Environmental variability counteracts priority effects to facilitate species coexistence: Evidence from nectar microbes

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 281, Issue 1778, 2014, Pages

  Tucker, Caroline M ^a,b   Fukami, Tadashi ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Arrival order; Community assembly; Environmental variability; Meta community; Nectar inhabiting bacteria and yeast

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; COEXISTENCE; MICROBIAL COMMUNITY; NECTAR; SPECIES DIVERSITY; TEMPERATURE EFFECT; TEMPORAL VARIATION;

ARRIVAL ORDER; ARTICLE; BACTERIUM; COMMUNITY ASSEMBLY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABILITY; FLOWER; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; META-COMMUNITY; MICROBIOLOGY; MIMULUS; NECTAR; NECTAR-INHABITING BACTERIA AND YEAST; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; SPECIES EXTINCTION; TEMPERATURE; THEORETICAL MODEL; YEAST;

ARRIVAL ORDER; COMMUNITY ASSEMBLY; ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABILITY; META-COMMUNITY; NECTAR-INHABITING BACTERIA AND YEAST;

BACTERIA; ECOSYSTEM; EXTINCTION, BIOLOGICAL; FLOWERS; GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT; MICROBIOLOGY; MIMULUS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PLANT NECTAR; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; TEMPERATURE; YEASTS;

EID: 84892585621     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.2637     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Sutherland JP. 1974 Multiple stable points in natural communities. Am. Nat. 136, 859-873.
2. Sutherland JP. 1990 Perturbations, resistance, and alternative views of the existence of multiple stable points in nature. Am. Nat. 136, 270-275. (doi:10. 1086/285097)
3. Drake JA. 1991 Community-assembly mechanics and the structure of an experimental species ensemble. Am. Nat. 137, 1-26. (doi:10.1086/285143)
4. Chase JM. 2003 Community assembly: when should history matter? Oecologia 136, 489-498. (doi:10.1007/s00442-003-1311-7)
5. Mergeay J, De Meester L, Eggermont H, Verschuren D. 2011 Priority effects and species sorting in a long paleoecological record of repeated community assembly through time. Ecology 92, 2267-2275. (doi:10.1890/10-1645.1)
6. Kennedy PG, Peay KG, Bruns TD. 2009 Root-tip competition among ectomycorrhizal fungi: are priority effects the rule or the exception. Ecology 90, 2098-2107. (doi:10.1890/08-1291.1)
7. Knowlton N. 2004 Multiple 'stable' states and the conservation of marine ecosystems. Progr. Oceanogr. 60, 387-396. (doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2004.02.011)
8. Jiang L, Patel SN. 2008 Community assembly in the presence of disturbance: a microcosm experiment. Ecology 89, 1931-1940. (doi:10.1890/07-1263.1)
9. Fukami T, Dickie IA, Wilkie JP, Paulus BC, Park D, Roberts A, Buchanan PK, Allen RB. 2010 Assembly history dictates ecosystem functioning: evidence from wood decomposer communities. Ecol. Lett. 13, 675-684. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01465.x)
10. Hutchinson GE. 1961 The paradox of the plankton. Am. Nat. 95, 137-145. (doi:10.1086/282171)
11. Grubb PJ. 1977 The maintenance of species-richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biol. Rev. 52, 107-145. (doi:10. 1111/j.1469-185X.1977.tb01347.x)
12. Chesson P. 1985 Coexistence of competitors in spatially and temporally varying environments: a look at the combined effects of different sorts of variability. Theor. Popul. Biol. 28, 263-287. (doi:10. 1016/0040-5809(85)90030-9)
13. Snyder RE. 2008 When does environmental variation most influence species coexistence. Theor. Ecol. 1, 129-139. (doi:10.1007/s12080-008-0015-3)
14. Lloret F, Escudero A, Iriondo JM, Martínez-Vilalta J, Valladares F. 2012 Extreme climatic events and vegetation: the role of stabilizing processes. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 797-805. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02624.x)
15. Thompson RM, Beardall J, Beringer J, Grace M, Sardina P. 2013 Means and extremes: building variability into community-level climate change experiments. Ecol. Lett. 16, 799-806. (doi:10. 1111/ele.12095)
16. Loeuille N, Leibold MA. 2008 Evolution in metacommunities: on the relative importance of species sorting and monopolization in structuring communities. Am. Nat. 171, 788-799. (doi:10. 1086/587745)
17. deFreitas MJ, Frederickson AG. 1978 Inhibition as a factor in the maintenance of the diversity of microbial ecosystems. J. Gen. Microbiol. 106, 307-320. (doi:10.1099/00221287-106-2-307)
18. Tilman D. 1980 Resources: a graphical-mechanistic approach to competition and predation. Am. Nat. 116, 362-393. (doi:10.1086/283633)
19. Facelli J, Facelli E. 1993 Interactions after death: plant litter controls priority effects in a successional plant community. Oecologia 95, 277-282. (doi:10. 1007/BF00323500)
20. Chesson P. 2000 Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 343-366. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.343)
21. Ruel JJ, Ayres MP. 1999 Jensen's inequality predicts effects of environmental variation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 361-366. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01664-X)
22. Belisle M, Peay KG, Fukami T. 2012 Flowers as islands: spatial distribution of nectar-inhabiting microfungi among plants of Mimulus aurantiacus, a hummingbird-pollinated shrub. Microb. Ecol. 63, 711-718. (doi:10.1007/s00248-011-9975-8)
23. Drake JA, Huxel GR, Hewitt CL. 1996 Microcosms as models for generating and testing community theory. Ecology 77, 670-677. (doi:10.2307/ 2265489)
24. Jessup CM, Kassen R, Forde SE, Kerr B, Buckling A, Rainey PB, Bohannan BJ. 2004 Big questions, small worlds: microbial model systems in ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 189-197. (doi:10.1016/j.tree. 2004.01.008)
25. Cadotte MW, Drake JA, Fukami T. 2005 Constructing nature: laboratory models as necessary tools for investigating complex ecological communities. Adv. Ecol. Res. 37, 333-353.
26. Jacquemyn H, Lenaerts M, Brys R, Willems K, Honnay O, Lievens B. 2013 Among-population variation in microbial community structure in the floral nectar of the bee-pollinated forest herb Pulmonaria officinalis L. PLoS ONE 8, e56917. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056917)
27. Alvarez-Perez SC, Herrera CM, de Vega C. 2012 Zooming in on floral nectar: a first exploration of nectar-associated bacteria in wild plant communities. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 80, 591-602. (doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01329.x)
28. Herrera CM, Garcia IM, Perez R. 2008 Invisible floral larcenies: microbial communities degrade floral nectar of bumble bee-pollinated plants. Ecology 89, 2369-2376. (doi:10.1890/08-0241.1)
29. Pozo MI, Lachance MA, Herrera CM. 2012 Nectar yeasts of two southern Spanish plants: the roles of immigration and physiological traits in community assembly. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 80, 281-293. (doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01286.x)
30. Peay KG, Belisle M, Fukami T. 2012 Phylogenetic relatedness predicts priority effects in nectar yeast communities. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 749-758. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1230)
31. Vannette RL, Gauthier M-PL, Fukami T. 2013 Nectar bacteria, but not yeast, weaken a plant-pollinator mutualism. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 2012-2016. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2601).
32. Vannette RL, Fukami T. 2014 Historical contingency in species interactions: towards niche based predictions. Ecol. Lett. 17, 115-124. (doi:10.1111/ ele.12204)
33. Zwietering M, Jongenburger I, Rombouts F, Van't Riet K. 1990 Modeling of the bacterial growth curve. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56, 1875-1881.
34. Herrera CM, Pozo MI, Bazaga P. In press. Nonrandom genotype distribution among floral hosts contributes to local and regional genetic diversity in the nectar-living yeast Metschnikowia reukaufii. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. (doi:10.1111/1574-6941. 12245)