Is developmental mode an important determinant of dispersal distance?
Marine benthic organisms dispersal ability is widely thought to influence species geographic range (Emlet, 1995), and species with greater potential for dispersal are expected to establish and maintain larger ranges than comparable species with more restricted dispersal capabilities (Lester and Ruttenberg, 2005). This potential has been viewed as the multifaceted consequences of variations in developmental mode, dispersing particle size and fecundity (FOGGO et al., 2007), and is termed ‘propagule pressure’. Dispersal can also contribute to population rates of growth, gene flow and species persistence (Lowe and Allendorf, 2010). Therefore assessing the effects of dispersal is critical to our understanding population biology and evolution in natural systems (Hanski et al., 1997, Wright, 1949). It should be noted here to avoid confusion between the concepts of dispersal and dispersion, that dispersal is a process, the movement of individuals from one place to another, whereas dispersion is the state, or pattern created by the dispersal of said individuals (Armstrong, 1977). Marine communities are comprised of taxa with hugely varied reproductive mechanisms (Grantham et al., 2003), and many marine invertebrates have biphasic life histories, meaning they often disperse as mobile planktonic larvae and then mature to a sedentary benthic existence as they progress into adulthood (Lester and Ruttenberg, 2005).
There are generally three main types of developmental strategy (or developmental mode) described in relation to the types of mechanism specific taxa employ whilst in the planktonic stage of development, they can be: (a) planktotrophic – larvae derive nutrition from outside (exogenic) sources, normally from predation of other planktonic taxa; (b) lecithotrophic – larvae feed off yolk from maternal provisioning for a least some of their time in the plankton (endogenic sources); (c) non-planktonic development – larvae either develop demersally, eggs are brooded maternally, or the species is viviparous – the young have developed inside the body of a parent (Rundle et al., 2007) (e.g. Nucella sp., Cerithideopsis sp.) . This simple grounds of division represents an over generalization however (Poulin et al., 2001), for example some planktotrophs develop feeding structures during their planktonic phase, commencing development from maternal provisioning (Miner et al., 2005) whilst others in the case of some Echinoderms, are primarily lecithotrophic but become facultatively planktotrophic (Strathmann, 1987). These developmental modes can differ immensely in duration of developmental period and/or time in the plankton itself.
Feeding larvae generally spend weeks to months in the plankton; nonfeeding, pelagic larvae spend hours to days; and nonpelagic larvae spend little or no time in the water column at all (Emlet, 1995, Grantham et al., 2003). These differing lengths of time spent in the water column therefore have the ability to influence geographic range. This may not be the case for all species though, and it does seem to depend on the species being focussed on. For example, free swimming invertebrate taxa with long planktonic durations are thought to have large geographic ranges. However for fishes, studies on several species showed a negative relationship between larval duration and geographic range when compared to other zooplankton, possibly due to self-recruitment (Lester and Ruttenberg, 2005).
The length of time spent in the plankton – the planktonic larval duration (PLD) has been put forward as a possible predictor of dispersal distance (Grantham et al., 2003). The longer an organisms PLD, the further the species should technically be able to disperse before requiring to settle. This dispersal potential in marine macroinvertebrates is primarily determined by the potential for passive movement as either adults or larvae (Bradbury and Snelgrove, 2001, Emlet, 1995). Planktotrophs tend to be the smallest in size, are produced in the highest numbers and tend to have the longest PLD – as such they should have the potential for the longest geographic range (Bradbury and Snelgrove, 2001, Emlet, 1995, Jeffery and Emlet, 2003, Paulay and Meyer, 2006). Lecithotrophs however tend to be smaller in adulthood, and have faster developing eggs that are larger, with an intermediate dispersal potential (Emlet, 1995, Strathmann, 1987). Non-planktonic larvae tend to be the smallest in adulthood, and have the largest effective dispersing particle sizes. Planktonic larvae could buffer oscillations in populations, which may be a useful process to minimise extinctions on a local scale (Eckert, 2003, Emlet, 1995).
As a general rule, it appears that the dispersal range potential for marine invertebrates is planktotrophs > lecithotrophs > non-planktonic developers (FOGGO et al., 2007). PLD is however taxon specific and as such can be influenced by temperature among other environmental factors, also, dispersal distance can be season, species and location specific as well (Cowen and Sponaugle, 2009). Actually quantifying this dispersal and connectivity is no mean feat however, due to the small size of larvae and huge and complex environment that is the world’s oceans (Cowen and Sponaugle, 2009). A recent study estimated dispersal distance across a large variety of organisms, this showed some larvae disperse only meters, with others dispersing more than 1000 km, some fish species dispersed less than 100 km, and less distance still for some coastal invertebrates and plants (Kinlan and Gaines, 2003). Available nutrients and water temperature play a pivotal role in dictating the PLD of some species (Houde, 1989, Pepin, 1991, Rombough, 1997). Production of offspring requires adults to be sufficiently healthy, and seasonal changes in water temperature and therefore productivity more often than not kick-start the production of young (Cowen and Sponaugle, 2009). These environmental conditions influence egg and therefore larval quality – and in turn larval survival (Berkeley et al., 2004, McCormick, 2006).
So what factors other than developmental mode can influence dispersal and therefore geographic range in marine larvae? Many evolutionary and ecologically based explanations have been suggested, including niche breadth and environmental tolerance, latitude, body size, population abundance, environmental variability, colonization and extinction dynamics and dispersal ability to name a few (Brown et al., 1996, Gaston, 1996, Gaston, 2003, Stevens, 1989, Rundle et al., 2007). The effect of dispersal ability on geographic range has been hypothesized to either come from an evolutionary perspective; where gene flow arising from dispersal affects rates of adaptation, speciation and extinction locally, or from an ecological perspective; where it is viewed as a life-history trait that influences demography and colonization (Lester et al., 2007). Although commonly suggested to play an important part in the influencing of species geographical ranges (Brown et al., 1996, Gaston, 1996), dispersal has not really been explained or evaluated (Lester et al., 2007). Lester et al., 2007 penned three main mechanistic hypotheses that could predict a positive dispersal ability range – size relationship. First the site colonisation hypothesis: where species with a dispersal ability that is limited may struggle to colonize or supply individuals to distant sites, regardless of the suitability of said sites (Wellington and Victor, 1989). Likewise, the dynamics of metapopulations (Hanski and Parmesan, 1999) could lead to limited dispersers having smaller ranges when they have lower rates of recolonization – and therefore a smaller number of equilibrium sites at the range margin (Lester et al., 2007). Whereas the metapopulation ‘rescue effect’ (Brown and Kodric-Brown, 1977), where immigration from ‘source’ populations maintain ‘sink’ populations that could go extinct. This could perhaps affect how far sink populations at ranges edges extend the overall range size (Lester et al., 2007). Secondarily the speciation rate hypothesis: where species with low dispersal abilities could suffer greater isolation and therefore lower gene flow among populations. This decreased gene flow could potentially increase likelihood of adaptation locally, and therefore the probability of speciation (Hansen, 1980, Jablonski, 1986, Lester et al., 2007, Shuto, 1974), therefore higher rates of speciation could lead to smaller geographical ranges if the speciation process leads to a small starting range as the new species will not have had enough time to expand their geographic range (Hansen, 1980, Lester and Ruttenberg, 2005, Lester et al., 2007). Finally, the selection hypothesis: Species that have small geographical ranges could experience selection for decreasing dispersal, if there is no benefit to larger dispersal ranges, or if the cost out-weighs the benefits at least (Gaston, 2003, Lester et al., 2007). Lester et al., 2007 analysed two data sets and revealed that in most cases the ability of an organism to disperse is of very little value when trying to predict range size. However, when interrogated at smaller scales (Lester and Ruttenberg, 2005), some tropical reef fishes dispersal ability is a driver of range size in the Indo-Pacific. Interestingly, they found that the species that have to disperse over significant barriers to dispersal have longer PLD’s than species who have ranges that do not (Lester and Ruttenberg, 2005, Lester et al., 2007).
As well as developmental mode there are many other physical and biological factors that influence dispersal in marine larvae and therefore help to facilitate recruitment.
• Biological processes:
– Development mode
– Pelagic larval duration
– Response to environment (physiology) (developmental mode ontogeny)
– Larval behavior (through ontogeny-mode)
• Physical processes:
– Currents, turbulence
ARMSTRONG, D. M. 1977. Dispersal vs. Dispersion: Process vs. Pattern. Systematic Biology, 26, 210-211.
BERKELEY, S. A., CHAPMAN, C. & SOGARD, S. M. 2004. Maternal age as a determinant of larval growth and survival in a marine fish, Sebastes melanops. Ecology, 85, 1258-1264.
BRADBURY, I. R. & SNELGROVE, P. V. R. 2001. Contrasting larval transport in demersal fish and benthic invertebrates: the roles of behaviour and advective processes in determining spatial pattern. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58, 811-823.
BROWN, J. H. & KODRIC-BROWN, A. 1977. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology, 58, 445-449.
BROWN, J. H., STEVENS, G. C. & KAUFMAN, D. M. 1996. The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 27, 597-623.
COWEN, R. K. & SPONAUGLE, S. 2009. Larval dispersal and marine population connectivity. Ann Rev Mar Sci, 1, 443-66.
ECKERT, G. L. 2003. Effects of the planktonic period on marine population fluctuations. Ecology, 84, 372-383.
EMLET, R. B. 1995. DEVELOPMENTAL MODE AND SPECIES GEOGRAPHIC RANGE IN REGULAR SEA URCHINS (ECHINODERMATA: ECHINOIDEA). Evolution, 49, 476-489.
FOGGO, A., BILTON, D. T. & RUNDLE, S. D. 2007. Do developmental mode and dispersal shape abundance–occupancy relationships in marine macroinvertebrates? Journal of Animal Ecology, 76, 695-702.
GASTON, K. J. 1996. Species-range-size distributions: patterns, mechanisms and implications. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11, 197-201.
GASTON, K. J. 2003. The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges, Oxford University Press on Demand.
GRANTHAM, B. A., ECKERT, G. L. & SHANKS, A. L. 2003. DISPERSAL POTENTIAL OF MARINE INVERTEBRATES IN DIVERSE HABITATS. Ecological Applications, 13, 108-116.
HANSEN, T. A. 1980. Influence of larval dispersal and geographic distribution on species longevity in neogastropods. Paleobiology, 6, 193-207.
HANSKI, I., GILPIN, M. E. & MCCAULEY, D. E. 1997. Metapopulation biology, Elsevier.
HANSKI, I. & PARMESAN, C. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Nature, 399, 747.
HOUDE, E. D. 1989. Comparative growth, mortality, and energetics of marine fish larvae: temperature and implied latitudinal effects. Fishery Bulletin, 87, 471-495.
JABLONSKI, D. 1986. Larval ecology and macroevolution in marine invertebrates. Bulletin of marine science, 39, 565-587.
JEFFERY, C. H. & EMLET, R. B. 2003. MACROEVOLUTIONARY CONSEQUENCES OF DEVELOPMENTAL MODE IN TEMNOPLEURID ECHINOIDS FROM THE TERTIARY OF SOUTHERN AUSTRALIA. Evolution, 57, 1031-1048.
KINLAN, B. P. & GAINES, S. D. 2003. PROPAGULE DISPERSAL IN MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTS: A COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE. Ecology, 84, 2007-2020.
LESTER, S. E. & RUTTENBERG, B. I. 2005. The relationship between pelagic larval duration and range size in tropical reef fishes: a synthetic analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 272, 585-591.
LESTER, S. E., RUTTENBERG, B. I., GAINES, S. D. & KINLAN, B. P. 2007. The relationship between dispersal ability and geographic range size. Ecol Lett, 10, 745-58.
LOWE, W. H. & ALLENDORF, F. W. 2010. What can genetics tell us about population connectivity? Oxford, UK.
MCCORMICK, M. I. 2006. Mothers matter: crowding leads to stressed mothers and smaller offspring in marine fish. Ecology, 87, 1104-1109.
MINER, B. G., MCEDWARD, L. A. & MCEDWARD, L. R. 2005. The relationship between egg size and the duration of the facultative feeding period in marine invertebrate larvae. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 321, 135-144.
PAULAY, G. & MEYER, C. 2006. Dispersal and divergence across the greatest ocean region: do larvae matter? Integrative and Comparative Biology, 46, 269-281.
PEPIN, P. 1991. Effect of temperature and size on development, mortality, and survival rates of the pelagic early life history stages of marine fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48, 503-518.
POULIN, E., BOLETZKY, S. V. & FERAL, J.-P. 2001. Combined ecological factors permit classification of developmental patterns in benthic marine invertebrates: a discussion note. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 257, 109-115.
ROMBOUGH, P. J. The effects of temperature on embryonic and larval development. Seminar Series-Society For Experimental Biology, 1997. Cambridge University Press, 177-224.
RUNDLE, S. D., BILTON, D. T. & FOGGO, A. 2007. By wind, wings or water: body size, dispersal and range size in aquatic invertebrates. Body size: the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 186-209.
SHUTO, T. 1974. Larval ecology of prosobranch gastropods and its bearing on biogeography and paleontology. Lethaia, 7, 239-256.
STEVENS, G. C. 1989. The latitudinal gradient in geographical range: how so many species coexist in the tropics. The American Naturalist, 133, 240-256.
STRATHMANN, R. 1987. Echinoderm larval ecology viewed from the egg. Echinoderm Stud, 2, 55.
WELLINGTON, G. & VICTOR, B. 1989. Planktonic larval duration of one hundred species of Pacific and Atlantic damselfishes (Pomacentridae). Marine Biology, 101, 557-567.
WRIGHT, S. 1949. The genetical structure of populations. Annals of eugenics, 15, 323-354.