Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Boyce et al. reply

Nature volume 472, pages E8–E9 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boyce, D. G., Lewis, M. R. & Worm, B. Global phytoplankton decline over the past century. Nature 466, 591–596 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mackas, D. L. Does blending of chlorophyll data bias temporal trend? Nature 472 10.1038/nature09951 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rykaczewski, R. R. & Dunne, J. P. A measured look at ocean chlorophyll trends. Nature 472 10.1038/nature09952 (2011)

  4. Lewis, M. R., Kuring, N. & Yentsch, C. Global patterns of ocean transparency: implications for the new production of the open ocean. J. Geophys. Res. 93, 6847–6856 (1988)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Falkowski, P. & Wilson, C. Phytoplankton productivity in the North Pacific ocean since 1900 and implications for absorption of anthropogenic CO2 . Nature 358, 741–743 (1992)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ripley, B. D. & Thompson, M. Regression techniques for the detection of analytical bias. Analyst (Lond.) 112, 377–383 (1987)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. McQuatters, A. et al. Is there a decline in marine phytoplankton? Nature 472 10.1038/nature09950 (2011)

  8. Tarran, G. A., Zubkov, M. V., Sleigh, M. A., Burkhill, P. H. & Yallop, M. Microbial community structure and standing stocks in the NE Atlantic in June and July of 1996. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 48, 963–985 (2001)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gregg, W. W., Conkright, M. E., Ginoux, P., O’Reilly, J. E. & Casey, N. W. Ocean primary production and climate: global decadal changes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1809–1813 (2003)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Behrenfeld, M. J. et al. Biospheric primary production during an ENSO transition. Science 291, 2594–2597 (2001)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Martinez, E., Antoine, D., D’Ortenzio, F. & Gentili, B. Climate-driven basin-scale decadal oscillations of oceanic phytoplankton. Science 326, 1253–1256 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Behrenfeld, M. J. et al. Climate-driven trends in contemporary ocean productivity. Nature 444, 752–755 (2006)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Henson, S. A. et al. Detection of anthropogenic climate change in satellite records of ocean chlorophyll and productivity. Biogeosciences 7, 621–640 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gregg, W. W. & Conkright, M. E. Decadal changes in global ocean chlorophyll. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 1730–1734 (2002)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Reid, P. C., Edwards, M., Hunt, H. G. & Warner, A. J. Phytoplankton change in the North Atlantic. Nature 391, 546 (1998)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biology Department, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H 4J1

    Daniel G. Boyce & Boris Worm

  2. Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H 4J1

    Marlon R. Lewis

Authors
  1. Daniel G. Boyce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marlon R. Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Boris Worm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel G. Boyce.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boyce, D., Lewis, M. & Worm, B. Boyce et al. reply. Nature 472, E8–E9 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09953

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09953

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing