See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226392392

Plankton Ecology: The Past Two Decades of Progress

Article  in  The Science of Nature · July 1996

DOI: 10.1007/BF01152210

CITATIONS READS
50 320

1 author:

Ulrich Sommer
Leibniz-Institut für Meereswissenschaften an der Universität Kiel
282 PUBLICATIONS   12,932 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Planktonic food web structure and function. Water framework directive quality indicators View project

Nutrient gradients in the Red Sea View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ulrich Sommer on 07 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

NATUR O0

WlSSENSCHAFTEN

Plankton Ecology: The Past p lankton are those organisms which live sus-
pended in the water of seas, lakes, ponds, and
rivers, and which are not able to swim against
Two Decades of Progress the currents of water. This latter feature distinguishes
plankton from nekton, the community of actively
swimming organisms like fish, larger cephalopods,
and aquatic mammals. Plankton range in size from ca.
0.2 gm to several meters (large jellyfish), but only the
small ones have been the objects of intensive research,
the Antarctic krill being the only well-studied plank-
ton organism of > 5 mm. Plankton comprise bacteria
(bacterioplankton), plants (phytoplankton, including
cyanobacteria), animals (zooplankton), and fungi
Ulrich Sommer (mycoplankton). Plankton form complex biotic com-
munities which are functionally as diverse and show
Institut far Meereskunde der Universit~it, the same richness of interaction as terrestrial com-
D-24105 Kiel, Germany munities.
Because of the central role of plankton in the func-
tioning open-water foodwebs and ecosystems, plank-
ton ecology has always been a core discipline of lim-
This is a selected account of recent developments nology and biological oceanography. Beyond their im-
in plankton ecology. The examples have been portance for aquatic systems, plankton are most
chosen for their degree of innovation during the suitable model organisms for classic topics of general
past two decades and for their general ecological ecology, such as competition, predator-prey relation-
importance. They range from plankton autecology ships, food-web structure, succession, transfer of mat-
over interactions between populations to com- ter, and energy. Small size, rapid population growth
munity ecology. The autecology of plankton is (doubling times < 1 day for bacteria and small phyto-
represented by the hydromechanics of plankton plankton to several days or weeks for zooplankton),
(the problem of life in a viscous environment) and high abundances (millions per ml for bacteria, mil-
by the nutritional ecology of phyto- and zoo- lions per 1 for phytoplankton), and a relatively homo-
plankton. Population level studies are represented geneous distribution in their environment facilitate
by competition, herbivory (grazing), and zoo- field and experimental studies. Processes which take
plankton responses to predation. Community years to centuries in terrestrial systems, like com-
ecology is represented by the debate about bot- petitive exclusion and succession, take only weeks in
tom-up vs. top-down control of community orga- plankton.
nization, by the PEG model of seasonal plankton Plankton ecology of the past two decades has fully
succession, and by the recent discovery of the mi- used its potentials to pick up the major themes of
crobial food web. theoretical ecology. On the other hand, terrestrial
ecology of this period was about to abandon the hope

Naturwissenschaften 83, 293-301 (1996) © Springer-Verlag 1996 293

that the theoretical models of interaction between The Sinking of Phytoplankton
populations would ever be tested conclusively. Today,
an entire curriculum of ecology without too many Most phytoplankton species are heavier than water
gaps can be build from the experimental achievements (densities 1.02 to 1.30 g cm-3; see [4]). Therefore, they
of the past 20 years of plankton ecology. Here, I will are ultimately bound to sink unless they can swim by
focus on some highlights, where new theory has been themselves like flagellates. The most notable excep-
developed, where long-lasting discussions have been tions are cyanobacteria with gas vesicles; these can
settled, or where new paradigms have emerged. Only regulate their density and become both heavier (by
the first section (hydromechanics of plankton) covers ballast carbohydrates) and lighter (by gas vesicles)
a topic which is exclusive to plankton, the other sec- than water [5].
tions (nutritional ecology, interactions between popu- Sinking velocities of small particles (Reynolds number
lations, organization of communities) being of general < 10 -1) in stagnant water can be described by Stokes'
ecological importance. For the sake of brevity, I will law [2]. The sinking velocity increases quadratically
not include the important contribution of plankton with the size of the sinking particle and linearly with
research to the understanding of local and global the density difference between the sinking particle and
biogeochemical cycles, which would merit a review of the water. Sinking velocities of nonspherical particles
its own. have to be corrected for "form resistance", the factor
by which a body sinks more slowly than a sphere of
equivalent volume and density. Measured sinking
The Planktonic Life Form: velocities ([2, 4] and references therein) conform quite
Life in Suspension well to calculated ones if realistic values are inserted
into Stokes' equation. The feature most important for
phytoplankton sinking velocities is the size, because of
The Reynolds Number the quadratic dependence and because of the large size
range of phytoplankton (cells and colonies from
The movement of small plankton organisms in water < 1 gm to several ram). The density difference is also
cannot be viewed as a downscaled version of the swim- quite important: in fresh water, a diatom with a densi-
ming of fish. Plankton perceive their medium in a ty of 1.26 g cm -3 would sink about ten times as fast
completely different way [1- 3]. This difference is best as a green alga with 1.026 g cm -3. Form resistance is
expressed by the Reynolds number, a dimensionless relatively unimportant because it does not exceed 4 for
quotient between inertial and viscous forces working most of the common shapes. The restricted impor-
upon a particle moving in a liquid. The Reynolds num- tance of form resistance contradicts the view of early
ber increases linearly with size and velocity. Reynolds planktologists who interpreted bristles, spines, and
numbers of swimming fish range from 10 4 to 10 7. At complicated shapes as adaptations to minimize sink-
the other end of the spectrum of aquatic organisms, ing velocities.
Reynolds numbers of flagellated bacteria are in the Large diatoms sink fastest (up to several m per day),
order of 10 -4, and of swimming or sinking phyto- because of their heavy silica cell walls. Small diatoms
plankton usually < 10 -2 [4]. This means that their and large immotile algae without silicification sink at
movements in water are almost entirely governed by velocities of several cm or dm per day. Smaller phyto-
viscous and not inertial forces. The swimming of plankton sink much more slowly. At the end of phyto-
bacterio- and phytoplankton is comparable to slow plankton blooms, sinking velocities sometimes exceed
(cm min -1) swimming of fish through honey: the values calculated for individual cells or colonies
[6]. The mechanism of this acceleration is not yet com-
- there is practically no inertia, pletely understood, but formation of larger aggregates
- the swimming body is surrounded by laminar, not (marine snow [7]) by flocculation of senescent phyto-
turbulent flow, plankton cells and detritus seems the most plausible
- the swimming particle carries most of the sur- explanation.
rounding liquid along instead of being permanently Sinking has a twofold impact:
washed by fresh medium. Therefore, earlier assump-
tions are not tenable that flagellar movements or sink- 1. It is a loss factor for phytoplankton populations
ing would substantially improve the flux of dissolved dependent on the light in the upper water layers. The
nutrients to phytoplankton cells. impact of sinking losses depends on the ratio between
the sinking velocity and the thickness of the mixed sur-
face layer [2, 4]. In practice, only rapidly sinking algae
(e.g., large diatoms) under small mixing depths (several

