Putative Effect of Aquifer Recharge on the Abundance and Taxonomic Composition of Endemic Microbial Communities

Renee J. Smith; James S. Paterson; Cally A. Sibley; John L. Hutson; James G. Mitchell

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129004

Abstract

Drought events and the overexploitation of freshwater resources have led to the increased need to manage groundwater reserves. Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), whereby artificial water is injected into aquifers for storage, is one of the proposed methods by which freshwater supplies can be increased. Microbial clogging following injection, however, is a major issue. Here, during laboratory simulations of ASR, we used flow cytometry and bar-coded pyrosequencing to investigate changes in microbial abundance and community dynamics. Bacterial abundance ranged from 5.0 × 10⁴ to 1.4 × 10⁷ cells ml^-1 before the addition of synthetic wastewater. Following wastewater addition, a 25-fold decrease in abundance was observed, coinciding with a 12-fold increase in viral abundance. Taxa shifted from an overrepresentation of Sphingomonadales, Sphingobacteriales, Rhodospirillales, Caulobacterales, Legionellales, Bacillales, Fusobacteriales and Verrucomicrobiales prior to the addition of synthetic wastewater to Burkholderiales, Actinomycetales, Pseudomonadales, Xanthomonadales, Rhodobacterales, Thizobiales and Thiotrichales following the addition of synthetic wastewater. Furthermore, a significant difference in overall taxonomic composition between the groundwater samples before and after the addition of synthetic wastewater was observed, with water samples exhibiting more similarity to sediment samples after wastewater was added. Collectively, these results suggest that ASR may alter the taxonomic composition of endemic microbial communities and that complete profiles of groundwater properties, including microbial community abundance and composition need to be taken into consideration when selecting aquifers for ASR practices.

Citation: Smith RJ, Paterson JS, Sibley CA, Hutson JL, Mitchell JG (2015) Putative Effect of Aquifer Recharge on the Abundance and Taxonomic Composition of Endemic Microbial Communities. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0129004. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004

Academic Editor: Jean-François Humbert, INRA, FRANCE

Received: January 29, 2015; Accepted: May 4, 2015; Published: June 17, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 Smith et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Data Availability: The data can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/29510.

Funding: This work was supported by the Australian Research Council, ARC Linkage Grant to JGM.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

More than 97% of the world’s accessible freshwater reserves are found in aquifers [1], making groundwater one of the most important resources on the planet. In the midst of global warming and drought events, the need to manage these freshwater resources is becoming increasingly important [2–4]. Overexploitation of groundwater by domestic, agricultural and industrial practices have led to the wide spread degradation of aquifers [5,6]. Therefore, the augmentation of local groundwater supplies via the introduction of stormwater, reclaimed water and impaired surface water is of growing interest [7,8].

Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is one of the proposed methods by which water supplies can be increased throughout the year [4]. ASR involves the injection of artificial recharge into aquifers during periods of excess supply, where it is then stored and subsequently re-used when needed [9]. However, ASR can be difficult to maintain long term, due to the high degree of clogging, which can occur within days of injection [10]. Clogging within the aquifer decreases the flow rate, thus hindering subsequent water extraction [11,12]. Among the three classes of clogging (biological physical and chemical), biological or more specifically, microbial clogging is of particular interest [13].

Artificial recharge commonly contains high concentrations of nitrogen and organic carbon [14]. The high concentrations of these chemicals in the infiltrating water can act as a food source for the native microbial communities [15]. The native microbial communities then undergo growth periods, whereby an accretion of microorganisms form within pore spaces that would otherwise hold water and permit flow [16]. The formation of biofilms within the porous media has been shown to significantly reduce flow rate [13], thus affecting the storage and recovery capabilities of the aquifer.

Many studies have investigated the impact of ASR on groundwater flow rate [10,17–19]. However, to our knowledge, there are no studies that attempt to characterise the microbial communities present. Consequently, there is a lack of information regarding which bacterial species are present in aquifers, and what influence the infiltrate plays on community composition. Bar-coded pyrosequencing [20,21] allows for the characterisation of a relatively large number of individual samples simultaneously, generating detailed phylogenetic and taxonomic information of the microbial communities present [22,23]. Utilizing such methods to comprehensively characterise microbial communities within aquifers undergoing ASR practices will provide the basis for improved operation and design ASR. Thus, the aims of the current study were to investigate microbial community composition in ASR simulations, and to determine the effect of introduced artificial recharge on changes in these communities.

Materials and Methods

Site Description

Groundwater samples were sourced from Mackreath Creek Bore A, located within the Scott Creek Catchment, South Australia (35’095S 138’618E) during June 2012. Site access was made available by SA Water through Flinders University. Mackreath Creek catchment is predominantly comprised of native vegetation [24] and this site was chosen as it has not been found to have any contaminating chemicals or other characteristics which would lead to enhanced clogging [24].

Groundwater sampling

Groundwater was collected from a piezometer which consisted of a 142 mm diameter PVC casing, at a slot depth of 12 m. To ensure the most representative and uniform water sample from the aquifer formation was collected, the bore was first purged of 3 bore volumes, or until environmental parameters had stabilized [25]. Water was obtained using a submersible 12 V, 39 m Monsoon pump (EnviroEquip). A total of 60 L of groundwater was collected for use in the laboratory trial, while 5 L was collected for bar-coded pyrosequencing.

Physical parameters of dissolved oxygen (DO; mg l^-1), pH, electrical conductivity (EC; mS cm^-1) and temperature (°C) were measured using a YSI DO meter, YSI flow cell and YSI 556 Multi-Probe System (YSI Inc.). Samples for initial nutrient analysis were stored at 4°C in the dark and analysed within 24 h. Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and total nitrogen (TN) concentrations were determined in triplicate using the combustion catalytic oxidation methods on a TOC-L Series analyser (Shimadzu). For enumeration of heterotrophic bacteria and virus-like particles (VLP), triplicate 1 mL water samples were fixed with gluteraldehyde (0.5% final concentration) and incubated at 4°C for 15 min, then quick frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -80°C prior to flow cytometry analysis [26].

Column set up and experimentation

A schematic representation of the columns used in this study is shown in Fig 1. To prevent contamination, all glass equipment was autoclaved while plastic equipment was washed with 10% HCL, followed by 0.2 μm filtered MilliQ. The experiment was conducted in a temperature controlled laboratory at 20 ± 2°C, and all columns were kept in the dark to mimic groundwater conditions.

Download:

Fig 1. A schematic representation of sediment columns used in the study.

Three stainless steel columns, 15 cm in length and 4.5 cm in diameter, were autoclaved and filled with sterile non-reactive silicate fine grain sand, approximately 600 μm in diameter. Each column was connected to a 20 L water reservoir, 30 cm above the columns. Groundwater was gravity fed into the each column for 64 days. Synthetic wastewater was introduced into each column on day 35. Sterile collection containers were located under each column for groundwater recirculation and sample analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.g001

Once assembled, 20 L of groundwater was fed through each column for 64 days. The same groundwater was recirculated over the duration of the study so as to ensure there were no new microbes or nutrients introduced, generating a closed system. Samples for flow cytometric and nutrient analysis were collected at 12 h intervals. DO, pH, EC, and flow rate [27] were also measured every 12 h. At day 34, 5 L of water was collected from each column for barcoded pyrosequencing. On day 35, the second phase of the trial commenced, with the addition of synthetic wastewater, which was gravity fed into each column. The synthetic wastewater used in the experiment contained the following components dissolved in MilliQ water (mg l^-1); 163.2, milk powder; 16.2, C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁; 37.6, C₂H₃NaO₂; 6, KH₂PO₄; 78, (NH₄)₂SO₄; 30, CH₄N₂O; 0.1, FeCl₃; and 1, NaOH [28]. Synthetic wastewater was injected directly into the tubing, 1 cm above the column, to simulate the addition of artificial recharge (Fig 1). Prior to injection, synthetic wastewater was autoclaved to prevent microbial contamination. The columns were run under these conditions for a further 29 days with sample collections every 12 h. Due to low flow rates following the addition of synthetic wastewater, 5 L of water from each column for the purpose of barcoded pyrosequencing was collected from day 56 onwards. After 29 days of injecting synthetic wastewater into the columns, 10 g sediment samples for bar-coded pyrosequencing were collected in sterile conditions at the top, 0 cm, and the bottom, 15 cm of each column.

Nutrient analyses

From each column at 12 h intervals, 2 x 50 ml samples of water were collected. DOC and TN analysis were conducted in triplicate using the combustion catalytic oxidation methods on a TOC-L Series analyser (Shimadzu).

Microbial enumeration

Bacteria and VLPs were enumerated using an Accuri C6 flow cytometer (Becton Dickinson), which was fitted with a 488 nm blue laser and green (530/30 nm), orange (585/40 nm) and red (670 nm) filters. Prior to analysis, triplicate samples were thawed and diluted to 1:10 with 0.2 μm filtered TE buffer (10mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8). Samples were then stained with SYBR Green-I solution (1:20000 dilution; Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) and incubated in the dark at 80°C for 10 min [26]. As an internal size and fluorescence standard, 1 μm diameter fluorescent beads (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) were added to each samples at a final concentration of approximately 10⁵ beads ml^-1 [29]. For each sample, forward scatter, side scatter and green (SYBR Green-I) fluorescence were acquired for two minutes. FlowJo (Treestar, Inc.) software was used to analyse data collected from each sample, where differences in cell side scatter and SYBR Green fluorescence were used to discriminate between VLP and bacterial groups [26,30,31].

Sample filtration, microbial community DNA extraction and sequencing

Following sample collection, water samples for bar-coded pyrosequencing were filtered through 5 μm membranes to remove sediment particles. Microbial biomass was then collected on a 0.22 μm membrane filter. Microbial community DNA from the water samples were extracted using the PowerWater DNA Isolation Kit (MoBio laboratories, Inc., Carlsbad, CA, USA), while the microbial community DNA from the sediment samples were extracted using the PowerMax Soil DNA Isolation Kit (MoBio laboratories, Inc., Carlsbad, CA, USA). DNA concentration and quality were determined using a Qubit fluorometer (Quant-iT dsDNA HS Assay Kit; Invitrogen) and by 1.5% TBE agarose gel electrophoresis (Bioline). High molecular weight DNA was then sent to the Molecular Research LP (MR DNA; Texas, USA) for 16S rRNA gene based bar-coded pyrosequencing [32]. Bacterial diversity of aquifer clogging was analysed by amplification of the 16S rRNA gene using the primers 27F (5’-AGRGTTTGATCMTGGCTCAG -3’) and 519R (5’-GTNTTACNGCGGCKGCTG -3’). Sequencing was conducted on the GS-FLX pyrosequencing platform using Titanium reagents (Roche).

Data analysis

Euclidean distance matrices were calculated for the square-root transformed data to determine the differences in the geophysical parameters between columns before and after the addition of synthetic wastewater using Primer for Windows (Version 6.1.13, Primer-E, Plymouth; [33]. Significance was then determined using a Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance, PERMANOVA + version 1.0.3 add-on to PRIMER [34,35], using 9999 unrestricted permutations.

To determine the overall effect synthetic wastewater had on the microbial cell abundance, rank-abundance analysis was used to identify the degree of structure within a distribution. The abundance of bacterial and VLP abundances were ranked from 1 to 100 and then plotted on a log-log graph of mean abundance versus rank. Power-law trend lines were calculated with the random noise, represented by the characteristic downward roll-off, omitted [36,37].

Unassembled DNA sequences were processed using Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology (QIIME) as previously described [38]. The quality filtering criteria were a minimum quality score of 25, minimum 200 bp in length, no ambiguous bases and no mismatches in the primer sequence. The remaining sequences were clustered into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) based on sequence similarity using UCLUST v1.2.21q [39], with a minimum identity of 97%. Taxonomic assignments were made at different phylogenetic levels using the RDP naïve Bayesian rRNA Classifier [40], with 80% taxonomic confidence and an E-value of 0.001.

To compare the relative levels of bacterial OTU diversity within the groundwater samples, rarefaction and Alpha diversity statistics including library coverage and phylogenetic diversity, Chao 1 [41], were calculated for each sample using QIIME [38]. Bray-Curtis similarity distance matrices were calculated for square-root transformed data to test the difference between groundwater samples before and after synthetic wastewater addition, using Primer 6 for Windows (Version 6.1.13, Primer-E. Plymouth; [33]. Canonical analysis of principal coordinates (CAP) [34] on the sum of squared canonical correlations was used to determine whether there were any significant differences between microbial community composition before and after synthetic wastewater addition, as well as between the water and sediment samples. The a priori hypothesis that the taxonomic composition was different between the groups were different was tested in CAP by obtaining a P-value using 9999 permutations. CAP ordinations were generated using order level classifications.

Where significant difference were found using CAP analysis, the percent contribution of each taxa to the separation between groundwater before and after synthetic wastewater addition were assessed using similarity percentage (SIMPER) analysis [42]. Comparison of water samples at day 64 to sediment samples from within the columns were carried out to distinguish potential biofilm forming taxa. The resulting top 90 percent of all taxa were used to determine the shifts in taxonomy between the groups. To determine those taxa that were consistently contributing to the overall dissimilarity between the groundwater samples before and after synthetic wastewater addition, the ratio of the average dissimilarity to standard deviation (Diss/SD) was used. A Diss/SD ratio of greater than 1.4 was used to indicate key discriminating taxa [43].

Results

Overview of the biogeochemical conditions, hydraulic conductivity and microbial abundance in column experiments

PERMANOVA analysis exhibited a significant difference between all biotic, physical and chemical variables before and after the addition of synthetic wastewater (P-value = 0.0001). More specifically, following the addition of synthetic wastewater, DO concentrations decreased from approximately 9.2 to 4.6 mg l^-1 from day 35 to day 64 (Fig 2A). There was also a decrease in pH, whereby at day 35, pH in all 3 columns ranged from 7–7.6, however at day 64 pH ranged from 3.9–4.2 (Fig 2B). Nutrient concentrations for DOC and TN became more variable following the addition of synthetic wastewater (Fig 3). Flow rates showed a marked decrease from 9.42–10.24 l day^-1 at day 35 to 0.03–0.16 l day^-1 at day 64 (Fig 4).

Download:

Fig 2. Environmental parameters collected from column water samples every 12 h over a 64 day period.

(A) Dissolved oxygen concentrations (DO, mg l^-1) (B) pH (C) Electrical conductivity (EC, μS cm^-1). Error bars represent ± standard error. Dashed line represents commencement of synthetic wastewater addition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.g002

Download:

Fig 3. Nutrient analysis from column water samples every 12 h over a 64 day period.

