Next Article in Journal
Long-Term Effects of the Use of Organic Amendments and Crop Rotation on Soil Properties in Southeast Spain
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Foliar Application of K2SO4 or KH2PO4 on Skin Color of the ‘Kyoho’ Grape
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 11
10.3390/agronomy11112362
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Gram-Negative Bacteria from Organic and Conventional Agriculture in the Hydrographic Basin of Loja: Quality or Pathogen Reservoir?

by
Darío Cruz
1,*,
Rodrigo Cisneros
1,
Ángel Benítez
1,
Wilson Zúñiga-Sarango
1,
Jhoan Peña
1,
Heriberto Fernández
2 and
Andrea Jaramillo
1
1
Microbial Systems Ecology and Evolution MS2E, Biodiversity of Tropical Ecosystems BIETROP, and ECOSLAB Research Groups, Biology School, Department of Biological and Agricultural Sciences, Technical University of Loja Particular, San Cayetano Alto s/n, Loja 1101608, Ecuador
2
Institute of Clinical Microbiology, Medicine School, Austral University of Chile, Valdivia 5090000, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(11), 2362; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11112362
Submission received: 22 September 2021 / Revised: 5 November 2021 / Accepted: 15 November 2021 / Published: 22 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Topic Soil Fertility and Plant Nutrition for Sustainable Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Organic and conventional agriculture are vital for the development of human society; however, the use of contaminated water and the inappropriate use of organic chemical fertilizers can lead to an increase in the microbial load (potentially pathogenic) of the normal microbiota of the agricultural soil. In this context, the aim of our study was to isolate Gram-negative bacteria from the superficial soil layer and irrigation water of agricultural areas (11 organic farms and nine conventional farms) and consider their potential ecological and health risk importance. Through culture isolation using three bacterial media (TSA) trypticase soy agar (general nutritive media); MacConkey Gram-negative bacteria and (EMB) eosin methylene blue agar (selective for Enterobacteriaceae) and classical biochemical tests, we recorded a total of 12 bacterial species, most belonging to the Enterobacteriaceae family, such as Enterobacter, Escherichia, Klebsiella, Salmonella and Shigella, which can be pathogenic for humans and animals. In contrast, bacteria such as Pantoea agglomerans, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, P. fluorescens and Burkholderia mallei could facultatively work as diazotrophic or plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Soil bacteria richness detected with the media applied was significantly higher than water bacteria, but we found no significant differences between organic and conventional agriculture. We conclude that the isolated bacteria in water and soil mostly belongs to enteropathogenic bacteria which could be pathogenic to animals and humans. While other bacteria like Pseudomonas aeruginosa could be viewed as useful by improving nutrient availability in agricultural soil.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is of vital importance for the development of human societies and has an enormous impact in the soil functional system [1], since almost 40% of the total land area is used for food production through agriculture [2]. Currently, organic agriculture has been revived and represents a growing proportion in the world economy [3], since the population seeks to obtain products which are “healthier” and free of chemicals harmful for humans and the environment [4]. Conventional agriculture is characterized by the usage of chemicals during its production [5]; on the contrary, organic agriculture is based on the effective natural management of plant-soil nutrition cycling [6] and makes use of natural organic compounds such as manure, compost and homemade fertilizers from animal waste such as chicken manure to compensate for nutrient deficiencies [5].
In Ecuador and especially Loja, the smallholder farmers lack scientific knowledge regarding the correct soil management in agricultural practices [7]. Jimenez et al. [7] indicate that the most common practice in the Loja province is manual tillage (57%), including the incorporation of crop residues and animal manure to improve the soil production. This production in Ecuador and Loja province mainly corresponds to crops like maize, oats, vetch, potatoes, onion and beans [7,8]. The correct applications of this traditional knowledge could help “conservation agriculture” as was experimented with in small-scale farming in Ecuador’s highlands [8].
However, the inadequate application of these natural organic fertilizers or the use of water lacking proper treatment could result in an increase of microbial load both in the normal soil microbiota and in the products grown in these areas [9]. It is known that soil is one of the major reservoirs of microbial biodiversity (i.e., soil microbiota, which includes bacteria, archaea, fungi, protists and viruses), playing a crucial role in agricultural ecosystems [10,11]. Many of them fulfill roles as catalysts of nutrient cycling, carrying out stabilization and disposal of minerals or transforming organic compounds into amino acids or nitrates (e.g., nitrogen fixation, mineralization, solubilization), facilitating absorption in plants, boosting their growth and improving production in agricultural and natural soils around the world [12]. Within the soil bacterial diversity, species such as those belonging to the genera Acinetobacter, Agrobacterium, Alcaligenes, Arthrobacter, Bacillus, Brevibacterium, Caulobacter, Cellulomonas, Clostridium, Corynebacterium, Flavobacterium, Micrococcus, Micrococcus, Mycobacterium, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus and Xanthomonas [13] form communities with great influence on plant growth and vitality [14]. Other bacterial genera, such as Shigella, Vibrio, Salmonella, Enterococcus and Escherichia with E. coli species, can also be found in soil and are considered fecal indicators, being related to animal or human contamination [15,16]. The latter bacteria genera are potential pathogens for humans and animals [17].
Organic production is currently increasing and so is use of fruits and vegetables in their fresh form, which could lead to outbreaks of infectious diseases such as human gastroenteritis, due to the presence of bacterial pathogens and other microorganisms from water used for irrigation [18,19,20] or from soil previously treated with compost or animal manure [21].
Many studies indicate that bacterial pathogens for animals and humans survive easily in soil and water [22]. Likewise, they can persist in the plant spermosphere-rhizosphere or phyllosphere, due to the formation of bacterial biofilms facilitating their adherence [21]. Efforts to study and control the microbial load potentially harmful to humans in different types of artisanal organic fertilizers are scarce in Ecuador [23]. Most are limited to reporting colony-forming unit (CFU) counts of total coliforms (Escherichia, Klebsiella, Enterobacter and Citrobacter) and Eschericha coli in minimally processed food products [24,25]. Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. are the main pathogens causing enteric infections and diarrhea in humans, being associated with the consumption of contaminated food, mainly from agriculture [26,27,28,29]. The present study seeks to determine for the first time the isolated Gram-negative bacteria through three media in the hydrographic basin of Loja. We examined the surface layer of agricultural soil and the irrigation water of areas used for agricultural production. Our objectives were related to: (i) the assessment of their biochemical characteristics and ecological roles (quality or pathogenic reservoir), (ii) the exploration of differences between bacteria shaped by organic and conventional agriculture. Based on these objectives we expected more Gram-negative species in organic farms than conventional farms.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. SamplingArea

