Aquatic functional biodiversity : an ecological and evolutionary perspective

286 Pages·2015·0.64 MB·English

by  Belgrano

Aquatic Functional
Biodiversity
An Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective
Edited by
Andrea Belgrano
Department of Aquatic Resources, Institute of Marine Research,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Lysekil;
Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment (SIME), Gothenburg,
Sweden
Guy Woodward
Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London,
Ascot, Berkshire, United Kingdom
Ute Jacob
Institute for Hydrobiology and Fisheries Science,
University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
AMSTERDAMlBOSTONlHEIDELBERGlLONDON
NEWYORKlOXFORDlPARISlSANDIEGO
SANFRANCISCOlSINGAPORElSYDNEYlTOKYO
AcademicPressisanimprintofElsevier
AcademicPressisanimprintofElsevier
125LondonWall,LondonEC2Y5AS,UK
525BStreet,Suite1800,SanDiego,CA92101-4495,USA
225WymanStreet,Waltham,MA02451,USA
TheBoulevard,LangfordLane,Kidlington,OxfordOX51GB,UK
Copyright(cid:1)2015ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
CoverImage,Lower(cid:1)2010:createdusingthesoftwareFoodweb3D,whichwasprovidedby
RichWilliams,J.A.DunneandN.D.Martinez(Williams,R.J.Network3DSoftware.Microsoft
Research,Cambridge,UK)
Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,
electronicormechanical,includingphotocopying,recording,oranyinformationstorageand
retrievalsystem,withoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublisher.Detailsonhowtoseek
permission,furtherinformationaboutthePublisher’spermissionspoliciesandourarrangements
withorganizationssuchastheCopyrightClearanceCenterandtheCopyrightLicensingAgency,
canbefoundatourwebsite:www.elsevier.com/permissions.
Thisbookandtheindividualcontributionscontainedinitareprotectedundercopyrightbythe
Publisher(otherthanasmaybenotedherein).
Notices
Knowledgeandbestpracticeinthisfieldareconstantlychanging.Asnewresearchandexperience
broadenourunderstanding,changesinresearchmethods,professionalpractices,ormedical
treatmentmaybecomenecessary.
Practitionersandresearchersmustalwaysrelyontheirownexperienceandknowledgein
evaluatingandusinganyinformation,methods,compounds,orexperimentsdescribedherein.
Inusingsuchinformationormethodstheyshouldbemindfuloftheirownsafetyandthesafety
ofothers,includingpartiesforwhomtheyhaveaprofessionalresponsibility.
Tothefullestextentofthelaw,neitherthePublishernortheauthors,contributors,oreditors,
assumeanyliabilityforanyinjuryand/ordamagetopersonsorpropertyasamatterof
productsliability,negligenceorotherwise,orfromanyuseoroperationofanymethods,products,
instructions,orideascontainedinthematerialherein.
ISBN:978-0-12-417015-5
BritishLibraryCataloguing-in-PublicationData
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
AcatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongress
ForinformationonallAcademicPresspublications
visitourwebsiteathttp://store.elsevier.com/
Publisher:JaniceAudet
SeniorAcquisitionsEditor:KristiA.S.Gomez
SeniorEditorialProjectManager:PatGonzalez
ProductionProjectManager:Luc´ıaPe´rez
Designer:MatthewLimbert
TypesetbyTNQBooksandJournals
www.tnq.co.in
Contributors
Mat´ıasArimDepartamentodeEcolog´ıayEvolucio´n,FacultaddeCienciasandCentro
Universitario Regional Este (CURE), Universidad de la Repu´blica, Montevideo,
Uruguay
Andrea Belgrano Department of Aquatic Resources, Institute of Marine Research,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Lysekil, Sweden; Swedish Institute
fortheMarineEnvironment(SIME),Go¨teborg,Sweden
Mauro Berazategui Departamento de Ecolog´ıa y Evolucio´n, Facultad de Ciencias
and Centro Universitario Regional Este (CURE), Universidad de la Repu´blica,
Montevideo,Uruguay
SofiaBerg EnviroPlanningAB,Go¨teborg,Sweden
Iliana Bista Molecular Ecology and Fisheries Genetics Laboratory, School of
BiologicalSciences,EnvironmentCentreWales,BangorUniversity,Gwynedd,UK
AnaIne´sBorthagarayDepartamentodeEcolog´ıayEvolucio´n,FacultaddeCiencias
and Centro Universitario Regional Este (CURE), Universidad de la Repu´blica,
Montevideo,Uruguay
ThomasBreyAlfredWegenerInstituteforPolarandMarineResearch,Bremerhaven,
Germany
Joachim Claudet National Centre for Scientific Research, CRIOBE, CNRS-EPHE,
Perpignan, France
Simon Creer Molecular Ecology and Fisheries Genetics Laboratory, School of
BiologicalSciences,EnvironmentCentreWales,BangorUniversity,Gwynedd,UK
AnthonyI.DellNationalGreatRiversResearchandEducationCenter,Alton,IL,USA
BenoitO.L. DemarsTheJamesHuttonInstitute, Aberdeen,Scotland,UK
Anna Eklo¨f Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology (IFM), Linko¨ping
University,Linko¨ping,Sweden
Francesco Falciani Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool,
Liverpool, UK
JonathanA.D.FisherCentreforFisheriesEcosystemsResearch,FisheriesandMarine
InstituteofMemorialUniversityofNewfoundland,St.John’s,NL,Canada
Charles W.FowlerBiologyDepartment,Seattle University,Seattle,WA,USA
Kenneth T. Frank Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Bedford Institute of
Oceanography,Dartmouth,NS,Canada
xi
xii Contributors
David C. Fryxell Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of
California,SantaCruz,CA,USA
Clare Gray School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of
London, London, UK; Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London,
Ascot,Berkshire,UK
Ute Jacob Institute for Hydrobiology and Fisheries Science, University of Hamburg,
Hamburg,Germany
TomasJonssonPopulationEcologyUnit,InstituteforEcology,Uppsala, Sweden
PierreLeenhardt CRIOBE,CNRS-EPHE, Perpignan,France
NatalieLowHopkinsMarineStation,Stanford University,PacificGrove,CA,USA
Susanna M. Messinger Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale
University,NewHaven,CT,USA
Fiorenza Micheli Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific Grove,
CA,USA
Katja Mintenbeck Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research,
Bremerhaven,Germany
Christian Mo¨llmann Institute for Hydrobiology and Fisheries Science, University of
Hamburg,Hamburg,Germany
Don T. Monteith Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre,
Lancaster,UK
CamiloMoraDepartment ofGeography,UniversityofHawaii,Honolulu,HI,USA
LyneMorissette M-ExpertiseMarine,Sainte-Luce,Canada
Eric P. Palkovacs Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of
California,SantaCruz,CA,USA
NicolasPascalEcolePratiquedesHautesEtudes,CRIOBE,CNRS-EPHE,Perpignan,
France
Samraat Pawar Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot,
Berkshire,UK
Daniel M. Perkins Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot,
Berkshire,UK
Owen Petchey Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies,
UniversityofZurich,Zurich
Vero´nica Pinelli Departamento de Ecolog´ıa y Evolucio´n, Facultad de Ciencias and
Centro Universitario Regional Este (CURE), Universidad de la Repu´blica,
Montevideo,Uruguay
David M. Post Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University,
NewHaven,CT,USA
DavidRaffaelli EnvironmentDepartment, UniversityofYork,York,UK
AndreaRauJohannHeinrichvonThu¨nenInstituteforBalticSeaFisheries,Rostock,
Germany
Contributors xiii
Luc´ıaRodr´ıguez-TricotDepartamentodeEcolog´ıayEvolucio´n,FacultaddeCiencias
and Centro Universitario Regional Este (CURE), Universidad de la Repu´blica,
Montevideo,Uruguay
Van M. Savage Department of Biomathematics, David Geffen School of Medicine,
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Ecology and
EvolutionaryBiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Santa Fe
Institute, SantaFe,NM, USA
Xiaoliang Sun Department of Molecular Systems Biology, University of Vienna,
Vienna,Austria
Nash E. Turley Department of Biology, University of Toronto at Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,Canada
DavidA.VasseurDepartmentofEcologyandEvolutionaryBiology,YaleUniversity,
NewHaven,CT,USA
Guy Woodward Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot,
Berkshire,UK
Perspective: Functional
Biodiversity during the
Anthropocene
Andrea Belgrano, Ute Jacob, Charles Fowler, and Guy Woodward
We are living through a new temporal epoch, recently described as the
Anthropocene (Latour, 2014), in which human activities are increasingly
shapingthebiotawithinandamongEarth’secosystems.These anthropogenic
forcesbringavariety ofmajor consequences, includingthesignificant lossof
biodiversityinallitsforms,andnotjustthemorefamiliarmeasureofspecies
richness (Mora et al., 2011; Cardinale, 2013). Biodiversity, in the broader
sense of the term that we use here, includes patterns in the links between
species assemblages and their functional organization within a web of in-
teractions under environmental constraints. This shift of focus from the
traditional emphasis on the “nodes” to the “links” represents an important
philosophical change: it forces us to recognize that multispecies systems are
not simply passively mapped onto an environmental template, but that their
own internal dynamics influence higher level phenomena. Biodiversity is
linked to ecosystem functioning and, by extension, to the socioeconomically
valuable services they provide (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA),
2005), yet the strength and form of these relationships are still surprisingly
poorlyunderstood.Thisemphasizestheurgentneedtodevelopstrategiesthat
promotesustainableuseofecosystemsatlocalscales,andofthebiosphereata
global scale, in order to preserve a “safe operating space for humanity”
(Naeem et al., 2012; Perrings et al., 2010; Dobson, 2009; Mace et al., 2015).
If we are to do this, first we need to understand how structure and func-
tioning are connected. Functional diversity (FD) is a key component of
biodiversity(Perringsetal.,2010;Mouillotetal.,2014)andprovidesadirect
link between biodiversity and ecosystem processes (Naeem, 2006), yet com-
parisons of FD across systems has largely ignored perspectives that combine
ecological and evolutionary principles and understanding (Perrings et al.,
2010). It is imperative that a more comprehensive approach is developed for
effectively conserving species and their functional roles that considers both
ecological and evolutionary principles (Stouffer et al., 2012).
xv
xvi Perspective:FunctionalBiodiversityduringtheAnthropocene
MacroecologicalpatternsintheFDcanbemanifestedacrossawiderange
of taxa and systems, as well as across spatial and temporal scales, and orga-
nizational levels. This is often achieved by focusing on the explicit links be-
tween biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in experimental manipulations,
afieldthathasgainedhugetractioninthepastcoupleofdecades(Reissetal.,
2009).The(usuallypositive)relationshipbetweenspeciesrichnessandFDhas
profoundimplicationsforconservationandmanagement(especiallyofouruse
of natural resources) and is also increasingly being linked to food web
structure and ecosystem services. Combining macroecological studies of
system properties with detailed analyses of community functional diversity
patternsandfoodwebstructure(PetcheyandGaston,2007)couldprovideone
means of understanding which ecosystem services (Dobson, 2009) are
particularlyimportantforsustainingoverallhealthyenvironmentalstatus,and
alsowhich might be most vulnerable to perturbations. This is only one of the
manychallenges that we need to resolveand understand (Figure 1), if we are
EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE
FFuunncc(cid:415)(cid:415)oonnaall DDiivveerrssiittyy FFoooodd WWeebb ssttrruuccttuurree EEccoossyysstteemm SSeerrvviicceess
WWhhiicchh eeccoossyysstteemm
WWhhaatt aarree tthhee eeffffeeccttss ooff
sseerrvviicceess aarree aalltteerreedd bbyy
hhuummaann iimmppaaccttss oonn
cchhaannggeess iinn ffoooodd wweebb
ffuunncc(cid:415)(cid:415)oonnaall ddiivveerrssiittyy
ssttrruuccttuurree??
aanndd bbiiooddiivveerrssiittyy lloossss??
HHooww ddoo ffuunncc(cid:415)(cid:415)oonnaall ttrraaiittss
rreessppoonndd ttoo cchhaannggeess iinn WWhhiicchh ffuunncc(cid:415)(cid:415)oonnaall
WWhhiicchh iimmppaaccttss aarree ffoooodd wweebb ssttrruuccttuurree aatt ttrraaiittss ccaann bbee uusseedd aass
mmoosstt iinnflfluueenn(cid:415)(cid:415)aall iinn tthhee ssppeecciieess aanndd iinnddiiccaattoorrss ffoorr
ddeetteerrmmiinniinngg cchhaannggeess ccoommmmuunniittyy lleevveell?? eeccoossyysstteemm sseerrvviicceess
iinn ffuunncc(cid:415)(cid:415)oonnaall ttrraaiittss?? tthhaatt rreeflfleecctt cchhaannggeess
HHooww iiss ffoooodd wweebb iinn ffoooodd wweebb
ssttrruuccttuurree bbootthh ssttrruuccttuurree??
ttooppoollooggiiccaallllyy aanndd
WWhhiicchh ffuunncc(cid:415)(cid:415)oonnaall ttrraaiittss ddyynnaammiiccaallllyy lliinnkkeedd ttoo WWhhiicchh eeccoossyysstteemm
aarree mmoosstt rreessiilliieenntt ttoo eeccoossyysstteemm sseerrvviicceess?? sseerrvviicceess aarree bbootthh
aanntthhrrooppooggeenniicc cchhaannggee eesssseenn(cid:415)(cid:415)aall aanndd
--iinncclluuddiinngg cclliimmaattee vvuullnneerraabbllee iinn tthhee
cchhaannggee?? ccoonntteexxtt ooff tthhee
AAnntthhrrooppoocceennee??
FIGURE 1 Challenges and questions at the time of the Anthropocene: linking functional
diversity,foodwebstructure,andecosystemservices.
Perspective:FunctionalBiodiversityduringtheAnthropocene xvii
tomovetowardafunctionallybasedframeworkthatcanincludetheecological
and evolutionary roles that species (including humans) play within the local
ecosystems on a global scale.
Thebiodiversityofecosystemsworldwideisundergoingmajorchange,via
human-induced extinctions set against gains via intentional and accidental
introductions, with the balance increasingly on the red side of the ledger.
These combined effects are altering the structure and function of ecosystems
on a global scale, and we are now experiencing what has been widely
described as the 6th Great Extinction. An especially challenging task is to
understandhowindividualspeciescombinetodeliverecosystemservicesina
changing world, yet a rigorous, systematic methodology for doing so still
eludes us. This is, at least partially, because the dynamics of ecosystem ser-
vices remain poorly characterized at local-to-regional scales, and the role of
species in contributing to services is not fully understood. A priori, we know
that functional traits, food web structure, and ecosystem services are inter-
linked and need to be considered in conjunction with the recognition that
ecosystems change andrequire adaptivegovernance toensure their long-term
sustainability (Folke et al., 2005; Folke, 2007; Dietz et al., 2003).
Recently there has been an explosion of interest in employing network
theory to disentangle and explore the relationships between biodiversity and
ecosystem functioning (Reiss et al., 2009; Ke´fi et al., 2015).
This volume Aquatic Functional Biodiversity: An Ecological and Evolu-
tionaryApproachisanattemptbysomeofthemostprominentinvestigatorsin
thefieldtoprovideamoregeneralconceptualframeworkthatcanincludenew
ecological and/or evolutionary approaches to the understanding of functional
diversity. This is accomplished in a way that holds the promise of leading to
effectiveandrealisticconservation,especiallyindoingourbestatensuringthe
sustainability of ecosystem services in aquatic systems. The collection of
chapters in this book represents a substantive contribution to: (1) defining
commongroundintermsofterminologyandconceptualissues,(2)connecting
conceptualframeworksfromthe ecological and/or evolutionary scienceswith
those from classical biodiversity theory, to make progress toward better
practical application, and (3) providing examples of how biodiversity and
ecosystem services might be conserved more effectively in the real world.
TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTUAL ISSUES IN
ECOLOGICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES
Understanding and predicting interactions between ecological and evolu-
tionary processes are extremely challenging tasks. Pawar and colleagues
(Chapter 1) provide a summary of recent theoretical and empirical advances
for developing a mechanistic understanding of trophic interactions, and
identifykeymethodsandchallengesforunderstandingandpredictingtheeco-
evolutionary dynamics of aquatic ecosystems. These authors introduce a
xviii Perspective:FunctionalBiodiversityduringtheAnthropocene
theoretical approach to understanding how the metabolic and biomechanical
bases of trophic interactions can enhance general predictions regarding the
eco-evolutionarydynamicsandfunctioningofaquaticecosystems.Theirideas
will be applicable to other types of ecological interactions that involve
metabolism and biomechanics (e.g., pollination, parasitism, and competitive
interactions). Numerous relationships in which biodiversity contributes posi-
tively to ecosystem function have been identified across a wide variety of
ecological communities in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Even though
these relationships are acknowledged in multiple ways, the underlying
mechanisms are poorly understood and are often questioned. In their chapter,
Vasseur and Messinger (Chapter 3) introduce and use two models that depict
autotrophic and heterotrophic competitors. Their work includes a case study
involving a series of experiments using in silico biodiversity and ecosystem
function. They show that the “ancestry” of species, which is defined in terms
of whether or not they have coevolved in the presence of competitors or in
monocultures,isanimportantdeterminantintheextenttowhichtransgressive
overyielding can occur. Their research has important implications for the
interpretation of previous meta-analyses, and may provide insight of impor-
tancetothemanagementofhumaninfluenceonaquaticcommunitiesandtheir
recovery from abnormal human influence.
Borthagarayandcoworkers(Chapter4)presentthestateoftheartofeffects
ofmetacommunitynetworksonlocalcommunitystructures;theirchaptercovers
theoretical predictions and empirical evaluations. By using metapopulation
models they point outthewide range of patterns predicted by different mech-
anisms.Theystressthatrelativeeffectsofdispersalondominantandsubordinate
speciesdeterminetheweakeningorstrengtheningofpatchdynamicsimportant
tofullyunderstandingcommunitystructure.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS IN ECOLOGICAL
AND EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCES
In Chapter 6, Woodward and Perkins focus on the impacts and consequences
ofdifferentdriversofchangeonfreshwaterecosystems,whichareparticularly
vulnerable to environmental stressors in general, and climate change in
particular.Areviewofthecurrentstateoftheserelationshipsispresenteddas
a “jigsaw puzzle of our understanding of ecological and evolutionary re-
sponses to climate change.” Freshwater ecology has a long history and is
arguably much better understood than that of many marine systems: many of
the biotic and abiotic constraints (i.e., chemical or physical properties) on
species coexistence and food webs are now relatively well established.
Although knowledge about how individuals and ecosystem processes are
likely to respond to temperature change has improved over the years, the
understandingof the community-levelresponses towarming, however, is still
in its infancy. Woodward and Perkins conclude that obvious current gaps in
Perspective:FunctionalBiodiversityduringtheAnthropocene xix
freshwaterecologyareincreasinglybeingfilledbyawiderangeofestablished
and novel techniques to enable a better understanding of how freshwater
ecosystemsfunction,howtheyarevalued,andhowbesttomanagethemmore
sustainably in the future. The monitoring of freshwater ecosystems is crucial
forassessingtheiroverallhealthandparticularlyformaintainingthesupplyof
ecosystem services. However, the biomonitoring and conservation of fresh
waters have failed historically to incorporate a fully ecological and evolu-
tionary perspective. Clearly, the predictive capacity and outcomes of current
biomonitoring in freshwater ecosystems will therefore be limited in their
abilitytoadaptinthefaceofrapidandglobalhabitatmodificationandchange,
especiallyasthereferenceconditionsweusedtogaugethestrengthofimpacts
shiftawayfromtheirincreasingly“obsolete”baselinesaswemovedeeperinto
the Anthropocene. Gray and coworkers (Chapter 10) outline a list of limita-
tions in the current state of biomonitoring, and suggest how these problems
might be overcome to develop a more holistic ecological and evolutionary
approachthatcouldunderpinnewandmoreeffectiveoperationalframeworks.
BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICE CONSERVATION
Palkovacs and coworkers (Chapter 2) emphasize consumer diversity and the
related intra- and interspecific impacts on aquatic communities and ecosys-
tems. They provide a synthesis of the state of the art of work focused on the
effects of biodiversity among consumer species in regard to the effects of
removing species, compared to replacing species (biodiversity loss versus
gain). The results of their meta-analysis reveal that, while the effects species
have in their influence on communities are stronger on average, the more in-
direct elements of intraspecific effects can be important, suggesting that
biodiversity within consumer species has important consequences for the
ecologyofaquaticsystems.Biodiversitylossposesaglobalthreattoecosystem
structureandfunctionandsubsequentlyathreattothegoodsandservicesthey
provide (Cardinale et al., 2012); such losses were recently ranked among the
dominant drivers of ecosystem change and the loss of ecosystem services
(Hooper et al., 2012; Reich et al., 2012). We are now faced with the identifi-
cationofthecomponentsofbiodiversity,andthespecificationofwhichspecies
in a system are most responsible for providing ecosystem services. Then we
need to determine how vulnerable those species are. Jacob and coworkers
(Chapter 8) introduce a new approach to the study offunctional diversity and
trophic structure within communities in relation to providing ecosystem ser-
vices. This approach complements previous topological and dynamical ana-
lysesofcommunityrobustnessandmaybeusedtopredicttheresponseoffood
webs to the loss of species and resulting degradation of ecosystem services.
The chapter by Fisher and coworkers (Chapter 7) focuses on Integrated
Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs) and the need to include full consideration of
theecologicalandevolutionaryeffectsofselectivefisheries.Theyproposethat