The phylogenetic composition, bacterial biomass, and biovolume of both planktonic and biofilm communities were studied in a low-order Bystřice stream near Olomouc City, in the Czech Republic. The aim of the study was to compare the microbial communities colonizing different biofilm substrata (stream aggregates, stream sediment, underwater tree roots, stream stones, and aquatic macrophytes) to those of free-living bacteria. The phylogenetic composition was analyzed using fluorescence in situ hybridization for main phylogenetic groups. All phylogenetic groups studied were detected in all sample types. The stream stone was the substratum where nearly all phylogenetic groups were the most abundant, while the lowest proportion to the DAPI-stained cells was found for free-living bacteria. The probe specific for the domain Bacteria detected 20.6 to 45.8 % of DAPI-stained cells while the probe specific for the domain Archaea detected 4.3 to 17.9 %. The most abundant group of Proteobacteria was Alphaproteobacteria with a mean of 14.2 %, and the least abundant was Betaproteobacteria with a mean of 11.4 %. The average value of the Cytophaga-Flavobacteria group was 10.5 %. Total cell numbers and bacterial biomass were highest in sediment and root biofilm. The value of cell biovolume was highest in stone biofilm and lowest in sediment. Overall, this study revealed relevant differences in phylogenetic composition, bacterial biomass, and biovolume between different stream biofilms and free-living bacteria.

Laboratory of Aquatic Microbial Ecology Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Faculty of Science Palacky University Šlechtitelů 11 783 71 Olomouc Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Jul;65(7):3192-204 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Feb;67(2):632-45 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1985 Jun;49(6):1488-93 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Dec;69(12):6961-8 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Nov;69(11):6587-96 PubMed

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2000 Aug 1;33(2):157-170 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Dec;66(12):5116-22 PubMed

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2006 Apr;56(1):79-94 PubMed

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2003 May 1;44(1):3-15 PubMed

Microb Ecol. 1999 May;37(4):225-237 PubMed

J Microbiol Methods. 2008 Sep;75(1):103-8 PubMed

J Microbiol Methods. 2004 Feb;56(2):151-9 PubMed

Acta Orthop. 2009 Apr;80(2):245-50 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Nov;71(11):6784-92 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Jul;66(7):3078-82 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1994 Apr;60(4):1232-40 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Feb;71(2):679-90 PubMed

Microb Ecol. 2007 Jan;53(1):153-62 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Mar;72(3):1932-8 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Feb;67(2):799-807 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Jun;67(6):2799-809 PubMed

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2003 Dec 1;46(3):331-47 PubMed

Microbiology (Reading). 1996 May;142 ( Pt 5):1097-1106 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1990 Jun;56(6):1919-25 PubMed

Microb Ecol. 2004 Jan;47(1):87-95 PubMed

Environ Microbiol. 2005 Oct;7(10):1633-40 PubMed

J Microbiol Methods. 2008 Oct;75(2):237-43 PubMed

BMC Microbiol. 2008 Apr 10;8:58 PubMed

Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2003;41:429-53 PubMed

ISME J. 2009 Feb;3(2):266-70 PubMed

J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2000 Jan-Feb;47(1):62-9 PubMed

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2003 Oct 1;46(1):31-8 PubMed

J Microbiol Methods. 2003 Aug;54(2):257-67 PubMed

J Microbiol Methods. 2007 Jun;69(3):523-8 PubMed

J Bacteriol. 1990 Feb;172(2):762-70 PubMed

The impact of growth conditions on biofilm formation and the cell surface hydrophobicity in fluconazole susceptible and tolerant Candida albicans