4.6 Article

Differential Impacts of Willow and Mineral Fertilizer on Bacterial Communities and Biodegradation in Diesel Fuel Oil-Contaminated Soil

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00837

关键词

stable isotope probing; bioremediation; phytoremediation; Salix alaxensis; fertilizer; microbial community structure; naphthalene degradation; diesel range organics

资金

  1. Institutional Development Awards (IDeA) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [P20GM103395]
  2. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [5P20RR016466]
  3. Czech Science Foundation [13-28283S]
  4. NSF [DEB-1257424]
  5. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [LH 14004]
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences [1257424] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite decades of research there is limited understanding of how vegetation impacts the ability of microbial communities to process organic contaminants in soil. Using a combination of traditional and molecular assays, we examined how phytoremediation with willow and/or fertilization affected the microbial community present and active in the transformation of diesel contaminants. In a pot study, willow had a significant role in structuring the total bacterial community and resulted in significant decreases in diesel range organics (DRO). However, stable isotope probing (SIP) indicated that fertilizer drove the differences seen in community structure and function. Finally, analysis of the total variance in both pot and SIP experiments indicated an interactive effect between willow and fertilizer on the bacterial communities. This study clearly demonstrates that a willow native to Alaska accelerates DRO degradation, and together with fertilizer, increases aromatic degradation by shifting microbial community structure and the identity of active naphthalene degraders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据