1 / 21

ISOTOPE FRACTIONATION FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SOIL DENITRIFICATION

ISOTOPE FRACTIONATION FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SOIL DENITRIFICATION. Dominika Lewicka-Szczebak 1 ,2 , Reinhard Well 2 , Laura Cardenas 3 , Peter Matthews 4 , Roland Bol 3 , Lena Rohe 1 1 Thünen-Institut, Germany, 2 Uni versity of Wroclaw, Poland

urania
Download Presentation

ISOTOPE FRACTIONATION FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SOIL DENITRIFICATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ISOTOPE FRACTIONATION FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SOIL DENITRIFICATION • Dominika Lewicka-Szczebak1,2 , Reinhard Well2, • Laura Cardenas3, Peter Matthews4, Roland Bol3, • Lena Rohe1 • 1 Thünen-Institut, Germany, 2University of Wroclaw, Poland • 3 Rothamsted Research,UK, 4University of Plymouth, UK, • 5 Agrosphere Institute, Germany

  2. Introduction ISOTOPE FRACTIONATION FACTORS DENITRIFICATION PROCESSES N2O production N2O reduction β α- position N2O reduction SP= α-β N N O N N N2 preferredconsumption of bondswith 14Nand16O ε N2O N O N2O production N N O ε NO ε differentiationwithinthemolecule O O N O ε H H NO2- exchange of O-isotopes withsoilwater ε changeinSP (SitePreference) NO3- N N O β α- position O ε O H H N O O sum of ε → NIE – Net IsotopeEffects → ƞ of 3 independent factors: δ15N, δ18O, SP N N N N N enrichment in 15N e.g. ƞ 15N: -45 - -13‰ O O O enrichment in 18O

  3. Introduction OBJECTIVES OF MODELING APROACH Determination of Net IsotopeEffects of productionand reduction Comparison of NIEs for differentreaction dynamics and different experimental conditions Development of a method to calculate reduction contribution based on isotopomers data

  4. Introduction RAYLEIGH EQUATIONS δS- isotopicsignature of substrateinparticular point of thereaction δ S0 - isotopicsignature of substrateprior to initiation of thereaction f - remainingunreactedfraction ƞP-S- Net IsotopeEffect (NIE) betweenproduct and substrate (Mariotti et al., 1981) δ15N N2O production δS NO32- δP η N2O δS0=0‰ η remaining nitrate

  5. Introduction RAYLEIGH EQUATIONS δS- isotopicsignature of substrateinparticular point of thereaction δ S0 - isotopicsignature of substrateprior to initiation of thereaction f - remainingunreactedfraction ƞP-S- Net IsotopeEffect (NIE) betweenproduct and substrate (Mariotti et al., 1981) δ15N N2O production + reduction δS NO32- δP η N2O δS0=0‰ η fred=0.8 fred=0.5 δS0 fred=0.2 remaining nitrate

  6. Methods EXPERIMENTS DESIGN 1 known reduction only N2O production 8 variants, 1 water saturation:75 WFPS C2H2 addition reduction inhibition no C2H2 reduction occurs gas samples each 2/4/12h • GC-analyses N2O • isotopomers analysis (15N, 18O, SP in N2O) • 15N (N2), 15N (N2O) analysis soil samples beginning / end • NO3- content • δ15N, δ18O of NO3-

  7. Methods / Results MODELING STRATEGY 1 only N2O production + known N2O reduction INPUTS INPUTS N2O emission NO3- consumption δ15N, δ18O of NO3- δ15N, δ18O, SP of N2O f unconsumed NO3- N2O emission NO3- consumption δ15N, δ18O of NO3- ƞP-S of N2O production δ15N, δ18O, SP of N2O 15N (N2), 15N (N2O) δS0 N2O before reduction δS, δS0 δS f unreduced fraction OUTPUTS ƞP-Sof N2Oproduction OUTPUTS ƞP-Sof N2Oreduction fast rate reaction

  8. Methods EXPERIMENTS DESIGN 2 on-line GC-analyses 1.5h time step known reduction amendment addition samples for isotopomers analysis once a day ‘DENIS’ incubation system 3 water saturations: 100 WFPS, 94 WFPS, 85 WFPS

  9. Methods / Results MODELING STRATEGY 2 known N2O reduction INPUTS found by itinerations to reachthebest fit betweenmodeled and measuredvalues (Rock et al., 2011) OUTPUTS (Well & Flessa, 2009) pool2 – high reductionratio produced SP range: from -10‰ (bacteria) to 36‰ (fungi) minimalvalue of δ18O ca. 10 ‰ (Ostrom & Ostrom, 2011) (Snider et al., 2011)

  10. Methods / Results IMPROVED MODELING STRATEGY 2 INPUTS OUTPUTS OUTPUTS INPUTS pool2 – high reductionratio I wyniki – że zależy od tempa procesu, mniejsze/większe – różne poole

  11. ResultsFIT OF MEASURED AND MODELED DATA SAT/sat δ15N UNSAT/sat HALFSAT/sat

  12. DiscussionCONTROLLING FACTORS 15N NIE of production increasing reactions rates – – smaller fractionation factors increasing production rate smaller difference between product and substrate increasing soil moisture– – smaller fractionation factors ε - FRACTIONATION FACTORS K - PROCESS RATES increasing water content enzymatic reaction diffusion into cell enzyme activity diffusion diffusion out of cell 100% WFPS 94% WFPS 85% WFPS 75% WFPS (Farquar et al., 1982; Ostrom & Ostrom, 2011; Well et al., acc.)

  13. DiscussionCONTROLLING FACTORS 15N NIE of reduction increasing substrate availability – – higher fractionation factors increasing reduction ratio higher difference between product and substrate decreasing soil moisture– – higher fractionation factors ε - FRACTIONATION FACTORS K - PROCESS RATES enzymatic reaction diffusion into cell enzyme activity diffusion diffusion out of cell unreduced fraction increasing substrate availability (Jinuntuya-Nortman et al., 2008, Ostrom & Ostrom, 2011)

  14. DiscussionCONTROLLING FACTORS produced 18O increasingreactionsrates– –higherδvalues – lowerequilibriumwithsoilwater ? 100% WFPS 94% WFPS 85% WFPS 75% WFPS

  15. Conclusions • Wide range of Net Isotope Effects associated with denitrification N2O production and reductionƞ15N: -43 - -18‰ ƞ15N: -9 - -1‰δ18O: 10 - 40‰ ƞ18O: -20 - -4‰ ƞSP: -10 - 1‰ ƞSP: -12 - -2‰ • The magnitude of isotope effects is controlled by several factorshigher NIEs when lower reactions rates, higher substrate availability, more efficient substrate transportation (e.g. lower soil moisture) • Modelling aproach provides promising results for future development of a method to calculate reduction contribution based on isotopomers data -45 - -13‰ -9 - -5‰ 11 - 24‰ -20 - -13‰ -10 - 10‰ -8 - -3‰ * * *previous literature data (Well & Flessa, 2009; Ostrom & Ostrom, 2011)

  16. N N N N O N N N N O N N N N O N N N N O N N N N O N N N N O N N N N O N N N N O N N N N O N N N N O N N N N O N N N N O THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION • This research was funded by the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) with competitive grants BB/E001580/1 and BB/E001793/1 and by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) WE-1904-4. • The first authoris suppored by the Foundation for Polish Science. • DominikaLewicka-Szczebak

  17. MethodsMODEL CONSTRUCTION amendment pool1 emission terminated POOL1 – fast production, low reduction POOL2 – slow production, high reduction (Bergstermann et al., 2011)

  18. ResultsFIT OF MEASURED AND MODELED DATA SAT/sat SP UNSAT/sat HALFSAT/sat

  19. ResultsFIT OF MEASURED AND MODELED DATA SAT/sat δ18O HALFSAT/sat UNSAT/sat

  20. N2-free atmosphere N N N N O O H H O NO3- N O O

  21. N N N N O N N O C glucose 15NO3- O N O O O N C glucose O O NO3- O 15NO3- N O O O N O O NO3-

More Related