Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of the community structure of yeasts associated with the decaying stems of cactus. II.Opuntia species

  • Published:
Microbial Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A survey was made of yeast species associated with the decaying pads of 3 prickly pear cacti (Opuntia phaeacantha, O. ficus-indica, andO. lindheimeri) in Arizona and Texas. Yeast communities from 12 localities were compared among localities, amongOpuntia species, and with previous data on yeast communities associated with columnar cacti. The results indicate thatOpuntia necroses contain relatively more yeast species with broader physiological abilities in their communities than columnar necroses. It is argued that differences in chemistry of the opuntias and columnar forms in concert with the insect vectors specific for these cacti account for the differences in yeast community structure. It is further hypothesized that the differences in yeast community structure have been important in the evolution and maintenance of species diversity forDrosophila species which live in the decaying stems or cladodes of various cacti. Most of the yeast community evolution in the cacti is postulated to have proceeded by evolution in situ and not by additions and replacements from outside of the system.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barker JSF, Toll GL, East PD, Miranda M, Phaff HJ (in press) Heterogeneity of the yeast flora in the breeding sites of cactophilicDrosophila, Can J Micro

  2. Fellows DP, Heed WB (1972) Factors affecting host plant selection in desert-adapted cactophilicDrosophila. Ecology 53:850–858

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fogleman JC, Starmer WT, Heed WB (1982) Comparisons of yeast florae from natural substrates and larval guts of southwesternDrosophila. Oecologia (Berl) 52:187–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gibson AC (1982) Phylogenetic relationships of Pachycereeae. In: Barker JSF, Starmer WT (eds) Ecological genetics and evolution: the cactus-yeast-Drosophila model system. Academic Press Australia, Sydney, pp 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gibson AC, Horak KE (1978) Systematic anatomy and phylogeny of Mexican columnar cacti. Ann Missouri Bot Gard 65:999–1057

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gilbert DG (1980) Dispersal of yeasts and bacteria byDrosophila in a temperate forest. Oecologia (Berlin) 46:135–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Heed WB (1978) Ecology and genetics of Sonoran DesertDrosophila. In: Brussard PK (ed) Ecological genetics: the interface. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 109–126

    Google Scholar 

  8. Heed WB (1982) The origin ofDrosophila in the Sonoran Desert. In: Barker JSF, Starmer WT (eds) Ecological genetics and evolution: the cactus-yeast-Drosophila model system. Academic Press Australia, Sydney, pp 65–80

    Google Scholar 

  9. Holzschu D, Phaff HJ (1982) Taxonomy and evolution of some ascomycetous cactophilic yeasts. In: Barker JSF, Starmer WT (eds) Ecological genetics and evolution: the cactus-yeast-Drosophila model system. Academic Press Australia, Sydney, pp 127–141

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hurlbert SH (1971) The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52:577–586

    Google Scholar 

  11. Janzen DH (1973) Community structure of secondary compounds in plants. Pure and Applied Chem 34:529–538

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kircher HW (1982) Chemical composition of cacti and its relationship to Sonoran DesertDrosophila. In: Barker JSF, Starmer WT (eds) Ecological genetics and evolution: the cactusyeast-Drosophila model system. Academic Press Australia, Sydney, pp 143–158

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lachance MA, Metcalf BJ, Starmer WT (1982) Yeasts from exudates ofQuercus, Ulmus, Populus andPseudotsuga: new isolations and elucidation of some factors affecting ecological specificity. Microb Ecol 8:191–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  15. MacMahon JA, Phillips DL, Robinson JV, Schimpf DJ (1978) Levels of biological organization: an organism-centered approach. BioScience 28:700–704

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. May RM (1978) The evolution of ecological systems. Scientific American 239:160–175

    Google Scholar 

  17. Phaff HJ, Miller MW, Recca JA, Shifrine M, Mrak EM (1956) Yeasts found in the alimentary canal ofDrosophila. Ecology 37:533–538

    Google Scholar 

  18. Shreve F, Wiggins IL (1964) Vegetation and flora of the Sonoran Desert, Vol 1. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  19. Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sneath PHA, Sokal RR (1973) Numerical taxonomy. WH Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  22. Starmer WT (1981b) A comparison ofDrosophila habitats according to the physiological attributes of the associated yeast communities. Evolution 35:38–52

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Starmer WT (1982b) Associations and interactions among yeasts,Drosophila and their habitats. In: Barker JSF, Starmer WT (eds) Ecological genetics and evolution: the cactus-yeast-Drosophila model system. Academic Press Australia, Sydney, pp 159–174

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  26. Starmer WT, Phaff HJ, Miranda M, Miller M, Heed WB (1982) The yeast flora associated with the decaying stems of columnar cacti andDrosophila in North America. Evol Biol 14:269–295

    Google Scholar 

  27. Vacek DC, Starmer WT, Heed WB (1979) Relevance of the ecology ofCitrus yeasts to the diet ofDrosophila. Microb Ecol 5:43–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. van der Walt JP (1970) Criteria and methods used in classification. In: Lodder J (ed) The yeasts, a taxonomic study. North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam, pp 34–113

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wasserman M (1982) Evolution of therepleta group. In: Ashburner M, Carson HJ, Thompson JN (eds) The genetics and biology ofDrosophila, Vol 3b. Academic Press, New York, pp 61–140

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Syracuse University, 13210, Syracuse, New York

    William T. Starmer

  2. Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California, 95616, Davis, California

    Herman J. Phaff

Authors
  1. William T. Starmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Herman J. Phaff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Starmer, W.T., Phaff, H.J. Analysis of the community structure of yeasts associated with the decaying stems of cactus. II.Opuntia species. Microb Ecol 9, 247–259 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02097740

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02097740

Keywords

Search

Navigation