Exposure to synthetic hydraulic fracturing waste influences the mucosal bacterial community structure of the brook trout (<em>Salvelinus fontinalis</em>) epidermis

Heather Galbraith; Deborah Iwanowicz; Daniel Spooner; Luke Iwanowicz; David Keller; Paula Zelanko; Cynthia Adams; Heather Galbraith; Deborah Iwanowicz; Daniel Spooner; Luke Iwanowicz; David Keller; Paula Zelanko; Cynthia Adams

doi:10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.413

AIMS Microbiology

2018, Volume 4, Issue 3: 413-427. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.413

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Exposure to synthetic hydraulic fracturing waste influences the mucosal bacterial community structure of the brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) epidermis

1.
U.S. Geological Survey, Leetown Science Center, Northern Appalachian Research Laboratory, 176 Straight Run Road, Wellsboro, PA, USA
2.
U.S. Geological Survey, Leetown Science Center, National Fish Health Research Laboratory, 11649 Leetown Road, Kearneysville, WV, USA
3.
George Mason University, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, USA
4.
The Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Pkwy, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Received: 08 January 2018 Accepted: 16 May 2018 Published: 11 June 2018

Production of natural gas using unconventional technologies has risen as demand for alternative fuels has increased. Impacts on the environment from waste generated from these processes are largely unexplored. In particular, the outcomes of organismal exposure to hydraulic fracturing waste have not been rigorously evaluated. We evaluated the effects of exposure to surrogate hydraulic fracturing waste (HF waste) on mucosal bacterial community structure of the brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) epidermis. Brook trout are fish native to streams at risk to HF waste exposure. Here, fish were exposed to four treatments (control, 0.00%; low, 0.01%; medium, 0.10%; and high, 1.0% concentrations) of surrogate HF waste synthesized to mimic concentrations documented in the field. Epidermal mucus samples were collected and assessed 15 days post-exposure to determine if the associated bacterial community varied among treatments. We observed differences in epidermal mucosal bacterial community composition at multiple taxonomic scales among treatments. These community changes reflected compositional differences in taxa dominance and community similarity rather than losses or gains in taxonomic richness. The dominant bacterial genus that explained the greatest variation in community structure between exposed and unexposed fish was Flavobacterium. Two genera associated with salmonid diseases, Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas, were statistically more abundant in high treatments than controls. These results suggest that exposure to low levels of HF waste influences bacterial colonization and may lead to a disruption that favors bacterial populations associated with fish disease.

Keywords:

Citation: Heather Galbraith, Deborah Iwanowicz, Daniel Spooner, Luke Iwanowicz, David Keller, Paula Zelanko, Cynthia Adams. Exposure to synthetic hydraulic fracturing waste influences the mucosal bacterial community structure of the brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) epidermis[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(3): 413-427. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.413

Related Papers:

[1]	Anna Liza Kretzschmar, Mike Manefield . The role of lipids in activated sludge floc formation. AIMS Environmental Science, 2015, 2(2): 122-133. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2015.2.122
[2]	Delianis Pringgenies, Wilis Ari Setyati, Nirwani Soenardjo, Rini Pramesti . Investigation of extra-cellular protease in indigenous bacteria of sea cucumbers as a candidate for bio-detergent material in bio-industry. AIMS Environmental Science, 2020, 7(4): 335-349. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2020022
[3]	Alma Sobrino-Figueroa, Sergio H. Álvarez Hernandez, Carlos Álvarez Silva C . Evaluation of the freshwater copepod Acanthocyclops americanus (Marsh, 1983) (Cyclopidae) response to Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Ni and Pb. AIMS Environmental Science, 2020, 7(6): 449-463. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2020029
[4]	Katie Lewis, Jamie Foster, Frank Hons, Thomas Boutton . Initial aggregate formation and soil carbon storage from lipid-extracted algae amendment. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(6): 743-762. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.6.743
[5]	Robert Russell Monteith Paterson . Depletion of Indonesian oil palm plantations implied from modeling oil palm mortality and Ganoderma boninense rot under future climate. AIMS Environmental Science, 2020, 7(5): 366-379. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2020024
[6]	Francis I. Johnson, Richard Laing, Bassam Bjeirmi, Marianthi Leon . The impacts of multi-stakeholders collaboration on management and mitigation of oil pipeline disasters in Nigeria. AIMS Environmental Science, 2023, 10(1): 93-124. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023006
[7]	Nguyen Trinh Trong, Phu Huynh Le Tan, Dat Nguyen Ngoc, Ba Le Huy, Dat Tran Thanh, Nam Thai Van . Optimizing the synthesis conditions of aerogels based on cellulose fiber extracted from rambutan peel using response surface methodology. AIMS Environmental Science, 2024, 11(4): 576-592. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2024028
[8]	Yang Wang, Chenhui Liang, Shijie Liu . Ethanol production from hot-water sugar maple wood extract hydrolyzate: fermentation media optimization for Escherichia coli FBWHR. AIMS Environmental Science, 2015, 2(2): 269-281. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2015.2.269
[9]	Pratik Vinayak Jadhav, Sairam V. A, Siddharth Sonkavade, Shivali Amit Wagle, Preksha Pareek, Ketan Kotecha, Tanupriya Choudhury . A multi-task model for failure identification and GPS assessment in metro trains. AIMS Environmental Science, 2024, 11(6): 960-986. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2024048
[10]	Volodymyr Ivanov, Viktor Stabnikov, Chen Hong Guo, Olena Stabnikova, Zubair Ahmed, In S. Kim, and Eng-Ban Shuy . Wastewater engineering applications of BioIronTech process based on the biogeochemical cycle of iron bioreduction and (bio)oxidation. AIMS Environmental Science, 2014, 1(2): 53-66. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2014.2.53

Abstract

1. Introduction

In the recent era, global warming has emerged as one of the significant environmental problems which adversely affect the sustainable economic performance of a country and a threat to environmental quality and human well-being ^{[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]}. The environmentalists believe that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are mainly responsible for the increase in global temperature that affects natural and human ecosystems ^{[10,11,12,13,14,15]}. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions have the leading contributor to climate change and global warming, which has quadrupled after 1960 (The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020). Moreover, global energy consumption and total products account for 81% of global CO₂ emissions ^{[7,8,9,16,17,18,19]}. The high-income countries do not exempt from these ecological concerns. High-income countries cannot be immune to these environmental problems because their swift growth in the past few decades has caused serious concerns regarding the ecosystem. For instance, high-income countries are rapidly growing countries and are accompanied by increased gross domestic product, energy consumption, population, resources, thereby increasing ecological footprint and CO₂ emissions ^[7,20,21]. It depicts that urbanization, natural resources, exports, and services intensity play a significant role in determining the environmental degradation in a country. The increasing concern of countries regarding climate change and global warming have pushed them to formulate ecological policies to mitigate ecological footprint (EFP) and carbon footprint (CFP).

Large differences in average emissions between countries and much larger differences in emissions within each country cause global disparity in per capita emissions. In Europe, average CO₂ emissions per person and year are currently at 10 tones. The average person in North America emits roughly 20 tones. In China, this falls to 8 tones, 2.6 tones in Southeast Asia, and 1.6 tones in Sub-Saharan Africa. Since the Industrial Revolution, North America and Europe have accounted for almost half of all emissions. China supplied around 11% of the total historical total, whereas Sub-Saharan Africa contributed only 4%. Because of their higher-than-average increases in income and wealth, as well as the carbon impact of their investments, emissions from the wealthiest 1% of people have increased faster than any other group since 1990^*.

* How large are inequalities in global carbon emissions—and what to do about it? | Human Development Reports (undp.org)

The concept of ecological footprint is primarily developed by ^[22]. It measures the area of land which is required to produce crop, forest, sea and river fishes, grazing activities, built-up land for unban activities and to assimilate carbon emissions and waste as generated by a region, a nation or society each year. This is a material resource consumption accounting tools by comparing ecological footprint with biocapacity while the unit measure is global hectare per capita ^{[23,24,25,26]}. Ecological footprint is the sum of footprints of cropland, forest, fishery, grazing, carbon, and built-up land. The major contributor to ecological footprint is the carbon footprint because human activities put huge pressure on global in form of carbon emissions ^[25]. According to the Global Footprint Network, ecological footprint represents demand for material resources, whereas bio capacity represents supply. The global hectare is the ecological and bio capacity measurement unit, with one hectare equaling about 2.47 acres. The total value of the crop, forestry, fishing, grazing, built-up, and carbon footprints is the ecological footprint. Crop footprint, for example, is the amount of land allocated to crops and crop-related goods for human consumption, animals, textiles, and other materials. Grazing footprint refers to the amount of land dedicated to grazing operations for animal products. In contrast, forest footprint refers to the amount of land devoted to the production of wood and paper. Fishery and fishery-related footprints are represented by land allocated to infrastructure, transportation, housing, industrial structures, and hydropower reservoirs, while built-up footprints are represented by land allocated to urban activities such as infrastructure, transportation, housing, and industrial structures.

Environmentalists need to identify various global, environmental, and economic policies to mitigate ecological degradation and safeguard the environment to address these issues. Several existing studies have identified the role of various global and economic factors that help to mitigate environmental degradation and protecting the environment. For instance, industrialization ^{[27,28,29,30]}; energy consumption ^[29,31,32]; Globalization ^{[33,34,35,36,37,38]}; natural resources ^[39,40,41], still existing studies fail to demonstrate sufficient harmony regarding above-mentioned factors. Moreover, the relationship between natural resources and environmental quality has been comparatively less discussed. In recent studies, few researchers have investigated the role of natural resources as the potential factor to determine the environmental quality ^{[36,42,43,44,45,46]}. They have identified that abundance of natural resources can shape the ecosystem and mitigate environmental degradation. However, previous studies less focused on the role of natural resources in deriving the EFP and CFP; that's why there is a strong need to explore how natural resources affect EFP and CFP. Additionally, the empirical results of our study will be a significant contribution to fill the gap in the existing literature. In fact, this research will be very helpful for high income countries and policymakers to realize how to control environmental degradation focusing on certain factors. This study and its recommendations will help policymakers to develop better policies for environmental sustainability.

Studies ^{[47,48,49,50,51]} investigated the nexus between natural resources and environmental quality while using various control factors. For example, de Souza et al. ^[47] examined the influence of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on carbon emissions, which is used as a measure of environmental quality, as well as economic growth as a control variable. The relationship between non-renewable energy consumption and carbon emissions is positive, while the relationship between renewable energy consumption and carbon emissions is negative. Ibrahiem and Hanafy ^[48] obtained alternative energy resources improves environmental quality. There is existed a cointegration among variables. Rehman and Rashid ^[49] used the panel unit root test to evaluate the influence of energy consumption on environmental degradation and discovered a positive relationship between energy consumption and environmental degradation. The research backs up the Pollution Haven Hypothesis. Sarkodie and Adams ^[50] obtained the significance role of disaggregated and aggregated energy with other factors while using time series data and also tested environmental Kuznets hypothesis. However, they obatined mixed conclusions while using different indicators for environmental quality.

The purpose of the present study is, for the first in the existing literature, to investigate the considerable role of urbanization, natural resources, ecological efficiency, and energy intensity in determining the ECF and CFP for high-income countries; as these are expected to act as potential predictors of ECP and CFP and helps policy-makers to know how environmental degradation can be reduced by controlling those factors. The existing studies, such as, Salman et al. ^[52] analyzed sustainable production and consumption by utilizing ecological footprint and human development index (HDI) for Belt and Road initiative countries. (This is the novelty to take into account factors affecting the high income countries ecological footprint and carbon footprint.

The rest of the study is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews previous studies; section 3 explains material and method employed in this study; section 4 elaborates results and discussion, while section 5 concludes the whole study.

2. Data and model specification

This study analyzes various drivers of total ecological and carbon footprints for high-income countries. The selected countries Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Japan, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Netherland, Norway, Portugal, Poland, Qatar, Spain, Singapore, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Trinidad, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and the United States.

In this study, our main objective is to find the factors affecting ecological footprint and carbon footprint by utilizing STIRPAT model. Based on the well-known population, affluence, and technology-STIRPAT-theory framework ^[53,54,55], the present study employs the following models:

$ \mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{E}\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}} = {\mathrm{\beta }}_{0}+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{1}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{G}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{2}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{{\mathrm{G}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{P}}^{2}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{3}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{4}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{5}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}-\mathrm{e}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{y}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{ \varepsilon }}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}} $

(1)

$ \mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}} = {\mathrm{\beta }}_{0}+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{1}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{G}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{2}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{{\mathrm{G}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{P}}^{2}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{3}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{P}\mathrm{O}\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{4}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+\\{\mathrm{\beta }}_{5}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}\mathrm{A}\mathrm{L}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{6}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+ {\mathrm{\beta }}_{7}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{G}\mathrm{A}\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{8}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}-\mathrm{e}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{y}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{ \varepsilon }}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}} $

(2)

where EF shows ecological footprint; CF is carbon footprint; GDP is GDP per capita; GDP² is GDP square per capita; URB denotes urbanization rate; POP implies total population; FF is fossil fuels; NR indicates natural resources, while EF is ecological efficiency, i = 1, …, 34 stands for the country; and time period t = 2003, …, 2015. The data is obtained from the World Bank Development Indicators; and Global Footprint Network. Table 1 demonstrates the summary statistics of all variables.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Variables	Mean	Max	Min	Std. Dev
ln(GDP)	8.046	8.224	7.814	0.157
ln(POP)	7.2	7.226	7.174	0.021
ln(UR)	6.965	7.003	6.924	0.031
ln(FF)	4.376	4.495	4.328	0.068
ln(Coal)	0.044	0.045	0.043	0.04
ln(Oil)	2.654	2.687	2.602	0.033
ln(Gas)	2.793	2.901	2.74	0.066
ln(Eco-efficiency)	2.34	2.75	1.91	0.358

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

The summary statistics is reported in Table 1 which provides minimum, maximum, values of all variables along with mean and standard deviations. The results of descriptive statistics demonstrate positive values of all the variables. The calculated variations seem sufficient for further empirical analysis.

2.1. Econometric methodology

Following York et al. (2004) model named Stochastic Impact by Regression on Population, affluence, and Technology (STIRPAT) which is the extension of the IPAT model developed by Ehrlich and Holdren (1971). The IPAT model consists of four variables, namely Influence(I), Population(P), Affluence(A), and Technology(T), is expressed as follows:

$ {\rm{I = PAT}} $

(3)

Following Zhou and Li (2020), the impact of population, affluence, and technology on influence variables is expressed as follows:

$ {I}_{it} = {\alpha }_{0}{{P}^{{\beta }_{1}}}_{it}{{A}^{{\beta }_{2}}}_{it}{{T}^{{\beta }_{3}}}_{it} $

(4)

After augmenting stochastic variable and logarithm transformation, the Eq (4) is expressed as follows:

$ ln{I}_{it} = {\beta }_{0}+{\beta }_{1}ln{P}_{it}+{\beta }_{2}ln{A}_{it}+{\beta }_{2}ln{T}_{it}+{ \varepsilon }_{it} $

(5)

The dependent variables in this study are total ecological and carbon footprints. The ecological footprint which was primarily developed by ^[22] for human activities' impact on the earth. It is a comprehensive indicator that depicts the direct and indirect effects of human activities on environmental degradation ^[56]. As a result, the following models were used to study the determinants of total ecological and carbon footprints:

$ \left[

\begin{matrix} {l n E F}_{C i t} \\ . \\ l n {C O}_{f i t} \end{matrix}

$\begin{array}{c}{lnEF}_{Cit}\\ .\\ ln{CO}_{fit}\end{array}$ \right] = \left[

\begin{array}{c}{\beta }_{0}\\ {\beta }_{0}\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ {\beta }_{0}\end{array}

$\begin{array}{c}{\beta }_{0}\\ {\beta }_{0}\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ {\beta }_{0}\end{array}$ \end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\right]+\\ \left[

\begin{array}{ccc}{lnGDP}_{it}& {lnpop}_{it}& \begin{array}{ccc}.& .& ln\begin{array}{cc}{ur}_{it}& {eco-efficincy}_{it}\end{array}

$\begin{array}{ccc}{lnGDP}_{it}& {lnpop}_{it}& \begin{array}{ccc}.& .& ln\begin{array}{cc}{ur}_{it}& {eco-efficincy}_{it}\end{array}$ \end{array}\\ ln{GDP}_{it}& {lnpop}_{it}&

\begin{array}{ccc}.& .& \begin{array}{cc}{lnur}_{it}& {eco-efficincy}_{it}\end{array}

$\begin{array}{ccc}.& .& \begin{array}{cc}{lnur}_{it}& {eco-efficincy}_{it}\end{array}$ \end{array}\\

\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ {lnGDP}_{it}\end{array}

$\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ {lnGDP}_{it}\end{array}$ \end{array}\end{array}&

\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ {lnpop}_{it}\end{array}

$\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ {lnpop}_{it}\end{array}$ \end{array}\end{array}&

\begin{array}{ccc}\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\end{array}

$\begin{array}{ccc}\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\end{array}$ \end{array}\end{array}&

\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\end{array}

$\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\end{array}$ \end{array}\end{array}&

\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ {lnur}_{it}\end{array}

$\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ {lnur}_{it}\end{array}$ \end{array}\end{array}&

\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ {eco-efficincy}_{it}\end{array}

$\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ {eco-efficincy}_{it}\end{array}$ \end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\right] \\ \left[

\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}{\beta }_{1}\\ {\beta }_{2}\\ .\end{array}

$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}{\beta }_{1}\\ {\beta }_{2}\\ .\end{array}$ \\ .\\ .\end{array}\\ .\\

\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ .\end{array}

$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ .\end{array}$ \\ .\\ {\beta }_{n}\end{array}\end{array}\right]+\left[

\begin{array}{c}{ \varepsilon  }_{1}\\ { \varepsilon  }_{2}\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ { \varepsilon  }_{k}\end{array}

$\begin{array}{c}{ \varepsilon }_{1}\\ { \varepsilon }_{2}\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ \begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ { \varepsilon }_{k}\end{array}$ \end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\right] $

(6)

The Global Footprint Network provided the ecological and carbon footprint statistics. It is a non-profit international organization that calculates the ecological footprint by subtracting the annual consumption of agriculture, forest, grazing land, fishing grounds, carbon footprint, and built-up land activities from the hectares of land produced. The overall ecological footprint worldwide hectares per year is multiplied by the yield and equivalency factors. To improve the accuracy of ecological footprint aggregation, double counting is preventing at all stages. The raw input data for the computation of a country's ecological footprint comes from a variety of sources, including the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Energy Agency, the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database, the World Development Indicator Database, the Conference Board, the Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, and other databases ^[57]. Besides, the World Bank classification uses for high-income countries selection^†.

† The World Bank classifies the high-income countries with a per capita national income of the ＄US 12,055 or more.

3. Empirical results and discussion

Table 2 shows the results of the panel regression analysis, with model 1 representing the factors of overall ecological footprint. Economic growth and its square term have statistical significance, indicating that ecological footprint grows with initial economic expansion and decreases with further economic growth. This validates the Kuznets theory for the environment, Zhang et al. ^[58] found similar results for developed countries. Destek and Sarkodie ^[27] come at the same conclusion for 11 newly industrialized countries. It is acceptable to conclude that high-income countries support green economic growth by employing new, reliable, green, and clean technology. The findings support the positive and statistically significant influence of population, urbanization, and fossil fuels on total ecological footprint, and negative impact of ecological efficiency. The positive effect of the population reveals that increasing the population enhances the ecological footprint of high-income countries, which is consistent with ^[59], but not with ^[60] findings in a country-specific instance. Time series analysis and discrepancies in additional control variables could be the culprits. The positive impact of urbanization shows that increasing urbanization increases the ecological footprint of high-income countries, which is similar to ^[61] in a country specific case; similar result obtain ^[62], while for emerging economies while Zhang et al. ^[58] results do not match the study findings. This positive link can be explained by the fact that increased urbanization increases demand for residential, industrial, and transportation services, which in turn increases material resource consumption, i.e., ecological footprints.

Table 2. Estimation of the determinants of total ecological footprint.

Variables	Total ecological footprint
ln(GDP)	1.92^*
	(10.8)
[ln(GDP)]²	–0.01^**
	(–1.62)
ln(POP)	0.01^**
	(–1.68)
ln(UR)	0.15^*
	(–5.62)
ln(EF)	0.01^*
	(–3.53)
ln(eco-efficiency)	–4.31^*
	(–12.09)
constant	8.17^*
	(0.80)
Values in parentheses are t-value.

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

The positive impact of fossil fuels demonstrates that increasing fossil fuel use has a negative impact on the environment. Solarin and Al-Mulali ^[63] found similar results for developed and developing countries. This result is fair since expanding diverse economic activities to boost economic growth increases fossil fuel consumption, emissions, and environmental quality via increasing ecological footprint. The negative link between footprint and ecological efficiency demonstrates that increasing ecological efficiency in high-income countries reduces footprint.

In Table 3, the findings of model 2 of carbon footprint validate the U-shape association between carbon footprint and economic growth. Increases in initial economic growth lower carbon footprint, while further increases in economic growth raise carbon footprint after a certain point. The population impact on carbon footprint is positive and statistically significant, with a 0.05% increase in carbon footprint for every 1% rise in population. This is logical since residents of high-income countries need more material goods and services to maintain a higher quality of life, which results in increased carbon emissions. Furthermore, the gas consumption is statistically significant, with a negative sign to the estimated coefficient. This means that for every 1% increase in gas, the carbon footprint is reduced by 0.03%. The negative and statistically significant estimated coefficient of ecological efficiency suggests that increased ecological efficiency reduces the carbon footprint of high-income countries.

Table 3. Estimation of the determinants of carbon footprint.

Variables	Carbon footprint
ln(GDP)	–0.84*
	(–2.41)
[ln(GDP)]²	0.10*
	(–10.11)
ln(POP)	0.05*
	(–1.79)
ln(UR)	–0.44
	(–1.02)
ln(EF)	0.04*
	(–4.23)
ln(coal)	0.04*
	(–4.23)
ln(oil)	0.27
	(–8.23)
ln(gas)	–0.03*
	(–3.10)
ln(co-efficiency)	–10.10*
	(–6.92)
constant	21.66*
	(–12.22)
Values in parentheses are t-value.

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

The results of diagnostic tests are presented in Table 4. The findings indicate absence of heteroskedasticity, and serial correlation in econometric model. Furthermore, the results of the JB normality test show that the errors are normally distributed.

Table 4. Diagnostic tests.

Tests	Model 1	Model 2
R2	0.87	0.73
Adj R2	0.89	0.77
JB normality	0.111 (0.945)	0.532 (0.270)
LM test	0.517 (0.520)	0.459 (0.250)
Values in parentheses are p-value.

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

4. Conclusion and policy implications

The current study tends to be relevant in both literature and practice, as it will close existing gaps in the literature regarding empirical findings, EKC hypothesis, and various determinants of environmental degradation. This study enriches the literature on EKC and environmental quality by providing empirical evidence from the high income countries.

The aim of present study is to investigate the various determinants of ecological footprint and carbon footprint by collecting data from 34 high-income countries over the period 2003–2015. According to the econometric results, it is concluded that an inverted U-shaped EKC hypothesis is supported by the panel of high-income countries in case of total ecological and carbon footprint. It is important to note that ecological efficiency led to reduce the sample countries' footprints. The primary influencing elements for a responsible growth in total ecological footprint are population, urbanization, and fossil fuels. It may be concluded from the findings of carbon footprint that population, coal and oil energy all raise carbon footprint. Thus, reducing population, fossil fuel, coal, and oil energy consumption, promoting pro-environmental urban planning and moderating economic growth with less reliance on emissions intensity production could all be viable policy options for high-income countries to reduce their footprints.

Practically, this research will be useful for high income countries and policy-makers to realize how to control environmental degradation by controlling and focusing on certain factors. our study is helpful for policy-makers to develop ways of green energy through R & D that is effective to lower EFP and CFP. This research and its recommendations will help policy-makers in developing efficient and effective policies regarding environmental awareness, economic development, human capital, and environmental sustainability. This study and its recommendations will help policymakers to develop better policies for environmental sustainability.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding

This paper was supported by the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Re359 search Program (STEP), (Grant No. 2019QZKK0902) and National Natural Science Foundation of 360 China (Grant No. 42077275). It was also supported by Youth Innovation Promotion Association of 361 the Chinese Academy of Sciences (2018405).

References

[1]	Chapman EC, Capo RC, Stewart BW, et al. (2012) Geochemical and strontium isotope characterization of produced waters from Marcellus Shale natural gas extraction. Environ Sci Technol 46: 3545–3553. doi: 10.1021/es204005g
[2]	Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR, et al. (2011) Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 8172–8176. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1100682108
[3]	Kerr R (2010) Natural gas from shale bursts onto the scene. Science 328: 1624–1626. doi: 10.1126/science.328.5986.1624
[4]	EPA (2004) Chapter 4, Hydraulic fracturing fluids, In: Evaluation of impacts to underground sources of drinking water by hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane reservoirs, EPA, 1–26.
[5]	Gregory KB, Vidic RD, Dzombak DA (2011) Water management challenges associated with the production of shale gas by hydraulic fracturing. Elements 7: 181–186. doi: 10.2113/gselements.7.3.181
[6]	Entrekin S, Evans-White M, Johnson B, et al. (2011) Rapid expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface waters. Front Ecol Environ 9: 503–511. doi: 10.1890/110053
[7]	Papoulias DM, Velasco AL (2013) Histopathological analysis of fish from Acorn Fork Creek, Kentucky, exposed to hydraulic fracturing fluid releases. Southeast Nat 12: 92–111.
[8]	Patnode KA, Hittle E, Anderson RM, et al. (2015) Effects of high salinity wastewater discharges on Unionid Mussels in the Allegheny River, Pennsylvania. J Fish Wildl Manag 6: 55–70. doi: 10.3996/052013-JFWM-033
[9]	Buonaccorsi VP, Malloy J, Peterson M, et al. (2017) Population genomic analysis of Brook Trout in Pennsylvania's Appalachian Region. T Am Fish Soc 146: 485–494. doi: 10.1080/00028487.2017.1285351
[10]	Lutz AK, Grant CJ (2016) Impacts of hydraulic fracturing development on macroinvertebrate biodiversity and gill morphology of net-spinning caddisfly (Hydropsychidae, Diplectrona) in northwestern Pennsylvania, USA. J Freshwater Ecol 31: 211–217. doi: 10.1080/02705060.2015.1082157
[11]	Trexler R, Solomon C, Brislawn CJ, et al. (2014) Assessing impacts of unconventional natural gas extraction on microbial communities in headwater stream ecosystems in Northwestern Pennsylvania. Front Microbiol 5: 522.
[12]	Grant CJ, Lutz AK, Kulig AD, et al. (2016) Fracked ecology: Response of aquatic trophic structure and mercury biomagnification dynamics in the Marcellus Shale Formation. Ecotoxicology 25: 1739–1750. doi: 10.1007/s10646-016-1717-8
[13]	Grant CJ, Weimer AB, Marks NK, et al. (2015) Marcellus and mercury: Assessing potential impacts of unconventional natural gas extraction on aquatic ecosystems in northwestern Pennsylvania. Environ Lett 50: 482–500.
[14]	Wilson B, Danilowicz BS, Meijer WG (2008) The diversity of bacterial communities associated with Atlantic cod Gadus morhua. Microbial Ecol 55: 425–434. doi: 10.1007/s00248-007-9288-0
[15]	Wotton RS (2004) The essential role of exopolymers (EPS) in aquatic systems. Oceanogr Mar Biol 42: 57–94.
[16]	Nigam AK, Kumari U, Mittal S, et al. (2012) Comparative analysis of innate immune parameters of the skin mucous secretions from certain freshwater teleosts, inhabiting different ecological niches. Fish Physiol Biochem 38: 1245–1256. doi: 10.1007/s10695-012-9613-5
[17]	Cooksey K, Wigglesworth-Cooksey B (1995) Adhesion of bacteria and diatoms to surfaces in the sea: A review. Aquat Microb Ecol 9: 87–96. doi: 10.3354/ame009087
[18]	Bordas MA, Balebona MC, Zorrilla I, et al. (1996) Kinetics of adhesion of selected fish-pathogenic Vibrio strains of skin mucus of gilt-head sea bream (Sparus aurata L.). Appl Environ Microb 62: 3650–3654.
[19]	Kargbo DM, Wilhelm RG, Campbell DJ (2010) Natural gas plays in the Marcellus shale: Challenges and potential opportunities. Environ Sci Technol 44: 5679–5684. doi: 10.1021/es903811p
[20]	Smith DR, Snyder CD, Hitt NP, et al. (2012) Environmental reviews and case studies: Shale gas development and brook trout: Scaling best management practices to anticipate cumulative effects. Environ Pract 14: 366–381. doi: 10.1017/S1466046612000397
