Menge Duncan N L, Ballantyne Ford, Weitz Joshua S
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ USA ; National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA USA.
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS USA ; Kansas Biological Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS USA.
Theor Ecol. 2011;4(2):163-177. doi: 10.1007/s12080-010-0110-0. Epub 2011 Jan 11.
Many autotrophs vary their allocation to nutrient uptake in response to environmental cues, yet the dynamics of this plasticity are largely unknown. Plasticity dynamics affect the extent of single versus multiple nutrient limitation and thus have implications for plant ecology and biogeochemical cycling. Here we use a model of two essential nutrients cycling through autotrophs and the environment to determine conditions under which different plastic or fixed nutrient uptake strategies are adaptive. Our model includes environment-independent costs of being plastic, environment-dependent costs proportional to the rate of plastic change, and costs of being mismatched to the environment, the last of which is experienced by both fixed and plastic types. In equilibrium environments, environment-independent costs of being plastic select for tortoise strategies-fixed or less plastic types-provided that they are sufficiently close to co-limitation. At intermediate levels of environmental fluctuation forced by periodic nutrient inputs, more hare-like plastic strategies prevail because they remain near co-limitation. However, the fastest is not necessarily the best. The most adaptive strategy is an intermediate level of plasticity that keeps pace with environmental fluctuations, but is not faster. At high levels of environmental fluctuation, the environment-dependent cost of changing rapidly to keep pace with the environment becomes prohibitive and tortoise strategies again dominate. The existence and location of these thresholds depend on plasticity costs and rate, which are largely unknown empirically. These results suggest that the expectations for single nutrient limitation versus co-limitation and therefore biogeochemical cycling and autotroph community dynamics depend on environmental heterogeneity and plasticity costs. The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12080-010-0110-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
许多自养生物会根据环境线索改变其对养分吸收的分配,但这种可塑性的动态变化在很大程度上尚不清楚。可塑性动态变化会影响单一养分限制与多种养分限制的程度,从而对植物生态学和生物地球化学循环产生影响。在此,我们使用一个模型,该模型描述了两种必需养分在自养生物和环境之间的循环,以确定不同的可塑性或固定养分吸收策略在何种条件下具有适应性。我们的模型包括可塑性的与环境无关的成本、与可塑性变化速率成比例的与环境有关的成本,以及与环境不匹配的成本,最后一种成本无论是固定类型还是可塑性类型都会经历。在平衡环境中,只要可塑性的与环境无关的成本足够接近共同限制,就会选择龟型策略——固定或可塑性较低的类型。在周期性养分输入导致的中等程度环境波动水平下,更像野兔的可塑性策略占主导,因为它们仍接近共同限制。然而,最快的不一定是最好的。最具适应性的策略是可塑性的中间水平,它能跟上环境波动,但不会更快。在高水平的环境波动下,为跟上环境而快速变化的与环境有关的成本变得过高,龟型策略再次占主导。这些阈值的存在和位置取决于可塑性成本和速率,而这些在经验上大多未知。这些结果表明,对单一养分限制与共同限制的预期,以及因此对生物地球化学循环和自养生物群落动态的预期,取决于环境异质性和可塑性成本。本文的在线版本(doi:10.1007/s12080-010-0110-0)包含补充材料,授权用户可以获取。