂O based on Szegi’s method (1979)³⁰. The humus content was determined using potassium dichromate according to Székely (1988)³¹. Total number of bacteria was counted in bouillon agar using the plate dilution method (Szegi, 1979)³⁰. We measured the organic carbon concentration in K₂SO₄ extract, following the protocol in Székely et al. (1988)³¹. Microbial biomass carbon (MBC) was measured using the chloroform fumigation-extraction method. Soil samples were fumigated by adding alcohol-free chloroform at 25°C for 24 hours. The fumigated and unfumigated soil samples were extracted with 50 ml 0.5 M potassium sulfate (K₂SO₄) according to Vance et al. (1987)³². The following formula was applied to calculate the MBC (Kong et al., 2013)²⁸:

MBC = 2.22 x EC

where EC = organic C extracted from fumigated soils – organic C extracted from unfumigated soils (Table 1).

Table 1. Average values for a number of different soil properties.

Soil property	Value	Unit	Protocol
Silt and clay fraction	37.48	%	BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231 Kiadó. Budapest.
Hygroscopicity	2.23	hy	BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231 Kiadó. Budapest.
Arany-type of plasticity limit	39	KA	Szegi
Moisture content	19–21	%	Szegi
Hydrolytic acidity	5.94	y1	BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231 Kiadó. Budapest.
organic-C	1.4	%	Székely
Nitrate-N	7.4	mg/kg	Hayashi A, Sakamoto K, Yoshida T 1997: A rapid method for determination of nitrate in soil by hydrazine reduction produce. Jpn. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.,68, 322
Total-N	2.6	mg g–1 D.S
AL-soluble P	48.6	P2O5 mg/kg	Szegi
AL-soluble K	222	K2O mg/kg	Szegi
pH (H2O)	6.8	pH	BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231 Kiadó. Budapest.
pH (KCl)	6.1	pH	BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231 Kiadó. Budapest.
Topsoil	80–90	cm	Szegi
Soil texture	Loam		BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231 Kiadó. Budapest.
Minimal water capacity	26.22	VKmin	Szegi
Humus content	2.81	%	BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231 Kiadó. Budapest.
Total number of bacteria	9.59	1.000.000 colony/g	Szegi
Nitrate exploration	34.28	mg/kg	Felföldy
Microbial biomass carbon	333	mg/kg	Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS 1987: An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass-C. Soil Biol. Biochem.,19, 703–707.

Soil respiration

The experimental design was completely randomized, treatments were incubations (25°C). An OxiTop OC110 respirometer was used to quantify the release and capture of CO₂ that is automatically determined by the device after the biological oxygen demand (BOD) required for the degradation of organic matter has been measured. We used a 500 ml glass bottle system following the instruction manual (https://www.wtw.com/en/service/downloads/operating-manuals.html). 10g of soil sample were placed into OxiTop flasks, and capped with the sensor heads according to Barrales-Brito et al. (2014)³³. 2.5g of CO₂ absorber (sodalime) were then added to a tank to absorb the generated CO₂³³. An induced method was also used, in which 0.1g glucose was added to the soil samples. Each treatment was replicated four times. As Figure 1 shows, four samples were always measured in parallel: Absolute control (does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose), Induced control (contains added glucose), Treated (contains bio-fertilizer) and Induced treated (contains bio-fertilizer and glucose). The Oxitop automatically provides the values related to CO₂ production according to the pressure change measured by its sensor (there is no need to carry out titrations or any additional work).

Figure 1. Differences in CO₂ production of treated and control soil samples.

The induced method was carried out so that the difference between the results of control and the treated soil samples could become detectable sooner. Glucose was applied as inducer. As expected the CO₂ values increase or stagnate.

Results

The treated samples produced more CO₂ than the controls, as expected (Dataset 1). Each repeat with the exception of one showed increasing CO₂ values (Figure 1), as the pressure continuously decreased in the bottle due to gas (oxygen) consumption. One sample produced unexpected results (Figure 2). In the first 12 hours, the treated samples produced more CO₂ than the controls in each measurement. Following this, a fluctuation in the values was observed.

Figure 2. This sample shows CO₂ values periodically decreasing in all conditions.

After examining the Oxitop device’s operation, this pattern became more interesting to us, as the device quantifies CO₂ production by measuring BOD required for the degradation of organic matter. From the decreasing CO₂ values, we conclude that there was oxygen production and/or CO₂ consumption in the Oxitop bottles.

Dataset 1.Average values of produced CO2 (ml/l) with different treatments. ’Control’ does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose. ’Control+Glucose’ contains 0,1 g of added glucose. ’Biofertilizer’ contains Phylazonit biofertilizer. ’Biofertilizer+Glucose’ contains Phylazonit biofertilizer and 0,1 g of added glucose.

Dataset 2.Comparison of produced CO2 (ml/l) in the sample in which unexpected (periodically decreasing CO2) values can be observed. ’Control’ does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose. ’Control+Glucose’ contains 0,1 g of added glucose. ’Biofertilizer’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer. ’Biofertilizer+Glucose’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer and 0,1 g of added glucose.

