Biogeosciences
Biogeosciences
BG
Articles | Volume 21, issue 6
Articles | Volume 21, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-1601-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-1601-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 21, issue 6
Technical note
 | 
28 Mar 2024
Technical note |  | 28 Mar 2024

Technical note: A comparison of methods for estimating coccolith mass

Celina Rebeca Valença, Luc Beaufort, Gustaaf Marinus Hallegraeff, and Marius Nils Müller

Viewed

Total article views: 5,284 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
3,593 1,529 162 5,284 196 186 244
  • HTML: 3,593
  • PDF: 1,529
  • XML: 162
  • Total: 5,284
  • Supplement: 196
  • BibTeX: 186
  • EndNote: 244
Views and downloads (calculated since 22 Dec 2023)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 22 Dec 2023)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 5,284 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 5,148 with geography defined and 136 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved (final revised paper)

Latest update: 07 Jun 2026
Download
Short summary
Coccolithophores contribute to the global carbon cycle and their calcite structures (coccoliths) are used as a palaeoproxy to understand past oceanographic conditions. Here, we compared three frequently used methods to estimate coccolith mass from the model species Emiliania huxleyi and the results allow for a high level of comparability between the methods, facilitating future comparisons and consolidation of mass changes observed from ecophysiological and biogeochemical studies.
Read more
Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint