Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16733620›Full record

ArticleMicrobial ecology2006

Microbial community structure and dynamics in the largest natural French lake (Lake Bourget).

J Comte, S Jacquet, S Viboud, D Fontvieille, A Millery, G Paolini, I Domaizon

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial ecology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A guide to the natural history of freshwater lake bacteria.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2011
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Diversity, Dynamics, and Distribution ofApplied and environmental microbiology · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

J ComteUMR CARRTEL, Université de Savoie, Equipe de Microbiologie Aquatique, 73376, Le Bourget-du-Lac Cedex, France.
S Jacquet
S Viboud
D Fontvieille
A Millery
G Paolini
I Domaizon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated the dynamics and diversity of heterotrophic bacteria, autotrophic and heterotrophic flagellates, and ciliates from March to July 2002 in the surface waters (0-50 m) of Lake Bourget. The heterotrophic bacteria consisted mainly of "small" cocci, but filaments (>2 microm), commonly considered to be grazing-resistant forms under increased nanoflagellate grazing, were also detected. These elongated cells mainly belonged to the Cytophaga-Flavobacterium (CF) cluster, and were most abundant during spring and early summer, when mixotrophic or heterotrophic flagellates were the main bacterial predators. The CF group strongly dominated fluorescent in situ hybridization-detected cells from March to June, whereas clear changes were observed in early summer when Beta-proteobacteria and Alpha-proteobacteria increased concomitantly with maximal protist grazing pressures. The analysis of protist community structure revealed that the flagellates consisted mainly of cryptomonad forms. The dynamics of Cryptomonas sp. and Dinobryon sp. suggested the potential importance of mixotrophs as consumers of bacteria. This point was verified by an experimental approach based on fluorescent microbeads to assess the potential grazing impact of all protist taxa in the epilimnion. From the results, three distinct periods in the functioning of the epilimnetic microbial loop were identified. In early spring, mixotrophic and heterotrophic flagellates constituted the main bacterivores, and were regulated by the availability of their resources mainly during April (phase 1). Once the "clear water phase" was established, the predation pressure of metazooplankton represented a strong top-down force on all microbial compartments. During this period only mixotrophic flagellates occasionally exerted a significant bacterivory pressure (phase 2). Finally, the early summer was characterized by the highest protozoan grazing impact and by a rapid shift in the carbon pathway transfer, with a fast change-over of the main predators contribution, i.e., mixotrophic, heterotrophic flagellates and ciliates in bacterial mortality. The high abundance of ciliates during this period was consistent with the high densities of resources (heterotrophic nanoflagellates, algae, bacteria) in deep layers containing the most chlorophyll. Bacteria, as ciliates, responded clearly to increasing phytoplankton abundance, and although bacterial grazing impact could vary largely, bacterial abundance seemed to be primarily bottom-up regulated (phase 3).

Indexed as

BacteriaEcosystemEukaryotaAnimalsBacterial Physiological PhenomenaBiodiversityBiomassChlorophyllChlorophyll AColony Count, MicrobialFranceFresh WaterIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescencePlanktonChlorophyllChlorophyll A

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.