(A) Dissolved organic carbon (DOC, mg l^-1) (B) Total nitrogen (TN, mg l^-1). Error bars represent ± standard error. Dashed line represents commencement of synthetic wastewater addition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.g003

Download:

Fig 4. Outflow rate (l day^-1) from column water samples every 12 h over a 64 day period.

Error bars represent ± standard error. Dashed line represents commencement of synthetic wastewater addition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.g004

Mean bacterial abundance ranged from 5.4 × 10⁴–1.4 × 10⁷ cells ml^-1 before the addition of synthetic wastewater and from 5.4 × 10⁴–2.2 × 10⁸ cells ml^-1 after wastewater addition (Fig 5A). Mean VLP abundance ranged from 9.2 × 10⁴–2.1 ×10⁷ cells ml^-1 and from 6.6 × 10⁴–1.2 × 10⁸ cells ml^-1 before and after synthetic wastewater addition, respectively (Fig 5B). Initial virus:bacteria ratio (VBR) values ranged from 7.6–14.7 at the beginning of the experiment then decreased to 0.1 to 1.0 up to day 34. Following the addition of wastewater (day 35) VBR values increased up to 65.9 then decreased to day 64 (Fig 5C). Rank abundance analysis of bacterial and VLP abundances revealed a power law distribution, whereby an the exponent became more negative following the wastewater addition (S1 Fig).

Download:

Fig 5. Mean (A) bacterial and (B) VLP abundance (cells ml^-1) and (C) Virus: bacteria ratio from column water samples collected every 12 hours over 64 days.

Errors bars represent ± standard error. Dashed line represents commencement of synthetic wastewater addition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.g005

Bar-coded pyrosequencing

Following the removal of reads less than 200 bases and filtering by base quality, a total of 237,613 sequences were obtained from the groundwater and column experiments (http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/29510). Within these sequences, groundwater, prior to its addition to the columns, was dominated by Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria accounting for 60.2% and 30.5%, respectively (S2 Fig and S1 Table). Within these phyla, Actinomycetales and Burkholderiales contributed to 59.7% and 16.1%, respectively (S2 Table.). After the addition of synthetic wastewater at day 64 a shift was seen in the groundwater within the columns, whereby columns 1, 2 and 3 were dominated by Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes, contributing to between 30.5–52.6% and 35.3–45.5%, respectively (S2 Fig and S1 Table.). A shift was also present at the order level after 34 days, whereby Proteobacteria were dominated by Sphingomonadales accounting for between 18.0–37.8%. Bacteroidetes were dominated by Sphingobacteriales accounting for between 35.0–45.4% of the 3 columns (S2 Table.).

Following the addition of nutrients at day 64, groundwater within the columns was dominated by Burkholderiales contributing to between 34.3–45.9% of the order level diversity (S2 Table.). Sediment samples within the columns at day 64 were also dominated by Proteobacterial groups at 0 cm and 15 cm (S2 Fig and S1 Table.). However, at 0 cm this phylum was dominated by Burkholderiales, contributing to between 24.0–58.9%, while at 15 cm Rhodocyclales dominated, accounting for between 30.8 and 52.4% of the diversity within the 3 columns (S2 Table.).

Chao1 rarefaction curves exhibited clear differences between groundwater samples following the introduction of synthetic wastewater at day 64, with OTU richness highest in the water samples following the addition of synthetic wastewater (S3A Fig). Sediment at the top of the columns where the nutrients were introduced had the highest overall OTU richness (S3B Fig). Furthermore, despite extensive sequencing of the microbial communities within the columns, none of the accumulation curves reached an asymptote (S3 Fig).

To determine the overall impact of nutrient addition to the groundwater microbial community's structural composition, the original groundwater was compared to water before and after the addition of nutrients as well as the sediment samples at the top and bottom of the columns. CAP ordination revealed a clear separation of data, whereby the water after the addition of nutrients, clustered closer to sediment samples at the top and bottom of the column and not to the water samples before the addition of nutrients (Fig 6); (P = 0.01) (S3 Table.). Furthermore, a strong association between the multivariate data and the hypothesis of taxonomic differences was seen, indicated by the large size of their canonical correlations (δ² = 0.99). Cross validation of the CAP model showed 100% of samples were correctly classified (S3 Table.).

Download:

Fig 6. Taxonomic comparison of bacterial communities within the column experiments.

CAP analysis (using m = 7 principle coordinate axes) is derived from the sum of squared correlations of DNA fragments matching the RDP database, order level (E-value E<1x10^-3). Significance P = 0.01 and the first axis explained = 0.95 of the total variation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.g006

SIMPER analysis revealed the main distinguishing taxa associated with the groundwater samples before the addition of synthetic wastewater were Sphingomonadales, Sphingobacteriales, Acidobacteriales, Rhodospirillales, Legionellales, Spartobacteriales, Syntrophobacterales, Bacillales, and Verrucomicrobiales, collectively accounting for 35% of the dissimilarity (S4 Table.). Alternatively, the main distinguishing taxa associated with the groundwater after the addition of synthetic wastewater were Burkholderiales, Flavobacteriales, Pseudomonadales, Xanthomonadales, Actinomycetales and Rhizobiales collectively accounting for 32.7% of the dissimilarity (S4 Table.). The main distinguishing taxa associated with the sediment afters after 64 days were Actinomycetales, Xanthomonadales, Spingomonadales, Rhodobacterales, Sphingobacteriales, Myxococcales, Nitrospirales, Gemmatales and Planctomycetales (S5 Table.).

Discussion

Influence of artificial recharge on microbial abundance

Prior to the addition of synthetic wastewater, mean bacterial and VLP abundances from the column outflow were both in the range of 10⁴–10⁷ cells ml^-1 (Fig 5). These counts are consistent with commonly reported microbial cell counts of 10³−10⁸ cells ml^-1 in groundwater [25,44–48]. Following the addition of synthetic wastewater, mean bacterial and VLP abundances increased to 10⁴–10⁸ cells ml^-1 (Fig 5). Several studies have shown that the productivity of microbial biofilms is distinctly higher in groundwater research areas where infiltrating surface waters lead to an increase in DOC supply [8,49–51]. Thus, the increased bacterial and VLP abundances in the water samples, and the subsequent decrease in flow rate in the columns following the addition of synthetic wastewater (Figs 4 and 5), is consistent with increased DOC concentrations promoting growth within the native microbial population (Fig 3). We suggest that this observed increase in microbial abundance combined with the subsequent reduction in flow rate may be indicative of microbial clogging within the column.

Previous studies have shown that aquifer recharge can significantly increase the abundance of microbial communities within days of injection [10]. In this study, mean VLP abundance increased over 2 orders of magnitude within 24 hours following the addition of synthetic wastewater (Fig 5B). We suggest that these viruses may have been attached to sediment particles or within bacterial cells, which were subsequently released following the addition of synthetic wastewater. The microbial communities forming biofilms in these systems therefore warrant further investigation. Furthermore, the synthetic wastewater used in this experiment was sterile, indicating that significant increases in abundances can occur without the introduction of additional cells and taxa. Therefore, we believe nutrient levels within recharge sources are to be assessed before injection to limit significant increases in microbial abundance, thereby reducing potential biofilm accumulation and clogging events.

The VBR has been used to investigate the relationship dynamics between viruses and bacteria in various aquatic systems, where high VBR values typify productive and nutrient-rich systems [52,53]. At day 0 we observed VBR values of approximately 10 and observed a decrease to 0.1–1.0 at day 34. Directly after the addition of synthetic wastewater on day 35, the VBR values increased up to 65.9 (Fig 5C). Previous research has shown that the VBR ratios of less than 10 indicate that conditions are unfavourable for viral mediated bacterial mortality, whereas VBR of greater than 10 corresponds to conditions that favour the lytic cycle [54,55]. The observed spike in the VBR may be directly related to the introduction of wastewater, whereby an increase in nutrient availability allows pent up bacteriophage reproduction causing extensive bacterial mortality, and thus altering the bacterial community composition. Rank abundance plots following nutrient addition (S1 Fig) further supports this theory, whereby previous research has shown that phage-bacterial kill-the-winner dynamics follow a power-law distribution [56]. Furthermore, a more negative exponent after the addition of synthetic wastewater indicates an increasing level of structural complexity [36,37]. Together, this suggests that following the addition of wastewater, viruses may be acting to structure the overall microbial community, causing major shifts in the bacterial taxa that dominate the system.

Taxonomic profiling in column experiments

A shift in taxonomic composition was observed in the columns before and after the addition of synthetic wastewater, with fundamentally different communities inhabiting each phase of the experiment. Prior to the addition of synthetic wastewater, the main distinguishing taxa associated with the groundwater samples were Sphingomonadales, Sphingobacteriales, Acidobacteriales, Rhodospirillales, Legionellales, Spartobacteriales, Syntrophobacterales, Bacillales, and Verrucomicrobiales, collectively accounting for 35% of the dissimilarity (S4 Table.).

Aquifer systems are typically characterised as oligotrophic environments with low oxygen concentrations [57]. Consequently, the microbes typically inhabiting these environments are those that have adapted to such conditions. For example, Sphingomonadales are anaerobic, oligotrophic bacteria which are known to have a high degree of metabolic versatility [58,59], and as such were found to be an indicator taxa for freshwater aquifers [60]. Similarly, Rhodospirillales are in a South Australian unconfined aquifer [45], and are thus capable of adapting to groundwater ecosystems.

Following the addition of synthetic wastewater, the main distinguishing taxa were Burkholderiales, Flavobacteriales, Pseudomonadales, Xanthomonadales, Actinomycetales and Rhizobiales, collectively accounting for 32.7% of the dissimilarity (S4 Table.). A previous study compared the prevalence of pathogenic bacteria in flasks using groundwater or effluent flow through [61]. Pseudomonas sp. was found to persist in flasks where effluent was added and not in the flasks where groundwater was the main source. In our study, Pseudomonadales were present at low numbers prior to the addition of synthetic wastewater (0.3%), however became more dominant once nutrients were added (11.3%; S2 Table.). Thus, the addition of synthetic wastewater enhanced the occurrence of the pathogenic Pseudomonadales in the groundwater columns. Furthermore, as Pseudomonadales were not one of the main distinguishing taxa within the sediments of each column, these taxa appear to have remained planktonic in the water column (S5 Table.). Taken together, our data suggests that endemic pathogenic bacteria may be enhanced by the introduction of wastewater such as aquifer recharge and storage applications, and that planktonic as well as biofilm forming bacteria should be taken into account when assessing ASR site suitability.

Despite differences in nutrient concentrations and environmental conditions, substrate type ultimately structures microbial communities [45,62–64]. More recently, however, Smith et al. [65] showed that following a contamination event, substrate type becomes less important in structuring microbial communities. Following the addition of synthetic wastewater, Pseudomonadales, Burkholderiales, Rhodobacterales, dominated (S5 Table.). Furthermore, CAP analysis showed a significant difference between the groundwater samples before and after the addition of synthetic wastewater, with water samples exhibiting more similarity to sediment samples after wastewater addition (Fig 6). Collectively, these results suggest that the introduction of wastewater in ASR practices can fundamentally alter the taxonomic composition of the endemic microbial communities present, overriding any community structure present driven by substrate type.

Following the addition of synthetic wastewater, microbial diversity increased (S3 Fig). Cho and Kim [66] used restriction fragment length polymorphism patterns of cloned 16S rDNA libraries to show an increased diversity in subsurface aquifers receiving wastewater input. The authors concluded the increased diversity was due to the infiltrating wastewater. However, in our study the infiltrating wastewater was sterile and so the increased diversity is more likely accounted for by rare taxa increasing in abundance. This theory is supported by the rarefaction curves not reaching asymptotes (S3 Fig), which indicates that the rare taxa were not sampled.

Here we have demonstrated in a laboratory based experiment the effect wastewater addition has on the endemic groundwater microbial communities. Our data supports the need for flow cytometry and high-throughput sequencing approaches to capture the microbial community dynamics in groundwater ecosystems. Bar-coded pyrosequencing was implemented at 2 time points before and after the addition of synthetic wastewater to demonstrate for the first time the effect of wastewater on the community structure of the endemic groundwater microbial communities. The variations in community abundance throughout the 64 days however suggest that future studies should implement an increased sequencing effort to gain a more in depth description of community dynamics throughout. Fundamental shifts in microbial community dynamics and structure were seen within days of the wastewater addition. Furthermore, sterile wastewater was introduced to the column experiments indicating that endemic groundwater communities hold the potential to reduce flow rates in aquifers without the introduction of new taxa. Therefore, future field based studies on the effects of wastewater injection on natural groundwater ecosystems are warranted. Furthermore, our study suggests that a complete profile of the groundwater properties, including microbial community abundance and composition should be taken into consideration when selecting aquifers for ASR.

Supporting Information

S1 Fig. Log-log plot of rank versus cell concentration for (A) Mean bacterial and (B) Mean VLP over the 64 day experiment.

Abundance counts before the addition of synthetic wastewater are represented in red, while abundance counts after the addition of synthetic wastewater are represented in blue. Power law trend lines were calculated with random noise omitted (grey points).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.s001

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Phylum distribution of Bacterial 16S bar-coded pyrosequencing libraries.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.s002

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Rarefaction curves for bacterial communities within the column experiments.

Each curve represents the overall, combined bacterial 16S rRNA metagenome recovered from each stage of the experiment. The rarefaction curve, plotting the Chao1 rarefaction measure as a function of the sequences per sample, was computed in QIIME. A) Orange represents groundwater, blue represents column groundwater before the addition of synthetic wastewater (day 35), red represents column groundwater after the addition of synthetic wastewater. B) blue represents sediment at 15 cm and red represents sediment at 0 cm.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.s003

(TIF)

S1 Table. Relative proportion of phylum level matches to the ribosomal database project (RDP) database.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.s004

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Relative proportion of order level matches to the ribosomal database project (RDP) database.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.s005

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Results of CAP analysis (using m = 7 principal coordinate axes, explaining 99% of total variation) testing the hypothesis that the taxonomic composition differ before and after the addition of synthetic wastewater.

Significant of trace and delta statistics was P = 0.0005 and P = 0.01, respectively and the first canonical axis alone explained 95% of the total variation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.s006

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Contribution of order level taxonomy to the dissimilarity of the groundwater samples before and after addition of synthetic wastewater.

Average dissimilarity between the two groups is 55.7%. Only taxa that were consistent (i.e. Diss/SD > 1.4) are shown here. The larger value in each case (i.e. the potential indicator taxa) is shown in bold.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.s007

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Contribution of order level taxonomy to the dissimilarity of the groundwater samples after the addition of synthetic wastewater and the sediment within the columns.

