Oecologia

, Volume 175, Issue 1, pp 243–250 | Cite as

Effect of prey richness on a consumer’s intrinsic growth rate

Community ecology - Original research

Abstract

The intrinsic growth rate of non-selective microbivores increases asymptotically with increasing prey biomass, but we do not know how intrinsic growth rate is affected by prey richness. The objective of this experiment was to determine the effect of prey richness on the growth kinetics of nematode predators while grazing on mixed bacterial lawns. We found that the intrinsic growth rate of Caenorhabditis elegans in laboratory culture increased asymptotically with prey richness. The mechanism of this pattern was primarily due to the best available prey species in the mixture: the intrinsic growth rate of the consumer feeding on a mixture of prey was approximately equal to the intrinsic growth rate of the predator when feeding on the single best prey in monoculture. This was analogous to the selection effect observed in biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationships. Generation time, and not reproductive output, was the life history trait component that was most consistent with the pattern of intrinsic growth rate. Our results suggest that in order to link invertebrate consumers’ growth rates to their microbial species composition in the field, it will be necessary to determine the ability of microbivorous invertebrates to selectively forage in natural environments and to better understand the micro-scale distribution of microbial communities in their natural environments.

Keywords

Nematodes Bacteria Polyculture Pathogenicity Community 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF EF 0723862).

Supplementary material

442_2014_2883_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (29 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 28 kb)

References

  1. Anderson RV, Coleman DC, Cole CV, Elliott ET (1981) Effect of the nematodes Acrobeloides sp. and Mesodiplogaster iheritieri on substrate utilization and nitrogen and phosphorous mineralization in soil. Ecology 62:549–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bougrier S, Hawkins AJS, Heral M (1997) Preingestive selection of different microalgal mixtures in Crassostrea gigas and Mytilus edulis, analysed by flow cytometry. Aquaculture 150:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen B, Liu H, Lau MS (2010) Grazing and growth responses of a marine oligotrichous ciliate fed with two nanoplankton: does food quality matter for micrograzers? Aquat Ecol 44:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coolon JD, Jones KL, Todd TC, Carr BC, Herman MA (2009) Caenorhabditis elegans genomic response to soil bacteria predicts environment-specific genetic effects on life history traits. PLoS Genet 5:e1000503PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Ley P (1992) The nematode community of a marginal soil at Cambérène, Senegal, with special attention to functional morphology and niche partitioning in the family Cephalobidae. Meded K Acad Wet Lett Schone Kunst Belg—Klass Wet 53:108–153Google Scholar
  6. Dionisio Pires LM, Jonker RR, Van Donk E, Laanbroek HJ (2004) Selective grazing by adults and larvae of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): application of flow cytometry to natural seston. Freshwater Biol 49:116–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fang-Yen C, Avery L, Samuel ADT (2009) Two size-selective mechanisms specifically trap bacteria-sized food particles in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:20093–20096PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fargione J, Tilman D, Dybzinski R et al (2007) From selection to complementarity: shifts in the causes of biodiversity–productivity relationships in a long-term biodiversity experiment. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274:871–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Félix M-A, Braendle C (2010) The natural history of Caenorhabditis elegans. Curr Biol CB 20:R965–R969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferris H, Bongers T (2006) Nematode indicators of organic enrichment. J Nematol 38:3–12PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Freyth K et al (2010) Reproductive fitness and dietary choice behavior of the genetic model organism Caenorhabditis elegans under semi-natural conditions. Mol Cells 30:347–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geister T, Lorenz M, Hoffmann K, Fischer K (2008) Adult nutrition and butterfly fitness: effects of diet quality on reproductive output, egg composition, and egg hatching success. Front Zool 5:10PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gonzalez JM, Sherr EB, Sherr BF (1990) Size-selective grazing on bacteria by natural assemblages of estuarine flagellates and ciliates. Appl Environ Microbiol 56:583–589PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gotelli NJ (2001) A primer of ecology, 3rd edn. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  15. Grewal PS (1991) Influence of bacteria and temperature on the reproduction of Caenorhabditis elegans (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) infesting mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus). Nematologica 37:72–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holling CS (1959) The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can Entomol 91:293–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ et al (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jervis M, Ferns P, Boggs C (2007) A trade-off between female lifespan and larval diet breadth at the interspecific level in Lepidoptera. Evol Ecol 21:307–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirk KL (1991) Inorganic particles alter competition in grazing plankton: the role of selective feeding. Ecology 72:915–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lardies M, Carter M, Bozinovic F (2004) Dietary effects on life history traits in a terrestrial isopod: the importance of evaluating maternal effects and trade-offs. Oecologia 138:387–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Monod J (1949) The growth of bacterial cultures. Annu Rev Microbiol 3:371–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montagnes D, Barbosa A, Boenigk J et al (2008) Selective feeding behaviour of key free-living protists: avenues for continued study. Aquat Microb Ecol 53:83–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nacke H et al (2011) Pyrosequencing-based assessment of bacterial community structure along different management types in German forest and grassland soils. PLoS One 6:e17000PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neher DA (2001) Role of nematodes in soil health and their use as indicators. J Nematol 33:161–168PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pianka ER (1970) On r- and K-selection. Am Nat 104:592–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saleem M, Fetzer I, Dormann CF, Harms H, Chatzinotas A (2012) Predator richness increases the effect of prey diversity on prey yield. Nat Commun 3:1305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saleem M, Fetzer I, Harms H, Chatzinotas A (2013) Diversity of protists and bacteria determines predation performance and stability. ISME J 7:1912–1921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schiemer F (1982a) Food dependence and energetics of free-living nematodes 1. Respiration, growth and reproduction of Caenorhabditis briggsae (Nematoda) at different levels of food supply. Oecologia 54:108–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schiemer F (1982b) Food dependence and energetics of free-living nematodes. 2. Life-history parameters of Caenorhabditis briggsae (Nematoda) at different levels of food supply. Oecologia 54:122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shtonda BB, Avery L (2006) Dietary choice behavior in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Exp Biol 209:89–102PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tan MW, Mahajan-Miklos S, Ausubel FM (1999) Killing of Caenorhabditis elegans by Pseudomonas aeruginosa used to model mammalian bacterial pathogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:715–720PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin D, Reich P, Ritchie M, Siemann E (1997) The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1300–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Twombly S, Clancy N, Burns CW (1998) Life history consequences of food quality in the freshwater copepod Boeckella triarticulata. Ecology 79:1711–1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Urabe J, Waki N (2009) Mitigation of adverse effects of rising CO2 on a planktonic herbivore by mixed algal diets. Glob Change Biol 15:523–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Venette RC, Ferris H (1998) Influence of bacterial type and density on population growth of bacterial-feeding nematodes. Soil Biol Biochem 30:949–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wardle DA, Yeates GW, Watson RN, Nicholson KS (1995) Development of the decomposer food-web, trophic relationships, and ecosystem properties during a three-year primary succession in sawdust. Oikos 73:155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilson J, Kakouli-Duarte T (2009) Nematodes as environmental indicators. CABI, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xiao H, Griffiths B, Chen X et al (2010) Influence of bacterial-feeding nematodes on nitrification and the ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) community composition. Appl Soil Ecol 45:131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang Y, Lu H, Bargmann CI (2005) Pathogenic bacteria induce aversive olfactory learning in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 438:179–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zimmer M, Topp W (1997) Does leaf litter quality influence population parameters of the common woodlouse, Porcellio scaber (Crustacea: Isopoda)? Biol Fertil Soils 24:435–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of BiologyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA

Personalised recommendations