4.6 Article

Experimental study of interactions between purple and green sulfur bacteria in sandy sediments exposed to illumination deprived of near-infrared wavelengths

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 68, 期 6, 页码 2972-2981

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.68.6.2972-2981.2002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sedimentary biofilms of the green sulfur bacterium Prosthecochloris aestuarii strain CE 2404, the purple sulfur bacterium Thiocapsa roseopersicina strain 5811, and a mixed culture of both were cultured in fine sand (100- to 300-mum grain size) within counter gradients of oxygen and sulfide. The artificial sediments were exposed to illumination deprived of near-infrared light (NIR) by filtering out the wavelengths longer than 700 nm to simulate the critical light conditions in submerged aquatic sediments. A 16 h of visible light-8 h of dark regimen was used. We studied the effects of these light conditions on the metabolisms of and interactions between both species by comparing the single species biofilms with the mixed biofilm. The photosynthesis rates of P. aestuarii were shown to be highly limited by the imposed light conditions, because the sulfide photooxidation rates were strongly stimulated when NIR was added. T. roseopersicina performed both aerobic chemosynthesis and photosynthesis, but the photosynthesis rates were low and poorly stimulated by the addition of NIR. This species decreased the penetration depth of oxygen in the sediment by about I mm by actively respiring oxygen. This way, the strict anaerobe P. aestuarii was able to grow closer to the surface in the mixed culture. As a result, P. aestuarii benefited from the presence of T. roseopersicina in the mixed culture, which was reflected by an increase in the biomass. In contrast, the density of the latter species was almost completely unaffected by the interaction. Both species coexisted in a layer of the same depth in the mixed culture, and the ecological and evolutionary implications of coexistence are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据