The effects of biostimulation and bioaugmentation on crude oil biodegradation in two adjacent terrestrial oil spills of different age, in a hyper-arid region.

This study deals with two adjacent terrestrial oil spills, with similar properties, located in a hyper-arid region in Israel, one from 1975 and the other from 2014. It tests the effect of biostimulation on crude oil degradation in both spills and whether biostimulated sediments from the 1975 spill can bioaugment crude oil degradation in the 2014 spill. Soil hydrophobicity, expressed as Water Drop Penetration Time (WDPT), and Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) and Diesel Range Organics (DRO) content in sediments were measured in one-month ex-situ experiments. No significant reduction in hydrophobicity and GRO + DRO content was observed in non-biostimulated controls. A combined treatment of mineral fertilization at t0 and maintaining 50% water saturation, significantly accelerated the decrease in hydrophobicity and GRO + DRO content in sediments of both spills. The addition of biostimulated sediments from the 1975 spill failed to accelerate the reduction of GRO + DRO content and hydrophobicity in the 2014 spill. Surprisingly, the GRO + DRO degradation rate in biostimulated sediments from the 2014 spill was 36% higher than in biostimulated sediments from the 1975 spill. Crude oil composition in both spills changes during its degradation and is characterized by an increase in the GRO fraction. To a certain range, WDPT was found to serve as a reliable indicator for oil content in the soil. We conclude that even in a hyper-arid region, oil bio-degradation capabilities develop in a relatively short time. Moreover, while biostimulation was effective in accelerating biodegradation, bioaugmentation with biostimulated sediments from a nearby older spill was found ineffective.

Water runoff harvesting systems for restoration of degraded rangelands: A review of challenges and opportunities.

Mismanagement of rangelands worldwide has accelerated processes of overland flow and soil erosion, resulting in extensive land degradation. Wherever self-restoration processes of degraded rangelands are hindered or negated, active recovery efforts, coupled with livestock pressure management, might be needed. The objective of this review paper is to provide land managers and environmental planners with applied and practical knowledge on advantages and disadvantages of the main methodologies and practices for runoff harvesting in rangelands. Preferably, restoration efforts should focus on forming low-footprint runoff harvesting systems on hillslopes which encompass the runoff's source area. These systems should imitate natural patchiness, strengthening source-sink relations, accelerating re-establishment of herbaceous and woody vegetation, maximizing the retaining of water on hillslopes, regulating hydrological connectivity, lessening soil erosion, and minimizing transmission of water to stream channels. The resulting lower-energy floods are expected to negate the need for massive check dams in channels. If flood dissipation in streams is still necessary, then high-to medium-porosity check dams, made of local materials, might be effective for lessening scour processes and sediment transport. Furthermore, in terms of environmental sustainability, a large number of pointed (e.g., branch bundles; brush or woody piles; micro-catchments) or low-to medium-footprint lineal means for regulating surface processes in hillslopes (e.g., stone terraces; contour furrows/trenches/ditches) and channels (e.g., log check dams; loose rock check dams; porous or semi-permeable rock check dams; gabions) are expected to be more cost-effective than a small number of massive means (e.g., contour bench terraces; earth bunds/dykes; concrete check dams). If runoff harvesting systems are properly designed, restoration processes over time are expected to generate geo-ecological feedbacks and recover eco-hydrological functioning, increasing pasture productivity and sustaining rangeland carrying capacity.