2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.quageo.2010.02.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reply to Lowe, D.J., Wilson, C.J.N., Newnham, R.M., Hogg, A.G. comment on Grapes, R., Rieser, U., Wang, N., 2010. Optical luminescence dating of a loess section containing a critical tephra marker horizon, SW North Island of New Zealand. Quaternary Geochronology 5, doi:10.1016/j.quageo.2009.01.004, 2010

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 23 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This relationship of older CN 3 He‐derived emplacement ages for boulders sitting above younger OSL ages is inconsistent with stratigraphic superposition and requires either that the OSL ages are younger than the true depositional age of the loessic sediment (e.g. Almond et al ., ; Grapes et al ., ,b), that the CN ages are older than the true timing of boulder emplacement (e.g. Mackey and Quigley, ), or both.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…This relationship of older CN 3 He‐derived emplacement ages for boulders sitting above younger OSL ages is inconsistent with stratigraphic superposition and requires either that the OSL ages are younger than the true depositional age of the loessic sediment (e.g. Almond et al ., ; Grapes et al ., ,b), that the CN ages are older than the true timing of boulder emplacement (e.g. Mackey and Quigley, ), or both.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 64%