Cited by 79Climate change and permafrostPeatlands and Wetlands EcologySoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics

Methane suppression by iron and humic acids in soils of the Arctic Coastal Plain

Miller, Kimberley E., Lai, Chun-Ta, Friedman, Elliot S., Angenent, Largus T., Lipson, David A.·2015·Soil Biology and Biochemistry

Abstract

Methane–climate interactions are reasonably well understood; the biogeochemical controls on net methane fluxes are less so. Within anoxic soils, alternative electron acceptors such as iron and humic substances influence microbial metabolic function, and thus affect the amount of carbon lost as methane (CH4). We present three years of data from wet sedge tundra landscapes near Barrow, Alaska that show an inverse relationship between dissolved iron and CH4 concentrations. We found increasing organic layer thickness related to increases in active layer organic matter content, and decreases in both bulk density and extractable iron. Organic layer depth was also a good proxy for carbon dioxide (CO2) and CH4 dynamics, with increasing organic layer depths relating to lower dissolved iron, higher amounts of dissolved CH4, and lower CO2:CH4 ratios in the upper active layer. Net CH4 fluxes were also significantly suppressed following the experimental addition of iron and humic acids. Iron and humic acid treatment effects were indistinguishable for CH4 net flux; in contrast, post-treatment CH4 fluxes were an average of 0.74-fold the control treatment flux rates. These results suggest that in-situ CH4 production is tied to alternative electron acceptor availability, and that organic layer thickness is a good predictor of biogeochemical controls on CH4 fluxes in wet-sedge Arctic Alaskan tundra.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.01.022

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miller, K. E., Lai, C.-T., Friedman, E. S., Angenent, L. T., & Lipson, D. A.
Affiliations
  • San Diego State University (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, Kimberley E.
Venue
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
83
Pages
176-183
ISSN
0038-0717 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2095174654
Cited by
79
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
5.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Soil Biology and Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
Funders
NSF (0808604)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Climate change and permafrost
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Peatlands and Wetlands Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Keywords
methane flux, dissolved iron, humic acid, alternative electron acceptors, wet sedge tundra, Arctic Coastal Plain, organic layer thickness, active layer, CO2/CH4 ratio, methane suppression, methane production, soil carbon dynamics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review