4.8 Article

Efficient aquatic bacterial metabolism of dissolved low-molecular-weight compounds from terrestrial sources

期刊

ISME JOURNAL
卷 4, 期 3, 页码 408-416

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ismej.2009.120

关键词

freshwater; growth efficiency; heterotrophic bacteria; low-molecular-weight DOM

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS)
  2. Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carboxylic acids (CAs), amino acids (AAs) and carbohydrates (CHs) in dissolved free forms can be readily assimilated by aquatic bacteria and metabolized at high growth efficiencies. Previous studies have shown that these low-molecular-weight (LMW) substrates are released by phytoplankton but also that unidentified LMW compounds of terrestrial origin is a subsidy for bacterial metabolism in unproductive freshwater systems. We tested the hypothesis that different terrestrially derived CA, AA and CH compounds can offer substantial support for aquatic bacterial metabolism in fresh waters that are dominated by allochthonous dissolved organic matter (DOM). Drainage water from three catchments of different characters in the Krycklan experimental area in Northern Sweden were studied at the rising and falling limb of the spring flood, using a 2-week bioassay approach. A variety of CA, AA and CH compounds were significantly assimilated by bacteria, meeting 15-100% of the bacterial carbon demand and explaining most of the observed variation in bacterial growth efficiency (BGE; R-2 = 0.66). Of the 29 chemical species that was detected, acetate was the most important, representing 45% of the total bacterial consumption of all LMW compounds. We suggest that LMW organic compounds in boreal spring flood drainage could potentially support all in situ bacterial production in receiving lake waters during periods of weeks to months after the spring flood. The ISME Journal (2010) 4, 408-416; doi:10.1038/ismej.2009.120; published online 12 November 2009

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据