[21]	Fausch KD, White RJ (1981) Competition between brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) for positions in a Michigan stream. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38: 1220–1227. doi: 10.1139/f81-164
[22]	Larsen A, Tao Z, Bullard SA, et al. (2013) Diversity of the skin microbiota of fishes: Evidence for host species specificity. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 85: 483–494. doi: 10.1111/1574-6941.12136
[23]	Keller DH, Zelanko PM, Gagnon JE, et al. (In press) Linking otolith microchemistry and surface water contamination from natural gas mining. Environ Pollut 240: 457–465.
[24]	Hayes T (2009) Sampling and analysis of water streams associated with the development of Marcellus Shale Gas, Final Report, Gas Technology Institute.
[25]	Smith CJ, Danilowicz BS, Meijer WG (2007) Characterization of the bacterial community associated with the surface and mucus layer of whiting (Merlangius merlangus). FEMS Microbiol Ecol 62: 90–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2007.00369.x
[26]	Klindworth A, Pruesse E, Schweer T, et al. (2012) Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res 41: e1. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1297
[27]	Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, et al. (2007) Naïve Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microb 73: 5261–5267. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00062-07
[28]	Maranto CJ, Parrish JK, Herman DP, et al. (2011) Use of fatty acid analysis to determine dispersal of Caspian Terns in the Columbia River Basin, USA. Conserv Biol 25: 736–746. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01706.x
[29]	Boutin S, Sauvage C, Bernatchez L, et al. (2014) Inter individual variations of the fish skin microbiota: Host genetics basis of mutualism? PLoS One 9: e102649. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102649
[30]	Berendsen RL, Pieterse CMJ, Bakker PAHM (2012) The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci 17: 478–486. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001
[31]	Reynolds L (2009) Update on Dunkard Creek, November 23, 2009.
[32]	Xia JH, Lin G, Fu GH, et al. (2014) The intestinal microbiome of fish under starvation. BMC Genomics 15: 266. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-266
[33]	Hess S, Wenger AS, Ainsworth TD, et al. (2015) Exposure of clownfish larvae to suspended sediment levels found on the Great Barrier Reef: Impacts on gill structure and microbiome. Sci Rep 5: 10561. doi: 10.1038/srep10561
[34]	Anderson RL, Ordal EJ, Anderson RL, et al. (1961) Cytophaga succinicans sp. n., a facultatively anaerobic, aquatic myxobacterium. J Bacteriol 81: 130.
[35]	Christensen PJ (1977) The history, biology, and taxonomy of the Cytophaga group. Can J Microbiol 23: 1599–1653. doi: 10.1139/m77-236
[36]	Starliper CE (2011) Bacterial coldwater disease of fishes caused by Flavobacterium psychrophilum. J Adv Res 2: 97–108. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2010.04.001
[37]	Boutin S, Bernatchez L, Audet C, et al. (2013) Network analysis highlights complex interactions between pathogen, host and commensal microbiota. PLoS One 8: e84772. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084772
[38]	Fierer N, Morse JL, Berthrong ST, et al. (2007) Environmental controls on the landscape-scale biogeography of stream bacterial communities. Ecology 88: 2162–2173. doi: 10.1890/06-1746.1
[39]	Wu S, Wang G, Angert ER, et al. (2012) Composition, diversity, and origin of the bacterial community in grass carp intestine. PLoS One 7: e30440. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030440
[40]	Carda-Diéguez M, Ghai R, Rodríguez-Valera F, et al. (2017) Wild eel microbiome reveals that skin mucus of fish could be a natural niche for aquatic mucosal pathogen evolution. Microbiome 5: 162. doi: 10.1186/s40168-017-0376-1
[41]	Ebran N, Julien S, Orange N, et al. (2000) Isolation and characterization of novel glycoproteins from fish epidermal mucus: Correlation between their pore-forming properties and their antibacterial activities. BBA-Biomembranes 1467: 271–280. doi: 10.1016/S0005-2736(00)00225-X
[42]	Bols NC, Brubacher JL, Ganassin RC, et al. (2001) Ecotoxicology and innate immunity in fish. Dev Comp Immunol 25: 853–873. doi: 10.1016/S0145-305X(01)00040-4
[43]	Mueller K, Ash C, Pennisi E, et al. (2012) The gut microbiota. Science 336: 1245. doi: 10.1126/science.336.6086.1245
[44]	Cook GM, Rothenberger JP, Sikaroodi M, et al. (2013) A comparison of culture-dependent and culture-independent techniques used to characterize bacterial communities on healthy and white plague-diseased corals of the Montastraea annularis species complex. Coral Reefs 32: 375–388. doi: 10.1007/s00338-012-0989-6
[45]	Olojo E, Amusa N, Osho A, et al. (2010) Commensal Bacterial Flora of Synodontis nigrita and Ciarias gariepinus from River Osun, Southwest Nigeria, Nigeria. Res J Appl Sci 5: 231–235.

