Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 81, Issue 1–4, pp 465–480 | Cite as

Bacterivory by heterotrophic flagellates: community structure and feeding strategies

  • Jens Boenigk
  • Hartmut ArndtEmail author


Heterotrophic flagellates (HF) are known as most important grazers of bacteria in many aquatic ecosystem. HF cannot be treated as a black box since HF generally contain a diverse community of species significantly differing in their feeding behaviour and other ecological properties. Today it seems that the dominant taxonomic groups among heterotrophic nano- and microflagellate communities within different marine, brackish and limnetic pelagic communities (heterokont taxa, dinoflagellates, choanoflagellates, kathablepharids) and benthic communities (euglenids, bodonids, thaumatomonads, apusomonads, cercomonads) are relatively similar. HF among protista incertae sedis, often neglected in ecological studies, are abundant bacterivores in all investigated habitats. Recent studies of flagellate feeding processes indicated that there are significant species-specific differences and individual variability regarding the food uptake and food selection of bacterivorous flagellates: Variability of bacterivory is discussed regarding the prevailing feeding modes, the energy budgets, the considerable importance of slight deviations in the time budgets of feeding phases, the ingestion rates and the feeding microhabitat, respectively. The significant flexibility of the grazing impact of bacterivorous flagellate communities creates a complex top-down pressure on bacteria which should have lead to the evolution of efficient predator avoidance mechanisms in bacteria and should be at least partly responsible for the diversity of present bacteria.

bacteria-protozoa interactions diversity feeding mechanism heterotrophic flagellates review 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alongi DM (1990) Abundances of benthic microfauna in relation to outwelling of mangrove detritus in a tropical coastal region. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 63: 53–63.Google Scholar
  2. Alongi DM (1991) Flagellates of benthic communities: their characteristics and methods of study. In: Patterson DJ & Larsen J (Eds) The Biology of Free-living Heterotrophic Flagellates (pp 57–75) Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Arndt H, Dietrich D, Auer B, Cleven E, Gräfenhan T, Weitere M & Mylnikov AP (2000) Functional diversity of heterotrophic flagellates in aquatic ecosystems. In: Leadbeater BSC & Green JC (Eds) The Flagellates, (pp 240–268) Taylor & Francis Ltd, London.Google Scholar
  4. Arndt H, Krocker M, Nixdorf B & Köhler A (1993) Long-term annual and seasonal changes of meta-and protozooplankton in Lake Müggelsee (Berlin): Effects of eutrophication, grazing activities, and the impact of predation. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie 78: 379–402.Google Scholar
  5. Arndt H & Mathes J (1991) Large heterotrophic flagellates form a significant part of protozooplankton biomass in lakes and rivers. Ophelia 33: 225–234.Google Scholar
  6. Arndt H, Hausmann K & Wolf M (subm.) Deep-sea (>1000 m) heterotrophic nanofauna of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea: qualitative and quantitative aspects of their pelagic and benthic occurrence.Google Scholar
  7. Auer B & Arndt H (2001) Taxonomic composition and biomass of heterotrophic flagellates in relation to lake trophy and season. Freshwat. Biology 46: 959–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azam F, Fenchel T, Field JG, Gray JS, Meyer-Reil LA & Thingstad F (1983) The ecological role of water-column microbes in the sea. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 10: 257–263.Google Scholar
  9. Bernard C, Simpson AGB & Patterson DJ (2000) Some free-living flagellates (Protista) from anoxic habitats. Ophelia 52: 113–142.Google Scholar
  10. Blackburn N, Fenchel T & Mitchell J (1998) Microscale nutrient patches in planktonic habitats shown by chemotactic bacteria. Science 282 (5397): 2254–2256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blackburn N & Fenchel T (1999) Modelling of microscale patch encounter by chemotactic protozoa. Protist 150: 337–343.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Boenigk J & Arndt H (2000a) Particle handling during interception feeding by four species of heterotrophic nanoflagellates. J. Eukaryotic Microbiol. 47: 350–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boenigk J & Arndt H (2000b) Comparative studies on the feeding behavior of two heterotrophic nanoflagellates: the filter-feeding choanoflagellate Monosiga ovata and the raptorial-feeding kinetoplastid Rhynchomonas nasuta. Aquat. Microbial Ecol. 22: 243–249.Google Scholar
  14. Boenigk J, Matz C, Jürgens K & Arndt H (2001) Confusing selective feeding with differential digestion in bacterivorous nanoflagellates. J. Eukaryotic Microbiol. 48: 425–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boenigk J, Matz C, Jürgens K & Arndt H (2001) The influence of preculture conditions and food quality on the ingestion and digestion process of three species of heterotrophic nanoflagellates. Microbial Ecol. 42: 168–176.Google Scholar
  16. Boenigk J, Matz C, Jürgens K & Arndt H (2002) Food concentration-dependent regulation of food selectivity of interception-feeding bacterivorous nanoflagellates. Aquat. Microbial Ecol. 27: 195–202.Google Scholar
  17. Boraas ME, Seale DB & Holen DA (1992) Predatory behaviour of Ochromonas analyzed with video microscopy. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 123: 459–468.Google Scholar
  18. Bratvold D, Srienc F & Taub SR (2000) Analysis of the distribution of ingested bacteria in nanoflagellates and estimation of grazing rates with flow cytometry. Aquatic Microbial Ecol. 21: 1–12.Google Scholar
  19. Caron DA & Finlay BJ (1994) Protozoan links in food webs. In: Hausmann K & Hülsmann N (Eds) Progress in Protozoology (pp 125–130) Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, Jena, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Carrias JF, Amblard C & Bourdier G (1996) Protistan bacterivory in an oligomesotrophic lake: Importance of attached ciliates and flagellates. Microbial Ecol. 31: 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cavalier-Smith T (2000) Flagellate megaevolution. The basis for eukaryote diversification. In: Leadbeater BSC & Green JC (Eds) The Flagellates (pp 361–390) Taylor & Francis, London.Google Scholar
  22. Christoffersen K, Bernard C & Ekebom J (1996) A comparison of the ability of different heterotrophic nanoflagellates to incorporate dissolved macromolecules. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, Special Issues Adv. Limnol. 48: 73–84.Google Scholar
  23. Chrzanowski TH & Simek K (1990) Prey-size selection by freshwater flagellated protozoa. Limnol. Oceanogr. 35: 1429–1436.Google Scholar
  24. Cleven EJ (1995) Grazing-Kontrolle der Bakterien-und Flagellaten (HNF)-Produktion durch ausgewähltes Protozooplankton im Bodensee. Ph.D. Thesis Universität Konstanz 172 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Cleven EJ & Weisse T (2001) Seasonal succession and taxonspecific bacterial grazing rates of heterotrophic nanoflagellates in Lake Constance. Aquat. Microbial Ecol. 23: 147–161.Google Scholar
  26. Dietrich D & Arndt H (2000) Biomass partitioning of benthic microbes in a Baltic inlet: Relationships between bacteria, algae, heterotrophic flagellates and ciliates. Marine Biol. 136: 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Diez B, Pedros-Alio C & Massana R (2001) Study of genetic diversity of eukaryotic picoplankton in different oceanic regions by small-subunit rRNA gene cloning and sequencing. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67: 2932–2941.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eccleston-Parry JD & Leadbeater BSC (1994) A comparison of the growth kinetics of six marine heterotrophic nanoflagellates fed with one bacterial species. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 105: 167–177.Google Scholar
  29. Fenchel T (1982a) Ecology of heterotrophic microflagellates. II. Bioenergetics and growth. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 8: 225–231.Google Scholar
  30. Fenchel T (1982b) Ecology of heterotrophic microflagellates. III. Adaptations to heterogeneous environments. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 9: 25–33.Google Scholar
  31. Fenchel T (1984) Suspended marine bacteria as a food source. In: Fasham MJR (Ed) Flows of Energy and Materials in Marine Ecosystems, (pp 301-315) Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Fenchel T (1986a) The ecology of heterotrophic flagellates. In: Marshall KC (Ed) Advances in Microbial Ecology (pp 57–97) Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Fenchel T (1986b) Protozoan filter feeding. Progr. Protistology 1: 65–113.Google Scholar
  34. Fenchel T (1987) Ecology of Protozoa: The Biology of Free-living Phagotrophic Protists. Science Tech Publishers/Springer Verlag, Madison, Wisconsin/Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, London, Paris, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  35. Fenchel T & Blackburn N (1999) Motile chemosensory behaviour of phagotrophic protists: Mechanisms for and efficiency in congregating at food patches. Protist 150: 325–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fenchel T & Finlay BJ (1995) Ecology and Evolution in Anoxic Worlds. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Garstecki T, Verhoeven R, Wickham SA & Arndt H (2000) Benthic-pelagic coupling: a comparison of the community structure of benthic and planktonic heterotrophic protists in shallow inlets of the southern Baltic. Freshwat. Biol. 45: 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gasol JM (1993) Benthic flagellates and ciliates in fine freshwater sediments: calibration of a live counting procedure and estimation of their abundances. Microbial Ecol. 25: 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gasol JM (1994) A framework for the assessment of top-down vs bottom-up control of heterotrophic nanoflagellate abundance. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 113: 291–300.Google Scholar
  40. González JM & Suttle CA (1993) Grazing bymarine nanoflagellates on viruses and virus-sized particles - ingestion and digestion. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 94: 1–10.Google Scholar
  41. Goldman JC & Caron DA (1985) Experimental studies on an omnivorous microflagellate: implications for grazing and nutrient regeneration in the marine microbial food chain. Deep-Sea Res. 32: 899–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Grossart HP, Riemann L & Azam F (2001) Bacterial motility in the sea and its ecological implications. Aquatic Microbial Ecol. 25: 247–258.Google Scholar
  43. Hamels I, Muylaert K, Casteleyn G & Vyverman W (2001) Uncoupling of bacterial production and flagellate grazing in aquatic sediments: a case study from an intertidal flat. Aquatic Microbial Ecol. 25: 31–42.Google Scholar
  44. Hansen PJ, Bjørnsen PK & Hansen BW (1997) Zooplankton grazing and growth: Scaling within the 2-2000-µm body size range. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42: 687–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hatzis C, Srienc F & Fredrickson AG (1994) Feeding heterogeneity in ciliate populations - effects of culture age and nutritional state. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 43: 371–380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Holen DA & Boraas ME (1991) The feeding behavior of Spumella sp. as a function of particle size: implications for bacterial size in pelagic systems. Hydrobiologia 220: 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hondeveld BJM, Nieuwland G, van Duyl FC & Bak RPM (1994) Temporal and spatial variations in heterotrophic nanoflagellate abundance in North Sea sediments. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 109:.235–243.Google Scholar
  48. Ishigaki T & Terazaki M (1998) Grazing behavior of heterotrophic nanoflagellates observed with a high speed VTR system. J. Eukaryotic Microbiol. 45: 484–487.Google Scholar
  49. Jonsson PR (1986) Particle-size selection, feeding rates and growth dynamics of marine planktonic oligotrichous ciliates (Ciliophora, Oligotrichina). Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 33: 265–277.Google Scholar
  50. Jürgens K & DeMott WR (1995) Behavioral flexibility in prey selection by bacterivorous nanoflagellates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 40: 1503–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jürgens K & Matz C (2002) Predation as a shaping force for the phenotypic and genotypic composition of planktonic bacteria. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (in press).Google Scholar
  52. Lampert W (1977) Studies on the carbon balance of Daphnia pulex De Geer as related to environmental conditions. IV. Determination of the “threshold” concentration as a factor controlling the abundance of zooplankton species. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, Suppl. 8 361–368.Google Scholar
  53. Larsen J & Patterson DJ (1990) Some flagellates (Protista) from tropical marine sediments. J. Nat. Hist. 24: 801–937.Google Scholar
  54. Laybourn-Parry J & Parry J (2000) Flagellates and the microbial loop. In: Leadbeater BSC & Green JC (Eds) The Flagellates (pp 216–239) Taylor & Francis, London.Google Scholar
  55. Lee WJ (2001) Diversity and distribution of free-living benthic heterotrophic flagellates in Botany Bay, Australia. Ph.D. thesis (pp 1-345) University of Sydney, School of Biological Sciences.Google Scholar
  56. Leadbeater BSC (1977) Observations on the life-history and ultrastructure of the marine choanoflagellate Choanoeca perplexa ELLIS. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 57: 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lessard EJ & Swift E (1985) Species-specific grazing rates of heterotrophic dinoflagellates in oceanic waters, measured with a dual-label radioisotope technique. Marine Biol. 87: 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lopez-Garcia P, Rodriguez-Valera F, Pedros-Alio C & Moreira D (2001) Unexpected diversity of small eukaryotes in deep-sea Antarctic plankton. Nature 409: 603–607.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mathes J & Arndt H (1994) Biomass and composition of protozooplankton in relation to lake trophy in north German lakes. Marine Microbial Food Webs 8: 357–375.Google Scholar
  60. Mathes J & Arndt H (1995) Annual cycle of protozooplankton (ciliates, flagellates and sarcodines) in relation to phyto-and metazooplankton in Lake Neumühler See (Mecklenburg, Germany). Archiv für Hydrobiologie 134: 337–358.Google Scholar
  61. Matz C & Jürgens K (2001) Effects of hydrophobic and electrostatic cell surface properties of bacteria on feeding rates of heterotrophic nanoflagellates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67: 814–820.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Matz C, Boenigk J, Arndt H & Jürgens K (2002) Role of bacterial phenotypic traits in selective feeding of the heterotrophic nano-flagellate Spumella sp. Aquatic Microbial Ecol. 27: 137–148.Google Scholar
  63. Mitchell JG, Pearson L, Dillon S & Kantalis K (1995) Natural assemblages of marine bacteria exhibiting high-speed motility and large accelerations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61: 4436–4440.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Moon-van der Staay S, De Wachter R & Vaulot D (2001) Oceanic 18S rDNA sequences from picoplankton reveal unsuspected eukaryotic diversity. Nature 409: 607–610.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Novarino G, Warren A, Butler H, Lambourne G, Boxshall A, Bateman J, Kinner NE, Harvey RW, Mosse RA & Teltsch B (1997) Protistan communities in aquifers: a review. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 20: 261–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Patterson DJ (1999) The diversity of eukaryotes. Am. Naturalist 154: S96–S124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Patterson DJ & Larsen J (1991) The Biology of Free-living Heterotrophic Flagellates. Systematics Association Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  68. Patterson DJ, Larsen J & Corliss JO (1989) The ecology of heterotrophic flagellates and ciliates living in marine sediments. Progr. Protistol. 3: 185–277.Google Scholar
  69. Pomeroy LR (1974) The ocean's food web: a changing paradigm. BioScience 24: 499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pringsheim EG (1963) Farblose Algen. Gustav Fischer, Jena.Google Scholar
  71. Radek R & Hausmann K (1994) Endocytosis, digestion, and defecation in flagellates. Acta Protozoologica 33: 127–147.Google Scholar
