Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2024, Vol. 16 Issue (6): 768-778    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-024-0017-z
Research article     
Extreme drought with seasonal timing consistently promotes CH4 uptake through inconsistent pathways in a temperate grassland, China
ZHANG Wenwen1,2, PAN Yue1, WEN Fuqi3, FU Juanjuan1, HAO Yanbin3, HU Tianming1, YANG Peizhi1,*()
1College of Grassland Agriculture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
2Binzhou Institute of Technology, Weiqiao-UCAS (University of Chinese Academy of Sciences) Science and Technology Park, Binzhou 256606, China
3College of Life Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Download: HTML     PDF(1099KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas that has a substantial impact on global warming due to its substantial influence on the greenhouse effect. Increasing extreme precipitation events, such as drought, attributable to global warming that caused by greenhouse gases, exert a profound impact on the intricate biological processes associated with CH4 uptake. Notably, the timing of extreme drought occurrence emerges as a pivotal factor influencing CH4 uptake, even when the degree of drought remains constant. However, it is still unclear how the growing season regulates the response of CH4 uptake to extreme drought. In an effort to bridge this knowledge gap, we conducted a field manipulative experiment to evaluate the impact of extreme drought on CH4 uptake during early, middle, and late growing stages in a temperate steppe of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China. The result showed that all extreme drought consistently exerted positive effects on CH4 uptake regardless of seasonal timing. However, the magnitude of this effect varied depending on the timing of season, as evidenced by a stronger effect in early growing stage than in middle and late growing stages. Besides, the pathways of CH4 uptake were different from seasonal timing. Extreme drought affected soil physical-chemical properties and aboveground biomass (AGB), consequently leading to changes in CH4 uptake. The structural equation model showed that drought both in the early and middle growing stages enhanced CH4 uptake due to reduced soil water content (SWC), leading to a decrease in NO3--N and an increase in pmoA abundance. However, drought in late growing stage primarily enhanced CH4 uptake only by decreasing SWC. Our results suggested that seasonal timing significantly contributed to regulate the impacts of extreme drought pathways and magnitudes on CH4 uptake. The findings can provide substantial implications for understanding how extreme droughts affect CH4 uptake and improve the prediction of potential ecological consequence under future climate change.

Key words： extreme climate      greenhouse gas      methane      methanotrophs      soil inorganic nitrogen     
Received: 05 March 2024      Published: 30 June 2024
Corresponding Authors: *YANG Peizhi (E-mail: yangpeizhi@126.com)
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
ZHANG Wenwen
PAN Yue
WEN Fuqi
FU Juanjuan
HAO Yanbin
HU Tianming
YANG Peizhi
Cite this article:

ZHANG Wenwen, PAN Yue, WEN Fuqi, FU Juanjuan, HAO Yanbin, HU Tianming, YANG Peizhi. Extreme drought with seasonal timing consistently promotes CH4 uptake through inconsistent pathways in a temperate grassland, China. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(6): 768-778.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-024-0017-z     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2024/V16/I6/768

Fig. 1 Variations in seasonal (a) and average (b) soil water content (SWC) under different drought treatments. Different lowercase letters in Figure 1b indicate significant differences among different treatments at P<0.05 level. Bars are standard errors. DE, DM, and DL are droughts in early, middle, and late growing stages, respectively. CK, control. The abbreviations are the same in the following figures.
Treatment SWC NH4+-N NO3--N
F P F P F P
DE 4.827 0.0370 8.272 0.0210 3.195 0.0410
DM 5.686 0.0250 0.113 0.7450 1.698 0.0300
DL 2.844 0.0700 1.471 0.2590 1.094 0.3260
Treatment AGB CH4 uptake pmoA
F P F P F P
DE 0.055 0.0550 6.292 0.0370 28.103 0.0410
DM 1.338 0.2820 7.455 0.0480 87.063 <0.0001
DL 7.345 0.0270 15.258 0.0400 45.627 0.0001
Table 1 Effects of drought in early, middle, and late growing stages on SWC, NH4+-N, NO3--N, AGB, CH4 uptake, and pmoA abundance
Fig. 2 Variations in NH4+-N (a), NO3--N (b), pmoA gene copy number (c), and AGB (d) under different drought treatments. AGB, aboveground biomass. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different treatments at P<0.05 level. Bars are standard errors.
Fig. 3 Seasonal dynamics (a) and mean (b) of CH4 uptake under different drought treatments. Different lowercase letters in Figure 3b indicate significant differences among different treatments at P<0.05 level. Bars are standard errors.
Fig. 4 CH4 uptake before, during, and after drought treatments. (a), drought in early growing stage; (b), drought in middle growing stage; (c), drought in late growing stage. * indicates significant differences between treatments at P<0.05 level. Bars are standard errors.
Regression equation R2 P SEDE SEDM
CH4 uptake=124.80+1.15SWC-0.98AGB+17.23DE+13.86DM 0.973 0.02 7.28 2.99
pmoA=3.25×107-1.72×106SWC+9.01×105AGB-1.82×107DE+3.27×107DM 0.989 0.02 1.42×107 1.10×107
Table 2 Multiple regression analyses of drought on CH4 uptake and pmoA abundance
Fig. 5 Structural equation model (SEM) showing effects of abiotic factors and biotic factors on CH4 uptake under drought in early (a), middle (b), and late (c) growing stages. Line with orange color indicates positive path coefficients, and line with green color indicates negative path coefficients. Solid and dashed lines represent significant and insignificant path coefficients, respectively. RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; CFI, comparative fit index. *, significant at P<0.05 level; **, significant at P<0.01 level.
[1]   Aronson E L, Dubinsky E A, Helliker B R. 2013. Effects of nitrogen addition on soil microbial diversity and methane cycling capacity depend on drainage conditions in a pine forest soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 62: 119-128.
[2]   Bender M, Conrad R. 1992. Kinetics of CH4 oxidation in oxic soils exposed to ambient air or high CH4 mixing ratios. Fems Microbiology Ecology, 101(4): 261-269.
[3]   Billings S A, Richter D D, Yarie J. 2000. Sensitivity of soil methane fluxes to reduced precipitation in boreal forest soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 32(10): 1431-1441.
[4]   Binkley D, Hart S C. 1989. The components of nitrogen availability assessments in forest soils. Soil Science, 10: 57-112.
[5]   Blankinship J C, Brown J R, Dijkstra P, et al. 2010. Response of terrestrial CH4 uptake to interactive changes in precipitation and temperature along a climatic gradient. Ecosystems, 13(8): 1157-1170.
[6]   Bodelier P L E, Laanbroek H J. 2004. Nitrogen as a regulatory factor of methane oxidation in soils and sediments. Fems Microbiology Ecology, 47(3): 265-277.
doi: 10.1016/S0168-6496(03)00304-0 pmid: 19712315
[7]   Bodelier P L E. 2011. Interactions between nitrogenous fertilizers and methane cycling in wetland and upland soils. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(5): 379-388.
[8]   Borken W, Brumme R, Xu Y J. 2000. Effects of prolonged soil drought on CH4 oxidation in a temperate spruce forest. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 105(D6): 7079-7088.
[9]   Bousquet P, Ciais P, Miller J B, et al. 2006. Contribution of anthropogenic and natural sources to atmospheric methane variability. Nature, 443(7110): 439-443.
[10]   Brechet L, Courtois E, Saint-Germain T, et al. 2019. Disentangling drought and nutrient effects on soil carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in a tropical forest. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 7: 180, doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00180.
[11]   Canarini A, Schmidt H, Fuchslueger L, et al. 2021. Ecological memory of recurrent drought modifies soil processes via changes in soil microbial community. Nature Communications, 12(1): 5308, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-25675-4.
[12]   Chamberlain S D, Hemes K S, Eichelmann E, et al. 2020. Effect of drought-induced salinization on wetland methane emissions, gross ecosystem productivity, and their interactions. Ecosystems, 23(3): 675-688.
[13]   Cregger M A, Mcdowell N G, Pangle R E, et al. 2014. The impact of precipitation change on nitrogen cycling in a semi-arid ecosystem. Functional Ecology, 28(6): 1534-1544.
[14]   Davidson E A, Nepstad D C, Ishida F Y, et al. 2008. Effects of an experimental drought and recovery on soil emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and nitric oxide in a moist tropical forest. Global Change Biology, 14(11): 2582-2590.
[15]   Deng L, Peng C H, Kim D, et al. 2021. Drought effects on soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics in global natural ecosystems. Earth-Science Reviews, 214: 103501, doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103501.
[16]   Dijkstra F A, Morgan J A, von Fischer J C, et al. 2011. Elevated CO2 and warming effects on CH4 uptake in a semi-arid grassland below optimum soil moisture. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 116(G1): G01007, doi: 10.1029/2010JG001288.
[17]   Dlugokencky E J, Nisbet E G, Fisher R, et al. 2011. Global atmospheric methane: budget, changes and dangers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369(1943): 2058-2072.
[18]   Dong Y S, Zhang S, Qi Y C, et al. 2020. Fluxes of CO2, N2O and CH4 from a typical temperate grassland in Inner Mongolia and its daily variation. Chinese Science Bulletin, 17(45): 1590-1594.
[19]   Dutaur L, Verchot L V. 2007. A global inventory of the soil CH4 sink. Global Biogeochem Cycles, 21(4): GB4013, doi: 10.1029/2006GB002734.
[20]   Easterling D R, Meehl G A, Parmesan C, et al. 2000. Climate extremes: observations, modeling, and impacts. Science, 289(5487): 2068-2074.
doi: 10.1126/science.289.5487.2068 pmid: 11000103
[21]   Fest B J, Wardlaw T, Livesley S J, et al. 2015. Changes in soil moisture drive soil methane uptake along a fire regeneration chronosequence in a eucalypt forest landscape. Global Change Biology, 21(11): 4250-4264.
doi: 10.1111/gcb.13003 pmid: 26087288
[22]   Heimann M. 2011. Enigma of the recent methane budget. Nature, 476(7359): 157-158.
[23]   Hiltbrunner D, Zimmermann S, Karbin S, et al. 2012. Increasing soil methane sink along a 120-year afforestation chronosequence is driven by soil moisture. Global Change Biology, 18(12): 3664-3671.
[24]   Hu G, Gao Q, Ganjurjav H, et al. 2021. The divergent impact of phenology change on the productivity of alpine grassland due to different timing of drought on the Tibetan Plateau. Land Degradation & Development, 32(14): 4033-4041.
[25]   IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2013. The physical science basis. In: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[26]   IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2021. Climate change 2021:The physical science basis. In: Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[27]   Kirschke S, Bousquet P, Ciais P, et al. 2013. Three decades of global methane sources and sinks. Nature Geoscience, 6: 813-823.
[28]   Knapp A K, Fay P A, Blair J M, et al. 2002. Rainfall variability, carbon cycling, and plant species diversity in a mesic grassland. Science, 298(5601): 2202-2205.
doi: 10.1126/science.1076347 pmid: 12481139
[29]   Knapp A K, Hoover D, Wilcox K, et al. 2014. Characterizing differences in precipitation regimes of extreme wet and dry years: Implications for regional to global scale experiments. Global Change Biology, 21(7): 2624-2633.
[30]   Kolb S, Knief C, Stubner S, et al. 2003. Quantitative detection of methanotrophs in soil by novel pmoA-targeted real-time PCR assays. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 69: 2423-2429.
[31]   Le M J, Roger P. 2001. Production, oxidation, emission and consumption of methane by soils: A review. European Journal of Soil Biology, 37(1): 25-50.
[32]   Lemoine N P, Griffin-Nolan R J, Lock A D, et al. 2018. Drought timing, not previous drought exposure, determines sensitivity of two shortgrass species to water stress. Oecologia, 188: 965-975.
doi: 10.1007/s00442-018-4265-5 pmid: 30269254
[33]   Li F, Yang G B, Peng Y F, et al. 2020. Warming effects on methane fluxes differ between two alpine grasslands with contrasting soil water status. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 290: 107988, doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.107988.
[34]   Li L F, Fan W Y, Kang X M, et al. 2016. Responses of greenhouse gas fluxes to climate extremes in a semiarid grassland. Atmospheric Environment, 142: 32-42.
[35]   Li X Y, Zuo X A, Yue P, et al. 2021. Drought of early time in growing season decreases community aboveground biomass, but increases belowground biomass in a desert steppe. BMC Ecology and Evolution, 21(1): 106, doi: 10.1186/s12862-021- 01842-5.
[36]   Liu X C, Qi Y C, Dong Y S, et al. 2014. Response of soil N2O emissions to precipitation pulses under different nitrogen availabilities in a semiarid temperate steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Arid Land, 6(4): 410-422.
[37]   Mao G R, Zhao J M, Zhu G, et al. 2024. Vegetation characteristics of herb communities on highway slopes of the Loess Plateau and their relationship with soil. Arid Zone Research, 41(5): 788-796. (in Chinese)
[38]   Mei M. 2018. Mechanism of soil methane flux response threshold to water in Inner Mongolia grassland under extreme drought. MSc Thesis. Beijing: University of Chinese Academy of Sciences. (in Chinese)
[39]   Ni X Y, Liao S, Wu F Z, et al. 2019. Short-term precipitation pulses stimulate soil CO2 emission but do not alter CH4 and N2O fluxes in a northern hardwood forest. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 130: 8-11.
[40]   Sabrekov A, Semenov M, Irina T K, et al. 2019. The Link between soil methane oxidation rate and abundance of methanotrophs estimated by quantitative PCR. Mikrobiologiia, 89(2): 189-199.
[41]   Shukla P N, Pandey K D, Mishra V K. 2013. Environmental determinants of soil methane oxidation and methanotrophs. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 43(18): 1945-2011.
[42]   Song J, Liu W, Zhao Z, et al. 2001. Effects of desiccation of soil samples on easily mineralizing nitrogen. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2(7): 183-188.
[43]   Tentori E F, Richardson R E. 2020. Methane monooxygenase gene transcripts as quantitative biomarkers of methanotrophic activity in Methylosinus trichosporium OB3b. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 86: e01048-20, doi: 10.1128/AEM.01048-20.
[44]   Tian Z, Niu Y L, Tu X M, et al. 2014. Simulation of the methane emission in rice fields in China during the past 40 years by DNDC model and GIS technical. In: 3rd International Conference on Agro-Geoinformatics. Beijing: Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 1-5. (in Chinese)
[45]   van den Pol-Van Dasselaar A, van Beusichem M L, Oenema O. 1998. Effects of soil moisture content and temperature on methane uptake by grasslands on sandy soils. Plant and Soil, 204(2): 213-222.
[46]   Wu H H, Fu C S, Wu H W, et al. 2020. Influence of the dry event induced hydraulic redistribution on water and carbon cycles at five AsiaFlux forest sites: A site study combining measurements and modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 587: 124979, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124979.
[47]   Xu F, Qu Y P, Bento V A, et al. 2024. Understanding climate change impacts on drought in China over the 21st century: A multi-model assessment from CMIP6. NPJ Climate and Atmospheric Science, 7(1): 32, doi: 10.1038/s41612-024-00578-5.
[48]   Xu X F, Elias D A, Graham D E, et al. 2015. A microbial functional group-based module for simulating methane production and consumption: Application to an incubated permafrost soil. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 120(7): 1315-1333.
[49]   Yarwood S. 2018. The role of wetland microorganisms in plant-litter decomposition and soil organic matter formation: A critical review. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 94(11): fiy175, doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiy175.
[50]   Yu L F, Wang Y H, Zhang X S, et al. 2017. Phosphorus addition mitigates N2O and CH4 emissions in N-saturated subtropical forest, SW China. Biogeosciences, 14(12): 3097-3109.
[51]   Yue P, Zuo X A, Li K H, et al. 2021. Responses of ecosystem respiration, methane uptake and nitrous oxide emission to drought in a temperate desert steppe. Plant and Soil, 469(1): 409-421.
[52]   Zhang W Z, Sheng R, Zhang M M, et al. 2018. Effects of continuous manure application on methanogenic and methanotrophic communities and methane production potentials in rice paddy soil. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 258: 121-128.
[53]   Zhang Z H, Wang G S, Wang H, et al. 2021. Warming and drought increase but wetness reduces the net sink of CH4 in alpine meadow on the Tibetan Plateau. Applied Soil Ecology, 167: 104061, doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.104061.
[54]   Zheng Y L, Hou L J, Chen F Y, et al. 2020. Denitrifying anaerobic methane oxidation in intertidal marsh soils: Occurrence and environmental significance. Geoderma, 357: 113943, doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.113943.
[55]   Zheng Z Z, Wen F Q, Li C, et al. 2023. Methane uptake responses to heavy rainfalls co-regulated by seasonal timing and plant composition in a semiarid grassland. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 11: 1149595, doi: 10.3389/fevo.2023.1149595.
[56]   Zheng Z Z, Wen F Q, Biederman J A, et al. 2024. Methane uptake responses to extreme droughts regulated by seasonal timing and plant composition. Catena, 237: 107822, doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2024.107822.
[57]   Zhou S, Williams A P, Lintner B R, et al. 2022. Diminishing seasonality of subtropical water availability in a warmer world dominated by soil moisture-atmosphere feedbacks. Nature Communications, 13: 5756, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33473-9.
pmid: 36180427
[58]   Zhou X Q, Smaill S J, Clinton P W. 2013. Methane oxidation needs less stressed plants. Trends in Plant Science, 18(12): 657-659.
doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2013.09.011 pmid: 24161402
[1] WANG Bo, LI Yuwei, BAO Yuhai. Grazing alters sandy soil greenhouse gas emissions in a sand-binding area of the Hobq Desert, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(5): 576-588.
[2] Yunxiao BAI, Xiaobing LI, Wanyu WEN, Xue MI, Ruihua LI, Qi HUANG, Meng ZHANG. CO2, CH4 and N2O flux changes in degraded grassland soil of Inner Mongolia, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2018, 10(3): 347-361.
[3] HASSOUMA Mohamed, SER?A Dominique, GUéRIN Frédéric, BLANFORT Vincent, LECOMTE Philippe, TOURé Ibra, ICKOWICZ Alexandre, J MANLAY Rapha?l, BERNOUX Martial, VAYSSIèRES Jonathan. Livestock induces strong spatial heterogeneity of soil CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions within a semi-arid sylvo-pastoral landscape in West Africa[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2017, 9(2): 210-221.
[4] Qiang HUANG, Qiang ZHANG, Nazim CICEK, Danny MANN. Biofilter: a promising tool for mitigating methane emission from manure storage[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2011, 3(1): 61-70.