Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 166:163 | Cite as

Multiple zooplankton species alter the stoichiometric interactions between producer and consumer levels

  • Christoph PlumEmail author
  • Helmut Hillebrand
Original Paper

Abstract

Planktonic primary consumers have been shown to strongly influence phytoplankton communities via top-down effects such as grazing and nutrient recycling. However, it remains unclear how changes in consumer richness may alter the stoichiometric constrains between producer and consumer assemblages. Here we test whether the stoichiometry of producer–consumer interactions is affected by the species richness of the consumer community (multispecies consumer assemblage vs single consumer species). Therefore, we fed a phytoplankton assemblage consisting of two flagellates and two diatom species reared under a 2 × 2 factorial combination of light and nitrogen supply to three planktonic consumer species in mono- and polycultures. As expected, phytoplankton biomass and C:nutrient ratios significantly increased with light intensity while nitrogen limitation resulted in reduced phytoplankton biomass and increasing phytoplankton C:N but lower N:P. Differences in phytoplankton stoichiometry were partly transferred to the consumer level, i.e., consumer C:N significantly increased with phytoplankton C:N. Consumer diversity significantly increased consumer biomass, resource use efficiency and nutrient uptake. In turn, consumer N:P ratios significantly decreased in consumer assemblages under high resource supply due to unequal changes in nutrient uptake. Consumer diversity further altered phytoplankton biomass, stoichiometry and species composition via increased consumption. Whether the effects of consumer diversity on phytoplankton and consumer performance were positive or negative strongly depended on the resource supply. In conclusion, the stoichiometric constraints of trophic interactions in multispecies assemblages cannot be predicted from monoculture traits alone, but consumer diversity effects are constrained by the resources supplied.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Heike Rickels for technical support, as well as Mareen Möller and Samuel Nietzer for their support during the experiment. We additionally thank Maren Striebel, Stefanie Moorthi and Thomas Anderson for their competent and fruitful feedback on the manuscript. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the German Research Council (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG Hi 848 7-1).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed by the authors.

