Biological activity of organogenic soil samples under different moisture levels

Abstract

The response of biological activity and the content of labile forms of biogenic elements in peats of different genesis to variation in their moisture content was studied under laboratory conditions. Samples of peat soils of the northern and southern taiga (Tyumen and Moscow regions) were used in this work. A series of manipulation experiments were conducted in which the dynamics of such indicators as basal respiration (BR), microbial biomass carbon, labile carbon and nitrogen content were estimated for different peat types at different moisture levels. The effect of the experiment duration and type on the dynamics of peat properties was also assessed. It was found that all the studied peat samples are characterized by a wide range of moisture content, at which the maximum of biological activity is observed. In general, it is in the range from 20–30% to 80–90% of water–holding capacity (WHC). In this range, no significant relationship is observed between moisture content and BR. In most experiments, a reliable decrease in biological activity was observed only in the "extreme" humidity ranges - less than 20% and more than 90% WHC. It is shown that the nature of the response to moistening is individual, determined by the properties of the sample and depends little on the type of sample preparation. In experiments and model calculations, it is proposed to use the obtained sensitivity coefficient to moisture — W₂₀, which is 1.0‒1.2 in the range of 40‒80% WHC for peat samples of different genesis. Long-term variants of incubation experiments showed a more pronounced response to overmoistening and a reliable decrease in biological activity at high humidity values (more than 80% WHC). This may indicate their better applicability for solving problems of modeling the behavior of ecosystems in the event of a change in the hydrological situation.

References

1. Ананьева Н.Д., Благодатская Е.В., Демкина Т.С. Влияние высушивания–увлажнения и замораживания–оттаивания на устойчивость микробных сообществ почвы // Почвоведение. 1997. № 9. 2. Бамбалов Н.Н., Тишкович А.В. Баланс органического вещества торфяных почв и методы его изучения. Минск, 1984. 3. Воробьева Л.А. Теория и практика химического анализа почв. М., 2006. 4. Инишева Л.И., Аристархова В.Е., Порохина Е.В. и др. Выработанные торфяные месторождения, их характеристика и функционирование. Томск, 2007. 5. Макаров М.И., Шулева М.С., Малышева Т.И. и др. Растворимость лабильных форм азота и углерода почв в K2SO4 разной концентрации // Почвоведение. 2013. № 4. https://doi.org/10.7868/S0032180X13040096 6. Матышак Г.В., Чуванов С.В., Гончарова О.Ю. и др. Влияние влажности на эмиссию CO2 из почв бугристых торфяников севера Западной Сибири // Почвоведение. 2023. № 4. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0032180X22600810 7. Технический анализ торфа / Е.Т. Базин, В.Д. Копенкин, В.И. Косов и др. / Под общ. ред. Е.Т. Базина. М., 1992. 8. Шишконакова Е.А., Аветов Н.А., Виндекер Г.В. и др. Почвенное и биологическое разнообразие территории бывших торфоразработок шатурской мещеры в контексте их антропогенной трансформации // Бюл. Почв. ин-та. 2022. № 111. https://doi.org/10.19047/0136-1694-2022-111-30-76 9. Шишов Л.Л., Тонконогов В.Д., Лебедева И.И. и др. Классификация и диагностика почв России. Смоленск, 2004. 10. Arnold C., Ghezzehei T.A., Berhe A.A. Decomposition of distinct organic matter pools is regulated by moisture status in structured wetland soils // Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2015. Vol. 81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.10.029 11. Avis C.A., Weaver A.J., Meissner K.J. Reduction in areal extent of high–latitude wetlands in response to permafrost thaw // Nature Geosci. 2011. Vol. 4, № 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1160 12. Birch H.F. The effect of soil drying on humus decomposition and nitrogen availability // Plant and soil. 1958. № 10.. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01343734 13. Byun E., Rezanezhad F., Fairbairn L., Slowinski S. et al. Temperature, moisture and freeze–thaw controls on CO2 production in soil incubations from northern peatlands // Sci Rep. 2021. Vol. 11, № 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02606-3 14. Estop-Aragonés C., Blodau C. Effects of experimental drying intensity and duration on respiration and methane production recovery in fen peat incubations // Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2012. Vol. 47. - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.12.008 15. Gritsch C., Zimmermann M., Zechmeister-Boltenstern S. Interdependencies between temperature and moisture sensitivities of CO2 emissions in European land ecosystems // Biogeosciences. 2015. Vol. 12, № 20. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-5981-2015 16. Hicks Pries C.E., Schuur E.A.G., Crummer K.G. Thawing permafrost increases old soil and autotrophic respiration in tundra: Partitioning ecosystem respiration using δ13 C and ∆14 C // Global Change Biology. 2013. Vol. 19, № 2. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12058 17. Ilstedt U., Nordgren A., Malmer A. Optimum soil water for soil respiration before and after amendment with glucose in humid tropical acrisols and a boreal mor layer // Soil Biol. Biochem. 2000. Vol. 32(11–12). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00073-0 18. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. 4th edition. International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS), Vienna, Austria, 2022. 19. Lai D.Y.F. Methane Dynamics in Northern Peatlands: A Review // Pedosphere. 2009. Vol. 19, № 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(09)00003-4 20. Lawrence D.M., Koven C.D., Swenson S.C. et al. Permafrost thaw and resulting soil moisture changes regulate projected high–latitude CO2 and CH4 emissions // Environmental Research Letters. 2015. Vol. 10, № 9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094011 21. Lloyd J., Taylor J.A. On the Temperature Dependence of Soil Respiration // Functional Ecology. 1994. Vol. 8, № 3. https://doi.org/10.2307/2389824 22. Magnusson T. Carbon dioxide and methane formation in forest mineral and peat soils during aerobic and anaerobic incubations // Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 1993. Vol. 25, № 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(93)90090-X 23. Moyano F.E., Manzoni S., Chenu C. Responses of soil heterotrophic respiration to moisture availability: An exploration of processes and models // Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2013. Vol. 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.01.002 24. Moyano F.E., Vasilyeva N., Bouckaert L. et al. The moisture response of soil heterotrophic respiration: interaction with soil properties // Biogeosciences. 2012. Vol. 9, № 3. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-1173-2012 25. Natali S.M., Schuur E.A.G., Mauritz M. et al. Permafrost thaw and soil moisture driving CO2 and CH4 release from upland tundra // J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2015. Vol. 120, № 3. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JG002872 26. O’Donnell J.A., Jorgenson M.T., Harden J.W et al. The effects of permafrost thaw on soil hydrologic, thermal, and carbon dynamics in an Alaskan Peatland // Ecosystems. 2012. Vol. 15, № 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9504-0 27. Rey A., Pegoraro E., Tedeschi V. et al. Annual variation in soil respiration and its components in a coppice oak forest in Central Italy // Global Change Biology. 2002. Vol. 8, № 9. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00521.x 28. Rezanezhad F., Price J.S., Quinton W.L. et al. Structure of peat soils and implications for water storage, flow and solute transport: A review update for geochemists // Chemical Geology. 2016. Vol. 429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2016.03.010 29. Scharlemann J.P., Tanner E.V., Hiederer R. et al. Global soil carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool // Carbon Management. 2014. Vol. 5, № 1. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.13.77 30. Schuur E.A.G., McGuire A.D., Schädel C. et al. Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback // Nature. 2015. Vol. 520, № 7546. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14338 31. Sjögersten S., Wal R. van der, Woodin S.J. Small–scale hydrological variation determines landscape CO2 fluxes in the high Arctic // Biogeochemistry. 2006. Vol. 80, № 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-006-9018-6 32. Tarkhov M.O., Matyshak G.V., Ryzhova M.V. et al. Temperature sensitivity of peatland soils respiration across different terrestrial ecosystems // Eurasian Soil Science. 2024. Vol. 57, № 10. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229324601379 33. Tian H., Lu C., Ciais P. et al. The terrestrial biosphere as a net source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere // Nature. 2016. Vol. 531, № 7593. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16946 34. Turetsky M. R., Benscoter B., Page S. et al. Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss // Nature Geosci. 2015. Vol. 8, № 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2325 35. Voigt C., Marushchak M.E., Mastepanov M. et al. Ecosystem carbon response of an Arctic peatland to simulated permafrost thaw // Glob Change Biol. 2019. Vol. 25, № 5. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14574 36. Wickland K.P., Neff J.C. Decomposition of soil organic matter from boreal black spruce forest: environmental and chemical controls // Biogeochemistry. 2008. Vol. 87, № 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-007-9166-3