Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T19:35:52.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radiocarbon Dating, Chronologic Framework, and Changes in Accumulation Rates of Holocene Estuarine Sediments from Chesapeake Bay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Steven M. Colman ,
Pattie C. Baucom ,
John F. Bratton ,
Thomas M. Cronin ,
John P. McGeehin ,
Debra Willard ,
Andrew R. Zimmerman  and
Peter R. Vogt
Steven M. Colman
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, 384 Woods Hole Road, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 02543, E-mail: scolman@usgs.gov
Pattie C. Baucom
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, 384 Woods Hole Road, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 02543, E-mail: scolman@usgs.gov
John F. Bratton
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, 384 Woods Hole Road, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 02543, E-mail: scolman@usgs.gov
Thomas M. Cronin
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, National Center, Reston, Virginia, 20192
John P. McGeehin
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, National Center, Reston, Virginia, 20192
Debra Willard
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, National Center, Reston, Virginia, 20192
Andrew R. Zimmerman
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia, 23062
Peter R. Vogt
Affiliation:
Naval Research Laboratory, Code 7420, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20375-5320
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rapidly accumulating Holocene sediments in estuaries commonly are difficult to sample and date. In Chesapeake Bay, we obtained sediment cores as much as 20 m in length and used numerous radiocarbon ages measured by accelerator mass spectrometry methods to provide the first detailed chronologies of Holocene sediment accumulation in the bay. Carbon in these sediments is a complex mixture of materials from a variety of sources. Analyses of different components of the sediments show that total organic carbon ages are largely unreliable, because much of the carbon (including coal) has been transported to the bay from upstream sources and is older than sediments in which it was deposited. Mollusk shells (clams, oysters) and foraminifera appear to give reliable results, although reworking and burrowing are potential problems. Analyses of museum specimens collected alive before atmospheric nuclear testing suggest that the standard reservoir correction for marine samples is appropriate for middle to lower Chesapeake Bay. The biogenic carbonate radiocarbon ages are compatible with 210Pb and 137Cs data and pollen stratigraphy from the same sites.

Post-settlement changes in sediment transport and accumulation is an important environmental issue in many estuaries, including the Chesapeake. Our data show that large variations in sediment mass accumulation rates occur among sites. At shallow water sites, local factors seem to control changes in accumulation rates with time. Our two relatively deep-water sites in the axial channel of the bay have different long-term average accumulation rates, but the history of sediment accumulation at these sites appears to reflect overall conditions in the bay. Mass accumulation rates at the two deep-water sites rapidly increased by about fourfold coincident with widespread land clearance for agriculture in the Chesapeake watershed.

Keywords

Chesapeake BayestuariessedimentsradiocarbonHolocene
Type
Research Article
Information
Quaternary Research , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , January 2002 , pp. 58 - 70
Copyright
University of Washington

