Use of non‐limiting substrates to increase size; a generic strategy to simultaneously optimize uptake and minimize predation in pelagic osmotrophs?

By T. Thingstad, L. Øvreås, J. Egge, T. Løvdal, M. Heldal. 2005

185 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Biomaterials, Ecology, Oceanography

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/13f5d04e6f07fd586356c2157969010656d05aae

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Biomaterials

In Ecology

In Oceanography

Citations in the corpus

Temperature, resources, and phytoplankton size structure in the ocean (2012, background): “…resource supply (Falkowski and Oliver 2007; Cermeño et al. 2011), including a higher maximal nutrient uptake rate relative to their nutrient minimum quotas (Litchman et al. 2007) and the ability to take up and accumulate nutrients in excess of their immediate requirements (Thingstad et al. 2005).”
Excess carbon in aquatic organisms and ecosystems: Physiological, ecological, and evolutionary implications (2008, background): “Small osmotrophs use C simply to increase cell size as an antipredator strategy (Thingstad et al. 2005).”
Optimal phytoplankton cell size in an allometric model (2009, background): “Small cells have the advantage of a larger surface to volume ratio—or, more precisely, surface to nutrient requirement ratio (Thingstad et al. 2005).”
Physiological Structure and Single‐Cell Activity in Marine Bacterioplankton (2008, background): “In the “Winnie-the-Pooh” hypothesis (Thingstad et al. 2005), increase in cell size might be seen as a strategy to “dominate” the system and simultaneously optimize uptake and minimize predation.”
From Elements to Function: Toward Unifying Ecological Stoichiometry and Trait-Based Ecology (2017, background): “However, small size also offers several advantages to phytoplankton, including a more efficient acquisition of limiting nutrients (Sherwood et al., 1975; Ploug et al., 1999) and higher maximum growth rates (Banse, 1976), although it can increase susceptibility to grazing (Thingstad et al., 2005).”
Same same but different: ecological niche partitioning of planktonic freshwater prokaryotes (2013, background): “…(also known as competition specialists, uptake specialists, growth specialists, copiotrophic bacteria, or feast and famine bacteria) are typically specialized on shortliving DOM sources (Šimek et al., 2005; Thingstad et al., 2005) and might also be found attached to particles (Grossart, 2010).”
Implications of streamlining theory for microbial ecology (2014, background): “He theorized that the surface-to-volume ratio is less important than the surface-to-‘cell requirements of a limiting element’, and that larger cells can maintain the benefits of smaller cells by scaling up their cell composition by accumulating non-limiting nutrients such as carbon in an N- and P-li”
Zooplankton body composition (2013, background): “…groups, as documented for protozoans (Menden-Deuer and Lessard 2000) as well as for some phytoplankton (Strathmann 1967), and such size-dependent variation likewise has implications for nutrient acquisition (Thingstad et al. 2005) and other aspects of the organism’s ecology (Kiørboe 2008).”
Trait-based approaches to zooplankton communities (2013, methodology): “The inflated size strategy is also found among planktonic osmotrophs and was termed the “Winnie-the-Pooh” strategy by Thingstad et al. (Thingstad et al., 2005) exactly for this reason (because Winnie, when asked whether he wanted honey or milk, answered “both”).”
Picophytoplankton : Bottom-up and top-down controls on ecology and evolution (2005, unknown): “…in these very small cells may be higher than the Redfield Ratio average for larger phytoplankton cells (Geider & La Roche 2002), with the additional organic C helping to further increase the surface area per unit N or P in the small cells (reviewed by Raven et al. 2005, Thingstad et al. 2005).”
Effects of increased atmospheric CO 2 on small and intermediate sized osmotrophs during a nutrient induced phytoplankton bloom (2007, background): “Such within-community similarities suggest a common size-selective predator (heterotrophic flagellates) as the major loss mechanism for the competition group (Fenchel, BGD 4, 4173–4195, 2007 Effects of CO2 increase on osmotrophs A. I. Paulino et al. Title Page Abstract Introduction Conclusions Refer”
Phytoplankton community composition around the Crozet Plateau, with emphasis on diatoms and Phaeocystis (2007, unknown): “growth and mortality (Cullen, 1991; Boyd, 2002; Smetacek et al., 2004; de Baar et al., 2005; Thingstad et al., 2005).”
Photosynthesis and respiration in marine phytoplankton: Relationship with cell size, taxonomic affiliation, and growth phase (2014, unknown): “, 2007), and a reduction in volume-specific nutrient requirements (Thingstad et al., 2005).”
Linking traits to species diversity and community structure in phytoplankton (2010, background): “Another effective strategy to overcome transport and uptake limitations is being large using nonlimiting resources (e.g., carbon), keeping the requirement of the limiting resource low (Thingstad et al., 2005).”
Global biogeochemical impacts of phytoplankton: a trait‐based perspective (2015, background): “Their recent dominance may be a result of their ability to store pulses of nutrients in a large vacuole supported by the silica cell wall and/or protection from predation accorded by their silica shells (Smetacek 1999; Thingstad et al. 2005; Litchman, Klausmeier & Yoshiyama 2009).”
Trait-Based Community Ecology of Phytoplankton (2008, background): “Other related morphological traits that affect nutrient acquisition, sinking, and grazer susceptibility are cell shape and coloniality (Grover 1989, Ploug et al. 1999, Smayda 1970, Thingstad et al. 2005).”