大肠杆菌从美国大平原中南部牧场生态系统中流出。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2023-10-30 DOI:10.1002/jeq2.20527
Austin J. Phillippe, Kevin L. Wagner, Rodney E. Will, Chris B. Zou
{"title":"大肠杆菌从美国大平原中南部牧场生态系统中流出。","authors":"Austin J. Phillippe,&nbsp;Kevin L. Wagner,&nbsp;Rodney E. Will,&nbsp;Chris B. Zou","doi":"10.1002/jeq2.20527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Bacterial contamination of surface water is a public health concern. To quantify the efflux of <i>Escherichia coli</i> into ephemeral and intermittent streams and assess its numbers in relation to secondary body contact standards, we monitored runoff and measured <i>E. coli</i> numbers from 10 experimental watersheds that differed in vegetation cover and cattle access in north-central Oklahoma. <i>Escherichia coli</i> numbers were not significantly different among the watersheds, with one exception; the grazed prairie watershed (GP1) had greater numbers compared to one ungrazed prairie watershed (UP2). Median <i>E. coli</i> numbers in runoff from ungrazed watersheds ranged from 260 to 1482 MPN/100 mL in comparison with grazed watersheds that ranged from 320 to 8878 MPN/100 mL. In the GP1 watershed, higher cattle stocking rates during pre- and post-calving (February–May) resulted in significantly greater bacterial numbers and event loading compared to periods with lower stocking rates. The lack of significance among watersheds is likely due to the grazed sites being rotationally (and lightly) grazed, data variability, and wildlife contributions. To address wildlife sources, we used camera trap data to assess the usage in the watersheds; however, the average number of animals in a 24-h period did not correlate with observed median <i>E. coli</i> numbers. Because of its impacts on <i>E. coli</i> numbers in water, grazing management (stocking rate, rotation, and timing) should be considered for improving water quality in streams and reservoirs.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jeq2.20527","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Escherichia coli efflux from rangeland ecosystems in the southcentral Great Plains of the United States\",\"authors\":\"Austin J. Phillippe,&nbsp;Kevin L. Wagner,&nbsp;Rodney E. Will,&nbsp;Chris B. Zou\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jeq2.20527\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Bacterial contamination of surface water is a public health concern. To quantify the efflux of <i>Escherichia coli</i> into ephemeral and intermittent streams and assess its numbers in relation to secondary body contact standards, we monitored runoff and measured <i>E. coli</i> numbers from 10 experimental watersheds that differed in vegetation cover and cattle access in north-central Oklahoma. <i>Escherichia coli</i> numbers were not significantly different among the watersheds, with one exception; the grazed prairie watershed (GP1) had greater numbers compared to one ungrazed prairie watershed (UP2). Median <i>E. coli</i> numbers in runoff from ungrazed watersheds ranged from 260 to 1482 MPN/100 mL in comparison with grazed watersheds that ranged from 320 to 8878 MPN/100 mL. In the GP1 watershed, higher cattle stocking rates during pre- and post-calving (February–May) resulted in significantly greater bacterial numbers and event loading compared to periods with lower stocking rates. The lack of significance among watersheds is likely due to the grazed sites being rotationally (and lightly) grazed, data variability, and wildlife contributions. To address wildlife sources, we used camera trap data to assess the usage in the watersheds; however, the average number of animals in a 24-h period did not correlate with observed median <i>E. coli</i> numbers. Because of its impacts on <i>E. coli</i> numbers in water, grazing management (stocking rate, rotation, and timing) should be considered for improving water quality in streams and reservoirs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jeq2.20527\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeq2.20527\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeq2.20527","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

地表水的细菌污染是一个公共卫生问题。为了量化大肠杆菌流入短暂和间歇性溪流的数量,并评估其数量与二次身体接触标准的关系,我们监测了俄克拉荷马州中北部植被覆盖和牲畜进出不同的十个实验流域的径流量,并测量了大肠杆菌数量。不同流域之间的大肠杆菌数量没有显著差异,只有一个例外,即与未分级的草原流域(UP2)相比,放牧草原流域(GP1)的大肠杆菌数更多。与放牧流域320至8878 MPN/100 mL相比,未分级流域径流中的中位大肠杆菌数量在260至1482 MPN/100 mL之间。在GP1流域,与放养率较低的时期相比,产仔前和产仔后(2月至5月)较高的牛放养率导致细菌数量和事件负荷显著增加。流域之间缺乏重要性可能是由于放牧地点被轮流(和轻度)放牧、数据可变性和野生动物的贡献。为了解决野生动物来源问题,我们使用相机捕捉器数据来评估流域的使用情况;然而,24小时内动物的平均数量与观察到的大肠杆菌数量中位数并不相关。由于其对水中大肠杆菌数量的影响,应考虑放牧管理(放养率、轮作和时间安排),以改善溪流和水库的水质。这篇文章受版权保护。保留所有权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Escherichia coli efflux from rangeland ecosystems in the southcentral Great Plains of the United States

Bacterial contamination of surface water is a public health concern. To quantify the efflux of Escherichia coli into ephemeral and intermittent streams and assess its numbers in relation to secondary body contact standards, we monitored runoff and measured E. coli numbers from 10 experimental watersheds that differed in vegetation cover and cattle access in north-central Oklahoma. Escherichia coli numbers were not significantly different among the watersheds, with one exception; the grazed prairie watershed (GP1) had greater numbers compared to one ungrazed prairie watershed (UP2). Median E. coli numbers in runoff from ungrazed watersheds ranged from 260 to 1482 MPN/100 mL in comparison with grazed watersheds that ranged from 320 to 8878 MPN/100 mL. In the GP1 watershed, higher cattle stocking rates during pre- and post-calving (February–May) resulted in significantly greater bacterial numbers and event loading compared to periods with lower stocking rates. The lack of significance among watersheds is likely due to the grazed sites being rotationally (and lightly) grazed, data variability, and wildlife contributions. To address wildlife sources, we used camera trap data to assess the usage in the watersheds; however, the average number of animals in a 24-h period did not correlate with observed median E. coli numbers. Because of its impacts on E. coli numbers in water, grazing management (stocking rate, rotation, and timing) should be considered for improving water quality in streams and reservoirs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1