↓ Skip to main content

The Interaction between Plants and Bacteria in the Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: An Environmental Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Readers on

mendeley
369 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Interaction between Plants and Bacteria in the Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: An Environmental Perspective
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01836
Pubmed ID
Authors

Panagiotis Gkorezis, Matteo Daghio, Andrea Franzetti, Jonathan D. Van Hamme, Wouter Sillen, Jaco Vangronsveld

Abstract

Widespread pollution of terrestrial ecosystems with petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) has generated a need for remediation and, given that many PHCs are biodegradable, bio- and phyto-remediation are often viable approaches for active and passive remediation. This review focuses on phytoremediation with particular interest on the interactions between and use of plant-associated bacteria to restore PHC polluted sites. Plant-associated bacteria include endophytic, phyllospheric, and rhizospheric bacteria, and cooperation between these bacteria and their host plants allows for greater plant survivability and treatment outcomes in contaminated sites. Bacterially driven PHC bioremediation is attributed to the presence of diverse suites of metabolic genes for aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, along with a broader suite of physiological properties including biosurfactant production, biofilm formation, chemotaxis to hydrocarbons, and flexibility in cell-surface hydrophobicity. In soils impacted by PHC contamination, microbial bioremediation generally relies on the addition of high-energy electron acceptors (e.g., oxygen) and fertilization to supply limiting nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium) in the face of excess PHC carbon. As an alternative, the addition of plants can greatly improve bioremediation rates and outcomes as plants provide microbial habitats, improve soil porosity (thereby increasing mass transfer of substrates and electron acceptors), and exchange limiting nutrients with their microbial counterparts. In return, plant-associated microorganisms improve plant growth by reducing soil toxicity through contaminant removal, producing plant growth promoting metabolites, liberating sequestered plant nutrients from soil, fixing nitrogen, and more generally establishing the foundations of soil nutrient cycling. In a practical and applied sense, the collective action of plants and their associated microorganisms is advantageous for remediation of PHC contaminated soil in terms of overall cost and success rates for in situ implementation in a diversity of environments. Mechanistically, there remain biological unknowns that present challenges for applying bio- and phyto-remediation technologies without having a deep prior understanding of individual target sites. In this review, evidence from traditional and modern omics technologies is discussed to provide a framework for plant-microbe interactions during PHC remediation. The potential for integrating multiple molecular and computational techniques to evaluate linkages between microbial communities, plant communities and ecosystem processes is explored with an eye on improving phytoremediation of PHC contaminated sites.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 369 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 367 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 18%
Researcher 55 15%
Student > Master 43 12%
Student > Bachelor 34 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 5%
Other 49 13%
Unknown 104 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 83 22%
Environmental Science 57 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 44 12%
Engineering 19 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 13 4%
Other 34 9%
Unknown 119 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,701,507
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#2,312
of 24,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,046
of 414,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#60
of 418 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,953 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 414,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 418 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.