The studied sites were located around Loja city (canton) between 2000 to 2400 m a.s.l., with an environmental annual mean temperature of 20 °C, 80% relative humidity and 900 mm3 of precipitation [30]. Loja basin is mainly covered by native vegetation, grasslands and urbanization [31] with a population of over 200,000 inhabitants (INEC = Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos). Twenty rural farms (11 organic farms and nine conventional farms) were evaluated, where vegetables such as lettuce, cabbage, carrots, potatoes and legumes are grown combined, mainly under mixed soils (Vertisol or Mollisols) [7]. In all cases, the land had been used as a vegetable farm for at least three years.
The selection criteria for soil and water samples for each type of farm were defined as follows:
  • Organic: farms that apply organic fertilizers such as poultry manure and/or hand-processed compost to the agricultural soil and avoid or restrict the use of chemical compounds for soil fertilization and plague control.
  • Conventional: farms that apply commercial chemical fertilizers (e.g., N10-P30-K10, urea 46%, ammonium nitrate 36%) and plague control (e.g., metaldehyde; chlorpyrifos) for agricultural management. All conventional farms also use animal manure as a base fertilizer before applying chemical treatments according to the particular needs of each farm.

2.2. Experimental Design and Sampling

A total of 40 samples were taken corresponding to 20 rural farms (replicates = 11 organic farms and nine conventional farms). For water analysis, 20 water samples (500 mL of piped, non-chlorinated water) were collected at the intakes at the entrance of the farms, which come directly from a stream, using sterile glass bottles. The water spring used for crop irrigation may be shared by more than one farm, as indicated in the map (Figure 1). The irrigation caption of water to each farm is protected by wood fencing against cattle.
For soil microbiological analysis, 20 soil samples (1 kg) were obtained, one for each farm (11 organic farms and nine conventional farms), resulting from five randomly placed sub-samples. These sub-samples correspond to 200 g of sieved material (sieve 2 mm2) from 500 g of soil taken at approximately 10 cm deep using a bore tool around the cultivated plants. All the samples were kept in a cooler (cooling boxes filled with ice blocks) and after sampling, these were analyzed immediately (1 h)

2.3. Isolation and Biochemical Identification of Bacterial Strains

For bacterial isolation, 1 g of each sample was suspended in 9 mL of 0.1% peptonized water and homogenized for 30 sec. Decimal dilutions of 10−1 to 10−2 were prepared from the water and soil samples, based on the probable microbial density (APHA, 1998), to obtain isolated colonies. The viable bacterial cells for both dilutions were counted as colony-forming units (CFUs). Duplicate aliquots of 100 µL of the dilutions were taken and spread on three types of solid media: trypticase soy agar (TSA) general nutritive media, MacConkey agar selective for Gram-negative bacteria and eosin methylene blue agar (EMB) selective for Enterobacteriaceae. Additional revision of colonies was done at 72 h to detect any color change or new growth of new colonies.
After the incubation period, 1 or 2 colonies per plate were selected for subculturing based on: differences in morphology, coloration or brightness and colony size. All pure cultures were analyzed via differential Gram staining. Then, another subculturing was performed on solid and semi-solid media to assure classical species identification with positive/negative biochemical reaction tests [32,33,34]. The latter test was carried out applying: Simmons citrate agar, iron-tripe sugar agar (TSI), urea agar, sulfide indole motility (SIM) and lysine iron agar (LIA). All subcultures and differential biochemical tests were incubated in aerobiosis for 24 h at 37 °C.

2.4. Data Analysis

The sampling effort of bacterial species in each sample type was estimated using species accumulation curves and a Chao 2 nonparametric richness estimator based on the incidence of species in a determined sample. The richness of microorganisms at the level of farm type (organic vs. conventional) and sample type (soil vs. water) was evaluated using an unpaired two-samples Wilcoxon test, because the data did not present a normal distribution (p < 0.05).
For community composition, a nonmetric multidimensional scaling analysis (NMDS) was performed to visualize the similarity between bacterial species composition according to farm type and sample type, using Euclidean distance and 999 Monte Carlo permutations. To analyze the effect of the farm type and sample type variables on the composition of the microorganism communities, a one-way analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) was performed. All analyses were done using the statistical “vegan” 2.5-7 package in the R environment [35].

3. Results

Biochemical Test

The previous colony-forming unit (CFU) count shows countable colonies between 30 and ≤ 300 for most farms (organic and conventional) for both dilutions (10−1 and 10−2). Only two farms (one organic (C–Figure 1) and one conventional (D–Figure 1), presented uncountable ≥ 300 CFU in dilutions (10−1 and 10−2).
From pure isolates (40 in total), 12 bacterial species were identified according to their biochemical reaction, out of which two were identified to genus level (Table 1). No new strains were obtained at 72 h.
Most bacteria can be correlated by urea, motility and lysine reactions and a few by strong generation of gas. On the other hand, Shigella spp., was not reactive for the biochemical test.
The highest isolated Gram-negative bacteria were found in soil samples taken from organic farms (Table 2). Five species present ubiquitous habitat, four species are frequently found in animals, humans or plants and two species are exclusively intracellular in human intestine. According to the ecology, eight bacteria species have a functional role related to plant-soil nutrition cycling or growth promotion. On the other hand, ecological information for three bacteria species was not found. Based on the bibliography, all bacteria species could present some pathogenic activity (Table 2).
The species accumulation curves indicated an adequate sampling for the two types of substrates (Figure 2). The Chao 2 estimator (https://search.r-project.org/CRAN/refmans/fossil/html/chao1.html, accessed on 4 May 2021) for the water samples indicated an adequate sampling, with six estimated and six observed species. As for the soil samples, the Chao 2 estimator indicated fifteen estimated species, compared to the 10 observed species, suggesting that the sampling is close to 70%.
Soil samples had a higher bacterial richness (Mann‒Whitney test, p < 0.0001) compared to water samples (Figure 3). The type of farm did not have an effect on bacterial species richness (p = 0.1433).
The NMDS analysis indicated an ordering between bacterial communities related to farm and sample type (Figure 4). This was corroborated via ANOSIM analysis, which pointed out significant differences between the two sample types (r = 0.1131, p = 0.0027).
Conversely, type of farm (organic and conventional sampling points) does not show significant differences (r = 0.0427, p = 0.1004).

4. Discussion

Generally, microbiota are considered excellent catalysts, facilitating nitrogen fixation, mineralization and solubilization [10,11], transforming organic compounds, amino acids and proteins and improving their uptake for plants [66,67]. However, microbial diversity does not always have a positive impact on the functioning of ecosystems, including soil [68].
The results obtained in this study show a higher diversity of isolated Gram-negative bacteria in agricultural soil, compared to the water used for irrigation, which is consistent with previous research [21,69]. Although water can be a carrier of microorganisms, and thus a source of contamination, the fact that we have found a relatively low microbial load suggests that the water could be qualified as suitable for agricultural irrigation. However, it would be necessary to promote microbiological control of irrigation water as an additional element of food safety in the study area [70].
At the soil level, the dominant microbial pathogen group was Salmonella spp. This indicates a high contamination rate, with potential microbiological risk for humans, as demonstrated by Johannessen [71] and De Quadros et al. [72]. This bacterial load may be due to the high environmental survival rate of this type of bacteria; this can be for weeks in some types of cultivated plants such as lettuce or on substrates like compost [73]. Balkhair [74] indicates that several bacterial genera, amongst which are those found in our study, can have a high survival in soil, which can represent a pathogenic reservoir. This effect is frequent in soils considered organic, i.e., treated with animal manure (e.g., poultry manure) and compost [21,69,75,76], which generally change the composition of the agricultural soil microbiota [77]. On the other hand, the bacterium Proteus vulgaris, besides being an opportunist that causes urinary tract infections [78], possesses urease activity, which can increase the microbially-induced calcium carbonate precipitation (MIPC), thus affecting calcium availability and increasing soil hardness [79,80]. As mentioned before, all the farms sampled in the current study use animal manure as base fertilizer, applied 3–4 weeks before the planting of vegetables. This type of management may explain the overlap of bacterial species between organic and conventional farms, which are slightly different but non-statistically significant. High conservation of agrobiodiversity has been shown experimentally in small-scale organic farming in Ecuador’s highlands [8]. Other fertilizers can be applied afterwards (e.g., N10-P30-K10; urea 46%; ammonium nitrate 36%) and plague control (e.g., metaldehyde; chlorpyrifos), usually between 10 to 15 days, or according to the particular needs of each of the conventional farms. This practice would explain the presence of pathogenic bacteria referenced as more resistant to extreme environmental conditions or chemicals [74,81].
Regarding bacteria isolated from water samples, the genus Shigella with the indicated species is the most common. Their presence is considered as an indicator of fecal pollution, exclusively from human excreta [82]. This genus easily accumulates at the interface formed between water and soil, in channels commonly called “MO deposits” [83]. Species of the genera (Escherichia, Salmonella, Shigella) are considered the main enteropathogens, causing diarrheal diseases in humans through food ingestion, many times coming directly from agriculture [26,29,84,85]. Similarly, Burkholderia mallei of the Burkholderiaceae family is considered pathogenic, causing “glanders” disease (contagious and re-emerging) in horses, donkeys and mules, but with low probability of transmission to humans, except for direct contacts with sick animals and other media [86]. Several genera of the Enterobacteriaceae family, such as Enterobacter, Escherichia, Klebsiella, Salmonella and Shigella, can be found in both soil and water; they include bacteria recognized as part of the microbiota of the digestive tract of animals such as cattle, horses and even humans, which can be natural dispersers to these ecosystems [87]. However, we cannot discard some human contamination due to the work of many farmers there who do not have knowledge about microbiological pollution.
On the other hand, our samples revealed the presence of the bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescens, a natural inhabitant of the phyllosphere, but which can survive and multiply in microhabitats associated with the rhizosphere and rhizoplane and be passively transported, forming biofilms in water flowing through saturated soils [88]. This species is a root-colonizing bacterium (rhizobacterium) [89], with plant growth-promoting capacity through auxin-like phytohormones such as indole acetic acid [61,90]. In addition, P. fluorescens is a pathogen controller via secondary metabolites, such as siderophores [91,92] or antibiotic-like substances (i.e., phenazine, pyrrolnitrin and pyocyanin) [93].
The present study indicates that sampled farmlands are a potential source of contamination and can affect human health, since the encountered type of bacteria has previously been reported by several authors as pathogenic [63,93,94,95,96,97]. The found frequency and the CFU measurements (≤300) of isolation suggests that the risk of contamination of cultivated plants is a random process mostly associated to the specific manure in each farm, regardless of whether there are complementary organic or conventional management activities. Consequently, it is advisable to perform a microbiological quality analysis on these vegetables to establish acceptability for human consumption [72,98].
Probably some tests for solubilization and fixation of phosphorus, silicate, zinc and nitrogen or evaluation of the production of auxin (indole-3-acetic acid) or volatile organic compounds could be developed to evaluate our strains because some that are considered potential pathogens for humans are also important diazotrophic endophytes or PGPR, alleviating salinity stress and promoting growth in plants [39,41,45,46,47,54,59].
External environmental factors, chemicals and, most importantly, the introduction of foreign bacteria to the natural microbiota can upset the balance in the functionality of the natural microbiome by means of antagonistic reactions, parasitism, action of phytopathogens or natural competition for space [99]. Therefore, it is essential to maintain stability through the diversity ratio between “beneficial” and “harmful” microorganisms, especially in ecosystems such as those analyzed in this study.

5. Conclusions

The isolated Gram-negative bacteria determined in agricultural surface water and soil shows mostly the presence of enteropathogenic bacteria of animals and humans, along with other bacteria that, functionally, could be beneficial for improving nutrient availability in agricultural soil. The culture media as applied here does not allow isolate the whole Gram-negative bacteria diversity present in both types of samples, but allowed isolate the rare bacterium Burkholderia mallei.
Further studies are needed to improve the microbial culturability and understand the influence of organic and conventional management on the diversity of the natural microbiota of agricultural soil. Meanwhile, it is recommended that processes of maturation or previous fermentation of manure are implemented, which reduce the presence of pathogenic microorganisms.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, D.C., R.C. and A.J.; sampling, R.C. and W.Z.-S.; bacteriological analysis, A.J., J.P. and D.C.; statistical analyses, Á.B.; contributed with their experience to improve the whole manuscript, H.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded indirectly by the Department of Biological and Agricultural Sciences of the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, using materials and reagents left over from different projects.

Data Availability Statement

All data are included into this document.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Diana Szekely for their critical language revision and some advice on writing. The authors are very grateful to the student Diego Piedra and many other students belonging to the Biological School and Biochemistry and Farmacy School who helped during sampling and laboratory work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Uusitalo, V.; Kuokkanen, A.; Grönman, K.; Ko, N.; Mäkinen, H.; Koistinen, K. Environmental Sustainability Assessment from Planetary Boundaries Perspective—A Case Study of an Organic Sheep Farm in Finland. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 687, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Foley, J.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.; Cassidy, E.; Gerber, J.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.; West, P.; et al. Solutions for a Cultivated Planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Nain, L.; Gaind, S.; Pandey, A.; Grover, M.; Sreekanthan, S.; Vasudevan, V. Practical Applications of Bioactive Compost in Organic Agriculture. In Agriculturally Important Microorganisms; Academic Word International: Bhopal, India, 2009; pp. 225–246. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lans, C. Worldwide Opportunities on Organic Farms (WWOOF) as Part of the Existing Care Economy in Canada. Geoforum 2016, 75, 16–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Fan, K.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Guo, X.; Wang, D.; Zhu, Y.; Chu, H. Microbial Resistance Promotes Plant Production in a Four-Decade Nutrient Fertilization Experiment. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020, 141, 107679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hellequin, E.; Monard, C.; Quaiser, A.; Henriot, M.; Klarzynski, O.; Binet, F. Specific Recruitment of Soil Bacteria and Fungi Decomposers Following a Biostimulant Application Increased Crop Residues Mineralization. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0209089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jiménez, L.; Jiménez, W.; Felicito, D.; Fierro, N.; Quichimbo, P.; Sánchez, D.; Capa-Mora, D. Rediscovering the edaphic knowledge of smallholder farmers in southern Ecuador. Geoderma 2021, 406, 115468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barrowclough, M.; Stehouwer, R.; Alwang, J.; Gallagher, R.; Mosquera, V.H.B.; Dominguez, J.M. Conservation agriculture on steep slopes in the Andes: Promise and obstacles. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2016, 71, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sanz-Cobena, A.; Lassaletta, L.; Estellés, F.; Del Prado, A.; Guardia, G.; Abalos, D.; Aguilera, E.; Pardo, G.; Vallejo, A.; Sutton, M.; et al. Yield-Scaled Mitigation of Ammonia Emission from N Fertilization: The Spanish Case. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 125005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yuan, H.; Ge, T.; Chen, C.; O’Donnell, A.; Wu, J. Significant Role for Microbial Autotrophy in the Sequestration of Soil Carbon. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 2328–2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Zhao, Z.; He, J.; Quan, Z.; Wu, C.; Sheng, R.; Zhang, L.; Geisen, S. Fertilization Changes Soil Microbiome Functioning, Especially Phagotrophic Protists. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020, 148, 107863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Eldridge, D.; Ochoa, V.; Gozalo, B.; Singh, B.; Maestre, F. Soil Microbial Communities Drive the Resistance of Ecosystem Multifunctionality to Global Change in Drylands Across the Globe. Ecol. Lett. 2017, 20, 1295–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Konopka, A. Ecology microbial. In Encyclopedia of Microbiology, 4th ed.; Schaechter, M., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 97–111. [Google Scholar]
  14. Nihotimbere, V.; Ongena, M.; Smargiassi, M.; Thonart, P. Beneficial Effect of the Rhizosphere Microbial Community for Plant Growth and Health. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2011, 15, 327–337. [Google Scholar]
  15. Staley, Z.; He, D.; Edge, T. Persistence of Fecal Contamination and Pathogenic Escherichia coli O157:H7 In Snow and Snowmelt. J. Great Lakes Res. 2017, 43, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Uprety, S.; Dangol, B.; Nakarmi, P.; Dhakal, I.; Sherchan, S.; Shisler, J.; Jutla, A.; Amarasiri, M.; Sano, D.; Nguyen, T. Assessment of Microbial Risks by Characterization of Escherichia coli Presence to Analyze the Public Health Risks from Poor Water Quality in Nepal. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2020, 226, 113484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Heaton, J.; Jones, K. Microbial Contamination of Fruit and Vegetables and the Behavior of Enteropathogens in the Phyllosphere: A Review. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 104, 613–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Land & Water|Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations|FAO. Available online: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/topics_scarc_agri.html (accessed on 4 May 2021).
  19. Matthews, K. Leafy vegetable. In The Produce Contamination Problem. Causes and Solutions, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 187–206. [Google Scholar]
  20. Slayton, R.; Turabelidze, G.; Bennett, S.; Schwensohn, C.; Yaffee, A.; Khan, F.; Butler, C.; Trees, E.; Ayers, T.; Davis, M.; et al. Outbreak of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O157:H7 Associated with Romaine Lettuce Consumption, 2011. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e55300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Szczech, M.; Kowalska, B.; Smolińska, U.; Maciorowski, R.; Oskiera, M.; Michalska, A. Microbial Quality of Organic and Conventional Vegetables from Polish Farms. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 286, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yaron, S. Microbial Attachment and Persistence on Plants. In The Produce Contamination Problem, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 21–57. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ruiz-Pico, Á.; Pérez-Cuenca, Á.; Serrano-Agila, R.; Maza-Criollo, D.; Leiva-Piedra, J.; Salazar-Campos, J. Hydrochemical Characterization of Groundwater in the Loja Basin (Ecuador). Appl. Geochem. 2019, 104, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hualpa, D.; Toledo, Z.; Meneses, M.; Feng, P. Microbiological Quality of Minimally Processed, Ready-to-Eat, Vegetables in Loja, Ecuador. Rev. Politécnica 2018, 41, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  25. Villa-Achupallas, M.; Rosado, D.; Aguilar, S.; Galindo-Riaño, M. Water Quality in The Tropical Andes Hotspot: The Yacuambi River (Southeastern Ecuador). Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 633, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Aijuka, M.; Buys, E. Persistence of Foodborne Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli in the Agricultural and Food Production Environment: Implications for Food Safety and Public Health. Food Microbiol. 2019, 82, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Msolo, L.; Iweriebor, B.; Okoh, A. Pervasiveness of Diarrheagenic E. coli Pathotypes and Salmonella Species Among Gastroenteritis Patients in Some Selected Pastoral Hinterlands of the Amathole District Municipality, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Hum. Microbiome J. 2020, 17, 100074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shekar, A.; Babu, L.; Ramlal, S.; Sripathy, M.; Batra, H. Selective and Concurrent Detection of Viable Salmonella spp., E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus, E. coli O157:H7, and Shigella spp. in Low Moisture Food Products By PMA-Mpcr Assay with Internal Amplification Control. LWT 2017, 86, 586–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhi, S.; Stothard, P.; Banting, G.; Scott, C.; Huntley, K.; Ryu, K.; Otto, S.; Ashbolt, N.; Checkley, S.; Dong, T.; et al. Characterization of Water Treatment-Resistant and Multidrug-Resistant Urinary Pathogenic Escherichia coli in Treated Wastewater. Water Res. 2020, 182, 115827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ochoa-Cueva, P.; Fries, A.; Montesinos, P.; Rodríguez-Díaz, J.A.; Boll, J. Spatial estimation of soil erosion risk by land-cover change in the Andes of southern Ecuador. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chuquimarca, L.; Gaona, F.P.; Iñiguez-Armijos, C.; Benítez, Á. Lichen Responses to Disturbance: Clues for Biomonitoring Land-use Effects on Riparian Andean Ecosystems. Diversity 2019, 11, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. MacFaddin, J. Pruebas Bioquímicas para la Identificación de Bacterias de Importancia Clínica, 3rd ed.; Médica Panamericana: Madrid, Spain, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mota, R.; da Silva, L.; da Silva, K.; da Silva Neto, J.; da Cunha, A.; do Nascimento Sobrinho, E. Caracterización Bioquímica y Perfil de Sensibilidad Antimicrobiana in Vitro de Muestras de Burkholderia mallei Aisladas de Équidos de la Región Nordeste de Brasil. Arq. Inst. Biol 2005, 72, 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  34. Mayz, J.; Manzi, L. Bacterias Hidrocarburoclásticas del Género Pseudomonas en la Rizosfera de Samanea Saman (Jacq.) Merr. Rev. Colomb. De Biotecnol. 2017, 19, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Oksanen, J.; Blanchet, F.; Friendly, M.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; McGlinn, D.; Minchin, P.; O’Hara, R.; Simpson, G.; Solymos, P.; et al. Package “Vegan”. Community Ecology. 2021. Available online: https://github.com/vegandevs/vegan (accessed on 22 September 2021).
  36. Inglis, T.; Merritt, A. Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia mallei. Mol. Med. Microbiol. 2015, 2, 769–791. [Google Scholar]
  37. Bhar, S.; Edelmann, M.; Jones, M. Characterization and Proteomic Analysis of Outer Membrane Vesicles from a Commensal Microbe, Enterobacter cloacae. J. Proteom. 2021, 231, 103994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Bhise, K.; Bhagwat, P.; Dandge, P. Plant Growth-Promoting Characteristics of Salt Tolerant Enterobacter Cloacae Strain KBPD and its Efficacy in Amelioration of Salt Stress in Vigna Radiata L. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2016, 36, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ji, C.; Liu, Z.; Hao, L.; Song, X.; Wang, C.; Liu, Y.; Li, H.; Li, C.; Gao, Q.; Liu, X. Effects of Enterobacter cloacae HG-1 on the Nitrogen-Fixing Community Structure of Wheat Rhizosphere Soil and on Salt Tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cooney, S.; O’Brien, S.; Iversen, C.; Fanning, S. Bacteria: Other Pathogenic Enterobacteriaceae—Enterobacter and other Genera. Encycl. Food Saf. 2014, 1, 433–441. [Google Scholar]
  41. Collavino, M.; Sansberro, P.; Mroginski, L.; Aguilar, O. Comparison of in Vitro Solubilization Activity of Diverse Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria Native to Acid Soil and their Ability to Promote Phaseolus vulgaris Growth. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2010, 46, 727–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sindhu, S.; Phour, M.; Choudhary, S.; Chaudhary, D. Phosphorus Cycling: Prospects of Using Rhizosphere Microorganisms for Improving Phosphorus Nutrition of Plants. Geomicrobiol. Biogeochem. 2013, 39, 199–237. [Google Scholar]
  43. Thapa, L.; Lee, S.; Park, C.; Kim, S. Metabolic Engineering of Enterobacter aerogenes to Improve the Production of 2,3-Butanediol. Biochem. Eng. J. 2019, 143, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Samanta, I.; Bandyopadhyay, S.; Bhatia, R. Antimicrobial Resistance in Agriculture; Academic Press: London, UK; San Diego, CA, USA, 2020; pp. 171–193. [Google Scholar]
  45. Taabodi, M.; Hashem, F.; Oscar, T.; Parveen, S.; May, E. The Possible Roles of Escherichia coli in the Nitrogen Cycle. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2019, 13, 597–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Pavlova, A.; Leontieva, M.; Smirnova, T.; Kolomeitseva, G.; Netrusov, A.; Tsavkelova, E. Colonization Strategy of the Endophytic Plant Growth-Promoting Strains of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Klebsiella oxytoca on the Seeds, Seedlings and Roots of the Epiphytic Orchid, Dendrobium nobile Lindl. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 123, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Celloto, V.; Oliveira, A.; Gonçalves, J.; Watanabe, C.; Matioli, G.; Gonçalves, R. Biosynthesis of Indole-3-Acetic Acid by New Klebsiella oxytoca free and Immobilized Cells on Inorganic Matrices. Sci. World J. 2012, 2012, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Pongsapipatana, N.; Damrongteerapap, P.; Chantorn, S.; Sintuprapa, W.; Keawsompong, S.; Nitisinprasert, S. Molecular Cloning of Kman Coding for Mannanase from Klebsiella oxytoca KUB-CW2-3 And Its Hybrid Mannanase Characters. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2016, 89, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tominaga, T. Rapid Detection of Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Raoultella ornithinolytica and Other Related Bacteria in Food by Lateral-Flow Test Strip Immunoassays. J. Microbiol. Methods 2018, 147, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Asis, C.; Adachi, K. Isolation of Endophytic Diazotroph Pantoea agglomerans and Nondiazotroph Enterobacter asburiae from Sweetpotato Stem in Japan. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2004, 38, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Völksch, B.; Thon, S.; Jacobsen, I.; Gube, M. Polyphasic Study of Plant- and Clinic-Associated Pantoea agglomerans Strains Reveals Indistinguishable Virulence Potential. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2009, 9, 1381–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Delgado-Bermúdez, A.; Bonet, S.; Yeste, M.; Pinart, E. Long-Term Storage of Boar Seminal Doses Contaminated with Proteus vulgaris: A Dose-Dependent Effect on Sperm Motility and Sperm-Bacteria Interaction. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2020, 216, 106349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Sun, L.; Sun, Y.; Jiang, M.; Luo, L.; Yu, X.; Yao, W.; Wu, Z. Isolation, Identification and Pathogenicity of Proteus vulgaris from Moribund Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) Farmed in China. Aquaculture 2020, 525, 735294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yu, S.; Lee, Y. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacterium Proteus vulgaris JBLS202 Stimulates the Seedling Growth of Chinese Cabbage through Indole Emission. Plant Soil 2013, 370, 485–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Radhapriya, P.; Ramachandran, A.; Anandham, R.; Mahalingam, S. Pseudomonas aeruginosa RRALC3 Enhances the Biomass, Nutrient and Carbon Contents of Pongamia pinnata Seedlings in Degraded Forest Soil. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e139881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Schinner, S.; Engelhardt, F.; Preusse, M.; Thöming, J.; Tomasch, J.; Häussler, S. Genetic Determinants of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Fitness During Biofilm Growth. Biofilm 2020, 2, 100023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tripathy, S.; Kumar, N.; Mohanty, S.; Samanta, M.; Mandal, R.; Maiti, N. Characterisation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolated from Freshwater Culture Systems. Microbiol. Res. 2007, 162, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Andreani, N.; Carraro, L.; Zhang, L.; Vos, M.; Cardazzo, B. Transposon Mutagenesis in Pseudomonas fluorescens Reveals Genes Involved in Blue Pigment Production and Antioxidant Protection. Food Microbiol. 2019, 82, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ortiz-Castro, R.; Campos-García, J.; López-Bucio, J. Pseudomonas putida and Pseudomonas fluorescens Influence Arabidopsis Root System Architecture through an Auxin Response Mediated by Bioactive Cyclodipeptides. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2019, 39, 254–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nkoh, J.; Yan, J.; Xu, R.; Shi, R.; Hong, Z. The Mechanism for Inhibiting Acidification of Variable Charge Soils by Adhered Pseudomonas fluorescens. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 260, 114049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Siddiqui, I.; Shahid Shaukat, S. Suppression of Root-Knot Disease by Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0 in Tomato: Importance of Bacterial Secondary Metabolite, 2,4-Diacetylpholoroglucinol. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2003, 35, 1615–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Patel, A.; Jeyasekaran, G.; Jeyashakila, R.; Anand, T.; Wilwet, L.; Pathak, N.; Malini, A.; Neethiselvan, N. Prevalence of Antibiotic Resistant Salmonella spp. Strains in Shrimp Farm Source Waters of Nagapattinam Region in South India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 155, 111171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Krzyzanowski, F.; de Souza Lauretto, M.; Nardocci, A.; Sato, M.; Razzolini, M. Assessing the Probability of Infection by Salmonella due to Sewage Sludge Use in Agriculture Under Several Exposure Scenarios for Crops and Soil Ingestion. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 568, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Han, S.; Kim, D.; Kim, B.; Chi, Y.; Kang, S.; Park, H.; Jung, S.; Lee, J.; Oh, T. Complete Genome Sequencing of Shigella sp. PAMC 28760: Identification of Cazyme Genes and Analysis of their Potential Role in Glycogen Metabolism for Cold Survival Adaptation. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 137, 103759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Lu, H.; Yan, P.; Xiong, W.; Wang, J.; Liu, X. Genomic Characterization of a Novel Virulent Phage Infecting Shigella fiexneri and Isolated from Sewage. Virus Res. 2020, 283, 197983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Jansson, J.; Hofmockel, K. The Soil Microbiome—From Metagenomics to Metaphenomics. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2018, 43, 162–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Jacoby, R.; Peukert, M.; Succurro, A.; Koprivova, A.; Kopriva, S. The Role of Soil Microorganisms in Plant Mineral Nutrition—Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Shade, A. Diversity is the Question, not the Answer. ISME J. 2016, 11, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Rusiñol, M.; Hundesa, A.; Cárdenas-Youngs, Y.; Fernández-Bravo, A.; Pérez-Cataluña, A.; Moreno-Mesonero, L.; Moreno, Y.; Calvo, M.; Alonso, J.; Figueras, M.; et al. Microbiological Contamination of Conventional and Reclaimed Irrigation Water: Evaluation and Management Measures. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 710, 136298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Soonvald, L.; Loit, K.; Runno-Paurson, E.; Astover, A.; Tedersoo, L. The Role of Long-Term Mineral and Organic Fertilization Treatment in Changing Pathogen and Symbiont Community Composition in Soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 141, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Johannessen, G. Use of Manure in Production of Organic Lettuce; Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, National Veterinary Institute: Oslo, Norway, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  72. De Quadros, R.; Loiko, M.; Minéia Daniel de Paula, C.; Hessel, C.; Jacxsens, L.; Uyttendaele, M.; Bender, R.; Tondo, E. Microbiological Contamination Linked to Implementation of Good Agricultural Practices in The Production of Organic Lettuce in Southern Brazil. Food Control 2014, 42, 152–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jechalke, S.; Schierstaedt, J.; Becker, M.; Flemer, B.; Grosch, R.; Smalla, K.; Schikora, A. Salmonella Establishment in Agricultural Soil and Colonization of Crop Plants Depend on Soil Type and Plant Species. Front. Microb. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Balkhair, K. Modeling Fecal Bacteria Transport and Retention in Agricultural and Urban Soils Under Saturated and Unsaturated Flow Conditions. Water Res. 2017, 110, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Gerba, C. The Role of Water and Water Testing in Produce Safety. In Microbial Safety of Fresh Produce; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jiang, X.; Shepherd, M. The Role of Manure and Compost in Produce Safety. In Microbial Safety of Fresh Produce; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 143–166. [Google Scholar]
