The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Phytoplankton growth, microzooplankton grazing, and carbon cycling in marine systems
Abstract
We present an analysis of the global impact of microplanktonic grazers on marine phytoplankton and its implications for remineralization processes in the microbial community. The data were obtained by an extensive literature search that yielded 788 paired rate estimates of autotrophic growth (µ) and microzooplankton grazing (m) from dilution experiments. From studies in which phytoplankton standing stock was measured in terms of carbon equivalents, we show that the production estimate from dilution experiments is a reasonable proxy (r = 0.89) for production determined by the standard 14 C method. The ratio m: µ, the proportion of primary production (PP) consumed by micrograzers, shows that microzooplankton consumption is the main source of phytoplankton mortality in the oceans, accounting for 67% of phytoplankton daily growth for the full data set. This ratio varies modestly among various marine habitats and regions, with data averages ranging from 60% for coastal and estuarine environments to 70% for the open oceans, and from ~59% for temperateߚsubpolar and polar systems to 75% for tropicalߚsubtropical regions. Given estimates for the metabolic requirements of micrograzers and assuming they consume most bacterial production, regionally averaged estimates of the protistan respiration are 35ߚ43% of daily PP for the first level of consumer or 49ߚ59% of PP for three trophic transfers. The estimated contributions of microbial grazers to total community respiration are of the same magnitude as bacterial respiration. Consequently, potential ecosystem differences in micrograzer activity or trophic structure are a large uncertainty for biogeochemical models that seek to predict the microbial community role in carbon cycling from bacterial parameters alone.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ups and Downs in the Ocean: Effects of Biofouling on Vertical Transport of Microplastics
Kooi, M., Nes, E. H. V., Scheffer, M., & Koelmans, A. A. (2017) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b04702 · Cited by 977
Large mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean
Irigoien, X., Klevjer, T. A., Røstad, A., Martinez, U., Boyra, G., Acuña, J. L., Bode, A., Echevarria, F., Gonzalez-Gordillo, J. I., Hernandez-Leon, S., et al. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms4271 · Cited by 813
Cell Size as a Key Determinant of Phytoplankton Metabolism and Community Structure
Marañón, E. (2015) · Annual Review of Marine Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-010814-015955 · Cited by 514
Phytoplankton blooms: a ‘loophole’ in microzooplankton grazing impact?
Irigoien, X., Flynn, K. J., & Harris, R. P. (2005) · Journal of Plankton Research · doi:10.1093/plankt/fbi011 · Cited by 438
A re-appraisal of the total biomass and annual production of Antarctic krill
Atkinson, A., Siegel, V., Pakhomov, E. A., Jessopp, M. J., & Loeb, V. (2009) · Deep Sea Research Part I Oceanographic Research Papers · doi:10.1016/j.dsr.2008.12.007 · Cited by 383
Metadata
- Authors
- Calbet, A., & Landry, M. R.
- Venue
- Limnology and Oceanography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-57
- ISSN
- 0024-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-5590
- OpenAlex
- W2112195708
- Cited by
- 1,206
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.58
- 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: Phytoplankton growth, microzooplankton grazing, and carbon cycling in marine systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4319/lo.2004.49.1.0051
- The paper
- Calbet, A., & Landry, M. R. (2004). Phytoplankton growth, microzooplankton grazing, and carbon cycling in marine systems. Limnology and Oceanography. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2004.49.1.0051
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.