when nutrients are limiting/limited

[JungKim]

Plants also show finely tuned adaptive responses when nutrients are limiting. Gardeners may recognize yellow leaves as a sign of nutrient deficiency and the need for fertilizer. But if a plant does not have a caretaker to provide supplemental minerals, it can proliferate or elongate its roots and develop root hairs to allow foraging in more distant soil patches.

(From the book Lessons From Plants by Beronda Montgomery)

Is there any reason for using "limiting" here instead of "limited"?

 

[Andygc]

Yes. The writer made a mistake.

 

[JungKim]

Yes. The writer made a mistake.

Thanks. Do you mean it should be "limited" in context?

 

[Andygc]

Yes.

 

[JulianStuart]

Then it is a mistake more have made in print than using "limited" If the word refers to a limited supply of nutrients, that's one case. However, the (lack of) nutrients may be limiting the growth or triggering adaptive responses. A case can be made for both forms, in my opinion.

 

[User With No Name]

However, the (lack of) nutrients may be limiting the growth or triggering adaptive responses. A case can be made for both forms, in my opinion.

I think I would really need an explicit direct object of some sort to use "limiting" in that sentence:

...when nutrients are limiting normal development....

"When nutrients are limiting" by itself just doesn't work for me.

 

[JulianStuart]

I'd come across it quite often before this thread - in the field of bacterial and mammalian cell culture contexts, where many parameters can be "limiting" the growth or produtivity. In such a context, the direct object is implied/understood. I think this is the sense in the dictionary entry for the adjective
limiting - WordReference.com Dictionary of English

lim•it•ing (lim′i ting), adj. serving to restrict or restrain; restrictive; confining.

 

[User With No Name]

I'd come across it quite often before this thread - in the field of bacterial and mammalian cell culture contexts, where many parameters can be "limiting" the growth or produtivity. In such a context, the direct object is implied/understood. I think this is the sense in the dictionary entry for the adjective
limiting - WordReference.com Dictionary of English

Thanks. That makes sense. (I think I knew that you were a scientist of some sort, but I had forgotten.)

 

[JungKim]

Then it is a mistake more have made in print than using "limited" If the word refers to a limited supply of nutrients, that's one case. However, the (lack of) nutrients may be limiting the growth or triggering adaptive responses. A case can be made for both forms, in my opinion.

I'd come across it quite often before this thread - in the field of bacterial and mammalian cell culture contexts, where many parameters can be "limiting" the growth or produtivity. In such a context, the direct object is implied/understood. I think this is the sense in the dictionary entry for the adjective
limiting - WordReference.com Dictionary of English

But the question is not whether it's possible to use "limiting" as a predicative adjective, which it is, but whether the use of "limiting" as a predicative adjective is possible in the given context. My reading of the text suggests that nutrients are not some kind of limiting factor here but they're just deficient:

Gardeners may recognize yellow leaves as a sign of nutrient deficiency and the need for fertilizer.

 

[JulianStuart]

In the course of fermentation, nutrients can be sufficient (or excessive) or they can be limiting. In that sentence, we refer to some property of the nutrients, and one of those properties is their amount. Too much of some nutrients may restrict growth even though they themselves are not limited.

 

[JungKim]

Too much of some nutrients may restrict growth even though they themselves are not limited.

Where in the paragraph does the text talk about "too much of some nutrients" or some such?
I can't seem to find any context to justify the use of "limiting".

 

[Andygc]

But the question is not whether it's possible to use "limiting" as a predicative adjective, which it is, but whether the use of "limiting" as a predicative adjective is possible in the given context. My reading of the text suggests that nutrients are not some kind of limiting factor here but they're just deficient:

Which is how I read it. This is not a text that is discussing the effects of excessive presence of nutrients, but how plants respond to deficient - limited - nutrition.

By the way, the ngram in post 5 is not really of much use here - it will find plenty of examples of "... nutrients are limiting ..." in an appropriate context where there would be no question of "limited" being the intended meaning.

 

[JulianStuart]

I did not say the paragraph suggested the issue was excess nutrients, that was obviously an example illustrating the meaning of the adjective: resulting in a limitation of something. I have no problem with the use of limiting in the OP paragraph and I know may others in my field who would also use it. If you wish to dismiss it as jargon, that's your prerogative.

A case can be made for both forms, in my opinion.

 

[Andygc]

I don't understand your position on this. This section of the text is not about any adverse effects of nutrients, it's about nutrient deficiency. The nutrients aren't doing anything, so on the basis of normal grammar, they can't be "limiting". This is a book for a lay readership, not for botanists, so has no place for jargon. The writer is a plant and microbial biologist and may well have lapsed into using jargon, but, for a lay reader, this is a grammatical error.

 

[JulianStuart]

"Plants also show finely tuned adaptive responses when nutrients are limiting."
Is there any reason for using "limiting" here instead of "limited"?

A case can be made for both forms, in my opinion.

1) It is some aspect of the nutrients that is limiting (normal growth).
2) The amount of nutrients is limited.
You all know I'm not a grammar/nomenclature technician but I think #1 is called metonymy. In plant growth, it is often the case that only one or two (out of many possible) nutrients are limited. The sentence does not say "all nutrients are limiting" That's what I was referring to when I wrote

In that sentence, we refer to some property of "nutrients", .

One property is their amount (use limited), the other is their effect (use limiting).
EOT

 

[siares]

I looked for 'limiting nutrient' and it is used later on too; so is 'target nutrient'.

Since strategies to increase availability of both 1) all nutrients in general 2) one specific limiting/target nutrient are described in the book, I suppose author could have had both in mind.

Seeing 'also', I was interested to see what does the OP text compare to:

Photosynthesis requires light, inorganic carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide), and water, and plants also need nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen. ....In favorable light conditions, for example, they contribute energy to leaf building while diverting energy away from stem elongation.

The paragraphs compare sunlight and nutrient requirements;
In this sense, 'limiting' seems likely to me - in bad light conditions, nutrients may be 'limited' (compared to ideal conditions), but they may not be limiting. (or the other way round)

 

[kentix]

I don't think it's a mistake per sé. It's just a usage that is probably more technical than usual. That doesn't make it ungrammatical, just mysterious to people not familiar with it.

There are many factors that allow (or prevent) a plant to reach its maximum potential for growth and healthiness. Nutrients, sunshine, temperature, wind, soil chemistry, competing plants, parasites, etc. One of those things can become a limiting factor where having more of the rest (at least of the good ones) makes no difference. That one is limiting and creates a bottleneck.

Recently there was a shortage of electronics used in car production. That slowed down the production of cars because it became a limiting factor. It controlled the rate of production. Even if all the other parts were available in excess numbers, they couldn't assemble a sellable car without those electronic parts.

In the OP, it wasn't the temperature or the amount of sunshine available that was limiting. It was the availability of (or some of) the necessary nutrients.

 

[Majorbloodnok]

Plants also show finely tuned adaptive responses when nutrients are limiting. Gardeners may recognize yellow leaves as a sign of nutrient deficiency and the need for fertilizer. But if a plant does not have a caretaker to provide supplemental minerals, it can proliferate or elongate its roots and develop root hairs to allow foraging in more distant soil patches.

(From the book Lessons From Plants by Beronda Montgomery)

Is there any reason for using "limiting" here instead of "limited"?

Focusing specifically on what the OP has asked, it seems likely that this is a misprint and that "limited" was the intended word. However, @JulianStuart has provided a perfectly reasonable set of circumstances which might make the use of the word "limiting" valid. Balance of probabilities is that a typo is the answer but it's not a foregone conclusion.

As such, the answer to @JungKim is "possibly".

 

[JulianStuart]

I don't think it's a mistake per se. It's just a usage that is probably more technical than usual. That doesn't make it ungrammatical, just mysterious to people not familiar with it.

If one is not familiar with this (quite common in some fields) usage, it might seem like an error. Swapping two letters for three different ones wouldn't qualify as a "typo", however

 

[Majorbloodnok]

...
Swapping two letters for three different ones wouldn't qualify as a "typo", however

Oh, you've no idea how accomplished I can be at mistyping in that way. I've managed to commit typos that are closer to malapropisms. 🤔

 

[Andygc]

Recently there was a shortage of electronics used in car production.

Were the electronics components limiting? No, it was the shortage of electronic components that was limiting.

In the paragraph about nutrients, are the nutrients limiting? No, it's the deficiencies of nutrients that are limiting.

The book is aimed at non-specialists who speak normal English. In normal English nutrients are limited. When I saw the OP I assumed the author used normal English; I did not know that plant biologists used "nutrients are limiting" as a normal collocation until JS told us. Given that, I don't think this was a mistake - she meant to write it - but an error of judgement - she forgot she was writing to an audience that could reasonably expect the book to be written in normal English. As far as JugKim's question is concerned, I agree with his reaction and consider the sentence to be wrong in the context in which it is used.

 

[kentix]

Of course, that meaning is provided by using limiting. It's an adjective.

limiting​

adjective​

being an environmental factor (such as a nutrient) that limits the population size of an organism​

So in a situation where "nutrients are limiting", the inherent meaning is the supply of nutrients is deficient. That idea is already included with "limiting". The nutrients, of all the possible factors, are the bottleneck. Which factor is causing the bottleneck? The nutrients.

But in a case of temperature, where temperature is limiting, it's not about the quantity of temperature. It's about the range or pattern of temperature or whatever.

- Plants also show finely tuned adaptive responses (in an environment) where temperature is limiting.

It wouldn't make much sense to say "where temperature is limited".

Here's an example from a climate-themed blog.

- One of the assumptions of the dendro guys is that they are picking sites where only temperature is limiting (so they can ignore it as a factor).

 

[JulianStuart]

The adjective is used later in the book (with an overt object)

Other responses to low nutrient availability in- clude breaking down chlorophyll (degreening) to reduce cellular metabolism that is dependent on the limiting nutrient, or increasing the ability to take up target nutrients from the soil.1

Here it seems clearer that the effect is what is intended, rather than the amount.
The writing is definitely for the "(wants to be) informed and educated" reader and "technical" terms abound, e.g.,

The kind of phenotypic plasticity that results in irreversible adaptations is known as developmental plasticity.

so eschewing "limiting" for the benefit of "lay" people seems unlikely. The author chooses "limited" elsewhere in the sense that the OP thought was the only one possible. The footnote for this takes the reader to the actual/original literature, so the target readership is quite broad and probaly includes readers who already distinguish between limited and limiting.

When nutrients are limited, plants shift energy away from shoots and toward roots, as well as toward transport proteins that are involved in nutrient uptake.29

.

29 Xucan Jia, Peng Liu, and Jonathan P. Lynch, “Greater Lateral Root Branching Density in Maize Im- proves Phosphorus Acquisition for Low Phosphorus Soil,” Journal of Experimental Botany 69, no. 20 (2018): 4961–4970; Angela Hodge, “Root Decisions,” Plant, Cell & Environment 32 (2009): 628–640; Angela Hodge, “The Plastic Plant: Root Responses to Heteroge- neous Supplies of Nutrients,” New Phytologist 162 (2004): 9–24

 

[Andygc]

Before I give up:

When nutrients are limited, plants shift energy away from shoots and toward roots, as well as toward transport proteins that are involved in nutrient uptake.

Well goodness me - that's precisely what she is saying in the OP text!

when nutrients are limiting ... a plant ... can proliferate or elongate its roots

So which writer used the right word?

 

[siares]

The choice matters most when plant memory is discussed in second instance; plants with experience of patchy nutrient supply in the past grow long roots... regardless of current nutrient level.

 

[JulianStuart]

Before I give up:

Well goodness me - that's precisely what she is saying in the OP text!

So which writer used the right word?

Like I said way back - a case can be made for both in some situations. In others one is preferred over the other. What is limiting the growth: light, temperature, pH, nutrients etc? What does the plant need that there is a limited supply of?

 

[Andygc]

A thought came to me as I woke up.

In such a context, the direct object is implied/understood.

I really cannot buy that as the answer in the context, which is specifically about deficiency - as I also said way back. The nutrients aren't limiting anything, it's the deficiency that is, and there is no implied object.

Now if you had said "In such a context, plant biologists use limit intransitively, so the phrase means when nutrients are becoming limited" I would have said "that's an interesting jargon note", and would have been perfectly satisfied.

 

[JulianStuart]

A thought came to me as I woke up.

I really cannot buy that as the answer in the context, which is specifically about deficiency - as I also said way back. The nutrients aren't limiting anything, it's the deficiency that is, and there is no implied object.

You are using limiting as a verb there.
So the WRF dictionary definition of the adjective in #7,

limiting: serving to restrict or restrain;

which, for me, does not have the same meaning of "in short supply", is not one you would contemplate using? As in, perhaps, "When X is/are limiting ....." my attempts at describing the "grammar" may fall short but it is extensively used in fields discussing growth and others here do see the distinction I have been trying to explain.