Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-prhj4 Total loading time: 0.611 Render date: 2023-02-06T00:59:47.075Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Why loss matters: Reply to the comments of Festi and others on ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’ by Brugger and others (2018)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2019

Sandra O. Brugger*
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Erika Gobet
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Federica R. Schanz
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Oliver Heiri
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Christoph Schwörer
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Michael Sigl
Affiliation:
Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Climate and Environmental Physics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
Margit Schwikowski
Affiliation:
Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland Department for Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Willy Tinner
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
*
Author for correspondence: Sandra O. Brugger, E-mail: sandra.bruegger@ips.unibe.ch
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019

In their comment to our recently published paper (Brugger and others, Reference Brugger2018a), Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) conducted a reliability test of two standardized marker tablets (Lycopodium and Eucalyptus), which in our opinion confirms our interpretations. Indeed, based on 20 replicates, their analyses show a striking linear relationship between the two markers (visible in Fig. 1 of their comment). However, we argue that statistically and methodologically it is impossible to question the reliability of individual markers solely based on a bivariate marker ratio and a test of 20 tablets:

  1. (1) Previous studies showed that a microfossil ratio yields statistically robust relationships (95% confidence) when counting a minimum of 200 items per sample (including Lycopodium; Finsinger and Tinner, Reference Finsinger and Tinner2005; Payne and Mitchell, Reference Payne and Mitchell2009; Campbell and others, Reference Campbell, Fletcher, Hughes and Shuttleworth2016). Thus, the additional counting efforts by Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) would have been more fruitfully invested in counting more replicates than increasing the counting sums. Specifically, a set of 10 or 20 replicates is too low to draw conclusions on the absolute uncertainty of the tablet contents, and particularly for assessing differences in ratios of pollen counts, as done by Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019). For univariate datasets a minimum of 30 observations is typically required (Bahrenberg and others, Reference Bahrenberg, Giese and Nipper1990). For bivariate datasets the size of samples is usually expected to be >100 (Mittag, Reference Mittag2011).

  2. (2) To test the reliability of individual marker uncertainties, the authors would need an independent third marker (or reference) rather than a ratio of two variables (Maher, Reference Maher2000). Alternatively, the authors may count the total absolute content of each tablet but this is more difficult to achieve (thousands of items).

  3. (3) Research groups in paleoecology successfully use Lycopodium and/or Eucalyptus tablets since decades (Maher, Reference Maher1981, Reference Maher2000). Recent successful Eucalyptus marker-based studies are e.g. Larochelle and others (Reference Larochelle, Lavoie, Grondin and Couillard2018) and Salonen and others (Reference Salonen2018). Thus there is no need to question the Eucalyptus marker procedure, especially given the clear linkage found by the authors that shows that counts of Eucalyptus pollen grains could be used to carefully estimate the mean Lycopodium spore concentrations, if only absolute numbers of Eucalyptus would be known (Maher, Reference Maher2000). Indeed, we agree with Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) that the tablets need to derive from standardized and tested production, as all tablets (Lycopodium and Eucalyptus) did that we used in our study. In fact, they were produced following the same standardized procedure established at the University of Lund (Stockmarr, Reference Stockmarr1971; Maher, Reference Maher2000). Moreover, the reliability of tablets from a batch depends on how complete they are and how they have been stored. This is why all marker tablets in Brugger and others (Reference Brugger2018a, Reference Brugger2018b) were first checked for potential erosion.

Taken together, the comment by Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) as well as our own published test with ten tablet replicates clearly show that abundance estimates based on the two used markers, Lycopodium and Eucalyptus, are strongly related, for instance the means of the pollen or spore concentrations are mutually predictable in their study. Most importantly, the majority of observations (60% of 20 tested tablets) is actually within the uncertainty estimates (one std dev. = 68% of observations) as predicted based on the estimate by the tablet producer. If the statistical population (N) contains only 20 observations, each random observation has a numerical weight of 5%, thus a divergence of 8% (60% inside the ratio limits instead of 68% as provided by the tablet producers) is well within the expected variability. It could also be that part of this difference is due to the Lycopodium tablets. Hence, Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) counts clearly show that the ratio Lycopodium:Eucalyptus cannot vary between 0.3 and 1.8 as claimed by O'Rourke (Reference O'Rourke1986). We thus strongly suggest trusting the tablet uncertainties provided by the laboratory. In line with this reasoning, previous studies suggested that adding two markers (i.e. Lycopodium and Eucalyptus) as a standard to each sample may help to further reduce the uncertainty range of the markers for microfossil concentrations (Adam and Robinson, Reference Adam and Robinson1988).

Furthermore, the differences in pollen percentages between the centrifugation-based methods (FESTI, EICHLER) compared to the filtration- and evaporation-based methods indicates a clear variation in pollen composition (pollen percentages), which is independent from marker-based concentration estimates. Thus, as Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) correctly repeat, the method differences have important implications for the interpretation of pollen records with a preferential loss of vesiculate pollen when using centrifugation-based methods, which is one of the fundamental conclusions in our method comparison (Brugger and others, Reference Brugger2018a).

The rather low altitude of Ortles glacier (3880 m a.s.l.) in Italy presented by Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) leads to exceptionally high microfossil concentrations that allow the use of very small sample volumes (only 30 ml), which do not require multiple centrifugation steps. Our method comparison instead investigates ice archives with much lower microfossil concentrations. Therefore, it must be far more sensitive and robust at the same time. For instance, palynological Central Asian high-alpine (>4000 m a.s.l.) ice core analyses required ~200–400 ml of water to produce reliable results (Brugger and others, Reference Brugger2018b, Reference Brugger2019a), while for remote Central Greenland ice cores ~2000 ml were required (Brugger and others, Reference Brugger2019b). Clearly, we never intended to design a method specifically for Ortles glacier as assumed by Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) (e.g. with a very low sample volume and very limited centrifugation steps). Our method is instead designed for typical high-altitude continental (>4000 m a.s.l.) and remote polar ice archives that have far lower microfossil concentrations (Brugger and others, Reference Brugger2018b, Reference Brugger2019a, Reference Brugger2019b).

