Population Ecology

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 341–350 | Cite as

Implications of resting eggs of zooplankton for the paradox of enrichment

  • Takefumi Nakazawa
  • Masataka Kuwamura
  • Norio Yamamura
Original Article

Abstract

In this study, we numerically investigated to what extent introducing resting-egg dynamics would stabilize simple Daphnia–algae consumer–resource models. In the models, the density of viable resting eggs was explicitly expressed, and we assumed that zooplankton produced resting eggs seasonally or in response to food deficiency and that resting eggs hatched seasonally. The models predicted that, although the paradox of enrichment was not completely resolved (i.e., the system was destabilized by eutrophication), we found the following conditions under which the stabilizing effects of resting eggs would be significantly large: (1) resting eggs are produced seasonally (rather than in response to food deficiency), (2) the annual average allocation ratio to resting eggs is large, and (3) the annual average hatching rate of resting eggs is low. The results suggest that resting-egg dynamics can significantly reduce the paradox of enrichment within the biologically meaningful parameter space and contribute to the stability of plankton community dynamics.

Keywords

Diapause Dormancy Population stability Reproductive strategy Zooplankton–phytoplankton interactions 

References

  1. Abrams PA, Walters CJ (1996) Invulnerable prey and the paradox of enrichment. Ecology 77:1125–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alekseev V, Lampert W (2001) Maternal control of resting-egg production in Daphnia. Nature 414:899–901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arbačiauskas K, Lampert W (2003) Seasonal adaptation of ex-ephippio and parthenogenetic offspring of Daphnia magna: differences in life history and physiology. Funct Ecol 17:431–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brendonck L, De Meester L (2003) Egg banks in freshwater zooplankton: evolutionary and ecological archives in the sediment. Hydrobiologia 491:65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brendonck L, De Meester L, Hairston NG Jr (1998) Evolutionary and ecological aspects of crustacean diapause. Archives for Hydrobiology Special Issues: Advances in Limnology 52. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  6. Cáceres CE, Tessier AJ (2003) How long to rest: the ecology of optimal dormancy and environmental constraint. Ecology 84:1189–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carvalho GR, Hughes RN (1983) Effect of food availability, female culture-density and photoperiod on ephippia production in Daphnia magna Strauss (Crustacea: Cladocera). Freshw Biol 13:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellner S, Hairston NG Jr, Kearns CM, Babaï D (1999) The roles of fluctuating selection and long-term diapause in microevolution of diapause timing in a freshwater copepod. Evolution 53:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Genkai-Kato M (2004) Nutritional value of algae: a critical control on the stability of Daphnia–algal systems. J Plankton Res 26:711–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Genkai-Kato M, Yamamura N (1999) Unpalatable prey resolves the paradox of enrichment. Proc R Soc B 266:1215–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Genkai-Kato M, Yamamura N (2000) Profitability of prey determines the response of population abundances to enrichment. Proc R Soc B 267:2397–2401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gyllström M, Hansson LA (2004) Dormancy in freshwater zooplankton: Induction, termination and the importance of benthic–pelagic coupling. Aquat Sci 66:274–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hairston NG Jr, Kearns CM (2002) Temporal dispersal: ecological and evolutionary aspects of zooplankton egg banks and the role of sediment mixing. Integr Comp Biol 42:481–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hairston NG Jr, Van Brunt RA, Kearns CM (1995) Age and survivorship of diapausing eggs in a sediment egg bank. Ecology 76:1706–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hairston NG Jr, Hansen AM, Schaffner WR (2000) The effect of diapause emergence on the seasonal dynamics of a zooplankton assemblage. Freshw Biol 45:133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hairston NG Jr, Ellner SP, Geber MA, Yoshida T, Fox JA (2005) Rapid evolution and the convergence of ecological and evolutionary time. Ecol Lett 8:1114–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holyoak M (2000) Effects of nutrient enrichment on predator–prey metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 69:985–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jansen VAA (1995) Regulation of predator–prey systems through spatial interactions: a possible solution to the paradox of enrichment. Oikos 74:384–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuwamura M, Nakazawa T, Ogawa T (2009) A minimum model of prey–predator system with dormancy of predators and the paradox of enrichment. J Math Biol 58:459–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. LaMontagne JM, McCauley E (2001) Maternal effects in Daphnia: what mothers are telling their offspring and do they listen? Ecol Lett 4:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McAllister CD, Lebrasseur RJ, Parsons TR, Rosenzweig ML (1972) Stability of enriched aquatic ecosystems. Science 175:562–565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. McCauley E, Murdoch WW (1990) Predator–prey dynamics in environments rich and poor in nutrients. Nature 343:455–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCauley E, Nisbet RM, Murdoch WW, De Roos AM, Gurney WSC (1999) Large-amplitude cycles of Daphnia and its algal prey in enriched environments. Nature 402:653–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCauley E, Nelson WA, Nisbet RM (2008) Small-amplitude cycles emerge from stage-structured interactions in Daphnia–algal systems. Nature 455:1240–1243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Morozov AY, Petrovskii SC, Nezlin NP (2007) Towards resolving the paradox of enrichment: the impact of zooplankton vertical migrations on plankton systems stability. J Theor Biol 248:501–511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Murdoch WW, Nisbet RM, McCauley E, De Roos AM, Gurney WSC (1998) Plankton abundance and dynamics across nutrient levels: tests of hypotheses. Ecology 79:1339–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murdoch WW, Briggs CJ, Nisbet RM (2003) Consumer–resource dynamics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  28. Nakazawa T, Ohgushi T, Yamamura N (2009) Resource-dependent reproductive adjustment and the stability of consumer–resource dynamics. Popul Ecol 51:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parker BR, Wilhelm FM, Schindler DW (1996) Recovery of Hesperodiaptomus arcticus populations from diapausing eggs following elimination by stocked salmonids. Can J Zool 74:1292–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Persson A, Hansson LA, Brönmark C, Lundberg P, Pettersson LB, Greenberg L, Nilsson PA, Nyström P, Romare P, Tranvik L (2001) Effects of enrichment on simple aquatic food webs. Am Nat 157:654–669CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Petrovskii S, Li BL, Malchow H (2004) Transition to spatiotemporal chaos can resolve the paradox of enrichment. Ecol Complex 1:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pijanowska J, Stolpe G (1996) Summer diapause in Daphnia as a reaction to the presence of fish. J Plankton Res 18:1407–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rinaldi S, Muratori S, Kuznetsov Y (1993) Multiple attractors, catastrophes and chaos in seasonally perturbed predator–prey communities. Bull Math Biol 55:15–35Google Scholar
  34. Rose RM, Warne MSJ, Lim RP (2002) Some life history responses of the cladoceran Ceriodaphnia cf. dubia to variations in population density at two different food concentrations. Hydrobiologia 481:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenzweig ML (1971) Paradox of enrichment: destabilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time. Science 171:385–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosenzweig ML, MacArthur RH (1963) Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator–prey interactions. Am Nat 97:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scheffer M, De Boer RJ (1995) Implications of spatial heterogeneity for the paradox of enrichment. Ecology 76:2270–2277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scheffer M, Rinaldi S, Kuznetsov YA, Van Nes EH (1997) Seasonal dynamics of Daphnia and algae explained as a periodically forced predator–prey system. Oikos 80:519–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schönbrunner IM, Eder E (2006) pH-related hatching success of Triops cancriformis (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Notostraca). Hydrobiologia 563:515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ślusarczyk M, Dawidowicz P, Rygielska E (2005) Hide, rest or die: a light-mediated diapause response in Daphnia magna to the threat of fish predation. Freshw Biol 50:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sommer U, Gliwicz ZM, Lampert W, Duncan A (1986) The PEG-model of seasonal succession of planktonic events in fresh waters. Arch Hydrobiol 106:433–471Google Scholar
  42. Takimoto G, Iwata T, Murakami M (2002) Seasonal subsidy stabilizes food web dynamics: Balance in a heterogeneous landscape. Ecol Res 17:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verschoor AM, Vos M, van der Stap I (2004) Inducible defences prevent strong population fluctuations in bi- and tritrophic food chains. Ecol Lett 7:1143–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vos M, Kooi BW, DeAngelis DL, Mooij WM (2004) Inducible defences and the paradox of enrichment. Oikos 105:471–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yoshida T, Jones LE, Ellner SP, Fussmann GF, Hairston NG Jr (2003) Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator–prey system. Nature 424:303–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takefumi Nakazawa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Masataka Kuwamura
    • 3
  • Norio Yamamura
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Ecological ResearchKyoto UniversityOtsuJapan
  2. 2.Institute of OceanographyNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Faculty of Human DevelopmentKobe UniversityKobeJapan
  4. 4.Research Institute for Humanity and NatureNational Institute for the HumanitiesKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations