Present address: Jeremy S. Webb, School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 7PX, UK.
Ability of Pseudoalteromonas tunicata to colonize natural biofilms and its effect on microbial community structure
Article first published online: 25 MAY 2010
© 2010 Federation of European Microbiological Societies. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
Volume 73, Issue 3, pages 450–457, September 2010
How to Cite
Rao, D., Skovhus, T., Tujula, N., Holmström, C., Dahllöf, I., Webb, J. S. and Kjelleberg, S. (2010), Ability of Pseudoalteromonas tunicata to colonize natural biofilms and its effect on microbial community structure. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 73: 450–457. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.00917.x
Editor: Patricia Sobecky
- Issue published online: 3 AUG 2010
- Article first published online: 25 MAY 2010
- Received 6 January 2010; revised 27 April 2010; accepted 2 May 2010.Final version published online 23 June 2010.
- Pseudoalteromonas tunicata;
- epiphytic community
We investigated the effectiveness of surface colonization by the epiphytic marine bacterium Pseudoalteromonas tunicata firstly on a complex biofilm community on glass slides, and secondly, on the epiphytic community of Ulva australis. The effectiveness of P. tunicata was compared with the performance of Phaeobacter sp. 2.10, also a marine epiphytic isolate in the U. australis colonization experiments. Pseudoalteromonas tunicata cells were able to colonize the glass slide community at densities found naturally in the water column (9.7 × 104 cells mL−1). However, P. tunicata was a poor invader of the epiphytic community on U. australis at densities of 106 cells mL−1. At densities of 108 cells mL−1, P. tunicata again exerted little impact on the epiphytic community. Phaeobacter sp. 2.10 was also a poor invader at lower densities, but was able to invade and become dominant at densities of 108 cells mL−1. Differences in the ability of P. tunicata and Phaeobacter sp. 2.10 to invade natural communities may be due to differences in the antibacterial compounds produced by the two species. These experiments suggest that epiphytic communities may have protective effects compared with inanimate surfaces.