Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Methane 1
Methane 1
MiniReview
Received 28 May 1998; received in revised form 29 July 1998; accepted 27 August 1998
Abstract
Hydrogen is, with acetate, one of the most important intermediates in the methanogenic degradation of organic matter and
serves as substrate for methanogenic archaea. Hydrogen should theoretically account for 33% of total methanogenesis when
carbohydrates or similar forms of organic matter are degraded. Many methanogenic environments show both much lower and
much higher contributions of H2 to CH4 production than is considered normal. While the lower contributions are relatively
easily explained (e.g. by the contribution of homoacetogenesis), the mechanisms behind higher contributions are mostly
unclear. In methanogenic environments H2 is rapidly turned over, its concentration being the result of simultaneous production
by fermenting plus syntrophic bacteria and consumption by methanogenic archaea. The steady-state concentration observed in
most methanogenic environments is close to the thermodynamic equilibrium of H2 -dependent methanogenesis. The threshold
is usually equivalent to a Gibbs free energy of 323 kJ mol31 CH4 that is necessary to couple CH4 production to the generation
of 1/3 ATP. Methanogenesis from H2 is inhibited if the H2 concentration decreases below this threshold. Concentrations of H2
can only be decreased below this threshold if a H2 -consuming reaction with a lower H2 threshold (e.g. sulfate reduction) takes
over at a rate that is equal to or higher than that of methanogenesis. The instantaneous and complete inhibition of H2 -
dependent CH4 production that is often observed upon addition of sulfate can only be explained if a comparably high sulfate
reduction potential is cryptically present in the methanogenic environment. z 1999 Federation of European Microbiological
Societies. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords : H2 ; CH4 ; Acetate; Fermentation ; Syntrophy; Methanogenesis; Homoacetogenesis; Threshold; Gibbs free energy; Km
0168-6496 / 99 / $20.00 ß 1999 Federation of European Microbiological Societies. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 8 - 6 4 9 6 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 8 6 - 5
dation of alcohols and fatty acids is usually accom- formate may replace H2 in many of the processes
plished by syntrophy between H2 -producing syntro- [6] which, however, should have no consequences
phic bacteria and H2 -consuming methanogenic ar- for the principal conclusions.
chaea [5].
In this MiniReview I will address the following
two questions. (1) What is the percentage contribu- 2. Contribution of H2 to methanogenesis
tion of H2 to the production of CH4 ? (2) How is the
H2 concentration and methanogenesis controlled by Hydrogen is a product of the anaerobic degrada-
competition? I do not address the possibility that tion of organic matter by fermenting and syntrophic
bacteria. The most abundant source of dead organic bacteria to acetate which then serves as substrate for
matter in natural environments is usually plant ma- acetotrophic methanogens converting it to CH4 and
terial consisting of lignin and polysaccharides. Some CO2 (Fig. 1).
aquatic sediments receive a large input of dead crus- Using the degradation of glucose as an example,
taceans consisting of chitin. Lignin is largely recalci- most of the standard Gibbs free energy content is
trant under anaerobic conditions [7], but methanol utilized during the ¢rst stage, i.e. the fermentation
may be released from the methoxy groups and thus to alcohols and fatty acids (Figs. 1 and 2; Table
may support methanogenesis to a limited extent. In 1). The next stage, i.e. the syntrophic degradation
general, however, we may assume that the anaerobic of alcohols and fatty acids to acetate and H2 , is
degradation process is largely driven by carbohy- usually endergonic under standard conditions (Table
drates as the dominant substrate. This assumption 1) and is only possible when combined with H2 -con-
is valid for aquatic sediments, peat, other wetlands, suming methanogenesis. Less than half of the Gibbs
ruminants, arthropods feeding on plant material, free energy content of glucose is available for the
and for many types of sewage sludge. syntrophic degradation of the alcohols and fatty
The anaerobic degradation pathway of dead or- acids to CH4 and CO2 (Fig. 2; Table 2) and this
ganic matter is in principle well known [1]. Di¡erent energy has to be shared among the syntrophs and
groups of microorganisms participate in the degra- the methanogens. Only if the fermentation step is
dation which basically proceeds in three steps. (1) homoacetogenesis (reaction 1.5), the residual free en-
Fermenting bacteria excrete enzymes that hydrolyze ergy (about a quarter of the total) is exclusively
organic polymers (e.g. polysaccharides) and catabo- available for acetotrophic methanogenesis (Fig. 2).
lize the resulting monomers to alcohols, fatty acids In fact, there is no thermodynamic reason why ho-
and H2 . (2) Syntrophic bacteria further degrade the moacetogenic degradation of carbohydrates coupled
alcohols and fatty acids to acetate, H2 (alternatively to acetotrophic methanogenesis should not be a ma-
formate) and CO2 . (3) Acetate and H2 (alternatively jor pathway in anoxic environments. At the moment,
formate) plus CO2 ¢nally serve as substrates for however, the role of homoacetogenesis in methano-
methanogens. Alternatively, many of the monomers genic environments is unclear.
(e.g. sugars) can be catabolized by homoacetogenic Hydrogen can be produced in the ¢rst fermenta-
Table 1
Standard Gibbs free energies (vG³P) of de¢ned stages in the degradation of glucose to CH4 (calculated after [38] using CO2 in gaseous
state)
# Reaction vG³P (kJ mol31 substrate)
Fermentation
1.1 C6 H12 O6 C2 CH3 CHOHCOOH 3198.1
1.2 C6 H12 O6 C2 CH3 CH2 OH+2 CO2 3235.0
1.3 C6 H12 O6 C2/3 CH3 CH2 CH2 COOH+2/3 CH3 COOH+2 CO2 +8/3 H2 3248.0
1.4 C6 H12 O6 C4/3 CH3 CH2 COOH+2/3 CH3 COOH+2/3 CO2 +2/3 H2 O 3311.4
1.5 C6 H12 O6 C3 CH3 COOH 3311.2
Syntrophy
2.1 CH3 CHOHCOOH+H2 OCCH3 COOH+CO2 +2 H2 348.7
2.2 CH3 CH2 OHCCH3 COOH+2 H2 +9.6
2.3 CH3 CH2 CH2 COOH+2 H2 OC2 CH3 COOH+2 H2 +48.3
2.4 CH3 CH2 COOH+2 H2 OCCH3 COOH+CO2 +3 H2 +31.8
1-2 C6 H12 O6 +2 H2 OC2 CH3 COOH+2 CO2 +4 H2 3216.1
Hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis
3 4 H2 +CO2 C2 H2 O+CH4 332.7
1-3 C6 H12 O6 C2 CH3 COOH+CO2 +CH4 3346.8
Acetotrophic methanogenesis
4 CH3 COOHCCO2 +CH4 335.6
1-4 C6 H12 O6 C3 CO2 +3 CH4 3418.1
Table 3
Gibbs free energies of H2 -dependent methanogenesis under steady-state conditions in various environments and at the threshold of H2
consumption in methanogens
Methanogenic system 3vG (kJ mol31 CH4 ) Reference
Sewage sludge 28^32 [2,48]
Lake Mendota; Knaack Lake 27^35 [2]
Wetwood 42 [2]
Canal with detritus and leaves 8^18 [30]
Alder swamp 12^19 [30]
Littoral sediment, Lake Constance 33^39 [49]
Profundal sediment, Lake Constance 23^34 [12]
Upland soils turned methanogenic 25^50 [50]
Italian rice ¢eld soil 24^38 [13]
Methanobacterium bryantii 29^37 [27,28]
Other methanogenic archaea 29^50 [27,28]
(with Wmax = maximum growth rate; Ks = H2 concen- The threshold concept of anaerobic H2 utilization
tration at Wmax /2). Since assumes that there is a certain H2 concentration be-
low which utilization is no longer possible because of
umax Xvmax
4
thermodynamic constraints. Theoretically, the H2
(with vmax = speci¢c maximum H2 utilization rate), threshold should be given by the conditions at which
this adaptation will return the H2 concentration to reactants and products are in thermodynamic equi-
the original value that existed before the increase of librium (vG = 0). Thus, the H2 threshold should be
H2 production. In other words, the H2 steady-state de¢ned by the equilibrium constant (K):
concentration is basically under the control of the H2
K exp
3vG o =RT
5
utilizers and their kinetic characteristics [18].
The parameters Wmax , vmax , Ks and Km are speci¢c For example, the H2 threshold partial pressure (pH2 )
for a given microorganism. Thus, it has been pro- of H2 -dependent methanogenesis is given by the
posed that the parameters of competing H2 utilizers equilibrium constant and the partial pressures of
should determine which organism ¢nally wins CO2 and CH4 :
the competition. Indeed, it was shown that sulfate
reducers utilize H2 faster than methanogens pH2 pCH4 =
pCO2 K1=4
6
because of their lower Km [19]. Similarly, it was
shown that sulfate reducers have a lower Ks (H2 Indeed, it has been found that H2 thresholds for
concentration at half-maximum growth rate W) various anaerobic H2 -utilizing reactions and bacteria
than methanogens and thus are able to outgrow decrease with decreasing vG³ (increasing K) of the
the latter [19]. H2 -utilizing reaction [21,26,28]. In reality, however,
Indeed, it has repeatedly been demonstrated that the H2 thresholds were found to be slightly higher
H2 -dependent CH4 production is inhibited in the than those indicated by the equilibrium constant
presence of sulfate [19,20]. This inhibition has usu- [27,28]. Obviously, H2 utilization stops at a value
ally been explained by the more e¤cient H2 utiliza- which still allows for a small negative Gibbs free
tion kinetics in sulfate reducers than in methanogens. energy, the critical Gibbs free energy (vGc ). This
However, this model provides no explanation of why critical value is probably explained by the coupling
the resident methanogens should not continue H2 to the energy-generating system of the cell which has
utilization, albeit at a reduced rate. Complete inhib- a threshold of about 1/3 ATP or approximately 323
ition can only be achieved after the methanogenic kJ mol31 of the energy-generating reaction [5]. Inter-
population has been outgrown by the sulfate reduc- estingly, the values of vGc increase (less negative) in
ers [19,20]. Thus, methanogenic populations may be the order sulfate reducers s methanogens s homo-
replaced by sulfate reducers, iron reducers or nitrate acetogens, indicating that sulfate reducers need
reducers in systems that have been exposed to sul- more free energy than homoacetogens to allow H2
fate, Fe(III) or nitrate for a long time, e.g. aquatic utilization [28].
sediments or aquifers. These environments are Reaction kinetics close to the thermodynamic
largely in steady state with respect to concentrations equilibrium become increasingly reversible. There-
of sulfate, Fe(III) and nitrate and consequently ex- fore, they are not well described by Michaelis-Men-
hibit H2 concentrations that are characteristic for ten kinetics which are based on irreversible reactions.
methanogenesis, sulfate reduction, iron reduction, Hoh and Cord-Ruwisch [29] recently modi¢ed the
etc. [21]. However, the kinetic model does not pro- Michaelis-Menten model. Their equilibrium model
vide an explanation for the instantaneous and com- takes into account the relative di¡erence of the ac-
plete inhibition of H2 -dependent CH4 production tual H2 concentration to that at the thermodynamic
that has been observed in some methanogenic envi- equilibrium by amending the Michaelis-Menten
ronments upon addition of sulfate [22^24]. An alter- equation with the term y/K:
native model, one which incorporates a threshold
u umax C
13y=K=Km C
1 y=K
7
concept, on the other hand, does provide such an
explanation [21,25^27]. with y = 2 (actual concentration of products)/2 (ac-
tual concentration of reactants), and K = 2 (concen- conditions (dC/dt = 0) would change from the meth-
tration of products at equilibrium)/2 (concentration anogenic H2 utilization:
of reactants at equilibrium).
p um
8
Thus, y is equivalent to the equilibrium constant,
but uses the actual concentrations instead of the con- to the simultaneous utilization by methanogenesis
centrations at thermodynamic equilibrium. The au- and sulfate reduction:
thors were able to show that their model ¢tted ex-
p 6 um us
9
perimental data well for both H2 -producing
reactions (e.g. propionate degradation by syntrophs) and the steady-state H2 concentration would conse-
and H2 -utilizing reactions (e.g. homoacetogenesis quently decrease below the threshold of the metha-
and methanogenesis) [29]. An important result of nogens, so that CH4 production would stop. Now,
this modeling approach is that the H2 conversion the H2 production would have to be balanced by the
rates at environmentally relevant H2 concentrations sulfate reducers (us alone). Such a balance is only
are much more sensitive to the thermodynamic con- possible if the instantaneous potential of H2 -depend-
ditions in the environment (i.e. y/K) than to the ki- ent sulfate reduction is equal to or higher than that
netic parameters of the microorganisms (i.e., vmax of H2 -dependent methanogenesis (us v um ). If this is
and Km ). This response is because the H2 concentra- not the case, then p s us , and consequently, H2 con-
tions are much closer to the thermodynamic equi- centrations will increase again until H2 -dependent
librium than to the microbial Km values. The model methanogenesis resumes and balances H2 produc-
of Hoh and Cord-Ruwisch [29] may be further im- tion. Then the same cycle would repeat itself. Macro-
proved by using y/Kc instead of y/K, where Kc is the scopically, this chain of events should result in a
equilibrium constant based on vGc rather than vG³ partial but instantaneous inhibition of methanogen-
to account for the fact that H2 utilization (also H2 esis without any concomitant decrease of the H2
production) stops short of the thermodynamic equi- concentration. Only much later, the population of
librium. the sulfate reducers would have eventually grown
In contrast to the Michaelis-Menten model, the up. Increasing X of sulfate reducers would result in
threshold concept easily explains why a H2 -utilizing increasing us (Eqs. 3 and 4) until us = p, then also
process is rapidly and completely outcompeted when resulting in decreasing H2 concentrations until a
another process with a lower threshold becomes new steady state characteristic of sulfate reducers
possible. As soon as the H2 concentration decreases would be attained.
below the threshold for a process, activity stops. One example which may ¢t this pattern is that
Measurements in methanogenic environments indi- of sediment of Lake Mendota where 2 days of in-
cate that in situ H2 concentrations correspond to cubation were required for a decrease of the H2 con-
vG values of approximately 323 kJ mol31 CH4 , centration although the partial inhibition of H2 -
i.e. equivalent to the energetic threshold of 1/3 dependent methanogenesis was immediate [31].
ATP, or less (Table 3). Only one study found vG Methanogenic rice ¢eld soil, on the other hand, on
values that were much higher than 320 kJ mol31 sulfate addition shows an instantaneous and com-
CH4 [30]. In many cases, H2 -dependent methanogen- plete inhibition of H2 -dependent methanogenesis
esis obviously operates at its thermodynamic thresh- with concomitant decrease of the H2 concentration
old. If we assume that the steady-state concentration to values that are thermodynamically no longer per-
of H2 in methanogenic environments is identical to missive for methanogens (Fig. 3). Similar results
the H2 threshold of the resident methanogenic £ora, have also been obtained with Lake Wintergreen sedi-
then we can consider what would happen if a second ment [22]. The instantaneous and rapid decrease of
H2 utilization process becomes active, e.g. H2 -de- H2 concentration indicates that the potential for H2 -
pendent sulfate reduction after addition of sulfate. dependent sulfate reduction must be as high as that
Let the rates of methanogenic and sulfate-reducing of CH4 production.
H2 utilization be um and us . Then, the steady-state Plentiful evidence indicates that most H2 -depend-
ent methanogenesis operates in microbial aggregates occasionally been applied to acetate utilization but
in which H2 producers are juxtaposed to H2 consum- less rigorously than in the case of H2 . Methanogens
ers [3,4]. It has been proposed that sulfate reducers have dramatically di¡erent thresholds for acetate due
may act as syntrophic H2 producers in the absence of to di¡erent activation mechanisms. Thus, Methano-
sulfate, e.g. during syntrophic degradation of lactate, sarcina species, which activate acetate (input of 1
ethanol or propionate [31]. The syntrophic propio- ATP) with an acetate kinase, have a much higher
nate oxidizers that have so far been isolated are all threshold (0.2^1.2 mM) for acetate than Methanosae-
able to reduce sulfate (e.g. [32]). Addition of sulfate ta species (7^70 WM), which activate acetate (input of
would switch these bacteria from acting as syntrophs 2 ATP) with an acetyl-CoA synthetase [37]. If the
to acting as sulfate reducers, stop the production of acetate steady-state concentration observed in meth-
H2 , and starve the juxtaposed methanogens. Also, anogenic environments is equivalent to the threshold
H2 concentrations would decrease where H2 produc- of the resident methanogenic population, then inhib-
tion by sulfate reducers was one of the main H2 ition of methanogenesis upon addition of sulfate,
sources. Interestingly, circumstantial evidence indi- iron or nitrate does not necessarily require an instan-
cates that sulfate reducers may indeed be involved taneous decrease of the acetate concentration (see
in the syntrophic propionate degradation in metha- conjecture above). Indeed, in experiments with an-
nogenic rice ¢eld soils [33], where a rapid decrease of oxic rice ¢eld soil, such a decrease has not been
H2 concentrations has been observed upon addition observed, although acetate-dependent CH4 produc-
of sulfate. tion was inhibited [24,34]. The observed inhibition
Analogously to addition of sulfate, addition of would be consistent with an acetate-utilizing poten-
ferrihydrite or nitrate should also inhibit methano- tial of the sulfate, iron and nitrate utilizers that is
genesis by competition for H2 . Indeed, H2 concen- lower than that of the acetate-utilizing methanogens.
trations decrease and CH4 production is inhibited More research is needed to con¢rm this possible con-
when ferrihydrite or nitrate are added to methano- clusion.
genic rice ¢eld soil [23,34]. However, the microbes
utilizing Fe(III) or nitrate as electron acceptors prob-
ably compete not only for H2 and acetate, but also Acknowledgments
for fermentation products that are precursors for H2
and acetate production and probably also for carbo- I thank H. Scholten for critically reading the
hydrates directly. Therefore, the e¡ects of these elec- manuscript.
tron acceptors on H2 turnover and methanogenesis
are not comparable to those of sulfate. In addition,
the e¡ects of nitrate on methanogenesis were shown
to be due to toxicity of denitri¢cation products (ni- References
trite, NO and/or N2 O) to the methanogens in rice
[1] Zinder, S.H. (1993) Physiological ecology of methanogens. In:
¢eld soils [35]. Methanogenesis: Ecology, Physiology, Biochemistry and Ge-
netics (Ferry, J.G., Ed.), pp. 128^206. Chapman and Hall,
New York.
4. Control of the environmental acetate concentration [2] Conrad, R., Schink, B. and Phelps, T.J. (1986) Thermody-
namics of H2 -producing and H2 -consuming metabolic reac-
tions in diverse methanogenic environments under in situ con-
Another question which is currently unresolved is ditions. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 38, 353^360.
to what extent acetate turnover follows similar prin- [3] Conrad, R., Mayer, H.P. and Wuëst, M. (1989) Temporal
ciples as H2 turnover. Most experiments show that change of gas metabolism by hydrogen-syntrophic methano-
addition of sulfate, ferrihydrite or nitrate also inhib- genic bacterial associations in anoxic paddy soil. FEMS Mi-
crobiol. Ecol. 62, 265^274.
ited acetate-dependent methanogenesis. As in the
[4] Conrad, R., Phelps, T.J. and Zeikus, J.G. (1985) Gas metab-
case of H2 , this inhibition is thought to be due to olism evidence in support of juxtapositioning between hydro-
sulfate, iron and nitrate reducers competing success- gen producing and methanogenic bacteria in sewage sludge
fully for acetate [20,36]. The threshold concept has and lake sediments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 50, 595^601.
[5] Schink, B. (1997) Energetics of syntrophic cooperation in nogens for hydrogen in sediments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
methanogenic degradation. Microb. Mol. Biol. Rev. 61, 43, 1373^1379.
262. [23] Achtnich, C., Bak, F. and Conrad, R. (1995) Competition for
[6] Thiele, J.H. and Zeikus, J.G. (1988) Control of interspecies electron donors among nitrate reducers, ferric iron reducers,
electron £ow during anaerobic digestion : signi¢cance of for- sulfate reducers, and methanogens in anoxic paddy soil. Biol.
mate transfer versus hydrogen transfer during syntrophic Fertil. Soils 19, 65^72.
methanogenesis in £ocs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 54, 20^ [24] Achtnich, C., Schuhmann, A., Wind, T. and Conrad, R.
29. (1995) Role of interspecies H2 transfer to sulfate and ferric
[7] Zeikus, J.G. (1981) Lignin metabolism and the carbon cycle. iron- reducing bacteria in acetate consumption in anoxic
Adv. Microbiol. Ecol. 5, 211^243. paddy soil. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 16, 61^69.
[8] Oremland, R.S., Marsh, L.M. and Polcin, S. (1982) Methane [25] Lovley, D.R. (1985) Minimum threshold for hydrogen metab-
production and simultaneous sulphate reduction in anoxic, olism in methanogenic bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 49,
salt marsh sediments. Nature 296, 143^145. 1530^1531.
[9] Banat, I.M., Nedwell, D.B. and Talaat Balba, M. (1983) Stim- [26] Cord-Ruwisch, R., Seitz, H.J. and Conrad, R. (1988) The
ulation of methanogenesis by slurries of saltmarsh sediment capacity of hydrogenotrophic anaerobic bacteria to compete
after the addition of molybdate to inhibit sulfate-reducing for traces of hydrogen depends on the redox potential of the
bacteria. J. Gen. Microbiol. 129, 123^129. terminal electron acceptor. Arch. Microbiol. 149, 350^357.
[10] Phelps, T.J. and Zeikus, J.G. (1984) In£uence of pH on ter- [27] Conrad, R. and Wetter, B. (1990) In£uence of temperature on
minal carbon metabolism in anoxic sediments from a mildly energetics of hydrogen metabolism in homoacetogenic, meth-
acidic lake. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 48, 1088^1095. anogenic, and other anaerobic bacteria. Arch. Microbiol. 155,
[11] Bak, F. and Pfennig, N. (1991) Sulfate-reducing bacteria in 94^98.
littoral sediment of Lake Constance. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. [28] Seitz, H.J., Schink, B., Pfennig, N. and Conrad, R. (1990)
85, 43^52. Energetics of syntrophic ethanol oxidation in de¢ned chemo-
[12] Schulz, S. and Conrad, R. (1996) In£uence of temperature on stat cocultures. 1. Energy requirement for H2 production and
pathways to methane production in the permanently cold pro- H2 oxidation. Arch. Microbiol. 155, 82^88.
fundal sediment of Lake Constance. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. [29] Hoh, C.Y. and Cord-Ruwisch, R. (1996) A practical kinetic
20, 1^14. model that considers endproduct inhibition in anaerobic di-
[13] Chin, K.J. and Conrad, R. (1995) Intermediary metabolism in gestion processes by including the equilibrium constant. Bio-
methanogenic paddy soil and the in£uence of temperature. technol. Bioeng. 51, 597^604.
FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 18, 85^102. [30] Westermann, P. (1994) The e¡ect of incubation temperature
[14] Wolin, M.J. (1979) The rumen fermentation: a model for on steady-state concentrations of hydrogen and volatile fatty
microbial interactions in anaerobic ecosystems. Adv. Micro- acids during anaerobic degradation in slurries from wetland
biol. Ecol. 3, 49^77. sediments. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 13, 295^302.
[15] Sandbeck, K.A. and Ward, D.M. (1981) Fate of immediate [31] Conrad, R., Lupton, F.S. and Zeikus, J.G. (1987) Hydrogen
methane precursors in low-sulfate, hot-spring algal-bacterial metabolism and sulfate-dependent inhibition of methanogen-
mats. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 41, 775^782. esis in a eutrophic lake sediment (Lake Mendota). FEMS
[16] Roy, R., Kluëber, H.D. and Conrad, R. (1997) Early initiation Microbiol. Ecol. 45, 107^115.
of methane production in anoxic rice soil despite the presence [32] Harmsen, H.J.M., Kengen, K.M.P., Akkermans, A.D.L. and
of oxidants. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 24, 311^320. Stams, A.J.M. (1995) Phylogenetic analysis of two syntrophic
[17] Deuser, W.G., Degens, E.T. and Harvey, G.R. (1973) Meth- propionate-oxidizing bacteria in enrichments cultures. Syst.
ane in Lake Kivu : New data bearing on its origin. Science Appl. Microbiol. 18, 67^73.
183, 51^54. [33] Krylova, N.I., Janssen, P.H. and Conrad, R. (1997) Turnover
[18] Archer, D.B. and Powell, G.E. (1985) Dependence of the spe- of propionate in methanogenic paddy soil. FEMS Microbiol.
ci¢c growth rate of methanogenic mutualistic cocultures on Ecol. 23, 107^117.
the methanogen. Arch. Microbiol. 141, 133^137. [34] Kluëber, H.D. and Conrad, R. (1998) E¡ects of nitrate, nitrite,
[19] Robinson, J.A. and Tiedje, J.M. (1984) Competition between NO and N2 O on methanogenesis and other redox processes in
sulfate-reducing and methanogenic bacteria for H2 under rest- anoxic rice ¢eld soil. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 25, 301^318.
ing growing conditions. Arch. Microbiol. 137, 26^32. [35] Kluëber, H.D. and Conrad, R. (1998) Inhibitory e¡ects of ni-
[20] Ward, D.M. and Winfrey, M.R. (1985) Interactions between trate, nitrite, NO and N2 O on methanogenesis by Methano-
methanogenic and sulfate-reducing bacteria in sediments. sarcina barkeri and Methanobacterium bryantii. FEMS Micro-
Adv. Aquat. Microbiol. 3, 141^179. biol. Ecol. 25, 331^339.
[21] Lovley, D.R. and Goodwin, S. (1988) Hydrogen concentra- [36] Lovley, D.R. (1991) Dissimilatory Fe(III) and Mn(IV) reduc-
tions as an indicator of the predominant terminal electron- tion. Microbiol. Rev. 55, 259^287.
accepting reactions in aquatic sediments. Geochim. Cosmo- [37] Jetten, M.S.M., Stams, A.J.M. and Zehnder, A.J.B. (1992)
chim. Acta 52, 2993^3003. Methanogenesis from acetate ^ A comparison of the acetate
[22] Lovley, D.R., Dwyer, D.F. and Klug, M.J. (1982) Kinetic metabolism in Methanothrix soehngenii and Methanosarcina
analysis of competition between sulfate reducers and metha- spp. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 88, 181^197.
[38] Thauer, R.K., Jungermann, K. and Decker, K. (1977) Energy [44] Crill, P.M. and Martens, C.S. (1983) Spatial and temporal
conservation in chemotrophic anaerobic bacteria. Bacteriol. £uctuations of methane production in anoxic coastal marine
Rev. 41, 100^180. sediments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 28, 1117^1130.
[39] Ivanov, M.V., Belyaev, S.S. and Laurinavichus, K.S. (1976) [45] Lansdown, J.M., Quay, P.D. and King, S.L. (1992) CH4 pro-
Methods of quantitative investigation of microbiological pro- duction via CO2 reduction in a temperate bog: a source of
13
duction and utilization of methane. In: Microbial Production C-depleted CH4 . Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 56, 3493^
and Utilization of Gases (Schlegel, H.G., Gottschalk, G. and 3503.
Pfennig, N., Eds.), pp. 63^67. E. Goltze, Goëttingen. [46] Galchenko, V.F. (1994) Sulfate reduction, methane produc-
[40] Winfrey, M.R. and Zeikus, J.G. (1979) Anaerobic metabolism tion, and methane oxidation in various water bodies of
of immediate methane precursors in Lake Mendota. Appl. Bunger Hills Oasis of Antarctica. Mikrobiologiya 63, 683^
Environ. Microbiol. 37, 244^253. 698.
[41] Kuivila, K.M., Murray, J.W. and Devol, A.H. (1989) Meth- [47] Namsaraev, B.B., Dulov, L.E., Sokolova, E.N. and Zem-
ane production, sulfate reduction and competition for sub- skaya, T.I. (1995) Bacterial methane production in the bottom
strates in the sediments of Lake Washington. Geochim. Cos- sediments of Lake Baikal. Mikrobiologiya 64, 411^412.
mochim. Acta 53, 409^416. [48] Smith, D.P. and McCarty, P.L. (1989) Energetic and rate
[42] Rothfuss, F. and Conrad, R. (1993) Vertical pro¢les of CH4 e¡ects on methanogenesis of ethanol and propionate in per-
concentrations, dissolved substrates and processes involved in turbed CSTRs. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 34, 39^54.
CH4 production in a £ooded Italian rice ¢eld. Biogeochemis- [49] Rothfuss, F. and Conrad, R. (1993) Thermodynamics of
try 18, 137^152. methanogenic intermediary metabolism in littoral sediment
[43] Jones, J.G., Simon, B.M. and Gardener, S. (1982) Factors of Lake Constance. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 12, 265^276.
a¡ecting methanogenesis and associated anaerobic processes [50] Peters, V. and Conrad, R. (1996) Sequential reduction proc-
in the sediments of a strati¢ed eutrophic lake. J. Gen. Micro- esses and initiation of CH4 production upon £ooding of oxic
biol. 128, 1^11. upland soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 28, 371^382.