4.5 Article

Field-scale labelling and activity quantification of methane-oxidizing bacteria in a landfill-cover soil

Journal

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
Volume 83, Issue 2, Pages 392-401

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01477.x

Keywords

gas push-pull test; stable isotope probing; phospholipid ester-linked fatty acids; methanotrophs; in situ labelling

Categories

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) [31EE30-131170]
  2. ETH Zurich
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [31EE30-131170] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aerobic methane-oxidizing bacteria (MOB) play an important role in soils, mitigating emissions of the greenhouse gas methane (CH4) to the atmosphere. Here, we combined stable isotope probing on MOB-specific phospholipid fatty acids (PLFA-SIP) with field-based gas push-pull tests (GPPTs). This novel approach (SIP-GPPT) was tested in a landfill-cover soil at four locations with different MOB activity. Potential oxidation rates derived from regular- and SIP-GPPTs agreed well and ranged from 0.2 to 52.8 mmol CH4 (L soil air)-1 day-1. PLFA profiles of soil extracts mainly contained C14 to C18 fatty acids (FAs), with a dominance of C16 FAs. Uptake of 13C into MOB biomass during SIP-GPPTs was clearly indicated by increased d13C values (up to c. 1500 parts per thousand) of MOB-characteristic FAs. In addition, 13C incorporation increased with CH4 oxidation rates. In general, FAs C14:0, C16:1?8, C16:1?7 and C16:1?6 (type I MOB) showed highest 13C incorporation, while substantial 13C incorporation into FAs C18:1?8 and C18:1?7 (type II MOB) was only observed at high-activity locations. Our findings demonstrate the applicability of the SIP-GPPT approach for in situ quantification of potential CH4 oxidation rates and simultaneous labelling of active MOB, suggesting a dominance of type I MOB over type II MOB in the CH4-oxidizing community in this landfill-cover soil.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available