Marine Biology

, Volume 159, Issue 11, pp 2431–2440 | Cite as

Effects of water temperature and mixed layer depth on zooplankton body size

  • Patrizia Sebastian
  • Herwig Stibor
  • Stella Berger
  • Sebastian Diehl
Original Paper

Abstract

Ecological consequences of global warming include shifts of species ranges toward higher altitudes and latitudes as well as temporal shifts in phenology and life-cycle events. Evidence is accumulating that increasing temperature is also linked to reduced body size of ectotherms. While temperature can act directly on body size, it may also act indirectly by affecting the timing of life-cycle events and the resulting population age and size structure, especially in seasonal environments. Population structure may, in turn, be influenced by temperature-driven changes in resource availability. In a field mesocosm experiment, we investigated how water temperature and mixed surface layer depth (a temperature-dependent determinant of light availability to phytoplankton) affected population dynamics, population age and size structure, and individual size at stage (size at first reproduction) of Daphnia hyalina during and after a phytoplankton spring bloom. Mixed layer depth was inversely related to the magnitudes of the phytoplankton spring bloom and the subsequent Daphnia peak, but had no effect on the body size of Daphnia. Conversely, temperature had no effects on abundance peaks but strongly affected the timing of these events. This resulted in at times positive, at other times negative, transient effects of temperature on mean body size, caused by asynchronous changes in population size structure in cold versus warm treatments. In contrast to mean body size, individual size at stage consistently decreased with increasing temperature. We suggest that size at stage could be used as an unbiased response parameter to temperature that is unaffected by transient, demographically driven changes in population size structure.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work was funded through the priority program AQUASHIFT of the German Science Foundation (DI 745/5-2). We thank Angelika Wild, Achim Weigert, Margit Feißl, Sergiu Nicola, Antonia Scherz, and Petra Leuchtenmüller for support during field and laboratory work and two anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Arendt J (2007) Ecological correlates of body size in relation to cell size and cell number: patterns in flies, fish, fruits and foliage. Biol Rev 82:241–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson D (1994) Temperature and organism size: a biological law for ectotherms? Adv Ecol Res 25:1–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger SA, Diehl S, Kunz TJ, Albrecht D, Oucible AM, Ritzer S (2006) Light supply, plankton biomass and seston stoichiometry in a gradient of lake mixing depths. Limnol Oceanogr 51:1898–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger SA, Diehl S, Stibor H, Trommer G, Ruhenstroth M (2010) Water temperature and stratification depth independently shift cardinal events during plankton spring succession. Global Change Biol 16:1954–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brambilla DJ (1980) Seasonal changes in size at maturity in small pond Daphnia. In: Kerfoot WC (ed) Evolution and ecology of zooplankton communities. University Press of New England, Hanover, pp 438–455Google Scholar
  6. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85:1771–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coats R, Perez-Losada J, Schladow G, Richards R, Goldman C (2006) The warming of Lake Tahoe. Clim Change 76:121–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Culver D (1980) Seasonal variation in the sizes at birth and at first reproduction in Cladocera. In: Kerfoot WC (ed) Evolution and ecology of zooplankton communities. University Press of New England, Hanover, pp 358–366Google Scholar
  9. Daufresne M, Lengfellner K, Sommer U (2009) Global warming benefits the small in aquatic ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:12788–12793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeMott WR (1982) Feeding selectivities and relative ingestion rates of Daphnia and Bosmina. Limnol Oceanogr 27:518–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeMott WR, McKinney RN, Tessier AJ (2010) Ontogeny of digestion in Daphnia: implications for the effectiveness of algal defenses. Ecology 91:540–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diehl S (2007) Paradoxes of enrichment: effects of increased light vs. nutrient supply on pelagic producer-grazer systems. Am Nat 169:173–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diehl S, Berger SA, Ptacnik R, Wild A (2002) Phytoplankton, light, and nutrients in a gradient of mixing depths: field experiments. Ecology 83:399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ebert D (1991) The effect of size at birth, maturation threshold and genetic differences on the life-history of Daphnia magna. Oecologia 86:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner JL, Peters A, Kearney M, Joseph L, Heinson R (2011) Declining body size: a third universal response to warming? Trends Ecol Evol 26:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gienapp P et al (2008) Climate change and evolution: disentangling environmental and genetic responses. Mol Ecol 17:167–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gliwicz ZM (1980) Filtering rates, food size selection and feeding rates in cladocerans: another aspect of interspecific competition in filter feeding zooplankton. Am Soc Limnol Oceanogr Spec Symp 3:282–291Google Scholar
  18. Gliwicz ZM (1986) Predation and the evolution of vertical migration in zooplankton. Nature 320:746–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gliwicz ZM (1990) Food thresholds and body size in cladocerans. Nature 343:638–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Green J (1954) Size and reproduction in Daphnia magna. Proc Zool Soc Lond 124:535–545Google Scholar
  21. Hildrew AG, Raffaelli DG, Edmonds-Brown R (2007) Body size: the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jäger CG, Diehl S, Matauschek C, Klausmeier CA, Stibor H (2008) Transient dynamics of pelagic producer-grazer systems in a gradient of nutrients and mixing depths. Ecology 89:1272–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kerfoot WC (1974) Egg-size cycle of a Cladoceran. Ecology 55:1259–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lampert W (1988) The relative importance of food limitation and predation in the seasonal cycle of two Daphnia species. Verh Internat Verein Theor Angew Limnol 23:713–718Google Scholar
  25. Lampert W (2011) Daphnia: development of a model organism in ecology and evolution. In: Kinne O (ed) Excellence in ecology, Book 21. International Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/LuheGoogle Scholar
  26. Le Quéré C, Aumont O, Monfray P, Orr J (2003) Propagation of climatic events on ocean stratification, marine Biology, and CO2: case studies over the 1979–1999 period. J Geophys Res Oceans 108:3358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynch M, Weider L, Lampert W (1986) Measurement of the carbon balance in Daphnia. Limnol Oceanogr 31:17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Millien V et al (2006) Ecotypic variation in the context of global climate change: revisiting the rules. Ecol Lett 9:853–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O′Reilly CM, Alin SR, Plisnier PD, Cohen S, McKee BA (2003) Climate change decreases aquatic ecosystem productivity in Lake Tanganyika, Africa. Nature 424:766–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perrin N (1988) Why are offspring born larger when it is colder? Phenotypic plasticity for offspring size in the cladoceran Simocephalus vetulus. Funct Ecol 3:279–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peters RH (1986) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge Studies in Ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Root TL et al (2003) Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421:57–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sebastian P (2007) Einfluss von Temperatur, Zooplanktonregime und Durchmischungstiefe auf die Frühjahrssukzession des Planktons. Diplom-thesis. University of Munich (LMU), GermanyGoogle Scholar
  35. Sheridan JA, Bickford D (2011) Shrinking body size as an ecological response to climate change. Nat Clim Change 1, doi: 10.1038/nclimate1259
  36. Sommer U, Gliwicz ZM, Lampert W, Duncan A (1986) the PEG-model of seasonal succession of planktonic events in fresh waters. Arch Hydrobiol 106:433–471Google Scholar
  37. Stibor H (1991) Größenvariabilität von Daphnia spp. bei der ersten Reproduktion. Diplom-thesis. University of Kiel, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  38. Stibor H, Lampert W (1993) Estimating the size at maturity in field populations of Daphnia (Cladocera). Freshw Biol 30:433–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stibor H, Lampert W (2000) Components of additive variance in life-history traits of Daphnia hyalina: seasonal differences in the response to predator signals. Oikos 88:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Walther GR et al (2002) Ecological response to recent climate change. Nature 416:389–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Winder M, Schindler DE (2004) Climatic effects on the phenology of lake processes. Global Change Biol 10:1844–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yampolsky LY, Scheiner SM (1996) Why larger offspring at lower temperatures? A demographic approach. Am Nat 147:86–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrizia Sebastian
    • 1
    • 2
  • Herwig Stibor
    • 1
    • 3
  • Stella Berger
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  • Sebastian Diehl
    • 1
    • 6
  1. 1.Aquatic EcologyBiocenter LMUPlanegg-MartinsriedGermany
  2. 2.Systematic BotanyLMU MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.European Institute for Marine StudiesGIS Europole Mer, Place Nicolas CopernicPlouzaneFrance
  4. 4.Skidaway Institute of OceanographySavannahUSA
  5. 5.Department of BiologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  6. 6.Ecology and Environmental SciencesUniversity of UmeaUmeaSweden

Personalised recommendations