The Implications of Eco-Evolutionary Processes for the Emergence of Marine Plankton Community Biogeography

Sauterey, Boris; Ward, Ben A.; Rault, Jonathan; Bowler, Chris; Claessen, David

doi:10.1086/692067

Cited by 28 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We used similarity between species' average sizes as an alternative proxy for ecological similarity, because zooplankton body size is a functional trait related to physiological and ecological processes (Litchman, Ohman, & Kiørboe, 2013;Sauterey, Ward, Rault, Bowler, & Claessen, 2017). We estimated average size of 36 PF species, by compiling shell diameter data of 2,774 individuals from three different datasets (Baranowski, 2013;Rillo, Miller, Kucera, & Ezard, 2019;Weinkauf, Kunze, Waniek, & Kucera, 2016; Supporting Information Table S1).…”

Section: Ecological Similarity Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

On the mismatch in the strength of competition among fossil and modern species of planktonic Foraminifera

Rillo

Sugawara

Cabella

et al. 2019

Global Ecol Biogeogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Many clades display the macroevolutionary pattern of a negative relationship between standing diversity and diversification rates. Competition among species has been proposed as the main mechanism that explains this pattern. However, we currently lack empirical insight into how the effects of individual‐level ecological interactions scale up to affect species diversification. Here, we investigate a clade that shows evidence for negative diversity‐dependent diversification in the fossil record and test whether the clade's modern communities show a corresponding signal of interspecific competition. Location World's oceans. Time period Holocene. Major taxa studied Planktonic Foraminifera (Rhizaria). Methods We explore spatial and temporal ecological patterns expected under interspecific competition. Firstly, we use a community phylogenetics approach to test for signs of local competitive exclusion among ecologically similar species (defined as closely related or of similar shell sizes) by combining species relative abundances in seafloor sediments. Secondly, we analyse whether population abundances of co‐occurring species covary negatively through time using sediment trap time‐series spanning 1–12 years. Results The great majority of the assemblages are indistinguishable from randomly assembled communities, showing no significant spatial co‐occurrence patterns regarding phylogeny or size similarity. Through time, most species pairs correlated positively, indicating synchronous rather than compensatory population dynamics. Main conclusions We found no detectable evidence for interspecific competition structuring extant planktonic Foraminifera communities. Species co‐occurrences and population dynamics are likely regulated by the abiotic environment and/or distantly related species, rather than intra‐clade density‐dependent processes. This interpretation contradicts the idea that competition drives the clade's macroevolutionary dynamics. One way to better integrate community ecology and macroevolution is to consider that diversification dynamics are influenced by groups that interact ecologically even when distantly related.

show abstract

Section: Ecological Similarity Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

On the mismatch in the strength of competition among fossil and modern species of planktonic Foraminifera

Rillo

Sugawara

Cabella

et al. 2019

Global Ecol Biogeogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From an evolutionary perspective, however, the occurrence of large phytoplankton poses a challenging conundrum. While large phytoplankton can physically hinder grazing (Gliwicz and Lampert 1990;Irigoien et al 2005), zooplankton can coevolve with phytoplankton size (Jiang et al 2005;Sauterey et al 2017). If zooplankton evolve larger body size, they may reduce or eliminate the size-dependent physical defense of their prey.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do Phytoplankton Evolve Large Size in Response to Grazing?

Branco

Egas

Hall

et al. 2020

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phytoplankton are among the smallest primary producers on Earth, yet they display a wide range of cell sizes. Typically, small phytoplankton species are stronger nutrient competitors than large phytoplankton species, but they are also more easily grazed. In contrast, evolution of large phytoplankton is often explained as a physical defense against grazing. Conceptually, this explanation is problematic, however, because zooplankton can coevolve larger size to counter this size-dependent escape from grazing. Here, we hypothesize that there is another advantage for the evolution of large phytoplankton size not so readily overcome: larger phytoplankton often provide lower nutritional quality for zooplankton. We investigate this hypothesis by analyzing an eco-evolutionary model that combines the ecological stoichiometry of phytoplanktonzooplankton interactions with coevolution of phytoplankton and zooplankton size. In our model, evolution of cell size modifies the nutrient uptake kinetics of phytoplankton according to known allometric relationships, which in turn affect the nutritional quality of phytoplankton. With this size-based mechanism, the model predicts that low grazing pressure or nonselective grazing by zooplankton favors evolution of small phytoplankton cells of high nutritional quality. In contrast, selective grazing for nutritious food favors evolution of large phytoplankton of low nutritional quality, which are preyed on by medium-to large-sized zooplankton. This size-dependent change in food quality may explain the commonly observed shift from dominance by small picophytoplankton in oligotrophic waters with low grazing pressure to large phytoplankton species in nutrient-rich waters with high grazing pressure.

show abstract

“…Theory that links ecological and evolutionary processes on the micro-scale with macroevolutionary patterns (see examples of such patterns in [ 3 , 4 , 17 ]) is thus needed [ 26 ]. Along these lines, evolutionary radiations in predator–prey systems have been investigated [ 22 , 23 , 27 , 28 ] but much is still unknown about the mechanisms behind adaptive radiations in trophic communities. With this in mind, we aim to reconcile theory on ecological speciation and some of the seemingly disparate causalities between ecological interactions and adaptive radiations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological opportunity and predator–prey interactions: linking eco-evolutionary processes and diversification in adaptive radiations

Pontarp

Petchey

2018

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of life's diversity has arisen through ecological opportunity and adaptive radiations, but the mechanistic underpinning of such diversification is not fully understood. Competition and predation can affect adaptive radiations, but contrasting theoretical and empirical results show that they can both promote and interrupt diversification. A mechanistic understanding of the link between microevolutionary processes and macroevolutionary patterns is thus needed, especially in trophic communities. Here, we use a trait-based eco-evolutionary model to investigate the mechanisms linking competition, predation and adaptive radiations. By combining available micro-evolutionary theory and simulations of adaptive radiations we show that intraspecific competition is crucial for diversification as it induces disruptive selection, in particular in early phases of radiation. The diversification rate is however decreased in later phases owing to interspecific competition as niche availability, and population sizes are decreased. We provide new insight into how predation tends to have a negative effect on prey diversification through decreased population sizes, decreased disruptive selection and through the exclusion of prey from parts of niche space. The seemingly disparate effects of competition and predation on adaptive radiations, listed in the literature, may thus be acting and interacting in the same adaptive radiation at different relative strength as the radiation progresses.

show abstract

The Implications of Eco-Evolutionary Processes for the Emergence of Marine Plankton Community Biogeography

Cited by 28 publications

References 73 publications

On the mismatch in the strength of competition among fossil and modern species of planktonic Foraminifera

On the mismatch in the strength of competition among fossil and modern species of planktonic Foraminifera

Why Do Phytoplankton Evolve Large Size in Response to Grazing?

Ecological opportunity and predator–prey interactions: linking eco-evolutionary processes and diversification in adaptive radiations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About