Discussion

In a closed system where the pressure decreases due to oxygen consumption, the values of CO2 production must increase or stagnate with the passage of time, but this was not the case with one of the samples (Figure 2). Here, a decrease in CO₂ occurred (Dataset 2). The following possible explanations were excluded:

Presence of algae: there was no light in the incubator, so there was no photosynthesis.
Changing pressure caused by changing temperature: the temperature was constant in the setup.
Absorption by the water in the sample: all other samples that produced increasing amount of CO₂ had the same or comparable moisture content.

One reason that seemed more likely was that CO₂ oxidizing microbes or methanotrophs may have been present in the soil, using the produced CO₂periodically. This is unusual, since most of the studies report the presence of these bacteria in seawater³⁴, paddy fields³⁵ or industrial processes³⁶ and not in well-ventilated Chernozem soil. Further genomics research could detect the bacterial strains that consumed the CO₂ in this soil.

Data availability

Dataset 1: Average values of produced CO₂ (ml/l) with different treatments. ’Control’ does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose. ’Control+Glucose’ contains 0,1 g of added glucose. ’Biofertilizer’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer. ’Biofertilizer+Glucose’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer and 0,1 g of added glucose. DOI, 10.5256/f1000research.12936.d182663³⁷.

Dataset 2: Comparison of produced CO₂ (ml/l) in the sample in which unexpected (periodically decreasing CO₂) values can be observed. ’Control’ does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose. ’Control+Glucose’ contains 0,1 g of added glucose. ’Biofertilizer’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer. ’Biofertilizer+Glucose’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer and 0,1 g of added glucose. DOI, 10.5256/f1000research.12936.d182664³⁸.

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Sciences at University of Debrecen for providing the experimental setups.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Sitkei Gy: Mez˝ogazdasági és erdészeti járm˝uvek modellezése. Akadémiai Kiadó. 1986; (86).
2. Lauber CL, Strickland MS, Bradford MA, et al.: The influence of soil properties on the structure of bacterial and fungal communities across land-use types. Soil Biol Biochem. 2008; 40(9): 2407–2415. Publisher Full Text
3. Ulloa C, Pazmiño K, Cárdenas D, et al.: Desarrollo de repelencia al agua en suelos afectados por incendios, en una zona del parque metropolitano del distrito metropolitano de Quito. La Granja: Journal of Life Sciences. 2014; 19(1): 34–43. Publisher Full Text
4. Singla A, Dubey SK, Singh A, et al.: Effect of biogas digested slurry-based biochar on methane flux and methanogenic archaeal diversity in paddy soil. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2014; 197: 278–287. Publisher Full Text
5. Wardle DA: A comparative assessment of factors which influence microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen levels in soil. Biol Rev. 1992; 67(3): 321–358. Publisher Full Text
6. Olsen RA, Bakken LR: Viability of soil bacteria: Optimization of plate-counting technique and comparison between total counts and plate counts within different size groups. Microb Ecol. 1987; 13(1): 59–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Dick RP: Soil Enzyme Activities as Indicators of Soil Quality. Oregon Agric Exp Stn Journal. 1994; (10): 195. Reference Source
8. Hanson PJ, Edwards NT, Garten CT, et al.: Separating root and soil microbial contributions to soil respiration: A review of methods and observations. Biogeochemistry. 2000; 48(1): 115–146. Publisher Full Text
9. Jangid K, Williams MA, Franzluebbers AJ, et al.: Land-use history has a stronger impact on soil microbial community composition than aboveground vegetation and soil properties. Soil Biol Biochem. 2011; 43(10): 2184–2193. Publisher Full Text
10. Cachipuendo-Ulcuango CJ, Requelme N, Gualavisí Cachiguango OM, et al.: Community use of water and land for sustainable production of pasture. La Granja: Journal of Life Sciences. 2017; 26(2): 142–154. Reference Source
11. Granda MJ, Yánez P: Estudio sobre la percepcion de los beneficios del programa socio bosque en la region amazonica ecuatoriana. La Granja: Journal of Life Sciences. 2017; 26(2): 28–37. Publisher Full Text
12. Vineela C, Wani SP, Srinivasarao CH, et al.: Microbial properties of soils as affected by cropping and nutrient management practices in several long-term manurial experiments in the semi-arid tropics of India. Appl Soil Ecol. 2008; 40(1): 165–173. Publisher Full Text
13. Olivares BO: Description of soil management in agricultural production systems of sector Hammock in Anzoategui, Venezuela. La Granja: Journal of Life Sciences. 2016; 23(1): 14–24. Reference Source
14. El-Yazeid A, Abou-Aly H, Mady M, et al.: Enhancing growth, productivity and quality of squash plants using phosphate dissolving microorganisms (bio phosphor) combined with boron foliar spray. Res J Agr Biol Sci. 2007; 3(4): 274–286. Reference Source
15. Garg V, Kukreja K, Singla A: Efficacy of native rhizobial strains for nodulation and plant biomass production in berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum L). AgricInternational. 2016; 3(1–2): 89–95. Reference Source
16. Garg V, Kukreja K, Gera R, et al.: Production of indole-3-acetic acid by berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum L.) rhizobia isolated from Haryana, India. Agr Sci Digest. 2015; 35(3): 229–232. Publisher Full Text
17. Anderson TH, Domsch KH: The metabolic quotient for CO₂ (qCO₂) as a specific activity parameter to assess the effects of environmental conditions, such as ph, on the microbial biomass of forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 1993; 25(3): 393–395. Publisher Full Text
18. Allison SD, Czimczik CI, Treseder KK: Microbial activity and soil respiration under nitrogen addition in Alaskan boreal forest. Glob Chang Biol. 2008; 14(5): 1156–1168. Publisher Full Text
19. Mátyás B, Kátai J, Horváth J: Comparative analysis of certain soil microbiological characteristics of carbon cycle. Acta Agraria. 2016; (69): 137–142. Reference Source
20. Horváth J, Mátyás B, Kátai J: Impact of agronomic factors on urease enzyme activity in a long term fertilizer experiment. Acta Agraria. 2016; (68): 43–48. Reference Source
21. Mátyás B, Tállai M, Kátai J, et al.: The impact of fertilisation on a few microbiological parameters of the carbon cycle. Acta Agraria. 2015; (64): 45–50. Reference Source
22. Horváth J, Tállai M, Mátyás B: A talaj nitrogéntartalmának és néhány egyéb tulajdonságának változása egytrágyázási tartamkísérletben csernozjom talajon. Acta Agraria. 2015; (64): 39–44.
23. Klimes-Szmik A: A talajok fizikai tulajdonságainak vizsgálata. Talaj és trágyvizsgálati módszerek. 1970; (48): 83–161.
24. Buzás I: Manual of Soil and Agrochemical Analysis. INDA 4231 Kiadó. Budapest, 1988; 1.
25. Stefanovits Talajtan P: Mezogazdasági Kiadó. Budapest, 1975.
26. Oades JM: Associations of Colloids in Soil Aggregates. Soil Colloids and their Associations in Aggregates. (Chapter 17) 1990; 214: 463–483. Publisher Full Text
27. Standard: MSZ-08 0205:1978. Hungarian Standards Institution, 1978.
28. Kong Y, Nagano H, Kátai J, et al.: CO₂, N₂O and CH₄ production/consumption potentials of soils under different land-use types in central Japan and eastern Hungary. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2013; 59(3): 455–462. Publisher Full Text
29. Felföldy L: A biológiai vízmin˝osítés. Budapest kidadó, 1987; (59): 172–174.
30. Szegi J: Talajmikrobiológiai vizsgálati módszerek. Mezogazdasági Kiadó, Budapest, 1979; 250–256. Reference Source
31. Székely Á: Talaj-és agrokémiai vizsgálati módszerek 2. Mezogazdasági kiadó, 1988; 115.
32. Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS: An extractionmethod for measuring soil microbial biomass-C. Soil Biol Biochem. 1987; 19(6): 703–707. Publisher Full Text
33. Barreles-Brito E, Etchevers-Barra J, Hidalgo-Moreno C, et al.: Determinación in vitro de la emisión de CO₂ en muestras de mantillo in vitro determination of CO₂ emission in forest litter. Agrociencia. 2014; 48(7): 679–690. Reference Source
34. Bae SL, Kwak K, Kim S, et al.: Isolation and characterization of CO₂-fixing hydrogen-oxidizing marine bacteria. J Biosci Bioeng. 2001; 91(5): 442–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Singla A, Inubushi K: CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O production potential of paddy soil after biogas byproducts application under waterlogged condition. Int J Agric Environ Biotech. 2013; 6(2): 233–239. Reference Source
36. Kurek I, Reed JS, Dyson L, et al.: Engineered CO2-Fixing Chemotrophic Microorganisms Producing Carbon-Based Products and Methods of Using the Same. Patent, US20170152533 A1. 2017. Reference Source
37. Bautista G, Mátyás B, Carpio I, et al.: Dataset 1 in: Unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration while measuring the effect of a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity. F1000Research. 2017. Data Source
38. Bautista G, Mátyás B, Carpio I, et al.: Dataset 2 in: Unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration while measuring the effect of a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity. F1000Research. 2017. Data Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 03 Nov 2017

Author details Author details

Gabriela Bautista
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Bence Mátyás
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Isabel Carpio
Roles: Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

Richard Vilches
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Karina Pazmino
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 18 Dec 2017, 6:1950

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12936.2

version 1

Published: 03 Nov 2017, 6:1950

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12936.1

© 2017 Bautista G et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Bautista G, Mátyás B, Carpio I et al. Unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration while measuring the effect of a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1950 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12936.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 18 Dec 2017

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 22 Dec 2017

Muhammad Aslam Ali, Department of Environmental Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.14500.r29290

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 03 Nov 2017

Views

Reviewer Report 29 Nov 2017

Muhammad Aslam Ali, Department of Environmental Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.14027.r27583

1. Why did the authors select Phylazonit biofertilizer? Does it contain any methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors? Didn’t find the composition.
2. Why not investigate the CO2 production rate with varying levels such as 0.5%, 1% and 5% substrates application in soils?
2. What were the initial content of organic carbon, total nitrogen, soil pH, redox status (Soil Eh) and microbial composition of the collected 24 soil samples?
3. How did the researchers control the pressure within the glass bottles during the experimental period?
4. How did the authors maintain moisture levels or water filled pore space uniformity in the 24 soil samples containing glass bottles?
5. Why didn’t you collect the gas samples evolved from the soils in glass bottles at varying time hours?
6. Why didn’t you follow the light/dark conditions in the Incubator where the glass bottles were kept?
7. All the Figures are not clear, no contrasting colors or bullets with lines used to differentiate the treatments.
8. How were soil microbial activities assessed? Methanogens and methanotroph’s relative intensity were not found in this script, which are the major focus related to the current research topic.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Soil GHGs flux measurement, soil microbes & environment

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 18 Dec 2017

Gabriela Bautista, Grupo de Investigación Mentoria y Gestión del Cambio, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Cuenca, Ecuador

18 Dec 2017

Author Response
Dear Prof. Muhammad Aslam Ali

We are trying to answer your questions, and submit a second version of the manuscript in order to clarify the following points.

1. Why ... Continue reading
Dear Prof. Muhammad Aslam Ali

We are trying to answer your questions, and submit a second version of the manuscript in order to clarify the following points.

1. Why did the authors select Phylazonit biofertilizer? Does it contain any methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors? Didn’t find the composition.

The Phylazonit Ltd. provided the biofertilzer for test.
The Methods chapter begins with the information related to the composition: "Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus circulans, Pseudomonas putida, in an optimized ratio for soil injection". We did not say that the fertilizer contains methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors. Thats why the results presented in the paper are unexpected.

2. Why not investigate the CO2 production rate with varying levels such as 0.5%, 1% and 5% substrates application in soils?

This Research note discusses only unexpected results come from an experiment that was carried out using Oxitop devices. This is part of a project in which more methods are applied. In an other method (using liquid-alkaline absorption) is possible to setup the different levels, but that is not part of the discussion of the present paper. Using Oxitop bottles only one level is possible for the setup.

2. What were the initial content of organic carbon, total nitrogen, soil pH, redox status (Soil Eh) and microbial composition of the collected 24 soil samples?

In the Dataset 1: Average values for a number of different soil properties you can find the main phyical, chemical and microbial soil properties such as pH (H2O), pH (KCl), Organic carbon. We will extend the dataset with the Total Nitrogen in the second version of the paper.

3. How did the researchers control the pressure within the glass bottles during the experimental period?

The Oxitop automatically measures the changes in the bottles due to gas consumption by its sensor, there is no needed to apply external measurement.

4. How did the authors maintain moisture levels or water filled pore space uniformity in the 24 soil samples containing glass bottles?

The measurement was carried out in closed system (bootles), it is not possible to open the bottles during the measurement.

5. Why didn’t you collect the gas samples evolved from the soils in glass bottles at varying time hours?

The Oxitop continously measures the changes. As Fig.1 and Fig.2 show during 168 hours the gas oxygen consumption/ CO2 production were measured.

6. Why didn’t you follow the light/dark conditions in the Incubator where the glass bottles were kept?

In order to avoid the effect of the photosynthesis by algeas. We were interested in soil bacteria activities only.

7. All the Figures are not clear, no contrasting colors or bullets with lines used to differentiate the treatments.

We do not understand this question. In Both figures we used different colors and bullets.

Control (absolute): Blue

Control + glucose: Red

Treated: Green

Treated + glucose: Purple

8. How were soil microbial activities assessed? Methanogens and methanotroph’s relative intensity were not found in this script, which are the major focus related to the current research topic.

This paper was submitted as a Research note. Research notes are often preliminary studies, descriptions of unexpected and perhaps unexplained observations or lab protocols. We concluded that "Further genomics research could detect the bacterial strains that consumed the CO2 in this soil."

Gabriela Bautista, Bence Mátyás
Dear Prof. Muhammad Aslam Ali

We are trying to answer your questions, and submit a second version of the manuscript in order to clarify the following points.

1. Why did the authors select Phylazonit biofertilizer? Does it contain any methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors? Didn’t find the composition.

The Phylazonit Ltd. provided the biofertilzer for test.
The Methods chapter begins with the information related to the composition: "Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus circulans, Pseudomonas putida, in an optimized ratio for soil injection". We did not say that the fertilizer contains methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors. Thats why the results presented in the paper are unexpected.

2. Why not investigate the CO2 production rate with varying levels such as 0.5%, 1% and 5% substrates application in soils?

This Research note discusses only unexpected results come from an experiment that was carried out using Oxitop devices. This is part of a project in which more methods are applied. In an other method (using liquid-alkaline absorption) is possible to setup the different levels, but that is not part of the discussion of the present paper. Using Oxitop bottles only one level is possible for the setup.

2. What were the initial content of organic carbon, total nitrogen, soil pH, redox status (Soil Eh) and microbial composition of the collected 24 soil samples?

In the Dataset 1: Average values for a number of different soil properties you can find the main phyical, chemical and microbial soil properties such as pH (H2O), pH (KCl), Organic carbon. We will extend the dataset with the Total Nitrogen in the second version of the paper.

3. How did the researchers control the pressure within the glass bottles during the experimental period?

The Oxitop automatically measures the changes in the bottles due to gas consumption by its sensor, there is no needed to apply external measurement.

4. How did the authors maintain moisture levels or water filled pore space uniformity in the 24 soil samples containing glass bottles?

The measurement was carried out in closed system (bootles), it is not possible to open the bottles during the measurement.

5. Why didn’t you collect the gas samples evolved from the soils in glass bottles at varying time hours?

The Oxitop continously measures the changes. As Fig.1 and Fig.2 show during 168 hours the gas oxygen consumption/ CO2 production were measured.

6. Why didn’t you follow the light/dark conditions in the Incubator where the glass bottles were kept?

In order to avoid the effect of the photosynthesis by algeas. We were interested in soil bacteria activities only.

7. All the Figures are not clear, no contrasting colors or bullets with lines used to differentiate the treatments.

We do not understand this question. In Both figures we used different colors and bullets.

Control (absolute): Blue

Control + glucose: Red

Treated: Green

Treated + glucose: Purple

8. How were soil microbial activities assessed? Methanogens and methanotroph’s relative intensity were not found in this script, which are the major focus related to the current research topic.

This paper was submitted as a Research note. Research notes are often preliminary studies, descriptions of unexpected and perhaps unexplained observations or lab protocols. We concluded that "Further genomics research could detect the bacterial strains that consumed the CO2 in this soil."

Gabriela Bautista, Bence Mátyás
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 18 Dec 2017

Gabriela Bautista, Grupo de Investigación Mentoria y Gestión del Cambio, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Cuenca, Ecuador

18 Dec 2017

Author Response
Dear Prof. Muhammad Aslam Ali

We are trying to answer your questions, and submit a second version of the manuscript in order to clarify the following points.

1. Why ... Continue reading
Dear Prof. Muhammad Aslam Ali

We are trying to answer your questions, and submit a second version of the manuscript in order to clarify the following points.

1. Why did the authors select Phylazonit biofertilizer? Does it contain any methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors? Didn’t find the composition.

The Phylazonit Ltd. provided the biofertilzer for test.
The Methods chapter begins with the information related to the composition: "Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus circulans, Pseudomonas putida, in an optimized ratio for soil injection". We did not say that the fertilizer contains methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors. Thats why the results presented in the paper are unexpected.

2. Why not investigate the CO2 production rate with varying levels such as 0.5%, 1% and 5% substrates application in soils?

This Research note discusses only unexpected results come from an experiment that was carried out using Oxitop devices. This is part of a project in which more methods are applied. In an other method (using liquid-alkaline absorption) is possible to setup the different levels, but that is not part of the discussion of the present paper. Using Oxitop bottles only one level is possible for the setup.

2. What were the initial content of organic carbon, total nitrogen, soil pH, redox status (Soil Eh) and microbial composition of the collected 24 soil samples?

In the Dataset 1: Average values for a number of different soil properties you can find the main phyical, chemical and microbial soil properties such as pH (H2O), pH (KCl), Organic carbon. We will extend the dataset with the Total Nitrogen in the second version of the paper.

3. How did the researchers control the pressure within the glass bottles during the experimental period?

The Oxitop automatically measures the changes in the bottles due to gas consumption by its sensor, there is no needed to apply external measurement.

4. How did the authors maintain moisture levels or water filled pore space uniformity in the 24 soil samples containing glass bottles?

The measurement was carried out in closed system (bootles), it is not possible to open the bottles during the measurement.

5. Why didn’t you collect the gas samples evolved from the soils in glass bottles at varying time hours?

The Oxitop continously measures the changes. As Fig.1 and Fig.2 show during 168 hours the gas oxygen consumption/ CO2 production were measured.

6. Why didn’t you follow the light/dark conditions in the Incubator where the glass bottles were kept?

In order to avoid the effect of the photosynthesis by algeas. We were interested in soil bacteria activities only.

7. All the Figures are not clear, no contrasting colors or bullets with lines used to differentiate the treatments.

We do not understand this question. In Both figures we used different colors and bullets.

Control (absolute): Blue

Control + glucose: Red

Treated: Green

Treated + glucose: Purple

8. How were soil microbial activities assessed? Methanogens and methanotroph’s relative intensity were not found in this script, which are the major focus related to the current research topic.

This paper was submitted as a Research note. Research notes are often preliminary studies, descriptions of unexpected and perhaps unexplained observations or lab protocols. We concluded that "Further genomics research could detect the bacterial strains that consumed the CO2 in this soil."

Gabriela Bautista, Bence Mátyás
Dear Prof. Muhammad Aslam Ali

We are trying to answer your questions, and submit a second version of the manuscript in order to clarify the following points.

1. Why did the authors select Phylazonit biofertilizer? Does it contain any methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors? Didn’t find the composition.

The Phylazonit Ltd. provided the biofertilzer for test.
The Methods chapter begins with the information related to the composition: "Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus circulans, Pseudomonas putida, in an optimized ratio for soil injection". We did not say that the fertilizer contains methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors. Thats why the results presented in the paper are unexpected.

2. Why not investigate the CO2 production rate with varying levels such as 0.5%, 1% and 5% substrates application in soils?

This Research note discusses only unexpected results come from an experiment that was carried out using Oxitop devices. This is part of a project in which more methods are applied. In an other method (using liquid-alkaline absorption) is possible to setup the different levels, but that is not part of the discussion of the present paper. Using Oxitop bottles only one level is possible for the setup.

2. What were the initial content of organic carbon, total nitrogen, soil pH, redox status (Soil Eh) and microbial composition of the collected 24 soil samples?

In the Dataset 1: Average values for a number of different soil properties you can find the main phyical, chemical and microbial soil properties such as pH (H2O), pH (KCl), Organic carbon. We will extend the dataset with the Total Nitrogen in the second version of the paper.

3. How did the researchers control the pressure within the glass bottles during the experimental period?

The Oxitop automatically measures the changes in the bottles due to gas consumption by its sensor, there is no needed to apply external measurement.

4. How did the authors maintain moisture levels or water filled pore space uniformity in the 24 soil samples containing glass bottles?

The measurement was carried out in closed system (bootles), it is not possible to open the bottles during the measurement.

5. Why didn’t you collect the gas samples evolved from the soils in glass bottles at varying time hours?

The Oxitop continously measures the changes. As Fig.1 and Fig.2 show during 168 hours the gas oxygen consumption/ CO2 production were measured.

6. Why didn’t you follow the light/dark conditions in the Incubator where the glass bottles were kept?

In order to avoid the effect of the photosynthesis by algeas. We were interested in soil bacteria activities only.

7. All the Figures are not clear, no contrasting colors or bullets with lines used to differentiate the treatments.

We do not understand this question. In Both figures we used different colors and bullets.

Control (absolute): Blue

Control + glucose: Red

Treated: Green

Treated + glucose: Purple

8. How were soil microbial activities assessed? Methanogens and methanotroph’s relative intensity were not found in this script, which are the major focus related to the current research topic.

This paper was submitted as a Research note. Research notes are often preliminary studies, descriptions of unexpected and perhaps unexplained observations or lab protocols. We concluded that "Further genomics research could detect the bacterial strains that consumed the CO2 in this soil."

Gabriela Bautista, Bence Mátyás
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 20 Nov 2017

Ankit Singla, Regional Centre of Organic Farming, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.14027.r27580

Bautista and Matyas observed unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration following the different fertilizer treatments. I think, the values of Dataset 2 could be directly included in the main content of the paper, if possible. The title of Dataset 1 should be "Average values for various properties of Chernozem soil".

I have answered ‘partly’ to the question ‘Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?’ as soil ecosystems are very diverse and results could vary under different environmental conditions.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 03 Nov 2017

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 18 Dec 17		read
Version 1 03 Nov 17	read	read

Ankit Singla, Regional Centre of Organic Farming, Bhubaneswar, India
Muhammad Aslam Ali, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

20 Views

22 Dec 2017 | for Version 2

Muhammad Aslam Ali, Department of Environmental Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh

20 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard to publish as a research note, however in case of a full manuscript it needs more scientific investigation on the variation of soil respiration as well as CO2 fluxes and soil microbial activities under specified environmental conditions.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

22 Views

29 Nov 2017 | for Version 1

Muhammad Aslam Ali, Department of Environmental Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh

22 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Soil GHGs flux measurement, soil microbes & environment

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

18 Dec 2017

Gabriela Bautista, Grupo de Investigación Mentoria y Gestión del Cambio, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Cuenca, Ecuador

Dear Prof. Muhammad Aslam Ali

We are trying to answer your questions, and submit a second version of the manuscript in order to clarify the following points.

1. Why did the authors select Phylazonit biofertilizer? Does it contain any methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors? Didn’t find the composition.

The Phylazonit Ltd. provided the biofertilzer for test.
The Methods chapter begins with the information related to the composition: "Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus circulans, Pseudomonas putida, in an optimized ratio for soil injection". We did not say that the fertilizer contains methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors. Thats why the results presented in the paper are unexpected.

2. Why not investigate the CO2 production rate with varying levels such as 0.5%, 1% and 5% substrates application in soils?

This Research note discusses only unexpected results come from an experiment that was carried out using Oxitop devices. This is part of a project in which more methods are applied. In an other method (using liquid-alkaline absorption) is possible to setup the different levels, but that is not part of the discussion of the present paper. Using Oxitop bottles only one level is possible for the setup.

