1. Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, UK RECIPE Charquemont Progress meeting 23 - 26/10/2003 UK progress Rebekka Artz Stephen Chapman Colin Campbell

2. I. WP01 UK Field site Middlemuir Moss, between Strichen and New Pitsligo, NE Scotland

5. Bare milled peat (0-5 yrs)

6. 1 st succession peat (> 5yrs)

8. Regenerating peat (> 50 yrs)

9. > 50 yrs 5 -10 yrs Bare

10. 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.)

11. II. Field site preliminary data

12. Water table in plots

13. Methane added Field measurements of CO 2 and CH 4 fluxes

15. Bare peat – CO 2 - 41 cm- 90 cm

16. Bare peat – CH 4 - 90 cm- 41 cm

17. 1 st succession peat – CO 2 - 22 cm - 7 cm - 22 cm

18. 1 st succession peat – CH 4 - 22 cm - 7 cm

19. Regenerating peat – CO 2 - 38 cm

20. Regenerating peat – CH 4 - 38 cm

21. III. Fungal community structure analysis by DGGE of ribosomal 18S and/or ITS sequences Preliminary data

22. Test DNA extractions for shipping methods * ** * p < 0.05

23. M + NT/S LN/S FD/S NT/P1 LN/P1 FD/P1 Sphagnum Low humification

25. + M NT/P2 LN/P2 FD/P2 NT/E LN/E FD/E + M Medium humification High humification

27. M + P2old P2new NT/M LN/M FD/M + + M PCR FD/P2 Milled surface

30. M + NT LN FD Regenerating S E

32. Fungal DGGE analysis shows significant differences in band patterns according to peat depth but: GELS CANNOT BE INTERCOMPARED (YET)

33. IV. Community level physiological profiling by MicroResp Preliminary data

34. ‘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)

35. 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

36. 75 mM glucose, varying bicarb

37. 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.

38. 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?

39. V. RECIPE WEBSITE Preliminary version available at http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/recipe Will go public soon …