Claim: Recently discovered Arctic microbe is key player in climate change

From the University of Arizona

As permafrost soils thaw under the influence of global warming, communities of soil microbes act as potent amplifiers of global climate change, an international study has shown.

81225_web[1]
This is the study site, Stordalen Mire in Abisko National Park in Sweden, just north of the Arctic Circle. Credit: Scott Saleska
Tiny soil microbes are among the world’s biggest potential amplifiers of human-caused climate change, but whether microbial communities are mere slaves to their environment or influential actors in their own right is an open question. Now, research by an international team of scientists from the U.S., Sweden and Australia, led by University of Arizona scientists, shows that a single species of microbe, discovered only very recently, is an unexpected key player in climate change.

The findings, published in the journal Nature, should help scientists improve their simulations of future climate by replacing assumptions about the different greenhouse gases emitted from thawing permafrost with new understanding of how different communities of microbes control the release of these gases.

Earlier this year, the international team discovered that a single species of microbe, previously undescribed by science, was prominent in permafrost soils in northern Sweden that have begun to thaw under the effect of globally rising temperatures. Researchers suspected that it played a significant role in global warming by liberating vast amounts of carbon stored in permafrost soil close to the Arctic Circle in the form of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. But the actual role of this microbe — assigned the preliminary name Methanoflorens stordalenmirensis, which roughly translates to “methane-bloomer from the Stordalen Mire” — was unknown.

The new research nails down the role of the new microbe, finding that the sheer abundance of Methanoflorens, as compared to other microbial species in thawing permafrost, should help to predict their collective impact on future climate change.

“If you think of the African savanna as an analogy, you could say that both lions and elephants produce carbon dioxide, but they eat different things,” said senior author Scott Saleska, an associate professor in the UA’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and director of the UA’s new Ecosystem Genomics Institute. “In Methanoflorens, we discovered the microbial equivalent of an elephant, an organism that plays an enormously important role in what happens to the whole ecosystem.”

Significantly, the study revealed that because of these microbial activities, all wetlands are not the same when it comes to methane release.

IMAGE: In this image, lead author Carmody McCalley installs equipment to measure the production of greenhouse gases by soil microbes during her postdoctoral research in Scott Saleska’s group.

Click here for more information.

“The models assume a certain ratio between different forms, or isotopes, of the carbon in the methane molecules, and the actual recorded ratio turns out to be different,” said lead author Carmody McCalley, a scientist at the Earth Systems Research Center at the University of New Hampshire who conducted the study while she was a postdoctoral researcher at UA. “This has been a major shortcoming of current climate models. Because they assume the wrong isotope ratio coming out of the wetlands, the models overestimate carbon released by biological processes and underestimate carbon released by human activities such as fossil-fuel burning.”

Soil microbes can make methane two different ways: either from acetate, an organic molecule that comes from plants, or from carbon dioxide and hydrogen.

“Both processes produce energy for the microbe, and the microbe breathes out methane like we breathe out carbon dioxide,” McCalley said. “But we find that in thawing permafrost, most methane initially doesn’t come from acetate as previously assumed, but the other pathway. This ratio then shifts towards previous estimates as the frozen soils are turned into wetlands and acetate becomes the preferred carbon source.”

One of the big questions facing climate scientists, according to Saleska, is how much of the carbon stored in soils is released into the atmosphere by microbial activity.

“As the ‘global freezer’ of permafrost is failing under the influence of warming, we need to better understand how soil microbes release carbon on a larger, ecosystem-wide level and what is going to happen with it,” he said.

Said UA co-author Virginia Rich: “For years, there’s been a debate about whether microbial ecology ‘matters’ to what an ecosystem collectively does — in this case, releasing greenhouse gases of different forms — or whether microbes are just slaves to the system’s physics and chemistry. This work shows that microbial ecology matters to a great degree, and that we need to pay more attention to the types of microbes living in those thawing ecosystems.”

IMAGE: The researchers installed special instruments for measuring fluxes using Plexiglas chambers that periodically set themselves down over the surface and trap the gases emanating from the soil.

Click here for more information.

Added McCalley: “By taking microbial ecology into account, we can accurately set up climate models to identify how much methane comes from thawing permafrost versus other sources such as fossil-fuel burning.”

###

The paper was co-authored by: Richard Wehr in the UA’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; Eun-Hae Kim in the UA Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science; Gene Tyson, Ben Woodcroft and Rhiannon Mondav of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia; Suzanne Hodgkins and Jeffrey Chanton of Florida State University; and Patrick Crill at the University of Stockholm, Sweden.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

89 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tim Wohlford
October 22, 2014 3:59 pm

Would the result be the same under naturally-occurring climate change / warming? Cause it only covers man-made change. Or is that simply the early reference to the thing that got them funding so they could study microbes in the Artcic?

Randy
October 22, 2014 4:02 pm
Tom in Florida
October 22, 2014 4:02 pm

““The models assume a certain ratio between different forms, or isotopes, of the carbon in the methane molecules, and the actual recorded ratio turns out to be different,”
I guess that means the older models are all no good. But we already knew that. Thanks for the confirmation.

george e. smith
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 22, 2014 9:21 pm

So why not assume in the models, the actual recorded carbon isotope ratios, rather than using ” certain ratio” ??
Evidently, it is a very uncertain ratio.

Bruce Cobb
October 22, 2014 4:13 pm

So then Methanoflorens is the elephant in the bloom.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 22, 2014 5:45 pm

🙂 A very astute observation!

Bart
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 23, 2014 12:16 pm

I thought Methanoflorens were what made Anakin Skywalker so strong in The Force.

Mike H.
October 22, 2014 4:18 pm

deus ex machina.

October 22, 2014 4:21 pm

“Tiny soil microbes are among the world’s biggest potential amplifiers of human-caused climate change…”

Setting out their stall early. lol. And I thought it was supposed to be the water vapor feedback that was supposed to fry us (perhaps “poach” us would be a better verb).
Whatever. That they think the carbon isotope ratios are not always to be relied upon in a biochemical context is a welcome admission, even if the thought was late coming to them. That’s the problem with the real world. Tricksy it is. Much easier to just model it in silico and forget the carbon chemistry.

Bob
Reply to  michael hart
October 22, 2014 5:50 pm

Notice they say that only human-caused warming can be amplified, not natural warming. Pretty smart microbes.

strike
Reply to  michael hart
October 23, 2014 12:17 am

That’s one of the biggest moneyshots I ever read, congrats.

October 22, 2014 4:24 pm

Damn microbes, why can’t they just stop driving SUVs?

dp
October 22, 2014 4:28 pm

So this microbe went from unknown to world killer rather quickly. So how did they end up entombed in permafrost?

more soylent green!
Reply to  dp
October 22, 2014 4:40 pm

Remember when they found “The Thing” frozen in the Arctic ice pack? Remember what happened when they thawed it out?

JohnTyler
Reply to  more soylent green!
October 22, 2014 5:56 pm

That was a great flick from the 1950’s; the golden age of very cheesy (and unintentionally hilarious) monster, dragon, and alien flicks. Even Bela Lugosi was in a few of them.
Perhaps as the ice melts in the arctic (has that ever happened before prior to the industrial revolution?? Nah; only humans cause ice ages to end) they will find “pods” of human forms, lying in gelatin, with irregular pinkie fingers.

george e. smith
Reply to  more soylent green!
October 22, 2014 9:24 pm

Sherriff Matt Dillon played the thing.

mpainter
October 22, 2014 4:30 pm

” and that we need to pay more attention to the types of microbes living in those thawing ecosystems”
≤<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
Seems that the study was inconclusive. Soil microbes everywhere produce methane, nothing new here. The ecosystem thawed because tundra thaws in the summer, but they had to give the obligatory lie: climate change.
This comes across as a pitch for funding.

Derek Cummings
October 22, 2014 4:33 pm

Why don’t they admit. They don’t have a clue. The earth is not warming anymore. But they still want the funding.

latecommer2014
Reply to  Derek Cummings
October 22, 2014 4:42 pm

They haven’t hit on a good global cooling mantra yet….but they will, and the funding will continue

Reply to  latecommer2014
October 23, 2014 9:31 pm

It’s been done. I can’t wait until somebody discovers co2 sheds more solar gain direct from the Sun than it gets back from re-reflected Earthshine.

October 22, 2014 4:41 pm

The anaerobic microbial flora of the arctic are also producing large amounts of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, which will eventually stimulate formation of clouds according to CERN research. The science isn’t settled.

Jared
October 22, 2014 4:43 pm

Why do they call it global warming when it is regional warming. It is cooling where I live.

Reply to  Jared
October 23, 2014 3:11 am

Exactly. This annoyed me,

…prominent in permafrost soils in northern Sweden that have begun to thaw under the effect of globally rising temperatures.

No. They can only be melted by the local temperatures.
The weather in San Jose has no direct impact on Sweden.
This is a complete logic fail that, purely coincidentally, helps with raising their funding.

Robert Wykoff
Reply to  Jared
October 24, 2014 1:21 pm

It is called global warming because the vast majority of the globe is uninhabited, and according to the maps all of the warming tends to happen where people don’t actually live.

Latitude
October 22, 2014 4:45 pm

so the morons start out with the biggest assumption of all….
.. As permafrost soils thaw under the influence of global warming,

Reply to  Latitude
October 22, 2014 5:28 pm

And by doing so, they’re sure to make a Ass of U and Me, just like the old saying goes

October 22, 2014 4:47 pm

“Because they assume the wrong isotope ratio coming out of the wetlands, the models overestimate carbon released by biological processes and underestimate carbon released by human activities such as fossil-fuel burning.”
Hmm, the consensus of 97% of Climate Scientists(tm) already says that most, if not all, of the increase in CO2 is man-made. Now this study says that “THE MODELS…underestimate carbon released by human activities such as fossil-fuel burning.” D*mn, no matter what happens it’s always:
It’s worse than we thought!

