This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zeph, L. R.
Right arrow Articles by Casida, L. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zeph, L. R.
Right arrow Articles by Casida, L. E., Jr.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Zeph, L. R.
Right arrow Articles by Casida, L. E.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1986 October; 52(4): 819-823
Copyright © 1986, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Gram-Negative Versus Gram-Positive (Actinomycete) Nonobligate Bacterial Predators of Bacteria in Soil {dagger}

Lawrence R. Zeph{ddagger} and L. E. Casida Jr.*

Microbiology Program, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802

ABSTRACT

The existence of nonobligate bacterial predators of bacteria in soil has been previously reported. Several additional predators were isolated from soil and tested for predation in situ in soil by use of the indirect bacteriophage analysis technique. The trials were conducted with nutritionally poor and nutritionally enriched soil. Certain of the predators that were gram negative were found to attack a range of both gram-positive and gram-negative host cell species, including at least some of the other predator bacteria, both gram positive and gram negative. The attack occurred in both the nutritionally poor and rich soils, but in some instances it was somewhat depressed in the rich soil. This may be due to the nonobligate nature of the predation. The gram-positive predators attacked a relatively narrow range of prey species, and the attack occurred only in the nutritionally rich soil. In addition, the gram-positive predators were subject to attack by certain of the gram-negative predators. These gram-negative predators therefore appeared to play a dominant role in the control of bacterial numbers in soil.

FOOTNOTES

* Corresponding author.

{ddagger} Present address: New York University, 1009 Main Building, Washington Square, New York, NY 10003.

{dagger} Paper no. 7395 in the journal series of the Pennsylvania Agriculture Experiment Station.

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1986 October; 52(4): 819-823
Copyright © 1986, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Vandamme, P., Coenye, T. (2004). Taxonomy of the genus Cupriavidus: a tale of lost and found. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 54: 2285-2289 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Rogel, M. A., Hernandez-Lucas, I., Kuykendall, L. D., Balkwill, D. L., Martinez-Romero, E. (2001). Nitrogen-Fixing Nodules with Ensifer adhaerens Harboring Rhizobium tropici Symbiotic Plasmids. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67: 3264-3268 [Abstract] [Full Text]  


Copyright © 2010 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»