References

  1. Boersma M, Aberle N, Hantzsche FM, Schoo KL, Wiltshire KH, Malzahn AM (2008) Nutritional limitation travels up the food chain. Int Rev Hydrobiol 93:479–488.  https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.200811066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruno JF, Cardinale BJ (2008) Cascading effects of predator richness. Front Ecol Environ 6:539–546Google Scholar
  3. Bruno JF, Boyer KE, Duffy JE, Lee SC (2008) Relative and interactive effects of plant and grazer richness in a benthic marine community. Ecology 89:2518–2528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Burson A, Stomp M, Akil L, Brussaard CPD, Huisman J (2016) Unbalanced reduction of nutrient loads has created an offshore gradient from phosphorus to nitrogen limitation in the North Sea. Limnol Oceanogr 61:869–888Google Scholar
  5. Cardinale BJ, Harvey CT, Gross K, Ives AR (2003) Biodiversity and biocontrol: emergent impacts of a multi-enemy assemblage on pest suppression and crop yield in an agroecosystem. Ecol Lett 6:857–865Google Scholar
  6. Cardinale BJ, Hillebrand H, Harpole WS, Gross K, Ptacnik R (2009) Separating the influence of resource ‘availability’ from resource ‘imbalance’ on productivity–diversity relationships. Ecol Lett 12:475–487PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 486:59–67.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carnicer J, Sardans J, Stefanescu Cm Ubach A, Bartrins M, Asensio D, Peñuelas J (2015) Global biodiversity, stoichiometry and ecosystem responses to human-induced C–N–P imbalances. J Plant Physiol 172:82–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen M, Fan M, Kuang Y (2017) Global dynamics in a stoichiometric food chain model with two limiting nutrients. Math Biosci 289:9–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Doi H, Cherif M, Iwabuchi T, Katano I, Stegen JC, Striebel M (2010) Integrating elements and energy through the metabolic dependencies of gross growth efficiency and the threshold elemental ratio. Oikos 119:752–765Google Scholar
  11. Doney SC (2010) The growing human footprint on coastal and open-ocean biogeochemistry. Science 328:1512–1516PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Droop MR (1973) Some thoughts on nutrient limitation in algae. J Phycol 9:264–272Google Scholar
  13. Duffy JE (2002) Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the consumer connection. Oikos 99:201–219Google Scholar
  14. Duffy JE (2003) Biodiversity loss, trophic skew and ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 6:680–687Google Scholar
  15. Duffy JE, Cardinale BJ, Kristin EF, McIntire PB, Thebault E, Loreau M (2007) The functional role of biodiversity in ecosystems: incorporating trophic complexity. Ecol Lett 10:522–538PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Elrifi IR, Turpin DH (1985) Steady state luxury consumption and the concept of optimum nutrient ratios: a study with phosphate and nitrate limited Selenastrum minutum (Chlorophyta). J Phycol 21:592–602Google Scholar
  17. Elser JJ, Bennet E (2011) Phosphorus cycle: a broken biogeochemical cycle. Nature 478:29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Elser JJ, Urabe J (1999) The stoichiometry of consumer-driven nutrient recycling: theory, observations, and consequences. Ecology 80:735–751Google Scholar
  19. Elser JJ, Frost P, Kyle M, Urabe J, Andersen T (2002) Effects of light and nutrients on plankton stoichiometry and biomass in a P-limited lake. Hydrobiology 481:101–112Google Scholar
  20. Elser JJ, Andersen T, Baron JS, Bergström AK, Jansson M, Kyle M, Nydick KR, Steger L, Hessen DO (2009) Shifts in lake N:P stoichiometry and nutrient limitation driven by atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Science 326:835–837Google Scholar
  21. Elser JJ, Loladze I, Peace AL, Kuang Y (2012) Lotka re-loaded: modelling trophic interactions under stoichiometric constraints. Ecol Model 245:3–11Google Scholar
  22. Elser JJ, Kyle M, Learned J, McCrackin ML, Peace AL, Steger L (2016) Life on the stoichiometric knife-edge: effects of high and low food C: p ratio on growth, feeding, and respiration in three Daphnia species. Inland Waters 6:136–146Google Scholar
  23. Filip J, Bauer B, Hillebrand H, Beniermann A, Gaedke U, Moorthi SD (2014) Multitrophic diversity effects depend on consumer specialization and species-specific growth and grazing rates. Oikos 123:912–922.  https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fox JW (2004) Effects of phytoplankton and herbivore diversity on the partitioning of biomass within and among trophic levels. Ecology 85:549–559Google Scholar
  25. Frost PC, Benstead JP, Cross WF, Hillebrand H, Larson JH, Xenopoulos MA, Yoshida T (2006) Threshold elemental ratios of carbon and phosphorus in aquatic consumers. Ecol Lett 9:774–779.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00919.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Gamfeldt L, Hillebrand H (2011) Effects of total resources, resource ratios, and species richness on phytoplankton productivity and evenness at both metacommunity and local scales. PLoS One 6:e21972PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Gamfeldt L, Hillebrand H, Jonsson PR (2005) Species richness changes across two trophic levels simultaneously affect prey and consumer biomass. Ecol Lett 8:696–703Google Scholar
  28. Grasshoff K, Kremling K, Ehrhardt M (1999) Methods of seawater analysis, 3rd completely revised and extended edition. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  29. Grizzetti B, Bouraoui F, Aloe A (2012) Changes of nitrogen and phosphorus loads to European seas. Glob Change Biol 18:769–782Google Scholar
  30. Gross K, Cardinale BJ (2007) Does species richness drive community production or vice versa? Reconciling historical and contemporary paradigms in competitive communities. Am Nat 170:207–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Guillard RRL, Ryther JH (1962) Studies of marine planktonic diatoms: i. Cyclotella nana hustedt, and Detonula confervacea (Cleve) gran. Can J Microbiol 8:229–239PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Hall SR (2009) Stoichiometrically explicit food webs: feedbacks between resource supply, elemental constraints, and species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:503–528Google Scholar
  33. Hall SR, Leibold MA, Lytle DA, Smith VH (2004) Stoichiometry and planktonic grazer composition over gradients of light, nutrients and predation risk. Ecology 85:2291–2301Google Scholar
  34. Hector A, Bazeley-White E, Loreau M, Otway S, Schmid B (2002) Overyielding in grassland communities: testing the sampling effect hypothesis with replicated biodiversity experiments. Ecol Lett 5:502–511.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00337.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hessen DO, Elser JJ, Sterner RW, Urabe J (2013) Ecological stoichiometry: an elementary approach using basic principles. Limnol Oceanogr 58:2219–2236Google Scholar
  36. Hillebrand H, Cardinale BJ (2004) Consumer effects decline with prey diversity. Ecol Lett 7:192–201Google Scholar
  37. Hillebrand H, Lehmpfuhl V (2011) Resource stoichiometry and consumers control the biodiversity–productivity relationship in pelagic metacommunities. Am Nat 178:171–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hillebrand H, Dürselen CD, Kirschtel D, Pollingher U, Zohary T (1999) Biovolume calculation for pelagic and benthic microalgae. J Phycol 35:403–424Google Scholar
  39. Hillebrand H, Frost P, Liess A (2008) Ecological stoichiometry of indirect grazer effects on periphyton nutrient content. Oecologia 155:619–630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hillebrand H, Gamfeldt L, Jonsson PR, Matthiessen B (2009) Consumer diversity indirectly changes prey nutrient content. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 380:33–41Google Scholar
  41. Hillebrand H, Cowles JM, Lewandowska A, Van de Waal DB, Plum C (2014) Think ratio! A stoichiometric view on biodiversity–ecosystem functioning research. Basic Appl Ecol 15:465–474Google Scholar
  42. Hood JM, Sterner RW (2014) Carbon and phosphorus linkages in Daphnia growth are determined by growth rate, not species or diet. Funct Ecol 28:1156–1165.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setälä H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35Google Scholar
  44. Ives AR, Cardinale BJ, Snyder WE (2005) A synthesis of subdisciplines: predator–prey interactions, and biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 8:102–116Google Scholar
  45. Jaschinski S, Aberle N, Gohse-Reimann S, Brendelberger H, Wiltshire KH, Sommer U (2009) Grazer diversity effects in an eelgrass–epiphyte–microphytobenthos system. Oecologia 159:607–615PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Jolliffe PA (2000) The replacement series. J Ecol 88:371–385.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2000.00470.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Knoll LB, McIntyre PB, Vanni MJ, Flecker AS (2009) Feedbacks of consumer nutrient recycling on producer biomass and stoichiometry: separating direct and indirect effects. Oikos 118:1732–1742.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17367.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kraberg A, Bauman M, Dürselen CD (2010) Coastal Phytoplankton. Photo guide for Northern European Seas. Friedrich Pfeil, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  49. Liess A, Haglund AL (2007) Periphyton responds differentially to nutrients recycled in dissolved or faecal pellet form by the snail grazer Theodoxus fluviatilis. Freshw Biol 52:1997–2008Google Scholar
  50. Loladze I, Kuang Y, Elser JJ, Fagan WF (2004) Competition and stoichiometry: coexistence of two predators on one prey. Theor Popul Biol 65:1–15Google Scholar
  51. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol 27:19–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Malzahn AM, Boersma M (2012) Effects of poor food quality on copepod growth are dose dependent and non-reversible. Oikos 121:1408–1416Google Scholar
  54. Malzahn AM, Aberle N, Clemmensen C, Boersma M (2007) Nutrient limitation of primary producers affects planktivorous fish condition. Limnol Oceanogr 52:2062–2071Google Scholar
