This work deals with the impact of a possible accidental pollutant, pyralene (Prodelec, France; PCBs in trichlorobenzene), intoduced into the soil. Its influence on the predator-prey relation between bacteria and amoebae was studied by comparing the population dynamics of (i) an inoculated bacterial population (A. lipoferum) chosen as a biological tracer, (ii) the indigenous bacterial microflora, (iii) the infigenous amoebae. In the absence of pyralene the inoculated bacterial population decreased from 107 to 104 bacteria g−1 soil (dw), grazed by the infigenous amoebae whose numbers increased 3-fold. In contrast, in presence of 2500 ppm of pyralene the introduced bacteria survived at a higher level (3?106 bacteria g−1 soil (dw)) while the number of amoebae diminished slightly. No predation occurred with PCB contamination. The indigenous bacterial microflora was not affected quantitatively by pyralene. In pure liquid culture with 500 ppm of pyralene added, bacterial growth was inhibited and an amoebal strain isolated from an inoculated uncontaminated soil was killed. We conclude that the active form of the amoebae were killed, and encystement was inhibited by pyralene in the soil. Hence the protozoa were unable to regulate the introduced A. lipoferum strain as they did in the absence of the pollutant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Steinberg et al. (1990) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: