Experimental Systems in Aquatic Ecology

Abstract

The main experimental approaches in aquatic community and ecosystem ecology will be presented along a gradient of scale: unenclosed field experiments, mesocosms with a natural mix of species, microcosms with an artificial mixture of species from cultures, and single species experiments in batch and continuous culture. Experimental manipulations usually consist of the addition or removal of (supposed) key organisms, addition of chemicals or alterations of the physical environment. Selecting the appropriate scale of experimentation is not only a question of technical and financial feasibility but also it has to consider the inevitable trade‐offs between realism and control. Conclusions will be more widely accepted, if they are supported by experiments at a variety of scales.

Key Concepts:

  • The choice of the appropriate experimental scale has to face an inevitable trade‐off between realism and control.

  • Unenclosed field manipulations have the highest degree of realism but the least degree of control.

  • Mesocosms operate with natural species assemblages, permit replication and control of experimental manipulations but are limited in temporal scale (weeks).

  • Microcosm experiments operate with artificial communities assembled from cultures, offer a high degree of control, but lack the pre‐history a mutual adaptation of the participating species.

  • Experiments with single or few species rely on the ‘model organism’ concept.

  • Small‐scale experiments are biased against the detection of slow and space requiring processes.

Keywords: experiment; field experiment; mesocosm; microcosm; scale

Figure 1.

Example of a mesocosm study on the top‐down impacts of two different freshwater zooplankton types (copepods versusDaphnia) on different phytoplankton species. Biomass (measured as biovolume in 103 μm3 mL–1) of one large alga (Ceratium hirundinella (blue dots); c. 150 μm cell length) and one small alga (Stephanodiscus parvus (red dots); c. 6 μm) after 9 days in different mesocosms with logarithmically scaled seeding densities (individual L–1) of copepods and Daphnia (original graph after data in Sommer et al., ).

Figure 2.

KOSMOS mesocosm system: left – sketch of single mesocosm unit, consisting of floating frame, mesocosm bag and sediment trap; right – mesocosms during 2010 campaign in Kongsfjord, Spitsbergen. Courtesy of Ulf Riebesell, contact: usriebesell@ifm‐geomar.de.

Figure 3.

The BENTHOCOSM‐facility at Kiel (Courtesy of Martin Wahl, contact: mwahl@ifm‐geomar.de).

Figure 4.

Circular‐flow compartmentalised microcosm system to study the impact of zooplankton on phytoplankton competition via differential excretion of limiting nutrients (Sommer, ). The light chamber (left) contains phytoplankton consuming and competing for the limiting nutrients, silicon (Si) and phosphorus (P); the dark chamber (right) contains zooplankton (Daphnia), which consume algae and excrete nutrient. Removal of algae and loading of the light chamber with excreted nutrients can be calculated from concentration differences between the forward and the backward flow. Graphs on bottom: The bigger efficiency in P‐recycling leads to a decline of Si:P ratios and a subsequent decline of diatoms. Reproduced after Figure 8.22 from Sommer , with permission of Springer.

close

References

Altshuler I, Demiri B, Xu S et al. (2011) An integrated multi‐disciplinary approach for studying multiple stressors in freshwater ecosystems: Daphnia as a model organism. Integrative and Comparative Biology 51: 623–633.

Benndorf J (1990) Conditions for effective biomanipulation; conclusions derived from whole‐lake experiments in Europe. Hydrobiologia 200: 187–203.

Coale KH, Johnson KS, Fitzwater SE et al. (1996) A massive phytoplankton bloom induced by an ecosystem‐scale iron fertilisation experiment in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Nature 383: 495–501.

Connell JH (1961) Effects of competition, predation by Thais lapillus, and other factors on natural populations of the barnacle Balanus balanoides. Ecological Monographs 31: 61–104.

de Baar HJW, Boyd PW, Coale KH et al. (2005) Synthesis of iron fertilization experiments: from the iron age in the age of enlightenment. Journal of Geophysical Research – Oceans 110: C09S16. doi:10.1029/2004JC002601.

Droop MR (1983) 25 years of algal growth kinetics. Botanica Marina 26: 99–112.

Goldman CR (1962) A method of studying nutrient limiting factors in situ in water columns. Limnology and Oceanography 7: 99–101.

Lack TJ and Lund JWG (1974) Observations and experiments on the phytoplankton of Blelham Tarn, English Lake District. I. The experimental tubes. Freshwater Biology 4: 399–415.

Lampert W and Loose CJ (1992) Plankton towers: bridging the gap between laboratory and field experiments. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 126: 53–66.

Lange W (1970) Cyanophyta‐bacteria systems. Effects of added carbon compounds or phosphate on algal growth rates at low nutrient concentrations. Journal of Phycology 6: 230–234.

Lubchenco J and Menge BA (1978) Community development and persistence in a low rocky intertidal zone. Ecological Monographs 48: 67–94.

Lund JWG and Reynolds CS (1982) The development and operation of large limnetic enclosures in Blelham Tarn, English Lake District, and their contribution to phytoplankton ecology. Progress in Phycological Research 1: 1–65.

McGrady‐Steed J, Harris PM and Morin PJ (1997) Biodiversity regulates ecosystem productivity. Nature 390: 162–165.

Monod J (1950) La technique de la culture continue: théorie et applications. Annales d’Institut Pasteur, Lille 79: 390–410.

Paine RT (1966) Food web complexity and species diversity. American Naturalist 100: 65–75.

Paine RT (1969) A note on trophic complexity and community stability. American Naturalist 103: 91–93.

Reynolds CS, Thompson JM, Ferguson AJD and Wiseman SW (1982) Loss processes in the population dynamics of phytoplankton maintained in closed systems. Journal of Plankton Research 4: 561–600.

Rhee GY and Gotham IJ (1980) Optimum N:P ratios and coexistence of planktonic algae. Journal of Phycology 16: 486–489.

Riebesell U, Bellerby RGJ, Grossart HP and Thingstad F (2008) Mesocosms CO2 perturbation experiments: from orgnaisms to community level. Biogeosceinces 5: 1157–1164.

Rothhaupt KO (1988) Mechanistic resource competition theory applied to laboratory experiments with zooplankton. Nature 333: 660–662.

Schindler D (1974) Eutrophication and recovery in experimental lakes: implications for lake management. Science 184: 897–899.

Schindler DW (1988) Experimental studies of chemical stressors on whole lake ecosystems. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für Limnologie 23: 11–41.

Shapiro J and Wright DH (1984) Lake restoration by biomanipulation: Round lake, Minnesota, the first two years. Freshwater Biology 14: 371–383.

Sommer U (1985) Comparison between steady state and non‐steady state competition: experiments with natural phytoplankton. Limnology and Oceanography 30: 335–346.

Sommer U (1988) Phytoplankton succession under simultaneous grazing pressure and resource limitation. Limnology and Oceanography 33: 1037–1054.

Sommer U (1994) Planktologie. Heidelberg: Springer.

Sommer U, Aberle N, Lengfellner K et al. (2007) An indoor mesocosm system to study the effect of climate change on the late winter and spring succession of Baltic Sea phyto‐ and zooplankton. Oecologia 150: 655–667.

Sommer U, Sommer F, Santer B et al. (2001) Complementary impact of copepods and cladocerans on phytoplankton. Ecology Letters 4: 545–550.

Tilman D (1977) Resource competition between planktonic algae: an experimental and theoretical approach. Ecology 58: 338–348.

Vollenweider R and Kerekes J (1982) Eutrophication of Waters, Monitoring, Assessment and Control. Paris: OECD.

Worm B, Lotze HK, Hillebrand H and Sommer U (2002) Consumer versus resource control of species diversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 417: 848–851.

Worm B, Reusch TBH and Lotze HK (2000) In situ nutrient enrichment: methods for marine benthic ecology. International Review of Hydrobiology 85: 359–375.

Further Reading

Carpenter SR (1988) Complex Interactions in Lake Communities. New York: Springer.

Lampert W and Sommer U (1997) Limnoecology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Paine RT (1994) Marine Rocky Shores and Community Ecology: An Experimentalist's Perspective. Oldendorf/Luhe: Ecology Institute.

Tilman D (1982) Resource Competition and Community Structure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Sommer, Ulrich(May 2012) Experimental Systems in Aquatic Ecology. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0003180.pub2]