Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-10T05:20:13.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partial sterilisation of soil by antiseptics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Annie Matthews
Annie Matthews
Affiliation:
Formerly W. B. Randall Research Student at the Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Quantitative determinations have been made of the effect on soil protozoa and bacteria of various antiseptic substances, including benzene and its homologues and derivatives, carbon disulphide, ammonia, formaldehyde and chlorpicrin. Ammonia and nitrates were determined at the same time in many cases. The effect on fungi, eelworm, etc., was also determined roughly.

2. It was found that nearly all the substances disappeared from the soil fairly quickly and at the same time the numbers of bacteria fluctuated. The usual march of events was that the bacteria were reduced in number for the first few days, then rose to a maximum and finally fell slowly towards normal. The whole fall was sometimes very slow and the whole process was much slower in field soil than in the richer, lighter and better aerated greenhouse soils.

3. Aeration was found to have great influence on the rapidity of the changes.

4. The increase of the bacteria during the early days of an experiment varied in the same direction as the molecular weights and heats of combustion of the antiseptics and is attributed to the latter property. Naphthalene, for instance, which has a large heat of combustion, caused enormous rises, while benzene with its lower heat caused smaller rises.

5. This rise was independent of the effect of the substance on the protozoa. Both naphthalene and toluene in large doses cause high rises; the first has no effect on the protozoa, while the latter kills all amoebae and ciliates.

6. Similar results were obtained when the experiments were made on soils already free from protozoa, such as a field soil which had been in bottle for 76 years, soil in which they had been killed by steaming, and soil in which they had been killed by antiseptics. If the protozoa were killed by the use of a strong dose of a suitable antiseptic and the soil were then set aside for a long period, a second dose caused an even greater rise than the first.

7. It is therefore concluded that the rise in the number of the bacteria is largely due to the feeding effect of the antiseptic on the bacteria and not only to the destruction of the protozoa, and that the increased fertility observed by Russell and Hutchinson is to be attributed in large measure to the activity of the greater bacterial population in breaking down the organic matter of the soil. Bacterial rises following treatment with lime or steam are similarly caused in part by the preparation of the plant residues.

8. Aliphatic compounds cause quicker but smaller rises than those of aromatic series.

9. The introduction of a CH3 group into the benzene ring lessens toxicity to soil organisms, while a single Cl or nitro-group increases both toxicity and stability in the soil.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 1924 , pp. 1 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1924

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Hiltner, L., and Störmer, K. (1903). “Studien uber die Bakterien Flora des Ackerbodens, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Verhaltens naoh einer Behandlung mit Schwefelkohlenstoffe und nach Brache. Arbeiten der Biolog., Abteilung f. Land. u. Forstwirtschaft. Bd. 3, Heft 5.Google Scholar
(2)Russell, E. J., and Hutchinson, H. B. (1909). “The Effect of Partial Sterilisation of Soil on the Production of Plant Food.” Journ. Agric. Sci. 3, Pt. II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Russell, E. J., and Hutchinson, H. B. (1913). “The Effect of Partial Sterilisation of Soil on the Production of Plant Food. II. The Limitation of Bacterial Numbers in Soil and its Consequences.” Journ. Agric. Sci. 5, Pt II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Hutohinson, H. B. (1913). “Partial Sterilisation of Soil by Means of Caustic Lime.” Journ. Agric. Sci. 5, 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Russell, E. J. (1913). “The Complexity of the Micro-organic Population of the Soil.” Science, 37, No. 953, 519–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Buddin, W. (1914). “Partial Sterilisation of Soil by Volatile and Non-Volatile Antiseptics.” Journ. Agric. Sci. 6, Pt IV.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Goodey, T. (1915). “Investigations on Protozoa in Relation to the Factor Limiting Bacterial Activity in Soil.” Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), Ser. B. 88, No. B. 606.Google Scholar
(7a)Goodey, T. (1911). “A Contribution to our Knowledge of the Protozoa of the Soil.” Proc. Roy, Soc (London), Ser. B. 84.Google Scholar
(8)Greiq Smith, R. (1915). “Stimulating Influence of Small Traces of Chloroform Retained by the Soil.” Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, 40, Pt IV.Google Scholar
(9)Greiq Smith, R. (1915). “The Action of Toluene upon Soil Protozoa.” Nature, 5, 94, No. 2306, p. 581.Google Scholar
(10)Doryland, C. J. T. (1916). “The Influence of Energy Material upon the Relation of Soil Micro-organisms to Soluble Plant Food.” North Dakota Agric. Ex. Sta. Bull. 116.Google Scholar
(11)Robbins, W. J. (1917). “The Cause of the Disappearance of Cumarin, Vanillin, Pyridin and Quinoline in the Soil.” Alabama Ag. Ex. Sta. Bull. 195.Google Scholar
(12)Kopeloff, N., and Coleman, D. A. (1917). “Review of Investigations in Soil Protozoa and Soil Sterilisation.” Soil Science, New Brunswick, 3, No. 3. [An excellent summary of work published up to 1917.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Hutchinson, H. B. (1919). Journ. Agric. Sci. 9, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Truffaut, G., and Bezssonoff, H. (1920). “Influence dela stérilisation partielle sur la composition de la flore microbienne du sol.” Compt. Rend, de l'Académie des Sciences, Tome 170.Google Scholar
(15)Cutler, D. W., and Crump, L. M. (1920). “Daily Periodicity in the Numbers of Active Soil Flagellates: with a brief note on the Relation of Trophic Amoebae and Bacterial Numbers.” Annals of Applied Biology, 7, No. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15a)Cutler, D. W. (1920). “Method for Estimating Active Protozoa in the Soil.” Journ. Agric. Sci. 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Matthews, D. J. (1920). Journ. Agric. Sci. 10, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17)Matthews, D. J. (1920). To be published in the Journ. Agric. Sci. shortly.Google Scholar
(18)Pickering, S. U. (1908). “The Action of Heat and Antiseptics.” Journ. Agric Sci. 3, 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(19)Sen Gupta, N. N. (1921). Journ. Agric. Sci. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar