, Volume 143, Issue 4, pp 537–547 | Cite as

Genotype × environment interactions, stoichiometric food quality effects, and clonal coexistence in Daphnia pulex

  • Lawrence J. WeiderEmail author
  • Wataru Makino
  • Kumud Acharya
  • Karen L. Glenn
  • Marcia Kyle
  • Jotaro Urabe
  • James J. Elser
Population Ecology


The role of stoichiometric food quality in influencing genotype coexistence and competitive interactions between clones of the freshwater microcrustacean, Daphnia pulex, was examined in controlled laboratory microcosm experiments. Two genetically distinct clones of D. pulex, which show variation in their ribosomal (r)DNA structure, as well as differences in a number of previously characterized growth-rate-related features (i.e., life-history features), were allowed to compete in two different arenas: (1) batch cultures differing in algal food quality (i.e., high vs. low carbon:phosphorus (C:P ratio) in the green alga, Scenedesmus acutus); (2) continuous flow microcosms receiving different light levels (i.e., photosynthetically active radiation) that affected algal C:P ratios. In experiment 1, a clear genotype × environment interaction was determined with clone 1 out-competing clone 2 under high nutrient (i.e., low food C:P) conditions, while the exact opposite pattern was observed under low nutrient (i.e., high C:P) conditions. In experiment 2, clone 1 dominated over clone 2 under high light (higher C:P) conditions, but clonal coexistence was observed under low light (low C:P) conditions. These results indicate that food (nutrient) quality effects (hitherto an often overlooked factor) may play a role in microevolutionary (genotypic) responses to changing stoichiometric conditions in natural populations.


Nutrients Elemental ratios Daphniids Competition Clones 



This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (US, Grant no. 9977047) and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research B (no. 12440218) from MEXT, Japan. We thank S. Ishida, T. Ishikawa, T. Iwata, N. Kuwae, J. Togari, and C. Yoshimizu for laboratory assistance. All experiments were in compliance with applicable laws of the US and Japan. We thank S. Kohler and two anonymous reviewers for their comments.


  1. Akimoto S (1990) Local adaptation and host race formation of a gall-forming aphid in relation to environmental heterogeneity. Oecologia 83:162–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell G (1982) The masterpiece of nature: the evolution and genetics of sexuality. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell G (1991) The ecology and genetics of fitness in Chlamydomonas. III. Genotype-by-environment interactions within strains. Evolution 45:668–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berenbaum M (1983) Coumarins and caterpillars: a case for coevolution. Evolution 37:163–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Barro PJ, Sherratt TN, David O, Maclean N (1995) An investigation of the differential performance of clones of the aphid Sitobion avenae on two host species. Oecologia 104:379–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diehl S, Berger S, Ptacnik R, Wild A (2002) Phytoplankton, light, and nutrients in a gradient of mixing depths: field experiments. Ecology 83:399–411Google Scholar
  7. Elser JJ, Dobberfuhl D, MacKay NA, Schampel JH (1996) Organism size, life-history, and N:P stoichiometry: towards a unified view of cellular and ecosystem processes. BioScience 46:674–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elser JJ, Dowling T, Dobberfuhl DA, O’Brien J (2000a) The evolution of ecosystem processes: ecological stoichiometry of a key herbivore in temperate and arctic habitats. J Evol Biol 13:845–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elser JJ, Sterner RW, Gorokhova E, Fagan WF, Markow TA, Cotner JB, Harrison JF, Hobbie SE, Odell GM, Weider LJ (2000b) Biological stoichiometry from genes to ecosystems. Ecol Lett 3:540–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elser JJ, Hayakawa K, Urabe J (2001) Nutrient limitation reduces food quality for zooplankton: Daphnia response to seston phosphorus enrichment. Ecology 82:898–903Google Scholar
  11. Endler JA (1986) Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. Epp GT (1996) Clonal variation in the survival and reproduction of Daphnia pulicaria under low-food stress. Freshwat Biol 35:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Futuyma DJ, Leipertz SL, Mitter C (1981) Selective factors affecting clonal variation in the fall cankerworm, Alsophila pometaria (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Heredity 47:161–172Google Scholar
  14. Geedey CK, Tessier AJ, Machledt K (1996) Habitat heterogeneity, environmental change and the clonal structure of Daphnia populations. Funct Ecol 10:613–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glazier DS (1992) Effects of food, genotype, and maternal size and age on offspring investment in Daphnia magna. Ecology 73:910–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gorokhova E, Dowling TE, Weider LJ, Crease TJ, Elser JJ (2002) Functional and ecological significance of rDNA IGS variation in a clonal organism under divergent selection for production rate. P R Soc Lond B 269:2373–2379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goulden CE, Henry LL, Tessier AJ (1982) Body size, energy reserves and competitive ability in three species of Cladocera. Ecology 63:1780–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hebert PDN, Beaton MJ (1993) Methodologies for allozyme analysis using cellulose acetate electrophoresis: a practical handbook. Helena Laboratories, BeaumontGoogle Scholar
  19. Hietala J, Laurén-Määttä C, Walls M (1997) Sensitivity of Daphnia to toxic cyanobacteria: effects of genotype and temperature. Freshwat Biol 37:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill J (1975) Genotype-environment interactions—a challenge for plant breeding. J Agric Sci 85:477–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hochstädter S (2000) Seasonal changes of C:P ratios of seston, bacteria, phytoplankton and zooplankton in a deep, mesotrophic lake. Freshwat Biol 44:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jokela J, Lively CM, Fox JA, Dybdahl MF (1997) Flat reaction norms and “frozen” phenotypic variation in clonal snails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). Evolution 51:1120–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kause A, Saloniemi I, Morin J-P, Haukioja E, Hanhimäki S, Ruohomäki K (2001) Seasonally varying diet quality and the quantitative genetics of development time and body size in birch feeding insects. Evolution 55:1992–2001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kilham SS, Kreger DA, Lynn SG, Goulden CE, Herrara L (1998) COMBO: a defined freshwater culture medium for algae and zooplankton. Hydrobiologia 377:147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laurén-Määttä C, Hietala J, Walls M (1997) Responses of Daphnia pulex populations to toxic cyanobacteria. Freshwat Biol 37:635–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loaring JM, Hebert PDN (1981) Ecological differences among clones of Daphnia pulex (Leydig). Oecologia 51:162–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitter L, Futuyma DJ, Schneider JC, Hare DJ (1979) Genetic variation and host plant relations in a parthenogenetic moth. Evolution 33:777–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pani SN, Lasley JF (1972) Genotype × environment interactions in animals. Res. Bull. Agri. Exp. Sta., Univ. Missouri No. 992Google Scholar
  29. Redfield AC (1958) The biological control of chemical factors in the environment. Am Sci 46:205–221Google Scholar
  30. Repka S (1997) Effects of food type on the life history of Daphnia clones from lakes differing in trophic state. I. Daphnia galeata feeding on Scenedesmus and Oscillatoria. Freshwat Biol 37:675–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Repka S (1998) Effects of food type on the life history of Daphnia clones from lakes differing in trophic state. II. Daphnia cucullata feeding on mixed diets. Freshwat Biol 38:685–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rhomberg LR, Joseph S, Singh RS (1985) Seasonal variation and clonal selection in cyclically parthenogenetic rose aphids (Macrosiphum rosae). Can J Genet Cytol 27:224–232Google Scholar
  33. Service PM, Lenski RE (1982) Aphid genotypes, plant phenotypes and genetic diversity: a demographic analysis of experimental data. Evolution 36: 1276–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Snell TW (1980) Blue-green algae and selection in rotifer populations. Oecologia 46:343–346Google Scholar
  35. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  36. Sterner RW, Hessen DO (1994) Algal nutrient limitation and the nutrition of aquatic herbivores. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 25:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sterner RW, Hagemeier DD, Smith WL, Smith RF (1993) Phytoplankton nutrient limitation and food quality for Daphnia. Limnol Oceanogr 38:857–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sterner RW, Elser JJ, Fee EJ, Guildford SJ, Chrzanowski TH (1997) The light:nutrient ratio in lakes: the balance of energy and materials affects ecosystem structure and process. Am Nat 150:663–684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Tessier AJ, Consolati NL (1989) Variation in offspring size in Daphnia and consequences for individual fitness. Oikos 56:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tezuka Y (1990) Bacterial regeneration of ammonium and phosphate as affected by the carbon:nitrogen:phosphorus ratio of organic substrates. Microb Ecol 19:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Urabe J, Sterner RW (1996) Regulation of herbivore growth by the balance of light and nutrients. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:8465–8469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Urabe J, Watanabe Y (1992) Possibility of N or P limitation for planktonic cladocerans: an experimental test. Limnol Oceanogr 37:244–251Google Scholar
  43. Urabe J, Clasen J, Sterner RW (1997) Phosphorus-limitation of Daphnia: is it real? Limnol Oceanogr 42:1436–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Urabe J, Elser JJ, Kyle M, Yoshida T, Sekino T, Kawabata Z (2002a) Herbivorous animals can mitigate unfavourable ratios of energy and material supplies by enhancing nutrient recycling. Ecol Lett 5:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Urabe J, Kyle M, Makino W, Yoshida T, Andersen T, Elser JJ (2002b) Reduced light increases herbivore production due to stoichiometric effects of light:nutrient balance. Ecology 83:619–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vanni MJ (1987) Colonization dynamics and life history traits of seven Daphnia pulex genotypes. Oecologia 72:263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vrijenhoek RC (1978) Coexistence of clones in a heterogeneous environment. Science 199:549–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vrijenhoek RC (1979) Factors affecting clonal diversity and coexistence. Amer Zool 19:787–797Google Scholar
  49. Weider LJ (1985) Spatial and temporal genetic heterogeneity in a natural Daphnia population. J Plankton Res 7:101–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weider LJ, Glenn KL, Kyle M, Elser JJ (2004) Associations among ribosomal (r)DNA intergenic spacer length variation, growth rate, and C:N:P stoichiometry in the genus Daphnia. Limnol Oceanogr 49:1417–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Winder M, Boersma M, Spaak P (2003) On the cost of vertical migration: are feeding conditions really worse at greater depths? Freshwat Biol 48:383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence J. Weider
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wataru Makino
    • 3
    • 4
  • Kumud Acharya
    • 2
    • 5
  • Karen L. Glenn
    • 1
  • Marcia Kyle
    • 2
  • Jotaro Urabe
    • 3
    • 4
  • James J. Elser
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Zoology and Biological StationUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Center for Ecological ResearchKyoto UniversityOtsuJapan
  4. 4.Graduate School of Life Science, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyTohoku UniversityAoba, SendaiJapan
  5. 5.Department of BiologyUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations