@misc{SommerAdrianDomisetal.2012,
  author    = {Sommer, Ulrich and Adrian, Rita and Domis, Lisette Nicole de Senerpont and Elser, James J. and Gaedke, Ursula and Ibelings, Bas and Jeppesen, Erik and Lurling, Miquel and Molinero, Juan Carlos and Mooij, Wolf M. and van Donk, Ellen and Winder, Monika},
  title     = {Beyond the Plankton Ecology Group (PEG) Model mechanisms driving plankton succession},
  series = {Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics},
  volume    = {43},
  journal   = {Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics},
  number    = {2-4},
  editor    = {Futuyma, DJ},
  publisher = {Annual Reviews},
  address   = {Palo Alto},
  isbn      = {978-0-8243-1443-9},
  issn      = {1543-592X},
  doi       = {10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160251},
  pages     = {429 -- 448},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {The seasonal succession of plankton is an annually repeated process of community assembly during which all major external factors and internal interactions shaping communities can be studied. A quarter of a century ago, the state of this understanding was described by the verbal plankton ecology group (PEG) model. It emphasized the role of physical factors, grazing and nutrient limitation for phytoplankton, and the role of food limitation and fish predation for zooplankton. Although originally targeted at lake ecosystems, it was also adopted by marine plankton ecologists. Since then, a suite of ecological interactions previously underestimated in importance have become research foci: overwintering of key organisms, the microbial food web, parasitism, and food quality as a limiting factor and an extended role of higher order predators. A review of the impact of these novel interactions on plankton seasonal succession reveals limited effects on gross seasonal biomass patterns, but strong effects on species replacements.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{MooijTrolleJeppesenetal.2010,
  author    = {Mooij, Wolf M. and Trolle, Dennis and Jeppesen, Erik and Arhonditsis, George B. and Belolipetsky, Pavel V. and Chitamwebwa, Deonatus B. R. and Degermendzhy, Andrey G. and DeAngelis, Donald L. and Domis, Lisette Nicole de Senerpont and Downing, Andrea S. and Elliott, J. Alex and Fragoso Jr., Carlos Ruberto and Gaedke, Ursula and Genova, Svetlana N. and Gulati, Ramesh D. and H{\aa}kanson, Lars and Hamilton, David P. and Hipsey, Matthew R. and 't Hoen, Jochem and H{\"u}lsmann, Stephan and Los, F. Hans and Makler-Pick, Vardit and Petzoldt, Thomas and Prokopkin, Igor G. and Rinke, Karsten and Schep, Sebastiaan A. and Tominaga, Koji and Van Dam, Anne A. and Van Nes, Egbert H. and Wells, Scott A. and Janse, Jan H.},
  title     = {Challenges and opportunities for integrating lake ecosystem modelling approaches},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {1326},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42983},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-429839},
  pages     = {35},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {A large number and wide variety of lake ecosystem models have been developed and published during the past four decades. We identify two challenges for making further progress in this field. One such challenge is to avoid developing more models largely following the concept of others ('reinventing the wheel'). The other challenge is to avoid focusing on only one type of model, while ignoring new and diverse approaches that have become available ('having tunnel vision'). In this paper, we aim at improving the awareness of existing models and knowledge of concurrent approaches in lake ecosystem modelling, without covering all possible model tools and avenues. First, we present a broad variety of modelling approaches. To illustrate these approaches, we give brief descriptions of rather arbitrarily selected sets of specific models. We deal with static models (steady state and regression models), complex dynamic models (CAEDYM, CE-QUAL-W2, Delft 3D-ECO, LakeMab, LakeWeb, MyLake, PCLake, PROTECH, SALMO), structurally dynamic models and minimal dynamic models. We also discuss a group of approaches that could all be classified as individual based: super-individual models (Piscator, Charisma), physiologically structured models, stage-structured models and traitbased models. We briefly mention genetic algorithms, neural networks, Kalman filters and fuzzy logic. Thereafter, we zoom in, as an in-depth example, on the multi-decadal development and application of the lake ecosystem model PCLake and related models (PCLake Metamodel, Lake Shira Model, IPH-TRIM3D-PCLake). In the discussion, we argue that while the historical development of each approach and model is understandable given its 'leading principle', there are many opportunities for combining approaches. We take the point of view that a single 'right' approach does not exist and should not be strived for. Instead, multiple modelling approaches, applied concurrently to a given problem, can help develop an integrative view on the functioning of lake ecosystems. We end with a set of specific recommendations that may be of help in the further development of lake ecosystem models.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MooijTrolleJeppesenetal.2010,
  author    = {Mooij, Wolf M. and Trolle, Dennis and Jeppesen, Erik and Arhonditsis, George B. and Belolipetsky, Pavel V. and Chitamwebwa, Deonatus B. R. and Degermendzhy, Andrey G. and DeAngelis, Donald L. and Domis, Lisette Nicole de Senerpont and Downing, Andrea S. and Elliott, J. Alex and Fragoso Jr, Carlos Ruberto and Gaedke, Ursula and Genova, Svetlana N. and Gulati, Ramesh D. and H{\aa}kanson, Lars and Hamilton, David P. and Hipsey, Matthew R. and 't Hoen, Jochem and H{\"u}lsmann, Stephan and Los, F. Hans and Makler-Pick, Vardit and Petzoldt, Thomas and Prokopkin, Igor G. and Rinke, Karsten and Schep, Sebastiaan A. and Tominaga, Koji and Van Dam, Anne A. and Van Nes, Egbert H. and Wells, Scott A. and Janse, Jan H.},
  title     = {Challenges and opportunities for integrating lake ecosystem modelling approaches},
  series = {Aquatic ecology},
  volume    = {44},
  journal   = {Aquatic ecology},
  publisher = {Springer Science + Business Media B.V.},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1573-5125},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10452-010-9339-3},
  pages     = {633 -- 667},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {A large number and wide variety of lake ecosystem models have been developed and published during the past four decades. We identify two challenges for making further progress in this field. One such challenge is to avoid developing more models largely following the concept of others ('reinventing the wheel'). The other challenge is to avoid focusing on only one type of model, while ignoring new and diverse approaches that have become available ('having tunnel vision'). In this paper, we aim at improving the awareness of existing models and knowledge of concurrent approaches in lake ecosystem modelling, without covering all possible model tools and avenues. First, we present a broad variety of modelling approaches. To illustrate these approaches, we give brief descriptions of rather arbitrarily selected sets of specific models. We deal with static models (steady state and regression models), complex dynamic models (CAEDYM, CE-QUAL-W2, Delft 3D-ECO, LakeMab, LakeWeb, MyLake, PCLake, PROTECH, SALMO), structurally dynamic models and minimal dynamic models. We also discuss a group of approaches that could all be classified as individual based: super-individual models (Piscator, Charisma), physiologically structured models, stage-structured models and traitbased models. We briefly mention genetic algorithms, neural networks, Kalman filters and fuzzy logic. Thereafter, we zoom in, as an in-depth example, on the multi-decadal development and application of the lake ecosystem model PCLake and related models (PCLake Metamodel, Lake Shira Model, IPH-TRIM3D-PCLake). In the discussion, we argue that while the historical development of each approach and model is understandable given its 'leading principle', there are many opportunities for combining approaches. We take the point of view that a single 'right' approach does not exist and should not be strived for. Instead, multiple modelling approaches, applied concurrently to a given problem, can help develop an integrative view on the functioning of lake ecosystems. We end with a set of specific recommendations that may be of help in the further development of lake ecosystem models.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MantzoukiBekliogluBrookesetal.2018,
  author    = {Mantzouki, Evanthia and Beklioglu, Meryem and Brookes, Justin D. and Domis, Lisette Nicole de Senerpont and Dugan, Hilary A. and Doubek, Jonathan P. and Grossart, Hans-Peter and Nejstgaard, Jens C. and Pollard, Amina I. and Ptacnik, Robert and Rose, Kevin C. and Sadro, Steven and Seelen, Laura and Skaff, Nicholas K. and Teubner, Katrin and Weyhenmeyer, Gesa A. and Ibelings, Bastiaan W.},
  title     = {Snapshot surveys for lake monitoring, more than a shot in the dark},
  series = {Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {2296-701X},
  doi       = {10.3389/fevo.2018.00201},
  pages     = {5},
  year      = {2018},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{MantzoukiLuerlingFastneretal.2018,
  author    = {Mantzouki, Evanthia and L{\"u}rling, Miquel and Fastner, Jutta and Domis, Lisette Nicole de Senerpont and Wilk-Wo{\'{z}}niak, Elżbieta and Koreiviene, Judita and Seelen, Laura and Teurlincx, Sven and Verstijnen, Yvon and Krztoń, Wojciech and Walusiak, Edward and Karosienė, Jūratė and Kasperovičienė, Jūratė and Savadova, Ksenija and Vitonytė, Irma and Cillero-Castro, Carmen and Budzyńska, Agnieszka and Goldyn, Ryszard and Kozak, Anna and Rosińska, Joanna and Szeląg-Wasielewska, Elżbieta and Domek, Piotr and Jakubowska-Krepska, Natalia and Kwasizur, Kinga and Messyasz, Beata and Pełechata, Aleksandra and Pełechaty, Mariusz and Kokocinski, Mikolaj and Garc{\´i}a-Murcia, Ana and Real, Monserrat and Romans, Elvira and Noguero-Ribes, Jordi and Duque, David Parre{\~n}o and Fern{\´a}ndez-Mor{\´a}n, El{\´i}sabeth and Karakaya, Nusret and H{\"a}ggqvist, Kerstin and Beklioğlu, Meryem and Filiz, Nur and Levi, Eti E. and Iskin, Uğur and Bezirci, Gizem and Tav{\c{s}}anoğlu, {\"U}lk{\"u} Nihan and {\"O}zhan, Koray and Gkelis, Spyros and Panou, Manthos and Fakioglu, {\"O}zden and Avagianos, Christos and Kaloudis, Triantafyllos and {\c{C}}elik, Kemal and Yilmaz, Mete and Marc{\´e}, Rafael and Catal{\´a}n, Nuria and Bravo, Andrea G. and Buck, Moritz and Colom-Montero, William and Mustonen, Kristiina and Pierson, Don and Yang, Yang and Raposeiro, Pedro M. and Gon{\c{c}}alves, V{\´i}tor and Antoniou, Maria G. and Tsiarta, Nikoletta and McCarthy, Valerie and Perello, Victor C. and Feldmann, T{\~o}nu and Laas, Alo and Panksep, Kristel and Tuvikene, Lea and Gagala, Ilona and Mankiewicz-Boczek, Joana and Yağc{\i}, Meral Apayd{\i}n and {\c{C}}{\i}nar, Şakir and {\c{C}}apk{\i}n, Kadir and Yağc{\i}, Abdulkadir and Cesur, Mehmet and Bilgin, Fuat and Bulut, Cafer and Uysal, Rahmi and Obertegger, Ulrike and Boscaini, Adriano and Flaim, Giovanna and Salmaso, Nico and Cerasino, Leonardo and Richardson, Jessica and Visser, Petra M. and Verspagen, Jolanda M. H. and Karan, T{\"u}nay and Soylu, Elif Neyran and Mara{\c{s}}l{\i}oğlu, Faruk and Napi{\´o}rkowska-Krzebietke, Agnieszka and Ochocka, Agnieszka and Pasztaleniec, Agnieszka and Ant{\~a}o-Geraldes, Ana M. and Vasconcelos, Vitor and Morais, Jo{\~a}o and Vale, Micaela and K{\"o}ker, Latife and Ak{\c{c}}aalan, Reyhan and Albay, Meri{\c{c}} and Maronić, Dubravka Špoljarić and Stević, Filip and Pfeiffer, Tanja Žuna and Fonvielle, Jeremy Andre and Straile, Dietmar and Rothhaupt, Karl-Otto and Hansson, Lars-Anders and Urrutia-Cordero, Pablo and Bl{\´a}ha, Luděk and Geriš, Rodan and Fr{\´a}nkov{\´a}, Mark{\´e}ta and Ko{\c{c}}er, Mehmet Ali Turan and Alp, Mehmet Tahir and Remec-Rekar, Spela and Elersek, Tina and Triantis, Theodoros and Zervou, Sevasti-Kiriaki and Hiskia, Anastasia and Haande, Sigrid and Skjelbred, Birger and Madrecka, Beata and Nemova, Hana and Drastichova, Iveta and Chomova, Lucia and Edwards, Christine