Microbial Ecology

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 351–359 | Cite as

Trophic interactions in soils as they affect energy and nutrient dynamics. II. Physiological responses of selected rhizosphere bacteria

  • M. A. Herzberg
  • Donald A. Klein
  • David C. Coleman
Article

Abstract

Comparative microbial functions in the plant root zone were studied by evaluating rhizosphere-derivedPseudomonas andArthrobacter growth in chemostat culture and responses to root-exudate-related nutrients after varied starvation periods. These organisms were chosen to represent zymogenous and autochthonous microbes, respectively. In chemostat culture, thePseudomonas isolate showed increased energy charge and decreased populations with higher growth rates, whereas theArthrobacter had lower energy charge and cell population values which did not change appreciably with growth rate. The responses of these two types of organisms also differed with starvation. ThePseudomonas lost its ability to respire efficiently in the presence of several known root exudate components, whereas theArthrobacter isolate, in comparison, maintained a lower but more consistent ability to utilize these nutrients with increased starvation. TheArthrobacter also showed increased utilization of several substrates after starvation, suggesting its potential ability to function under restricted nutrient availability conditions. These results suggest thatPseudomonas-type organisms in the rhizosphere may best function in periods of more intense exudate release, whereas organisms of theArthrobacter- type may be more efficient at nutrient utilization during periods of lesser nutrient flux. Based on these data the rhizosphere-derivedPseudomonas isolate was considered to be an appropriate bacterium to use in more complex rhizosphere microcosm experiments where nutrient flux dynamics would be emphasized.

Keywords

Autochthonous Nutrient Flux Energy Charge Chemostat Culture Microcosm Experiment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, R. V., E. T. Elliott, J. F. McClellan, D. C. Coleman, C. V. Cole, and H. W. Hunt: Trophic interactions in soils as they affect energy and nutrient dynamics. III. Biotic interactions of bacteria, amoebae, and nematodes. Microb. Ecol. (this volume)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boylen, C., and J. C. Ensign: Long term starvation survival of rod and spherical cells ofArthrobacter crystallopoietes. J. Bacteriol.103, 569–577 (1970)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan, E. C. S., and H. Katznelson: Growth interactions ofArthrobacter globiformis andPseudomonas sp. in relation to the rhizosphere effect. Can. J. Microbiol.7, 759–797 (1961)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chapman, A. G., L. Fall, and D. E. Atkinson: Adenylate energy charge inE. coli during growth and starvation. J. Bacteriol.108(3), 1072–1086 (1971)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cole, C. V., E. T. Elliott, H. W. Hunt, D. C. Coleman, and M. K. Campion: Trophic interactions in soils as they affect energy and nutrient dynamics. V. Phosphorus transformations. Microb. Ecol. (this volume)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coleman, D. C., R. V. Anderson, C. V. Cole, E. T. Elliott, L. Woods, and M. K. Campion: Trophic interactions in soils as they affect energy and nutrient dynamics. IV. Flows of metabolic and biomass carbon. Microb. Ecol. (this volume)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coleman, D. C., C. V. Cole, H. W. Hunt, and D. A. Klein: Trophic interactions in soils as they affect energy and nutrient dynamics. I. Introduction. Microb. Ecol. (this volume)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dolezal, J.: Content of ATP, ADP and AMP in chemostatically growing bacteria as a function of the dilution rate. Folia Microbiol.18, 152 (1973)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ensign, J. C., and R. S. Wolfe: Nutritional control of morphogenesis inArthrobacter crystallopoietes. J. Bacteriol.87, 924–932 (1964)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodfellow, M., I. R. Hill, and T. R. G. Gray: Bacteria in a pine forest soil. In: T. R. G. Gray and D. Parkinson (Eds.): The Ecology of Soil Bacteria, pp. 500–515. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool (1968)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ho, K. P., and V. Munk: Yield and ATP pool ofCandida lipolytica cells grown on glucose and acetate. Annual Meeting of the American Society of Microbiology, No. 033 (abstr.) (1975)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holms, W. H., I. D. Hamilton, and A. G. Robertson: The rate of turnover of the adenosine triphosphate pool ofEscherichia coli grown aerobically in simple defined media. Arch. Mikrobiol.83, 95–104 (1972)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hunt, H. W., C. V. Cole, D. A. Klein, and D. C. Coleman: A simulation model for the effect of predation on bacteria in continuous culture. Microb. Ecol.3, 259–278 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knowles, C. J.: Microbial metabolic regulation by adenine nucleotide pools. In: B. A. Haddock and W. A. Hamilton (Eds.): Microbial Energetics, Symp. Vol. 27, pp. 241–283. Society for General Microbiology, Cambridge University Press, London (1977)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Labeda, D. P., K.-C. Liu, and L. E. Casida, Jr.: Colonization of soil byArthrobacter andPseudomonas under varying conditions of water and nutrient availability as studied by plate counts and transmission electron microscopy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.31(4), 551–561 (1976)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Louw, H. A., and D. M. Webley: The bacteriology of the root region of the oat plant grown under controlled pot culture conditions. J. Appl. Bacteriol.22, 216–226 (1959)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lundin, A., and A. Thore: Comparison of methods for extraction of bacterial adenine nucleotides determined by firefly assay. J. Appl. Microbiol.30, 713–721 (1975)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mulder, E. G., and J. Antheunisse: Morphologie, physiologie et ecologie desArthrobacter. Ann. Inst. Pasteur (Paris)105, 46–74 (1963)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Postgate, J. R.: The viability of very slow-growing populations: A model for the natural ecosystem.In: T. Rosswall (Ed.): Modern Methods in the Study of Microbial Ecology, pp. 287–292. Bull. Ecol. Res. Comm., Stockholm (1973)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Postgate, J. R., J. E. Crumpton, and J. R. Hunter: The measurement of bacterial viabilities by slide culture. J. Gen. Microbiol.24, 15–24 (1961)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pradet, A.: étude des adenosine-5′mono-, diet tri-phosphates dans les tissues vegetaux.Physiol. Vég. 5(3), 209–221 (1967)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robinson, J. B., P. O. Salonius, and F. E. Chase: A note on the differential response ofArthrobacter spp. andPseudomonas spp. to drying in soil. Can. J. Microbiol.11, 746–748 (1965)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rovira, A. D., and B. M. McDougall: Microbiological and biochemical aspects of the rhizosphere.In: A. D. McLaren and G. H. Peterson (Eds.): Soil Biochemistry, pp. 417–505. Edward Arnold, London (1967)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sieburth, J. McN.: Inhibition and agglutination of arthrobacters by pseudomonads. J. Bacteriol.93, 1911–1916 (1967)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stouthamer, A. H.: Energetic aspects of the growth of microorganisms. Symp. Soc. Gen. Microb.27, 285–315 (1977)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Veldkamp, H.: Ecological studies with the chemostat. Adv. Microb. Ecol.1, 59–94 (1977)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walker-Simmons, M. and D. E. Atkinson: Functional capacities and the adenylate energy charge inEscherichia coli under conditions of nutritional stress. J. Bacteriol130, 676–683 (1977)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Winogradsky, S.: Microbiologie du Sol: Problems et Methodes. Masson et Cie, Paris (1949)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. Herzberg
    • 1
  • Donald A. Klein
    • 1
  • David C. Coleman
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MicrobiologyColorado State UniversityFort Collins
  2. 2.Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory and Department of Zoology and EntomologyColorado State UniversityFort Collins

Personalised recommendations