2004
DOI: 10.1007/s00248-003-9000-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determining Parameters of the Numerical Response

Abstract: The numerical response, the change in specific growth rate with food concentration, is a fundamental component of many aquatic microbial studies. Accurately and precisely determining the parameters of this response is essential to obtain useful data for both aut-and synecological studies. In this work we emphasize four points that are often ignored in designing numerical response experiments: (1) the inclusion of subthreshold concentrations (i.e., where growth rate is negative) in the experimental design; (2) … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Specifically, the solution of Equation (1) (that is, Equation 2) was fit to the responses of prey abundance (P t ) vs time (t), using the Marquardt-Levenberg algorithm (SigmaPlot, V 11, Systat Software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) to obtain estimates of K, m and y (see Table 2). Revising microbial predator-prey models Z Yang et al O. marina response to prey and temperature O. marina was acclimated (2 days) to constant experimental prey levels (with more measurements at low levels; see Montagnes and Berges, 2004) at 20 1C and 26 1C, under the conditions described above (see D. primolecta growth response). Prey treatment levels ranged from near zero to where prey growth reached stationary phase (as determined experimentally, see Results section); such high levels of prey (similar to D. primolecta) can occur in coastal waters where O. marina exists (for example, Begun et al, 2004).…”
Section: Primolecta Growth Responsementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Specifically, the solution of Equation (1) (that is, Equation 2) was fit to the responses of prey abundance (P t ) vs time (t), using the Marquardt-Levenberg algorithm (SigmaPlot, V 11, Systat Software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) to obtain estimates of K, m and y (see Table 2). Revising microbial predator-prey models Z Yang et al O. marina response to prey and temperature O. marina was acclimated (2 days) to constant experimental prey levels (with more measurements at low levels; see Montagnes and Berges, 2004) at 20 1C and 26 1C, under the conditions described above (see D. primolecta growth response). Prey treatment levels ranged from near zero to where prey growth reached stationary phase (as determined experimentally, see Results section); such high levels of prey (similar to D. primolecta) can occur in coastal waters where O. marina exists (for example, Begun et al, 2004).…”
Section: Primolecta Growth Responsementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It may seem that the scatter of our data is high, but it is typical for estimates of functional and numerical responses of protozoa (for example, Kimmance et al, 2006), and by performing many measurements across the prey range, especially with a focus on lower prey abundances, it is possible to obtain powerful, average estimates of parameters associated with the functional and numerical responses (Montagnes and Berges, 2004). Following this procedure, we have established functional and numerical responses that reveal significant differences in their parameters (Figure 3).…”
Section: Multiple Predator Responsesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Possibly the relationship between p′ and temperature is species-specific. On the other hand, experimental error or methodological limitations may also result in deviations (Montagnes & Berges 2004). Nevertheless, higher p′ values at high temperatures would mean that a predator dies from starvation rather than being consumed by other predators, and this is critical for modeling food webs (Montagnes 1996). )…”
Section: Threshold Prey Concentrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also encourage continued careful design of experiments, e.g. considering pseudoreplication (Hurlbert 1984), the number of replicates (Roa 1992), and even whether or not to replicate at all (Montagnes & Berges 2004).…”
Section: Experimental Designmentioning
confidence: 99%