microbiol-04-03-413-s1.pdf
microbiol-04-03-413-s2.zip

This article has been cited by:

1.	Bruce S. Dien, J. Y. Zhu, Patricia J. Slininger, Cletus P. Kurtzman, Bryan R. Moser, Patricia J. O'Bryan, Roland Gleisner, Michael A. Cotta, Conversion of SPORL pretreated Douglas fir forest residues into microbial lipids with oleaginous yeasts, 2016, 6, 2046-2069, 20695, 10.1039/C5RA24430G
2.	Annapurna Kamineni, Joe Shaw, Engineering triacylglycerol production from sugars in oleaginous yeasts, 2020, 62, 09581669, 239, 10.1016/j.copbio.2019.12.022
3.	Ario Betha Juanssilfero, Prihardi Kahar, Rezky Lastinov Amza, Nao Miyamoto, Hiromi Otsuka, Hana Matsumoto, Chie Kihira, Ahmad Thontowi, Chiaki Ogino, Bambang Prasetya, Akihiko Kondo, Selection of oleaginous yeasts capable of high lipid accumulation during challenges from inhibitory chemical compounds, 2018, 137, 1369703X, 182, 10.1016/j.bej.2018.05.024
4.	Sineenath Kunthiphun, Puthita Chokreansukchai, Patcharaporn Hondee, Somboon Tanasupawat, Ancharida Savarajara, Diversity and characterization of cultivable oleaginous yeasts isolated from mangrove forests, 2018, 34, 0959-3993, 10.1007/s11274-018-2507-7
5.	S. Mirza, S. Siddique, H. M. Qamer, M. G. Doggar, Optimization of lipid production potential of oleaginous yeast by response surface methodology cultivated in agro-industrial waste, 2019, 16, 1735-1472, 3221, 10.1007/s13762-018-1878-5
6.	Patricia J. Slininger, Bruce S. Dien, Joshua C. Quarterman, Stephanie R. Thompson, Cletus P. Kurtzman, 2019, Chapter 16, 978-1-4939-9483-0, 249, 10.1007/978-1-4939-9484-7_16
7.	Sylviana Sutanto, Siti Zullaikah, Phuong Lan Tran-Nguyen, Suryadi Ismadji, Yi-Hsu Ju, Lipomyces starkeyi: Its current status as a potential oil producer, 2018, 177, 03783820, 39, 10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.04.012
8.	W. J. Orts, C. M. McMahan, Biorefinery Developments for Advanced Biofuels from a Sustainable Array of Biomass Feedstocks: Survey of Recent Biomass Conversion Research from Agricultural Research Service, 2016, 9, 1939-1234, 430, 10.1007/s12155-016-9732-4
9.	Alok Patel, Dimitra Karageorgou, Emma Rova, Petros Katapodis, Ulrika Rova, Paul Christakopoulos, Leonidas Matsakas, An Overview of Potential Oleaginous Microorganisms and Their Role in Biodiesel and Omega-3 Fatty Acid-Based Industries, 2020, 8, 2076-2607, 434, 10.3390/microorganisms8030434
10.	Zhu Chen, Caixia Wan, Effects of Salts Contained in Lignocellulose-Derived Sugar Streams on Microbial Lipid Production, 2017, 183, 0273-2289, 1362, 10.1007/s12010-017-2504-6
11.	Josh Quarterman, Patricia J. Slininger, Cletus P. Kurtzman, Stephanie R. Thompson, Bruce S. Dien, A survey of yeast from the Yarrowia clade for lipid production in dilute acid pretreated lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysate, 2017, 101, 0175-7598, 3319, 10.1007/s00253-016-8062-y
12.	Violeta Sànchez i Nogué, Brenna A. Black, Jacob S. Kruger, Christine A. Singer, Kelsey J. Ramirez, Michelle L. Reed, Nicholas S. Cleveland, Emily R. Singer, Xiunan Yi, Rou Yi Yeap, Jeffrey G. Linger, Gregg T. Beckham, Integrated diesel production from lignocellulosic sugarsviaoleaginous yeast, 2018, 20, 1463-9262, 4349, 10.1039/C8GC01905C
13.	Mana YANAGIBA, Takafumi NAGANUMA, Kazuo MASAKI, Meaning and Research on Lipid Production for Biodiesel Fuel by Yeast Lipomyces and Trends in Microbial Lipid Production Research, 2017, 17, 1345-8949, 117, 10.5650/oleoscience.17.117
14.	Mana Yanagiba, Kazuo Masaki, Hideyuki Shinmori, Takafumi Naganuma, Screening for Lipomyces strains with high ability to accumulate lipids from renewable resources, 2019, 65, 0022-1260, 80, 10.2323/jgam.2018.05.006
15.	Panagiota Diamantopoulou, Nikolaos G. Stoforos, Evangelos Xenopoulos, Dimitris Sarris, Dimitrios Psarianos, Antonios Philippoussis, Seraphim Papanikolaou, Lipid production by Cryptococcus curvatus growing on commercial xylose and subsequent valorization of fermentation waste-waters for the production of edible and medicinal mushrooms, 2020, 162, 1369703X, 107706, 10.1016/j.bej.2020.107706
16.	Michelle da Cunha Abreu Xavier, Telma Teixeira Franco, Obtaining hemicellulosic hydrolysate from sugarcane bagasse for microbial oil production by Lipomyces starkeyi, 2021, 0141-5492, 10.1007/s10529-021-03080-7
17.	M.C.A. Xavier, A.L.V. Coradini, A.C. Deckmann, T.T. Franco, Lipid production from hemicellulose hydrolysate and acetic acid by Lipomyces starkeyi and the ability of yeast to metabolize inhibitors, 2017, 118, 1369703X, 11, 10.1016/j.bej.2016.11.007
18.	Sujit Sadashiv Jagtap, Ashwini Ashok Bedekar, Jing-Jing Liu, Yong-Su Jin, Christopher V. Rao, Production of galactitol from galactose by the oleaginous yeast Rhodosporidium toruloides IFO0880, 2019, 12, 1754-6834, 10.1186/s13068-019-1586-5
19.	Patricia J. Slininger, Bruce S. Dien, Cletus P. Kurtzman, Bryan R. Moser, Erica L. Bakota, Stephanie R. Thompson, Patricia J. O'Bryan, Michael A. Cotta, Venkatesh Balan, Mingjie Jin, Leonardo da Costa Sousa, Bruce E. Dale, Comparative lipid production by oleaginous yeasts in hydrolyzates of lignocellulosic biomass and process strategy for high titers, 2016, 113, 00063592, 1676, 10.1002/bit.25928
20.	Hirosuke Kanamoto, Katsuya Nakamura, Norihiko Misawa, 2021, Chapter 12, 978-981-15-7359-0, 153, 10.1007/978-981-15-7360-6_12
21.	Zhu Chen, Xin Sun, Yisheng Sun, Caixia Wan, Efficient biosynthesis of lipids from concentrated biomass hydrolysates by an oleaginous yeast, 2021, 2589014X, 100712, 10.1016/j.biteb.2021.100712
