Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 450–462 | Cite as

Salt marsh sediment characteristics as key regulators on the efficiency of hydrocarbons bioremediation by Juncus maritimus rhizospheric bacterial community

  • Hugo Ribeiro
  • C. Marisa R. Almeida
  • Catarina Magalhães
  • Adriano A. Bordalo
  • Ana P. Mucha
Research Article

Abstract

Mitigation of petroleum hydrocarbons was investigated during a 5-month greenhouse experiment, to assess the rhizoremediation (RR) potential in sediments with different characteristics colonized by Juncus maritimus, a salt marsh plant commonly found in temperate estuaries. Furthermore, the efficiency of two bioremediation treatments namely biostimulation (BS) by the addition of nutrients, and bioaugmentation (BA) by addition of indigenous microorganisms, was tested in combination with RR. The effect of the distinct treatments on hydrocarbon degradation, root biomass weight, and bacterial community structure was assessed. Our result showed higher potential for hydrocarbon degradation (evaluated by total petroleum hydrocarbon analysis) in coarse rhizosediments with low organic matter (OM), than rhizosediments with high OM, and small size particles. Moreover, the bacterial community structure was shaped according to the rhizosediment characteristics, highlighting the importance of specific microbe-particle associations to define the structure of rhizospheric bacterial communities, rather than external factors, such as hydrocarbon contamination or the applied treatments. The potential for hydrocarbon RR seems to depend on root system development and bacterial diversity, since biodegradation efficiencies were positively related with these two parameters. Treatments with higher root biomass, and concomitantly with higher bacterial diversity yielded higher hydrocarbon degradation. Moreover, BS and BA did not enhance hydrocarbons RR. In fact, it was observed that higher nutrient availability might interfere with root growth and negatively influence hydrocarbon degradation performance. Therefore, our results suggested that to conduct appropriate hydrocarbon bioremediation strategies, the effect of sediment characteristics on root growth/exploration should be taken into consideration, a feature not explored in previous studies. Furthermore, strategies aiming for the recovery of bacterial diversity after oil spills may improve the efficiency of hydrocarbon biodegradation in contaminated salt marsh sediments.

Keywords

Juncus maritimus Salt marsh Sediment characteristics Hydrocarbon bioremediation Bacterial diversity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) supported this research, through the research project (PTDC/AAC-AMB/113973/2009), and the PhD fellowships awarded to Hugo Ribeiro (SFRH/BD/47631/2008) co-financed by POPH/FSE. This research was partially supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the COMPETE-Operational Competitiveness Programme and national funds through FCT-Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project PEst-C/MAR/LA0015/2013 and through the Project ECORISK (reference NORTE-07-0124-FEDER-000054), co-financed by the North Portugal Regional Operational Programme (ON.2-O Novo Norte), under the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF).

References

  1. Allison SD, Martiny JB (2008) Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(Suppl 1):11512–11519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amellal N, Portal J-M, Berthelin J (2001) Effect of soil structure on the bioavailability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons within aggregates of a contaminated soil. Appl Geochem 16:1611–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amézketa E (1999) Soil aggregate stability: a review. J Sustain Agric 14:83–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrade M, Covelo E, Vega F, Marcet P (2004) Effect of the oil spill on salt marsh soils on the Coast of Galicia (Northwestern Spain). J Environ Qual 33:2103–2110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett JE, Virginia RA, Wall DH, Cary SC, Adams BJ, Hacker AL, Aislabie JM (2006) Co-variation in soil biodiversity and biogeochemistry in northern and southern Victoria Land, Antarctica. Antarct Sci 18:535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beazley MJ, Martinez RJ, Rajan S, Powell J, Piceno YM, Tom LM, Andersen GL, Hazen TC, Van Nostrand JD, Zhou J (2012) Microbial community analysis of a coastal salt marsh affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. PLoS ONE 7:e41305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bengough A, Mullins C (1990) Mechanical impedance to root growth: a review of experimental techniques and root growth responses. J Soil Sci 41:341–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradley P, Morris J (1990) Physical characteristics of salt marsh sediments: ecological implications. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 61:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buyer JS, Roberts DP, Russek-Cohen E (1999) Microbial community structure and function in the spermosphere as affected by soil and seed type. Can J Microbiol 45:138–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardinale M, Brusetti L, Quatrini P, Borin S, Puglia AM, Rizzi A, Zanardini E, Sorlini C, Corselli C, Daffonchio D (2004) Comparison of different primer sets for use in automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis of complex bacterial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:6147–6156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke K, Gorley R (2006) Primer V6: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E Ltd, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  12. Couto MN, Borges JR, Guedes P, Almeida R, Monteiro E, Almeida CMR, Basto MCP, Vasconcelos MTSD (2014) An improved method for the determination of petroleum hydrocarbons from soil using a simple ultrasonic extraction and Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometry. Pet Sci Technol 32:426–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danovaro R, Luna GM, Dell’anno A, Pietrangeli B (2006) Comparison of two fingerprinting techniques, terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism and automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis, for determination of bacterial diversity in aquatic environments. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:5982–5989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Gryze S, Jassogne L, Bossuyt H, Six J, Merckx R (2006) Water repellence and soil aggregate dynamics in a loamy grassland soil as affected by texture. Eur J Soil Sci 57:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dell’Anno A, Beolchini F, Rocchetti L, Luna GM, Danovaro R (2012) High bacterial biodiversity increases degradation performance of hydrocarbons during bioremediation of contaminated harbor marine sediments. Environ Pollut 167:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher MM, Triplett EW (1999) Automated approach for ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis of microbial diversity and its application to freshwater bacterial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:4630–4636Google Scholar
  17. Galvão TC, Mohn WW, de Lorenzo V (2005) Exploring the microbial biodegradation and biotransformation gene pool. Trends Biotechnol 23:497–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gao D, Tao Y (2011) Current molecular biologic techniques for characterizing environmental microbial community. Front Environ Sci Eng 6:82–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garbeva P, van Veen JA, van Elsas JD (2004) Microbial diversity in soil: selection microbial populations by plant and soil type and implications for disease suppressiveness. Annu Rev Phytopathol 42:243–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerhardt KE, Huang X-D, Glick BR, Greenberg BM (2009) Phytoremediation and rhizoremediation of organic soil contaminants: potential and challenges. Plant Sci 176:20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grötzschel S, Köster J, Abed RM, de Beer D (2002) Degradation of petroleum model compounds immobilized on clay by a hypersaline microbial mat. Biodegradation 13:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haines J, Wrenn B, Holder E, Strohmeier K, Herrington R, Venosa A (1996) Measurement of hydrocarbon-degrading microbial populations by a 96-well plate most-probable-number procedure. J Ind Microbiol 16:36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Head IM, Jones DM, Roling WF (2006) Marine microorganisms make a meal of oil. Nat Rev Microbiol 4:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hewson I, Fuhrman JA (2004) Richness and diversity of bacterioplankton species along an estuarine gradient in Moreton Bay, Australia. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:3425–3433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoagland D, Arnon D (1950) The water-culture method for growing plants without soil, California agriculture Experiment Station. The College of Agriculture BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodge A, Berta G, Doussan C, Merchan F, Crespi M (2009) Plant root growth, architecture and function. Plant Soil 321:153–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horel A, Bernard RJ, Mortazavi B (2014) Impact of crude oil exposure on nitrogen cycling in a previously impacted Juncus roemerianus salt marsh in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:6982–6993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horn R, Taubner H, Wuttke M, Baumgartl T (1994) Soil physical properties related to soil structure. Soil Till Res 30:187–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hrynkiewicz K, Baum C (2012) The potential of rhizosphere microorganisms to promote the plant growth in disturbed soils. In: Malik A, Grohmann E (eds) Environmental protection strategies for sustainable development, strategies for sustainability. Springer, Netherlands, pp 35–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones RK, Sun WH, Tang C-S, Robert FM (2004) Phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons in tropical coastal soils II. microbial response to plant roots and contaminant. Environ Sci Pollut Res 11:340–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kabir M, Chotte J-L, Rahman M, Bally R, Monrozier LJ (1994) Distribution of soil fractions and location of soil bacteria in a vertisol under cultivation and perennial grass. Plant Soil 163:243–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaimi E, Mukaidani T, Miyoshi S, Tamaki M (2006) Ryegrass enhancement of biodegradation in diesel-contaminated soil. Environ Exp Bot 55:110–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kechavarzi C, Pettersson K, Leeds-Harrison P, Ritchie L, Ledin S (2007) Root establishment of perennial ryegrass (L. perenne) in diesel contaminated subsurface soil layers. Environ Pollut 145:68–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kladivko EJ, Brown LC, Baker JL (2001) Pesticide transport to subsurface tile drains in humid regions of North America. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 31:1–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Knezovich JP, Harrison FL, Wilhelm RG (1987) The bioavailability of sediment-sorbed organic chemicals: a review. Water Air Soil Pollut 32:233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Latour X, Philippot L, Corberand T, Lemanceau P (1999) The establishment of an introduced community of fluorescent pseudomonads in the soil and in the rhizosphere is affected by the soil type. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 30:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. López-Bucio J, Cruz-Ramírez A, Herrera-Estrella L (2003) The role of nutrient availability in regulating root architecture. Curr Opin Plant Biol 6:280–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lovley DR (2003) Cleaning up with genomics: applying molecular biology to bioremediation. Nat Rev Microbiol 1:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marschner P, Yang C-H, Lieberei R, Crowley DE (2001) Soil and plant specific effects on bacterial community composition in the rhizosphere. Soil Biol Biochem 33:1437–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin BC, George SJ, Price CA, Ryan MH, Tibbett M (2014) The role of root exuded low molecular weight organic anions in facilitating petroleum hydrocarbon degradation: current knowledge and future directions. Sci Total Environ 472:642–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McGenity TJ (2014) Hydrocarbon biodegradation in intertidal wetland sediments. Curr Opin Biotechnol 27:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paisse S, Goni-Urriza M, Coulon F, Duran R (2010) How a bacterial community originating from a contaminated coastal sediment responds to an oil input. Microb Ecol 60:394–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pezeshki SR, DeLaune RD (2012) Soil oxidation-reduction in wetlands and its impact on plant functioning. Biology 1:196–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ranjard L, Poly F, Lata JC, Mougel C, Thioulouse J, Nazaret S (2001) Characterization of bacterial and fungal soil communities by automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis fingerprints: biological and methodological variability. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4479–4487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ribeiro H, Mucha AP, Almeida CM, Bordalo AA (2011) Hydrocarbon degradation potential of salt marsh plant-microorganisms associations. Biodegradation 22:729–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ribeiro H, Almeida CMR, Mucha AP, Bordalo AA (2013a) Influence of different salt marsh plants on hydrocarbon degrading microorganisms abundance throughout a phenological cycle. Int J Phytoremediat 15:715–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ribeiro H, Almeida CMR, Mucha AP, Teixeira C, Bordalo AA (2013b) Influence of natural rhizosediments characteristics on hydrocarbons degradation potential of microorganisms associated to Juncus maritimus roots. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 84:86–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ribeiro H, Mucha AP, Almeida CM, Bordalo AA (2013c) Bacterial community response to petroleum contamination and nutrient addition in sediments from a temperate salt marsh. Sci Total Environ 458–460:568–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ribeiro H, Mucha AP, Almeida CM, Bordalo AA (2014) Potential of phytoremediation for the removal of petroleum hydrocarbons in contaminated salt marsh sediments. J Environ Manag 137:10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rissanen AJ, Kurhela E, Aho T, Oittinen T, Tiirola M (2010) Storage of environmental samples for guaranteeing nucleic acid yields for molecular microbiological studies. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 88:977–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roling WFM, Milner MG, Jones DM, Lee K, Daniel F, Swannell RJP, Head IM (2002) Robust hydrocarbon degradation and dynamics of bacterial communities during nutrient-enhanced oil spill bioremediation. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:5537–5548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Singer AC, van der Gast CJ, Thompson IP (2005) Perspectives and vision for strain selection in bioaugmentation. Trends Biotechnol 23:74–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tate PT, Shin WS, Pardue JH, Jackson WA (2011) Bioremediation of an experimental oil spill in a Coastal Louisiana salt marsh. Water Air Soil Pollut 223:1115–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Torsvik V, Øvreås L (2002) Microbial diversity and function in soil: from genes to ecosystems. Curr Opin Microbiol 5:240–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tyagi M, da Fonseca MM, de Carvalho CC (2011) Bioaugmentation and biostimulation strategies to improve the effectiveness of bioremediation processes. Biodegradation 22:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wrenn BA, Venosa AD (1996) Selective enumeration of aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbon degrading bacteria by a most-probable-number procedure. Can J Microbiol 42:252–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yakimov MM, Denaro R, Genovese M, Cappello S, D’Auria G, Chernikova TN, Timmis KN, Golyshin PN, Giluliano L (2005) Natural microbial diversity in superficial sediments of Milazzo Harbor (Sicily) and community successions during microcosm enrichment with various hydrocarbons. Environ Microbiol 7:1426–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang B, Deng H, Wang H, Yin R, Hallett PD, Griffiths BS, Daniell TJ (2010) Does microbial habitat or community structure drive the functional stability of microbes to stresses following re-vegetation of a severely degraded soil? Soil Biol Biochem 42:850–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhu X, Venosa AD, Suidan MT, Lee K (2004) Guidelines for the bioremediation of oil contaminated salt marshes. In: Agency UEP (Hrsg.), Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugo Ribeiro
    • 1
  • C. Marisa R. Almeida
    • 1
  • Catarina Magalhães
    • 1
  • Adriano A. Bordalo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ana P. Mucha
    • 1
  1. 1.CIMAR/CIIMAR-Centro Interdisciplinar de Investigação Marinha e AmbientalUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Laboratório de Hidrobiologia e Ecologia, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar (ICBAS-UP)Universidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations