No abstract

No abstract

The iconic climate archive of Tenaghi Philippon (TP), NE Greece, allows the study of shortterm palaeoclimatic and environmental change throughout the past 1.3 Ma. To provide highquality age control for detailed palaeoclimate reconstructions based on the TP archive, (crypto)tephra studies of a peat core 'TP-2005' have been carried out for the 0-130 ka interval. The results show that the TP basin is ideally positioned to receive tephra fall from both the Italian and Aegean Arc volcanic provinces. Two visible tephra layers, the Santorini Cape Riva/Y-2 (c. 22 ka) and the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI)/Y-5 (c. 39.8 ka) tephras, and six primary cryptotephra layers, namely the early Holocene E1 tephra from the Aeolian Islands (c. 8.3 ka), the Campanian Y-3 (c. 29 ka) and X-6 tephras (c. 109.5 ka), as well as counterpart tephras TM-18-1d (c. 40.4 ka), TM-23-11 (c. 92.4 ka) and TM-33-1a (c. 116.7 ka) from the Lago Grande di Monticchio sequence (southern Italy), were identified along with repeatedly redeposited Y-2 and CI tephra material. Bayesian modelling of the ages of seven of the primary tephra layers, 60 radiocarbon measurements and 20 palynological control points have been applied to markedly improve the chronology of the TP archive. This revised chronology constrains the age of tephra TM-18-1d to 40.90-41.66 cal ka BP (95.4% range). Several tephra layers identified in the TP record form important isochrons for correlating this archive with other terrestrial (e.g., Lago Grande di Monticchio, Sulmona Basin and Lake Ohrid) and marine (e.g., Adriatic Sea core PRAD 1-2 and Aegean Sea core LC21) palaeoclimate records in the Mediterranean region.

Environmental research varies in its methodological quality, degree of bias, and relevance to policy questions. Using this heterogeneous, and sometimes polarised, research to inform environmental policies can be challenging. Policy-making in the healthcare field sometimes uses systematic reviews (SRs) to tackle these issues and present a comprehensive, policy-neutral, transparent and reproducible synthesis of the evidence. However, there is less familiarity with SRs in the environmental field. The aim of this article is to: (1) summarise the process of conducting SRs, using best practice methods from the healthcare field as an example, (2) explain the rationale behind each stage of conducting a SR, and (3) examine the prospects and challenges of using SRs to inform environmental policy. We conclude that existing SR protocols from healthcare can be, and have been, applied successfully to environmental research but some adaptations could improve the process. The literature search stage could be expedited by standardising the reporting and indexing of environmental studies, equivalent to that in the healthcare field. The consistency of the study appraisal stage of SRs could be augmented by refining the existing quality assessment tools used in the healthcare field, enhancing their ability to discriminate quality and risk of bias in non-randomised studies. Ultimately, the strength of evidence within SRs on environmental topics could be improved through more widespread use of randomised controlled trials as a research method, owing to their inherently lower risk of bias when conducted according to best practice