Size selectivity spectra of 28 planktonic predators from 18 studies in the literature are compared. The linear size ratio between predators and their optimal prey is 1 : 1 for a dinoflagellate, 3 : 1 for other flagellates, 8 : 1 for ciliates, 18 : 1 for rotifers and copepods, and ∼50: 1 for cladocerans and meroplankton larvae. These size ratios seem consistent within groups, and their validity is supported by quantitative information from the literature. However, a difference between filter feeders and raptorial‐interception feeders, preferring relatively smaller and larger prey respectively, is evident across the taxonomic groups. A classification of planktonic predators into functional groups is therefore crucial for the construction of models of pelagic food webs.

Mixotrophs are important components of the bacterioplankton, phytoplankton, microzooplankton, and (sometimes) zooplankton in coastal and oceanic waters. Bacterivory among the phytoplankton may be important for alleviating inorganic nutrient stress and may increase primary production in oligotrophic waters. Mixotrophic phytoflagellates and dinoflagellates are often dominant components of the plankton during seasonal stratification. Many of the microzooplankton grazers, including ciliates and Rhizaria, are mixotrophic owing to their retention of functional algal organelles or maintenance of algal endosymbionts. Phototrophy among the microzooplankton may increase gross growth efficiency and carbon transfer through the microzooplankton to higher trophic levels. Characteristic assemblages of mixotrophs are associated with warm, temperate, and cold seas and with stratification, fronts, and upwelling zones. Modeling has indicated that mixotrophy has a profound impact on marine planktonic ecosystems and may enhance primary production, biomass transfer to higher trophic levels, and the functioning of the biological carbon pump.

The classic portrayal of plankton is dominated by phytoplanktonic primary producers and zooplanktonic secondary producers. In reality, many if not most plankton traditionally labelled as phytoplankton or microzooplankton should be identified as mixotrophs, contributing to both primary and secondary production. Mixotrophic protists (i.e. single-celled eukaryotes that perform photosynthesis and graze on particles) do not represent a minor component of the plankton, as some form of inferior representatives of the past evolution of protists; they represent a major component of the extant protist plankton, and one which could become more dominant with climate change. The implications for this mistaken identification, of the incorrect labelling of mixotrophs as “phytoplankton” or “microzooplankton”, are great. It extends from the (mis)use of photopigments as indicators of primary production performed by strict photoautotrophs rather than also (co)locating mixotrophic activity, through to the inadequacy of plankton functional type descriptions in models (noting that mixotrophic production in the individual organism is not a simple sum of phototrophy and heterotrophy). We propose that mixotrophy should be recognized as a major contributor to plankton dynamics, with due effort expended in field and laboratory studies, and should no longer be side-lined in conceptual food webs or in mathematical models.

Arranging organisms into functional groups aids ecological research by grouping organisms (irrespective of phylogenetic origin) that interact with environmental factors in similar ways. Planktonic protists traditionally have been split between photoautotrophic "phytoplankton" and phagotrophic "microzooplankton". However, there is a growing recognition of the importance of mixotrophy in euphotic aquatic systems, where many protists often combine photoautotrophic and phagotrophic modes of nutrition. Such organisms do not align with the traditional dichotomy of phytoplankton and microzooplankton. To reflect this understanding, we propose a new functional grouping of planktonic protists in an eco-physiological context: (i) phagoheterotrophs lacking phototrophic capacity, (ii) photoautotrophs lacking phagotrophic capacity, (iii) constitutive mixotrophs (CMs) as phagotrophs with an inherent capacity for phototrophy, and (iv) non-constitutive mixotrophs (NCMs) that acquire their phototrophic capacity by ingesting specific (SNCM) or general non-specific (GNCM) prey. For the first time, we incorporate these functional groups within a foodweb structure and show, using model outputs, that there is scope for significant changes in trophic dynamics depending on the protist functional type description. Accordingly, to better reflect the role of mixotrophy, we recommend that as important tools for explanatory and predictive research, aquatic food-web and biogeochemical models need to redefine the protist groups within their frameworks.