Community Trait Distribution Across Environmental Gradients
- 155 Downloads
Variability in community composition is often attributed to underlying differences in physical environments. However, predator–prey interactions can play an equally important role in structuring communities. Although environmental differences select for different species assemblages, less is known about their impacts on trait compositions. We develop a trait-based analysis of plankton communities of the southern California Current System across multiple trophic levels, from bacteria to mesozooplankton, and over a gradient of environmental conditions, from the oligotrophic open ocean to coastal upwelling. Across a factor of four differences in total community biomass, we observe similarities in the size structure along the environmental gradient, with the most pronounced departures from proportional variations in the biomasses found in the largest protists (> 40 µm). Differences in the trait distributions emerge within a small range of size groups: greater biomass contribution of larger autotrophs (> 10 µm) is observed only for the upwelling region.
KeywordsActivity traits California current community structure feeding mode multi-trophic interactions plankton resource acquisition size distribution upwelling
Data and participation from CCE-LTER were supported by US National Science Foundation Grants OCE-04-17616 and OCE-10-26607. This work was supported by the Centre for Ocean Life, a VKR Centre of excellence funded by the Villum Foundation, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (#5479). The authors thank Philipp Brun for his assistance and guidance during the application of the statistical analysis and Thomas Kiørboe and Martin Lindegren for insightful discussions during concept development. The authors would also like to acknowledge Emma Tovar for her continued efforts in conducting the ZooScan analysis for the CCE-LTER programme.
- Andersen KH, Berge T, Gonçalves RJ, Hartvig M, Heuschele J, Hylander S, Jacobsen NS, Lindemann C, Martens EA, Neuheimer AB, Olsson KH, Palacz A, Prowe AEF, Sainmont J, Traving SJ, Visser AW, Wadhwa N, Kiørboe T. 2016. Characteristic sizes of life in the oceans, from bacteria to whales. Ann Rev Mar Sci 8:217–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Armstrong R. 1999. Stable model structures for representing biogeochemical diversity and size spectra in plankton communities. J Plankton Res 21:445–64. https://academic.oup.com/plankt/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/plankt/21.3.445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Batchelder HP, Edwards CA, Powell TM. 2002. Individual-based models of copepod populations in coastal upwelling regions: Implications of physiologically and environmentally influenced diel vertical migration on demographic success and nearshore retention. Prog Oceanogr 53:307–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Colebrook JM. 1977. Annual fluctuations in biomass of taxonomic groups of zooplankton in the California Current 1955–1959. Fish Bull 75:357–68.Google Scholar
- Margalef R. 1978. Life-forms of phytoplankton as survival alternatives in an unstable environment. Oceanol Acta 1:493–509.Google Scholar
- Mullin MM. 1998. Biomasses of large-celled phytoplankton and their relation to the nitricline and grazing in the California Current System off Southern California, 1994–1996. CalCOFI Reports 39:117–23.Google Scholar
- Raven JA. 1986. Physiological consequences of extremely small size for autotrophic organisms in the sea. In: Platt T, Li WKW, editors. Photosynthetic Picoplankton. Can Bull Fish Aquat Sci. pp 1–70.Google Scholar