Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:57:07.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in Radiocarbon Ages of Soil Organic Matter Fractions from Late Quaternary Buried Soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Charles W. Martin  and
William C. Johnson
Charles W. Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, Dickens Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506-0801
William C. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, Lindley Hall, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2121
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Radiocarbon dating of three organic matter fractions (total, humic acid, and residue) isolated from late Quaternary buried soils of the central Great Plains reveals that there often are considerable differences among, but no consistent order to, the ages of fractions. For late Holocene soils, the residue fraction or the total fraction generally produces the oldest age; for late Pleistocene soils, however, no fraction was consistently the oldest. The absence of a consistent sequence of fraction ages is attributed to postburial contamination of soils. When bulk samples from the same soil were split and sent to two laboratories, different radiocarbon ages were usually obtained. The variability in radiocarbon ages of soil organic matter confirms that caution should be taken when using radiocarbon ages obtained from different laboratories to make regional stratigraphic correlations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Quaternary Research , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , March 1995 , pp. 232 - 237
Copyright
University of Washington

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

Forman, S. L., and Miller, G. H. (1989). Radiocarbon dating of terrestrial organic matter. In “Dating Methods Applicable to Quaternary Geologic Studies in the Western United States” (Forman, S. L., Ed.), Miscellaneous Publication 89-7, pp. 2–9. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Salt Lake, UT.Google Scholar
Geyh, M. A. Benzler, J. H., and Roeschmann, G. (1971). Problems of dating Pleistocene and Holocene soils by radiocarbon methods. In“Paleopedology” (Yaalon, D. H., Ed.), pp. 63–75. Israel University Press, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Geyh, M. A. Roeschmann, G. Wijmstra, T. A., and Middeldorp, A. A. (1983). The unreliability of 14C dates obtained from buried sandy podzols. Radiocarbon 25, 409–416.Google Scholar
Gilet-Blein, N. Marien, G., and Evin, J. (1980). Unreliability of 14C dates from organic matter of soils. Radiocarbon 22, 919–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goh, K. M. (1980). Dynamics and stability of soil organic matter. In“Soil with Variable Change” (Theng, B. K. G., Ed.), pp. 373–393. New Zealand Society of Soil Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Haas, H. Holliday, V. T., and Stuckenrath, R. (1986). Dating of Helocene stratigraphy with soluble and insoluble organic fractions at the Lubbock Lake archaeological site, Texas: An ideal case study. Radiocarbon 28, 473–485.Google Scholar
Hammond, A. P. Goh, K. M. Tonkin, P. J., and Manning, M. R, (1991). Chemical pretreatments for improving the radiocarbon dates of peat and organic silts in a gley podzol environment: Grahams Terrace, North Westland. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 34, 181–194.Google Scholar
Head, M. J. Zhou, W., and Zhou, M. (1989). Evaluation of 14C ages or organic fractions of paleosols from loess-paleosol sequences near Xian, China. Radiocarbon 31, 680–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, J, A. (1980). Some problems and implications of 14C dates from a podzol buried beneath an end moraine at Haugabreen, southern Norway. Geografiska Annaler 62A, 185–208.Google Scholar
Matthews, J. A., and Dresser, P. Q. (1983). intensive l4C dating of a buried paleosol horizon. Geoiogiska Foreningens i Stockholm ForhandUngar 105, 59–63.Google Scholar
Nesje, A. Kvamme, M., and Rye, N. (1989). Neoglacial gelifluction in the Jostedalsbreen region, western Norway: Evidence from dated buried palaeopodsols. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 14, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, I. U. (1974). Some problems in connection with the evaluation of l4C dates. Geoiogiska Foreningens i Stockholm ForhandUngar 96, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polach, H. A., and Costin, A. B. (1971). Validity of soil organic matter radiocarbon dating: buried soils in Snowy Mountains, southeastern Australia as example. In “Paleopedology” (Yaalon, D. H., Ed.), pp. 89–96. Israel University Press, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Schaetzel, R. J., and Sorenson, C. J. (1987). The concept of “buried” versus “isolated” paleosols: Examples from northeastern Kansas. Soil Science 143, 426–435.Google Scholar
Scharpenseel, H. W., and Schiffmann, H. (1977). Radiocarbon dating of soils, a review. Zeitschrift fuer Planzenernaehrung and Bodenkunde 140, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, I. D. Goh, K. M., and Rafter, T. A. (1981). Chemistry and turnover of naturally occurring resistant organic compounds in soil. In “Soil Biochemistry” (Paul, E. A. and Ladd, J. N., Eds.), Vol. 5, pp. 1–73. Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
Stuckenrath, R. Miller, G. H., and Andrews, J. T. (1979). Problems of radiocarbon dating Holocene organic-bearing sediments, Cumberland Peninsula, Baffin Island, N.W.T., Canada. Arctic and Alpine Research 11, 109–120.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M., and Polach, H. A. (1977). Discussion; reporting of l4C data. Radiocarbon 19, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P. J. (1993). Extended UC data base and revised Calib 3.0 MC age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35, 215–230.Google Scholar
Wilson, P., and Farrington, O. (1989). Radiocarbon dating of the Holocene evolution of Magilligan Foreland, Co. Londonderry. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 89B, 1–23.Google Scholar