Microbial Ecology

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

Suspension feeding in ciliated protozoa: Functional response and particle size selection

  • Tom Fenchel


The quantitative uptake of latex beads of different sizes and of live cells by 14 species of ciliates was studied. The functional response (uptake rate as function of food particle concentration) can be fitted to a hyperbolic function and this can be explained in terms of the function of the mouth apparatus. Each species shows a distinct size spectrum of particles which are retained and ingested. These size spectra may be explained by mouth morphology, and particle size selection may play a role for niche separation of coexisting ciliates. Most bacterivorous holotrich ciliates retain particles down to 0.2μm and in one case down to 0.1μm; they retain particles between 0.3 and 1μm most efficiently. The spirotrich ciliates investigated do not retain particles smaller than 1–2μm.


Live Cell Uptake Rate Nature Conservation Particle Concentration Functional Response 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Coleman, A. S.: The metabolism ofEscherichia coli and other bacteria byEntodinium caudatum. J. Gen. Microbiol.37, 209–223 (1964)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crowley, P. H.: Filtering rate inhibition ofDaphnia pulex in Wintergreen Lake water. Limnol. Oceanogr.18, 394–402 (1973)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Curds, C. R., and A. Cockburn: Studies on the growth and feeding ofTetrahymena pyriformis in axenic and monoxenic culture. J. Gen. Microbiol.54, 343–358 (1968)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dive, D.: La nutrition holozoique des protozoaires cilies. Ses conséquences dans l'épuration naturelle et artificielle. Ann. Biol.12, 343–380 (1973)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fenchel, T.: The ecology of marine microbenthos. II. The food of marine benthic ciliates. Ophelia5, 73–121 (1968)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fenchel, T.: Suspension feeding in ciliated protozoa: structure and function of feeding organelles. Arch. Protistenk.123(in press)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fenchel, T.: Suspension feeding in ciliated protozoa: feeding rates and the ecological significance. Microb. Ecol. (this volume)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fenchel, T. and E. B. Small: Structure and function of the oral cavity and its organelles in the hymenostome ciliateGlaucoma. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. (in press)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giese, A. C. (ed.):Blepharisma: The Biology of a Light-Sensitive Protozoan. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1973)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamilton, R. D., and J. E. Preslan: Observations on the continuous culture of a planktonic phagotrophic protozoan. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.5, 94–104 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heinbokel, J. F.: Studies on the functional role of tintinnids in the Southern California Bight. I. Grazing and growth rates in laboratory cultures. Mar. Biol.47, 177–189 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holling, C. S.: Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Entomol.91, 385–398 (1959)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jørgensen, C. B.: Biology of Suspension Feeding. Pergamon, Oxford (1966)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jørgensen, C. B.: Suspension feeding. Handbook of Nutrition and Food, Sect. E. CRC Press, Cleveland (in press)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mueller, M., P. Röhlich, and I. Törö: Studies on feeding and digestion in protozoa. VII. Ingestion of polystyrene latex particles and its early effect on acid phosphatase inParamecium multimicronucleatum andTetrahymena pyriformis. J. Protozool.12, 27–34 (1965)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mullin, M. M., and E. F. Stewart: Ingestion by planktonic grazers as a function of concentration of food. Limnol. Oceanogr.20, 259–262 (1975)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nilsson, J. R.: Further studies on vacuole formation inTetrahymena pyriformis GL. C. R. Trav. Lab. Carlsberg39, 83–110 (1972)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rapport, D. J., J. Berger, and D. B. W. Reid: Determination of food preference ofStentor coeruleus. Biol. Bull.142, 103–109 (1972)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taylor, W. D.: Growth responses of ciliate protozoa to the abundance of their bacterial prey. Microb. Ecol.4, 207–214 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taylor, W. D., and J. Berger: Growth responses of cohabiting ciliate protozoa to various prey bacteria. Can. J. Zool.54, 1111–1114 (1976)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Fenchel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and GeneticsUniversity of AarhusAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations