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

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 imp...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC microbiology 2017-02, Vol.17 (1), p.29-29, Article 29
Hauptverfasser: 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
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 29
container_issue 1
container_start_page 29
container_title BMC microbiology
container_volume 17
creator 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
description 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. 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. 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s12866-017-0926-5
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5290638</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A480552460</galeid><sourcerecordid>A480552460</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-e3d1f4ddc971703093d6ac03ecd8f51f7bf481cea94d1e4e1d1112424e22bca13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkk1vEzEQhlcIREvhB3BBlrjAYVuP98t7AUWlpZUqkPg4W4493pju2sH2RvTf4yhp1UiVD7ZmnnnlmXmL4i3QUwDenkVgvG1LCl1Je9aWzbPiGOoOSgacPn_0PipexfiHZpBX3cviiHFoeN81x8XdF0-W1hs7TkT5aZqdTRYjCRjX3mmSPEkrJGqFk1VyJNEOTqY5p4k3xASpbq0bPpMFSRgTsW7jx02OkJgCyinmCPnmQ1qVCl0KWWERbqWLMr4uXhg5Rnyzv0-K35cXv86vypvvX6_PFzelaihNJVYaTK216jvoaEX7SrdS0QqV5qYB0y1NzUGh7GsNWCNoAGA1q5GxpZJQnRSfdrrreTmh3n9DrIOdZLgTXlpxmHF2JQa_EQ3raVvxLPBhLxD83zl3KSYbFY6jdOjnKPImmobRtmMZfb9DBzmisM74rKi2uFjUnGasbmmmTp-g8tHbIXuHeRt4WPDxoCAzCf-lQc4xiuufPw5Z2LEq-BgDmodOgYqta8TONSKbQWxdI5pc8-7xiB4q7m1S_Qd4HL5x</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1865520672</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? A test involving streams in North-central Arkansas</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><creator>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</creator><creatorcontrib>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</creatorcontrib><description>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. 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. 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1471-2180</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-2180</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s12866-017-0926-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28158975</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Agriculture ; Arkansas ; Bacteria - classification ; Bacteria - genetics ; Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification ; Bacteria - metabolism ; Biodiversity ; Biofilms ; Composition ; DNA, Bacterial ; Ecology ; Ecosystem ; Environmental aspects ; Environmental Monitoring ; Geographic Mapping ; Groundwater - chemistry ; Groundwater - microbiology ; Hydraulic Fracking ; Hydraulic fracturing ; Hydrology ; Identification and classification ; Microbiota ; Natural Gas ; Nitrogen - analysis ; Oil and Gas Industry ; Oil wells ; Phosphorous Acids - analysis ; Researc ; River sediments ; Rivers - chemistry ; Rivers - microbiology ; RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics ; Urbanization ; Water Pollutants, Chemical - analysis ; Water Pollution</subject><ispartof>BMC microbiology, 2017-02, Vol.17 (1), p.29-29, Article 29</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>The Author(s). 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-e3d1f4ddc971703093d6ac03ecd8f51f7bf481cea94d1e4e1d1112424e22bca13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-e3d1f4ddc971703093d6ac03ecd8f51f7bf481cea94d1e4e1d1112424e22bca13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5290638/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5290638/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28158975$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Wilson H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Douglas, Marlis R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewis, Jeffrey A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stuecker, Tara N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carbonero, Franck G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Austin, Bradley J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans-White, Michelle A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Entrekin, Sally A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Douglas, Michael E</creatorcontrib><title>Do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? A test involving streams in North-central Arkansas</title><title>BMC microbiology</title><addtitle>BMC Microbiol</addtitle><description>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. 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. 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.</description><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Arkansas</subject><subject>Bacteria - classification</subject><subject>Bacteria - genetics</subject><subject>Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Bacteria - metabolism</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biofilms</subject><subject>Composition</subject><subject>DNA, Bacterial</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>Environmental aspects</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring</subject><subject>Geographic Mapping</subject><subject>Groundwater - chemistry</subject><subject>Groundwater - microbiology</subject><subject>Hydraulic Fracking</subject><subject>Hydraulic fracturing</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Identification and classification</subject><subject>Microbiota</subject><subject>Natural Gas</subject><subject>Nitrogen - analysis</subject><subject>Oil and Gas Industry</subject><subject>Oil wells</subject><subject>Phosphorous Acids - analysis</subject><subject>Researc</subject><subject>River sediments</subject><subject>Rivers - chemistry</subject><subject>Rivers - microbiology</subject><subject>RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics</subject><subject>Urbanization</subject><subject>Water Pollutants, Chemical - analysis</subject><subject>Water Pollution</subject><issn>1471-2180</issn><issn>1471-2180</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNptkk1vEzEQhlcIREvhB3BBlrjAYVuP98t7AUWlpZUqkPg4W4493pju2sH2RvTf4yhp1UiVD7ZmnnnlmXmL4i3QUwDenkVgvG1LCl1Je9aWzbPiGOoOSgacPn_0PipexfiHZpBX3cviiHFoeN81x8XdF0-W1hs7TkT5aZqdTRYjCRjX3mmSPEkrJGqFk1VyJNEOTqY5p4k3xASpbq0bPpMFSRgTsW7jx02OkJgCyinmCPnmQ1qVCl0KWWERbqWLMr4uXhg5Rnyzv0-K35cXv86vypvvX6_PFzelaihNJVYaTK216jvoaEX7SrdS0QqV5qYB0y1NzUGh7GsNWCNoAGA1q5GxpZJQnRSfdrrreTmh3n9DrIOdZLgTXlpxmHF2JQa_EQ3raVvxLPBhLxD83zl3KSYbFY6jdOjnKPImmobRtmMZfb9DBzmisM74rKi2uFjUnGasbmmmTp-g8tHbIXuHeRt4WPDxoCAzCf-lQc4xiuufPw5Z2LEq-BgDmodOgYqta8TONSKbQWxdI5pc8-7xiB4q7m1S_Qd4HL5x</recordid><startdate>20170203</startdate><enddate>20170203</enddate><creator>Johnson, Wilson H</creator><creator>Douglas, Marlis R</creator><creator>Lewis, Jeffrey A</creator><creator>Stuecker, Tara N</creator><creator>Carbonero, Franck G</creator><creator>Austin, Bradley J</creator><creator>Evans-White, Michelle A</creator><creator>Entrekin, Sally A</creator><creator>Douglas, Michael E</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170203</creationdate><title>Do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? A test involving streams in North-central Arkansas</title><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></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-e3d1f4ddc971703093d6ac03ecd8f51f7bf481cea94d1e4e1d1112424e22bca13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Arkansas</topic><topic>Bacteria - classification</topic><topic>Bacteria - genetics</topic><topic>Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Bacteria - metabolism</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biofilms</topic><topic>Composition</topic><topic>DNA, Bacterial</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>Environmental aspects</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring</topic><topic>Geographic Mapping</topic><topic>Groundwater - chemistry</topic><topic>Groundwater - microbiology</topic><topic>Hydraulic Fracking</topic><topic>Hydraulic fracturing</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Identification and classification</topic><topic>Microbiota</topic><topic>Natural Gas</topic><topic>Nitrogen - analysis</topic><topic>Oil and Gas Industry</topic><topic>Oil wells</topic><topic>Phosphorous Acids - analysis</topic><topic>Researc</topic><topic>River sediments</topic><topic>Rivers - chemistry</topic><topic>Rivers - microbiology</topic><topic>RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics</topic><topic>Urbanization</topic><topic>Water Pollutants, Chemical - analysis</topic><topic>Water Pollution</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Wilson H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Douglas, Marlis R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewis, Jeffrey A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stuecker, Tara N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carbonero, Franck G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Austin, Bradley J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans-White, Michelle A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Entrekin, Sally A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Douglas, Michael E</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMC microbiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Johnson, Wilson H</au><au>Douglas, Marlis R</au><au>Lewis, Jeffrey A</au><au>Stuecker, Tara N</au><au>Carbonero, Franck G</au><au>Austin, Bradley J</au><au>Evans-White, Michelle A</au><au>Entrekin, Sally A</au><au>Douglas, Michael E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? A test involving streams in North-central Arkansas</atitle><jtitle>BMC microbiology</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Microbiol</addtitle><date>2017-02-03</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>29</spage><epage>29</epage><pages>29-29</pages><artnum>29</artnum><issn>1471-2180</issn><eissn>1471-2180</eissn><abstract>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. 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. 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.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>28158975</pmid><doi>10.1186/s12866-017-0926-5</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1471-2180
ispartof BMC microbiology, 2017-02, Vol.17 (1), p.29-29, Article 29
issn 1471-2180
1471-2180
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5290638
source MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; PubMed Central Open Access; Springer Nature OA Free Journals
subjects Agriculture
Arkansas
Bacteria - classification
Bacteria - genetics
Bacteria - isolation & purification
Bacteria - metabolism
Biodiversity
Biofilms
Composition
DNA, Bacterial
Ecology
Ecosystem
Environmental aspects
Environmental Monitoring
Geographic Mapping
Groundwater - chemistry
Groundwater - microbiology
Hydraulic Fracking
Hydraulic fracturing
Hydrology
Identification and classification
Microbiota
Natural Gas
Nitrogen - analysis
Oil and Gas Industry
Oil wells
Phosphorous Acids - analysis
Researc
River sediments
Rivers - chemistry
Rivers - microbiology
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics
Urbanization
Water Pollutants, Chemical - analysis
Water Pollution
title Do biofilm communities respond to the chemical signatures of fracking? A test involving streams in North-central Arkansas
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T20%3A06%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20biofilm%20communities%20respond%20to%20the%20chemical%20signatures%20of%20fracking?%20A%20test%20involving%20streams%20in%20North-central%20Arkansas&rft.jtitle=BMC%20microbiology&rft.au=Johnson,%20Wilson%20H&rft.date=2017-02-03&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=29&rft.epage=29&rft.pages=29-29&rft.artnum=29&rft.issn=1471-2180&rft.eissn=1471-2180&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s12866-017-0926-5&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA480552460%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1865520672&rft_id=info:pmid/28158975&rft_galeid=A480552460&rfr_iscdi=true