Family-scale rural digesters are widely implemented in Nepal for waste management, resource recovery, and environmental stewardship for distributed communities. However, there is little documentation on the microbial community structures in real-world family farm digesters. This work compared microbial community structures in four family digesters with a near-by municipal digester. Included in the family digesters was a high-altitude family digester located on Mt. Everest in Mosi, Nepal (2,634 m elevation). Differences in the community structures included the prevalence in family digesters of Bathyarchaeota MGC-6. MCG-6 is an archaeal population putatively involved in autotrophic acetate generation and conversion of cellulose to sugars. In addition, Rikenellaceae DMER64, a population thought to degrade sugars, was more prevalent in the family digesters. The ratio of Methanothrix to hydrogenotrophic methanogens was higher in the family digesters. In addition, the dominant species of syntrophic hydrogen-producing bacteria differed. Syntrophobacter and Syntrophomonas species, documented for their critical roles in waste activated sludge digesters, were not detected. In conclusion, observed differences in microbial community composition suggested a capacity to support different substrate conversion pathways and a major role of Archaea beyond methanogenesis among the studied digesters.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamPS, BorrelG, Brochier-ArmanetC, et al.The growing tree of Archaea: new perspectives on their diversity, evolution and ecology. Isme J, 2017; 11(11):2407–2425; doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.122
2.
AdamPS, KolyfetisGE, BornemannTLV, et al.Genomic remnants of ancestral methanogenesis and hydrogenotrophy in Archaea drive anaerobic carbon cycling. Sci Adv, 2022; 8(44):16; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abm9651
3.
AlvarezR, LidenG. The effect of temperature variation on biomethanation at high altitude. Bioresour Technol, 2008; 99(15):7278–7284; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.12.055
4.
AngenentLT, ZhengDD, SungSH, et al.Microbial community structure and activity in a compartmentalized, anaerobic bioreactor. Water Environ Res, 2002; 74(5):450−+.
5.
BahramM, AnslanS, HildebrandF, et al.Newly designed 16S rRNA metabarcoding primers amplify diverse and novel archaeal taxa from the environment. Environ Microbiol Rep, 2019; 11(4):487–494; doi: 10.1111/1758-2229.12684
6.
BakerBJ, De AndaV, SeitzKW, et al.Diversity, ecology and evolution of Archaea. Nat Microbiol, 2020; 5(7):887–900; doi: 10.1038/s41564-020-0715-z
7.
BeckerD, PoppD, BonkF, et al.Metagenomic analysis of anaerobic microbial communities degrading short-chain fatty acids as sole carbon sources. Microorganisms, 2023; 11(2):20; doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11020420
8.
BerghuisBA, YuFB, SchulzF, et al.Hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis in archaeal phylum Verstraetearchaeota reveals the shared ancestry of all methanogens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2019; 116(11):5037–5044; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1815631116
9.
BorrelG, AdamPS, GribaldoS. Methanogenesis and the wood-ljungdahl pathway: An ancient, versatile, and fragile association. Genome Biol Evol, 2016; 8(6):1706–1711; doi: 10.1093/gbe/evw114
10.
BovioP, CabezasA, EtchebehereC. Preliminary analysis of Chloroflexi populations in full-scale UASB methanogenic reactors. J Appl Microbiol, 2019; 126(2):667–683; doi: 10.1111/jam.14115
11.
CaiYF, ZhengZH, WeiLX, et al.The characteristics of multi-substrates (low and high C/N) anaerobic digestion: Focus on energy recovery and the succession of methanogenic pathway. Bioresour Tech, 2022; 343:125976; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125976
12.
CamachoC, CoulourisG, AvagyanV, et al.BLAST+: Architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics, 2009; 10:421; doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-421
13.
CaporasoJG, LauberCL, WaltersWA, et al.Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2011; 108:4516–4522; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1000080107
14.
Capson-TojoG, TrablyE, RouezM, et al.Methanosarcina plays a main role during methanogenesis of high-solids food waste and cardboard. Waste Manage, 2018; 76:423–430; doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.004
15.
ChenS, WangYF, ChengHC, et al.Identification of propionate-degrading microbial populations in methanogenic processes for waste treatment: Methanosaeta and methanoculleus. Environ Eng Sci, 2022; 39(3):202–211; doi: 10.1089/ees.2021.0067
16.
ColonJ, Forbis-StokesAA, DeshussesMA. Anaerobic digestion of undiluted simulant human excreta for sanitation and energy recovery in less-developed countries. Energy Sustainable Develop, 2015; 29:57–64; doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2015.09.005
17.
ColwellRK.Biodiversity: Concepts, Patterns, and Measurement. Princeton University Press: Princeton; 2009.
18.
ConklinA, BucherR, StenselHD, et al.Effects of oxygen exposure on anaerobic digester sludge. Water Environ Res, 2007; 79(4):396–405.
19.
ConklinA, StenselHD, FergusonJ. Growth kinetics and competition between Methanosarcina and Methanosaeta in mesophilic anaerobic digestion. Water Environ Res, 2006; 78(5):486–496.
20.
ConradR. Contribution of hydrogen to methane production and control of hydrogen concentrations in methanogenic soils and sediments. FEMS Microbiol Ecol, 1999; 28(3):193–202.
21.
DhunganaB, LohaniSP, MarsolekM. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with livestock manure at ambient temperature: A biogas based circular economy and sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 2022; 14(6):16; doi: 10.3390/su14063307
22.
DueholmMKD, NierychloM, AndersenKS, et al.MiDAS 4: A global catalogue of full-length 16S rRNA gene sequences and taxonomy for studies of bacterial communities in wastewater treatment plants. Nat Comm, 2022; 13(1):1908; doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-29438-7
23.
EdgarRC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics, 2010; 26(19):2460–2461; doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461
24.
FerrerI, GarfiM, UggettiE, et al.Biogas production in low-cost household digesters at the Peruvian Andes. Biomass Bioenergy, 2011; 35(5):1668–1674; doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.12.036
25.
FrankJA, ReichCI, SharmaS, et al.Critical evaluation of two primers commonly used for amplification of bacterial 16S rRNA genes. Appl Environ Microbio, 2008; 74(8):2461–2470; doi: 10.1128/AEM.02272-07
26.
FrouinE, BesM, OllivierB, et al.Diversity of rare and abundant prokaryotic phylotypes in the prony hydrothermal field and comparison with other serpentinite-hosted ecosystems. Front Microbiol, 2018; 9:13; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00102
27.
GarfiM, CastroL, MonteroN, et al.Evaluating environmental benefits of low-cost biogas digesters in small-scale farms in Colombia: A life cycle assessment. Bioresour Technol, 2019; 274:541–548; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.12.007
28.
GMAO. MERRA-2 tavg1_2d_slv_Nx: 2d,1-Hourly,Time-Averaged,Single-Level,Assimilation,Single-Level Diagnostics V5.12.4. Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC): Greenbelt, MD, USA; 2015.
29.
GoughHL, NelsenD, MullerC, et al.Enhanced methane generation during theromophilic co-digestion of confectionary waste and grease-trap fats and oils with municipal wastewater sludge. Water Environ Res, 2013; 85(2):175–183; doi: 10.2175/106143012x13418552642128
30.
HanR, LiuL, MengY, et al.Archaeal and bacterial community structures of rural household biogas digesters with different raw materials in Qinghai Plateau. Biotechnol Lett, 2021; 43(7):1337–1348; doi: 10.1007/s10529-021-03105-1
31.
HanR, ZhuDR, XingJW, et al.The effect of temperature fluctuation on the microbial diversity and community structure of rural household biogas digesters at Qinghai Plateau. Arch Microbiol, 2020; 202(3):525–538; doi: 10.1007/s00203-019-01767-0
32.
HanakiK, NagaseM, MatsuoT. Mechanism of inhibition caused by long-chain fatty-acids in anaerobic digestion process. Biotechnol Bioeng, 1981; 23(7):1591–1610.
33.
HillTCJ, WalshKA, HarrisJA, et al.Using ecological diversity measures with bacterial communities. FEMS Microbiol Ecol, 2003; 43(1):1–11; doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2003.tb01040.x
34.
Juste-PoinapenNMS, TurnerMS, RabaeyK, et al.Evaluating the potential impact of proton carriers on syntrophic propionate oxidation. Sci Rep, 2015; 5:9; doi: 10.1038/srep18364
35.
KarkiAB, NakarmiAM, DhitalRP, et al.Chapter 5. Production of Biogas in Cold Climates. In: Biogas As Renewable Source of Energy in Nepal: Theory and Development. (Karki AB, Shrestha JN, Bajgain S. eds.) Alternative Energy Promotion Center (AEPC): Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal; 2015a.
36.
KarkiAB, NakarmiAM, DhitalRP, et al.Chapter 6: Treatment of Biodigester in Cold Climate. In: Biogas As Renewable Source of Energy in Nepal: Theory and Development. (Karki AB, Shrestha JN, Bajgain S. eds.) Alternative Energy Promotion Center (AEPC): Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal; 2015b.
37.
KatayamaT, NobuMK, KusadaH, et al.Isolation of a member of the candidate phylum ‘Atribacteria’ reveals a unique cell membrane structure. Nat Commun, 2020; 11(1):9; doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20149-5
38.
KimM, AbdulazeezM, HarounBM, et al.Microbial communities in co-digestion of food wastes and wastewater biosolids. Bioresour Technol, 2019; 289:13; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121580
39.
KimM, AhnYH, SpeeceRE. Comparative process stability and efficiency of anaerobic digestion; mesophilic vs. thermophilic. Water Res, 2002; 36(17):4369–4385.
40.
KinyuaM, StuartK. Comparison of metabolic kinetics during high and low solids anaerobic digestion of fecal sludge. Biotechnol Bioengin, 2022; 119(4):1164–1170; doi: 10.1002/bit.28018
41.
LacknerN, WagnerAO, IllmerP. Effect of sulfate addition on carbon flow and microbial community composition during thermophilic digestion of cellulose. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 2020; 104(10):4605–4615; doi: 10.1007/s00253-020-10546-7
42.
LamTYC, MeiR, WuZY, et al.Superior resolution characterisation of microbial diversity in anaerobic digesters using full-length 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Water Res, 2020; 178:11; doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2020.115815
43.
LazarCS, BakerBJ, SeitzK, et al.Genomic evidence for distinct carbon substrate preferences and ecological niches of Bathyarchaeota in estuarine sediments. Environ Microbiol, 2016; 18(4):1200–1211; doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13142
44.
LeeJ, KooT, YulisaA, et al.Magnetite as an enhancer in methanogenic degradation of volatile fatty acids under ammonia-stressed condition. J Environ Manage, 2019; 241:418–426; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.038
45.
LiC, HaoLP, LuF, et al.Syntrophic acetate-oxidizing microbial consortia enriched from full-scale mesophilic food waste anaerobic digesters showing high biodiversity and functional redundancy. mSystems, 2022; 7(5):17; doi: 10.1128/msystems.00339-22
46.
LiuL, XiongRB, LiY, et al.Anaerobic digestion characteristics and key microorganisms associated with low-temperature rapeseed cake and sheep manure fermentation. Arch Microbiol, 2022; 204(3):12; doi: 10.1007/s00203-022-02796-y
47.
LiuXB, LiM, CastelleCJ, et al.Insights into the ecology, evolution, and metabolism of the widespread Woesearchaeotal lineages. Microbiome, 2018; 6:16; doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0488-2
48.
LiuXB, WangYL, GuJD. Ecological distribution and potential roles of Woesearchaeota in anaerobic biogeochemical cycling unveiled by genomic analysis. Comp Struct Biotechnol J, 2021; 19:794–800; doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.01.013
49.
LohaniSP, DhunganaB, HornH, et al.Small-scale biogas technology and clean cooking fuel: Assessing the potential and links with SDGs in low-income countries - A case study of Nepal. Sustain. Energy Technol Assess, 2021a;46:14; doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101301
50.
LohaniSP, KeitschM, ShakyaS, et al.Waste to energy in Kathmandu Nepal-A way toward achieving sustainable development goals. Sustain Dev, 2021b;29(5):906–914; doi: 10.1002/sd.2183
51.
LohaniSP, PokhrelD, BhattaraiS, et al.Technical assessment of installed domestic biogas plants in Kavre, Nepal. Renew Energy, 2022; 181:1250–1257; doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.09.092
52.
LouXF, NairJ, HoG. Effects of volumetric dilution on anaerobic digestion of food waste. J Renew Sustain Energy, 2012; 4(6):10; doi: 10.1063/1.4764935
53.
LudwigW, StrunkO, WestramR, et al.ARB: A software environment for sequence data. Nucleic Acids Res, 2004; 32(4):1363–1371; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh293
54.
MathaiPP, NicholesMS, VenkiteshwaranK, et al.Dynamic shifts within volatile fatty acid-degrading microbial communities indicate process imbalance in anaerobic digesters. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 2020; 104(10):4563–4575; doi: 10.1007/s00253-020-10552-9
55.
MausI, RummingM, BergmannI, et al.Characterization of Bathyarchaeota genomes assembled from metagenomes of biofilms residing in mesophilic and thermophilic biogas reactors. Biotechnol Biofuels, 2018; 11:12; doi: 10.1186/s13068-018-1162-4
MearsET, AndersonRH. Biogas Plant Construction Manual: Fixed-Dome Digester. United States Forces – Afghanistan JED: Kabul, Afghanistan; 2011.
58.
MeiR, NobuMK, NarihiroT, et al.Metagenomic and metatranscriptomic analyses revealed uncultured bacteroidales populations as the dominant proteolytic amino acid degraders in anaerobic digesters. Front Microbiol, 2020; 11:11; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.593006
59.
MullerB, SunL, SchnurerA. First insights into the syntrophic acetate-oxidizing bacteria - a genetic study. MicrobiologyOpen, 2013; 2(1):35–53; doi: 10.1002/mbo3.50
60.
NarihiroT, SekiguchiY. Microbial communities in anaerobic digestion processes for waste and wastewater treatment: A microbiological update. Curr Opin Biotech, 2007; 18(3):273–278; doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2007.04.003
61.
NelsonMC, MorrisonM, YuZT. A meta-analysis of the microbial diversity observed in anaerobic digesters. Bioresour Technol, 2011; 102(4):3730–3739; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.11.119
62.
NierychloM, AndersenKS, XuY, et al.MiDAS 3: An ecosystem-specific reference database, taxonomy and knowledge platform for activated sludge and anaerobic digesters reveals species-level microbiome composition of activated sludge. Water Res, 2020; 182:115955; doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2020.115955
63.
OhtsuboS, DemizuK, KohnoS, et al.Comparison of acetate utilization among strains of an aceticlastic methanogen, Methanothrix soehngenii. Appl Environ Microbiol, 1992; 58(2):703–705; doi: 10.1128/aem.58.2.703-705.1992
PelletierE, KreimeyerA, BocsS, et al.“Candidatus Cloacamonas acidaminovorans”: Genome sequence reconstruction provides a first glimpse of a new bacterial division. J Bacteriol, 2008; 190(7):2572–2579; doi: 10.1128/jb.01248-07
66.
PetropoulosE, ShamuradB, TabraizS, et al.Sewage treatment at 4 degrees C in anaerobic upflow reactors with and without a membrane - performance, function and microbial diversity. Environ Sci Wat Res Technol, 2021; 7(1):156–171; doi: 10.1039/d0ew00753f
67.
PielouEC. The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. J Theor Biol, 1966; 13:131–144; doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0
68.
ProbstAJ, CastelleCJ, SinghA, et al.Genomic resolution of a cold subsurface aquifer community provides metabolic insights for novel microbes adapted to high CO2 concentrations. Environ Microbiol, 2017; 19(2):459–474; doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13362
69.
PruesseE, QuastC, KnittelK, et al.SILVA: A comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB. Nucleic Acids Res, 2007; 35(21):7188–7196; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm864
70.
QinQS, FengDS, LiuPF, et al.Metagenomic Characterization of Candidatus Smithella cisternae Strain M82_ 1, a Syntrophic Alkane-Degrading Bacteria, Enriched from the Shengli Oil Field. Microbes Environ, 2017; 32(3):234–243; doi: 10.1264/jsme2.ME17022
71.
RachbauerL, BeyerR, BochmannG, et al.Characteristics of adapted hydrogenotrophic community during biomethanation. Sci Total Environ, 2017; 595:912–919; doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.074
72.
RagsdaleSW, PierceE. Acetogenesis and the Wood–Ljungdahl pathway of CO2 fixation. BBA-Proteins Proteom, 2008; 1784(12):1873–1898; doi: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2008.08.012
RCoreTeam. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Re version 4.0.4 “Lost Library Book” edn. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria; 2021.
75.
RinkeC, ChuvochinaM, MussigAJ, et al.A standardized archaeal taxonomy for the genome taxonomy database. Nat Microbiol, 2021; 6(7):946−+; doi: 10.1038/s41564-021-00918-8
76.
RyanP, ForbesC, ColleranE. Investigation of the diversity of homoacetogenic bacteria in mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic sludges using the formyltetrahydrofolate synthetase gene. Water Sci Technol, 2008; 57(5):675–680; doi: 10.2166/wst.2008.059
77.
SheridanPO, MengYY, WilliamsTA, et al.Recovery of Lutacidiplasmatales archaeal order genomes suggests convergent evolution in Thermoplasmatota. Nat Commun, 2022; 13(1):13; doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31847-7
78.
StrootPG, McMahonKD, MackieRI, et al.Anaerobic codigestion of municipal solid waste and biosolids under various mixing conditions - I. Digester performance. Water Res, 2001; 35(7):1804–1816.
79.
TakaiK, HorikoshiK. Rapid detection and quantification of members of the archaeal community by quantitative PCR using fluorogenic probes. Appl Environ Microbio, 2000; 66(11):5066–5072; doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.11.5066-5072.2000
80.
TanB, NesboC, FoghtJ. Re-analysis of omics data indicates Smithella may degrade alkanes by addition to fumarate under methanogenic conditions. Isme J, 2014; 8(12):2353–2356; doi: 10.1038/ismej.2014.87
81.
TchobanoglousG, StenselHD, TsuchinhashiR, et al.Section 7–14. Anaerobic Fermentation and Oxidation. In: Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery, 5th Edition. McGraw Hill Education: New York, New York, USA; 2014; pp. 655–662.
82.
TreuL, CampanaroS, KougiasPG, et al.Hydrogen-fueled microbial pathways in biogas upgrading systems revealed by genome-centric metagenomics. Front Microbiol, 2018; 9:1079; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01079
83.
UtamiARI, RyantaraRA, SumaryatieED, et al.Analysis of the effect of internal gas pressure of an anaerobic digester on biogas productivity of a mixture of cow dung and tofu liquid waste. AIP Conf Proc, 2021; 2320(1):050028; doi: 10.1063/5.0037446
84.
VandenburghSR, EllisTG. Effect of varying solids concentration and organic loading on the performance of temperature phased anaerobic digestion process. Water Environ Res, 2002; 74(2):142–148.
85.
WahidR, MulatDG, GabyJC, et al.Effects of H2:CO2 ratio and H2 supply fluctuation on methane content and microbial community composition during in-situ biological biogas upgrading. Biotechnol Biofuels, 2019; 12(1):104; doi: 10.1186/s13068-019-1443-6
86.
WeiSZ, ZhangHF, CaiXB, et al.Psychrophilic anaerobic co-digestion of highland barley straw with two animal manures at high altitude for enhancing biogas production. Energy Conv Manag, 2014; 88:40–48; doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.08.018
87.
XuRZ, FangSY, ZhangL, et al.Distribution patterns of functional microbial community in anaerobic digesters under different operational circumstances: A review. Bioresour Technol, 2021; 341:14; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125823
88.
YangY, SanfordR, YanJ, et al.Roles of organohalide-respiring Dehalococcoidia in carbon cycling. mSystems, 2020; 5(3):12; doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00757-19
89.
YuTT, WuWC, LiangWY, et al.Growth of sedimentary Bathyarchaeota on lignin as an energy source. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2018; 115(23):6022–6027; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1718854115
90.
ZhouZC, PanJ, WangFP, et al.Bathyarchaeota: Globally distributed metabolic generalists in anoxic environments. Fems Microbiol Rev, 2018; 42(5):639–655; doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuy023
91.
ZhuGF, JhaAK. Psychrophilic dry anaerobic digestion of cow dung for methane production: Effect of inoculum. Scienceasia, 2013; 39(5):500–510; doi: 10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2013.39.500
92.
ZielsRM, BeckDAC, MartiM, et al.Monitoring the dynamics of syntrophic beta-oxidizing bacteria during anaerobic degradation of oleic acid by quantitative PCR. FEMS Microbiol Ecol, 2015; 91(4):fiv028; doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiv028
93.
ZielsRM, BeckDAC, StenselHD. Long-chain fatty acid feeding frequency in anaerobic codigestion impacts syntrophic community structure and biokinetics. Water Res, 2017; 117:218–229; doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.03.060
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
