The relative importance of competition and predation in environment characterized by resource pulses – an experimental test with a microbial community

Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Teppo Hiltunen²  Jouni Laakso¹ 

[1] Department of Biosciences / Integrative Ecology Unit, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65, 00014 Helsinki, Finland

[2] Department of Food and Environmental Sciences / Microbiology and Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65, 00014 Helsinki, Finland

关键词: Trophic dynamics;    Tetrahymena thermophila;    Resource pulse;    Resource competition;    Predator–prey interaction;    Diversity;    Community dynamics;   

Others  :  1085256
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6785-13-29

 received in 2012-11-06, accepted in 2013-08-29,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Resource availability and predation are believed to affect community dynamics and composition. Although the effects of resource availability and predation on prey communities are usually studied in isolation, these factors can also have interactive effects, especially since the outcome of competition under shared predation is expected to depend on resource availability. However, there are few experimental studies that test the interactive roles of resources and predation on dynamics of more complex multispecies communities. Here, we examine the importance of competition and predation on microbial community dynamics in a resource pulse environment.

Results

We manipulated resource availability and predation simultaneously in a microbial microcosm experiment, where a bacterial community was exposed to the protozoan predator Tetrahymena thermophila in three different resource concentrations (low, intermediate and high). The prey community consisted of three heterotrophic bacterial species: Bacillus cereus, Serratia marcescens and Novosphingobium capsulatum, all feeding on a shared plant detritus medium. In fresh culture media, all species grew in all resource concentrations used. However, during experiments without any addition of extra resources, the existing resources were soon depleted to very low levels, slowing growth of the three bacterial species. Prior to the microcosm experiment, we measured the competitive ability and grazing resistance, i.e. reduced vulnerability to predation, of each prey species. The three species differed in allocation patterns: in general, N. capsulatum had the best competitive abilities and B. cereus had good grazing resistance abilities. In the long-term microcosm experiment, N. capsulatum dominated the community without predation and, with predation, B. cereus was the dominant species in the intermediate and high resource environments.

Conclusions

Short-term, single-species assays revealed significant differences in the allocation of competitive and defensive traits among the prey species. Based on these differences, we were, to some extent, able to predict how the long-term community structure, e.g. species dominance, is modified by the resource availability and predation interaction in pulsed resource environments. Our results are consistent with theoretical predictions and also highlight the importance of interactive effects of resource competition and predation, suggesting that these factors should not be studied in isolation.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Hiltunen and Laakso; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hardin G: The competitive exclusion principle. Science 1960, 131:1292-1297.
• [2]Rosenzweig ML: Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
• [3]Ostfeld RS, Keesing F: Pulsed resources and community dynamics of consumers in terrestrial ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 2000, 15:232-236.
• [4]Yang LH, Bastow JL, Spence KO, Wright AN: What can we learn from resource pulses. Ecology 2008, 89:621-634.
• [5]Tilman D: Resource competition and community structure. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1982.
• [6]Chesson P: Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu rev ecol syst 2000, 31:343-366.
• [7]Chase JM, Abrams PA, Grover JP, Diehl S, Chesson P, Holt RD, Richards SA, Nisbet RM, Case TJ: The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis. Ecol Lett 2002, 5:302-315.
• [8]Meyer JR, Kassen R: The effects of competition and predation on diversification in a model adaptive radiation. Nature 2007, 446:432-435.
• [9]Friman V-P, Hiltunen T, Laakso J, Kaitala V: Prey resource availability drives evolution of predator prey interaction. Proc R Soc B 2008, 275:1625-1633.
• [10]Friman V-P, Laakso J: Pulsed resource dynamics constrain the evolution of predator–prey interactions. Am Nat 2011, 177:334-345.
• [11]Yoshida T, Jones LE, Ellner SP, Fussmann GF, Hairston NG Jr: Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator–prey system. Nature 2003, 424:303-306.
• [12]Yoshida T, Hairston NG Jr, Ellner SP: Evolutionary trade-off between defence against grazing and competitive ability in a simple unicellular alga, Chlorella vulgaris. Proc R Soc B 2004, 271:1947-1953.
• [13]Jiang L, Krumins JA: Emergent multiple predator effects in an experimental microbial community. Ecol Res 2006, 21:723-731.
• [14]Worm B, Lotze HK, Hillebrand H, Sommer U: Consumer versus resource control of species diversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 2002, 417:848-851.
• [15]Hall RA, Meyer JR, Kassen R: Selection for predator resistance varies with resource supply in a model adaptive radiation. Evol Ecol Res 2008, 10:735-746.
• [16]Holt RD, Grover J, Tilman D: Simple rules for interspecific dominance in systems with exploitative and apparent competition. Am Nat 1994, 144:741-771.
• [17]Hiltunen T, Friman V-P, Kaitala V, Mappes J, Laakso J: Predation and resource fluctuations drive eco-evolutionary dynamics of a bacterial community. Acta Oecol 2012, 38:77-83.
• [18]Hiltunen T, Laakso J, Kaitala V, Suomalainen L-R, Pekkonen M: Temporal variability in resource availability affects diversity of aquatic bacterial communities. Acta Oecol 2008, 33:291-299.
• [19]Pekkonen M, Korhonen J, Laakso J: Increased survival during famine improves fitness of bacteria in pulsed resource environment. Evol Ecol Res 2011, 13:1-18.
• [20]Begon M, Townsend CR, Harper JL: Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2005.
• [21]Grover JP: Resource competition. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1997.
• [22]Kirk K: Competition in variable environments: experiments with planktonic rotifers. Freshwater biol 2002, 47:1088-1096.
• [23]Sommer U, Worm B: Competition and coexistence, Volume 161. Berlin: Springer; 2002.
• [24]Angert AL, Huxman TE, Chesson P, Venable DL: Functional tradeoffs determine species coexistence via the storage effect. PNAS 2009, 106:11641-11645.
• [25]Lawrence D, Fiegna F, Behrends V, Bundy JG, Phillimore AB, Bell T, Barraclough TG: Species interactions alter evolutionary responses to a novel environment. Plos Biol 2012, 10:e1001330.
• [26]Gendron RP: Models and mechanism of frequently-dependent predation. Am Nat 1987, 130:603-623.
• [27]Leibold MA: A graphical model of keystone predators in food webs: trophic regulation of abundance, incidence, and diversitypatterns in communities. Am Nat 1996, 147:784-812.
• [28]LGC Promochem, protistology collection (search for strain numbers). http://www.lgcstandards-atcc.org webcite
• [29]Laakso J, Löytynoja K, Kaitala V: Environmental noise and population dynamics of the ciliated protozoa Tetrahymena thermophila in aquatic microcosms. Oikos 2003, 102:663-671.
• [30]Ketola T, Laakso J, Kaitala V, Airaksinen S: Evolution of Hsp90 expression in Tetrahymena thermophila (protozoa, ciliata) populations exposed to thermally variable environments. Evolution 2004, 58:741-748.
• [31]Friman V-P, Buckling A: Effects of predation on real-time host–parasite coevolutionary dynamics. Ecol Lett 2013, 16:39-46.