4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Numerical dating of a Late Quaternary spit-shoreline complex at the northern end of Silver Lake playa, Mojave Desert, California: A comparison of the applicability of radiocarbon, luminescence, terrestrial cosmogenic nuclide, electron spin resonance, U-series and amino acid racemization methods

期刊

QUATERNARY INTERNATIONAL
卷 166, 期 -, 页码 87-110

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2007.01.001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A Late Quaternary spit-shoreline complex on the northern shore of Pleistocene Lake Mojave of southeastern California, USA was studied with the goal of comparing accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon, luminescence, electron spin resonance (ESR), terrestrial cosmogenic radionuclide (TCN) surface exposure, amino acid racemization (AAR) and U-series dating methods. The pattern of ages obtained by the different methods illustrates the complexity of processes acting in the lakeshore environment and highlights the utility of a multi-method approach. TCN surface exposure ages (mostly similar to 20-30ka) record the initial erosion of shoreline benches, whereas radiocarbon ages on shells (determined in this and previous studies) within the spit, supported by AAR data, record its construction at fluctuating lake levels from similar to 16 to 10 ka. Luminescence ages on spit sediment (similar to 6-7ka) and ESR ages on spit shells (similar to 4 ka) are anomalously young relative to radiocarbon ages of shells within the same deposits. The significance of the surprisingly young luminescence ages is not clear. The younger ESR ages could be a consequence of post-mortem enrichment of U in the shells. High concentrations of detrital thorium in tufa coating spit gravels inhibited the use of single-sample U-series dating. Detailed comparisons such as this provide one of the few means of assessing the accuracy of Quaternary dating techniques. More such comparisons are needed. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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