Stoichiometry and population dynamics

By T. Andersen, James J. Elser, D. Hessen. 2004

261 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Population dynamics theory forms the quantitative core from which most ecologists have developed their intuition about how species interactions, heterogeneity, and biodiversity play out in time. Throughout its development, theoretical population biology has built on variants of the Lotka–Volterra equations and in nearly all cases has taken a single-currency approach to understanding population change, abstracting populations as aggregations of individuals or biomass. In this review, we explore how depicting organisms as built of more than one thing (for example, C and an important nutrient, such as P) in stoichiometrically explicit models results in qualitatively different predictions about the resulting dynamics. Fundamentally, stoichiometric models incorporate both food quantity and food quality effects in a single framework, allow key feedbacks such as consumer-driven nutrient recycling to occur, and generally appear to stabilize predator–prey systems while simultaneously producing rich dynamics with alternative domains of attraction and occasionally counterintuitive outcomes, such as coexistence of more than one predator species on a single-prey item and decreased herbivore performance in response to increased light intensity experienced by the autotrophs. In addition to the theoretical background, we also review recent laboratory and field studies considering stoichiometric effects on autotroph–herbivore systems, emphasizing algae–Daphnia interactions. These studies support the predictions of stoichiometric theory, providing empirical evidence for alternative stable states under stoichiometric constraints, for negative effects of solar radiation on herbivores via stoichiometric food quality, and for diversity-enhancing effects of poor food quality. Stoichiometric theory has strong potential for both quantitative and qualitative improvements in the predictive power of population ecology, a major priority in light of the multivariate anthropogenic and natural perturbations experienced by populations. However, full development and testing of stoichiometric population dynamics theory will require greater intellectual tolerance and exchange between researchers working in ecosystem and population ecology.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Environmental Chemistry, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/246b157f93ff94b080786f18ffc95b6476aa470d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Environmental Chemistry

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Ecological stoichiometry: An elementary approach using basic principles (2013, methodology): “The strict homeostasis condition has often been adopted in mathematical modeling (Sterner 1990; Loladze et al. 2000; Andersen et al. 2004) primarily to improve analytical tractability.”
Light supply, plankton biomass, and seston stoichiometry in a gradient of lake mixing depths (2006, background): “Theoretical considerations and the few existing experimental studies suggest, however, that the relationship between light supply and consumer production might not be a monotonously positive one, but might be mediated by algal nutrient stoichiometry (Andersen et al. 2004).”
The elemental stoichiometry of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and its relationships with organismic lifestyle and ecosystem structure and function: a review and perspectives (2011, background): “…communities (Andersen et al. 2007; Danger et al. 2008; Hessen et al. 2008a), lowering the nutritional quality of algae, limiting planktonic herbivore growth (Sterner et al. 1998; Urabe et al. 2002a, b; Andersen et al. 2004, 2007; Jäger et al. 2008; Liess et al. 2009) and also increasing C:N and C”
Recent advances in ecological stoichiometry: insights for population and community ecology (2005, background): “Such threshold functions corresponding to Liebig's minimum principle are easily comprehensible, but imply elbow-shaped isoclines, which can have strong bearings on the model predictions (Andersen et al. 2004, Hall 2004).”
Predator–prey interactions: is ‘ecological stoichiometry’ sufficient when good food goes bad? (2005, background): “It is noteworthy that much of the work that has been the source of inspiration for ecological stoichiometry for plankton has been on Daphnia, considering the consumption of P-limited prey [(Andersen et al., 2004) and references therein].”
Stoichiometrically Explicit Food Webs: Feedbacks between Resource Supply, Elemental Constraints, and Species Diversity (2009, background): “With this biology, this stoichiometrically explicit food chain provides pointed updates to more standard predator-prey theory, particularly regarding response of predator-prey systems to enrichment (Andersen et al. 2004, Diehl 2007).”
End-To-End Models for the Analysis of Marine Ecosystems: Challenges, Issues, and Next Steps (2010, unknown): “Setting aside the question whether Monod–Redfield models can sufficiently describe phytoplankton growth (Flynn 2010), variable elemental stoichiometry has been shown to be important in controlling NPZ dynamics (Andersen et al. 2004; Mitra et al. 2007).”
Impacts of Nitrogen and Phosphorus: From Genomes to Natural Ecosystems and Agriculture (2017, background): “Elemental availability can also play a large role in predator-prey interactions, including nutrient cycling by predators, which, in turn, influences what elements are available to prey (Grover, 2003; Andersen et al., 2004; Sardans et al., 2012).”
Ecological stoichiometry in freshwater benthic systems: recent progress and perspectives (2005, background): “…trophic interactions (e.g. Elser et al., 1998; Sterner et al., 1998), nutrient cycling (e.g. Elser & Urabe, 1999; Vanni, 2002), population dynamics (e.g. Schade et al., 2003; Andersen, Elser & Hessen, 2004; Moe et al., 2005), and the role of species in ecosystems (e.g. Vanni et al., 2002).”
Soil microbial organic nitrogen uptake is regulated by carbon availability (2014, background): “Ecological stoichiometry is both an important driver of ecosystem population dynamics (Andersen et al., 2004), and litter decomposition and nutrient cycling in soils (Manzoni et al.”