  77. De Corato, U.; Viola, E.; Arcieri, G.; Valerio, V.; Zimbardi, F. Use of Composted Agro-Energy Co-Products and Agricultural Residues Against Soil-Borne Pathogens in Horticultural Soil-Less Systems. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 210, 166–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Drzewiecka, D. Significance and Roles of Proteus spp. Bacteria in Natural Environments. Microb. Ecol. 2016, 72, 741–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Chaparro-Acuña, S.; Becerra-Jiménez, M.; Martínez-Zambrano, J.; Rojas-Sarmiento, H. Soil Bacteria that Precipitate Calcium Carbonate: Mechanism and Applications of the Process. Acta Agronómica 2018, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Ghobadi Nia, M.; Rahimi, H.; Sohrabi, T.; Naseri, A.; Tofighi, H. Potential Risk of Calcium Carbonate Precipitation in Agricultural Drain Envelopes in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 1602–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cui, H.; Sun, W.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Song, W.; Ma, J.; Wang, K.; Ling, X. The Effects of Mowing and Multi-Level N Fertilization on Soil Bacterial and Fungal Communities in a Semiarid Grassland are Year-Dependent. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020, 151, 108040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bliven, K.; Lampel, K. Shigella in Foodborne Diseases, 3rd ed.; Dodd, C.E.R., Aldsworth, T., Stein, R.A., Cliver, D.O., Riemann, H., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Duffy, E.; Lucia, L.; Kells, J.; Castillo, A.; Pillai, S.; Acuff, G. Concentrations of Escherichia coli and Genetic Diversity and Antibiotic Resistance Profiling of Salmonella Isolated from Irrigation Water, Packing Shed Equipment, and Fresh Produce in Texas. J. Food Prot. 2005, 68, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Googoolee, A.; Takooree, S.; Goburdhun, D.; Neetoo, H. Characterizing the Cultivation Practices and Microbiological Quality of Watercress. J. Agric. Food Res. 2020, 2, 100057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Schroeder, G.; Hilbi, H. Molecular Pathogenesis of Shigella Spp.: Controlling Host Cell Signaling, Invasion, and Death by Type III Secretion. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2008, 21, 134–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Saxena, A.; Pal, V.; Tripathi, N.; Goel, A. A Real-Time Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay for Molecular Detection of Burkholderia mallei, the Aetiological Agent of a Zoonotic and Re-Emerging Disease Glanders. Acta Tropica 2019, 194, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kanso, S.; Dasri, K.; Tingthong, S.; Watanapokasin, R. Diversity of Cultivable Hydrogen-Producing Bacteria Isolated from Agricultural Soils, Waste Water Sludge and Cow Dung. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2011, 36, 8735–8742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Danhorn, T.; Fuqua, C. Biofilm Formation by Plant-Associated Bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2007, 61, 401–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Gobbin, D.; Rezzonico, F.; Gessler, C. Quantification of the Biocontrol Agent Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf153 In Soil Using a Quantitative Competitive PCR Assay Unaffected by Variability in Cell Lysis- And DNA-Extraction Efficiency. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 1609–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Meza, A.; Rojas, P.; Cely-Veloza, W.; Guerrero-Perilla, C.; Coy-Barrera, E. Variation of Isoflavone Content And DPPH• Scavenging Capacity of Phytohormone-Treated Seedlings After In vitro Germination of Cape Broom (Genista Monspessulana). S. Afr. J. Bot. 2020, 130, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Jiang, J.; Wang, J.; Yang, P.; Xu, Z.; He, T.; Gao, Q.; Wang, L.; Li, Q. Interactive Effects Between Cadmium Stabilized by Palygorskite and Mobilized by Siderophores from Pseudomonas fluorescens. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 181, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Williamson, A.; Folens, K.; Matthijs, S.; Paz Cortes, Y.; Varia, J.; Du Laing, G.; Boon, N.; Hennebel, T. Selective Metal Extraction by Biologically Produced Siderophores During Bioleaching from Low-Grade Primary and Secondary Mineral Resources. Miner. Eng. 2021, 163, 106774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Suresh, P.; Vellasamy, S.; Almaary, K.; Dawoud, T.; Elbadawi, Y. Fluorescent pseudomonads (Fps) as a Potential Biocontrol and Plant Growth Promoting Agent Associated with Tomato Rhizosphere. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2021, 33, 101423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gerbal, C.; Smith, J. Sources of Pathogenic Microorganisms and Their Fate During Land Application of Wastes. J. Environ. Qual. 2005, 34, 42–48. [Google Scholar]
  95. Jiménez, B.; Austin, A.; Cloete, E.; Phasha, C.; Beltrán, N. Biological Risks to Food Crops Fertilized with Ecosan Sludge. Water Sci. Technol. 2007, 55, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Pepper, I.; Zerzghi, H.; Brooks, J.; Gerba, C. Sustainability of Land Application of Class B Biosolids. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, S58–S67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Navarro, I.; Jiménez, B.; Lucario, S.; Cifuentes, E. Application of Helminth Ova Infection Dose Curve to Estimate the Risks Associated with Biosolid Application on Soil. J. Water Health 2008, 7, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Turner, G.; Green, R.; Alae-Carew, C.; Dangour, A. The Association of Dimensions of Fruit and Vegetable Access in the Retail Food Environment with Consumption; a Systematic Review. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 29, 100528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Hibbing, M.; Fuqua, C.; Parsek, M.; Peterson, S. Bacterial Competition: Surviving and Thriving in the Microbial Jungle. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2009, 8, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Agronomy 11 02362 g001 550
Figure 1. Location of the sampling zones in the basin of Loja city. (A, B) Shucos neighborhood, 3°56′18.4″, 79°11′45.3″ and 3°56′23.2″, 79°11′41.2″ respectively; (C) north zone, industrial park, 3°57′00.9″, 79°13′05.1″; (D) Colinas Lojanas zone, 4°01′17.3″, 79°13′46.5″; (E, F) Carmen neighborhood, 4°02′04.3″, 79°10′48.5″and 4°01′45.2″, 79°10′47.2″; (G) Carigan zone, 3°59′21.1″, 79°14′43.7″; (H, I) Yanacocha zone, 3°59′02.7″, 79°10′44.2″ and 3°58′56.8″, 79°10′44.0″. Type of farm: A, C, F, G, I (organic farm); B, D, E, H (conventional farm).
Figure 1. Location of the sampling zones in the basin of Loja city. (A, B) Shucos neighborhood, 3°56′18.4″, 79°11′45.3″ and 3°56′23.2″, 79°11′41.2″ respectively; (C) north zone, industrial park, 3°57′00.9″, 79°13′05.1″; (D) Colinas Lojanas zone, 4°01′17.3″, 79°13′46.5″; (E, F) Carmen neighborhood, 4°02′04.3″, 79°10′48.5″and 4°01′45.2″, 79°10′47.2″; (G) Carigan zone, 3°59′21.1″, 79°14′43.7″; (H, I) Yanacocha zone, 3°59′02.7″, 79°10′44.2″ and 3°58′56.8″, 79°10′44.0″. Type of farm: A, C, F, G, I (organic farm); B, D, E, H (conventional farm).
