Assemblage organization over time prevents invasion success in phytoplankton
Data files
Feb 11, 2026 version files 26.95 KB
Abstract
Invasion plays a central role in long-term species coexistence, sometimes rejuvenating and, at other times, collapsing diversity. Community resistance to invasions depends partly on the community’s species richness and structure, both of which change with community organization over time. Here, we study the resistance of phytoplankton assemblages to invasions based on varied initial species richness and structure, as well as assemblage organization over time. We hypothesize that invasion success will be greater in less organized assemblages and lower in more organized assemblages. To test this, we first experimentally constructed phytoplankton assemblages by mixing natural assemblages from regional lakes and manipulated richness along with a dilutional gradient as part of a large-scale mesocosm experiment. Phytoplankton assemblages from these mesocosms of varying dilution rate were selected and mixed to create unorganized assemblages of high and low richness. We considered these constructed phytoplankton assemblages unorganized because their structures were not the result of ecological interactions. For an invader, we used the green alga Golenkinia radiata, a taxon historically observed in the region but absent from the natural assemblages at the time of sampling. We conducted four sequential invasion experiments, each lasting seven days, initiated with the increasingly organized assemblages of the mesocosms. We found that assemblages, while still unorganized early in succession, were vulnerable to invasions. However, as the assemblages organized with time, they became resistant to invasions. Assemblage richness, which ranged from 23 to 29 in the high-richness mesocosms and from 15 to 24 in the low-richness mesocosms, had only a marginal effect on invasion success. Instead, declining resources, notably phosphorus, reduced diversity, and the emerging dominance of strong competitors near the niche of the G. radiata invader explained the decreased success of invasions as the assemblages organized with time. In the more organized assemblages, G. radiata encountered formidable competitors in established populations of the diatom Nitzschia acicularis and the chrysophyte Synura sp., both of which had higher affinities for phosphorus than G. radiata. Our study highlights that assemblage organization with time plays a fundamental role in phytoplankton species coexistence, including a stronger resistance to invasion as assemblages mature.
Dataset DOI: 10.5061/dryad.73n5tb3bw
Description of the data and file structure
The data are from mesocosm experiments in which artificially assembled phytoplankton communities were allowed to organize over time. Two communities were used, one that started with low diversity and another that started with high diversity. During this period of organization, invasion experiments were conducted using aliquots from these mesocosms. The data is in a workbook. The first worksheet shows the cell count data of the invader from the start and end of the invasion experiment. Four invasion experiments were performed one after the other. The second worksheet shows the species composition of the phytoplankton communities as they organized over time.
File: BEFree_Invasion_Exp_raw_data_plus_comm_data_2_(post_to_Dryad).xlsx
In the first worksheet called 'counts of invader', the population densities of the invader species are shown. In column A, called 'Experiment' the treatments are identified. An 'H' means that the initial phytoplankton diversity was high. An 'M' means that the initial phytoplankton diversity was low. 'zero', '1', and '10' refer to the propagule size of the invasion. There are four groupings designated, each showing the results from the four back-to-back invasion experiments. These are:
1. H - zero invader – First invasion experiment, high diversity mesocosm, no invader added.
1. H - '1' invader – First invasion experiment, high diversity mesocosm, 1% invader propagule.
1. H - '10' invader – First invasion experiment, high diversity mesocosm, 10% invader propagule.
1. M - zero invader – First invasion experiment, low diversity mesocosm, no invader added.
1. M - '1' invader – First invasion experiment, low diversity mesocosm, 1% invader propagule.
1. M - '10' invader – First invasion experiment, low diversity mesocosm, 10% invader propagule.
2. H - zero invader – Second invasion experiment, high diversity mesocosm, no invader added.
2. H - '1' invader – Second invasion experiment, high diversity mesocosm, 1% invader propagule.
2. H - '10' invader – Second invasion experiment, high diversity mesocosm, 10% invader propagule.
2. M - zero invader – Second invasion experiment, low diversity mesocosm, no invader added.
2. M - '1' invader – Second invasion experiment, low diversity mesocosm, 1% invader propagule.
2. M - '10' invader – Second invasion experiment, low diversity mesocosm, 10% invader propagule.
3. H - zero invader – Third invasion experiment, high diversity mesocosm, no invader added.
3. H - '1' invader – Third invasion experiment, high diversity mesocosm, 1% invader propagule.
3. H - '10' invader – Third invasion experiment, high diversity mesocosm, 10% invader propagule.
3. M - zero invader – Third invasion experiment, low diversity mesocosm, no invader added.
3. M - '1' invader – Third invasion experiment, low diversity mesocosm, 1% invader propagule.
3. M - '10' invader – Third invasion experiment, low diversity mesocosm, 10% invader propagule.
4. H - zero invader – Fourth invasion experiment, high diversity mesocosm, no invader added.
4. H - '1' invader – Fourth invasion experiment, high diversity mesocosm, 1% invader propagule.
4. H - '10' invader – Fourth invasion experiment, high diversity mesocosm, 10% invader propagule.
4. M - zero invader – Fourth invasion experiment, low diversity mesocosm, no invader added.
4. M - '1' invader – Fourth invasion experiment, low diversity mesocosm, 1% invader propagule.
4. M - '10' invader – Fourth invasion experiment, low diversity mesocosm, 10% invader propagule.
Still in the first worksheet called 'counts of invader', in columns 'C', 'D', and 'E' are shown the initial cell density of the invader in units of cells per liter, the final cell density of the invader in units of cells per liter, and the proportional change in the invader's cell density of the course of each invasion experiment. Column ‘F’ is the mesocosm identifier, where ‘14’ signifies the mesocosm of high diversity, and ‘15’ signifies the mesocosm of low diversity.
In the second worksheet called 'community data', the population densities of all phytoplankton species are shown. These were the community compositions of the two mesocosms from which waters were used to initiate the invasion experiments. The units of these population densities are µg-carbon per liter. Rows 2 though 6 show the phytoplankton community composition from the high diversity mesocosm, and rows 7 though 11 show the phytoplankton community composition from the low diversity mesocosm. The taxa are:
Achnanthidium minutissimum
Acutodesmus acutiformis
Chlamydomonas incerta
Chlamydomonas sp.
Chlorella like sphere
Chlorella vulgaris
Chlorella-like sphere colony
Chlorococcum infusionum
Chromulina sp.
Chrysochromulina parva
Chrysophyceae small sphere
Cryptomonas obovate
Cryptomonas Phaseolus
Desmodesmus communis
Desmodesmus subspicatus
Diadesmis like chain
Flagellated green sphere
Fragilaria capucina
Fragilaria tenera
Granulocystis verrucosa
Gymnodinium sp.
Hariotina reticulata
Katablepharis sp.
Kirchneriella irregularis
Koliella longiseta
Lanceola spatulifera
Lemmermannia tetrapedia
Lemmermannia triangularis
Mychonastes jurisii
Nephrochlamys subsolitaria
Nitzschia acicularis
Nitzschia gracilis
Nitzschia sp.
Ochromonas sp.
Oocystis borgei
Oocystis marssonii
Plagioselmis lacustris
Plagioselmis nannoplanctica
Pseudopediastrum boryanum
Pseudopedinella sp.
Pseudopedinella sp. (small)
Rhopalodia gibba
Scenedesmus sp.
Synura sp. - single cell
Ulnaria acus
Ulnaria ulna
Still in this second worksheet called 'community data', Columns ‘A’ through ‘F’ indentify the experiment and time. In column ‘A’:
T014 – mesocosm waters at the start of the first invasion experiment from the high-diversity mesocosm.
T114 – mesocosm waters at the start of the second invasion experiment from the high-diversity mesocosm.
T214 – mesocosm waters at the start of the third invasion experiment from the high-diversity mesocosm.
T314 – mesocosm waters at the start of the fourth invasion experiment from the high-diversity mesocosm.
T414 – mesocosm waters at the end of the fourth invasion experiment from the high-diversity mesocosm.
T015 – mesocosm waters at the start of the first invasion experiment from the low-diversity mesocosm.
T115 – mesocosm waters at the start of the second invasion experiment from the low-diversity mesocosm.
T215 – mesocosm waters at the start of the third invasion experiment from the low-diversity mesocosm.
T315 – mesocosm waters at the start of the fourth invasion experiment from the low-diversity mesocosm.
T415 – mesocosm waters at the end of the fourth invasion experiment from the low-diversity mesocosm.
In column ‘B’:
‘14’ – mesocosm identifier for the high-diversity mesocosm.
‘15’ – mesocosm identifier for the low-diversity mesocosm.
In column ‘C’:
‘H’ – mesocosm identifier for the planned high-diversity mesocosm.
‘M’ – mesocosm identifier for a planned middle-diversity mesocosm (which did not result from our pre-treatment).
In column ‘D’:
‘MH’ – mesocosm identifier for the realized high-diversity mesocosm.
‘L’ – mesocosm identifier for the realized low-diversity mesocosm.
In column ‘E’:
“T0” – sampling from the mesocosm at the start of the first invader experiment.
“T1” – sampling from the mesocosm at the start of the second invader experiment.
“T2” – sampling from the mesocosm at the start of the third invader experiment.
“T3” – sampling from the mesocosm at the start of the fourth invader experiment.
“T4” – sampling from the mesocosm at the end of the fourth invader experiment.
In column ‘F’:
“0” – sampling from the mesocosm at the start of the first invader experiment.
“7” – sampling from the mesocosm at the start of the second invader experiment.
“14” – sampling from the mesocosm at the start of the third invader experiment.
“21” – sampling from the mesocosm at the start of the fourth invader experiment.
“28” – sampling from the mesocosm at the end of the fourth invader experiment.
Sharing/Access information
Other publicly accessible locations of the data:
- none
Data was derived from the following sources:
- Cells counts performed in the research labs of the authors
Invasion experiments were initiated at different times using water samples collected from an ongoing mesocosm experiment. That mesocosm experiment had manipulated initial species pool richness from natural phytoplankton assemblages. Those constructed assemblages then organized over time, allowing for these invasion experiments (Figure 1). In the sections below, this is described in detail.
Collection of phytoplankton assemblages
Integrated water column samples were gathered from the euphotic zones of three sub-Alpine lakes in Lower Austria during August 2022. The euphotic zones were estimated using 2.5 times the Secchi depth (Nõges et al. 2010). The lakes included Lake Lunz (N 47°85’37”, E 15°05’23”, dimictic, maximum depth 32 meters), Lake Erlaufsee (N 47°79’30”, E 15°27’08”, dimictic, maximum depth 30 meters), and Lake Purgstall (N 48°09’61”, E 15°13’62”, polymictic, maximum depth 3.5 meters). Samples were sieved through a 100 µm mesh in the field to remove large zooplankton and were then transported to a mesocosm facility at the Biological Station of WasserCluster Lunz, Lunz am See. Lake assemblages were mixed and further sieved through a 55 µm mesh to eliminate microzooplankton. Consequently, an unorganized and species-rich assemblage was formed, which was then distributed into several mesocosm containers.
Making of unorganized assemblages, high and low richness, in mesocosms
The mesocosms were situated outdoors, with a volume of 320 liters, and constructed from food-safe polyethylene (ARICON Kunststoffwerk GmbH, Solingen, Germany). They rested on a gravel bed in an unshaded meadow (N 47°85’45”, E 15°06’76”). The water in each mesocosm was continuously, but gently, circulated using an airlift. The mesocosms were insulated with mineral wool to mitigate daily temperature fluctuations and covered with a 250 µm-mesh net to minimize the introduction of particles and other species.
To create unorganized assemblages of varying species richness, mesocosms were first maintained for a three-week period hosting the initial regional species pool inoculum at five different dilution rates in duplicate. The dilutions spanned a gradient of 0.066 d-1 to 0.505 d-1. The approach excluded slower-growing and rare taxa from the initial species rich pool in response to dilution rates (Hammerstein et al., 2017), and successfully created a richness gradient. From assemblages of varied richness at the end of the three-week period, mixtures of varied proportions were used to further enhance the species richness gradient. By creating mixtures, any assemblage organization that had occurred during the previous three weeks was undone. These remixed assemblages were monitored for four weeks (see Smeti et al. In Preparation). It is during this four-week period that the invasion experiments were conducted. Two remixed assemblages —one with the highest and another with the lowest species richness— were utilized for our invasion experiment.
Design of the invasion experiments
Invasion experiments were conducted in 2.5-liter transparent plastic spouted bags (PET/NY/LDPE material, DaklaPack®), that were started on days 0, 7, 14, and 21 of the four-week mesocosm experiment described in Smeti et al. (In Preparation), with each lasting seven days. These experiments were initiated using assemblages collected from the high- and low-richness mesocosms, resulting in each invasion experiment being conducted with a progressively organized assemblage. The invader species used was Golenkina radiata Chodat, a species common to the region but absent from the mixed assemblages in the mesocosms. Two invasion propagules were explored, comprising 1% and 10% of the resident assemblage’s biomass, determined fluorometrically. Treatments and controls, with no added G. radiata, were performed in triplicate. Phytoplankton enumeration, which included determining population densities and cellular volumes for all taxa, was performed at the start of each invasion experiment, along with measurements for chlorophyll a (Chl-a), total phosphorus (TP), soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2), and ammonium (NH4). Cell counts of the G. radiata culture were also performed at these times.
Parameter measurements
To determine the volume of culture needed to produce our target invader propagules in the invader experiments, phytoplankton biomass estimates were made from the mesocosms and in the G. radiata culture. We used chlorophyll a as a proxy for biomass. We measured chlorophyll a in vivo using autofluorescence. A hand-held AquaPen-C AP-C 100 PSI (Drásov, Czech Republic) fluorometer, along with a 20-minute dark adaptation period, was employed for measurements of autofluorescence.
An analytical method for measuring Chl-a samples was also employed, conducted twice per week in the mesocosms, with one of the weekly measurements coinciding with the start times of the invasion experiments. In these instances, water was passed through GF/F filters (Whatman, pore size: 0.7 μm), extracted in acetone, stored at -20 °C until analyses, and then analyzed using a fluorescence method without phaeophytin correction (Arar and Collins, 1997).
For nutrients, TP was measured using an ascorbic acid colorimetric method (Hansen and Koroleff, 1999) after persulfate digestion (Clesceri et al., 1999). The detection limit of this method was 0.2 µg liter-1. A FLOWSYS Continuous Flow Analyzer (CFA, SYSTEA, Italy) was used for the measurements of NO3, NO2, NH4, and SRP with detection limits of 100 µg-N liter-1, 1 µg-N liter-1, 2 µg-N liter-1, and 0.04 µg-P liter-1, respectively. Nutrients were measured at least twice per week in the mesocosms, with one of the weekly measurements coinciding with the start times of the invasion experiments.
Samples for phytoplankton enumeration were collected twice weekly from the mesocosms and preserved in Lugol’s iodine solution, with sampling coinciding with the start times of the invasion experiments. Phytoplankton samples were analyzed according to Utermöhl method (1958) and Lund et al. (1958), using an Axio Observer 7 (Zeiss, International) inverted microscope at 400x magnification. Counts included 400 sedimentation units. Taxon-specific median biovolume for each species per sample was calculated using approximate geometrical forms (Hillebrand et al., 1999), based on at least 20 measurements for dominant taxa. Biovolume was converted to biomass by assuming a density of 1 g ml-1.
Calculations and Analyses
In this study, species richness refers to the number of taxa identified in our microscopic enumeration. Using the number of taxa and the biomass densities, diversity and evenness were determined with the Shannon Index (Shannon 1948) and Pielou's Index (Pielou 1966), respectively. Resource use efficiency (RUE) was calculated as ln(Chl-a/TP) following Ptacnik et al. (2008). The productivity of the phytoplankton assemblage was calculated as the total biomass change in the mesocosm divided by the initial total biomass for seven-day periods coinciding with the invasion experiments. The invasion success was assessed by the change in G. radiata biomass density in a bag divided by the biomass density of the added G. radiata. Large proportional changes were considered high invasion success (here in the 200-300% range), lower proportional changes were considered lower invasion success (here in the ~100% range), and decreases in the proportional changes were considered as unsuccessful invasion outcomes (here in the -50% to -100% range).
Invasion success into increasingly organized assemblages was assessed using one-way ANOVAs with Tukey’s post hoc tests and smooth spline models. Four data arrangements were explored with these tests based on the t0, t7, t14, and t21 invasion experiments that began with high- and low-species richness, and at 1% and 10% invader propagules. These statistics were performed using the Statistics Toolbox in the MATLAB programming language.
Relationships between invasion success, measures of assemblage structure (richness, evenness, diversity), performance (biomass, RUE, production), and nutrient availability (SRP, TP, NO3, NO2, NH4) at the 1% and 10% invader propagule levels were explored using multiple linear regression models. To achieve this, we created regression models representing all combinations of the measured parameters, omitting models that had diversity included with either richness or evenness, as diversity is calculated from those. So, the regression model that included all considered parameters (omitting diversity) took the form:
Invasion = a0 + a1Richness + a2Evenness + a3*Biomass (1)
+ a4RUE + a5Production + a6SRP + a7TP
+ a8NO3 + a9NO2 + a10*NH4
and the regression model that included all considered parameters (omitting richness and evenness) took the form:
Invasion = a0 + a1Diversity + a2Biomass + a3RUE + a4Production (2)
+ a5SRP + a6TP + a7NO3 + a8NO2 + a9*NH4
where a0 through a10 were coefficients of the regression models. The root mean square errors (RMSEs) of all models were then used to determine the best models, with the lowest RMSE indicating the optimal model. We explored these regression models using both raw data and z-scored data. These regression models were performed using the Statistics Toolbox in the MATLAB programming language.
The relationships between invasion success and species composition of assemblages at 1% and 10% invader propagule levels were investigated using Principal Component Analysis. There are many taxa observed in these experiments. The multivariate analysis, here PCA, shows which taxa negatively associate with invasion success, suggesting which taxa are likely bringing about poor invader outcomes. To achieve this, a covariance matrix was created from the z-scored species biomasses and invasion success data from the invasion experiments using a 1% propagule, and another covariance matrix was generated from the invasion experiments using a 10% propagule. PCAs were conducted using the Statistics Toolbox in the MATLAB programming language.
The distribution of P-affinities was used to explore if lumpy coexistence was occurring in these assemblages, as this is a factor important to invasion success. The P-affinities can also be used to identify like competitors. Distribution of the taxa in each assemblage along the P-affinity gradient was estimated using log10(cell volume), based on the assumption that body size distributions represent niche differentiations (Scheffer and van Nes 2006, Segura et al. 2011, 2013, Muhl et al. 2018, Graco‐Roza et al. 2021). Nutrient affinities for each taxon were estimated using the bioinformatics-driven online tool Phyto-PhlyoPars (Bruggeman et al. 2009, Bruggeman 2011). Our focus was on phosphorus affinity (P-affinity), since nitrogen was less influential in these experiments (to be shown).
