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

Next Article 

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1989 August; 55(8): 1857-1859
Copyright © 1989, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

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

Microbiology Program, S-101 Frear Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802

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.

Paper 8013 in the journal series of the Pennsylvania Agriculture Experiment Station.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Thomas, D. J. I., Morgan, J. A. W., Whipps, J. M., Saunders, J. R. (2001). Plasmid Transfer between Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Strains in Laboratory Culture, River Water, and Dipteran Larvae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67: 330-338 [Abstract] [Full Text]