4.7 Article

Holocene hydroclimate stability in three lake sediment records from the southeastern United States

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2023.111904

关键词

Lake sediment; Southeastern United States; North Atlantic Oscillation; Sedimentology; Human impacts

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study summarizes three lake sediment records from the southeastern United States (SE US) to test the importance of the Pacific North American (PNA) pattern and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) over the last 5000 years. The results indicate relatively stable hydroclimate conditions before historical European settlement, but significant and rapid changes occurred in vegetation and lake hydrologic balance after settlement.
Many Holocene paleoclimate records from the southeastern United States (SE US) have limited chronological constraints and/or low sedimentation rates and consequently low resolution; this presents challenges in discerning the relative importance of synoptic-scale drivers of past hydroclimate. In this study we summarize three lake sediment records that are uniquely located to test hypotheses regarding the importance of the Pacific North American (PNA) pattern and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) over the last 5000 years. At Pigeon Marsh, Buck Pond, and Halls Pond, we used sedimentological (radiocarbon dating of transect cores), physical (grain size), geochemical (carbon and nitrogen ratios and isotopes), and biological (palynomorphs) proxies to reconstruct lake level and lake environment. Moderate lake and environmental changes occur around 2000 cal yr BP at Buck and Halls Pond, which is regionally consistent with other paleorecords and may suggest that the NAO was an important control. However, our results generally indicate fairly stable hydroclimate conditions up until historical European settlement when land clearance caused vegetational and lake hydrologic balance changes that were unprecedented in both magnitude and rate compared to the middle/late Holocene.

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

4.7
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