Ecosystem feedbacks constrain the effect of day-to-day weather variability on land–atmosphere carbon exchange

Whole-ecosystem interactions and feedbacks constrain ecosystem responses to environmental change. The effects of these constraints on responses to climate trends and extreme weather events have been well studied. Here we examine how these constraints respond to changes in day-to-day weather variability without changing the long-term mean weather. Although environmental variability is recognized as a critical factor affecting ecological function, the effects of climate change on day-to-day weather variability and the resultant impacts on ecosystem function are still poorly understood. Changes in weather variability can alter the mean rates of individual ecological processes because many processes respond non-linearly to environmental drivers. We assessed how these individual-process responses to changes in day-to-day weather variability interact with one another at an ecosystem level. We examine responses of arctic tundra to changes in weather variability using stochastic simulations of daily temperature, precipitation, and light to drive a biogeochemical model. Changes in weather variability altered ecosystem carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus stocks and cycling rates in our model. However, responses of some processes (e.g., respiration) were inconsistent with expectations because ecosystem feedbacks can moderate, or even reverse, direct process responses to weather variability. More weather variability led to greater carbon losses from land to atmosphere; less variability led to higher carbon sequestration on land. The magnitude of modeled ecosystem response to weather variability was comparable to that predicted for the effects of climate mean trends by the end of the century.     

Importance of spatial habitat structure on establishment of host defenses against brood parasitism

We used metapopulation dynamics to develop a mathematical simulationmodel for brood parasites and their hosts in order to investigatethe validity of the "spatial habitat structure hypothesis,"which states that a low level of parasite egg rejection in hostpopulations is due to the immigration of acceptor individualsfrom nonparasitized populations. In our model, we varied dispersalrate and the relative carrying capacity of host individualsin parasitized and unparasitized patches. When both the relativecarrying capacity in the parasite-free patch and the dispersalrate increase, the nonparasitized patch will provide more acceptorindividuals to the parasite-prone patch. As the relative carryingcapacity in the parasite-free patch increases, the equilibriumfrequency of rejecters both in the parasite-prone and in theparasite-free patch decreases toward zero for intermediate levelsof the dispersal rate. Although the rejecter strategy is moreadaptive than the acceptor strategy in the parasite-prone patch,large numbers of acceptors are produced in the parasite-freepatch dispersing to the parasitized patch. As the number ofindividuals in the parasite-free patch increases, parasitismrate can be maintained stable at a high equilibrium level inthe parasite-prone patch.     

Size inequality and the tragedy of the commons phenomenon in plant competition

Game theory predicts that the evolutionarily stable level of root production is greater for plants grown with neighbours compared to plants grown alone, even when the available resources per plant are constant. This follows from the fact that for plants grown alone, new roots compete only with other roots on the same plant, whereas for multiple plants grown in a group, new roots can also compete with the roots of other plants, thereby potentially acquiring otherwise unavailable resources at their neighbours’ expense. This phenomenon, which results in plants grown with neighbours over-proliferating roots at the expense of above-ground biomass, has been described as a ‘tragedy of the commons’, and requires that plants can distinguish self from non-self tissues. While this game theoretical model predicts the evolutionarily stable strategies of individual plants, it has only been tested on average allocation patterns of groups of plants. This is problematic, because average patterns can appear to reflect a tragedy of the commons, even when none has occurred. In particular, assuming (1) a decelerating relationship between individual plant biomass and the amount of resources available, and (2) greater size inequality in plants grown with neighbours compared to plants grown alone (due to asymmetric competition), then plants grown with neighbours should, at least on average, be smaller than plants grown alone. This is a manifestation of ‘Jensen’s Inequality’, which states that for decelerating functions, the average value of the function is less than the function of the average value. We suggest that Jensen’s Inequality should serve as an appropriate null hypothesis for examining biologically-based explanations of changes in biomass allocation strategies.