Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Measuring nitrogen fixation by the acetylene reduction assay (ARA)
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Measuring nitrogen fixation by the acetylene reduction assay (ARA)
Do you wish to request the book?
Measuring nitrogen fixation by the acetylene reduction assay (ARA)
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Measuring nitrogen fixation by the acetylene reduction assay (ARA)
2021
Overview
Despite some well-documented draw-backs, the acetylene reduction assay (ARA) remains one of the most widespread methods for measuring biological nitrogen (N₂) fixation (BNF) in symbiotic and free-living niches due to its low cost, simplicity, and high throughput potential. Because ARA measures a proxy reaction (the reduction of acetylene to ethylene by the nitrogenase enzyme), a conversion ratio (‘R ratio’) is required to estimate equivalent fixation of N₂. Based on the biochemistry of the reactions, the theoretical ratio is usually taken to be 3:1. However, ¹⁵N₂ calibrations often generate ratios that deviate considerably from this value. We synthesized calibrated R ratios for terrestrial BNF studies, asking whether values converge on the theoretical ratio and vary across N-fixing niches. From 253 mean values (n = 2,072 samples), we find that some niches (legumes, soil, litter) do center on 3:1, while others fall significantly above (wood, lichen) or below (biocrusts). Moss in particular shows a bimodal distribution that may indicate contributions from alternative nitrogenases. However, almost all niches have very wide distributions (up to 2 orders of magnitude); applying ratio values spanning even the 25th-75th percentile cause BNF rates to vary by a factor of 1.5–2.5, and up to > 8. Despite this, only a minority of studies (~ 30% of 345) perform calibrations, and this proportion has not increased over time. We conclude that high variability precludes the use of theoretical values to obtain accurate BNF estimates via ARA, and that historical data should be considered with appropriate caution. Values should be calibrated directly when the goal is to generate accurate rates or cross-condition comparisons.
