Fig 4 - Emiliania huxleyi population growth rate response to light and temperature: A synthesis

The percentage which literature models (Table 3) underestimate (negative values) or overestimate (positive values) maximum specific growth rate compared to the combined temperature-photon flux density model presented in this study (Fig. 3). 0% equals no difference between the literature model and the model presented in this study. Contours are at 50% intervals although no data are shown above 300%. Colour scale: specific growth rates (bluered: low-high). Models for Emiliania huxleyi: (A) Findlay et al. (2008), (B) Joassin et al. (2011), (C) Merico et al. (2004, 2006) (D) Oguz & Merico (2006) and (E) Tyrrell & Taylor (1996); and for coccolithophores as a functional group: (F) Gregg et al. (2003) low light model, (G) Gregg et al. (2003) high light model, (H) Gregg & Casey (2007) low light model and (I) Gregg & Casey (2007) high light model

Go to figure page

Reference

Emiliania huxleyi population growth rate response to light and temperature: A synthesis - Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-percentage-which-literature-models-Table-3-underestimate-negative-values-or_fig1_280265944 [accessed 23 Mar, 2023]

Caption

Fig. 4. The percentage which literature models (Table 3) underestimate (negative values) or overestimate (positive values) maximum specific growth rate compared to the combined temperature-photon flux density model presented in this study (Fig. 3). 0% equals no difference between the literature model and the model presented in this study. Contours are at 50% intervals although no data are shown above 300%. Colour scale: specific growth rates (bluered: low-high). Models for Emiliania huxleyi: (A) Findlay et al. (2008), (B) Joassin et al. (2011), (C) Merico et al. (2004, 2006) (D) Oguz & Merico (2006) and (E) Tyrrell & Taylor (1996); and for coccolithophores as a functional group: (F) Gregg et al. (2003) low light model, (G) Gregg et al. (2003) high light model, (H) Gregg & Casey (2007) low light model and (I) Gregg & Casey (2007) high light model

Embed code

<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-percentage-which-literature-models-Table-3-underestimate-negative-values-or_fig1_280265944"><img src="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Samuel-Fielding/publication/280265944/figure/fig1/AS:613877788180480@1523371278236/The-percentage-which-literature-models-Table-3-underestimate-negative-values-or.png" alt="The percentage which literature models (Table 3) underestimate (negative values) or overestimate (positive values) maximum specific growth rate compared to the combined temperature-photon flux density model presented in this study (Fig. 3). 0% equals no difference between the literature model and the model presented in this study. Contours are at 50% intervals although no data are shown above 300%. Colour scale: specific growth rates (bluered: low-high). Models for Emiliania huxleyi: (A) Findlay et al. (2008), (B) Joassin et al. (2011), (C) Merico et al. (2004, 2006) (D) Oguz & Merico (2006) and (E) Tyrrell & Taylor (1996); and for coccolithophores as a functional group: (F) Gregg et al. (2003) low light model, (G) Gregg et al. (2003) high light model, (H) Gregg & Casey (2007) low light model and (I) Gregg & Casey (2007) high light model"/></a>