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
October 23, 2014 9:59 am

Let me get this right…
… we’ve got a big ol’ bunch of sequestered C02 that will we are scared of … it will release on its own or via microbial actions and we need to define the process, so we can model it, to determine (what we have defined as) the negative aspects of the methane/C02 release, as well as place the blame so we can create appropriate polices to mitigate the negative aspects.
My question would be related to how all that big ol’ bunch of scary sequestered C02 ended up in the permanently frozen ground…
The article references wetland as the outcome of thaw and conveniently ignores the obvious grassland (as a sink … not a sequester).

October 23, 2014 11:56 am

Why would you have a model of what the isotopes should be when you can just go and collect them and check it out. The computer, magnificent tool that it is, is also responsible for a universe of fanciful notions in science. It reminds me of what it did for and to the film industry. Yeah, Jurassic Park was a masterpiece not possible without computer simulation, but also the technology killed good screen writing for a couple of decades, replacing plot with massive car crashes, explosions, etc., etc.
On the article content itself, this is just a microbiologist creating her 15minutes of fame on the closing scenes of the global warming extravaganza. They found a new bug and it isn’t very dramatic or fundable unless it is the key to the destruction of the planet. Think, think, think….the failure of the theory has generated a hive of desperation, searching out ways to resuscitate the cooling of the global warming corpse and we are being treated to an ever more diverse menu of mini end-of-the-world snippets.
None of the researchers asked the questions that would at least bother an engineer: If these little buggers are just thawing out, were they not a flourishing clan in much warmer days – say during the Holocene Optimum? And didn’t the planet seem to have weathered their evil works just fine? Indeed, while they were at their busiest, the climate actually cooled down from the optimum, and in the big picture, continues its downward temperature trend. Negative feed back, anyone.

October 23, 2014 12:02 pm

Now I’m going to make a contribution, not to biology, but to these particular biologists. Did you know that methane is a widely produced by-product of organic breakdown by micro-organisms? Move your new little bug out of the way and you will see a whole bunch of other ones doing roughly the same thing. Shame on you and your professors.

Svend Ferdinandsen
October 23, 2014 1:21 pm

Is it only me that find it a bit odd that University of Arizona studies the Arctic?

inMAGICn
Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
October 23, 2014 3:53 pm

No, you’re not alone.

Scuzza Man (@ScuzzaMan)
October 24, 2014 12:14 am

Still searching for that positive feedback loop
Still not finding it.
Always reminds me of the line from a fictional Soviet spy on the name of a well-known western intelligence agency:
“more indicative of what they seek than what they possess”

Eric
October 24, 2014 11:45 am

The grant is apparently for $1,253,245.00. I am in the wrong profession (network administrator).
From
http://askgov.info/usa/us/federal_spending/AZ/2012/assistance.html
Eric

Mervyn
October 28, 2014 7:30 am

“Tiny soil microbes are among the world’s biggest potential amplifiers of human-caused climate change…”
Isn’t it incredible that when all these scientists undertake their studies, they always somehow relate it all back to a human-caused link. And it’s always negative. When one sees this sort of nonsense, it tells me such studies are crap not worth reading.