Problem is, the Redfiled ratio is really 10:1 N:P based on mass, not number of atoms which the above article missed in it's basic assumptions.
Based on "growth rate" as your "preference" for defining what is best for plants, the optimal ranges without wasting all your ferts appears to be about 2-3ppm of PO4, and thus about 14-20 ppm of NO3 by mass.
By mass, which is most often used and reported in research, FW plants are about 7-1-7 to 8 NPK.
But if the amounts are non limiting, such articles really become meaningless as they suggest certain ratios induce algae, I've yet to find evidence that suggest any such hypothesis or observation in aquariums.
I've also falsified each of those supposed hypothesis on algae.
Links are nice, but if they are wrong, they exponentially cause headaches, myths and problems.
I suggest EI method for ferts (do a search), as it addresses the NO3 and PO4 and K, and Traces and GH to non plant growth limiting levels without the need to reply on test kits, which tend to be inaccurate in the case of NO3 and PO4 in particular. Unless the said test kit is actually calibrated(chance are slim that folks do that step), the error range might be 20-40ppm in many cases and that's not hyperbole either.
I read the Bulgakov et al
in a translated English version and it's not the support I'd use to make my case.
Another hokey thing about the article, what is chance you'll get a certain type of algae? Are there any percentages?
How about 100% of the time not getting algae when I have ranges inside their table?
I've done a number of test trying in vain to get algae to bloom in an otherwise stable tank to no avail.
There's no ecological reason such blooms would occur in a densly planted aquarium either that's fed non limituing nutrients, does not matter what the ratio is until the specific nutrients become limiting for the plants, which need far far more than the algae do.
It does not make sense on the logical nor common sense level.