ISIS Report 09/02/04
Energy, Productivity & Biodiversity
Generations of ecologists have puzzled over the causes of
biodiversity and its relationship with productivity.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho investigates.
Sources
for this report are available in the ISIS members site.
Full details here
"Why are there so many kinds of animals?"
This was the question asked by distinguished ecologist Evelyn Hutchinson
in 1959, the centenary of Darwin’s Origin of Species, a question
that has remained as enigmatic today as it was then.
There are about a million described species of animals, three-quarters
of them being insects, of which disproportionately large numbers belong to the
order Coleoptera, or beetles. In contrast to land animals, there are far fewer
species in the sea.
Hutchinson considered a number of possible explanations. Could food
chains or feeding relationships suffice? If one supposes an energy conversion
efficiency of 20% at every link of the chain, and each predator being twice as
big as its prey, the fifth animal link will have a population of one ten
thousandth (10-4) of the first, which is about as long as it would
get. Food chains could hardly generate a great deal of biodiversity.
Natural selection isn’t going to help; an overly efficient predator
will simply eat itself out of prey, thus breaking the link and making itself
extinct in the process. While lengthening the chain is difficult, shortening
the chain is not, the most dramatic example is the whale-bone whale, which can
feed largely on plankton.
What about the diversity of terrestrial plants which provide a variety
of different structures - bark, leaves, flowers and fruits - for different
animals to feed on. A major source of biodiversity of land animals was indeed
introduced by the evolution of almost 200 000 species of flowering plants, and
the three-quarters of a million species of insects are a product of that
diversity. But then, why are there so many different kinds of plants?
Part of the answer is that instead of linear food-chains, nature is
replete with food-webs. Most predators eat more than one species of
prey, which reduces the danger that it will eat its prey and itself extinct.
So, at least part of the answer to why there are so many kinds of animals and
plants is that biodiverse communities are better able to persist than less
diverse communities. And that was the origin of the idea that complex
ecosystems are more stable, which has been hotly debated to this day. While it
may be intuitively obvious that the more flexible the links in the
foodweb, the less likely they will break; mathematicians find it
extraordinarily difficult to represent such flexibility, and more so, to agree
what constitutes stability, let alone complexity.
Energy available?
Going back to biodiversity, ecologists have long noticed that while a
hectare of tropical rainforest contains an estimated 200 to 300 species of
trees, the same area of temperate forest contains only 20-30 species. One
hypothesis is that diversity is ultimately determined by the amount of energy
available to an ecosystem. Support for this idea came from measures of
productivity and biodiversity in different ecological communities. Productivity
is the rate of production of biomass by an ecosystem, and is in general
determined by the rate of energy supply.
High proportions of land and freshwater species on earth do occur in
the tropics, which receive the highest amount of the sun’s radiant energy.
Average species richness increases from high to low latitudes and this has been
documented for a wide spectrum of taxonomic groups, including protists
(single-celled organisms), trees, ants, woodpeckers and primates, and for data
across a range of spatial resolutions. Species richness also appears to
increase with energy, measured as mean annual temperature, and
evapotranspiration.
But that doesn’t seem to be the whole story. Relationship between
diversity and productivity was found to vary at different spatial scales. At
large geographical scale, such as across continents in the same latitude,
diversity generally increases with productivity. At smaller local scales
(metres to kilometers), several different patterns emerge.
Early studies found biodiversity peaking at intermediate levels of
productivity in a unimodal curve (a curve with a single hump). More recent
reviews came up with a variety of relationships, with diversity increasing,
decreasing or remaining unchanged as productivity increases. Although some of
these patterns suggest that energy is causally involved, other factors may also
be important, such as environmental heterogeneity: spatial or temporal
variation in the physical, chemical or biological features of the
environment.
Complexity of the environment?
In a simple lab experiment, the bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens
was used to test the relationship between environmental heterogeneity and
diversity. This bacterium is known to rapidly differentiate into distinct
‘morphs’ in different microhabitats in unmixed culture vessels. One
major morph flourishes at the interface between air and the liquid growth
medium, another does best in the center of the culture vessel and a third
occupies the bottom of the vessel. The researchers found that there are further
variations within each major morph, so that a total of ten types can be
distinguished. Shaking the vessel eliminated environmental heterogeneity and,
with it, diversity. With a gradient of productivity, a unimodal diversity curve
was obtained. In other words, diversity increased with energy available up to a
point, and then decreased as available energy increased further.
Ecosystems typically consist of plants and animal species of vastly
different sizes, from big mammals to birds, insects and microbes in the soil,
which would use resource that matches their size. Thus, the more finely the
species can divide up space and resources, the more species can coexist in the
same habitat. But how best to represent this environmental heterogeneity?
Mark Ritchie from the University of Utah, Logan, in the United States,
and Han Olff in Wageningen Agricultural University, in the Netherlands,
reasoned that the distributions of habitat, food and resources often appear to
be statistically self-similar over three to four orders of magnitude. If so,
their volume or area can be described with fractal geometry.
A fractal is a structure that has dimensions in between the usual 1, 2
or 3; and ‘self-similar’ refers to the property that the structure
appears the same over many scales. Typical examples are fern leaves, branching
blood vessels and the coastline.
In a fractal environment, body size determines the abundance of food
and resources that a species perceives, and it sets limits to the similarity in
body size between any two species. Ritchie and Olff derived a body size ratio
between species of adjacent sizes that declines with increasing organism size.
That in turn predicts how diverse the community can be.
Thus, energy, productivity and environmental heterogeneity all appear
to play a role in creating biodiversity.
In the next article ("Why are organisms so complex?"
this series), I shall show how biodiversity and productivity are intimately
linked through energy capture and storage in a sustainable system.
| 
