4.6 Article

Estimates of biogenic methane production rates in deep marine sediments at Hydrate Ridge, Cascadia margin

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 74, 期 11, 页码 3444-3452

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02114-07

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methane hydrate found in marine sediments is thought to contain gigaton quantities of methane and is considered an important potential fuel source and climate-forcing agent. Much of the methane in hydrates is biogenic, so models that predict the presence and distribution of hydrates require accurate rates of in situ methanogenesis. We estimated the in situ methanogenesis rates in Hydrate Ridge (HR) sediments by coupling experimentally derived minimal rates of methanogenesis to methanogen biomass determinations for discrete locations in the sediment column. When starved in a biomass recycle reactor, Methanoculleus submarinus produced ca. 0.017 fmol methane/cell/day. Quantitative PCR (QPCR) directed at the methyl coenzyme M reductase subunit A gene (mcrA) indicated that 75% of the HR sediments analyzed contained <1,000 methanogens/g. The highest numbers of methanogens were found mostly from sediments <10 m below seafloor. By considering methanogenesis rates for starved methanogens (adjusted to account for in situ temperatures) and the numbers of methanogens at selected depths, we derived an upper estimate of <4.25 fmol methane produced/g sediment/day for the samples with fewer methanogens than the QPCR method could detect. The actual rates could vary depending on the real number of methanogens and various seafloor parameters that influence microbial activity. However, our calculated rate is lower than rates previously reported for such sediments and close to the rate derived using geochemical modeling of the sediments. These data will help to improve models that predict microbial gas generation in marine sediments and determine the potential influence of this source of methane on the global carbon cycle.

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