4.6 Article

Aerobic Microbial Respiration In Oceanic Oxygen Minimum Zones

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133526

关键词

-

资金

  1. DFG [Sonderforschungsbereich 754]
  2. Climate-Biogeochemistry Interactions in the Tropical Ocean
  3. Max Planck Society
  4. Canada Excellence Research Chair in Ocean Science and Technology
  5. European Research Council [267233]
  6. Danish Council for Independent Research: Natural Sciences [10-083140, 272-07-0057]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxygen minimum zones are major sites of fixed nitrogen loss in the ocean. Recent studies have highlighted the importance of anaerobic ammonium oxidation, anammox, in pelagic nitrogen removal. Sources of ammonium for the anammox reaction, however, remain controversial, as heterotrophic denitrification and alternative anaerobic pathways of organic matter remineralization cannot account for the ammonium requirements of reported anammox rates. Here, we explore the significance of microaerobic respiration as a source of ammonium during organic matter degradation in the oxygen-deficient waters off Namibia and Peru. Experiments with additions of double-labelled oxygen revealed high aerobic activity in the upper OMZs, likely controlled by surface organic matter export. Consistently observed oxygen consumption in samples retrieved throughout the lower OMZs hints at efficient exploitation of vertically and laterally advected, oxygenated waters in this zone by aerobic microorganisms. In accordance, metagenomic and metatranscriptomic analyses identified genes encoding for aerobic terminal oxidases and demonstrated their expression by diverse microbial communities, even in virtually anoxic waters. Our results suggest that microaerobic respiration is a major mode of organic matter remineralization and source of ammonium (similar to 45-100%) in the upper oxygen minimum zones, and reconcile hitherto observed mismatches between ammonium producing and consuming processes therein.

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

4.6
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