Next Article in Journal
Microbial and Plant Assisted Synthesis of Cobalt Oxide Nanoparticles and Their Antimicrobial Activities
Next Article in Special Issue
Modelling the Organic Evolution of a Mediterranean Limestone Soil under Usual Cropping of Durum Wheat and Faba Bean
Previous Article in Journal
Comparing Sensor-Based Adjustment of Weed Harrowing Intensity with Conventional Harrowing under Heterogeneous Field Conditions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Nitrogen Immobilisation and Microbial Biomass Build-Up Induced by Miscanthus x giganteus L. Based Fertilisers
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Microbial Biomass Sulphur—An Important Yet Understudied Pool in Soil

1
Soil Science and Soil Ecology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universitätsstr. 150/IA, 44801 Bochum, Germany
2
Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Faculty of Life Sciences, Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, Marie-Curie-Str. 1, 47533 Kleve, Germany
3
Institute of Soil Science, PMAS Arid Agriculture University, Murree Road, Rawalpindi 46300, Pakistan
4
Soil Biology and Plant Nutrition, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstr. 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(8), 1606; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081606
Received: 28 June 2021 / Accepted: 5 August 2021 / Published: 12 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Soil Microbes and Nutrient Recycling in Agroecosystems)

Abstract

:
Soil microorganisms require a range of essential elements for their optimal functioning and store several elements in the microbial biomass (MB), such as carbon (C), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and sulphur (S), as well as other secondary and trace elements. The C, N and P content of the microbial biomass has been quantified in many studies for many years, whereas S has been the focus only in a few studies, despite the availability of methods and the relevance of MBS for the S turnover in soils. To illustrate the relevance of MBS, this review aims at summarizing the current state of knowledge on the quantities of MBS in different soils, influencing environmental and agricultural management factors, methodological shortcomings, and prospects for soil microbial biomass research. Median MBS contents were 6.0 µg g−1 soil in arable, 7.6 µg g−1 soil in grassland, and 5.7 µg g−1 soil in forest soils. All extractants used led to similar MBS contents in soils with similar soil organic (SO) C contents. MBC and soil pH positively explained MBS, using multiple linear regression analysis. Median MB-C/S ratios increased in the order arable (55), grassland (85), and forest (135) soils. As the overall quantity of MBS data is still small, future studies are required to verify these observations. Moreover, future research needs to more strongly consider stoichiometric relationships of elements in the soil and the soil microbial ionome. The role of S and its complex relationship with the availability of other elements in soils for the soil microbial biomass and its functions remains to be elucidated.

1. Introduction

Sulphur (S) is quantitatively the fourth most important nutrient element for most plants and microorganisms and is thus critical for crop production and soil fertility. In most soils, total S is predominantly (more than 93%) present as soil organic S (SOS), which has a similar distribution to total nitrogen (N) in soil. Exceptions are saline soils, which may contain large amounts of Na2SO4 [1], gypsiferous soils, which contain large amounts of CaSO4 × 2H2O [2], and iron sulphide minerals (FeS2) in hydric soils. In soil microorganisms, S fulfils a wide range of functions. For example, in combination with Fe, S is an important component of many redox systems in all cells [3] and, thus, to an unknown extent, contributes to the anti-oxidation potential of soils [4,5]. The presence of sufficient S in soil is inevitably necessary for maintaining or increasing soil organic matter (SOM) stocks [6,7].
A large variety of organic S components exists, which can all be metabolized by soil microorganisms, so that the microbial biomass (MB) plays a pivotal role as sink and source in the S turnover of soils. Consequently, plant availability of S is facilitated by soil microorganisms in systems with no or limited mineral S input. In bacteria, C–S bonds are dominant, whereas in fungi a large part of S is bound in C–O–S esters [8], which might be reflected by the ratios of microbial biomass C/S and fungal/bacterial biomass [8,9,10] as well as by differences in S turnover [11]. Organic and inorganic S forms are both metabolized by soil microorganisms, so that MBS originates from both S sources [11]. Elemental S and metal sulphides can be oxidized to SO42− mainly by Gram negative Thiobacillus spp., although many other microbial groups contribute to this process, Arthrobacter, Pseudomonas and Actinobacteria, but also fungi [12]. Conversely, SO42− can be used by obligate anaerobic soil bacteria, e.g., Desulfuromonas spp., as an electron acceptor for respiration processes (desulphurization), so that soils may lose S not only by SO42− leaching but also as H2S.
Sulphur deficiencies in crops have been increasingly identified in Central Europe, due to the strong reduction in industrial emissions, the decrease in S concentration of fuels, and the increase in S demand with increasing yields, especially of oil-seed rape (Brassica napus L.) and legumes [13,14], but also winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) [15]. In contrast, other areas, such as India and East China, receive higher doses of atmospheric SO2 from industry and traffic [16,17], so that the sink function of MBS may be important for buffering acidification [11]. Although MBS contributes only 0.9 to 2.6% to SOS, it plays a crucial role for S supply to plants by mineralization, due to the high microbial turnover intensity in arable, grassland and forest ecosystems [11,18,19].
In addition to MBS, recently formed and excreted organic S present in extra-polymeric substances (EPS) of microorganisms is important in this context. This fraction was mineralized more rapidly than the bulk SOS, which has been shown in laboratory studies by using the radioactive isotope 35S [13,20,21]. Experiments for elucidating the relevance of microbial S turnover in the field, using the stable isotope 34S, which contributes 4.21% to all S isotopes, are rare in soil biogeochemistry [22,23]. Not only the failure to use 34S labelling or the 32S/34S ratio [24] but also the absence of any studies investigating the response of MB-C/S ratios to nutrient supply is astonishing, considering the huge interest in investigating microbial stoichiometry for more than a decade [25,26,27]. Interestingly, most of these studies were restricted to C/N/P relationships [28,29,30]. A rare exception was the incubation study of Khan and Joergensen [31], who investigated the interacting effects of N, P, and S limitation by applying four different organic components.
In the current study, we extended the review of Banerjee and Chapman [11] with the data on MBS additionally published over the last 25 years, separated according to the three land-use forms arable, grassland, and forest. In addition, soil microbial (MBC and MBN) and soil chemical properties (soil pH, SOC, total N, and SOS) were compiled to analyze the relationships between total storage of C, N, and S in SOM and in the active MB fraction (Table 1). The central objective of the current review was to renew the current state of knowledge on MBS in different soils, as affected by land-use management, methodological shortcomings, and future prospects for MBS research. The underlying hypotheses were the following: (1) MBS is closely related to the SOS content, which increases in the order arable < forest < grassland soils. (2) The MB-C/S ratio depends on S supply and is related to the SO-C/S ratio, which increases in the order arable < grassland < forest soils.

2. Data Acquisition, Handling, and Statistical Analysis

All papers citing Saggar et al. [18] and Khan et al. [32] were checked to determine whether they contain information on MBS contents, at least in one soil. Saggar et al. [18] published the first paper on describing the fumigation extraction for MBS, and Khan et al. [32] published a paper on the use of the fumigation extraction method for measuring the microbial ionome, inclusive MBS. Papers not citing any of these two references were additionally searched in Scopus with the key words “MBS”, “Smic”, “microbial S”, and “biomass S”. This resulted in a total number of 33 papers (Supplementary Materials), which give information on MBS for at least one soil. Information on basic soil chemical (soil pH, SOC, total N, and SOS) and additional soil microbial properties (MBC and MBN) were collected if present (Table 1). This means not all MBS data were accompanied by all of these additional data. SOS was calculated from total S, if not present, using the relationship:
SOS = total S × 0.93,
obtained from Khan et al. [2], excluding all saline soils. Soil pH-H2O was calculated from pH-CaCl2, if not present, using the formula:
pH-H2O = (pH-CaCl2 + 0.373)/0.923,
given by Ahern et al. [33]. All CHCl3 labile S data were recalculated to MBS, using a uniform conversion value (kES) of 0.35, which is the most widespread due to the strongest experimental foundation [11]. Outliers were rejected according to Doerffel [34]. This led to the removal of two papers with data of two grassland soils, due to excessively large MB-C/S ratios of 379 and 1271 [35]. Two arable soils were removed due to excessively high MB-N/S ratios of 38 and 81 [36,37]. Two soils listed by Banerjee and Chapman [11] were not considered, as they were corrected for SO4 adsorption in a non-comprehensible way, without using a kES value [38,39].
The results presented in the table (Supplementary Materials) and figures are expressed on an oven-dry basis. Normality was tested by the Shapiro-Wilk test and equal variance by the Levene test. As most data did not fulfil these two requirements, they were ln-transformed. The confounding effects of SOC on extractant comparison and of soil pH and land use were investigated by analysis of covariance. Multiple linear relationships were calculated between MBS, MB-C/S, and MB-N/S as a dependent variable and SOC, total N, SOS, and soil pH as independent variables, selected by stepwise forward regression analysis. All regression models were tested for normality (Shapiro–Wilk), constancy of variance, the absence of correlation between the residuals (Durbin–Watson statistics) and the absence of multi-collinearity, calculating the variance inflation factor (VIF). Variables were removed from the model if the VIF value exceeded 4.0. All statistical analyses were performed using SigmaPlot 13.0 (Systat, San José, CA, USA).

3. Land-Use Effects on MBS

Median MBS contents were 6.0 µg g1 soil in arable, 7.6 µg g1 soil in grassland, and 5.7 µg g1 soil in forest soils (Figure 1a). The difference between arable and grassland soils was significant, due to the higher SOC and SOS contents in the grassland soils, reflecting the higher C input by plants. The differences of the soils from these two land-use forms to the forest soils were not significant, due to the low number of cases (n = 11) and the high variation between soils. Analysis of covariance showed that the difference between arable and grassland soils in MBS content was mainly caused by differences in soil pH. In line with this, MBC and soil pH positively explained MBS (r2 = 0.77, n = 102), according to multiple linear regression analysis (Figure 1b).
Site-specific MBS contents of the three land-use systems ranged from 1.1 to 29.1 µg g1 soil, i.e., a ten-fold smaller range than that reported by Banerjee and Chapman [11], because we excluded two organic soils, provided in their review. The median MBS/SOS ratio was 2.2%, without any effect of land-use system, i.e., MBS and SOS contents were similarly affected by SOM content and soil pH. Consequently, the SOS availability to soil microorganisms does not differ between the land-use systems (Figure 2a). In contrast, the MBC/SOC ratios (Figure 2b) increased in the order forest (1.5%), arable (2.1%), and grassland soils (2.3%), indicating an increase in SOM availability [40,41].
MBS decreased more rapidly during fast growth of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) than in the unplanted soil [42], indicating that soil microorganisms supplied S to deficient crops. On the other hand, the application of compost with large C/S ratios resulted in strong S immobilization in pot experiments [42], indicating that crops and soil microorganisms compete for available S. In an incubation experiment with low molecular weight, organic N, P, and S sources, P limitation decreased MB-C/S ratios, emphasizing the importance of microbial S metabolism in this case [31]. This is in line with the observation that sulpholipids can replace phospholipids to a certain extent under P limited conditions [43]. Sulpholipids were found in a wide range of bacteria and eukaryotes [44,45].
Banerjee and Chapman [11] stated 25 years ago that MBS measurements have been mainly restricted to temperate arable and grassland soils. Consequently, they requested more information on MBS from forest soils and tropical soils. However, only a minute amount of MBS data has been added from forest soils to the current dataset during the last 25 years. This is also true for organic soils, where Banerjee and Chapman [11] found maximum MBS values of 140 µg g−1 in a forest layer and 311 µg g−1 in a peatland sample. In such organic soils, the importance of the microbial biomass for nutrient storage is often more important than in mineral soils [46,47].
The general lack of MBS data for most ecosystems is astonishing, considering there have been numerous publications dealing with stochiometric relationships in the last decade, mainly focusing on C/N/P relationships in microorganisms and soil [29,48]. Kirkby et al. [6] already highlighted the importance of S for SOC storage. This suggestion has been taken up in several studies on the relevance of SOS [2], but without considering MBS as a central control of S turnover in soil.

