Determination and Comparison of Microbial Biomass Carbon in the Rhizosphere Soil of Different Plants

Min Hui; Yu Ding; Xin Ying Wang; Yang Zhuang; Ji Fei Xu

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.664.23

Paper Titles

Ecological Industry Chain Project Decision Study Based on Price View
p.3

Pricing Decision Study of Ecological Industry Chain Based on Uncertain Demand
p.8

Experiment and Practice on the Wastewater Treatment in Tunnel Construction Processing
p.13

Environmental Productivity Growth in Chinese Construction Industry
p.19

Determination and Comparison of Microbial Biomass Carbon in the Rhizosphere Soil of Different Plants
p.23

Identification of Yangtze River and Yellow River Paleochannels in South Yellow Sea Shelf
p.27

A New and Reproducible Surface-Enhanced Resonance Raman Scattering Method for the Determination of Trace Au(III) in Solution Using 4-Mercaptopyridine as Molecular Probe
p.32

Research on Green Supply Chain Management and Enterprise’s Green Degree Evaluation Model
p.37

Evaluation of the Acoustic Environment of a Neighborhood and Application of the DPSIR
p.42

HomeAdvanced Materials ResearchAdvanced Materials Research Vol. 664Determination and Comparison of Microbial Biomass...

Determination and Comparison of Microbial Biomass Carbon in the Rhizosphere Soil of Different Plants

Abstract:

Selecting rhizosphere soil as the object of study which from 5 different kinds of plants in the Inner Mongolia University campus, we use fumigation extraction method and liquid chlorine fumigation extraction-water bath method to determine the microbial biomass carbon in the rhizosphere soil of different plants, in order to compare that whether or not liquid chlorine fumigation extraction-water bath method applicable to this type of soil sample. The results show that, there are significant differences in the rhizosphere soil microbial biomass carbon of 5 different kinds of plants, determination results is that Pyrus sorotina (LS) > Platycladus orientalis (CB) > Prunus persica (TS)> Syringa vulgaris (DX) > Pinus tabuliformis (YS), the content of P. sorotina is highest, 260.53 mg/kg, and P. tabulaeformis is lowest, 121.11 mg/kg, the differ is 139.42 mg/kg. There is a big gap between the measure values of the two methods, so that liquid chlorine fumigation extraction-water bath method doesn’t apply to the determination of this type microbial biomass carbon.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volume 664)

Pages:

23-26

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.664.23

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

February 2013

Authors:

Min Hui, Yu Ding, Xin Ying Wang, Yang Zhuang, Ji Fei Xu

Keywords:

Fumigation Extraction Method, Liquid Chlorine Fumigation Extraction-Water Bath Method, Microbial Biomass Carbon, Rhizosphere Soil

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

Citation:

References

[1] Y. Wang, Q.R. Shen, R.H. Shi and D.M. Huang: J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. 19(1996), pp.45-51.

Google Scholar

[2] G.C. Chen: Chinese J. Soil Sci. 30(1999), pp.284-287.

Google Scholar

[3] X. L Zhang, S.J. Yang and B.X. Zhang: J. Shenyang Agric. Univer. 33(2002), pp.461-465.

Google Scholar

[4] P. Hu, X.K. Wu, S.W. Li, G.X. Liu and W. Zhang: J. Glaciol. & Geocryol. 34(2012), pp.732-739.

Google Scholar

[5] M. Kusum, R.S. Tripathi, A. Arunachalam, H.N. Pandey: Appl. Soil Ecol. (1996), pp.31-37.

Google Scholar

[6] T. Rauch Williams and J.E. Drewes: Water Research. 40(2006), pp.961-968.

Google Scholar

[7] H. Zhou, W.T. Yu, Q. Ma and L. Zhang: Chin. J. Soil Sci. 40(2009), pp.154-157.

Google Scholar

[8] J.F. Xue, Y.M. Gao, J.K. Wang, S.F. Fu and F.C. Zhu: Chin. J. Soil Sci. 38 (2007), pp.247-250.

Google Scholar

[9] K. Hu, H.X. Li, W.S. Lu, Y.J. Liu and L.B. Wang: Chin. J. Eco-Agricu. 18(2010), pp.303-306.

Google Scholar

[10] Y.Q. L in, J. Hang, X. Kang and J. Wang: J. Southern Agric. 43(2012), pp.472-476.

Google Scholar

[11] H. Zheng, Z. Y, Ou Yang and X.K. Wang: Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 15 (2004), p.2019-(2024).

Google Scholar

[12] X.L. Zhang, S.J. Yang and B.X. Zhang: J. Shenyang Agric. Univer. 33(2002), pp.461-465.

Google Scholar