Abstract
Benthic stream sediments interact strongly with phosphorus (P) and can buffer dissolved reactive P (DRP) concentrations. The sediment P buffer can be measured with the sediment equilibrium phosphate concentration at net zero sorption (EPC0), which often correlates well with DRP. Yet, it is unclear how much of this P affinity in sediments is attributable to biotic (microbial P demand) or abiotic (sorption) processes. To clarify the role of biotic processes on EPC0, we used two experiments with benthic sediment from 12 streams. First, sediments sterilized by γ-irradiation increased in EPC0 compared to fresh sediments by a median of 83%. This increase in EPC0 was likely a result of cell lysis, where microbial biomass P (2.4 to 22.6 mg P kg−1) was re-adsorbed to sediment surfaces. This data also shows that the sediment microbial biomass is a significant, yet under-reported biotic stock of P in streams compared to their photic zone counterpart (i.e., periphyton). In a second experiment, fresh sediment EPC0 was measured after alleviating potential limitation of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) for microbial growth. Sediment EPC0 did not change with C addition and decreased slightly (0.5 µg P L−1 or ~ 5% decrease) with N addition, suggesting these sediments strongly buffered DRP towards the EPC0 in spite of biotic demand. Together, these experiments suggest that sediment EPC0 was primarily abiotic in nature but that sediments may subsidize biotic P requirements through desorption. Further work is needed on whether this relation holds for streams with different substrate, geology, and nutrient inputs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Benthic sediments provide much of the phosphorus (P) attenuation observed in streams (Haggard and Sharpley 2007; Hamilton 2012). Sediments contain inorganic particles of varying sizes and geochemical characteristics derived from the parent material, which determine the sites available for P sorption (House 2003). Sediments also contain allochthonous and autochthonous stocks of organic matter (OM; Tank et al. 2010; Kaplan and Cory 2016), providing fuel for the metabolism of sediment microbial biofilms (Battin et al. 2016). These characteristics make the sediment matrix a hotspot of biogeochemical cycling for P as well as for carbon (C) and nitrogen (N). Hence, when P is removed from the water column at baseflow, it is difficult to pinpoint which biotic and abiotic mechanisms are responsible. Such mechanisms, when known, could inform better nutrient pollution modelling (Macintosh et al. 2018) and subsequent strategies to mitigate the effects of P enrichment (Meals et al. 2010; McDowell et al. 2018; Drohan et al. 2019).
The range of abiotic and biotic mechanisms that remove dissolved reactive P (DRP) from solution and into sediments is diverse. For example, reactive surfaces on particles, such as highly sorptive hydrous metal oxides (Dzombak and Morel 1987; Sposito 2004), often constitute much of the abiotic P sorption capacity and P storage in soils and sediments (Small et al. 2016; Audette et al. 2018; Herndon et al. 2019). Meanwhile, microorganisms entrained in the sediment matrix also require P for their growth and likely supply much of the biotic P uptake for stream sediments (Sinsabaugh et al. 2009; Van Horn et al. 2011; Hill et al. 2012). This biotic P uptake is dependent on stoichiometric demand (Cross et al. 2005; Maranger et al. 2018). While microorganisms beneath the benthic zone (primarily heterotrophs due to lack of light; Battin et al. 2016) can vary in stoichiometric P requirements (Cross et al. 2005; Scott et al. 2012), they approximate a molar C:N:P ratio of 60:7:1 (Cleveland and Liptzin 2007; Hill et al. 2010; Sinsabaugh et al. 2012). This ratio is P-rich relative to that of other lotic biota (Cross et al. 2005) and indicates the potential for sediment microorganisms to moderate stream P cycling if sufficient C and N are available. The distinction between abiotic and biotic sediment P removal is important, however, as not only are their rates and capacities different, they also differ in their responses to other processes within the stream (e.g., varying C and N resource supplies or changes in pH).
Sediments can strongly buffer solution DRP towards a concentration termed the equilibrium phosphate concentration at net zero sorption (EPC0; Froelich 1988). The EPC0 is measured from a series of batch sediment incubations with solutions of varying initial phosphate concentrations; the concentration where neither net removal nor release of P by the sediment occurs (i.e., the x-intercept from a P sorption plot) is the EPC0 (Taylor and Kunishi 1971; Froelich 1988). As such, sediment EPC0 relates to the potential of a sediment to buffer variable DRP concentrations in the water column. For example, Ekka et al. (2006) showed increases of several mg P L−1 in sediment EPC0 downstream from point source inputs of DRP relative to sediments immediately upstream, showing how the EPC0 is elevated with greater loadings of P. In large stream survey studies, McDaniel et al. (2009) and McDowell (2015) found that EPC0 not only related to P loading (e.g., relatively greater when influenced by point sources or agricultural land use) but also correlated with particle size and geochemical characteristics. That is, given a similar P loading, more (chemically) sorptive sediments will have a lower EPC0 and thus a greater potential to buffer in-stream DRP concentrations.
EPC0 does not differentiate between abiotic or biotic mechanisms that control sediment P flux. The sediments used for EPC0 likely harbor both abiotic and biotic P exchange processes. So, a recurring question for stream P cycling has been: What is the relative contribution of abiotic and biotic processes towards the EPC0? By sterilizing the sediments via varying methods, EPC0 has been observed to increase dramatically or by very little, with similarly inconsistent changes in P sorption capacity (Meyer 1979; Klotz 1985; Munn and Meyer 1990; Haggard et al. 1999; Lottig and Stanley 2007; McDaniel et al. 2009; Griffiths and Johnson 2018). Unfortunately, such comparisons can suffer from the choice of sterilization method, as several methods cause severe physicochemical changes to the sediment. For example, autoclaving can disrupt soil OM and surface chemistry (Trevors 1996; Buessecker et al. 2019). Measurements of abiotic P sorption will not be representative unless sediment physicochemistry is undisturbed. Further, few EPC0 comparisons have included corrections for cell lysis following sterilization, where microbial biomass P can release into solution and may adsorb onto the sediment surface (e.g., Klotz 1985; McDaniel et al. 2009).
This study seeks to distinguish biotic and abiotic contributions to stream benthic sediment EPC0 while minimally disrupting sediment physicochemistry. We account for P in the microbial biomass and determine if removing C- and N-limitation on biotic P demand affects the EPC0. Our two hypotheses were that (1) abiotic processes determine EPC0 and so EPC0 would be similar for fresh and sterilized sediments if microbial biomass P were negligible and that (2) microbial P demand, and so the biotic contribution to sediment EPC0, would be most pronounced under P-limitation versus C- or N-limitation. For the first experiment, we measured EPC0 in sediments both fresh and following the use of γ-irradiation to sterilize sediments. For the second experiment, we measured sediment EPC0 with and without addition of C and N to remove microbial C- and/or N-limitation.
Methods
Sites and sampling
We sampled 12 streams across Banks Peninsula, New Zealand (Fig. 1), thus targeting streams draining a consistent geology (volcanic-basic; Snelder and Biggs 2002) but a variety of land uses, and therefore, variable C, N, and P inputs (Supplementary Table S1). The streams were 2nd to 4th order, with catchment areas ranging from 3.7 to 51 km2. Benthic substrates were generally gravel to gravel/cobble. Catchment land uses for 2018, derived from the New Zealand Land Cover database (v5.0; https://lris.scinfo.org.nz/), varied from predominantly native forest and shrub (83%) to predominantly intensive grassland (82%).
