Advertisement

Biology and Fertility of Soils

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 227–232 | Cite as

Effect of passage through the intestinal tract of detritivore earthworms (Lumbricus spp.) on the number of selected Gram-negative and total bacteria

  • Jens Christian Pedersen
  • Niels Bohse Hendriksen
Article

Abstract

Laboratory experiments were carried out to investigate the fate of bacteria during and after passage through the intestinal tract of detritivore earthworms. Earthworms (Lumbricus spp.) were fed with cattle dung inoculated 7 days previously with one of five different Gram-negative bacteria. Bacterial concentrations were determined 2 days later in dung and soil, and in gut material from different parts of the earthworm intestinal tract. A high percentage (28–82%) of the total bacteria (epifluorescence direct counts) in the earthworm gut content was culturable. The concentration of total heterotrophic aerobic bacteria did not vary significantly among the five different bacterial additions and the non-inoculated control. In earthworm casts the number of total heterotrophs per gram dry matter (2.1×109) was higher than in soil (1.7×108), but lower than in the dung (1.5×1010). The test-bacteria, however, showed different survival patterns along the earthworm intestinal tract. The concentrations of Escherichia coli BJ 18 and Pseudomonas putida MM 1 and MM 11 in earthworm casts were lower than in the ingested dung, while concentrations of Enterobacter cloacae A 107 and Aeromonas hydrophila DMU 115 in dung and casts were similar. Ent. cloacae, and to aminor extent E. coli, were reduced in numbers by several orders of magnitude in the pharynx and/or crop. In the hind gut, however, the concentration of Ent. cloacae had increased to the same level as in the ingested dung, while the concentration of E. coli remained low. Our observations indicate that the bacterial flora of ingested food materials changes qualitatively and quantitatively during gut transit.

Key words

Earthworms Lumbricus spp. Bacterial survival Enterobacter cloacae Escherichia coli Aeromonas hydrophila Pseudomonas putida 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson RS (1988) Bacteriostatic factor(s) in the coelomic fluid of Lumbricus terrestris. Dev Comp Immunol 12:189–194Google Scholar
  2. Brown BA, Mitchell MJ (1981) Role of the earthworm, Eisenia foetida, in affecting survival of Salmonella enteritidis ser. typhimurium. Pedobiologia 22:434–438Google Scholar
  3. Brüsewith G (1959) Untersuchungen über den Einfluss des Regenwurms auf Zahl und Leistungen von Mikroorganismen im Boden. Arch Mikrobiol 33:52–82Google Scholar
  4. Daniel O, Anderson JM (1992) Microbial biomass and activity in contrasting soil materials after passage through the gut of the earthworm Lumbricus rubellus Hoffmeister. Soil Biol Biochem 24:465–470Google Scholar
  5. Dash MC, Mishra PC, Behera N (1979) Fungal feeding by a tropical earthworm. Trop Ecol 20:9–12Google Scholar
  6. Day GM (1950) Influence of earthworms on soil microorganisms. Soil Sci 69:175–184Google Scholar
  7. Domsch KH, Banse H-J (1972) Mykologische Untersuchungen an Regenwurmexkrementen. Soil Biol Biochem 4:31–38Google Scholar
  8. Edwards CA, Fletcher KE (1988) Interactions between earthworms and microorganisms in organic-matter breakdown. Agric Ecosyst Environ 24:235–247Google Scholar
  9. Hendriksen NB (1990) Leaf litter selection by detritivore and geophagous earthworms. Biol Fertil Soils 10:17–21Google Scholar
  10. Hendriksen NB (1991a) Gut load and food-retention time in the earthworms Lumbricus festivus and Lumbricus castaneus. Biol Fertil Soils 11:170–173Google Scholar
  11. Hendriksen NB (1991b) Consumption and utilization of dung by detritivorous and geophagous earthworms in a Danish pasture. Pedobiologia 35:65–70Google Scholar
  12. Hendriksen NB (1993) Effects of detritivore earthworms on dispersal and survival of the bacterium Aeromonas hydrophila. Acta Zool Fenn (in press)Google Scholar
  13. Hobbie JE, Daley J, Jasper S (1977) Use of nucleopore filters for counting bacteria by fluorescence microscopy. Appl Environ Microbiol 33:1225–1228Google Scholar
  14. Lassègeus M, Roch P, Valembois P (1989) Antibacterial activity of Eisenia fetida andrei coelomic fluid: Evidence, induction, and animal protection. J Invertebr Pathol 53:1–6Google Scholar
  15. Lee KE (1985) Earthworms. Academic Press, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  16. Maniatis T, Fritsch EF, Sambrook J (1982) Molecular cloning. A laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Parle JN (1963) Micro-organisms in the intestines of earthworms. J Gen Microbiol 31:1–11Google Scholar
  18. Pedersen JC (1992a) Natamycin as a fungicide in agar media. Appl Environ Microbiol 58:1064–1066Google Scholar
  19. Pedersen JC (1992b) Survival of Enterobacter cloacae: Field validation of a soil/plant microcosm. Microb Releases 1:87–93Google Scholar
  20. Pedersen JC, Leser TD (1992) Survival of Enterobacter cloacae on leaves and in soil detected by immunofluorescence microscopy in comparison with selective plating. Microb Releases 1:95–102Google Scholar
  21. Pochon J (1954) Manuel technique d'analyse microbiologique du sol. Masson et Cie, ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. Ponomareva SI (1953) The influence of the activity of earthworms on the creation of a stable structure in a sod-podzolized soil. Tr Pochv Inst Dokuchaeva 41:304–378Google Scholar
  23. Reddell P, Spain AV (1991) Earthworms as vectors of viable propagules of mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biol Biochem 23:767–774Google Scholar
  24. Satchell JE (1967) Lumbricidae. In: Burges A, Raw F (ed) Soil biology. Academic Press, London, pp 259–322Google Scholar
  25. Satchell JE (1983) Earthworm microbiology. In: Satchell JE (ed) Earthworm ecology. From Darwin to vermiculture. Chapman and Hall, Cambridge, pp 351–364Google Scholar
  26. Scheu S (1987) Microbial activity and nutrient dynamics in earthworm casts (Lumbricidae). Biol Fertil Soils 5:230–234Google Scholar
  27. Stöckli A (1928) Studien über den Einfluss der Regenwürmer auf die Beschaffenheit des Bodens. Landwirtsch Jahrb Schweiz 42:1–121Google Scholar
  28. Tučková L, Rejnek J, Šima P, Ondřejová R (1986) Lytic activities in coelomic fluid of Eisenia foetida and Lumbricus terrestris. Dev Comp Immunol 10:181–189Google Scholar
  29. Valembois P, Seymour J, Roch P (1991) Evidence and cellular localization of an oxidative activity in the coelomic fluid of the earthworm Eisenia fetida andrei. J Invertebr Pathol 57:177–183Google Scholar
  30. Went JC (1963) Influence of earthworms on the number of bacteria in the soil. In: Doeksen J, van der Drift J (ed) Soil organisms. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 260–265Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Christian Pedersen
    • 1
  • Niels Bohse Hendriksen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Marine Ecology and MicrobiologyNational Environmental Research InstituteRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations