4.6 Article

Denitrification and environmental factors influencing nitrate removal in Guaymas Basin hydrothermally altered sediments

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 3, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00377

关键词

denitrification; nitrogen cycle; Beggiatoa

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [OCE 0959337, OCE 0647633]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We measured potential nitrate removal and denitrification rates in hydrothermally altered sediments inhabited by Beggiatoa mats and adjacent brown oil stained sediments from the Guaymas Basin, Gulf of California. Sediments with Beggiatoa maintained slightly higher rates of potential denitrification than did brown sediments at 31.2 +/- 12.1 versus 21.9 +/- 1.4 mu M N day-1, respectively. In contrast, the nitrate removal rates in brown sediments were higher than those observed in mat-hosting sediments at 418 +/- 145 versus 174 +/- 74 mu M N day-1, respectively. Additional experiments were conducted to assess the responses of denitrifying communities to environmental factors [i.e., nitrate, sulfide, and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration)]. The denitrifying community had a high affinity for nitrate (Km = 137 +/- 91 mu M N day-1), in comparison to other environmental communities of denitrifiers, and was capable of high maximum rates of denitrification (Vmax = 1164 +/- 153 mu M N day-1). The presence of sulfide resulted in significantly lower denitrification rates. Microorganisms with the potential to perform denitrification were assessed in these sediments using the bacterial 16S rRNA gene and nitrous oxide reductase (nosZ) functional gene libraries. The bacterial 16S rRNA gene clone library was dominated by Epsilonproteobacteria (38%), some of which (e.g., Sulfurimonas sp.) have a potential for sulfide-dependent denitrification. The nosZ clone library did not contain clones similar to pure culture denitrifiers; these clones were most closely associated with environmental clones.

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

4.6
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