Spatial Variability of Methane Production and Methanogen Communities in a Reservoir
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Spatial variability of methane production and methanogen communities in a reservoir: importance of organic matter source and quantity A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Department of Biological Sciences of the College of Arts and Sciences By Megan E. Berberich B.S. Biological Sciences, 2014 University of Louisville, Louisville KY November 2017 Research Advisory Committee: Committee Chair: Dr. Ishi Buffam Dr. Jake J. Beaulieu Dr. Trinity L. Hamilton Abstract Freshwater reservoirs are an important source of the greenhouse gas methane (CH4) to the atmosphere, but global emission estimates are poorly constrained (13.3 – 52.5 Tg C yr-1) due, in part, to extreme spatial variability in emission rates within and among reservoirs. While morphological characteristics, including water depth, contribute to the variation in emission rates, spatial heterogeneity of biological methane production rates by sediment dwelling methanogenic archaea may be another important source of variation. An important constraint on CH4 production rates is the availability of organic matter (OM). Laboratory experiments have shown that both the quantity and quality of OM influences production rates. For example, CH4 production rates have been shown to respond strongly to algal-derived OM, a highly labile OM source. It is unclear, however, whether this pattern persists at the field scale where other sources of organic matter, such as sediment loads from the watershed, may play an important role in CH4 generation. We measured methane production rates, sediment OM source, OM quantity, and methanogen community composition at fifteen sites in a temperate, eutrophic reservoir to assess OM drivers of spatial variability in CH4 -2 production rates. Areal CH4 production rates (g CH4 m ) were highest in the riverine portion of the reservoir below the main inlet where OM quantity (g OM cm-2) was greatest, presumably due to high sedimentation rates. The pattern of high CH4 production rates in the riverine portion of -1 the reservoir persisted even when rates were normalized to OM quantity (g CH4 g OM), suggesting that not only was OM more abundant in the riverine zone, it was more readily utilized by methanogens. Sediment stable isotopes and elemental ratios indicated a greater proportion of allochthonous OM in the riverine zone than other areas of the reservoir, suggesting that watershed derived OM is an important driver of CH4 production in the system. Methanogens ii were abundant at all sampling sites but the functional diversity of methanogens was highest in the riverine zone. Variation in functional diversity of methanogens likely reflects differences in decomposition processes or OM quality across the reservoir. In contrast to previous reports of water column primary productivity as a key predictor of CH4 emission rates in reservoirs, we found that measures of OM quantity best explained variation in CH4 production rates within the reservoir and that the highest production rates occurred at sites with a strong contribution of terrestrial OM. This indicates that while OM source is important, the total OM quantity, regardless of source, is the primary driver of CH4 production rates. iii (This page intentionally left blank.) Acknowledgements I owe a great deal of thanks to my entire committee for the tremendous amount of time, energy and resources that each member dedicated to supporting me and this research. Specifically, I thank my advisor Dr. Ishi Buffam for always making time, and for providing a research environment that promoted independence while still providing direction. Ishi allowed and encouraged me to pursue my research interests, and his mentorship and commitment are what allowed this project to develop and grow into one that challenged and excited me. My committee members Dr. Jake Beaulieu and Dr. Trinity Hamilton were both extremely active in their involvement in this project, and provided direction and encouragement in addition to intellectual, financial, field and lab support. The combined and individual strengths of each of my three committee members afforded me the opportunity to gain experience that I would not have had without this collaboration. I thank Trinity for her patience and expertise in guiding me through molecular techniques, and for her constant availability and insight. I thank Jake for his detailed and methodical approach to conducting research and addressing problems, and for his invaluable counsel. I thoroughly enjoyed working with each member, and am grateful for the opportunity to have developed relationships and worked with such outstanding and dedicated scientists and people. I extend thanks to Dr. Sarah Waldo, who was a constant source of encouragement and provided valuable intellectual insight. Sarah’s support and perspective helped drive this research, and I am very grateful for her involvement and willingness to provide mentorship. I also would like to specifically thank Dr. Jeff Havig for his critical role in much of the isotopic analysis; Jeff gave his personal time and energy to ensure that my samples were analyzed. Further, Jeff was always willing to explain a method, discuss science, offer guidance, or just chat. I thank all those who helped in collecting and processing samples and data, including Kit Daniels, Dr. Sarah Waldo, Madison Duke, Dr. Xuan Li, Karen White, Dr. Joel Allen, Dr. Mike Elovitz, and undergraduate helpers Caroline Tran and Kaitlin Henn. I especially want to thank undergraduate Madison Duke for her commitment and eagerness during the summer of 2016. I thank my lab mates Jeremy Alberts, Mark Mitchell, Alicia Goldschmidt, Chelsea Hintz and Sarah Handlon for their encouragement and enjoyable company. I would like to thank my family, especially my mom, dad, stepdad, stepmom and brother, and new and old friends for their unwavering confidence in me and support of my goals. Finally, I thank Rob for his patience and perspective, and for driving me to pursue my interests. ii Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ i List of Tables and Figures ............................................................................................................ ii Chapter 1: Background ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Methane: The global context ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Methanogenesis and methanogens ........................................................................................ 2 1.3 Organic matter source characterization ................................................................................ 6 Chapter 2: Spatial variability of methane production and methanogen communities in a reservoir: importance of organic matter source and quantity ................................................. 8 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Methods............................................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Results ................................................................................................................................. 24 2.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 35 References .................................................................................................................................... 43 Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 50 Note on reproducibility and open data access ........................................................................... 50 Appendix 1: Supplemental Data from Harsha Lake ................................................................. 52 Appendix 2: Select Detailed Methods ...................................................................................... 62 Appendix 3: Sediment Traps .................................................................................................... 68 Appendix 4: July Slurries – Absence of Methane Production .................................................. 74 List of Tables and Figures Tables Table 2.1. Physical and chemical water column properties for each of the sampling sites. ........ 26 Table 2.2. Bulk sediment and porewater characteristics for each of the 15 sites.. ....................... 29 Table 2.3. Results of model hypothesis testing. ........................................................................... 34 -3 -1 Table 2.4. Best predictors of methane production rates (µmol CH4 cm day ) from univariate linear regression analysis. ............................................................................................................. 35 Figures Figure 1.1. Steps involved in the anaerobic degradation of organic matter. From Conrad (1999). ........................................................................................................................................................