, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 665–682 | Cite as

Control Points in Ecosystems: Moving Beyond the Hot Spot Hot Moment Concept

  • Emily S. BernhardtEmail author
  • Joanna R. Blaszczak
  • Cari D. Ficken
  • Megan L. Fork
  • Kendra E. Kaiser
  • Erin C. Seybold
20th Anniversary Paper


The phrase “hot spots and hot moments” first entered the lexicon in 2003, following the publication of the paper “Biogeochemical hot spots and hot moments at the interface of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems” by McClain and others (Ecosystems 6:301–312, 2003). This paper described the potential for rare places and rare events to exert a disproportionate influence on the movement of elements at the scale of landscapes and ecosystems. Here, we examine how the cleverly named hot spot and hot moment concept (hereafter HSHM) has influenced biogeochemistry and ecosystem science over the last 13 years. We specifically examined the extent to which the HSHM concept has: (1) motivated research aimed at understanding how and why biogeochemical behavior varies across spatiotemporal scales; (2) improved our ability to detect HSHM phenomena; and (3) influenced our approaches to restoration and ecosystem management practices. We found that the HSHM concept has provided a highly fertile framework for a substantial volume of research on the spatial and temporal dynamics of nutrient cycling, and in doing so, has improved our understanding of when and where biogeochemical rates are maximized. Despite the high usage of the term, we found limited examples of rigorous statistical or modeling approaches that would allow ecosystem scientists to not only identify, but scale the aggregate impact of HSHM on ecosystem processes. We propose that the phrase “hot spots and hot moments” includes two implicit assumptions that may actually be limiting progress in applying the concept. First, by differentiating “hot spots” from “hot moments,” the phrase separates the spatial and temporal components of biogeochemical behavior. Instead, we argue that the temporal dynamics of a putative hot spot are a fundamental trait that should be used in their description. Second, the adjective “hot” implicitly suggests that a place or a time must be dichotomously classified as “hot or not.” We suggest instead that each landscape of interest contains a wide range of biogeochemical process rates that respond to critical drivers, and the gradations of this biogeochemical topography are of greater interest than the maximum peaks. For these reasons, we recommend replacing the HSHM terminology with the more nuanced term ecosystem control points. “Ecosystem control” suggests that the rate must be of sufficient magnitude or ubiquity to affect dynamics of the ecosystem, while “points” allows for descriptions that simultaneously incorporate both spatial and temporal dynamics. We further suggest that there are at least four distinct types of ecosystem control points whose influence arises through distinct hydrologic and biogeochemical mechanisms. Our goal is to provide the tools with which researchers can develop testable hypotheses regarding the spatiotemporal dynamics of biogeochemistry that will stimulate advances in more accurately identifying, modeling and scaling biogeochemical heterogeneity to better understand ecosystem processes.


biogeochemistry hot spots control points ecosystem 



This paper arose from vigorous, weekly conversations among the authors over the course of 2015–2016. The authors would like to thank members of Duke’s River Center, Peter Groffman and two anonymous peer reviewers for constructive feedback and advice on this manuscript. Authors JB, KK, ES were supported by NSF GRFP fellowships and CF was supported by a DOE GO! graduate fellowship for some or all of this period.

Supplementary material

10021_2016_103_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (982 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 981 kb)


  1. Ademollo N, Capri S, Froebrich J, Patrolecco L, Polesello S, Puddu A, Rusconi M, Valsecchi S. 2011. Fate and monitoring of hazardous substances in temporary rivers. Trends Anal Chem 30:1222–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews DM, Lin H, Zhu Q, Jin LX, Brantley SL. 2011. Hot spots and hot moments of dissolved organic carbon export and soil organic carbon storage in the Shale Hills catchment. Vadose Zone J 10:943–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appling AP, Bernhardt ES, Stanford JA. 2014. Floodplain biogeochemical mosaics: a multidimensional view of alluvial soils. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 119:1538–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer SK, Allgeier JE, Semmens BX, Heppell SA, Pattengill-Semmens CV, Rosemond AD, Bush PG, McCoy CM, Johnson BC, Layman CA. 2015. Hot moments in spawning aggregations: implications for ecosystem-scale nutrient cycling. Coral Reefs 34:19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ardon M, Morse JL, Doyle MW, Bernhardt ES. 2010. The water quality consequences of restoring wetland hydrology to a large agricultural watershed in the southeastern coastal plain. Ecosystems 13:1060–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arrigoni A, Findlay S, Fischer D, Tockner K. 2008. Predicting carbon and nutrient transformations in tidal freshwater wetlands of the Hudson River. Ecosystems 11:790–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bai E, Houlton BZ, Wang YP. 2012. Isotopic identification of nitrogen hot spots across natural terrestrial ecosystems. Biogeosciences 9:3287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernhardt ES, Band LE, Walsh CJ, Berke PE. 2008. Understanding, managing, and minimizing urban impacts on surface water nitrogen loading. Ann NY Acad Sci 1134:61–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bierbass P, Gutknecht JLM, Michalzik B. 2015. Nest-mounds of the yellow meadow ant (Lasius flavus) at the “Alter Gleisberg”, Central Germany: hot or cold spots in nutrient cycling? Soil Biol Biochem 80:209–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonkowski M, Cheng WX, Griffiths BS, Alphei G, Scheu S. 2000. Microbial–faunal interactions in the rhizosphere and effects on plant growth. Eur J Soil Biol 36:135–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boulton AJ. 2007. Hyporheic rehabilitation in rivers: restoring vertical connectivity. Freshw Biol 52:632–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boyer EW, Hornberger GM, Bencala KE, McKnight DM. 1997. Response characteristics of DOC flushing in an alpine catchment. Hydrol Process 11:1635–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyer EW, Hornberger GM, Bencala KE, McKnight DM. 2000. Effects of asynchronous snowmelt on flushing of dissolved organic carbon: a mixing model approach. Hydrol Process 14:3291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bundt M, Widmer F, Pesaro M, Zeyer J, Blaser P. 2001. Preferential flow paths: biological ‘hot spots’ in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 33:729–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burt T, Pinay G, Sabater S. 2010. What do we still need to know about the ecohydrology of riparian zones? Ecohydrology 3:373–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Capps KA, Flecker AS. 2013. Invasive fishes generate biogeochemical hotspots in a nutrient-limited system. PLoS ONE 8:7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Capps KA, Rancatti R, Tomczyk N, Parr TB, Calhoun AJK, Hunter MJ. 2014. Biogeochemical hotspots in forested landscapes: the role of vernal pools in denitrification and organic matter processing. Ecosystems 17:1455–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chaves J, Neill C, Germer S, Neto SG, Krusche A, Elsenbeer H. 2008. Land management impacts on runoff sources in small Amazon watersheds. Hydrol Process 22:1766–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Christenson LM, Mitchell MJ, Groffman PM, Lovett GM. 2010. Winter climate change implications for decomposition in northeastern forests: comparisons of sugar maple litter with herbivore fecal inputs. Glob Change Biol 16:2589–601.Google Scholar
  20. D’Arcy BJ, McLean N, Heal KV, Kay D. 2007. Riparian wetlands for enhancing the self-purification capacity of streams. Water Sci Technol 56:49–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Davidson EA, Matson PA, Vitousek PM, Riley R, Dunkin K, Garciamendez G, Maass JM. 1993. Processes regulating soil emissions of NO and N2O in a seasonally dry tropical forest. Ecology 74:130–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duncan JM, Groffman PM, Band LE. 2013. Towards closing the watershed nitrogen budget: spatial and temporal scaling of denitrification. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 118:1105–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feinerer I, Hornik K. 2015. tm: Text Mining Package. R package version 0.6-2.Google Scholar
  24. Fennessy MS, Cronk JK. 1997. The effectiveness and restoration potential of riparian ecotones for the management of nonpoint source pollution, particularly nitrate. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 27:285–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Finlay JC, Small GE, Sterner RW. 2013. Human influences on nitrogen removal in lakes. Science 342:247–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Finzi AC, Abramoff RZ, Spiller KS, Brzostek ER, Darby BA, Kramer MA, Phillips RP. 2015. Rhizosphere processes are quantitatively important components of terrestrial carbon and nutrient cycles. Glob Change Biol 21:2082–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fisher SG, Grimm NB, Marti E, Holmes RM, Jones JB Jr. 1998. Material spiraling in stream corridors: a telescoping ecosystem model. Ecosystems 1:19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Forman RTT, Godron M. 1981. Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. Bioscience 31:733–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gadel F, Serve L, Benedetti M, Da Cunha LC, Blazi JL. 2000. Biogeochemical characteristics of organic matter in the particulate and colloidal fractions downstream of the Rio Negro and Solimoes rivers confluence. Agronomie 20:477–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gallardo A, Schlesinger WH. 1992. Carbon and nitrogen limitation of soil microbial biomass in desert ecosystems. Biogeochemistry 18:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gebauer RLE, Ehleringer JR. 2000. Water and nitrogen uptake patterns following moisture pulses in a cold desert community. Ecology 81:1415–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Groffman PM, Bain DJ, Band LE, Belt KT, Brush GS, Grove JM, Pouyat RV, Yesilonis IC, Zipperer WC. 2003. Down by the riverside: urban riparian ecology. Front Ecol Environ 1:315–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Groffman PM, Butterbach-Bahl K, Fulweiler RW, Gold AJ, Morse JL, Stander EK, Tague C, Tonitto C, Vidon P. 2009. Challenges to incorporating spatially and temporally explicit phenomena (hotspots and hot moments) in denitrification models. Biogeochemistry 93:49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gu CH, Anderson W, Maggi F. 2012. Riparian biogeochemical hot moments induced by stream fluctuations. Water Resour Res 48:17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hale RL, Turnbull L, Earl S, Grimm NB, Riha K, Michalski G, Lohse KA, Childers D. 2014. Sources and transport of nitrogen in arid urban watersheds. Environ Sci Technol 48:6211–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Harms TK, Grimm NB. 2008. Hot spots and hot moments of carbon and nitrogen dynamics in a semiarid riparian zone. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. doi: 10.1029/2007JG000588.
  37. Harms TK, Grimm NB. 2012. Responses of trace gases to hydrologic pulses in desert floodplains. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 117:G01035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hartley AE, Schlesinger WH. 2000. Environmental controls on nitric oxide emission from northern Chihuahuan desert soils. Biogeochemistry 50:279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hedin LO, von Fischer JC, Ostrom NE, Kennedy BP, Brown MG, Robertson GP. 1998. Thermodynamic constraints on the biogeochemical structure and transformation of nitrogen at terrestrial–lotic interfaces. Ecology 79:684–703.Google Scholar
  40. Hill AR, Devito KJ, Campagnolo S, Sanmugadas K. 2000. Subsurface denitrification in a forest riparian zone: interactions between hydrology and supplies of nitrate and organic carbon. Biogeochemistry 51:193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hoellein TJ, Tank JL, Rosi-Marshall EJ, Entrekin SA. 2009. Temporal variation in substratum-specific rates of N uptake and metabolism and their contribution at the stream-reach scale. J N Am Benthol Soc 28:305–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holmes RM, Fisher SG, Grimm NB. 1994. Parafluvial nitrogen dynamics in a desert stream ecosystem. J N Am Benthol Soc 13:468–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Iribar A, Sanchez-Perez JM, Lyautey E, Garabetian F. 2008. Differentiated free-living and sediment-attached bacterial community structure inside and outside denitrification hotspots in the river–groundwater interface. Hydrobiologia 598:109–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jenerette GD, Scott RL, Huxman TE. 2008. Whole ecosystem metabolic pulses following precipitation events. Funct Ecol 22:924–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Johnson DW, Glass DW, Murphy JD, Stein CM, Miller WW. 2010. Nutrient hot spots in some Sierra Nevada forest soils. Biogeochemistry 101:93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnson DW, Miller WW, Rau BM, Meadows MW. 2011. The nature and potential causes of nutrient hotspots in a Sierra Nevada forest soil. Soil Sci 176:596–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson DW, Todd DE, Trettin CF, Mulholland PJ. 2008. Decadal changes in potassium, calcium, and magnesium in a deciduous forest soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72:1795–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Johnson DW, Woodward C, Meadows MW. 2014. A three-dimensional view of nutrient hotspots in a Sierra Nevada forest soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 78:S225–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jorgensen EE, Canfield TJ, Kutz FW. 2000. Restored riparian buffers as tools for ecosystem restoration in the MAIA; processes, endpoints, and measures of success for water, soil, flora, and fauna. Environ Monit Assess 63:199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kaushal SS, Groffman PM, Mayer PM, Striz E, Gold AJ. 2008. Effects of stream restoration on denitrification in an urbanizing watershed. Ecol Appl 18:789–804.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Kirchner JW, Feng XH, Neal C, Robson AJ. 2004. The fine structure of water-quality dynamics: the (high-frequency) wave of the future. Hydrol Processes 18:1353–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kling GW, Clark MA, Compton HR, Devine JD, Evans WC, Humphrey AM, Koenigsberg EJ, Lockwood JP, Tuttle ML, Wagner GN. 1987. The 1986 Lake Nyos gas disaster in Cameroon, West Africa. Science 236:169–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Kuzyakov Y, Blagodatskaya E. 2015. Microbial hotspots and hot moments in soil: concept & review. Soil Biol Biochem 83:184–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee X, Wu HJ, Sigler J, Oishi C, Siccama T. 2004. Rapid and transient response of soil respiration to rain. Glob Change Biol 10:1017–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lewis WM, Grant MC. 1979. Relationships between stream discharge and yield of dissolved substances from a Colorado mountain watershed. Soil Sci 128:353–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lezama-Pacheco JS, Cerrato JM, Veeramani H, Alessi DS, Suvorova E, Bernier-Latmani R, Giammar DE, Long PE, Williams KH, Bargar JR. 2015. Long-term in situ oxidation of biogenic uraninite in an alluvial aquifer: impact of dissolved oxygen and calcium. Environ Sci Technol 49:7340–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Lovett GM, Rueth AH. 1999. Soil nitrogen transformations in beech and maple stands along a nitrogen deposition gradient. Ecol Appl 9:1330–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lovett GM, Weathers KC, Arthur MA, Schultz JC. 2004. Nitrogen cycling in a northern hardwood forest: do species matter? Biogeochemistry 67:289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lynch MDJ, Neufeld JD. 2015. Ecology and exploration of the rare biosphere. Nat Rev Microbiol 13:217–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. McClain ME, Boyer EW, Dent CL, Gergel SE, Grimm NB, Groffman PM, Hart SC, Harvey JW, Johnston CA, Mayorga E, McDowell WH, Pinay G. 2003. Biogeochemical hot spots and hot moments at the interface of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystems 6:301–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McGill BM, Sutton-Grier AE, Wright JP. 2010. Plant trait diversity buffers variability in denitrification potential over changes in season and soil conditions. PLoS ONE 5:8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mitchell CPJ, Branfireun BA, Kolka RK. 2008. Spatial characteristics of net methylmercury production hot spots in peatlands. Environ Sci Technol 42:1010–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Molodovskaya M, Singurindy O, Richards BK, Warland J, Johnson MS, Steenhuis TS. 2012. Temporal variability of nitrous oxide from fertilized croplands: hot moment analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 76:1728–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Morford SL, Houlton BZ, Dahlgren RA. 2011. Increased forest ecosystem carbon and nitrogen storage from nitrogen rich bedrock. Nature 477:78–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Morse JL, Werner SF, Gillin CP, Goodale CL, Bailey SW, McGuire KJ, Groffman PM. 2014. Searching for biogeochemical hot spots in three dimensions: soil C and N cycling in hydropedologic settings in a northern hardwood forest. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 119:1596–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Olefeldt D, Roulet NT. 2012. Effects of permafrost and hydrology on the composition and transport of dissolved organic carbon in a subarctic peatland complex. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. doi: 10.1029/2011JG001819.
