4.2 Article

Age and impacts of the caldera-forming Aniakchak II eruption in western Alaska

Journal

QUATERNARY RESEARCH
Volume 82, Issue 1, Pages 85-95

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.yqres.2014.04.013

Keywords

Volcanic impacts; Vegetation; Carbon balance; Beringia; Acari; Radiocarbon dating

Funding

  1. Royal Society
  2. Queen Mary, University of London studentship
  3. University of Manchester Humanities Fellowship
  4. NORPEC, NFR at University of Bergen
  5. Natural Environment Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The mid-Holocene eruption of Aniakchak volcano (Aniakchak II) in southwest Alaska was among the largest eruptions globally in the last 10,000 years (VEI-6). Despite evidence for possible impacts on global climate, the precise age of the eruption is not well-constrained and little is known about regional environmental impacts. A closely spaced sequence of radiocarbon dates at a peatland site over 1000 km from the volcano show that peat accumulation was greatly reduced with a hiatus of approximately 90-120 yr following tephra deposition. During this inferred hiatus no paleoenvironmental data are available but once vegetation returned the flora changed from a Cyperaceae-dominated assemblage to a Poaceae-dominated vegetation cover, suggesting a drier and/or more nutrient-rich ecosystem. Oribatid mites are extremely abundant in the peat at the depth of the ash, and show a longer-term, increasingly wet peat surface across the tephra layer. The radiocarbon sample immediately below the tephra gave a date of 1636-1446 cal yr BC suggesting that the eruption might be younger than previously thought Our findings suggest that the eruption may have led to a widespread reduction in peatland carbon sequestration and that the impacts on ecosystem functioning were profound and long-lasting. (C) 2014 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