ArticleBiogeochemistry2022
Estimating phytoplankton stoichiometry from routinely collected monitoring data.
Article in Biogeochemistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurately estimating the elemental stoichiometry of phytoplankton is critical for understanding biogeochemical cycles. In laboratory experiments, stoichiometric ratios vary among species and with changes in environmental conditions. Field observations of total phosphorus (P) and total nitrogen (N) collected at regional and national scales can supplement and expand insights into factors influencing phytoplankton stoichiometry, but analyses applied to these data can introduce biases that affect interpretations of the observed patterns. We introduce an analytical approach for estimating the ratio between phytoplankton N and P from the particulate fraction of nutrient pools in lake samples. We use Bayesian models to represent observations of particulate P and N as the sum of contributions from nutrients bound within phytoplankton and nutrients associated with non-phytoplankton suspended sediment. Application of this approach to particulate nutrient data collected in Missouri impoundments yields estimates of the mass ratio of N:P in phytoplankton ranging from 8-10 across a variety of lakes and seasons. N:P in particulate matter ranged from 6 to 70, a variability driven by differences in nutrients bound to non-phytoplankton suspended sediment. We adapted the Bayesian models to estimate N:P using more commonly available measurements of total P and total N and applied this model to a continental-scale monitoring data set. We compared phytoplankton nutrient content estimated from the two analyses and found that when datasets lack direct measurements of particulate nutrient concentrations, the model estimate of phytoplankton nutrient content includes contributions from nutrients within phytoplankton and dissolved nutrients that are associated with changes in phytoplankton biomass.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.