2. What were the initial content of organic carbon, total nitrogen, soil pH, redox status (Soil Eh) and microbial composition of the collected 24 soil samples?

In the Dataset 1: Average values for a number of different soil properties you can find the main phyical, chemical and microbial soil properties such as pH (H2O), pH (KCl), Organic carbon. We will extend the dataset with the Total Nitrogen in the second version of the paper.

3. How did the researchers control the pressure within the glass bottles during the experimental period?

The Oxitop automatically measures the changes in the bottles due to gas consumption by its sensor, there is no needed to apply external measurement.

4. How did the authors maintain moisture levels or water filled pore space uniformity in the 24 soil samples containing glass bottles?

The measurement was carried out in closed system (bootles), it is not possible to open the bottles during the measurement.

5. Why didn’t you collect the gas samples evolved from the soils in glass bottles at varying time hours?

The Oxitop continously measures the changes. As Fig.1 and Fig.2 show during 168 hours the gas oxygen consumption/ CO2 production were measured.

6. Why didn’t you follow the light/dark conditions in the Incubator where the glass bottles were kept?

In order to avoid the effect of the photosynthesis by algeas. We were interested in soil bacteria activities only.

7. All the Figures are not clear, no contrasting colors or bullets with lines used to differentiate the treatments.

We do not understand this question. In Both figures we used different colors and bullets.

Control (absolute): Blue
Control + glucose: Red
Treated: Green
Treated + glucose: Purple

8. How were soil microbial activities assessed? Methanogens and methanotroph’s relative intensity were not found in this script, which are the major focus related to the current research topic.

This paper was submitted as a Research note. Research notes are often preliminary studies, descriptions of unexpected and perhaps unexplained observations or lab protocols. We concluded that "Further genomics research could detect the bacterial strains that consumed the CO2 in this soil."

Gabriela Bautista, Bence Mátyás

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

23 Views

20 Nov 2017 | for Version 1

Ankit Singla, Regional Centre of Organic Farming, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

23 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Click here to access the data.

Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data

Click here to access the data.

Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data

[1] 1. Sitkei Gy: Mez˝ogazdasági és erdészeti járm˝uvek modellezése. Akadémiai Kiadó. 1986; (86).

[2] 2. Lauber CL, Strickland MS, Bradford MA, et al.: The influence of soil properties on the structure of bacterial and fungal communities across land-use types. Soil Biol Biochem. 2008; 40(9): 2407–2415. Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Ulloa C, Pazmiño K, Cárdenas D, et al.: Desarrollo de repelencia al agua en suelos afectados por incendios, en una zona del parque metropolitano del distrito metropolitano de Quito. La Granja: Journal of Life Sciences. 2014; 19(1): 34–43. Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Singla A, Dubey SK, Singh A, et al.: Effect of biogas digested slurry-based biochar on methane flux and methanogenic archaeal diversity in paddy soil. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2014; 197: 278–287. Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Wardle DA: A comparative assessment of factors which influence microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen levels in soil. Biol Rev. 1992; 67(3): 321–358. Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Olsen RA, Bakken LR: Viability of soil bacteria: Optimization of plate-counting technique and comparison between total counts and plate counts within different size groups. Microb Ecol. 1987; 13(1): 59–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Dick RP: Soil Enzyme Activities as Indicators of Soil Quality. Oregon Agric Exp Stn Journal. 1994; (10): 195. Reference Source

[8] 8. Hanson PJ, Edwards NT, Garten CT, et al.: Separating root and soil microbial contributions to soil respiration: A review of methods and observations. Biogeochemistry. 2000; 48(1): 115–146. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Jangid K, Williams MA, Franzluebbers AJ, et al.: Land-use history has a stronger impact on soil microbial community composition than aboveground vegetation and soil properties. Soil Biol Biochem. 2011; 43(10): 2184–2193. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Cachipuendo-Ulcuango CJ, Requelme N, Gualavisí Cachiguango OM, et al.: Community use of water and land for sustainable production of pasture. La Granja: Journal of Life Sciences. 2017; 26(2): 142–154. Reference Source

[11] 11. Granda MJ, Yánez P: Estudio sobre la percepcion de los beneficios del programa socio bosque en la region amazonica ecuatoriana. La Granja: Journal of Life Sciences. 2017; 26(2): 28–37. Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Vineela C, Wani SP, Srinivasarao CH, et al.: Microbial properties of soils as affected by cropping and nutrient management practices in several long-term manurial experiments in the semi-arid tropics of India. Appl Soil Ecol. 2008; 40(1): 165–173. Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Olivares BO: Description of soil management in agricultural production systems of sector Hammock in Anzoategui, Venezuela. La Granja: Journal of Life Sciences. 2016; 23(1): 14–24. Reference Source

[14] 14. El-Yazeid A, Abou-Aly H, Mady M, et al.: Enhancing growth, productivity and quality of squash plants using phosphate dissolving microorganisms (bio phosphor) combined with boron foliar spray. Res J Agr Biol Sci. 2007; 3(4): 274–286. Reference Source

[15] 15. Garg V, Kukreja K, Singla A: Efficacy of native rhizobial strains for nodulation and plant biomass production in berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum L). AgricInternational. 2016; 3(1–2): 89–95. Reference Source

[16] 16. Garg V, Kukreja K, Gera R, et al.: Production of indole-3-acetic acid by berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum L.) rhizobia isolated from Haryana, India. Agr Sci Digest. 2015; 35(3): 229–232. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Anderson TH, Domsch KH: The metabolic quotient for CO₂ (qCO₂) as a specific activity parameter to assess the effects of environmental conditions, such as ph, on the microbial biomass of forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 1993; 25(3): 393–395. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Allison SD, Czimczik CI, Treseder KK: Microbial activity and soil respiration under nitrogen addition in Alaskan boreal forest. Glob Chang Biol. 2008; 14(5): 1156–1168. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Mátyás B, Kátai J, Horváth J: Comparative analysis of certain soil microbiological characteristics of carbon cycle. Acta Agraria. 2016; (69): 137–142. Reference Source

[20] 20. Horváth J, Mátyás B, Kátai J: Impact of agronomic factors on urease enzyme activity in a long term fertilizer experiment. Acta Agraria. 2016; (68): 43–48. Reference Source

[21] 21. Mátyás B, Tállai M, Kátai J, et al.: The impact of fertilisation on a few microbiological parameters of the carbon cycle. Acta Agraria. 2015; (64): 45–50. Reference Source

[22] 22. Horváth J, Tállai M, Mátyás B: A talaj nitrogéntartalmának és néhány egyéb tulajdonságának változása egytrágyázási tartamkísérletben csernozjom talajon. Acta Agraria. 2015; (64): 39–44.

[23] 23. Klimes-Szmik A: A talajok fizikai tulajdonságainak vizsgálata. Talaj és trágyvizsgálati módszerek. 1970; (48): 83–161.

[24] 24. Buzás I: Manual of Soil and Agrochemical Analysis. INDA 4231 Kiadó. Budapest, 1988; 1.

[25] 25. Stefanovits Talajtan P: Mezogazdasági Kiadó. Budapest, 1975.

[26] 26. Oades JM: Associations of Colloids in Soil Aggregates. Soil Colloids and their Associations in Aggregates. (Chapter 17) 1990; 214: 463–483. Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Standard: MSZ-08 0205:1978. Hungarian Standards Institution, 1978.

[28] 28. Kong Y, Nagano H, Kátai J, et al.: CO₂, N₂O and CH₄ production/consumption potentials of soils under different land-use types in central Japan and eastern Hungary. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2013; 59(3): 455–462. Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Felföldy L: A biológiai vízmin˝osítés. Budapest kidadó, 1987; (59): 172–174.

[30] 30. Szegi J: Talajmikrobiológiai vizsgálati módszerek. Mezogazdasági Kiadó, Budapest, 1979; 250–256. Reference Source

[31] 31. Székely Á: Talaj-és agrokémiai vizsgálati módszerek 2. Mezogazdasági kiadó, 1988; 115.

[32] 32. Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS: An extractionmethod for measuring soil microbial biomass-C. Soil Biol Biochem. 1987; 19(6): 703–707. Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Barreles-Brito E, Etchevers-Barra J, Hidalgo-Moreno C, et al.: Determinación in vitro de la emisión de CO₂ en muestras de mantillo in vitro determination of CO₂ emission in forest litter. Agrociencia. 2014; 48(7): 679–690. Reference Source

[34] 34. Bae SL, Kwak K, Kim S, et al.: Isolation and characterization of CO₂-fixing hydrogen-oxidizing marine bacteria. J Biosci Bioeng. 2001; 91(5): 442–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Singla A, Inubushi K: CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O production potential of paddy soil after biogas byproducts application under waterlogged condition. Int J Agric Environ Biotech. 2013; 6(2): 233–239. Reference Source

[36] 36. Kurek I, Reed JS, Dyson L, et al.: Engineered CO2-Fixing Chemotrophic Microorganisms Producing Carbon-Based Products and Methods of Using the Same. Patent, US20170152533 A1. 2017. Reference Source

[37] 37. Bautista G, Mátyás B, Carpio I, et al.: Dataset 1 in: Unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration while measuring the effect of a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity. F1000Research. 2017. Data Source

[38] 38. Bautista G, Mátyás B, Carpio I, et al.: Dataset 2 in: Unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration while measuring the effect of a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity. F1000Research. 2017. Data Source

Unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration while measuring the effect of a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Methods

Sampling site

Treatment

Soil properties

Table 1. Average values for a number of different soil properties.

Soil respiration

Figure 1. Differences in CO2 production of treated and control soil samples.

Results

Figure 2. This sample shows CO2 values periodically decreasing in all conditions.

Discussion

Data availability

Competing interests

Grant information

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

The problem

How to fix it

The problem

How to fix it

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Figure 1. Differences in CO₂ production of treated and control soil samples.

Figure 2. This sample shows CO₂ values periodically decreasing in all conditions.