# A 3D Individual-Based Model to Study Effects of Chemotaxis, Competition and Diffusion on the Motile-Phytoplankton Aggregation

- 144 Downloads
- 1 Citations

## Abstract

In this paper, we develop a 3D-individual-based model (IBM) to understand effect of various small-scale mechanisms in phytoplankton cells, on the cellular aggregation process. These mechanisms are: spatial interactions between cells due to their chemosensory abilities (chemotaxis), a molecular diffusion and a demographical process. The latter is considered as a branching process with a density-dependent death rate to take into account the local competition on resources. We implement the IBM and simulate various scenarios under real parameter values for phytoplankton cells. To quantify the effects of the different processes quoted above on the spatial and temporal distribution of phytoplankton, we used two spatial statistics: the Clark–Evans index and the group belonging percentage. Our simulation study highlights the role of the branching process with a weak-to-medium competition in reinforcing the aggregating structure that forms from attraction mechanisms (under suitable conditions for diffusion and attraction forces), and shows by contrast that aggregations cannot form when competition is high.

## Keywords

Individual-based model Phytoplankton aggregation Density-dependent mortality model Chemosensory ability Simulation Nearest-neighbor index Group belonging percentage## Notes

### Acknowledgements

We thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments which helped us to improve the manuscript’s quality. We also thank GAMA team, especially Patrick Taillandier, Ahmed Laatabi and Quang Nghi Huynh for their help and assistance in the programming part. We are grateful to Coralie Fritsch for her help and advices in the conception of our IBM and to Santosh Sathe for his precious biological explanations.

## References

- Adioui M, Arino O, El Saadi N (2005) A nonlocal model of phytoplankton aggregation. Nonlinear Anal Real World Appl 6(4):593–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Azam F, Ammerman JW (1984) Cycling of organic matter by bacterioplankton in pelagic marine ecosystems: microenvironmental considerations. In: Fasham MJR (ed) Flows of Energy and Materials in Marine Ecosystems: Theory and Practice. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 345–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bell W, Mitchell R (1972) Chemotactic and growth responses of marine bacteria to algal extracellular products. Biol Bull 143(2):265–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bolker B, Pacala SW (1997) Using moment equations to understand stochastically driven spatial pattern formation in ecological systems. Theor Popul Biol 52(3):179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Boraas ME, Seale DB, Boxhorn JE (1998) Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: a possible origin of multicellularity. Evol Ecol 12(2):153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bowie GL, Mills WB, Porcella DB, Campbell CL, Pagenkopf JR, Rupp GL, Johnson KM, Chan P, Gherini SA, Chamberlin CE (1985) Rates, constants, and kinetics formulations in surface water quality modeling, vol 600. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Campillo F, Joannides M (2009) A spatially explicit Markovian individual-based model for terrestrial plant dynamics, pp 1–31. arXiv:09043632
- Champagnat N, Méléard S (2007) Invasion and adaptive evolution for individual-based spatially structured populations. J Math Biol 55(2):147–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Clark PJ, Evans FC (1979) Generalization of a nearest neighbor measure of dispersion for use in k dimensions. Ecology 60(2):316–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Crespi BJ (2001) The evolution of social behavior in microorganisms. Trends Ecol Evol 16(4):178–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- DeAngelis DL, Grimm V (2013) Individual-based models in ecology after four decades. F1000prime reports 6:39–39Google Scholar
- Dieckmann U, Law R (2000) The geometry of ecological interactions: simplifying spatial complexity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Durham WM, Climent E, Barry M, De Lillo F, Boffetta G, Cencini M, Stocker R (2013) Turbulence drives microscale patches of motile phytoplankton. Nat Commun 4:2148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- El Saadi N (2004) Modélisation et études mathématique et informatique de populations structurées par des variables aléatoires. Application à l’agrégation du phytoplancton. Ph.D. thesis, École Doctorale des Sciences Exactes et de leurs Applications, Université de Pau et des pays de l’AdourGoogle Scholar
- El Saadi N, Arino O (2006) A stochastic modelling of phytoplankton aggregation. ARIMA 5:80–94Google Scholar
- El Saadi N, Bah A (2006) On phytoplankton aggregation: a view from an IBM approach. CR Biol 329(9):669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- El Saadi N, Bah A (2007) An individual-based model for studying the aggregation behavior in phytoplankton. Ecol Model 204(1):193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- El Saadi N, Bah A (2012) Numerical treatment of a nonlocal model for phytoplankton aggregation. Appl Math Comput 218(17):8279–8287Google Scholar
- Fournier N, Meleard S (2004) A microscopic probabilistic description of a locally regulated population and macroscopic approximations. Ann Appl Prob 14(4):1880–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fritsch C, Campillo F (2017) Models of chemostat. https://github.com/coraliefritsch/modelsOfChemostat. Accessed 16 Feb 2017
- Fritsch C, Harmand J, Campillo F (2015) A modeling approach of the chemostat. Ecol Model 299:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Grignard A, Taillandier P, Gaudou B, Vo DA, Huynh NQ, Drogoul A (2013) Gama 1.6: advancing the art of complex agent-based modeling and simulation. In: Boella G, Elkind E, Savarimuthu BTR, Dignum F, Purvis MK (eds) Proceedings of 16th international conference on PRIMA 2013: principles and practice of multi-agent systems, Dunedin, New Zealand, 1–6 Dec 2013. Springer, Berlin, pp 117–131Google Scholar
- Grimm V (1999) Ten years of individual-based modelling in ecology: what have we learned and what could we learn in the future? Ecol Model 115(2):129–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giske J, Goss-Custard J, Grand T, Heinz SK, Huse G et al (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Model 198(1):115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Grimm V, Berger U, DeAngelis DL, Polhill JG, Giske J, Railsback SF (2010) The odd protocol: a review and first update. Ecol Model 221(23):2760–2768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Grünbaum D, Okubo A (1994) Modelling social animal aggregations. In: Levin SA (ed) Frontiers in Mathematical Biology. Lecture Notes in Biomath, vol 100. Springer, Berlin, pp 296–325Google Scholar
- Hadjivasiliou Z, Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A (2015) Cell–cell signalling in sexual chemotaxis: a basis for gametic differentiation, mating types and sexes. J R Soc Interface 12(109):20150342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hellweger FL, Kianirad E (2007) Individual-based modeling of phytoplankton: evaluating approaches for applying the cell quota model. J Theor Biol 249(3):554–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hill PS (1992) Reconciling aggregation theory with observed vertical fluxes following phytoplankton blooms. J Geophys Res Oceans 97(C2):2295–2308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jackson GA (1990) A model of the formation of marine algal flocs by physical coagulation processes. Deep Sea Res Part A Ocean Res Pap 37(8):1197–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jackson GA, Lochmann SE (1992) Effect of coagulation on nutrient and light limitation of an algal bloom. Limnol Oceanogr 37(1):77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kiørboe T, Andersen KP, Dam HG (1990) Coagulation efficiency and aggregate formation in marine phytoplankton. Mar Biol 107(2):235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Klausmeier CA, Litchman E (2001) Algal games: the vertical distribution of phytoplankton in poorly mixed water columns. Limnol Oceanogr 46(8):1998–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Latta I, Leigh C, O’Donnell RP, Pfrender ME (2009) Vertical distribution of chlamydomonas changes in response to grazer and predator kairomones. Oikos 118(6):853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Law R, Murrell DJ, Dieckmann U (2003) Population growth in space and time: spatial logistic equations. Ecology 84(1):252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Litchman E (2007) Resource competition and the ecological success of phytoplankton. In: Falkowski PG, Knoll AH (eds) Evolution of Primary Producers in the Sea. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 351–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lurling M, Beekman W (2006) Palmelloids formation in chlamydomonas reinhardtii: defence against rotifer predators? Ann Limnol Int J Limnol 42(2):65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McCave I (1984) Size spectra and aggregation of suspended particles in the deep ocean. Deep Sea Res Part A Ocean Res Pap 31(4):329–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mellard JP, Yoshiyama K, Klausmeier CA, Litchman E (2012) Experimental test of phytoplankton competition for nutrients and light in poorly mixed water columns. Ecol Monogr 82(2):239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mogilner A, Edelstein-Keshet L, Bent L, Spiros A (2003) Mutual interactions, potentials, and individual distance in a social aggregation. J Math Biol 47(4):353–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Passow U (2000) Formation of transparent exopolymer particles, TEP, from dissolved precursor material. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 192:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rudnicki R, Wieczorek R (2006) Phytoplankton dynamics: from the behaviour of cells to a transport equation. Math Model Nat Phenom 1(1):83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sathe S, Durand PM (2016) Cellular aggregation in chlamydomonas (chlorophyceae) is chimaeric and depends on traits like cell size and motility. Eur J Phycol 51(2):129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Spero HJ, Morée MD (1981) Phagotrophic feeding and its importance to the life cycle of the holozoic dinoflagellate, gymnodinium fungiforme. J Phycol 17(1):43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Smoluchowski V (1917 ) Versuch einer mathematischen theroie der koagulationskinetik kollider losungen. Z Phys Chem 92:129–168 Google Scholar