Combining N2:Ar and Bayesian Methods to Quantify Underestimation and Uncertainty of Sediment Denitrification Determined by the Acetylene Inhibition Method

Advancement of the Acetylene Inhibition Technique Using Time Series Analysis on Air-Dried Floodplain Soils to Quantify Denitrification Potential

“…In our total data set soils will consist mainly of clays, silts, and loams, and nutrients are added before the four-hour incubation, relatively small amounts of distortion can be expected. Additionally, they are also more likely to occur in the sense of underestimation, as studies comparing the AIT with N 2 :Ar ratio methods with membrane inlet mass spectrometry (MIMS) and direct N 2 measurements have shown [18,26]. To achieve better reliability, AIT's SDPs, whether from fresh or rewetted samples, should undergo the application of a correction coefficient derived from other mentioned methods [18,26].…”

“…In addition, an inhibition of nitrification, leading to the suppression of NO 3 supply [23,24] is receivable. Due to these limitations, an underestimation of actual soil denitrification potential (SDP) is likely [18,25,26]. Despite the possibility of overestimation, 15 N tracer methods with more reliable estimates of denitrification are considered to be more appropriate [16].…”

“…Despite the possibility of overestimation, 15 N tracer methods with more reliable estimates of denitrification are considered to be more appropriate [16]. However, only the procedures for the direct determination of N 2 have the potential to quantify uncertainties in SDP based on AIT and should be used for correction [18,26]. Moreover, this direct method does not require the addition of an inhibitor or substrate (labeled or otherwise), i.e., no interference is expected with microbial soil processes [16].…”