Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1. INTRODUCTION
Reliable, efficient and rapid processing of organic matter is the goal of transferring natural
microbial communities to reactors for processing higher amounts of carbon. The environment
can be better controlled in reactors and the assumption is that this control also helps maintain
and stabilize microbial populations important to efficient function. We have studied two
questions concerning community stability with anaerobic reactors fed one carbon substrate,
glucose. The first question is how constant is the microbial community in a reactor
maintained under constant conditions for over 1500 days, and the second question is how fast
and reliably do communities return to their normal function and composition after they are
subject to perturbation. In this case the perturbation was a shock-load of glucose.
Anaerobic communities are particularly interesting for microbial stability studies because
substrate processing requires a food chain, a series of at least three guilds of microbes
specialized in the steps converting carbohydrate to methane and carbon dioxide. They must
operate in coordination for the community to prosper and the function to be efficient.
Current address: *Catedra de Microbiologica, Universidad de la Republica, Montevideo,
Uruguay, *Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, CA
94305
14
Secondly, this ecosystem operates near the thermodynamic limits of stability and hence is
particularly sensitive to perturbations. Furthermore, the members of these communities are
thought to be well understood, particularly with regard to their metabolic pathways,
requirements, and identity.
This paper summarizes highlights of work presented in more detail elsewhere [ 1-3].
15
Functional efficiencv
loo.o
t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
90.0 % ....................................................................................................!
80.0 %
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
i
C o m m u n i t v structure
,~
Mb. formicicum
Ms. mazeii
Mb. bryantii
,,
, ,y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[1
I/
"-]AO-I II _ ~
[] AO-II~~
x~
Spirochetes Gr. 1
E VEO-I
Spirochetes Gr. 2
ro Spirochetes Gr. 3
Eubacterium
P ropion ibacteri u m
Unaffiliated OTU
EO-VII
D-I
II
16
Figure 2. Variation in dominant Bacteria over time in a stable anaerobic reactor. Each
pattern represents a different OTU and the bar size represents its frequency in the 16S rDNA
clone library. Redrawn from Fernandez et al.[2].
was chaotic, the first period was dominated by different groups of Spirochetes. Hence, there
was cycling of dominance within the Spirochetes.
Ecosystem stability often means different things to different disciplines. To some,
stability refers to function and to others, it implies constant composition of the community. In
this paper we are referring to the later as persistence. A difficulty in limiting the concept of
stability to function is that information about the populations is ot~en ignored, however, it is
the properties of the populations, particularly their fitness parameters, that are the heart of the
information needed to more intelligently manage communities. The results from our work
indicate that an extremely dynamic community sustains a functionally stable system.
Dominant members change dramatically, even over periods as short of 3.3 retention times.
These results also indicate that functional parameters, like pH and COD, are inadequate to
reveal community structure variation.
Phylogenetic analysis revealed that the genetic changes detected by ARDRA suggested
metabolic variation in the community. However, if similar physiology is assumed for
phylogenetically related taxa, the metabolic variation was less dramatic than were the genetic
changes. Since the anaerobic food chains involve close interactions between different guilds,
we expected that there would be a correlation between any changes in the Bacteria and
Archaea communities. This was only moderately apparent in our study. The most obvious
was that the Spirochetes occurred during the period when the Archaea were dominated by
Methanobacterium formicicum but disappeared in the later period when the methanogen
community shifted. We do not know if this relationship is causal and if so which component
would have initiated the change (Figure 1).
Response to Perturbations.
Ecologists quantify several parameters of stability as
described in Figure 3. The two main parameters commonly measured in this amplification
17
Amplification envelope
C
O
=m,
E
o
o
=o
Reactivity
Q,
O
m
====
"O
o
E
i_
Perturbation
! Resistance
i/
~,~_~./.!.m.a_,_._>:,max',
Resilience"
"
18
1~1
.=_ =o
r
9I ~
"O
Cj r
40
(u
O
I-
HS set
,--
LS set
,w
16
24
32
100
HS set
A
80
LS set
t__
60
.=,,
r
o
4O
.=,,
o
Q.
o
L
a.
20
'
'
'
16
24
32
19
organisms that grew faster on the glucose, but then returned to dominance at day 16 and
thereafter following the glucose perturbation.
The high spirochete reactors appeared to accommodate the high glucose loading because
minor members of the population could rapidly ferment the extra glucose producing butyrate.
ARDRA and 16S rDNA sequence analysis showed that this fast responding population was
related to Eubacterium hadrum.The large population of Spirochetes in a high spirochete
community is thought to ferment glucose to acetate, but when a large amount of glucose was
fed, a fast growing Eubacterium that was initially present in very low numbers emerged, out
competing the slower growing Spirochete populations, eventually shifting 30% of the electron
and carbon flow through butyrate (Figure 6). This was accompanied by a high proportion of
fast-growing, acetoclastic Methanosarcina species which rapidly metabolized the acetate
generated after the perturbation, resulting in little accumulation of acetate.
In the low spirochete reactor, Streptococcus-like organisms responded to the glucose
addition and produced lactate which appeared to be followed by clostridia converting the
lactate to butyrate. Acetate subsequently accumulated because the methanogenic population
was dominated by the slow growing Methanosaeta species. Organisms like Eubacterium and
Clostridium probably produce large amounts of H2 shifting the reducing equivalents directly
to a neutral methanogenic substrate that is rapidly utilized and possibly conferring functional
stability to the system.
Our studies show that functional stability could not be attributed to higher species
diversity, rather, a flexible community structure allowed minor members to rapidly
accommodate the high flux of glucose. Consequently our conclusion is that a stable
community structure may be inflexible and does not allow populations to quickly respond to
new conditions. Hence, flexibility rather than diversity or persistence may be important traits
for stably functioning reactor ecosystems.
100
IIIIII11
IIIIIIII
80 84
8
n
...... e
IIil111
II II111
r!!!!!!!
II
11
II
I~
HS (IV-XXV): unidentified
I1|
|11
III
.!!!.!!
II
II
I~1
I~
60
t4o
?
% 20
(94.7%)
(98.7%)
16
0
8
Time from perturbation (days)
Figure 6. Succession of OTU's in the high spirochete reactor following the glucose shockloading at day 0.
20
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by NSF grant DEB9120006 to the Center for Microbial Ecology.
REFERENCES
1. Fernandez, A., Hashsham, S.A., Dollhopf, S.L., Raskin, L., Dazzo, F.B., Glagoleva, O.,
Hickey, R.F., Criddle, C.S., and Tiedje, J.M. (2000). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. (In
Press).
2. Fernandez, A., Huang, S., Seston, S., Xing, J., Hickey, R.F., Criddle, C., and Tiedje, J.M.
(1999). Appl. Environ. Microbiol., Vol 65, pp3697-3704.
3. Hashsham, S.A., Fernandez, A.S., Dollhopf, S.L., Dazzo, F.B., Hickey, R.F., Tiedje, J.M.
and Criddle, C.S. (2000). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. (In Press).
4. Xing, J., Criddle, C., and Hickey, R. (1997). Microb. Ecol. Vol 33, pp50-58.
5. Massol-Deya, A., Odelson, D.A., Hickey, R.F., and Tiedje, J.T. (1995). In: Molecular
microbial ecology manual, A.D.L. Akkermans, J.D. van Elsas, and F.J. de Bruijn (eds.),
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, p. 3.3.2:1-8.
6. Hashsham, S., Marsh, T., Dollhopf, S., Fernandez, A., Dazzo, F., Hickey, R., Criddle, C.,
and Tiedje, J. (2000). In this volume.
7. Grimm, V., Schmidt, E., and Wissel, C. (1992). Ecological Modelling, Vol 63, pp143161.
8. Neubert, M.G. and Caswell, H. (1997). Ecology, Vol 73, No. 3, pp653-665.