Advertisement

Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 77, Issue 10, pp 1833–1853 | Cite as

Dynamics of Simple Food Webs

  • Tomas GedeonEmail author
  • Patrick Murphy
Original Article

Abstract

We consider a simple food web with commensal relationship, where organisms utilize both external resources and resources produced by other organisms. We show that in such a community with no competition, there is at most one possible equilibrium for each fixed set of surviving species, and develop a natural condition that determines which species survive based on available resource. Our main result shows that among all possible communities described by equilibria, the one which is stable has the largest number of surviving species and largest combined biomass and hence maximizes utilization of available resources.

Keywords

Microbial consortia Chemostat Commensal relationship 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jeff Heys and Ross Carlson for many stimulating discussions on microbial consortia. We would also like to thank anonymous referees whose comments significantly improved the presentation of the paper.

References

  1. Aota Y, Nakajima H (2001) Mutualistic relationships between phytoplankton and bacteria caused by carbon excretion from phytoplankton. Ecol Res 16:289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beardmore R, Gudelj I, Lipson D, Hurst L (2011) Metabolic trade-offs and the maintenance of the fittest and the flattest. Nature 472:342–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernstein H, Paulson S, Carlson R (2012) Synthetic Escherichia coli consortia engineered for syntrophy demonstrate enhanced biomass productivity. J Biotechnol 157:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bull J, Harcombe W (2009) Population dynamics constrain the cooperative evolution of cross-feeding. PLoS One 4:e4115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burchard A (1994) Substrate degradation by a mutualistic association of two species in the chemostat. J Math Biol 32:465–489CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. de Mazancourt C, Schwartz MW (2010) A resource ratio theory of cooperation. Ecol Lett 13:349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeLong JP (2008) The maximum power principle predicts the outcomes of two-species competition experiments. Oikos 117(9):1329–1336. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2008.16832.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doebeli M (2002) A model for the evolutionary dynamics of cross-feeding polymorphisms in microorganisms. Popul Ecol 44:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eiteman M, Lee S, Altman E (2008) A co-fermentation strategy to consume sugar mixtures effectively. J Biol Eng 2:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elkhader A (1991) Global stability in a synthrophic chain model. Math Biosci 104:203–245CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Estrela S, Gudejl I (2010) Evolution of cooperative cross-feeding could be less challenging than originally thought. PLoS One 5(e14):121Google Scholar
  12. Fierer N, Jackson R (2006) The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities. PNAS 103:626–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gill S, Pop M, DeBoy R, Eckburg P, Turnbaugh P, Samuel B, Gorden J, Relman D, Fraser-Liggett C, Nelson K (2006) Metagenomic analysis of the human distal gut microbiome. Science 312:1355–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Helling R, Vargas C, Adams J (1987) Evolution of Escherichia coli during growth in a constant environment. Genetics 116:349–358Google Scholar
  15. Kassen R, Buckling A, Bell G, Rainey P (2000) Diversity peaks at intermediate productivity in a laboratory microcosm. Nature 406:508–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katsuyama C, Nakaoka S, Takeuchi Y, Tago K, Hayatsu M, Kato K (2009) Complementary cooperation between two syntrophic bacteria in pesticide degradation. J Theor Biol 256:644–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lotka AJ (1922) Contribution to the energetics of evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 8(147):151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Odum HT, Pinkerton RC (1955) Times speed regulator: the optimal efficiency for maximum power output in physical and biological systems. Am Sci 43(321):343Google Scholar
  19. Peralta-Yahya P, Zhang F, del Cardayre S, Keasling J (2012) Microbial engineering for the production of advanced biofuels. Nature 488:320–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pfeiffer T, Bonhoeffer S (2004) Evolution of cross-feeding in microbial populations. Am Nat 163:E126–E135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Powell G (1985) Stable coexistence of syntrophic associations in continuous culture. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 35B:46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Powell G (1986) Stable coexistence of synthrophic chains in continuous culture. Theor Popul Biol 30:17–25CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Reilly P (1974) Stability of commensalistic systems. Biotechnol Bioeng 16:1373–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenzweig F, Sharp R, Treves D, Adams J (1994) Microbial evolution in a simple unstructured environment: genetic differentiation in Escherichia coli. Genetics 137:903–917Google Scholar
  25. Rozen D, Lenski R (2000) Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. VIII. Dynamics of a balanced polymorphism. Am Nat 155:24–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sari T, El Hajji M, Harmand J (2012) The mathematical analysis of a syntrophic relationship between two microbial species in a chemostat. Math Biosci Eng 9:627–645CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Schink B (1997) Energetics of syntrophic cooperation in methanogenic degradation. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 61:262–280Google Scholar
  28. Seitz H, Schink B, Pfennig N, Conrad R (1990a) Energetics of syntrophic ethanol oxidation in defined chemostat cocultures—1. Energy requirement for H\(_2\) production and H\(_2\) oxidation. Arch Microbiol 155:82–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seitz H, Schink B, Pfennig N, Conrad R (1990b) Energetics of syntrophic ethanol oxidation in defined chemostat cocultures—2. Energy sharing in biomass production. Arch Microbiol 155:89–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shong J, Diaz M, Collins C (2012) Towards synthetic microbial consortia for bioprocessing. Curr Opin Biotechnol 23:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith H, Li B (2003) Competition for essential resources: a brief review. Fields Inst Commun 3:213–227MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Treves D, Manning S, Adams J (1998) Repeated evolution of an acetate-crossfeeding polymorphism in long-term populations of Escherichia coli. Mol Biol Evol 15:789–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Venail P, MacLean R, Bouvier T, Brockhurst M, Hochberg M, Mouguet N (2008) Diversity and productivity peak at intermediate dispersal rate in evolving metacommunities. Nature 452:210–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Venter J, Remingtion K, Heidelberg J, Halpern A, Rusch D, Eisen J, Wu D, Paulsen I, Nelson K, Nelson W, Fouts D, Levy S, Knap A, Lomas M, Nealson K, White O, Peterson J, Hoffman J, Parsons R, Baden-Tillson H, Pfannkock C, Rogers Y, Smith HO (2004) Environmental genome shotgun sequencing of the Sargasso Sea. Science 304:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zuroff T, Curtis W (2012) Developing symbiotic consortia for lignocellulosic biofuel production. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 93:1423–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA

Personalised recommendations