Nutrient diffusing substrata: a field comparison of commonly used methods to assess nutrient limitation

K. Capps, Michael T. Booth, S. Collins, Marita A. Davison, Jennifer M. Moslemi, R. El‐Sabaawi, Joseph L. Simonis, A. Flecker
{"title":"Nutrient diffusing substrata: a field comparison of commonly used methods to assess nutrient limitation","authors":"K. Capps, Michael T. Booth, S. Collins, Marita A. Davison, Jennifer M. Moslemi, R. El‐Sabaawi, Joseph L. Simonis, A. Flecker","doi":"10.1899/10-146.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Nutrient limitation plays an important role in shaping community structure and ecosystem processes in aquatic environments. Many types of nutrient diffusing substrata (NDS) have been used to estimate nutrient limitation in lotic systems. However, whether these various NDS methods produce comparable results is unknown. We evaluated the 3 most commonly used NDS methods—clay pots, plastic cups, and periphytometers—in a single stream to determine if they gave qualitatively similar results. We also examined the effects of initial nutrient ratios on diffusion rates in all 3 types of NDS and periphyton stoichiometry on clay pots. The largest response in chlorophyll a biomass consistently occurred on substrata that simultaneously diffused both inorganic N and P. However, each NDS method produced a significantly different picture of limitation. Clay pots showed that primary producers were colimited by N and P, plastic cups showed primary limitation by N and secondary limitation by P, and periphytometers showed primary limitation by P and secondary limitation by N. Nutrient diffusion rates were very different among methods. Effects of different N∶P ratios were only seen in clay pots. When N∶P was 16∶1, chlorophyll a biomass was low. When N∶P was 1∶1, periphyton had greater %C and %P and low C∶P and N∶P. Our results indicate that further research is required to clarify methodological differences between the types of NDS. Until such discrepancies are addressed, the results obtained with NDS methods should be interpreted with caution.","PeriodicalId":49987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the North American Benthological Society","volume":"55 1","pages":"522 - 532"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"52","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the North American Benthological Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1899/10-146.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 52

Abstract

Abstract Nutrient limitation plays an important role in shaping community structure and ecosystem processes in aquatic environments. Many types of nutrient diffusing substrata (NDS) have been used to estimate nutrient limitation in lotic systems. However, whether these various NDS methods produce comparable results is unknown. We evaluated the 3 most commonly used NDS methods—clay pots, plastic cups, and periphytometers—in a single stream to determine if they gave qualitatively similar results. We also examined the effects of initial nutrient ratios on diffusion rates in all 3 types of NDS and periphyton stoichiometry on clay pots. The largest response in chlorophyll a biomass consistently occurred on substrata that simultaneously diffused both inorganic N and P. However, each NDS method produced a significantly different picture of limitation. Clay pots showed that primary producers were colimited by N and P, plastic cups showed primary limitation by N and secondary limitation by P, and periphytometers showed primary limitation by P and secondary limitation by N. Nutrient diffusion rates were very different among methods. Effects of different N∶P ratios were only seen in clay pots. When N∶P was 16∶1, chlorophyll a biomass was low. When N∶P was 1∶1, periphyton had greater %C and %P and low C∶P and N∶P. Our results indicate that further research is required to clarify methodological differences between the types of NDS. Until such discrepancies are addressed, the results obtained with NDS methods should be interpreted with caution.
养分扩散基质:评估养分限制的常用方法的实地比较
营养限制在水生环境中对群落结构和生态系统过程的形成起着重要作用。多种类型的养分扩散基质(NDS)已被用于估算生态系统的养分限制。然而,这些不同的NDS方法是否产生可比较的结果是未知的。我们评估了3种最常用的NDS方法——粘土罐、塑料杯和植物周长仪——在一个单一的流中,以确定它们是否给出了类似的定性结果。我们还研究了初始营养配比对所有3种NDS扩散速率的影响以及土盆上的周围植物化学计量学。叶绿素a生物量的最大响应始终发生在同时扩散无机氮和无机磷的基质上。然而,每种NDS方法产生的限制情况明显不同。粘土罐的初级生产者受氮磷限制,塑料杯的初级生产者受氮磷限制,次生生产者受磷限制,植物周长计的初级生产者受磷磷限制,次生生产者受氮磷限制。不同氮磷比的影响只在陶罐中出现。当N∶P = 16∶1时,叶绿素a生物量较低。当N∶P为1∶1时,周围植物的%C、%P较高,C∶P、N∶P较低。我们的结果表明,需要进一步的研究来澄清不同类型的NDS的方法差异。在解决这些差异之前,使用NDS方法获得的结果应谨慎解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the North American Benthological Society
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 生物-海洋与淡水生物学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 months
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书