Improving the reliability of bulk sediment radiocarbon dating

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Improving the reliability of bulk sediment radiocarbon dating. / Strunk, Astrid; Olsen, Jesper; Sanei, Hamed; Rudra, Arka; Larsen, Nicolaj K.

In: Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol. 242, 106442, 2020.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Strunk, A, Olsen, J, Sanei, H, Rudra, A & Larsen, NK 2020, 'Improving the reliability of bulk sediment radiocarbon dating', Quaternary Science Reviews, vol. 242, 106442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106442

APA

Strunk, A., Olsen, J., Sanei, H., Rudra, A., & Larsen, N. K. (2020). Improving the reliability of bulk sediment radiocarbon dating. Quaternary Science Reviews, 242, [106442]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106442

Vancouver

Strunk A, Olsen J, Sanei H, Rudra A, Larsen NK. Improving the reliability of bulk sediment radiocarbon dating. Quaternary Science Reviews. 2020;242. 106442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106442

Author

Strunk, Astrid ; Olsen, Jesper ; Sanei, Hamed ; Rudra, Arka ; Larsen, Nicolaj K. / Improving the reliability of bulk sediment radiocarbon dating. In: Quaternary Science Reviews. 2020 ; Vol. 242.

Bibtex

@article{119b226b692f45daae121a747126967d,
title = "Improving the reliability of bulk sediment radiocarbon dating",
abstract = "Radiocarbon dated chronologies are the most extensively applied dating technique when investigating the last ∼45,000 years. In lake and marine sediments, a single macrofossil or several microfossils are the preferred sample material because they have a 14C age that accurately reflects the time of deposition. However, absence of macro- or microfossils are a recurring challenge. Often, it is necessary to use bulk sediment samples for radiocarbon dating, but they frequently yield ages clearly exceeding the depositional timeframe due to occurrence of organic material of older origin. Until now, it has not been possible to assess if the dating result of a bulk sediment sample is reliable, or to adequately explain the mechanisms behind age disagreement between bulk and macro- and microfossils. In this study, we investigate the age offset between paired bulk and macrofossil ages in sediment cores from three lakes in SE and E Greenland. Furthermore, we distinguish three quantifiable main carbon sources in the samples: a) recent terrestrial organic fragments, b) recent aquatic organic matter, and c) reworked land-derived old carbon, through pyrolysis organic geochemistry, organic petrographic microscopy, and isotopic fractionization. Our results show that the offset between bulk (humic fraction) and macrofossil radiocarbon ages in three similar lakes range from 9 14C yr to 20.1 14C kyr. We observe a reduced age offset between bulk- and macrofossil ages, and thereby a higher reliability of bulk (humic fraction) ages, correlated with increased values of TOC, C/N ratio, and high CO2 release in pyrolysis (S3 value). We recommend that future studies presenting bulk sediment chronologies apply pyrolysis organic geochemistry, organic petrographic microscopy, and isotopic fractionization as demonstrated here, to select reliable sediment intervals for bulk dating and retrieve more robust results.",
keywords = "Age offset., Bulk sediment, Greenland, Organic geochemistry, Paleolimnology, Pyrolysis, Quaternary, Radiocarbon dating, Radiogenic isotopes, Stable isotopes",
author = "Astrid Strunk and Jesper Olsen and Hamed Sanei and Arka Rudra and Larsen, {Nicolaj K.}",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106442",
language = "English",
volume = "242",
journal = "Quaternary Science Reviews",
issn = "0277-3791",
publisher = "Pergamon Press",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving the reliability of bulk sediment radiocarbon dating

AU - Strunk, Astrid

AU - Olsen, Jesper

AU - Sanei, Hamed

AU - Rudra, Arka

AU - Larsen, Nicolaj K.

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - Radiocarbon dated chronologies are the most extensively applied dating technique when investigating the last ∼45,000 years. In lake and marine sediments, a single macrofossil or several microfossils are the preferred sample material because they have a 14C age that accurately reflects the time of deposition. However, absence of macro- or microfossils are a recurring challenge. Often, it is necessary to use bulk sediment samples for radiocarbon dating, but they frequently yield ages clearly exceeding the depositional timeframe due to occurrence of organic material of older origin. Until now, it has not been possible to assess if the dating result of a bulk sediment sample is reliable, or to adequately explain the mechanisms behind age disagreement between bulk and macro- and microfossils. In this study, we investigate the age offset between paired bulk and macrofossil ages in sediment cores from three lakes in SE and E Greenland. Furthermore, we distinguish three quantifiable main carbon sources in the samples: a) recent terrestrial organic fragments, b) recent aquatic organic matter, and c) reworked land-derived old carbon, through pyrolysis organic geochemistry, organic petrographic microscopy, and isotopic fractionization. Our results show that the offset between bulk (humic fraction) and macrofossil radiocarbon ages in three similar lakes range from 9 14C yr to 20.1 14C kyr. We observe a reduced age offset between bulk- and macrofossil ages, and thereby a higher reliability of bulk (humic fraction) ages, correlated with increased values of TOC, C/N ratio, and high CO2 release in pyrolysis (S3 value). We recommend that future studies presenting bulk sediment chronologies apply pyrolysis organic geochemistry, organic petrographic microscopy, and isotopic fractionization as demonstrated here, to select reliable sediment intervals for bulk dating and retrieve more robust results.

AB - Radiocarbon dated chronologies are the most extensively applied dating technique when investigating the last ∼45,000 years. In lake and marine sediments, a single macrofossil or several microfossils are the preferred sample material because they have a 14C age that accurately reflects the time of deposition. However, absence of macro- or microfossils are a recurring challenge. Often, it is necessary to use bulk sediment samples for radiocarbon dating, but they frequently yield ages clearly exceeding the depositional timeframe due to occurrence of organic material of older origin. Until now, it has not been possible to assess if the dating result of a bulk sediment sample is reliable, or to adequately explain the mechanisms behind age disagreement between bulk and macro- and microfossils. In this study, we investigate the age offset between paired bulk and macrofossil ages in sediment cores from three lakes in SE and E Greenland. Furthermore, we distinguish three quantifiable main carbon sources in the samples: a) recent terrestrial organic fragments, b) recent aquatic organic matter, and c) reworked land-derived old carbon, through pyrolysis organic geochemistry, organic petrographic microscopy, and isotopic fractionization. Our results show that the offset between bulk (humic fraction) and macrofossil radiocarbon ages in three similar lakes range from 9 14C yr to 20.1 14C kyr. We observe a reduced age offset between bulk- and macrofossil ages, and thereby a higher reliability of bulk (humic fraction) ages, correlated with increased values of TOC, C/N ratio, and high CO2 release in pyrolysis (S3 value). We recommend that future studies presenting bulk sediment chronologies apply pyrolysis organic geochemistry, organic petrographic microscopy, and isotopic fractionization as demonstrated here, to select reliable sediment intervals for bulk dating and retrieve more robust results.

KW - Age offset.

KW - Bulk sediment

KW - Greenland

KW - Organic geochemistry

KW - Paleolimnology

KW - Pyrolysis

KW - Quaternary

KW - Radiocarbon dating

KW - Radiogenic isotopes

KW - Stable isotopes

U2 - 10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106442

DO - 10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106442

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85087775994

VL - 242

JO - Quaternary Science Reviews

JF - Quaternary Science Reviews

SN - 0277-3791

M1 - 106442

ER -

ID: 244928895