deletions | additions       diff --git a/Discussion.tex b/Discussion.tex  index 8336a50..3c1109d 100644  --- a/Discussion.tex  +++ b/Discussion.tex 
...
\section{Discussion} The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of a shifting resource stoichiometry on the biomass  pool size, diversity, and membership of planktonic and biofilm communities. Our results suggest that carbon subsidies increased bacterial biomass in both plankton and biofilm communities as predicted. Carbon subsidies also resulted in decreased algal biomass in the plankton community, but there was no signifcant change in algal biomass of the biofilm communities among treatments. These changes in the bulk pool were consistent with changing relationships (commensal to competitive) between the autotrophic and heterotrophic components of the plankton communities but not neccessarily of the biofilm communities. We explored how shifts in C:P affected a) the diversity and membership of each community, and b) the relationship/interaction between the planktonic and biofilm communities using bacterial 16S and plastid 23S rRNA gene surveys. We found that changes in biomass pool size of the various communities were associated with changes in community structure but not neccesarrily in an intuitive manner.   This study highlights three key results that we find important for understanding the assembly and function of aquatic biofilms. First, biofilm community richness was consistently higher than the planktonic richness. Second, for the control control,  C:P = 10 and C:P = 100 resource treatments the membership of the bacterial and plankton communities did not overlap. However, And third,  communities in the plankton and biofilm communities  were most similar in the highest carbon treatment (C:P =500). This similarity increased over time but was only observed in the bacterial community not in the algal communities. The similarity of the bacterial communities in the highest carbon treatment was not reflected      We propose three potential mechanisms that could result in the increased diversity of the biofilm communities relative to the algal communities. First, it is possible that the planktonic community composition of our flow through incubators was dynamic in time. In this case sequences retrieved from  the biofilm community would have a longer residence time within each mesocosm  relative to the planktonic community and thus the biofilm community would represent a temporally integrated sample of the organisms moving through the reactor while the plankton community would only reprsent represent  the community at the moment of each individual sample. Second, the biofilm environment may disproportionately enrich for the tail of the rank-abundance distibution of the planktonic community. In this case it is probable that the biofilm would incorporate the most abundant members from the planktonic community but also select and enrich the least abundant members of planktonic community resulting in a higher level of detectable alpha-diversity. Third, the biofilm enivronment may represent more diverse habitats including multiple oxygen, nutrient and pH gradients across short distances ($\mu$m). habitats that are not present in the planktonic environment.  While non none  of the proposed mechanisms are orthogonal the third mechanisms is a subset of the second - i.e. the biofilm provides habitat space that does not exist in the planktonic habitat and thus enriches for certain members of the planktonic community.     Very few studies have previously evaluated the relationship among the plankton and the biofilm community. One notable study looked at biofilm formation on glass beads over X weeks and the planktonic community composition of the overlying water. That study reported...  However, the biofilm community in our study had more OTU’s than the plankton community for all paired treatments.   reconcile with Battin’s work*make a conceptual figure of that illustrates tails and membership of each the biofilm and plankton community – color coded for community* 
...
Second, community membership differences were more strongly defined by the plantonic or biofilm nature of the sample as opposed to the C:P ratio within the mesocosm.   Plankton must be the ultimate source community of the biofilm thus it’s interesting that the biofilm is not just a subset of the plankton but rather a separate community  Third, for the bacterial community but not the algal community the highest carbon treatment resulting in a blurringed of the distinction between the plankton and biofilm community.   **note the effect of the treatment on community membership**  Lower richness – a few weeds and increased stickiness (I did find a dataset on carbohydrate concentration of biofilm pellets that shows the high treatment is higher than the intermediate and lower treatments)  leftover text  in the plankton and biomass of In summary this study shows mechanistic links between large scale community level dynamics  the biomass but not underlying populations level that drive them. Ulimately large scale changes  in the The rarefaction curves for each group (plankton vs. biofilm) were nearly identical with the biofilm consistently having greater alpha diversity than the plankton. This is seemingly counterintuitive since the ultimate source ecosystem processes are driven by composite effects  of diversity in the biofilm must be the plankton. However, the dynamic spatial heterogeneity within the biofilm increases niche space and may lead to high levels microbial communities actiing as a synthesis  of physiological heterogeneity. In addition, this result suggests that the planktonic community composition may vary temporally events embedded in a complex biotic  and have higher turnover than the biofilm community thus increasing biofilm diversity over time. abiotic matrix.