4.3 Article

Microcosm tests of the effects of temperature and microbial species number on the decomposition of Carex aquatilis and Sphagnum fuscum litter from southern boreal peatlands

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 50, 期 10, 页码 793-802

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/w04-064

关键词

fungi; bacteria; decomposition; temperature; Sphagnum fuscum; Carex aquatilis; peatlands; climate change; microcosms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased decomposition rates in boreal peatlands with global warming might increase the release of atmospheric greenhouse gases, thereby producing a positive feedback to global warming. How temperature influences microbial decomposers is unclear. We measured in vitro rates of decomposition of senesced sedge leaves and rhizomes (Carex aquatilis), from a fen, and peat moss (Sphagnum fuscum), from a bog, at 14 and 20degreesC by the three most frequently isolated fungi and bacteria from these materials. Decomposition rates of the bog litter decreased (5- to 17-fold) with elevated temperatures, and decomposition of the sedge litters was either enhanced (2- to 30-fold) or remained unaffected by elevated temperatures. The increased temperature regime always favoured fungal over bacterial decomposition rates (2- to 3-fold). Different physiological characteristics of these microbes suggest that fungi using polyphenolic polymers as a carbon source cause greater mass losses of these litters. Litter quality exerted a stronger influence on decomposition at elevated temperatures, as litter rich in nutrients decomposed more quickly than litter poorer in nutrients at higher temperatures (8.0%-25.7% for the sedge litters vs. 0.2% for the bryophyte litter). We conclude that not all peatlands may provide a positive feedback to global warming. Cautious extrapolation of our data to the ecosystem level suggests that decomposition rates in fens may increase and those in bogs may decrease under a global warming scenario.

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

4.3
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