Optimizing pH for Soil Enzyme Assays Reveals Important Biochemical Functions in Low pH Soil

IF 3.4 3区 农林科学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1007/s42729-024-01866-y
Tandra D. Fraser, Sarah Duddigan, Anita Diaz, Iain Green, Mark Tibbett
{"title":"Optimizing pH for Soil Enzyme Assays Reveals Important Biochemical Functions in Low pH Soil","authors":"Tandra D. Fraser, Sarah Duddigan, Anita Diaz, Iain Green, Mark Tibbett","doi":"10.1007/s42729-024-01866-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Soil enzyme assays are often used as indicators of potential biological functions. The objective of this study was to understand enzyme activity across a range of soil pH. Soils (0–15 cm) were collected from a heathland restoration project (established 1999) on the Isle of Purbeck, UK with treatments of elemental sulphur or ferrous sulphate compared to a control, acid grassland and heathland. Enzyme assays were conducted using fluorescent substrates for β-1,4-glucosidase, β-N-acetylglucosaminidase (NAG) and phosphatase with a range of buffer pH from 3.0 to 12.0. Differences in soil pH were still evident with the control (pH 5.3) and ferrous sulphate (pH 5.2) significantly higher than elemental sulphur (pH 4.5), acid grassland (pH 4.3) and heathland (pH 4.0). The optimum buffer pH for enzyme assays varied from pH 3-4.5 for β-glucosidase, pH 4–5 for NAG and pH 4–6 for phosphatase. Comparisons using a standard MUB pH resulted in different conclusions compared to optimum pH. For example, β-glucosidase activity at pH 5 for the control was significantly higher than elemental sulphur, acid grassland, and heathland. However, there were no differences when the pH optimums were considered. Comparisons of phosphatase activity at MUB pH 6.5 resulted in higher activity in the control plots compared to the heathland, despite the heathland soils showing the highest activity at optimum buffer pH. By examining the relationships between soil pH, enzyme activity, and assay conditions, this study highlights the importance of optimizing pH in enzyme assays when comparing diverse soil types.</p>","PeriodicalId":17042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-024-01866-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Soil enzyme assays are often used as indicators of potential biological functions. The objective of this study was to understand enzyme activity across a range of soil pH. Soils (0–15 cm) were collected from a heathland restoration project (established 1999) on the Isle of Purbeck, UK with treatments of elemental sulphur or ferrous sulphate compared to a control, acid grassland and heathland. Enzyme assays were conducted using fluorescent substrates for β-1,4-glucosidase, β-N-acetylglucosaminidase (NAG) and phosphatase with a range of buffer pH from 3.0 to 12.0. Differences in soil pH were still evident with the control (pH 5.3) and ferrous sulphate (pH 5.2) significantly higher than elemental sulphur (pH 4.5), acid grassland (pH 4.3) and heathland (pH 4.0). The optimum buffer pH for enzyme assays varied from pH 3-4.5 for β-glucosidase, pH 4–5 for NAG and pH 4–6 for phosphatase. Comparisons using a standard MUB pH resulted in different conclusions compared to optimum pH. For example, β-glucosidase activity at pH 5 for the control was significantly higher than elemental sulphur, acid grassland, and heathland. However, there were no differences when the pH optimums were considered. Comparisons of phosphatase activity at MUB pH 6.5 resulted in higher activity in the control plots compared to the heathland, despite the heathland soils showing the highest activity at optimum buffer pH. By examining the relationships between soil pH, enzyme activity, and assay conditions, this study highlights the importance of optimizing pH in enzyme assays when comparing diverse soil types.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
优化土壤酶测定的 pH 值可揭示低 pH 值土壤中的重要生化功能
土壤酶测定通常被用作潜在生物功能的指标。本研究的目的是了解土壤 pH 值范围内的酶活性。土壤(0-15 厘米)采集自英国普贝克岛的一个荒地恢复项目(1999 年建立),与对照组、酸性草地和荒地相比,土壤中添加了元素硫或硫酸亚铁。使用荧光底物对β-1,4-葡萄糖苷酶、β-N-乙酰葡萄糖苷酶(NAG)和磷酸酶进行了酶测定,缓冲液 pH 值范围为 3.0 至 12.0。土壤 pH 值的差异仍然很明显,对照组(pH 值为 5.3)和硫酸亚铁(pH 值为 5.2)明显高于元素硫(pH 值为 4.5)、酸性草地(pH 值为 4.3)和荒地(pH 值为 4.0)。酶测定的最佳缓冲 pH 值各不相同:β-葡萄糖苷酶为 pH 3-4.5,NAG 为 pH 4-5,磷酸酶为 pH 4-6。与最佳 pH 值相比,使用标准 MUB pH 值进行比较得出了不同的结论。例如,对照组在 pH 值为 5 时的β-葡萄糖苷酶活性明显高于元素硫、酸性草地和荒漠。但是,如果考虑到最适 pH 值,则没有差异。比较 MUB pH 值为 6.5 时的磷酸酶活性,结果是对照组地块的活性高于石楠地,尽管石楠地土壤在最佳缓冲 pH 值时显示出最高的活性。通过研究土壤 pH 值、酶活性和测定条件之间的关系,本研究强调了在比较不同土壤类型时优化酶测定 pH 值的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition
Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Soil Science
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
10.30%
发文量
331
审稿时长
9 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition is an international, peer reviewed journal devoted to publishing original research findings in the areas of soil science, plant nutrition, agriculture and environmental science. Soil sciences submissions may cover physics, chemistry, biology, microbiology, mineralogy, ecology, pedology, soil classification and amelioration. Plant nutrition and agriculture submissions may include plant production, physiology and metabolism of plants, plant ecology, diversity and sustainability of agricultural systems, organic and inorganic fertilization in relation to their impact on yields, quality of plants and ecological systems, and agroecosystems studies. Submissions covering soil degradation, environmental pollution, nature conservation, and environmental protection are also welcome. The journal considers for publication original research articles, technical notes, short communication, and reviews (both voluntary and by invitation), and letters to the editor.
期刊最新文献
Assessment of Management Practices for Improving Productivity, Profitability, and Energy-Carbon-Water Use Efficiency of Intensive Rice-toria-Sweet Corn System in Eastern India Enhancing Photosynthesis Pigment, Protein Content, Nutrient Uptake and Yield in Maize (Zea mays L.) Cultivars Using Vermicompost, Livestock Manure and Azotobacter chroococcum Phosphorus Solubilizing Microorganisms: An Eco-Friendly Approach for Sustainable Plant Health and Bioremediation Effect of Exogenous Chitosan on Physiological Characteristics, Photosynthetic Parameters, and Antioxidant Systems of Maize Seedlings Under Salt Stress Auxin-Mediated Modulation of Maize Rhizosphere Microbiome: Insights from Azospirillum Inoculation and Indole-3-Acetic Acid Treatment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1