Agronomy 11 02362 g001
Agronomy 11 02362 g002 550
Figure 2. Rarefaction curves with 95% confidence intervals and Chao 2 estimator (points in the right of figure) according to substrate type.
Figure 2. Rarefaction curves with 95% confidence intervals and Chao 2 estimator (points in the right of figure) according to substrate type.
Agronomy 11 02362 g002
Agronomy 11 02362 g003 550
Figure 3. Bacterial richness according to sample type. Median richness (black horizontal bars); violin plots include the values within the min-max range; the width of the violin is proportional to kernel probability density of the data at different values.
Figure 3. Bacterial richness according to sample type. Median richness (black horizontal bars); violin plots include the values within the min-max range; the width of the violin is proportional to kernel probability density of the data at different values.
Agronomy 11 02362 g003
Agronomy 11 02362 g004 550
Figure 4. (A). Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plot of species composition and farms. Blue dots represent water samples and green dots represent soil samples. (B). Nonmetric multidimensional scaling plot of species composition and substrate. Blue dots represent water samples and green dots represent soil samples.
Figure 4. (A). Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plot of species composition and farms. Blue dots represent water samples and green dots represent soil samples. (B). Nonmetric multidimensional scaling plot of species composition and substrate. Blue dots represent water samples and green dots represent soil samples.
Agronomy 11 02362 g004
Table
Table 1. Bacterial species identified according to their biochemical reaction.
Table 1. Bacterial species identified according to their biochemical reaction.
Bacterial SpeciesTSIGASH2SCITRATEUREAMOTILITYINDOLLYSINE
Alkalescens disparALC/A−−−−−++/−
Burkholderia malleiA/A−−+−−−−
Enterobacter cloacaeA/A++−+−+−−
Enterobacter aerogenesA/A++−++/−+−+
Escherichia coliA/A+−−−+/−++
Klebsiella oxytocaA/A++−++−++
Pantoea agglomeransA/A+/−−+−+−−
Proteus vulgarisALC/A+/−++/−++++−
Pseudomonas aeruginosaK/K−−+++−+/−
Pseudomonas fluorescensK/K−−+−+−+
Salmonella spp.K/A+++−+−+
Shigella spp.K/A−−−−−−−
The references are show in methodology. Abbreviations and symbols: alkaline reaction (K), alkaline (ALC), acid (A), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), iron-tripe sugar agar (TSI), positive (+), negative (−), variable reaction (+/−), GAS: Strong bubbles of gas that destroy the agar (++), Bubbles of gas without agar destruction (+). UREA: Slightly pinkish or fuchsia color (+), Strong fuchsia color (++).
Table
Table 2. Gram-negative bacteria species isolated from water and soil samples for the two farm types and their ecology and pathogenicity based on literature.
Table 2. Gram-negative bacteria species isolated from water and soil samples for the two farm types and their ecology and pathogenicity based on literature.
Bacterial
Species		Frequency–Number of Isolates by Species,
Sample Type and Farm.		HabitatPlant–Soil Nutrition Cycling or Growth
Promotion		PathogenicityReferences
O:WC:WO:SC:S
Burkholderia
mallei		 1 Exclusively:
intracellular parasite.		Information not found.Pathogen:
equines,
mammals
including
humans.		[36]
Enterobacter cloacae 51Ubiquitous: terrestrial and aquatic environments
including wastewater and plants. Human intestines.		Some strains
alleviating salinity stress and promoting growth
in plants due to high
nitrogen fixation activity and produced iron
carriers.		Nosocomial and opportunistic pathogens.[37,38,39,40]
Enterobacter
aerogenes		2 27Ubiquitous: terrestrial and aquatic environments,
including wastewater and plants. Intestine animals (including humans).		Some strains release high amounts of phosphorus and help their solubilization on soil.Nosocomial and opportunistic pathogens.[40,41,42,43]
Escherichia coli
Escherichia coli inactive
(Alkalescens dispar)		1 23Frequently: intestines of
animals
(including humans).		Possible role in nitrogen cycle using ammonia and nitratePathogen:
animals
(including
humans). 		[44,45]
Klebsiella
oxytoca		 21Ubiquitous: terrestrial and aquatic environment and
intestine of a wide range
of animals.		Related to production
of auxin
(indole-3-acetic acid)
and growth promotor for some plants.		Nosocomial and opportunistic pathogens.[46,47,48,49]
Pantoea
agglomerans		 1 Frequently: Plants, soil
and fecal matter of humans and animals.		Considered as
diazotrophic
endophyte in the stem of Japanese sweet potato		Pathogen:
humans, plants and animals.		[50,51]
Proteus
vulgaris		 1 Frequently: environmental saprophyte, found on
decaying animal matter and in contaminated water.
Intestine of animals
(including humans).		Volatile organic compounds on growth stimulation of Chinese cabbage Nosocomial and opportunistic pathogens in
animals
(including
humans).		[52,53,54]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa		 2 Ubiquitous: terrestrial and aquatic environments. Part of microbiota in animals (including humans).Plant growth promoting through nitrogen
accumulation,
solubilization of
phosphate, silicate and zinc. Additional positive for indole acetic acid. 		Nosocomial and opportunistic pathogen in
humans.		[55,56,57]
Pseudomonas fluorescens11 Ubiquitous: terrestrial and aquatic environments.
Non-pathogenic
rhizobacteria.		Plant growth-promoting capacity through
auxin-like
phytohormones such as indole acetic acid. 		Pathogen: many plants, and fish. Rarely
pathogenic to
humans.		[46,58,59,60,61]
Salmonella spp.23158Frequently: intestine
animals (including
humans); survives in
contaminated food
and water.		Information not found.Pathogen:
animals
(including
humans).		[62,63]
Shigella spp.614 Exclusively: human colon; survives in contaminated food and water.Information not found.Pathogen:
humans.		[64,65]
Organic (O), conventional (C), water (W), soil (S).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cruz, D.; Cisneros, R.; Benítez, Á.; Zúñiga-Sarango, W.; Peña, J.; Fernández, H.; Jaramillo, A. Gram-Negative Bacteria from Organic and Conventional Agriculture in the Hydrographic Basin of Loja: Quality or Pathogen Reservoir? Agronomy 2021, 11, 2362. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11112362

AMA Style

Cruz D, Cisneros R, Benítez Á, Zúñiga-Sarango W, Peña J, Fernández H, Jaramillo A. Gram-Negative Bacteria from Organic and Conventional Agriculture in the Hydrographic Basin of Loja: Quality or Pathogen Reservoir? Agronomy. 2021; 11(11):2362. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11112362

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cruz, Darío, Rodrigo Cisneros, Ángel Benítez, Wilson Zúñiga-Sarango, Jhoan Peña, Heriberto Fernández, and Andrea Jaramillo. 2021. "Gram-Negative Bacteria from Organic and Conventional Agriculture in the Hydrographic Basin of Loja: Quality or Pathogen Reservoir?" Agronomy 11, no. 11: 2362. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11112362

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop