Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32556274›Full record

ArticleFEMS microbiology ecology2020

Cascading effects in freshwater microbial food webs by predatory Cercozoa, Katablepharidacea and ciliates feeding on aplastidic bacterivorous cryptophytes.

Karel Šimek, Vesna Grujčić, Indranil Mukherjee, Vojtěch Kasalický, Jiří Nedoma, Thomas Posch, Maliheh Mehrshad, Michaela M Salcher

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in FEMS microbiology ecology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Karel ŠimekBiology Centre CAS, Institute of Hydrobiology, Na Sádkách 7, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Vesna GrujčićBiology Centre CAS, Institute of Hydrobiology, Na Sádkách 7, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Indranil MukherjeeBiology Centre CAS, Institute of Hydrobiology, Na Sádkách 7, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Vojtěch KasalickýBiology Centre CAS, Institute of Hydrobiology, Na Sádkách 7, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Jiří NedomaBiology Centre CAS, Institute of Hydrobiology, Na Sádkách 7, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Thomas PoschLimnological Station, Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Zurich, 8802 Kilchberg, Switzerland.
Maliheh MehrshadBiology Centre CAS, Institute of Hydrobiology, Na Sádkách 7, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Michaela M SalcherBiology Centre CAS, Institute of Hydrobiology, Na Sádkách 7, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Institute of Hydrobiology, Biology Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic · CZUniversity of South Bohemia in České Budějovice · CZUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heterotrophic nanoflagellates (HNF) are considered as major planktonic bacterivores, however, larger HNF taxa can also be important predators of eukaryotes. To examine this trophic cascading, natural protistan communities from a freshwater reservoir were released from grazing pressure by zooplankton via filtration through 10- and 5-µm filters, yielding microbial food webs of different complexity. Protistan growth was stimulated by amendments of five Limnohabitans strains, thus yielding five prey-specific treatments distinctly modulating protistan communities in 10- versus 5-µm fractions. HNF dynamics was tracked by applying five eukaryotic fluorescence in situ hybridization probes covering 55-90% of total flagellates. During the first experimental part, mainly small bacterivorous Cryptophyceae prevailed, with significantly higher abundances in 5-µm treatments. Larger predatory flagellates affiliating with Katablepharidacea and one Cercozoan lineage (increasing to up to 28% of total HNF) proliferated towards the experimental endpoint, having obviously small phagocytized HNF in their food vacuoles. These predatory flagellates reached higher abundances in 10-µm treatments, where small ciliate predators and flagellate hunters also (Urotricha spp., Balanion planctonicum) dominated the ciliate assemblage. Overall, our study reports pronounced cascading effects from bacteria to bacterivorous HNF, predatory HNF and ciliates in highly treatment-specific fashions, defined by both prey-food characteristics and feeding modes of predominating protists.

Indexed as

CercozoaFood ChainAnimalsCryptophytaFresh WaterIn Situ Hybridization, Fluorescencebacterivorous and predatory flagellatesCercozoaciliatesCryptophyceaefreshwater microbial food websKatablepharidacea

Identifiers

PMID32556274
PMCPMC7538307
OpenAlexW3036364525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.