Paleoceanography Supporting Information for Calibration of the Carbon Isotope Composition (δ 13C) of Benthic Foraminifera Andreas Schmittner1, Helen C Bostock2, Olivier Cartapanis3,4, William B Curry5,6, Helena L Filipsson7, Eric D Galbraith8,9, Julia Gottschalk3, Juan Carlos Herguera10, Babette Hoogakker11, Samuel Jaccard3, Lorraine E Lisiecki12, David C Lund13, Gema Martínez-Méndez14, Jean Lynch-Stieglitz15, Andreas Mackensen16, Elisabeth Michel17, Alan C Mix1, Delia W Oppo6, Carlye D Peterson18, Janne Repschläger19, Elisabeth L Sikes20, Howard J Spero11, and Claire Waelbroeck17 College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand Institute of Geological Sciences and Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Switzerland Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences, 17 Biological Station, St George’s GE 01, Bermuda Department of Geology and Geophysics, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA Department of Geology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain ICREA, Pg Lluís Companys 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain 10 Oceanología, Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, Ensenada, Baja California, México 11 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 12 Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA 13 Department of Marine Sciences, University of Connecticut - Avery Point, USA 14 MARUM-Center for Marine Environmental Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany 15 School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA 16 Alfred-Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Sciences, Bremerhaven, Germany 17 LSCE/IPSL, Laboratoire CNRS-CEA-UVSQ, Gif-sur-Yvette, France 18 Earth and Planetary Sciences Department, University of California, Davis, USA 19 Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany 20 Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, 71 Dudley Rd., New Brunswick, NJ 08901, United States Contents of this file Text S1 Figures S1 to S2 Table S1 Introduction Below we provide additional regional analysis of the data described in the main text Text S1: Regonal Analysis For a more in-depth understanding we have performed a detailed analysis of the one-to-one relationship and model LA1 in sixteen different ocean regions (Fig S1) Fig S2 and Tab S1 show that in the northeast Pacific (NEPac), northwest Pacific (NWPac), in the tropical East (TEPac) and West (TWPac) Pacific, in the North Indian Ocean (NInd), in the southwest Atlantic (SWAtl), in the Arctic (Arct), and in the Antarctic (Antarc) model LA1 results in lower values of δ13CDIC that are in better agreement with the water column observations compared with the one-to-one relationship On the other hand in the northwest (NWAtl) and northeast (NEAtl) Atlantic LA1 values are mostly higher than those from the one-to-one relationship, particularly below ~2 km depth, and also agree better with the observations In only three out of sixteen regions is the one-to-one relationship’s mean favorable: in the tropical west Atlantic (TWAtl), in the southeast (SEPac), and southwest (SWPac) Pacific In the southeast Atlantic (SEAtl) both models are equally biased low Fig S2 also illustrates other remaining biases, such as too high values in the tropical Pacific or in the deep (> 3km ) North Indian and Arctic Oceans In the TWAtl abyssal values below about 3.5 km depth are underestimated whereas between 2-3.5 km are overestimated by both models Root-mean-squared errors shown in Tab S1 support the above results 11 regions favor LA1, whereas only regions favor LA5 Regions with the larges errors are the Antarct, SEAtl, SWAtl, and NWAtl All other regions have errors smaller than 0.3 permil in model LA1 Figure S1 Map of 16 different regions used in our analysis Figure S2 Vertical distributions of δ13CDICnat (black), δ13CCibnat (red), and δ13CDICnat as reconstructed from model LA1 (green) in different regions Top row: northern extra-tropics, center row: tropics, bottom row: southern extratropics See Fig S1 for a detailed view of the regions Table S1 Mean values and root-mean-squared errors (σ) in different regions Bold numbers denote best fitting model δ CDIC 1.35 -0.04 -0.20 1.09 1.14 0.27 0.01 0.92 0.93 0.01 0.37 0.75 0.38 0.76 0.59 0.57 13 Arct NWPac NEPac NWAtl NEAtl TWPac TEPac TWAtl TEAtl NInd SInd SWPac SEPac SWAtl SEAtl Antarc mean LA5 1.44 0.18 -0.02 0.93 1.00 0.48 0.20 0.90 0.82 0.19 0.43 0.77 0.29 0.84 0.41 0.72 σ LA1 1.39 0.08 -0.24 0.99 1.05 0.41 0.11 0.96 0.90 0.07 0.39 0.71 0.21 0.83 0.41 0.62 LA5 0.25 0.30 0.26 0.33 0.28 0.27 0.29 0.26 0.20 0.24 0.29 0.24 0.23 0.33 0.35 0.42 LA1 0.25 0.23 0.18 0.29 0.26 0.20 0.20 0.27 0.17 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.31 0.31 0.36 0.39 ... that are in better agreement with the water column observations compared with the one-to-one relationship On the other hand in the northwest (NWAtl) and northeast (NEAtl) Atlantic LA1 values... in the tropical west Atlantic (TWAtl), in the southeast (SEPac), and southwest (SWPac) Pacific In the southeast Atlantic (SEAtl) both models are equally biased low Fig S2 also illustrates other... analysis of the one-to-one relationship and model LA1 in sixteen different ocean regions (Fig S1) Fig S2 and Tab S1 show that in the northeast Pacific (NEPac), northwest Pacific (NWPac), in the tropical