AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Röling, W. F. M.
Right arrow Articles by Head, I. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Röling, W. F. M.
Right arrow Articles by Head, I. M.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Röling, W. F. M.
Right arrow Articles by Head, I. M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, May 2004, p. 2603-2613, Vol. 70, No. 5
0099-2240/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AEM.70.5.2603-2613.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Bacterial Community Dynamics and Hydrocarbon Degradation during a Field-Scale Evaluation of Bioremediation on a Mudflat Beach Contaminated with Buried Oil

Wilfred F. M. Röling,1,{dagger} Michael G. Milner,1 D. Martin Jones,1 Francesco Fratepietro,1 Richard P. J. Swannell,2 Fabien Daniel,2 and Ian M. Head1*

School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences and Centre for Molecular Ecology, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU,1 AEA Technology, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 OQJ, United Kingdom2

Received 3 October 2003/ Accepted 19 January 2004

A field-scale experiment with a complete randomized block design was performed to study the degradation of buried oil on a shoreline over a period of almost 1 year. The following four treatments were examined in three replicate blocks: two levels of fertilizer treatment of oil-treated plots, one receiving a weekly application of liquid fertilizer and the other treated with a slow-release fertilizer; and two controls, one not treated with oil and the other treated with oil but not with fertilizer. Oil degradation was monitored by measuring carbon dioxide evolution and by chemical analysis of the oil. Buried oil was degraded to a significantly greater extent in fertilized plots, but no differences in oil chemistry were observed between the two different fertilizer treatments, although carbon dioxide production was significantly higher in the oil-treated plots that were treated with slow-release fertilizer during the first 14 days of the experiment. Bacterial communities present in the beach sediments were profiled by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) analysis of PCR-amplified 16S rRNA gene fragments and 16S rRNA amplified by reverse transcriptase PCR. Similarities between the DGGE profiles were calculated, and similarity matrices were subjected to statistical analysis. These analyses showed that although significant hydrocarbon degradation occurred both in plots treated with oil alone and in the plots treated with oil and liquid fertilizer, the bacterial community structure in these plots was, in general, not significantly different from that in the control plots that were not treated with oil and did not change over time. In contrast, the bacterial community structure in the plots treated with oil and slow-release fertilizer changed rapidly, and there were significant differences over time, as well as between blocks and even within plots. The differences were probably related to the higher concentrations of nutrients measured in interstitial water from the plots treated with slow-release fertilizer. Bacteria with 16S rRNA sequences closely related (>99.7% identity) to Alcanivorax borkumensis and Pseudomonas stutzeri sequences dominated during the initial phase of oil degradation in the plots treated with slow-release fertilizer. Field data were compared to the results of previous laboratory microcosm experiments, which revealed significant differences.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Civil Engineering and Geosciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, United Kingdom. Phone: 44 191 2226605. Fax: 44 191 2225431. E-mail: i.m.head{at}ncl.ac.uk.

{dagger} Present address: Molecular Cell Physiology, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.


Applied and Environmental Microbiology, May 2004, p. 2603-2613, Vol. 70, No. 5
0099-2240/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AEM.70.5.2603-2613.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.




This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals

Copyright © 2004 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.