2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.quageo.2020.101093
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Challenges and limitations of the 210Pb sediment dating method: Results from an IAEA modelling interlaboratory comparison exercise

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This standardized method of evaluating different chronologies will further facilitate identification of the most reliable chronological dating model where model assumptions are respected. Interestingly, Barsanti et al (2020) recently conducted an interlaboratory calibration exercise with 14 different laboratories worldwide to evaluate a single lake sediment isotopic profile, and no consensus was reached with regard to dating model selection: seven laboratories selected the CRS model, five adopted the CFCS model, another one chose the CIC model, and finally the last group selected a modified version of the CFCS model. Clearly, there is a need to standardize approaches to model selection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This standardized method of evaluating different chronologies will further facilitate identification of the most reliable chronological dating model where model assumptions are respected. Interestingly, Barsanti et al (2020) recently conducted an interlaboratory calibration exercise with 14 different laboratories worldwide to evaluate a single lake sediment isotopic profile, and no consensus was reached with regard to dating model selection: seven laboratories selected the CRS model, five adopted the CFCS model, another one chose the CIC model, and finally the last group selected a modified version of the CFCS model. Clearly, there is a need to standardize approaches to model selection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By contrast, in the last century, the rates have increased markedly to between 2-200 mm yr -1 (Bentley et al, 2014;Huirama et al, 2021;Hume and Dahm, 1992;Hunt, 2019;Swales and Hume, 1995). These studies, however, have been challenged by the limitations associated with age-dating sediments using the 14 C or 210 Pb methods (Appleby, 1998;Barsanti et al, 2020;Petchey, 2009), and therefore it is unclear how meaningful reported estimates of "average" SAR over these time spans are given the inherently incomplete nature of the stratigraphic record (Paola et al, 2018;Straub et al, 2020). Nonetheless, the distinct increase in the range of SAR through time has also brought with it shifts in the texture of substrates (i.e., sand versus mud), as well as spatially heterogeneous changes in the balance between erosion and deposition (e.g., Anderson et al, 2004;Swales et al, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For recent sediments (past 100 years), chronologies obtained using 210 Pb have shown to be reliable in high sediment accumulation environments (Appleby and Oldfield 1978 ; Appleby and Oldfieldz 1983 ). However, the 210 Pb ages may suffer from different biases and usually need to be verified using an independent method (Appleby 1998 ; Santschi and Rowe 2008 ; Corcho-Alvarado et al 2014 , Barsanti et al, 2020 ). For this purpose, other chronostratigraphic markers such as the global fallout radionuclides (e.g., 137 Cs, 239+240 Pu, and 241 Am) are commonly measured in sedimentary records (Appleby et al 1986 , Appleby et al 1991 , Lindahl et al 2010 , Díaz-Asencio et al 2016 , Díaz-Asencio et al, 2020c , Foucher et al 2021 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%