October 22, 2014 4:48 pm

Is there any way to find out what the amount of funding for this study is?
Also what is the source of the funding?
What about similar studies, how do you find how they are funded and how much?
There is no funding stats in the links provided.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 22, 2014 4:57 pm

There ARE no funding stats in the links provided that I can find…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 22, 2014 5:43 pm

The amount of funding should not be a big issue to us.
To me, this looks like very good science and will go a long way towards increasing our understanding of very complex processes.
The conclusions initially drawn may turn out to be another matter, but in the long run more and similar work will add to our understanding of the bigger picture. (Note the recent discovery of vast numbers of “methane eaters” in subsea rocks.)

mpainter
Reply to  markx
October 22, 2014 6:04 pm

markx:
Soil microbes releasing methane is old hat. I want my $ back.

Reply to  markx
October 23, 2014 12:29 am

“The amount of funding should not be a big issue to us.”
So is it $100 or $10,000 or $100,000?
I just wanted to compare the funding for this paper compared to the “Watts et al. 2012 draft paper” which is also good science.
I think it is a big issue…
In the world that I view things of importance…

Reply to  markx
October 23, 2014 12:38 am

markx
October 22, 2014 at 5:43 pm
“The amount of funding should not be a big issue to us.”
Well it’s a big issue to me if it is coming out of my tax dollars that I pay to the government…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 23, 2014 7:05 am

The funding is listed as being as follows:
“This study was funded by the Genomic Science Program of the United States Department of Energy Office of Biological and Environmental Research, grant DE-SC0004632.”
I’m sure that knowing the grant number it will be possible for you to find out the amount.

ferdberple
October 22, 2014 4:48 pm

whether microbial communities are mere slaves to their environment or influential actors in their own right is an open question.
======
primitive life evolved the ability to regulate climate over billions of years. the rest of us are just passengers.

u.k(us)
Reply to  ferdberple
October 22, 2014 5:40 pm

How about, primitive life produced (most of) the atmosphere we now breathe, and we thank them for it ?
If they stick around, we might take them for a ride.

Bill_W
October 22, 2014 4:50 pm

Just discovered it but already know it’s a huge “potential” problem.

john robertson
October 22, 2014 4:51 pm

But the models were perfect.
Reality was to be “adjusted” if a conflict arose.
Never mind the microbes, frozen in the layers of permafrost are mosquito larva dating back to the era of the wooly mammoth, if these little darlings thaw out,expect mass extinctions in the high arctic.
And they live, core samples into the permafrost start to wriggle as they thaw in the sun.

Latitude
October 22, 2014 4:54 pm

She says that the ratios are wrong..does not list what the isotopes are and what’s changed about them…….while admitting all wetlands are not the same…makes a prediction of how it will effect GCMs, which is impossible since she has not included all wetlands…and on and on
I predict this one will make it through peer…be grabbed by people wanting to hear this….and fall apart quietly at a later date

old44
October 22, 2014 4:57 pm

When they say “international study” do they mean they all bugger off to Phuket for a month to fill out the forms?

Reply to  old44
October 23, 2014 7:49 am

I suggest that you read the affiliations of the authors given in the link to the paper where the international nature of the study is made clear.

October 22, 2014 5:12 pm

My immediate thought is what eats the microbes? If their predators increase in numbers and so on – maybe there will be a rapid increase in fauna and flora and the net result is another CO2 repository like a peat bog or a proto-coal or oil strata?
Just surmising, maybe someone with more knowledge in these areas can comment?

October 22, 2014 5:16 pm

‘The researchers installed special instruments for measuring fluxes using Plexiglas chambers that periodically set themselves down over the surface and trap the gases emanating from the soil.’
Just out of curiosity, is there any likelihood that those plexiglas chambers act as genuine greenhouses (not the inaccurately described scientific public relations kind) therefore warming the micro environment inside and contributing to the out gassing of gases emanating from the soil?
Could that photo also indicate potential testing of those plexiglas chambers as high density human housing? Just kidding. I hope.

Reply to  Tom J
October 22, 2014 9:26 pm

Your observation about the plastic chambers make the whole experiment a joke , they altered the environment and used the results from that as the “given”, it is great point.

catweazle666
October 22, 2014 5:31 pm

“we can accurately set up climate models…”
Really?
This is a new usage of the term “accurate” with which I am unfamiliar.

October 22, 2014 5:33 pm

They are saying “First it warms, then Carbon Dioxide increases”.
But then Al Gore showed this to be true several years ago.

October 22, 2014 5:52 pm

And here was me thinking that “The Science Was Settled”……..

1 2 3