4.7 Article

Paleoclimatic implications of the relationship between oxygen isotope ratios of moss cellulose and source water in wetlands of Lake Superior

Journal

CHEMICAL GEOLOGY
Volume 222, Issue 3-4, Pages 281-291

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2005.08.006

Keywords

cellulose; Sphagnum; oxygen isotope; peat; fen; paleoclimate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Groundwater-dominated wetlands contain abundant peat deposits, but few studies have addressed the potential of using the oxygen isotopic composition (delta O-18) of fen peat cellulose to evaluate past changes in climate. Here, we investigated the relationship between delta O-18 values of pond water and those of moss cellulose from species inhabiting different microenvironments in three different swales near Lake Superior, United States. Isotope results over two growing seasons indicate a negligible effect of evaporation on the studied fens and the strong control of groundwater on the isotopic composition of swale water. Isotopic values for groundwater show a small seasonal variability and their low values suggest the influence of snowmelt. Our results show a consistent offset of 27 +/- 1 parts per thousand between average swale water delta O-18 and cellulose delta O-18 values for hollow Sphagnum species, reflecting the fractionation associated with cellulose biosynthesis. When Sphagnum specics from hummocks are included, the offset shows a larger variability (27 +/- 3 parts per thousand), pointing to evaporative effects affecting hummock species. This evaporative effect is more pronounced in emerged mosses, which show the largest difference (> 30 parts per thousand) relative to their source water. The smaller variability associated with hollow species points to the possibility of performing species-specific analyses from peat cellulose for improved paleoclimatic reconstructions. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. 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