Clarifying the interpretation of carbon use efficiency in soil through methods comparison

Kevin M. Geyer, Paul Dijkstra, Robert Sinsabaugh, Serita D. Frey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Accurate estimates of microbial carbon use efficiency (CUE) are required to predict how global change will impact microbially-mediated ecosystem functions such as organic matter decomposition. Multiple approaches are currently used to quantify CUE but the extent to which estimates reflect methodological variability is unknown. This limits our ability to apply or cross-compare published CUE values. Here we evaluated the performance of five methods in a single soil under standard conditions. The microbial response to three substrate amendment rates (0.0, 0.05, and 2.0 mg glucose-C g−1 soil) was examined using: 13C and 18O isotope tracing approaches which estimate CUE based on substrate uptake and growth dynamics; calorespirometry which infers growth and CUE from metabolic heat and respiration rates; metabolic flux analysis where CUE is determined as the balance between biosynthesis and respiration using position-specific 13CO2 production of labeled glucose; and stoichiometric modeling which derives CUE from elemental ratios of microbial biomass, substrate, and exoenzyme activity. The CUE estimates we obtained differed by method and substrate concentration, ranging under in situ conditions from <0.4 for the substrate-nonspecific methods that do not use C tracers (18O, stoichiometric modeling) to >0.6 for the substrate-specific methods that trace glucose use (13C method, calorespirometry, metabolic flux analysis). We explore the different aspects of microbial metabolism that each method captures and how this affects the interpretation of CUE estimates. We recommend that users consider the strengths and weaknesses of each method when choosing the technique that will best address their research needs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)79-88
Number of pages10
JournalSoil Biology and Biochemistry
Volume128
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Soil
Carbon
carbon
soil
substrate
Metabolic Flux Analysis
glucose
methodology
Glucose
respiration
capture method
comparison
method
Respiratory Rate
Growth
ecosystem function
global change
Isotopes
Biomass
microbial biomass

Keywords

  • Calorespirometry
  • Carbon use efficiency
  • Isotope tracing
  • Methods comparison
  • Microbial growth
  • Stoichiometric modeling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Microbiology
  • Soil Science

Cite this

Clarifying the interpretation of carbon use efficiency in soil through methods comparison. / Geyer, Kevin M.; Dijkstra, Paul; Sinsabaugh, Robert; Frey, Serita D.

In: Soil Biology and Biochemistry, Vol. 128, 01.01.2019, p. 79-88.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Geyer, Kevin M. ; Dijkstra, Paul ; Sinsabaugh, Robert ; Frey, Serita D. / Clarifying the interpretation of carbon use efficiency in soil through methods comparison. In: Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2019 ; Vol. 128. pp. 79-88.
@article{9c83c5a75b244dc5b1815a00606a4f60,
title = "Clarifying the interpretation of carbon use efficiency in soil through methods comparison",
abstract = "Accurate estimates of microbial carbon use efficiency (CUE) are required to predict how global change will impact microbially-mediated ecosystem functions such as organic matter decomposition. Multiple approaches are currently used to quantify CUE but the extent to which estimates reflect methodological variability is unknown. This limits our ability to apply or cross-compare published CUE values. Here we evaluated the performance of five methods in a single soil under standard conditions. The microbial response to three substrate amendment rates (0.0, 0.05, and 2.0 mg glucose-C g−1 soil) was examined using: 13C and 18O isotope tracing approaches which estimate CUE based on substrate uptake and growth dynamics; calorespirometry which infers growth and CUE from metabolic heat and respiration rates; metabolic flux analysis where CUE is determined as the balance between biosynthesis and respiration using position-specific 13CO2 production of labeled glucose; and stoichiometric modeling which derives CUE from elemental ratios of microbial biomass, substrate, and exoenzyme activity. The CUE estimates we obtained differed by method and substrate concentration, ranging under in situ conditions from <0.4 for the substrate-nonspecific methods that do not use C tracers (18O, stoichiometric modeling) to >0.6 for the substrate-specific methods that trace glucose use (13C method, calorespirometry, metabolic flux analysis). We explore the different aspects of microbial metabolism that each method captures and how this affects the interpretation of CUE estimates. We recommend that users consider the strengths and weaknesses of each method when choosing the technique that will best address their research needs.",
keywords = "Calorespirometry, Carbon use efficiency, Isotope tracing, Methods comparison, Microbial growth, Stoichiometric modeling",
author = "Geyer, {Kevin M.} and Paul Dijkstra and Robert Sinsabaugh and Frey, {Serita D.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.09.036",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "128",
pages = "79--88",
journal = "Soil Biology and Biochemistry",
issn = "0038-0717",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clarifying the interpretation of carbon use efficiency in soil through methods comparison

