Cited by 47Microbial Community Ecology and PhysiologyAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsMarine Plankton and Biogeochemistry

Coaggregation in a microbial predator-prey system affects competition and trophic transfer efficiency

Open access

Abstract

Emerging interactions are key determinants of system productivity and efficiency in plant and animal communities, whereas their importance for planktonic microbial assemblages is unknown. We studied the relationship between two aquatic bacterial strains and a protistan predator with respect to cooperation and system efficiency. While competitive exclusion of one bacterial strain was observed in grazer‐free cocultures, the presence of the predator induced the formation of large coaggregates and allowed a coexistence of both strains. The aggregates moreover provided a substrate for attachment of the predators. The interactions in the more complex community, i.e., microbial flocs composed by both bacterial strains and predators, led to a significantly increased transfer efficiency of dissolved organic matter to the higher trophic level than in systems with two species only. Similar emerging interactions might also play a role in complex microbial assemblages in natural aquatic systems, i.e., on suspended organic aggregates.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/12-1652.1

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In co-culture, Arthrobacter agilis and Brevundimonas sp. GC044 competed, with A. agilis reaching only 2% of total cell density.

    “When cultured together, the bacterial species Arthrobacter agilis and Brevundimonas sp. GC044 competed with each other, with A. agilis reaching only 2% of the total cell density.”

    From Bacterial autoaggregation (2018) · cites this paper as [113]

    The Results (page unavailable) report that A. agilis was outcompeted in coculture and fell to 2% of cells at the end of the experiment, but specifically in the treatment without predators. The claim omits that condition; in cocultures exposed to predators, its proportion instead rose from 6% to 10%. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Predator grew to significantly higher densities in bacterial co-cultures compared to monocultures, and larger proportion of predators attached to aggregates in co-cultures.

    “However, the predator also grew to significantly higher densities in bacterial co-cultures compared to monocultures, and a larger proportion of predators were found attached to aggregates in the co-cultures.”

    From Bacterial autoaggregation (2018) · cites this paper as [113]

  • In presence of predatory protozoan Poterioochromonas, proportion of A. agilis rose to 6-10%.

    “In contrast, when these bacteria were co-cultured in the presence of the predatory protozoan Poterioochromonas, the proportion of A. agilis rose to 6–10% [113].”

    From Bacterial autoaggregation (2018) · cites this paper as [113]

  • Co-aggregation and emerging interactions in complex microbial communities increase overall efficiency of the ecosystem.

    “The observations that the biomass in the grazed co-cultures was substantially higher than in the corresponding monocultures, and that more dissolved organic matter was transferred to the predator, suggest that co-aggregation and emerging interactions in such a complex microbial communities increase the overall efficiency of the ecosystem [113].”

    From Bacterial autoaggregation (2018) · cites this paper as [113]

  • In co-culture with no predation, bacteria grew mostly as single cells; under predation, they formed increased amounts of single-species microcolonies or larger aggregates containing both species, and total cell number was higher than in monocultures with predation.

    “In co-culture with no predation, the bacteria grew mostly as single cells, but under predation conditions they formed increased amounts of either single-species microcolonies of a few cells or larger aggregates containing both species, and the total number of cells was higher than in monocultures with predation.”

    From Bacterial autoaggregation (2018) · cites this paper as [113]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fenchel T, 1986, Protozoan filter feeding, Progress in Protistology, 1, 65

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Bacterial autoaggregation

    Trunk, T., Bacterial Cell Surface Group, S. F. G. A. E. B., S. Khalil, H., & C. Leo, J. (2018) · AIMS Microbiology · doi:10.3934/microbiol.2018.1.140 · Cited by 444 · see citing works

    “The observations that the biomass in the grazed co-cultures was substantially higher than in the corresponding monocultures, and that more dissolved organic matter was transferred to the predator, suggest that co-aggregation and emerging interactions in such a complex microbial communities increase the overall efficie…”
    Background

Authors
Corno, G., Villiger, J., & Pernthaler, J.
Affiliations
University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Corno, Gianluca
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-04
Volume
94
Issue
4
Pages
870-881
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2016418907
Cited by
47
References
65
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (124786)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine Plankton and Biogeochemistry
Keywords
co-aggregation, bacterial competition, competitive exclusion, microbial flocs, trophic transfer efficiency, dissolved organic matter, microbial community assembly

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review