title: Evolution of nutrient acquisition: when adaptation fills the gap between contrasting ecological theories.
abstract: Although plant strategies for acquiring nutrients have been widely studied from a functional point of view, their evolution is still not well understood. In this study, we investigate the evolutionary dynamics of these strategies and determine how they influence ecosystem properties. To do so, we use a simple nutrient-limited ecosystem model in which plant ability to take up nutrients is subject to adaptive dynamics. We postulate the existence of a trade-off between this ability and mortality. We show that contrasting strategies are possible as evolutionary outcomes, depending on the shape of the trade-off and, when nitrogen is considered as the limiting nutrient, on the intensity of symbiotic fixation. Our model enables us to bridge these evolutionary outcomes to classical ecological theories such as Hardin's tragedy of the commons and Tilman's rule of R*. Evolution does not systematically maximize plant biomass or primary productivity. On the other hand, each evolutionary outcome leads to a decrease in the availability of the limiting mineral nutrient, supporting the work of Tilman on competition between plants for a single resource. Our model shows that evolution can be used to link different classical ecological results and that adaptation may influence ecosystem properties in contrasted ways.
authors.affiliation: Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7618, Ecole Normale Supérieure, 46 Rue d'Ulm, 75230 Paris Cedex 05, France. boudsocq@biologie.ens.fr
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Boudsocq
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Barot
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Loeuille
mesh_terms: D018533:Biomass; D017753:Ecosystem; D008954:Models, Biological; D009584:Nitrogen / Q000378:metabolism*; D010944:Plants / Q000378:metabolism*
chemical_list: D009584:Nitrogen
references.citation: Am Nat. 1998 Jan;151(1):20-8
references.pmid: 18811421
references.citation: Theor Popul Biol. 2004 May;65(3):285-98
references.pmid: 15066424
references.citation: Science. 2009 Apr 24;324(5926):481-4
references.pmid: 19390038
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Jun;23(6):311-7
references.pmid: 18439707
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2007 Nov;10(11):1046-53
references.pmid: 17910623
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 1997 Apr 7;185(3):333-43
references.pmid: 9156083
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1992 Oct;7(10):336-9
references.pmid: 21236058
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1992 Jun;7(6):198-202
references.pmid: 21236007
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2008 Oct;11(10):1072-81
references.pmid: 18727670
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2007 Dec;22(12):643-51
references.pmid: 17981363
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1997 Apr;12(4):128-31
references.pmid: 21238006
references.citation: J Math Biol. 1996;34(5-6):556-78
references.pmid: 8691085
references.citation: Science. 1969 Apr 18;164(3877):262-70
references.pmid: 5776636
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Feb 5;105(5):1573-8
references.pmid: 18223153
references.citation: Acta Biotheor. 2005;53(3):241-64
references.pmid: 16329010
references.citation: Monogr Popul Biol. 1982;17:1-296
references.pmid: 7162524
references.citation: Science. 1968 Dec 13;162(3859):1243-8
references.pmid: 5699198
references.citation: J Math Biol. 1996;34(5-6):579-612
references.pmid: 8691086
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2002 Aug 7;217(3):369-81
references.pmid: 12270280
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2009 Mar 7;257(1):104-15
references.pmid: 19068219
references.citation: Evolution. 1994 Dec;48(6):1764-1772
references.pmid: 28565149
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2007 May;22(5):250-7
references.pmid: 17296244