土壤磷矿化研究:放射性同位素标记技术综述与综合

IF 9.8 1区 农林科学 Q1 SOIL SCIENCE Soil Biology & Biochemistry Pub Date : 2024-12-28 DOI:10.1016/j.soilbio.2024.109701
Chongyang Li, Jordon Wade, Andrew J. Margenot
{"title":"土壤磷矿化研究:放射性同位素标记技术综述与综合","authors":"Chongyang Li, Jordon Wade, Andrew J. Margenot","doi":"10.1016/j.soilbio.2024.109701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Predicting soil phosphorus (P) bioavailability requires an understanding of organic P mineralization (P<sub>min</sub>) but assessing P<sub>min</sub> rates is challenging. Recent advances in the use of radioisotopic P labeling enable estimates of P<sub>min</sub> rates in soil. However, there is yet no standardization of radioisotopic dilution methods, potentially compromising comparison of results among studies. We conducted a systematic literature search to (1) synthesize the varying procedures among different studies, (2) compare the soil P<sub>min</sub> results obtained via two most commonly used approaches, isotopically exchangeable kinetics (IEK) and isotope pool dilution (IPD), and (3) address the methodological advantages and limitations of IEK and IPD. We identified and analyzed 98 studies, and found large discrepancies in study-specific radioisotope spike level, soil incubation period and extraction methods used to estimate the soil available P pool. On average, a spike level of 10-20 kBq g<sup>-1</sup> soil was used among studies but empirical assessments are required to confirm that this assumed range of spike level is sufficient to measure exchangeable P. We found that incubation duration should be ≤14 d because there is an increasing possibility of measuring declining cumulative gross P<sub>min</sub> values beyond 14 d, even though reduced cumulative rate with additional time is theoretically impossible. Gross P<sub>min</sub> rates were lower by IPD compared to IEK. However, 18 studies reported undetectable gross P<sub>min</sub>, possibly due to the unverified but widely made assumption that biotic and abiotic process rates are additive. The complexity of the methodological issues necessitated a more nuanced approach via an advanced statistical approach (e.g., decision tree) to select a method based on trade-offs. To address the methodological issues identified in this review, a greater quantity and quality of observations need to be collected (e.g., well-designed experiments, data quality assurance such as quenching correction).","PeriodicalId":21888,"journal":{"name":"Soil Biology & Biochemistry","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In pursuit of soil P mineralization: a review and synthesis of radioisotopic labeling techniques\",\"authors\":\"Chongyang Li, Jordon Wade, Andrew J. Margenot\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.soilbio.2024.109701\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Predicting soil phosphorus (P) bioavailability requires an understanding of organic P mineralization (P<sub>min</sub>) but assessing P<sub>min</sub> rates is challenging. Recent advances in the use of radioisotopic P labeling enable estimates of P<sub>min</sub> rates in soil. However, there is yet no standardization of radioisotopic dilution methods, potentially compromising comparison of results among studies. We conducted a systematic literature search to (1) synthesize the varying procedures among different studies, (2) compare the soil P<sub>min</sub> results obtained via two most commonly used approaches, isotopically exchangeable kinetics (IEK) and isotope pool dilution (IPD), and (3) address the methodological advantages and limitations of IEK and IPD. We identified and analyzed 98 studies, and found large discrepancies in study-specific radioisotope spike level, soil incubation period and extraction methods used to estimate the soil available P pool. On average, a spike level of 10-20 kBq g<sup>-1</sup> soil was used among studies but empirical assessments are required to confirm that this assumed range of spike level is sufficient to measure exchangeable P. We found that incubation duration should be ≤14 d because there is an increasing possibility of measuring declining cumulative gross P<sub>min</sub> values beyond 14 d, even though reduced cumulative rate with additional time is theoretically impossible. Gross P<sub>min</sub> rates were lower by IPD compared to IEK. However, 18 studies reported undetectable gross P<sub>min</sub>, possibly due to the unverified but widely made assumption that biotic and abiotic process rates are additive. The complexity of the methodological issues necessitated a more nuanced approach via an advanced statistical approach (e.g., decision tree) to select a method based on trade-offs. To address the methodological issues identified in this review, a greater quantity and quality of observations need to be collected (e.g., well-designed experiments, data quality assurance such as quenching correction).\",\"PeriodicalId\":21888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soil Biology & Biochemistry\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soil Biology & Biochemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2024.109701\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOIL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil Biology & Biochemistry","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2024.109701","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

预测土壤磷(P)的生物有效性需要了解有机磷矿化(Pmin),但评估Pmin率具有挑战性。使用放射性同位素P标记的最新进展使土壤中Pmin速率的估计成为可能。然而,放射性同位素稀释方法尚未标准化,这可能会影响研究结果的比较。我们进行了系统的文献检索,以(1)综合不同研究的不同程序,(2)比较两种最常用的方法,同位素交换动力学(IEK)和同位素池稀释(IPD)获得的土壤Pmin结果,以及(3)解决IEK和IPD的方法学优势和局限性。我们鉴定并分析了98项研究,发现在研究特定的放射性同位素峰值水平、土壤潜伏期和用于估计土壤有效磷库的提取方法方面存在很大差异。平均而言,研究中使用了10-20 kBq g-1土壤的峰值水平,但需要进行经验评估,以确认这个假设的峰值水平范围足以测量交换磷。我们发现,潜伏期应≤14天,因为在14天之后,测量累积总磷值下降的可能性越来越大,尽管理论上不可能在额外的时间内降低累积速率。与IEK相比,IPD的总保费较低。然而,18项研究报告了未检测到的总Pmin,可能是由于未经证实但广泛假设的生物和非生物过程速率是相加的。方法问题的复杂性需要通过先进的统计方法(例如,决策树)来选择基于权衡的方法。为了解决本综述中发现的方法学问题,需要收集更多数量和质量更高的观察结果(例如,精心设计的实验,淬火校正等数据质量保证)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
In pursuit of soil P mineralization: a review and synthesis of radioisotopic labeling techniques
Predicting soil phosphorus (P) bioavailability requires an understanding of organic P mineralization (Pmin) but assessing Pmin rates is challenging. Recent advances in the use of radioisotopic P labeling enable estimates of Pmin rates in soil. However, there is yet no standardization of radioisotopic dilution methods, potentially compromising comparison of results among studies. We conducted a systematic literature search to (1) synthesize the varying procedures among different studies, (2) compare the soil Pmin results obtained via two most commonly used approaches, isotopically exchangeable kinetics (IEK) and isotope pool dilution (IPD), and (3) address the methodological advantages and limitations of IEK and IPD. We identified and analyzed 98 studies, and found large discrepancies in study-specific radioisotope spike level, soil incubation period and extraction methods used to estimate the soil available P pool. On average, a spike level of 10-20 kBq g-1 soil was used among studies but empirical assessments are required to confirm that this assumed range of spike level is sufficient to measure exchangeable P. We found that incubation duration should be ≤14 d because there is an increasing possibility of measuring declining cumulative gross Pmin values beyond 14 d, even though reduced cumulative rate with additional time is theoretically impossible. Gross Pmin rates were lower by IPD compared to IEK. However, 18 studies reported undetectable gross Pmin, possibly due to the unverified but widely made assumption that biotic and abiotic process rates are additive. The complexity of the methodological issues necessitated a more nuanced approach via an advanced statistical approach (e.g., decision tree) to select a method based on trade-offs. To address the methodological issues identified in this review, a greater quantity and quality of observations need to be collected (e.g., well-designed experiments, data quality assurance such as quenching correction).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Soil Biology & Biochemistry
Soil Biology & Biochemistry 农林科学-土壤科学
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
9.30%
发文量
312
审稿时长
49 days
期刊介绍: Soil Biology & Biochemistry publishes original research articles of international significance focusing on biological processes in soil and their applications to soil and environmental quality. Major topics include the ecology and biochemical processes of soil organisms, their effects on the environment, and interactions with plants. The journal also welcomes state-of-the-art reviews and discussions on contemporary research in soil biology and biochemistry.
期刊最新文献
A global meta-analysis of soil respiration in response to elevated CO2 Reduction of iron-organic carbon associations shifts net greenhouse gas release after initial permafrost thaw Patterns and drivers of soil autotrophic nitrification and associated N2O emissions Comparison of different methods for estimating microbial biomass in biochar-amended soils The complementarity hypothesis reversed: root trait similarity in species mixtures promotes soil organic carbon in agroecosystems
×
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