  67. Paine RT. 1966. Food web complexity and species diversity. Am Nat 100:65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Paine RT. 1969. Pisaster–Tegula interaction—prey patches, predator food preference, and intertidal community structure. Ecology 50:950–000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Palta MM, Ehrenfeld JG, Groffman PM. 2014. “Hotspots” and “hot moments’’ of denitrification in urban brownfield wetlands. Ecosystems 17:1121–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Parkin TB. 1987. Soil microsites as a source of denitrification variability. Soil Sci Soc Am J 51:1194–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Peter S, Rechsteiner R, Lehmann MF, Tockner K, Vogt T, Wehrli B, Durisch-Kaiser E. 2011. Denitrification hot spot and hot moments in a restored riparian system. In: Schirmer M, Hoehn E, Vogt T, Eds. Gq10: groundwater quality management in a rapidly changing world. Wallingford: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. p 433–6.Google Scholar
  72. Peterjohn WT, Correll DL. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed—observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Richardson MC, Branfireun BA, Robinson VB, Graniero PA. 2007. Towards simulating biogeochemical hot spots in the landscape: a geographic object-based approach. J Hydrol 342:97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Risser PG, Karr JR, Forman RTT. 1984. Landscape Ecology: directions and approaches. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publ. 2, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  75. Robson TM, Lavorel S, Clement JC, Le Roux X. 2007. Neglect of mowing and manuring leads to slower nitrogen cycling in subalpine grasslands. Soil Biol Biochem 39:930–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rode M, Wade AJ, Cohen MJ, Hensley RT, Bowes MJ, Kirchner JW, Arhonditsis GB, Jordan P, Kronvang B, Halliday SJ, Skeffington R, Rozemeijer J, Aubert AH, Rinke K, Jomaa S. 2016. Sensors in the stream: the high-frequency wave of the present. Environ Sci Technol 50:10297–307.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Skaggs RW, Breve MA, Gilliam JW. 1994. Hydrologic and water-quality impacts of agricultural drainage. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 24:1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tall L, Caraco N, Maranger R. 2011. Denitrification hot spots: dominant role of invasive macrophyte Trapa natans in removing nitrogen from a tidal river. Ecol Appl 21:3104–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Teh YA, Silver WL, Sonnentag O, Detto M, Kelly M, Baldocchi DD. 2011. Large greenhouse gas emissions from a temperate peatland pasture. Ecosystems 14:311–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Triska FJ, Duff JH, Avanzino RJ. 1993. The role of water exchange between a stream channel and its hyporheic zone in nitrogen cycling at the terrestrial aquatic interface. Hydrobiologia 251:167–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Troxler TG, Childers DL. 2010. Biogeochemical contributions of tree islands to Everglades wetland landscape nitrogen cycling during seasonal inundation. Ecosystems 13:75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tupek B, Minkkinen K, Pumpanen J, Vesala T, Nikinmaa E. 2015. CH4 and N2O dynamics in the boreal forest–mire ecotone. Biogeosciences 12:281–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ullah S, Moore TR. 2011. Biogeochemical controls on methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide fluxes from deciduous forest soils in eastern Canada. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 116:15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. van den Heuvel RN, Hefting MM, Tan NCG, Jetten MSM, Verhoeven JTA. 2009. N2O emission hotspots at different spatial scales and governing factors for small scale hotspots. Sci Total Environ 407:2325–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Vidon P, Allan C, Burns D, Duval TP, Gurwick N, Inamdar S, Lowrance R, Okay J, Scott D, Sebestyen S. 2010. Hot spots and hot moments in riparian zones: potential for improved water quality management1. J Am Water Resour Assoc 46:278–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Walsh CJ. 2004. Protection of in-stream biota from urban impacts: minimise catchment imperviousness or improve drainage design? Mar Freshw Res 55:317–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Weyer C, Peiffer S, Schulze K, Borken W, Lischeid G. 2014. Catchments as heterogeneous and multi-species reactors: an integral approach for identifying biogeochemical hot-spots at the catchment scale. J Hydrol 519:1560–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wilson HF, Saiers JE, Raymond PA, Sobczak WV. 2013. Hydrologic drivers and seasonality of dissolved organic carbon concentration, nitrogen content, bioavailability, and export in a forested New England stream. Ecosystems 16:604–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Woodward C, Johnson DW, Meadows MW, Miller WW, Hynes MM, Robertson CM. 2013. Nutrient hot spots in a Sierra Nevada forest soil: temporal characteristics and relations to microbial communities. Soil Sci 178:585–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zhu GB, Wang SY, Wang WD, Wang Y, Zhou LL, Jiang B, Op den Camp HJM, Risgaard-Petersen N, Schwark L, Peng YZ, Hefting MM, Jetten MSM, Yin CQ. 2013. Hotspots of anaerobic ammonium oxidation at land–freshwater interfaces. Nat Geosci 6:103–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily S. Bernhardt
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Joanna R. Blaszczak
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cari D. Ficken
    • 1
    • 2
  • Megan L. Fork
    • 3
  • Kendra E. Kaiser
    • 3
  • Erin C. Seybold
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.University Program in EcologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Nicholas School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations