A mechanistic basis for underyielding in phytoplankton communities.

Species richness has been shown to increase biomass production of plant communities. Such overyielding occurs when a community performs better than its component monocultures due to the complementarity or dominance effect and is mostly detected in substrate-bound plant communities (terrestrial plants or submerged macrophytes) where resource use complementarity can be enhanced due to differences in rooting architecture and depth. Here, we investigated whether these findings are generalizeable for free-floating phytoplankton with little potential for spatial differences in resource use. We performed aquatic microcosm experiments with eight phytoplankton species belonging to four functional groups to determine the manner in which species and community biovolume varies in relation to the number of functional groups and hypothesized that an increasing number of functional groups within a community promotes overyielding. Unexpectedly, we did not detect overyielding in any algal community. Instead, total community biovolume tended to decrease with an increasing number of functional groups. This underyielding was mainly caused by the negative dominance effect that originated from a trade-off between growth rate and final biovolume. In monoculture, slow-growing species built up higher biovolumes than fast-growing ones, whereas in mixture a fast-growing but low-productive species monopolized most of the nutrients and prevented competing species from developing high biovolumes expected from monocultures. Our results indicated that the magnitude of the community biovolume was largely determined by the identity of one species. Functional diversity and resource use complementarity were of minor importance among free-floating phytoplankton, possibly reflecting the lack of spatially heterogeneous resource distribution. As a consequence, biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationships may not be easily generalizeable from substrate-bound plant to phytoplankton communities and vice versa.

[1]  H. Hillebrand,et al.  Biodiversity Effects on Aquatic Ecosystem Functioning – Maturation of a New Paradigm , 2008 .

[2]  B. Cardinale,et al.  Effects of Algal Diversity on the Production of Biomass in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Nutrient Environments: A Microcosm Experiment , 2008, PloS one.

[3]  Ian T. Carroll,et al.  Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  A. Ives,et al.  Effects of species diversity on community biomass production change over the course of succession. , 2007, Ecology.

[5]  Michel Loreau,et al.  From selection to complementarity: shifts in the causes of biodiversity–productivity relationships in a long-term biodiversity experiment , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  J. Bruno,et al.  Partitioning the effects of algal species identity and richness on benthic marine primary production , 2006 .

[7]  P. Balvanera,et al.  Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[8]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystem Properties , 2006 .

[9]  A. P. Wolfe,et al.  Resource requirements of four freshwater diatom taxa determined by in situ growth bioassays using natural populations from alpine lakes , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[10]  Quan-Guo Zhang,et al.  Species richness destabilizes ecosystem functioning in experimental aquatic microcosms , 2006 .

[11]  J. Bruno,et al.  Effects of macroalgal species identity and richness on primary production in benthic marine communities. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[12]  J. Fox Interpreting the 'selection effect' of biodiversity on ecosystem function , 2005 .

[13]  F. Chapin,et al.  EFFECTS OF BIODIVERSITY ON ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING: A CONSENSUS OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE , 2005 .

[14]  W. Stanley Harpole,et al.  Mechanisms responsible for the positive diversity–productivity relationship in Minnesota grasslands , 2004 .

[15]  S. McGowan,et al.  Millennial‐scale relationships of diatom species richness and production in two prairie lakes , 2004 .

[16]  S. Hawkins,et al.  Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: emerging issues and their experimental test in aquatic environments , 2004 .

[17]  D. Hooper,et al.  Overyielding among plant functional groups in a long‐term experiment , 2003 .

[18]  Guntram Weithoff,et al.  The concepts of ‘plant functional types’ and ‘functional diversity’ in lake phytoplankton – a new understanding of phytoplankton ecology? , 2003 .

[19]  M. Loreau,et al.  Overyielding in grassland communities: testing the sampling effect hypothesis with replicated biodiversity experiments , 2002 .

[20]  Mathew A. Leibold,et al.  Ecosystem consequences of species richness and composition in pond food webs , 2002, Nature.

[21]  M. Loreau,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning : synthesis and perspectives , 2002 .

[22]  S. Díaz,et al.  Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes , 2001 .

[23]  P. Reich,et al.  Diversity and Productivity in a Long-Term Grassland Experiment , 2001, Science.

[24]  Michel Loreau,et al.  Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments , 2001, Nature.

[25]  M. Ritchie,et al.  [Letters to nature] , 1975, Nature.

[26]  J. Fridley The influence of species diversity on ecosystem productivity: how, where, and why? , 2001 .

[27]  D. Doak,et al.  Physical stress and diversity-productivity relationships: The role of positive interactions , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  Peter Stoll,et al.  INTRASPECIFIC AGGREGATION ALTERS COMPETITIVE INTERACTIONS IN EXPERIMENTAL PLANT COMMUNITIES , 2001 .

[29]  Michel Loreau,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theoretical advances , 2000 .

[30]  Susanne Menden-Deuer,et al.  Carbon to volume relationships for dinoflagellates, diatoms, and other protist plankton , 2000 .

[31]  M. Leibold,et al.  A FUNDAMENTAL TRADE‐OFF IN RESOURCE EXPLOITATION BY DAPHNIA AND CONSEQUENCES TO PLANKTON COMMUNITIES , 2000 .

[32]  Pereira,et al.  Plant diversity and productivity experiments in european grasslands , 1999, Science.

[33]  E. Theriot,et al.  Responses of phytoplankton to varied resource availability in large lakes of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem , 1999 .

[34]  Helmut Hillebrand,et al.  BIOVOLUME CALCULATION FOR PELAGIC AND BENTHIC MICROALGAE , 1999 .

[35]  A. Kinzig,et al.  Original Articles: Plant Attribute Diversity, Resilience, and Ecosystem Function: The Nature and Significance of Dominant and Minor Species , 1999, Ecosystems.

[36]  H. Setälä,et al.  Relating species diversity to ecosystem functioning : mechanistic backgrounds and experimental approach with a decomposer food web , 1998 .

[37]  Michel Loreau,et al.  Separating sampling and other effects in biodiversity experiments , 1998 .

[38]  A. Hector The effect of diversity on productivity : detecting the role of species complementarity , 1998 .

[39]  D. Hooper THE ROLE OF COMPLEMENTARITY AND COMPETITION IN ECOSYSTEM RESPONSES TO VARIATION IN PLANT DIVERSITY , 1998 .

[40]  P. Vitousek,et al.  The Effects of Plant Composition and Diversity on Ecosystem Processes , 1997 .

[41]  J. P. Grime Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function: The Debate Deepens , 1997, Science.

[42]  P. Reich,et al.  The Influence of Functional Diversity and Composition on Ecosystem Processes , 1997 .

[43]  John H. Lawton,et al.  Biodiversity and plant productivity in a model assemblage of plant species , 1996 .

[44]  D. Tilman,et al.  Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems , 1996, Nature.

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

[46]  R. Wetzel Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems , 1975 .