Microbial Ecology

, Volume 69, Issue 3, pp 668–675 | Cite as

Temporal Changes in Soil Bacterial Diversity and Humic Substances Degradation in Subarctic Tundra Soil

  • Ha Ju Park
  • Namyi Chae
  • Woo Jun Sul
  • Bang Yong Lee
  • Yoo Kyung Lee
  • Dockyu Kim
Soil Microbiology


Humic substances (HS), primarily humic acids (HA) and fulvic acids (FA), are the largest constituent of soil organic matter. In microcosm systems with subarctic HS-rich tundra soil (site AK 1-75; approximately 5.6 °C during the thawing period) from Council, Alaska, the HA content significantly decreased to 48 % after a 99-day incubation at 5 °C as part of a biologically mediated process. Accordingly, levels of FA, a putative byproduct of HA degradation, consistently increased to 172 % during an identical incubation process. Culture-independent microbial community analysis showed that during the microcosm experiments, the relative abundance of phyla Proteobacteria (bacteria) and Euryarchaeota (archaea) largely increased, indicating their involvement in HS degradation. When the indigenous bacteria in AK 1-75 were enriched in an artificial mineral medium spiked with HA, the changes in relative abundance were most conspicuous in Proteobacteria (from 60.2 to 79.0 %), specifically Betaproteobacteria-related bacteria. One hundred twenty-two HA-degrading bacterial strains, primarily from the genera Paenibacillus (phylum Firmicutes) and Pseudomonas (class Gammaproteobacteria), were cultivated from AK 1-75 and nearby sites. Through culture-dependent analysis with these bacterial isolates, we observed increasing HS-degradation rates in parallel with rising temperatures in a range of 0 °C to 20 °C, with the most notable increase occurring at 8 °C compared to 6 °C. Our results indicate that, although microbial-mediated HS degradation occurs at temperature as low as 5 °C in tundra ecosystems, increasing soil temperature caused by global climate change could enhance HS degradation rates. Extending the thawing period could also increase degradation activity, thereby directly affecting nearby microbial communities and rhizosphere environments.


Humic Substance Humic Acid Fulvic Acid Proteobacteria Betaproteobacteria 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was financially supported by the Korea Polar Research Institute (PE13300 and PE14070) and National Research Foundation of Korea (MSIP, NRF-C1ABA001-2011-0021063; PN13081).


  1. 1.
    Lee SH, Jang I, Chae N, Choi T, Kang H (2013) Organic layer serves as a hotspot of microbial activity and abundance in Arctic tundra soils. Microb Ecol 65:405–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gittel A, Bárta J, Kohoutová I, Mikutta R, Owens S, Gilbert J, Schnecker J, Wild B, Hannisdal B, Maerz J, Lashchinskiy N, Capek P, Santrůčková H, Gentsch N, Shibistova O, Guggenberger G, Richter A, Torsvik VL, Schleper C, Urich T (2014) Distinct microbial communities associated with buried soils in the Siberian tundra. ISME J 8:841–853CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jansson JK, Taş N (2014) The microbial ecology of permafrost. Nat Rev Microbiol 12:414–425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gramss G, Ziegenhagen D, Sorge S (1999) Degradation of soil humic extract by wood- and soil-associated fungi, bacteria, and commercial enzymes. Microb Ecol 37:140–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stevenson FJ (1982) Humus chemistry: genesis, composition, reactions. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grinhut T, Hadar Y, Chen Y (2007) Degradation and transformation of humic substances by saprotrophic fungi: processes and mechanisms. Fungal Biol Rev 21:179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Han J, Jung J, Hyun S, Park H, Park W (2012) Effects of nutritional input and diesel contamination on soil enzyme activities and microbial communities in Antarctic soils. J Microbiol 50:916–924CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Margesin R, Gander S, Zacke G, Gounot AM, Schinner F (2003) Hydrocarbon degradation and enzyme activities of cold-adapted bacteria and yeasts. Extremophiles 7:451–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Margesin R, Jud M, Tscherko D, Schinner F (2009) Microbial communities and activities in alpine and subalpine soils. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 67:208–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dari K, Béchet M, Blondeau R (1995) Isolation of soil Sterptomyces strains capable of degrading humic acids and analysis of their peroxidase activity. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 16:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Esham EC, Ye W, Moran MA (2000) Identification and characterization of humic substances-degrading bacterial isolates from an estuarine environment. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 34:103–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Park HJ, Kim D (2013) Isolation and characterization of humic substances-degrading bacteria from the subarctic Alaska grasslands. J Basic Microbiol. doi: 10.1002/jobm.201300087 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stanier RY, Palleroni NJ, Doudoroff M (1966) The aerobic pseudomonads: a taxonomic study. J Gen Microbiol 43:159–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, Lesniewski RA, Oakley BB, Parks DH, Robinson CJ, Sahl JW, Stres B, Thallinger GG, Van Horn DJ, Weber CF (2009) Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:7537–7541CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kononova MM (1966) Soil organic matter. Its nature, its role in soil formation and in soil fertility. Pergamon Press, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wunderwald U, Kreisel G, Braun M, Schulz M, Jäger C, Hofrichter M (2000) Formation and degradation of a synthetic humic acid derived from 3-fluorocatechol. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 53:441–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fierer N, Bradford MA, Jackson RB (2007) Toward an ecological classification of soil bacteria. Ecology 88:1354–1364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mackelprang R, Waldrop MP, DeAngelis KM, David MM, Chavarria KL, Blazewicz SJ, Rubin EM, Jansson JK (2011) Metagenomic analysis of a permafrost microbial community reveals a rapid response to thaw. Nature 480:368–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yergeau E, Hogues H, Whyte LG, Greer CW (2010) The functional potential of high Arctic permafrost revealed by metagenomic sequencing, qPCR and microarray analyses. ISME J 4:1206–1214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tebbe CC, Vahjen W (1993) Interference of humic acids and DNA extracted directly from soil in detection and transformation of recombinant DNA from bacteria and a yeast. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:2657–2665PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ha Ju Park
    • 1
  • Namyi Chae
    • 2
    • 3
  • Woo Jun Sul
    • 4
  • Bang Yong Lee
    • 5
  • Yoo Kyung Lee
    • 5
  • Dockyu Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Life SciencesKorea Polar Research InstituteIncheonSouth Korea
  2. 2.Civil and Environmental EngineeringYonsei UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Division of Climate ChangeKorea Polar Research InstituteIncheonSouth Korea
  4. 4.Department of Systems BiotechnologyChung-Ang UniversityGyeonggi-DoSouth Korea
  5. 5.Arctic Research CenterKorea Polar Research InstituteIncheonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations