Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Species-Specific Traits Rather Than Resource Partitioning Mediate Diversity Effects on Resource Use

Abstract

Background

The link between biodiversity and ecosystem processes has firmly been established, but the mechanisms underpinning this relationship are poorly documented. Most studies have focused on terrestrial plant systems where resource use can be difficult to quantify as species rely on a limited number of common resources. Investigating resource use at the bulk level may not always be of sufficient resolution to detect subtle differences in resource use, as species-specific nutritional niches at the biochemical level may also moderate diversity effects on resource use.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Here we use three co-occurring marine benthic echinoderms (Brissopsis lyrifera, Mesothuria intestinalis, Parastichopus tremulus) that feed on the same phytodetrital food source, to determine whether resource partitioning is the principal mechanism underpinning diversity effects on resource use. Specifically we investigate the use of phytodetrital pigments (chlorophylls and carotenoids) because many of these are essential for biological functions, including reproduction. Pigments were identified and quantified using reverse-phase high performance liquid Chromatography (HPLC) and data were analysed using a combination of extended linear regression with generalised least squares (GLS) estimation and standard multivariate techniques. Our analyses reveal no species-specific selectivity for particular algal pigments, confirming that these three species do not partition food resources at the biochemical level. Nevertheless, we demonstrate increased total resource use in diverse treatments as a result of selection effects and the dominance of one species (B. lyrifera).

Conclusion

Overall, we found no evidence for resource partitioning at the biochemical level, as pigment composition was similar between individuals, which is likely due to plentiful food availability. Reduced intra-specific competition in the species mixture combined with greater adsorption efficiency and differences in feeding behaviour likely explain the dominant use of resources by B. lyrifera.

Citation: Godbold JA, Rosenberg R, Solan M (2009) Species-Specific Traits Rather Than Resource Partitioning Mediate Diversity Effects on Resource Use. PLoS ONE 4(10): e7423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007423

Editor: Zoe Finkel, Mt. Alison University, Canada

Received: July 9, 2009; Accepted: September 15, 2009; Published: October 14, 2009

Copyright: © 2009 Godbold et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was funded by a travel award (to J.A.G) for young scientists from The European Marine Research Stations Network (MARS) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC Studentship to J.A.G). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

A wealth of theoretical and empirical studies has shown that changes in biodiversity can, irrespective of the ecosystem under study, affect the magnitude and direction of ecosystem processes [1], [2]. A clear understanding of the mechanisms that underpin this relationship, however, is still lacking and a source of continual debate [e.g. 3]–[5]. Several methodological approaches have been developed (e.g. overyielding [6]; additive partitioning [7]; tripartite partitioning [8]; diversity models [9]) to identify the mechanisms through which biodiversity modifies ecosystem function. Collectively, these distinguish between (1) the selection effect, which is the increased probability of including a functionally dominant species in diverse communities [6], [10], and (2) the complementarity effect, which includes resource partitioning and species facilitation [7]. A recent meta-analysis of mainly plant biodiversity experiments found that, in most studies, the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem processes were driven by a combination of selection effects and complementarity effects, rather than by one mechanism alone [11].

Considering the importance of resource partitioning for species coexistence [12], [13], and the availability of statistical tools for determining its relative importance, it is surprising that there is still a lack of direct empirical evidence for resource partitioning as a mechanism through which biodiversity enhances ecosystem processes [14]. Whilst there is some indirect evidence for resource partitioning in aquatic systems, where the impact of consumer diversity exceeds that which can be explained by selection effects alone (e.g. [15], [16]), facilitative interactions may be more important in returning positive effects of species diversity (e.g. organic matter decomposition in fungal communities [17]). Large functional differences between species can lead to strong niche differentiation or facilitation, although these effects may not always be sufficient to result in strong overyielding or consistent increases in ecosystem function; diversity effects may, for example, depend on specific species combinations and environmental conditions [18].

It has been argued that the lack of evidence for resource partitioning in biodiversity experiments may be related to the difficulty of quantifying resource use, especially in plant systems where species depend on a limited number of common resources, such as light, water and nutrients [14]. Resource partitioning may, for example, be more easily detected in systems containing predators, where resource selectivity may be more apparent and therefore easier to quantify [19], [20]. However, resource partitioning has been detected between coexisting species at the macronutrient level; six generalist-feeding herbivores (grasshoppers) feeding on the same plant taxa consume protein and carbohydrate in different absolute amounts and ratios [13]. These species-specific nutritional niches moderate the effects of interspecific competition during periods of reduced resource quantity and quality and, therefore, may provide a mechanism by which overall resource use is increased in more diverse systems.

In marine benthic communities, seasonal and inter-annual variability in the quantity and quality of food supply is known to be a major structuring factor, especially in the deep sea [21], [22]. Yet, competition between deposit feeding benthic macrofauna was always thought to be low, which is likely due to individual species adopting different feeding strategies (e.g. particle size and patch selectivity or differences in mobility and feeding depth) that allow them to utilise different fractions of the same detrital food source [23]–[27]. Much of the evidence for resource partitioning, however, has mainly focussed on bulk level differences in resource use (e.g. sediment grain size or total organic carbon) that may not be of sufficient resolution to detect subtle differences in resource use. Recently, feeding selectivity has been demonstrated at the biochemical level using specific biomarkers, including fatty acids, sterols, and photosynthetic pigments (e.g. [28]–[31]). Photosynthetic pigments, such as chlorophyll and their degradation products, can be used as indicators of the quality of detrital material [31], whilst carotenoids form unique chemotaxonomic biomarkers of phytoplankton, macroalgae and seagrasses that can be used to identify sources of organic matter [32]–[34]. Carotenoids are particularly important for echinoderms because they are essential for many biological functions, including reproduction and defence mechanisms [35], [36] but, unlike prokaryotes, fungi, algae and higher plants, echinoderms cannot synthesise carotenoids de novo and therefore must obtain them from their diet. Here, we use photosynthetic biomarkers to investigate the effects of species diversity of three co-occurring echinoderm species (the sea urchin Brissopsis lyrifera, and the two sea cucumbers Mesothuria intestinalis and Parastichopus tremulus) that feed on the same phytodetrital resource. This is particularly important because deposit feeding organisms recycle and enrich localised areas of the seafloor through faecal pellet production which can influence faunal distribution and ecosystem functions, including nutrient cycling. Specifically, we investigate whether each species exhibits feeding selectivity for particular phytoplankton pigments (chlorophylls and/or carotenoids) and whether such partitioning of resources positively affects resource use when species are in mixture.

Materials and Methods

Sediment and the deposit-feeding holothurians Parastichopus tremulus and Mesothuria intestinalis, and the echinoid Brissopsis lyrifera, were collected from two sites in the Gullmarfjord, Sweden (58°15.7′N 11°26.4′E and 58°22.1′N 11°34.3′E, depth 30–60 m), using a 1.5 m Agassiz trawl from the R.V. Arne Tiselius. Sediment from each trawl was sieved (500 µm) in a seawater bath to remove all macrofauna and allowed to settle (24 h) to retain the fine fraction (less than 63 µm). Sediment was homogenised to slurry (organic matter content, 6.98±0.52%) and distributed between aquaria (70×80×20 cm, n = 15; see Figure S1 in Supporting Information). To avoid effects of satiation and cross contamination of pigment signatures in faecal casts, individuals were starved for 24 h to evacuate the gut [37].

To simulate in situ conditions, aquaria were held in a constant temperature facility at 7.5±1°C in the dark. Each aquarium contained 20 L of sediment and had a continuous supply (1.33 L min−1) of deep (30 m) fjordic seawater. Replicate (n = 3) faunal communities were assembled in monoculture and in mixtures containing all three species (12 aquaria). Control aquaria without fauna (n = 3) were also assembled. Following [16], to ensure that any observed differences in resource use were due to species diversity effects, and not due to differences in the number of individuals feeding on the resource we adopted a substitutive design in which species density rather than biomass was kept constant between treatments (n = 3 individuals per aquarium). Controlling species density rather than biomass is preferable because the per capita biomass of the organisms used means that fine adjustment of biomass is not tractable. Instead, we controlled species density using similar sized organisms which also ensured that the densities of echinoderms were within the range typically observed in natural communities. The experiment ran for 3 days to ensure complete passage of sediment particles through the gut [24], [37], whilst also ensuring that resources remained available and were not depleted during the course of the experiment.

Sediment and faecal casts (B. lyrifera, n = 8; M. intestinalis, n = 27; P. tremulus, n = 28) were collected to establish the concentration and composition of photosynthetic pigments. In multi-species treatments, faecal casts from each individual species were not pooled to allow determination of species-specific pigment signatures when in mixture. The faecal casts were collected continuously throughout the experiment to avoid them being consumed by the echinoderms. All sediment samples were frozen at −80°C and freeze dried for pigment extraction.

The pigments were separated by ion pairing reverse phase HPLC, as described by [38] and modified by [39]. Pigments were extracted from 0.5 g freeze dried sediment in 3 ml of 90% HPLC grade acetone. The extracts were ultrasonicated for 2×30 seconds (Vibra Cell, Sonics & Materials Inc, Danbury, Conneticut, U.S.A.) and centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 minutes (Baird & Tatlock Auto Bench Centrifuge Mark IV). The supernatant (10 ml) from each sample was filtered through a 0.2 µm Nyalo membrane filter (Gelman) into amber vials and loaded into the chilled (4°C) HPLC autosampler tray. Sample aliquots (500 µl) were mixed with 1M ammonium acetate (500 µl) and 100 µl of the mixture was injected onto the HPLC column. The HPLC system (Thermo Finnigan Spectra System) was controlled by CHROMPAC (Thermoquest) software and included a Perkin Elmer C8 column. Carotenoids and chlorophylls were detected by absorbance at 440 nm and chlorophyll degradation products (phaeophytin a and phaeophorbide a) were detected by fluorescence at an excitation wavelength of 405 nm and an emission wavelength of 670 nm [40].

Pigments (n = 15, listed in the legend of Figure 1) were identified by comparing their individual retention times to those of commercially available pigment standards; Chlorophyll a and Chlorophyll b standards, Sigma Chemical Co. and a Pigmix standard, containing 20 pigments, Water Quality Institute (VKI), Hørsholm, Denmark. Identification was corroborated by comparing spectral data with these standards and by referring to the spectral information reported by [41].

thumbnail
Download:
Figure 1. Mean change in total phytopigment concentration (µg gDW−1 ± SD) for echinoderm species in (a) monoculture and (b) mixture.

Change is determined as differences in total pigment concentration between the initial background sediment and the faecal casts of B. lyrifera (black), M. intestinalis (dark grey) and P. tremulus (light grey) in monoculture and mixture. Abbreviations of the pigment types are: 19-But, 19 – Butanoyloxyfucoxanthin; Fucox, Fucoxanthin; 19-Hex, 19 – Hexanoyloxyfucoxanthin; Pras, Prasinoxanthin; Viol, Violaxanthin; Diadin, Diadinoxanthin; Allox, Alloxanthin; Diatox, Diatoxanthin; Zeax, Zeaxanthin; Lutein, Lutein; Chlb, Chlorophyll b; Chla, Chlorophyll a; b-Carot, β - Carotene; Phorb, Phaeophorbide a; Phytin, Phaeophytin a.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007423.g001

Absolute pigment concentrations (µg g−1 sediment dry weight (DW)) of identified pigments were quantified as [32]:

Where: Ap is the peak area detected at 440 nm, V is the extract volume (ml), W is the dry weight of sediment (in grams), Rf is the response factor and B is the buffer dilution factor (0.5). The response factors for each of the pigments were calculated by plotting concentrations of the standards against peak area.

We calculated the difference in pigment concentration between the faecal casts and background sediment for the total pigment concentration (change in total pigment concentration, ΔTPC µg gDW−1) and for each individual pigment (ΔPC µg gDW−1). A negative value for ΔTPC or ΔPC indicates that the faecal cast pigment concentration is lower than the background sediment. Statistical models were developed to investigate the effects of species identity (nominal explanatory variable, n = 5) on ΔTPC and ΔPC for each individual pigment. As the contribution of each species in mixture is not likely to be additive because species interact with one another (i.e. the presence of one species tends to alter the behaviour of another species, e.g. [42]), each species combination was treated as a unique ‘species’ identity [43].

Prior to the analyses, graphical exploratory techniques were used to check for homogeneity, normality and outliers of the data. Normality was determined by plotting the theoretical quantiles versus standardised residuals (Q-Q plots), while homogeneity of variance was evaluated by plotting residuals versus fitted values [44]. When model validation indicated normality, but heterogeneity of variances, relationships were defined using linear regression to which a generalised least squares estimation procedure [45] was applied, as detailed in [43]. Briefly, the use of GLS allows the variance structure imposed by the experimental design (large variances at low species richness levels and small variances at high species richness levels) to be modelled using variance functions (see [45]), avoiding the need for data transformation to homogenise the variance structure.

Differences in the phytopigment composition between species treatments were investigated using Gower's symmetrical dissimilarity coefficient for quantitative data [46] to calculate the dissimilarity matrix required for hierarchical cluster analysis (with group average linkage, [47]) and ANOSIM [48]. The dissimilarity matrix was based on ΔPC for each individual pigment (n = 15). Gower's coefficient is preferential to the more commonly used Bray-Curtis coefficient (e.g. [30], [49], [50]) for this type of biochemical data because it treats zeros and non-zeros in the same way and joint absences between treatments are incorporated into the dissimilarity matrix [47]. This is important as the presence/absence of a pigment may provide important information concerning biochemical differences between species. In addition, the importance of each pigment within the dissimilarity matrix is determined from its range of variation through all treatments [47], rather than giving greater weight to more common descriptors [44], [51].

In order to assess whether there were positive effects of species interactions on resource use, we compared the ΔTPC and ΔPC in species mixture to the best performing monoculture ( = overyielding [6]). As pigment concentrations in the faecal casts are expected to decrease as a result of echinoderm feeding, however, the appropriate reference response is the lowest value in monoculture. Thus, Dmin was calculated as:

Where Oav is the observed average ΔTPC or ΔPC (µg gDW−1) in the species mixture and min(Miav) the lowest average observed ΔTPC or ΔPC for species i monoculture. We conducted Monte Carlo simulations following the methods described by [52] to test whether Dmin was significantly greater than zero for ΔTPC and ΔPC. The observed Dmin was considered to be significantly greater than expected if there was no diversity effect, if the observed Dmin was greater than the mean (±95% confidence interval) generated by the Monte Carlo simulations (one-tailed test with α = 0.05). We further determined the relative contribution of complementarity (CE) and selection effects (SE) to the observed net biodiversity effect (ΔY) using the additive partition equation of [7]. For comparative purposes, ΔY, CE and SE are multiplied by -1 to return positive values when positive effects are present.

All analyses were performed using the ‘vegan’ [53], ‘cluster’ [54] and ‘nlme’ [55] packages in the ‘R’ statistical and programming environment [56].

Results

Fifteen phytoplankton pigments were identified from the HPLC chromatograms (listed in the legend of Figure 1). The pigment distribution in the faecal casts, irrespective of species identity, was similar to the background sediment (see Figure S2) and indicated that, at the time of the study, the sediments in the Gullmarfjord contain large quantities of fresh phytodetrital material (chlorophyll a: phaeophorbide  = 1.3) dominated by golden-brown flagellates (Haptophyta and Chrysophyta) and green algae (Chlorophyta) (see Table S1).

Species identity effects on resource concentration

The effect of species identity on the ΔTPC (µg gDW−1) was analysed using a linear regression with GLS estimation and species identity as a variance covariate. The ΔTPC was affected by species identity (L-ratio  = 12.46, d.f. = 4, p<0.05) (Figure 2). When species were in mixture, the ΔTPC was more negative (i.e. lower pigment concentration in the faecal casts) in comparison to M. intestinalis (CV = −1.87±0.54 t = −3.466, p<0.001 [Bonferroni corrected, p<0.01]) and P. tremulus (CV = −1.55±0.50, t = −3.117, p<0.01 [Bonferroni corrected, p<0.05]) in monoculture, but not compared to B. lyrifera (CV = −0.85±0.80, t = −1.054, p = 0.296 [Bonferroni corrected, p = 1.0]). The observed result was driven by decreases in individual pigment concentrations (fucoxanthin, lutein, chlorophyll a, phaeophorbide), especially in the faecal casts of B. lyrifera (Figure 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Figure 2. The effects of echinoderm species identity on the change in total phytopigment concentration (ΔTPC, µg gDW−1).

Change is determined as differences in total pigment concentration between the faecal casts and the background sediment of B. lyrifera (BL), M. intestinalis (MI), P. tremulus (PT) and aquaria containing no macrofauna (CNTRL). Horizontal bars represent predicted values for each species identity. Individual data points are removed because the GLS analysis allows for differences in spread for species identity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007423.g002

Species identity effects on resource composition

Cluster analysis revealed that differences in pigment composition between individuals in monoculture were subtle (3 clusters, distance  = 0.00013; Figure 3a) and because each cluster contained individuals from multiple species, pigment composition did not differ between species. There was no evidence for strong between-species variability for all quantified pigments (ANOSIM: global R = 0.481, p<0.001). There was also no evidence of differences in pigment composition between individuals in monoculture and individuals in the three species, as clusters contained individuals from all species in monoculture as well as the mixture (2 main clusters, distance  = 0.29; Figure 3b). ANOSIM analysis indicated that pigment profiles between individuals in monoculture and mixture were barely separable (ANOSIM: global R = 0.183, p<0.01).

thumbnail
Download:
Figure 3. Hierarchical cluster analysis of change in phytopigment composition of species in (a) monoculture and (b) mixture.

In (a) and (b) abbreviations are changes in pigment composition between the initial background sediment and the faecal casts of 1, B. lyrifera; 2, M. intestinalis; 3, P. tremulus in monoculture and in (b) 4, of the three species in mixture. Distance  =  dissimilarity in pigment composition between observations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007423.g003

Overyielding and the net biodiversity effect

For ΔTPC there was evidence of overyielding and testing using Monte Carlo simulations revealed that the observed Dmin (6.7) was significantly different from zero (i.e. significant overyielding). In 11/15 pigments the ΔPC in the species mixtures was more negative in comparison to the best performing monocultures, especially for 19-hexanoyloxyfucoxanthin (Dmin = 7.3), diatoxanthin (Dmin = 33.4), zeaxanthin (Dmin = 5.0) and lutein (Dmin = 6.8) (Figure 4a). Monte Carlo simulations confirmed that Dmin for 9/15 pigments (11/15 when marginal results are included, p≤0.08) are significantly different from 0 (see Table S2).

thumbnail
Download:
Figure 4. Summary of indices to identify the mechanisms through which echinoderm richness modifies phytopigment concentration.

See Figure 1 for abbreviations of pigment type. Total represents the ΔTPC.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007423.g004

The net biodiversity effect was positive for ΔTPC (ΔY = 3.145), with the observed response in the species mixture largely driven by the species with the highest effects on resource use in monoculture (SE = 6.634) and, to a lesser extent, by negative species interactions (CE = −3.489). The net biodiversity effects for ΔPC were generally positive, except for phaeophytin and, marginally, violaxanthin (Figure 4b). Biodiversity effects were higher (ΔY>0.5) for fucoxanthin, lutein, chlorophyll a and phaeophorbide relative to the remaining pigments. The relative contribution of SE and CE varied between individual pigments (Figure 4c, d). The positive ΔY, especially for fucoxanthin, lutein and phaeophorbide, was dominated by SE, indicating the dominance of a single species. In contrast, chlorophyll a was dominated by a positive CE which cancelled out the negative SE to give an overall positive ΔY. The remaining pigments showed weakly positive ΔY.

Discussion

It is clear that species diversity positively affected resource use at the biochemical level, as there is evidence of overyielding for the majority of phytopigments. The observed net biodiversity effect was driven by the selection effect, suggesting increased resource use by a dominant species in mixture, a result consistent with many previous studies (for review, see [2]). However, an overall negative complementarity effect also contributed to the net effect of diversity, indicating the presence of negative (interference and/or exploitative) competition [57], [58] in the species mixture. Our data shows that this effect only occurred for a subset of pigments (fucoxanthin, 19-hexanoyloxyfucoxanthin and phaeophorbide; Figure 1) where the relative change in resource use by M. intestinalis and P. tremulus exceeded that of B. lyrifera. Thus the observed net effect of diversity resulted from species-specific selection effects associated with the competitive release of B. lyrifera and its subsequent dominance in the species mixture. This is best explained by the reduction in the negative effects of intra-specific competition associated with the lower densities of individual species when in species mixture [57], [59].

The change in pigment concentration between the faecal casts and sediment for B. lyrifera in monoculture was higher than that observed for monocultures of both M. intestinalis and P. tremulus. These patterns are likely due to inter-specific differences in feeding rates which ultimately affect gut residence time, and subsequently digestion and assimilation rates [60], [61]. As the gut residence time for B. lyrifera (19 to 75 hrs depending on location and conditions, [62]) is generally longer than that of M. intestinalis (∼23 hrs) or P. tremulus (∼12 hrs) [37], the process of digestion and assimilation may be strikingly different between species because the time available to breakdown and utilise organic compounds is extended [60]. Indeed, several studies have found that a slower feeding rate increases the gut residence time for food, which subsequently leads to greater absorption efficiency (e.g. [61]). Thus, a slower feeding rate and longer gut residence time is likely to enhance the absorption efficiency of B. lyrifera above that of M. intestinalis and P. tremulus, resulting in a more comprehensive use of the available labile organic material in B. lyrifera, but incomplete digestion and enhanced pigment concentrations in the faecal pellets of M. intestinalis and P. tremulus.

Interactions between species, resulting from competition for food and space or following disturbance and modification of the substratum (e.g. [63]), are important in regulating the structure and functioning of benthic communities. Species-specific strategies in terms of timing, spatial distribution or type of resource demand, will increase resource exploitation and result in a positive relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function [12]. Similar to a recent study [64] in shallow shelf waters (<600 m depth), we also found a high degree of niche overlap in terms of resource use (all three echinoderm species utilise the same phytopigments) in our coastal system. It appears that feeding selectivity for labile organic material and biochemicals is more pronounced at greater water depths as a result of lower food inputs [49]. Thus, the lack of evidence for selective feeding for specific phytoplankton pigments in the present study may be explained by the more plentiful food available in coastal areas. The ready supply of organic material to the benthos may also decrease inter-specific competition for the food resource and hence reduce the potential for fine-scale niche separation [64]. Feeding selectivity in shallow water species has only been shown at the bulk level (fresh vs. old detritus) [26], [37] and not at the pigment level. P. tremulus and M. intestinalis have similar tentacular feeding structures and exhibit similar particle size selectivity, but P. tremulus feeds at rates 3 times faster than M. intestinalis. We contend, therefore, that competition between the species used in this study is reduced, at least in part, because of inter-specific differences in feeding and digestion rates [37], although we cannot discount the importance of the occupation of different sediment depth strata as a further mechanism of reducing inter-specific competition for space and resources [23]. Strong negative effects of species interactions on feeding and, subsequently, on growth and gonad production is common in benthic communities (e.g. [23], [24]). For example, the feeding and growth of the brittle star Amphiura chiajei can be depressed as a result of the physical disturbance caused by the burrowing activities of B. lyrifera, reducing its competitive ability to capture food [24].

It is important to consider the implications that changes in faecal cast phytopigment concentration and composition may have for other benthic fauna. The present findings, although weak, support previous views that holothurians may enrich localised areas of the seafloor by re-packing sediment into faecal material [65], [66]. In areas of localised and patchy inputs of organic matter, this may be especially important because changes in the sediment chemistry through faecal casts can have strong secondary effects on other benthic organisms (e.g. [63], [67]). Mobile fauna will rapidly move between organically enriched patches, process and re-distribute resources, thereby increasing the spatial heterogeneity of the system [63]. In addition, egestion of fresh faeces which are richer in organic content and generally have a smaller particle size than the surrounding sediment enhances bacterial biomass [68], and makes the faecal sediment nutritionally more attractive to other benthic deposit-feeders. In fact, faecal casts are the dominant food items in many holothurians (e.g. P. tremulus [69] and Scotoplanes murrayi [70]). The fact that phaeophorbide was among the dominant pigments in the faecal casts, also suggests that faecal material made up a large part of the ingested sediment. Feeding selectivity for faecal casts, organically enriched particles, or certain particle sizes has been found for many shallow–water echinoderms (e.g. [71]), but this ability is thought to vary between species and habitats. For example [37] detected feeding selectivity for organically enriched patches in M. intestinalis and P. tremulus, whilst [72] found no evidence of selection by particle size or for organically enriched particles in shallow water holothurians.

The presence of high concentrations of chlorophyll a in the gut sediments of the three species indicate that freshly deposited phytodetritus comprises a large part of the ingested material. Crucially, this fresh phytodetritus also contains large amounts of biochemical compounds, such as carotenoids, that can only be obtained from the diet, as they are not synthesised de novo [33] by echinoderms. Carotenoid pigments have fundamental biological functions as they have been found to increase, amongst others, the egg quality, larval quality and biological defence mechanisms in echinoderms [35], [36]. Overall 19-butanoxyfucoxanthin, fucoxanthin, lutein and 19- hexanoyloxyfucoxanthin were the dominant carotenoid pigments in the guts and strongly reduced in concentration relative to the background sediments. In the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus the xanthophylls lutein and zeaxanthin were found to be more important for reproduction in terms of the number of juveniles produced and their survival rates than had previously been thought [73]. In addition, [35] reported that fucoxanthin, β-carotene and β-echinenone (not identified in the present study) enhanced biological defence reactions and also increased egg production in the sea urchin, Pseudocentrotus depressus. Therefore carotenoids are of vital importance for the fitness and reproductive success in echinoderms. Thus, species that can select and respond most quickly to high quality food input are likely to have a selective advantage [30].

Conclusions

The present study was a direct experimental investigation into the mechanism(s) that underpin the biodiversity - ecosystem function relationship. There was a high degree of dietary niche overlap in terms of phytopigment use with no evidence of resource partitioning of the phytodetrital material at the biochemical level, most likely due to the plentiful availability of food in coastal areas. Consistent with the conclusion of several individual studies (see [2]) our results suggest that the observed net biodiversity effect is dominated by species-specific selection effects associated with the competitive release of a single species (B. lyrifera) when in mixture. In addition, physiological differences in adsorption efficiency and behavioural differences in feeding strategy can provide the mechanistic basis for species dominance and may be more important for resource use than resource partitioning in diverse communities.

Supporting Information

Figure S1.

Aquaria (randomly arranged) containing communities of Parastichopus tremulus, Mesothuria intestinalis and Brissopsis lyrifera in monoculture and in mixtures of three species in the temperature controlled room.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007423.s001

(0.69 MB TIF)

Figure S2.

Mean pigment concentration (µg gDW -1±SD) of the background sediment (a), the faecal casts of B. lyrifera (black), M. intestinalis (dark grey) and P. tremulus (light grey) in monoculture. Abbreviations of the pigment types are: 19-But, 19-Butanoyloxyfucoxanthin; Fucox, Fucoxanthin; 19-Hex, 19-Hexanoyloxyfucoxanthin; Pras, Prasinoxanthin; Viol, Violaxanthin; Diadin, Diadinoxanthin; Allox, Alloxanthin; Diatox, Diatoxanthin; Zeax, Zeaxanthin; Lutein, Lutein; Chlb, Chlorophyll b; Chla, Chlorophyll a; b-Carot, β - Carotene; Phorb, Phaeophorbide a; Phytin, Phaeophytin a.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007423.s002

(0.17 MB TIF)

Table S1.

Summary of the characteristic pigment biomarkers used for identification of the main phytoplankton phyla. Within the Phyla Chlorophyta and Haptophyta additional biomarkers allow identification of phytoplankton groups to Family level. Also included are the pigment sources of Chlorophyll breakdown products (compiled from Barlow et al. 1993a, Barlow et al. 1993b, Jeffrey 1997, Jeffrey et al. 1999, Schlüter et al. 2000, Zapata et al. 2004).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007423.s003

(0.05 MB DOC)

Table S2.

Summary of observed Dmin indices of ΔTPC (Total) and ΔPC for each individual pigment and Monte Carlo simulations (mean ±95% confidence interval). If p<0.05 then the observed Dmin was considered significantly greater than expected if there was no diversity effect. Abbreviations of the pigment types are: 19-But, 19-Butanoyloxyfucoxanthin; Fucox, Fucoxanthin; 19-Hex, 19-Hexanoyloxyfucoxanthin; Pras, Prasinoxanthin; Viol, Violaxanthin; Diadin, Diadinoxanthin; Allox, Alloxanthin; Diatox, Diatoxanthin; Zeax, Zeaxanthin; Lutein, Lutein; Chlb, Chlorophyll b; Chla, Chlorophyll a; b-Carot, β - Carotene; Phorb, Phaeophorbide a; Phytin, Phaeophytin a.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007423.s004

(0.04 MB DOC)

Acknowledgments

We thank the captain and crew of the R.V Arne Tiselius and K. Norling for their assistance at the Kristineberg Marine Research Station, Sweden. Advice received from T. Smith (HPLC analysis, National Oceanography Centre, Southampton), and from A. Ahrends (University of York) and M.T. Bulling (University of Aberdeen) regarding the statistics are greatly acknowledged. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments which improved the manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: JAG RR MS. Performed the experiments: JAG RR MS. Analyzed the data: JAG RR MS. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JAG RR MS. Wrote the paper: JAG RR MS.