4. Methodological Remarks on MBS Determination

The MBS contents extracted with 10 mM CaCl2 significantly exceeded those extracted with 1 M NH4NO3 (Figure 3). However, analysis of covariance showed that this difference could be explained by differences in SOC content, as mainly grassland soils were extracted with 10 mM CaCl2 and mainly arable soils with 1 M NH4NO3; i.e., all extractants led to similar MBS contents in soils with similar SOC contents.
The fumigation extraction (FE) method for MBS proposed by Saggar et al. [18] was the first FE method for the determination of specific nutrients within the microbial biomass. However, the number of citations of this method is relatively small in comparison with the methods for MBP [49], MBN [50], and MBC [51]. Although the approach of Saggar et al. [18] was highly innovative at the time of publication, the method gives a rather immature impression from a present-day perspective. Saggar et al. [18,52] added liquid CHCl3 to the soil samples, did not evacuate the CHCl3, used two different extractants, and proposed two different kES values to convert CHCl3-labile S into MBS, i.e., 0.35 for CaCl2 and 0.41 for NaHCO3 as extractant. Saggar et al. [18,52] also did not exactly describe the method used for S determination in soil extracts. Although none of these uncertainties is a serious problem for the performance of the method, they might have restricted its use.
In contrast to MBC, MBN, and MBP measurements, a larger range of extractants have been used to determine soil MBS, such as 10 mM CaCl2 [8,18,35,51,52,53,54], 100 mM NaHCO3 [8,18,53,55,56], 16 M Ca(H2PO4)2 [57,58], 16 mM KH2PO4 [59,60], 16 mM NaH2PO4 [53,61], 0.5 M KCl [62], and 1 M NH4NO3 [9,10,32,63,64,65,66]. The salt of an extractant should flocculate the soil colloids and prevent adsorption of CHCl3-labile S-components during extraction. Amino acids can be absorbed by negatively charged surfaces of clay minerals, whereas SO42− can be adsorbed by positively charged iron oxides. The use of 10 mM CaCl2 and 16 mM NaH2PO4 as extractants allows total S measurements by ion chromatography in soil extracts after H2O2 oxidation [32,35,54,61,67,68]. The high salt concentration of 1 M NH4NO3 and 0.5 M KCl reduces the decomposition of CHCl3-labile S-components during measurement. The different extractants mainly lead to different S levels in the non-fumigated soil extracts [32], whereas the extractant effects on the MBS contents are generally negligible, summarizing all data (Figure 3) and correcting for the SOC bias.
In contrast to ion-chromatography, X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy was rarely used for S detection in soil extracts [8,55]. The same was true for the sole determination of HI-reducible S [19,60]. The reduction method of Johnson and Nishita [69], followed by colorimetric detection, was repeatedly used in several studies [20,70,71,72,73,74,75]. However, most S data were measured by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry, i.e., ICP-OES [9,10,32,38,39,53,62,63,64,66,76,77]. ICP-OES is certainly the preferred method. However, the lower detection limits of modern ICP-systems are combined with sensitivity against higher salt concentrations, so that 1 M NH4NO3 extracts require a 1/10 dilution.
The available literature on the determination of the kES value has been extensively reviewed by Banerjee and Chapman [11] and no further attempt has been made since the study of Wu et al. [35]. All fumigation extraction approaches need appropriate conversion (kE) values to calculate the total amount of an element kept in the biomass from the extractable CHCl3 labile fraction [78]. Although these conversion values were sometimes subject to debate [79,80], they have the advantages (1) of drawing attention to the uncertainties of a specific method, (2) of forcing the uniform use of a method without modifications, and (3) of drawing quantitative relationships to the total amounts stored in soil organic matter as independent quality checks [81].
The reported kES values ranged from 0.17 to 0.46 [11]. They were mainly based on the application of several cultured single bacterial and fungal species to one soil. One attempt has been made to add mixed cultures of unknown soil bacteria and fungi, which led to a kES value of 0.39 [58]. Randlett et al. [82] and Wu et al. [35] labelled soil MBS with 35S directly in situ and both obtained a kES value of 0.35, using a soil/extractant ratio of 1/5. The application of cultured organisms requires that these cultures do not contain any necromass, which is usually not tested. Direct in situ labelling has the drawback that an unknown percentage of microbial metabolites has left the biomass [81]. The soil/extractant ratio should not decrease below 1/4, as this reduces the extractability of CHCl3 labile material [83]. For this reason, the soil/extractant ratio should be increased to 1/20 [76] or even 1/40 [46] in soils containing large amounts of organic matter, such as litter layers or peat samples. A kES value of 0.35 for MBS is at the lower end of the corresponding conversion values kEP = 0.40 for MBP [49], kEC = 0.45 for MBC [84], and kEN = 0.54 for MBN [50].
It was sometimes assumed that soil type may affect kES values [11]. However, it is known that the kEC [78] and kEN [85] values were not affected by soil type. In contrast, it is possible that the ratio of fungal to bacterial biomass affects kEC and kEN values, as fumigation rendered more CHCl3-labile material extractable from fungi than from bacteria [86,87]. However, the effects of microbial community composition on conversion values are generally small, as the ratio of fungal to bacterial biomass varies in most soils in a rather small range [2,88]. Nonetheless, in contrast to MBC and MBN, cultured fungi released on average only 34.9% CHCl3-labile S (±1.7 SEM, n = 15) after fumigation, i.e., significantly (p < 0.05, t-test) less than bacteria, at 40.7% (±1.7 SEM, n = 15) [11,18,19]. This means that the extractable fraction of the FE method is usually more related to the cytoplasm and the non-extractable fraction than to cell membrane and cell wall components [11,89,90]. Consequently, a higher percentage of MBS is related to the stable cell fraction in comparison with MBN, contrasting the view that S has high turnover rates [11,19,21]. This discrepancy cannot be solved by the currently available knowledge.
Based on current knowledge, we propose to use 10 mM CaCl2 as extractant after 24 h fumigation and repeated evacuation at least at a soil/extractant ratio of 1/5 as well as a kES value of 0.35 proposed by Saggar et al. [18] and Wu et al. [35]. ICP-OES is certainly the most recommend analytical tool, although ion chromatography and the reduction method give reliable and useful MBS data with less technical effort.

5. MBS Stoichiometry

Median MB-C/S ratios significantly increased in the order arable (55), grassland (85), and forest (135) soils (Figure 4a). These differences reflect the respective median SO-C/S ratios, which were similar and significantly increased in the same order, i.e., 61, 88, and 150, respectively. The MB-C/S ratio could be positively explained by the SOS content and negatively by the soil pH (Figure 4b), although these two independent variables explained only a third (r2 = 0.33) of the MB-C/S variance (Figure 4b). Analysis of covariance showed that land-use effects were mainly due to differences in soil pH, changing S supply and quality of the C input by plants [2,31].
It is a striking feature of the current results that the MB-C/S ratio is similar to the SO-C/S ratio, i.e., S is not specifically enriched in the microbial biomass. However, the soil-specific correlation between these ratios is rather weak, as some studies of the current dataset showed lower MB-C/S ratios in comparison with the SO-C/S ratios [31,32,35,67]. Consequently, future studies may draw a different picture than the current review. In contrast, the MB-C/P ratio is always lower than the SO-C/P ratio (or SOC/total P ratio) and also the MB-C/N is in most cases lower than the SOC/total N ratio [2]. Exceptions are often tropical [91] and subtropical soils under saline conditions [2], where the MB-C/N and SOC/total N ratios are similar, most likely due to P or micro-nutrient limitation of soil microorganisms [31,92]. The absence of specific S accumulation in the microbial biomass is explicable by the following three reasons, considering the large variation of S availability in soil: (1) The MB-C/S ratio depends on the S supply of soils; (2) The MB-C/S ratio does not differ from that of microbial necromass but presumably also not from that of plant residues, which are the two main SOC sources; (3) S metabolism in soil microorganisms does not require homoeostasis, e.g., due to the ability to store an excess S supply.
The view has been stated that N and S turnover in soils are closely interconnected [93], which might be a reason for neglecting the microbial S turnover. However, this close relationship is surprising, as C-bonded S contributes a highly variable range of 33–85% to SOS, whereas 15–60% are contributed by non-protein C–O–S esters, i.e., hydrogen iodide-reducible S [59,60,62,70,94]. C-bonded S is dominated by S-containing amino acids, such as cysteine, cystine, and methionine. C-bonded S also occurs in minor percentages in co-enzymes and co-factors, e.g., CoA, CoM, α-lipoic acid, biotin, molybdopterins, S-adenosyl methionine, thiamine-pyrophosphate, etc. [95,96,97,98]. Antioxidants, such as glutathione, also contain C-bonded S [99,100].
Less is known about the chemical nature of C–O–S esters in soil microorganisms. An important SO42− ester in soil may be chondroitin-sulphate, which is composed of glucuronic acid and N-acetyl-galactosamine esterified with SO42− at various positions [101]. In addition to animals, bacteria and fungi also are known to produce chondroitin-sulphate [101]. Consequently, fungal and bacterial EPS may contain chondroitin sulphate and might be an important source of soil galactosamine, as proposed by Joergensen [102]. This would also explain the observation of Fitzgerald et al. [103] that soil microorganisms immobilized 35SO4 as C–O–S ester into water-soluble polysaccharides, i.e., EPS.
Fungi contain a large percentage of SO4-esters, metabolized to a large variety of C-O-S components [104]. In addition, some fungi contain vacuoles [105], which might be able to store excess SO4 immediately after uptake, as observed by Saggar et al. [18,52]. They also observed that cultured fungi can increase their biomass S concentration by about 50-130%, whereas cultured bacteria can enhance their biomass S concentration by only 20%. Consequently, soil fungi may contain more S in their biomass and exhibit lower MB-C/S ratios than soil bacteria. The combined application of cellulose, which specifically promotes fungi [106,107], and SO42− led to lower MB-C/S ratios than the application of glucose [108].
In line with this view, Heinze et al. [9,10] and Murugan et al. [63] reported a decrease in the MB-C/S ratio with increasing contribution of saprotrophic fungi to the microbial biomass in long-term fertilization trials, as assessed by ergosterol. However, such a relationship has not always been observed [62] and the current dataset is too limited to give further information on the relationship between MB-C/S and the ratio of fungal to bacterial biomass. Further research is needed to elucidate the level of stoichiometric heterostasis in fungi and bacteria, the two dominating functional taxa of the soil microbial biomass [79].

6. Conclusions

Fumigation extraction is still a useful tool for estimating the contribution of soil microorganisms to the S turnover in soils. The method is rather robust against methodological variations, so that MBS may be measured by all scientists interested in investigating this important and neglected nutrient quantitatively, despite distinct differences in laboratory equipment. MBS and the performance of microorganisms mineralizing SOS is an important source of plant available SO42−. Future research needs to more strongly consider stoichiometric relationships of elements in the soil and the soil microbial ionome and how they are related to soil functions and soil type. Further, it is crucial to understand how chemical and physical soil properties influence the soil microbial ionome in the soil system and under which conditions S becomes limited for soil microbial functions.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy11081606/s1. Overview of the datasets used for the review paper “Microbial biomass sulphur - an important, yet understudied pool in soil”.

Author Contributions

The conceptualization was done by S.H., R.G.J. and F.W.; calculations with statistical software for the manuscript was conducted by R.G.J. Validation was done by S.H., F.W., K.S.K., M.H. and S.A.S. Resource acquiring was done by S.H. and F.W.; the main writing was done by R.G.J. and S.H., while the work improved due to comprehensive reviewing process by K.S.K., M.H., S.A.S. and F.W. Project administration and coordination were done by S.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding by the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (grant number 005-1703-0025, project Soil ionoMICS).

Data Availability Statement

The dataset used is added within the Supplementary Material. Further, the dataset is available on request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Muhammad, S.; Müller, T.; Joergensen, R.G. Relationships between soil biological and other soil properties in saline and alkaline arable soils from the Pakistani Punjab. J. Arid Environ. 2008, 72, 448–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Khan, K.S.; Mack, R.; Castillo, X.; Kaiser, M.; Joergensen, R.G. Microbial biomass, fungal and bacterial residues, and their relationships to the soil organic matter C/N/P/S ratios. Geoderma 2016, 271, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Johnson, D.C.; Dean, D.R.; Smith, A.D.; Johnson, M.K. Structure, function, and formation of biological iron-sulfur clusters. Ann. Rev. Biochem. 2005, 74, 247–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rimmer, D.L. Free radicals, antioxidants, and soil organic matter recalcitrance. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2006, 57, 91–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Schlichting, A.; Rimmer, D.L.; Eckhardt, K.-U.; Heumann, S.; Abbott, G.D.; Leinweber, P. Identifying potential antioxidant compounds in NaOH extracts of UK soils and vegetation by untargeted mass spectrometric screening. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 58, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kirkby, C.A.; Richardson, A.E.; Wade, L.J.; Batten, G.D.; Blanchard, C.; Kirkegaard, J.A. Carbon-nutrient stoichiometry to increase soil carbon sequestration. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 60, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tipping, E.; Somerville, C.J.; Luster, J. The C:N:P:S stoichiometry of soil organic matter. Biogeochemistry 2016, 130, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  8. Chapman, S.J. Microbial sulphur in some Scottish soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1987, 19, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Heinze, S.; Raupp, J.; Joergensen, R.G. Effects of fertilizer and spatial heterogeneity in soil pH on microbial biomass indices in a long-term field trial of organic agriculture. Plant Soil 2010, 328, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Heinze, S.; Rauber, R.; Joergensen, R.G. Influence of mouldboard plough and rotary harrow tillage on microbial biomass and nutrient stocks in two long-term experiments on loess derived Luvisols. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2010, 46, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Banerjee, M.R.; Chapman, S.J. The significance of microbial biomass sulphur in soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1996, 22, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Aliasgharzadeh, N.; Saedi, S.; Zamzami, S. Efficiency of acidophilic Thiobacillus in sulfur oxidation and pH reducing in soil. J. Agric. Sci. 1998, 8, 75–91. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dedourge, O.; Vong, P.-C.; Lasserre-Joulin, F.; Benizri, E.; Guckert, A. Immobilization of sulphur-35, microbial biomass and arylsulphatase activity in soils from field-grown rape, barley and fallow. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2003, 38, 181–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kertesz, M.A.; Mirleau, P. The role of soil microbes in plant sulphur nutrition. J. Exp. Bot. 2004, 55, 1939–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  15. Jannoura, R.; Bruns, C.; Joergensen, R.G. Organic fertilizer effects on pea yield, nutrient uptake, microbial root colonization and soil microbial biomass indices in organic farming systems. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 49, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nowlan, C.R.; Martin, R.V.; Philip, S.; Lamsal, L.N.; Krotkov, N.A.; Marais, E.A.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Q. Global dry deposition of nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide inferred from space-based measurements. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2014, 28, 1025–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  17. Aas, W.; Mortier, A.; van Bowersox, V.; Cherian, R.; Faluvegi, G.; Fagerli, H.; Hand, J.; Klimont, Z.; Galy-Lacaux, C.; Lehmann, C.M.B.; et al. Global and regional trends of atmospheric sulfur. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Saggar, S.; Bettany, J.R.; Stewart, J. Measurement of microbial sulfur in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1981, 13, 493–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Strick, J.E.; Nakas, J.P. Calibration of a microbial sulfur technique for use in forest soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1984, 16, 289–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ghani, A.; McLaren, R.; Swift, R.G. The incorporation and transformations of 35S in soil: Effects of soil conditioning and glucose or sulphate additions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1993, 25, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vong, P.-C.; Dedourge, O.; Lasserre-Joulin, F.; Guckert, A. Immobilized-S, microbial biomass-S and soil arylsulfatase activity in the rhizosphere soil of rape and barley as affected by labile substrate C and N additions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2003, 35, 1651–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chalk, P.M.; Inácio, C.T.; Chen, D. Tracing S dynamics in agro-ecosystems using 34S. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 114, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wirth, J.S.; Wang, T.; Huang, Q.; White, R.H.; Whitman, W.B. Dimethylsulfoniopropionate sulfur and methyl carbon assimilation in Ruegeria species. mBio 2020, 11, e00329-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  24. Tcherkez, G.; Tea, I. 32S/34S isotope fractionation in plant sulphur metabolism. New Phytol. 2013, 200, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cleveland, C.C.; Liptzin, D. C:N:P stoichiometry in soil: Is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass? Biogeochemistry 2007, 85, 235–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Manzoni, S.; Trofymow, J.A.; Jackson, R.B.; Porporato, A. Stoichiometric controls on carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus dynamics in decomposing litter. Ecol. Monogr. 2010, 80, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S.; Keiblinger, K.M.; Mooshammer, M.; Peñuelas, J.; Richter, A.; Sardans, J.; Wanek, W. The application of ecological stoichiometry to plant–microbial–soil organic matter transformations. Ecol. Monogr. 2015, 85, 133–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  28. Hartman, W.H.; Richardson, C.J. Differential nutrient limitation of soil microbial biomass and metabolic quotients (qCO2): Is there a biological stoichiometry of soil microbes? PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e57127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, J.; Seven, J.; Zilla, T.; Dippold, M.A.; Blagodatskaya, E.; Kuzyakov, Y. Microbial C:N:P stoichiometry and turnover depend on nutrients availability in soil: A 14C, 15N and 33P triple labelling study. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 131, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Coonan, E.C.; Kirkby, C.A.; Kirkegaard, J.A.; Amidy, M.R.; Strong, C.L.; Richardson, A.E. Microorganisms and nutrient stoichiometry as mediators of soil organic matter dynamics. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2020, 117, 273–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Khan, K.S.; Joergensen, R.G. Stoichiometry of the soil microbial biomass in response to amendments with varying C/N/P/S ratios. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2019, 55, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Khan, K.S.; Heinze, S.; Joergensen, R.G. Simultaneous measurement of S, macronutrients, and heavy metals in the soil microbial biomass with CHCl3 fumigation and NH4NO3 extraction. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ahern, C.R.; Baker, D.E.; Aitken, R.L. Models for relating pH measurements in water and calcium chloride for a wide range of pH, soil types and depths. Plant Soil 1995, 171, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Doerffel, K. Statistik in der Analytischen Chemie, 3rd ed.; Verlag Chemie: Weinheim, Germany, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wu, J.; O’Donnell, A.G.; He, Z.L.; Syers, J.K. Fumigation-extraction method for the measurement of soil microbial biomass-S. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1994, 26, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Haynes, R.J. The use of polyethylene mulches to change soil microclimate as revealed by enzyme activity and biomass nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1987, 5, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Haynes, R.J.; Swift, R.S. Effects of lime and phosphate additions on changes in enzyme activities, microbial biomass and levels of extractable nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus in an acid soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1988, 6, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sarathchandra, S.U.; Perrott, K.W.; Littler, R.A. Soil microbial biomass: Influence of simulated temperature changes on size, activity and nutrient-content. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1989, 21, 987–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Perrott, K.W.; Sarathchandra, S.U. Seasonal variations in soil S flush and possible contributions from plant roots in the measurement of soil microbial sulfur, phosphorus, potassium and nitrogen. Soil Res. 1990, 28, 747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Anderson, T.-H.; Domsch, K.H. Ratios of microbial biomass carbon to total organic carbon in arable soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1989, 21, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Anderson, T.-H.; Domsch, K.H. Soil microbial biomass: The eco-physiological approach. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010, 42, 2039–2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chowdhury, M.H.; Kouno, K.; Ando, T.; Nagaoka, T. Microbial biomass, S mineralization and S uptake by African millet from soil amended with various composts. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2000, 32, 845–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Merchant, S.S.; Helmann, J.D. Elemental economy: Microbial strategies for optimizing growth in the face of nutrient limitation. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 2012, 60, 91–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  44. Godchaux, W.; Leadbetter, E.R. Sulfonolipids of gliding bacteria. Structure of the N-acylaminosulfonates. J. Biol. Chem. 1984, 259, 2982–2990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Benning, C. Biosynthesis and function of the sulfolipid sulfoquinovosyl diacylglycerol. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 1998, 49, 53–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Brake, M.; Höper, H.; Joergensen, R.G. Land use-induced changes in activity and biomass of microorganisms in raised bog peats at different depths. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1999, 31, 1489–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zederer, D.P.; Talkner, U.; Spohn, M.; Joergensen, R.G. Microbial biomass phosphorus and C/N/P stoichiometry in forest floor and a horizons as affected by tree species. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 111, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rosinger, C.; Rousk, J.; Sandén, H. Can enzymatic stoichiometry be used to determine growth-limiting nutrients for microorganisms?—A critical assessment in two subtropical soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 128, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Brookes, P.C.; Powlson, D.S.; Jenkinson, D.S. Measurement of microbial biomass phosphorus in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1982, 14, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Brookes, P.C.; Landman, A.; Pruden, G.; Jenkinson, D.S. Chloroform fumigation and the release of soil nitrogen: A rapid direct extraction method to measure microbial biomass nitrogen in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1985, 17, 837–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Vance, E.D.; Brookes, P.C.; Jenkinson, D.S. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1987, 19, 703–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Saggar, S.; Bettany, J.R.; Stewart, J. Sulfur transformations in relation to carbon and nitrogen in incubated soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1981, 13, 499–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Banerjee, M.R.; Chapman, S.J.; Killham, K. Factors influencing the determination of microbial biomass sulphur in soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1993, 24, 939–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chowdhury, M.A.H.; Kouno, K.; Ando, T. Correlation among microbial biomass s, soil properties, and other biomass nutrients. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 1999, 45, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chapman, S. Partitioning of ryegrass residue sulphur between the soil microbial biomass, other soil sulphur pools and ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.). Biol. Fertil. Soils 1987, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Perucci, P. Effect of the addition of municipal solid-waste compost on microbial biomass and enzyme activities in soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1990, 10, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Castellano, S.D.; Dick, R.P. Modified calibration procedure for the measurement of microbial sulfur in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1991, 55, 283–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Castellano, S.D.; Dick, R.P. Cropping and sulfur fertilization influence on sulfur transformations in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1991, 55, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ghani, A.; McLaren, R.; Swift, R.S. The Incorporation and Remineralisation of 35S in Soil Organic Sulphur Fractions. In Proceedings of the Towards the More Efficient use of Soil and Fertiliser Sulphur, Massey University, Palmerston North, NZ, USA, 17–18 February 1988. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ghani, A.; McLaren, R.G.; Swift, R.S. Seasonal fluctuations of sulphate and soil microbial biomass-S in the surface of a Wakanui soil. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 1990, 33, 467–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yavitt, J.B.; Wieder, R.K.; Wright, S.J. Soil nutrient dynamics in response to irrigation of a Panamanian tropical moist forest. Biogeochemistry 1992, 19, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Prietzel, J.; Weick, C.; Korintenberg, J.; Seybold, G.; Thumerer, T.; Treml, B. Effects of repeated (NH4)2SO4 application on sulfur pools in soil, soil microbial biomass, and ground vegetation of two watersheds in the Black Forest/Germany. Plant Soil 2001, 230, 287–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Murugan, R.; Koch, H.-J.; Joergensen, R.G. Long-term influence of different tillage intensities on soil microbial biomass, residues and community structure at different depths. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2014, 50, 487–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Murugan, R.; Loges, R.; Taube, F.; Sradnick, A.; Joergensen, R.G. Changes in soil microbial biomass and residual indices as ecological indicators of land use change in temperate permanent grassland. Microb. Ecol. 2014, 67, 907–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Heinze, S.; Oltmanns, M.; Joergensen, R.G.; Raupp, J. Changes in microbial biomass indices after 10 years of farmyard manure and vegetal fertilizer application to a sandy soil under organic management. Plant Soil 2011, 343, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Murugan, R.; Loges, R.; Taube, F.; Joergensen, R.G. Specific response of fungal and bacterial residues to one-season tillage and repeated slurry application in a permanent grassland soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2013, 72, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wu, J.; O’Donnell, A.G.; Syers, J.K. Microbial growth and sulphur immobilization following the incorporation of plant residues into soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1993, 25, 1567–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. He, Z.L.; Wu, J.; O’Donnell, A.G.; Syers, J.K. Seasonal responses in microbial biomass carbon, phosphorus and sulphur in soils under pasture. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1997, 24, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Johnson, C.M.; Nishita, H. Microestimation of sulfur in plant materials, soils, and irrigation waters. Anal. Chem. 1952, 24, 736–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ghani, A.; McLarren, R.G.; Swift, R.S. Mobilization of recently-formed soil organic sulphur. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1993, 25, 1739–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nguyen, M.L.; Goh, K.M. Accumulation of soil sulphur fractions in grazed pastures receiving long-term superphosphate applications. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 1990, 33, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Maynard, D.G.; Stewart, J.; Bettany, J.R. Sulfur and nitrogen mineralization in soils compared using two incubation techniques. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1983, 15, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gupta, V.V.S.R.; Lawrence, J.R.; Germida, J.J. Impact of elemental sulfur fertilization on agricultural soils. I. Effects on microbial biomass and enzyme activities. Can. J. Soil. Sci. 1988, 68, 463–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gupta, V.V.S.R.; Germida, J.J. Microbial biomass and extractable sulfate sulfur levels in native and cultivated soils as influenced by air-drying and rewetting. Can. J. Soil. Sci. 1989, 69, 889–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Malik, K.M.; Khan, K.S.; Akhtar, M.S.; Ahmed, Z.I. Sulfur distribution and availability in alkaline subtropical soils affected by organic amendments. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 20, 2253–2266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chen, C.R.; Condron, L.M.; Davis, M.R.; Sherlock, R.R. Effects of land-use change from grassland to forest on soil sulfur and arylsulfatase activity in New Zealand. Soil Res. 2001, 39, 749–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Yang, Z.; Singh, B.R.; Hansen, S.; Hu, Z.; Riley, H. Aggregate associated sulfur fractions in long-term (>80 years) fertilized soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Joergensen, R.G. Quantification of the microbial biomass by determining ninhydrin-reactive N. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1996, 28, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Martens, R. Current methods for measuring microbial biomass C in soil: Potentials and limitations. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1995, 19, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhang, X.; Wang, W.; Chen, W.; Zhang, N.; Zeng, H. Comparison of seasonal soil microbial process in snow-covered temperate ecosystems of northern China. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e92985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  81. Joergensen, R.G.; Wichern, F. Alive and kicking: Why dormant soil microorganisms matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 116, 419–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Randlett, D.L.; Zak, D.R.; MacDonald, N.W. Sulfate adsorption and microbial immobilization in northern hardwood forests along an atmospheric deposition gradient. Can. J. For. Res. 1992, 22, 1843–1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Needelman, B.A.; Wander, M.M.; Shi, G.S. Organic carbon extraction efficiency in chloroform fumigated and non-fumigated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 1731–1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wu, J.; Joergensen, R.G.; Pommerening, B.; Chaussod, R.; Brookes, P.C. Measurement of soil microbial biomass C by fumigation-extraction—An automated procedure. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1990, 22, 1167–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Joergensen, R.G.; Mueller, T. The fumigation-extraction method to estimate soil microbial biomass: Calibration of the kEN value. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1996, 28, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Greenfield, L.G. Release of microbial cell N during chloroform fumigation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1995, 27, 1235–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Eberhardt, U.; Apel, G.; Joergensen, R.G. Effects of direct chloroform fumigation on suspended cells of 14C and 32P labelled bacteria and fungi. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1996, 28, 677–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Joergensen, R.G.; Wichern, F. Quantitative assessment of the fungal contribution to microbial tissue in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 2977–2991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Jenkinson, D.S.; Powlson, D.S.; Wedderburn, R.W.M. The effects of biocidal treatments on metabolism in soil—III. The relationship between soil biovolume, measured by optical microscopy, and the flush of decomposition caused by fumigation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1976, 8, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Tate, K.R.; Ross, D.J.; Feltham, C.W. A direct extraction method to estimate soil microbial c: Effects of experimental variables and some different calibration procedures. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1988, 20, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Joergensen, R.G. Organic matter and micro-organisms in tropical soils. In Soil Biology and Agriculture in the Tropics; Dion, P., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 17–44. [Google Scholar]
  92. Salamanca, E.F.; Raubuch, M.; Joergensen, R.G. Microbial reaction of secondary tropical forest soils to the addition of leaf litter. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2006, 31, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Jenkinson, D.S. Soil organic matter and its dynamics. In Russell’s Soil Conditions and Plant Growth, 11th ed.; Wild, A., Ed.; Longman: Essex, UK, 1988; pp. 565–607. [Google Scholar]
