Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 53–63 | Cite as

Natural attenuation is enhanced in previously contaminated and coniferous forest soils

  • Sari Kauppi
  • Martin Romantschuk
  • Rauni Strömmer
  • Aki Sinkkonen
Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

Prevalence of organic pollutants or their natural analogs in soil is often assumed to lead to adaptation in the bacterial community, which results in enhanced bioremediation if the soil is later contaminated. In this study, the effects of soil type and contamination history on diesel oil degradation and bacterial adaptation were studied.

Methods

Mesocosms of mineral and organic forest soil (humus) were artificially treated with diesel oil, and oil hydrocarbon concentrations (GC-FID), bacterial community composition (denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis, DGGE), and oil hydrocarbon degraders (DGGE + sequencing of 16S rRNA genes) were monitored for 20 weeks at 16°C.

Results

Degradation was advanced in previously contaminated soils as compared with pristine soils and in coniferous organic forest soil as compared with mineral soil. Contamination affected bacterial community composition especially in the pristine mineral soil, where diesel addition increased the number of strong bands in the DGGE gel. Sequencing of cloned 16S rRNA gene fragments and DGGE bands showed that potential oil-degrading bacteria were found in mineral and organic soils and in both pristine and previously contaminated mesocosms. Fast oil degradation was not associated with the presence of any particular bacterial strain in soil.

Conclusions

We demonstrate at the mesocosm scale that previously contaminated and coniferous organic soils are superior environments for fast oil degradation as compared with pristine and mineral soil environments. These results may be utilized in preventing soil pollution and planning soil remediation.

Keywords

Diesel oil hydrocarbons Biodegradation Soil type Coniferous forest organic soil Bacterial community composition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was funded by Foundation for Research of Natural Resources in Finland, Marjatta and Eino Kolli Foundation and Elite project funded by ERDF and the Regional Council of Päijät-Häme. The authors wish to thank Hanna Puttonen, Mari Joensuu, and Tomasz Płociniczak for the laboratory assistance.

References

  1. Aislabie J, McLeod M, Fraser R (1998) Potential for biodegradation of hydrocarbons in soil from the Ross Dependency, Antarctica. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 49:210–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aislabie J, Balks M, Astori N, Stevenson G, Symons R (1999) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in fuel-oil contaminated soils, Antarctica. Chemosphere 39:2201–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aislabie J, Foght J, Saul D (2000) Aromatic hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria from soil near Scott Base, Antarctica. Polar Biol 23:183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aislabie J, Saul DJ, Foght JM (2006) Bioremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated polar soils. Extremophiles 10:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benson DA, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Rapp BA, Wheeler DL (2000) GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res 28:15–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bundy JG, Paton GI, Campbell CD (2002) Microbial communities in different soil types do not converge after diesel contamination. J Appl Microbiol 92:276–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaineau CH, Morel J, Dupont J, Bury E, Oudot J (1999) Comparison of the fuel oil biodegradation potential of hydrocarbon-assimilating microorganisms isolated from a temperate agricultural soil. Sci Total Environ 227:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gentry TJ, Josephson KL, Pepper IL (2004) Functional establishment of introduced chlorobenzoate degraders following bioaugmentation with newly activated soil—enhanced contaminant remediation via activated soil bioaugmentation. Biodegradation 15:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenwood PF, Wibrow S, George SJ, Tibbett M (2009) Hydrocarbon biodegradation and soil microbial community response to repeated oil exposure. Org Geochem 40:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hultman J, Pitkäranta M, Romantschuk M, Auvinen P, Paulin L (2008) Probe-based negative selection for underrepresented phylotypes in large environmental clone libraries. J Microbiol Methods 75:457–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kanerva S, Kitunen V, Kiikkilä O, Loponen J, Smolander A (2006) Response of soil C and N transformations to tannin fractions originating from Scots pine and Norway spruce needles. Soil Biol Biochem 38:1364–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kanerva T, Palojärvi A, Rämö K, Manninen S (2008) Changes in soil microbial community structure under elevated tropospheric O3 and CO2. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2502–2510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kauppi S, Sinkkonen A, Romantschuk M (2011) Enhancing bioremediation of diesel-fuel-contaminated soil in a boreal climate: comparison of biostimulation and bioaugmentation. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 65:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koivula TT, Salkinoja-Salonen M, Peltola R, Romantschuk M (2004) Pyrene degradation in forest humus microcosms with or without pine and its mycorrhizal fungus. J Environ Qual 33:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kurola J, Salkinoja-Salonen M, Aarnio T, Hultman J, Romantschuk M (2005) Activity, diversity and population size of ammonia-oxidising bacteria in oil-contaminated landfarming soil. FEMS Microbiol Lett 250:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Labbe D, Margesin R, Schinner F, Whyte LG, Greer CW (2007) Comparative phylogenetic analysis of microbial communities in pristine and hydrocarbon-contaminated Alpine soils. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 59:466–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Labud V, Garcia C, Hernandez T (2007) Effect of hydrocarbon pollution on the microbial properties of a sandy and a clay soil. Chemosphere 66:1863–1871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leahy JG, Colwell RR (1990) Microbial-degradation of hydrocarbons in the environment. Microbiol Rev 54:305–315Google Scholar
  19. Margesin R (2000) Potential of cold-adapted microorganisms for bioremediation of oil-polluted Alpine soils. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 46:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Margesin R, Schinner F (1999a) Biodegradation of diesel oil by cold-adapted microorganisms in presence of sodium dodecyl sulfate. Chemosphere 38:3463–3472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Margesin R, Schinner F (1999b) Biological decontamination of oil spills in cold environments. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 74:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Margesin R, Haemmerle M, Tscherko D (2007) Microbial activity and community composition during bioremediation of diesel-oil-contaminated soil: effects of hydrocarbon concentration, fertilizers, and incubation time. Microb Ecol 53:259–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muyzer G (1999) DGGE/TGGE a method for identifying genes from natural ecosystems. Curr Opin Microbiol 2:317–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muyzer G, Smalla K (1998) Application of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and temperature gradient gel electrophoresis (TGGE) in microbial ecology. Antonie Leeuwenhoek 73:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muyzer G, Dewaal EC, Uitterlinden AG (1993) Profiling of complex microbial-populations by denaturing gradient gel-electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes-coding for 16s ribosomal-RNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:695–700Google Scholar
  26. Peltola R, Salkinoja-Salonen M, Pulkkinen J, Koivunen M, Turpeinen AR, Aarnio T, Romantschuk M (2006) Nitrification in polluted soil fertilized with fast- and slow-releasing nitrogen: a case study at a refinery landfarming site. Environ Pollut 143:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Penet S, Vendeuvre C, Bertoncini F, Marchal R, Monot F (2006) Characterisation of biodegradation capacities of environmental microflorae for diesel oil by comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography. Biodegradation 17:577–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Romantschuk M, Sarand I, Petänen T, Peltola R, Jonsson-Vihanne M, Koivula T, Yrjälä K, Haahtela K (2000) Means to improve the effect of in situ bioremediation of contaminated soil: an overview of novel approaches. Environ Pollut 107:179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sarand I, Haario H, Jorgensen KS, Romantschuk M (2000) Effect of inoculation of a TOL plasmid containing mycorrhizosphere bacterium on development of Scots pine seedlings, their mycorrhizosphere and the microbial flora in m-toluate-amended soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 31:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sarand I, Skarfstad E, Forsman M, Romantschuk M, Shingler V (2001) Role of the DmpR-mediated regulatory circuit in bacterial biodegradation properties in methylphenol-amended soils. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:162–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saul DJ, Aislabie JM, Brown CE, Harris L, Foght JM (2005) Hydrocarbon contamination changes the bacterial diversity of soil from around Scott Base, Antarctica. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 53:141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schlueter PM, Harris SA (2006) Analysis of multilocus fingerprinting data sets containing missing data. Mol Ecol Notes 6:569–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scragg A (2005) Environmental biotechnology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Sjøholm OR, Aamand J, Sørensen J, Nybroe O (2010) Degrader density determines spatial variability of 2,6-dichlorobenzamide mineralisation in soil. Environ Pollut 158:292–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Springael D, Top EM (2004) Horizontal gene transfer and microbial adaptation to xenobiotics: new types of mobile genetic elements and lessons from ecological studies. Trends Microbiol 12:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suni S, Malinen E, Kosonen J, Silvennoinen H, Romantschuk M (2007) Electrokinetically enhanced bioremediation of creosote-contaminated soil: laboratory and field studies. J Environ Sci Health Part A–Toxic/Hazard Subst Environ Eng 42:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tan X, Chang SX (2007) Soil compaction and forest litter amendment affect carbon and net nitrogen mineralization in a boreal forest soil. Soil Tillage Res 93:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Timmis KN (ed) (2010) Handbook of hydrocarbon and lipid microbiology. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. Vogel TM (1996) Bioaugmentation as a soil bioremediation approach. Curr Opin Biotechnol 7:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Welander U (2005) Microbial degradation of organic pollutants in soil in a cold climate. Soil Sediment Contam 14:281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wheeler DL, Chappey C, Lash AE, Leipe DD, Madden TL, Schuler GD, Tatusova TA, Rapp BA (2000) Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res 28:10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Widmer F, Seidler RJ, Gillevet PM, Watrud LS, Di Giovanni GD (1998) A highly selective PCR protocol for detecting 16S rRNA genes of the genus Pseudomonas (sensu stricto) in environmental samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:2545–2553Google Scholar
  43. Yang S-Z, Jin H-J, Wei Z, He R-X, Ji Y-J, Li X-M, Yu S-P (2009) Bioremediation of oil spills in cold environments: a review. Pedosphere 19:371–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sari Kauppi
    • 1
  • Martin Romantschuk
    • 1
  • Rauni Strömmer
    • 1
  • Aki Sinkkonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences, Section of EcologyUniversity of HelsinkiLahtiFinland

Personalised recommendations