4.7 Article

U-Th dating of deep-sea corals

期刊

GEOCHIMICA ET COSMOCHIMICA ACTA
卷 64, 期 14, 页码 2401-2416

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7037(99)00422-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Th-230, Th-232, U-234 and U-234 compositions of several deep-sea solitary corals, mainly the species Desmophyllum cristagalli, were determined by thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS). It is possible to obtain high precision ages on modern pristine corals that have low [Th-232] (5 to a few hundred ppt). However, because older deep-sea corals tend to have higher [232Th] compared to surface corals, and the initial Th-230/Th-232 ratio is uncertain, older deep-sea corals have larger age uncertainties (+/-several hundred years for samples with a few thousand ppt Th-232). Therefore, the key hurdle for precise U-Th dating is to remove or account for contaminants which contain elevated Th-232 and associated Th-230 not due to closed system decay within the coral lattice. A modification of the trace metal cleaning methods used for foraminifera and surface corals can significantly reduce this contamination. By counting the visible growth bands and measuring the mean age of a single septum, the extension rate of D. cristagalli was estimated to be between 0.1 and 3.1 mm/year. In a mean sense, bands appear to be precipitated annually, but this estimate has a large uncertainty. If appropriate tracer calibrations can be established, these corals are therefore suitable to record decadal or sub-decadal oceanographic changes over the course of their lifetime. The delta(234)U values of all modern samples from different localities and different depths are similar (mean 145.5 +/- 2.3 parts per thousand) and indistinguishable from the data obtained from surface corals. At a precision of about +/-2 parts per thousand. we find no structure in the oceanic profile of delta(234)U ratios over the top 2000 m of the water column. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.

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