  72. Sanders RW, Porter KG, Bennett SJ & DeBiase AE (1989) Seasonal patterns of bacterivory by flagellates, ciliates, rotifers, and cladocerans in a freshwater planktonic community. Limnol. Oceanogr. 34: 673–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sanders RW, Porter KG & Caron DA (1990) Relationship between phototrophy and phagotrophy in the mixotrophic chrysophyte Poterioochromonas malhamensis. Microbial Ecol. 19: 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sanders RW (1991) Trophic strategies among heterotrophic flagellates. In: Patterson DJ & Larsen J (Eds) The Biology of Freeliving Heterotrophic Flagellates (pp 21–38) Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  75. Sanders RW, Caron DA & Berninger UG (1992) Relationship between bacteria and heterotrophic nanoplankton in marine and fresh waters: an inter-ecosystem comparison. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 86: 1–14.Google Scholar
  76. Sherr EB (1988) Direct use of high molecular weight polysaccharide by heterotrophic flagellates. Nature 335: 348–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sherr BF & Sherr EB (1989) Trophic impacts of phagotrophic Protozoa in pelagic foodwebs. In: Hattori T, Ishida Y, Maruyama Y, Morita RY & Uchida A (eds) Recent Advances in Microbial Ecology (pp 388–393) Japan Scientific Societies Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  78. Sherr EB & Sherr BF (1994) Bacterivory and herbivory: Key roles of phagotrophic protists in pelagic food webs. Microbial Ecol. 28: 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sherr EB, Sherr BF & McDaniel J (1991) Clearance rates of <6 µm fluorescently labelled algae (FLA) by estuarine protozoa: potential grazing impact of flagellates and ciliates. Marine Ecol. Progr. Ser. 69: 81–92.Google Scholar
  80. Sieburth JM, Smetacek V & Lenz J (1978) Pelagic ecosystem structure: heterotrophic compartments and their relationship to plankton size fractions. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23: 1256–1263.Google Scholar
  81. Sleigh MA (2000) Trophic strategies. In: Leadbeater BSC & Green JC (Eds) The Flagellates (pp 147–165) Taylor & Francis, London.Google Scholar
  82. SmetaĆek V (1981) The annual cycle of protozooplankton in the Kiel Bight. Marine Biol. 63: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sonntag B, Posch T & Psenner R (2000) Comparison of three methods for determining flagellate abundance, cell size, and biovolume in cultures and natural freshwater samples. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 149: 337–351.Google Scholar
  84. Sorokin YI & Paveljeva EB (1972) On the quantitative characteristics of the pelagic ecosystems of Dalnee Lake (Kamchatka). Hydrobiologia 40: 519–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stensdotter-Blomberg U (1998) Factors controlling pelagic populations of ciliates and heliozoans - late summer investigations in an acidic lake before and after liming. J. Plankton Res. 20: 423–442.Google Scholar
  86. Stephens DW & Krebs JR (1986) Foraging Theory, Princeton.Google Scholar
  87. Tong SM, Nygaard K, Bernard C, Vørs N & Patterson DJ (1998) Heterotrophic flagellates from the water column in Port Jackson, Sydney, Australia. Eur. J. Protistol. 34: 162–194.Google Scholar
  88. Vørs N, Buck KR, Chavez FP, Eikrem W, Hansen LE, Østergaard JB & Thomsen HA (1995) Nanoplankton of the equatorial Pacific with emphasis on the heterotrophic protists. Deep-Sea Res. II 42: 585–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weisse T (1991) The annual cycle of heterotrophic freshwater nanoflagellates: role of bottom-up versus top-down control. J. Plankton Res. 13: 167–185.Google Scholar
  90. Williams PJle (1981) Incorporation of microheterotrophic processes into the classical paradigm of the planktonic food web. Kieler Meeresforschung, Sonderheft 5: 1–28.Google Scholar
  91. Zhukov BF (1993) Atlas of Freshwater Heterotrophic Flagellates (Biology, Ecology, Taxonomy). Russian Academy of Sciences, Rybinsk, 157 pp. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  92. Zubkov MV & Sleigh MA (2000) Comparison of growth efficiencies of protozoa growing on bacteria deposited on surfaces and in suspension. J. Eukaryotic Microbiol. 47: 62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zwart KB & Darbyshire JF (1992) Growth and nitrogenous excretion of a common soil flagellate Spumella sp. - a laboratory experiment. J. Soil Sci. 43: 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of LimnologyAustrian Academy of SciencesMondseeAustria
  2. 2.Zoological Institute, Department of General Ecology and LimnologyUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  3. 3.Department of EcophysiologyMax-Planck-Institute for LimnologyPlönGermany

Personalised recommendations