The conclusions by Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) seem therefore highly narrow in scope and solely applicable to the special, low-altitude ice archive of Ortles glacier. In summary, we feel that it is comprehensible that Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) provide further details on their original method for Ortles glacier (Festi and others, Reference Festi2015). We compared this method with other methods in a standardized framework by clearly labeling it as ‘modified’. The marker test presented in the comment by Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) provides firm evidence on the utility of Eucalyptus:Lycopodium marker ratios, which is correct but not a novel finding (see e.g. Adam and Robinson, Reference Adam and Robinson1988; Maher, Reference Maher2000; Brugger and others, Reference Brugger2018a). Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) clarify methodical details on their approach but conclude from their Ortles view that the comparison of the six tested methods is questionable. We feel that this overall conclusion made by Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) is unsupported by the available methodological and empirical evidence. Finally, Festi and others (Reference Festi, Kofler and Oeggl2019) arguments do not change that several of the evaluated approaches (e.g. BRUGGER, LIU; Liu and others, Reference Liu, Yao and Thompson1998; Brugger and others, Reference Brugger2018a) result in more stable ratios between the two markers and group closer to expected values, than others (e.g. FESTI, EICHLER; Eichler and others, Reference Eichler2011; Festi and others, Reference Festi2015).

Acknowledgements

We thank Ozan Akdogan for his advice on univariate and bivariate statistics, we are grateful to César Morales del Molino, and we acknowledge the SINERGIA project Paleo fires from high-alpine ice cores funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF grant 154450). Furthermore, we thank two anonymous reviewers for commenting and the editor Martyn Tranter for handling our reply.

References

Adam, DP and Robinson, SW (1988) Palynology of two upper Quaternary cores from Clear Lake, Lake County, California. USGS Professional Paper 1363, pp. 1–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bahrenberg, G, Giese, E and Nipper, J (1990) Statistische Methoden in der Geographie. Teubner Studienbücher der Geographie, Band 1, Teubner Stuttgart, 233 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugger, SO and others (2018 a) A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores. Journal of Glaciology 64(245), 432442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugger, SO and others (2018 b) Ice records provide new insights into climatic vulnerability of Central Asian forest and steppe communities. Global and Planetary Change 169, 188201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugger, SO and others (2019 a) Tropical Andean glacier reveals colonial legacy in modern mountain ecosystems. Quaternary Science Reviews 220, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugger, SO and others (2019 b) Palynological insights into global change impacts on Arctic vegetation, fire, and pollution recorded in Central Greenland ice. Holocene 29(7), 11891197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, JFE, Fletcher, WJ, Hughes, PD and Shuttleworth, EL (2016) A comparison of pollen extraction methods confirms dense-media separation as a reliable method of pollen preparation. Journal of Quaternary Science 31(6), 631640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichler, A and others (2011) An ice-core based history of Siberian forest fires since AD 1250. Quaternary Science Reviews 30(9), 10271034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festi, D and others (2015) A novel pollen-based method to detect seasonality in ice cores: a case study from the Ortles glacier, South Tyrol, Italy. Journal of Glaciology 61(229), 815824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festi, D, Kofler, W and Oeggl, K (2019) Comments on Brugger and others (2018) ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’. Journal of Glaciology 65(250), 344346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finsinger, W and Tinner, W (2005) Minimum count sums for charcoal concentration estimates in pollen slides: accuracy and potential errors. Holocene 15(2), 293297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larochelle, É, Lavoie, M, Grondin, P and Couillard, PL (2018) Vegetation and climate history of Québec's mixed boreal forest suggests greater abundance of temperate species during the early and mid-Holocene. Botany 96(7), 437448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, KB, Yao, Z and Thompson, LG (1998) A pollen record of Holocene climatic changes from the Dunde ice cap, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Geology 26(2), 135138.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, LJ (1981) Statistics for microfossil concentration measurements employing samples spiked with marker grains. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 32(2–3), 153191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, LJ (2000) Calibrating new spore tablets. INQUA Sub-commission Data-Handling Methods, Newsletter, 19, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Mittag, HJ (ed.) (2011) Statistik. Springer-Lehrbuch. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 167173.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, MK (1986) The Implications of Atmospheric Pollen Rain on Fossil Pollen Profiles in the Arid Southwest (Aerobiology, Palaeobotany, Taphonomy, Preservation) (Dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson, 189 pp.Google Scholar
Payne, RJ and Mitchell, EA (2009) How many is enough? Determining optimal count totals for ecological and palaeoecological studies of testate amoebae. Journal of Paleolimnology 42(4), 483495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salonen, JS and others (2018) Abrupt high-latitude climate events and decoupled seasonal trends during the Eemian. Nature Communications 9(1), 2851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stockmarr, JA (1971) Tablets with spores used in absolute pollen analysis. Pollen Spores 13, 615621.Google Scholar
You have Access Open access

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Why loss matters: Reply to the comments of Festi and others on ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’ by Brugger and others (2018)
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Why loss matters: Reply to the comments of Festi and others on ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’ by Brugger and others (2018)
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Why loss matters: Reply to the comments of Festi and others on ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’ by Brugger and others (2018)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *