Advertisement

Microbial Ecology

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 201–214 | Cite as

Microbial diversity of Minnesota peatlands

  • Richard T. Williams
  • Ronald L. Crawford
Article

Abstract

Microbial diversity, numbers, and metabolic activities in Minnesota peatlands were investigated using a variety of microbial enrichment and enumeration procedures together with radioisotopic measurements of microbial degradative processes. Minnesota peatlands were shown to contain large microbial populations of wide metabolic diversity. Direct counts of bacteria using epifluorescence microscopy indicated bacterial populations of about 108 ml−1 of peatland water, irrespective of depth. Radioisotopic most-probable-number (MPN) counts of heterotrophs able to mineralize14C-labeled substrates to14CO2 showed significant populations of glucose degraders (104–106 ml−1) as well as degraders of benzoate (102–103 ml−1), 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate (102–105 ml−1), and sphagnum (103–107 ml−1) in the various peatlands examined. The MPNs of NO3 reducers varied from 103–106 ml−1, SO4 reducers from 102–103 ml−1, methanogenic bacteria from 103–106 ml−1, and methane oxidizers from 103–104 ml−1, depending on sampling site and depth. Eighty pure cultures of aerobic bacteria and fungi were isolated from Minnesota peats. Most of those cultures tested were able to grow on at least 20 organic compounds (carbohydrates, aromatic molecules, hydrocarbons, etc.) as sole sources of carbon and energy. One isolate, aBacillus, was able to fix atmospheric N2. Several of the isolates were able to mineralize14C-labeled lignin.

Keywords

Lignin Microbial Population Bacterial Population Methane Oxidizer Microbial Diversity 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alexander M (1965) Most-probable-number method for microbial populations. In: Black CA (ed) Methods in soil analysis II. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, pp 1467–1472Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balch WE, Fox GE, Magrum LJ, Woese CR, Wolfe RS (1979) Methanogens: reevaluation of a unique biological group. Microbiol Rev 43:260–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balch WE, Wolfe RS (1976) New approach to the cultivation of methanogenic bacteria: 2-mercaptoethanesulfonic acid (HS-CoM)-dependent growth ofMethanobacterium ruminantium in a pressurized atmosphere. Appl Environ Microbiol 32:781–791PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burke ME, Gorham E, Pratt DC (1974) Distribution of purple photosynthetic bacteria in wetland and woodland habitats of central and northern Minnesota. J Bacteriol 117:826–833PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Butlin KR, Adams ME, Thomas M (1949) The isolation and cultivation of sulfate reducing bacteria. J Gen Microbiol 3:46–59Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christensen PJ, Cook FD (1970) The microbiology of Alberta muskeg. Can J Soil Sci 50:171–178Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crawford DL, Crawford RL (1976) Microbial degradation of lignincellullose: the lignin component. Appl Environ Microbiol 31:714–717Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crawford RL (1981) Lignin biodegradation and transformation. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dagley S (1977) Microbial degradation of organic compounds in the biosphere. Survey of Progress in Chemistry 8:121–170. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daley RJ (1979) Direct epiflourescence enumeration of native aquatic bacteria: uses, limitations, and comparative accuracy. In: Costerton JW, Colwell RR (eds), Native aquatic bacteria: enumerations, activity, and ecology. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 29–45Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Given PH, Dickinson CH (1975) Biochemistry, microbiology of peats. In: Paul EA, McLaren AD (eds) Soil biochemistry Vol. 3. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 123–212Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gordon RE, Haynes WC, Hor-Nay Pang C (1973) The genus Bacillus. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. (stock #0100-2609).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanson RS (1980) Ecology and diversity of methylotrophic organisms. Adv Appl Microbiol 26:3–39Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hobbie JE (1979) Activity and bacterial biomass. Arch Hydrobiol Beih Ergebn Limnol 12:59–63Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hobbie JE, Daley RJ, Jasper S (1977) Use of nuclepore filters for counting bacteria by fluorescence microscopy. Appl Environ Microbiol 33:1225–1228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ishizawa S, Araragi M (1970) Actinomycete flora of Japanese soils. Soil Sci and Plant Nutr 16:110–120Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuster E, Locci R (1964) Studies on peat and peat microorganisms II. Occurrence of thermophilic fungi in peat. Arch für Mikrobiologie 48:319–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Latter PM, Craig JB, Heal OW (1967) Comparative studies on the microbiology of four moorland soils in the northern pennines. J Ecol 55:445–464Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lehmicke LG, Williams RT, Crawford RL (1979)14C-most-probable-number method for enumeration of active heterotrophic microorganisms in natural waters. Appl Environ Microbiol 38:644–649PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moore JJ (1954) Some observations on the microflora of two peat profiles in the Dublin Mountains. Scient Proc RDS 26:379–395Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Novitsky JA, Morita RY (1977) Survival of a pyschrophilic marine vibrio under long-term nutrient starvation. Appl Environ Microbiol 33:635–641Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patriquin DG, Knowles R (1974) Denitrifying bacteria in some shallow-water marine sediments: enumeration and gas production. Can J Microbiol 20:1037–1041PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rodina AG (1972) Methods in aquatic microbiology. University Park Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stanier RY, Palleroni NJ, Doudoroff M (1966) The aerobic pseudomonads: a taxonomic study. J Gen Microbiol 43:159–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stevensons LH (1978) A case for bacteria dormancy in aquatic systems. Microb Ecol 4:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stewart WDP, Fitzgerald GP, Burris RH (1967)In situ studies on nitrogen fixation using the acetylene reduction technique. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 58:2071–2078PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Visser SA (1964) The presence of micro-organisms in various strata of deep tropical peat deposits. Life Sciences 3:1061–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Waksman SA, Purvis ER (1932) The microbiological population of peat. Soil Science 34:95–113Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Waksman SA, Stevens KR (1929) Contribution to the chemical composition of peat. V. The role of microorganisms in peat formation and decomposition. Soil Sci 28:315–339Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang CH, Willis DL, Loveland WD (1975) Radiotracer methodology in the biological, environmental, and physical sciences. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wheatley RE, Greaves MP, Inkson RHE (1976) The aerobic bacterial flora of a raised bog. Soil Biol Biochem 8:453–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Williams RT (1982) Microbial aspects of carbon cycling in peatlands. PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ziemenko TG, Muchuk AT (1970) Effect of ground-water level on ammonification and nitrification in peat bog soils. Mikrobiologiya 39:522–526Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard T. Williams
    • 1
  • Ronald L. Crawford
    • 1
  1. 1.Gray Freshwater Biological InstituteNavarreUSA

Personalised recommendations