References

  1. 1. Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann JSH, Nakashizuka T, Raffaelli D, et al. (2006) Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett 9: 1146–1156.
  2. 2. Cardinale BJ, Srivastava DS, Duffy JE, Wright JP, Downing AL, et al. (2006) Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443: 989–992.
  3. 3. Aarssen LW (1997) High productivity in grassland ecosystems: effected by species diversity or productive species? Oikos 80: 183–184.
  4. 4. Huston , MA (1997) Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110: 449–460.
  5. 5. Loreau M (2000) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theoretical advances. Oikos 91: 3–17.
  6. 6. Loreau M (1998) Separating sampling and other effects in biodiversity experiments. Oikos 82: 600–602.
  7. 7. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412: 72–76.
  8. 8. Fox JW (2005) Interpreting the ‘selection effect’ of biodiversity on ecosystem function. Ecol Lett 8: 846–856.
  9. 9. Kirwan L, Luescher A, Sebastia MT, Finn JA, Collins RP, et al. (2007) Evenness drives consistent diversity effects in intensive grassland systems across 28 European sites. J Ecol 95: 530–539.
  10. 10. Tilman D, Lehman CL, Thompson KT (1997) Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94: 1857–1861.
  11. 11. Cardinale BJ, Wright JP, Cadotte MW, Carroll IT, Hector A, et al. (2007) Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increases through time because of species complementarity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 18123–18128.
  12. 12. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 31: 343–366.
  13. 13. Behmer ST, Joern A (2008) Coexisting generalist herbivores occupy unique nutritional feeding niches. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 1977–1982.
  14. 14. Ives AR, Cardinale BJ, Snyder WE (2005) A synthesis of subdisciplines: predator-prey interactions, and biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 8: 102–116.
  15. 15. Norberg J (2000) Resource-niche complementarity and autotrophic compensation determines ecosystem-level responses to increased cladoceran species richness. Oecologia 122: 264–272.
  16. 16. Duffy JE, Richardson JP, Canuel EA (2003) Grazer diversity effects on ecosystem functioning in seagrass beds. Ecol Lett 6: 637–645.
  17. 17. Tiunov AV, Scheu S (2005) Facilitative interactions rather than resource partitioning drive diversity-functioning relationships in laboratory fungal communities. Ecol Lett 8: 618–625.
  18. 18. Hooper DU, Dukes JS (2004) Overyielding among plant functional groups in a long-terms experiment. Ecol Lett 7: 95–105.
  19. 19. Griffin JN, De La Haye KL, Hawkins SJ, Thompson RC, Jenkins SR (2008) Predator diversity and ecosystem functioning: Density modifies the effect of resource partitioning. Ecology 89: 298–305.
  20. 20. Finke DL, Snyder WE (2008) Niche partitioning increases resource exploitation by diverse communities. Science 321: 1488–1490.
  21. 21. Dauwe B, Herman PMJ, Heip CHR (1998) Community structure and bioturbation potential of macrofauna at four North Sea stations with contrasting food supply. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 173: 67–83.
  22. 22. Neto RR, Wolff GA, Billett DMS, Mackenzie KL, Thompson A (2006) The influence of changing food supply on the lipid biochemistry of deep-sea holothurians. Deep-Sea Res Part I 53: 516–527.
  23. 23. Peterson CH, Andre SV (1980) An experimental analysis of interspecific competition among marine filter feeders in a soft-sediment environment. Ecology 61: 29–139.
  24. 24. Hollertz K, Sköld M, Rosenberg R (1998) Interactions between two deposit feeding echinoderms: the spatangoid Brissopsis lyrifera (Forbes) and the ophiuroid Amphiura chiajei (Forbes). Hydrobiologia 375/376: 287–295.
  25. 25. Bock MJ, Miller DC (1999) Particle selectivity, gut volume, and the response to a step change in diet for deposit feeding polychaetes. Limnol Oceanogr 44: 1132–1138.
  26. 26. Uthicke S, Karez R (1999) Sediment patch selectivity in tropical sea cucumbers (Holothurioidea: Aspidochirtida) analysed with multiple choice experiments. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 236: 69–87.
  27. 27. Miller RJ, Smith CR, DeMaster DJ, Fornes WL (2000) Feeding selectivity and rapid particle processing by deep-sea megafaunal deposit feeders: A 234Th tracer approach. J Mar Res 58: 653–673.
  28. 28. Howell KL, Pond DW, Billett DSM, Tyler PA (2003) Feeding ecology of deep-sea seastars (Echinodermata: Asteroidea): a fatty acid biomarker approach. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 255: 193–206.
  29. 29. Ginger ML, Santos VLCS, Wolff GA (2000) A preliminary investigation of the lipids of abyssal holothurians from the north-east Atlantic Ocean. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 80: 139–146.
  30. 30. Wigham BD, Hudson IR, Billett DSM, Wolff GA (2003) Is the long-terms change in the abyssal Northeast Atlantic driven by qualitative changes in export flux? Evidence from selective feeding in deep-sea holothurians. Prog Oceanogr 59: 409–441.
  31. 31. Boon AR, Duineveld GCA (1996) Phytopigments and fatty acids as molecular markers of near-bottom particulate organic matter in the North Sea. J Sea Res 35: 279–291.
  32. 32. Barlow RG, Mantoura RFC, Gough MA, Fileman TW (1993) Pigment signatures of the phytoplankton composition in the northeastern Atlantic during the 1990 spring bloom. Deep-Sea Res Pt II 40: 459–477.
  33. 33. Jeffrey SW, Mantoura RFC, Wright SW (1997a) Phytoplankton pigments in oceanography: guidelines to modern methods. UNESCO monographs on oceanographic methodology, 10. Paris: UNESCO. 661 p.
    • 34. Casazza G, Mazella L (2002) Photosynthetic pigment composition of marine angiosperms: Preliminary characterisation of Mediterranean seagrasses. Bull Mar Sci 71: 1171–1181.
    • 35. Kawakami T, Tsushima M, Katabami Y, Mine M, Ishida A, et al. (1998) Effect of β,β-carotene, β-echinenone, astaxanthin, fucoxanthin, vitamin A and vitamin E on the biological defence of the sea urchin Pseudocentrotus depressus. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 226: 165–174.
    • 36. Plank LR, Lawrence JM, Lawrence AL, Olvera RM (2002) The effect of dietary carotenoids on gonad production and carotenoid profiles in the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus. J World Aquac Soc 33: 127–137.
    • 37. Hudson IR, Wigham BD Solan M, Rosenberg R (2005) Feeding behaviour of deep-sea dwelling holothurians: Inferences from a laboratory investigation of shallow fjordic species. J Mar Syst 57: 201–218.
    • 38. Mantoura RFC, Llewellyn CA (1983) The rapid determination of algal chlorophyll and carotenoid pigments and their breakdown products in natural-waters by reverse-phase High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. Anal Chim Acta 151: 297–314.
    • 39. Barlow RG, Cummings DG, Gibb SW (1997) Improves resolution of mono-and Divinyl chlorophylls a and b and zeaxanthin and lutein in phytoplankton extracts using reverse phase C-8 HPLC. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 161: 303–307.
    • 40. Wright SW, Jeffrey SW (1997) High-resolution HPLC system for chlorophylls and carotenoids of marine phytoplankton. In: Jeffrey SW, Mantoura RFC, Wright SW, editors. Phytoplankton pigments in oceanography: guidelines to modern methods. UNESCO monographs on oceanographic methodology, 10. Paris: UNESCO. pp. 327–342.
      • 41. Jeffrey SW, Mantoura RFC, Bjørland T (1997b) Data for the identification of 47 key phytoplankton pigments. In: Jeffrey SW, Mantoura RFC, Wright SW, editors. Phytoplankton pigments in oceanography: guidelines to modern methods. UNESCO monographs on oceanographic methodology, 10. Paris: UNESCO. pp. 447–560.
        • 42. Bulling MT, Solan M, Dyson KE, Hernandez-Milian G, Luque P, et al. (2008) Species effects on ecosystem processes are modified by faunal responses to habitat composition. Oecologia 158: 511–520.
        • 43. Godbold JA, Killham K, Solan M (2009) Consumer and resource diversity effects on macroalgal decomposition. Oikos 118: 77–86.
        • 44. Quinn QP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. 537 p. Cambridge University Press.
          • 45. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-plus. 528 p. Springer Verlag.
            • 46. Gower JC (1971) A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27: 857–871.
            • 47. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical Ecology. 853 p. Elsevier Scientific Publishing.
              • 48. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1993) Similarity-based testing for community pattern: the 2-way layout with no replication. Mar Biol 118: 167–176.
              • 49. Hudson IR, Wigham BD, Billett DSM, Tyler PA (2003) Seasonality and selectivity in the feeding ecology and reproductive biology of deep-sea bathyal holothurians. Prog Oceanogr 59: 381–407.
              • 50. Howell KL, Billett DSM, Tyler PA, Davidson R (2004) Feeding ecology of deep-sea seastars (Echinodermata: Asteroidea): a pigment biomarker approach. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 266: 103–110.
              • 51. Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 27: 326–349.
              • 52. Wojdak JM, Mittelbach GG (2007) Consequences of niche overlap for ecosystem functioning: an experimental test with pond grazers. Ecology 88: 2027–20832.
              • 53. Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O'Hara B, Simpson GL, et al. (2008) vegan: Community Ecology Package. Available: http://www.stats.bris.ac.uk/R/.
                • 54. Maechler M (2008) cluster: Cluster Analysis. Available: http://www.stats.bris.ac.uk/R/.
                  • 55. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D (2006) nlme: An R package for fitting and comparing Gaussian linear and nonlinear mixed-effects models. Available: http://www.stats.bris.ac.uk/R/.
                    • 56. R Development Core Team (2007) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available: http://www.R-project.org.
                      • 57. McKie BG, Woodward G, Hladyz S, Nistorescu M, Preda E, et al. (2008) Ecosystem functioning in stream assemblages from different regions: contrasting responses to variation in detritivore richness, evenness and density. J Anim Ecol 77: 495–504.
                      • 58. Hector A, Bell T, Connolly J, Finn J, Fox J, et al. (2009) The analysis of biodiversity experiments: from pattern toward mechanism. In: Naeem S, Bunker DE, Hector A, Loreau M, Perrings C, editors. Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing: An Ecological and Economic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 94–104.
                        • 59. Johnson M, Malmqvist B (2000) Ecosystem process rate increases with animal species richness: evidence from leaf-eating, aquatic insects. Oikos 89: 519–523.
                        • 60. Penry DL, Jumars PA (1987) Modelling animal guts as chemical reactors. Am Nat 129: 69–96.
                        • 61. Hiratsuka Y, Uehara T (2007) Feeding rates and abosprtion efficiencies of four species of sea urchins (genus Echinometra) fed a prepared diet. Comp Biochem Phys A 148: 223–229.
                        • 62. Hollertz K, Duchêne J-C (2001) Burrowing behaviour and sediment reworking in the heart urchin Brissopsis lyrifera Forbes (Spatangoida). Mar Biol 139: 951–957.
                        • 63. Levinton J, Kelaher B (2004) Opposing forces of deposit-feeding marine communities. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 300: 65–82.
                        • 64. Wigham BD, Galley EA, Smith CR, Tyler PA (2008) Inter-annual variability and potential for selectivity in the diets of deep-water Antarctic echinoderms. Deep-Sea Res Part II 55: 2478–2490.
                        • 65. Billett , DSM (1991) Deep-Sea Holothurians. Oceanogr Mar Biol 29: 259–317.
                        • 66. Uthicke S (1999) Sediment bioturbation and impact of feeding activity of Holothuria (Halodeima) atra and Stichopus choronotus, two sediment feeding holothurians, at lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef. Bull Mar Sci 64: 129–141.
                        • 67. Witte U, Aberle N, Sand M, Wenzhöfer F (2003) Rapid response of a deep-sea benthic community to POM enrichment: an in situ experimental study. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 251: 27–36.
                        • 68. Amon RMW, Herndl GJ (1991) Deposit Feeding and Sediment: I. Interrelationship between Holothuria tubulosa (Holothurioidea, Echinodermata) and the sediment microbial community. Mar Ecol 12: 163–174.
                        • 69. Hauksson E (1979) Feeding biology of Stichopus tremulus, a deposit feeding holothurian. Sarsia 64: 155–160.
                        • 70. Roberts D, Gebruk A, Levin V, Manship BAD (2000) Feeding and digestive strategies in deposit-feeding holothurians. Oceanogr Mar Biol 38: 257–310.
                        • 71. Hammond LS (1983) Nutrition of deposit-feeding holothurians and echinoids (Echinodermata) from a shallow reef lagoon, Discovery Bay, Jamaica. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 10: 297–305.
                        • 72. Hammond LS (1982) Analysis of grain-size selection by deposit-feeding holothurians and echinoids (Echinodermata) from a shallow reef lagoon, Discovery Bay, Jamaica. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 8: 25–36.
                        • 73. George SB, Lawrence JM, Lawrence AL, Smiley J, Plank L (2001) Carotenoids in the adult diet enhance egg and juvenile production in the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus. Aquaculture 199: 353–369.