Hi all,
First off, thanks Anita for keeping the ball rolling!
I think we should aim for a TREE review. I’ve put a few references in the dropbox under 'useful references' folder. In the past few years there have been a several pertinent TREE reviews that might be similar to our efforts:
1. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. (Riess et al. 2009)
2. Synthesis between community ecology and evolution (Johnson and Stinchcombe 2007)
3. Niches (Pearman 2007)
4. Evolutionary ecology of metacommunities (Urban et al. 2007)
5. Community assembly and phylogenies (Emerson and Gillespie 2008)
I suggest that we all read these to get an idea of what we can do.
Because of the recent review of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (Reiss 2009), I think we need to take a slightly different approach. BEF theory has been one way to study how complex ecological networks shape ecosystems, but it largely ignores the non-trophic interactions (e.g. nutrient cycling) that could regulate biogeochemical processes, and largely ignores evolutionary dynamics.
The Johnson and Stinchcombe paper describes how ecology and evolution can be brought together. The Reiss review describes how ecology and ecosystems can be brought together.
I think our review should try address how evolutionary processes can shape ecosystem dynamics, and by doing so complete the circle and show how ecosystem science can be integrated with both ecology AND evolution.
As an example, mone of these reviews really talk much about how species can affect ecosystem processes, and how that can change ecological or evolutionary dynamics in the ecosystem. Recent reviews of eco-evolutionary dynamics (Post and Palkovacs 2009) discuss this a little bit, but mostly focus on how adaptations of consumers can shape the structure of prey communities, and how this can feedback on the consumer’s evolution. But this is a narrow subset of the possible ecological and evolutionary effects that adaptation of a consumer can have. Consumer evolution can also shape the evolutionary dynamics of other members of the food web.
Here is a list of specific things that could make it into the Review (in an arbitrary order):
1. I think the modeling we have done so far could be put into a ‘Box’ of a review paper (see attached PDF). The model can have a very general structure, but should be used to make one or two very specific points (as Anita suggests below). This should be done very succinctly, and serve as an example of what can be done in the future.
2. I also think we could summarize empirical studies into a ‘Table’ (see Table 1 Emerson and Gillespie). Here we could provide examples of how species adaptations, or changes in their traits, can affect various aspects of the food web. For example, at the species level we could talk about how alewives affect prey distributions (Post and Palkovacs), stickles affect prey and DOC dynamics (Hamon), Daphnia change supply ratios of nutrients (Elser). At the community level, we could talk about how species turnover (e.g. From Daphnia to copepods) change change supply points, or how trait changes in prey affect population dynamics (Hairston). I dunno, these are just some ideas about how to put all this together.
3. We already have a good start for a conceptual figure that ties it all together. Right now it is focusses on a nutrient cycling idea, ZNGIs, and adaptive landscapes.
4. We could also use a box describing ZNGI's and why they are a useful tool to understand ecosystem effects of species.
5. We could also use a box describing adaptive landscapes, and how they can be modified by food web interactions.
6. Maybe we could have a more general figure of why we think ecosystem science is useful for ecology and evolution (this could include a microbial dimension).
7. We could also use a box describing a sample experimental design (See Figure 2 of Reiss 2009)
7. We definitely need a section on how microbial communities could play a central role in linking biogeochemical processes with food web dynamics. Microbes are entirely ignored from Reiss (2009), although they have been useful in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning research.
8. We need a glossary of terms.
9. Oh and we need a title and a main purpose. How about: "The evolutionary ecology of ecosystem functioning".
10. an outline of the ideas in the main text
Any thoughts, or volunteers for helping with these sections?
Cheers,
Blake
>>>
Questions put forth about the modeling from Anita:
>>>
I think the question that you're asking with the model is interesting, and maybe it's what the model was designed to ask. However, it would be nice to present the model and give a couple of examples as to how it could be used to explore some of question we want to address in our paper (at least as I see them):
1) How does an ecological interaction (competition) change an ecosystem function (let's say nutrient recycling)?
2) How does an ecological interaction (competition) change an adaptive landscape (this could be the change in nutrient supply point - or change in the biotic community - i.e. extinction of species)?
3) Does the altered adaptive landscape (change in nutrient supply point) alter ecological interactions (competition)?
4) Does the altered adaptive landscape - and resulting evolution - change the effect that competition has on ecosystem function?
Obviously answering all of these questions will take a huge amount of modeling and it will depend on the swath of parameter space that we pick to study and community structure. However, if we could even come up with answers to these questions for the simplest imagninabe community (2 or 3 coexisting phytoplankton species) in whatever part of parameter space works (i.e. can provide solutions) we can leave more in depth analysis for others interested in the model.
If we can derive answers to these simple questions, then we could add a trophic level (zooplankton). We could then ask how plasticity in phytoplankton stoichiometry affects 1-4 above on the primary producer trophic level compared to how the relatively fixed stoichiometry of zooplankton affects 1-4above on the primary consumer trophic level.
Regarding biogeography - I have the feeling that we could leave this to some good hand-waving and make suggestions as to where people in the future should take your model. For instance we could suggest creating local communities of varying levels of 'saturation' (i.e. fewer species than limiting nutrients or something) and connect them with dispersal and see how this affects competition, supply point (adaptive landscape), ecosystem function (nutrient recycling) etc.
I think the key is to start simple - few species, 1 trophic level in a closed, local community. HOwever, I don't think it's going to be enough to just present the model. I think for it to be a significant contribution, we need to show why or how it can be used to address the questions we are posing in our synthesis paper. This is just my two cents. What do you think? How feasible would it be to answer 1-4 using the Fox-Vasseur model? If you want me to do some modeling let me know. I am equipped now that I took that math class, although you'd have to bring me up to speed on what you've already done.
A
First off, thanks Anita for keeping the ball rolling!
I think we should aim for a TREE review. I’ve put a few references in the dropbox under 'useful references' folder. In the past few years there have been a several pertinent TREE reviews that might be similar to our efforts:
1. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. (Riess et al. 2009)
2. Synthesis between community ecology and evolution (Johnson and Stinchcombe 2007)
3. Niches (Pearman 2007)
4. Evolutionary ecology of metacommunities (Urban et al. 2007)
5. Community assembly and phylogenies (Emerson and Gillespie 2008)
I suggest that we all read these to get an idea of what we can do.
Because of the recent review of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (Reiss 2009), I think we need to take a slightly different approach. BEF theory has been one way to study how complex ecological networks shape ecosystems, but it largely ignores the non-trophic interactions (e.g. nutrient cycling) that could regulate biogeochemical processes, and largely ignores evolutionary dynamics.
The Johnson and Stinchcombe paper describes how ecology and evolution can be brought together. The Reiss review describes how ecology and ecosystems can be brought together.
I think our review should try address how evolutionary processes can shape ecosystem dynamics, and by doing so complete the circle and show how ecosystem science can be integrated with both ecology AND evolution.
As an example, mone of these reviews really talk much about how species can affect ecosystem processes, and how that can change ecological or evolutionary dynamics in the ecosystem. Recent reviews of eco-evolutionary dynamics (Post and Palkovacs 2009) discuss this a little bit, but mostly focus on how adaptations of consumers can shape the structure of prey communities, and how this can feedback on the consumer’s evolution. But this is a narrow subset of the possible ecological and evolutionary effects that adaptation of a consumer can have. Consumer evolution can also shape the evolutionary dynamics of other members of the food web.
Here is a list of specific things that could make it into the Review (in an arbitrary order):
1. I think the modeling we have done so far could be put into a ‘Box’ of a review paper (see attached PDF). The model can have a very general structure, but should be used to make one or two very specific points (as Anita suggests below). This should be done very succinctly, and serve as an example of what can be done in the future.
2. I also think we could summarize empirical studies into a ‘Table’ (see Table 1 Emerson and Gillespie). Here we could provide examples of how species adaptations, or changes in their traits, can affect various aspects of the food web. For example, at the species level we could talk about how alewives affect prey distributions (Post and Palkovacs), stickles affect prey and DOC dynamics (Hamon), Daphnia change supply ratios of nutrients (Elser). At the community level, we could talk about how species turnover (e.g. From Daphnia to copepods) change change supply points, or how trait changes in prey affect population dynamics (Hairston). I dunno, these are just some ideas about how to put all this together.
3. We already have a good start for a conceptual figure that ties it all together. Right now it is focusses on a nutrient cycling idea, ZNGIs, and adaptive landscapes.
4. We could also use a box describing ZNGI's and why they are a useful tool to understand ecosystem effects of species.
5. We could also use a box describing adaptive landscapes, and how they can be modified by food web interactions.
6. Maybe we could have a more general figure of why we think ecosystem science is useful for ecology and evolution (this could include a microbial dimension).
7. We could also use a box describing a sample experimental design (See Figure 2 of Reiss 2009)
7. We definitely need a section on how microbial communities could play a central role in linking biogeochemical processes with food web dynamics. Microbes are entirely ignored from Reiss (2009), although they have been useful in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning research.
8. We need a glossary of terms.
9. Oh and we need a title and a main purpose. How about: "The evolutionary ecology of ecosystem functioning".
10. an outline of the ideas in the main text
Any thoughts, or volunteers for helping with these sections?
Cheers,
Blake
>>>
Questions put forth about the modeling from Anita:
>>>
I think the question that you're asking with the model is interesting, and maybe it's what the model was designed to ask. However, it would be nice to present the model and give a couple of examples as to how it could be used to explore some of question we want to address in our paper (at least as I see them):
1) How does an ecological interaction (competition) change an ecosystem function (let's say nutrient recycling)?
2) How does an ecological interaction (competition) change an adaptive landscape (this could be the change in nutrient supply point - or change in the biotic community - i.e. extinction of species)?
3) Does the altered adaptive landscape (change in nutrient supply point) alter ecological interactions (competition)?
4) Does the altered adaptive landscape - and resulting evolution - change the effect that competition has on ecosystem function?
Obviously answering all of these questions will take a huge amount of modeling and it will depend on the swath of parameter space that we pick to study and community structure. However, if we could even come up with answers to these questions for the simplest imagninabe community (2 or 3 coexisting phytoplankton species) in whatever part of parameter space works (i.e. can provide solutions) we can leave more in depth analysis for others interested in the model.
If we can derive answers to these simple questions, then we could add a trophic level (zooplankton). We could then ask how plasticity in phytoplankton stoichiometry affects 1-4 above on the primary producer trophic level compared to how the relatively fixed stoichiometry of zooplankton affects 1-4above on the primary consumer trophic level.
Regarding biogeography - I have the feeling that we could leave this to some good hand-waving and make suggestions as to where people in the future should take your model. For instance we could suggest creating local communities of varying levels of 'saturation' (i.e. fewer species than limiting nutrients or something) and connect them with dispersal and see how this affects competition, supply point (adaptive landscape), ecosystem function (nutrient recycling) etc.
I think the key is to start simple - few species, 1 trophic level in a closed, local community. HOwever, I don't think it's going to be enough to just present the model. I think for it to be a significant contribution, we need to show why or how it can be used to address the questions we are posing in our synthesis paper. This is just my two cents. What do you think? How feasible would it be to answer 1-4 using the Fox-Vasseur model? If you want me to do some modeling let me know. I am equipped now that I took that math class, although you'd have to bring me up to speed on what you've already done.
A