Article | Published:

Size differences predict niche and relative fitness differences between phytoplankton species but not their coexistence

The ISME Journal (2019) | Download Citation

Abstract

Here we aim to incorporate trait-based information into the modern coexistence framework that comprises a balance between stabilizing (niche-based) and equalizing (fitness) mechanisms among interacting species. Taking the modern coexistence framework as our basis, we experimentally tested the effect of size differences among species on coexistence by using fifteen unique pairs of resident vs. invading cyanobacteria, resulting in thirty unique invasibility tests. The cyanobacteria covered two orders of magnitude differences in size. We found that both niche and fitness differences increased with size differences. Niche differences increased faster with size differences than relative fitness differences and whereas coexisting pairs showed larger size differences than non-coexisting pairs, ultimately species coexistence could not be predicted on basis of size differences only. Our findings suggest that size is more than a key trait controlling physiological and population-level aspects of phytoplankton, it is also relevant for community-level phenomena such as niche and fitness differences which influence coexistence and biodiversity.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Hutchinson GE. The paradox of the plankton. Am Nat. 1961;95:137–45.

  2. 2.

    Gause GF. The struggle for existence. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins company; 1934.

  3. 3.

    Hardin G. The competitive exclusion principle. Science. 1960;131:1292–7.

  4. 4.

    MacArthur R, Levins R. The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat. 1967;101:377.

  5. 5.

    Bell G. The distribution of abundance in neutral communities. Am Nat. 2000;155:606–17.

  6. 6.

    Hubbell SP. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2001.

  7. 7.

    Levine JM, Bascompte J, Adler PB, Allesina S. Beyond pairwise mechanisms of species coexistence in complex communities. Nature. 2017;546:56–64.

  8. 8.

    Hart SP, Usinowicz J, Levine JM. The spatial scales of species coexistence. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:1066–73.

  9. 9.

    Chesson P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 2000;31:343–66.

  10. 10.

    Holt RD. Emergent neutrality. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006;21:531–3.

  11. 11.

    Scheffer M, van Nes EH. Self-organized similarity, the evolutionary emergence of groups of similar species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:6230–5.

  12. 12.

    Adler PB, HilleRislambers J, Levine JM. A niche for neutrality. Ecol Lett. 2007;10:95–104.

  13. 13.

    Carroll IT, Nisbet RM. Departures from neutrality induced by niche and relative fitness differences. Theor Ecol. 2015;8:449–65.

  14. 14.

    Li L, Chesson P. The effects of dynamical rates on species coexistence in a variable environment: the paradox of the plankton revisited. Am Nat. 2016;188:E47–58.

  15. 15.

    Adler PB, Ellner SP, Levine JM. Coexistence of perennial plants: an embarrassment of niches. Ecol Lett. 2010;13:1019–29.

  16. 16.

    Kraft NJB, Godoy O, Levine JM. Plant functional traits and the multidimensional nature of species coexistence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:797–802.

  17. 17.

    Narwani A, Alexandrou Ma, Oakley TH, Carroll IT, Cardinale BJ. Experimental evidence that evolutionary relatedness does not affect the ecological mechanisms of coexistence in freshwater green algae. Ecol Lett. 2013;16:1373–81.

  18. 18.

    Godoy O, Kraft NJB, Levine JM. Phylogenetic relatedness and the determinants of competitive outcomes. Ecol Lett. 2014;17:836–44.

  19. 19.

    Adler PB, Fajardo A, Kleinhesselink AR, Kraft NJB. Trait-based tests of coexistence mechanisms. Ecol Lett. 2013;16:1294–306.

  20. 20.

    Raven JA. The twelfth Tansley Lecture. Small is beautiful: the picophytoplankton. Funct Ecol. 1998;12:503–13.

  21. 21.

    Litchman E, Klausmeier CA. Trait-based community ecology of phytoplankton. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2008;39:615–39.

  22. 22.

    Finkel ZV, Beardall J, Flynn KJ, Quigg A, Rees TAV, Raven JA. Phytoplankton in a changing world: cell size and elemental stoichiometry. J Plankton Res. 2010;32:119–37.

  23. 23.

    Key T, McCarthy A, Campbell DA, Six C, Roy S, Finkel ZV. Cell size trade-offs govern light exploitation strategies in marine phytoplankton. Environ Microbiol. 2010;12:95–104.

  24. 24.

    Barton AD, Pershing AJ, Litchman E, Record NR, Edwards KF, Finkel ZV, et al. The biogeography of marine plankton traits. Ecol Lett. 2013;16:522–34.

  25. 25.

    Litchman E, Klausmeier CA, Schofield OM, Falkowski PG. The role of functional traits and trade-offs in structuring phytoplankton communities: scaling from cellular to ecosystem level. Ecol Lett. 2007;10:1170–81.

  26. 26.

