The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
COMPETITION FOR NUTRIENTS AND LIGHT: STABLE COEXISTENCE, ALTERNATIVE STABLE STATES, OR COMPETITIVE EXCLUSION?
Abstract
Abstract. Competition theory has put forward three contrasting hypotheses: Competition for nutrients and light may lead to (i) stable coexistence of species, (ii) alternative stable states, or (iii) competitive exclusion. This paper presents a detailed investigation of competition among phytoplankton species to test these three different hypotheses. First, we developed a competition model combining competition for nutrients and light. Next, we ran monoculture experiments in phosphorus-limited and light-limited chemostats to estimate the model parameters for five freshwater phytoplankton species. Finally, we tested the model predictions in competition experiments, using phosphorus levels ranging from oligotrophic to eutrophic conditions. The population dynamics in the competition experiments were all in agreement with the model predictions. This demonstrates that competition for nutrients and light can be accurately predicted over a wide range of productivities. The experiments revealed that the intensity of competition remained constant or even decreased with increasing nutrient supply. Contrary to expectation, there were no trade-offs between competitive abilities for phosphorus and light. Species that were strong competitors for phosphorus were strong competitors for light as well. Hence, we found neither stable coexistence nor alternative stable states. All competition experiments led to competitive exclusion. Furthermore, the physiological traits of the species indicated that, if one would find trade-offs in competitive abilities, competition for phosphorus and light would lead to alternative stable states rather than to stable coexistence. These results suggest that stable coexistence mediated by competition for phosphorus and light is rare, and hence an unlikely explanation for the high biodiversity commonly found in phytoplankton communities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Competitive Exclusion in Herbaceous Vegetation
GRIME, J. P. (1973) · Nature · doi:10.1038/242344a0 · Cited by 2,507
WHAT IS THE OBSERVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIES RICHNESS AND PRODUCTIVITY?
Mittelbach, G. G., Steiner, C. F., Scheiner, S. M., Gross, K. L., Reynolds, H. L., Waide, R. B., Willig, M. R., Dodson, S. I., & Gough, L. (2001) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[2381:witorb]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,650
Armstrong, R. A., & McGehee, R. (1980) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283553 · Cited by 1,016
Grover, J. P. (1991) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285254 · Cited by 271
Cited by
Linking modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory
Letten, A. D., Ke, P., & Fukami, T. (2017) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1242 · Cited by 363
Metadata
- Authors
- Passarge, J., Hol, S., Escher, M., & Huisman, J.
- Venue
- Ecological Monographs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57-72
- ISSN
- 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2131059459
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 9.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: COMPETITION FOR NUTRIENTS AND LIGHT: STABLE COEXISTENCE, ALTERNATIVE STABLE STATES, OR COMPETITIVE EXCLUSION? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/04-1824
- The paper
- Passarge, J., Hol, S., Escher, M., & Huisman, J. (2006). COMPETITION FOR NUTRIENTS AND LIGHT: STABLE COEXISTENCE, ALTERNATIVE STABLE STATES, OR COMPETITIVE EXCLUSION? Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1824
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.