Average dissimilarity between the two groups is 32.8%. Only taxa that were consistent (i.e. Diss/SD > 1.4) are shown here. The larger value in each case (i.e. the potential indicator taxa) is shown in bold.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129004.s008

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Flow Cytometry Unit of the Flinders University Medical Centre for providing technical support. Funding was provided by the Australian Research Council, The South Australian Environmental Protection Authority, The South Australian Department of State Development and Flinders University.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: RJS JSP CAS JLH JGM. Performed the experiments: RJS JSP CAS. Analyzed the data: RJS JSP CAS. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JLH JGM. Wrote the paper: RJS JSP CAS JLH JGM.

References

1. Gibert J, Deharveng L (2002) Subterranean Ecosystems: A truncated Functional Biodiversity. BioScience 52: 473–481.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Bond NR, Lake PS, Arthington AH (2008) The impacts of drought on freshwater ecosystems: an Australian perspective. Hydrobiologia 600: 3–16.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Mpelasoka F, Hennessy K, Jones R, Bates B (2008) Comparison of suitable drought indices for climate change impacts assessment over Australia towards resource management. Int J Climatol 28: 1283–1292.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Khan S, Mushtaq S, Hanjra MA, Schaeffer J (2008) Estimating potential costs and gains from an aquifer storage and recovery program in Australia. Agri Water Manage 95: 477–488.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Foster SSD, Chilton PJ (2003) Groundwater: the processes and global significance of aquifer degradation. Phil Trans R Soc B 358: 1957–1972. pmid:14728791
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Giordano M (2009) Global groundwater? Issues and solutions. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34: 153–178.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Bouwer B (2002) Artificial recharge of groundwater: hydrogeology and engineering. Hydrogeol J 10: 121–142.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Li D, Sharp JO, Saikaly PE, Ali S, Alidina M, Alarawi MS, et al. (2012) Dissolved organic carbon influences microbial community composition and diversity in managed aquifer recharge systems. Appl Environ Microbiol 78: 6819–6828. pmid:22798375
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Antoniou EA, Breukelen BMv, Putters B, Stuyfzand PJ (2012) Hydrogeochemical patterns, processes and mass transfers during aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) in an anoxic sandy aquifer. Appl Geochem 27: 2435–2452.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Rinck-Pfeiffer S, Ragusa S, Sztajnbok P, Vandevelde T (2000) Interrelationships between biological, chemical, and physical processes as an analog to clogging in aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells. Water Res 34: 2110–2118.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Kim J, Choi H, Pachepsky YA (2010) Biofilm morphology as related to the porous media clogging. Water Res 44: 1193–1201. pmid:19604533
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Page D, Miotliński K, Dillon P, Taylor R, Wakelin S, Levett K, et al. (2011) Water quality requirements for sustaining aquifer storage and recovery operations in a low permeability fractured rock aquifer. J Environ Manage 92: 2410–2418. pmid:21652142
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Baveye P, Vandevivere P, Hoyle BL, DeLeo PC, Sanchez de Lozada D (2012) Environmental impact and mechanisms of the biological clogging of saturated soils and aquifer materials. Critical Rev Environ Sci Technol 28: 123–191.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Vanderzalm JL, Le Gal La Salle C, Dillon PJ (2006) Fate of organic matter during aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) of reclaimed water in a carbonate aquifer. Appl Geochem 21: 1204–1215.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Pavelic P, Dillon PJ, Mucha M, Nakai T, Barry KE, Bestland E (2011) Laboratory assessment of factors affecting soil clogging of soil aquifer treatment systems. Water Res 45: 3153–3163. pmid:21492896
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Vandevivere P, Baveye P (1992) Effect of Bacterial Extracellular Polymers on the Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Sand Columns. Appl Environ Microbiol 58: 1690–1698. pmid:1622240
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Dillon P, Pavelic P, Toze S, Rinck-Pfeiffer S, Martin R, Knapton A, et al. (2006) Role of aquifer storage in water reuse. Desalination 188: 123–134.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Pavelic P, Dillon PJ, Barry KE, Vanderzalm JL, Correll RL, Rink-Pfeiffer SM (2007) Water quality effects on clogging rates during reclaimed water ASR in a carbonate aquifer. J Hydrol 334: 1–16.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Pavelic P, Dillon PJ, Barry KE, Gerges NZ (2006) Hydraulic evaluation of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) with urban stormwater in a brackish limestone aquifer. Hydrogeol J 14: 1544–1555.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Fierer N, Hamady M, Lauber CL, Knight R (2008) The influence of sex, handedness, and washing on the diversity of hand surface bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 17994–17999. pmid:19004758
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Hamady M, Walker JJ, Kirk Harris J, Gold NJ, Knight R (2008) Error-correcting barcoded primers allow hundreds of samples to be pyrosequenced in multiplex. Nat Methods 5: 235–237. pmid:18264105
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Rousk J, Bååth E, Brookes PC, Lauber CL, Lozupone C, Caporaso JG, et al. (2010) Soil bacterial and fungal communities across a pH gradient in an arable soil. ISME J 4: 1340–1351. pmid:20445636
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Lozupone CA, Turnbaugh PJ, et al. (2011) Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 4516–4522. pmid:20534432
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Bestland E, Milgate S, Chittleborough D, VanLeeuwen J, Pichler M, Soloninka L (2009) The significance and lag-time of deep through flow: an example from a small, ephemeral catchment with contrasting soil types in the Adelaide Hills, South Australia. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13: 1201–1214.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Roudnew B, Seymour JR, Jeffries TC, Lavery TJ, Smith RJ, Mitchell JG (2012) Bacterial and Virus-Like Particle Abundances in Purged and Unpurged Groundwater Depth Profiles. Groundwater Monit R https://doi.org/10.1111/j1745–6592.2012.01393.x
26. Brussaard CPD (2004) Optimization of procedures for counting viruses by flow cytometry. Appl Environ Microbiol 70: 1506–1513. pmid:15006772
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Fetter CW (2001) Appl Hydrogeol, 4th Ed. UK: Prentice-Hall.
28. Pai TY, Ouyang CF, Su JL, Leu HG (2001) Modelling the steady-state effluent characteristics of the TNCU process under different return mixed liquid. Appl Math Model 25: 1025–1038.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Gasol JM, Del Giorgio PA (2000) Using flow cytometry for counting natural planktonic bacteria and understanding the structure of planktonic bacterial communities. Scientia Marina 64: 197–224.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Marie D, Brussaard CPD, Thyrhaug R, Bratbak G, Vaulot D (1999) Enumeration of Marine Viruses in Culture and Natural Samples by Flow Cytometry. Appl Environ Microbiol 65: 45–52. pmid:9872758
