Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:56:14.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Current practices in building and reporting age-depth models

Part of: 50th Anniversary issue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2020

Terri Lacourse Open the ORCID record for Terri Lacourse [Opens in a new window]  and
Konrad Gajewski Open the ORCID record for Konrad Gajewski [Opens in a new window]
Terri Lacourse*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Centre for Forest Biology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, CanadaV8W 2Y2
Konrad Gajewski
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, CanadaK1N 6N5
*
Corresponding author at: tlacours@uvic.ca (T. Lacourse)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Age-depth models provide essential temporal frameworks in paleoenvironmental science. We use a sample of 80 recently-published age-depth models to comment on current practices in building and reporting radiocarbon-based age-depth models. We address options for model building, sampling strategies, dating densities, and best practices for reporting age-depth models and associated data. Our review reveals incomplete reporting of 14C ages, model-building methods, age-depth models and associated meta-data in many recent studies. All information needed to evaluate, reproduce and update an age-depth model should accompany every published model. We also present a case study of building age-depth models for a lake sediment core that has both 14C ages and an independent varve chronology. The case study illustrates that choosing the ‘best model’ is not a simple task, and that model accuracy is ultimately controlled by differences between 14C ages and true age that likely occur in many late Quaternary records.

Keywords

age-depth modellingchronologyaccumulation ratesradiocarbon datingvarves
Type
Contribution to the QR Forum
Information
Quaternary Research , Volume 96: 50th Anniversary Issue , July 2020 , pp. 28 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © University of Washington. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bennett, K.D., 1994. Confidence intervals for age estimates and deposition times in late-Quaternary sediment sequences. The Holocene 4, 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, K.D., Fuller, J.L., 2002. Determining the age of the mid-Holocene Tsuga canadensis (hemlock) decline, eastern North America. The Holocene 12, 421–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Björck, S., Wohlfarth, B., 2001. 14C chronostratigraphic techniques in paleolimnology. In: Last, W.M., Smol, J.P. (eds.), Tracking Environmental Change Using Lake Sediments. Vol. 1: Basin Analysis, Coring, and Chronological Techniques. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 205–245.Google Scholar
Blaauw, M., 2010. Methods and code for classical age-modelling of radiocarbon sequences. Quaternary Geochronology 5, 512–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaauw, M., Christen, J.A., 2011. Flexible paleoclimate age-depth models using an autoregressive gamma process. Bayesian Analysis 6, 457–474.Google Scholar
Blaauw, M., Christen, J.A., Bennett, K.D., Reimer, P.J., 2018. Double the dates and go for Bayes - Impacts of model choice, dating density and quality on chronologies. Quaternary Science Reviews 188, 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaauw, M., Wohlfarth, B., Christen, J.A., Ampel, L., Veres, D., Hughen, K.A., Preusser, F., Svensson, A., 2010. Were last glacial climate events simultaneous between Greenland and France? A quantitative comparison using non-tuned chronologies. Journal of Quaternary Science 25, 387–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blockley, S.P.E., Blaauw, M., Ramsey, C.B., van der Plicht, J., 2007. Building and testing age models for radiocarbon dates in Lateglacial and Early Holocene sediments. Quaternary Science Reviews 26, 1915–1926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C., 2008. Deposition models for chronological records. Quaternary Science Reviews 27, 42–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charman, D.J., Barber, K., Blaauw, M., Langdon, P., Mauquoy, D., Daley, T., Hughes, P., Karofeld, E., 2009. Climate drivers for peatland palaeoclimate records. Quaternary Science Reviews 28, 1811–1819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevalier, M., Chase, B.M., 2015. Southeast African records reveal a coherent shift from high- to low-latitude forcing mechanisms along the east African margin across last glacial-interglacial transition. Quaternary Science Reviews 125, 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frodlová, J., Hájková, P., Horsák, M., 2018. Effect of sample size and resolution on palaeomalacological interpretation: a case study from Holocene calcareous-fen deposits. Journal of Quaternary Science 33, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goring, S., Williams, J.W., Blois, J.L., Jackson, S.T., Paciorek, C.J., Booth, R.K., Marlon, J.R., Blaauw, M., Christen, J.A., 2012. Deposition times in the northeastern United States during the Holocene: establishing valid priors for Bayesian age models. Quaternary Science Reviews 48, 54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, E.C., Maher, L.J., Nelson, D.M., 2009. The magnitude of error in conventional bulk-sediment radiocarbon dates from central North America. Quaternary Research 72, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslett, J., Parnell, A.C., 2008. A simple monotone process with application to radiocarbon-dated depth chronologies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 57, 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, G.M., Beukens, R.P., Kieser, W.E., 1991. Radiocarbon dating of limnic sediments: a comparative analysis and discussion. Ecology 72, 1150–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, R.D., Mansilla, C.A., Morello, F., De Pol-Holz, R., San Román, M., Tisdall, E., Torres, J., 2019. Late glacial and Holocene landscape change and rapid climate and coastal impacts in the Canal Beagle, southernmost Patagonia. Journal of Quaternary Science 34, 674–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michczynski, A., 2007. Is it possible to find a good point estimate of a calibrated radiocarbon date? Radiocarbon 49, 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neil, K., Gajewski, K., 2018. An 11,000-yr record of diatom assemblage responses to climate and terrestrial vegetation changes, southwestern Québec. Ecosphere 9(11):e02505. DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.2505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, W.W., Anderson, P.M., Brown, T.A., Brubaker, L.B., Hu, F.S., Lozhkin, A.V., Tinner, W., Kaltenrieder, P., 2005. Effects of sample mass and macrofossil type on radiocarbon dating of arctic and boreal lake sediments. The Holocene 15, 758–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PALE Steering Committee, 1993. Research protocols for PALE: Paleoclimates of Arctic lakes and estuaries. Bern, PAGES Workshop Report, Series 94-1. 53p.Google Scholar
Parnell, A.C., Buck, C.E., Doan, T.K., 2011. A review of statistical chronology models for high-resolution, proxy-based Holocene palaeoenvironmental reconstruction. Quaternary Science Reviews 30, 2948–2960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piotrowska, N., Blaauw, M., Mauquoy, D., Chambers, F.M., 2011. Constructing deposition chronologies for peat deposits using radiocarbon dating. Mires and Peat 7, Article 10, 1–14.Google Scholar
Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., et al. . 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55, 1869–1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiferl, J.D., Bush, M.B., Silman, M.R., Urrego, D.H., 2018. Vegetation responses to late Holocene climate changes in an Andean forest. Quaternary Research 89, 60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J., 1993. Extended 14C database and revised CALIB radiocarbon calibration program. Radiocarbon 35, 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telford, R.J., Heegaard, E., Birks, H.J.B., 2004a. All age-depth models are wrong: but how badly? Quaternary Science Reviews 23, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telford, R.J., Heegaard, E., Birks, H.J.B., 2004b. The intercept is a poor estimate of a calibrated radiocarbon age. The Holocene 14, 296–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Törőcsik, T., Gulyás, S., Molnár, D., Tapody, R., Sümegi, B.P., Szilágyi, G., Molnar, M., et al. 2018. Probabilistic 14C age-depth models aiding the reconstruction of Holocene paleoenvironmental evolution of a marshland from southern Hungary. Radiocarbon 60, 1301–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trachsel, M., Telford, R.J., 2017. All age-depth models are wrong, but are getting better. The Holocene 27, 860–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, W.G., Davidson, G.R., Lange, T., Wren, D., 2007. Accurate lacustrine and wetland sediment accumulation rates determined from 14C activity of bulk sediment fractions. Radiocarbon 49, 983-992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y. [Yongbo], Zhang, E., Sun, W., Chang, J., Liu, X., Ni, Z., Ning, D., 2019. Holocene evolution of the Indian Summer Monsoon inferred from a lacustrine record of Lake Wuxu, south-east Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Quaternary Science 34, 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y. [Yue], Goring, S.G., McGuire, J.L., 2019. Bayesian ages for pollen records since the last glaciation in North America. Scientific Data 6, 176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webb, R.S., Webb, T. III., 1988. Rates of sediment accumulation in pollen cores from small lakes and mires of eastern North America. Quaternary Research 30, 284–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, D.J., de Porras, M.E., Maldonado, A., Méndez, C., Stern, C.R., 2019. New age controls on the tephrochronology of the southernmost Andean Southern Volcanic Zone, Chile. Quaternary Research 91, 250–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.W., Grimm, E.C., Blois, J.L., Charles, D.F., Davis, E.B., Goring, S.J., Graham, R.W., et al. . 2018. The Neotoma Paleoecology Database, a multiproxy, international, community-curated data resource. Quaternary Research 89, 156–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, A.J., Edwards, R.J., van de Plassche, O., Blaauw, M., Parnell, A.C., van der Borg, K., de Jong, A.F.M., Roe, H.M., Selby, K., Black, S., 2017. Reconstructing the accumulation history of a saltmarsh sediment core: Which age-depth model is best? Quaternary Geochronology 39, 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lacourse and Gajewski supplementary material

Table S1

Download Lacourse and Gajewski supplementary material(File)
File 26.7 KB