Data Set Citation:
When using this data, please cite the data package:
NCEAS 10022: Shurin: Comparing trophic structure across ecosystems , NCEAS 11981: Shurin: Comparing trophic structure across ecosystems (Extended) , National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis , and Elser J. 2007.
Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation
nceas.347.3 (https://knb.ecoinformatics.org:443/knb/metacat/nceas.347.3/nceas)
General Information:
Title:Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation
Identifier:nceas.347
Alternate Identifier:ELSIE.NP
Abstract:
The cycles of the key nutrient elements nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) have been massively altered by anthropogenic activities. Thus, it is essential to understand how photosynthetic production across diverse ecosystems is, or is not, limited by N and P. Via a large-scale meta-analysis of experimental enrichments, we show that P limitation is equally strong across these major habitats and that N and P limitation are equivalent within both terrestrial and freshwater systems. Furthermore, simultaneous N and P enrichment produces strongly positive synergistic responses in all three environments. Thus, contrary to some prevailing paradigms, freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems are surprisingly similar in terms of N and P limitation.
Keywords:None:
  • nutrient resources
None:
  • nitrogen
None:
  • phophorus
None:
  • fertilization
None:
  • plant community
None:
  • bottom-up
None:
  • primary producer biomass
None:
  • experimental manipulation
None:
  • marine, terrestrial, freshwater ecosystems
Publication Date:2007-10-01
Data Table, Image, and Other Data Details:
Metadata download: Ecological Metadata Language (EML) File
Data Table:np-analysis-dataset-out-for-datasharing.txt ( View Metadata | Download File download)

Involved Parties

Data Set Creators:
Organization:NCEAS 10022: Shurin: Comparing trophic structure across ecosystems
Organization:NCEAS 11981: Shurin: Comparing trophic structure across ecosystems (Extended)
Organization:National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
Individual: James Elser
Organization:Arizona State University
Address:
School of Life Sciences,
Tempe, Arizona 85287-4501 USA
Phone:
(480)965-9747 (voice)
Phone:
(480)965-2519 (Fax)
Email Address:
j.elser@asu.edu
Data Set Contacts:
Individual: James Elser
Organization:Arizona State University
Address:
School of Life Sciences,
Tempe, Arizona 85287-4501 USA
Phone:
(480)965-9747 (voice)
Phone:
(480)965-2519 (Fax)
Email Address:
j.elser@asu.edu
Associated Parties:
Individual: Daniel Gruner
Individual: Matt Bracken
Individual: Elsa Cleland
Individual: Stan Harpole
Individual: Helmut Hillebrand
Individual: Jacqueline Ngai
Individual: Eric Seabloom
Individual: Jonathan Shurin
Individual: Jennifer Smith
Metadata Providers:
Individual: Daniel Gruner

Data Set Characteristics

Geographic Region:
Geographic Description:Meta-analysis of global data from seven continents.
Bounding Coordinates:
West:  -180.0000  degrees
East:  180.0000  degrees
North:  90.0000  degrees
South:  -90.0000  degrees
Time Period:
Begin:
2005-04-01
End:
2007-11-01

Sampling, Processing and Quality Control Methods

Step by Step Procedures
Step 1:  
Description:

Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation: methods

Relevant studies were identified by searching titles and abstracts of publications returned from searches on ISI Web of Science using combinations of key words such as nitrogen, phosphorus, nutrient, enrichment, fertilization and bioassay. We also included studies summarized in previously published syntheses (DiTommaso & Aarssen 1989; Elser et al. 1990; Tanner et al. 1998; Downing et al. 1999b) and searched all subsequent papers citing those syntheses. For studies that included additional manipulations (such as grazer exclusion), we included only treatment combinations using the unmanipulated controls (grazers at natural densities). Studies including such secondary manipulations were a small subset of our data. Studies were included if they involved (minimally) independent manipulations of both N and P availability or (ideally) full factorial manipulations of N and P. (Some studies involved both N and P enrichment but did not apply, or report data from, both treatments in all individual experiments. Thus, the numbers of observations for N and P responses are not necessarily identical.) By including only studies that manipulated both N and P, we minimized potential biases induced by investigator focus on particular limiting nutrients thought to be most important in particular kinds of ecosystems. Furthermore, we analysed the data in two ways, one in which all data were included and another in which only data from fully factorial experiments were included. The overall patterns were the same for the two approaches. Thus, we present the results for the more inclusive data set in order to increase the scope of habitats and experimental approaches encompassed.

We included only studies that reported mean community-level biomass or production responses of autotrophs to nutrient enrichment. Single-species responses were eliminated unless drawn from a mono-dominant community in the judgment of the original authors or, if several species from a community were individually assayed for N and P response, an average across all species was taken for a given study. The preferred metric was biomass per unit area (terrestrial, wetland, benthic) or volume (pelagic). We also accepted proxy variables that are known to be correlated with standing biomass, such as chlorophyll concentration (most common in phytoplankton studies), ash-free dry mass, carbon mass, biovolume, percent cover and primary production. Many studies in forests and other systems dominated by woody plants and a small percent of marine benthos studies reported incremental rates (change in height or radius) rather than standing biomass. Inclusion of these studies did not qualitatively change the results of our analyses, and so we present results from the larger inclusive data set. Studies involving organism counts were excluded because of the orders-of-magnitude discrepancies in organism size among systems, and the expected inverse relation between organism size and abundance (Cohen et al. 1993; Cyr et al. 1997).

We defined a study as a temporally and spatially distinct experiment with internally consistent controls. Multiple studies could be reported from within one publication, for instance, if the same experimental treatments were performed in multiple streams with differing water quality or for water samples obtained from different stations along an oceanographic transect. When multiple measures were reported over time in a single experiment, we generally used the last temporal sample to avoid phases of transient dynamics in order to capture measures closer to when the system approached a potential equilibrium with the added nutrients. Exceptions were made to standardize duration within systems or to avoid excessively long incubations (mainly for bioassays with freshwater or marine phytoplankton). Data for multiple sampling dates in extended studies were averaged if phenological changes necessitated the use of mean values over all samples instead of the final value in order to be more ecologically relevant. In these cases, we used the most robust values by deferring to the working knowledge and intuition of the original authors.

We used the ln-transformed response ratio as our primary effect size metric RRX = ln (E⁄ C), where E is the measured value of the response variable in enrichment treatment X (N or P or N P) and C is its value in the unenriched control treatment. RR is one of the most frequently used effect metric in ecological meta-analysis (Hedges et al. 1999; Lajeunesse & Forbes 2003). Unlike Hedge s d, the ln-response ratio does not require a measure of sample variability. Moreover, in comparisons across systems where response variables and experimental designs can differ considerably, the analysis of change relative to the control is more meaningful than standardized absolute differences between means.

For each study, we used a unique study identifier linked to the citation of the publication and obtained the following information wherever possible. We categorized the system as marine, terrestrial, or freshwater and the stratum within each system by assigning aquatic studies to either pelagic or benthic subcategories and the terrestrial to either aboveground or belowground. Some studies in wetlands and salt marshes were difficult to categorize. For these, we used the operational approach that studies addressing submersed or floating macrophytes, or microalgae growing on them, were classified as aquatic (marine or freshwater), whereas studies on above-water rooted plants were termed terrestrial. For studies involving submersed macrophytes, when nutrients were added to the sediments, only responses of the macrophytes were included. When nutrients were added to the overlying water, only responses of the epiphytes were included. Finally, we also created a standardized set for habitat subcategories consisting of: grassland ⁄ meadow; tundra; forest ⁄ shrubland; wetland; stream; lake pelagic; lake benthos; marine benthos (hard bottom), marine benthos (soft bottom); or marine pelagic. We also entered supporting data about incubation conditions and the local environment, including concentrations of available nutrients (nitrate, ammonium, soluble reactive phosphorus).

Data Set Usage Rights

Obtain permission from data set owner(s)
Access Control:
Auth System:knb
Order:denyFirst
Metadata download: Ecological Metadata Language (EML) File