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Marie D, Partensky F, Jacquet S, Vaulot D (1997) Enumeration and Cell Cycle Analysis of Natural Populations of Marine Picoplankton by Flow Cytometry Using the Nucleic Acid Stain SYBR Green I. Appl Environ Microbiol 63: 186–193. pmid:16535483
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Dowd SE, Callaway TR, Wolcott RD, Sun Y, McKeehan T, Hagevoort RG, et al. (2008) Evaluation of the bacterial diversity in the feces of cattle using 16S rDNA bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP). BMC Microbiol 8: 125. pmid:18652685
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Clarke A, Gorley R (2006) PRIMER v6: User Manula/Tutorial. Plymouth, UK: PRIMER-E.
34. Anderson MJ, Robinson J (2001) Permutation tests for linear models. Aust NZ J Stat 43: 75–88.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods. PRIMER-E, Plymouth UK.
36. Mitchell JG (2004) Rank-size analysis and vertical phytoplankton distribution patterns. In: Seuront L, Strutton PG, (eds) Handbook of scaling methods in aquatic ecology: measurements analysis, simulation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 257–278.
37. Seymour JR, Mitchell JG, Seuront L (2004) Microscale heterogeneity in the activity of coastal bacterioplankton communities. Aquat Micro Ecol 35: 1–16.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. (2010) QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 7: 335–336. pmid:20383131
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Edgar RC (2010) Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26: 2460–2461. pmid:20709691
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR (2007) Naïve Bayesian Classifier for Rapid Assignment of rRNA Sequences into the New Bacterial Taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol 73: 5261–5267. pmid:17586664
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Chao A (1987) Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with unequal catchability. Biometrics 43: 783–791. pmid:3427163
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Clarke KR (1993) Nonparametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18: 117–143.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
43. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, 2nd Edition. PRIMER-E Ltd.
44. Amalfitano S, Del Bon A, Zoppini A, Ghergo S, Fazi S, Parrone D, et al. (2014) Groundwater geochemistry and microbial community structure in the aquifer transition from volcanic to alluvial areas. Water Res 65: 384–394. pmid:25165005
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Smith RJ, Jeffries TC, Roudnew B, Fitch AJ, Seymour JR, Delpin MW, et al. (2011) Metagenomic comparison of microbial communities inhabiting confined and unconfined aquifer ecosystems. Environ Microbiol 14: 240–253. pmid:22004107
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Griebler C, Lueders T (2009) Microbial biodiversity in groundwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biol 54: 649–677.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
47. Roudnew B, Lavery TJ, Seymour JR, Smith RJ, Mitchell JG (2013) Spatially varying complexity of bacterial and virus-like particle communities within an aquifer system. Aquat Micro Ecol 68: 259–266.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Roudnew B, Lavery TJ, Seymour JR, Jeffires TC, Mitchell JG (2014) Variability in Bacteria and Virus-Like Particle Abundances During Purging of Unconfined Aquifers. Groundwater 52: 118–124. pmid:23550819
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Foulquier A, Malard F, Mermillod-Blondin F, Montuelle B, Dolédec S, Volat B, et al. (2011) Surface water linkages regulate trophic interactions in a groundwater food web. Ecosystems 14: 1339–1353.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Baker MA, Valett M, Dahm CN (2000) Organic carbon supply and metabolism in a shallow groundwater ecosystem. Ecology 81: 3133–3148.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
51. Mermillod-Blondin F, Foulquier A, Maazouzi C, Navel S, Negrutiu Y, Vienney A, et al. (2013) Ecological assessment of groundwater trophic status by using artificial substrates to monitor biofilm growth and activity. Ecol Indic 25: 230–238.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Weinbauer MG (2004) Ecology of prokaryotic viruses. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 28: 127–181. pmid:15109783
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Wommack EK, Colwell RR (2000) Virioplankton: Viruses in Aquatic Ecosystems. Microbiol Mol Biol R 64: 69–114. pmid:10704475
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Jacquet S, Domaizon I, Personnic S, Sriram A, Ram P, Hedal M, et al. (2005) Estimates of protozoan- and viral-mediated mortality of bacterioplankton in Lake Bourget (France). Freshwater Biol 50: 627–645.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Wilcox RM, Fuhrman J (1994) Bacterial viruses in coastal seawater: lytic rather than lysogenic production. Marine Ecology Progress Series 114: 35–45.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
56. Hoffmann KH, Rodriguez Brito B, Breitbart M, Bangor D, Angly F, Felts B, et al. (2007) Power law rank-abundance models for marine phage communities. FEMS Microbiol Lett 273: 224–228. pmid:17559407
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Danielopol DL, Pospisil P, Rouch R (2000) Biodiversity in groundwater: A large-scale view. Trends Ecol Evol 15: 223–224. pmid:10802546
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Boone DR, Garrity GM, Castenholz RW, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (2001) Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Springer New York, NY, USA: 13988pp.
59. Frederickson JK, Balkwill DL, Drake GR, Romine MF, Ringleberg DB, White DC (1995) Aromatic-Degrading Sphingomonas Isolates from the Deep Subsurface. Appl Environ Microbiol 61: 1917–1922. pmid:7544095
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Gray CJ, Engel AS (2013) Microbial diversity and impact on carbonate geochemistry across a changing geochemical gradient in a karst aquifer. ISME J 7: 325–337. pmid:23151637
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
61. Banning N, Toze S, Mee BJ (2003) Persistence of biofilm-associated Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in groundwater and treated effluent in a laboratory model system. Microbiology 149: 47–55. pmid:12576579
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
62. Jeffries TC, Seymour JR, Gilbert JA, Dinsdale EA, Newton K, Leterme SSC, et al. (2011) Substrate Type Determines Metagenomic Profiles from Diverse Chemical Habitats. PLoS ONE 6: e25173. doi:25110.21371/journal.pone.0025173. pmid:21966446
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
63. Willner D, Thurber RV, Rohwer F (2009) Metagenomic signatures of 86 microbial and viral metagenomes. Environ Microbiol 11: 1752–1766. pmid:19302541
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
64. Dinsdale EA, Edwards RA, Hall D, Angly F, Breitbart M, Brulc JM, et al. (2008) Functional metagenomic profiling of nine biomes. Nature 452: 629–633. pmid:18337718
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
65. Smith RJ, Jeffires TC, Adetutu EM, Fairweather PG, Mitchell JG (2013) Determining the metabolic footprints of hydrocarbon degradation using multivariate analysis. PLoS ONE 8: e81910. pmid:24282619
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
66. Cho J, Kim S (2000) Increase in bacterial comunity diversity in subsurface aquifers receiving livestock wastewater input. Appl Environ Microbiol 66: 956–965. pmid:10698758
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Gibert J, Deharveng L (2002) Subterranean Ecosystems: A truncated Functional Biodiversity. BioScience 52: 473–481.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Bond NR, Lake PS, Arthington AH (2008) The impacts of drought on freshwater ecosystems: an Australian perspective. Hydrobiologia 600: 3–16.
View Article
Google Scholar

[5] View Article

[6] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Mpelasoka F, Hennessy K, Jones R, Bates B (2008) Comparison of suitable drought indices for climate change impacts assessment over Australia towards resource management. Int J Climatol 28: 1283–1292.
View Article
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Khan S, Mushtaq S, Hanjra MA, Schaeffer J (2008) Estimating potential costs and gains from an aquifer storage and recovery program in Australia. Agri Water Manage 95: 477–488.
View Article
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Foster SSD, Chilton PJ (2003) Groundwater: the processes and global significance of aquifer degradation. Phil Trans R Soc B 358: 1957–1972. pmid:14728791
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Giordano M (2009) Global groundwater? Issues and solutions. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34: 153–178.
View Article
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Bouwer B (2002) Artificial recharge of groundwater: hydrogeology and engineering. Hydrogeol J 10: 121–142.
View Article
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Li D, Sharp JO, Saikaly PE, Ali S, Alidina M, Alarawi MS, et al. (2012) Dissolved organic carbon influences microbial community composition and diversity in managed aquifer recharge systems. Appl Environ Microbiol 78: 6819–6828. pmid:22798375
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[24] View Article

[25] PubMed/NCBI

[26] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Antoniou EA, Breukelen BMv, Putters B, Stuyfzand PJ (2012) Hydrogeochemical patterns, processes and mass transfers during aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) in an anoxic sandy aquifer. Appl Geochem 27: 2435–2452.
View Article
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Rinck-Pfeiffer S, Ragusa S, Sztajnbok P, Vandevelde T (2000) Interrelationships between biological, chemical, and physical processes as an analog to clogging in aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells. Water Res 34: 2110–2118.
View Article
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Kim J, Choi H, Pachepsky YA (2010) Biofilm morphology as related to the porous media clogging. Water Res 44: 1193–1201. pmid:19604533
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Page D, Miotliński K, Dillon P, Taylor R, Wakelin S, Levett K, et al. (2011) Water quality requirements for sustaining aquifer storage and recovery operations in a low permeability fractured rock aquifer. J Environ Manage 92: 2410–2418. pmid:21652142
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Baveye P, Vandevivere P, Hoyle BL, DeLeo PC, Sanchez de Lozada D (2012) Environmental impact and mechanisms of the biological clogging of saturated soils and aquifer materials. Critical Rev Environ Sci Technol 28: 123–191.
View Article
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Vanderzalm JL, Le Gal La Salle C, Dillon PJ (2006) Fate of organic matter during aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) of reclaimed water in a carbonate aquifer. Appl Geochem 21: 1204–1215.
View Article
Google Scholar

[45] View Article

[46] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Pavelic P, Dillon PJ, Mucha M, Nakai T, Barry KE, Bestland E (2011) Laboratory assessment of factors affecting soil clogging of soil aquifer treatment systems. Water Res 45: 3153–3163. pmid:21492896
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[48] View Article

[49] PubMed/NCBI

[50] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Vandevivere P, Baveye P (1992) Effect of Bacterial Extracellular Polymers on the Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Sand Columns. Appl Environ Microbiol 58: 1690–1698. pmid:1622240
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[52] View Article

[53] PubMed/NCBI

[54] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Dillon P, Pavelic P, Toze S, Rinck-Pfeiffer S, Martin R, Knapton A, et al. (2006) Role of aquifer storage in water reuse. Desalination 188: 123–134.
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Pavelic P, Dillon PJ, Barry KE, Vanderzalm JL, Correll RL, Rink-Pfeiffer SM (2007) Water quality effects on clogging rates during reclaimed water ASR in a carbonate aquifer. J Hydrol 334: 1–16.
View Article
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Pavelic P, Dillon PJ, Barry KE, Gerges NZ (2006) Hydraulic evaluation of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) with urban stormwater in a brackish limestone aquifer. Hydrogeol J 14: 1544–1555.
View Article
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Fierer N, Hamady M, Lauber CL, Knight R (2008) The influence of sex, handedness, and washing on the diversity of hand surface bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 17994–17999. pmid:19004758
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] PubMed/NCBI

[67] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Hamady M, Walker JJ, Kirk Harris J, Gold NJ, Knight R (2008) Error-correcting barcoded primers allow hundreds of samples to be pyrosequenced in multiplex. Nat Methods 5: 235–237. pmid:18264105
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] PubMed/NCBI

[71] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Rousk J, Bååth E, Brookes PC, Lauber CL, Lozupone C, Caporaso JG, et al. (2010) Soil bacterial and fungal communities across a pH gradient in an arable soil. ISME J 4: 1340–1351. pmid:20445636
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Lozupone CA, Turnbaugh PJ, et al. (2011) Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 4516–4522. pmid:20534432
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Bestland E, Milgate S, Chittleborough D, VanLeeuwen J, Pichler M, Soloninka L (2009) The significance and lag-time of deep through flow: an example from a small, ephemeral catchment with contrasting soil types in the Adelaide Hills, South Australia. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13: 1201–1214.
View Article
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Roudnew B, Seymour JR, Jeffries TC, Lavery TJ, Smith RJ, Mitchell JG (2012) Bacterial and Virus-Like Particle Abundances in Purged and Unpurged Groundwater Depth Profiles. Groundwater Monit R https://doi.org/10.1111/j1745–6592.2012.01393.x

[ref26] 26. Brussaard CPD (2004) Optimization of procedures for counting viruses by flow cytometry. Appl Environ Microbiol 70: 1506–1513. pmid:15006772
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Fetter CW (2001) Appl Hydrogeol, 4th Ed. UK: Prentice-Hall.

[ref28] 28. Pai TY, Ouyang CF, Su JL, Leu HG (2001) Modelling the steady-state effluent characteristics of the TNCU process under different return mixed liquid. Appl Math Model 25: 1025–1038.
View Article
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Gasol JM, Del Giorgio PA (2000) Using flow cytometry for counting natural planktonic bacteria and understanding the structure of planktonic bacterial communities. Scientia Marina 64: 197–224.
View Article
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Marie D, Brussaard CPD, Thyrhaug R, Bratbak G, Vaulot D (1999) Enumeration of Marine Viruses in Culture and Natural Samples by Flow Cytometry. Appl Environ Microbiol 65: 45–52. pmid:9872758
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] PubMed/NCBI

[98] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Marie D, Partensky F, Jacquet S, Vaulot D (1997) Enumeration and Cell Cycle Analysis of Natural Populations of Marine Picoplankton by Flow Cytometry Using the Nucleic Acid Stain SYBR Green I. Appl Environ Microbiol 63: 186–193. pmid:16535483
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] PubMed/NCBI

[102] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Dowd SE, Callaway TR, Wolcott RD, Sun Y, McKeehan T, Hagevoort RG, et al. (2008) Evaluation of the bacterial diversity in the feces of cattle using 16S rDNA bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP). BMC Microbiol 8: 125. pmid:18652685
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] PubMed/NCBI

[106] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Clarke A, Gorley R (2006) PRIMER v6: User Manula/Tutorial. Plymouth, UK: PRIMER-E.

[ref34] 34. Anderson MJ, Robinson J (2001) Permutation tests for linear models. Aust NZ J Stat 43: 75–88.
View Article
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods. PRIMER-E, Plymouth UK.

[ref36] 36. Mitchell JG (2004) Rank-size analysis and vertical phytoplankton distribution patterns. In: Seuront L, Strutton PG, (eds) Handbook of scaling methods in aquatic ecology: measurements analysis, simulation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 257–278.

[ref37] 37. Seymour JR, Mitchell JG, Seuront L (2004) Microscale heterogeneity in the activity of coastal bacterioplankton communities. Aquat Micro Ecol 35: 1–16.
View Article
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. (2010) QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 7: 335–336. pmid:20383131
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] PubMed/NCBI

[119] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Edgar RC (2010) Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26: 2460–2461. pmid:20709691
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] PubMed/NCBI

[123] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR (2007) Naïve Bayesian Classifier for Rapid Assignment of rRNA Sequences into the New Bacterial Taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol 73: 5261–5267. pmid:17586664
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] PubMed/NCBI

[127] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Chao A (1987) Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with unequal catchability. Biometrics 43: 783–791. pmid:3427163
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] PubMed/NCBI

[131] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Clarke KR (1993) Nonparametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18: 117–143.
View Article
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, 2nd Edition. PRIMER-E Ltd.

[ref44] 44. Amalfitano S, Del Bon A, Zoppini A, Ghergo S, Fazi S, Parrone D, et al. (2014) Groundwater geochemistry and microbial community structure in the aquifer transition from volcanic to alluvial areas. Water Res 65: 384–394. pmid:25165005
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] PubMed/NCBI

[139] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Smith RJ, Jeffries TC, Roudnew B, Fitch AJ, Seymour JR, Delpin MW, et al. (2011) Metagenomic comparison of microbial communities inhabiting confined and unconfined aquifer ecosystems. Environ Microbiol 14: 240–253. pmid:22004107
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] PubMed/NCBI

[143] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Griebler C, Lueders T (2009) Microbial biodiversity in groundwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biol 54: 649–677.
View Article
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Roudnew B, Lavery TJ, Seymour JR, Smith RJ, Mitchell JG (2013) Spatially varying complexity of bacterial and virus-like particle communities within an aquifer system. Aquat Micro Ecol 68: 259–266.
View Article
Google Scholar

[148] View Article

[149] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Roudnew B, Lavery TJ, Seymour JR, Jeffires TC, Mitchell JG (2014) Variability in Bacteria and Virus-Like Particle Abundances During Purging of Unconfined Aquifers. Groundwater 52: 118–124. pmid:23550819
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[151] View Article

[152] PubMed/NCBI

[153] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Foulquier A, Malard F, Mermillod-Blondin F, Montuelle B, Dolédec S, Volat B, et al. (2011) Surface water linkages regulate trophic interactions in a groundwater food web. Ecosystems 14: 1339–1353.
View Article
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Baker MA, Valett M, Dahm CN (2000) Organic carbon supply and metabolism in a shallow groundwater ecosystem. Ecology 81: 3133–3148.
View Article
Google Scholar

[158] View Article

[159] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Mermillod-Blondin F, Foulquier A, Maazouzi C, Navel S, Negrutiu Y, Vienney A, et al. (2013) Ecological assessment of groundwater trophic status by using artificial substrates to monitor biofilm growth and activity. Ecol Indic 25: 230–238.
View Article
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Weinbauer MG (2004) Ecology of prokaryotic viruses. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 28: 127–181. pmid:15109783
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[164] View Article

[165] PubMed/NCBI

[166] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Wommack EK, Colwell RR (2000) Virioplankton: Viruses in Aquatic Ecosystems. Microbiol Mol Biol R 64: 69–114. pmid:10704475
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] PubMed/NCBI

[170] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Jacquet S, Domaizon I, Personnic S, Sriram A, Ram P, Hedal M, et al. (2005) Estimates of protozoan- and viral-mediated mortality of bacterioplankton in Lake Bourget (France). Freshwater Biol 50: 627–645.
View Article
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Wilcox RM, Fuhrman J (1994) Bacterial viruses in coastal seawater: lytic rather than lysogenic production. Marine Ecology Progress Series 114: 35–45.
View Article
Google Scholar

[175] View Article

[176] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Hoffmann KH, Rodriguez Brito B, Breitbart M, Bangor D, Angly F, Felts B, et al. (2007) Power law rank-abundance models for marine phage communities. FEMS Microbiol Lett 273: 224–228. pmid:17559407
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] PubMed/NCBI

[180] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Danielopol DL, Pospisil P, Rouch R (2000) Biodiversity in groundwater: A large-scale view. Trends Ecol Evol 15: 223–224. pmid:10802546
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[182] View Article

[183] PubMed/NCBI

[184] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Boone DR, Garrity GM, Castenholz RW, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (2001) Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Springer New York, NY, USA: 13988pp.

[ref59] 59. Frederickson JK, Balkwill DL, Drake GR, Romine MF, Ringleberg DB, White DC (1995) Aromatic-Degrading Sphingomonas Isolates from the Deep Subsurface. Appl Environ Microbiol 61: 1917–1922. pmid:7544095
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[187] View Article

[188] PubMed/NCBI

[189] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Gray CJ, Engel AS (2013) Microbial diversity and impact on carbonate geochemistry across a changing geochemical gradient in a karst aquifer. ISME J 7: 325–337. pmid:23151637
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[191] View Article

[192] PubMed/NCBI

[193] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Banning N, Toze S, Mee BJ (2003) Persistence of biofilm-associated Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in groundwater and treated effluent in a laboratory model system. Microbiology 149: 47–55. pmid:12576579
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[195] View Article

[196] PubMed/NCBI

[197] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Jeffries TC, Seymour JR, Gilbert JA, Dinsdale EA, Newton K, Leterme SSC, et al. (2011) Substrate Type Determines Metagenomic Profiles from Diverse Chemical Habitats. PLoS ONE 6: e25173. doi:25110.21371/journal.pone.0025173. pmid:21966446
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[199] View Article

[200] PubMed/NCBI

[201] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Willner D, Thurber RV, Rohwer F (2009) Metagenomic signatures of 86 microbial and viral metagenomes. Environ Microbiol 11: 1752–1766. pmid:19302541
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[203] View Article

[204] PubMed/NCBI

[205] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Dinsdale EA, Edwards RA, Hall D, Angly F, Breitbart M, Brulc JM, et al. (2008) Functional metagenomic profiling of nine biomes. Nature 452: 629–633. pmid:18337718
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[207] View Article

[208] PubMed/NCBI

[209] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Smith RJ, Jeffires TC, Adetutu EM, Fairweather PG, Mitchell JG (2013) Determining the metabolic footprints of hydrocarbon degradation using multivariate analysis. PLoS ONE 8: e81910. pmid:24282619
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[211] View Article

[212] PubMed/NCBI

[213] Google Scholar

[ref66] 66. Cho J, Kim S (2000) Increase in bacterial comunity diversity in subsurface aquifers receiving livestock wastewater input. Appl Environ Microbiol 66: 956–965. pmid:10698758
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[215] View Article

[216] PubMed/NCBI

[217] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Site Description

Groundwater sampling

Column set up and experimentation

Nutrient analyses

Microbial enumeration

Sample filtration, microbial community DNA extraction and sequencing

Data analysis

Results

Overview of the biogeochemical conditions, hydraulic conductivity and microbial abundance in column experiments

Bar-coded pyrosequencing

Discussion

Influence of artificial recharge on microbial abundance

Taxonomic profiling in column experiments

Supporting Information

S1 Fig. Log-log plot of rank versus cell concentration for (A) Mean bacterial and (B) Mean VLP over the 64 day experiment.

S2 Fig. Phylum distribution of Bacterial 16S bar-coded pyrosequencing libraries.

S3 Fig. Rarefaction curves for bacterial communities within the column experiments.

S1 Table. Relative proportion of phylum level matches to the ribosomal database project (RDP) database.

S2 Table. Relative proportion of order level matches to the ribosomal database project (RDP) database.

S3 Table. Results of CAP analysis (using m = 7 principal coordinate axes, explaining 99% of total variation) testing the hypothesis that the taxonomic composition differ before and after the addition of synthetic wastewater.

S4 Table. Contribution of order level taxonomy to the dissimilarity of the groundwater samples before and after addition of synthetic wastewater.

S5 Table. Contribution of order level taxonomy to the dissimilarity of the groundwater samples after the addition of synthetic wastewater and the sediment within the columns.

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions

References