and Sevindik, Tuğba Ongun and Tunca, Hatice and {\"O}nem, Bur{\c{c}}in and Aleksovski, Boris and Krstić, Svetislav and Vucelić, Itana Bokan and Nawrocka, Lidia and Salmi, Pauliina and Machado-Vieira, Danielle and Oliveira, Alinne Gurj{\~a}o De and Delgado-Mart{\´i}n, Jordi and Garc{\´i}a, David and Cereijo, Jose Lu{\´i}s and Gom{\`a}, Joan and Trapote, Mari Carmen and Vegas-Vilarr{\´u}bia, Teresa and Obrador, Biel and Grabowska, Magdalena and Karpowicz, Maciej and Chmura, Damian and {\´U}beda, B{\´a}rbara and G{\´a}lvez, Jos{\´e} {\´A}ngel and {\"O}zen, Arda and Christoffersen, Kirsten Seestern and Warming, Trine Perlt and Kobos, Justyna and Mazur-Marzec, Hanna and P{\´e}rez-Mart{\´i}nez, Carmen and Ramos-Rodr{\´i}guez, Elo{\´i}sa and Arvola, Lauri and Alcaraz-P{\´a}rraga, Pablo and Toporowska, Magdalena and Pawlik-Skowronska, Barbara and Nied{\'{z}}wiecki, Michał and Pęczuła, Wojciech and Leira, Manel and Hern{\´a}ndez, Armand and Moreno-Ostos, Enrique and Blanco, Jos{\´e} Mar{\´i}a and Rodr{\´i}guez, Valeriano and Montes-P{\´e}rez, Jorge Juan and Palomino, Roberto L. and Rodr{\´i}guez-P{\´e}rez, Estela and Carballeira, Rafael and Camacho, Antonio and Picazo, Antonio and Rochera, Carlos and Santamans, Anna C. and Ferriol, Carmen and Romo, Susana and Soria, Juan Miguel and Dunalska, Julita and Sieńska, Justyna and Szymański, Daniel and Kruk, Marek and Kostrzewska-Szlakowska, Iwona and Jasser, Iwona and Žutinić, Petar and Udovič, Marija Gligora and Plenković-Moraj, Anđelka and Frąk, Magdalena and Bańkowska-Sobczak, Agnieszka and Wasilewicz, Michał and {\"O}zkan, Korhan and Maliaka, Valentini and Kangro, Kersti and Grossart, Hans-Peter and Paerl, Hans W. and Carey, Cayelan C. and Ibelings, Bas W.},
  title     = {Temperature effects explain continental scale distribution of cyanobacterial toxins},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {1105},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42790},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-427902},
  pages     = {26},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Insight into how environmental change determines the production and distribution of cyanobacterial toxins is necessary for risk assessment. Management guidelines currently focus on hepatotoxins (microcystins). Increasing attention is given to other classes, such as neurotoxins (e.g., anatoxin-a) and cytotoxins (e.g., cylindrospermopsin) due to their potency. Most studies examine the relationship between individual toxin variants and environmental factors, such as nutrients, temperature and light. In summer 2015, we collected samples across Europe to investigate the effect of nutrient and temperature gradients on the variability of toxin production at a continental scale. Direct and indirect effects of temperature were the main drivers of the spatial distribution in the toxins produced by the cyanobacterial community, the toxin concentrations and toxin quota. Generalized linear models showed that a Toxin Diversity Index (TDI) increased with latitude, while it decreased with water stability. Increases in TDI were explained through a significant increase in toxin variants such as MC-YR, anatoxin and cylindrospermopsin, accompanied by a decreasing presence of MC-LR. While global warming continues, the direct and indirect effects of increased lake temperatures will drive changes in the distribution of cyanobacterial toxins in Europe, potentially promoting selection of a few highly toxic species or strains.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MantzoukiLurlingFastneretal.2018,
  author    = {Mantzouki, Evanthia and Lurling, Miquel and Fastner, Jutta and Domis, Lisette Nicole de Senerpont and Wilk-Wozniak, Elzbieta and Koreiviene, Judita and Seelen, Laura and Teurlincx, Sven and Verstijnen, Yvon and Krzton, Wojciech and Walusiak, Edward and Karosiene, Jurate and Kasperoviciene, Jurate and Savadova, Ksenija and Vitonyte, Irma and Cillero-Castro, Carmen and Budzynska, Agnieszka and Goldyn, Ryszard and Kozak, Anna and Rosinska, Joanna and Szelag-Wasielewska, Elzbieta and Domek, Piotr and Jakubowska-Krepska, Natalia and Kwasizur, Kinga and Messyasz, Beata and Pelechata, Aleksandra and Pelechaty, Mariusz and Kokocinski, Mikolaj and Garcia-Murcia, Ana and Real, Monserrat and Romans, Elvira and Noguero-Ribes, Jordi and Parreno Duque, David and Fernandez-Moran, Elisabeth and Karakaya, Nusret and Haggqvist, Kerstin and Demir, Nilsun and Beklioglu, Meryem and Filiz, Nur and Levi, Eti E. and Iskin, Ugur and Bezirci, Gizem and Tavsanoglu, Ulku Nihan and Ozhan, Koray and Gkelis, Spyros and Panou, Manthos and Fakioglu, Ozden and Avagianos, Christos and Kaloudis, Triantafyllos and Celik, Kemal and Yilmaz, Mete and Marce, Rafael and Catalan, Nuria and Bravo, Andrea G. and Buck, Moritz and Colom-Montero, William and Mustonen, Kristiina and Pierson, Don and Yang, Yang and Raposeiro, Pedro M. and Goncalves, Vitor and Antoniou, Maria G. and Tsiarta, Nikoletta and McCarthy, Valerie and Perello, Victor C. and Feldmann, Tonu and Laas, Alo and Panksep, Kristel and Tuvikene, Lea and Gagala, Ilona and Mankiewicz-Boczek, Joana and Yagci, Meral Apaydin and Cinar, Sakir and Capkin, Kadir and Yagci, Abdulkadir and Cesur, Mehmet and Bilgin, Fuat and Bulut, Cafer and Uysal, Rahmi and Obertegger, Ulrike and Boscaini, Adriano and Flaim, Giovanna and Salmaso, Nico and Cerasino, Leonardo and Richardson, Jessica and Visser, Petra M. and Verspagen, Jolanda M. H. and Karan, Tunay and Soylu, Elif Neyran and Maraslioglu, Faruk and Napiorkowska-Krzebietke, Agnieszka and Ochocka, Agnieszka and Pasztaleniec, Agnieszka and Antao-Geraldes, Ana M. and Vasconcelos, Vitor and Morais, Joao and Vale, Micaela and Koker, Latife and Akcaalan, Reyhan and Albay, Meric and Maronic, Dubravka Spoljaric and Stevic, Filip and Pfeiffer, Tanja Zuna and Fonvielle, Jeremy Andre and Straile, Dietmar and Rothhaupt, Karl-Otto and Hansson, Lars-Anders and Urrutia-Cordero, Pablo and Blaha, Ludek and Geris, Rodan and Frankova, Marketa and Kocer, Mehmet Ali Turan and Alp, Mehmet Tahir and Remec-Rekar, Spela and Elersek, Tina and Triantis, Theodoros and Zervou, Sevasti-Kiriaki and Hiskia, Anastasia and Haande, Sigrid and Skjelbred, Birger and Madrecka, Beata and Nemova, Hana and Drastichova, Iveta and Chomova, Lucia and Edwards, Christine and Sevindik, Tugba Ongun and Tunca, Hatice and OEnem, Burcin and Aleksovski, Boris and Krstic, Svetislav and Vucelic, Itana Bokan and Nawrocka, Lidia and Salmi, Pauliina and Machado-Vieira, Danielle and de Oliveira, Alinne Gurjao and Delgado-Martin, Jordi and Garcia, David and Cereijo, Jose Luis and Goma, Joan and Trapote, Mari Carmen and Vegas-Vilarrubia, Teresa and Obrador, Biel and Grabowska, Magdalena and Karpowicz, Maciej and Chmura, Damian and Ubeda, Barbara and Angel Galvez, Jose and Ozen, Arda and Christoffersen, Kirsten Seestern and Warming, Trine Perlt and Kobos, Justyna and Mazur-Marzec, Hanna and Perez-Martinez, Carmen and Ramos-Rodriguez, Eloisa and Arvola, Lauri and Alcaraz-Parraga, Pablo and Toporowska, Magdalena and Pawlik-Skowronska, Barbara and Niedzwiecki, Michal and Peczula, Wojciech and Leira, Manel and Hernandez, Armand and Moreno-Ostos, Enrique and Maria Blanco, Jose and Rodriguez, Valeriano and Juan Montes-Perez, Jorge and Palomino, Roberto L. and Rodriguez-Perez, Estela and Carballeira, Rafael and Camacho, Antonio and Picazo, Antonio and Rochera, Carlos and Santamans, Anna C. and Ferriol, Carmen and Romo, Susana and Miguel Soria, Juan and Dunalska, Julita and Sienska, Justyna and Szymanski, Daniel and Kruk, Marek and Kostrzewska-Szlakowska, Iwona and Jasser, Iwona and Zutinic, Petar and Udovic, Marija Gligora and Plenkovic-Moraj, Andelka and Frak, Magdalena and Bankowska-Sobczak, Agnieszka and Wasilewicz, Michal and Ozkan, Korhan and Maliaka, Valentini and Kangro, Kersti and Grossart, Hans-Peter and Paerl, Hans W. and Carey, Cayelan C. and Ibelings, Bas W.},
  title     = {Temperature effects explain continental scale distribution of cyanobacterial toxins},
  series = {Toxins},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Toxins},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {2072-6651},
  doi       = {10.3390/toxins10040156},
  pages     = {24},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Insight into how environmental change determines the production and distribution of cyanobacterial toxins is necessary for risk assessment. Management guidelines currently focus on hepatotoxins (microcystins). Increasing attention is given to other classes, such as neurotoxins (e.g., anatoxin-a) and cytotoxins (e.g., cylindrospermopsin) due to their potency. Most studies examine the relationship between individual toxin variants and environmental factors, such as nutrients, temperature and light. In summer 2015, we collected samples across Europe to investigate the effect of nutrient and temperature gradients on the variability of toxin production at a continental scale. Direct and indirect effects of temperature were the main drivers of the spatial distribution in the toxins produced by the cyanobacterial community, the toxin concentrations and toxin quota. Generalized linear models showed that a Toxin Diversity Index (TDI) increased with latitude, while it decreased with water stability. Increases in TDI were explained through a significant increase in toxin variants such as MC-YR, anatoxin and cylindrospermopsin, accompanied by a decreasing presence of MC-LR. While global warming continues, the direct and indirect effects of increased lake temperatures will drive changes in the distribution of cyanobacterial toxins in Europe, potentially promoting selection of a few highly toxic species or strains.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BukovinszkyVerschoorHelmsingetal.2012,
  author    = {Bukovinszky, Tibor and Verschoor, Antonie M. and Helmsing, Nico R. and Bezemer, T. Martijn and Bakker, Elisabeth S. and Vos, Matthijs and Domis, Lisette Nicole de Senerpont},
  title     = {The Good, the bad and the plenty Interactive effects of food quality and quantity on the growth of different daphnia species},
  series = {PLoS one},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {PLoS one},
  number    = {9},
  publisher = {PLoS},
  address   = {San Fransisco},
  issn      = {1932-6203},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0042966},
  pages     = {8},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Effects of food quality and quantity on consumers are neither independent nor interchangeable. Although consumer growth and reproduction show strong variation in relation to both food quality and quantity, the effects of food quality or food quantity have usually been studied in isolation. In two experiments, we studied the growth and reproduction in three filter-feeding freshwater zooplankton species, i.e. Daphnia galeata x hyalina, D. pulicaria and D. magna, on their algal food (Scenedesmus obliquus), varying in carbon to phosphorus (C:P) ratios and quantities (concentrations). In the first experiment, we found a strong positive effect of the phosphorus content of food on growth of Daphnia, both in their early and late juvenile development. Variation in the relationship between the P-content of animals and their growth rate reflected interspecific differences in nutrient requirements. Although growth rates typically decreased as development neared maturation, this did not affect these species-specific couplings between growth rate and Daphnia P-content. In the second experiment, we examined the effects of food quality on Daphnia growth at different levels of food quantity. With the same decrease in P-content of food, species with higher estimated P-content at zero growth showed a larger increase in threshold food concentrations (i.e. food concentration sufficient to meet metabolic requirements but not growth). These results suggest that physiological processes such as maintenance and growth may in combination explain effects of food quality and quantity on consumers. Our study shows that differences in response to variation in food quality and quantity exist between species. As a consequence, species-specific effects of food quality on consumer growth will also determine how species deal with varying food levels, which has implications for resource-consumer interactions.},
  language  = {en}
}