Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 204

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Whitings, a sedimentologic dilemma

Shinn, E. A., Steinen, R. P., Lidz, B. H., Swart, P. K.·1989·Journal of Sedimentary Research

Abstract

Abstract Whitings, drifting clouds of water, milky because of suspended carbonate, have been claimed to originate from either the action of bottom-feeding fish or direct precipitation of calcium carbonate. Five cruises during different seasons were made to the Great Bahama Bank to collect data pertinent to the controversy. Measurements of particulate concentrations average 10 mg/liter with a maximum of 20 mg/liter of carbonate sediment suspended in whiting water, compared with an average of 1.5 mg/liter for clear water outside the whitings. The particles are dominantly acicular aragonite, but Mg calcite composes as much as 20 percent of some whitings. Sedimentation rates, measured with fixed and drifting sediment traps, were as great as 34 g/m 2 /hr. Sediment suspended in whitings aggregated into silt- and sand-size fioccules and settled to the bottom of settling tanks within six hours, even on a rocking ship. Sediment in artificial whitings, created by stirring sediment from the bottom with a shrimp trawl, settled to the bottom in about the same time. Natural whitings, on the other hand, were never observed to dissipate. Because sedimentation from whitings occurs at rates sufficient to cause dissipation of the whitings within six hours, we conclude that the natural whitings are continually replenished by direct precipitation. The search for fish in whitings utilized sidescan sonar and fathometer imaging, shrimp trawls, rotenone, remote video, and direct scuba observation. These methods and 25 years of casual observations leading to this study indicate that fish are not involved in the formation of most Bahamian whitings. Several whitings were found over rocky or sandy bottoms where there was no mud available for fish to suspend. The distance of these whitings from areas of muddy bottom precluded their having been made elsewhere by fish. Stable carbon- and oxygen-isotopic analyses and Delta 14 C activity are interpreted to indicate that the suspended sediment in whitings contains some precipitated calcium carbonate and is not merely bottom sediment stirred into suspension. Estimates indicate that the amount of new carbonate produced in whitings on the Great Bahama Bank is substantially higher than that arising from algal production. Consequently, the amount of sediment transported to deep water may be much greater than previously thought.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1306/212f8f3a-2b24-11d7-8648000102c1865d

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Metadata

Authors
Shinn, E. A., Steinen, R. P., Lidz, B. H., & Swart, P. K.
Venue
Journal of Sedimentary Research
Published
1989-01-01
Volume
59
Issue
1
Pages
147-161
ISSN
  • 0022-4472 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1404
OpenAlex
W2032478816
Cited by
204
References
0
FWCI
8.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Whitings, a sedimentologic dilemma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1306/212f8f3a-2b24-11d7-8648000102c1865d
The paper
Shinn, E. A., Steinen, R. P., Lidz, B. H., & Swart, P. K. (1989). Whitings, a sedimentologic dilemma. Journal of Sedimentary Research. https://doi.org/10.1306/212f8f3a-2b24-11d7-8648000102c1865d

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.