Skip to main content
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2017 Dec 18;6:1950. Originally published 2017 Nov 3. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.12936.2

Unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration while measuring the effect of a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity

Gabriela Bautista 1,2,a, Bence Mátyás 2,3, Isabel Carpio 2, Richard Vilches 3, Karina Pazmino 4,5
PMCID: PMC5747331  PMID: 29333243

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 1

Taking the referees’ advice:   We extended the Introduction chapter to clarify the importance of measuring physical and chemical soil properties when examining soil microbiological activities.    We extended the Methods chapter and named the methods and required sample preparations that were applied for measuring the main soil properties.     Dataset 1 was replaced with table 1 in the main text. This was also updated with a new parameter, Total Nitrogen, according to Prof. Muhammad Aslam Ali's advice. We responded by comments to Prof. Muhammad Aslam Ali's questions related to the experimental setups, and marks of the figures.   We named 3 more co-authors who strongly contributed to the measurements of the physical and chemical soil properties.

Abstract

The number of studies investigating the effect of bio-fertilizers is increasing because of their importance in sustainable agriculture and environmental quality. In our experiments, we measured the effect of different fertilizers on soil respiration. In the present study, we were looking for the cause of unexpected changes in CO2 values while examining Chernozem soil samples. We concluded that CO2 oxidizing microbes or methanotrophs may be present in the soil that periodically consume CO2 . This is unusual for a sample taken from the upper layer of well-ventilated Chernozem soil with optimal moisture content.

Keywords: bio-fertilizer, soil respiration, Chernozem, OxiTop

Introduction

The soil can be characterized by physical, chemical and microbiological properties 14. The quantitative (microbial biomass, number of bacteria) 5, 6 and qualitative (enzymatic activity, soil respiration) 7, 8 microbiological properties of the soil greatly contribute to the impact analysis of land use 911, nutrition 12 and soil management 13. Research related to the benefits of microbes as biofertilizer has become increasingly important in the agricultural sector. This is due to the possibility of achieving higher crop yields while minimizing negative impact on the environment. It is well known that bio-fertilizers increase plant yield and improve soil fertility 1416. Soil respiration is an important indicator of soil microbial activity 17, 18. In our experiments, we measured the effect of different chemicals 1922 and a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity, using both well-established and novel methods under laboratory conditions. We present some unexpected results from a setup in which Chernozem soil samples were examined.

Methods

Sampling site

A total of 24 soil samples were collected near Debrecen, Hungary, on the 19th April 2016, from an upper layer (0–20 cm) of Chernozem soil (47°33’ 55.36” N; 21°28’ 12.27” E).

Treatment

The phylazonit bio-fertilizer (produced by Phylazonit.Ltd, Hungary) with the following composition: Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus circulans, Pseudomonas putida, was tested (15 l/ha) in an optimized ratio for soil injection. Number of bacteria: 10 9 piece/cm 3.

Soil properties

Soil moisture content was determined gravimetrically, drying the soil at 105°C for 24 hours according to Klimes-Szmik’s method (1970) 23. Silt and clay fractions were measured by the settling method 24. We measured the Arany-type plasticity index according to Stefanovits (1975) 2527, while the minimal water capacity and soil texture were determined by Klimes-Szmik’s method 23. To measure the chemical properties of the soil, the samples were sieved through 2mm mesh and pre-incubated at 25°C for 72 hours. Soil pH in distilled water and in 1M potassium chloride KCl (soil/water, 1/2.5, w/w) were determined according to Buzás (1988) 24. The electrical conductivity (EC) (soil/water, 1/5, w/w) was then determined with a glass electrode according to Kong et al, 2013 28. The hydrolytic acidity (y1) was measured according to Buzás (1988) 24, while the concentration of NO 3 -N was determined according to Felföldy (1987) 29. Total nitrogen was determined according to Kong et al. (2013) 28. Nitrate exploration was carried out after 14 days incubation according to Felföldy (1987) 29. We determined AL-P 2O 5 and ALK 2O based on Szegi’s method (1979) 30. The humus content was determined using potassium dichromate according to Székely (1988) 31. Total number of bacteria was counted in bouillon agar using the plate dilution method (Szegi, 1979) 30. We measured the organic carbon concentration in K 2SO 4 extract, following the protocol in Székely et al. (1988) 31. Microbial biomass carbon (MBC) was measured using the chloroform fumigation-extraction method. Soil samples were fumigated by adding alcohol-free chloroform at 25°C for 24 hours. The fumigated and unfumigated soil samples were extracted with 50 ml 0.5 M potassium sulfate (K 2SO 4) according to Vance et al. (1987) 32. The following formula was applied to calculate the MBC (Kong et al., 2013) 28:

                                                                                            MBC = 2.22 x EC

where EC = organic C extracted from fumigated soils – organic C extracted from unfumigated soils ( Table 1).

Table 1. Average values for a number of different soil properties.

Soil property Value Unit Protocol
Silt and clay
fraction
37.48 % BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical
Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231
Kiadó. Budapest.
Hygroscopicity 2.23 hy BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical
Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231
Kiadó. Budapest.
Arany-type of
plasticity limit
39 KA Szegi
Moisture content 19–21 % Szegi
Hydrolytic acidity 5.94 y1 BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical
Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231
Kiadó. Budapest.
organic-C 1.4 % Székely
Nitrate-N 7.4 mg/kg Hayashi A, Sakamoto K, Yoshida T 1997: A rapid
method for determination of nitrate in soil by
hydrazine reduction produce. Jpn. J. Soil Sci. Plant
Nutr.,68, 322
Total-N 2.6 mg g–1 D.S
AL-soluble P 48.6 P2O5 mg/kg Szegi
AL-soluble K 222 K2O mg/kg Szegi
pH (H2O) 6.8 pH BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical
Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231
Kiadó. Budapest.
pH (KCl) 6.1 pH BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical
Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231
Kiadó. Budapest.
Topsoil 80–90 cm Szegi
Soil texture Loam BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical
Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231
Kiadó. Budapest.
Minimal water
capacity
26.22 VKmin Szegi
Humus content 2.81 % BuzásI. (1988): Manual of Soil and Agrochemical
Analysis Vol.1. (in Hungarian). INDA 4231
Kiadó. Budapest.
Total number of
bacteria
9.59 1.000.000
colony/g
Szegi
Nitrate exploration 34.28 mg/kg Felföldy
Microbial biomass
carbon
333 mg/kg Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS 1987: An
extraction method for measuring soil microbial
biomass-C. Soil Biol. Biochem.,19, 703–707.

Soil respiration

The experimental design was completely randomized, treatments were incubations (25°C). An OxiTop OC110 respirometer was used to quantify the release and capture of CO 2 that is automatically determined by the device after the biological oxygen demand (BOD) required for the degradation of organic matter has been measured. We used a 500 ml glass bottle system following the instruction manual ( https://www.wtw.com/en/service/downloads/operating-manuals.html). 10g of soil sample were placed into OxiTop flasks, and capped with the sensor heads according to Barrales-Brito et al. (2014) 33. 2.5g of CO 2 absorber (sodalime) were then added to a tank to absorb the generated CO 2 33. An induced method was also used, in which 0.1g glucose was added to the soil samples. Each treatment was replicated four times. As Figure 1 shows, four samples were always measured in parallel: Absolute control (does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose), Induced control (contains added glucose), Treated (contains bio-fertilizer) and Induced treated (contains bio-fertilizer and glucose). The Oxitop automatically provides the values related to CO 2 production according to the pressure change measured by its sensor (there is no need to carry out titrations or any additional work).

Figure 1. Differences in CO 2 production of treated and control soil samples.

Figure 1.

The induced method was carried out so that the difference between the results of control and the treated soil samples could become detectable sooner. Glucose was applied as inducer. As expected the CO 2 values increase or stagnate.

Results

The treated samples produced more CO 2 than the controls, as expected ( Dataset 1). Each repeat with the exception of one showed increasing CO 2 values ( Figure 1), as the pressure continuously decreased in the bottle due to gas (oxygen) consumption. One sample produced unexpected results ( Figure 2). In the first 12 hours, the treated samples produced more CO 2 than the controls in each measurement. Following this, a fluctuation in the values was observed.

Figure 2. This sample shows CO 2 values periodically decreasing in all conditions.

Figure 2.

After examining the Oxitop device’s operation, this pattern became more interesting to us, as the device quantifies CO 2 production by measuring BOD required for the degradation of organic matter. From the decreasing CO 2 values, we conclude that there was oxygen production and/or CO 2 consumption in the Oxitop bottles.

Average values of produced CO2 (ml/l) with different treatments. ’Control’ does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose. ’Control+Glucose’ contains 0,1 g of added glucose. ’Biofertilizer’ contains Phylazonit biofertilizer. ’Biofertilizer+Glucose’ contains Phylazonit biofertilizer and 0,1 g of added glucose

Copyright: © 2017 Bautista G et al.

Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Comparison of produced CO2 (ml/l) in the sample in which unexpected (periodically decreasing CO2) values can be observed. ’Control’ does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose. ’Control+Glucose’ contains 0,1 g of added glucose. ’Biofertilizer’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer. ’Biofertilizer+Glucose’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer and 0,1 g of added glucose

Copyright: © 2017 Bautista G et al.

Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Discussion

In a closed system where the pressure decreases due to oxygen consumption, the values of CO2 production must increase or stagnate with the passage of time, but this was not the case with one of the samples ( Figure 2). Here, a decrease in CO 2 occurred ( Dataset 2). The following possible explanations were excluded:

  • Presence of algae: there was no light in the incubator, so there was no photosynthesis.

  • Changing pressure caused by changing temperature: the temperature was constant in the setup.

  • Absorption by the water in the sample: all other samples that produced increasing amount of CO 2 had the same or comparable moisture content.

One reason that seemed more likely was that CO 2 oxidizing microbes or methanotrophs may have been present in the soil, using the produced CO 2 periodically. This is unusual, since most of the studies report the presence of these bacteria in seawater 34, paddy fields 35 or industrial processes 36 and not in well-ventilated Chernozem soil. Further genomics research could detect the bacterial strains that consumed the CO 2 in this soil.

Data availability

Dataset 1: Average values of produced CO 2 (ml/l) with different treatments. ’Control’ does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose. ’Control+Glucose’ contains 0,1 g of added glucose. ’Biofertilizer’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer. ’Biofertilizer+Glucose’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer and 0,1 g of added glucose. DOI, 10.5256/f1000research.12936.d182663 37.

Dataset 2: Comparison of produced CO 2 (ml/l) in the sample in which unexpected (periodically decreasing CO 2) values can be observed. ’Control’ does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose. ’Control+Glucose’ contains 0,1 g of added glucose. ’Biofertilizer’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer. ’Biofertilizer+Glucose’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer and 0,1 g of added glucose. DOI, 10.5256/f1000research.12936.d182664 38.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Sciences at University of Debrecen for providing the experimental setups.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

[version 2; referees: 2 approved]

References

  • 1. Sitkei Gy: Mez˝ogazdasági és erdészeti járm˝uvek modellezése.Akadémiai Kiadó.1986; (86). [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Lauber CL, Strickland MS, Bradford MA, et al. : The influence of soil properties on the structure of bacterial and fungal communities across land-use types. Soil Biol Biochem. 2008;40(9):2407–2415. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.05.021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Ulloa C, Pazmiño K, Cárdenas D, et al. : Desarrollo de repelencia al agua en suelos afectados por incendios, en una zona del parque metropolitano del distrito metropolitano de Quito. La Granja: Journal of Life Sciences. 2014;19(1):34–43. 10.17163/lgr.n19.2014.02 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Singla A, Dubey SK, Singh A, et al. : Effect of biogas digested slurry-based biochar on methane flux and methanogenic archaeal diversity in paddy soil. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2014;197:278–287. 10.1016/j.agee.2014.08.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Wardle DA: A comparative assessment of factors which influence microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen levels in soil. Biol Rev. 1992;67(3):321–358. 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1992.tb00728.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Olsen RA, Bakken LR: Viability of soil bacteria: Optimization of plate-counting technique and comparison between total counts and plate counts within different size groups. Microb Ecol. 1987;13(1):59–74. 10.1007/BF02014963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Dick RP: Soil Enzyme Activities as Indicators of Soil Quality. Oregon Agric Exp Stn Journal. 1994; (10):195 Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Hanson PJ, Edwards NT, Garten CT, et al. : Separating root and soil microbial contributions to soil respiration: A review of methods and observations. Biogeochemistry. 2000;48(1):115–146. 10.1023/A:1006244819642 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Jangid K, Williams MA, Franzluebbers AJ, et al. : Land-use history has a stronger impact on soil microbial community composition than aboveground vegetation and soil properties. Soil Biol Biochem. 2011;43(10):2184–2193. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.06.022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Cachipuendo-Ulcuango CJ, Requelme N, Gualavisí Cachiguango OM, et al. : Community use of water and land for sustainable production of pasture. La Granja: Journal of Life Sciences. 2017;26(2):142–154. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Granda MJ, Yánez P: Estudio sobre la percepcion de los beneficios del programa socio bosque en la region amazonica ecuatoriana. La Granja: Journal of Life Sciences. 2017;26(2):28–37. 10.17163/lgr.n26.2017.03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Vineela C, Wani SP, Srinivasarao CH, et al. : Microbial properties of soils as affected by cropping and nutrient management practices in several long-term manurial experiments in the semi-arid tropics of India. Appl Soil Ecol. 2008;40(1):165–173. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Olivares BO: Description of soil management in agricultural production systems of sector Hammock in Anzoategui, Venezuela. La Granja: Journal of Life Sciences. 2016;23(1):14–24. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 14. El-Yazeid A, Abou-Aly H, Mady M, et al. : Enhancing growth, productivity and quality of squash plants using phosphate dissolving microorganisms (bio phosphor) combined with boron foliar spray. Res J Agr Biol Sci. 2007;3(4):274–286. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Garg V, Kukreja K, Singla A: Efficacy of native rhizobial strains for nodulation and plant biomass production in berseem ( Trifolium alexandrinum L). AgricInternational. 2016;3(1–2):89–95. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Garg V, Kukreja K, Gera R, et al. : Production of indole-3-acetic acid by berseem ( Trifolium alexandrinum L.) rhizobia isolated from Haryana, India. Agr Sci Digest. 2015;35(3):229–232. 10.5958/0976-0547.2015.00053.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Anderson TH, Domsch KH: The metabolic quotient for CO 2 ( qCO 2) as a specific activity parameter to assess the effects of environmental conditions, such as ph, on the microbial biomass of forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 1993;25(3):393–395. 10.1016/0038-0717(93)90140-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Allison SD, Czimczik CI, Treseder KK: Microbial activity and soil respiration under nitrogen addition in Alaskan boreal forest. Glob Chang Biol. 2008;14(5):1156–1168. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01549.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Mátyás B, Kátai J, Horváth J: Comparative analysis of certain soil microbiological characteristics of carbon cycle. Acta Agraria. 2016; (69):137–142. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Horváth J, Mátyás B, Kátai J: Impact of agronomic factors on urease enzyme activity in a long term fertilizer experiment. Acta Agraria. 2016; (68):43–48. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Mátyás B, Tállai M, Kátai J, et al. : The impact of fertilisation on a few microbiological parameters of the carbon cycle. Acta Agraria. 2015; (64):45–50. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Horváth J, Tállai M, Mátyás B: A talaj nitrogéntartalmának és néhány egyéb tulajdonságának változása egytrágyázási tartamkísérletben csernozjom talajon. Acta Agraria. 2015; (64):39–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Klimes-Szmik A: A talajok fizikai tulajdonságainak vizsgálata.Talaj és trágyvizsgálati módszerek.1970; (48):83–161. [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Buzás I: Manual of Soil and Agrochemical Analysis. INDA 4231 Kiadó. Budapest,1988;1. [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Stefanovits Talajtan P: Mezogazdasági Kiadó. Budapest,1975. [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Oades JM: Associations of Colloids in Soil Aggregates. Soil Colloids and their Associations in Aggregates.(Chapter 17)1990;214:463–483. 10.1007/978-1-4899-2611-1_17 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Standard: MSZ-08 0205:1978. Hungarian Standards Institution,1978. [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Kong Y, Nagano H, Kátai J, et al. : CO 2, N 2O and CH 4 production/consumption potentials of soils under different land-use types in central Japan and eastern Hungary. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2013;59(3):455–462. 10.1080/00380768.2013.775005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Felföldy L: A biológiai vízmin˝osítés. Budapest kidadó,1987; (59):172–174. [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Szegi J: Talajmikrobiológiai vizsgálati módszerek. Mezogazdasági Kiadó, Budapest,1979;250–256. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Székely Á: Talaj-és agrokémiai vizsgálati módszerek 2. Mezogazdasági kiadó,1988;115. [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS: An extractionmethod for measuring soil microbial biomass-C. Soil Biol Biochem. 1987;19(6):703–707. 10.1016/0038-0717(87)90052-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Barreles-Brito E, Etchevers-Barra J, Hidalgo-Moreno C, et al. : Determinación in vitro de la emisión de CO 2 en muestras de mantillo in vitro determination of CO 2 emission in forest litter. Agrociencia. 2014;48(7):679–690. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Bae SL, Kwak K, Kim S, et al. : Isolation and characterization of CO 2-fixing hydrogen-oxidizing marine bacteria. J Biosci Bioeng. 2001;91(5):442–8. 10.1016/S1389-1723(01)80271-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Singla A, Inubushi K: CO 2, CH 4 and N 2O production potential of paddy soil after biogas byproducts application under waterlogged condition. Int J Agric Environ Biotech. 2013;6(2):233–239. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Kurek I, Reed JS, Dyson L, et al. : Engineered CO2-Fixing Chemotrophic Microorganisms Producing Carbon-Based Products and Methods of Using the Same. Patent, US20170152533 A1.2017. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Bautista G, Mátyás B, Carpio I, et al. : Dataset 1 in: Unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration while measuring the effect of a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity. F1000Research. 2017. Data Source [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Bautista G, Mátyás B, Carpio I, et al. : Dataset 2 in: Unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration while measuring the effect of a bio-fertilizer on soil microbial activity. F1000Research. 2017. Data Source [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2017 Dec 22. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.14500.r29290

Referee response for version 2

Muhammad Aslam Ali 1

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard to publish as a research note, however in case of a full manuscript it needs more scientific investigation on the variation of soil respiration as well as CO2 fluxes and soil microbial activities under specified environmental conditions.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2017 Nov 29. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.14027.r27583

Referee response for version 1

Muhammad Aslam Ali 1

1. Why did the authors select Phylazonit biofertilizer?  Does it contain any methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors? Didn’t find the composition.

2. Why not investigate the CO2 production rate with varying levels such as 0.5%, 1% and 5% substrates application in soils?

2. What were the initial content of organic carbon, total nitrogen, soil pH, redox status (Soil Eh) and microbial composition of the collected 24 soil samples?

3. How did the researchers control the pressure within the glass bottles during the experimental period?

4. How did the authors maintain moisture levels or water filled pore space uniformity in the 24 soil samples containing glass bottles?

5. Why didn’t you collect the gas samples evolved from the soils in glass bottles at varying time hours?

6. Why didn’t you follow the light/dark conditions in the Incubator where the glass bottles were kept?

7. All the Figures are not clear, no contrasting colors or bullets with lines used to differentiate the treatments.

8. How were soil microbial activities assessed? Methanogens and methanotroph’s relative intensity were not found in this script, which are the major focus related to the current research topic.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2017 Dec 1.
Gabriela Bautista 1

Dear Prof. Muhammad Aslam Ali

We are trying to answer your questions, and submit a second version of the manuscript in order to clarify the following points.

1. Why did the authors select Phylazonit biofertilizer?  Does it contain any methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors? Didn’t find the composition.

The Phylazonit Ltd. provided the biofertilzer for test. 

The Methods chapter begins with the information related to the composition: " Bacillus megateriumBacillus circulansPseudomonas putida, in an optimized ratio for soil injection". We did not say that the fertilizer contains methanotrophs bacterial spp. or any electron acceptors. Thats why the results presented in the paper are unexpected. 

2. Why not investigate the CO2 production rate with varying levels such as 0.5%, 1% and 5% substrates application in soils?

This Research note discusses only unexpected results come from an experiment that was carried out using Oxitop devices. This is part of a project in which more methods are applied. In an other method (using liquid-alkaline absorption) is possible to setup the different levels, but that is not part of the discussion of the present paper. Using Oxitop bottles only one level is possible for the setup.

2. What were the initial content of organic carbon, total nitrogen, soil pH, redox status (Soil Eh) and microbial composition of the collected 24 soil samples?

In the Dataset 1: Average values for a number of different soil properties you can find the main phyical, chemical and microbial soil properties such as pH (H2O), pH (KCl), Organic carbon. We will extend the dataset with the Total Nitrogen in the second version of the paper. 

3. How did the researchers control the pressure within the glass bottles during the experimental period?

The Oxitop automatically measures the changes in the bottles due to gas consumption by its sensor, there is no needed to apply external measurement.

4. How did the authors maintain moisture levels or water filled pore space uniformity in the 24 soil samples containing glass bottles?

The measurement was carried out in closed system (bootles), it is not possible to open the bottles during the measurement.

5. Why didn’t you collect the gas samples evolved from the soils in glass bottles at varying time hours?

The Oxitop continously measures the changes. As Fig.1 and Fig.2 show during 168 hours the gas  oxygen consumption/ CO2 production were measured. 

6. Why didn’t you follow the light/dark conditions in the Incubator where the glass bottles were kept?

In order to avoid the effect of the photosynthesis by algeas. We were interested in soil bacteria activities only.  

7. All the Figures are not clear, no contrasting colors or bullets with lines used to differentiate the treatments.

We do not understand this question. In Both figures we used different colors and bullets. 

  • Control (absolute): Blue

  • Control + glucose: Red

  • Treated: Green

  • Treated + glucose: Purple 

8. How were soil microbial activities assessed? Methanogens and methanotroph’s relative intensity were not found in this script, which are the major focus related to the current research topic.

This paper was submitted as a Research note. Research notes are often preliminary studies, descriptions of unexpected and perhaps unexplained observations or lab protocols. We concluded that "Further genomics research could detect the bacterial strains that consumed the  CO2 in this soil."

Gabriela Bautista, Bence Mátyás

F1000Res. 2017 Nov 20. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.14027.r27580

Referee response for version 1

Ankit Singla 1

Bautista and Matyas observed unexpected results in Chernozem soil respiration following the different fertilizer treatments. I think, the values of Dataset 2 could be directly included in the main content of the paper, if possible. The title of Dataset 1 should be "Average values for various properties of Chernozem soil". 

I have answered ‘partly’ to the question ‘ Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?’ as soil ecosystems are very diverse and results could vary under different environmental conditions.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Average values of produced CO2 (ml/l) with different treatments. ’Control’ does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose. ’Control+Glucose’ contains 0,1 g of added glucose. ’Biofertilizer’ contains Phylazonit biofertilizer. ’Biofertilizer+Glucose’ contains Phylazonit biofertilizer and 0,1 g of added glucose

    Copyright: © 2017 Bautista G et al.

    Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

    Comparison of produced CO2 (ml/l) in the sample in which unexpected (periodically decreasing CO2) values can be observed. ’Control’ does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose. ’Control+Glucose’ contains 0,1 g of added glucose. ’Biofertilizer’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer. ’Biofertilizer+Glucose’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer and 0,1 g of added glucose

    Copyright: © 2017 Bautista G et al.

    Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

    Data Availability Statement

    Dataset 1: Average values of produced CO 2 (ml/l) with different treatments. ’Control’ does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose. ’Control+Glucose’ contains 0,1 g of added glucose. ’Biofertilizer’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer. ’Biofertilizer+Glucose’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer and 0,1 g of added glucose. DOI, 10.5256/f1000research.12936.d182663 37.

    Dataset 2: Comparison of produced CO 2 (ml/l) in the sample in which unexpected (periodically decreasing CO 2) values can be observed. ’Control’ does not contain fertilizer, nor added glucose. ’Control+Glucose’ contains 0,1 g of added glucose. ’Biofertilizer’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer. ’Biofertilizer+Glucose’ contains Phylazonit bio-fertilizer and 0,1 g of added glucose. DOI, 10.5256/f1000research.12936.d182664 38.


    Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

    RESOURCES