ArticlePloS one2019
Relationship between coccolith length and thickness in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi and Gephyrocapsa oceanica.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cellular morphological trait dataset for extant coccolithophores from the Atlantic Ocean.Scientific data · 2024Article
- The influence of particle concentration and bulk characteristics on polarized oceanographic lidar measurements.Limnology and oceanography · 2022Article
- Opto-Electrochemical Dissolution Reveals Coccolith Calcium Carbonate Content.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2021Article
- Strain-specific morphological response of the dominant calcifying phytoplankton species Emiliania huxleyi to salinity change.PloS one · 2021Article
- Coccolith mass and morphology of different Emiliania huxleyi morphotypes: A critical examination using Canary Islands material.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coccolith mass is an important parameter for estimating coccolithophore contribution to carbonate sedimentation, organic carbon ballasting and coccolithophore calcification. Single coccolith mass is often estimated based on the ks model, which assumes that length and thickness increase proportionally. To evaluate this assumption, this study compared coccolith length, thickness, and mass of seven Emiliania huxleyi strains and one Gephyrocapsa oceanica strain grown in 25, 34, and 44 salinity artificial seawater. While coccolith length increased with salinity in four E. huxleyi strains, thickness did not increase significantly with salinity in three of these strains. Only G. oceanica showed a consistent increase in length with salinity that was accompanied by an increase in thickness. Coccolith length and thickness was also not correlated in 14 of 24 individual experiments, and in the experiments in which there was a positive relationship r2 was low (<0.4). Because thickness did not increase with length in E. huxleyi, the increase in mass was less than expected from the ks model, and thus, mass can not be accurately estimated from coccolith length alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.