酸性土壤微生物量磷测定方法探讨
DOI:
CSTR:
作者:
作者单位:

1.中国林业科学研究院热带林业实验中心;2.广西友谊关森林生态系统定位观测研究站;3.南宁师范大学环境与生命科学学院;4.广西壮族自治区生态环境监测中心

作者简介:

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

S151.93

基金项目:

崇左凭祥友谊关森林生态系统广西野外科学观测研究站创新能力建设(任务书编号:桂科AD25069098);和广西林业科技推广示范项目(桂林科研[2022]第27号、2023GXLK45)


Discussion on the Determination Methods of Microbial Biomass Phosphorus in Acidic Soils
Author:
Affiliation:

1.Experimental Center of Tropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry;2.Tropical Forestry Experimental Center, Chinese Academy of Forestry Sciences;3.Guangxi Youyiguan Forest Ecosystem National Observation and Research Station,;4.College of Environmental and lie Science, Nanning Normal University;5.Cuangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Environmental Monitoring Center

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    酸性土壤微生物量磷含量的测定方法选择存在分歧,不同方法测定酸性土壤微生物量磷含量的比较分析不全面,酸性土壤微生物量磷含量的测定方法选择缺少依据。本研究用碳酸氢钠浸提法、氟化铵-盐酸浸提法以及盐酸-硫酸浸提法测定酸性土壤微生物量磷含量,探讨3 种方法对酸性土壤微生物量磷含量测定的影响,探寻适合酸性土壤的测定方法。结果表明:1)酸性土壤对无机磷的吸附和固定作用强烈,上述 3 种方法均未充分提取土壤中的无机磷。碳酸氢钠浸提法、盐酸-硫酸法浸提法和氟化铵-盐酸浸提法的无机磷加标回收率均值分别为21.62%、27.39%、43.48%,3种方法中土壤对无机磷的吸附和固定作用强度呈减弱趋势。碳酸氢钠浸提法和氟化铵-盐酸浸提法受土壤对磷的吸附和固定作用影响明显,碳酸氢钠浸提法的磷增量较小,氟化铵-盐酸浸提法磷增量显著增加。盐酸-硫酸浸提法受土壤对磷的吸附和固定作用影响表现不明显,磷增量与氟化铵-盐酸浸提法相当,呈现良好的磷提取效果。盐酸-硫酸浸提法和氟化铵-盐酸浸提法磷提取效果优于碳酸氢钠浸提法。2)3种方法的测定结果呈显著性差异(P <0.05)。碳酸氢钠浸提法所测结果显著低于另两种方法,所测微生物量磷缺乏代表性。3)碳酸氢钠浸提法所测结果与氟化铵-盐酸浸提法呈不显著性弱相关(r=0.1122,P>0.05),与盐酸-硫酸浸提法呈极显著相关(r=0.5281,P<0.01);氟化铵-盐酸浸提法所测结果和盐酸-硫酸浸提法呈不显著性相关(r=0.6690,P>0.05)。4) 碳酸氢钠浸提法的滤液颜色使得待测液背景值偏高,干扰检测,变异系数(CV)为17.50%,精密度显著低于另两种方法。氟化铵-盐酸浸提法浸提滤液易出现浑浊,需经繁琐处理方能进行比色检测,CV为8.81%,精密度良好,但适用土壤范围存在局限性。盐酸-硫酸浸提法用于多类型酸性土壤的滤液澄清,检测干扰少,CV为8.76%,精密度良好,适用土壤类型广泛。综上,盐酸-硫酸浸提法磷提取效果良好,检测干扰少,方法精密度高,用于测定酸性土壤微生物量磷含量较另两种方法有明显检测优势。

    Abstract:

    There were differences in the selection of determination methods for the microbial biomass phosphorus content in acidic soils. The comparative analysis of the microbial biomass phosphorus content in acidic soils determined by different methods was not comprehensive, and there was a lack of basis for the selection of determination methods for the microbial biomass phosphorus content in acidic soils. In this study, the contents of microbial biomass phosphorus in acidic soil were determined using the sodium bicarbonate extraction method, the ammonium fluoride - hydrochloric acid extraction method, and the hydrochloric acid - sulfuric acid extraction method. The effects of these three methods on the determination of the microbial biomass phosphorus content in acidic soil were discussed to explore a suitable determination method for acidic soil. SThe results showed that the adsorption and fixation of inorganic phosphorus by acidic soil were strong, and the inorganic phosphorus in the soil was not fully extracted by the above - mentioned three methods. The average recoveries of inorganic phosphorus by the sodium bicarbonate extraction method, the hydrochloric acid - sulfuric acid extraction method, and the ammonium fluoride - hydrochloric acid extraction method were 21.62%, 27.39%, and 43.48%, respectively. The intensity of the adsorption and fixation of inorganic phosphorus by the soil showed a decreasing trend among the three methods. The sodium bicarbonate extraction method and the ammonium fluoride - hydrochloric acid extraction method were significantly affected by the adsorption and fixation of phosphorus by the soil. The increment of phosphorus in the sodium bicarbonate extraction method was small, while that in the ammonium fluoride - hydrochloric acid extraction method increased significantly. The hydrochloric acid-sulfuric acid extraction method was not significantly affected by the adsorption and fixation of phosphorus by the soil, and the phosphorus increment was equivalent to that of the ammonium fluoride - hydrochloric acid extraction method, demonstrating a good phosphorus extraction effect. The phosphorus extraction effects of the hydrochloric acid - sulfuric acid extraction method and the ammonium fluoride - hydrochloric acid extraction method were better than that of the sodium bicarbonate extraction method.There were significant differences in the determination results of the three methods (P < 0.05). The values of the measured microbial biomass phosphorus obtained by the sodium bicarbonate extraction method were significantly lower than those of the other two methods, and were not representative.There was a weak non - significant correlation between the results of the sodium bicarbonate extraction method and the ammonium fluoride - hydrochloric acid extraction method (r = 0.1122, P > 0.05), and there was a very significant positive correlation between the results of the sodium bicarbonate extraction method and the hydrochloric acid - sulfuric acid extraction method (r = 0.5281, P < 0.01). There was a non - significant positive correlation between the results of the ammonium fluoride - hydrochloric acid extraction method and the hydrochloric acid - sulfuric acid extraction method (r = 0.6690, P > 0.05).The color of the filtrate from the sodium bicarbonate extraction method increased the background value of the test solution, interfering with the detection. The coefficient of variation (CV) was 17.50%, and the precision was significantly lower than that of the other two methods. The filtrate of the ammonium fluoride - hydrochloric acid extraction method was likely to become turbid and needed to be treated in a cumbersome way before colorimetric detection. The CV was 8.81%, and the precision was good, but the applicable soil range was limited. The filtrate of the hydrochloric acid - sulfuric acid extraction method was clear for various types of acidic soil, with less detection interference. The CV was 8.76%, and the precision was good. The hydrochloric acid - sulfuric acid extraction method had a good phosphorus extraction effect, less detection interference, high method precision, and had obvious detection advantages over the other two methods for the determination of the microbial biomass phosphorus content in acidic soil.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文
分享
相关视频

文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:2025-03-24
  • 最后修改日期:2025-06-08
  • 录用日期:2025-06-12
  • 在线发布日期:
  • 出版日期:
文章二维码