|
|
|
|
Review Article
|
|
Bacterial Diversity in the Digestive Tract of Earthworms (Oligochaeta) |
|
Hortensia Brito-Vega
and
David Espinosa-Victoria
|
|
|
ABSTRACT
|
Anecic, epigeous and endogeous earthworms stimulate
or inhibit the growth of bacteria of agricultural importance inside their
digestive tracts. It is possible that these bacteria establish a mutual
symbiosis within the digestive tract of the earthworm. The bacterial species
reported within the intestines of the earthworms belong to the genuses
Bacillus, Aeromonas, Pseudomonas, Flavobacterium,
Nocardia, Gordonia, Vibrio, Clostridium,
Proteus, Serratia, Mycobacterium, Klebsiella,
Azotobacte and Enterobacter. These bacteria inhabit the soil
and develop considerably when there are easily degradable organic soil
nutrients. The bacterial community inside the digestive tract of earthworms
pertains to at least four physiological groups: plant growth promoters,
free-living nitrogen fixers, biocides and phosphate solubilizers. The
diversity of bacterial communities within the digestive tracts of earthworms
depends on climate, soil type and organic matter. The objective of this
present study was to analyze the state of art on the bacterial diversity
within the digestive tracts of earthworms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
Anthrotropic activities such as deforestation, contamination and the advance
of urban sprawls, lead the gradual disappearance of forests and other natural
vegetation along with soil fauna which makes up the mega a macrofauna (Hernández-García
and Granados-Sánchez, 2006; Huhta, 2002).
Earthworms are an important part of the macrofauna, visible with the naked
eye (>10.000 μm) and represent 82% of the total biomass in tropical
zones with a precipitation above 1000 mm (Lavelle et al.,
2006). The diversity of these macroorganisms depends on biotic conditions
and factors such as temperature, humidity, apparent density, pH and organic
matter which form part of their diet (Curry and Schmidt,
2007). Currently more than 7.245 species of Oligochaetes have been classified
at global level, from which 4000 earthworms species are described (Fragoso,
2001; Reynolds, 1998). In Mexico, 129 species have
been identified from which 46 are native, 47 exotic and 36 others in which the
majority belong to the family Megascolecidae (Fragoso, 2001).
Earthworms intervene in soil biological regulation systems, posses the capacity
to remove soil particles and produce organomineral structures called biogenic
structures (Rossi et al., 2006). They also help
to maintain soil structure, water infiltration and regulate the availability
of nutrients assimilated for plants, which includes nitrogen (N) in the form
of ammonia (NH4+) and nitrates (NO3¯)
(Desjardins et al., 2003).
Earthworms mechanically mix mineral particles and organic matter through their
digestive system which carries out disintegration, grinding and digestion of
the ingested material, increasing or decreasing the activity and number of beneficial
or pathogenic microorganisms (fungi, Actinomycetes and bacteria) (Winding
et al., 1997). The participation of microorganisms within the digestive
tracts of earthworms is of great importance given that a lot of these are involved
in the degradation of organic matter (Byzov et al.,
2007). For studies on bacteria within the intestines of earthworms, diverse
methods and techniques have been used which have helped in identifying species
of the genuses Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Klebsiella, Azotobacter,
Serratia, Aeromonas and Enterobacter (Valle-Molinas
et al., 2007; Byzov et al., 2007; Singleton
et al., 2003). These bacteria are mainly plant growth promoters,
free-living nitrogen fixers and phosphate solubilizers (Loreno-Osti
et al., 2004; Martínez-Romero, 2001).
Some researchers have indicated the existence of a possible type of mutualism
between these two organisms (Brown et al., 2000;
Barois and Lavelle, 1986). Therefore, the objective of
this study was to carry out a revision of the state of art of the role of these
earthworms and the bacterial diversity within their digestive tracts.
TAXONOMY AND ECOLOGY OF EARTHWORMS
Earthworms have been studied during the last years due to their importance
in areas such as biotechnology, ecotoxicology, morphology, ecology, taxonomy,
soil physics and soil fertility (Amador and Görres,
2007; Aira et al., 2003; Fraser
et al., 2003; Homa et al., 2003; Spurgeon
et al., 2003).
Earthworms have been classified within the phylum: Annelida, order: Oligochaeta
and class: Clitella (Edwards and Lofty, 1977). The order
Oligochaeta consists of 12 families: Moniligastridae, Megascoleidae, Ocnerodrilidae,
Acanthodrilidae, Octochaetidae, Eudrilidae, Glossoscolecidae, Sparganophilidae,
Microchactidae, Hormogastridae, Criodrilidae and Lumbricidae (Edwards
and Lofty, 1977). From an agricultural point of view, the most important
family is Lumbricidae and includes the genuses Lumbricus, Aporrectodea,
Allolophora, Dendrobaena, Eisenia, Helodrilus, Octalasion
and Eophila (Edward, 2004). The family Glossoscolecidae
includes two genuses, Periscolex and Pontoscolex, which are of
agricultural importance in tropical zones (García
and Fragoso, 2003; Reynolds, 1998).
From an ecological point of view, earthworms have been classified in three
categories: (1), epigeous, which live within the soil, interact with edaphic
microbiota and modify soil profile with their underground galleries and excrements;
(2) endogenous, which transform dead fallen leaves, are soil consumers and are
subdivided in poli, meso and oligohumics, with reduced interaction with microbiota
and (3) anecic, which lives in and consumes leaf litter (Curry
and Schmidt, 2007). This classification is used in diverse studies in order
to establish the ecological category of these invertebrates under different
agricultural systems in the Mexican Republic (Table 1).
In Mexico 129 species of earthworms have been identified where only 10 species
have been studied from a point of view based on population, soil fertility and
plant growth (Fragoso, 2001). The exotic endogenous specie
Pontoscolex corethrurus is considered geophagous and is one of the most
researched species in tropical zones (García and Fragoso,
2003; Barois et al., 1993; Barois,
1992).
Earthworms affect processes within the soil in a direct (incorporation and
redistribution of several organic and inorganic materials, aeration, moisture
distribution, infiltration) or indirect manner (formation of microbial communities,
transportation of propagules and inhibition of pathogens) (Byzov
et al., 2007).
To some degree, the functions carried out by earthworms depend on the efficiency
of their digestive systems which comprises of: mouth, pharynx, crop, intestines
and anus (Fig. 1). These invertebrates interact with soil
microorganisms, as well as biological structures known as turricules (feces)
which they produce within the soil (Curry and Schmidt, 2007).
Table 1: |
Ecological categories of earthworm species under different
agricultural systems in Mexico |
 |
Within their digestive systems, enzymatic activity is stimulated and may promote
or inhibit the proliferation of certain fungal, actinomycetes and bacterial
communities (Byzov et al., 2007; Barois,
1992).
DIVERSITY OF SOIL BACTERIA
Earthworms posses an immense bacterial diversity within their digestive
tracts and is very little explored mainly because of the non-cultivatable
character of a large quantity of microorganisms which mainly come from
soil.
Soil is an appropriate environment for the development of eukaryotic (algae,
fungi, protozoa) as well as prokaryotic (bacteria and archeas) microorganisms.
Virus and bacteriophage are also present (Nogales, 2005).
All these organisms establish relationships among themselves in highly varied
and complex ways which contribute to soil characteristics because of their role
in the modification of solid, liquid and gaseous stages.
Plant beneficial prokaryotes may have a considerable potential as biocontrol
agents and biofertilizers. Two large groups are distinguished: (a) nitrogen
fixing microorganisms and (b) plant growth promoting bacteria. The last group
of bacteria is known as PGPR (plant growth promoting rhizobacteria) or as root
living bacteria which significantly stimulate plant growth (Loreno-Osti
et al., 2004; Espinosa-Victoria et al.,
2006).
Nitrogen fixing prokaryote microorganisms are classified into two groups: (1)
obligated symbiotic, which infects the roots of legumes and (2) non-obligated
symbiotics or free-living, which establishes relations with a range of gramineous
plants. Within the second group, bacterial species from some genuses like Azospirillum,
Acetobacter, Azotobacter, Beijerinckia, Pseudomonas,
Bacillus and Vibrio have been reported (Bashan
et al., 2004; Young et al., 2001).
Another group of soil bacteria is the Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria (PSB)
which perform an important role in supplementing di and monobasic phosphorous
to plants. There are studies which have demonstrated the capacity of different
species of bacteria which solubilize this insoluble phosphate and some of these
bacteria belong to the genuses Bacillus, Enterobacter, Erwinia,
Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Serratias, Agrobacterium,
Burkholderia, Achromobacter, Microccocus, Aerobacter,
Flavobacterium and Erwinia (Fernández et
al., 2005).
Rizopheric bacteria are capable of producing physiologically active substances
such as vitamins, giberelines, citochinines and Acetic Indole Acid (AIA) in
significant quantities. The genuses Azospirillum and Klebsiella
produce auxin (AIA), which causes morphological changes in the root and is related
with the absorption of minerals mainly in corn and teocintle (Carcaño
et al., 2006; Cattelan et al., 1999).
The alternative of using bacteria as a control agent against pathogens has
developed certain bacterial strains with a wide spectrum of effectivity. Some
species include Bacillus subtilis, B. cereus, B. thuringiensis,
B. cepacia, Pseudomonas aerufasciens, P. chlororhapis,
P. corrugata, P. fluorescens, P. putida, Burkholderia
cepacia, Enterobacter sp. BF 14, Serratia plymuthica, Serratia
marcescens, Agrobacterium sp. (De Lima-Ramos
et al., 2004).
Soil bacteria are not randomly distributed and thus follow special aggregation
patterns at different scales (from nm to km) which they superimpose. This structuring
obeys the effect caused by different control factors and is completely dynamic
(Ettema et al., 2002). Bacteria organize themselves
in micro colonies comprised of few cells that may pertain to different morphotypes
(Nunan et al., 2003).
MICROBIAL DIVERSITY WITHIN THE DIGESTIVE WITHIN THE DIGESTIVE TRACTS
OF EARTHWORMS
Plant detritus in soil is the main nutritional source for earthworms although
a few microorganisms like protozoans, Actinomycete, bacteria and fungi have
been found to be part of the diet of these worms (Table 2)
(Byzov et al., 2007; Hyun-Jung
et al., 2004; Furlong et al., 2002).
This relationship between microorganisms and Oligochaetes is not necessarily
limited to a predatory process, as it has been demonstrated that the digestive
enzymes produced by the earthworms do not significantly affect some microorganisms
(Barois et al., 1993).
One of the first forefathers on microbial presence in the digestive system
was Parle (1963), who reported bacterial, fungal and
Actinomycetic populations in three species of earthworms; Lumbricus terrestres,
Allolobophora caliginosa and A. longa.
Table 2: |
Microbial presence within the intestines of different species
of earthworms |
 |
A study carried out by Kristufek et al. (1994)
found populations of bacteria, actinomycetes, fungi, sterile mycelium and plant
cells in soil, however within the intestines of the earthworm Lumbricus rubellus,
these organisms were found lysate except for a few actinomycetes, endospores
and encapsulated bacteria. On the other hand, Márialigeti
(1979) found that the microbial flora within the posterior segment of the
intestines of Eisenia lucens, contained 473 organisms where 73% pertain
to the genus Vibrio.
Contreras (1980) reported that 70% of flora in the intestines
of Eisenia lucens was represented by only one species of Actinomycete,
Streptomyces lipmanii, an organism rarely found in nature. On the other
hand, Kristufek et al. (1993) identified two species
of Actinomycetes denominated Streptomyces diastatochromogenes and Streptomyces
noglalater, which are characteristic of soil within the digestive tracts
of two earthworm species: Lumbricus rubellu and Octolasion montanum.
Dash et al. (1986) did a microfungal characterization
in the digestive tract of the three species of earthworms (Ortochaetona surensis,
Lampito maurittii and Drawida willsi) found in the tropical zones
of India and identified 18 species of fungi from the genuses Aspergillus,
Penicillium, Thielavia, Botryotrichum, Fusarium,
Rhizopus, Curvularia, Chaetomium and Trichoderma. Four
more genuses, namely Neocosmospora, Cladosporium, Syncephalastrum
and Actinomucor were found in L. mauritii, unlike the other two
species of earthworms. It is important to mention that the digested material
for all three species came from organic waste.
Kristufek et al. (1992, 1993)
observed and increase in the number of bacteria, Actinomycetes and fungi in
the anterior section of the digestive tract of Lumbricus rubellus while
the opposite occurred in Aporrectodea caliginosa and A. caliginosa.
The Actinomycete community present in the intestine of Eisenia fetida,
mainly Streptomyces caeruleus, develops better in the intestines in comparison
to soil and helps the earthworms to metabolize organic matter and decomposition
of substances from plant origin (Polyanskaya et al.,
1996).
BACTERIAL DIVERSITY IN THE DIGESTIVE TRACT OF EARTHWORMS
Soil is the key system in the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. Vital
processes take place within this system: decomposition and nutrient flow (Bashan
et al., 2004) Biological activities control theses processes, among
them, prokaryotes and earthworms (Table 3) (Davidson
and Stahl, 2006; Fragoso et al., 2001).
Jolly et al. (1993) demonstrated the existence
of physical contact between some filamentous, segmented bacteria and intestinal
mucus of the species Octolasion lacteum and Lumbricus terrestris.
The results showed bacterial filaments joined to the intestinal walls of the
earthworms by means of hook structures. Therefore, it is concluded that the
bacteria may be adapted to live within the intestines of the earthworms. Thus
diverse studies on the main bacteria within the intestinal walls of earthworms
have been conducted.
An observation was made for the specie Eisenia fetida coming from contaminated
soil in an industrial zone. There was an increase in 91 colonies, further divided
into 12 groups: Aeromonas 6%, Agromyces 3%, Bacillus 31%,
Bosea 1%, Gordonia 6%, Klebsiella 6%, Microbacterium
7%, Nocardia 2%, Pseudomonas 10%, Rhodococcus 19%, Tsukamurella
and Streptomyces 7%. The genus Bacillus was the dominant group
found in the intestines of the earthworm (Hyun-Jung et
al., 2004).
Table 3: |
Bacterial diversity identified within the intestinal walls
of earthworms |
 |
The specie Eisenia fetida may establish a symbiotic relationship with
bacteria from the genus Acidovorax, given that these bacteria form nodules
in the ampules of the nephridium of the earthworms and help in the process of
protein decomposition (Davidson and Stahl, 2006).
On the other hand, Valle-Molinares et al. (2007)
identified seven species of bacteria from the genus Bacillus: (B.
insolitus, B. megaterium, B. brevis, B. pasteurii,
B. sphaericus, B. thuringiensis and B. pabuli) within the
intestines of Onychochaeta borincana. All these species are typical soil
bacteria. In addition, it was found that the microbial weight of the intestinal
region decreased from the anterior to posterior section. Additionally, it was
observed that some bacteria increased in the posterior section of the intestines,
maybe because for a many bacteria this portion presents adequate conditions
for their development.
Mendez et al. (2003) indicated that the bacteria
can accomplish a type of mutualism during their passage through the digestive
tracts of earthworms, which have not yet been studied in other genuses of bacteria.
The existence of a mutual symbiotic relation between O. boricana and
B. cereus has been proposed.
MOLECULAR TECHNIQUES USED IN THE STUDY OF BACTERIAL DIVERSITY WITHIN
THE DIGESTIVE TRACTS OF EARTHWORMS
The use of molecular techniques has manifested the unawareness of biological
diversity, systemic classification and taxonomy given that the majority of microorganisms
are not cultivatable in conventional mediums and also the analysis of functional
genes key in important soil processes such as denitrification, nitrification
nitrogen fixation and methane oxidation (Nogales, 2005).
Table 4 shows some molecular techniques used in the identification
of bacteria found within the digestive tracts of earthworm, applying basic microbiological
culture techniques (Santiago, 1995). Many forms of microscopy (Krištufek
et al., 1994) and molecular biology (Hyun-Jung
et al., 2004; Singleton et al., 2003)
(with the last being currently one of the most used techniques) and its application
in soil microbiology studies mainly in the digestive tracts of earthworms, represent
a great advance in the knowledge of different ecosystems.
The study of the diversity of microorganism is currently based on protein analysis,
DNA or RNA of the ribosomal genes 16S or 23S and the presence of enzymes or
enzyme alleles (Curry and Schmidt, 2007).
The identification process of bacteria associated with the intestines of earthworms
is difficult if these microorganisms require growing conditions present only
in the intestines of the earthworms. Singleton et al.
(2003) used molecular techniques such as Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR),
for identifying bacteria associated with the intestines of Lumbricus rubellus,
which were absent from the earthworms skins.
Fluorescent microscopy has been used for studying population variations
of the bacteria within each intestinal segment of the Oligochaetes.
Fischer et al. (1995, 1997)
studied the digestive intestinal walls of O. borincana using trace electronic
microscopy and found bacteria from the genus Bacillus adhered to the
intestine of this oligochaete being abundant in the frontal area and less abundant
in the posterior parts. The researchers suggested the smooth surface of the
posterior parte offers less possibility of adhesion for the bacteria on the
intestinal wall but is appears that they may have found a favorable environment
in the posterior part.
CONCLUSIONS
The importance of microbial diversity using conventional and molecular
techniques is still far from understanding the role of the microorganisms
within the digestive tracts of earthworms and within the soil in the functioning
of ecosystem, particularly in those which have not being laboratory grown
and for those whose metabolic capacities is totally unknown. They are
key in important soil processes such as denitrification, nitrification,
nitrogen fixation, methane oxidation, growth hormone production, phosphorous
solubilizers and control of microbial pathogens.
Table 4: |
Molecular techniques used in the identification of bacterial
diversity within the digestive tract of earthworms |
 |
The bacterial diversity within the digestive tracts of earthworms from
different genuses and ecotypes presents a variety of geniuses and prokaryote
species, attributed to their habitat, soil type, climate, substrate type
and biota.
The earthworm is an incubator and disperser of bacteria of agricultural
importance given that some species found, produced microbial control of
certain pathogens (Burkholderia, Enterobacter, Agrobacterium
Serratia, Pseudomonas), plant growth promoters through the production
of the indole-3-acetic acid (Klebsiella, Azotobacte,
Aeromonas, Bacillus), produced siderophore (Pseudomonas,
Bacillus, Proteus) and phosphate solubilizers unavailable to
plants (Bacillus, Enterobacter, Erwinia, Pseudomonas,
Rhizobium, Serratias, Agrobacterium, Burkholderia,
Achromobacter, Microccocus, Aerobacter, Flavobacterium
and Erwinia).
The genetic characterization of the isolated bacteria allows us to broaden
our knowledge of the bacterial diversity within the different structures
or parts of the digestive tracts and under different natural ecosystems
presenting anthropogenic activities and the study of plant effect.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
National Science and Technology Council (Conacyt) for the economic support
as scholarship student 208219, to the Juaréz Autonomous University
of Tabasco (UJAT) for the valuable support and to the Postgraduate College
as the institution for boarding and in the formation of the Doctorate
in Agricultural Sciences.
|
REFERENCES |
1: Aira, M., F. Monroy and J. Domínguez, 2003. Effects of two species of earthworms (Allolobophora spp.) on soil systems: A microfaunal and biochemical analysis. Pedobiologia, 47: 877-881. CrossRef |
2: Amador, J.A. and J.H. Gorres, 2007. Microbiological characterization of the structures built by earthworms and ants in an agricultural field. Soil Biol. Biochem., 39: 2070-2077. CrossRef |
3: Barois, I., 1992. Mucus production and microbial activity in the gut of two species of Amynthas (Megascolecidae) from cold and warm tropical climates. Soil Biol. Biochem., 24: 1507-1510. Direct Link |
4: Barois, I., G. Villemin, P. Lavelle and F. Toutain, 1993. Transformation of the soil structure through Pontoscolez corethrurus (Oligochaeta) intestinal tract. Geoderma, 56: 57-66. CrossRef | Direct Link |
5: Barois, I. and P. Lavelle, 1986. Changes in respiration rate and some physcochemical properties of a tropical soil during transit through Pontoscolex corethrurus (Glossoscolecidae, Oligochaeta). Soil Biol. Biochem., 18: 539-541. CrossRef | Direct Link |
6: Bashan, Y., G. Holguin and L.E. De-Bashan, 2004. Azospirillum-plsnt relation-ships: Physiological, molecular, agricultural and environmental advences (1997-2003). Can. J. Microbiol., 50: 521-577. Direct Link |
7: Brito-Vega, H., D. Espinosa-Victoria, B. Figueroa-Sandoval, C. Fragoso and J.C. Patrón-Ibarra, 2006. Diversidad de lombrices de tierra con labranza de conservación y convencional. Terra Latinoamericana, 24: 99-108. Direct Link |
8: Brown, G.G., I. Barois and P. Lavelle, 2000. Regulation of soil organic matter dynamics and microbial activityin the drilosphere and the role of interactionswith other edaphic functional domains. Eur. J. Soil Biol., 36: 177-198. CrossRef | Direct Link |
9: Byzov, B.A., N.V. Khomyakov, S.A. Kharin and A.V. Kurakov, 2007. Fate of soil bacteria and fungi in the gut of eartworms. Eur. J. Soil Biol., 43: 146-156. CrossRef |
10: Carcaño, M.M.G., R. Ferrera-Cerrato, J. Pérez-Moreno, J.D. Molina-Galán and Y. Bashan, 2006. Actividad nitrogenasa, producción de fitohormonas, sideróforos y antibiosis en cepas de Azospirillum y Klebsiella aisladas de maíz y teocintle. Terra Latinoamericana, 24: 493-502. Direct Link |
11: Cattelan, A.J., P.G. Hartel and J.J. Fuhrmann, 1999. Screening for plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria to promote early soybean growth. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 63: 1670-1680. CrossRef | Direct Link |
12: Contreras, E., 1980. Studies on the intestinal actinomycete Flora of Eisenia lucens (Annelida: Oligochaeta). Pedobiologia, 20: 411-416. Direct Link |
13: Curry, J.P. and O. Schmidt, 2007. The feeding ecology of earthworms-a review. Pedobiologia, 50: 463-477. CrossRef |
14: Dash, H., B.N. Beura and M.C. Dash, 1986. Gut load transit time, gut microflora and turnover of soil, plant and fungal material by some tropical earthworms. Pedobiologia, 29: 13-20. Direct Link |
15: Davidson, S.K. and D.A. Stahl, 2006. Transmission of Nephridial bacteria of the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Applied Environ. Microbiol., 72: 769-775. CrossRef |
16: Desjardins, T., F. Charpentier, B. Pashanasi, A. Pando-Bahuon, P. Lavelle and Mariotti, 2003. Effects of earthworm inoculation on soil organic matter dynamics of cultivated ultisol. Pedobiologia, 47: 835-841. CrossRef |
17: De Lima-Ramos M.R., A.S. Paulino De, A.M. André Goms, N.A.R. Peixoto and S.D.V.M. Tenório, 2004. Importância de bactérias promotoras de crescimento e de biocontrole de doenças de plantas para uma agricultura sustentável. Anais da Academia Pernambucana de Ciência Agronômica, Recife, 1: 89-111. Direct Link |
18: Edwards, A.C., 2004. Earthworm Ecology. 2nd Edn., Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, London, pp: 441
19: Edwards, A.C. and J.R. Lofty, 1977. Biology of Earthworms. 2nd Edn., Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, London, pp: 1-261
