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-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:37:54.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - The consequences of body size in model microbial ecosystems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2009

By
Owen L. Petchey ,
Zachary T. Long  and
Peter J. Morin
Edited by
Alan G. Hildrew ,
David G. Raffaelli  and
Ronni Edmonds-Brown
Owen L. Petchey
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Zachary T. Long
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Peter J. Morin
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
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

Patterns in the sizes of coexisting organisms have always intrigued ecologists (Hutchinson, 1961). Some kinds of regularities are well known for some systems (Sheldon, Prakash & Sutcliffe, 1972), and are less appreciated or rediscovered for others (Enquist & Niklas, 2001; Cohen, Jonsson & Carpenter, 2003). One example of this kind of pattern is the apparent constancy of total biomass within different size fractions of organisms living in aquatic communities (Sheldon, et al. 1972; Cyr, 2000; Kerr & Dickie, 2001; Cohen et al., 2003; Sheldon, Sutcliffe & Paranjape, 1977; Tilman et al., 2001; Mulder et al., 2005). Essentially, over many orders of magnitude of organism size, any particular size class holds about the same total biomass of organisms per unit volume. The result is an inverse relationship between the log of organism size and the log of organism abundance per unit volume, with a slope of − 1. The apparent constancy of this relationship has even led some workers to suggest, tongue in cheek, that it could be used to estimate the population size of some organisms that have proven to be notoriously difficult to observe, once assumptions about their average size were made (Sheldon & Kerr, 1972, 1973). Whether or not the elusive Loch Ness Monster (to which these calculations were rather whimsically applied) actually exists, it appears that the total biomass of organisms in some habitats is fixed by certain features of the habitat, most likely the abundance of incoming energy and nutrients that drive productivity (Sheldon et al., 1977; Cyr, 2000; Kerr & Dickie, 2001; Cohen et al., 2003; Mulder et al., 2005).

Type
Chapter
Information
Body Size: The Structure and Function of Aquatic Ecosystems , pp. 245 - 265
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

Allen, A. P., Brown, J. H., & Gillooly, J. F. (2002). Global biodiversity, biochemical kinetics, and the energy-equivalence rule. Science, 297, 2545–1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. H. (2004). Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology, 85, 1771–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. H. & Gillooly, J. F. (2003). Ecological food webs: high-quality data facilitate theoretical unification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 1467–1468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carbone, C. & Gittleman, J. L. (2002). A common rule for the scaling of carnivore density. Science, 295, 2273–2276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. E., Jonsson, T. & Carpenter, S. R. (2003). Ecological community description using the food web, species abundance, and body size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 1781–1786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawley, M. J. (2002). Statistical Computing. An Introduction to Data Analysis using S-Plus. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Cyr, H. (2000). Individual energy use and the allometry of population density. In Scaling in Biology, ed. Brown, J. H. and West, G. B.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 267–295.Google Scholar
Damuth, J. (1981). Population density and body size in mammals. Nature, 290, 699–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damuth, J. (1987). Interspecific allometry of population density in mammals and other animals: the independence of body mass and population energy use. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 31, 193–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, J. E. (2002). Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the consumer connection. Oikos, 99, 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enquist, B. J. & Niklas, K. J. (2001). Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature, 410, 655–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillooly, J. F., Brown, J. H., West, G. B., Savage, V. M. & Charnov, E. L. (2001). Effects of size and temperature on metabolic rate. Science, 293, 2248–2251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hector, A., Schmid, B., Beierkuhnlein, C.et al. (1999). Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grassland. Science, 286, 1123–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J. J.et al. (2005). Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75, 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E. (1961). The paradox of the plankton. The American Naturalist, 95, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, S. R. & Dickie, L. M. (2001). The Biomass Spectrum. NewYork: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Loeuille, N. & Loreau, M. (2006). Evolution of body size in food webs: does the energy equivalence rule hold?Ecology Letters, 9, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, Z. T. & Morin, P. J. (2005). Effects of organism size and community composition on ecosystem functioning. Ecology Letters, 8, 1271–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P.et al. (2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294, 804–808.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marquet, P. A., Navarette, S. A. & Castilla, J. C. (1995). Body size, population density, and the energetic equivalence rule. Journal of Animal Ecology, 64, 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrady-Steed, J. & Morin, P. J. (2000). Biodiversity, density compensation, and the dynamics of populations and functional groups. Ecology, 81, 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrady-Steed, J., Harris, P. M. & Morin, P. J. (1997). Biodiversity regulates ecosystem predictability. Nature, 390, 162–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, C., Cohen, J. E., Setälä, H., Bloem, J. & Breure, A. M. (2005). Bacterial traits, organism mass, and numerical abundance in the detrital soil food web of Dutch agricultural grasslands. Ecology Letters, 8, 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petchey, O. L., McPhearson, P. T., Casey, T. M. & Morin, P. J. (1999). Environmental warming alters food-web structure and ecosystem function. Nature, 402, 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petchey, O. L., Casey, T. J., Jiang, L., McPhearson, P. T. & Price, J. (2002). Species richness, environmental fluctuations, and temporal change in total community biomass. Oikos, 99, 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petchey, O. L., Downing, A. L., Mittelbach, G. G.et al. (2004). Species loss and the structure and functioning of multitrophic aquatic ecosystems. Oikos, 104, 467–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, R. H. (1983). The Ecological Implications of Body Size. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, V. M., Gillooly, J. F., Brown, J. H., West, G. B. & Charnov, E. L. (2004). Effects of body size and temperature on population growth. American Naturalist, 163, E429–E441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheldon, R. W. & Kerr, S. R. (1972). The population density of monsters in Loch Ness. Limnology and Oceanography, 17, 796–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, R. W. & Kerr, S. R. (1973). The Loch Ness Monster: reply to comments of C. H. Mortimer. Limnology and Oceanography, 18, 345–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, R. W., Prakash, A. & Sutcliffe, W. H. (1972). The size distribution of particles in the ocean. Limnology and Oceanography, 17, 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, R. W., Sutcliffe, W. H. & Paranjape, M. A. (1977). Structure of pelagic food-chain and relationship between plankton and fish production. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 34, 2344–2353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D., Reich, P. B., Knops, J.et al. (2001). Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science, 294, 843–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherby, A. J., Warren, P. H. & Law, R. (1998). Coexistence and collapse: an experimental investigation of the persistent communities of a protist species pool. Journal of Animal Ecology, 67, 554–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, G. B., Brown, J. H. & Enquist, B. J. (1997). A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science, 276, 122–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wetzel, R. G. & Likens, G. E. (1991). Limnological Analyses, 2nd edn. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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
×