Abstract
Grazing by herbivorous protists contributes to structuring plankton communities through its effect on the growth, biomass, and competitiveness of prey organisms and also impacts the transfer of primary production towards higher trophic levels. Previous evidence shows that heterotrophic processes (grazing rates, g) are more sensitive to temperature than autotrophic ones (phytoplankton growth rates, μ) and also that small cells tend to be more heavily predated than larger ones; however, it remains unresolved how the interplay between changes in temperature and cell size modulates grazing pressure (i.e., g:μ ratio). We addressed this problem by conducting an experiment with four phytoplankton populations, from pico- to microphytoplankton, over a 12 °C gradient and in the presence/absence of a generalist herbivorous protist, Oxyrrhis marina. We found that highest g rates coincided with highest μ rates, which corresponded to intermediate cell sizes. There were no significant differences in either μ or g between the smallest and largest cell sizes considered. The g:μ ratio was largely independent of cell size and C:N ratios, and its thermal dependence was low although species-specific differences were large. We suggest that the similar g:μ found could be the consequence that the energetic demand imposed by rising temperatures would be a more important issue than the mechanical constriction to ingestion derived from prey cell size. Despite the difficulty of quantifying μ and g in natural planktonic communities, we suggest that the g:μ ratio is a key response variable to evaluate thermal sensitivity of food webs because it gives a more integrative view of trophic functioning than both rates separately.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Temperature governs metabolism through its effect on biochemical reactions [1]. A higher environmental thermal energy entails higher kinetic energy of molecules and, ultimately, increased rates of cellular processes and organism activity [2,3,4]. Importantly, according to the metabolic theory of ecology (MTE, [2]), the temperature sensitivity of autotrophs (e.g., phytoplankton growth rates, μ) and heterotrophs (e.g., grazing rates, g) differs markedly so that heterotrophic processes have a higher temperature dependence (or activation energy, Ea) than autotrophic ones [3]. In fact, an analysis by Rose and Caron [5] showed a stronger reduction in herbivore growth, relative to phytoplankton growth, when temperature was < 15 °C, suggesting a different temperature effect on both processes in marine ecosystems. These authors argued that the weaker temperature sensitivity of phytoplankton compared with that of their grazers could allow phytoplankton to temporarily avoid top-down control and help explain the initiation of blooms in cold waters. However, recent studies by Chen and Laws [6] and Wang et al. [7] challenge the above stated assumption by the MTE and suggest that the temperature dependence of phytoplankton growth can be as high as that of heterotrophic protists.
Together with temperature, another relevant driver modulating the grazing activity is prey cell size. Phytoplankton blooms worldwide are often dominated by large cells [8, 9]. The most commonly cited explanation for this pattern is that larger cells (> 5–10 μm in equivalent spherical diameter, ESD) suffer less grazing than the smaller ones, which allow them to escape predation and dominate blooms [8]. In addition, larger cells may be less preferred by grazers because they have lower nutritional qualities [10]. However, global-scale observational analyses of microzooplankton grazing pressure (g:μ ratios) show losses of similar magnitude (~ 60–70%) in regions with a widely contrasting phytoplankton size structure [11]. In addition, recent experimental results have found that the grazing pressure was the highest on microphytoplankton when pico-phytoplankton cells were the main contributors to the carbon biomass and on nanophytoplankton when microphytoplankton dominated [12]. By contrast, Dong et al. [13] reported that the strongest grazing pressure occurred on the dominant size class (i.e., micro- or nanophytoplankton) of the community, whereas results from Anjusha et al. [14] based on size-fractionated phytoplankton experiments over a seasonal succession indicated that microzooplankton preferred the nano-size fraction of the phytoplankton community regardless of the dominant size class. Given that the phytoplankton size structure is a key driver of ecosystem functioning (e.g., productivity, nutrient cycling, 9, 15), it is necessary to ascertain the role of temperature and cell size in the control of grazing pressure and trophic structure in planktonic communities.
The intense efforts dedicated to characterize the spatial and temporal (weekly to seasonal) variability in g rates have highlighted the crucial role of temperature and prey cell size as key drivers of grazing pressure [16,17,18]. Under the framework outlined above, we would expect a strengthening of the top-down control on phytoplankton as temperature increases for grazers to achieve their nutritional requirements to grow [19, 20]. However, natural communities are composed by multiple different cellular sizes and taxonomic groups. Field grazing studies typically focus on the net effect of different drivers on the community-level responses, but interactions between biotic and abiotic drivers and species-specific processes make it difficult to ascertain the underlying mechanisms behind such response patterns. Given that the combined effect of body size and temperature on individual metabolic processes imposes important constraints on the global carbon cycle [3], experimental approaches dealing with species-specific responses are required to gain insight into the general patterns observed in nature. Most studies have addressed either the effect of temperature [4] or cell size [13], but the concurrent effect of these drivers on grazing pressure remains unresolved.
Here we address these uncertainties by quantifying the temperature dependence of phytoplankton μ, microzooplankton g, and g:μ by a generalist herbivore protist feeding on a range of prey sizes. The prey species were chosen to represent both sides of the hump-shaped relationship between the phytoplankton growth and cell size [9, 21]. All experiments were replicated under a full factorial design in which we manipulated: (1) temperature, with a gradient that spanned 12 °C, and (2) the cell size of the phytoplankton population by considering a range of three orders of magnitude in biovolume from pico- to microphytoplankton. By using four model phytoplankton species (as preys) belonging to different taxonomic groups in the presence and absence of a model cosmopolitan and generalist predator [22], the dinoflagellate Oxyrrhis marina (as predator), we tested how the interaction between rising temperatures and changes in cell size could alter grazing pressure on phytoplankton and, potentially, the proportion of primary production that is available for higher trophic levels.
Methods
Model Strains and Growth Conditions
The dinoflagellate (hereafter, predator) O. marina Dujardin (strain B21.89) (mean biovolume 4800 ± 222 μm3) was obtained from the Culture Collection of Algae (SAG) at the University of Göttingen, Germany. The ochrophyte Nannochloropsis gaditana L. M. Lubián, the haptophytes Isochrysis galbana Parke and Emiliania huxleyi (Lohmann) W. W. Hay & H. P. Mohler, and the bacillariophyte Thalassiosira rotula Meunier (hereafter, preys) (mean biovolumes, 9 ± 1, 64 ± 9, 160 ± 14, 2600 ± 198 and 4800 ± 222 μm3, respectively) were obtained from the Culture Collection of Algae of the CIM-UVigo. Non-axenic semi-continuous cultures (1-L Erlenmeyer flasks) of all species were grown in f/2 medium [23] at 14, 18, 22, and 26 °C, avoiding supra-optimal temperatures [24], with constant aeration and photosynthetically active radiation under a 12 h L:12 h D cycle (200 μmol m−2 s−1; HomePluss®, Garcasso leds, Spain) inside a temperature-controlled environmental chamber (CLIMASlab, model CIR300, Spain). Additionally, we chose the temperature range mentioned above because the previous results with several strains of O. marina have shown that it exhibits similar growth rates (0.5–0.6 d−1) within the 15–26 °C range [22, 25].
Transfer into fresh medium was carried out at intervals of 3–5 days to maintain exponential growth. Such fresh media was autoclaved the same day that it was replaced into cultures to avoid bacterial proliferation (mean values ~ 2 ng C mL−1; assuming a bacterial C content of 20 fg per cell [26]). The new stock cultures of O. marina were grown in 250-mL Erlenmeyer flasks under the same experimental conditions described above (mean abundance 107 cell L−1) and fed at saturating concentrations with the four target phytoplankton species before being used in experimentation. Before each experimental incubation, O. marina cultures were checked under the microscope to make sure that the algal food had virtually been depleted. All cultures were acclimated during 2–3 weeks to the target temperature before being used in experimentation, thus avoiding any short-term thermal shock [27]. The duration of the acclimation period used was based on the fact that the mean number of generations elapsed during this period ranged between 13 and 30, enough generations to consider that our species were acclimated to the target temperatures tested (i.e., 4 generations; [28]).
Experimental Setup
To assess the interaction between the three factors considered in our experimental design (temperature, presence/absence of predator and prey species), a 4 × 2 × 4 (in triplicate) matrix was implemented (Fig. 1). The four temperature treatments were 14, 18, 22, and 26 °C; the two predator treatments were the presence and absence of predator, and the four phytoplankton species used were those already described above (see Fig. 1). Initial abundances (t0) of prey species ranged between ~ 3 × 105 and 2 × 106 cell L−1, whereas those of predator were ~ 52 × 103 cell L−1. The prey:predator biomass ratios, based on cell counting data, used in our experimental setup (E. huxleyi 0.29 ± 0.11; I. galbana 0.24 ± 0.09; N. gaditana 0.33 ± 0.10; T. rotula 0.35 ± 0.11), are similar to those previously used in other laboratory predator-prey studies with O. marina populations [29, 30]. Also, and to ensure that g was not limited by prey availability, predator was exposed to mean food concentrations (~ 22 [E. huxleyi and I. galbana], 37 [N. gaditana], and 59 [T. rotula] mg C L−1) that exceeded the half saturation constant (k = 0.04–19 mg C L−1) reported in the literature using functional response curves with different prey cell sizes [31]. Due to the high number of resulting experimental units (96 in total), and the limited space available in the growth chambers, the acclimation and exposure of the different phytoplankton species to the target temperatures, and to the presence/absence of the predator, were done sequentially.
Growth (μ) and grazing (g) rates were measured following the dilution method in a 2-point modification with phytoplankton populations in which the grazer was absent and present [32,33,34]. This abbreviated method provides μ and g rates that are statistically indistinguishable from the multi-point, traditional approach for both linear and non-linear feeding responses in laboratory and field-based experiments [18, 34,35,36].
We performed a total of 32 independent dilution experiments (i.e., 4 prey species and 4 temperatures in the presence/absence of predator), using 250-mL Erlenmeyer flasks containing 150 mL of culture. For each single experiment, chlorophyll a (Chl a) concentrations and cell abundances were determined for each flask at t0 and tf, i.e., after 24 h of exposure to the predator, whereas the other response variables were only determined at t0 (see below). Data treatment for each dilution experiment was focused on using Chl a (Supplementary Table S1) and followed procedures described in Morrison and Menden-Deuer [36]. Briefly, μ in the presence and absence of predator was calculated as
where Ct and C0 are the final and initial Chl a concentrations, respectively, and t is the time elapsed in days. μ rates measured in absence of predator were considered to be the intrinsic growth rates unaffected by grazing. Herbivorous grazing rate (g, d−1) was calculated as
where μabsence and μpresence are the μ in the absence and presence of predator, respectively. Grazing pressure was calculated as the ratio between g and μ rates (in percentage).
Phytoplankton Cell Counts
To determine predator and prey abundances, 5-mL samples were fixed with Lugol’s iodine (1%) and examined on an inverted microscope at × 200–× 400 (Nikon® SE type 102, Nikon Instruments Inc., USA) using a 1-mL improved Thomas-Neubauer chamber (Brand®, Brand GmbH + CO KG, Germany). To determine biovolume, 20 predator and prey cells were measured and approximated to their geometric shape [37, 38].
Chlorophyll a (Chl a)
Ten-mL samples were taken from each flask, filtered onto GF/F Whatman glass-fiber (25-mm diameter; Whatman Inc., UK) filters, and stored at − 20 °C until analyzed. Afterwards, the filters were thawed and placed in centrifuge tubes with 5 mL of 90% acetone for 24 h at 4 °C in darkness. Chl a was measured fluorimetrically with a Turner Designs Fluorometer (Trilogy model, USA) routinely calibrated with pure Chl a (Sigma Aldrich, USA) (Supplementary Table S1).
Photosynthetic Performance
Three-mL samples were taken, on a daily basis, during the pre-acclimation period and before experimentation (t0) for each phytoplankton species to measure photosystem II photochemical efficiency, as an indicator of good physiological status, using a pulse amplitude modulated (PAM) fluorometer (Walz, Water PAM, Effeltrich, Germany). Each sample was dark-adapted for 20 min and then measured three times. The maximal photochemical quantum yield (ΦPSIImax) was calculated using the equation of Genty et al. [39]:
where Fm is the maximum fluorescence induced by a saturating light pulse (~ 5300 μmol photons m−2 s−1 in 0.8 s) and F0 is the minimal fluorescence induced by applying far-red illumination (peak at 660 nm) in dark-adapted cells.
Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) and Nitrogen (PON)
Twenty-mL samples were taken from each flask, filtered through pre-combusted (500 °C for 4 h) GF/F Whatman (25-mm-diameter glass-fiber filters; Whatman Inc., UK), and stored at − 20 °C until analyzed. For E. huxleyi, filters were exposed to concentrated HCl to remove calcium carbonate. Before the analysis, filters were desiccated at room temperature for 72 h. Samples were analyzed with an elemental analyzer (vario MACRO cube, Elementar Analyses System GmbH, Germany). Blank GF/F Whatman glass-fiber filters were treated as samples to determine background C and N contents (Supplementary Table S2).
Data and Statistical Analysis
We quantified the effect of rising temperature on g:μ for each phytoplankton population by calculating the activation energy (−Ea). The ordinary least squares regression was used to determine the slope (−Ea) of the linear relationship between 1/KT and the natural logarithm of the g:μ ratio, where K is the Boltzmann’s constant (i.e., ~ 8.62 × 10−5 eV K−1) and T is the temperature in °K.
A two-way analysis of the variance (ANOVA) was used to examine differences among T treatments and prey species, as factors, on C:N and C:cell ratios as well as on species-specific μ and g and g:μ ratios. Mean μ and g rates, g:μ ratios, and Ea and ΦPSIImax values measured in each temperature treatment were pooled together to allow the comparison between the four species tested. Before applying a one-way ANOVA with pooled data, we checked the homogeneity of variances for the above-mentioned variables by Levene’s test. Non-linear regression analyses were used to assess the relationship between C:N and C:cell ratios, μ, g and g:μ (%) ratios; and temperature. Normality (by Shapiro-Wilk test) and sphericity (by Mauchly’s test) were checked for each data group before the application of ANOVA. A least significant differences (LSD) post hoc test was used to determine significant differences among and within the different factors. A 95% confidence limit was used in all tests, and all analyses were performed with RStudio v. 1.1.463.
Results
Temperature × Cell Size Effects on C:N and C:Cell Ratios
The C:N ratios ranged between ~ 2 and 8 for all species tested in our experiment, and their variability was strongly species-dependent. While C:N increased along the assayed temperature range by 60% for I. galbana and N. gaditana, it decreased by 50% in T. rotula and showed the lowest values at intermediate temperatures in the case of E. huxleyi (Fig. 2a). C:cell ratios also exhibited a species-specific response pattern to temperature. Cellular C content decreased with rising temperature (~ 40% in E. huxleyi and ~ 60% in N. gaditana) and increased (~ 20% T. rotula) or did not show any clear trend with temperature (I. galbana; Fig. 2b). These responses resulted in a significant Temperature × Species interactive effect on both variables (Table 1).
Growth and Grazing Rates as a Function of Temperature and Cell Size
Phytoplankton intrinsic μ ranged between 0.14 (N. gaditana at 14 °C) and 1.01 (E. huxleyi at 22 °C) d−1 (Fig. 3a), whereas g varied between 0.05 (I. galbana at 14 °C, N. gaditana at 14 and 18 °C, and T. rotula at 14 °C) and 0.45 (E. huxleyi at 18 °C) d−1 (Fig. 3b). μ increased with temperature in all species tested with the exception of I. galbana, which exhibited the opposite pattern (Fig. 3a). Despite this opposite response, we found relatively high ΦPSIImax values in I. galbana (~ 0.54 ± 0.02), indicating no depressed photophysiological condition. Indeed, no significant differences were found between ΦPSIImax values of I. galbana and those of the other species (E. huxleyi 0.54 ± 0.02; N. gaditana 0.53 ± 0.02; T. rotula 0.57 ± 0.03) over the temperature gradient considered (LSD post hoc test, p > 0.1). g exhibited two clear response patterns with warming: (1) a significant increasing trend with temperature, such as in the case of I. galbana (R2 = 0.98, F3 = 128.28, p < 0.01) and N. gaditana (R2 = 0.99, F3 = 1166.23, p < 0.05), and (2) a unimodal response pattern with g peaking at intermediate temperatures, as found in E. huxleyi (R2 = 0.82, F3 = 2.32, p < 0.05) (Fig. 3b). g on T. rotula did not show a significant effect with temperature (R2 = 0.53, F2.21, p > 0.05). As observed for C:N and C:cell ratios, there was a significant Temperature × Species effect on both rates (Table 1).
The g:μ ratio, a measure of grazing pressure equivalent to the fraction of daily primary production removed by microzooplankton grazing, was highly variable (11–77%; mean values ~ 38%; Fig. 3c). g did not exceed phytoplankton μ in any species or temperature treatment considered. The analysis of the effects of temperature on g:μ ratio largely reflected the same response patterns outlined above for g. The overall fraction of removed primary production increased with increasing temperature in I. galbana and T. rotula and exhibited a U-shape response pattern in N. gaditana (Temperature × Species effect F9 = 593.56, p < 0.001), whereas it decreased, exhibiting the lowest g:μ ratios at the highest temperature tested in E. huxleyi (Fig. 3c).
Considering all rate measurements pooled together for all species, our results show a broadly unimodal relationship between cell size and μ over the cellular mean size gradient considered (nearly three orders of magnitude), with significantly higher rates in E. huxleyi (n = 12; 0.6 d−1) than in I. galbana = T. rotula > N. gaditana (LSD post hoc test, p < 0.01; Fig. 4a). The highest μ rates measured in E. huxleyi coincided with the highest values of g (LSD post hoc test, p < 0.001; Fig. 4a). The fraction of primary production consumed by grazing was similar in all cases regardless of the cell size considered (Fig. 4b), taking a value of ~ 40% (LSD post hoc test, p > 0.8) (with the exception of I. galbana, in which g:μ ratio was ~ 20%).
Temperature Sensitivity of g:μ Ratios Over the Cell Size Range
Ea values showed that the overall temperature effect on g:μ ratios was slightly stimulatory although the variability among different prey species was large. The Ea of g:μ was 3-folds higher for I. galbana than for the other 3 species (LSD post hoc text, p < 0.01), whereas no significant differences were found between the largest (i.e., T. rotula) and smallest (i.e., N. gaditana) species considered in this study (LSD post hoc test, p ~ 0.90; Fig. 5).
Discussion
Our work shows that grazing pressure was similar across a wide range of prey cell size and temperatures. These results provide insight into the regulation of microzooplankton grazing pressure by the interaction between temperature and cell size, two drivers whose effect has been often evaluated independently [40].
Previous results by Hansen et al. [29] indicate that O. marina prefers larger prey sizes and even can exhibit avoidance of certain species (e.g., on E. huxleyi). In addition, the optimal foraging theory for a predator handling individual preys predicts that grazers prefer more energetically valuable organisms (e.g., those with lower C:N ratios) [41]. Following both arguments, it could have been expected that temperature accentuated grazing pressure on larger cells in the first case, but on smaller (more N-rich) cells in the second one. One plausible explanation for the absence of a clear response pattern could be that the energetic demands imposed by increasing temperature, i.e., dominance of catabolic processes requiring a higher food intake to sustain growth [42], would be a more important factor than mechanical constriction to ingestion mediated by prey cell size. Also, it could be that grazing is more dependent on the size-specific μ than on cell size itself [43]. In any event, we can discard that the size-independent grazing pressure found was due either to a limited encounter rate between predator and prey or to a limited maximum growth rate because O. marina was exposed to prey biomass that exceeded (up to 3-folds) its half saturation constant [31]. Thus, our results suggest that generalist microzooplankton grazers, such as O. marina, have a high ability to ingest preys with variable cell sizes. This feeding versatility could hypothetically confer a competitive advantage relative to more specialist species when potential carbon demands increase, such as may occur under warming conditions [44].
