The paradox of enrichment in phytoplankton by induced competitive interactions

The biodiversity loss of phytoplankton with eutrophication has been reported in many aquatic ecosystems, e.g., water pollution and red tides. This phenomenon seems similar, but different from the paradox of enrichment via trophic interactions, e.g., predator-prey systems. We here propose the paradox of enrichment by induced competitive interactions using multiple contact process (a lattice Lotka-Volterra competition model). Simulation results demonstrate how eutrophication invokes more competitions in a competitive ecosystem resulting in the loss of phytoplankton diversity in ecological time. The paradox is enhanced under local interactions, indicating that the limited dispersal of phytoplankton reduces interspecific competition greatly. Thus, the paradox of enrichment appears when eutrophication destroys an ecosystem either by elevated interspecific competition within a trophic level and/or destabilization by trophic interactions. Unless eutrophication due to human activities is ceased, the world's aquatic ecosystems will be at risk.

[1]  V. Korinek,et al.  Demonstration of the effect of the fish stock on the species composition of zooplankton and the intensity of metabolism of the whole plankton association: With 22 figures on 2 folders , 1961 .

[2]  L. Slobodkin,et al.  Community Structure, Population Control, and Competition , 1960, The American Naturalist.

[3]  U. Täuber,et al.  Phase Transitions and Spatio-Temporal Fluctuations in Stochastic Lattice Lotka–Volterra Models , 2005, q-bio/0512039.

[4]  J. Huisman,et al.  Biodiversity of plankton by species oscillations and chaos , 1999, Nature.

[5]  D. Tilman.  Resource competition and community structure. , 1983, Monographs in population biology.

[6]  T. Reichenbach,et al.  Mobility promotes and jeopardizes biodiversity in rock–paper–scissors games , 2007, Nature.

[7]  David Tilman.  Resource Competition and Community Structure. (MPB-17), Volume 17 , 1982 .

[8]  Walter K. Dodds,et al.  Freshwater Ecology: Concepts and Environmental Applications , 2002 .

[9]  Richard Levins,et al.  Coexistence in a Variable Environment , 1979, The American Naturalist.

[10]  M. Rosenzweig.  Paradox of Enrichment: Destabilization of Exploitation Ecosystems in Ecological Time , 1971, Science.

[11]  M. H. Stevens,et al.  Effects of predation and nutrient enrichment on a food web with edible and inedible prey , 2006 .

[12]  G. E. Hutchinson,et al.  The Balance of Nature and Human Impact: The paradox of the plankton , 2013 .

[13]  Joel E. Cohen,et al.  Food web patterns and their consequences , 1991, Nature.

[14]  A. Kuwata,et al.  Effect of dilution rate on competitive interactions between the cyanobacterium Microcystis novacekii and the green alga Scenedesmus quadricauda in mixed chemostat cultures , 2004 .

[15]  M. Alexander,et al.  Models for mineralization kinetics with the variables of substrate concentration and population density , 1984, Applied and environmental microbiology.

[16]  D. Tilman.  Resource Competition between Plankton Algae: An Experimental and Theoretical Approach , 1977 .

[17]  A. Fernando,et al.  Structural Correlation in Jahn–Teller Systems of Cu2+ and Mn3+ under Pressure , 2007 .

[18]  U. Täuber,et al.  Coexistence in the two-dimensional May-Leonard model with random rates , 2011, 1101.4963.

[19]  D. Roff.  The evolution of life histories : theory and analysis , 1992 .

[20]  Y. Itoh,et al.  Topological Phase Transition in Biological Ecosystems , 1991 .

[21]  K. Aihara,et al.  Power Law for Extinction Process in Multiple Contact Process(Physics of elementary particles and fields) , 2007 .

[22]  J. Yoshimura,et al.  Do spatial effects appear at low dilution rate in chemostat , 2009 .

[23]  Kei-ichi Tainaka,et al.  Paradoxical effect in a three-candidate voter model , 1993 .

[24]  M. Leibold.  Biodiversity and nutrient enrichment in pond plankton communities , 1999 .

[25]  Josef Hofbauer,et al.  The theory of evolution and dynamical systems , 1988 .

[26]  T. Antal,et al.  Phase transitions and oscillations in a lattice prey-predator model. , 2000, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[27]  P. J. Hughesdon,et al.  The Struggle for Existence , 1927, Nature.

[28]  U. Täuber,et al.  Influence of local carrying capacity restrictions on stochastic predator–prey models , 2006, cond-mat/0606809.

[29]  J. Grover,et al.  LIMITING RESOURCES, DISTURBANCE, AND DIVERSITY IN PHYTOPLANKTON COMMUNITIES , 2004 .

[30]  U. Sommer.  Comparison between steady state and non-steady state competition: experiments with natural phytoplankton , 1985 .

[31]  M. R. Droop,et al.  25 Years of Algal Growth Kinetics A Personal View , 1983 .

[32]  B. Kerr,et al.  Local migration promotes competitive restraint in a host–pathogen 'tragedy of the commons' , 2006, Nature.

[33]  P. Richerson,et al.  Contemporaneous disequilibrium, a new hypothesis to explain the "paradox of the plankton". , 1970, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  T. E. Harris.  Contact Interactions on a Lattice , 1974 .

[35]  David Tilman,et al.  Phytoplankton Community Ecology: The Role of Limiting Nutrients , 1982 .

[36]  J. Yoshimura,et al.  Spatial coexistence of phytoplankton species in ecological timescale , 2006, Population Ecology.

[37]  R. Wootton.  The evolution of life histories: Theory and analysis , 1993, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

[38]  Tomé,et al.  Stochastic lattice gas model for a predator-prey system. , 1994, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.

[39]  J. Grover.  Resource Competition , 1997, Population and Community Biology Series.

[40]  P. Krapivsky,et al.  Fixation in a cyclic Lotka-Volterra model , 1998, cond-mat/9801026.

[41]  L. R. Mur,et al.  Theoretical considerations on growth kinetics and physiological adaptation of nutrient-limited phytoplankton , 1984, Archives of Microbiology.

[42]  William W. Murdoch,et al.  Simple Models and Variation in Plankton Densities Among Lakes , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[43]  C. Reynolds,et al.  Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis in Phytoplankton Ecology , 1993, Developments in Hydrobiology.

[44]  R. Macarthur,et al.  Graphical Representation and Stability Conditions of Predator-Prey Interactions , 1963, The American Naturalist.

[45]  Kei-ichi Tainaka,et al.  Finite Size Stability Analysis for Stochastic Cellular Automata , 2008, ACRI.

[46]  A. Kuwata,et al.  Effects of ammonium supply rates on competition between Microcystis novacekii (Cyanobacteria) and Scenedesmus quadricauda (Chlorophyta): simulation study , 2000 .

[47]  Akira Sasaki,et al.  Statistical Mechanics of Population: The Lattice Lotka-Volterra Model , 1992 .

[48]  N. Yamamura,et al.  Unpalatable prey resolves the paradox of enrichment , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[49]  Tainaka.  Stationary pattern of vortices or strings in biological systems: Lattice version of the Lotka-Volterra model. , 1989, Physical review letters.

[50]  Kei-ichi Tainaka,et al.  Lattice Model for the Lotka-Volterra System , 1988 .

[51]  Jason P. Antenucci,et al.  Disturbance, diversity and phytoplankton production in a reservoir affected by inter-basin water transfers , 2012, Hydrobiologia.

[52]  M. Feldman,et al.  Local dispersal promotes biodiversity in a real-life game of rock–paper–scissors , 2002, Nature.

[53]  C. Reynolds.  Scales of disturbance and their role in plankton ecology , 2004, Hydrobiologia.