  55. Malzahn AM, Hantzsche F, Schoo KL, Boersma M, Aberle N (2010) Differential effects of nutrient-limited primary production on primary, secondary or tertiary consumers. Oecologia 162:35–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Meunier CL, Haafke J, Oppermann B, Boersma M, Malzahn AM (2012) Dynamic stoichiometric response to food quality fluctuations in the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Oxyrrhis marina. Mar Biol 159:2241–2248.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-012-2009-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moorthi SI, Hillebrand H, Wahl M, Berninger UG (2008) Consumer diversity enhances secondary production by complementarily effects in experimental ciliate assemblages. Estua Coasts 31:152–162Google Scholar
  58. O´Connor NE, Donohue I (2013) Environmental context determines multi-trophic effects of consumer species loss. Glob Change Biol 19:431–440Google Scholar
  59. O´Connor MI, Gonzalez A, Byrnes JEK, Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gamfeldt L, Griffin JN, Hooper D, Hungate BA, Paquette A, Thompson PL, Dee LE, Dolan KL (2017) A general biodiversity-function relationship is mediated by trophic level. Oikos 126:18–31Google Scholar
  60. Peace AL, Zhao Y, Loladze I, Elser JJ, Kuang Y (2013) A stoichiometric producer-grazer model incorporating the effects of excess food-nutrient content on consumer dynamics. Math Biosci 244:107–115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Peñuelas J et al (2012) The human-induced imbalance between C, N and P in earth’s life system. Glob Change Biol 18:3–6Google Scholar
  62. Persson J et al (2010) To be or not to be what you eat: regulation of stoichiometric homeostasis among autotrophs and heterotrophs. Oikos 119:741–751Google Scholar
  63. Plum C, Hüsener M, Hillebrand H (2015) Multiple vs single phytoplankton species alter stoichiometry of trophic interaction with zooplankton. Ecology 96:3075–3089PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Ptacnik R et al (2008) Diversity predicts stability and resource use efficiency in natural phytoplankton communities. Proc Nat Acad Sci 105:5134–5138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Sardans J, Rivas-Ubach A, Peñuelas J (2012) The C:N:P stoichiometry of organisms and ecosystems in a changing world: a review and perspectives. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 14:33–47Google Scholar
  66. Schoo KL, Aberle N, Malzahn AM, Boersma M (2010) Does the nutrient stoichiometry of primary producers affect the secondary consumer Pleurobrachia pileus? Aquat Ecol 44:233–242.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-009-9265-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sih A, Englund G, Wooster D (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol Evol 13:350–355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01437-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Snaydon R (1991) Replacement or additive designs for competition studies? J Appl Ecol 28:930–946Google Scholar
  69. Sterner RW (1990) The ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus resupplied by herbivores: zooplankton and the algal competitive arena. Am Nat 136:209–229Google Scholar
  70. Sterner R, Elser J (2002) Ecological stoichiometry. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, The biology of elements from molecules to the biosphereGoogle Scholar
  71. Sterner RW et al (1997) The light:nutrient ratio in lakes: The balance of energy and materials affects ecosystem structure and process. Am Nat 150:663–684PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Striebel M, Spörl G, Stibor H (2008) Light-induced changes of plankton growth and stoichiometry: experiments with natural phytoplankton communities. Limnol Oceanogr 53:513–522Google Scholar
  73. Van de Waal DB, Elser JJ, Martiny AC, Sterner RW, Cotner JB (2018) Progress in ecological stoichiometry. Front Microbiol.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01957 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Van Nieuwerburgh L et al (2004) Growth and C:N: P ratios in copepods grazing on N- or Si-limited phytoplankton blooms. Hydrobiol 514:57–72Google Scholar
  75. Vitousek PM et al (2010) Terrestrial phosphorus limitation: mechanisms, implications, and nitrogen–phosphorus interactions. Ecol Appl 20:5–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Welti N, Striebel M, Ulseth AJ, Cross WF, DeVilbiss S, Glibert PM, Guo L, Hirst AG, Hood J, Kominoski JS, MacNeill KL, Mehring AS, Welter JR, Hillebrand H (2017) Bridging food webs, ecosystem metabolism, and biogeochemistry using ecological stoichiometry theory. Front Microbiol 8:1298.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01298 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Oldenburg, Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM)WilhelmshavenGermany
  2. 2.Helmholtz Institute for Functional Marine Biodiversity (HIFMB) at the University of OldenburgOldenburgGermany
  3. 3.Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz-Centre for Polar and Marine Research [AWI]BremerhavenGermany

Personalised recommendations