22.	Amera Adel, Ashraf El-Baz, Yousseria Shetaia, Noha Mohamed Sorour, Biosynthesis of polyunsaturated fatty acids by two newly cold-adapted Egyptian marine yeast, 2021, 11, 2190-572X, 10.1007/s13205-021-03010-4
23.	José Manuel Salvador López, Meriam Vandeputte, Inge N. A. Van Bogaert, Oleaginous yeasts: Time to rethink the definition?, 2022, 39, 0749-503X, 553, 10.1002/yea.3827
24.	Sujit Sadashiv Jagtap, Ashwini Ashok Bedekar, Vijay Singh, Yong-Su Jin, Christopher V. Rao, Metabolic engineering of the oleaginous yeast Yarrowia lipolytica PO1f for production of erythritol from glycerol, 2021, 14, 1754-6834, 10.1186/s13068-021-02039-0
25.	Atsushi Yamazaki, Wanlapa Lorliam, Masataka Uchino, Ken-ichiro Suzuki, Hiroko Kawasaki, North-to-South diversity of lipomycetaceous yeasts in soils evaluated with a cultivation-based approach from 11 locations in Japan, 2022, 64, 1340-3540, 1, 10.47371/mycosci.2022.09.003
26.	Marianna Dourou, Christina N. Economou, Lida Aggeli, Miroslav Janák, Gabriela Valdés, Nefeli Elezi, Dimitrios Kakavas, Theodore Papageorgiou, Alexandra Lianou, Dimitrios V. Vayenas, Milan Certik, George Aggelis, Bioconversion of pomegranate residues into biofuels and bioactive lipids, 2021, 323, 09596526, 129193, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129193
27.	Ming-Hsun Cheng, Bruce Stuart Dien, Yong-Su Jin, Stephanie Thompson, Jonghyeok Shin, Patricia J. Watson Slininger, Nasib Qureshi, Vijay Singh, Conversion of High-Solids Hydrothermally Pretreated Bioenergy Sorghum to Lipids and Ethanol Using Yeast Cultures, 2021, 9, 2168-0485, 8515, 10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c01629
28.	Narendra Naik Deshavath, Bruce S. Dien, Patricia J. Slininger, Yong-Su Jin, Vijay Singh, A Chemical-Free Pretreatment for Biosynthesis of Bioethanol and Lipids from Lignocellulosic Biomass: An Industrially Relevant 2G Biorefinery Approach, 2022, 9, 2311-5637, 5, 10.3390/fermentation9010005
29.	Sirawich Sapsirisuk, Pirapan Polburee, Wanlapa Lorliam, Savitree Limtong, Discovery of Oleaginous Yeast from Mountain Forest Soil in Thailand, 2022, 8, 2309-608X, 1100, 10.3390/jof8101100
30.	Rujiralai Poontawee, Wanlapa Lorliam, Pirapan Polburee, Savitree Limtong, Oleaginous yeasts: Biodiversity and cultivation, 2023, 44, 17494613, 100295, 10.1016/j.fbr.2022.11.003
31.	R Rizieq, H D Bancin, The role of legal and agricultural institutions in sustaining the adoption of new improved paddy varieties in West Kalimantan, 2024, 1397, 1755-1307, 012030, 10.1088/1755-1315/1397/1/012030
32.	Shivali Banerjee, Bruce S. Dien, Vijay Singh, Hydrothermal conditioning of oleaginous yeast cells to enable recovery of lipids as potential drop-in fuel precursors, 2024, 17, 2731-3654, 10.1186/s13068-024-02561-x
33.	Xiaoyu Zhu, Yi An, Yifei Qin, Yutong Li, Changliang Shao, Dawei Xu, Ruirui Yan, Wenneng Zhou, Xiaoping Xin, How do short-term and long-term factors impact the aboveground biomass of grassland in Northern China?, 2024, 3, 2731-6696, 10.1007/s44246-024-00134-z
34.	Nancy Mary Thomas, Vinoth Sathasivam, Muralisankar Thirunavukarasu, Arun Muthukrishnan, Saradhadevi Muthukrishnan, Vasanthkumar Rajkumar, Gayathri Velusamy, Gurusaravanan Packiaraj, Influence of Borassus flabellifer Endocarps Hydrolysate on Fungal Biomass and Fatty Acids Production by the Marine Fungus Aspergillus sp., 2024, 196, 0273-2289, 923, 10.1007/s12010-023-04588-6
35.	Daiane Dias Lopes, Bruce S Dien, Ronald E Hector, Vijay Singh, Stephanie R Thompson, Patricia J Slininger, Kyria Boundy-Mills, Sujit S Jagtap, Christopher V Rao, Determining mating type and ploidy in Rhodotorula toruloides and its effect on growth on sugars from lignocellulosic biomass, 2023, 50, 1367-5435, 10.1093/jimb/kuad040
36.	Tingting Lu, Feixiang Liu, Chenan Jiang, Jun Cao, Xiaoqiang Ma, Erzheng Su, Strategies for cultivation, enhancing lipid production, and recovery in oleaginous yeasts, 2024, 09608524, 131770, 10.1016/j.biortech.2024.131770
37.	Jinwei Suo, Zhanhua Zhou, Mohamed A. Farag, Zuying Zhang, Jiasheng Wu, Yuanyuan Hu, Lili Song, Ethylene mitigates nut decay and improves nut quality of Torreya grandis during postharvest by changing microbial community composition, 2025, 219, 09255214, 113250, 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2024.113250
38.	D.D. Nunes, V.L. Pillay, E. Van Rensburg, R.W.M. Pott, Oleaginous microorganisms as a sustainable oil source with a focus on downstream processing and cost-lowering production strategies: A review, 2024, 26, 2589014X, 101871, 10.1016/j.biteb.2024.101871
39.	Jeffrey J. Czajka, Yichao Han, Joonhoon Kim, Stephen J. Mondo, Beth A. Hofstad, AnaLaura Robles, Sajeet Haridas, Robert Riley, Kurt LaButti, Jasmyn Pangilinan, William Andreopoulos, Anna Lipzen, Juying Yan, Mei Wang, Vivian Ng, Igor V. Grigoriev, Joseph W. Spatafora, Jon K. Magnuson, Scott E. Baker, Kyle R. Pomraning, Genome-scale model development and genomic sequencing of the oleaginous clade Lipomyces, 2024, 12, 2296-4185, 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1356551
40.	Shivali Banerjee, Bruce S. Dien, Kristen K. Eilts, Erik J. Sacks, Vijay Singh, Pilot-scale processing of Miscanthus x giganteus for recovery of anthocyanins integrated with production of microbial lipids and lignin-rich residue, 2024, 485, 13858947, 150117, 10.1016/j.cej.2024.150117
41.	Veronica Bonzanini, Majid Haddad Momeni, Kim Olofsson, Lisbeth Olsson, Cecilia Geijer, Impact of glucose and propionic acid on even and odd chain fatty acid profiles of oleaginous yeasts, 2025, 25, 1471-2180, 10.1186/s12866-025-03788-w

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)