Protozoan Response to the Addition of Bacterial Predators and Other Bacteria to Soil.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): Casida LE;Casida LE
  • Source:
    Applied and environmental microbiology [Appl Environ Microbiol] 1989 Aug; Vol. 55 (8), pp. 1857-1859.
  • Publication Type:
    Journal Article
  • Language:
    English
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: American Society for Microbiology Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 7605801 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1098-5336 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00992240 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Appl Environ Microbiol Subsets: PubMed not MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: Washington, American Society for Microbiology.
    • Abstract:
      Representatives of several categories of bacteria were added to soil to determine which of them might elicit responses from the soil protozoa. The various categories were nonobligate bacterial predators of bacteria, prey bacteria for these predators, indigenous bacteria that are normally present in high numbers in soil, and non-native bacteria that often find their way in large numbers into soil. The soil was incubated and the responses of the indigenous protozoa were determined by most-probable-number estimations of total numbers of protozoa. Although each soil was incubated with only one species of added bacteria, the protozoan response for the soil was evaluated by using most-probable-number estimations of several species of bacteria. The protozoa did not respond to incubation of the soil with either Cupriavidus necator, a potent bacterial predator, or one of its prey species, Micrococcus luteus. C. necator also had no effect on the protozoa. Therefore, in this case, bacterial and protozoan predators did not interact, except for possible competition for bacterial prey cells. The soil protozoa did not respond to the addition of Arthrobacter globiformis or Bacillus thuringiensis. Therefore, the autochthonous state of Arthrobacter species in soil and the survival of B. thuringiensis were possibly enhanced by the resistance of these species to protozoa. The addition of Bacillus mycoides and Escherichia coli cells caused specific responses by soil protozoa. The protozoa that responded to E. coli did not respond to B. mycoides or any other bacteria, and vice versa. Therefore, addition to soil of a nonsoil bacterium, such as E. coli, did not cause a general increase in numbers of protozoa or in protozoan control of the activities of other bacteria in the soil.
    • References:
      J Bacteriol. 1973 Jan;113(1):33-7. (PMID: 4345921)
      Appl Microbiol. 1975 Apr;29(4):515-21. (PMID: 1168441)
      Appl Environ Microbiol. 1985 Dec;50(6):1496-501. (PMID: 16346949)
      Annu Rev Microbiol. 1981;35:113-33. (PMID: 7027898)
      Can J Microbiol. 1975 Jun;21(6):884-95. (PMID: 807307)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 19890801 Latest Revision: 20210526
    • Publication Date:
      20231215
    • Accession Number:
      PMC202969
    • Accession Number:
      10.1128/aem.55.8.1857-1859.1989
    • Accession Number:
      16347983