4.6 Article

Quantification of large uncertainties in fossil leaf paleoaltimetry

期刊

TECTONICS
卷 29, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2009TC002549

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [EAR-0742363, DEB-0919071]
  2. Wesleyan University
  3. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  4. Division Of Earth Sciences
  5. Directorate For Geosciences [0742363] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences [0919071] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Estimates of paleoelevation potentially constrain geodynamic models of continental deformation and inform interpretations of landscape and climate evolution. One widely used, paleobotanical approach reconstructs paleoelevation from the difference in estimated atmospheric enthalpy between a known sea level and a targeted, coeval, elevated fossil floral site. Enthalpy is estimated using Climate-Leaf Analysis Multivariate Program (CLAMP) on 31 leaf size and shape variables that have been calibrated in living forests. Errors related to CLAMP are significantly greater than often reported, and there are many sources of large potential error related to this method that are either difficult to quantify or unquantifiable and are thus not documented. Here, we quantify one significant bias, toward underestimation of leaf area in the CLAMP data set (similar to 50%), that affects all CLAMP climate estimates, including enthalpy. Crucially, errors in paleoelevation when the leaf size bias is included are in the range of +/- 2 km or more, at least 2 times the previous estimates, and exceeding the plausible paleoelevations of many fossil sites. Previously published paleoelevations derived from this technique are unlikely to be accurate either in magnitude or in estimated error. Citation: Peppe, D. J., D. L. Royer, P. Wilf, and E. A. Kowalski (2010), Quantification of large uncertainties in fossil leaf paleoaltimetry, Tectonics, 29, TC3015, doi:10.1029/2009TC002549.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据