    Marañón E. Cell size as a key determinant of phytoplankton metabolism and community structure. Ann Rev Mar Sci. 2014;7:241–64.

  27. 27.

    Roselli L, Litchman E, Stanca E, Cozzoli F, Basset A. Individual trait variation in phytoplankton communities across multiple spatial scales. J Plankton Res. 2017;39:577–88.

  28. 28.

    Shih PM, Wu D, Latifi A, Axen SD, Fewer DP, Talla E, et al. Improving the coverage of the cyanobacterial phylum using diversity-driven genome sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:1053–8.

  29. 29.

    Paerl HW, Huisman J. Climate change: a catalyst for global expansion of harmful cyanobacterial blooms. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2009;1:27–37.

  30. 30.

    Stanier RY, Kunisawa R, Mandel M, Cohen-Bazire G. Purification and properties of unicellular blue-green algae (Order Chroococcales). Bacteriol Rev. 1971;35:171–205.

  31. 31.

    Hillebrand H, Dürselen C-D, Kirschtel D, Pollingher U, Zohary T. Biovolume calculation for pelagic and benthic microalgae. J Phycol. 1999;424:403–24.

  32. 32.

    Reynolds CS. Ecology of phytoplankton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.

  33. 33.

    Carroll IT, Cardinale BJ, Nisbet RM. Niche and fitness differences relate the maintenance of diversity to ecosystem function. Ecology. 2011;92:1157–65.

  34. 34.

    Brown WL, Wilson EO. Character displacement. Syst Zool. 1956;5:49–64.

  35. 35.

    Hutchinson GE. Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of animals? Am Nat. 1959;93:145–59.

  36. 36.

    Schoener TW. The evolution of bill size differences among sympatric congeneric species of birds. Evolution. 1965;19:189–213.

  37. 37.

    Schoener TW. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science. 1974;185:27–39.

  38. 38.

    Brooks JL, Dodson SI. Predation, body size, and composition of plankton. Science. 1965;150:28–35.

  39. 39.

    Galbraith MG. Size‐selective predation on Daphnia by rainbow trout and yellow perch. Trans Am Fish Soc. 1967;96:1–10.

  40. 40.

    Aarssen LW. Body size and fitness in plants: revisiting the selection consequences of competition. J Plant Ecol Evol Syst. 2015;17:236–42.

  41. 41.

    Goldberg DE. Competitive ability: definitions, contingency and correlated traits. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci. 1996;351:1377–85.

  42. 42.

    Grime JP. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Chichester: Wiley; 1979.

  43. 43.

    MacDougall AS, Gilbert B, Levine JM. Plant invasions and the niche. J Ecol. 2009;97:609–15.

  44. 44.

    Vergnon R, Dulvy NK, Freckleton RP. Niches versus neutrality: uncovering the drivers of diversity in a species-rich community. Ecol Lett. 2009;12:1079–90.

  45. 45.

    Carrara F, Giometto A, Seymour M, Rinaldo A, Altermatt F. Experimental evidence for strong stabilizing forces at high functional diversity of aquatic microbial communities. Ecology. 2015;96:1340–50.

  46. 46.

    Marañón E, Cermeño P, López-Sandoval DC, Rodríguez-Ramos T, Sobrino C, Huete-Ortega M, et al. Unimodal size scaling of phytoplankton growth and the size dependence of nutrient uptake and use. Ecol Lett. 2013;16:371–9.

  47. 47.

    Hoyle R. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1995. 

  48. 48.

    Bollen KA. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley; 1989. 

  49. 49.

    Wright S. Correlation and causation. J Agric Res. 1921;10:557–85.

  50. 50.

    Tomer A. A short history of structural equation models. In: Pugesek BH, Tomer A, Eye A von (eds). Structural Equation Modeling: Applications in Ecological and Evolutionary Biology. pp. 85–125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

  51. 51.

    Grace JB, Anderson TM, Olff H, Scheiner SM. On the specification of structural equation models for ecological systems. Ecol Monogr. 2010;80:67–87. 

  52. 52.

    Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J. 1999;6:1–55. 

Download references

Acknowledgements

IG was supported by a grant from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) to BWI, linked to the EU NETLAKE COST Action. We would like to thank Anita Narwani, Ian T. Carroll and Oscar Godoy for valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Author contributions

All authors conceived the study. IG performed the experiment, collected data, analyzed data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. PV contributed to data analysis, figure conception and to revisions. All authors commented on the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department F.-A. Forel for Environmental and Aquatic Sciences (DEFSE), Institute for Environmental Sciences (ISE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    • Irene Gallego
    • , Patrick Venail
    •  & Bas W. Ibelings

Authors

  1. Search for Irene Gallego in:

  2. Search for Patrick Venail in:

  3. Search for Bas W. Ibelings in:

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irene Gallego.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Revised

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0330-7