| Literature DB >> 24832797 |
Terrence H Bell1, Katrina L Callender2, Lyle G Whyte3, Charles W Greer4.
Abstract
Intermicrobial competition is known to occur in many natural environments, and can result from direct conflict between organisms, or from differential rates of growth, colonization, and/or nutrient acquisition. It has been difficult to extensively examine intermicrobial competition in situ, but these interactions may play an important role in the regulation of the many biogeochemical processes that are tied to microbial communities in polar soils. A greater understanding of how competition influences productivity will improve projections of gas and nutrient flux as the poles warm, may provide biotechnological opportunities for increasing the degradation of contaminants in polar soil, and will help to predict changes in communities of higher organisms, such as plants.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24832797 PMCID: PMC3960893 DOI: 10.3390/biology2020533
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biology (Basel) ISSN: 2079-7737
Figure 1Large environmental shifts such as climate change will alter many aspects of polar soil environments that will shift the growth and activity of microbial species. Although some changes may benefit multiple species in isolation, changes in competitive interactions may determine the ultimate productivity of the whole community. In this scenario, climate change causes changes in both temperature and plant communities. Species A is promoted disproportionately by temperature and suppresses species B, leading to higher productivity (purple circle) by species A, and thus by the overall community. Species B gains a competitive advantage in the new plant community, and suppresses species A, but is not as productive as species A, leading to a decline in overall productivity. It is mostly unknown which factors will be the most important in determining competitive outcomes following climate change, and thus changes in productivity are difficult to predict.
Studies that have examined intermicrobial competition in polar soils.
| Habitat | Antagonists | Function(s) affected | Proposed mechanism(s) of competition | * Special notes | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Moss-covered and barren soil in Svalbard, Norway |
| Growth of individual strains | Antimicrobial production; differential growth rates | Competition varied at different incubation temperatures | [ |
| Various Antarctic soils | Growth of individual strains | Antimicrobial production | Producers were Antarctic bacteria, while affected bacteria were food-borne pathogens | [ | |
| King George Island, Antarctica |
| Growth of individual strains | Antimicrobial production | Producers were Antarctic bacteria, while affected bacteria were food-borne pathogens | [ |
| Tundra wetland soil, Ural, Russia | Methanogens and homoacetogenic
| H2 consumption | Differential H2 affinity | Competition was modeled based on changing H2 affinities at various temperatures; some strains isolated from pond and fen sediments | [ |
|
| |||||
| Unvegetated contaminated soil in Alert, Nunavut, Canada |
| Assimilation of added monoammonium phosphate | Differential nutrient uptake | Alphaproteobacteria most effectively assimilated added nutrients | [ |
|
| |||||
| Lowland soil, Devon Island, Nunavut, Canada | Archaeal and bacterial nitrifiers, fungal and bacterial denitrifiers | N2O production, nitrate availability, biomass of microbial domains | Differential nutrient uptake | Effects varied with temperature | [ |