Methane emission from natural wetlands: interplay between emergent macrophytes and soil microbial processes. A mini-review.
BACKGROUND
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, natural wetlands contribute 20-39 % to the global emission of methane. The range in the estimated percentage of the contribution of these systems to the total release of this greenhouse gas is large due to differences in the nature of the emitting vegetation including the soil microbiota that interfere with the production and consumption of methane.


METHODS
Methane is a dominant end-product of anaerobic mineralization processes. When all electron acceptors except carbon dioxide are used by the microbial community, methanogenesis is the ultimate pathway to mineralize organic carbon compounds. Emergent wetland plants play an important role in the emission of methane to the atmosphere. They produce the carbon necessary for the production of methane, but also facilitate the release of methane by the possession of a system of interconnected internal gas lacunas. Aquatic macrophytes are commonly adapted to oxygen-limited conditions as they prevail in flooded or waterlogged soils. By this system, oxygen is transported to the underground parts of the plants. Part of the oxygen transported downwards is released in the root zone, where it sustains a number of beneficial oxidation processes. Through the pores from which oxygen escapes from the plant into the root zone, methane can enter the plant aerenchyma system and subsequently be emitted into the atmosphere. Part of the oxygen released into the root zone can be used to oxidize methane before it enters the atmosphere. However, the oxygen can also be used to regenerate alternative electron acceptors. The continuous supply of alternative electron acceptors will diminish the role of methanogenesis in the anaerobic mineralization processes in the root zone and therefore repress the production and emission of methane. The role of alternative element cycles in the inhibition of methanogenesis is discussed.


CONCLUSIONS
The role of the nitrogen cycle in repression of methane production is probably low. In contrast to wetlands particularly created for the purification of nitrogen-rich waste waters, concentrations of inorganic nitrogen compounds are low in the root zones in the growing season due to the nitrogen-consuming behaviour of the plant. Therefore, nitrate hardly competes with other electron acceptors for reduced organic compounds, and repression of methane oxidation by the presence of higher levels of ammonium will not be the case. The role of the iron cycle is likely to be important with respect to the repression of methane production and oxidation. Iron-reducing and iron-oxidizing bacteria are ubiquitous in the rhizosphere of wetland plants. The cycling of iron will be largely dependent on the size of the oxygen release in the root zone, which is likely to be different between different wetland plant species. The role of the sulfur cycle in repression of methane production is important in marine, sulfate-rich ecosystems, but might also play a role in freshwater systems where sufficient sulfate is available. Sulfate-reducing bacteria are omnipresent in freshwater ecosystems, but do not always react immediately to the supply of fresh sulfate. Hence, their role in the repression of methanogenesis is still to be proven in freshwater marshes.
Laanbroek
Hendrikus J
HJ
Department of Microbial Wetland Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), Nieuwersluis, The Netherlands. r.laanbroek@nioo.knaw.nl
D017753:Ecosystem; D005618:Fresh Water; D007501:Iron / Q000378:metabolism; D008697:Methane / Q000032:analysis* / Q000737:chemistry; D009584:Nitrogen / Q000378:metabolism; D010084:Oxidation-Reduction; D010944:Plants / Q000378:metabolism* / Q000382:microbiology; D012988:Soil Microbiology; D013455:Sulfur / Q000378:metabolism; D053833:Wetlands
D013455:Sulfur; D007501:Iron; D009584:Nitrogen; D008697:Methane
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997 Mar;63(3):931-7
16535557
Chemosphere. 2003 Apr;51(3):167-73
12591249
Chemosphere. 2007 Jun;68(3):420-7
17316757
Ann Bot. 2005 Sep;96(4):613-23
16027129
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2008 Jun;64(3):395-406
18466362
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Jun;65(6):2758-61
10347074
Microb Ecol. 2003 Mar;45(3):252-8
12658519
Environ Microbiol. 2004 Jul;6(7):686-98
15186347
Environ Manage. 2001 Apr;27(4):547-57
11289453
ISME J. 2009 Jun;3(6):715-25
19225553
Microb Ecol. 1992 Jul;24(1):51-61
24193039
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997 Dec;63(12):4734-40
16535750
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2004 Mar 1;47(3):265-77
19712315
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Oct;65(10):4393-8
10508065
Plant Cell Environ. 2006 Jul;29(7):1388-99
17080960
Environ Pollut. 2006 Mar;140(2):286-93
16168538
Oecologia. 2002 May;131(4):490-497
28547542
Water Res. 2004 Nov;38(18):3960-70
15380986
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997 Aug;63(8):3051-8
16535666
Science. 1980 Nov 28;210(4473):1017-9
17797494
Microb Ecol. 1997 Nov;34(3):254-62
9337421
New Phytol. 1990 Jan;114(1):121-128
33874300
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2004 Apr 1;48(1):89-100
19712434
Environ Pollut. 2008 Mar;152(2):351-60
17655987
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996 Nov;62(11):4100-7
16535441
New Phytol. 2006;172(4):719-31
17096797