Emergent loss of microbial biodiversity with increasing resource diversity
Ratzke, C.; Shalev, O.; Ye, X.; Kilian, J.; Stahl, M.
Show abstract
The origin of biodiversity is arguably the most fundamental question in ecology -- especially how countless microbial species coexist within a single community. A prevailing hypothesis holds that microbial species coexist by specializing on different resources, thereby reducing competition. Accordingly, increasing resource diversity is expected to promote species coexistence and boost biodiversity. Surprisingly, we observe the opposite: microbial biodiversity often declines as resource diversity increases. This unexpected result emerges from a widespread physiological response across diverse microbial taxa, in which more complex environments trigger higher overall resource uptake. This intensifies competition and drives biodiversity loss. Updating a central ecological model to include this physiological trait accurately reproduces the observed decline. Our findings demonstrate that physiological changes at the individual level can overturn classical ecological principles and scale up to restructure entire ecosystems.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Genome-scale community modelling reveals conserved metabolic cross-feedings in epipelagic bacterioplankton communities 97%
- Community composition of microbial microcosms follows simple assembly rules at evolutionary timescales 97%
- Elucidating human gut microbiota interactions that robustly inhibit diverse Clostridioides difficile strains across different nutrient landscapes 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- A human gut metagenome-assembled genome catalogue spanning 41 countries supports genome-scale metabolic models 97%
- Priority effects of heritable seed-borne bacteria drive early assembly of the wheat rhizosphere microbiome 97%
- Cell cycle dysregulation of globally important SAR11 bacteria resulting from environmental perturbation 96%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.