Soil Biology
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-28185-1_4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intestinal Microbiota of Millipedes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
34
1

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
1
34
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This is why the lack of Actinobacteria within clone libraries may either be ascribed to their low abundance within the habitat or to methodological restrictions. The low abundance of Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes and -Proteobacteria among the isolates as compared to the clone libraries may be attributed to their preference for microaerophilic environments previously detected in the gut of diplopods (Byzov et al 2006). Analyzing gut samples derived from C. fulviceps using anaerobic cultivation Schrott et al (2009) were indeed able to isolate facultative anaerobic bacteria from the phylum Firmicutes (Bacillales and Clostridiales), but no representatives of the Bacteroidetes and -Proteobacteria.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…This is why the lack of Actinobacteria within clone libraries may either be ascribed to their low abundance within the habitat or to methodological restrictions. The low abundance of Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes and -Proteobacteria among the isolates as compared to the clone libraries may be attributed to their preference for microaerophilic environments previously detected in the gut of diplopods (Byzov et al 2006). Analyzing gut samples derived from C. fulviceps using anaerobic cultivation Schrott et al (2009) were indeed able to isolate facultative anaerobic bacteria from the phylum Firmicutes (Bacillales and Clostridiales), but no representatives of the Bacteroidetes and -Proteobacteria.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Potential changes in microbial community structure could also include fungi that might be more or less dominant in leaf litter depending on litter species and thus contribute to different degrees to overall SIR. The digestion of both fungi and bacteria in the midgut followed by the development of bacteria alone in the hindgut (Zimmer and Topp, 1998;Zimmer, 2002;Byzov, 2006), would then remove the initial variability in litter SIR due to contrasting fungal abundance, overall leading to more similar microbial communities in feces than in leaves. A more detailed analysis of microbial community structure and the relative importance of fungi compared to bacteria would be required to test this hypothesis.…”
Section: Tablementioning
confidence: 98%
“…Many bacteria, yeasts and fungi that colonize leaf litter are digested and assimilated, while others are little affected by digestion (Byzov et al, 1998;Byzov, 2006;Inhen and Zimmer, 2008). Ultimately, because fungal hyphae are more susceptible than bacteria to litter fragmentation by animals (Anderson and Ineson, 1984;Visser, 1985) and because the hindgut of macroarthropods is a natural fermenter, in which conditions are favorable for bacterial growth (Zimmer and Topp, 1998;Frouz et al, 2003;Byzov, 2006), the bacteria:fungi ratio generally increases in fresh feces compared to leaf litter (Hassall et al, 1987;Maraun and Scheu, 1996;Byzov et al, 1998). Microbial development in feces is also affected by the changes in physical and chemical characteristics of the ingested litter.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, during the 30-day laboratory experiment (despite the thorough control of temperature and humidity in the laboratory, randomization of the containers with different concentrations of metal on the laboratory table and thorough maintenance of an equal level of humidity of the substrate in all variants of the experiment) there could have possibly been insignificant accidental differences in the litter humidity among the containers. This probably led to stimulation of reproduction of different groups of microorganisms, which had a significant effect on the results of the experiment (Hopkin, Read 1992;Byzov et al 1996;Ashwini, Sridhar 2005;Byzov 2006). It would be interesting to examine in greater detail the results of the impact of M. kievense upon the granulometric composition of litter (Kheirallah 1990; Köhler et al 1991;Koukoura et al 2003;Brygadyrenko, Ivanyshyn 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the purpose of conservation it is important to define the levels of this relatively persistent compound which do not reduce the trophic activity of animals (Hopkin 1990). Such experiments can be conducted only under laboratory conditions, where dozens of primary food parameters can be manipulated (Dangerfield 1993;Roy, Joy 2009;Kulbachko, Didur 2012;Svyrydchenko, Brygadyrenko 2014) and observations are conducted in the microclimatic conditions of the experiment (Striganova 1972;Dangerfield, Milner 1993), the microbiological capacities of the substrate and the microflora composition of diplopod intestines (Márialigeti et al 1985;Zenova et al 1996;Kaneko 1999;Maraun et al 2003;Byzov 2006).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%