Nitrogen and Phosphorus are usually the limiting nutrient for plants, especially for algae. Phosphorus is used for DNA, ATP and phospholipids, and Nitrogen is used for pretty much every protein a cell might want to produce. That is, their need for biological processes is not tied specifically to photosynthesis: anything that lives is going to need them, pretty much for anything it might want to do. It would make sense for them to be a limiting nutrient for almost anything that's trying to grow, plant or animal.
Yet for animals the limiting "nutrient" seems to always be energy, ie: food. Why aren't animals limited by lack of nutrients in the same way that plants are? Obviously animals need these nutrients, too. Or to reverse the question, why do plants need so much more phosphorus/nitrogen than animals do?
My best guess is that an animal's digestion of plant material is relatively inefficient energy-wise but relatively efficient nutrient-wise. So for an animal to eat enough food to have sufficient energy to survive, it's probably eaten more than enough Nitrogen and Phosphorus for its needs. But I'm just guessing and I can't find any data that would back up that guess.