AU - Geyer, Kevin M.

AU - Dijkstra, Paul

AU - Sinsabaugh, Robert

AU - Frey, Serita D.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Accurate estimates of microbial carbon use efficiency (CUE) are required to predict how global change will impact microbially-mediated ecosystem functions such as organic matter decomposition. Multiple approaches are currently used to quantify CUE but the extent to which estimates reflect methodological variability is unknown. This limits our ability to apply or cross-compare published CUE values. Here we evaluated the performance of five methods in a single soil under standard conditions. The microbial response to three substrate amendment rates (0.0, 0.05, and 2.0 mg glucose-C g−1 soil) was examined using: 13C and 18O isotope tracing approaches which estimate CUE based on substrate uptake and growth dynamics; calorespirometry which infers growth and CUE from metabolic heat and respiration rates; metabolic flux analysis where CUE is determined as the balance between biosynthesis and respiration using position-specific 13CO2 production of labeled glucose; and stoichiometric modeling which derives CUE from elemental ratios of microbial biomass, substrate, and exoenzyme activity. The CUE estimates we obtained differed by method and substrate concentration, ranging under in situ conditions from <0.4 for the substrate-nonspecific methods that do not use C tracers (18O, stoichiometric modeling) to >0.6 for the substrate-specific methods that trace glucose use (13C method, calorespirometry, metabolic flux analysis). We explore the different aspects of microbial metabolism that each method captures and how this affects the interpretation of CUE estimates. We recommend that users consider the strengths and weaknesses of each method when choosing the technique that will best address their research needs.

AB - Accurate estimates of microbial carbon use efficiency (CUE) are required to predict how global change will impact microbially-mediated ecosystem functions such as organic matter decomposition. Multiple approaches are currently used to quantify CUE but the extent to which estimates reflect methodological variability is unknown. This limits our ability to apply or cross-compare published CUE values. Here we evaluated the performance of five methods in a single soil under standard conditions. The microbial response to three substrate amendment rates (0.0, 0.05, and 2.0 mg glucose-C g−1 soil) was examined using: 13C and 18O isotope tracing approaches which estimate CUE based on substrate uptake and growth dynamics; calorespirometry which infers growth and CUE from metabolic heat and respiration rates; metabolic flux analysis where CUE is determined as the balance between biosynthesis and respiration using position-specific 13CO2 production of labeled glucose; and stoichiometric modeling which derives CUE from elemental ratios of microbial biomass, substrate, and exoenzyme activity. The CUE estimates we obtained differed by method and substrate concentration, ranging under in situ conditions from <0.4 for the substrate-nonspecific methods that do not use C tracers (18O, stoichiometric modeling) to >0.6 for the substrate-specific methods that trace glucose use (13C method, calorespirometry, metabolic flux analysis). We explore the different aspects of microbial metabolism that each method captures and how this affects the interpretation of CUE estimates. We recommend that users consider the strengths and weaknesses of each method when choosing the technique that will best address their research needs.

KW - Calorespirometry

KW - Carbon use efficiency

KW - Isotope tracing

KW - Methods comparison

KW - Microbial growth

KW - Stoichiometric modeling

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055175058&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85055175058&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.09.036

DO - 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.09.036

M3 - Article

VL - 128

SP - 79

EP - 88

JO - Soil Biology and Biochemistry

JF - Soil Biology and Biochemistry

SN - 0038-0717

ER -