Luminescence chronology and age model application for the upper part of the Chumbur-Kosa loess sequence in the Sea of Azov, Russia

Effects of Climatic Change on Soil Hydraulic Properties during the Last Interglacial Period: Two Case Studies of the Southern Chinese Loess Plateau

“…As the grain size age model is widely employed in determining the loess-paleosol ages [29,30], and supported by the OSL dating results, we think that these age estimates would be reliable for the S1 level.…”

Revisiting Late Pleistocene Loess–Paleosol Sequences in the Azov Sea Region of Russia: Chronostratigraphy and Paleoenvironmental Record

“…As for the Chumbur-Kosa section, a previous study has identified the prominent paleosol complex at 4.5-2.8 m below the modern top surface yielding MS values as high as those of the modern soil (Chen et al, 2018b). An OSL age of 76.0 ± 6.4 ka positioned in the uppermost part of this enhanced MS interval suggests this paleosol corresponds to the Late Last Interglacial complex, and probably can be assigned to the Late MIS 5 (Chen et al, 2018b). Moreover, there are two MS peaks with a dominant lower peak typically noted in the curve of χ fd (Figure 2), denoting stronger intensity of soil-forming processes compared with the upper one.…”

“…Detailed discussion on maximum age of quartz OSL dating and methodological errors of the dating procedure responsible for potential underestimation of these ages can be found in Chen et al (2018a). Even so, the initial results showed that the whole ~11 m of the Beglitsa section formed since marine isotope stage (MIS) 5 (Chen et al, 2018a), while only the upper ~5 m of the Chumbur-Kosa section corresponds to the same period (Chen et al, 2018b). For better comparison, we, hence, present here the whole 14 m of the Beglitsa section and the upper 6 m of the Chumbur-Kosa section for investigation, which both covers the Holocene soil, the entire sequence of Last Glacial loess, the entire sequence of Last Interglacial soil complex, and the very upper part of the penultimate Glacial loess.…”

“…Roksolany, Ukraine (Hlavatskyi and Bakhmutov, 2020); Kurortne, Ukraine (Tecsa et al, 2020); Costinesti, Romania (Constantin et al, 2014;Necula et al, 2015); and the benthic LR04 stack (Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005). Ages shown at the Chumbur-Kosa section are derived from Chen et al (2018b); ages presented at the Roksolany section are cited from many references (Fedorowicz et al, 2012;Wulf et al, 2016;Constantin et al, 2019) and summarized in Hlavatskyi and Bakhmutov (2020); and ages presented at the Costinesti section are derived from Constantin et al (2014). Note that there are three types of absolute ages illustrated: ages in regular type represent OSL ages, ages in italic are 14 C ages, and ages in bold show TL ages.…”

“…Moreover, a general succession of the Azov Sea area environmental changes at different timescales has been revealed by multiple paleoclimate proxy records from Azov LPS including MS and grain size (GS) variations (Velichko et al, 2009a;Liang et al, 2016;Chen et al, 2018b;Timireva et al, 2021), mammal faunal composition (Tesakov et al, 2007;Velichko et al, 2009b;Markova and Vislobokova, 2016), pollen and diatom assemblages (Matishov et al, 2013), and paleosol macro-and micromorphology (Panin et al, 2018). This integrated approach using multiproxy records has resulted in considerable progress in the understanding of paleoenvironmental changes recorded in the loess of the Azov Sea area despite being embedded in the poorly defined chronostratigraphy.…”