20: Espinosa-Victoria D., L. Hernández-Flores and L. López-Reyes, 2006. Diversidad genética de Azosperillum brasilense en suelos cultivados con maíz bajo labranza convencional y de conservación. Terra Latinoamericana, 24: 215-223. Direct Link |
21: Ettema, C.H. and D.A. Wardle, 2002. Spatial soil ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol., 17: 177-183. CrossRef | Direct Link |
22: Fernández L.A., P. Zalba, M.A. Gómez and M.A. Sagardoy, 2005. Bacterias solubilizadoras de fosfato inorgánico aisladas de suelos de la región sojera. Cienc. Suelo, 23: 31-37. Direct Link |
23: Fischer, K., H. Dittmar, H. Wolfgang and J. Zeyer, 1997. Effect of passage through the gut of the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris L. on Bacillus megaterium studied by whole cell hydridization. Soil Biol. Biochem., 29: 1149-1152. CrossRef |
24: Fischer, K., D. Hahn, R.I. Amann, O. Daniel and J. Zeyer, 1995. In situ analysis of the bacterial community in the gut of of the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris L. by whole-cell hybridization. Can. J. Microbiol., 41: 666-673. Direct Link |
25: Fragoso, C., 2001. Las lombrices de tierra de México (Annelida, Oligochaeta): Diversidad, ecología y manejo. Acta Zool. Mex.(n.s.) Número Especial., 1: 131-171. Direct Link |
26: Fraser, P.M.M.H., R.C. Baera, T.B. Harrison-Kirk and J.E. Piercy, 2003. Interaction between earthworms (Aporrectodea caliginosa), plants and crop residues for restoring propierties of a degraded arable soil. Pedobiologia, 47: 870-876. CrossRef |
27: Furlong, M., D. Singleton, D. Coleman and W. Whitman, 2002. Molecular and culture-based analyses of prokaryotic communities from an agricultural soil and the burrows and cast of the earthworm lumbricus rubellus. Applied Environ. Microbiol., 68: 1265-1279. CrossRef |
28: Garcia J.A. and C. Fragoso, 2003. Influencia of different food substrates on growth and reproduction of two tropical eartworm species (Pontoscolex corethrurus and Amynthas corticis). Pedobiologia, 47: 754-763. CrossRef |
29: Hernández-García, M.A. and D. Granados-Sánchez, 2006. El parque nacional Iztaccíhualtl-Popocatépetl-Zoquiapan y el impacto ecológico-social de su deterioro. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente, 12: 101-109. Direct Link |
30: Homa, J., M. Niklinska and B. Plytycz, 2003. Effect heavy metals on coelomocytes of the earthworm Allolobophora chlorotica. Pedobiologia, 47: 640-645. CrossRef |
31: Horn, M.A., A. Schramm and H.L. Drake, 2003. The earthworm gut: An ideal habitat for ingested N2O-producing microorganisms. Applied Environ. Microbiol., 69: 1662-1669. CrossRef |
32: Huerta, E., J. Rodriguez-Olan, I. Evia-Castillo, E. Montejo-Meneses, M. De la Cruz-Mondragón and R. García-Hernández, 2005. La diversidad de lombrices de tierra (Annelida, Oligochaeta) en el estado de tabasco, México. Universidad y Ciencia, 21: 73-83. Direct Link |
33: Huhta, V., 2002. Soil macroarthtropod communities in planted birch stands in comparison with natural forests in central Finland. Applied Soil Ecol., 20: 199-209. CrossRef |
34: Hyun-Jung, K., S. Kwang-Hee, C.H. Chang-Jun and H. Hor-Gil, 2004. Analysis of aerobic and culturable bacterial community structures in earthworn (Eisenia fetida) intestine. Agric. Chem. Biotechnol., 47: 137-142. Direct Link |
35: Jolly, J.M., H.M. Lappin-Scott, J.M. Anderson and C.D. Clegg, 1993. Scanning electron microscopy of two earthworms: Lumbricus terrestris and Octolasion cyaneum. Microb. Ecol., 26: 235-245. Direct Link |
36: Krisrtuek, V., K. Ravasz and V. Pizl, 1992. Changes in densities of bacteria and microfungi during gut transit in Lumbricus rubellus and Aporrectodea caliginosa (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae). Soil Biol. Biochem., 24: 1499-1500. Direct Link |
