Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:02:14.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Body size and diversity in marine systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2009

By
Richard M. Warwick
Edited by
Alan G. Hildrew ,
David G. Raffaelli  and
Ronni Edmonds-Brown
Richard M. Warwick
Affiliation:
Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Alan G. Hildrew
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London
David G. Raffaelli
Affiliation:
University of York
Ronni Edmonds-Brown
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Much has been written concerning the relationship between body size and biological traits, mostly concerning the terrestrial situation. There is no reason to suppose that many of these relationships will be different in the sea; for example quarter-power scaling with body mass applies to virtually all organisms (West, Brown & Enquist, 1999). For marine animals, metabolic rate and production scales at three-quarters power (e.g. Brey, 1990; Warwick & Price, 1979), while it is likely that life span increases in proportion to body mass raised to the power of one quarter, although so little is known about the natural history of marine animals that this latter relationship cannot yet be established. On the other hand, the very different phyletic composition of terrestrial and marine faunas, and the big differences in life-history characteristics, suggest that relationships between body size and diversity will differ between these two realms.

The relationship between body size and diversity is fraught with uncertainties and inconsistencies. Hutchinson (1959) suggested that ‘… small size, by permitting animals to become specialised to the conditions offered by small diversified elements of the environmental mosaic, clearly makes possible a degree of diversity quite unknown among groups of larger organisms’. However, it is now suggested that the spatial and temporal structure of the physical environment is fractal (Bell et al., 1993 and references therein; see Schmid & Schmid-Araya, this volume), and if habitat complexity largely determines species diversity this leads to the prediction (for a single perfect fractal) that all organisms, regardless of size, will perceive the environment as equally complex and should have equivalent diversity.

Type
Chapter
Information
Body Size: The Structure and Function of Aquatic Ecosystems , pp. 210 - 224
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. & Shorrocks, B. (1985). Competing species come in sevens. New Scientist, 107(1465), 42–44.Google Scholar
Bell, G., Lechowicz, M. J., Appenzeller, A.et al. (1993). The spatial structure of the physical environment. Oecologia, 96, 114–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, S. S. & Coull, B. C. (1980). Experimental evidence for a model of juvenile macrofauna – meiofauna interactions. In Marine Benthic Dynamics, ed. Tenore, K. R. and Coull, B. C.. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, pp. 179–192.Google Scholar
Bilio, M. (1967). Nahrungsbeziehungen der Turbellarien in Küstensalzweisen. Helgoländer Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, 15, 602–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boaden, P. J. S. (1989). Meiofauna and the origin of the Metazoa. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 96, 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brey, T. (1990). Estimating productivity of macrobenthic invertebrates from biomass and mean individual weight. Meeresforschung, 32, 329–343.Google Scholar
Cornell, H. V. & Lawton, J. H. (1992). Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to the richness of ecological communities – a theoretical perspective. Journal of Animal Ecology, 61, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darius, J. (1977). Catgut in Cambridge. New Scientist, 75(1061), 175.Google Scholar
Dial, K. P. & Marzluff, J. M. (1988). Are the smallest organisms the most diverse? Ecology, 69, 1620–1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupre, C. (2000). How to determine a regional species pool: a study in two Swedish regions. Oikos, 89, 128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyar, H. G. (1890). The number of molts of lepidopterous larvae. Psyche, 5, 420–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. McA., Broekhoven, L. & Colgan, P. (1987). Size ratios and artefacts: Hutchinson's rule revisited. American Naturalist, 129, 1–17.Google Scholar
Etienne, R. S. & Olff, H. (2004). How dispersal limitation shapes species-body size distributions in local communities. American Naturalist, 163, 69–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenchel, T. (1993). There are more small than large species? Oikos, 68, 375–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, J. M. & Warwick, R. M. (1994). Body-size distribution in a marine metazoan community and the fractal dimensions of macroalgae. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 178, 247–259.Google Scholar
Greene, E. (1987). Sizing up size ratios. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2, 79–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holling, C. S. (1992). Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and the dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs, 62, 447–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horne, H. S. & May, R. M. (1977). Limits to similarity among coexisting competitors. Nature, 270, 660–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E. (1959). Homage to Santa Rosalia, or why are there so many kinds of animals. American Naturalist, 93, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, J. (1942). Evolution: the Modern Synthesis. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Jones, N. S. (1976). British Cumaceans. Synopses of the British Fauna (New Series) No. 7. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kendall, M. A., Warwick, R. M. & Somerfield, P. J. (1997). Species size distributions in Arctic benthic communities. Polar Biology, 17, 389–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochmer, J. P. & Wagner, R. H. (1988). Why are there so many kinds of passerine birds? Because they are small. A reply to Raikow. Systematic Zoology, 37, 68–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, J. H. & Strong, D. R. (1981). Community patterns and competition in folivorous insects. American Naturalist, 118, 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leaper, R., Raffaelli, D., Emes, C. & Manly, B. (2001). Constraints on body-size distributions: an experimental test of the habitat architecture hypothesis. Journal of Animal Ecology, 70, 248–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, R. J. (1979). British Marine Amphipoda: Gammaridea. London: British Museum (Natural History).Google Scholar
Lorenzen, S. (1978). Postembyonalentwicklung von Steineria- und Sphaerolaimidenarten (Nematoden) und ihre Konsequenzen für die Systematic. Zoologische Anzeiger, Jena, 200, 53–78.Google Scholar
May, R. H. (1986). The search for patterns in the balance of nature: advances and retreats. Ecology, 67, 278–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, C. I. & King, P. E. (1976). British Tardigrades. Synopses of the British Fauna (New Series) No. 9. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mortensen, T. H. (1927). Handbook of the Echinoderms of the British Isles. London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orme, C. D. L., Quicke, D. L. J., Cook, J. M. & Purvis, A. (2002). Body size does not predict species richness among the metazoan phyla. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 15, 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, T. H. & Rosenberg, R. (1978). Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review, 16, 229–311.Google Scholar
Sars, G. O. (1903). An Account of the Crustacea of Norway, Volume 4 – Copepoda, Calanoida. Bergen: Bergen Museum.Google Scholar
Sars, G. O. (1911). An Account of the Crustacea of Norway, Volume 5 – Copepoda, Harpacticoida. Bergen: Bergen Museum.Google Scholar
Sars, G. O. (1928). An Account of the Crustacea of Norway, Volume 9 – Ostracoda. Bergen: Bergen Museum.Google Scholar
Schwinghamer, P. (1981). Characteristic size distributions of integral benthic communities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 38, 1255–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemann, E., Tilman, D. & Haarstad, J. (1996). Insect species diversity, abundance and body size relationships. Nature, 380, 704–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smaldon, G. (1979). British Coastal Shrimps and Prawns. Synopses of the British Fauna (New Series) No. 15. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stead, T. K., Schmid-Araya, J. M., Schmid, P. E. & Hildrew, A. G. (2005). The distribution of body size in a stream community: one system, many patterns. Journal of Animal Ecology, 74, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straarup, B. J. (1970). On the ecology of turbellarians in a sheltered brackish shallow-water bay. Ophelia, 7, 185–216.Google Scholar
Strathmann, R. R. (1985). Feeding and nonfeeding larval development and life-history evolution in marine invertebrates. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 16, 339–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strayer, D. (1986). The size structure of a lacustrine zoobenthic community. Oecologia, 69, 513–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tattersall, W. M. & Tattersall, O. S. (1951). The British Mysidacea. London: The Ray Society.Google Scholar
Tebble, N. (1966). British Bivalve Seashells. British Museum (Natural History), London.Google Scholar
Thorson, G. (1946). Reproduction and larval development of Danish marine bottom invertebrates. Medd. Komm. Danm. Fisk. -og Havunders, ser Plankton, 4, 1–523.Google Scholar
Tietjen, J. H. & Lee, J. J. (1972). Life cycles of marine nematodes. Influence of temperature and salinity on the development of Monhystera denticulata Timm. Oecologia, 10, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tietjen, J. H. & Lee, J. J. (1973). Life history and feeding habits of the marine nematode Chromadora macrolaimoides Steiner. Oecologia, 12, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brink, F.-H. (1967). Guide des mammifères sauvages d'Europe. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
Valen, L. (1973). Body size and numbers of plants and animals. Evolution, 27, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warwick, R. M. (1984). Species size distributions in marine benthic communities. Oecologia, 61, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warwick, R. M. (1989). The role of meiofauna in the marine ecosystem: evolutionary considerations. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 96, 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, R. M. (1996). Biodiversity and production on the sea floor. In The Oceans and the Poles, ed. Hempel, G.. Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag, pp. 217–227.Google Scholar
Warwick, R. M. & Joint, I. R. (1987). The size distribution of organisms in the Celtic Sea: from bacteria to Metazoa. Oecologia, 73, 185–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warwick, R. M. & Price, R. (1979). Ecological and metabolic studies on free-living nematodes from an estuarine mud-flat. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 9, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, R. M., Collins, N. R., Gee, J. M. & George, C. L. (1986). Species size distributions of benthic and pelagic Metazoa: evidence for interaction? Marine Ecology Progress Series, 34, 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, R. M., Dashfield, S. L. & Somerfield, P. J. (2006). The integral structure of a benthic infaunal assemblage. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 330, 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watzin, M. C. (1983). The effects of meiofauna on settling macrofauna: meiofauna may structure macrofauna communities. Oecologia, 59, 163–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watzin, M. C. (1985). Interactions among temporary and permanent meiofauna: observations on the feeding behaviour of selected taxa. The Biological Bulletin, 169, 397–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watzin, M. C. (1986). Larval settlement into marine soft-sediment systems: interactions with the meiofauna. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 98, 65–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, G. B., Brown, J. H. & Enquist, B. J. (1999). The fourth dimension of life: fractal geometry and allometric scaling of organisms. Science, 284, 1677–1679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheeler, A. (1969). Fishes of the British Isles and North-West Europe. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wieser, W. (1959), Reports of the Lund University Chile expedition 1948–49, 34. Free-living marine nematodes IV. General part. Lunds Universitets Årsskrift (2), 55 (5), 1–111.Google Scholar
Witman, J. D., Etter, R. J. & Smith, F. (2004). The relationship between regional and local species diversity in marine benthic communities: a global perspective. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 15664–15669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×