Optimizing pH for Soil Enzyme Assays Reveals Important Biochemical Functions in Low pH Soil

Abstract Soil enzyme assays are often used as indicators of potential biological functions. The objective of this study was to understand enzyme activity across a range of soil pH. Soils (0–15 cm) were collected from a heathland restoration project (established 1999) on the Isle of Purbeck, UK with treatments of elemental sulphur or ferrous sulphate compared to a control, acid grassland and heathland. Enzyme assays were conducted using fluorescent substrates for β-1,4-glucosidase, β-N-acetylglucosaminidase (NAG) and phosphatase with a range of buffer pH from 3.0 to 12.0. Differences in soil pH were still evident with the control (pH 5.3) and ferrous sulphate (pH 5.2) significantly higher than elemental sulphur (pH 4.5), acid grassland (pH 4.3) and heathland (pH 4.0). The optimum buffer pH for enzyme assays varied from pH 3-4.5 for β-glucosidase, pH 4–5 for NAG and pH 4–6 for phosphatase. Comparisons using a standard MUB pH resulted in different conclusions compared to optimum pH. For example, β-glucosidase activity at pH 5 for the control was significantly higher than elemental sulphur, acid grassland, and heathland. However, there were no differences when the pH optimums were considered. Comparisons of phosphatase activity at MUB pH 6.5 resulted in higher activity in the control plots compared to the heathland, despite the heathland soils showing the highest activity at optimum buffer pH. By examining the relationships between soil pH, enzyme activity, and assay conditions, this study highlights the importance of optimizing pH in enzyme assays when comparing diverse soil types.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of soil science and plant nutrition
Published
2024-08-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-024-01866-y
Citations
10
Primary Topic
Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.34

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Optimizing pH for Soil Enzyme Assays Reveals Important Biochemical Functions in Low pH Soil

Iain D. Green, Anita Díaz, Tandra D. Fraser, Sarah Duddigan et al.
10 citations
Journal of soil science and plant nutrition
Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
3.34
article

Optimizing pH for Soil Enzyme Assays Reveals Important Biochemical Functions in Low pH Soil

Iain D. Green, Anita Díaz, Tandra D. Fraser, Sarah Duddigan, Mark Tibbett
article en
10 citations

Abstract

Abstract Soil enzyme assays are often used as indicators of potential biological functions. The objective of this study was to understand enzyme activity across a range of soil pH. Soils (0–15 cm) were collected from a heathland restoration project (established 1999) on the Isle of Purbeck, UK with treatments of elemental sulphur or ferrous sulphate compared to a control, acid grassland and heathland. Enzyme assays were conducted using fluorescent substrates for β-1,4-glucosidase, β-N-acetylglucosaminidase (NAG) and phosphatase with a range of buffer pH from 3.0 to 12.0. Differences in soil pH were still evident with the control (pH 5.3) and ferrous sulphate (pH 5.2) significantly higher than elemental sulphur (pH 4.5), acid grassland (pH 4.3) and heathland (pH 4.0). The optimum buffer pH for enzyme assays varied from pH 3-4.5 for β-glucosidase, pH 4–5 for NAG and pH 4–6 for phosphatase. Comparisons using a standard MUB pH resulted in different conclusions compared to optimum pH. For example, β-glucosidase activity at pH 5 for the control was significantly higher than elemental sulphur, acid grassland, and heathland. However, there were no differences when the pH optimums were considered. Comparisons of phosphatase activity at MUB pH 6.5 resulted in higher activity in the control plots compared to the heathland, despite the heathland soils showing the highest activity at optimum buffer pH. By examining the relationships between soil pH, enzyme activity, and assay conditions, this study highlights the importance of optimizing pH in enzyme assays when comparing diverse soil types.

Journal of soil science and plant nutritionVol. 24(4)
University of Prince Edward Island (CA), Bio Food Tech (Canada) (CA), Health PEI (CA), University of Reading (GB), Bournemouth University (GB), Veterans Affairs Canada (CA)
European Commission, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
3.34
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.