Microbial Communities as Ecological Indicators of Ecosystem Recovery Following Chemical Pollution

  • Stéphane Pesce
  • Jean-François Ghiglione
  • Fabrice Martin-Laurent
Chapter

Abstract

‘Ecosystem recovery’ is a concept that emerged from the need to preserve our environment against increasing contamination from human activity. However, ecological indicators of ecosystem recovery remain scarce, and it is still difficult to assess recovery of ecological processes at relevant spatial and temporal scales. Microbial communities hold key relevance as indicators of ecosystem recovery as they are ubiquitous among diverse ecosystems, respond rapidly to environmental changes, and support many ecosystem functions and services through taxonomic and functional biodiversity. This chapter summarizes the state-of-the-art in knowledge on the processes driving the structural and functional recovery of phototroph and heterotroph microorganisms following chemical pollution. It covers several successful case studies providing proof of principle for the relevance of using microorganisms in recovery studies in various ecosystems such as soil, freshwater and seawater. Questions remain for microbial ecotoxicologists to fully understand and predict how structural and functional recovery observed at microbial scale can reflect the recovery of an ecosystem. Moreover, new standards and norms taking into account recent advances in microbial ecotoxicology are now necessary in order to inform legislators and policymakers on the importance of considering microorganisms in environmental risk assessment, including ecological recovery monitoring.

Keywords

Microbial ecotoxicology Microbial recovery Biomonitoring Environmental risk assessment 

References

  1. Adams SM, Hill WR, Peterson MJ, Ryon MG, Smith JG, Stewart AJ (2002) Assessing recovery in a stream ecosystem: applying multiple chemical and biological endpoints. Ecol Appl 12:1510–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Admiraal W, Barranguet C, van Beusekom SAM, Bleeker EAJ, van den Ende FP, van der Geest HG, Groenendijk D, Ivorra N, Kraak MHS, Stuijfzand SC (2000) Linking ecological and ecotoxicological techniques to support river rehabilitation. Chemosphere 41:289–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarenga P, Palms P, Goncalves AP, Fernandes RM, de Varennes A, Vallini G, Duarte E, Cunha-Queda AC (2009) Organic residues as immobilizing agents in aided phytostabilization: (II) effects on soil biochemical and ecotoxicological characteristics. Chemosphere 74:1301–1308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Arini A, Feurtet-Mazel A, Maury-Brachet R, Coste M, Delmas F (2012a) Field translocation of diatom biofilms impacted by Cd and Zn to assess decontamination and community restructuring capacities. Ecol Ind 18:520–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arini A, Feurtet-Mazel A, Maury-Brachet R, Pokrovsky OS, Coste M, Delmas F (2012b) Recovery potential of periphytic biofilms translocated in artificial streams after industrial contamination (Cd and Zn). Ecotoxicology 21:1403–1414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Arini A, Feurtet-Mazel A, Morin S, Maury-Brachet R, Coste M, Delmas F (2012c) Remediation of a watershed contaminated by heavy metals: a 2-year field biomonitoring of periphytic biofilms. Sci Total Environ 425:242–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Arini A, Durant F, Coste M, Delmas F, Feurtet-Mazel A (2013) Cadmium decontamination and reversal potential of teratological forms of the diatom Planothidium frequentissimum (Bacillariophyceae) after experimental contamination. J Phycol 49:361–370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bending GD, Rodriguez-Cruz MS, Lincoln SD (2007) Fungicide impacts on microbial communities in soils with contrasting management histories. Chemosphere 69:82–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanck H, Dahl B (1998) Recovery of marine periphyton communities around a Swedish marina after the ban of TBT use in antifouling paint. Mar Pollut Bull 36:437–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boivin MEY, Massieux B, Breure AM, Greve GD, Rutgers M, Admiraal W (2006) Functional recovery of biofilm bacterial communities after copper exposure. Environ Pollut 140:239–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bombach P, Richnow HH, Kästner M, Fischer A (2010) Current approaches for the assessment of in situ biodegradation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 86:839–852CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bordenstein SR, Theis KR (2015) Host biology in light of the microbiome: ten principles of holobionts and hologenomes. Plos Biol, vol 13Google Scholar
  13. Brain RA, Arnie JR, Porch JR, Hosmer AJ (2012) Recovery of photosynthesis and growth rate in green, blue-green, and diatom algae after exposure to atrazine. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:2572–2581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Brock TCM, Crum SJH, Deneer JW, Heimbach F, Roijackers RMM, Sinkeldam JA (2004) Comparing aquatic risk assessment methods for the photosynthesis-inhibiting herbicides metribuzin and metamitron. Environ Pollut 130:403–426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bullock JM, Aronson J, Newton AC, Pywell RF, Rey-Benayas JM (2011) Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 26:541–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Castaldi P, Melis P, Silvetti M, Deiana P, Garau G (2009) Influence of pea and wheat growth on Pb, Cd, and Zn mobility and soil biological status in a polluted amended soil. Geoderma 151:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cattaneo A, Couillard Y, Wunsam S, Courcelles M (2004) Diatom taxonomic and morphological changes as indicators of metal pollution and recovery in Lac Dufault (Quebec, Canada). J Paleolimnol 32:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen SK, Edwards CA (2001) A microcosm approach to assess the effects of fungicides on soil ecological processes and plant growth: comparisons of two soil types. Soil Biol Biochem 33:1981–1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen SK, Edwards CA, Subler S (2001) Effects of the fungicides benomyl, captan and chlorothalonil on soil microbial activity and nitrogen dynamics in laboratory incubations. Soil Biol Biochem 33:1971–1980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cherry DS, Guthrie RK, Singleton FL, Harvey RS (1977) Recovery of aquatic bacterial populations in a stream after cessation of chemical pollution. In: Water Air and Soil Pollution, vol 7, pp 95–101Google Scholar
  21. Ciarkowska K, Solek-Podwika K, Wieczorek J (2014) Enzyme activity as an indicator of soil-rehabilitation processes at a zinc and lead ore mining and processing area. J Environ Manage 132:250–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Clements WH, Rohr JR (2009) Community responses to contaminants: using basic ecological principles to predict ecotoxicological effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:1789–1800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Congdon JD, Dunham AE, Hopkins WA, Rowe CL, Hinton TG (2001) Resource allocation-based life histories: a conceptual basis for studies of ecological toxicology. Environ Toxicol Chem 8:1698–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coste M, Boutry S, Tison-Rosebery J, Delmas F (2009) Improvements of the biological diatom index (BDI): description and efficiency of the new version (BDI-2006). Ecol Ind 9:621–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Delille D, Pelletier E, Rodriguez-Blanco A, Ghiglione J-F (2009) Effects of nutrient and temperature on degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in sub-Antarctic coastal seawater. Polar Biol 32:1521–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Depledge MH (1998) Recovery of ecosystems and their components following exposure to pollution. J Aquat Ecosyst Stress Recovery 6:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dorigo U, Berard A, Bouchez A, Rimet F, Montuelle B (2010a) Transplantation of microbenthic algal assemblages to assess structural and functional recovery after diuron exposure. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 59:555–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Dorigo U, Berard A, Rimet F, Bouchez A, Montuelle B (2010b) In situ assessment of periphyton recovery in a river contaminated by pesticides. Aquat Toxicol 98:396–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. dos Santos JV, Varon-Lopez M, Soares C, Leal PL, Siqueira JO, Moreira FMD (2016) Biological attributes of rehabilitated soils contaminated with heavy metals. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:6735–6748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Duarte CM, Borja A, Carstensen J, Elliott M, Krause-Jensen D, Marba N (2015) Paradigms in the recovery of estuarine and coastal ecosystems. Estuaries Coasts 38:1202–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. EFSA Scientific Committee (2016) Scientific opinion on recovery in environmental risk assessments at EFSA. EFSA J 14:4313Google Scholar
  32. Epelde L, Becerril JM, Hernandez-Allica J, Barrutia O, Garbisu C (2008) Functional diversity as indicator of the recovery of soil health derived from Thlaspi caerulescens growth and metal phytoextraction. Appl Soil Ecol 39:299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Epelde L, Mijangos I, Becerril JM, Garbisu C (2009) Soil microbial community as bioindicator of the recovery of soil functioning derived from metal phytoextraction with sorghum. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1788–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fechner LC, Versace F, Gourlay-France C, Tusseau-Vuillemin M-H (2012) Adaptation of copper community tolerance levels after biofilm transplantation in an urban river. Aquat Toxicol 106:32–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Garcia-Armisen T, Inceoglu O, Ouattara NK, Anzil A, Verbanck MA, Brion N, Servais P (2014) Seasonal variations and resilience of bacterial communities in a sewage polluted urban river. Plos One, vol 9Google Scholar
  36. Geiszinger A, Bonnineau C, Faggiano L, Guasch H, Lopez-Doval JC, Proia L, Ricart M, Ricciardi F, Romani A, Rotter S, Munoz I, Schmitt-Jansen M, Sabater S (2009) The relevance of the community approach linking chemical and biological analyses in pollution assessment. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 28:619–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gergs A, Classen S, Strauss T, Ottermanns R, Brock TCM, Ratte HT, Hommen U, Preuss TG (2016) Ecological recovery potential of freshwater organisms: consequences for environmental risk assessment of chemicals. In: Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology, vol 236, v. 236, pp 259–294Google Scholar
  38. Ghiglione JF, Martin-Laurent F, Pesce S (2016) Microbial ecotoxicology: an emerging discipline facing contemporary environmental threats. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:3981–3983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gomez-Sagasti MT, Alkorta I, Becerril JM, Epelde L, Anza M, Garbisu C (2012) Microbial monitoring of the recovery of soil quality during heavy metal phytoremediation. In: Water air and soil pollution, vol 223, pp 3249–3262Google Scholar
  40. Goupil K, Nkongolo K (2014) Assessing soil respiration as an indicator of soil microbial activity in reclaimed metal contaminated lands. Am J Environ Sci, pp 403–411Google Scholar
  41. Griffiths BS, Ritz K, Bardgett RD, Cook R, Christensen S, Ekelund F, Sorensen SJ, Baath E, Bloem J, de Ruiter PC, Dolfing J, Nicolardot B (2000) Ecosystem response of pasture soil communities to fumigation-induced microbial diversity reductions: an examination of the biodiversity-ecosystem function relationship. Oikos 90:279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gustavson K, Mohlenberg F, Schluter L (2003) Effects of exposure duration of herbicides on natural stream periphyton communities and recovery. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 45:48–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Head IM, Jones DM, Roling WFM (2006) Marine microorganisms make a meal of oil. Nat Rev Microbiol 4:173–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Hering D, Borja A, Carstensen J, Carvalho L, Elliott M, Feld CK, Heiskanen A-S, Johnson RK, Moe J, Pont D, Solheim AL, van de Bund W (2010) The European water framework directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. Sci Total Environ 408:4007–4019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hering D, Borja A, Carvalho L, Feld CK (2013) Assessment and recovery of European water bodies: key messages from the WISER project. Hydrobiologia 704:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hynynen J, Palomaki A, Merilainen JJ, Witick A, Mantykoski K (2004) Pollution history and recovery of a boreal lake exposed to a heavy bleached pulping effluent load. J Paleolimnol 32:351–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ivorra N, Hettelaar J, Tubbing GMJ, Kraak MHS, Sabater S, Admiraal W (1999) Translocation of microbenthic algal assemblages used for in situ analysis of metal pollution in rivers. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 37:19–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Jiang J, Wu L, Li N, Luo Y, Liu L, Zhao Q, Zhang L, Christie P (2010) Effects of multiple heavy metal contamination and repeated phytoextraction by Sedum plumbizincicola on soil microbial properties. Eur J Soil Biol 46:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Karpouzas DG, Tsiamis G, Trevisan M, Ferrari F, Malandain C, Sibourg O, Martin-Laurent F (2016) “LOVE TO HATE” pesticides: felicity or curse for the soil microbial community? An FP7 IAPP Marie Curie project aiming to establish tools for the assessment of the mechanisms controlling the interactions of pesticides with soil microorganisms. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:18947–18951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kavamura VN, Esposito E (2010) Biotechnological strategies applied to the decontamination of soils polluted with heavy metals. Biotechnol Adv 28:61–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Kelly JR, Harwell MA (1990) Indicators of ecosystem recovery. Environ Manage 14:527–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kelly JJ, Tate RL (1998) Effects of heavy metal contamination and remediation on soil microbial communities in the vicinity of a zinc smelter. J Environ Qual 27:609–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kelly JJ, Haggblom MM, Tate RL (2003) Effects of heavy metal contamination and remediation on soil microbial communities in the vicinity of a zinc smelter as indicated by analysis of microbial community phospholipid fatty acid profiles. Biol Fertil Soils 38:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Knauert S, Dawo U, Hollender J, Hommen U, Knauer K (2009) Effecst of photosystem II inhibitors and their mixture on freshwater phytoplankton sucession in outdoor mesocosms. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:836–845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Kostov O, Van Cleemput O (2001a) Microbial activity of Cu contaminated soils and effect of lime and compost on soil resiliency. Compost Sci Utilization 9:336–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kostov O, Van Cleemput O (2001b) Nitrogen transformations in copper-contaminated soils and effects of lime and compost application on soil resiliency. Biol Fertil Soils 33:10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Krediet CJ, Ritchie KB, Paul VJ, Teplitski M (2013) Coral-associated micro-organisms and their roles in promoting coral health and thwarting diseases. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci, vol 280Google Scholar
  58. Lambert A-S, Morin S, Artigas J, Volat B, Coquery M, Neyra M, Pesce S (2012) Structural and functional recovery of microbial biofilms after a decrease in copper exposure: Influence of the presence of pristine communities. Aquat Toxicol 109:118–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Lambert AS, Pesce S, Foulquier A, Gahou J, Coquery M, Dabrin A (2015) Improved short-term toxicity test protocol to assess metal tolerance in phototrophic periphyton: toward standardization of PICT approaches. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:4037–4045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Larras F, Rimet F, Gregorio V, Berard A, Leboulanger C, Montuelle B, Bouchez A (2016) Pollution-induced community tolerance (PICT) as a tool for monitoring Lake Geneva long-term in situ ecotoxic restoration from herbicide contamination. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:4301–4311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Laviale M, Morin S, Creach A (2011) Short term recovery of periphyton photosynthesis after pulse exposition to the photosystem II inhibitors atrazine and isoproturon. Chemosphere 84:731–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Lawrence JR, Kopf G, Headley JV, Neu TR (2001) Sorption and metabolism of selected herbicides in river biofilm communities. Can J Microbiol 47(7):634–641Google Scholar
  63. Madsen EL (2011) Microorganisms and their roles in fundamental biogeochemical cycles. Curr Opin Biotechnol 22:456–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Martinho J, Campos B, Bras I, Silva E (2015) The roel of compost properties in sorption of heavy metals. Environ Prot Eng 41:57–65Google Scholar
  65. Martin-Laurent F, Kandeler E, Petric I, Djuric S, Karpouzas DG (2013) ECOFUN-MICROBIODIV: an FP7 European project for developing and evaluating innovative tools for assessing the impact of pesticides on soil functional microbial diversity–towards new pesticide registration regulation? Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 20:1203–1205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Mohr S, Feibicke M, Berghahn R, Schmiediche R, Schmidt R (2008a) Response of plankton communities in freshwater pond and stream mesocosms to the herbicide metazachlor. Environ Pollut 152:530–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Mohr S, Schroeder H, Feibicke M, Berghahn R, Arp W, Nicklisch A (2008b) Long-term effects of the antifouling booster biocide Irgarol 1051 on periphyton, plankton and ecosystem function in freshwater pond mesocosms. Aquat Toxicol 90:109–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Monard C, Martin-Laurent F, Lima O, Devers-Lamrani M, Binet F (2013) Estimating the biodegradation of pesticide in soils by monitoring pesticide-degrading gene expression. Biodegradation 24:203–213Google Scholar
  69. Montoya D, Rogers L, Memmott J (2012) Emerging perspectives in the restoration of biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol 27:666–672CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Montuelle B, Dorigo U, Berard A, Volat B, Bouchez A, Tlili A, Gouy V, Pesce S (2010) The periphyton as a multimetric bioindicator for assessing the impact of land use on rivers: an overview of the Ardières-Morcille experimental watershed (France). Hydrobiologia 657:123–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Morelli E, Scarano G (2001) Synthesis and stability of phytochelatins induced by cadmium and lead in the marine diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum. Mar Environ Res 52:383–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Morin S, Pesce S, Tlili A, Coste M, Montuelle B (2010) Recovery potential of periphytic communities in a river impacted by a vineyard watershed. Ecol Ind 10:419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Morin S, Lambert A-S, Artigas J, Coquery M, Pesce S (2012) Diatom immigration drives biofilm recovery after chronic copper exposure. Freshw Biol 57:1658–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Muyssen BTA, Janssen CR (2001) Zinc acclimation and its effect on the zinc tolerance of Raphidocelis subcapitata and Chlorella vulgaris in laboratory experiments. Chemosphere 45:507–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Ortiz Hernandez ML, Sánchez SE, González ED, Godínez MLC (2013) Pesticide biodegradation: mechanisms, genetics and strategies to enhance the process. In: Intech open science open mind, pp 251–287Google Scholar
  76. Pelletier E, Delille D, Delille B (2004) Crude oil bioremediation in sub-Antarctic intertidal sediments: chemistry and toxicity of oiled residues. Mar Environ Res 57:311–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Pesce S, Martin-Laurent F, Rouard N, Montuelle B (2009) Potential for microbial diuron mineralisation in a small wine-growing watershed: from treated plots to lotic receiver hydrosystem. Pest Manag Sci 65:651–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Pesce S, Margoum C, Montuelle B (2010) In situ relationships between spatio-temporal variations in diuron concentrations and phototrophic biofilm tolerance in a contaminated river. Water Res 44:1941–1949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Pesce S, Bouchez A, Montuelle B (2011) Effects of organic herbicides on phototrophic microbial communities in freshwater ecosystems. In: Whitacre DM (ed) Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology, vol 214, pp 87–124Google Scholar
  80. Pesce S, Margoum C, Rouard N, Foulquier A, Martin-Laurent F (2013) Freshwater sediment pesticide biodegradation potential as an ecological indicator of microbial recovery following a decrease in chronic pesticide exposure: a case study with the herbicide diuron. Ecol Ind 29:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pesce S, Margoum C, Foulquier A (2016) Pollution-induced community tolerance for in situ assessment of recovery in river microbial communities following the ban of the herbicide diuron. Agric Ecosyst Environ 221:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Philippot L, Ritz K, Pandard P, Hallin S, Martin-Laurent F (2012) Standardisation of methods in soil microbiology: progress and challenges. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 82:1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Prosser RS, Brain RA, Hosmer AJ, Solomon KR, Hanson ML (2013) Assessing sensitivity and recovery of field-collected periphyton acutely exposed to atrazine using PSII inhibition under laboratory conditions. Ecotoxicology 22:1367–1383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Prosser RS, Brain RA, Andrus JM, Hosmer AJ, Solomon KR, Hanson ML (2015) Assessing temporal and spatial variation in sensitivity of communities of periphyton sampled from agroecosystem to, and ability to recover from, atrazine exposure. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 118:204–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Rimet F, Cauchie HM, Hoffmann L, Ector L (2005) Response of diatom indices to simulated water quality improvements in a river. J Appl Phycol 17:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ritz K, Black HIJ, Campbell CD, Harris JA, Wood C (2009) Selecting biological indicators for monitoring soils: a framework for balancing scientific and technical opinion to assist policy development. Ecol Ind 9:1212–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rotter S, Sans-Piche F, Streck G, Altenburger R, Schmitt-Jansen M (2011) Active bio-monitoring of contamination in aquatic systems-an in situ translocation experiment applying the PICT concept. Aquat Toxicol 101:228–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Sauret C, Christaki U, Moutsaki P, Hatzianestis I, Gogou A, Ghiglione J-F (2012) Influence of pollution history on the response of coastal bacterial and nanoeukaryote communities to crude oil and biostimulation assays. Mar Environ Res 79:70–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Sauret C, Boettjer D, Talarmin A, Guigue C, Conan P, Pujo-Pay M, Ghiglione J-F (2015) Top-down control of diesel-degrading prokaryotic communities. Microb Ecol 70:445–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Sauret C, Tedetti M, Guigue C, Dumas C, Lami R, Pujo-Pay M, Conan P, Goutx M, Ghiglione J-F (2016) Influence of PAHs among other coastal environmental variables on total and PAH-degrading bacterial communities. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:4242–4256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Schloter M, Dilly O, Munch JC (2003) Indicators for evaluating soil quality. Agrc Ecosyst Environ 98:255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schmitt-Jansen M, Veit U, Dudel G, Altenburger R (2008) An ecological perspective in aquatic ecotoxicology: approaches and challenges. Basic Appl Ecol 9:337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Singh JS (2015) Microbes: the chief ecological engineers in reinstating equilibrium in degraded ecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 203:80–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sipilä TP, Keskinen AK, Åkerman ML, Fortelius C, Haahtela K, Yrjälä K (2008) High aromatic ring-cleavage diversity in birch rhizosphere: PAH treatment-specific changes of I.E.3 group extradiol dioxygenases and 16S rRNA bacterial communities in soil. ISME J 2:968–981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Smith CJ, Osborn AM (2008) Advantages and limitations of quantitative PCR (Q-PCR)-based approaches in microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 67:6–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Thompson PA, Couture P (1993) Physiology of carbon assimilation in a green alga during exposure to and recovery from cadmium. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 26:205–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Tlili A, Berard A, Blanck H, Bouchez A, Cássio F, Eriksson KM, Morin S, Montuelle B, Navarro E, Pascoal C, Pesce S, Schmitt-Jansen M, Behra R (2015) Pollution-induced community tolerance (PICT): towards an ecologically relevant risk assessment of chemicals in aquatic systems. Freshwater BiolGoogle Scholar
  98. Tripathi BN, Gaur JP (2006) Physiological behavior of Scenedesmus sp during exposure to elevated levels of Cu and Zn and after withdrawal of metal stress. Protoplasma 229:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Tripathi BN, Mehta SK, Gaur JP (2004) Recovery of uptake and assimilation of nitrate in Scenedesmus sp previously exposed to elevated levels of Cu2+ and Zn2+. J Plant Physiol 161:543–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Vallotton N, Ilda R, Eggen L, Escher BI, Krayenbuehl J, Chevre N (2008a) Effect of pulse herbicidal exposure on Scenedesmus vacuolatus: a comparison of two photosystem II inhibitors. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1399–1407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Vallotton N, Moser D, Eggen RIL, Junghans M, Chevre N (2008b) S-metolachlor pulse exposure on the alga Scenedesmus vacuolatus: effects during exposure and the subsequent recovery. Chemosphere 73:395–400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Van-Camp L, Bujarrabal B, Gentile AR, Jones RJA, Montanarella L, lazabal C, Selvaradjou SK (2004) Reports of the technical working groups established under the thematic strategy for soil protection. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, EUR 21319 EN/4, 872 pagesGoogle Scholar
  103. Wang M-J, Wang W-X (2011) Cadmium sensitivity, uptake, subcellular distribution and thiol induction in a marine diatom: recovery from cadmium exposure. Aquat Toxicol 101:387–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Zeng J, Yang L, Wang W-X (2009) Acclimation to and recovery from cadmium and zinc exposure by a freshwater cyanobacterium, Microcystis aeruginosa. Aquat Toxicol 93:1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stéphane Pesce
    • 1
  • Jean-François Ghiglione
    • 2
  • Fabrice Martin-Laurent
    • 3
  1. 1.Irstea, UR MALY, Centre de Lyon-VilleurbanneVilleurbanne CedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Océanographie Microbienne, Observatoire OcéanologiqueSorbonne Universités, CNRS, UPMC Univ Paris 06, UMR 7621Banyuls-sur-MerFrance
  3. 3.Agroécologie, AgroSup Dijon, INRAUniversité de Bourgogne Franche-ComtéDijonFrance

Personalised recommendations