de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
English
 
Help Guide Disclaimer Contact us Login
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Impact of metazoan and protozoan grazers on bacterial biomass distribution in microcosm experiments

MPS-Authors
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons56752

Jürgens,  Klaus
Department Ecophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Limnology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons56577

Arndt,  Hartmut
Department Ecophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Limnology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons57021

Zimmermann,  Heike
Department Ecophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Limnology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Max Planck Society;

Locator
There are no locators available
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts available
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Jürgens, K., Arndt, H., & Zimmermann, H. (1997). Impact of metazoan and protozoan grazers on bacterial biomass distribution in microcosm experiments. Aquatic Microbial Ecology, 12(2), 131-138.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-000F-E24B-7
Abstract
The interactions between different metazooplankters (cladocerans, rotifers, copepods), protozoans (ciliates, nanoflagellates) and bacteria (mixed lakewater culture) were examined in laboratory microcosm experiments. Growth of bacteria was stimulated in batch cultures by the addition of glucose. During 24 h experiments most of the bacterial production was consumed by nanoflagellates which achieved high growth rates. Moderate biomasses of copepods, rotifers or small cladocerans (Bosmina longirostris, Ceriodaphnia reticulata) had no or only weak effects on protozoan development. In contrast, Daphnia (D, galeata, D. magna) in higher densities consumed protozoans and bacteria simultaneously. Bacterial abundance was strongly reduced in all treatments but bacteria were either mainly consumed by protozoans (nanoflagellates) or by metazoans (Daphnia). This resulted in striking differences in the bacterial morphology of the remaining bacteria after 24 h. A shift in bacterial size structure towards the appearance of large aggregates and long filaments correlated to predation by protozoans. These protozoan-resistant morphotypes dominated ungrazed bacterial biomass after 24 h. When bacteria grew without predation or when Daphnia suppressed protozoan growth, the original bacterial size structure largely remained, and freely dispersed rods and cocci predominated. These model experiments illustrate the different impacts of metazoan and protozoan grazers which could both control bacterial production but produced a very different bacterial biomass distribution