Our sampling was designed to accommodate an immediate delivery of sediments to be γ-irradiated with minimal storage time. Hence, we sampled 7 sites one day prior to shipping and five sites on the day of shipping samples for γ-irradiation.
All streams were sampled at summer baseflow conditions (November 2019) with no recent disturbances. Benthic sediments were collected in actively flowing zones, primarily in riffles (i.e., avoiding depositional pools and lateral storage areas). To collect enough mass and to capture the spatial variability in sediments across the channel, we sampled ~ 10 to 30 m of stream length by sampling in a zig-zag pattern. We collected the top 1–5 cm of substrate with a shovel, wet-sieved the material (< 2 mm), decanted excess water after settling, and kept the composite, fine sediment sample (approximately 0.5 to 1 kg per site). A water sample was collected from the thalweg and filtered (0.45 µm) into vials with minimal headspace. Both sediment and water samples were kept on ice and in the dark until they were refrigerated (4 °C) in the laboratory and a set of subsamples for stream water were frozen (− 20 °C). Additionally, we used a HACH HQ40D meter to measure stream temperature, dissolved oxygen (via an optical probe), pH, and specific conductivity in situ; all probes were calibrated on the day of sampling according to manufacturer instructions.
Sterilization via γ-irradiation
To control for potential microbial P uptake, we sterilized sediment subsamples via γ-irradiation, as this method non-invasively kills or damages cells with minimal effects on sediment physicochemistry (McLaren 1969; Trevors 1996; Buessecker et al. 2019). Subsamples from all 12 sediments were γ-irradiated with a nominal 25 kGy dose from a 60Co source (MSD Animal Health, Upper Hutt, New Zealand). The actual dose delivered was later confirmed to be 26 kGy (Dave Harris, MSD Animal Health, pers. comm.). This dose is comparable to that used in previous studies and represents a favorable tradeoff between potential physicochemical disruption of the sediment and effective sterilization (Meyer 1979; Östlund et al. 1989; Qiu and McComb 1995; McNamara et al. 2003; Buessecker et al. 2019).
We managed the logistics of sampling, sterilization, and analyses so that (1) sediments were most reflective of in situ conditions for EPC0, (2) sterilized sediments had minimal time for microbes to re-proliferate, and (3) both fresh and sterilized sediments were held under similar conditions throughout prior to analyses. Sediment samples were immediately shipped to be γ-irradiated following collection. Samples were kept cool throughout all handling via freeze-packs (with replacement as needed), thus maintaining temperature comparable to that of the fresh sediments (kept refrigerated in the laboratory at 4 °C). Once γ-irradiated, sterilized sediments were returned to the laboratory within 24 h (4 days since sampling). Using aseptic handling for the sterilized sediments, analyses for dehydrogenase activity (DHA; both γ-irradiated and fresh sediments) and for EPC0 (γ-irradiated) began immediately (see below). All batch incubations for γ-irradiated sediment EPC0 were completed within 48 h of sterilization.
Water analyses
Dissolved reactive P was measured on filtered stream samples within 24 h. We used the molybdenum-blue method (Murphy and Riley 1962) with a 5 cm quartz cell (method detection limit of ~ 2 µg P L−1). Replicate measurements and external quality-control P standards established relative error at < 5%. Frozen water samples were thawed and immediately analyzed for dissolved organic C (DOC) via a TOC analyzer and for mineral N via flow-injection analysis. Two samples were below detection for NO3-N (0.1 mg N L−1) while all but one sample (0.13 mg N L−1) were below detection for NH4-N (0.1 mg N L−1).
Sediment physicochemical analyses
Throughout, we refer to wet, un-sterilized sediments as ‘fresh’ and wet, sterilized sediments as γ-irradiated. Except where noted, analyses on these sediments are for wet sediments but all values are given on a dry-weight (d.w.) mass basis.
A subsample of sediment was oven-dried (105 °C) overnight to measure moisture content. Another subsample was freeze-dried for total elemental and particle size analyses (below) as well as for storage. For the following sediment analyses, we used either duplicate or triplicate measurements. Sediment pH was measured on fresh sediments in DI H2O with a 1:5 g g−1 (sediment:solution) after 30 min equilibration. Water extractable P was measured by shaking fresh sediments with DI H2O (1:10 g g−1) for one hour, centrifuging (2400×g for 10 min), filtering the supernatant (0.45 µm) and analyzing for DRP as above. Anion storage capacity (ASC; Saunders 1965) of sediments was measured by shaking 1 g d.w. of fresh sediment in 5 mL of a 1000 mg P L−1 solution (as KH2PO4) in an acetate buffer (pH adjusted to 4.60) for 24 h. The remaining DRP in this extract was measured and ASC was expressed as % of the original concentration removed. Sediment particle sizes (on percent volume basis; Eshel et al. 2004) were determined with laser-diffraction (< 1 mm fraction only) with a Malvern Mastersizer 2000 particle size analyzer according to Sperazza et al. (2004). To meet instrumental constraints for particle size analyses, freeze-dried sediments (un-sterilized only) were sieved to < 1 mm, which represents the majority of the fine sediments collected here. Sediment total C and N were measured on freeze-dried sediments via dry-combustion (Carter and Gregorich 2007) with an Elementar Vario-Max CN elemental analyzer. Sediment total P and metals (Al, Ca, Fe, and others) were measured on freeze-dried sediments via ICP-OES (Varian 720-ES) following a microwave digestion with nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide (USEPA method 3050B; Campisano et al. 2017).
Sediment microbial enzymes and biomass P
We measured dehydrogenase activities (DHA) on both fresh and γ-irradiated sediments as an indicator for (1) microbial metabolic activity in fresh sediments and 92) sterile conditions for γ-irradiated sediments prior to EPC0 incubations. DHA relates to the breakdown of organic compounds during microbial respiration in soils and sediments (Hill et al. 2002, 2012; Prosser et al. 2011). DHA should be minimal for the γ-irradiated sediments since γ-irradiation eliminates or inactivates most microbes and enzymes (McLaren 1969; Tabatabai 1994). However, we note that some enzymes may persist after γ-irradiation (Powlson and Jenkinson 1976; Blankinship et al. 2014) and the DHA method used here (below) may give false positive readings for the sterilized samples since γ-irradiation can reduce minor amounts of redox-sensitive species (Östlund et al. 1989; Buessecker et al. 2019). Similarly, preliminary tests with autoclaved sediments yielded only a ~ 75% decrease in DHA relative to fresh sediment DHA. While not perfect, we expected DHA to be greatly reduced for sterilized sediments as a means to ensure that negligible sediment microbial activity occurred during EPC0 experiments.
For the DHA assay, we used 2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC) as the substrate, which is reduced enzymatically to triphenylformazan (TPF) as the product (Tabatabai 1994; Öhlinger and Von Mersi 1996). Two g d.w. of fresh and γ-irradiated sediments were incubated with two mL of a 0.5% (w/v) TTC solution—as recommended for coarse sediments with relatively low organic matter—in a 0.1 M TRIS buffer (pH adjusted to 7.6) for 24 h at 25 °C. The incubation was terminated by adding 10 mL of methanol (AR grade; ≥ 99.8%) and vortexing. After centrifuging, we analyzed the supernatants by measuring absorbances at 485 nm within 1 h with a 1 cm light path. Standards of TPF were prepared in methanol and analyzed in the same fashion. Method blanks were included throughout and sediments were analyzed in triplicate or duplicate (if sample amount was limited). We took care to minimize exposure to light during handling (Öhlinger and Von Mersi 1996). DHA is expressed here as mg TPF kg−1 h−1.
We estimated microbial biomass P in the fresh sediments following the methodology of Brookes et al. (1982) and McLaughlin et al. (1986) as outlined for sediments by McDowell (2003). Notably, we analyzed sediments wet rather than dry, as recommended for soil microbial biomass P analysis by Brookes et al. (1982). Additionally, while clear guidance is lacking on storage times, microbial biomass measurements for soils kept cool are stable for several weeks following initial disturbance effects from sampling (Kouno et al. 1995; Turner and Romero 2010). Hence, our analyses began ~ 3 weeks after sampling. Briefly, 1 g d.w. of fresh sediment was weighed into three centrifuge tubes, in duplicate. To one (Pkilled), 0.5 mL of liquid chloroform stabilized in amylene was added (rather than as vapor; McLaughlin et al. 1986), capped, and mixed while the other two treatments (Pfresh and Pspike) were capped—all tubes then incubated at room temperature for 24 h. Each treatment was then extracted with 0.5 M NaHCO3 (pH adjusted to 8.5) for 30 min, with the Pspike treatment receiving an additional P spike in the extraction equivalent to 25 mg P kg−1 sediment. The reactive P in the extracts was measured with a modified molybdenum-blue method suitable for alkaline extracts (Dick and Tabatabai 1977; He and Honeycutt 2005). We note that the Pfresh treatment is equivalent to Olsen P, an indicator for bioavailable P. Microbial biomass P (mg P kg−1) was calculated by:
where all P values (Pkilled, Pfresh, Pspike, and spike) are given on a mg P kg−1 basis and KP is a coefficient for the recovery of microbial biomass P with chloroform killing. Here, we assumed KP to be 40% (Brookes et al. 1982; McLaughlin et al. 1986; Jenkinson et al. 2004).
Equilibrium phosphate concentrations at net zero sorption (EPC0) and nutrient treatments
The equilibrium phosphate concentration at net zero sorption (EPC0) was determined for γ-irradiated sediments and then fresh sediments in close succession (completed within 48 and 96 h of sterilization, respectively). We weighed 0.5 g d.w. of wet sediment (Simpson et al. 2019) into 15 mL centrifuge tubes and added 10 mL of solution (DI water with background of 3 mM CaCl2; Lucci et al. 2010) adjusted to four P concentrations (as KH2PO4): 0, 30, 100, and 250 µg P L−1. Up to three replicates were used at each concentration depending on the amount of sample available. The tubes were shaken (end over end) for 16 h, centrifuged, and supernatants filtered (0.45 µm). Extracts were then refrigerated until analyzed for DRP within 24 h. Standards for DRP were prepared in the same background matrix (3 mM CaCl2).
For the nutrient addition experiment, we alleviated C- and/or N-limitation during the fresh sediment EPC0 incubations by adding labile C and/or N to the solutions in a factorial experimental design. We targeted a molar C:N:P ratio of 200:20:1 to create an environment enriched in C and N but limiting in P. Nutrient treatments were + C (C:P of 200:1), + N (N:P of 20:1), C + N (C:N:P of 200:20:1), or ‘none’ (only P). We added C as D-(+)-glucose and N as KNO3 to the solutions used for EPC0. We also applied the C + N treatment to the γ-irradiated sediment as a check but these data yielded no discernable difference from the standard EPC0 treatment and so are not discussed for sake of brevity.
Each sediment EPC0 was then determined as the x-intercept from regressing P sorption (mg P kg−1) against initial P concentration (Simpson et al. 2019). We excluded the points from the 250 µg P L−1 treatment, as 100 µg P L−1 already provided suitable adsorption points and greater P concentrations only diminishes the linearity of the observed P sorption near the EPC0. We estimated the uncertainty in the measured EPC0 with a 95% confidence interval (Simpson et al. 2019).
Further, under our alternative hypothesis that microbial biomass P can shift EPC0 following sterilization, we predicted changes in EPC0 post-sterilization assuming that all microbial biomass P would be re-adsorbed upon lysis. To this end, we calculated the linear sorption slopes on an equilibrium P concentration basis and projected these slopes according to the microbial biomass P; i.e., we divided microbial biomass P by the equilibrium sorption slope to get the expected change in EPC0. This result would be the expected increase in EPC0 if 100% of microbial biomass P were adsorbed by the sediments while assuming nearly linear adsorption rates. We compared these predictions to the observed changes in EPC0 following γ-irradiation.
Statistical analyses
Statistical summaries reported here are generally the median (mean ± SD). However, we do not summarize NH4-N data (too many missing values) and summarize NO3-N data (two out of 12 values below detection limit) via methods for censored data (Helsel 2005). For NO3-N summaries, we apply the Kaplan–Meier method as implemented in the ‘NADA’ R package (Lee 2020).
For the sterilization experiment (a paired treatment design), we analyzed the changes in EPC0 (n = 12) with a paired Wilcoxon signed rank test. The null hypothesis is that the distribution of pairs has a median of 0 (Hollander et al. 2013). For the alternative case, we estimated the shift in the median with the pseudo-median and its 95% confidence interval. We also examined changes in EPC0 following γ-irradiation with Spearman correlations versus catchment, sediment, and stream variables.
For the nutrient addition experiment, we sought to test for the effect of nutrients (+ C and + N) and their interaction (C + N) on EPC0 via a two-way layout (n = 48). The facts that (1) EPC0 were not estimated with the same certainty (i.e., varying confidence intervals) and (2) that the EPC0 were dependent upon the sediment analyzed (i.e., there are 12 ‘clusters’ in the data) meant that this information needed to be incorporated in our test. Thus, we analyzed this experiment with a mixed-effects model, where sediment could be a grouping variable (random effect). We used nonlinear mixed-effects (R package “nlme”; Pinheiro et al. 2020) so that we could re-write the linear sorption model to have the x-intercept (the EPC0) as a parameter to be estimated and to test for nutrient effects on EPC0 directly, making greater use of the data. More details on this approach are in the Supplementary Information.
All analyses were conducted in R, ver. 4.0.2 (R Core Team 2020).
Results
Stream and sediment characteristics
At time of sampling, the streams reflected typical summer baseflow conditions (Table 1). While the streams had appreciable DOC (median, 1.73 mg L−1) and DRP concentrations (49 µg L−1), NH4-N concentrations were mostly below detection (one stream, BP9, measured 0.13 mg L−1) and NO3-N concentrations were also low (0.21 mg L−1). Using DOC and NO3–N, stream water molar C:N had a median of 10.4. The fine (< 2 mm) benthic sediments (Table 2) were sandy, but quite sorptive (median ASC of 56% in a range of 0–100%), as expected for sediments with volcanic geology. Sediment organic matter content varied considerably across the sediment from 12 streams, with mean (± SD) sediment total C and total N concentrations of 12.8 (± 7.1) and 0.86 (± 0.51) g kg−1, respectively. Median sediment C:N was 16.9. Correlation matrices and Spearman correlations for select variables are shown in Supplementary Figs. S1-S3. No strong correlations between catchment land use and stream or sediment physicochemical characteristics were noted.
