4.6 Article

High unique diversity of sulfate-reducing prokaryotes characterized in a depth gradient in an acidic fen

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 9, 期 5, 页码 1317-1328

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01251.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dissimilatory reduction of sulfate contributes to the retention of sulfur in acidic mineratrophic peatlands. Novel sulfate-reducing prokaryotes (SRPs) colonize these low-sulfate fens. This study assessed the community structures of SRPs in a depth gradient (0-50 cm) in a fen, located in the Fichtelgebirge (Spruce Mountains), Germany. Detection of SRPs with multiplex (terminal-) restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of amplified dissimilatory (bi)sulfite reductase genes (dsrAB) separated three subgroups derived from (i) the upper 5 and 10 cm, (ii) 15-25 cm, and (iii) 30-50 cm depth. Biogeochemical parameters measured in the soil solution from July 2001 to July 2004 documented that the upper 5-10 cm were exposed to drying and oxygenation prior to sampling. Periodic oxygenation reached a maximum depth of 25 cm in the water-saturated fen and was concomitant with relative high concentrations of nitrate (1120 mu M) and sulfate (up to 310 mu M). The fen soil was permanently anoxic below 30 cm depth with average concentrations of sulfate below 40 mu M and maximum concentrations of methane. Cloning of dsrAB PCR products from 5, 20 and 40 cm depth yielded a total of 84 unique dsrAB restriction patterns. Partial sequencing of 61 distinct clones resulted in 59 unique partial protein sequences that mainly clustered with DsrA sequences of uncultivated sulfate reducers. Syntrophobacter fumaroxidans- and Syntrophobacter wolinfi-related bacteria appeared to be present only in 40 cm depth. Differences in the SRP community structures suggested that SRPs present in the upper fen soil have to tolerate O-2 and even drying, whereas SRPs present in deep anoxic zones may act as syntrophic fermentors in cooperation with H-2-utilizing methanogens.

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