Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-rj9fg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-09T21:57:47.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Calculating Sediment Compaction for Radiocarbon Dating of Intertidal Sediments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

M I Bird ,
L K Fifield ,
S Chua  and
B Goh
M I Bird*
Affiliation:
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616.
L K Fifield
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Physics, Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia.
S Chua
Affiliation:
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616.
B Goh
Affiliation:
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616.
*
Present address: School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Fife, KY16 9AL, Scotland, United Kingdom. Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study estimates the maximum and minimum degrees of autocompaction for radiocarbon-dated Holocene mangrove sediments in Singapore, in order to correct apparent sediment accretion rates for the effects of sediment compression due to autocompaction. Relationships developed for a suite of modern (surface) sediment samples between bulk density, particle-size distribution, and organic matter content were used to estimate the initial (uncompacted) bulk density of buried and variably compressed Holocene sediments, based on the grain-size distribution and organic matter content of the sediment. The difference between measured (compacted) and initial (uncompacted) bulk density of each buried sediment interval can be interpreted as the amount of length shortening experienced by each interval since burial. This allows the elevation of samples selected for 14C dating to be corrected for the effects of autocompaction of the underlying sediment sequence, so that accurate estimates of vertical sediment accretion rates can be calculated.

The 3 Holocene mangrove sequences analyzed and dated for this study ranged in age from 2000 to 8500 cal BP. The effects of autocompaction are significant, even in comparatively thin sequences, with subsidence of up to 56 cm calculated for carbon-dated samples presently 2 m above incompressible basement. The vertical sediment accretion rates for these mangrove sequences ranged from 0.99 to 6.84 mm/yr and carbon sequestration rates ranged from 0.9 to 1.7 t/ha/yr, all within the range observed for comparable Holocene and modern mangrove sediments elsewhere.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 46 , Issue 1: Proceedings of the 18th International Radiocarbon Conference (Part 1 of 2), Conference Editors: Nancy Beavan Athfield, Rodger J Sparks , 2004 , pp. 421 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Allen, JRL. 2000. Holocene coastal lowlands: autocompaction and the uncertain ground. In: Pye, K, Allen, JRL, editors. Coastal and estuarine environments: sed-imentology, geomorphology and geoarchaeology. Geological Society Special Publication 175:239–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alongi, D, Tirendi, F, Dixon, P, Trott, LA, Brunskill, GJ. 1999. Mineralization of organic matter in intertidal sediments of a tropical semi-enclosed delta. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 48:451–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alongi, D, Tirendi, F, Clough, BF. 2000. Below-ground decomposition of organic matter in forests of the mangroves, Rhizophora stylosa and Avicennia marina, along the arid coast of Western Australia. Aquatic Botany 68:97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alongi, D, Wattayakorn, G, Pfitzner, J, Tirendi, F, Zagorskis, I, Brunskill, GJ, Davidson, A, Clough, BF. 2001. Organic carbon accumulation and metabolic pathways in sediments of mangrove forests in southern Thailand. Marine Geology 179:85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasco, F, Saenger, P, Janodet, E. 1996. Mangroves as indicators of coastal change. Catena 27:167–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chua, CW. 2003. Environmental History of the Sungei Buloh-Kranji Mangrove coast. [BA honors thesis] . Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.Google Scholar
Ellison, JC. 1989. Pollen analysis of mangrove sediments as a sea-level indicator. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology and Palaeoecology 74:327–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, JC. 1993. Mangrove retreat with rising sea-level, Bermuda. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 37: 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, JC. 1998. Impacts of sediment burial on mangroves. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37:420–6.Google Scholar
Ellison, JC, Stoddart, DR. 1991. Mangrove ecosystem collapse with predicted sea-level rise: Holocene analogues and implications. Journal of Coastal Research 7:151–65.Google Scholar
Fujimoto, K. 2000. Below-ground carbon sequestration of mangrove forests in the Asia-Pacific region. International Workshop Asia-Pacific Cooperation on Research for Conservation of Mangroves. 26–30 March 2000, Okinawa, Japan.Google Scholar
Hesp, PA, Chang, CH, Hilton, M, Ming, CL, Turner, IM. 1998. A first tentative Holocene sea-level curve for Singapore. Journal of Coastal Research 14:308–14.Google Scholar
Pirazzoli, PA. 1996. Sea-Level Changes. The Last 20,000 Years. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Stanley, DJ, Hait, AK. 2000. Deltas, radiocarbon dating, and measurements of sediment storage and subsidence. Geology 28:295–8.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Reimer, PJ, Braziunas, TF. 1998. High-precision radiocarbon age calibration for terrestrial and marine samples. Radiocarbon 40(3):1127–51. (Data available at http://www.calib.org/).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodroffe, CD. 1981. Mangrove swamp stratigraphy and Holocene transgression, Grand Cayman Island, West Indies. Marine Geology 41:271–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar