Crops, Environment & Land Use Programme >
Environment, Soils & Land Use >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||An inter-laboratory comparison of multi-enzyme and multiple substrate-induced respiration assays to assess method consistency in soil monitoring|
|Authors: ||Creamer, Rachel E.|
Black, Helaina I. J.
Cameron, Clare M.
Campbell, Colin D.
Multiple substrate-induced respiration
|Issue Date: ||1-Jul-2009|
|Citation: ||Rachel E. Creamer, Pat Bellamy, Helaina I. J. Black, Clare M. Cameron, Colin D. Campbell, Paul Chamberlain, Jim Harris, Nisha Parekh, Mark Pawlett, Jan Poskitt, Dote Stone, Karl Ritz. An inter-laboratory comparison of multi-enzyme and multiple substrate-induced respiration assays to assess method consistency in soil monitoring. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2009, 45(6), pp 623-633. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-009-0374-y|
|Series/Report no.: ||Biology and Fertility of Soils;vol 45|
|Abstract: ||The use of indicators in soil monitoring schemes to detect changes in soil quality is receiving increased attention, particularly the application of soil biological methods. However, to date, the ability to compare information from different laboratories applying soil microbiological techniques in broad-scale monitoring has rarely been taken into account. This study aimed to assess the consistency and repeatability of two techniques that are being evaluated for use as microbiological indicators of soil quality; multi-enzyme activity assay and multiple substrate induced respiration (MSIR). Data was tested for intrinsic (within-plate) variation, inter-laboratory repeatability (geometric mean regression and correlation coefficient) and land-use discrimination (principal components analysis, PCA). Intrinsic variation was large for both assays suggesting that high replicate numbers will be required. Inter-laboratory repeatability showed diverging patterns for the enzyme assay and MSIR. Discrimination of soils was significant for both techniques with relatively consistent patterns, however combined laboratory discrimination analyses for each technique showed inconsistent correspondence between the laboratories. These issues could be addressed through the adoption of reliable analytical standards for biological methods along with adequate replication. However, until the former is addressed, dispersed analyses are not currently advisable for monitoring schemes.|
|Appears in Collections:||Environment, Soils & Land Use|
Items in T-Stor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.