294
m) will suffer from significant sinking losses. The Nutrition of Plankton
2. Sinking supplies the dark deep-water zones and the
bottom of seas and lakes with food and energy for
their organisms. In lakes, 10 to 50% of the annual pri- The Enigma of Phytoplankton Nutrient
mary production of organic matter is exported by Limitation
sedimentation to the deep-water zone [8]. The ex-
ported fraction decreases with increasing primary pro- There is no doubt that the potential of biomass pro-
ductivity. In marine habitats, 10 to 25°70 is exported via duction is limited by mineral nutrients in the majority
sedimentation, the fractional value increases with pri- of freshwater and marine habitats. For temperate
mary production [9]. lakes, there is a well-established, almost linear rela-
tionship between total phosphorus concentrations and
annual mean or maximal values of phytoplankton bio-
The Problem of Filtration mass [14]. Marine ecologists usually consider nitrogen
by Herbivorous Zooplankton rather than phosphorus to be limiting, but the close
correlation between N and P concentrations and the
Many well-studied zooplankton species have comb- or almost constant N: P ratio near the physiological op-
sieve-like structures for collecting suspended food par- timum (16 : 1 by atoms) in most marine habitats make
ticles from the water. Initially, the process of food col- a decision difficult [15].
lection was interpreted as filtration or sieving. The dis- Until 1979, nutrient limitation of phytoplankton
tance between the finest bristles (setulae) was inter- growth rates was as well accepted as nutrient limitation
preted as the mesh size of a sieve and, hence, as the of biomass. It was usually described by a saturation
lower size limit of edible particles. The intersetular curve where the growth rate was an increasing function
distances of typical herbivorous zooplankton species of the dissolved nutrient concentration in the medium
range from 0.2 to several ~tm [10], thus giving (Monod model). Phytoplankton ecologists and physi-
Reynolds numbers in the order of 10 .3 for the trans- ologists were aware that this equation is valid only at
port of water through the presumed filter. Filtration of constant nutrient concentrations. At variable nutrient
water at the zooplankton scale becomes a problem, concentrations, storage during nutrient pulses can sup-
like the filtration of honey at the macroscopic scale. port growth rates higher than expected during subse-
The boundary layers of laminar and extremely retard- quent low-nutrient periods. Under variable nutrient
ed flow at the margin of the setulae overlap and leave concentration, a more reliable prediction of growth
no pores for free flow. Therefore, the sieving hypothe- rates can be based on the intracellular nutrient pool
sis was challenged and the comb-like structures were (cell quota; Droop model [16]).
interpreted as paddles producing a water flow towards For average phytoptankton species, saturating N and P
the mouth. Particle capture was explained by elec- quotas and thus the absence of N and P limitation are
trostatic or chemical attraction between the feeding indicated by a cellular stoichiometry of C : N : P =
animal and the food particles [1 i]. However, the sur- 106: 16:1 (Redfield ratio). A review of particulate
face-attraction hypothesis could not explain the good organic matter composition in the oceans [17] showed
agreement between expected (from intersetular dis- mostly values near the Redfield ratio, especially for the
tances) and observed minimum sizes of food particles most oligotrophic oceanic habitats, where ambient
in the well-studied freshwater zooplankton Daphnia nutrient concentrations would have suggested severe
spp. [121. nutrient limitation. The apparent absence of nutrient
Meanwhile, the debate is settled. In Daphnia spp. and limitation was explained by microscale spatial and
some other cladocerancans, filter combs move in a temporal nutrient patchiness and storage of nutrients
closed chamber, giving the water no chance to flow if phytoplankton cells come into contact with nutrient
around the filter. The pressure needed to squeeze the micropatches. Excretion by zooplankton and local en-
water through the filter has been calculated to be richment in marine snow particles are the main source
<0.5mbar, the power consumption for filtration of micropatchiness.
amounts to less than 5°70 of the total metabolic de- Goldman's [17] hypothesis of nutrient sufficiency con-
mand [13]. Both values are within easy reach for tained a challenging paradox: how can biomass be
Daphnia spp. On the other hand, the comb-like struc- nutrient-limited while growth, the process through
tures of copepods move in open water instead of a which biomass is attained, seems to be nutrient-
closed chamber and, therefore, seem to act like pad- saturated. The scientific community accepted the
dles. challenge and refined the methods of assessing
nutrient limitation [18, 19]: separation techniques to
measure cell quotas of individual species instead of

295
 ILL) there is a linear increase of ingestion rates with
Ceratium Rhodomonas food concentrations; above the ILL, ingestion rates re-
main constant. On the other hand, filtration rates, i.e.,
0.2 ~.
the rate at which water is cleared during the filtration
Z process, are constant below the ILL and decline with
food concentrations above the ILL. ILL values for
0.5 , I i 0.1 adult medium and large-sized Daphnia spp. are
~t around 0.25 mg food carbon 1-~ [22].
Being a true filter feeder, Daphnia spp. select their
food particles on the basis of size. Depending on
0
MJJAS FMAM d J ASO ND species and body size, there is an upper size limit be-
tween 20 and 50 gm and a lower size limit of 0.5 to
2 gm [10]. Gelatinous algae of appropriate size are in-
Fig. 1. Nitrogen limitation of Ceratium hirundinella and Rhodornonas gested but may pass through the guts without being
minuta in PluBsee. Full line: quotient between nutrient-saturated digested. High concentrations of large, filamentous
(Bmax) and nutrient-limited growth rates (g); broken line," cell quota of
nitrogen (Fig. 6.10 in [4]) algae mechanically impede the filtration process and,
thereby, also reduce grazing rates upon the edible food
items [231. Herbivorous copepods behave quite dif-
ferently [24]: they select individual food particles
bulk organic matter, physiological assays for growth based on chemical qualities (taste), being able even to
limitation, and elaborate enrichment bioassays were discriminate between live and freshly killed diatoms of
employed. The conclusions of these detailed studies the same species.
(summarized in [4, 20]) were: Until recently, food limitation of zooplankton was
- Severe Si limitation of diatom growth is common considered to be a function of food quantity, mea-
and can be described by the Monod model. sured as energy or organic carbon. The importance of
- P and N limitation can be described reliably by the
chemical food quality was discovered when it was
Droop model; the Monod model works only shown that strongly N- or P-limited algae with a low
cell quota where inadequate for growth and reproduc-
sometimes.
- P and N limitation are episodic in time and usually
tion of Daphnia galeata [25, 26], even when energy
weak (Fig. 1). and carbon supply were sufficient (Fig. 2). Thus,
- P and N limitation tend to be more severe in nutrient limitation of the primary producers can be
eutrophic than in oligotrophic waters. propagated upward through the trophic chain to her-
bivores. The effect of algal nutrient limitation might
The latter finding is surprising at first sight but plausi- be a direct or an indirect one: the direct effect is inade-
ble from an evolutionary point of view. In oligotrophic quacy of food stoichiometry for the production of
waters, nutrient concentrations are always low, and
species without adaptations to a low-nutrient regime
will be eliminated by natural selection. In eutrophic
waters, dissolved nutrient concentrations are much
• P O C > 100 # g a t o m . l 1
more variable. There are frequent episodes of high
o POC < 100/zgatom.l 1
concentrations during which species with high
0.4
demands can thrive. -

Zooplankton Nutritional Ecology 0 0

oo\
0 00 0 0
0.2- 1' ~ • 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
The past two decades have been a golden age of
zooplankton nutritional ecology. Especially the ,l',

research on Daphnia spp., the pet animal of freshwater

0 1
zooplanktologists, became very fruitful, as demon-
0 0.005 0.01
strated by the Lampert school of ecophysiology ([21]
and refs. herein). The functional response of P c o n t e n t o f f o o d [ m o l P / m o l C]
Daphnia's ingestion (food consumption) rates to food
concentrations was found to follow Holling's type I: Fig. 2. Birth rates of Daphnia galeata in dependence on the P content
below a threshold value (called incipient limiting level, of the food alga Scenedesrnus acutus (Fig. 6.19 in [4])

296
animal tissue; one of the indirect effects is decrease in
polyunsaturated fatty acids in nutrient-limited algae
[27]. In the green alga Scenedesmus acutus, the con- Stephanopyxis palmeriana
tent of the 20 : 5 co 3-fatty acid decreases strongly with
P shortage; in the diatom Cyclotella meneghiniana, it
decreases only weakly. Severely P-limited Scenedesmus
Asterionella glaeialis
is a completely inadequate food for Daphnia, while
severely P-limited Cyclotella has an only slightly
reduced nutritional value. Contrary to Daphnia, the
rotifer Brachionus rubens reacts only to the P content Nitzsehia elosterium
of the food [281.

Chaetoceros sociale
Interactions Between Populations

Phytoplankton Resource Competition °J.,

Dunaliella tertionelcta
~D
1- ~\
Initiated by Tilman's experiments with the diatoms
Asterionella formosa and Cyclotella meneghiniana t. 0 I I~"~ f I
[29], phytoplankton became the predominant model
0.1 1 10 100
community for the experimental test of the modern
theory of resource competition [30]. The equilibrium Si:N ratio [mol/mol]
outcome of interspecific competition for limiting nu-
trients can be predicted from the kinetics of nutrient-
Fig. 3. Relative contribution of North Sea phytoplankton species to the
limited growth of the competing species using simple final equilibrium biomass in competition experiments at various Si:N
graphical models. More complicated models are need- ratios. Circles: nitrate as N source; triangles." ammonium as N source
ed for light competition within the vertical light gra- (from a lecture given at the 1995 ICES meeting, Aalborg, Denmark)
dient [31]. Meanwhile, a rich and contradiction-free
body of experimental evidence has confirmed Til-
man's theory ([32] and refs. herein). The most impor-
The apparent contradiction between the exclusion of
tant findings of phytoplankton competition research
inferior competitors and the observed species richness
are:
of natural phytoplankton (Hutchinson's paradox of
- If several species compete for the same nutrient, the the plankton) was resolved by experimentally applying
one with the lowest nutrient requirement for a growth the intermediate disturbance hypothesis, originally
rate in balance with the mortality rate will become developed for rainforests and coral reefs [36], to phy-
dominant and exclude the other species. toplankton [37]. External disturbances (e.g., dilution
- Under equilibrium conditions, only as many species of cultures, episodic mixing events in natural habitats)
can coexist as there are different limiting resources of intermediate frequency and intensity interrupt the
(e.g., a Si-limited diatom could coexist with a P-limited process of competitive exclusion and maintain a high
green alga). level of species richness.
- If two resources are potentially limiting, the tax-
onomic outcome of competition is governed by the
ratio of these resources, not by the absolute concentra- Grazing
tions.
- In freshwaters, diatoms tend to be the winners of Prior to Lampert's [38] pioneering analysis of the
competition at high Si:P ratios [33] and blue green clear-water phase, the ups and downs of phytoplank-
algae at low N : P ratios. ton population densities were ascribed exclusively to
- In marine waters (Fig. 3), diatoms tend to dominate favorable and adverse conditions for growth and re-
at high Si:N ratios [34]. production. This view could not explain the spring/
- Heterotrophic bacteria and algae compete for early summer clear-water phase, a widespread phe-
dissolved phosphorus. A homogeneous supply of P nomenon in meso- and eutrophic lakes and seas. The
tends to favor bacteria, a patchy supply tends to favor clear-water phase is a minimum of phytoplankton bio-
algae [351. mass immediately following the spring bloom. The

297
drastic drop in phytoplankton biomass occurs in spite
Abundance[%] Abundance[%]
of favorable light and nutrient conditions. At the same 40 20 0 20 40 40 20 0 20 40
time, zooplankton density reaches its annual maxi-
mum. Grazing rates upon phytoplankton are higher
than their growth rates, thus causing a decline in phy-
toplankton biomass. Such combinations of temporari-
ly low prey and high predator densities had been an-
ticipated by classic predator-prey models already half
a century ago, but still it took about a decade until E
J=
Lambert's explanation became generally accepted. £3
During the summer period, grazing pressure in meso-
and eutrophic waters is not strong enough to prevent
high levels of phytoplankton biomass. It does, how-
ever, exert a selective pressure in favor of inedible or
Night Day
poorly edible algal species, most of which are usually
large [39]. Twenty years ago, this explanation of a
no fish smell with fish smell
predominance of large phytoplankton species met con-
siderable resistance; today it is widely accepted.
Fig. 4. Day- and night-time vertical distribution of Daphnia in plankton
towers exposed to water in contact with fish and without (Fig. 9 in [44])

Indirect Effects of Grazing

Grazing does not only inflict differential rates of mor- esis assumed that reduced respiratory rates in the cold
tality on phytoplankton populations, but also in- water would outweigh the disadvantage of reduced
fluences the supply of nutrients. Zooplankton excrete food availability. The predator-avoidance hypothesis
parts of the P and of the N content of their food as assumed that losses to optically oriented predators
dissolved phosphate and ammonium, thus fertilizing (mainly fish) could be minimized by spending the light
planktonic algae [40]. Poorly edible phytoplankton period in the darker, deep-water layers. Recent research
species might thus gain a growth advantage which has revealed a number of facts supporting the preda-
overcompensates the losses by grazing. If food algae tor-avoidance hypothesis, while no support for the
are severely nutrient-starved (low cell quota), zoo- competing hypothesis was found.
plankton reduce excretion rates of the limiting nutrient A stirvey of mountain lakes which had been artificially
because they need the entire nutrient content of their stoqked with fish in historic time showed larger diurnal
food for the production of their own tissue [41]. This migration amplitudes of the copepod Cyclops abys-
is a positive feedback loop reinforcing nutrient limita- sorum in lakes with older fish stocks and no vertical
tion. Contrary to P and N, Si from diatom cell walls migration in fishless lakes [43]. In laboratory meso-
is not excreted in dissolved form but as particulate cosms (plankton towers) vertical migration of Daph-
detritus which rapidly sinks out of the surface layer. nia hyalina×galeata could be induced by water that
Therefore, Si : P and Si : N ratios decline and the com- had been in contact with fish [44] and must have con-
petitive advantage of diatoms is reduced when recy- tained a substance excreted by fish (kairomone). In the
cling by zooplankton excretion is the dominant form absence of such water, no migration took place
of nutrient supply [42]. (Fig. 4).

Cyclomorphosis
Zooplankton Response to Predation
Similar conclusions have been reached for seasonal
Vertical Migration morphological shifts in a number of herbivorous zoo-
plankton species. Earlier speculations about hydrome-
The evolutionary explanation of diurnal vertical mi- chanic reasons (e.g., temperature-dependent changes
gration has been one of the longest-lasting debates in of the viscosity of water) were not supported by experi-
plankton ecology. Many zooplankton species spend mental evidence. On the other hand, morphological
the night near the surface and the daytime in deeper, changes and changes of life-history traits of Daphnia
dark, and cold water layers where there is a reduced spp. are induced by a kairomone released by the preda-
abundance of food. The metabolic-advantage hypoth- tory planktonic larva of the midge Chaoborus sp. [45].

298
The Organization of Plankton Communities Seasonal Succession

The causal explanation of the well-known seasonal

Bottom-Up or Top-Down Control? cycles of plankton species (called succession by plank-
tologists) has strongly profited from the study of
The rapidly increasing evidence for the importance of biotic interactions. Prior to the late 1970s, plankton
predator-prey relationships in plankton ecology gave seasonality has been mainly explained by the physical
rise to a debate as to whether the structure and dynam- factors light, temperature, and stratification. Some al-
ics of plankton communities are mainly controlled by lowance was also made for the nutrient depletion of
physical conditions and nutrients (bottom-up) or by surface waters during the summer stratified period.
predators (top-down). The traditional bottom-up view Margalef's [49] minority view of a truly autogenic, i.e.,
assumes a positive correlation between the biomass of biologically controlled succession was more based on
different trophic levels, because more prey can support life-form analogies with terrestrial vegetation succes-
more predators: more plant nutrients support more sion than support by in-depth studies of the mecha-
algae, more algae support more herbivorous zooplank- nisms of species replacements within plankton. Floris-
ton, more zooplankton support more planktivorous tic and life-form studies at that time [50, 51] began to
fish, and more planktivorous fish support more pisci- support this view without providing firm mechanistic
vorous fish, respectively. The top-down view assumes evidence. The major breakthrough was arrived
negative correlations between adjacent trophic levels, through multidisciplinary field studies supported by
because more predators leave less prey, thus leading to experimental research [52], field experiments in meso-
a trophic cascade [46]: More piscivorous fish leave less cosms [53], and the experimental progress in the study
planktivorous fish alive. This releases zooplankton of biotic interactions.
from predation pressure, leading to higher zooplank- The new paradigm of plankton succession finally be-
ton densities. Higher densities of hervivorous zoo- came condensed in the PEG model [54] of plankton
plankton cause reduced phytoplankton densities. succession (Fig. 5). This assumes a physically con-
The concept of the trophic cascade has also been ap- trolled minimum of phytoplankton (lack of light) and
plied to the management of eutrophicated lakes (bio- zooplankton (lack of food) in winter. The spring in-
manipulation). Most of the deleterious consequences
of lake eutrophication are directly or indirectly con-
nected to excessive phytoplankton growth. Therefore,
it was attempted to reduce algal biomass by artificial
removal of fish and, hence, increased grazing pressure
[47]. Biomanipulation sometimes worked and some-
times failed, the reasons for failure and success still be- to
ing under debate [481.
The second half of the 1980s saw a rapid proliferation
i
of pro- and contra examples in the debate about bot- L
w
PHYSICAL FACTORS PHYSICAL FACTORS
GRAZING IGRAZING
tom-up vs. top-down control, until it turned out that NUTRIENT LIMITATION
much of the heated debate was based on an insuffi-
cient appreciation of the problem of scale [3, 4]. I ,- j ,
Large-scale comparisons of systems with very different
nutrient levels support the bottom-up hypothesis. The lay ,
biomass and production of all trophic levels are posi-
tively correlated with nutrient richness and primary
productivity. Comparisons on a smaller scale tend to PHYSICAL FACTORS
PREDATION II ~
PHYSICAL FACTORS
PREDATION IIIIII
support the top-down hypothesis: if systems of similar , ~ F O O D LIMITATION FOOD LIMITATION
nutrient status are compared, there are indeed negative
correlations between phytoplankton and zooplankton
and between zooplankton and planktivorous fish.
Fig. 5. The seasonal development of phytoplankton (top) and zoo-
plankton (bottom) in an idealized eutrophic (left) and oligotrophic
(right) water. Top panel." small algae (fine hatching), large algae
(medium shading), diatoms (coarse hatching), zooplankton biomass
(broken line). Bottom panel: small herbivores (fine hatching), large
herbivores (medium hatching), phytoplankton biomass (broken line).
The black horizontal diagrams indicate the seasonal change in the im-
portance of major environmental constraints (Fig. 6 in [54])

299
crease of light and high nutrient concentrations gives plained by the rapid growth response of bacterivorous
rise to the spring bloom of phytoplankton, dominated protozoa to increases in their food level and, thus, a
by small and fast-growing species. These are well edi- top-down control by bacteria almost without delay
ble for grazers and, therefore, give rise to the spring [57]. Heterotrophic flagellates turned out to be the
bloom of zooplankton. Zooplankton increase until most important grazers of bacteria. The flagellates
grazing rates exceed the growth rate of phytoplankton, themselves are fed upon by larger protozoa and multi-
thus leading to the clear-water phase in late spring. cellular zooplankton. It was discovered that hitherto
Subsequently, zooplankton decline as well, partly neglected picoplanktonic algae ( < 2 gm) contributed
because of fish predation, partly because of food substantially to phytoplankton primary production,
shortage. especially in oligotrophic systems [58]. Inclusion of
In early summer, successional pathways diverge be- picoplankton algae, bacteria, and protozoa into pro-
tween oligotrophic and eutrophic systems. In eutro- duction measurements led to an increase in the esti-
phic systems, nutrient recycling during the clear-water mates of planktonic primary and secondary produc-
phase permits a regrowth of phytoplankton. The sum- tivity. The traditional estimate of an "ecological effi-
mer bloom of phytoplankton develops under a two- ciency" (the quotient between the production rates of
fold selection pressure. Selective grazing on small successive trophic levels) of ca. 10% as a mean and
algae leads to a dominance by large phytoplankton 20% as a maximum has to be replaced by a range ex-
species, and competition for nutrients leads to taxo- tending to 35°70 [59].
nomic shifts within the size structure imposed by graz- At the present time a shift from energy- and matter-
ing. Within zooplankton, fish predation and interfer- flow studies to studies of community organization
ence by poorly edible algae favor the species. In oligo- within the microbial food web is taking place. Topics
trophic systems, the nutrient increase during the clear- are similar to studies of biotic interactions in classic
water phase is insufficient to permit the summer plankton: resource competition, predator-prey dynam-
bloom of large, inedible algae. Algal biomass remains ics, selectivity of predation, resource regeneration by
low throughout the entire summer. In autumn, de- predators, etc. Special emphasis is given to the integra-
creased light, sinking temperatures, and the end of tion of processes within the classic planktonic food
summer stratification terminate autogenic succession web and processes within the microbial food web [28].
and lead to a predominance of physical control.
This article is dedicated to the Plankton Ecology Group (PEG), an in-
ternational forum for the discussion of current topics in plankton ecol-
The Microbial Food Web ogy. Many of the authors cited in this article, including myself, have
temporarily or continuously taken part in the PEG discussions and
received an enormous amount of inspiration from them.
Until recently, plankton community ecology (includ-
ing the PEG model) has concentrated on multicellular
zooplankton and phytoplankton of > 2 g i n size.
Aquatic microbiology concentrated on the biochemis- 1. Purcell, E.M.: Am. J. Phys. 45, 3 (1977)
try, physiology, autecology, and the search for meth- 2. Reynolds, C.S.: The Ecology of Freshwater Phytoplankton. Cam-
ods of production measurements of bacteria. The role bridge Univ. Press 1984
3. Lampert, W., Sommer U.: LimnotSkologie. Stuttgart: Thieme 1993
of heterotrophic bacteria within the planktonic system 4. Sommer, U.: Planktologie. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer
was seen as decomposing dead organic matter. A 1994
widened appreciation of the role of planktonic bac- 5. Ibelings, B., Mur, L.R., Walsby, A.E.: J. Plankton Res. 13, 419
teria emerged when Azam introduced the concept of (1991)
the microbial loop [55]. This loop comprises the ener- 6. Sommer, U.: ibid. 6, 1 (1984)
7. Silver, M.W., Shanks, A.L., Trent, J.D.: Science 201, 371 (1978)
gy and carbon flow starting from excretion of organic 8. Stabel, H. H., in: Chemical Processes in Lakes, p. 143 (Stumm, W.,
matter by "classic" plankton and subsequent uptake ed.). New York: Wiley 1985
by bacteria. The bacteria are then grazed by protozoa 9. Berger, W.H., in: Productivity of the Ocean: Past and Present, p.
which are subsequently grazed by filter-feeding classic 429 (W. H. Berger, V. Smetacek, G. Wefer, eds.). Chichester: Wiley
1989
zooplankton. 10. Geller, W., M~iller, H.: Oecologia 49, 316 (1981)
The introduction of fluorescence microscopy [56] led 11. Gerritsen, J., Porter, K.G.: Science 216, 1225 (1982)
to the discovery of much higher numbers of plankton- 12. Gophen, M., Geller, W.: Oecologia 64, 408 (1984)
ic bacteria (10 6 to 10 7 cells m1-1) than were found by 13. Brendelberger, H., Herbeck, M., Lang, H., Lampert, W.: Arch.
classic plate-count techniques. In spite of the high Hydrobiol. 107, 197 (1986)
14. Vollenweider, R., Kerekes, J.: Eutrophication of Waters. Monitor-
potential growth rates of bacteria, the numbers are ing, Assessment, and Control. Paris: OECD 1982
much more constant through time than those of phy- 15. Hecky, R.E., Kilham, P.: Limnol. Oceanogr. 33, 796 (1988)
toplankton and zooplankton. This constancy was ex- 16. Droop, M.R.: Bot. Mar. 26, 99 (1983)

300
17. Goldman, J.C., McCarthy, J.J., Peavey, D.G.: Nature 279, 210 39. Gliwicz, Z.M.: ibid. 19, 1480 (1975)
(1979) 40. Sterner, R.W.: Science 231, 607 (1986)
18. Sakshaug, E., Andresen, K., Myklestad, S., Olsen, Y.: J. Plankton 41. Olsen, Y., Ostgaard, K.: Limnol. Oceanogr. 30, 844 (1985)
Res. 5, 175 42. Sommer, U.: ibid. 33, 1037 (1988)
19. Sommer, U.: Funct. Ecol. 5, 535 (1991) 43. Gliwicz, Z.M.: Nature 320, 746 (i986)
20. Sommer, U., in: Prespectives on Plant Competition, p. 193 (J.B. 44, Lampert, W., Loose, C.: Arch. Hydrobiol. 126, 53 (1992)
Grace, D. Tilman, eds.). San Diego: Academic Press 1990 45. Stibor, H.: PhD-thesis Univ. Kiel 1993
21. Lampert, W.: Mere. Ist. Ital. Idrobiol. 45, 143 (1988) 46. Carpenter, S.R., Kitchell, J. E, Hodgson, D.R.: Bioscience 35, 634
22. Muck, P., Lampert, W.: Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 66, 157 (1984) (1985)
23. Gliwicz, Z.M., Siedlar, E.: Arch. Hydrobiol. 88, 155 (1980) 47. Shapiro, J., Wright, D.I.: Freshwat. Biol. 14, 371 (1984)
24. DeMott, W.R.: Limnol. Oceanogr. 33, 397 (1988) 48. Sommer, U.: Mem. Ist. Ital. Idrobiol. 52, 89 (1993)
25. Urabe, J., Watanabe, Y.: ibid. 37, 244 (1992) 49. Margalef, R.: Oceanol. Acta 1, 493 (1978)
26. Sommer, U.: ibid. 37, 966 (1992) 50. Reynolds, C.S.: Holarct. Ecol. 3, 141 (1980)
27. Mtiller-Navarra, D.: Arch. HydrobioI. 132, 297 (1995) 51. Sommer, U.: Acta Oecol./Oecol. Gen. 2, 327 (1981)
28. Rothhaupt, K.O.: Habilitationsschrift Univ. Kiel 1994 52. Sommer, U.: Prog. Phycoi. Res. 5, 123 (1987)
29. Tilman, D.: Ecology 58, 338 (1977) 53. Reynolds, C.S., Thompson, J.M., Ferguson, A.J.D., Wiseman,
30. Tilman, D.: Resource Competition and Community Structure. S.W.: J. Plankton Res. 4, 561 (1982)
Princeton Univ. Press. 1982 54. Sommer, U., Gliwicz, Z.M., Larnpert, W., Duncan, A.: Arch.
31. Huisman, J., Weissing, E J.: Ecology 75, 507 (1994) Hydrobiol. 106, 433 (1986)
32. Sommer, U. (ed.): Plankton Ecology: Succession in Plankton Com- 55. Azam, E, Fenchel, T., Field, J.G., Gray, J.S., Meyer-Reil, L.A.,
munities, p. 57. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer 1993 Thingstad, E: Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 10, 257 (1983)
33. Sommer, U.: Arch. Hydrobiol. 96, 399 (1983) 56. Hobbie, J.E., Daley, R. J., Jasper, S.: Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 33,
34. Sommer, U.: Limnol. Oceanogr. 39, 1680 (i994) 1225 (1977)
35. Rothhaupt, K.O., Gtide, H.: ibid. 37, 739 (1992) 57. Caron, D.A., Goldman, J.C., Dennett, R.M.: Hydrobiologia 159,
36. Connell, J.H.: Science 199, i304 (1978) 27 (1988)
37, Sommer, U.: Limnol. Oceanogr. (in press) 58. Stockner, J.G.: Limnol. Oceanogr. 33, 765 (1988)
38. Lampert, W.: Verh. Int. Vet. Limnol. 20, 969 (1978) 59. Gaedke, U., Straile, D.: Ecol. Modell. 75, 435 (1994)

301

View publication stats