Cargando…

Finding Liebig’s law of the minimum

Liebig’s law of the minimum (LLM) is often used to interpret empirical biological growth data and model multiple substrates co‐limited growth. However, its mechanistic foundation is rarely discussed, even though its validity has been questioned since its introduction in the 1820s. Here we first show...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tang, Jinyun, Riley, William J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9285345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34529311
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eap.2458
_version_ 1784747755635212288
author Tang, Jinyun
Riley, William J.
author_facet Tang, Jinyun
Riley, William J.
author_sort Tang, Jinyun
collection PubMed
description Liebig’s law of the minimum (LLM) is often used to interpret empirical biological growth data and model multiple substrates co‐limited growth. However, its mechanistic foundation is rarely discussed, even though its validity has been questioned since its introduction in the 1820s. Here we first show that LLM is a crude approximation of the law of mass action, the state of art theory of biochemical reactions, and the LLM model is less accurate than two other approximations of the law of mass action: the synthesizing unit model and the additive model. We corroborate this conclusion using empirical data sets of algae and plants grown under two co‐limiting substrates. Based on our analysis, we show that when growth is modeled directly as a function of substrate uptake, the LLM model improperly restricts the organism to be of fixed elemental stoichiometry, making it incapable of consistently resolving biological adaptation, ecological evolution, and community assembly. When growth is modeled as a function of the cellular nutrient quota, the LLM model may obtain good results at the risk of incorrect model parameters as compared to those inferred from the more accurate synthesizing unit model. However, biogeochemical models that implement these three formulations are needed to evaluate which formulation is acceptably accurate and their impacts on predicted long‐term ecosystem dynamics. In particular, studies are needed that explore the extent to which parameter calibration can rescue model performance when the mechanistic representation of a biogeochemical process is known to be deficient.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9285345
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92853452022-07-15 Finding Liebig’s law of the minimum Tang, Jinyun Riley, William J. Ecol Appl Articles Liebig’s law of the minimum (LLM) is often used to interpret empirical biological growth data and model multiple substrates co‐limited growth. However, its mechanistic foundation is rarely discussed, even though its validity has been questioned since its introduction in the 1820s. Here we first show that LLM is a crude approximation of the law of mass action, the state of art theory of biochemical reactions, and the LLM model is less accurate than two other approximations of the law of mass action: the synthesizing unit model and the additive model. We corroborate this conclusion using empirical data sets of algae and plants grown under two co‐limiting substrates. Based on our analysis, we show that when growth is modeled directly as a function of substrate uptake, the LLM model improperly restricts the organism to be of fixed elemental stoichiometry, making it incapable of consistently resolving biological adaptation, ecological evolution, and community assembly. When growth is modeled as a function of the cellular nutrient quota, the LLM model may obtain good results at the risk of incorrect model parameters as compared to those inferred from the more accurate synthesizing unit model. However, biogeochemical models that implement these three formulations are needed to evaluate which formulation is acceptably accurate and their impacts on predicted long‐term ecosystem dynamics. In particular, studies are needed that explore the extent to which parameter calibration can rescue model performance when the mechanistic representation of a biogeochemical process is known to be deficient. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-10-20 2021-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9285345/ /pubmed/34529311 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eap.2458 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Ecological Applications published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Ecological Society of America. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Articles
Tang, Jinyun
Riley, William J.
Finding Liebig’s law of the minimum
title Finding Liebig’s law of the minimum
title_full Finding Liebig’s law of the minimum
title_fullStr Finding Liebig’s law of the minimum
title_full_unstemmed Finding Liebig’s law of the minimum
title_short Finding Liebig’s law of the minimum
title_sort finding liebig’s law of the minimum
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9285345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34529311
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eap.2458
work_keys_str_mv AT tangjinyun findingliebigslawoftheminimum
AT rileywilliamj findingliebigslawoftheminimum