4.4 Article

The active methanotrophic community in a wetland from the High Arctic

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY REPORTS
Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages 466-472

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1758-2229.2010.00237.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Nansenfondet (The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters)
  2. National Program for Research in Functional Genomics in Norway (FUGE-N)
  3. Roald Amundsen Centre for Arctic Research, University of Tromso
  4. Max Planck Society

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The dominant terminal process of carbon mineralization in most freshwater wetlands is methanogenesis. With methane being an important greenhouse gas, the predicted warming of the Arctic may provide a positive feedback. However, the amount of methane released to the atmosphere may be controlled by the activity of methane-oxidizing bacteria (methanotrophs) living in the oxic surface layer of wetlands. Previously, methanotrophs have been isolated and identified by genetic profiling in High Arctic wetlands showing the presence of only a few genotypes. Two isolates from Solvatnet (Ny-Alesund, Spitsbergen; 79 degrees N) are available: Methylobacter tundripaludum (type I) and Methylocystis rosea (type II), raising the question whether the low diversity is a cultivation effect. We have revisited Solvatnet applying stable isotope probing (SIP) with C-13-labelled methane. 16S rRNA profiling revealed active type I methanotrophs including M. tundripaludum, while no active type II methanotrophs were identified. These results indicate that the extant M. tundripaludum is an active methane oxidizer at its locus typicus; furthermore, Methylobacter seems to be the dominant active genus. Diversity of methanotrophs was low as compared, e. g. to wetland rice fields in the Mediterranean. This low diversity suggests a high vulnerability of Arctic methanotroph communities, which deserves more attention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available