Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, UK RECIPE Charquemont Progress meeting /10/2003 UK progress Rebekka Artz Stephen Chapman Colin Campbell
I. WP01 UK Field site Middlemuir Moss, between Strichen and New Pitsligo, NE Scotland
Bare milled peat (0-5 yrs)
1 st succession peat (> 5yrs)
Regenerating peat (> 50 yrs)
> 50 yrs yrs Bare
Table 1. Approximate species distribution at RECIPE WP01 field sites Experimental Site / Keystone species Plant distribution (%) Collar 1Collar 2Collar 3 Bare milled surface bare 1 st Succession Peat / Eriophorum EA (80) SF (15) EV (<5) CI (<1) EA (80) SF (15) EV (5) EA (70) SF (20) EV (5) CS (3) CI (2) 1 st Succession Peat / Sphagnum SF (100)SF (95) EA (5) SF (95) EA (5) Regenerating Peat / Polytrichum PC (80) SC (10) HS (3) PS (3) CS (4) PC (75) SM (5) SC (10) SCU (5) CS (5) PC (95) SM (<1) SC (<4) O Regenerating Peat / Sphagnum SC (80) SCU (15) SM (5) SC (60) SCU (15) SM (5) HS (10) PS (5) CS (<5) O SC (70) SCU (15) SM (5) PS (5) CS (<5) O Key: EV – Eriophorum vaginatum, EA – Eriophorum angustifolium, SF – Sphagnum fallax, SM – Sphagnum magellanicum, SC – Sphagnum capillifolium, SCU – Sphagnum cuspidatum, CI – Campylopus introflexus, PC – Polytrichum commune, HS – Hypnum sp. (jutlandicum or cypressiforme), PS – Pleurozium schreberi, CS – Calluna sp., O – others (grasses etc.)
II. Field site preliminary data
Water table in plots
Methane added Field measurements of CO 2 and CH 4 fluxes
Bare peat – CO cm- 90 cm
Bare peat – CH cm- 41 cm
1 st succession peat – CO cm - 7 cm - 22 cm
1 st succession peat – CH cm - 7 cm
Regenerating peat – CO cm
Regenerating peat – CH cm
III. Fungal community structure analysis by DGGE of ribosomal 18S and/or ITS sequences Preliminary data
Test DNA extractions for shipping methods * ** * p < 0.05
M + NT/S LN/S FD/S NT/P1 LN/P1 FD/P1 Sphagnum Low humification
+ M NT/P2 LN/P2 FD/P2 NT/E LN/E FD/E + M Medium humification High humification
M + P2old P2new NT/M LN/M FD/M + + M PCR FD/P2 Milled surface
M + NT LN FD Regenerating S E
Fungal DGGE analysis shows significant differences in band patterns according to peat depth but: GELS CANNOT BE INTERCOMPARED (YET)
IV. Community level physiological profiling by MicroResp Preliminary data
‘Standard’ method utilises sieved soil of ca. 40% WHC problematic with peat due to irreversible drying and fibrosity Protocol adapted to use slurry (peat blended with water 1:10) tested with glucose (150 and 75 mM)
only the surface sample at Regenerating peat site gives significantly higher SIR than a water blank (not sterile). No distinction possible between samples so far. 150 mM glucose, 2.5 mM bicarb
75 mM glucose, varying bicarb
All 4 peat depths at Regenerating site, 0-5 cm horizon at 1 st succession site, and all except the 0-5 cm horizon at the bare site show significantly higher CO 2 evolution than the (water only) control. Different samples show different CO 2 curves.
Lowering the buffering capacity of the detection system allows for sample distinction. Further work: incorporation of different carbon sources to allow for CLPP using 32 carbon sources per plate (n = 3) or 16 carbon sources (n = 6). Anoxic system?
V. RECIPE WEBSITE Preliminary version available at Will go public soon …