Complex impacts of hydraulic fracturing return fluids on soil microbial community respiration, structure and functional potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The consequences of soils exposed to hydraulic fracturing (HF) return fluid, often collectively termed flowback and produced water (FPW), are poorly understood, even though soils are a common receptor of FPW spills. Here, we investigate the impacts on soil microbiota exposed to FPW collected from the Montney Formation of western Canada. We measured soil respiration, microbial community structure and functional potentials under FPW exposure across a range of concentrations, exposure time and soil types (luvisol and chernozem). We find that soil type governs microbial community response upon FPW exposure. Within each soil, FPW exposure led to reduced biotic soil respiration, and shifted microbial community structure and functional potentials. We detect substantially higher species richness and more unique functional genes in FPW-exposed soils than in FPW-unexposed soils, with metagenome-assembled genomes (e.g. Marinobacter persicus) from luvisol soil exposed to concentrated FPW being most similar to genomes from HF/FPW sites. Our data demonstrate the complex impacts of microbial communities following FPW exposure and highlight the site-specific effects in evaluation of spills and agricultural reuse of FPW on the normal soil functions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".