Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
More oxygen is created in the sea than in the forests
Executive Summary
Scientific literature and major government agencies report that marine photosynthetic organisms—chiefly phytoplankton—are the single largest net producers of oxygen on annual timescales, often estimated to produce roughly half or more of Earth's oxygen, while terrestrial plants contribute the remainder; however, precise percentages vary across studies and depend on how “production” and net flux are defined [1] [2] [3]. Claims that forests (notably the Amazon) produce a specific large fraction of atmospheric oxygen are misleading because mature forests have near-zero net long-term oxygen contribution once ecosystem respiration and decomposition are included [4] [2].
1. Why the ocean often wins the oxygen tally — a closer look at phytoplankton dominance
Phytoplankton and other marine photosynthetic microbes operate across the planet’s sunlit surface waters and collectively fix carbon and release oxygen at massive scale, leading major science outlets and agencies to estimate that the ocean produces on the order of 50% (with some estimates ranging higher) of global gross oxygen output; NOAA and Scripps research emphasize that organisms such as Prochlorococcus alone can contribute exceptionally large shares of biospheric oxygen production, making the ocean the dominant oxygen producer in many analyses [1] [5]. These findings rest on measurements of photosynthetic rates, satellite chlorophyll data, and lab-based studies of microbial physiology; uncertainties arise because phytoplankton populations and productivity vary seasonally, regionally, and with nutrient availability, so point estimates are time-dependent and methodology-sensitive [3].
2. Why forest-focused statements about oxygen are often misunderstood
Popular claims that a single rainforest, such as the Amazon, produces a fixed large share of global oxygen misunderstand ecosystem carbon and oxygen cycling: while forests photosynthesize and release oxygen, mature forests typically have near-zero net oxygen contribution over long timescales because vegetation respiration and microbial decomposition consume most of the oxygen produced, leaving little net addition to atmospheric oxygen unless biomass is being accumulated or lost [4] [2]. Government and academic summaries clarify that land plants collectively contribute a large portion of gross oxygen production, but the net flux that accumulates O2 in the atmosphere is different from gross production; thus statements conflating gross photosynthesis with durable atmospheric oxygen gains are misleading [2].
3. Reconciling widely varying percentage ranges in the literature
Published figures vary—some sources assert oceans produce roughly half of global oxygen, others put the range from 50% up to 85% for marine sources—because authors use different definitions (gross vs net production), different temporal baselines, and differing measurement approaches from in situ sampling to satellite proxies and biological modeling [6]. Studies that highlight very high marine shares often emphasize short-term gross production by fast-growing phytoplankton blooms, while analyses that split production nearer to 50/50 typically incorporate averaged global annual rates and account for land-ecosystem dynamics; readers should treat single-number claims as simplifications and check whether the source reports gross photosynthetic output or long-term net contributions [2] [3].
4. The role of consumption and the oxygen budget — the other half of the story
Oxygen production is only one side of the planetary oxygen budget; roughly comparable amounts produced by photosynthesis are consumed by respiration, decay, and oxidation processes in both oceans and lands, which is why atmospheric oxygen concentration changes slowly over geological timescales [1] [2]. Several sources stress that while phytoplankton produce a large share of oxygen annually, much of that oxygen is locally consumed in marine food webs and by microbial respiration; similarly, terrestrial primary production supports soil respiration and decomposition, meaning net atmospheric O2 gains are small absent large-scale carbon burial or net biomass accumulation [4] [5].
5. What the evidence implies for conservation and policy priorities
The scientific picture indicates that both oceans and forests are essential but play different roles: marine phytoplankton are primary annual oxygen factories while terrestrial ecosystems store carbon and sustain biodiversity and stable ecosystem services, so preserving ocean health (nutrient regimes, temperature, and plankton communities) and protecting forests from deforestation and degradation are complementary priorities [3] [4]. Policy narratives that pit “trees versus oceans” oversimplify; accurate messaging requires distinguishing gross oxygen production from net atmospheric change and recognizing that human impacts on either system can alter productivity, biogeochemical cycles, and climate feedbacks in ways that ultimately affect global oxygen and carbon dynamics [2] [5].
6. Bottom line for the original statement and what to watch next
The short claim “More oxygen is created in the sea than in the forests” is supportable in the sense that marine photosynthetic microbes account for a very large share of global gross oxygen production—commonly reported around 50% or higher—while mature forests do not contribute comparably to net atmospheric oxygen accumulation [1] [6]. Readers should watch for future refinements in global ocean productivity estimates, seasonal and regional shifts in phytoplankton communities, and improved models separating gross versus net fluxes, all of which will sharpen percentage estimates and improve public communication about the complementary roles of oceans and forests [5] [3].