Skip to main content
Microplastics and Nanoplastics
Download PDF

Microplastic fibers affect dynamics and intensity of CO2 and N2O fluxes from soil differently

Microplastics and Nanoplastics volume 1, Article number: 3 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Microplastics may affect soil ecosystem functioning in critical ways, with previously documented effects including changes in soil structure and water dynamics; this suggests that microbial populations and the processes they mediate could also be affected. Given the importance for global carbon and nitrogen cycle and greenhouse warming potential, we here experimentally examined potential effects of plastic microfiber additions on CO2 and N2O greenhouse gas fluxes. We carried out a fully factorial laboratory experiment with the factors presence of microplastic fibers (0.4% w/w) and addition of urea fertilizer (100 mg N kg− 1) using one target soil. The conditions in an intensively N-fertilized arable soil were simulated by adding biogas digestate at the beginning of the incubation to all samples. We continuously monitored CO2 and N2O emissions from soil before and after urea application using a custom-built flow-through steady-state system, and we assessed soil properties, including soil structure. Microplastics affected soil properties, notably increasing soil aggregate water-stability and pneumatic conductivity, and caused changes in the dynamics and overall level of emission of both gases, but in opposite directions: overall fluxes of CO2 were increased by microplastic presence, whereas N2O emission were decreased, a pattern that was intensified following urea addition. This divergent response is explained by effects of microplastic on soil structure, with the increased air permeability likely improving O2 supply: this will have stimulated CO2 production, since mineralization benefits from better aeration. Increased O2 would at the same time have inhibited denitrification, a process contributing to N2O emissions, thus likely explaining the decrease in the latter. Our results clearly suggest that microplastic consequences for greenhouse gas emissions should become an integral part of future impact assessments, and that to understand such responses, soil structure should be assessed.

Introduction

As a result of human activities, the load of reactive nitrogen compounds (NH3/NH4, NO3−, NOx, N2O) on the earth has more than doubled in recent decades [1, 2]. This was accompanied by a doubling of the intensity of the global nitrogen cycle. A main driver of this development are intensified agricultural practices entailing increased application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers since the end of the Second World War [3,4,5]. While ensuring food security for an ever-growing world population [6], agriculture has developed globally into a major source of climate-relevant trace gases. This applies in particular to nitrous oxide. Agriculture accounts for 60% of the total man-made nitrous oxide release [7]. The continuing increase in N fertilization or N surplus in production also appears to be the main reason for the unexpectedly strong acceleration in atmospheric N2O concentration in recent times [8, 9]. Consequences for the role of soils as sources and sinks of the important greenhouse gas CO2 can also be expected, since the carbon and nitrogen budgets of soils are closely linked. This is especially true for the mineralization of soil organic matter as a source of CO2 release from soils [10]. A prerequisite for the reduction of land-use-related greenhouse gas emissions is comprehensive knowledge of the relevant processes and their regulation by internal and external drivers [11,12,13]. An important process that has been under-researched in microplastic-affected soils is the emission of greenhouse gases [14]. Despite its potential importance, compared to other factors of global change, we have so far only scratched the surface in terms of assessing microplastic impacts on soil properties and processes in general [15,16,17,18].

Microplastic pollution is becoming increasingly recognized as a factor of global change, affecting not only aquatic but also terrestrial ecosystems and the soil [17, 19]. Microplastics occur as primary microplastic or secondary microplastic and in a wide variety of sizes, shapes, chemistries and with a huge diversity of additives. Microplastic particles are expected to arrive in most ecosystems via aerial deposition [20, 21], but in agroecosystems there are also other input pathways including addition of sewage sludge or compost, which have been estimated to represent rather large input fluxes [16]. Once they have arrived in agroecosystems, there are a range of plausible pathways (including plowing) that lead to a transport of such particles into the soil [22], where effects upon soil properties, processes and biodiversity can then unfold. Previous studies on the effects of microplastics have shown effects on soil organisms, especially microorganisms, and chemical conversion processes in soils [23,24,25]. Initial evidence also pointed to soil physical properties being altered by microplastics [26]. We have evidence that microplastic can affect basic parameters including soil structure and bulk density [15], and that the performance of biota can be altered, which has been shown, for example for earthworms [27], microbes [28], and for plant growth [29,30,31,32]. However, the only study to date on the effect of microplastics on the emission of climate-relevant trace gases from soils does not address the impact of soil physical properties on the greenhouse gas emission [28].

However, the fact that the intensity of N2O and CO2 release is very strongly determined by soil physical properties, irrespective of the amount of N fertilization, has been shown in numerous studies. In a given soil with a certain soil texture, parameters of the soil structure such as air permeability, aggregate size distribution, and size and design of pore space seem to play an important role. On the one hand, they have a direct influence on the movement of the gases via mass flow and diffusion in the soil in a variety of ways and thus also the emission of greenhouse gases [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. On the other hand, they act indirectly by controlling the availability of oxygen in the soil, which in turn influences the processes of CO2 and N2O formation and N2O consumption in many ways [42,43,44,45].

In view of this, it is quite possible that the changes in soil structure caused by microplastics could indeed have an impact on the release of climate-relevant trace gases. The aim of our investigations here was thus to contribute to the clarification of the effect of microplastic addition on the emission of the greenhouse gases CO2 and N2O in interaction with N fertilization. We wished to test two main hypotheses: (i) addition of microplastics leads to changes in soil physical properties including soil aggregation (especially macro-aggregation) in our hierarchically structured soil; and (ii) effect of N fertilization on the release of N2O and CO2 are therefore altered by the addition of microplastics.

Materials and methods

Soil material

The soil material investigated was taken from the Ap horizon of a non-eroded Albic Luvisol (Cutanic, soil classification according to IUSS Working Group WRB, 2015), consisting of 59% sand, 32% silt, and 9% clay. This site is located on the flat summit within the CarboZALF experimental field, where studies on the influence of erosion on the C-dynamics were conducted. The CARBOZALF field belongs to the hummocky landscape within the Uckermark region (northeastern Germany, 53°23′N, 13°47’O, ~ 50–60 m a.s.l.) [46]. Winter wheat was grown there in the year of sampling. The soil material was dried and stored in this form for several weeks prior to the start of the experiment.

Sample preparation and treatments

The investigations were carried out using soil samples filled into steel cores with a volume of 250 cm3 and a bulk density of 1.4 g dry soil cm− 3. In preparation for incubations, the dry soil was sieved to 2 mm and then moistened to a water-filled pore volume of 48% (calculation of this parameter was done according to Linn and Doran (1984). To stimulate the activity of soil microorganisms similar to the conditions in an intensively N fertilized soil, diluted biogas digestate (dry matter 2.5%, 44% total C and 2.5% total N in dry matter, pH 8.3) was used for soil moistening. In this way, the substrate was provided with 290 mg total N respectively 170 mg ammonium N per kg dry soil for all treatments at day zero of incubation (Table 1).

Table 1 Setup of the two-factorial incubation experiment. Treatment codes are no-addition control (MP-N-), microplastic only (MP + N-), urea only (MP-N+), and addition of both microplastic and urea (MP+N+)
Full size table

To investigate the effect of N fertilization and soil contamination with microplastics alone and in their interaction, four variants were established, each comprising four of these soil cylinders (Table 1). To test the N effect, 35 mg urea-N per core (100 mg N per kg dry soil) was added at day 22 of the incubation.

For contamination of the soil with microplastics we used microplastic fibers, since fibers have repeatedly been shown to affect soil structure [26, 47,48,49], possibly due to their linear shape [50]. We used polyester fibers (Paraloc rope, 8 mm diameter, Mamutec, Switzerland, product number: 0025–00080–01-0), cut by hand (for the size distributions of fiber length and diameter see SI Fig. S1). Fibers were briefly microwaved to minimize microbial loads, following a previous protocol [30]. The amount of microplastic fibers mixed in was 1.4 g per core (0.4% w/w) at day zero of the incubation, a concentration that showed clear effects in previous experiments [30].

The microplastic fibers were distributed homogeneously on the surface of the soil substrate. The soil substrate, the diluted biogas digestate and, depending on the variant, also the microfibers were then carefully mixed together and filled into the stainless steel cylinders in layers at day zero of incubation. In each case one treatment without urea fertilization and without microplastic contamination served as control (Table 1). All samples received the same amount of mixing disturbance.

Incubation experiments

First, the gas emission from the soil cores was monitored over 18 days. On day 19 of incubation, 35 mg urea-N was applied to four samples with or without microplastic contamination. The amount of urea N was dissolved in 10 ml water and injected into the soil using a syringe. Four samples each with and without microplastic contamination were used as controls, into each of which 10 ml of water was injected using a syringe. As a result of this measure the water-filled pore space in all samples increased from 48 to 55%. Subsequently, the gas emissions from the cores was investigated for another 22 days (Table 1).

To determine the CO2 and N2O emissions, the soil samples were transferred to an incubation facility developed by us (Fig. 1). It works as a flow-through steady-state system corresponding to Livingston and Hutchinson [51]. The system contains 16 airtight, cylindrical incubation vessels (diameter and height of 13 cm, made from commercially available KG DN sewer pipes and accessories, Marley, Germany), each filled with one soil core. A temperature of 20 °C degrees was maintained in the incubation vessels by means of a climate box. Ambient air flows (32 mL min− 1) continuously through the headspace of the incubation vessels via channels connecting the pressure vessel and the gas analyzer. In parallel, there is a control channel through which ambient air passes the incubation vessels with the same flow rate directly from the pressure vessel to the gas analyzer. To prevent the soil cores from drying out, the air was saturated to 100% relative humidity before passing through the incubation vessels. Each channel is directly connected to the gas analyzer via a multiplexer and a special circular channel for 7 min each. Gas concentration measurements were performed using cavity ring-down spectroscopy technology in a Picarro G2508 gas concentration analyzer (PICARRO, INC., Santa Clara, USA). Air was circulated between the incubation unit headspace and the CRDS analyzer at 250 mL min− 1 using a low-leak diaphragm pump (A0702, Picarro, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The air from each of the 17 measuring channels was fed into this circuit via a connecting channel from the multiplexer. After that the air flowed out into the environment.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Schematic diagram of the incubation system used to measure CO2 and N2O flux rates from the soil cores

Full size image

The gas flux rates are calculated from the current gas concentration in the channel, which is connected to the outlet of a specific vessel, and the temporally corresponding concentration in the control channel, which represents the vessel inlet so to say, over time according to this equation:

$$ \mathrm{F}=\frac{\left(M\ast \rho \ast V\ast \left(\Delta c\right)\right)}{\left(C\ast R\ast t\ast T\right)} $$

where F is the flux rate (μg CO2-C or N2O-N core− 1 h− 1), M is the molar mass of CO2 or N2O, respectively (μg mol− 1), ρ the atmospheric pressure (Pa), V is the air flow rate into the headspace and the channels (m3 h− 1), Δc is the difference of gas concentrations [mol] between outlet of a specific vessel and the control channel, C is the core, R the gas constant (m3 Pa K− 1 mol− 1), t is the time over which the concentration change was observed, and T the incubation temperature (K).

An adaptation of a modular R program script, described in detail by Hoffmann et al. [52], was used for the calculation of current gas flux rates and CO2-C and N2O-N gas losses accumulated over time intervals.

Soil analysis after incubation

Immediately after the incubation, the air permeability (AP) of the soil cores was measured using the PL-300 device [53] based on the Gätke method [54]. After that, soil subsamples were extracted with 0.0125 M CaCl2 solution (ratio 1:4) and analyzed for NH4+-N and NO3−-N concentrations using spectrophotometry according to [55] with a continuous flow analyzer (Skalar Analytics, CFA-SAN, Breda, Netherlands). Soil moisture content was determined gravimetrically after drying a soil subsample at 105 °C until constant weight. Bulk density and water-filled pore space (WFPS) were calculated based on sample volume, dry weight and gravimetric water content. Soil pH was determined in 0.01 M CaCl2 solution (ratio 1:5) according to DIN ISO 10390. Subsamples were also analyzed for total soil carbon (TC), soil organic carbon (TOC) and total nitrogen (TN) according to DIN ISO 10694 and DIN ISO 13878 using an elemental analyzer (Leco Instruments, TruSpec CNS, St. Joseph, USA). The cold water soluble carbon and nitrogen in the soil was determined by extraction with cold water at the ZALF central laboratory using a Shimadzu TOC-VCPH Carbon Analyzer (Shimadzu Deutschland GmbH, Berlin, Germany).

The measurement of the size class distribution of soil aggregates followed a modified protocol by Kemper and Rosenau [56]. First, samples were passed carefully through a 4 mm sieve. Second, samples were passed through a stack of five sieves (2, 1, 0.25, 0.1 and 0.05 mm) to determine the mass of soil aggregates separating across the resulting six fractions of decreasing particle size. For this, the sieve stack was moved vertically. The movement was kept to a minimum to avoid abrasion but ensure particle separation over the different mesh sizes. The measured mass for each fraction was integrated into the following formula to calculate the mean weight diameter (in mm): MWD = \( {\sum}_{i=1}^n\overline{x_i}\ {w}_i \), where xi is the mean diameter of size fraction i and wi is the proportion of total soil mass in size fraction i; i.e., soil aggregate size classes are weighted by their mean diameter so that samples with overall larger soil aggregates result in higher MWD values. In this method, microplastic particles are included with the aggregate weight, since they are part of the aggregates.

Samples were carefully reconstituted and mixed after measuring the MWD before taking 4.0 g of soil. These were placed on a small sieve with 250 μm mesh size, allowed to capillarily re-wet with deionized water and placed into a sieving machine (Agrisearch Equipment, Eijkelkamp, Giesbeek, Netherlands). During the procedure, the samples were moved vertically for 3 min in metal bins filled with deionized water to experience a disintegrating force. The resulting slaking of the treated soil aggregates caused a separation into a water-stable and water-unstable fraction with a size > 250 μm. From the water-stable fraction, debris (sand particles and organic matter) were extracted to allow calculation of the water-stable aggregate (WSA) fraction:

$$ \mathrm{WSA}=\left(\mathrm{water}\ \mathrm{stable}\ \mathrm{fraction}-\mathrm{debris}\right)/\left(4.0\;\mathrm{g}-\mathrm{debris}\right). $$

In this method, microplastic particles are part of the debris. For each sample two technical replicates were tested which were later merged into one mean value for the statistical analysis.

Statistics

For the statistical analysis, we used a generalized least square model of the “nlme” package [57] with implemented varIdent function to account for heterogeneity in the applied treatment (i.e. control, microplastic, urea, microplastic: urea dual application). Control samples were set as reference level. We tested model residuals for normality and heteroscedasticity.

Results

Fluxes of CO2 and N2O

At the beginning of the first phase of incubation an increase in flux rates can be seen for both CO2 and N2O, followed by a slow decrease. Between the treatments only small differences could be seen (Fig. 2). However, at the time of the highest emissions, the variants with microplastics showed slightly lower fluxes for N2O and slightly higher fluxes for CO2 than the control variants without microplastics. This was accompanied by a differentiated effect of microplastics on the flux dynamics. The presence of microplastics resulted in a faster increase and decrease of flux rates in the case of N2O. For CO2, the opposite effect was observed. The extreme peak in CO2 release occurring in all variants during the first incubation phase is due to system maintenance. The addition of urea at the beginning of the second incubation phase suddenly caused a strong short-term stimulation of the CO2 release and a longer-term stimulation of the N2O release, whereby the flux rates, especially for N2O, were significantly higher than in the first incubation phase (Fig. 2). Both gases reacted to the presence of microplastics with the same reaction pattern as in the first incubation phase with regard to the level and dynamics of the emissions. However, the differences between the no-MP addition treatments (MP-N- and MP-N+) and the variants with microplastics (MP + N- and MP + N+) are more pronounced than in the first incubation phase, especially after the emission peak has subsided. In the variants that received only water (MP-N- and MP + N-), the addition of microplastics caused similar behavior in gas emissions. However, the intensity of the reactions was significantly lower than with urea fertilization. Only in the control without microplastics did N2O emission after the addition of water reach a similar level as in the first phase of incubation (Table 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Average (n = 4; a) CO2 and (b) N2O flux dynamics for the four treatments over the time course of the incubation experiment. Treatments are no-addition control (MP-N-; red, solid line), microplastic only (MP + N-; red, dashed line), urea only (MP-N+; blue, solid line), and addition of both microplastic and urea (MP + N+; blue, dashed line). Shaded areas represent ±1 SE

Full size image
Table 2 Soil physical characteristics, cumulative CO2- and N2O emissions and fertilizer N losses by N2O. Different superscript letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) within a response variable
Full size table

The effects of microplastics and urea fertilization observed at current flux rates are also reflected in the cumulative CO2 and N2O emissions (Table 2). Related to the total incubation period, the emitted CO2 was slightly promoted by microplastics and strongly by urea application. The strongest effect was caused by the combination of microplastics and urea application. These effects become more apparent when only the second phase of incubation is considered. Looking at the whole period of incubation for N2O emission, a clear inhibition of the cumulative release in the presence of microplastics and a weak promotion by urea fertilization becomes apparent. In the second phase of incubation, both the reducing effect of microplastics and the promoting effect of urea fertilization become more evident. Consequently, the same reaction pattern can be seen with regard to the proportion of fertilizer N lost as a result of N2O. This proportion was always increased by urea application and reduced by microplastics (Table 1).

Physical and chemical soil properties

The two test factors microplastics and urea addition also influenced the physical and chemical soil properties in different ways. The presence of microplastics caused a significant increase in the proportion of water-stable soil aggregates (WSA) and in the mean weight diameter (MWD), and a slight increase in air permeability (Table 2). In contrast, the addition of urea caused a significant increase in the content of cold water soluble carbon and ammonium N in the soil (Table 3, 4). The content of cold water soluble N and of nitrate N was promoted by urea as well as by microplastics. Therefore, the highest values for both parameters again occurred when combining microplastics with urea. The addition of microplastics also resulted in a slight increase in the total and organic carbon content of the soil, likely because microplastic-carbon was co-detected (Table 3, 4).

Table 3 Soil chemical characteristics as a function of treatments
Full size table
Table 4 Model outcomes (n = 16; with n = 13 for AP) for the last harvest day (day 40) for CO2 emissions (in mg CO2-C core−1), N2O emissions (in mg N2O-N core− 1), fertilizer N loss (in % of applied N), water-stability of soil aggregates (WSA, in %), mean weight diameter (MWD, in mm), and soil chemical characteristics (pH, AP, TC, TOC, Ccwc, TN, NH4-N, NO3-N and Ncwn)
Full size table

The analysis of the relationships between soil properties and the cumulative CO2 and N2O fluxes showed that in the case of CO2 only closer relationships could be detected to the ammonium N content of the soil and in the case of N2O to the ammonium N and cold-water soluble carbon content of the soil (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Relationship between (a,b) ammonium content of the soil and cumulative N2O emission; (c,d) content of cold water extractable soil C and cumulative N2O emission; and (e,f) ammonium content of the soil and cumulative CO2 emission for the four different treatments for all treatment repetitions (n = 16; a,c,d) and treatment averages (AVG; n = 4; b,d,f). Error bars and gray shaded area (b,d,f) denote ±SD and confidence interval of the respective logarithmic (b,d) and linear function (f) fitted to the data (b: r2 = 0.70; d: r2 = 0.52; f: r2 = 0.55). Treatment combinations are indicated by different colors (red = no N; blue with N added) and symbols

Full size image

Discussion

We here present clear evidence that microplastic fibers affect the dynamics and intensity of trace gas fluxes, in particular of CO2 and N2O, from a sandy, intensively fertilized agricultural loam soil. It is interesting that microplastics mitigate the promotion of N2O release during intensive N fertilization. It is an important task to test the degree to which these results are generalizable; in particular, this finding would need to be verified using different soil types (including soils with different textures and that are not hierarchically structured).

Experimental approach allows clear determination of the effect of the test factors

In the first phase of the experiment, a clear effect of microplastic on gas flux dynamics was also observed, but over a period of about 18 days these effects were largely masked by the type of experimental approach, i.e. rewetting of the dry soil. This was probably due to a temporarily increased supply of microbially easily degradable C and N compounds as a result of soil disturbance and the addition of the diluted biogas digestate. By applying the urea only after this phenomenon had subsided, it was possible in the second phase of the experiment to clearly separate the effects of the test factors microplastics and N-fertilization. The renewed increase in CO2 and N2O flux rates is certainly due to the N fertilization and partially to the slight increase in WFPS to the final value of 55% (Fig. 3).

Impact of N fertilization on CO2 and N2O fluxes

The applied N-fertilizers biogas digestate and urea both contained microbially easily degradable nitrogen and carbon. As expected, this led to a significant increase in both CO2 and N2O emissions. The effect of fertilization exceeded that of soil contamination with microplastics in both phases of the experiment. The investigations of Ren et al. [28] led to very similar results. Sources for the CO2 and N2O formation could have been the fertilizers themselves as well as an increased mineralization of soil organic matter induced by them as a result of the priming effect [58, 59].

However, it should be emphasized that the presence of microplastics in the simulated intensive N-fertilization arable soil led to a significant reduction not only of N2O emissions but also of fertilizer-derived N losses (Table 3). In view of this, it would be useful to examine in subsequent studies whether practical measures for reducing N2O emissions in agriculture can be derived from findings on the underlying mechanisms connecting with the impact of microplastics on soil structure.

Evidence that the effect of microplastics on greenhouse gas fluxes is mainly due to changes in soil structure

The following facts indicate that the addition of microplastics has influenced the emissions of CO2 and N2O mainly through changes in soil structure. (i) The simultaneous change in the proportion of water-soluble aggregates and the gas flows in the variants with microplastics. (ii) Preventing the increase in N2O emission after increasing the water-filled pore space in the second phase of incubation for the variants not fertilized with urea (Fig. 2, treatment MP-N- vs. MP + N-).

However, these findings do not provide information exactly which parameters of soil structure caused the changed CO2 and N2O fluxes. This requires further investigations in which parameters such as relative gas diffusivity, air permeability, air connectivity, air distance, air tortuosity, which allow a clear quantification of the gas movement in the soil, are systematically determined [39, 60, 61].

Oxygen supply of the soil is probably the reason for the different reaction of CO2 and N2O on microplastics

There is substantial evidence that the addition of microplastics influenced the gas fluxes, mediated by the soil structure, in fact mainly by a changed oxygen supply. This also offers a clear explanation of the diverging effects for CO2 and N2O. Microplastic addition likely improved soil aeration: we showed an increase in soil aggregation and air permeability. Increased aggregate formation is always accompanied by an increase in the proportion of macropores and their connectivity in the soil, which in turn provides improved oxygen supply or increased gas flow in the soil. By contrast, the inside of aggregates is often characterized by microanaerobic zones, because the dominant micropores here strongly limit gas exchange. The increased share of connected macropores could also explain the increased formation of CO2 because of mineralization proceeding more effectively in the presence of increased oxygen supply [34, 44, 45, 62].

The reduction of N2O emission after the addition of microplastics should also be due to a changed O2 supply. However, more complex processes are involved here than in CO2 release. A wide range of pathways can be involved in the formation and consumption of N2O. The most important of these are autotrophic and heterotrophic nitrification, nitrifier denitrification, heterotrophic denitrification, anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) and dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (or nitrate ammonification). In connection with our investigations, it is particularly important that N2O formation and N2O consumption can occur both in the presence and absence of O2 [11, 63, 64]. In our study, nitrous oxide formation appears to be due to both autotrophic nitrification and heterotrophic denitrification. Some lines of evidence point to this. Previous investigations show that the WFPS we set up in the second phase of the investigation is almost optimal for the nitrification process taking place under aerobic conditions [33, 62, 65,66,67]. This is also indicated by the above-mentioned increase in N2O release after raising the WFPS from 48 to 55% in the second phase of incubation (Fig. 2, treatment MP-N-). Moreover, the close correlation between ammonium content of the soil and cumulative N2O emission indicates that autotrophic nitrification plays a significant role (Fig. 3). However, the occurrence of microanaerobic zones, especially in highly aggregated soils, means that even at average WFPF values, part of the N2O can be produced in the course of denitrification and other processes that only occur in the absence of O2 [37, 42, 43, 65, 66]. Therefore, the observed reduction in N2O release in the presence of microplastic, presumably due to increased O2 replenishment, can be regarded as an indication of reduced denitrification (Table 2). To find out if this is the case and to elucidate the real proportion of various processes contributing to N2O release, further investigations are required, especially on the basis of isotopic approaches in combination with quantification of gas movement into the soil [33, 65, 66].

Recommendations for a more comprehensive assessment of the effect of microplastics on greenhouse gas fluxes

Our monitoring approach entailed high-frequency measurements; this is necessary to obtain precise results for trace gas emissions [28, 68,69,70,71,72]. Future endeavors aimed at quantifying trace gas flux responses to microplastic addition should also rely on such measurements.

We carried out this experiment to study effects of microplastic fibers on soil under highly controlled conditions, excluding the role of plant roots or larger soil animals such as earthworms. In agricultural systems, plants may modify dynamics and trace gas fluxes. It is not clear which direction such modifications would take, because plants can affect outcomes in complicated ways in terms of their effects on rhizodeposition, competition for N, or changes in soil moisture [73,74,75,76,77]. It is thus a high priority to include plant responses in assessments of trace gas fluxes when soils are exposed to microplastic.

Our study used microplastic fibers, which is a common shape of microplastics in the environment, but microplastics come in a wide variety of shapes [50], chemistries, and with many different additives present in consumer products [78]. The only other experiment to test greenhouse gas effects used PE particles with a much higher concentration than in our investigations [28]. Other shapes to examine include films, which have been shown to affect formation of cracks and water fluxes [79]; this is relevant in agricultural systems owing to the prevalent use of mulching films. Different chemistries, including non-intentional additives and other compounds, may also affect different microbial players in the nutrient cycles leading to greenhouse gas emissions [28], possibly also leading to effects diverging from the ones observed here. Clearly, examining a broader parameter space of microplastic properties should be a priority for future research.

Conclusions

Our laboratory study has clearly shown that microplastic fibers can influence trace gas emissions, and that soil structure effects are key to understanding such responses. Many studies of microplastic focus on a more classical ecotoxicological perspective, but our results suggest that microplastic should not be ignored in future estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and in assessing the actual risk to the environment from excessive N fertilization. Given the widespread presence of microplastic, especially in agricultural fields, such findings are relevant for understanding potential Earth system feedbacks of microplastic contamination [14]. It is clear that ecosystem-level feedbacks should be included as well to achieve a more complete assessment of impacts.

Availability of data and materials

Data supporting the findings of this study are freely accessible at the ZALF open-research-data repository (http://doi.org/104228/ZALF.DK.152).

Abbreviations

WFPS:

Water-filled pore space

TN:

Total nitrogen

TOC:

Total organic carbon

TC:

Total carbon

MWD:

Mean weight diameter

WSA:

Water-stable aggregates

AP:

Air permeability

DM:

Dry matter

Ccwc :

Cold water soluble carbon

Ncwn :

Cold water soluble nitrogen

MP:

Microplastic

References

  1. Battye W, Aneja VP, Schlesinger WH. Is nitrogen the next carbon? Earths Future. 2017;5(9):894–904. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lu M, Yang YH, Luo YQ, Fang CM, Zhou XH, Chen JK, Yang X, Li B. Responses of ecosystem nitrogen cycle to nitrogen addition: a meta-analysis. New Phytol. 2011;189(4):1040–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03563.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Erisman JW, Galloway JN, Seitzinger S, Bleeker A, Dise NB, AMR P, et al. Consequences of human modification of the global nitrogen cycle. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2013;368:20130116. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0116.

  4. Fowler D, Pyle JA, Raven JA, Sutton MA. The global nitrogen cycle in the twenty-first century: introduction. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2013;368:20130164. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0164.

  5. Houlton BZ, Almaraz M, Aneja V, Austin AT, Bai E, Cassman KG, Compton JE, Davidson EA, Erisman JW, Galloway JN, Gu B, Yao G, Martinelli LA, Scow K, Schlesinger WH, Tomich TP, Wang C, Zhang X. A world of Cobenefits: solving the global nitrogen challenge. Earths Future. 2019;7(8):865–72. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bodirsky BL, Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Dietrich JP, Rolinski S, Weindl I, Schmitz C, Müller C, Bonsch M, Humpenöder F, Biewald A, Stevanovic M. Reactive nitrogen requirements to feed the world in 2050 and potential to mitigate nitrogen pollution. Nat Commun. 2014;5(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4858.

  7. Frank S, Havlik P, Stehfest E, van Meijl H, Witzke P, Perez-Dominguez I, et al. Agricultural non-CO2 emission reduction potential in the context of the 1.5 degrees C target. Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9(1):66–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0358-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Shcherbak I, Millar N, Robertson GP. Global metaanalysis of the nonlinear response of soil nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions to fertilizer nitrogen. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(25):9199–204. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322434111.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson RL, Lassaletta L, Patra PK, Wilson C, Wells KC, Gressent A, Koffi EN, Chipperfield MP, Winiwarter W, Davidson EA, Tian H, Canadell JG. Acceleration of global N2O emissions seen from two decades of atmospheric inversion. Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9(12):993–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0613-7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Castellano MJ, Kaye JP, Lin H, Schmidt JP. Linking carbon saturation concepts to nitrogen saturation and retention. Ecosystems. 2012;15(2):175–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9501-3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Butterbach-Bahl K, Baggs EM, Dannenmann M, Kiese R, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S. Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: how well do we understand the processes and their controls? Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2013;368:20130122. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0122.

  12. Paustian K, Lehmann J, Ogle S, Reay D, Robertson GP, Smith P. Climate-smart soils. Nature. 2016;532(7597):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17174.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wollenberg E, Richards M, Smith P, Havlik P, Obersteiner M, Tubiello FN, et al. Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the 2 degrees C target. Glob Chang Biol. 2016;22(12):3859–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rillig MC, Lehmann A. Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems. Science. 2020;368(6498):1430–1. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5979.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bucci K, Tulio M, Rochman CM. What is known and unknown about the effects of plastic pollution: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Ecol Appl. 2020;30(2):e02044. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2044.

  16. Horton AA, Walton A, Spurgeon DJ, Lahive E, Svendsen C. Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci Total Environ. 2017;586:127–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Machado AAD, Kloas W, Zarfl C, Hempel S, Rillig MC. Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol. 2018;24(4):1405–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Xu BL, Liu F, Cryder Z, Huang D, Lu ZJ, He Y, Wang H, Lu Z, Brookes PC, Tang C, Gan J, Xu J. Microplastics in the soil environment: occurrence, risks, interactions and fate - a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2020;50(21):2175–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2019.1694822.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rillig MC. Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems and the soil? Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46(12):6453–4. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302011r.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Allen S, Allen D, Phoenix VR, Le Roux G, Durántez Jiménez P, Simonneau A, et al. Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a remote mountain catchment. Nat Geosci. 2019;12(5):339–44. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0335-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dris R, Gasperi J, Saad M, Mirande C, Tassin B. Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: a source of microplastics in the environment? Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;104(1):290–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rillig MC, Ingraffia R, Machado AAD. Microplastic incorporation into soil in Agroecosystems. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01805.

  23. Awet TT, Kohl Y, Meier F, Straskraba S, Grun AL, Ruf T, et al. Effects of polystyrene nanoparticles on the microbiota and functional diversity of enzymes in soil. Environ Sci Eur. 2018;30(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-018-0140-6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Chen HP, Wang YH, Sun X, Peng YK, Xiao L. Mixing effect of polylactic acid microplastic and straw residue on soil property and ecological function. Chemosphere. 2020;243:125271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125271.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Yang XM, Bento CPM, Chen H, Zhang HM, Xue S, Lwanga EH, Zomer P, Ritsema CJ, Geissen V. Influence of microplastic addition on glyphosate decay and soil microbial activities in Chinese loess soil. Environ Pollut. 2018;242:338–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Machado AAD, Lau CW, Till J, Kloas W, Lehmann A, Becker R, et al. Impacts of microplastics on the soil biophysical environment. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52(17):9656–65. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02212.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lwanga EH, Gertsen H, Gooren H, Peters P, Salanki T, van der Ploeg M, et al. Microplastics in the terrestrial ecosystem: implications for Lumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae). Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(5):2685–91. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05478.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ren XW, Tang JC, Liu XM, Liu QL. Effects of microplastics on greenhouse gas emissions and the microbial community in fertilized soil. Environ Pollut. 2020;256:113347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113347.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lozano YM, Rillig MC. Effects of microplastic fibers and drought on plant communities. Environ Sci Technol. 2020; 54(10):6166-73. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c01051.

  30. Machado AAD, Lau CW, Kloas W, Bergmann J, Bacheher JB, Faltin E, et al. Microplastics can change soil properties and affect plant performance. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53(10):6044–52. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01339.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rillig MC, Lehmann A, Machado AAD, Yang G. Microplastic effects on plants. New Phytol. 2019;223(3):1066–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. van Kleunen M, Brumer A, Gutbrod L, Zhang Z. A microplastic used as infill material in artificial sport turfs reduces plant growth. Plants People Planet. 2019;2:157–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Balaine N, Clough TJ, Beare MH, Thomas SM, Meenken ED. Soil gas diffusivity controls N2O and N2 emissions and their ratio. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2016;80(3):529–40. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2015.09.0350.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Ball BC. Soil structure and greenhouse gas emissions: a synthesis of 20 years of experimentation. Eur J Soil Sci. 2013;64(3):357–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12013.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bocking CR, Blyth MG. Oxygen uptake and denitrification in soil aggregates. Acta Mech. 2018;229(2):595–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00707-017-2042-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cardenas LM, Bol R, Lewicka-Szczebak D, Gregory AS, Matthews GP, Whalley WR, Misselbrook TH, Scholefield D, Well R. Effect of soil saturation on denitrification in a grassland soil. Biogeosciences. 2017;14(20):4691–710. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-4691-2017.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Chamindu Deepagoda TKK, Jayarathne JRRN, Clough TJ, Thomas S, Elberling B. Soil-gas diffusivity and soil-moisture effects on N2O emissions from intact pasture soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2019;83(4):1032–43. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2018.10.0405.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Laudone GM, Matthews GP, Bird NRA, Whalley WR, Cardenas LM, Gregory AS. A model to predict the effects of soil structure on denitrification and N2O emission. J Hydrol. 2011;409(1–2):283–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.08.026.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Schluter S, Zawallich J, Vogel HJ, Dorsch P. Physical constraints for respiration in microbial hotspots in soil and their importance for denitrification. Biogeosciences. 2019;16(18):3665–78. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-3665-2019.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Smith KA. Changing views of nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soil: key controlling processes and assessment at different spatial scales. Eur J Soil Sci. 2017;68(2):137–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12409.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Wu D, Cárdenas LM, Calvet S, Brüggemann N, Loick N, Liu S, Bol R. The effect of nitrification inhibitor on N2O, NO and N2 emissions under different soil moisture levels in a permanent grassland soil. Soil Biol Biochem. 2017;113:153–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.06.007.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bollmann A, Conrad R. Influence of O2 availability on NO and N2O release by nitrification and denitrification in soils. Glob Chang Biol. 1998;4(4):387–96. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00161.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Parkin TB, Tiedje JM. Application of a soil core method to investigate the effect of oxygen concentration on denitification. Soil Biol Biochem. 1984;16(4):331–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(84)90027-0.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Reeves SH, Somasundaram J, Wang WJ, Heenan MA, Finn D, Dalai RC. Effect of soil aggregate size and long-term contrasting tillage, stubble and nitrogen management regimes on CO2 fluxes from a vertisol. Geoderma. 2019;337:1086–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.11.022.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Stepniewski W, Stepniewska Z. Selected oxygen-dependent process-response to soil management and tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2009;102(2):193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hoffmann M, Pohl M, Jurisch N, Prescher AK, Campa EM, Hagemann U, et al. Maize carbon dynamics are driven by soil erosion state and plant phenology rather than nitrogen fertilization form. Soil Tillage Res. 2018;175:255–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.09.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lehmann A, Fitschen K, Rillig MC. Abiotic and biotic factors influencing the effect of microplastic on soil aggregation. Soil Syst. 2019;3(1):21. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems3010021.

  48. Liang Y, Lehmann A, Ballhausen MB, Muller L, Rillig MC. Increasing temperature and microplastic fibers jointly influence soil aggregation by Saprobic fungi. Front Microbiol. 2019;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02018.

  49. Rillig MC, Ryo M, Lehmann A, Aguilar-Trigueros CA, Buchert S, Wulf A, Iwasaki A, Roy J, Yang G. The role of multiple global change factors in driving soil functions and microbial biodiversity. Science. 2019;366(6467):886–90. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay2832.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Rillig MC, Lehmann A, Ryo M, Bergmann J. Shaping up: toward considering the shape and form of pollutants. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53(14):7925–6. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03520.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Livingston G, Hutchinson G. Enclosure-based measurement of trace gas exchange: applications and sources of error. In: Matson P, Harriss R, editors. Biogenic trace gases: measuring emissions from soil and water. Oxford: Blackwell Science Inc; 1995. p. 14–51.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hoffmann M, Jurisch N, Alba JG, Borraz EA, Schmidt M, Huth V, et al. Detecting small-scale spatial heterogeneity and temporal dynamics of soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks: a comparison between automatic chamber-derived C budgets and repeated soil inventories. Biogeosciences. 2017;14(4):1003–19. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-1003-2017.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Umwelt-Geräte-Technik-GmbH. Users’s Manual PL 300. Müncheberg, Freising, Homecourt. 2014;18.

  54. Gätke CR. Zum Einfluss des Bodenwassergehalts auf dei pneumatische Leitfähigkeit eines Sandbodens. Archiv Acker Pflanzenbau Bodenkunde. 1989;33(8):437–43.

    Google Scholar 

  55. VDLUFA. Methodenbuch I. Die Untersuchung von Böden (Handbook: Soil Analysis). 1. Darmstadt (Germany) 1991.

  56. Kemper WD, Rosenau RC. Aggregate stability and size distribution. In: Lute A, editor. Methods of soil analysis part I - physical and mineralogical methods. 2nd ed. Madison, USA: SSSA; 1986. p. 425–43.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, Team RC. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 31–149. 2020.

  58. Chen RR, Senbayram M, Blagodatsky S, Myachina O, Dittert K, Lin XG, Blagodatskaya E, Kuzyakov Y. Soil C and N availability determine the priming effect: microbial N mining and stoichiometric decomposition theories. Glob Chang Biol. 2014;20(7):2356–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Jenkinson DS, Fox RH, Rayner JH. Interactions between fertilizer nitrogen and soil-nitrogen - the so-called priming effect. J Soil Sci. 1985;36(3):425–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1985.tb00348.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Balaine N, Clough TJ, Beare MH, Thomas SM, Meenken ED, Ross JG. Changes in relative gas diffusivity explain soil nitrous oxide flux dynamics. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2013;77(5):1496–505. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2013.04.0141.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Schjonning P, Pulido-Moncada M, Munkholm LJ, Iversen BV. Ratio of non-Darcian to Darcian air permeability as a marker of soil pore organization. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2019;83(4):1024–31. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2018.11.0452.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Linn DM, Doran JW. Effect of water-filled pore-space on carbon-dioxide and nitrous-oxide production in tilled and nontolled soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1984;48(6):1267–72. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1984.03615995004800060013x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Hallin S, Philippot L, Loffler FE, Sanford RA, Jones CM. Genomics and ecology of novel N2O-reducing microorganisms. Trends Microbiol. 2018;26(1):43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2017.07.003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Hu HW, Chen D, He JZ. Microbial regulation of terrestrial nitrous oxide formation: understanding the biological pathways for prediction of emission rates. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2015;39(5):729–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fuv021.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Bateman EJ, Baggs EM. Contributions of nitrification and denitrification to N2O emissions from soils at different water-filled pore space. Biol Fertil Soils. 2005;41(6):379–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-005-0858-3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Davidson EA, Swank WT, Perry TO. Distinguishing between nitrification and denitification as sources of gaseous nitrogen-production in soil. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1986;52(6):1280–6. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.52.6.1280-1286.1986.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Well R, Kurganova I, de Gerenyu VL, Flessa H. Isotopomer signatures of soil-emitted N2O under different moisture conditions - a microcosm study with arable loess soil. Soil Biol Biochem. 2006;38(9):2923–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.05.003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Cardenas LM, Hawkins JMB, Chadwick D, Scholefield D. Biogenic gas emissions from soils measured using a new automated laboratory incubation system. Soil Biol Biochem. 2003;35(6):867–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(03)00092-0.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Christiansen JR, Outhwaite J, Smukler SM. Comparison of CO2, CH4 and N2O soil-atmosphere exchange measured in static chambers with cavity ring-down spectroscopy and gas chromatography. Agric For Meteorol. 2015;211:48–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Fuchs K, Hortnagl L, Buchmann N, Eugster W, Snow V, Merbold L. Management matters: testing a mitigation strategy for nitrous oxide emissions using legumes on intensively managed grassland. Biogeosciences. 2018;15(18):5519–43. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-5519-2018.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Hawthorne I, Johnson MS, Jassal RS, Black TA, Grant NJ, Smukler SM. Application of biochar and nitrogen influences fluxes of CO2, CH4 and N2O in a forest soil. J Environ Manag. 2017;192:203–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.066.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Scheer C, Rowlings D, Firrell M, Deuter P, Morris S, Riches D, Porter I, Grace P. Nitrification inhibitors can increase post-harvest nitrous oxide emissions in an intensive vegetable production system. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43677.

  73. Abalos D, van Groenigen JW, De Deyn GB. What plant functional traits can reduce nitrous oxide emissions from intensively managed grasslands? Glob Chang Biol. 2018;24(1):E248–E58. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Abalos D, van Groenigen JW, Philippot L, Lubbers IM, De Deyn GB. Plant trait-based approaches to improve nitrogen cycling in agroecosystems. J Appl Ecol. 2019;56(11):2454–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Jilling A, Keiluweit M, Contosta AR, Frey S, Schimel J, Schnecker J, Smith RG, Tiemann L, Grandy AS. Minerals in the rhizosphere: overlooked mediators of soil nitrogen availability to plants and microbes. Biogeochemistry. 2018;139(2):103–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-018-0459-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Moreau D, Bardgett RD, Finlay RD, Jones DL, Philippot L. A plant perspective on nitrogen cycling in the rhizosphere. Funct Ecol. 2019;33(4):540–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Norton J, Ouyang Y. Controls and adaptive Management of Nitrification in agricultural soils. Front Microbiol. 2019;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01931.

  78. Zimmermann L, Dierkes G, Ternes TA, Volker C, Wagner M. Benchmarking the in vitro toxicity and chemical composition of plastic consumer products. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53(19):11467–77. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02293.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Wan Y, Wu CX, Xue Q, Hui XMN. Effects of plastic contamination on water evaporation and desiccation cracking in soil. Sci Total Environ. 2019;654:576–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.123.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Marten Schmidt and Bertram Gusovius for construction and for maintenance of the measurement apparatus.

Funding

MCR acknowledges funding from a European Research Council Advanced Grant (694368), and the BMBF-funded project μPlastic (031B0907A). JA acknowledges funding through the Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe (FNR) project ‘Krumensenke’. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Biologie, Altensteinstr. 6, D-14195, Berlin, Germany

    Matthias C. Rillig, Anika Lehmann & Yun Liang

  2. Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), D-14195, Berlin, Germany

    Matthias C. Rillig, Anika Lehmann & Yun Liang

  3. Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Research Area 1 “Landscape Functioning”, Eberswalder Str. 84, D-15374, Müncheberg, Germany

    Mathias Hoffmann, Matthias Lück & Jürgen Augustin

Authors
  1. Matthias C. Rillig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mathias Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anika Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yun Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthias Lück
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jürgen Augustin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MCR and JA designed the study. AL and MH carried out statistics and prepared Figs. YL, AL, ML carried out lab work. MCR wrote the first draft to which all authors then contributed revisions. The author (s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias C. Rillig.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rillig, M.C., Hoffmann, M., Lehmann, A. et al. Microplastic fibers affect dynamics and intensity of CO2 and N2O fluxes from soil differently. Micropl.&Nanopl. 1, 3 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-021-00004-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-021-00004-0

Keywords