4.7 Article

Landscape preservation under Fennoscandian ice sheets determined from in situ produced 10Be and 26Al

Journal

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
Volume 201, Issue 2, Pages 397-406

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0012-821X(02)00714-8

Keywords

cosmogenic elements; Sweden; ice sheets; erosion; glacial features

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Some areas within ice sheet boundaries retain pre-existing landforms and thus either remained as ice free islands (nunataks) during glaciation, or were preserved under ice. Differentiating between these alternatives has significant implications for paleoenvironment, ice sheet surface elevation, and ice volume reconstructions. In the northern Swedish mountains, in situ cosmogenic Be-10 and Al-26 concentrations from glacial erratics on relict surfaces as well as glacially eroded bedrock adjacent to these surfaces, provide consistent last deglaciation exposure ages (similar to8-13 kyr), confirming ice sheet overriding as opposed to ice free conditions. However, these ages contrast with exposure ages of 34-61 kyr on bedrock surfaces in these same relict areas, demonstrating that relict areas were preserved with little erosion through multiple glacial cycles. Based on the difference in radioactive decay between Al-26 and Be-10, the measured nuclide concentration in one of these bedrock surfaces suggests that it remained largely unmodified for a minimum period of 845(-418)(+461) kyr. These results indicate that relict areas need to be accounted for as frozen bed patches in basal boundary conditions for ice sheet models, and in landscape development models. Subglacial preservation also implies that source areas for glacial sediments in ocean cores are considerably smaller than the total area covered by ice sheets. These relict areas also have significance as potential long-term subglacial biologic refugia. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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