Cargando…

Do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? A test involving streams in North-central Arkansas

BACKGROUND: Unconventional natural gas (UNG) extraction (fracking) is ongoing in 29 North American shale basins (20 states), with ~6000 wells found within the Fayetteville shale (north-central Arkansas). If the chemical signature of fracking is detectable in streams, it can be employed to bookmark p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Johnson, Wilson H., Douglas, Marlis R., Lewis, Jeffrey A., Stuecker, Tara N., Carbonero, Franck G., Austin, Bradley J., Evans-White, Michelle A., Entrekin, Sally A., Douglas, Michael E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5290638/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28158975
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-017-0926-5
_version_ 1782504673139228672
author Johnson, Wilson H.
Douglas, Marlis R.
Lewis, Jeffrey A.
Stuecker, Tara N.
Carbonero, Franck G.
Austin, Bradley J.
Evans-White, Michelle A.
Entrekin, Sally A.
Douglas, Michael E.
author_facet Johnson, Wilson H.
Douglas, Marlis R.
Lewis, Jeffrey A.
Stuecker, Tara N.
Carbonero, Franck G.
Austin, Bradley J.
Evans-White, Michelle A.
Entrekin, Sally A.
Douglas, Michael E.
author_sort Johnson, Wilson H.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Unconventional natural gas (UNG) extraction (fracking) is ongoing in 29 North American shale basins (20 states), with ~6000 wells found within the Fayetteville shale (north-central Arkansas). If the chemical signature of fracking is detectable in streams, it can be employed to bookmark potential impacts. We evaluated benthic biofilm community composition as a proxy for stream chemistry so as to segregate anthropogenic signatures in eight Arkansas River catchments. In doing so, we tested the hypothesis that fracking characteristics in study streams are statistically distinguishable from those produced by agriculture or urbanization. RESULTS: Four tributary catchments had UNG-wells significantly more dense and near to our sampling sites and were grouped as ‘potentially-impacted catchment zones’ (PICZ). Four others were characterized by significantly larger forested area with greater slope and elevation but reduced pasture, and were classified as ‘minimally-impacted’ (MICZ). Overall, 46 bacterial phyla/141 classes were identified, with 24 phyla (52%) and 54 classes (38%) across all samples. PICZ-sites were ecologically more variable than MICZ-sites, with significantly greater nutrient levels (total nitrogen, total phosphorous), and elevated Cyanobacteria as bioindicators that tracked these conditions. PICZ-sites also exhibited elevated conductance (a correlate of increased ion concentration) and depressed salt-intolerant Spartobacteria, suggesting the presence of brine as a fracking effect. Biofilm communities at PICZ-sites were significantly less variable than those at MICZ-sites. CONCLUSIONS: Study streams differed by Group according to morphology, land use, and water chemistry but not in biofilm community structure. Those at PICZ-sites covaried according to anthropogenic impact, and were qualitatively similar to communities found at sites disturbed by fracking. The hypothesis that fracking signatures in study streams are distinguishable from those produced by other anthropogenic effects was statistically rejected. Instead, alterations in biofilm community composition, as induced by fracking, may be less specific than initially predicted, and thus more easily confounded by agriculture and urbanization effects (among others). Study streams must be carefully categorized with regard to the magnitude and extent of anthropogenic impacts. They must also be segregated with statistical confidence (as herein) before fracking impacts are monitored.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5290638
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52906382017-02-07 Do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? A test involving streams in North-central Arkansas Johnson, Wilson H. Douglas, Marlis R. Lewis, Jeffrey A. Stuecker, Tara N. Carbonero, Franck G. Austin, Bradley J. Evans-White, Michelle A. Entrekin, Sally A. Douglas, Michael E. BMC Microbiol Researc Article BACKGROUND: Unconventional natural gas (UNG) extraction (fracking) is ongoing in 29 North American shale basins (20 states), with ~6000 wells found within the Fayetteville shale (north-central Arkansas). If the chemical signature of fracking is detectable in streams, it can be employed to bookmark potential impacts. We evaluated benthic biofilm community composition as a proxy for stream chemistry so as to segregate anthropogenic signatures in eight Arkansas River catchments. In doing so, we tested the hypothesis that fracking characteristics in study streams are statistically distinguishable from those produced by agriculture or urbanization. RESULTS: Four tributary catchments had UNG-wells significantly more dense and near to our sampling sites and were grouped as ‘potentially-impacted catchment zones’ (PICZ). Four others were characterized by significantly larger forested area with greater slope and elevation but reduced pasture, and were classified as ‘minimally-impacted’ (MICZ). Overall, 46 bacterial phyla/141 classes were identified, with 24 phyla (52%) and 54 classes (38%) across all samples. PICZ-sites were ecologically more variable than MICZ-sites, with significantly greater nutrient levels (total nitrogen, total phosphorous), and elevated Cyanobacteria as bioindicators that tracked these conditions. PICZ-sites also exhibited elevated conductance (a correlate of increased ion concentration) and depressed salt-intolerant Spartobacteria, suggesting the presence of brine as a fracking effect. Biofilm communities at PICZ-sites were significantly less variable than those at MICZ-sites. CONCLUSIONS: Study streams differed by Group according to morphology, land use, and water chemistry but not in biofilm community structure. Those at PICZ-sites covaried according to anthropogenic impact, and were qualitatively similar to communities found at sites disturbed by fracking. The hypothesis that fracking signatures in study streams are distinguishable from those produced by other anthropogenic effects was statistically rejected. Instead, alterations in biofilm community composition, as induced by fracking, may be less specific than initially predicted, and thus more easily confounded by agriculture and urbanization effects (among others). Study streams must be carefully categorized with regard to the magnitude and extent of anthropogenic impacts. They must also be segregated with statistical confidence (as herein) before fracking impacts are monitored. BioMed Central 2017-02-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5290638/ /pubmed/28158975 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-017-0926-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Researc Article
Johnson, Wilson H.
Douglas, Marlis R.
Lewis, Jeffrey A.
Stuecker, Tara N.
Carbonero, Franck G.
Austin, Bradley J.
Evans-White, Michelle A.
Entrekin, Sally A.
Douglas, Michael E.
Do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? A test involving streams in North-central Arkansas
title Do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? A test involving streams in North-central Arkansas
title_full Do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? A test involving streams in North-central Arkansas
title_fullStr Do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? A test involving streams in North-central Arkansas
title_full_unstemmed Do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? A test involving streams in North-central Arkansas
title_short Do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? A test involving streams in North-central Arkansas
title_sort do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? a test involving streams in north-central arkansas
topic Researc Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5290638/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28158975
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-017-0926-5
work_keys_str_mv AT johnsonwilsonh dobiofilmcommunitiesrespondtothechemicalsignaturesoffrackingatestinvolvingstreamsinnorthcentralarkansas
AT douglasmarlisr dobiofilmcommunitiesrespondtothechemicalsignaturesoffrackingatestinvolvingstreamsinnorthcentralarkansas
AT lewisjeffreya dobiofilmcommunitiesrespondtothechemicalsignaturesoffrackingatestinvolvingstreamsinnorthcentralarkansas
AT stueckertaran dobiofilmcommunitiesrespondtothechemicalsignaturesoffrackingatestinvolvingstreamsinnorthcentralarkansas
AT carbonerofranckg dobiofilmcommunitiesrespondtothechemicalsignaturesoffrackingatestinvolvingstreamsinnorthcentralarkansas
AT austinbradleyj dobiofilmcommunitiesrespondtothechemicalsignaturesoffrackingatestinvolvingstreamsinnorthcentralarkansas
AT evanswhitemichellea dobiofilmcommunitiesrespondtothechemicalsignaturesoffrackingatestinvolvingstreamsinnorthcentralarkansas
AT entrekinsallya dobiofilmcommunitiesrespondtothechemicalsignaturesoffrackingatestinvolvingstreamsinnorthcentralarkansas
AT douglasmichaele dobiofilmcommunitiesrespondtothechemicalsignaturesoffrackingatestinvolvingstreamsinnorthcentralarkansas