Eos, Vol. 94, No.

8, 19 February 2013

VOLUME 94 NUMBER 8
19 FEBRUARY 2013
EOS, TRANSACTIONS, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION PAGES 7784

Geophysical Signatures Many challenges must be overcome before

the geophysical signatures of microbial
processes can be fully understood. Primarily,
of Subsurface Microbial Processes scientists lack petrophysical relationships that
can be used to predict quantitatively how
microbial processes cause changes in fluid
PAGES 7778 methods. Instead, the physicochemical and solid phase properties that result in
alteration of the solid and liquid phases of changes in electromagnetic and seismic
Microbes are found in almost every soils and rocks that results from microbial properties. Many geophysical signatures from
conceivable part of the Earth, from hydrother- activity modifies the electromagnetic and microbial processes have been limited to
mal vents in the deep ocean basins [Huber acoustic properties of porous media, driving qualitative interpretation of changes from
et al., 2007] to the cold subglacial lakes of geophysical signatures. For example, the some initial condition. Geophysical methods
Antarctic ice sheets [Mikucki et al., 2009]. The physical attachment of microorganisms to frequently fail when site conditions are
role of microorganisms in transforming Earth mineral substrates and their colonization of unfavorable. Furthermore, many microbial
systems (e.g., accelerating mineral weather- these surfaces promote the development of processes may drive geophysical signatures
ing) by mediating different biogeochemical biofilms, mineral surface dissolution, and the that are beyond the detection limit of existing
cycles over the past 4 billion years has been formation of bioinduced secondary mineral instruments.
well documented in many studies [e.g., phases; all these processes can generate Despite these limitations, geophysical
Banfield et al., 1999]. However, microbial measurable geophysical signatures. signatures of microbial processes are
processes are challenging to investigate in
situ. Direct (e.g., microbial composition and
population density) and indirect (e.g.,
alteration of mineral phases by microbial
activity) evidence for microbial activity
requires sampling from boreholes, which is
costly and invasive and provides poor spatial
coverage.
Geophysical instrumentation can record
signatures that result from the alteration of the
electromagnetic (electrical conductivity,
magnetic susceptibility, and dielectric
permittivity) and seismic (density and
acoustic velocity) properties of the Earth by
microbial processes. These signatures can be
measured noninvasively with sensors located
at the Earths surface or in a limited number
of boreholes. Better understanding of how
microbial activity generates measurable
geophysical signatures could ultimately
permit remote geophysical sensing and
monitoring of microbial processes in the
Earths subsurface.
Geophysical signatures of microbial
processes are recorded with the same
geophysical techniques that have been used
for decades to image geological structures
and, more recently, to monitor hydrogeologi-
cal processes. These techniques include the
suite of electromagnetic (resistivity, electro-
magnetic induction, and groundpenetrating
radar), magnetic, and seismic methods. The
microbial communities themselves are rarely Fig. 1. Development of a geophysical signature of a microbial process associated with biodegrada-
detected, and geophysical methods do not tion of a hydrocarbon plume. (a) Scanning electron microscope imaging shows mineral
contain the information provided by genomic dissolution by organic acids and microbial etching, and (b) calcium concentrations confirm ionic
enrichment. Electrical conductivity increases are recorded with (c) electrical imaging and (d)
ground-penetrating radar due to enhanced attenuation of electromagnetic waves.WT denotes the
BY L. SLATER AND E. ATEKWANA water table. Modified from Atekwana and Slater [2009].

2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

 Eos, Vol. 94, No. 8, 19 February 2013

result in geophysical signatures that are

detectable with both electrical and seismic
methods [Davis et al., 2010]. Biominera-
lization physically alters pore networks and
strengthens soils, resulting in strong electrical
[Williams et al., 2009] and seismic [DeJong
et al., 2006] geophysical signatures of
microbial processes. When metallic biominer-
als are formed, large electrical [Slater et al.,
2007] and magnetic [Mewafy et al., 2011;
Rijal et al., 2010] signatures may arise.
Biodegradation indirectly results in geophysi-
cal signatures due to the generation of gases,
organic acids, ionic constituents, and other
end products [Atekwana and Atekwana,
2010]. Evidence suggests that microbial
communities may facilitate longrange
electron transport [Reguera et al., 2005]. Such
transport across sharp redox gradients has
been suggested to drive biogeobatteries that
generate unique electrical selfpotential
signatures [Revil et al., 2010].

Example Geophysical Signatures

of Microbial Processes
One example of a microbial process that
produces a geophysical signature is biodegra-
dation. Geophysical research at hydrocarbon
Fig. 2. Development of a geophysical signature of a microbial process associated with iron sulfide contaminated sites has repeatedly
precipitation by iron- and sulfide-reducing bacteria. (a) Transmission electron microscope demonstrated that biodegradation end
evidence of precipitates of iron and sulfur by bacterial cells extracted from the location of the field products generate some of the largest
anomaly, (b) sediments from the location of the anomaly showing evidence of prolonged geophysical signatures of microbial processes
exposure to sulfide accompanying sulfate reduction, and (c) the resulting polarization increase [Allen et al., 2007]. Increases in electrical
(phase shift) due to accumulation of electronically conductive minerals and Fe(II).Vertical lines conductivity over sites of active biodegrada-
represent injection well galleries used to add acetate to stimulate microbial activity.The blue tion are primarily caused by ionic enrichment
triangle represents the water table. Modified from Williams et al. [2009]. of the pore fluid due to mineral dissolution by
organic acids [Atekwana and Atekwana,
2010]. The organic acids themselves are
charged and further increase electrical
conductivity. This geophysical signature has
been recorded with resistivity measurements
along boreholes and from the surface using
electrical resistivity imaging and ground
penetrating radar (electromagnetic wave
attenuation increases with electrical
conductivity; Figure1).
Another example is biomineralization of
metallic minerals, which generates some of
the strongest geophysical signatures of
microbial processes that have been detected
at the field scale. Williams et al. [2009]
performed a series of biostimulation
experiments to promote biotically driven iron
Fig. 3. Field-scale evidence for the distribution of biogenically produced free phase gas across a
(Fe) and sulfate (SO4) reduction designed to
northern peatland as determined from ground-penetrating radar data sets [after Parsekian et al.,
2011]. sequester heavy metals and radionuclides as
insoluble precipitates. Changes in the
electrical properties were clearly detected
increasingly being recorded, demonstrating and extracellular structures, (2) biofilm with surface resistivity and induced polariza-
that geophysical methods are poised to formation, (3) biomineralization, (4) tion imaging (Figure2). Solid phase and
advance understanding of the critical role of production of metabolic byproducts (gases, microbial analysis showed that the geophysi-
microbes in numerous geoscience disci- biosurfactants, organic acids, and ionic cal signatures resulted from the formation of
plines, including hydrology, ocean sciences, constituents), and (5) longrange electron electronically conductive precipitates
the cryosphere, engineering, and, ultimately, transport. (biominerals) under sulfate and iron
planetary sciences. Polarization of microbial cells under an reducing conditions. These biotically
applied electric field increases dielectric produced electronic conductors increase
Signal Sources permittivity, which is detectable with the electrical conductivity and lowfrequency
dielectric spectroscopy and induced dielectric permittivity (polarization) of the
Geophysical signatures have been polarization electrical methods. Biofilms have subsurface, the latter sensed from a phase
attributed to (1) the growth of microbial cells electromagnetic and acoustic properties that measurement (Figure2). Electrical imaging

2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

 Eos, Vol. 94, No. 8, 19 February 2013
could therefore be used to monitor biotically
driven formation of biometallic (e.g., iron
sulfide and magnetite) minerals.
Geophysical techniques can also provide
information on the biogenic generation of
methane (CH4) in peatlands that results from
anaerobic respiration by archaea and
contributes a large natural flux of methane to
the atmosphere. Replacement of pore fluid by
free phase gas exerts a strong control on the
relative dielectric permittivity of a soil.
Dielectric permittivity controls the electro-
magnetic wave velocity recorded with
groundpenetrating radar, a technique
extensively used to noninvasively image and
monitor biogenic gas dynamics in peatlands
[Parsekian et al., 2011]. Geophysical images
provide unique spatial information on
microbial activity in the subsurface, in this
case highlighting where biogenic gas is
produced and stored (Figure3).
Potential to Explore for Life
in Remote Areas
Microbial processes generate unique
geophysical signatures that may previously
have been overlooked. In fact, temporal
signals recorded with geophysical monitoring
systems may often be microbially driven.
Geophysical methods provide the tools for a
new generation of field research on microbial
processes across multiple spatial scales.
Effective implementation of fieldscale
systems for monitoring microbial processes
will require further basic research aimed at
quantifying the connection between
microbes and the geophysical signatures they
generate.
In the near term, further evidence of
geophysical signatures related to microbial
processes is most likely to come from the
increasing application of geophysical
technologies for investigating and monitoring
the nearsurface environment. Geophysical
methodologies developed over the past
century are capable of probing the most
remote areas of the planet, transforming
2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
scientists understanding of how the Earth
works. Geophysical techniques have that
same potential to explore for life in the most
remote parts of the Earth (deep oceans and
ice sheets) and, ultimately, other planets.
Acknowledgments
We thank Seth Haines (U.S. Geological
Survey) and two anonymous reviewers for
suggested improvements on an earlier version
of this article.
References
Allen, J. P., E. A. Atekwana, E. A. Atekwana, J. W.
Duris, D. D. Werkema, and S. Rossbach (2007 ),
The microbial community structure in petroleum
contaminated sediments corresponds to
geophysical signatures, Appl. Environ. Microbiol.,
73, 2860 2870, doi:10.1128/AEM.0175206.
Atekwana, E., and E. Atekwana (2010),
Geophysical signatures of microbial activity at
hydrocarbon contaminated sites: A review, Surv.
Geophys., 31(2), 247283, doi:10.1007/
s1071200990898.
Atekwana, E. A., and L. D. Slater (2009),
Biogeophysics: A new frontier in Earth science
research, Rev. Geophys., 47, RG4004,
doi:10.1029/2009RG000285.
Banfield, J. F., W. W. Barker, S. A. Welch, and A.
Taunton (1999), Biological impact on mineral
dissolution: Application of the lichen model to
understanding mineral weathering in the
rhizosphere, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 96(7 ),
3404 3411, doi:10.1073/pnas.96.7.3404.
Davis, C. A., L. J. PyrakNolte, E. A. Atekwana,
D. D. Werkema Jr., and M. E. Haugen (2010),
Acoustic and electrical property changes due to
microbial growth and biofilm formation in
porous media, J. Geophys. Res., 115, G00G06,
doi:10.1029/2009JG001143.
DeJong, J., M. Fritzges, and K. Nsslein (2006),
Microbially induced cementation to control sand
response to undrained shear, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 132(11), 13811392, doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)10900241(2006)132:11(1381).
Huber, J. A., D. B. Mark Welch, H. G. Morrison, S.
M. Huse, P. R. Neal, D. A. Butterfield, and M. L.
Sogin (2007 ), Microbial population structures in
the deep marine biosphere, Science, 318(5847 ),
97100, doi:10.1126/science.1146689.
Mewafy, F. M., E. A. Atekwana, D. D. Werkema Jr.,
L. D. Slater, D. Ntarlagiannis, A. Revil, M. Skold,
and G. N. Delin (2011), Magnetic susceptibility as
a proxy for investigating microbially mediated
iron reduction, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L21402,
doi:10.1029/2011gl049271.
Mikucki, J. A., A. Pearson, D. T. Johnston, A. V.
Turchyn, J. Farquhar, D. P. Schrag, A. D. Anbar, J.
C. Priscu, and P. A. Lee (2009), A contemporary
microbially maintained subglacial ferrous
ocean, Science, 324(5925), 397 400, doi:10.1126/
science.1167350.
Parsekian, A. D., X. Comas, L. Slater, and P. H.
Glaser (2011), Geophysical evidence for the
lateral distribution of free phase gas at the
peat basin scale in a large northern peatland,
J. Geophys. Res., 116, G03008,
doi:10.1029/2010JG001543.
Reguera, G., K. D. McCarthy, T. Mehta, J. S. Nicoll,
M. T. Tuominen, and D. R. Lovley (2005),
Extracellular electron transfer via microbial
nanowires, Nature, 435(7045), 1098 1101.
Revil, A., C. A. Mendona, E. A. Atekwana, B.
Kulessa, S. S. Hubbard, and K. J. Bohlen (2010),
Understanding biogeobatteries: Where
geophysics meets microbiology, J. Geophys. Res.,
115, G00G02, doi:10.1029/2009JG001065.
Rijal, M. L., E. Appel, E. Petrovsk, and U. Blaha
(2010), Change of magnetic properties due to
fluctuations of hydrocarbon contaminated
groundwater in unconsolidated sediments,
Environ. Pollut., 158(5), 1756 1762.
Slater, L., D. Ntarlagiannis, Y. R. Personna, and S.
Hubbard (2007 ), Porescale spectral induced
polarization signatures associated with FeS
biomineral transformations, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
34, L21404, doi:10.1029/2007GL031840.
Williams, K. H., A. Kemna, M. J. Wilkins, J. Druhan,
E. Arntzen, A. L. NGuessan, P. E. Long, S. S.
Hubbard, and J. F. Banfield (2009), Geophysical
monitoring of coupled microbial and geochemi-
cal processes during stimulated subsurface
bioremediation, Environ. Sci. Technol., 43(17 ),
6717 6723, doi:10.1021/es900855j.
Author Information
Lee Slater, Department of Earth &
Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University,
Newark, N. J.; E-mail: lslater@andromeda.
rutgers.edu; and Estella Atekwana, Boone
Pickens School of Geology, Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater