Untitled

Abstract

The effect of raw city wastewater irrigation on biodiversity and population densities of a cycloheximide-resistant (CH) fungal community was studied in 13 field soils receiving either raw city wastewater or normal irrigation, and in raw city wastewater in the Nablus area, using the hair baiting technique (HBT) and a surface soil dilution plating (SSDP) technique. Three of these fields [one had been receiving raw city wastewater for more than ten years and was designated a heavily polluted field, and the other 2 were cultivated for the first time and were either irrigated with raw city wastewater (newly polluted field) or normal irrigation water (nonpolluted)], were sampled 4-7 times over a 9-month period. The other ten fields, which had been under raw city wastewater irrigation for more than 10 years, were sampled only once. Fifty-seven CH-resistant species belonging to 18 genera were recovered, of which 49 species were recovered from soil habitats and 28 species from raw city wastewater. The HBT had shown to be more efficient in the isolation of pathogenic and potentially pathogenic fungi including dermatophytes. A higher percentage of this group of fungi was recovered from the three main field soils studied using HBT (70% of all isolates), than the SSDP (35.5%); no dermatophytes were recovered by the SSDP method. Two dermatophytes (Microsporum gypseum, and Trichophyton ajelloi), and five more fungi (Arthroderma cuniculi, A. curreyi, Chrysosporium keratinophilum, C. tropicum, C. pannorum), were recovered from these habitats. Wastewater irrigation seemed to have affected the fungal population densities, with the highest population densities being found in the heavily polluted field soil, while lower population densities were found in the nonpolluted field soil. Increases in organic matter were also observed as a result of sewage effluent irrigation. However, basic similarities in the biodiversity of CH-resistant fungal communities existed in nonpolluted and polluted field soils, and raw city wastewater. Comparable numbers of fungal species were recovered from the three main field soils. The species most commonly found in those habitats included: Alternaria alternata, Aspergillus candidus, Geotrichum candidum, and Paecilomyces lilacinus. Field soils receiving either raw city wastewater or normal irrigation water, were found to be rich in pathogenic and potentially pathogenic CH-resistant fungi, including dermatophytes, with raw city wastewater yielding the highest percentage (81%), followed by the newly wastewater irrigated field (77.7%), the nonpolluted field (67%), and the heavily polluted field (63.4%) Hygienic measures should therefore be taken to control the spread of these fungi in the environment of human communities, and to avoid mycotic infections among farmers.

Contribution of soil esterase to biodegradation of aliphatic polyester agricultural mulch film in cultivated soils

“…However, most of the microorganisms that formed clear zone around their colonies on the plates were confirmed under the microscope that they were not bacteria, and their 5.8S rDNA-ITS sequences [DDBJ: LC009007, and LC009008] showed the highest similarity (99%) to Purpureocillium lilacinum (formerly Paecilomyces lilacinus ). This species has been reported as a cycloheximide-resistant fungus (Ali-Shtayeh et al 1998 ). Under the conditions in this study, it was found that fungi were predominantly responsible for emulsified PBSA degradation.…”

Dark Septate Endophytic Fungi Associated with Sugarcane Plants Cultivated in São Paulo, Brazil

“…The names of the species were checked for synonymies and current nomenclature in the taxonomic bases MycoBank [49] and Index Fungorum [50]. Molecular identification was complemented by morphological characters, for which microscopy slides were mounted for each isolate using the micro-culture technique [51], followed by observation in an optical microscope.…”

Arum: a plant genus with great medicinal potential

“…Even after taking into account the different subspecies, various parts of the plants that were extracted and the various solvents that were used, the overall reporting is confusing and even contradicting. 60,61,68,69,83,84,95 For example, M. Obeidat et al 60 reported that they tested four extracts (water, ethanol, methanol and acetone) and found the aqueous extract most active. On the contrary, A. Ucar Turker and her colleagues, 68 used aqueous, ethanolic and methanolic extracts, and the aqueous extract was inactive.…”