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baucom, P. C, Colman, S. M, Bratton, J. F, Moore, J. M, King, J. W, Heil, C, and Seal, R. R. II, (2001). Descriptions and physical properties of selected cores collected in Chesapeake Bay in 1996 and 1998. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-194, 113, pp.Google Scholar
Brush, G.S. Patterns of recent sediment accumulation in Chesapeake Bay (Maryland—U.S.A.) tributaries. Chemical Geology 44, (1984). 227–242.Google Scholar
Brush, G.S. Geology and paleoecology of Chesapeake Bay: A long-term monitoring tool for management. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 76, (1986). 146–160.Google Scholar
Brush, G.S. Rates and patterns of estuarine sediment accumulation. Limnology and Oceanography 34, (1989). 1235–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brush, G.S., and Davis, F.W. Stratigraphic evidence of human disturbance in an estuary. Quaternary Research 22, (1984). 91–108.Google Scholar
Brush, G.S., Martin, E.A., Defries, R.S., and Martin, C.A. Comparison of 210Pb and pollen methods for determining rates of estuarine sediment accumulation. Quaternary Research 18, (1982). 196–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colman, S.M., Halka, J.P., Hobbs, C.H. III Patterns and rates of sedimentation in Chesapeake Bay during the Holocene rise in sea level. Fletcher, C., and Wehmiller, J.F. Patterns and Rates of Sedimentation in Chesapeake Bay during the Holocene Rise in Sea Level. (1992). 101–111.Google Scholar
Cooper, S.R. Chesapeake Bay watershed historical land use: Impact on water quality and diatom communities. Ecological Applications 5, (1995). 703–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, S.R., and Brush, G.S. Long-term history of Chesapeake Bay anoxia. Science 254, (1991). 992–996.Google Scholar
Cooper, S.R., and Brush, G.S. A 2,500-year history of anoxia and eutrophication in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 16, (1993). 617–626.Google Scholar
Cornwell, J.C., Conley, D.J., Owens, M., and Stevenson, J.C. A sediment chronology of the eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 19, (1996). 488–499.Google Scholar
Cronin, T., Colman, S.M., Willard, D., Kerhin, R., Holmes, C., Karlsen, A., Ishman, S., and Bratton, J. Interdisciplinary environmental project probes Chesapeake Bay down to the core. EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 80, (1999). 237–241.Google Scholar
Cronin, T., Willard, D., Karlsen, A., Ishman, S., Verardo, S., McGeehin, J., Kerhin, R., Holmes, C., Colman, S.M., and Zimmerman, A. Climatic variability in the eastern United States over the past millennium from Chesapeake Bay sediments. Geology 28, (2000). 3–6.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, J.F Trends in Chesapeake Bay sedimentation rates during the late Holocene. Quaternary Research 34, (1990). 33–46.Google Scholar
Ellison, R. L., and Nichols, M. M. (1976). Modern and itolocene foraminifera in the Chesapeake Bay region. Maritime Sediments Special Publication 1, pp. 31–151.Google Scholar
Glenn, J. L. (1984). Sedimentation.. In A Water Quality Study of the Tidal Potomac River and Estuary—An Overview Callender, E., Carter, V., Hahl, D. C., Hitt, K., and Schultz, B. I., Eds., pp. 39–41. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2233.Google Scholar
Goldberg, E.D., Hodge, V., Koide, M., Griffin, J., Gamble, E., Bricker, O.P., Matisoff, G., Holdren, G.R., and Braun, R. A pollution history of Chesapeake Bay. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 42, (1978). 1413–1425.Google Scholar
Hack, J.T. Submerged river system of Chesapeake Bay. Geological Society of America Bulletin 68, (1957). 817–830.Google Scholar
Harrison, W., Lynch, M.P., and Altschaeffl, A.G. Sediments of lower Chesapeake Bay, with emphasis on mass properties. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 34, (1964). 727–755.Google Scholar
Helz, G. R, Sinex, S. A, Setlock, G. H, and Cantillo, A. Y. (1981). Chesapeake Bay sediment trace elements. Research in Aquatic Chemistry Report, Dept. of Chemistry, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
Officer, C.B., Lynch, D.R., Setlock, G.H., and Helz, G.R. Recent sedimentation rates in Chesapeake Bay. Kennedy, V.S. The Estuary As a Filter. (1984). Academic Press, New York. 131–157.Google Scholar
Oldfield, F., and Appleby, P.G. Empirical testing of 210Pb-dating models for lake sediments. Haworth, E.Y., and Lund, J.W.G. Lake Sediments and Environmental History. (1984). Leicester Univ. Press, Leicester. 93–124.Google Scholar
Poag, C.W. Paired foraminiferal ecophenotypes in Gulf Coast estuaries: Ecological and paleoecological implications. Transactions—Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 28, (1978). 395–421.Google Scholar
Robbins, J.A., and Edgington, D.N. Determination of recent sedimentation rates in Lake Michigan using Pb-210 and Cs-137. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 39, (1975). 285–304.Google Scholar
Spiker, E.C. The behavior of 14C and 13C in estuarine water: The effects of in situ CO2 production and atmospheric exchange. Radiocarbon 22, (1980). 647–654.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M., and Polach, H.A. Discussion—Reporting 14C data. Radiocarbon 19, (1977). 355–363.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P.J. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35, (1993). 215–230.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J., and Braziunas, T.F. High-precision radiocarbon age calibration for terrestrial and marine samples. Radiocarbon 40, (1998). 1127–1151.Google Scholar
Tanaka, N., Monaghan, M.C., and Rye, D.M. Contribution of metabolic carbon to mollusc and barnacle shell carbonate. Nature 320, (1986). 520–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, J. S., Southon, J. R., Nelson, D. E., and Brown, T. A. (1984). Performance of catalytically condensed carbon for use in accelerator mass spectrometry.. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Wolfi, W., Polach, H. A., and Anderson, H. H., Eds., pp. 289–293. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, B233.Google Scholar
Willard, D. A., and Korejwo, D. (2000). Holocene palynology from Marion-Dufresne core MD99-2209, Chesapeake Bay.. In Initial Report on IMAGES V Cruise of the Marion-Dufresne to Chesapeake Bay June 20–22, 1999T. Cronin, M., Ed., U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 00-306, pp. 78–86.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, A.R. Organic matter composition of sediments and the history of eutrophication and anoxia in the mesohaline Chesapeake Bay. (2000). College of William and Mary, Williamsburg.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, A.R., and Canuel, E.A. A geochemical record of eutrophication and anoxia in Chesapeake Bay sediments: Anthropogenic influence on organic matter composition. Marine Chemistry 69, (2000). 117–137.Google Scholar