Despite that we did not observe any clear response pattern of grazing pressure with cell size, we found that it was ~ 20% higher in one of the two haptophytes considered (i.e., E. huxleyi and I. galbana). The differences reported within both species could be explained by two non-mutually exclusive facts. First, E. huxleyi does not have an active movement ability. The absence of flagella can increase the probability to be captured compared with a mobile species, such as I. galbana; and second, O. marina has been reported to show a positive preference for calcified compared with non-calcified cells [29].
Our population-level results that grazing pressure is similar in small and large cells are consistent with the patterns identified by Calbet and Landry [11]. These authors found a similar grazing pressure by microzooplankton in open ocean and estuarine and coastal areas (60–70% respect total) although such communities are dominated by pico-phytoplankton and nano-/microphytoplankton cells, respectively [9]. Also, they are consistent with the observations of Schulhof et al. [45] in a freshwater ecosystem, where they found that when the effects of temperature on the predator-prey interaction are considered, the higher grazing pressure on smaller rather than larger cells become similar, regardless of the dominant size class in the community. The absence of preference by a specific prey size found in our work could be supported by the fact that our approach did not allow preferential selection. Although this response pattern does not naturally occur in nature, we explicitly performed predator-prey pairs to test how the predator behaves when no food choice exists. Based on these results, we could speculate that the dominance of phytoplankton blooms by larger cells is not only due to the selective pressure exerted by grazers on small cells [8, 10], but it could also be a consequence that small cells have lower maxima growth rates [46].
Our measurements of μ and g showed a similar (although highly variable) temperature dependence of both processes (i.e., 0.47 ± 1.33 vs. 0.40 ± 1.48 eV, respectively) and indicated that the changes in these rates were more or less similar in magnitude. These findings contrast with previous reports that suggested a stronger thermal dependence of heterotrophic compared with autotrophic processes in aquatic [5, 47] and terrestrial [3] ecosystems; however, they are consistent with the idea recently proposed by Wang et al. [7] that the thermal dependence of growth in unicellular autotrophs and protist heterotrophs could be similar, contrary to predictions by the MTE. As discussed by Wang et al. [7], this pattern could be related with the fact that CO2 solubility in water is 30 times higher than that of O2 [48] and the existence of carbon-concentrating mechanisms in protists which increase CO2 and HCO3 within cells by 10–100-folds [49, 50]. Both facts could attenuate the negative effect that increasing temperature exerts on carboxylase:oxygenase activity ratios, because oxygenation has a higher free Ea than carboxylation [51, 52], thus explaining that the growth of phytoplankton could be as sensitive to temperature as that of heterotrophic protists.
The similar thermal dependence of μ and g rates resulted in a relatively low (0.41 ± 0.83 eV) overall thermal dependence of grazing pressure. We stress the need to assess the effect of temperature on grazing pressure rather than on phytoplankton growth rate and herbivore grazing rate separately, because each process is influenced by the other. These findings agree with recently published reports that showed a low thermal dependence of grazing pressure with rising temperature in tropical [12], subtropical [18], and polar [34] plankton communities. However, it contradicts the view by Rose and Caron [5] that growth rates of algal prey are less constrained by decreasing temperatures < 15 °C than those of their grazers (i.e., different thermal dependence), allowing phytoplankton to temporarily escape top-down control and explaining the occurrence of phytoplankton blooms in cold waters. An alternative explanation is that there is generally an inverse relationship between temperature and nutrient availability in the ocean [53]. The fact that cooler waters (i.e., polar and temperate regions) are subjected to more frequent nutrients inputs into euphotic zone, mediated by vertical mixing and/or upwelling processes, favors rapid phytoplankton growth, and explains that blooms tend to occur more often in those regions [54].
When we pooled together the rates obtained over the 12 °C temperature gradient tested, we found that the highest μ rates occurred at intermediate cell sizes. The μ pattern is consistent with the unimodal size scaling of the phytoplankton growth found by Marañón et al. [46], where species with intermediate cell sizes (roughly 10–1000 μm3 in cell volume) sustain faster growth rates than larger and smaller cells. In this connection, several lines of evidence indicate that during conditions of high resource availability, intermediate-size species (nanophytoplankton) tend to be the main contributors to the total biomass of the community [9, 55, 56]. In some cases, as Anjusha et al. [14] found in tropical coastal waters, nanophytoplanktons even constitute the optimal prey size for microzooplankton. More generally, the phytoplankton groups that are consumed at higher rates usually exhibit faster μ rates as well [57,58,59]. Thus, the coupling between μ and g rates reported unveils a highly dynamic nature of species interactions in planktonic populations [60].
Although our approach considered only individual predator-prey interactions, it is relevant given that it was based on the experimental determination of μ and g rates using the same growth conditions avoiding uncertainties associated with data compiled from the literature, included realistic cell abundances often found in coastal, productive waters during bloom periods [61], and prey populations with a wide size range and variable C:N ratios. Finally, we avoided any potential interference related with a selective grazing on preys by exposing the predator to a single prey species [62, 63]. Nevertheless, our experiments were performed under nutrient replete conditions, and therefore the temperature effects reported on μ (and indirectly on g) could be smaller if nutrients are limiting for phytoplankton growth [64].
In conclusion, we have shown that predation pressure (i.e., g:μ ratio) on phytoplankton by a generalist microzooplankter was similar regardless of prey cell size and that the stimulatory effect of temperature on such trophic interaction was overall low, although species-specific differences in size classes were large. Despite the difficulties of quantifying phytoplankton growth and herbivorous grazing rates, particularly in natural plankton communities, our results emphasize the need to address grazing pressure, instead both rates separately, to obtain a more integrative view on how thermal dependence and body size could affect trophic interactions in planktonic food webs.
References
Gillooly F, Brown JH, West GB, Savage VM, Charnov EL (2001) Effect of size and temperature on metabolic rate. Science 293:2248–2251. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1061967
Brown JP, Gillooly F, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85:1771–1789. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-9000
Allen AP, Gillooly JF, Brown JH (2005) Linking the global carbon cycle to individual metabolism. Funct Ecol 19:202–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.00952.x
Chen B, Landry MR, Huang B, Liu H (2012) Does warming enhance the effect of microzooplankton grazing on marine phytoplankton in the ocean? Limnol Oceanogr 57:519–426. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2012.57.2.0519
Rose JM, Caron DA (2007) Does low temperature constrain the growth rates of heterotrophic protists?. Evidence and implications for algal blooms in cold waters. Limnol Oceanogr 52:886–895. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2007.52.2.0886
Chen B, Laws EA (2017) Is there a difference of temperature sensitivity between marine phytoplankton and heterotrophs? Limnol Oceanogr 62:806–817. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10462
Wang Q, Lyu Z, Omar S, Cornell S, Yang Z, Montagnes DJS (2019) Predicting temperature impacts on aquatic productivity: questioning the metabolic theory of ecology’s “canonical” activation energies. Limnol Oceanogr 64:1172–1185. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11105
Kiørboe T (1993) Turbulence, phytoplankton cell size, and the structure of pelagic food webs. Adv Mar Biol 29:1–72
Marañón E (2015) Cell size as a key determinant of phytoplankton metabolism and community structure. Annu Rev Mar Sci 7:241–264. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010814-015955
Branco P, Egas M, Hall S, Huisman J (2020) Why do phytoplankton evolve large size in response to grazing? Am Nat 195:E20–E37. https://doi.org/10.1086/706251
Calbet A, Landry MR (2004) Phytoplankton growth, microzooplankton grazing, and carbon cycling in marine systems. Limnol Oceanogr 49:51–57. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2004.49.1.0051
Liu K, Chen B, Zhang S, Sato M, Shi Z, Liu H (2019) Marine phytoplankton in subtropical coastal waters showing lower thermal sensitivity than microzooplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 64:1103–1119. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11101
Dong Y, Li QP, Liu Z, Wu Z, Zhou W (2018) Size-dependent phytoplankton growth and grazing in the northern South China Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 599:35–47. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12614
Anjusha A, Jyothibabu R, Savitha KMM, Albin KJ (2018) Seasonal variation of phytoplankton growth and microzooplankton grazing in a tropical coastal water (off Kochi), southwest coast of India. Cont Shelf Res 171:12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2018.10.009
Sommer U, Peter KH, Genitsaris S, Moustaka-Gouni M (2017) Do marine phytoplankton follow Bergmann's rule sensu lato? Biol Rev 92:1011–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12266
Lawrence C, Menden-Deuer S (2012) Drivers of protistan grazing pressure: seasonal signals of plankton community composition and environmental conditions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 459:39–52. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09771
Schmoker C, Hernández-León S, Calbet A (2013) Microzooplankton grazing in the oceans: impacts, data variability, knowledge gaps and future directions. J Plankton Res 35:691–706. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbt023
Anderson SR, Harvey EL (2019) Seasonal variability and drivers of microzooplankton grazing and phytoplankton growth in a subtropical estuary. Front Mar Sci 6:174. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00174
Cloern JE (2018) Why large cells dominate estuarine phytoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 63:S392–S409. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10749
Garzke J, Connor SJ, Sommer U, O'Connor MI (2019) Trophic interactions modify the temperature dependence of community biomass and ecosystem function. PLoS Biol 17:e2006806. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006806
Chen B, Liu B (2010) Relationships between phytoplankton growth and cell size in surface oceans: interactive effects of temperature, nutrients, and grazing. Limnol Oceanogr 55:965–972. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2010.55.3.0965
Franzè G, Menden-Deuer S (2020) Common temperature-growth dependency and acclimation response in three herbivorous protists. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 634:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13200
Guillard RRL, Ryther JH (1962) Studies of marine planktonic diatoms. I. Cyclotella nana Husted, and Detonula confervacea (Cleve) Gran. Can J Microbiol 8:229–239
Thomas MK, Kremer CT, Klausmeier CA, Litchman E (2012) A global pattern of thermal adaptation in marine phytoplankton. Science 338:1085–1088. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1224836
Yang Z, Lowe CD, Crowther W, Fenton A, Watts PC, Montagnes DJS (2012) Strain-specific functional and numerical responses are required to evaluate impacts on predator–prey dynamics. ISME J 7:405–416. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej2012.117
Lee S, Fuhrman JA (1987) Relationships between biovolume and biomass of naturally derived marine bacterioplankton. Appl Environ Microbiol 53:1298–1303
Chen B, Liu B (2015) Responses of autotrophic and heterotrophic rates of plankton from a subtropical coastal site to short-term temperature modulations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 527:59–71. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11218
Boyd PW, Ryanearson TA, Armstrong EA, Fu F, Hayashi K, Hu Z, Hutchins DA, Kudela RM, Litchman E, Mulholland MR, Passow U, Strzepek RF, Whitakker KA, Yu E, Thomas MK (2013) Marine phytoplankton temperature versus growth responses from polar to tropical waters – outcome of a scientific community-wide study. PLoS One 8:e63091. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063091
Hansen FC, Witte HJ, Passarge J (1996) Grazing in the heterotrophic Oxyrrhis marina: size selectivity and preference for calcified Emiliania huxleyi cells. Aquat Microb Ecol 10:307–313. https://doi.org/10.3354/ame010307
Kimmance SA, Atkinson D, Montagnes DJS (2006) Do temperature–food interactions matter?. Responses of production and its components in the model heterotrophic flagellate Oxyrrhis marina. Aquat Microb Ecol 42:63–73. https://doi.org/10.3354/ame042063
Roberts EC, Wooton EC, Davidson K, Jeong HJ, Lowe CD, Montagnes DJS (2011) Feeding in the dinoflagellate Oxyrrhis marina: linking behaviour with mechanisms. J Plankton Res 33:603–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbq118
Worden AZ, Binder BJ (2003) Application of dilution experiments for measuring growth and mortality rates among Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus populations in oligotrophic environments. Aquat Microb Ecol 30:159–174. https://doi.org/10.3354/ame030159
Landry MR, Brown SL, Rii YM, Selph KE, Bidigare RR, Yang EJ, Simmons MP (2008) Depth-stratified phytoplankton dynamics in cyclone opal, a subtropical mesoscale eddy. Deep Sea Res Part II Top Stud Oceanogr 55:1348–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.02.001
Menden-Deuer S, Lawrence C, Franzè G (2018) Herbivorous protist growth and grazing rates at in situ and artificially elevated temperatures during an Arctic phytoplankton spring bloom. PeerJ 6:e5264. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5264
Chen B (2015) Assessing the accuracy of the “two-point” dilution technique. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 13:521–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10044
Morrison F, Menden-Deuer S (2017) Doing more with less?: balancing sampling resolution and effort in measurements of protistan growth and grazing-rates. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 15:794–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10200
Hillebrand H, Dürselen CD, Kirschtel D, Pollingher U, Zohary T (1999) Biovolume calculation for pelagic and benthic microalgae. J Phycol 35:403–424. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1529-8817.1999.3520403.x
Sun J, Liu D (2003) Geometric models for calculating cell biovolume and surface area for phytoplankton. J Plankton Res 25:1331–1346. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbg096
Genty BE, Briantais JM, Baker NR (1989) The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. Biochim Biophys Acta 990:87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4165(89)80016-9
Carlotti F, Giske J, Werner F (2000) Modeling zooplankton dynamics. In: Harris RP, Wiebe P, Lenz J, Skjodal HR, Hunter M (eds) ICES zooplankton methodology manual. Academic Press, New York, pp 571–668
Hughes RN (1980) Optimal foraging theory in the marine context. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev. pp 423–481
Clarke A, Frasser KPP (2004) Why does metabolism scale with temperature. Funct Ecol 48:243–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00841.x
Chang FH, Marquis EC, Chang CW, Gong GC, Hsieh CH (2013) Scaling of growth rate and mortality with size and its consequence on size spectra of natural microphytoplankton assemblages in the East China Sea. Biogeosciences 10:5267–5280. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-5267-2013
O’Connor MI, Piehler MF, Dina ML, Bruno JF (2009) Warming and resource availability shift food web structure and metabolism. PLoS Biol 7:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000178
Schulhof MA, Shurin JB, Declerk SAJ, Van de Waal DB (2019) Phytoplankton growth and stoichiometric responses to warming, nutrient addition and grazing depend on lake productivity and cell size. Glob Chang Biol 25:2751–2762. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14660
Marañón E, Cermeño P, López-Sandoval DC, Rodríguez-Ramos T, Sobrino C, Huete-Ortega M, Blanco JM, Rodríguez J (2013) Unimodal size scaling of phytoplankton growth and the size dependence of nutrient uptake and use. Ecol Lett 16:371–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12052
López-Urrutia A, San Martín E, Harris RP, Irigoien X (2006) Scaling the metabolic balance of the oceans. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:8739–8744. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601137103
Sarmiento JL, Gruber N (2013) Ocean biogeochemical dynamics. Princeton University Press, New York
Giordano M, Beardall J, Raven JA (2005) CO2 concentrating mechanisms in algae: mechanisms, environmental modulation, and evolution. Annu Rev Plant Biol 56:99–131. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.56.032604.144052
Raven JA, Cockell CS, De La Rocha CL (2008) The evolution of inorganic carbon concentrating mechanisms in photosynthesis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 363:2641–2650. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0020
Jordan DB, Ogren WL (1984) The CO2/O2 specificity of ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase. Planta 161:308–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00398720
Chen Z, Spreitzer RJ (1992) How various factors influence the CO2/O2 specificity of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase. Photosynth Res 31:157–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00028792
Kamykowski D, Zentara S-J (1986) Predicting plant nutrient concentrations from temperature and sigma-t in the upper kilometer of the world ocean. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanogr Res Pap 33:89–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0198-0149(86)90109-3
Sherr EB, Sherr BF (2009) Capacity of herbivorous protists to control initiation and development of mass phytoplankton blooms. Aquat Microb Ecol 57:253–262. https://doi.org/10.3354/ame01358
Piwosz K (2019) Weekly dynamics of abundance and size structure of specific nanophytoplankton lineages in coastal waters (Baltic Sea). Limnol Oceanogr 64:2172–2186. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11177
Montes-Pérez J, Moreno-Ostos E, Marañón E, Blasco JM, Rodríguez V, Rodríguez J (2020) Intermediate-size cell dominance in the phytoplankton community of an eutrophic, estuarine ecosystem (Guadalhorce River, Southern Spain). Hydrobiologia 847:2241–2254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-020-04251-9
Welschmeyer N, Goericke R, Strom S, Peterson W (1991) Phytoplankton growth and herbivory in the subarctic Pacific: a chemotaxonomic analysis. Limnol Oceanogr 36:1631–1649. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1991.36.8.1631
Latasa M, Morán AG, Scharek R, Estrada M (2005) Estimating the carbon flux through main phytoplankton groups in the northwestern Mediterranean. Limnol Oceanogr 50:1447–1458. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2005.50.5.1447
Betini GS, Avgar T, McCann KS, Fryxell J (2019) Temperature triggers a non-linear response in resource-consumer interaction strength. Ecosphere 10:e02787. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2787
Strom SL (2002) Novel interactions between phytoplankton and microzooplankton: their influence on the coupling between growth and grazing rates in the sea. Hydrobiologia 480:41–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021224832646
Rynearson T, Flickinger SA, Fontaine DN (2020) Metabarcoding reveals temporal patterns of community composition and realized thermal niches of Thalassiosira Spp. (Bacillariophyceae) from the Narragansett Bay long-term plankton time series. Biology 9:19. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9010019
Kuipers BR, Witte HJ (1999) Grazing impact of microzooplankton on different size classes of algae in the North Sea in early spring and mid-summer. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 180:93–104. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps180093
Griniene E, Šulčius S, Kuosa H (2016) Size-selective microzooplankton grazing on the phytoplankton in the Curonian Lagoon (SE Baltic Sea). Oceanologia 58:292–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceano.2016.05.002
Marañón E, Lorenzo MP, Cermeño P, Mouriño-Carballido B (2018) Nutrient limitation suppresses the temperature dependence of phytoplankton metabolic rates. ISME J 12:1836–1845. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0105-1
Funding
This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities through project POLARIS (PGC2018-094553B-I00) granted to EM. MJC was supported by a Juan de la Cierva-Formación postdoctoral contract from the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (FJCI2017-32318).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization and design: MJC and EM. Research development: MJC. Formal analysis and manuscript drafting: MJC. Funding and tools: EM. Results discussion, comments, and approval of the final version of the manuscript: MJC and EM.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Electronic Supplementary Material
ESM 1
(DOC 50 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cabrerizo, M.J., Marañón, E. Grazing Pressure Is Independent of Prey Size in a Generalist Herbivorous Protist: Insights from Experimental Temperature Gradients. Microb Ecol 81, 553–562 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-020-01578-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-020-01578-7