Yeast succession in the Amazon fruit Parahancornia amapa as resource partitioning among Drosophila spp

Abstract

The succession of yeasts colonizing the fallen ripe amapa fruit, from Parahancornia amapa, was examined. The occupation of the substrate depended on both the competitive interactions of yeast species, such as the production of killer toxins, and the selective dispersion by the drosophilid guild of the amapa fruit. The yeast community associated with this Amazon fruit differed from those isolated from other fruits in the same forest. The physiological profile of these yeasts was mostly restricted to the assimilation of a few simple carbon sources, mainly L-sorbose, D-glycerol, DL-lactate, cellobiose, and salicin. Common fruit-associated yeasts of the genera Kloeckera and Hanseniaspora, Candida guilliermondii, and Candida krusei colonized fruits during the first three days after the fruit fell. These yeasts were dispersed and served as food for the invader Drosophila malerkotliana. The resident flies of the Drosophila willistoni group fed selectively on patches of yeasts colonizing fruits 3 to 10 days after the fruit fell. The killer toxin-producing yeasts Pichia kluyveri var. kluyveri and Candida fructus were probably involved in the exclusion of some species during the intermediate stages of fruit deterioration. An increase in pH, inhibiting toxin activity and the depletion of simple sugars, may have promoted an increase in yeast diversity in the later stages of decomposition. The yeast succession provided a patchy environment for the drosophilids sharing this ephemeral substrate.

Interacting with change: Diet mediates how larvae respond to their thermal environment

“…Drosophilid larvae obtain most of their protein from yeast communities growing on rotting fruit (Buser, Newcomb, Gaskett, & Goddard, 2014;Starmer & Fogleman, 1986). Yeast communities on fruit show a species-specific pattern of succession in their colonization of decaying fruits (Fogleman, Starmer, & Heed, 1981;Morais, Martins, Klaczko, Mendonça-Hagler, & Hagler, 1995) which in turn affects the macronutrient composition of the fruit (Matavelli et al, 2015). How climate change will affect the growth and composition of yeast communities growing on rotting fruit is at present unknown.…”

The incidence of killer activity of non-Saccharomycesyeasts towards indigenous yeast species of grape must: potential application in wine fermentation

“…Killer yeasts have the intrinsic ability to kill sensitive yeasts by secreting a proteinaceous toxin to which they themselves are immune. Ecological studies indicate that killer activity is a mechanism of interference competition, with the production of a toxic compound from one yeast excluding other yeasts from its habitat (Starmer et al 1987;Morais et al 1995). The genetic determinants of killer activity can be either extrachromosomal, in the form of linear DNA plasmids or doublestranded RNA virus-like particles, or chromosomal.…”

Preferences and Food Quality of Fruit‐Feeding Butterflies in Kibale Forest, Uganda1

“…Many fruit-feeding butterflies are attracted to and feed on fermenting fruits. Overripe and decaying fruits also contain microbes and microbial products such as organic acids and alcohols (Phaff & Starmer 1987, Morais et al 1995, and these may be toxic. Concentrations of important nutrients such as sugar and amino acids can change during fermentation (Kinzey & Norconk 1993, Genard et al 2003, with potentially profound effects on the diet quality of fruit-feeding butterflies.…”