Allometric scaling and taxonomic variation in nutrient utilization traits and maximum growth rate of phytoplankton

Abstract

Nutrient utilization traits can be used to link the ecophysiology of phytoplankton to population dynamic models and the structure of communities across environmental gradients. Here we analyze a comprehensive literature compilation of four traits: maximum nutrient uptake rate; the half‐saturation constant for nutrient uptake; the minimum subsistence quota, measured for nitrate and phosphate; and maximum growth rate. We also use these traits to analyze two composite traits, uptake affinity and scaled uptake affinity. All traits tend to increase with cell volume, except for scaled uptake affinity and maximum growth rate, which tend to decline with cell volume. Most scaling relationships are the same for freshwater and marine species, although important differences exist. Most traits differ on average between major taxa, but between‐taxon variation is nearly always due to between‐taxon variation in volume. There is some evidence for between‐trait correlations that could constrain trait evolution, but these correlations are difficult to disentangle from correlation driven by cell volume. These results should enhance the parameterization of models that use size or taxonomic group to structure physiological variation in phytoplankton communities.

Phytoplankton community structure in relation to vertical stratification along a north‐south gradient in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean

“…We found that the maximum group-specific Chl a concentrations for prasinophytes, haptophytes, phototrophic dinoflagellates and to some extent pelagophytes (summer) coincided with the shallowing of the nutricline. The association of phototrophic dinoflagellates and pelagophytes with higher nutrient concentrations is not surprising considering their relatively large cell size (Irigoien et al 2004;Edwards et al 2012). Dinoflagellates, however, were most prevalent during the summer in the north, which agrees with their tendency to favor warmer waters, with shallower Z m , higher mean irradiance and reduced vertical mixing (Irwin et al 2012).…”

Modelling the plankton groups of the deep, peri-alpine Lake Bourget

“…We could not nd any signi cant allometric relationship for KU (regarding phosphorus uptake), therefore we adjusted these parameters taking into consideration the taxonomical averages reported by Edwards et al (2012), Fig.4E.…”

“…For AL, which is mainly composed of diatoms (Table A2), we used the scaling coe cients speci cally for freshwater diatoms found by Litchman et al (2009). For the other groups, we use the coe cients given by Edwards et al (2012). Cell-speci c values were converted to C-speci c values by allometrically scaling the carbon contents using the coe cients provided by…”

“…Considering typical values used in literature (e.g., Gal et al, 2009), we assumed a more modest storage capacity of Qmax/Qmin = 10 . µ∞ Given the average volumes and the taxa of the species involved in these groups (3), rst the µmax values were visually determined from Edwards et al (2012), Fig3C, to be 10 0.1 (=1.1), 10 −0.1 (=0.9) and 10 −0.25 (=0.55) respectively for As, A l , and M (for the reference temperature: 20°C). Maximum growth rates for Apr was determined to be 0.35, considering relatively low growth rates (Bright and Walsby, 2000).…”

Scaling of growth rate and mortality with size and its consequence on size spectra of natural microphytoplankton assemblages in the East China Sea

“…According to MTE, the temperature-corrected size-specific population growth rate scales allometrically with its body size, with an exponent of −1/4 (Brown et al, 2004). Although this −1/4 scaling exponent has been observed in compiled data from freshwater and marine phytoplankton (Edwards et al, 2012;Litchman et al, 2007), other studies using natural assemblages from open ocean and coastal regions have showed that the phytoplankton growth rate scales isometrically with body size (Marañón, 2008;Marañón et al, 2007;Huete-Ortega et al, 2012) or exhibits a parabolic relationship with body size . However, reviews suggest that the scaling exponents vary from −1/3 to 0 (Glazier, 2005(Glazier, , 2010.…”