| Literature DB >> 29158972 |
Jing Ma1, Wangyuan Zhang2, Shaoliang Zhang2, Qianlin Zhu1, Qiyan Feng1, Fu Chen1.
Abstract
The technology of carbon dioxide (Entities:
Keywords: Acidobacteria; CO2 geological storage; Methylophilus; Potential CO2 leakage; Soil enzyme activity
Year: 2017 PMID: 29158972 PMCID: PMC5691795 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Schematic of the CO2 leakage simulation experimental platform.
Figure 2Soil physicochemistry change under different CO2 flux, (A) pH value; (B) EC value; (C) total organic matter; (D) nitrate-N; (E) total phosphorus; (F) Olsen-phosphorus.
(C, Control; L, 400 g m−2 d−1; M, 1,000 g m−2 d−1; H, 1,500 g m −2 d−1; E, 2,000 g m−2 d−1).
Figure 3Soil enzyme activity change under different CO2 flux, (A) dehydrogenase activity; (B) FDA hydrolysis activity; (C) polyphenol oxidase activity; (D) protease activity; (E) urease activity.
(C, Control; L, 400 g m−2 d−1; M, 1,000 g m−2 d−1; H, 1,500 g m −2 d−1; E, 2,000 g m−2 d−1).
Alpha diversity indices of soil microorganisms (C, Control; L, 400 g m−2 day−1; M, 1,000 g m−2 day−1; H, 1,500 g m−2 day−1; E, 2,000 g m−2 day−1, where 0–3 represents samples collected at T0–T3, respectively).
| Sample ID | Chao 1 index | Shannon index |
|---|---|---|
| C0 | 15,604.19 ± 1,704.233ef | 7.65 ± 0.237d |
| L0 | 15,601.76 ± 425.667ef | 7.66 ± 0.128d |
| M0 | 16,543.62 ± 1,022.004f | 7.63 ± 0.264d |
| H0 | 17,185.51 ± 677.133f | 7.454 ± 0.322d |
| E0 | 15,136.54 ± 645.322def | 7.44 ± 0.113d |
| C1 | 14,815.69 ± 2,714.734def | 7.38 ± 0.186d |
| C2 | 14,666.78 ± 1,144.127def | 7.33 ± 0.070d |
| C3 | 14,567.04 ± 1,403.888def | 7.30 ± 0.036d |
| L1 | 12,457.13 ± 1,062.828ab | 7.11 ± 0.457d |
| L2 | 12,044.64 ± 1,172.405ab | 7.03 ± 0.426d |
| L3 | 11,238.16 ± 1,177.577a | 6.38 ± 0.293c |
| M1 | 11,163.37 ± 1,289.129a | 6.38 ± 0.846c |
| M2 | 10,900.97 ± 1,346.372a | 6.03 ± 0.486bc |
| M3 | 10,660.81 ± 1,103.014a | 6.09 ± 0.544bc |
| H1 | 15,105.19 ± 652.463def | 6.20 ± 0.041bc |
| H2 | 14,614.52 ± 572.322def | 6.15 ± 0.040bc |
| H3 | 14,509.60 ± 998.913def | 6.13 ± 0.523bc |
| E1 | 13,398.76 ± 627.144bcd | 5.31 ± 0.464a |
| E2 | 14,295.70 ± 917.406cde | 5.68 ± 0.301ab |
| E3 | 13,238.25 ± 216.176bcd | 5.23 ± 0.347a |
Figure 4Taxonomic composition of soil samples on Phylum (A) and genus level (B).
(C, Control; L, 400 g m−2 day−1; M, 1,000 g m−2 day−1; H, 1,500 g m −2 day−1; E, 2,000 g m−2 day−1, where 0–3 represents samples collected at T0–T3, respectively).
Figure 5Principal co-ordinates analysis (A) and heatmap of Beta diversity analysis (B) using weighted UniFrac.
(C, Control; L, 400 g m−2 day−1; M, 1,000 g m−2 day−1, H; 1,500 g m −2 day−1; E, 2,000 g m−2 day−1, where 0–3 represents samples collected at T0–T3, respectively).
Figure 6Canonical correlation analysis ordination plot indicating the relationship between the bacterial community and soil properties (A) or some frequent OTUs (B).
(C, Control; L, 400 g m−2 day−1; M, 1,000 g m−2 day−1; H, 1,500 g m−2 day−1; E, 2,000 g m−2 day−1; 0 stands for the samples collected at T0; 1, 2 and 3 stand for the samples collected at T1, T2 and T3, respectively).