Controls on bacterial and archaeal community structure and greenhouse gas production in natural, mined, and restored Canadian peatlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Northern peatlands are important global C reservoirs, largely because of their slow rates of microbial C mineralization. Particularly in sites that are heavily influenced by anthropogenic disturbances, there is scant information about microbial ecology and whether or not microbial community structure influences greenhouse gas production. This work characterized communities of bacteria and archaea using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) and sequence analysis of 16S rRNA and functional genes across eight natural, mined, or restored peatlands in two locations in eastern Canada. Correlations were explored among chemical properties of peat, bacterial and archaeal community structure, and carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) production rates under oxic and anoxic conditions. Bacteria and archaea similar to those found in other peat soil environments were detected. In contrast to other reports, methanogen diversity was low in our study, with only 2 groups of known or suspected methanogens. Although mining and restoration affected substrate availability and microbial activity, these land-uses did not consistently affect bacterial or archaeal community composition. In fact, larger differences were observed between the two locations and between oxic and anoxic peat samples than between natural, mined, and restored sites, with anoxic samples characterized by less detectable bacterial diversity and stronger dominance by members of the phylum Acidobacteria. There were also no apparent strong linkages between prokaryote community structure and CH4 or CO2 production, suggesting that different organisms exhibit functional redundancy and/or that the same taxa function at very different rates when exposed to different peat substrates. In contrast to other earlier work focusing on fungal communities across similar mined and restored peatlands, bacterial and archaeal communities appeared to be more resistant or resilient to peat substrate changes brought about by these land uses. © 2013 Basiliko, Henry, Gupta, Moore, Driscoll and Dunfield.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".