<p>Understanding the atmosphere-continent-ocean carbon cycle and its associated oceanic carbon system is one of the keystones to face the Anthropocene&#8217;s climate change. Since the 1990s the isotopic ratio of boron (&#948;<sup>11</sup>B) in calcitic shells of planktonic foraminifera has proven to be a powerful geochemical proxy to determine the oceanic paleo-pH and its link to atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> level over geological times<sup>1</sup>, whereas the ratio B/Ca as proxy of the seawater carbonate chemistry is still questionable<sup>2,3</sup>.</p><p>However, the use of planktonic foraminifera in paleoclimatic reconstructions requires calibrations of the pH &#8211; &#948;<sup>11</sup>B relationships to correct what is known as &#171;&#160;vital effect&#160;&#187;<sup>4</sup>: each species controls differently its calcification process and consequently slightly modifies the seawater chemistry during biomineralization<sup>5,6</sup>. Moreover, shell size effect on &#948;<sup>11</sup>B has been reported for some symbiont-bearing species due to photosynthetic increase of pH<sup>7,8</sup>.</p><p>Calibrations for the symbiont-barren <em>Globigerina bulloides</em> have been already determined<sup>9,10 </sup>but sparse data have been reported so far for the test size effect on &#948;<sup>11</sup>B <sup>11</sup>.</p><p>Here we measured the &#948;<sup>11</sup>B of three different fractions (250-315, 315-400 and >400 &#956;m) of <em>G. bulloides</em> sampled along the coretop PS97-122 from the Chilean margin (54.10&#176;S, 74.91&#176;W), by using a new protocol developed at IPGP and dedicated to small samples which couple a microsublimation technique and a micro-direct injection device (&#956;-dDIHEN<sup>12</sup>). Our preliminary results show significantly higher &#948;<sup>11</sup>B values for the large fractions compared to the small ones, as found for symbiont-bearing planktonic species such as <em>Globigerinoides sacculifer</em><sup>7</sup> and <em>Globigerinoides ruber</em><sup>8</sup>.</p><p>&#160;</p><ul><li>(1) Pearson & Palmer, 2000, <em>Nature</em> 406, 695-699</li>
<li>(2) Yu et al., 2007, <em>Paleoceanography</em> 22, PA2202</li>
<li>(3) Allen et al., 2012, <em>EPSL</em> 351-352, 270-280</li>
<li>(4) Urey et al., 1951,<em> Soc. Am. Bull.</em> 62, 399-416</li>
<li>(5) Erez, 2003, <em>Rev. in Min. and Geochem.</em> 54 (1), 115-149</li>
<li>(6) de Nooijer et al., 2014, <em>Earth-Science Reviews</em> 135, 48-58</li>
<li>(7) H&#246;nisch & Hemming, 2004, <em>Paleoceanography</em> 19, PA4010</li>
<li>(8) Henehan et al., 2013, <em>EPSL</em> 364, 111-122</li>
<li>(9) Mart&#237;nez-Bot&#237;et al., 2015, <em>Nature</em> 518, 219-222</li>
<li>(10) Raitzsch et al., 2018, <em>EPSL</em> 487, 138-150</li>
<li>(11) Henehan et al., 2016, <em>EPSL</em> 454, 282-292</li>
<li>(12) Louvat et al., 2019, <em>JAAS</em> 8, 1553-1563</li>
</ul>