3.9 Article

Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses

Journal

Publisher

NORTH AMER BENTHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.2307/1468034

Keywords

benthic algae; periphyton; biomass; nutrient limitation; nutrient enrichment; meta-analysis; statistical power; community ecology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ecological theory predicts that multiple nutrients, added independently, could each stimulate algal community biomass. In contrast to this theoretical prediction, individual nutrient amendment experiments frequently detect significant increases in algal community biomass in response to addition of a single nutrient, whereas the independent addition of other nutrients often does not result in a statistically significant increase in biomass. However, because of the low replication and high variability typical of ecological field experiments, only large responses can be detected as statistically significant in any single experiment. It is therefore possible that smaller, yet still real and biologically important responses occur, but remain undetected because of the low statistical power of individual experiments. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient (N and P) amendment experiments indicated that simultaneous stimulation of benthic algal community biomass by >1 nutrient was the rule, not the exception. Addition of a limiting nutrient typically doubled algal biomass, whereas addition of another nutrient generally increased algal biomass similar to1.25-fold. N was approximately equally likely as P to be limiting. The power of the typical experiment for detecting biomass stimulation resulting from limiting and nonlimiting nutrients was > 85% and < 50%, respectively. This study presents yet another line of evidence that multispecies communities are unlikely to be limited by a single nutrient, and illustrates the utility of meta-analysis for conducting statistically powerful syntheses of ecological experiments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available