Phytoplankton growth model parametrization
»
t)
=
Q)
1.0-.--- - -- - -- - - -- - - r C>-:::::=-1
0.8
g. 0.6
Q)
>
.~
0.4
- ::s
e ::s
U 0.2
O.O -l---~~~----'-+-----+------i
45
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
Relative uptake affinity (liter [mg P]-} d- l )
Fig. 3.5. Cumulative frequency distribution of relative phosphorus uptake afrmities (I (jlg pr l
day-I) in different species of plankton algae (data from Table AIO.4; n = 64). Solid line Fitted
lognormal distribution; broken lines median and upper and lower quartiles; open symbols
grazing-resistant species; solid symbols nongrazing-resistant species
a' _1£.
Q' - K'
(3.17)
The comparatively large body of P-limited growth data fitted to the
Monod model can therefore also be used to estimate the relative phosphate
uptake affinity a'lQ'.
Figure 3.5 shows that the data compiled in Table AI0A span more than
two orders of magnitude with median 1.7 I (~g pr l day"1 and interquartile
range from 0.6 to 4.81 (~g Pt day"l. As was the case with the parameters Q'
and Q"/Q'., the distribution is skewed to the right with a reasonably good
fit to a lognormal distribution. Several authors (e.g., Malone 1980) have
proposed that small algal cells should have a more efficient nutrient uptake
than large cells, thus we should expect the P uptake affinity to be lower in
large, grazing-resistant species than in the nonresistant species.
Figure 3.5 does not indicate a similar distinction between species with
different grazing resistance as in the maximum growth rate data (Fig. 3.2).
In fact, the trend in Fig. 3.5 is slightly toward higher affmity in the grazing-
»
t)
=
Q)
1.0-.--- - -- - -- - - -- - - r C>-:::::=-1
0.8
g. 0.6
Q)
>
.~
0.4
- ::s
e ::s
U 0.2
O.O -l---~~~----'-+-----+------i
45
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
Relative uptake affinity (liter [mg P]-} d- l )
Fig. 3.5. Cumulative frequency distribution of relative phosphorus uptake afrmities (I (jlg pr l
day-I) in different species of plankton algae (data from Table AIO.4; n = 64). Solid line Fitted
lognormal distribution; broken lines median and upper and lower quartiles; open symbols
grazing-resistant species; solid symbols nongrazing-resistant species
a' _1£.
Q' - K'
(3.17)
The comparatively large body of P-limited growth data fitted to the
Monod model can therefore also be used to estimate the relative phosphate
uptake affinity a'lQ'.
Figure 3.5 shows that the data compiled in Table AI0A span more than
two orders of magnitude with median 1.7 I (~g pr l day"1 and interquartile
range from 0.6 to 4.81 (~g Pt day"l. As was the case with the parameters Q'
and Q"/Q'., the distribution is skewed to the right with a reasonably good
fit to a lognormal distribution. Several authors (e.g., Malone 1980) have
proposed that small algal cells should have a more efficient nutrient uptake
than large cells, thus we should expect the P uptake affinity to be lower in
large, grazing-resistant species than in the nonresistant species.
Figure 3.5 does not indicate a similar distinction between species with
different grazing resistance as in the maximum growth rate data (Fig. 3.2).
In fact, the trend in Fig. 3.5 is slightly toward higher affmity in the grazing-