4.7 Article

Are bacteria more like plants or animals?: Growth rate and resource dependence of bacterial C : N : P stoichiometry

Journal

FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 121-130

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2003.00712.x

Keywords

C : N : P ratios; growth rate hypothesis; homeostasis; nucleic acid; phosphorus

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

1. We examined the relative importance of resource composition (carbon : phosphorus molar ratios which varied between 9 and 933) and growth rate (0.5-1.5 h(-1)) to biomass carbon : nitrogen : phosphorus stoichiometry and nucleic acid content in Escherichia coli grown in chemostats, and in other heterotrophic prokaryotes using published literature. 2. Escherichia coli RNA content and the contribution of RNA-P to total cellular P increased with increasing growth rate at all supply C : P ratios. Growth rate had a much stronger effect on biomass C : P than did supply C : P, and increased RNA content resulted in low biomass C : P and N : P ratios. 3. However, we observed only twofold variations in biomass C : P and N : P ratios in the experiments, despite a difference of two orders of magnitude in C : P and N : P supply. The response of biomass C : P and N : P ratios to alteration of the supply C : P and N : P ratios revealed that E. coli was strongly homeostatic in its elemental composition. 4. This result, and a literature survey, suggest that each heterotrophic bacterial strain regulates its elemental composition homeostatically within a relatively narrow range of characteristic biomass C : P and N : P ratios. 5. Thus shifts in the dominance of different bacterial strains in the environment are probably responsible for the large variation in bacterial biomass C : P, as has been suggested for crustacean zooplankton. These findings indicate that bacteria are more like animals than plants in terms of biomass C : P and N : P homeostasis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available