A soil that had been remediated by soil washing and chemical oxidation was evaluated, comparing it to an uncontaminated control soil ~30 m away. Profile descriptions were made of both soils over a 0–1 m depth, and samples were analyzed from each soil horizon. Samples were also analyzed from surface soil (0–30 cm). The control soil (a Fluvisol), had several unaltered A and C horizons, but the remediated soil presented only two poorly differentiated horizons, without structure and much lower in organic matter ( 0.05), and there was much greater compaction (3.04 vs. 1.10 MPa). However, the hydrocarbon concentration in the remediated soil was low (969.12 mg kg⁻¹, average), and was not correlated to soil fertility parameters, such as porosity, organic matter, pH, moisture, field capacity or texture (R² < 0.69), indicating that the impacts (such as compaction, lower field capacity and moisture content) were not due to residual hydrocarbons. Likewise, acute toxicity (Microtox) was not found, nor water repellency (penetration time < 5 s). It was concluded that the fertility deterioration in this soil was caused principally from the mixture of upper (loam) and lower (silty clay to silty clay loam) horizons during remediation treatment. Another important factor was the reduction in organic material, probably caused by the chemical oxidation treatment.

Tropical gar (Atractosteus tropicus), is freshwater and estuarine fish that has inhabited the Earth since the Mesozoic era, undergoing limited physiological variation ever since. This omnivorous fish is endemic to southern Mexico and part of Central America. Besides its recognized cultural and scientific relevance, the species has seen remarkable growth in its economic impact due to pisciculture. Previous studies have highlighted the role of microbial communities in fish, particularly those in the gut microbiome, in maintaining their host homeostasis or disease. In this study, we present the first report of the whole taxonomic composition of microbial communities in gut contents of adults’A. tropicus, by sex (female/male) and origin (wild/cultivated). Using culture-independent techniques, we extracted metagenomic DNA that was used for high throughput 16S rDNA profiling by amplifying the V4 – V5 hypervariable regions of the bacterial gene. A total of 364,735 total paired-end reads were obtained on an Illumina MiSeq sequencing platform, belonging to 508 identified genera, with the most and least abundant areCetobacterium, Edwardsiella, Serratia, Clostridium sensu stricto, PaludibacterandCampylobacter, Snodgrassella, Albirhodobacter, Lentilitoribacter, respectively. We detected that, by sex and origin, Proteobacteria, Fusobacteria, Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes phyla are the core gut microbiome of the adults’A. tropicus. We discover the Deinococcus-Thermus phylum sequence, wildtype males only, with extremophile capacity in another freshwater fish. We also identified the speciesLactococcus lactisstrains CAU929 and CAU6600, Cp6 and CAU9951,Cetobacteriumstrain H69,Aeromonas hydrophilastrains P5 and WR-5-3-2,Aeromonas sobriastrain CP DC28 andAeromonas hydrophilawith probiotic potential in aquaculture within the three dominant phyla, especially in wild-type organisms.

Unfortunately, many property owners in southeastern Mexico do not trust environmental authorities, and the de facto method they use to evaluate the progress in environmental remediation projects is soil smell. This criterion was evaluated to determine if it was reliable to assess soil fertility and toxicity. Three soils (Fluvisol, Gleysol, and Arenosol), were contaminated with 2% medium or heavy crude oil (30.2, 17.1°API, respectively), and treated for 18 months to simulate bioremediation or natural attenuation. Every two months, field capacity, water repellency, hydrocarbon concentration, acute toxicity and soil odor were measured. Odor was measured in controlled conditions with a group of unexperienced panelists. During remediation, the Fluvisol and Gleysol were perceived to have an odor intensity between slight to low, and were considered acceptable. Meanwhile, in the Arenosol, the odor intensity was between low to medium and was considered unacceptable. After treatment, the hydrocarbon concentration was reduced to low levels, very near Mexican norm, and all the soils, including the Arenosol, were perceived to have an intensity between neutral to slightly agreeable, were considered acceptable, and no toxicity was observed in the earthworm bioassay (no false positives). However, in various soil samples from the Fluvisol and Arenosol, important risks were present with respect to field capacity and water repellency. Due to these observations, even though soil smell may be a trustworthy guide to soil toxicity, it does not ensure that the remediated soil’s fertility has been restored.