Skip to main content
Log in

Yeast communities from host plants and associated Drosophila in southern arizona: new isolations and analysis of the relative importance of hosts and vectors on comunity composition

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The yeast communities from slime fluxes of three deciduous trees (Prosopis juliflora, Populus fremontii and Quercus emoryi) and the necroses of two cacti (Opuntia phaeacantha and Carnegiea gigantea) were surveyed in the region of Tucson, Arizona. In addition, the yeasts carried by dipterans associated with the fluxes or necroses (Drosophila carbonaria, D. brooksae, D. nigrospiracula, D. mettleri, and Aulacigaster leucopeza) were sampled. The results indicate that each host sampled had a distinct community of yeasts associated with it. The dipterans, which can act as vectors of the yeasts, deposited yeasts from other sources in addition to those found on their associated hosts. It is argued that host plant physiology is relatively more important than the activity of the vector in determining yeast community composition. Furthermore, the average number of yeast species per flux or necrosis is not different from the average number of yeast species per fly. It is hypothesized that the vector may affect the number of species per individual flux or not, and that the number is lower than the rot or necrosis could potentially support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Begon M (1981) Yeasts and Drosophila. In: Ashburner M, Carson HL, Thompson J (eds) The genetics and biology of Drosophila Vol 3 B. Academic Press, New York, pp 345–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles JM, Lachance MA (1983) Patterns of variation in the yeast florae of exudates in an oak community. Can J Bot 61:2984–2995

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson HL, Knapp EP, Phaff HJ (1956) Studies on the ecology of drosophila in the Yosemite region of California III the yeast flora of the natural breeding sites of some species of Drosophila. Ecology 37:538–544

    Google Scholar 

  • da Cunha A, Shehata AM, de Olivera W (1957) A study of the diets and nutritional preferences of tropical species of Drosophila. Ecology 38:98–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Heed WB, Starmer WT, Miranda M, Miller MW, Phaff HJ (1976) An analysis of the yeast flora associated with cactiphilic Drosophila and their host plants in the Sonoran desert and its relation to temperate and tropical associations. Ecology 57:151–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachance MA, Starmer WT (1982) Evolutionary significance of physiological relationships among yeast communities associated with trees. Can J Bot 60:285–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf BJ (1986) Coadaptive interactions between yeast and Drosophila: the Stenocereus gummosus — yeast — Drosophila mojavensis community. MS Thesis, Syracuse Univ., Syracuse, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Phaff HJ, Starmer WT (1986) Yeasts associated with plants, insects and soil. In: Rose AH, Harrison JJ (eds) The Yeasts Sec Ed, vol 1, Academic Press, London (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Phaff HJ, Yoneyama M, do Carmo-Sousa L (1964) A one-year quantitative study of the yeast flora in a single slime flux of Ulmus carpinifolia Gled. Rivista Path Vegetale 4:485–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Phaff HJ, Miller MW, Yoneyama M, Soneda M (1972) A comparative study of the yeast flora associated with trees on the Japanese islands and on the west coast of North America. In: Terui G (ed) Proc 4th Int Ferm Symp. Fermentation Technol Today Osaka, Japan, pp 759–774

    Google Scholar 

  • Phaff HJ, Miller MW, Mrak EM (1978) The life of yeasts. Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Shehata AM, Mrak EM, Phaff HJ (1955) Yeasts isolated from Drosophila and their suspected feeding places in southern and central California. Mycologia 47:799–811

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidenberg DG, Lachance MA (1986) Electrophoretic isoenzyme variation in Kluyveromyces populations and revision of Kluyveromyces marxianus (Hansen) van der Walt. Int J Syst Bacteriol 51:94–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer WT (1981a) An analysis of the fundamental and realized niche of cactophilic yeasts. In: Wicklow DT, Carroll GC (eds) The fungal community: its organization and role in the ecosystem. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 129–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer WT (1981b) A comparison of Drosophila habitats according to the physiological attributes of the associated yeast communities. Evolution 35:35–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer WT (1982) Analysis of the community structure of yeasts associated with the decaying stems of cactus. I. Stenocereus gummosus. Microb Ecol 8:71–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer WT, Barker JSF (1986) Ecological Genetics of the Adh-1 locus of Drosophila buzzatii. Biol J Linn Soc 28:(in press)

  • Starmer WT, Phaff HJ (1983) Analysis of the community structure of yeast associated with the decaying stems of cactus. II. Opuntia species. Microb Ecol 9:247–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer WT, Kircher HW, Phaff HJ (1980) Evolution and speciation of host plant specific yeasts. Evolution 34:137–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Vacek DC (1976) The yeast associated with some Drosophila breeding substrates in the Tucson, Arizona, area. MS Thesis, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Walt JP, Yarrow D (1984) Methods for isolation, maintenance, classification and identification of yeast. In: Kreger-van Rij NJW (ed) The yeast: a taxonomic study. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 45–104

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ganter, P.F., Starmer, W.T., Lachance, MA. et al. Yeast communities from host plants and associated Drosophila in southern arizona: new isolations and analysis of the relative importance of hosts and vectors on comunity composition. Oecologia 70, 386–392 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379501

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379501

Key words

Navigation