4.2 Article

Phytoliths infer locally dense and heterogeneous paleovegetation at FLK North and surrounding localities during upper Bed I time, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

Journal

QUATERNARY RESEARCH
Volume 74, Issue 3, Pages 344-354

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.yqres.2010.09.005

Keywords

Silica bodies; Opal-A; Paleoenvironment; Pleistocene; Hominin; East Africa

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Education and Science [I+D HUM2007-63815]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The phytolith content of 10 samples collected immediately under Tuff IF (similar to 1.785 Ma) at FLK N and other surrounding localities (similar to 2 km(2)) provides a direct botanical evidence for woody vegetation in the eastern margin of Olduvai Gorge during uppermost Bed I time. Observation and counting of 143 phytolith types (5 to > 150 mu) reveal dense but heterogeneous woody cover (similar to 40-90%) of unidentified trees and/or shrubs and palms associated to the freshwater springs surrounding FLK N, and more open formation (presumably similar to 25-70% woody cover) in the southeast at localities VEK, HWK W and HWK E. The paleovegetation is best described as groundwater palm forest/woodland or bushland, which current analogue may be found near Lake Manyara in similar hydrogeological context (freshwater springs near saline/alkaline lake). Re-evaluating the published pollen data based on this analogy shows that 70% of the pollen signal at FLK N may be attributed to thicket-woodland, Acacia groundwater woodland, gallery and groundwater forests; while <30% is attributed to swamp herbage and grasslands. Micro-botanical, isotopic, and taphonomical studies of faunal remains converge on the same conclusion that the area surrounding FLK N, which attracted both carnivores and hominins in the early Pleistocene, was densely wooded during uppermost Bed I time. (C) 2010 University of Washington. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available