2000
DOI: 10.1130/0091-7613(2000)28<295:drdamo>2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Deltas, radiocarbon dating, and measurements of sediment storage and subsidence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
21
0
2

Year Published

2005
2005
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
2
21
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The radiocarbon ages are inverted in several boreholes, which we attribute to reworking of older sediments. Studies of deltaic sequences elsewhere have shown that the youngest age, 4.3 ka in the case Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 05:03 20 December 2014 of the younger alluvium in the Santa Maria River valley, best indicates the time of burial by fluvio-deltaic facies (Stanley and Hait, 2000). This inference is confirmed by the 3.5 ka age 0.75 m above the upper alluvium/dune sheet contact.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 61%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The radiocarbon ages are inverted in several boreholes, which we attribute to reworking of older sediments. Studies of deltaic sequences elsewhere have shown that the youngest age, 4.3 ka in the case Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 05:03 20 December 2014 of the younger alluvium in the Santa Maria River valley, best indicates the time of burial by fluvio-deltaic facies (Stanley and Hait, 2000). This inference is confirmed by the 3.5 ka age 0.75 m above the upper alluvium/dune sheet contact.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…We attribute the age inversions to reworking of older materials in the fluvio-deltaic system of the Santa Maria River, a common feature in such settings elsewhere (Stanley and Hait, 2000). Based on these anomalies, Stanley and Hait (2000) recommend using the youngest radiocarbon age as an indicator of burial age of the underlying deposit, which for our data set is 4360 ± 70 yr B.P.…”
Section: Downloaded By [University Of North Dakota] At 05:03 20 Decemmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…However, we can manage this difficulty by analysing colluvial wedges and regarding the derived rates as minimum values. Radiocarbon dating of dispersed carbon and charcoal in delta environments often leads to increments as large as several thousand years in the apparent ages of deposition (Stanley and Hait, 2000). However, if the age determinations in this paper are reliable, we can draw three main conclusions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Obtaining age control from fluvial deposits, however, has been difficult due to limited organic material for radiocarbon dating and problems with reworking of old carbon in many fluvial sediments (e.g. Blong & Gillespie 1978; Gillespie et al 1992; Stanley & Hait 2000). Other techniques, such as cosmogenic nuclide dating of terrace surfaces and U‐series dating of pedogenic carbonate, provide minimum ages on sediment deposition and landform abandonment (e.g.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%