, Volume 110, Issue 1–3, pp 303–313 | Cite as

Grazing-induced production of DMS can stabilize food-web dynamics and promote the formation of phytoplankton blooms in a multitrophic plankton model

  • Nicola D. Lewis
  • Mark N. Breckels
  • Steve D. Archer
  • Andrew Morozov
  • Jonathan W. Pitchford
  • Michael Steinke
  • Edward A. Codling


Volatile infochemicals including climatically relevant dimethylsulphide (DMS) have been suggested to play important roles in the structuring and functioning of marine food webs. Experimenting with complex natural plankton communities or several trophic levels in laboratory microcosms is challenging and, as a result, empirical data confirming the role of DMS in trophic interactions is lacking. Models are a suitable tool to provide insight into such complex interactions. Here we consider a model of the interactions between three trophic levels of plankton: phytoplankton, grazing microzooplankton and predatory mesozooplankton. We show that the inclusion of a grazing-induced DMS production term has a stabilizing effect on the system dynamics under the assumption that DMS acts as an info-chemical and increases the rate of mesozooplankton predation on grazing microzooplankton. We further demonstrate how this feedback between trophic levels can potentially lead to the formation of a phytoplankton bloom. The model provides a suitable framework for further study into the possible role of DMS in the ecology of marine food webs beyond its recognised role as a climate-cooling gas.


Multitrophic interactions Dimethylsulphide Plankton blooms Mathematical modelling Population dynamics 



This work was funded by a grant from NERC (NE/H009485/1).


  1. Abrams PA, Walters CJ (1996) Invulnerable prey and the paradox of enrichment. Ecology 77:1125–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer SD, Stelfox-Widdicombe CE, Burkill PH, Malin G (2001) A dilution approach to quantify the production of dissolved dimethylsulphoniopropionate and dimethylsulphide due to microzooplankton herbivory. Aquat Microb Ecol 23:131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer SD, Smith GC, Nightingale PD, Widdicombe CE, Tarran GA, Rees AP, Burkill PH (2002) Dynamics of particulate dimethylsulphoniopropionate during a Lagrangian experiment in the northern North Sea. Deep Sea Res Part II Top Stud Oceanogr 49:2979–3000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayers GP, Cainey JM (2007) The CLAW hypothesis: a review of the major developments. Environ Chem 4:366–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buskey EJ (1984) Swimming pattern as an indicator of the roles of copepod sensory systems in the recognition of food. Mar Biol 79:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calbet A (2001) Mesozooplankton grazing effect on primary production: a global comparative analysis in marine ecosystems. Limnol Oceanogr 46:1824–1830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charlson RJ, Lovelock JE, Andreae MO, Warren SG (1987) Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulphur, cloud albedo and climate. Nature 326:655–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cowles TJ, Desiderio RA, Carr ME (1998) Small scale planktonic structure: persistence and trophic consequences. J Oceanogr 11:4–9Google Scholar
  9. Edwards AM, Brindley J (1999) Zooplankton mortality and the dynamical behavior of plankton population models. Bull Math Biol 61:303–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards CA, Batchelder HP, Powell TM (2000) Modeling microzooplankton dynamics within a coastal upwelling system. J Plankton Res 22:1619–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fileman E, Smith T, Harris R (2007) Grazing by Calanus helgolandicus and Para-Pseudocalanus spp. on phytoplankton and protozooplankton during the spring bloom in the Celtic Sea. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 348:70–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fileman E, Petropavlovsky A, Harris R (2010) Grazing by the copepods Calanus helgolandicus and Acartia clausi on the protozooplankton community at station L4 in the Western English Channel. J Plankton Res 32:709–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franks PJS (2001) Phytoplankton blooms in a fluctuating environment: the roles of plankton response time scales and grazing. J Plankton Res 23:1433–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Genkai-Kato M, Yamamura N (1999) Unpalatable prey resolves the paradox of enrichment. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1215–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gill CW, Poulet SA (1988) Responses of copepods to dissolved free amino-acids. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 43:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hairston NG, Smith FE, Slobodkin LB (1960) Community structure, population control, and competition. Am Nat 94:421–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hammer AC, Pitchford JW (2005) The role of mixotrophy in plankton bloom dynamics, and the consequences for productivity. ICES L Mar Sci 62:833–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammer AC, Pitchford JW (2006) Mixotrophy, allelopathy and the population dynamics of phagotrophic algae (cryptophytes) in the Darss Zingst Bodden estuary, southern Baltic. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 328:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen B, Tande KS, Berggreen UC (1990) On the trophic fate of Phaeocystis pouchetii (Hariot). III. Functional responses in grazing demonstrated on juvenile stages of Calanus finmarchicus (Copepoda) fed diatoms and Phaeocystis. J Plankton Res 12:1173–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen FC, Reckermann M, Klein Breteler WCM, Riegman R (1993) Phaeocystis blooming enhanced by copepod predation on protozoa: evidence from incubation experiments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 102:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hay ME (2009) Marine chemical ecology: chemical signals and cues structure marine populations, communities, and ecosystems. Annu Rev Mar Sci 1:193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hilbert DW, Roulet N, Moore T (2000) Modelling and analysis of peatlands as dynamical systems. J Ecol 88:230–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holling CS (1959) The components of predation as revealed by a study of small mammal predation on the European pine sawfly. Can Entomol 91:293–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Irigoien X, Flynn KJ, Harris RP (2005) Plankton blooms: a ‘loophole’ in microzooplankton grazing impact? J Plankton Res 27:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. James A, Pitchford JW, Brindley J (2003) The relationship between plankton blooms, the hatching of fish larvae, and recruitment. Ecol Model 160:77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klein Breteler WCM, Schogt N, Baas M, Schouten S, Kraay GW (1999) Trophic upgrading of food quality by protozoans enhancing copepod growth: role of essential lipids. Mar Biol 135:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kot M (2001) Elements of mathematical ecolgy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kowalewsky S, Dambach M, Mauck B, Dehnhardt G (2006) High olfactory sensitivity for dimethyl sulphide in harbour seals. Biol Lett 2:106–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levasseur M, Michaud S, Egge J, Cantin G, Nejstgaard JC, Sanders R, Fernandez E, Solberg PT, Heimdal B, Gosselin M (1996) Production of DMSP and DMS during a mesocosm study of an Emiliania huxleyi bloom: influence of bacteria and Calanus finmarchicus grazing. Mar Biol 126:609–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCann K, Hastings A (1997) Re-evaluating the omnivory–stability relationship in food webs. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1249–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Melle W, Skjoldal HR (1998) Reproduction and development of Calanus finmarchicus, C. glacialis and C. hyperboreus in the Barents Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 169:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morozov AY, Petrovskii SV, Nezlin NP (2007) Towards resolving the paradox of enrichment: the impact of zooplankton vertical migrations on plankton systems stability. J Theor Biol 248:501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morozov A, Arashkevich E, Nikishina A, Solovyev K (2011) Nutrient-rich plankton communities stabilized via predator–prey interactions: revisiting the role of vertical heterogeneity. Math Med Biol 28:185–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nejstgaard JC, Båmstedt U, Bagøien E, Solberg PT (1995) Algal constraints on copepod grazing growth state, toxicity, cell size, and season as regulating factors. ICES J Mar Sci 52:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nejstgaard JC, Gismervik I, Solberg PT (1997) Feeding and reproduction by Calanus finmarchicus, and microzooplankton grazing during mesocosm blooms of diatoms and the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 147:197–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nevitt GA (2000) Olfactory foraging by Antarctic procellariiform seabirds: life at high Reynolds numbers. Biol Bull 198:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nevitt GA, Veit RR, Kareiva P (1995) Dimethyl sulphide as a foraging cue for Antarctic Procellariiform seabirds. Nature 376:680–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pitchford J, Brindley J (1998) Intratrophic predation in simple predator–prey models. Bull Math Biol 60:937–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pohnert G, Steinke M, Tollrian R (2007) Chemical cues, defence metabolites and the shaping of pelagic interspecific interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:198–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosenzweig ML (1971) Paradox of enrichment: destabilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time. Science 171:385–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosenzweig ML, MacArthur RH (1963) Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator–prey interactions. Am Nat 97:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saiz E, Calbet A (2007) Scaling of feeding in marine calanoid copepods. Limnol Oceanogr 52:668–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sherr E, Sherr B (1988) Role of microbes in pelagic food webs. Limnol Oceanogr 33:1225–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Steinke M, Malin G, Liss PS (2002a) Trophic interactions in the sea: an ecological role for climate relevant volatiles. J Phycol 38:630–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Steinke M, Malin G, Archer SD, Burkill PH, Liss PS (2002b) DMS production in a coccolithophorid bloom: evidence for the importance of dinoflagellate DMSP lyases. Aquat Microb Ecol 26:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steinke M, Stefels J, Stamhuis E (2006) Dimethyl sulphide triggers search behaviour in copepods. Limnol Oceanogr 51:1925–1930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tang KW, Jakobsen HH, Visser AW (2001) Phaeocystis globosa (Prymnesiophyceae) and the planktonic food web: feeding, growth, and trophic interactions among grazers. Limnol Oceanogr 46:1860–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Truscott JE, Brindley J (1994) Ocean plankton populations as excitable media. Bull Math Biol 56:981–998Google Scholar
  49. Vos M, Kooi BW, DeAngelis DL, Mooij WM (2004) Inducible defences and the paradox of enrichment. OIKOS 105:471–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vos M, Vet LEM, Wackers FL, Middelburg JJ, van der Putten WH, Mooij WM, Heip CHR, van Donk E (2006) Infochemicals structure marine, terrestrial and freshwater food webs: implications for ecological informatics. Ecol Inform 1:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolfe GV, Steinke M (1996) Grazing-activated production of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) by two clones of Emiliania huxleyi. Limnol Oceanogr 41:1151–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yang EJ, Kang HK, Yoo S, Hyun JH (2009) Contribution of auto- and heterotrophic protozoa to the diet of copepods in the Ulleung Basin, East Sea/Japan Sea. J Plankton Res 32:647–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola D. Lewis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark N. Breckels
    • 2
    • 3
  • Steve D. Archer
    • 3
  • Andrew Morozov
    • 4
  • Jonathan W. Pitchford
    • 5
  • Michael Steinke
    • 2
  • Edward A. Codling
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of EssexColchesterUK
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of EssexColchesterUK
  3. 3.Plymouth Marine LaboratoryPlymouthUK
  4. 4.Department of MathematicsUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  5. 5.Department of MathematicsUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations