Prochlorococcus
is
the most abundant photosynthetic organism on earth, although they were only
discovered in 1988 the ever increasing ability to study genomes has
revealed that the species is incredibly
diverse forming many different ecotypes which vary significantly with depth and
latitudes due to the wide availability of niches.
Although oligotrophic oceans contain a
diverse community of phytoplankton they are usually numerically dominated by
one of two ecotypes of Prochlorococcus, eMIT9312 or eMED4 both of
which are high light adapted. A recent study (Chandler et al, 2016), Surveyed transects in the Pacific Ocean and compare it to data
collected from the Atlantic Ocean (Johnson et
al 2006). In order to determine the
distribution and composition of the two numerically dominant ecotypes, and to
determine if eMIT9312 and eMED4 were found to occur separately or if the
populations coexisted together along a key environmental gradient. The two
environmental gradients investigated were temperature and water stratification.
Temperature was shown to be the main driving factor with ∼21°C
being the transition zone below this point eMED4 dominates while above this
eMIT9312 dominates. These findings support previous work which looked at
relative growth of strains in culture (Johnson
et al 2006). Temperature was
important in influencing the ratio of eMIT9312: eMED4 which was shown to follow
a log- linearly relationship with temperature.
The influence of
stratification while not directly impacting cell growth was shown to affect the
community structure by its influence on nutrient availability. By looking at
strains within the two ecotypes strains of eMED4 are able to take advantage of
a wider range of organics as P sources (Moore et al, 2005). Some stains
of eMIT9312 are able to use nitrate as an N source (Berube et al, 2015).While
some stains are able to take advantage of extra organics other do not process
the required genes to facilitated these processes. It is suggested that those
who can take advantage of different nutrients are dominating and therefore
contribution more to the relative ecotype abundance. The effect stratification
has on light exposure is likely to be of lesser importance as both ecotypes are
HL adapted.
Anomalies were found that did not appear to fit the
ratio for example samples collected from the Gulf Stream revealed an
anomalously high eMIT9312:eMED4 ratio, this higher than expected ratio was due
to a lower than expected eMED4 abundances as opposed to a higher eMIT9312 abundance.
It is believed that this anomaly is the result of a lag between temperature decline
and population restructuring. It’s predicted that given enough time at the
lower temperature the ratio of eMIT9312:eMED4 ratio would shift to what would
be expected.
It was found that in
every sample both ecotypes coexisted neither was out-competed even in areas
where the driving factors such as temperature favoured one ecotype over the
other of all the samples analysed neither ecotype was ever below detectable
limits (0.65 cells ml−1). This observation of coexistence
even when one ecotype may appear a superior competitor over the other may be
explained by the frequency of disturbance events, including mixing and
temperature shifts. The term paradox of the plankton is used to describe the
unexpected high diversity of plankton where it would be expected that
competitive exclusion would take place.
Something that requires
further study is the relative importance of temperature and stratification (which
themselves are correlated) as independent driving factors on ecotype abundance.
Temperature was shown to be the biggest influence with stratification still
being significant but having a less prominent role. One limit to this study was
that although direct effects of temperature on the growth rate of the ecotypes was
observed, it was not able to assess the indirect effects of temperature on
growth which includes nutrient availability and mortality rate.
Although this paper
provided a good starting point highlighting the distribution, coexistence and
effects of temperature and stratification on eMIT9312 or eMED4 ecotypes in the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean, more
research is needed particularly the ability to be able to culture all genotypes
in the eMIT9312 and eMED4 clade to ensure that the full story is being
revealed.
References
Berube, P.M., Biller, S.J., Kent,
A.G., Berta-Thompson, J.W., Roggensack, S.E., Roache-Johnson, K.H., et al.
(2015) Physiology and evolution of nitrate acquisition in Prochlorococcus. ISME J 9: 1195–1207.
Chandler, J., Lin, Y., Gainer, P.,
Post, A., Johnson, Z. and Zinser, E. (2016). Variable but persistent
coexistence of Prochlorococcus ecotypes along temperature gradients in the
ocean's surface mixed layer. Environmental
Microbiology Reports, 8(2), pp.272-284.
Johnson, Z.I., Zinser, E.R., Coe,
A., McNulty, N.P., Malcolm, E., Woodward, S., and Chisholm, S.W. (2006) Niche
partitioning among Prochlorococcus ecotypes along oceanscale environmental
gradients. Science 311: 1737–1740.
Moore, L.R., Ostrowski, M.,
Scanlan, D.J., Feren, K., and Sweetsir, T. (2005) Ecotypic variation in
phosphorusacquisition mechanisms within marine picocyanobacteria. Aquat Microb Ecol 39: 257–269.
Hi Alisha,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your review. I looked up 'the Paradox of the Plankton' and found a recent paper debating its accuracy.
Li and Chesson (2016) argue that the original theory doesn't sufficiently explain the higher intensity of intraspecific competition relative to interspecific competition. Hutchinson (1961) suggested that coexistence is promoted when the timescales of environmental changes and competitive exclusion are similar. However, Li and Chesson have come up with a new mathematical model for coexistence. The model includes the time for resource depletion, which they argue is more important than the time for competitive exclusion. A quick depletion of resources and resource consumption being favoured for different species at different times between species, should advance coexistence.
As the resource depletion is dependent on environmental conditions, intraspecific competition is intensified compared to interspecific competition.
Johanna
Hutchinson, G. E. (1961). The paradox of the plankton. The American Naturalist, 95(882), 137-145.Link: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/282171
Li, L., & Chesson, P. (2016). The Effects of Dynamical Rates on Species Coexistence in a Variable Environment: The Paradox of the Plankton Revisited. The American Naturalist, 188(2), E46-E58. Link: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/687111
Hi Johanna
DeleteThanks for your comment, Hutchinson wrote his Paradox of plankton theory in 1961 which is now over 50 years ago, and so as with much of science others have come along and questioned pervious ideas put forward. I read the paper you found and found it interesting. I think Hutchinson provides a good logical starting point however he fails to provide a mathematical model to validate his idea. I agree that this paper suggest there are some errors put forward by Hutchinson. In terms of Hutchison’s general hypothesis (Hutchinson 1961), there have been a number of papers that have provided supporting models and experimental results to validate his hypothesis that nonequilbirum dynamics under certain circumstances are able to allow coexistence of many species limited by few resources. A pervious paper by Chesson and Mathias (2013), looked into how simple environmental variation caused by seasons can allow species coexistence between annual plant species that appear to occupy similar niches. The problem for the paradox of the plankton theory lies in its prediction made about the timescales to competitive exclusion. Using the model produced by Li and Chesson (2016) it appears a species being outcompeted might be delayed in becoming extinct due to environmental changes however its population density will continue to decrease until it’s too late and it reaches extinction. From what I gathered of the paper you suggested (Li and Chesson 2016), coexistence is supported by the idea that low density in a population is able to provide a stronger opportunity for population growth as there is a stronger ability to take up resources to facilitate a population’s recovery as you mention for this to be the case resource depletion is therefore an important factor. I find the reasoning behind why intraspecific competition is more intense compared to interspecific very interesting although once thought about it’s a straight forward idea a species will most actively deplete resources when it is most dependent on them (having a higher population density), creating a feedback that has a bigger impact on itself then to other species a density dependent feedback loop.
Hutchinson, G. E. (1961). The paradox of the plankton. The American Naturalist, 95(882), 137-145.Link: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/282171
Li, L., & Chesson, P. (2016). The Effects of Dynamical Rates on Species Coexistence in a Variable Environment: The Paradox of the Plankton Revisited. The American Naturalist, 188(2), E46-E58. Link: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/687111
Mathias, A. and Chesson, P. (2013). Coexistence and evolutionary dynamics mediated by seasonal environmental variation in annual plant communities. Theoretical Population Biology, 84, pp.56-71.