Ecosystems

, Volume 10, Issue 7, pp 1148–1165 | Cite as

Regulation of Decomposition and Methane Dynamics across Natural, Commercially Mined, and Restored Northern Peatlands

  • Nathan Basiliko
  • Christian Blodau
  • Charlotte Roehm
  • Per Bengtson
  • Tim R. Moore
Article

Abstract

We examined aerobic and anaerobic microbial carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) exchange in peat samples representing different profiles at natural, mined, mined-abandoned, and restored northern peatlands and characterized the nutrient and substrate chemistry and microbial biomass of these soils. Mining and abandonment led to reduced nutrient and substrate availability and occasionally drier conditions in surface peat resulting in a drastic reduction in CO2 and CH4 production, in agreement with previous studies. Owing mainly to wetter conditions, CH4 production and oxidation were faster in restored block-cut than natural sites, whereas in one restored site, increased substrate and nutrient availability led to much more rapid rates of CO2 production. Our work in restored block-cut sites compliments that in vacuum-harvested peatlands undergoing more recent active restoration attempts. The sites we examined covered a large range of soil C substrate quality, nutrient availability, microbial biomass, and microbial activities, allowing us to draw general conclusions about controls on microbial CO2 and CH4 dynamics using stepwise regression analysis among all sites and soil depths. Aerobic and anaerobic decomposition of peat was constrained by organic matter quality, particularly phosphorus (P) and carbon (C) chemistry, and closely linked to the size of the microbial biomass supported by these limiting resources. Methane production was more dominantly controlled by field moisture content (a proxy for anaerobism), even after 20 days of anaerobic laboratory incubation, and to a lesser extent by C substrate availability. As methanogens likely represented only a small proportion of the total microbial biomass, there were no links between total microbial biomass and CH4 production. Methane oxidation was controlled by the same factors influencing CH4 production, leading to the conclusion that CH4 oxidation is primarily controlled by substrate (that is, CH4) availability. Although restoring hydrology similar to natural sites may re-establish CH4 dynamics, there is geographic or site-specific variability in the ability to restore peat decomposition dynamics.

Keywords

carbon dioxide FTIR spectroscopy lipids methane oxidation microbial biomass nitrogen nutrients peat phosphorus roots 

REFERENCES

  1. Andersen R, Francez AJ, Rochefort L. 2006. The physicochemical and microbiological status of a restored bog in Quebéc: identification of relevant criteria to monitor success. Soil Biol Biochem 38:1375–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artz RE, Chapman SJ, Campbell CD. 2006. Substrate utilization profiles of microbial communities in peat are depth dependent and correlate with whole soil FTIR profiles. Soil Biol Biochem 38:2958–2962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basiliko N, Yavitt JB. 2001. Influence of Ni, Co, Fe, and Na additions on methane production in Sphagnum-dominated Northern American peatlands. Biogeochemistry 52:133–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basiliko N, Knowles R, Moore TR. 2004. On the role of moss species and habitat in methane oxidation in northern peatlands. Wetlands 24:178–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basiliko N, Moore TR, Lafleur PM, Roulet NT. 2005. Seasonal and inter-annual decomposition, microbial biomass and nitrogen dynamics in a Canadian bog. Soil Sci 170:902–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basiliko N, Moore TR, Jeannotte R, Bubier JL. 2006. The effect of nutrient input on carbon and microbial dynamics in an ombrotrophic bog. Geomicrobiol J 23:531–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blodau C, Moore TR. 2003a. Experimental response of peatland carbon dynamics to a water table fluctuation. Aquatic Sciences 65:47–62 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blodau C, Moore TR. 2003b. Micro-scale CO2 and CH4 dynamics in a peat soil during a water fluctuation and sulfate pulse. Soil Biol Biochem 35:535–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chirno C, Campeau S, Rochfort L. 2006. Sphagnum establishment on bare peat: the importance of climatic variability and Sphagnum species richness. Appl Veg Sci 9:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cleary J, Roulet N, Moore TR. 2005. Greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian peat extraction, 1990–2000: a life-cycle analysis. Ambio 34:456–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croft M, Rochefort L, Beauchamp CJ. 2001. Vacuum-extraction of peatlands disturbs bacterial population and microbial biomass carbon. Appl Soil Ecol 18:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dinel H, Nolin MC. 2000. Spatial and temporal variability of extractable lipids as influenced by cropping history. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dinel H, Schnitzer M, Dumontet S. 1996a. Compost maturity: extractable lipids as indicators of organic matter stability. Compost Sci Utilization. 4:6–12Google Scholar
  14. Dinel H, Schnitzer M, Dumontet S. 1996b. Compost maturity: chemical characteristics of extractable lipids. Compost Sci Utilization 4:16–25Google Scholar
  15. Dinel H, Schnitzer M, Paré T, Lemee L, Ambles A, Lafond S. 2001. Changes in lipids and sterols during composting. J Environ Sci Health 36:651–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fenchel T, King GM, Blackburn TH. 1998. Bacterial biogeochemistry: the ecophysiology of mineral cycling. San Diego: Academic, 307pGoogle Scholar
  17. Girard M, Lavoie C, Thériault M. 2002. The regeneration of a highly deserved ecosystem: a mined peatlands in southern Quebec. Ecosystems 5:274–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glatzel SN, Basiliko N, Moore TR. 2004. Carbon dioxide and methane production potentials of peats from natural, harvested and restored sites, eastern Québec, Canada. Wetlands 24:261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grosvernier P, Matther Y, Buttler A. 1997. Growth potential of three Sphagnum species in relation to water table level and peat properties with implications for their restoration in cut-over bogs. J Appl Ecol 34:471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalbitz K, Geyer W, Geyer S. 1999. Spectroscopic properties of dissolved humic substances—a reflection of land use history in a fen area. Biogeochemistry 47:219–238Google Scholar
  21. Lavoie C, Saint-Louis A, Lachance D. 2005. Vegetation dynamics on an abandoned vacuum-mined peatland: 5 years of monitoring. Wetlands Ecol Manage 13:621–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Madigan MT, Martinko JM, Parker J. 1997. Brock biology of microorganisms, 8th edn. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 912pGoogle Scholar
  23. Madsen EL. 1998. Epistemology of environmental microbiology. Environ Sci Technol 32:429–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marinier M, Glatzel SN, Moore TR. 2004. The role of cotton-grass (Eriophorum vaginatum) in the exchange of CO2 and CH4 at two restored peatlands, eastern Canada. Ecoscience 11:141–149Google Scholar
  25. McNeil P, Waddington JM. 2003. Moisture controls on Sphagnum growth and CO2 exchange on a cutover bog. J Appl Ecol 40:354–367Google Scholar
  26. Moore TR, Basiliko N. 2006. Decomposition in boreal peatlands. In: Weider RK, Vitt DH, Eds. Boreal peatland ecosystems. Berlin: Springer, pp 126–143Google Scholar
  27. Moore TR, Dalva M. 1997. Methane and carbon dioxide exchange potentials of peat in aerobic and anaerobic laboratory incubations. Soil Biol Biochem 29:1157–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Niemeyer J, Chen Y, Bollag JM. 1992. Characterization of humic acids, compost, and peat by diffuse reflectance Fourier-transformed infrared spectroscopy. Soil Sci 56:135–140Google Scholar
  29. Paré T, Dinel H, Moulin AP, Townly-Smith L. 1999. Organic matter quality and structural stability of a Black Chenozemic soil under different manure and tillage practices. Geoderma 91:311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paul EA, Clark FE. 1996. Soil microbiology and biochemistry, 2nd edn. San Diego: Academic, 340 pGoogle Scholar
  31. Petrone RM, Waddington JM, Price JS. 2001. Ecosystem scale evapotranspiration and net CO2 exchange from a restored peatland. Hydrol Process 15:2839–2845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petrone RM, Waddington JM, Price JS. 2003. Ecosystem-scale flux of CO2 from a restored vacuum harvested peatland. Wetlands Ecol Manage 11:419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robert EC, Rochefort L, Garneau M. 1999. Natural revegetation of two block-cut mined peatlands in eastern Canada. Can J Bot 77:447–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roulet NT, Lafleur PM, Richard PJH , Moore TR, Humphreys ER, Bubier J. 2007. Contemporary carbon balance and late Holocene carbon accumulation in a northern peatland. Global Change Biol (in press)Google Scholar
  35. Stanek W, Silc T. 1977. Comparisons of 4 methods for determination if degree of peat humification (decomposition) with emphasis on von Post method. Can J Soil Sci 57:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sundh I, Nilsson M, Kikkelä C, Granberg G, Svensson BH. 2000. Fluxes of methane and carbon dioxide on peat-mining areas in Sweden. Ambio 29:499–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thormann MN, Currah RS, Bayley SE. 2001. Microfungi isolated from Sphagnum fuscum from a Southern Boreal Bog in Alberta, Canada. Bryologist 104:548–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tuittila ES, Komulainen VM, Vasander H, Laine J. 1999. Restored cut-away peatlands as a sink for atmospheric CO2. Oecologica 120:563–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tuittila ES, Komulainen VM, Vasander H, Nykänen H, Martikainen P, Laine J. 2000. Methane dynamics of a restored cut-away peatland. Global Change Biol 6:569–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turunen J, Tomppo E, Tolonen K, Reinikainen A. 2002. Estimating carbon accumulation rates of undrained mires in Finland—application to boreal and subarctic regions. Holocene 12:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vasander H, Kettunen A. 2006. Carbon in Boreal Peatlands. In: Weider RK, Vitt DH, Eds. Boreal peatland ecosystems. Berlin: Springer, pp 165–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Verhoeven JTA, Liefveld WM. 1997. The ecological significance of organochemical compounds in Sphagnum. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 46:117–130Google Scholar
  43. Voroney RP, Winter JP, Beyaert RP. 1993. Soil microbial biomass C and N. In: Carter MR, Ed. Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. pp 277–286Google Scholar
  44. Waddington JM, Rotenberg PA, Warren FJ. 2001. Peat CO2 production in a natural and cutover peatland: implications for restoration. Biogeochemistry 54:115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Waddington JM, Warner KD, Kennedy GW. 2002. Cutover peatlands: a persistent source of atmospheric CO2. Global Biogeochem Cycles 16. DOI 10.1029/2001GB001398Google Scholar
  46. Yavitt JB, Lang GE. 1990. Methane and production in contrasting wetland sites: response to organic-chemical components of peat and to sulfate reduction. Geomicrobiol J 8:27–46Google Scholar
  47. Yavitt JB, Williams CJ, Wieder RK. 1997. Production of methane and carbon dioxide in peatland ecosystems across North America: effects of temperature, aeration, and organic chemistry of peat. Geomicrobiol J 14:299–316Google Scholar
  48. Yavitt JB, Williams CJ, Wieder RK. 2000. Controls on microbial production of methane and carbon dioxide in three Sphagnum-dominated peatland ecosystems as revealed by a reciprocal field peat transplant experiment. Geomicrobiol J 17:61–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan Basiliko
    • 1
    • 5
  • Christian Blodau
    • 1
    • 2
  • Charlotte Roehm
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Per Bengtson
    • 4
  • Tim R. Moore
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Centre for Climate and Global Change ResearchMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Limnological Research Station and Department of HydrologyUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany
  3. 3.Département des Sciences BiologiquesUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  5. 5.Department of GeographyUniversity of Toronto, MississaugaMississaugaCanada

Personalised recommendations