  94. Nguyen, M.L.; Goh, K.M. Sulphur cycling and its implications on sulphur fertilizer requirements of grazed grassland ecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1994, 49, 173–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Guillén-Navarro, K.; Encarnación, S.; Dunn, M.F. Biotin biosynthesis, transport and utilization in rhizobia. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2005, 246, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  96. Schwarz, G.; Mendel, R.R. Molybdenum cofactor biosynthesis and molybdenum enzymes. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 2006, 57, 623–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Spalding, M.D.; Prigge, S.T. Lipoic acid metabolism in microbial pathogens. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2010, 74, 200–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  98. Xavier, J.C.; Patil, K.R.; Rocha, I. Integration of biomass formulations of genome-scale metabolic models with experimental data reveals universally essential cofactors in prokaryotes. Metab. Eng. 2017, 39, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  99. Pócsi, I.; Prade, R.A.; Penninckx, M.J. Glutathione, altruistic metabolite in fungi. Adv. Microbial. Physiol. 2004, 49, 1–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Smirnova, G.V.; Oktyabrsky, O.N. Glutathione in bacteria. Biochemistry 2005, 70, 1199–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Schiraldi, C.; Cimini, D.; de Rosa, M. Production of chondroitin sulfate and chondroitin. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 87, 1209–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Joergensen, R.G. Amino sugars as specific indices for fungal and bacterial residues in soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2018, 54, 559–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Fitzgerald, J.W.; Strickland, T.C.; Swank, W.T. Metabolic fate of inorganic sulphate in soil samples from undisturbed and managed forest ecosystems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1982, 14, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Linder, T. Assimilation of alternative sulfur sources in fungi. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 34, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  105. Klionsky, D.J.; Herman, P.K.; Emr, S.D. The fungal vacuole: Composition, function, and biogenesis. Microbiol. Rev. 1990, 54, 266–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Engelking, B.; Flessa, H.; Joergensen, R.G. Shifts in amino sugar and ergosterol contents after addition of sucrose and cellulose to soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 2111–2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Baldrian, P.; Valásková, V. Degradation of cellulose by basidiomycetous fungi. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2008, 32, 501–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  108. Chowdhury, M.A.H.; Kouno, K.; Ando, T. Critical sulphur concentration and sulphur requirement of microbial biomass in a glucose and cellulose-amended regosol. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2000, 32, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (a) MBS contents (µg g−1 soil) in arable (n = 77), grassland (n = 41), and forest soils (n = 11), different letters on top of outliers or whisker caps indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05, Holm-Sidak test); (b) multiple linear relationship between measured MBS as a dependent variable and predicted MBS by MBC and soil pH in water as an independent variable: ln MBS = −4.010 *** + 0.782 *** × ln MBC + 0.127 *** × pH-H2O, n = 102, adjusted r2 = 0.77 ***; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 1. (a) MBS contents (µg g−1 soil) in arable (n = 77), grassland (n = 41), and forest soils (n = 11), different letters on top of outliers or whisker caps indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05, Holm-Sidak test); (b) multiple linear relationship between measured MBS as a dependent variable and predicted MBS by MBC and soil pH in water as an independent variable: ln MBS = −4.010 *** + 0.782 *** × ln MBC + 0.127 *** × pH-H2O, n = 102, adjusted r2 = 0.77 ***; *** p < 0.001.
Agronomy 11 01606 g001
Figure 2. (a) MBS/SOS ratios in arable (n = 72), grassland (n = 39), and forest soils (n = 4) as well as (b) MBC/SOC ratios in arable (n = 65), grassland (n = 36), and forest soils (n = 5); different letters on top of outliers or whisker caps indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05, Holm–Sidak test).
Figure 2. (a) MBS/SOS ratios in arable (n = 72), grassland (n = 39), and forest soils (n = 4) as well as (b) MBC/SOC ratios in arable (n = 65), grassland (n = 36), and forest soils (n = 5); different letters on top of outliers or whisker caps indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05, Holm–Sidak test).
Agronomy 11 01606 g002
Figure 3. MBS contents extracted with 10 mM CaCl2 (n = 75), 1 M NH4NO3 (n = 45), and other extractants (n = 9: 8 mM Ca(H2PO4)2 = 1; 0.1 M NaHCO3 = 2; 16 mM KH2PO4 = 2; 0.5 M KCl = 2; 16 mM NaH2PO4 = 2); different letters on top of outliers or whisker caps indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05, Holm–Sidak test).
Figure 3. MBS contents extracted with 10 mM CaCl2 (n = 75), 1 M NH4NO3 (n = 45), and other extractants (n = 9: 8 mM Ca(H2PO4)2 = 1; 0.1 M NaHCO3 = 2; 16 mM KH2PO4 = 2; 0.5 M KCl = 2; 16 mM NaH2PO4 = 2); different letters on top of outliers or whisker caps indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05, Holm–Sidak test).
Agronomy 11 01606 g003
Figure 4. (a) MB-CS ratios in arable (n = 67), grassland (n = 33), and forest soils (n = 7), different letters on top of outliers or whisker caps indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05, Holm–Sidak test); (b) multiple linear relationship between the MB-C/S ratio as a dependent variable and the SOS content as well as soil pH in water as independent variables: ln MB-CS = 4.802 *** + 0.138 * × ln SOS − 0.232 *** × pH-H2O, n = 97, adjusted r2 = 0.33 ***; * p < 0.5, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4. (a) MB-CS ratios in arable (n = 67), grassland (n = 33), and forest soils (n = 7), different letters on top of outliers or whisker caps indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05, Holm–Sidak test); (b) multiple linear relationship between the MB-C/S ratio as a dependent variable and the SOS content as well as soil pH in water as independent variables: ln MB-CS = 4.802 *** + 0.138 * × ln SOS − 0.232 *** × pH-H2O, n = 97, adjusted r2 = 0.33 ***; * p < 0.5, *** p < 0.001.
Agronomy 11 01606 g004
Table 1. Median, 25% and 75% as well as number of observations (n) for basic chemical and biological properties in arable, grassland, and forest soils.
Table 1. Median, 25% and 75% as well as number of observations (n) for basic chemical and biological properties in arable, grassland, and forest soils.
Variable Arable SoilsGrassland SoilsForest Soils
Soil pH-H2OMedian6.75.93.9
25%6.05.43.8
75%7.56.64.7
n68377
SOC (mg g−1 soil)Median13.035.436.1
25%8.623.820.3
75%22.845.453.2
n65418
Total N (mg g−1 soil)Median1.242.411.55
25%0.811.601.22
75%1.823.441.83
n64274
SOS (µg g−1 soil)Median224385189
25%172257152
75%362654360
n72394
MBC (µg g−1 soil)Median274755776
25%151442462
75%40217091122
n67357
MBN (µg g−1 soil)Median3595107
25%205787
75%49138259
n47243
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Heinze, S.; Hemkemeyer, M.; Schwalb, S.A.; Khan, K.S.; Joergensen, R.G.; Wichern, F. Microbial Biomass Sulphur—An Important Yet Understudied Pool in Soil. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1606. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081606

AMA Style

Heinze S, Hemkemeyer M, Schwalb SA, Khan KS, Joergensen RG, Wichern F. Microbial Biomass Sulphur—An Important Yet Understudied Pool in Soil. Agronomy. 2021; 11(8):1606. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081606

Chicago/Turabian Style

Heinze, Stefanie, Michael Hemkemeyer, Sanja Annabell Schwalb, Khalid Saifullah Khan, Rainer Georg Joergensen, and Florian Wichern. 2021. "Microbial Biomass Sulphur—An Important Yet Understudied Pool in Soil" Agronomy 11, no. 8: 1606. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081606

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop