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.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Alexander M. Why microbial predators and parasites do not eliminate their prey and hosts. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1981;35:113–133. doi: 10.1146/annurev.mi.35.100181.000553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Boylen C. W. Survival of Arthrobacter crystallopoietes during prolonged periods of extreme desiccation. J Bacteriol. 1973 Jan;113(1):33–37. doi: 10.1128/jb.113.1.33-37.1973. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Danso S. K., Alexander M. Regulation of predation by prey density: the protozoan-Rhizobium relationship. Appl Microbiol. 1975 Apr;29(4):515–521. doi: 10.1128/am.29.4.515-521.1975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Danso S. K., Keya S. O., Alexander M. Protozoa and the decline of Rhizobium populations added to soil. Can J Microbiol. 1975 Jun;21(6):884–895. doi: 10.1139/m75-131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Petras S. F., Casida L. E. Survival of Bacillus thuringiensis Spores in Soil. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1985 Dec;50(6):1496–1501. doi: 10.1128/aem.50.6.1496-1501.1985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]