2017
DOI: 10.1007/s00334-017-0624-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimal sampling design and minimal effort for soil charcoal analyses considering the soil type and forest history

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some clayey soil samples required immersion in a sodium hexametaphosphate ( Na 6 O 18 P 6 ) solution before sieving. Fifty pieces of charcoal, if available, were randomly selected (n=1,695) from each size fraction in the sieve from each layer (Robin and Nelle 2010;Feiss et al 2017b). Robin et al (personal communication, 2010) showed that this threshold of 50 charcoal pieces per size fraction was sufficient to determine the taxonomic diversity of the soil charcoal from each layer.…”
Section: Laboratory Treatment and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some clayey soil samples required immersion in a sodium hexametaphosphate ( Na 6 O 18 P 6 ) solution before sieving. Fifty pieces of charcoal, if available, were randomly selected (n=1,695) from each size fraction in the sieve from each layer (Robin and Nelle 2010;Feiss et al 2017b). Robin et al (personal communication, 2010) showed that this threshold of 50 charcoal pieces per size fraction was sufficient to determine the taxonomic diversity of the soil charcoal from each layer.…”
Section: Laboratory Treatment and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the context of modern pedoanthracology, such sampling may be considered a high standard; many studies analysed 90 charcoal fragments per sample (e.g., Nelle, Dreibrodt, & Dannath, ; Quednau & Ludemann, ; Robin, Bork, Nadeau, & Nelle, ; Robin, Knapp, & Bork, ) and some other not more than 50 charcoal fragments (e.g., Compostella, Trombino, & Caccianiga, ; Moser, Di Pasquale, Scarciglia, & Nelle, ). Several authors recommended a minimum of 250 charcoal fragments per layer to be analysed in archaeo‐anthracological studies (e.g., Damblon & Haesaerts, ; Damblon, Haesaerts, & van der Plicht, ), whereas Feiss et al () recommended even higher minima for pedoanthracological studies (up to 500–600 charcoals). However, the latter author himself performed considerably lower numbers of identifications and used rather low‐resolution subsampling (four to five samples per profile) that illustrates the difficulty in practical adherence to such a recommendation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, studies focusing on the efficiency of the sampling protocols are nearly inexistent, although this is a central issue concerning the representativeness of pedoanthracological assemblages. While anthracological sampling protocols 'guided' by the presence of archaeological deposits have been optimized (Chabal et al 1999), pedoanthracological sampling schemes vary greatly among specialists and, to our knowledge, only one study has addressed this issue (Feiss et al 2017). Two methods can be used for the systematic sampling of soil charcoals: pit sampling and auger sampling.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two methods can be used for the systematic sampling of soil charcoals: pit sampling and auger sampling. The first one, which is the most used, consists in sampling soil volumes (usually 10 L or 10 kg) along a soil profile in layers respecting the pedological horizons (Carcaillet and Thinon 1996;Dutoit et al 2009;Feiss et al 2017) or in artificial layers of about 10 cm in the tropics where soils horizons (oxisols) are less distinct (Scheel-Ybert et al 2003;Hubau et al 2012;Fernandes Caromano et al 2013;Morin-Rivat et al 2014;2016;Dotte-Sarout et al 2015). The dimensions of the pits vary among the studies and can take the form of large trenches of 1 x 2 m wide (Scheel-Ybert et al 2003;Di Pasquale et al 2008) or small test-pits of 0.5 m × 0.5 m or 1 x 1 m wide (Dotte-Sarout et al 2015;Morin-Rivat et al 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation