A comparison of the droop and the Monod models of nutrient limited growth 
applied to natural populations of phytoplankton

Sommer, U.

doi:10.2307/2389636

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

A comparison of the droop and the Monod models of nutrient limited growth applied to natural populations of phytoplankton

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons56942

Sommer, U.
Department Ecophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Limnology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Sommer, U. (1991). A comparison of the droop and the Monod models of nutrient limited growth applied to natural populations of phytoplankton. Functional Ecology, 5(4), 535-544. doi:10.2307/2389636.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-000A-A5ED-1

Abstract

The extent of nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in eutrophic Pluβsee was studied by enrichment bioassays and by analysing the cellular stoichiometry of monospecific fractions obtained by size fractionation and density-gradient separation. In this lake silicate and nitrogen, but not phosphorus, at times limit the reproductive rates of phytoplankton. The dependence of nutrient-limited reproductive rates on the cellular content of the limiting nutrient (cell quota) could well be described by the Droop model. Biomass specific minimal cell quotas of nitrogen ranged from 0.014 to 0.061 mol N mol^-1 C, minimal cell quotas of silicon ranged from 0.055 to 0.127 mol Si mol^-1 C. The cell quotas of the non-limiting nutrients usually increased with the cell quotas of the limiting nutrient. In contrast to the Droop model, the Monod model which relies on ambient concentrations of limiting nutrients was a much poorer predictor of growth rates.