Population Ecology

, Volume 58, Issue 4, pp 515–524 | Cite as

Translating crustacean biological responses from CO2 bubbling experiments into population-level predictions

Original article

Abstract

Many studies of animal responses to ocean acidification focus on uniformly conditioned age cohorts that lack complexities typically found in wild populations. These studies have become the primary data source for predicting higher level ecological effects, but the roles of intraspecific interactions in re-shaping biological, demographic and evolutionary responses are not commonly considered. To explore this problem, I assessed responses in the mysid Americamysis bahia to bubbling of CO2-enriched and un-enriched air into the seawater supply in flow-through aquariums. I conducted one experiment using isolated age cohorts and a separate experiment using intact populations. The seawater supply was continuously input from Narragansett Bay (Rhode Island, USA). The 28-day cohort study was maintained without resource or spatial limitations, whereas the 5-month population study consisted of stage-structured populations that were allowed to self-regulate. These differences are common features of experiments and were intentionally retained to demonstrate the effect of methodological approaches on perceptions of effect mechanisms. The CO2 treatment reduced neonate abundance in the cohort experiment (24% reduction due to a mean pH difference of −0.27) but not in the population experiment, where effects were small and were strongest for adult and stage 1 survival (3% change due to a mean pH difference of −0.25). I also found evidence of competition in the population experiment, further complicating relationships with cohort experiments. These results point to limitations of standard cohort tests. Such experiments should be complimented by studies of intact populations where responses may be affected by evolution, acclimation, and competition.

Keywords

Carbon dioxide Cohort Demography Ocean acidification pH 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Ruth Gutjahr-Gobell and Doranne Borsay Horowitz for their assistance during the mysid experiments. Harriet Booth, Adam Pimenta and Brenda Rashleigh provided helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This manuscript was submitted with tracking number ORD-010744 by the Atlantic Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although the research described in this article was funded by EPA, it has not been subjected to agency review and does not necessarily reflect the views of the agency.

References

  1. Beissinger SR, Westphal MI (1998) On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management. J Wildl Manag 62:821–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Caswell H (1989) Analysis of life table response experiments 1: decomposition of effects on population growth rate. Ecol Model 46:221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models: construction, analysis and interpretation. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  5. Core Team R (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  6. Crouse D, Crowder L, Caswell H (1987) A stage-based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology 68:1412–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dennis B, Desharnais RA, Cushing JM, Costantino RF (1995) Nonlinear demographic dynamics: mathematical-models, statistical-methods, and biological experiments. Ecol Monogr 65:261–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Easterling MR, Ellner SP, Dixon PM (2000) Size-specific sensitivity: applying a new structured population model. Ecology 81:694–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellner SP, Fieberg J, Ludwig D, Wilcox C (2002) Precision of population viability analysis. Conserv Biol 16:258–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaylord B, Kroeker KJ, Sunday JM, Anderson KM, Barry JP, Brown NE, Connell SD, Dupont S, Fabricius KE, Hall-Spencer JM, Klinger T, Milazzo M, Munday PL, Russell BD, Sanford E, Schreiber SJ, Thiyagarajan V, Vaughan MLH, Widdicombe S, Harley CDG (2015) Ocean acidification through the lens of ecological theory. Ecology 96:3–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Grear JS, Elderd BD (2008) Bias in population growth rate estimation: sparse data, partial life cycle analysis and Jensen’s inequality. Oikos 117:1587–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grear JS, Borsay Horowitz D, Gutjahr-Gobell R (2011) Mysid population responses to resource limitation differ from those predicted by cohort studies. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 432:115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heard RW, Price WW, Knott DM, King RA, Allen DM (2006) A taxonomic guide to the mysids of the South Atlantic Bight. NOAA Professional Paper NMFS 4Google Scholar
  14. Hendriks IE, Duarte CM, Alvarez M (2009) Vulnerability of marine biodiversity to ocean acidification: a meta-analysis. Estuar Coast Shelf S 86:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jumars PA (2007) Habitat coupling by mid-latitude, subtidal, marine mysids: import-subsidised omnivores. Oceanogr Mar Biol 45:89–138Google Scholar
  16. Kelly MW, Padilla-Gamino JL, Hofmann GE (2013) Natural variation and the capacity to adapt to ocean acidification in the keystone sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Global Change Biol 19:2536–2546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kroeker KJ, Kordas Rebecca L, Crim Ryan N, Singh GG (2010) Meta-analysis reveals negative yet variable effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms. Ecol Lett 13:1419–1434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kroeker KJ, Gambi MC, Micheli F (2013a) Community dynamics and ecosystem simplification in a high-CO2 ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:12721–12726CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Kroeker KJ, Kordas RL, Crim R, Hendriks IE, Ramajo L, Singh GS, Duarte CM, Gattuso JP (2013b) Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming. Global Change Biol 19:1884–1896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn A, Bengtson DA, Simpson KL (1991) Increased reproduction by mysids (Mysidopsis bahia) fed with enriched Artemia spp. nauplii. Am Fish Soc Symp 9:192–199Google Scholar
  21. Lande R, Engen S, Saether B-E (2003) Stochastic population dynamics in ecology and conservation. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lussier SM, Kuhn A, Chammas MJ, Sewall J (1988) Techniques for the laboratory culture of Mysidopsis species (Crustacea: Mysidacea). Environ Toxicol Chem 7:969–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mathis JT, Cooley SR, Lucey N, Colt S, Ekstrom J, Hurst T, Hauri C, Evans W, Cross JN, Feely RA (2015) Ocean acidification risk assessment for Alaska’s fishery sector. Progr Oceanogr 136:71–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitro MG, Evers DC, Meyer MW, Piper WH (2008) Common loon survival rates and mercury in New England and Wisconsin. J Wildl Manag 72:665–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morris WF, Doak DF (2002) Quantitative conservation biology: Theory and practice of population viability analysis. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  26. Pfister CA (1998) Patterns of variance in stage-structured populations: evolutionary predictions and ecological implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:213–218CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.1.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  28. Raimondo S, Vivian DN, Barron MG (2009) Standardizing acute toxicity data for use in ecotoxicology models: influence of test type, life stage, and concentration reporting. Ecotoxicology 18:918–928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. SAS Institute (2008) The SAS System for Windows, version 9.2. SAS Institute, Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwartz LM, Gibson DJ, Young BG (2016) Using integral projection models to compare population dynamics of four closely related species. Popul Ecol 58:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Stevens MHH (2009) A primer of ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sunday JM, Crim RN, Harley CDG, Hart M (2011) Quantifying rates of evolutionary adaptation in response to ocean acidification. PLoS One 6:e22881CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. US EPA (1985) Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses. US Environmental Protection Agency. National Technical Information Service, Springfield. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/upload/85guidelines.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2016
  35. Verslycke T, Ghekiere A, Raimondo S, Janssen C (2007) Mysid crustaceans as standard models for the screening and testing of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Ecotoxicology 16:205–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wallace RB, Baumann H, Grear JS, Aller RC, Gobler CJ (2014) Coastal ocean acidification: the other eutrophication problem. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 148:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer Japan (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Atlantic Ecology DivisionNational Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, US EPA Office of Research and DevelopmentNarragansettUSA

Personalised recommendations