Marine Biology

, Volume 150, Issue 3, pp 377–386 | Cite as

How does salinity tolerance influence the distributions of Brachionus plicatilis sibling species?

  • C. D. LoweEmail author
  • S. J. Kemp
  • C. Díaz-Avalos
  • D. J. S. Montagnes
Research Article


Environmental salinity is important in defining Brachionus plicatilis sibling species distributions. However, while salinity influences distributions, sibling species often co-exist. Three different mechanisms potentially account for the partial co-occurrence of sibling species: (1) siblings have differing salinity tolerances that partially overlap; (2) siblings physiological tolerances may be commonly broad, but relatively small differences in tolerances differentiate distributions via interactions e.g. competition; or (3) siblings distributions may be influenced by physical factors other than salinity. Here, we assess the extent of salinity tolerance in three B. plicatilis sibling species (B. plicatilis 6TUR, B. plicatilis IOM and B.rotundiformis 6TOS) by measuring population growth rate (μ, day−1) and egg development time in response to salinity (5–60‰) and salinity fluctuations (≤ Δ40‰). Sibling species were identified by analysis of the mitochondrial COI gene, and salinity responses were compared by regression analysis. Responses differed significantly between siblings, although the broad trends were similar. Positive growth occurred at all salinities, and highest growth rates ranged between 0.93 and 1.08 day−1 at 16–18‰. Rapid changes in salinity reduced growth rates, but net mortality occurred only in one treatment (100% mortality on transfer from 10 to 40‰). Egg development time was largely invariant with salinity except for B. plicatilis IOM and where rotifers were transferred from 30 to 60‰. We indicate that several siblings are similarly euryhaline and tolerate salinity fluctuations. Undoubtedly, wide tolerances in B. plicatilis are adaptations to ephemeral and seasonally variable habitats. Given common broad salinity tolerances, it is unlikely that the differential distributions of sibling species are a direct result of physiological constraints. Instead, we illustrate using a simple model that subtle differences in physiological tolerances may have important impacts on interactions between sibling species, which may in turn influence distributions.


Salinity Tolerance Sibling Species Physiological Tolerance Salinity Fluctuation Ecophysiological Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study forms part of a PhD thesis by C. D. Lowe at the University of Liverpool, funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (Grant No. NER/S/A/2001/0630). Pierre Ferrer and Stephanie Swift provided valuable assistance with experimental work. Drs. I. Saccheri and P. Watts provided valuable discussion.


  1. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 25:3389–3402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandl Z (2005) Freshwater copepods and rotifers: predators and their prey. Hydrobiologia 546:475–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chesson P, Huntley N (1997) The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions on the dynamics of ecological communities. Am Nat 150(5):519–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ciros-Pérez J, Carmona MJ, Serra M (2001a) Resource competition between sympatric sibling rotifer species. Limnol Oceanogr 46:1511–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciros-Pérez J, Gomez A, Serra M (2001b) On the taxonomy of three sympatric sibling species of the Brachionus plicatilis (Rotifera) complex from Spain, with the description of B. ibericus n. sp. J Plank Res 23(12):1311–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Meester L, Gomez A, Okamura B, Schwenk K (2002) The monopolization hypothesis and the dispersal–gene flow paradox in aquatic organisms. Acta Oecol 23:121–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Epp RW, Winston PW (1977) Osmotic regulation in the brackish water rotifer Brachionus plicatilis. J Exp Biol 68:151–156Google Scholar
  8. Gomez A, Snell TW (1996) Sibling species and speciation in the Brachionus species complex (rotifera). J Evol Biol 9:953–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gomez A, Temprano M, Serra M (1995) Ecological genetics of a cyclical parthenogen in temporary habitats. J Evol Biol 8:601–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gomez A, Carmona MJ, Serra M (1997) Ecological factors affecting gene flow in the Brachionus plicatilis complex (rotifera). Oecologia 111:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gomez A, Carvalho GR, Lunt DH (2000) Phylogeography and regional endemism of a passively dispersing zooplankter: mitochondrial DNA variation in rotifer resting egg banks. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 267:2189–2197Google Scholar
  12. Gomez A, Serra M, Carvalho GR, Lunt DH (2002) Speciation in ancient cryptic species complexes: evidence from the molecular phylogeny of Brachionus plicatilis (rotifera). Evolution 56:1431–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hebert PDN, Crease TJ (1980) Clonal coexistence in daphnia pulex (Leydig) another planktonic paradox. Science 207:1363–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kimmance SA, Atkinson D, Montagnes DJS (2006) Do Temperature-food interactions matter? Responses of production and its components in the model heterotrophic flagellate Oxyrrhis marina. Aquat Microb Ecol 42:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King C, Serra M (1998) Seasonal variation as a determinant of population structure in rotifers reproducing by cyclical partenogenesis. Hydrobiologia 387/388:361–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knowlton N (1993) Sibling species in the sea. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 24:189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lapesa S, Snell TJ, Fields DM, Serra M (2004) Predatory interactions between a cyclopoid copepod and three sibling rotifer species. F Biol 47(9):1685–1689Google Scholar
  18. Lowe CD, Kemp SJ, Bates AD, Montagnes DJS (2005a) Evidence that the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis is not an osmoconformer. Mar Biol 146:923–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lowe CD, Kemp SJ, Montagnes DJS (2005b) An interdisciplinary approach to assess the functional diversity of free-living microscopic eukaryotes. Aquat Microb Ecol 41:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lubzens E, Zmora O, Barr Y (2001) Biotechnology and aquaculture of rotifers. Hydrobiologia 446/447:337–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. May RM, MacArthur RH (1972) Niche overlap as a function of environmental variability. Proc Nat Acad Sci 69(5):1109–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miracle MR, Serra M (1989) Salinity and temperature influence in rotifer life history characteristics. Hydrobiologia 186/187:81–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ortells R, Gomez A, Serra M (2003) Coexistence of cryptic rotifer species: ecological and genetic characterisation of Brachionus plicatilis. Freshwater Biol 48:2194–2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sambrook J, Russell DW (2001) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 3rd edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Serra M, Gomez A, Carmona MJ (1998) Ecological genetics of Brachionus sympatric sibling species. Hydrobiologia 387/388:373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. W. H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Walker KF (1981) A synopsis of ecological information on the saline lake rotifer Brachionus plicatilis Muller 1786. Hydrobiologia 81:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. D. Lowe
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. J. Kemp
    • 1
  • C. Díaz-Avalos
    • 2
  • D. J. S. Montagnes
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Instituto de Investigaciones en Matemáticas Aplicadas y en SistemasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMéxico D.F.México

Personalised recommendations