IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v472y2011i7342d10.1038_nature09953.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Boyce et al. reply

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel G. Boyce

    (Dalhousie University)

  • Marlon R. Lewis

    (Dalhousie University)

  • Boris Worm

    (Dalhousie University)

Abstract

Replying to A. McQuatters-Gollop et al. Nature 472, 10.1038/nature09950 (2011) ; D. L. Mackas Nature 472, 10.1038/nature09951 (2011) ; R. R. Rykaczewski & J. P. Dunne Nature 472, 10.1038/nature09952 (2011) In their thoughtful responses to our article on global chlorophyll (Chl) trends1, Mackas2, Rykaczewski and Dunne3, and McQuatters et al.7 suggest that some of the variation observed in our analysis may be explained by a possible bias, whereby transparency-derived chlorophyll (CT) measurements overestimate phytoplankton abundance relative to direct in situ chlorophyll (CI) measurements. Although we cannot entirely discount the possibility that changes in sampling methods may introduce fractional bias, extensive sensitivity analyses detailed below show that this is not responsible for the observed Chl declines. Furthermore, the accuracy of CT as a proxy of surface Chl has been independently verified4,5, and indicates that CT explains only 0.5–1.5% less of the variance in surface Chl than precision measurements of water-leaving radiance (remotely sensed ocean colour)5.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel G. Boyce & Marlon R. Lewis & Boris Worm, 2011. "Boyce et al. reply," Nature, Nature, vol. 472(7342), pages 8-9, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:472:y:2011:i:7342:d:10.1038_nature09953
    DOI: 10.1038/nature09953
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09953
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/nature09953?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:472:y:2011:i:7342:d:10.1038_nature09953. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.