Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:53:13.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 14C Age of Humic Substances in Paleosols

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Alexander L. Alexandrovskiy  and
Olga A. Chichagova
Alexander L. Alexandrovskiy
Affiliation:
Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Staromonetny per 29, Moscow 109017, Russia
Olga A. Chichagova
Affiliation:
Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Staromonetny per 29, Moscow 109017, Russia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

By comparing the radiocarbon age of the soils under burial mounds of known archaeological age with the surface-exposed (background) soils of the surrounding landscapes, we may evaluate the rates of humus renewal in these soils. In the cold climate of the mideastern areas of the Russian plains, the value of humus rejuvenation coefficient decreases. This shows that humus renewal is 5–10 times slower than in the warmer climate of the southern regions. Using the obtained data on the rejuvenation rate of humus substances, we can determine the age of paleosols and study the dynamics of the carbon exchange processes in the biosphere.

Type
Part 2: Applications
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 40 , Issue 2: 16th International Radiocarbon Conference June 16-20, 1997 Part 2: Applications, Conference Editors: Willem G. Mook Johannes van der Plicht , 1997 , pp. 991 - 997
Copyright
Copyright © The American Journal of Science 

References

Alexandrovskiy, A. L. 1996 Natural environment as seen in soil. Eurasian Soil Science. 29(3): 277–287.Google Scholar
Cherkinsky, A. E. 1986 Interpretation of radiocarbon analysis data of surface soils. In Ivanov, I. V., ed., Evolution and Age of Soils in the USSR. Pushchino: 94–101 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Cherkinsky, A. E. and Brovkin, V. A. 1993 Dynamics of radiocarbon in soils. Radiocarbon 35(3): 363–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chichagova, O. A. and Cherkinsky, A. E. 1993 Problems in radiocarbon dating of soils. Radiocarbon 35(3): 351–362.Google Scholar
Ivanov, I. V. and Alexandrovskiy, A. L. 1987 Methods for the study of the evolution of soils. Soviet Soil Science 19(3): 90–101.Google Scholar
Ivanov, I. V., Chichagova, O. A. and Cherkinsky, A. E. 1994 Radiocarbon age of South Ukrainian Chernozem humus and its interpretation. In Yanshin, A. L. et al., eds. Russian Conference on Quaternary Period Investigation. Moscow: 101 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Scharpenseel, H. W. 1971 Radiocarbon dating of soils–Problems, troubles, hopes. In Yaalon, D. H., ed., Paleopedology: Origin, Nature and Dating of Paleosols. Jerusalem: 77–88.Google Scholar