the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Influence of Carbon Source and Iron Oxide Minerals on Methane Production and Magnetic Mineral Formation in Salt Marsh Sediments
Abstract. Salt marshes can emit significant methane to the atmosphere, but these emissions are highly variable and not well-predicted by sulfate concentrations. The cause of this variability is unclear, but one hypothesis is that rather than being outcompeted where sulfate is present, salt marsh methanogens use carbon substrates that sulfate reducers do not. In low-salinity wetlands, crystalline iron minerals have also been found to facilitate increased methane production, but this has not been explored in salt marshes. This study documents how different organic carbon sources (monomethylamine and ethanol) and Fe(III) minerals (ferrihydrite, magnetite or hematite) influence methane production by microbial communities from a polyhaline tidal marsh creek in the Great Marsh Preserve, DE, USA. Carbon source was the major influence on methane production and microbial community composition at the end of microcosm incubations. Microcosms amended with monomethylamine produced more methane than those with ethanol. The highest methane production rates were in microcosms with both monomethylamine and magnetite or hematite amendments. Less methane was produced with monomethylamine and ferrihydrite, a non-conductive iron oxide, and without iron supplementation. This increased methane production in the presence of (semi)conductive iron minerals could indicate that interspecies electron transfer was active in some of our treatments. Instead of the more commonly described syntrophic partners, however, this interaction appears to be between methylotrophic methanogens belonging to Methanococcoides and an unidentified iron reducing bacterial group, possibly Ca. Omnitrophus. Much less measured methane overall was measured with ethanol amendment and there was no discernible effect of iron treatment. A small proportion of anaerobic methane oxidizers was detected in ethanol-amended incubations, which suggests cryptic methane cycling may have occurred, however. Although some iron reduction and Fe2+ production was observed in all treatments, significant transformation of ferrihydrite to magnetite was observed only with ethanol amendment. If such microbially-mediated magnetite formation occurs in salt marsh sediment, our observations indicate that the resulting magnetite could enhance methane production by methylotrophic methanogens. This study highlights the importance of methylated compounds such as those released to sediments by Spartina grasses to salt marsh methane production as well as the potential importance of iron mineral composition for predicting methane production and iron reduction rates.
- Preprint
(2128 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 26 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-822', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Apr 2025
reply
The manuscript written by Block et al., investigated the response of microbial communities and geochemistry in salt marsh sediments that were exposed to a combination of added carbon substrates (i.e., mono-methylamine (MMA) and ethanol) and various iron (III) bearing minerals. The authors did this by preparing a sediment slurry with salt marsh sediments and sulfate-free artificial seawater which was transferred into replicate microcosms and added the various combinations of carbon substrate and iron bearing minerals. The authors tracked the production of methane and changes in the iron bearing minerals over time, as well as, compared the bacterial and archaeal communities between treatments. The authors found that MMA along with magnetite or hematite led to the highest amount of methane production from the salt marsh sediment slurry, suggesting that the presence of MMA and iron bearing minerals enhances methane production. Whereas incubations amended with ethanol yielded less methane than the microcosms treated with MMA, however, transformation of hematite to magnetite was observed. The authors also found genomic evidence of anaerobic methanotrophs and hinted at potential cryptic methane cycling. The main conclusion the authors make is that salt marsh sediment that contain microbially-mediated magnetite could enhance methane production by methylotrophic methanogenesis.
Generally, the paper is well written, albeit a few areas that need some clarification for better readability (see inline comments). The study and findings are of interest to the field as the authors point out, the role of iron bearing minerals in methane dynamics in salt marshes are not well studied. However, there are some issues that should be addressed before publication (see in-line comments below). Most notably, I think the authors need to be cautious with the sequencing data. Since the study presented sequences at the start and end of the incubations, comparisons and linkages to explain the geochemical trends (i.e., methane production) is limited to the geochemical trends at the start and end. For example, in the discussion, the authors discuss the low abundances of methylotrophic methanogenesis at the end of the incubations despite the higher methane production rates that were calculated. However, figure 3 shows that the methane production rates are low or below detection by the end of the incubations. I suggest the authors focus the discussion to the bounds of the what the dataset can provide.
In-line comments:
L:45: I would also cite here a recent publication.
Liu, Jiarui, et al. "Iron oxides fuel anaerobic oxidation of methane in the presence of sulfate in hypersaline coastal wetland sediment." Environmental Science & Technology 59.1 (2024): 513-522.
L59: Sulfate-reducing bacteria
L61-62: Salt marshes is plural but only one study is mentioned. Are there other studies to cite?
L129: What do the authors mean by “conservatively discarded”? I think the words “conservatively” should be removed. Which soluble oxidants are the authors concerned with here?
L130: Can you please provide the details of the plastic bag?
L150: How long did the batch incubations last?
L152: Can you expand a bit on how the sediment was recovered by centrifugation? Why was the supernatant discarded?
L160: Please provide details on standards for methane determinations.
L208-209: I can’t quite follow this sentence, perhaps it’s my lack of experience with CV but the sentence could be clearer.
L215-220: I think these few sentences are more discussion points. I would suggest moving to the discussion
L219-220: I am a little confused by the last sentence in this section. What microcosms are the authors referring to?
L221: So the “microcosmos” are the incubation bottles? I suggest picking nomenclature and stay consistent throughout. These types of incubations you describe are also call batch incubations by some.
L228-229: There is something wrong with this sentence. Please clarify.
L232: I seem to be missing how the methane production rates were calculated? According to the methods methane development was only measured in the headspace of the incubation vials. Although this isn’t wrong, it doesn’t account for the methane that is still in the sediment slurry. Are the rates reported here taking that portion of methane still in the slurry. This maybe small compared to the headspace but one could be underestimating the methane production rates. This should be clearly stated in the methods and also discussed.
L236-237: I don’t see peaks at 25 hrs. I see peaks at just after 20 hrs and what I am assuming to be 27hrs.
L240: Wouldn’t it make more sense to either move the result text of the iron (II) production to the previous section (i.e., section 3.1)?
L347: This paragraph has a lot of text that might be more suitable in the discussion. I would consider to move discussion like sentences to the discussion for better readability.
L339: Genomics is a little bit out of my wheelhouse; however, it is not totally clear to me what the difference is between figure 5 and 6. I understand that figure 6 looks at the archaea and bacteria separately and figure 5 looks at selected archaea and bacteria. And both look at their connection with the added organics and minerals. Is there a reason why a cluster dendrogram is not applied to figure 6 to be more comprehensive and potentially link other groups that are impacted by the addition of the carbon and mineral substrates? For example, genus Canidatus Omnitrophus seems to be very dominant in the presence of MMA and Syntrophotalea in the presence of ethanol but these are not in Figure 5. I realize that the groups in figure 5 are at the family level and the groups in figure 6 are at the genus level so the groups I pointed out may fall in one of the families. Again, this is beyond my expertise but perhaps it would be worthwhile the authors add a sentence or two to be clear what each of these figures are trying to show, so that readers that are not experts in genomics can follow along better.
L368-370: I don’t discount this interpretation, however, is there any evidence in the authors data to support this claim (i.e., the methane production rates)? It is kind of shocking that the authors amended the sediments with 20 mM mono-methylamine, which is considerably higher than what has been previously reported from salt marsh porewaters and yet the genetic abundances of known methylotrophic methanogens are pretty low. The methane production rates in figure 3 also show that methane production was low by the end of the incubation. Is it possible that by then the MMA was mostly consumed and thus lower methane production rates and a shift in the microbial communities to have less methanogens? Do the authors have any sequencing data from the 10 hr timepoint where methane production rates were the highest according to figure 3? It would be interesting to see what the methanogenic communities look like then compared to later in the incubation. I suggest the authors be cautious with their 16S data since it appears the data reflects the communities at the beginning of the incubation and at the end.
L374-376: Something is off with the structure of this sentence.
L390: Are there other more recent citations that could be added here to have a more balanced reference list?
L395-403: I think the authors could connect more of the archaeal data here with the literature review to make the connects between ethanol degradation, acetogenesis and methanogenesis. For example, making connections between the knowledge of the relationship of Methanococcus and ethanol fermenters could be better connected with the findings in the 16S data.
L407-409: I am not sure I understand what this sentence is talking about. How did Methanosarcina succeed in the EtOH incubations?
L411-413: What evidence do the authors have to suggest this potential relationship between Methanosarcina and Anaerolineaceae? Is there literature that supports this claim? Why not other methanogenic groups?
L415-429: There are a few issues in this paragraph that should be clarified here. Firstly, I do not see the presence of ANME-3 in either Figure 5 or 6, so how do we know this group was actually detected? I do not doubt that the presence of sulfide oxidizers in the 16S indicates sulfide oxidation, but without other geochemical data, at best it is only a suggestion that sulfide oxidation is active as 16S does not provide evidence of metabolic activity. Not to mention, sulfide oxidation needs electron acceptors like oxygen or nitrate, are there indications that these incubations got exposed to oxygen or was there a source of nitrate that was added? These would be crucial for sulfur cycling. Additionally, since the incubations used sulfate-free artificial seawater the sulfate in the incubations would be diluted by at least 60% because two-thirds of the slurry was sulfate-free artificial seawater which could conceivably impact the sulfate-reducers, especially in a closed system.
I suggest here the authors tone down the language of these interpretations given the evidence presented. I still get a taste of what the authors are talking about with “complex web of interspecies interactions”, however, I think the evidence here is speculative without other parameters. This could be a good place to mention what future investigations should target to get a better understanding of the interactions.
L417: Non-competitive substrates such as MMA directly fuel the cryptic methane cycle, not EtOH. If EtOH is fueling the cryptic methane cycle that is a new finding. Could the “underestimated methane production rates” be because of the calculations of the rates? The measurements were taken from the headspace but do the rates include what methane is still in the slurry? Additionally, could the underestimated rates be because the EtOH was depleted or consumed by other organisms?
L480: Iron-reducing bacteria needs the hyphen.
L482-485: I find this sentence about the lack of magnetite found in the MMA incubations confusing. The title of this section suggests a discussion on the magnetite formation in the Ethanol incubation. I recommend the authors focus this section more on what’s going on in the incubations with ethanol for better readability.
L489: It is interesting that the typical iron-reducing bacteria were not found in your analysis. Though I do see the presence of sulfate-reducing bacteria in the 16S analysis. There is literature out there that have shown sulfate-reducing bacteria can also perform iron-reduction. Have the authors considered that sulfate-reducers are implicated with iron cycling in your incubations?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-822-RC1
Data sets
NCBI BioProject ID PRJNA1200716 Kaleigh R. Block et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA1200716/
Model code and software
Block et al Manuscript Markdowns Kaleigh R. Block et al. https://hansonlabgit.dbi.udel.edu/hanson/block_et_al_manuscript
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
118 | 34 | 6 | 158 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 118
- PDF: 34
- XML: 6
- Total: 158
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 76 | 49 |
Russia | 2 | 16 | 10 |
China | 3 | 12 | 7 |
Germany | 4 | 8 | 5 |
undefined | 5 | 8 | 5 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 76