@article{ChorusSpijkerman2020,
  author    = {Chorus, Ingrid and Spijkerman, Elly},
  title     = {What Colin Reynolds could tell us about nutrient limitation, N:P ratios and eutrophication control},
  series = {Hydrobiologia : acta hydrobiologica, hydrographica, limnologica et protistologica},
  volume    = {848},
  journal   = {Hydrobiologia : acta hydrobiologica, hydrographica, limnologica et protistologica},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Springer Nature},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0018-8158},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10750-020-04377-w},
  pages     = {95 -- 111},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Colin Reynolds exquisitely consolidated our understanding of driving forces shaping phytoplankton communities and those setting the upper limit to biomass yield, with limitation typically shifting from light in winter to phosphorus in spring. Nonetheless, co-limitation is frequently postulated from enhanced growth responses to enrichments with both N and P or from N:P ranging around the Redfield ratio, concluding a need to reduce both N and P in order to mitigate eutrophication. Here, we review the current understanding of limitation through N and P and of co-limitation. We conclude that Reynolds is still correct: (i) Liebig's law of the minimum holds and reducing P is sufficient, provided concentrations achieved are low enough; (ii) analyses of nutrient limitation need to exclude evidently non-limiting situations, i.e. where soluble P exceeds 3-10 mu g/l, dissolved N exceeds 100-130 mu g/l and total P and N support high biomass levels with self-shading causing light limitation; (iii) additionally decreasing N to limiting concentrations may be useful in specific situations (e.g. shallow waterbodies with high internal P and pronounced denitrification); (iv) management decisions require local, situation-specific assessments. The value of research on stoichiometry and co-limitation lies in promoting our understanding of phytoplankton ecophysiology and community ecology.},
  language  = {en}
}