Reply to comment

Re: First evidence of ocean acidification impacts

Thanks for your comment! We will transfer both of these to the original article once we get our commenting situation worked out; thank you.

As to your question -- the difference between these papers is that the 2009 paper compared the size of modern shells to the size of older shells from the past centuries. The shells now are smaller, it concluded, and so the animals must be struggling to build them as large as they once did.

However, it is not entirely conclusive: there could be any number of reasons that an animal would build a smaller shell, unrelated to climate change or acidification.

In the new paper, the authors show microscope photos of the shells physically breaking down--the "patches of weakness" we described above. (You can see photos here.)

Until now, researchers weren't sure they'd see such clear signs of the shells dissolving in the water, and thought maybe smaller shells were the best evidence they could find. The new study showed that this evidence can be observed in the wild without the animals being killed from the weakening shells.

Does that make sense?

Thanks again for your comment and for reading!

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Filtered words will be replaced with the filtered version of the word.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.