Paula A Rojas-Pinzon, Judith Prommer, Christopher J Sedlacek, Taru Sandén, Heide Spiegel, Petra Pjevac, Lucia Fuchslueger, Andrew T Giguere
{"title":"Inhibition profile of three biological nitrification inhibitors and their response to soil pH modification in two contrasting soils","authors":"Paula A Rojas-Pinzon, Judith Prommer, Christopher J Sedlacek, Taru Sandén, Heide Spiegel, Petra Pjevac, Lucia Fuchslueger, Andrew T Giguere","doi":"10.1093/femsec/fiae072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Up to 70% of the nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied to agricultural soils is lost through microbially mediated processes, such as nitrification. This can be counteracted by synthetic and biological compounds that inhibit nitrification. However, for many biological nitrification inhibitors (BNIs), the interaction with soil properties, nitrifier specificity, and effective concentrations are unclear. Here, we investigated three synthetic nitrification inhibitors (SNIs) (DCD, DMPP, and nitrapyrin) and three BNIs (methyl 3(4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate (MHPP), methyl 3(4-hydroxyphenyl) acrylate (MHPA), and limonene) in two agricultural soils differing in pH and nitrifier communities. The efficacies of SNIs and BNIs were resilient to short-term pH changes in the neutral pH soil, whereas the efficacy of some BNIs increased by neutralizing the alkaline soil. Among the BNIs, MHPA showed the highest inhibition and was, together with MHPP, identified as a putative AOB/comammox-selective inhibitor. Additionally, MHPA and limonene effectively inhibited nitrification at concentrations comparable to those used for DCD. Moreover, we identified the effective concentrations at which 50 and 80% of inhibition is observed (EC50 and EC80) for the BNIs, and similar EC80 values were observed in both soils. Overall, our results show that these BNIs could potentially serve as effective alternatives to SNIs currently used.","PeriodicalId":12312,"journal":{"name":"FEMS microbiology ecology","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FEMS microbiology ecology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiae072","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Up to 70% of the nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied to agricultural soils is lost through microbially mediated processes, such as nitrification. This can be counteracted by synthetic and biological compounds that inhibit nitrification. However, for many biological nitrification inhibitors (BNIs), the interaction with soil properties, nitrifier specificity, and effective concentrations are unclear. Here, we investigated three synthetic nitrification inhibitors (SNIs) (DCD, DMPP, and nitrapyrin) and three BNIs (methyl 3(4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate (MHPP), methyl 3(4-hydroxyphenyl) acrylate (MHPA), and limonene) in two agricultural soils differing in pH and nitrifier communities. The efficacies of SNIs and BNIs were resilient to short-term pH changes in the neutral pH soil, whereas the efficacy of some BNIs increased by neutralizing the alkaline soil. Among the BNIs, MHPA showed the highest inhibition and was, together with MHPP, identified as a putative AOB/comammox-selective inhibitor. Additionally, MHPA and limonene effectively inhibited nitrification at concentrations comparable to those used for DCD. Moreover, we identified the effective concentrations at which 50 and 80% of inhibition is observed (EC50 and EC80) for the BNIs, and similar EC80 values were observed in both soils. Overall, our results show that these BNIs could potentially serve as effective alternatives to SNIs currently used.
期刊介绍:
FEMS Microbiology Ecology aims to ensure efficient publication of high-quality papers that are original and provide a significant contribution to the understanding of microbial ecology. The journal contains Research Articles and MiniReviews on fundamental aspects of the ecology of microorganisms in natural soil, aquatic and atmospheric habitats, including extreme environments, and in artificial or managed environments. Research papers on pure cultures and in the areas of plant pathology and medical, food or veterinary microbiology will be published where they provide valuable generic information on microbial ecology. Papers can deal with culturable and non-culturable forms of any type of microorganism: bacteria, archaea, filamentous fungi, yeasts, protozoa, cyanobacteria, algae or viruses. In addition, the journal will publish Perspectives, Current Opinion and Controversy Articles, Commentaries and Letters to the Editor on topical issues in microbial ecology.
- Application of ecological theory to microbial ecology
- Interactions and signalling between microorganisms and with plants and animals
- Interactions between microorganisms and their physicochemical enviornment
- Microbial aspects of biogeochemical cycles and processes
- Microbial community ecology
- Phylogenetic and functional diversity of microbial communities
- Evolutionary biology of microorganisms