37: Krištůfek, V., K. Ravasz and V. Pizl, 1993. Actinomycete communities in earthworm guts and surrounding soil. Pedobiologia, 37: 379-384. Direct Link |
38: Krištůfek, V., K. Ravasz and V. Pizl, 1994. Ultrastructural analysis of earthworm Lumbricus rubellus Hoff. (Annellida, Lumbricidae). Acta Microbiol. Immunol. Hung., 41: 283-290. Direct Link |
39: Lavelle, P., T. Decaens, M. Aubert, S. Barot and M. Blouin et al., 2006. Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. Eur. J. Soil. Biol., 42: S3-S15. CrossRef |
40: Loreno-Osti C., L. López-Reyes and D. Espinosa-Victoria, 2004. Bacterias promotoras del crecimiento vegetal asociadas con gramíneas: Una revisión. Terra Latinoamericana, 22: 225-239. Direct Link |
41: Márialigeti, K., 1979. On the community-structure of the gut-microbiota of Eisenia lucens (Annelida, Oligochaeta). Pedobiologia, 19: 213-220. Direct Link |
42: Martínez-Romero, E., 2001. Poblaciones de Rhizobia nativas de México. Acta Zool. Mex. (n.s.) Número Especial., 1: 29-38. Direct Link |
43: Mendez, R., S. Borges and C. Betancourt, 2003. A microscopical view f the intestine of Onychochaeta borincana (Oligochaeta: Glossoscolecidae). Pedobiologia, 47: 900-903. CrossRef |
44: Nogales, B., 2005. La microbiología del suelo en la era de la biología molecular: Descubriendo la punta del iceberg. Ecosistemas, 14: 41-51. Direct Link |
45: Nunan, N., K. Wu, I.M. Young, J.W. Crawford and K. Ritz, 2003. Spatial distribution of bacterial communities and their relationships with the micro-structure of soil. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol., 44: 203-215. CrossRef |
46: Parle, J.N., 1963. Micro-organisms in the intestines of earthworms. J. Gen. Microbiol., 31: 1-11. Direct Link |
47: Polyanskaya, L.M., N.I. Babkina, G.M. Zenova and D.G. Zvyagintsev, 1996. Fate of actinomycetes in the intestinal tract of soil invertebrates fed on Streptomycete spores. Microbiology, 65: 560-565. Direct Link |
48: Reynolds, W.J., 1998. The Status of Earthworms Biogeography, Diversity and Taxonomy in North America Revisited with Glimpses into the Future. In: Biology of Earthworms, Edwards, A.C. (Ed). Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, London, pp: 15-64
49: Rossi J.P., E. Huerta, C. Fragoso and P. Lavelle, 2006. Soil properties inside earthworm patches and gaps in a tropical grassland (la Mancha, Veracruz, Mexico). Eur. J. Soil Biol., 42: S284-S288. CrossRef |
50: Singleton, D.R., P.F. Hendrix, D.C. Coleman and W.B. Whitman, 2003. Identification of uncultured bacteria tightly associated with the intestine of the earthworm Lumbricus rubellus (Lumbricidae: Oligochaeta). Soil Biol. Biochem., 35: 1547-1555. CrossRef |
51: Spurgeon, D., J.M. Weeks and C.A.M. Gestel, 2003. A summary of eleven years progress in earthworm ecotoxicology. Pedobiologia, 47: 588-606. CrossRef |
52: Szabó, I.M., M. Marton, I. Butti and C. Fernández, 1976. A diagnostic key for the identification of species of streptomyces and streptoverticillium included in the international streptomyces project. Acta Bot. Hung., 21: 387-418.
53: Valle-Molinares R., S. Borges and C. Rios-Velazquez, 2007. Characterization of possible symbionts in Onychochaeta borincana (Annelida: Glossoscolecidae). Eur. J. Soil Biol., 43: 14-18. CrossRef |
54: Winding, A., R. Rohn and N.B. Hendriksen, 1997. Bacteria and protozoa in soil microhabitats as affected by earthworms. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 24: 133-140. Direct Link |
55: Young, J.M., L.D. Kuykendall, E. Martinez-Romero, A. Kerr and H. Sawada, 2001. A revision of Rhizobium Frank 1889, with an emended description of the genus and the inclusion of all species of Agrobacterium Conn 1942 and Allorhizobium undica de Lajudie et al., 1998 as new combinations: Rhizobium radiobacter, R. rhizogenes, R. Rubi, R. undicola and R. vitis. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 51: 89-103. Direct Link |
|
|
|
 |