4.7 Article

Efficacy of 230Th normalization in sediments from the Juan de Fuca Ridge, northeast Pacific Ocean

Journal

GEOCHIMICA ET COSMOCHIMICA ACTA
Volume 197, Issue -, Pages 215-225

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2016.10.034

Keywords

Th-230 normalization; Sediment focusing; Juan de Fuca Ridge

Funding

  1. NSF-FESD [1338832]
  2. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Th-230 normalization is an indispensable method for reconstructing sedimentation rates and mass fluxes over time, but the validity of this approach has generated considerable debate in the paleoceanographic community. Th-230 systematics have been challenged with regards to grain size bias, sediment composition (CaCO3), water column advection, and other processes. In this study, we investigate the consequences of these effects on Th-230 normalization from a suite of six cores on the Juan de Fuca Ridge. The proximity of these cores (< 30 km) suggests that they should receive the same particle rain rate of sediment, but the steep bathymetry of the ridge leads to substantial sediment redistribution and variable carbonate preservation, both of which may limit the usage of Th-230 in this region. Despite anticipated complications, 230Th normalization effectively reconstructs nearly identical particle rain rates from all six cores, which are summarily unrelated to the total sedimentation rates as calculated from the age models. Instead the total sedimentation rates are controlled almost entirely by sediment focusing and winnowing, which are highly variable even over the short spatial scales investigated in this study. Furthermore, no feedbacks on Th-230 systematics were detected as a consequence of sediment focusing, coarse fraction variability, or calcium carbonate content, supporting the robustness of the Th-230 normalization technique. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available