4.6 Article

Evidence of Microbial Regulation of Biogeochemical Cycles from a Study on Methane Flux and Land Use Change

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 79, 期 13, 页码 4031-4040

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00095-13

关键词

-

资金

  1. Macaulay Development Trust
  2. Australian Research Council [DP130104841]
  3. Grain Research and Development Corporation
  4. Cotton Research and Development Corporation
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/E016855/1, NER/A/S/2002/00876] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. NERC [NE/E016855/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbes play an essential role in ecosystem functions, including carrying out biogeochemical cycles, but are currently considered a black box in predictive models and all global biodiversity debates. This is due to (i) perceived temporal and spatial variations in microbial communities and (ii) lack of ecological theory explaining how microbes regulate ecosystem functions. Providing evidence of the microbial regulation of biogeochemical cycles is key for predicting ecosystem functions, including greenhouse gas fluxes, under current and future climate scenarios. Using functional measures, stable-isotope probing, and molecular methods, we show that microbial (community diversity and function) response to land use change is stable over time. We investigated the change in net methane flux and associated microbial communities due to afforestation of bog, grassland, and moorland. Afforestation resulted in the stable and consistent enhancement in sink of atmospheric methane at all sites. This change in function was linked to a niche-specific separation of microbial communities (methanotrophs). The results suggest that ecological theories developed for macroecology may explain the microbial regulation of the methane cycle. Our findings provide support for the explicit consideration of microbial data in ecosystem/climate models to improve predictions of biogeochemical cycles.

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