1887

Abstract

Clonal previously reared on either (normal and apochlorotic zoochlorellae-containing stocks), , or were presented with either 15 cells each of normal or apochlorotic or 30 cells of either stock in 1 ml depression slides. Prey-choice, search period and handling ( = ingestion) times were recorded. Didinia chose apochlorotic prey twice as often as normal paramecia. They located and attacked apochlorotic cells more rapidly than normal prey, and they ingested ‘bleached’ paramecia more quickly than normal cells. There was a consistent pattern of relatively increased search and handling times for primary control didinia reared on paramecia other than , compared with the experimental predators. The frequency distributions of both search and handling times were normal. Predatory efficiency of didinia attacking apochlorotic paramecia was significantly greater (> 10 times) than that exhibited for normal cells as measured by the escape frequency of prey. Similarly, the greatest loss of zoochlorellae by regurgitation or premature defecation occurred after normal prey were ingested. These results support the hypothesis that the mutualistic zoochlorellae within tend to discourage predation by by releasing distasteful metabolites that repel them. The reciprocal nature of this ciliatezoochlorella symbiosis includes a protective function for the latter partner.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-118-2-397
1980-06-01
2021-05-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/micro/118/2/mic-118-2-397.html?itemId=/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-118-2-397&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Berger J. 1979a; Are the mutualistic zoochlorellae of Paramecium bursaria repellant to ciliate predators (Didinium nasutum)?. Journal of Protozoology 26: 25A (Abstract 70).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Berger J. 1979b; The feeding behavior of Didinium nasutum on an atypical prey ciliate (Colpidium campylum.). Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 98:487–494
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berger J. 1980; Evidence for dietary imprinting in a predatory ciliate protozoan (Didinium nasutum).. American Naturalist (in the Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown J. A., Nielsen P. J. 1974; Transfer of photosynthetically produced carbohydrate from endosymbiotic chlorellae to Paramecium bursaria. . Journal of Protozoology 21:469–470
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Caullery M. 1952 Parasitism and Symbiosis. London:: Sidgwick & Jackson.;
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Collins M. 1978; Algal toxins.. Microbiological Reviews 42:725–746
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dobzhansky T., Ayala F. J., Stebbins G. L., Valentine J. W. 1977 Evolution. San Francisco, U.S.A.:: W.H. Freeman & Co.;
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dragesco J. 1962; Capture et ingestion des proies chez les infusoires ciliés.. Bulletin biologique de la France et de la Belgique 96:123–167
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hellebust J. A. 1974; Extracellular products.. In Algal Physiology and Biochemistry pp. 838–863 Stewart W. D. P. Edited by Oxford:: Blackwell Scientific Publications.;
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Immelmann K. 1975; Ecological significance of imprinting and early learning.. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 6:15–37
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Karakashian M. W. 1975; Symbiosis in Paramecium bursaria. . Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 29:145–173
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Karakashian S. J., Karakashian M. W. 1965; Evolution and symbiosis in the genus Chlorella and related algae.. Evolution 19:368–377
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Karakashian S. J., Karakashian M. W., Rudzinska M. A. 1968; Electron microscopic observations on the symbiosis of Paramecium bursaria and its intracellular algae.. Journal of Protozoology 15:113–128
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Karpenko A. A., Railkin A. I., Seravin L. N. 1977; Feeding behaviour of unicellular animals. II. The role of prey mobility in the feeding behaviour of protozoa.. Acta protozoologica 16:333–344
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Mayr E. 1963 Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.:: Harvard University Press.;
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Muscatine L., Karakashian S. J., Karakashian M. W. 1967; Solubleextracellular products of algae symbiotic with a ciliate, a sponge, and a mutant hydra.. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 20:1–12
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Paloheimo J. E. 1971a; A stochastic theory of search: implications for predator-prey situations.. Mathematical Biosciences 12:105–132
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Paloheimo J. E. 1971b; On a theory of search.. Biometrika 58:61–75
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Prescott G. W. 1968 The Algae: A Review p. 363. Boston, U.S.A.:: Houghton Mifflin Co.;
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Roughgarden J. 1979 Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: An Introduction. New York, U.S.A.:: MacMillan.;
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Salt G. W. 1967; Predation in an experimental protozoan population (Woodruffia-Paramecium).. Ecological Monographs 37:113–144
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Sandon H. 1932 The Food of Protozoa. Publication of the Faculty of Science Egyptian University: Cairo 1;1–187
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Seravin L. N., Orlovskaya E. E. 1977; Feeding behaviour of unicellular animals. I. The main role of chemoreception in the food choice of carnivorous protozoa.. Acta protozoologica 16:309–322
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Siegel R. W. 1960; Hereditary endosymbiosis in Paramecium bursaria. . Experimental Cell Research 19:239–252
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Sokal R. R., Rohlf F. J. 1969 Biometry. San Francisco, U.S.A.:: W.H. Freeman.;
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Taub F. B. 1974; Closed ecological systems.. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5:139–160
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Trager W. 1970 Symbiosis. New York, U.S.A.:: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.;
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Trench R. K. 1979; The cell biology of plant- animal symbiosis.. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 30:485–531
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Vivier E., Petitprez A., Chive A. F. 1967; Observations ultrastructurales sur les chlorel- lessymbiotes de Paramecium bursaria. . Protisto-logica 3:325–334
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Van Wagtendonk W. J. 1974 Paramecium, a Current Survey. Amsterdam:: Elsevier.;
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Weis D. S. 1969; Regulation of host and symbiont population size in Paramecium bursaria. . Exper-ientia 25:664–666
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Weis D. S. 1977; Synchronous development of symbiotic chlorellae within Paramecium bursaria. . Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 96:82–86
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Weis D. S. 1978; Correlation of infectivity and concanavalin A agglutinability of algae exsymbiotic from Paramecium bursaria. . Journal of Protozoology 25:366–370
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wessenberg H., Antipa G. 1970; Capture and ingestion of Paramecium by Didinium nasutum. . Journal of Protozoology 17:250–270
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-118-2-397
Loading
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-118-2-397
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error