Water-based enzyme assays are more sensitive than buffer-based assays to tillage and site in the U.S. Corn Belt

• Sensitivity of enzyme activities to tillage and site compared across assay methods. • Water-based assays were 2-fold more sensitive to tillage and site than buffer-based. • Lower P- but higher C-, N- and S-hydrolytic enzyme activities by buffer-based assays. • Differences between water- and buffer-based activities not explained by assay pH. • Tillage effects on soil enzyme activities driven by soil organic carbon. Assay methodology can influence the sensitivity of soil enzyme activities to agroecosystem management practices. Using soils from six long-term tillage experiments encompassing maize-based agroecosystems and three soil orders (e.g., Mollisols, Alfisols, Ultisols) across the U.S., we quantified the sensitivity of acid phosphomonoesterase (AC-PME), alkaline phosphomonoesterase (AK-PME), β-glucosidase (BG), N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase (NAG), and arylsulfatase (SUL) activities to tillage practices (conventional vs none) and site measured by water-based assays versus buffer-based assays. To explain soil enzyme activity sensitivity differences between assay methodologies, we assessed (1) relative differences in activities measured with buffer- rather relative to water-based assays, (2) differences between soil and assay pH, and (3) activities on a soil versus soil organic carbon (SOC) basis. On a soil mass basis, enzyme activities were ≈2-fold more sensitive to tillage and to site using water- relative to buffer-based assays. Water-based NAG activity was most sensitive to tillage and site, whereas buffer-based SUL activity was least sensitive to tillage and buffer-based AK-PME activity was least sensitive to site. The difference between assay pH and soil pH were 1.5- to 6-fold lower for water-based assays, though pH divergences did not fully explain differences between water- and buffer-based activities. Buffer-based assays produced lower AC-PME (−32%) and AK-PME (−53%) activities but higher BG (+23%), NAG (+43%) and SUL (+87%) activities relative to water-based assays. Tillage effects on activities were primarily driven by SOC, except for buffer-based AK-PME activities. However, water-based activities maintained an enhanced sensitivity to site. We recommend the use of water-based assays to maximize the sensitivity of soil enzyme activities to tillage and to site.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Geoderma
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2025.117518
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.19
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Water-based enzyme assays are more sensitive than buffer-based assays to tillage and site in the U.S. Corn Belt

Jordon Wade, Rosa Elena Ibarra López, María B. Villamil, Matthew Fischel et al.
1 citations
Geoderma
Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
1.19
article

Water-based enzyme assays are more sensitive than buffer-based assays to tillage and site in the U.S. Corn Belt

Jordon Wade, Rosa Elena Ibarra López, María B. Villamil, Matthew Fischel, Morgan P. Davis, Andrew J. Margenot, Michel A. Cavigelli, Steve W. Culman, Jude E. Maul, Ezra Aberle
article en
1 citations

Abstract

• Sensitivity of enzyme activities to tillage and site compared across assay methods. • Water-based assays were 2-fold more sensitive to tillage and site than buffer-based. • Lower P- but higher C-, N- and S-hydrolytic enzyme activities by buffer-based assays. • Differences between water- and buffer-based activities not explained by assay pH. • Tillage effects on soil enzyme activities driven by soil organic carbon. Assay methodology can influence the sensitivity of soil enzyme activities to agroecosystem management practices. Using soils from six long-term tillage experiments encompassing maize-based agroecosystems and three soil orders (e.g., Mollisols, Alfisols, Ultisols) across the U.S., we quantified the sensitivity of acid phosphomonoesterase (AC-PME), alkaline phosphomonoesterase (AK-PME), β-glucosidase (BG), N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase (NAG), and arylsulfatase (SUL) activities to tillage practices (conventional vs none) and site measured by water-based assays versus buffer-based assays. To explain soil enzyme activity sensitivity differences between assay methodologies, we assessed (1) relative differences in activities measured with buffer- rather relative to water-based assays, (2) differences between soil and assay pH, and (3) activities on a soil versus soil organic carbon (SOC) basis. On a soil mass basis, enzyme activities were ≈2-fold more sensitive to tillage and to site using water- relative to buffer-based assays. Water-based NAG activity was most sensitive to tillage and site, whereas buffer-based SUL activity was least sensitive to tillage and buffer-based AK-PME activity was least sensitive to site. The difference between assay pH and soil pH were 1.5- to 6-fold lower for water-based assays, though pH divergences did not fully explain differences between water- and buffer-based activities. Buffer-based assays produced lower AC-PME (−32%) and AK-PME (−53%) activities but higher BG (+23%), NAG (+43%) and SUL (+87%) activities relative to water-based assays. Tillage effects on activities were primarily driven by SOC, except for buffer-based AK-PME activities. However, water-based activities maintained an enhanced sensitivity to site. We recommend the use of water-based assays to maximize the sensitivity of soil enzyme activities to tillage and to site.

GeodermaVol. 462
Agricultural Research Service (US), Oregon State University (US), University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US), Carrington College (US), Syngenta (United States) (US), Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (US), Institute for Sustainability (GB), University of Missouri (US), Syngenta (Switzerland) (CH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
1.19
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.