4.5 Article

STOICHIOMETRIC RESPONSES OF PHYTOPLANKTON SPECIES TO THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT OF NUTRIENT SUPPLY RATIOS AND GROWTH RATES

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 539-549

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2012.01163.x

关键词

algae; cell quota; elemental composition; excess uptake; growth rate; N:P ratio; nutrient limitation; semicontinuous culture

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  2. Zukunftsprogramm Wirtschaft des Landes Schleswig-Holstein - Europaischer Fond fur regionale Entwicklung (EFRE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three species of phytoplankton, Rhodomonas sp., Phaeodactylum tricornutum Bohlin, and Isochrysis galbana Parke, were cultivated in semicontinuous culture to analyze the response of carbon (C):nitrogen (N):phosphorus (P) stoichiometry to the interactive effect of five N:P supply ratios and four growth rates (dilution rates). The relationship between cellular N and P quotas and growth rates fits well to both the Droop and angstrom grens functions for all species. We observed excess uptake of both N and P in the three species. N:P biomass ratios showed a significant positive relationship with N:P supply ratios across the entire range of growth rates, and N:P biomass ratios converged to an intermediate value independent of N:P supply ratios at higher growth rates. The effect of growth rates on N:P biomass ratios was positive at lower N:P supply ratios, but negative at higher N:P supply ratios for both Rhodomonas sp. and I. galbana, while for P. tricornutum this effect was negative at all N:P supply ratios. A significant interactive effect of N:P supply ratios and growth rates on N:P biomass ratios was found in both Rhodomonas sp. and P. tricornutum, but not in I. galbana. Our results suggest that angstrom grens functions may explain the underlying biochemical principle for the Droop model. The parameters in the Droop and angstrom grens functions can be useful indications of algal succession in the phytoplankton community in changing oceans.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据