Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T13:15:23.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marine Radiocarbon Reservoir Values in Southern California Estuaries: Interspecies, Latitudinal, and Interannual Variability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2016

James R Holmquist ,
Laura Reynolds ,
Lauren N Brown ,
John R Southon ,
Alexander R Simms  and
Glen M MacDonald
James R Holmquist
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, La Kretz Hall, Suite 300, Box 951496, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1496, USA
Laura Reynolds
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara, Department of Earth Science, 1006 Webb Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
Lauren N Brown
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Geography, 1255 Bunche Hall, Box 951524, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
John R Southon
Affiliation:
Keck-CCAMS Group, Earth System Science Department, B321 Croul Hall, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3100, USA
Alexander R Simms
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara, Department of Earth Science, 1006 Webb Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
Glen M MacDonald*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, La Kretz Hall, Suite 300, Box 951496, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1496, USA University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Geography, 1255 Bunche Hall, Box 951524, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
*
5.Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many studies use radiocarbon dates on estuarine shell material to build age-depth models of sediment accumulation in estuaries in California, USA. Marine 14C ages are typically older than dates from contemporaneous terrestrial carbon and local offsets (ΔR) from the global average marine offset need to be calculated to ensure the accuracy of calibrated dates. We used accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) 14C dating on 40 pre-1950 salt marsh snail and clam shells previously collected from four California estuaries. The average ΔR and standard deviation of 217 ± 129 14C yr is consistent with previous calculations using mixed estuarine and marine samples, although the standard deviation and resulting age uncertainty was higher for our estuarine calculations than previous studies. There was a slight but significant difference (p = 0.024) in ΔR between epifaunal snails (ΔR = 171 ± 154 14C yr) and infaunal clams (ΔR = 263 ± 77 14C yr), as well as between samples from individual estuaries. However, a closer examination of the data shows that even for the same species, at the same estuary, ΔR can vary as much as ∼500 14C yr. In some cases, the bulk of this variation occurs between samples collected by different collectors at different times, potentially indicating time dependence in carbon sources and ΔR variation. These variations could also be attributed to differences in collection location within a single estuary and resulting spatial differences in carbon sources. Intertidal specimens located in the high marsh may have lower ΔR than fully marine counterparts because of increased terrestrial 14C input. The large variations in ΔR here highlight the need for conservative chronological interpretations, as well as the assumption of wide uncertainties, when dating samples from estuarine sources.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , 2015 , pp. 449 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ascough, P, Cook, G, Dugmore, A. 2005a. Methodological approaches to determining the marine radiocarbon reservoir effect. Progress in Physical Geography 29(4):532–47.Google Scholar
Ascough, PL, Cook, GT, Dugmore, AJ, Scott, EM, Freeman, SP. 2005b. Influence of mollusk species on marine ΔR determinations. Radiocarbon 47(3):433–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bard, E. 1998. Geochemical and geophysical implications of the radiocarbon calibration. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 62(12):2025–38.Google Scholar
Berger, R, Taylor, R, Libby, W. 1966. Radiocarbon content of marine shells from the California and Mexican west coast. Science 153(3738):864–6.Google Scholar
Boles, JR. 2004. Rapid growth of meter-scale calcite speleothems in the Mission Tunnel, Santa Barbara, CA. Water-Rock Interaction. Wanty, RB, Seal, RR II, editors. London: Taylor & Francis Group. p 353–6.Google Scholar
Brevik, EC, Homburg, JA. 2004. A 5000 year record of carbon sequestration from a coastal lagoon and wetland complex, Southern California, USA. Catena 57(3):221–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, KL, Liu, G-W. 1994. Holocene paleoecology of an estuary on Santa Rosa Island, California. Quaternary Research 41(3):326–35.Google Scholar
Culleton, BJ, Kennett, DJ, Ingram, BL, Erlandson, JM, Southon, JR. 2006. Intrashell radiocarbon variability in marine mollusks. Radiocarbon 48(3):387–400.Google Scholar
Deo, JN, Stone, JO, Stein, JK. 2004. Building confidence in shell: variations in the marine radiocarbon reservoir correction for the Northwest Coast over the past 3,000 yr. American Antiquity 69(4):771–86.Google Scholar
Druffel, ERM. 2002. Radiocarbon in corals: records of the carbon cycle, surface circulation and climate. Oceanography 15(1):122–7.Google Scholar
Enkin, RJ, Dallimore, A, Baker, J, Southon, JR, Ivanochko, T, Lian, O. 2013. A new high-resolution radiocarbon Bayesian age model of the Holocene and Late Pleistocene from core MD02-2494 and others, Effingham Inlet, British Columbia, Canada; with an application to the paleoseismic event chronology of the Cascadia Subduction Zone 1. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 50(7):746–60.Google Scholar
Ferguson, J, Johnson, K, Santos, G, Meyer, L, Tripati, A. 2013. Investigating δ13C and Δ14C within Mytilus californianus shells as proxies of upwelling intensity. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 14(6):1856–65.Google Scholar
Hassan, GS, Espinosa, MA, Isla, FI. 2009. Diatom-based inference model for paleosalinity reconstructions in estuaries along the northeastern coast of Argentina. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 275(1):77–91.Google Scholar
Heier-Nielsen, S, Heinemeier, J, Nielsen, H, Rud, N. 1997. Recent reservoir ages for Danish fjords and marine waters. Radiocarbon 37(3):875–82.Google Scholar
Hendy, IL, Dunn, L, Schimmelmann, A, Pak, D. 2013. Resolving varve and radiocarbon chronology differences during the last 2000 yr in the Santa Barbara Basin sedimentary record, California. Quaternary International 310:155–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibarra, Y, Corsetti, FA, Cheetham, MI, Feakins, SJ. 2014. Were fossil spring-associated carbonates near Zaca Lake, Santa Barbara, California deposited under an ambient or thermal regime? Sedimentary Geology 30:15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, BL. 1998. Differences in radiocarbon age between shell and charcoal from a Holocene shellmound in northern California. Quaternary Research 49(1):102–10.Google Scholar
Ingram, BL, Southon, JR. 1996. Reservoir ages in eastern Pacific coastal and estuarine waters. Radiocarbon 38(3):573–82.Google Scholar
Jennings, CW, Gutierrez, C, Bryant, W, Saucedo, G, Wills, C. 2010. Geologic Map of California. Sacramento: California Geological Survey.Google Scholar
Kennett, DJ, Ingram, BL, Erlandson, JM, Walker, P. 1997. Evidence for temporal fluctuations in marine radiocarbon reservoir ages in the Santa Barbara Channel, southern California. Journal of Archaeological Science 24(11):1051–9.Google Scholar
Malamud-Roam, FP, Lynn Ingram, B, Hughes, M, Florsheim, JL. 2006. Holocene paleoclimate records from a large California estuarine system and its watershed region: linking watershed climate and bay conditions. Quaternary Science Reviews 25(13):1570–98.Google Scholar
McConnaughey, TA, Gillikin, DP. 2008. Carbon isotopes in mollusk shell carbonates. Geo-Marine Letters 28(5–6):287–99.Google Scholar
Mudie, PJ, Byrne, R. 1980. Pollen evidence for historic sedimentation rates in California coastal marshes. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 10(3):305–16.Google Scholar
Nolte, S, Koppenaal, EC, Esselink, P, Dijkema, KS, Schuerch, M, De Groot, AV, Bakker, JP, Temmerman, S. 2013. Measuring sedimentation in tidal marshes: a review on methods and their applicability in biogeomorphological studies. Journal of Coastal Conservation 17(3):301–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouyang, X, Lee, S. 2013. Carbon accumulation rates in salt marsh sediments suggest high carbon storage capacity. Biogeosciences Discussions 10(12):19,155–88.Google Scholar
Page, H. 1997. Importance of vascular plant and algal production to macro-invertebrate consumers in a southern California salt marsh. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 45(6):823–34.Google Scholar
Petchey, F, Allen, MS, Addison, DJ, Anderson, A. 2009. Stability in the South Pacific surface marine 14C reservoir over the last 750 yr. Evidence from American Samoa, the southern Cook Islands and the Marquesas. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(10):2234–43.Google Scholar
Petchey, F, Ulm, S, David, B, McNiven, IJ, Asmussen, B, Tomkins, H, Richards, T, Rowe, C, Leavesley, M, Mandui, H. 2012. 14C marine reservoir variability in herbivores and deposit-feeding gastropods from an open coastline, Papua New Guinea. Radiocarbon 54(3–4):967–78.Google Scholar
Philippsen, B, Olsen, J, Lewis, JP, Rasmussen, P, Ryves, DB, Knudsen, KL. 2013. Mid-to late-Holocene reservoir-age variability and isotope-based palaeoenvironmental reconstruction in the Limfjord, Denmark. The Holocene 23(7):1017–27.Google Scholar
R Core Development Team. 2014. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Version 2.13. 0. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ. 2014. Marine or estuarine radiocarbon reservoir corrections for mollusks? A case study from a medieval site in the south of England. Journal of Archaeological Science 49:142–6.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Buck, CE, Cheng, H, Edwards, RL, Friedrich, M, Grootes, PM, Guilderson, TP, Haflidason, H, Hajdas, I, Hatté, C, Heaton, TJ, Hoffman, DL, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kaiser, KF, Kromer, B, Manning, SW, Niu, M, Reimer, RW, Richards, DA, Scott, EM, Southon, JR, Staff, RA, Turney, CSM, van der Plicht, J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–87.Google Scholar
Rick, TC, Henkes, GA, Lowery, DL, Colman, SM, Culleton, BJ. 2012. Marine radiocarbon reservoir corrections (ΔR) for Chesapeake Bay and the Middle Atlantic Coast of North America. Quaternary Research 77(1):205–10.Google Scholar
Robinson, SW, Thompson, G. 1981. Radiocarbon corrections for marine shell dates with application to southern Pacific Northwest Coast prehistory. Syesis 14:45–57.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P, Dezileau, L, Blanchemanche, P, Siant, G, Condomines, M, Bentaleb, I, Piquès, G. 2010. Holocene variations of radiocarbon reservoir ages in a Mediterranean lagoonal system. Radiocarbon 52(1):91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, DB, Mudie, PJ, Bradshaw, JS. 2011. Coastal evolution of Southern California as interpreted from benthic foraminifera, ostracodes, and pollen. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 41(3):285–307.Google Scholar
Scourse, JD, Wanamaker, A Jr, Weidman, C, Heinemeier, J, Reimer, PJ, Butler, PG, Witbaard, R, Richardson, CA. 2012. The marine radiocarbon bomb pulse across the temperate north Atlantic: a compilation of Δ14C time histories from Arctica islandica growth increments. Radiocarbon 54(2):165–86.Google Scholar
Taylor, R, Southon, J, Des Lauriers, MR. 2007. Holocene marine reservoir time series ΔR values from Cedros Island, Baja California. Radiocarbon 49(2):899–904.Google Scholar
Wolter, K, Timlin, MS. 2011. El Niño/Southern Oscillation behaviour since 1871 as diagnosed in an extended multivariate ENSO index (MEI. ext). International Journal of Climatology 31(7):1074–87.Google Scholar