T-Stor
 

T-Stor >
Crops, Environment & Land Use Programme >
Environment, Soils & Land Use >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11019/387

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.
Bellamy, Pat
Black, Helaina I. J.
Cameron, Clare M.
Campbell, Colin D.
Chamberlain, Paul
Harris, Jim
Parekh, Nisha
Pawlett, Mark
Poskitt, Jan
Stone, Dote
Ritz, Karl
Keywords: CLPP
Multiple substrate-induced respiration
Repeatability
Soil enzymes
Soil monitoring
Issue Date: Jul-2009
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Citation: Creamer, R., Bellamy, P., Black, H. J., Cameron, C., Campbell, C., Chamberlain, P., Harris, J., Parekh, N., Pawlett, M., Poskitt, J., Stone, D. & Ritz, K. 2009. 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, 45, 623-633
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 were tested for intrinsic (within-assay plate) variation, inter-laboratory repeatability (geometric mean regression and correlation coefficient) and land-use discrimination (principal components analysis). Intrinsic variation was large for both assays suggesting that high replicate numbers are 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.
Description: peer-reviewed
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11019/387
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00374-009-0374-y
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00374-009-0374-y#
ISSN: 0178-2762
Appears in Collections:Environment, Soils & Land Use

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
Interlaboratory Compasion BFS.pdf193.54 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright


View Statistics

Items in T-Stor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

Valid XHTML 1.0! Teagasc - The Agriculture and Food Development Authority  2012  - Feedback