Oecologia

, Volume 162, Issue 2, pp 349–357 | Cite as

Sensitivity of Daphnia species to phosphorus-deficient diets

  • Bernd Seidendorf
  • Nadine Meier
  • Adam Petrusek
  • Maarten Boersma
  • Bruno Streit
  • Klaus Schwenk
Population Ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

The life history of freshwater cladocerans such as Daphnia spp. is strongly affected by their environment. Factors such as temperature, food quantity and even the presence or absence of predators influence growth, reproduction and morphology of individuals. Recently, it has also become clear that the quality of the food can affect various life history traits of Daphnia. More specifically, the effect of the elemental composition of algae, expressed as the C:P ratio, has been studied intensively. Daphnia species differ in their response to differences in the C:P ratio of their food. Until now, it has been unclear whether these species differences are driven by phylogenetic constraints or by adaptation to particular environmental conditions. Here we present laboratory experiments with 12 Daphnia species from three different subgenera originating from a broad range of habitats. We compared somatic growth rates and sensitivity to variation in the nutrient stoichiometry of the food with habitat parameters, taking into account the phylogenetic history of the species. No associations between fitness and habitat parameters were detected. However, we found a trade-off between sensitivity to P-deficient diets and the maximum growth rate on a P-sufficient diet. In several cases, this trade-off helps to explain the association between species distribution and habitat parameters. We observed no correlation of the sensitivity to P limitation with the phylogenetic history of the genus Daphnia. Thus, we conclude that the differential responses among Daphnia species to variation in P content in food were driven mainly by adaptations to their local habitats, and are not constrained by deep evolutionary patterns.

Keywords

Cladocera Food quality Phylogeny Life history 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dieter Albrecht (MPI Plön, Germany) for C:P-measurements of Scenedesmus obliquus cultures. This study was funded by the German Research foundation (DFG), SCHW 830/3 and BO 1488/5, the LOEWE Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F) and the Czech Ministry of Education (MSM0021620828). We acknowledge the generous support of Schärfe Systems (Casy particle counter). We also thank one anonymous reviewer and Bill DeMott whose comments significantly improved the quality of the paper. The experiments we present here comply with the current laws in Germany where all experiments were performed.

References

  1. Acharya K, Kyle MAD, Elser JJ (2004) Biological stoichiometry of Daphnia growth: an ecophysiological test of the growth rate hypothesis. Limnol Oceanogr 49:656–665Google Scholar
  2. Adamowicz SJ, Petrusek A, Colbourne JK, Hebert PDN, Witt JDS (2009) The scale of divergence: a phylogenetic appraisal of intercontinental allopatric speciation in a passively dispersed freshwater zooplankton genus. Mol Phylogen Evol 50:423–436Google Scholar
  3. Becker C, Boersma M (2003) Resource quality effects on life histories of Daphnia. Limnol Oceanogr 48:700–706Google Scholar
  4. Benzie JAH (2005) Cladocera: the genus Daphnia (including Daphniopsis). In: Dumont HJF (ed) Guides to the identification of the microinvertebrates of the continental waters of the world, vol 21. Kenobi, Backhuys, Ghent, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  5. Boersma M (1997) Offspring size and parental fitness in Daphnia magna. Evol Ecol 11:439–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boersma M (2000) The nutritional quality of P-limited algae for Daphnia. Limnol Oceanogr 45:1157–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colbourne JK, Hebert PDN (1996) The systematics of North American Daphnia (Crustacea: Anomopoda): a molecular phylogenetic approach. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 351:349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crease TJ, Lynch M (1991) Ribosomal DNA variation in Daphnia pulex. Mol Biol Evol 8:620–640Google Scholar
  9. De Meester L (1996) Local genetic differentiation and adaptation in freshwater zooplankton populations: patterns and processes. Ecoscience 3:385–399Google Scholar
  10. De Meester L, Gomez A, Okamura B, Schwenk K (2002) The monopolization hypothesis and the dispersal-gene flow paradox in aquatic organisms. Acta Oecol 23:121–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Meester L et al (2005) Ponds and pools as model systems in conservation biology, ecology and evolutionary biology. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwater Ecosyst 15:715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Declerck S, De Meester L (2003) Impact of fish predation on coexisting Daphnia taxa: a partial test of the temporal hybrid superiority hypothesis. Hydrobiologia 500:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeMott WR, Pape BJ (2005) Stoichiometry in an ecological context: testing for links between Daphnia P-content, growth rate and habitat preference. Oecologia 142:20–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. DeMott WR, Tessier AJ (2002) Stoichiometric constraints vs. algal defenses: testing mechanisms of zooplankton food limitation. Ecology 83:3426–3433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeMott WR, Gulati RD, Van Donk E (2001) Effects of dietary phosphorus deficiency on the abundance, phosphorus balance, and growth of Daphnia cucullata in three hypereutrophic Dutch lakes. Limnol Oceanogr 46:1871–1880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeMott WR, Pape BJ, Tessier AJ (2004) Patterns and sources of variation in Daphnia P-content in nature. Aquat Ecol 38:433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dzialowski AR, Lennon JT, O’Brien WJ, Smith VH (2003) Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity in the exotic cladoceran Daphnia lumholtzi. Freshwater Biol 48:1593–1602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ebert D (1993) The trade-off between offspring size and number in Daphnia magna—the influence of genetic, environmental and maternal effects. Arch Hydrobiol Suppl 90:453–473Google Scholar
  19. Elser JJ (2006) Biological stoichiometry: a chemical bridge between ecosystem ecology and evolutionary biology. Am Nat 168:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Fagan WF, Siemann EH, Denno RF, Mitter C, Huberty A, Woods HA, Elser JJ (2002) Nitrogen in insects: implications for trophic complexity and species diversification. Am Nat 160:784–802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferrao-Filho ADS, Tessier AJ, DeMott WR (2007) Sensitivity of herbivorous zooplankton to phosphorus-deficient diets: testing stoichiometric theory and the growth rate hypothesis. Limnol Oceanogr 52:407–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gorokhova E, Dowling TE, Weider LJ, Crease TJ, Elser JJ (2002) Functional and ecological significance of rDNA intergenic spacer variation in a clonal organism under divergent selection for production rate. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 269:2373–2379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gulati RD, DeMott WR (1997) The role of food quality for zooplankton: remarks on the state-of-the-art, perspectives and priorities. Freshwater Biol 38:753–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hairston NG, Holtmeier CL, Lampert W, Weider LJ, Post DM, Fischer JM, Caceres CE, Fox JA, Gaedke U (2001) Natural selection for grazer resistance to toxic cyanobacteria: evolution of phenotypic plasticity? Evol Int J Org Evol 55:2203–2214Google Scholar
  26. Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Hendrixson HA, Sterner RW, Kay AD (2007) Elemental stoichiometry of freshwater fishes in relation to phylogeny, allometry and ecology. J Fish Biol 70:121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hotový J, Petrusek A (2007) Resting stage density and hatching of two cladoceran species from small ephemeral waters. Fundam Appl Limnol 169:177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kay AD, Ashton IW, Gorokhova E, Kerkhoff AJ, Liess A, Litchman E (2005) Toward a stoichiometric framework for evolutionary biology. Oikos 109:6–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kluttgen B, Dulmer U, Engels M, Ratte HT (1994) ADaM, an artificial freshwater for the culture of zooplankton. Water Res 28:743–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kreeger DA, Goulden CE, Kilham SS, Lynn SG, Datta S, Interlandi SJ (1997) Seasonal changes in the biochemistry of lake seston. Freshwater Biol 38:539–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lampert W (1987) Feeding and nutrition in Daphnia. In: Peters RH, de Bernardi R (eds) Daphnia. Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia, vol 45. Pallanza, pp 143–192Google Scholar
  33. Langner CL, Hendrix PF (1982) Evaluation of a persulfate digestion method for particulate nitrogen and phosphorus. Water Res 16:1451–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lynch M (1985) Speciation in the Cladocera. Verh Int Ver Theor Angew Limnol 22:3116–3123Google Scholar
  35. Maddison WP, Maddison DR (2006) Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis, 1.1 edn. http://mesquiteproject.org
  36. Midford PE, Garland Jr T, Maddison WP (2005) PDAP package of Mesquite, version 1.07. http://mesquiteproject.org
  37. Petrusek A et al (2008) A taxonomic reappraisal of the European Daphnia longispina complex (Crustacea, Cladocera, Anomopoda). Zool Scr 37:507–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petrusek A, Tollrian R, Schwenk K, Haas A, Laforsch C (2009) A “crown of thorns” is an inducible defense that protects Daphnia against an ancient predator. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:2248–2252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Pijanowska J (1991) Seasonal changes in morphology of Daphnia cucullata SARS. Arch Hydrobiol 121:79–86Google Scholar
  40. Plath K, Boersma M (2001) Mineral limitation of zooplankton: stoichiometric constraints and optimal foraging. Ecology 82:1260–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Purvis A (1995) A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 348:405–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Satterthwaite FE (1946) An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometr Bull 2:110–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Schulz KL, Sterner RW (1999) Phytoplankton phosphorus limitation and food quality for Bosmina. Limnol Oceanogr 44:1549–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwenk K, Posada D, Herbert PDN (2000) Molecular systematics of European Hyalodaphnia: the role of contemporary hybridization in ancient species. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:1833–1842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Seda J, Petrusek A, Macháček J, Šmilauer P (2007) Spatial distribution of the Daphnia longispina species complex and other planktonic crustaceans in the heterogeneous environment of canyon-shaped reservoirs. J Plankton Res 29:619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seidendorf B, Boersma M, Schwenk K (2007) Evolutionary stoichiometry: the role of food quality for clonal differentiation and hybrid maintenance in a Daphnia species complex. Limnol Oceanogr 52:385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  49. Sterner RW, Hessen DO (1994) Algal nutrient limitation and the nutrition of aquatic herbivores. Annu Rev Ecol 25:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tessier AJ, Woodruff P (2002a) Cryptic trophic cascade along a gradient of lake size. Ecology 83:1263–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tessier AJ, Woodruff P (2002b) Trading of the ability to exploit rich versus poor food quality. Ecol Lett 5:685–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tessier AJ, Leibold MA, Tsao J (2000) A fundamental trade-off in resource exploitation by Daphnia and consequences to plankton communities. Ecology 81:826–841Google Scholar
  53. Weider LJ, KL G, Kyle M, Elser JJ (2004) Associations among ribosomal (r)DNA intergenic spacer length, growth rate, and C:N:P stoichiometry in the genus Daphnia. Limnol Oceanogr 49:1417–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zehnder A, Gorham PR (1960) Factors influencing the growth of Microcystis aeruginosa Kutz emend Elenkin. Can J Microbiol 6:645–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Seidendorf
    • 1
  • Nadine Meier
    • 1
  • Adam Petrusek
    • 2
  • Maarten Boersma
    • 3
  • Bruno Streit
    • 1
  • Klaus Schwenk
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolution, Institute for Ecology, Evolution and DiversityGoethe-University Frankfurt am MainFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.Department of Ecology, Faculty of ScienceCharles University in PraguePrague 2Czech Republic
  3. 3.Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine ResearchBiological Institute HelgolandHelgolandGermany
  4. 4.Institute for Environmental SciencesUniversity of Koblenz-LandauLandau in der PfalzGermany

Personalised recommendations