| Literature DB >> 27980349 |
Tjalling Jager1, Iurgi Salaberria2, Dag Altin3, Trond Nordtug4, Bjørn Henrik Hansen4.
Abstract
Mechanistic models are essential tools for interpreting and predicting the consequences of a changing environment and stressors such as pollution on the life histories of marine organisms. Here, we apply the simple and generic energy-budget model DEBkiss to the life history of the marine copepod Calanus finmarchicus. Model modifications were needed to accommodate the copepod life cycle, which deviates in several respects from most other animals (e.g., a sudden stop of growth after the final moult). We identified an acceleration of growth in the early copepodite stages, which could be linked to an increase in the specific feeding rate of the animals. Lipid storage, an essential element of C. finmarchicus biology, was successfully captured with the reproduction buffer of the DEBkiss model. The resulting model was fitted to a detailed data set from the literature and was able to explain growth, development and lipid storage from egg to adult, at different temperatures and food availabilities, within a single consistent framework. The parameterised model could subsequently be used to elucidate the energetic constraints on gonad maturation and reproduction. Interestingly, the overhead costs for egg production seem to be substantially higher than the default value applied in DEB-based studies. The current model provides a solid basis for applications in stress ecology, although our model analysis also identified several knowledge gaps. Specifically, further research is needed to cover the dynamics of diapause and gonad maturation, to explain the dependence of maximum body size on food and temperature, and to verify the predicted high costs for maturity maintenance.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27980349 PMCID: PMC5126210 DOI: 10.1007/s00227-016-3030-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Biol ISSN: 0025-3162 Impact factor: 2.573
General observations on life-history patterns in C. finmarchicus (based on Campbell et al. 2001)
| Observed pattern | |
|---|---|
| 1 | Structural growth stops after the final mould to C6 |
| 2 | Nauplii grow slower than the copepodites (relative to the expected von Bertalanffy pattern) |
| 3 | At higher test temperatures, size at a given stage is smaller than at lower temperatures (at least for copepodites) |
| 4 | At limiting food levels, maximum structural size is smaller (both in terms of length and N content) |
| 5 | Lipid storage becomes evident in the third copepodite stage (C3), and the lipid fraction (indicated by the C/N ratio) increases over time |
| 6 | Initiation of lipid storage has no negative impact on structural growth |
| 7 | At low food levels, little or no lipid storage is built up |
| 8 | Lipid storage declines after the final moult (at least at higher temperatures) |
Model parameters and conversion factors used in this study, which are fixed as a constant (C) or default (D) value, or fitted (F) on the data in Figs. 3 and 4
| Symbol | Explanation | Value (CI) unit (status) |
|---|---|---|
|
| Carbon weight per dry weight (structure) | 0.40 mg/mg (C) |
|
| Nitrogen weight per dry weight (structure) | 0.10 mg/mg (C) |
|
| Dry weight per body volume (structure) | 0.27 mg/mm3 (C) |
|
| Scaled functional response | |
| –Maximum food treatment | 1 [–] (C) | |
| –Medium food treatment | 0.666 (0.651–0.678) [–] (F) | |
| –Low food treatment | 0.548 (0.535–0.561) [–] (F) | |
|
| Maximum area-specific assimilation rate | 0.0852 (0.0832–0.0870) mg/mm2/day (F) |
|
| Volume-specific maturity maintenance rate | 0.268 (0.206–0.281) mg/mm3/day (F) |
|
| Volume-specific somatic maintenance rate | 0.0106 (0.00982–0.0113) mg/mm3/day (F) |
|
| Volumetric length, start development | 0.01 mm (D) |
|
| Volumetric length, puberty (juv. to sub-adult) | 0.303 (0.295–0.308) mm (F) |
|
| Volumetric length, adulthood (final size) | |
| –Maximum food, temperature 4 °C | 1.07 (1.05–1.09) mm (F) | |
| –Maximum food, temperature 8 °C | 1.05 (1.02–1.08) mm (F) | |
| –Maximum food, temperature 12 °C | 0.985 (0.953–1.02) mm (F) | |
| –Medium food, temperature 8 °C | 0.794 (0.771–0.819) mm (F) | |
| –Low food, temperature 8 °C | 0.629 (0.602–0.656) mm (F) | |
|
| Arrhenius temperature | 8200 (8020–8380) K (F) |
|
| Reference temperature (10 °C) | 283 K (C) |
|
| Dry weight of a single egg | 0.48 |
|
| Yield of assimilates on food (carbon) | 0.80 mg/mg (D) |
|
| Yield of egg buffer on assimilates | 0.95 mg/mg (D) |
|
| Yield of structure on assimilates | 0.80 mg/mg (D) |
|
| Factor decrease in assimilation of early stages | 0.535 (0.522–0.547) [–] (F) |
|
| Shape correction coefficient (nauplii/cop.) | 0.44/0.38 [–] (C) |
|
| Fraction allocation to soma | 0.483 (0.464–0.493) [–] (F) |
Confidence intervals for fitted parameters are approximate 95% intervals by profiling the likelihood function. All rate constants are referenced to 10 °C. Note that links volumetric length to total body length of nauplii and prosome length for copepodites
Fig. 1The energy flows in the modified DEBkiss model for each of the four metabolic life stages of C. finmarchicus. Fluxes ( in mg/day) and states ( in day) for each process are explained in Table 2. Switches between the life stages are based on the values of the state variables for egg buffer or body size. The allocation schemes for the adult stage are preliminary and used for the predictions in Fig. 7. Filled circle represents the -rule allocation, with a fraction of the assimilation flux allocated towards the soma (structural growth and somatic maintenance). Note that is completely dissipated and not followed in this model
Specification of the DEBkiss model used in this study
| Fluxes | Model formulation (mg/day) |
|---|---|
| Assimilation (for adults: |
|
| Somatic maintenance (for adults: |
|
| Maturity maintenance (for adults: |
|
| Growth (only embryos, juveniles and sub-adults) |
|
| Maturation (only embryos and juveniles) |
|
| Storage (only sub-adults) |
|
| Egg production (only adults, option A Fig. |
|
Symbols explained in Table 3. Note that for embryos (eggs, N1 and N2) in all treatments, and before puberty, is multiplied by (see Fig. 1)
Fig. 7Left panel reproduction rate versus ingestion rate; data from Båmstedt et al. (1999). Two predictions are shown, option A and option B (with increased egg costs, see text) as explained in Fig. 1. The cross marks the highest feeding and reproduction rates predicted from the model. Right panel reproduction rates versus body length at two temperatures; data from Rey et al. (1999), and only model predictions for option B are plotted
Fig. 3Fit of the model to the data for growth of C. finmarchicus at various temperatures (top) and food levels (bottom). Measured data for C and N content (Campbell et al. 2001) have been translated to volumetric length (conversion factors in Table 3). Left panels length based on N content (structure plus egg buffer). Right panels length based on carbon content (structure, egg buffer, and lipid storage)
Fig. 4Fit of the model to the data for respiration rate in C5 of C. finmarchicus at various temperatures. Measured data from Clarke and Bonnet (1939) fitted simultaneously with the body length data in Fig. 3
Fig. 2Volumetric body length of C. finmarchicus, calculated from N content (representing structural biomass plus egg buffer) and C content (including lipid storage as well) from egg to adulthood (left panel) at 8 °C (data from Campbell et al. 2001). Life stages indicated are Embryo, Juvenile, Sub-adult and Adult (Fig. 1). Straight lines drawn by eye to indicate linearity. Right panel shows a standard (solid line) and truncated (broken line) von Bertalanffy curve on length basis for reference
Fig. 5Consequences of the model fits in Figs. 3 and 4. Left panel comparison of predicted and reported (Campbell et al. 2001) C/N ratios with age. Right panel comparison of the timing of the three switching events in the model (birth, puberty and adulthood, see Fig. 1) to the observed mean start of various life stages (N3, C2 and C6) (Campbell et al. 2001)
Fig. 6Left panel filtration rates for different food sources versus volumetric length (stage N3–C3) at unknown temperature (Marshall and Orr 1956). Model predictions assuming reduced feeding rates (factor from Table 3) until ‘puberty’. Specific filtration rates set to 14 and 18 mL/mm/day for the low and high prediction, respectively, for an approximate fit. Right panel measured ingestion rates (Meyer et al. 2002) versus volumetric length (calculated from reported C content, for stage N4/5-adult). Model predictions using two values for the scaled functional response, the lower estimate providing an approximate fit to the data