2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.quageo.2012.07.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Potential for accurate and precise radiocarbon ages in deglacial-age lacustrine carbonates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One sample (1037-2) did not graphitize properly, and is not discussed further. Samples of less than ~300 micrograms of carbon require a background correction scaled to the sample size (Zimmerman et al 2012) and so the analytical uncertainties were larger than desired, between±40 and±170 yr, 1-sigma (Table 1). Unfortunately, the combination of large analytical uncertainty and the shape of the calibration curve in this interval led to large uncertainties in the calibrated ages.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One sample (1037-2) did not graphitize properly, and is not discussed further. Samples of less than ~300 micrograms of carbon require a background correction scaled to the sample size (Zimmerman et al 2012) and so the analytical uncertainties were larger than desired, between±40 and±170 yr, 1-sigma (Table 1). Unfortunately, the combination of large analytical uncertainty and the shape of the calibration curve in this interval led to large uncertainties in the calibrated ages.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In certain cases, when the shell material was still encrusted in sediment or showed signs of surface alteration, the sample was soaked in dilute (0.1 M) HCl to etch the surfaces clean. Despite this treatment, the older samples in particular may have been contaminated by young carbon (Zimmerman et al, 2012), yielding ages that are systematically too young. We subtracted 140 years from all ages, including those of the aquatic gastropod and ostracodes, to adjust for estimated content of old carbon as determined by Miller et al (2010) on paired dates from Anodonta shells and charcoal from Holocene deposits in the nearby Cronese basins (Fig.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(1) Several ages for the older units N38 ka are near the practical limit of radiocarbon dating and have relatively large error bars, and a smaller number of ages constrain these units than are available for the younger units. Further, it is possible that the older 14 C ages may be minimum values due to contamination or replacement by minute amounts of younger carbonate (Zimmerman et al, 2012), despite analytical efforts to remove surface carbonate using HCl. Thus, the duration and age of the oldest lake cycles (particularly P1,~44-42 ka, P2,~40-38.5 ka, and P3,~37-35.5 ka) are less certain than for younger lake cycles.…”
Section: Construction Of Lake-level Curve and Potential Errorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The 14 C-based chronology of Benson et al (1990) delimits the timing of Wilson Creek sedimentation to the interval between 12 and 36 ka. However, multiple studies (e.g., Hajdas et al, 2004;Kent et al, 2002;Zimmerman et al, 2011Zimmerman et al, , 2012 have demonstrated with leaching experiments that Wilson Creek ostracodes at different stratigraphic levels have been open systems, and their bulk 14 C ages are thus minimum depositional ages (Benson et al, 1990). Additionally, the recognition of Ash 18 and Ash 20 as probable Mammoth Mountain-derived tephras (Marcaida et al, 2014) places a minimum depositional age constraint of~50 ka, that is, the youngest Mammoth Mountain dome eruption (Hildreth et al, 2014), for the base of the Wilson Creek formation.…”
Section: Tephras and The Controversial Excursion In The Wilson Creek mentioning
confidence: 99%