Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 148, Issue 4, pp 692–701 | Cite as

The mixotroph Ochromonas tuberculata may invade and suppress specialist phago- and phototroph plankton communities depending on nutrient conditions

  • Alexis Katechakis
  • Herwig Stibor
Community Ecology

Abstract

Mixotrophic organisms combine light, mineral nutrients, and prey as supplementary resources. Based on theoretical assumptions and field observations, we tested experimentally the hypothesis that mixotrophs may invade established plankton communities depending on the trophic status of the system, and investigated possible effects on food web structure, species diversity, and nutrient dynamics. To test our hypothesis, we inoculated the mixotrophic nanoflagellate Ochromonas tuberculata into established planktonic food webs, consisting of specialist phototrophs, specialist phagotrophs, and bacteria at different supplies of soluble inorganic nutrients and dissolved organic carbon. Oligotrophic systems facilitated the invasion of O. tuberculata in two different ways. First, the combination of photosynthesis and phagotrophy gave mixotrophs a competitive advantage over specialist phototrophs and specialist phagotrophs. Second, low nutrient supplies supported the growth of small plankton organisms that fell into the food size spectrum of mixotrophs. Conversely, high nutrient supplies prevented O. tuberculata from successfully invading the food webs. Two important conclusions were derived from our experiments. First, in contrast to a paradigm of ecology, specialization may not necessarily be the most successful strategy for survival under stable conditions. Indeed, the use of several resources with lower efficiency can be an equally, or even more, successful strategy in nature. Second, when limiting nutrients promote the growth of bacterio- and picophytoplankton, invading mixotrophs may have a habitat-ameliorating effect for higher trophic levels, gauged in terms of food quantity and quality. Using given resources more efficiently, O. tuberculata generated higher biomasses and expressed an increased nutritional value for potential planktivores, due to decreased cellular carbon to phosphorus (C:P) ratios compared to specialized plankton taxa. Our findings may help to explain why energy transfer efficiency between phytoplankton and higher trophic levels is generally higher in oligotrophic systems than in nutrient rich environments.

Keywords

Enrichment Intraguild predation Mechanistic resource competition theory Nutrient stoichiometry Transfer efficiency 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Torsten Stadthagen for technical assistance, Thomas Hansen for C to N analyses, Achim Weigert for C to P measurements, and Barbara Santer for providing us with HNF cultures. We also thank Karl-Otto Rothhaupt and two anonymous reviewers for their most helpful comments on our manuscript. Our experiments were financially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG (project ST180/ 1-1, 1-2).

References

  1. APHA (1992) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 18th edn. American Public Health AssociationGoogle Scholar
  2. Arenovski AL, Lim EL, Caron DA (1995) Mixotrophic nanoplankton in oligotrophic surface waters of the Sargasso Sea may employ phagotrophy to obtain major nutrients. J Plankton Res 17:801–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell T (2002) The ecological consequences of unpalatable prey: phytoplankton response to nutrient and predator additions. Oikos 99:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruno JF, John J, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF (1984) Plankton community structure and limnetic primary production. Am Nat 124:159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Currie DJ, Kalff J (1984) Can bacteria outcompete phytoplankton for phosphorus? A chemostat test. Microb Ecol 10:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dall SRX, Cuthill IC (1997) The information costs of generalism. Oikos 80:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeAngelis DL (1992) Dynamics of nutrient cycling and food webs. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Diehl S, Feissel M (2000) Effects of enrichment on three-level food chains with omnivory. Am Nat 155:200–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Elser JJ, Chrzanowski TH, Sterner RW, Mills KH (1998) Stoichiometric constraints on food-web dynamics: a whole lake experiment on the Canadian Shield. Ecosystems 1:120–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finlay BJ, Clarke KJ, Cowling AJ, Hindle RM, Rogerson A, Berninger UG (1988) On the abundance and distribution of protozoa and their food in a productive fresh-water pond. Eur J Protistol 23:205–217Google Scholar
  12. Fretwell SD (1977) The regulation of plant communities by food chains exploiting them. Perspect Biol Med 20:169–185Google Scholar
  13. Havskum H, Hansen AS (1997) Importance of pigmented and colourless nano-sized protists as grazers on nanoplankton in a phosphate-depleted Norwegian fjord and in enclosures. Aquat Microb Ecol 12:139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Havskum H, Riemann B (1996) Ecological importance of bacterivorous, pigmented flagellates (mixotrophs) in the Bay of Aarhus, Denmark. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 137:251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hessen DO, Faafeng BO (2000) Elemental ratios in freshwater seston: implications for community structure and energy transfer in food webs. Arch Hydrobiol Spec Issues Adv Limnol 55:349–363Google Scholar
  16. Hessen DO, Færøvig P, Andersen T (2002) Light, nutrients and P:C-ratios in algae: grazer performance related to food quality and quantity. Ecology 83:1886–1898Google Scholar
  17. Hillebrand H, Dürselen CD, Kirschtel D, Pollingher U, Zohary T (1999) Biovolume calculation for pelagic and benthic microalgae. J Phycol 35:403–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hitchman RB, Jones HLJ (2000) The role of mixotrophic protists in the population dynamics of the microbial food web in a small artificial pond. Freshw Biol 43:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Isaksson A (1998) Phagotrophic phytoflagellates in lakes—a literature review. Arch Hydrobiol Spec Issues Adv Limnol 51:63–90Google Scholar
  20. Jansson M, Blomqvist P, Jonsson A, Bergström AK (1996) Nutrient limitation of bacterioplankton, autotrophic and mixotrophic phytoplankton and heterotrophic nanoflagellates in Lake Örträsket. Limnol Oceanogr 41:1552–1559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones RI (2000) Mixotrophy in planktonic protists: an overview. Freshw Biol 45:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katechakis A, Haseneder T, Kling R, Stibor H (2005) Mixotrophic vs. photoautotrophic specialist algae as food for zooplankton: the light:nutrient hypothesis might not hold for mixotrophs. Limnol Oceanogr 50:1290–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katechakis A, Stibor H, Sommer U, Hansen T (2002) Changes in the phytoplankton community and in the microbial food web of Blanes Bay (Catalan Sea, NW Mediterranean) under prolonged grazing pressure by doliolids (Tunicata), cladocerans or copepods (Crustacea). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 234:55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katechakis A, Stibor H, Sommer U, Hansen T (2004) Feeding selectivities and food niche separation of Acartia clausi, Penilia avirostris (Crustacea) and Doliolum denticulatum (Thaliacea) in Blanes Bay (Catalan Sea, NW Mediterranean). J Plankton Res 26:589–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keller M, Shapiro L, Haugen E, Cucci T, Sherr E, Sherr B (1994) Phagotrophy of fluorescently labelled bacteria by an oceanic phytoplankter. Microb Ecol 28:39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leibold MA (1989) Resource edibility and the effects of predators and productivity on the outcome of trophic interactions. Am Nat 134:922–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lund JWG, Kipling C, LeCren ED (1958) The inverted microscope method of estimating algal numbers and the statistical basis of estimations by counting. Hydrobiologia 11:147–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacArthur RH, Connell JH (1966) The biology of populations. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Makino W, Urabe J, Elser JJ, Yoshimizu C (2002) Evidence of phosphorus-limited individual and population growth of Daphnia in a Canadian Shield lake. Oikos 96:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McQueen DJ, Post JR, Mills EL (1986) Trophic relationships in freshwater pelagic ecosystems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43:1571–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Müller-Navarra DC, Brett MT, Park S, Chandra S, Ballantyne AP, Zorta E, Goldman CR (2004) Unsaturated fatty acid content in seston and tropho-dynamic coupling in lakes. Nature 427:69–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Mylius SD, Klumpers K, de Roos AM, Persson L (2001) Impact of intraguild predation and stage structure on simple communities along a productivity gradient. Am Nat 158:259–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Nygaard K, Tobiesen A (1993) Bacterivory in algae: a survival strategy during nutrient limitation. Limnol Oceanogr 38:273–279Google Scholar
  34. Oksanen L, Fretwell SD, Arruda J, Niemelä P (1981) Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. Am Nat 118:240–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pimm SL (1982) Food webs. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Pitta P, Giannakourou A (2000) Planktonic ciliates in the oligotrophic Eastern Mediterranean: vertical, spatial distribution and mixotrophy. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 194:269–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pitta P, Giannakourou A, Christaki U (2001) Planktonic ciliates in the oligotrophic Mediterranean Sea: longitudinal trends of standing stocks, distributions and analysis of food vacuole contents. Aquat Microb Ecol 24:297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Polis GA, Anderson WB, Holt RD (1997) Toward an integration of landscape and food web ecology: the dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:289–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Porter KG, Feig YS (1980) The use of DAPI for identifying and counting aquatic microflora. Limnol Oceanogr 25:943–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raven JA (1997) Phagotrophy in phototrophs. Limnol Oceanogr 42:198–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Riemann B, Havskum H, Thingstad F, Bernard C (1995) The role of mixotrophy in pelagic environments. In: Joint I (ed) Molecular ecology of aquatic microbes. NATO ASI Series G 38. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 87–114Google Scholar
  42. Rothhaupt KO (1996a) Utilizations and substitutable carbon and phosphorus sources by the mixotrophic chrysophyte Ochromonas sp. Ecology 77:706–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rothhaupt KO (1996b) Laboratory experiments with a mixotrophic chrysophyte and obligately phagotrophic and phototrophic competitors. Ecology 77:716–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sanders RW (1988) Feeding by Cyclidium sp. (Ciliophora, Scuticociliatida) on particles of different sizes and surface properties. Bull Mar Sci 43:446–457Google Scholar
  45. Sanders RW (1991) Mixotrophic protists in marine and freshwater ecosystems. J Protozool 38:76–81Google Scholar
  46. Sanders RW, Berninger UG, Lim EL, Kemp PF, Caron DA (2000) Heterotrophic and mixotrophic nanoplankton predation on picoplankton in the Sargasso Sea and on Georges Bank. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 192:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sandgren CD (1988) The ecology of chrysophyte flagellates: their growth and perennation strategies as freshwater phytoplankton. In: Sandgren CD (eds) Growth and reproductive strategies of freshwater phytoplankton. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 9–104Google Scholar
  48. Sibbald MJ, Albright LJ (1991) The influence of light and nutrients on phagotrophy by the mixotrophic nanoflagellate Ochromonas sp. Mar Microb Food Webs 5:39–47Google Scholar
  49. Sommer U (2000) Scarcity of medium-sized phytoplankton in the northern Red Sea explained by strong bottom-up and weak top-down control. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 197:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sommer U, Gaedke U, Schweizer A (1993) The 1st decade of oligotrophication in Lake Constance. 2. The response of phytoplankton taxonomic composition. Oecologia 93:276–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sommer U, Stibor H, Katechakis A, Sommer F, Hansen T (2002) Pelagic food web configurations at different levels of nutrient richness and their implications for the ratio fish production:primary production. Hydrobiologia 484:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sterner RW, Clasen J, Lampert W, Weisse T (1998) Carbon:phosphorus stoichiometry and food chain production. Ecol Lett 1:146–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stibor H, Sommer U (2003) Mixotrophy of a photosynthetic flagellate viewed from an optimal foraging perspective. Protist 154:91–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Stoecker D (1998) Conceptual models of mixotrophy in planktonic protists and some ecological and evolutionary implications. Eur J Protistol 34:281–290Google Scholar
  55. Thingstad TF, Havskum H, Garde K, Riemann B (1996) On the strategy of eating your competitor: a mathematical analysis of algal mixotrophy. Ecology 77:2108–2118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  57. Tittel J, Bissinger V, Zippel B, Gaedke U, Bell E, Lorke A, Kamjunke N (2003) Mixotrophs combine resource use to outcompete specialists: Implications for aquatic food webs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:12776–12781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Utermöhl H (1958) Zur Vervollkommnung der quantitativen Phytoplankton-Methodik. Mitt Int Verein Theor Angew Limnol 9:1–38Google Scholar
  59. Verschoor AM, Vos M, van der Stap I (2004) Inducible defenses prevent strong population fluctuations in bi- and tritrophic food chains. Ecol Lett 7:1143–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Biology II – Aquatic EcologyLudwigs-Maximilians-UniversityPlanegg-MartinsriedGermany

Personalised recommendations