Gamma irradiation experiment
Fresh sediment dehydrogenase activities (DHA) varied widely (Supplementary Fig. S4), with mean activities of 1.89 (± 0.82) mg TPF kg−1 h−1. Fresh sediment DHA was closely associated with sediment total C (ρ = 0.91, p < 0.001) and total N (ρ = 0.93, p < 0.001). However, DHA decreased for all samples following γ-irradiation (62 to 86% decrease), commensurate with previous experimental work for soils (McNamara et al. 2003; Gebremikael et al. 2015). We consider the γ-irradiated samples here to have had negligible microbial activity throughout the EPC0 measurements given that (1) the decreasing trend in DHA with sterilization was consistent and (2) the irradiation dose given (26 kGy) was sufficient to eliminate the majority of microbes and inhibit growth for the timeframe of our experiment (48 h post sterilization; McLaren 1969; Östlund et al. 1989; McNamara et al. 2003).
Fresh sediment EPC0 ranged from 7.6 to 14.8 µg P L−1 (Fig. 2) and correlated with in-stream DRP concentrations (ρ = 0.65, p = 0.026). Sediment microbial biomass P averaged 11.5 (± 5.6) mg P kg−1 and correlated closely with fresh EPC0 (ρ = 0.87, p = 3.1e−4).
Following γ-irradiation, EPC0 increased for all sediments studied, though 95% confidence intervals for the calculated EPC0 overlapped for one sediment (BP2; Fig. 2). A paired Wilcoxon signed rank test estimated a median increase in EPC0 of 8.32 (6.38 to 12.6) µg P L−1 following γ-irradiation, an 83% increase relative to the median fresh EPC0. Notably, this consistent increase in EPC0 with sterilization relative to fresh EPC0 was related to microbial biomass P (Fig. 3a; ρ = 0.63, p = 0.032), with a regression slope of 0.635 (0.268 to 1.00) µg P L−1 per mg P kg−1 (the intercept was not different from zero). We note no other clear effect of γ-irradiation on P sorption relative to that of fresh sediments (e.g., changes in sorption slopes or variability in sorption).
We examined the relationship between changes in EPC0 post-sterilization and microbial biomass P under the hypothesis that shifts in EPC0 may be due to adsorption of the P flush following cell lysis. The predicted increases in EPC0 based on the adsorption of the microbial biomass P are plotted against actual changes in EPC0 following γ-irradiation in Fig. 3b. These independent estimates were consistent with the measured changes in EPC0 post-sterilization (root mean square error (RMSE) of 5.22 µg P L−1) but were positively biased for larger magnitude changes.
Nutrient amendment experiment
Fresh sediments were analyzed for EPC0 with additions of glucose and/or KNO3 solutions to remove C- and/or N-limitation on microbial growth. When considering the measurement uncertainties within a given sediment, EPC0 did not appear to vary significantly between the nutrient treatments for any one sediment (Fig. 4). However, when modeling the full data set with nonlinear mixed effects, we found a statistically significant decrease in EPC0 with N addition but no significant change with C addition (Table 3; more modeling details in Supplementary Information). The likelihood-ratio tests and Akaike Information Criterion showed that more complex models with an effect for + C (p = 0.07) and the interaction effect (C + N; p = 0.62) on EPC0 did not out-perform the simpler model with only the + N effect. Though statistically significant, the + N effect on EPC0 was relatively small, with a change in EPC0 of − 0.56 (95% CI − 0.81 to − 0.31) µg P L−1. Higher order effects (e.g., + N effect on EPC0 varying per individual sediment) were not warranted by the data, neither were nutrient effects on sorption slopes.
Discussion
Microbial biomass as a stock of phosphorus: lysed P accounts for changes in EPC0
Upon γ-irradiation, the flush of P from the microbial biomass (median of 10 mg P kg−1) was free to adsorb onto the sediment, increasing EPC0 (Figs. 2, 3). While this result does not speak to the direct comparison of biotic and abiotic contributions towards sediment P uptake, it does show the potential influence of the sediment microbial biomass as a stock of P in streams. Similar to their contribution towards total P cycling in terrestrial ecosystems (Cleveland and Liptzin 2007; Turner et al. 2013), the microbial biomass represents a significant fraction of the total P in stream ecosystems. Importantly, sediment microbial biomass P is likely a very transient P pool, therefore contributing to P dynamics throughout the stream network (Mulholland et al. 1997; McDowell 2003; McDowell and Sharpley 2003; Cross et al. 2005).
Few data exist on microbial biomass P in stream and river sediments, with ranges (using the same method from Brookes et al. (1982)) varying from: 0.5 to 10 mg P kg−1 in a 3rd to 4th order catchment having intensive forestry and pastoral land use (McDowell 2003), 2.4 to 23 mg P kg−1 in the present study, and 10 to 45 mg P kg −1 in a large river subject to considerable agricultural and urban pollution sources (Jaiswal and Pandey 2019). Streams with less P inputs will likely have much less sediment microbial biomass P (e.g., site BP1 in this study) though this also depends partly on the sediment (see below). For comparison, soil microbial biomass P concentrations can be an order of magnitude greater, varying from 3 to 430 mg P kg−1 (Cleveland and Liptzin 2007), likely due to the relatively greater organic matter content (Sinsabaugh et al. 2012). Considering that biomass C:P ratios are often more P-rich in sediment microbes (about 60:1; Cleveland and Liptzin 2007; Sinsabaugh et al. 2009) compared to periphyton (roughly on the order of 102 to 103; Cross et al. 2005), future work could investigate sediment microbial biomass as an important and perhaps variable stock of P in streams.
We assumed all of sediment microbial biomass P would be adsorbed by sediment surfaces and at a linear rate. However, we urge caution in applying this assumption to other sediments, owing to potential nonlinear P sorption (Froelich 1988; House 2003) and that amounts of microbial biomass P likely differ. Nonetheless, the consistency with actual changes in EPC0 following γ-irradiation corroborates the hypothesis that the microbial biomass P stock can re-adsorb onto sediment surfaces, thereby increasing EPC0 following sterilization. Since γ-irradiation is the least likely among sterilization methods to alter sediment physicochemical properties (Eno and Popenoe 1964; Berns et al. 2008; Buessecker et al. 2019), we can reasonably assert that the re-distribution of P—and the resulting increase in EPC0—was primarily due to cell lysis (Meyer 1979; Klotz 1985).
Reconciling past experiments on biotic vs. abiotic sediment P uptake
We suspect that our results may explain two of the inconsistences in past attempts to separate biotic and abiotic P uptake in sediments: sterilization techniques and a lack of microbial biomass P data. Firstly, more disruptive sterilization techniques than γ-irradiation have generally been used, namely, autoclaving and biocides. For example, when analyzing autoclaved sediments, several studies observed impressive differences between P sorption metrics for fresh and autoclaved sediments, concluding that up to ~ 40% of the total sediment sorption capacity was biotic (Haggard et al. 1999; Ryan et al. 2007; McDaniel et al. 2009). However, autoclaving likely changed the physicochemistry of these sediments since, in addition to cell lysis, autoclaving can disrupt sediment organic matter, alter surface chemistry, and increase some extractable elements such as Al, Fe and Mn (Meyer 1979; Wolf and Skipper 1994; Trevors 1996; Buessecker et al. 2019). In two comparison studies, Meyer (1979) and Klotz (1985) assessed potential biotic influence on sediment P uptake by comparing sediments analyzed fresh, autoclaved, and either γ-irradiated or with a phosphorylation inhibitor (cabonyl-cyanide m-chlorophenylhydrazone; CCCP), respectively. They found that autoclaving sediments released more P but also changed P sorption kinetics and capacity. In contrast, γ-irradiated sediments had sorption kinetics comparable to that of fresh sediments but had an increase in EPC0 (attributed to cell lysis), while CCCP-treated sediments had no change in sorption capacity relative to fresh sediments. Similarly, Triska et al. (2006) found autoclaved sediments released more than 10 × more P than fresh sediments in desorption assays and retained ~ 40% less P in sorption assays whereas a CCCP-treated sediment was comparable to fresh sediment for both sorption and desorption.
Aside from autoclaving, various biocides (e.g., HgCl2, azide) have been applied to separate biotic and abiotic P uptake in stream sediments. Results with biocides have ranged from small increases in EPC0 (2 µg P L−1; Griffiths and Johnson 2018) to large or unrealistic changes in EPC0 and sorption capacities (Lottig and Stanley 2007; Stutter et al. 2010). However, little is known about the potential unintended chemical interactions these biocides have with sediment surfaces. For example, HgCl2 can react with organic matter, altering solution pH in the process (Buessecker et al. 2019), as noted by Griffiths and Johnson (2018) in their fresh vs. sterilized EPC0 comparison. Buessecker et al. (2019) compared multiple methods to remove only the biotic mechanisms for soil N2O production and concluded γ-irradiation to be the most suitable, as other methods (autoclaving, azide, HgCl2, Zn, and chloroform) produced more physicochemical changes relative to fresh soil. We argue that such effects also apply to stream sediments. Neither autoclaving nor biocides will likely be accurate in removing solely the biotic reactions responsible for sediment P uptake. Thus, while not always acknowledged, conclusions for biotic and abiotic sediment P uptake reliant on autoclaving or biocides are most likely inaccurate.
In addition to disruptive sterilization methods, a second source for error in past estimates of biotic contributions to sediment P uptake was a lack of microbial biomass P data. As discussed, the microbial biomass can release a substantial flush of P upon lysis (Fig. 3a) that can shift the equilibrium P concentration considerably. If our alternative hypothesis is correct—that the increase in EPC0 with non-disruptive sterilization is due to re-adsorption of the microbial biomass P following cell lysis (Fig. 3b)—then we predict that the effect of sterilization would be even more pronounced for sediments with comparable microbial biomass P but weaker sorption capacities. Owing to their volcanic geology and high metal-oxide content (Dahlgren et al. 2004), our study sediments were relatively reactive and had high P sorption capacities (mean ASC of 54%); for comparison, the mean ASC from a national survey of sediments from 76 large New Zealand rivers was 9% (McDowell 2015). Interestingly, Munn and Meyer (1990) compared fresh and γ-irradiated sediment EPC0 for two streams: one from a volcanic geology and one from a weathered granite geology. While both sediments had similarly low EPC0 (5.4 and 1.0 µg P L−1, respectively), the increases post-sterilization were respectively 3.2 and 9.7 µg P L−1, consistent with a greater P sorption capacity in the volcanic geology. This increase was attributed to a predominance in biotic P uptake with no acknowledgement of possible bias due to the microbial biomass P.
Does carbon and nitrogen addition promote biotic P uptake and lower EPC0?
Microorganisms in sediments demand nutrients according to the elemental stoichiometry of their biomass (Sterner and Elser 2002; Sinsabaugh et al. 2009). In contrast to lotic biofilm communities towards the top of the benthic zone (i.e., where light promotes autotrophic growth; Battin et al. 2016), and unlike for soil, sediment microbial communities (primarily heterotrophic) are more often C- or N-limited rather than P-limited (Hill et al. 2010, 2012; Sinsabaugh et al. 2012). Hence, we would only expect significant sediment biotic P uptake when C- and N-limitation is relieved. For sediments, microbial P-limitation is likely when C:P (molar basis) exceeds 60:1 and when N:P exceeds 7:1 (Cleveland and Liptzin 2007; Sinsabaugh et al. 2012). Under P-limitation, we expect that sediment microbes would sequester P for growth, thus potentially lowering the sediment EPC0 through desorption. In other words, under P-limitation, sediment microbes may deplete P concentrations in solution below the sediment EPC0, promoting P desorption from sediment surfaces and potentially lowering sediment EPC0.
In this study, EPC0 did not respond to C addition but decreased with N addition in both the + N and C + N treatments (− 0.5 µg P L−1; Fig. 4; Table 3). The + N effect here may have been dampened due to the large P (de)sorption capacity of these sediments (Small et al. 2016; Griffiths and Johnson 2018), as sediments display the greatest P buffering when near the EPC0 (Froelich 1988). Indeed, the literature notes varied responses in P uptake to N supply. Using sediments in flume experiments at natural stream temperature, McDowell et al. (2017) observed relatively greater DRP uptake with N additions, a likely biotic effect since there was also a consistent increase in sediment microbial biomass P for the treatments with additional N. In contrast, Griffiths and Johnson (2018) measured stream P uptake rates while varying the background NO3-N concentration: despite evidence for strong N- and P-colimitation, in-stream P uptake was unaffected by background N concentration, suggesting that stream P uptake was predominantly controlled by abiotic sediment P sorption rather than biotic P uptake. In a stream with plentiful N supply (mean of 1.1 mg NO3-N L−1), Oviedo-Vargas et al. (2013) measured P spiraling and sediment EPC0 during an experimental amendment of labile C (acetate) ~ 1 mg C L−1 above ambient conditions to stimulate sediment heterotrophic P demand. Despite greater C uptake during the experiment, P uptake was insensitive to the C addition (as whole-stream P uptake velocities and as sediment EPC0). In their study, Oviedo-Vargas et al. (2013) suggested that the predominantly heterotrophic microorganisms within the sediments were meeting their P demands through organic P mineralization or from sediment P desorption rather than from the water column. Similarly, the sediments in the present study buffered solution P towards the EPC0 through abiotic sorption processes in spite of biotic P uptake.
A reason for the response to N but not C may lie in the fact that labile C can increase microbial respiration (Roberts et al. 2007; Oviedo-Vargas et al. 2013; Demars 2019) but will not directly affect P concentrations. It is microbial production, not respiration, that carries a P demand (Sterner and Elser 2002). Sediment microorganisms here may have had enough C supply available to meet their demands for production, thereby not influencing EPC0 for the + C treatment. For example, sediment biofilms can hold over C in their extracellular polymeric substances (Battin et al. 2016) or enzymatically degrade organic substrates (Findlay et al. 2003; Sinsabaugh et al. 2009; Kaplan and Cory 2016) to meet C requirements. Most of the catchments in our study had some amount of pasture (35 to 82% for sites BP2 through BP12), which may provide an ample source of C when soil pore waters hydrologically connect to the streams (Kaplan and Cory 2016; McNally et al. 2017). Additionally, these pasture-dominated catchments had diminished stream canopy cover, meaning likely greater autochthonous C supplies for the stream ecosystem due to increased primary productivity (Dodds 2007; Finlay 2011). This may have supplied sufficient high-quality C resources (e.g., from algal biomass turnover; Meyer 1994; Kaplan and Cory 2016) to the sediments to prevent any C-limitation before EPC0 measurements.
Our results from labile C and N additions to EPC0 measurements suggest little to no influence of biotic P demand on EPC0 for these streams, with only a small overall effect arising from the removal of potential N-limitation (Table 3). Coupled with the results of the first experiment—that much of the apparent differences in P sorption between fresh and sterilized sediments is due to the microbial biomass P flush—this experiment suggests that sediment biotic P demand may not be a significant part of the EPC0 as it is typically measured, i.e., with only P added. Rather, the benthic sediment EPC0 may primarily reflect the sediment’s abiotic sorption characteristics and prior P loading to that sediment (Froelich 1988; McDaniel et al. 2009; McDowell 2015). Our results come from streams that are likely N-limited and that drain a naturally P-rich geology. For other streams, however, if sediments are poorly sorptive (e.g., little Al/Fe oxides or coarse particle sizes) and P availability is low, then biota may have a relatively stronger influence on P uptake in sediments (Lottig and Stanley 2007). The dynamic between P sorbed to sediments and P immobilized in microbial biomass should be explored in other systems that vary in stream geomorphology, sediment characteristics, and nutrient inputs.
Improving our understanding of the role of microbes in stream P attenuation
The results from this study help to separate some of the processes usually lumped together in sediment P sorption and, at the greater scale, P attenuation in streams. Characterizing these processes more clearly will help target future research on sediment P reactions, for example, in determining the role of microbial biomass as a stock of P and its relationship with the abiotic sediment P compartment. When one measures EPC0, the EPC0 is unlikely to be affected by biotic uptake partly since P is often not the limiting nutrient for sediment heterotrophic microbes. Rather, EPC0 is largely a function of the sediment reactive surfaces and the previous exposure of P to that sediment. Integrating this information and more biota-specific P reactions with hydrological fluxes will improve our understanding of stream and catchment-scale P biogeochemistry (Manzoni and Porporato 2011).
Sediment EPC0 provides information on how sediments subsidize available P for microbial growth and so influence stream P biogeochemistry. Sediments may either maintain or accumulate more sorbed P (DRP ≥ EPC0) but, when local DRP concentrations are depleted through inter alia microbial P uptake (DRP < EPC0), sediments may desorb P so nearby microorganisms can meet their stoichiometric constraints. If sediments drip feed P—according to the EPC0—to ‘P-hungry’ sediment biofilms (particularly heterotrophic bacteria), then we could expect a positive relationship between EPC0 and microbial biomass P. Indeed, the two variables had a strong positive correlation (ρ = 0.87, p = 3.1e−4), suggesting that sediment microorganisms play a role in regulating P desorption from sediments back into the water column. This coincides with what we know on the coupled biogeochemical cycling of C, N, and P in streams (Oviedo-Vargas et al. 2013; Maranger et al. 2018) and has important consequences. For example, the P subsidy provided by stream sediments (as approximated by EPC0) may promote greater C and N processing in streams (Stelzer et al. 2003; Findlay and Sinsabaugh 2006; Tank et al. 2010). Another consequence, however, is that this P supply could support a large sediment biofilm, meaning the biofilm may clog hyporheic flowpaths (Hartwig and Borchardt 2015; Battin et al. 2016) thus limiting the interaction between reactive sediment surfaces and P in the water-column (Boano et al. 2014; Weigelhofer et al. 2018). Further exploring the sediment P buffer will likely aid us in better characterizing stream P biogeochemistry and its consequences (Hamilton 2012).
Overall, considering the dynamic between the sediments and their microbial biofilms will help in understanding the stream sediment P buffer and hence stream P attenuation. This understanding can sharpen our view of stream P biogeochemistry but also help in understanding the effects of our efforts in mitigating nutrient pollution, e.g., from changing wastewater inputs (Scott et al. 2011; Wilcock et al. 2020) or from management on-land (Meals et al. 2010; McDowell et al. 2018). This recognition of both biotic and abiotic mechanisms can help avoid unrealistic expectations by policy agencies in the speed or efficacy of such efforts to mitigate P pollution.
Data availability
Land use data (LCDB v5; https://lris.scinfo.org.nz/) and stream information (REC; https://niwa.co.nz/freshwater-and-estuaries/management-tools/river-environment-classification-0) are available from LRIS Portal and NIWA, respectively. The experimental data generated in this study are available on Figshare at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12253328.v3.
Code availability
R code used in analyses is available on Figshare at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12253328.v3
References
Audette Y, O’Halloran IP, Nowell PM et al (2018) Speciation of phosphorus from agricultural muck soils to stream and lake sediments. J Environ Qual 47:884. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2018.02.0068
Battin TJ, Besemer K, Bengtsson MM et al (2016) The ecology and biogeochemistry of stream biofilms. Nat Rev Microbiol 14:251–263. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.15
Berns AE, Philipp H, Narres H-D et al (2008) Effect of gamma-sterilization and autoclaving on soil organic matter structure as studied by solid state NMR, UV and fluorescence spectroscopy. Eur J Soil Sci 59:540–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01016.x
Blankinship JC, Becerra CA, Schaeffer SM, Schimel JP (2014) Separating cellular metabolism from exoenzyme activity in soil organic matter decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem 71:68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.01.010
Boano F, Harvey JW, Marion A et al (2014) Hyporheic flow and transport processes: mechanisms, models, and biogeochemical implications. Rev Geophys 52:603–679. https://doi.org/10.1002/2012RG000417.Received
Brookes PC, Powlson DS, Jenkinson DS (1982) Measurement of microbial biomass phosphorus in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 14:319–329
Buessecker S, Tylor K, Nye J et al (2019) Effects of sterilization techniques on chemodenitrification and N2O production in tropical peat soil microcosms. Biogeosciences 16:4601–4612. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-4601-2019
Campisano R, Hall K, Griggs J et al (2017) Selected analytical methods for environmental remediation and recovery (SAM) 2017. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Carter MR, Gregorich EG (2007) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Cleveland CC, Liptzin D (2007) C:N: P stoichiometry in soil: is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass? Biogeochemistry 85:235–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-007-9132-0
Cross WF, Benstead JP, Frost PC, Thomas SA (2005) Ecological stoichiometry in freshwater benthic systems: recent progress and perspectives. Freshw Biol 50:1895–1912. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01458.x
Dahlgren RA, Saigusa M, Ugolini FC (2004) The nature, properties and management of volcanic soils. Advances in agronomy. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 113–182
Demars BOL (2019) Hydrological pulses and burning of dissolved organic carbon by stream respiration. Limnol Oceanogr 64:406–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11048
Dick WA, Tabatabai MA (1977) Determination of orthophosphate in aqueous solutions containing labile organic and inorganic phosphorus compounds. J Environ Qual 6:82–85. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1977.00472425000600010018x
Dodds WK (2007) Trophic state, eutrophication and nutrient criteria in streams. Trends Ecol Evol 22:669–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.010
Drohan PJ, Bechmann M, Buda A et al (2019) A global perspective on phosphorus management decision support in agriculture: lessons learned and future directions. J Environ Qual 48:1218–1233. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2019.03.0107
Dzombak DA, Morel FMM (1987) Adsorption of inorganic pollutants in aquatic systems. J Hydraul Eng 113:430–475. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1987)113:4(430)
Ekka SA, Haggard BE, Matlock MD, Chaubey I (2006) Dissolved phosphorus concentrations and sediment interactions in effluent-dominated Ozark streams. Ecol Eng 26:375–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.01.002
Eno CF, Popenoe H (1964) Gamma radiation compared with steam and methyl bromide as a soil sterilizing agent. Soil Sci Soc Am J 28:533–535. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1964.03615995002800040024x
Eshel G, Levy GJ, Mingelgrin U, Singer MJ (2004) Critical evaluation of the use of laser diffraction for particle-size distribution analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:736–743. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.7360
Findlay S, Sinsabaugh RL (2006) Large-scale variation in subsurface stream biofilms: a cross-regional comparison of metabolic function and community similarity. Microb Ecol 52:491–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-006-9095-z
Findlay SEG, Sinsabaugh RL, Sobczak WV, Hoostal M (2003) Metabolic and structural response of hyporheic microbial communities to variations in supply of dissolved organic matter. Limnol Oceanogr 48:1608–1617. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2003.48.4.1608
Finlay JC (2011) Stream size and human influences on ecosystem production in river networks. Ecosphere 2:art87. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00071.1
Froelich PN (1988) Kinetic control of dissolved phosphate in natural rivers and estuaries: a primer on the phosphate buffer mechanism. Limnol Oceanogr 33:649–668
Gebremikael MT, De Waele J, Buchan D et al (2015) The effect of varying gamma irradiation doses and soil moisture content on nematodes, the microbial communities and mineral nitrogen. Appl Soil Ecol 92:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.03.003
Griffiths NA, Johnson LT (2018) Influence of dual nitrogen and phosphorus additions on nutrient uptake and saturation kinetics in a forested headwater stream. Freshw Sci. https://doi.org/10.1086/700700
Haggard BE, Sharpley AN (2007) Phosphorus transport in streams: processes and modeling considerations. In: Radcliffe DE (ed) Modeling phosphorus in the environment, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Haggard BE, Stanley EH, Hyler R (1999) Sediment-phosphorus relationships in three northcentral Oklahoma streams. Trans ASAE 42:1709–1714
Hamilton SK (2012) Biogeochemical time lags may delay responses of streams to ecological restoration. Freshw Biol 57:43–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02685.x
Hartwig M, Borchardt D (2015) Alteration of key hyporheic functions through biological and physical clogging along a nutrient and fine-sediment gradient. Ecohydrology 8:961–975. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1571
He Z, Honeycutt CW (2005) A modified molybdenum blue method for orthophosphate determination suitable for investigating enzymatic hydrolysis of organic phosphates. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 36:1373–1383. https://doi.org/10.1081/CSS-200056954
Helsel DR (2005) More than obvious: better methods for interpreting nondetect data. Environ Sci Technol 39:419A-423A. https://doi.org/10.1021/es053368a
Herndon EM, Kinsman-Costello L, Duroe KA et al (2019) Iron (oxyhydr)oxides serve as phosphate traps in Tundra and boreal peat soils. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JG004776
Hill BH, Elonen CM, Jicha TM et al (2010) Sediment microbial enzyme activity as an indicator of nutrient limitation in the great rivers of the Upper Mississippi River basin. Biogeochemistry 97:195–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-009-9366-0
Hill BH, Elonen CM, Seifert LR et al (2012) Microbial enzyme stoichiometry and nutrient limitation in US streams and rivers. Ecol Indic 18:540–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.007
Hill BH, Herlihy AT, Kaufmann PR (2002) Benthic microbial respiration in Appalachian Mountain, Piedmont, and Coastal Plains streams of the eastern U.S.A. Freshw Biol 47:185–194. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00791.x
Hollander M, Wolfe DA, Chicken E (2013) The one-sample location problem. Nonparametric statistical methods, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 39–114
House WA (2003) Geochemical cycling of phosphorus in rivers. Appl Geochem 18:739–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-2927(02)00158-0
Jaiswal D, Pandey J (2019) Investigations on peculiarities of land-water interface and its use as a stable testbed for accurately predicting changes in ecosystem responses to human perturbations: a sub-watershed scale study with the Ganga River. J Environ Manag 238:178–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.126
Jenkinson DS, Brookes PC, Powlson DS (2004) Measuring soil microbial biomass. Soil Biol Biochem 36:5–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2003.10.002
Kaplan LA, Cory RM (2016) Chapter 6 - Dissolved organic matter in stream ecosystems: forms, functions, and fluxes of watershed tea. In: Jones JB, Stanley EH (eds) Stream ecosystems in a changing environment. Academic Press, Boston, pp 241–320
Klotz RL (1985) Factors controlling phosphorus limitation in stream sediments. Limnol Oceanogr 30:543–553. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1985.30.3.0543
Kouno K, Tuchiya Y, Ando T (1995) Measurement of soil microbial biomass phosphorus by an anion exchange membrane method. Soil Biol Biochem 27:1353–1357. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(95)00057-L
Lee L (2020) NADA: nondetects and data analysis for enivironmental data. Version 1.6-1.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=NADA
Lottig NR, Stanley EH (2007) Benthic sediment influence on dissolved phosphorus concentrations in a headwater stream. Biogeochemistry 84:297–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-007-9116-0
Lucci GM, McDowell RW, Condron LM (2010) Evaluation of base solutions to determine equilibrium phosphorus concentrations (EPC0) in stream sediments. Int Agrophys 24:157–163
Macintosh KA, Mayer BK, McDowell RW et al (2018) Managing diffuse phosphorus at the source versus at the sink. Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01143
Manzoni S, Porporato A (2011) Common hydrologic and biogeochemical controls along the soil–stream continuum. Hydrol Process 25:1355–1360. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7938
Maranger R, Jones SE, Cotner JB (2018) Stoichiometry of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus through the freshwater pipe. Limnol Oceanogr Lett 3:89–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/lol2.10080
McDaniel MD, David MB, Royer TV (2009) Relationships between benthic sediments and water column phosphorus in Illinois streams. J Environ Qual 38:607–617. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0094
McDowell RW (2015) Relationship between sediment chemistry, equilibrium phosphorus concentrations, and phosphorus concentrations at baseflow in rivers of the New Zealand National River Water Quality Network. J Environ Qual 44:921–929. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.08.0362
McDowell RW (2003) Sediment phosphorus chemistry and microbial biomass along a lowland New Zealand stream. Aquat Geochem 9:19–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AQUA.0000005620.15485.6d
McDowell RW, Elkin KR, Kleinman PJA (2017) Temperature and nitrogen effects on phosphorus uptake by agricultural stream-bed sediments. J Environ Qual 46:295–301. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2016.09.0352
McDowell RW, Schallenberg M, Larned S (2018) A strategy for optimizing catchment management actions to stressor–response relationships in freshwaters. Ecosphere 9:e02482. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2482
McDowell RW, Sharpley AN (2003) Uptake and release of phosphorus from overland flow in a stream environment. J Environ Qual 32:937–948. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2003.9370
McLaren AD (1969) Radiation as a technique in soil biology and biochemistry. Soil Biol Biochem 1:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(69)90035-2
McLaughlin MJ, Alston AM, Martin JK (1986) Measurement of phosphorus in the soil microbial biomass: a modified procedure for field soils. Soil Biol Biochem 18:437–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(86)90050-7
McNally SR, Beare MH, Curtin D et al (2017) Soil carbon sequestration potential of permanent pasture and continuous cropping soils in New Zealand. Glob Change Biol 23:4544–4555. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13720
McNamara NP, Black HIJ, Beresford NA, Parekh NR (2003) Effects of acute gamma irradiation on chemical, physical and biological properties of soils. Appl Soil Ecol 24:117–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(03)00073-8
Meals DW, Dressing SA, Davenport TE (2010) Lag time in water quality response to best management practices: a review. J Environ Qual 39:85–96. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2009.0108
Meyer JL (1994) The microbial loop in flowing waters. Microb Ecol 28:195–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166808
Meyer JL (1979) The role of sediments and bryophytes in phosphorus dynamics in a head water stream ecosystem. Limnol Oceanogr 24:365–375. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1979.24.2.0364
Mulholland PJ, Marzolf ER, Webster JR et al (1997) Evidence that hyporheic zones increase heterotrophic metabolism and phosphorus uptake in forest streams. Limnol Oceanogr 42:443–451. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1997.42.3.0443
Munn NL, Meyer JL (1990) Habitat-specific solute retention in two small streams: an intersite comparison. Ecology 71:2069–2082. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938621
Murphy J, Riley JP (1962) A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal Chim Acta 27:31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(00)88444-5
Öhlinger H, Von Mersi W (1996) Enzymes involved in intracellular metabolism. In: Schinner F, Öhlinger R, Kandeler E, Margesin R (eds) Methods in soil biology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 235–245
Östlund P, Carman R, Edvardsson UG, Hallstadius L (1989) Sterilization of sediments by ionizing radiation. Appl Geochem 4:99–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-2927(89)90062-0
Oviedo-Vargas D, Royer TV, Johnson LT (2013) Dissolved organic carbon manipulation reveals coupled cycling of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in a nitrogen-rich stream. Limnol Oceanogr 58:1196–1206. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2013.58.4.1196
Pinheiro JC, Bates DM, Debroy S, Sarkar D (2020) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. Version R package version 3.1–144. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme
Powlson DS, Jenkinson DS (1976) The effects of biocidal treatments on metabolism in soil—II. Gamma irradiation, autoclaving, air-drying and fumigation. Soil Biol Biochem 8:179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(76)90002-X
Prosser JA, Speir TW, Stott DE (2011) Soil oxidoreductases and FDA hydrolysis. Methods of soil enzymology. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 103–124
Qiu S, McComb AJ (1995) Planktonic and microbial contributions to phosphorus release from fresh and air-dried sediments. Mar Freshwater Res 46:1039–1045. https://doi.org/10.1071/mf9951039
R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria
Roberts BJ, Mulholland PJ, Hill WR (2007) Multiple scales of temporal variability in ecosystem metabolism rates: results from 2 years of continuous monitoring in a forested headwater stream. Ecosystems 10:588–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-007-9059-2
Ryan RJ, Packman AI, Kilham SS (2007) Relating phosphorus uptake to changes in transient storage and streambed sediment characteristics in headwater tributaries of Valley Creek, an urbanizing watershed. J Hydrol 336:444–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.01.021
Saunders WMH (1965) Phosphate retention by New Zealand soils and its relationship to free sesquioxides, organic matter, and other soil properties. N Z J Agric Res 8:30–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1965.10420021
Scott JT, Haggard BE, Sharpley AN, Romeis JJ (2011) Change point analysis of phosphorus trends in the Illinois river (Oklahoma) demonstrates the effects of watershed management. J Environ Qual 40:1249–1256. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2010.0476
Scott JT, Cotner J, LaPara T (2012) Variable stoichiometry and homeostatic regulation of bacterial biomass elemental composition. Front Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00042
Simpson ZP, McDowell RW, Condron LM (2019) The error in stream sediment phosphorus fractionation and sorption properties effected by drying pretreatments. J Soils Sedim 19:1587–1597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2180-3
Sinsabaugh RL, Follstad Shah JJ, Hill BH, Elonen CM (2012) Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry of stream sediments with comparison to terrestrial soils. Biogeochemistry 111:455–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-011-9676-x
Sinsabaugh RL, Hill BH, Shah JJF (2009) Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry of microbial organic nutrient acquisition in soil and sediment. Nature 462:795–798. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08632
Small GE, Ardón M, Duff JH et al (2016) Phosphorus retention in a lowland neotropical stream following an eight-year enrichment experiment. Freshw Sci 35:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1086/684491
Snelder TH, Biggs BJF (2002) Multiscale river environment classification for water resources management. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38:1225–1239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb04344.x
Sperazza M, Moore JN, Hendrix MS (2004) High-resolution particle size analysis of naturally occurring very fine-grained sediment through laser diffractometry. J Sedim Res 74:736–743. https://doi.org/10.1306/031104740736
Sposito G (2004) The surface chemistry of natural particles. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Stelzer RS, Heffernan J, Likens GE (2003) The influence of dissolved nutrients and particulate organic matter quality on microbial respiration and biomass in a forest stream. Freshw Biol 48:1925–1937. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.01141.x
Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Stutter MI, Demars BOLL, Langan SJ (2010) River phosphorus cycling: separating biotic and abiotic uptake during short-term changes in sewage effluent loading. Water Res 44:4425–4436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.06.014
Tabatabai MA (1994) Soil enzymes. In: Weaver RW (ed) Methods of soil analysis: Part 2—Microbiological and biochemical properties. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 775–833
Tank JL, Rosi-Marshall EJ, Griffiths NA et al (2010) A review of allochthonous organic matter dynamics and metabolism in streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:118–146. https://doi.org/10.1899/08-170.1
Taylor AW, Kunishi HM (1971) Phosphate equilibria on stream sediment and soil in a watershed draining an agricultural region. J Agric Food Chem 19:827–831
Trevors JT (1996) Sterilization and inhibition of microbial activity in soil. J Microbiol Methods 26:53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7012(96)00843-3
Triska F, Pringle CM, Duff JH et al (2006) Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) transport and retention in tropical, rain forest streams draining a volcanic landscape in Costa Rica: in situ SRP amendment to streams and laboratory studies. Biogeochemistry 81:145–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-006-9048-0
Turner BL, Lambers H, Condron LM et al (2013) Soil microbial biomass and the fate of phosphorus during long-term ecosystem development. Plant Soil 367:225–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1493-z
Turner BL, Romero TE (2010) Stability of hydrolytic enzyme activity and microbial phosphorus during storage of tropical rain forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem 42:459–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.11.029
Van Horn DJ, Sinsabaugh RL, Takacs-Vesbach CD et al (2011) Response of heterotrophic stream biofilm communities to a gradient of resources. Aquat Microb Ecol 64:149–161. https://doi.org/10.3354/ame01515
Weigelhofer G, Ramião JP, Pitzl B et al (2018) Decoupled water-sediment interactions restrict the phosphorus buffer mechanism in agricultural streams. Sci Total Environ 628–629:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.030
Wilcock RJ, McDowell RW, Quinn JM et al (2020) Dynamics of phosphorus exchange between sediment and water in a gravel-bed river. N Z J Mar Freshw Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2020.1741402
Wolf DC, Skipper HD (1994) Soil sterilization methods of soil analysis. Part 2 Microbiol Biochem Prop 5:41–51. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.2.c3
Acknowledgements
We thank Dave Harris (MSD Animal Health) for accommodating our samples for γ-irradiation and ensuring a quick turn-around; Roger Creswell for helping with logistics; Andrea Leptin and Phuong Nguyen for providing valuable help in sampling and lab work and commenting on earlier drafts; and the landowners for site access. This manuscript was greatly improved by constructive comments from two anonymous reviewers and Associate Editor Dr. Marcarelli. We thank the Our Land and Water National Science Challenge for funding the study (Contract C10X1507 from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment).
Funding
Funding for this study was provided by the Our Land and Water National Science Challenge, contract C10X1507 from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
ZPS and RWM conceived the study. ZPS performed the research, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the design of the study and reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All the authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Responsible Editor: Amy M. Marcarelli.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simpson, Z.P., McDowell, R.W. & Condron, L.M. The biotic contribution to the benthic stream sediment phosphorus buffer. Biogeochemistry 151, 63–79 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-020-00709-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-020-00709-z