Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Producer–decomposer co-dependency influences biodiversity effects

Abstract

Producers, such as plants and algae, acquire nutrients from inorganic sources that are supplied primarily by decomposers whereas decomposers, mostly fungi and bacteria, acquire carbon from organic sources that are supplied primarily by producers. This producer–decomposer co-dependency is important in governing ecosystem processes1,2,3,4, which implies that the impacts of declining biodiversity on ecosystem functioning5,6,7 should be strongly infuenced by this process. Here we show, by simultaneously manipulating producer (green algal) and decomposer (heterotrophic bacterial) diversity in freshwater microcosms, that algal biomass production varies considerably among microcosms (0.0–0.67 mg ml-1), but that neither algal nor bacterial diversity by itself can explain this variation. Instead, production is a joint function of both algal and bacterial diversity. Furthermore, the range in algal production in microscosms in which bacterial diversity was manipulated was nearly double (1.82 times) that of microcosms in which bacterial diversity was not manipulated. Measures of organic carbon use by bacteria in these microcosms indicate that carbon usage is the mechanism responsible for these results. Because both producer8 and microbial diversity9 respond to disturbance and habitat modification, the main causes of biodiversity loss8, these results suggest that ecosystem response to changing biodiversity is likely to be more complex than other studies5,6,7 have shown.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: The fundamental producer–decomposer co-dependency common to most ecosystems.
Figure 2: Relationships between producer diversity, bacterial diversity, standing biomass and carbon-source usage.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harte, J. & Kinzig, A. P. Mutualism and competition between plants and decomposers: implications for nutrient allocation in ecosystems. Am. Nat. 141, 839–846 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaye, J. P. & Hart, S. C. Competition for nitrogen between plants and soil microorganisms. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12, 139–143 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Berman-Frank, I. & Dubinsky, Z. Balanced growth in aquatic plants: myth or reality? BioScience 49, 29–37 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wall, D. H. & Moore, J. C. Interactions underground. BioScience 49, 109–117 ( 1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tilman, D. et al. The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277, 1300– 1302 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Naeem, S. & Li, S. Consumer species richness and autotrophic biomass. Ecology 79, 2603– 2615 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hooper, D. U. & Vitousek, P. M. The effects of plant composition and diversity on ecosystem processes. Science 277, 1302–1305 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Philips, A. & Losos, E. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48, 607– 615 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Borneman, J. & Triplet, E. W. Molecular microbial diversity in soils from Eastern Amazonia: Evidence for unusual microorganisms and microbial population shifts associated with deforestation. Applied Environ. Microbiol. 63, 2647–2653 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Griffiths, B. S., Ritz, K. & Wheatley, R. E. in Microbial Communities (eds Insam, H. & Rangger, A.) 1–9 (Springer, Berlin, 1997).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Wood, A. M. & Van Valen, L. M. Paradox lost? On the release of energy-rich compounds by phytoplankton. Marine Microbial Food Webs 4, 103–116 ( 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jones, A. K. The interaction of algae and bacteria. in Microbial interactions and communities (eds Bull, A. T. & Slater, J. H.) 189– 247 (Academic, London, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Berman, T. & Holm-Hanse, O. Release of photoassimilated carbon as dissovled organic matter by marine phytoplankton. Mar. biol. 28, 305–310 ( 1974).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Zak, D. R. & Grigal, D. F. Nitrogen mineralization, nitrification and denitrification in upland and wetland ecosystems. Oecologia 88, 189–196 ( 1991).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. del Giorgio, P. A. & Cole, J. J. Bacterial growth efficiency in natural aquatic systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. System. 29, 503–541 ( 1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zak, D. R., Grigal, D. F., Gleeson, S. & Tilman, D. Carbon and nitrogen cycling during old-field succession: constraints on plant and microbial biomass. Biogeochemistry 11, 111– 129 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hobbie, S. E. Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7, 336–339 ( 1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Naeem, S., Haakenson, K., Thompson, L. J., Lawton, J. H. & Crawley, M. J. Biodiversity and plant productivity in a model assemblage of plant species. Oikos 76, 259–264 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Allsopp, D., Colwell, R. R. & Hawksworth, D. L. (eds) Microbial Diversity and Ecosystem Function (CAB International, Oxon, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bochner, B. R. Sleuthing out bacterial identities. Nature 339, 157–158 (1989).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schlesinger, W. H. Biogeochemistry 3nd edn (Academic, San Diego, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pritchard, P. H., Mueller, J. G., Lantz, S. E. & Santavay, D. L. in Microbial Diversity and Ecosystem Function (eds Allsopp, D., Colwell, R. R. & Hawksworth, D. L.) 161–182 (CAB International, Oxon, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Elser, J. J., Dobberfuhl, D. R., MacKay, N. A. & Schampel, J. H. Organism size, life history and N:P stoichiometry. BioSciecne 46, 674–684 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lawton, J. H. et al. Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391, 72–79 (1998).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mulder, C. P. H., Koricheva, J., Huss-Danell, K., Högberg, P. & Joshi, J. Insects affect relationships between plant species richness and ecosystem processes. Ecol. Lett. 2, 237–246 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Van der Heijden, M. G. A. et al. Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396, 69–72 (1998).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wetzel, R. G. & Likens, G. E. Limnological Analyses (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1991).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Porter, K. G. & Feig, Y. S. The use of DAPI for identifying and counting aquatic microflora. Limnol. Oceanogr. 25, 943–948 (1980).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. Naeem, S. & Li, S. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem reliability. Nature 390, 507–509 (1997).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Smalla, K., Wachtendorf, U., Heuer, H., Liu, W.-T. & Forney, L. Analysis of BIOLOG GN substrate utilization patterns by microbial communities. Applied Environ. Microbiol. 64, 1220–1225 (1998).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank B. Bohanan, M. Brett, J. Cotner, A. Grack, S. Lawler, J. Lawton, P. Morin, D. Schindler and S. Tjossem for help, comments and discussion. This work was supported by the NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shahid Naeem.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Naeem, S., Hahn, D. & Schuurman, G. Producer–decomposer co-dependency influences biodiversity effects . Nature 403, 762–764 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/35001568

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35001568

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing