Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T22:08:31.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carbon Sources in Fruit Carbonate of Buglossoides arvensis and Consequences for 14C Dating

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2017

Kazem Zamanian ,
Konstantin Pustovoytov  and
Yakov Kuzyakov
Kazem Zamanian*
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science of Temperate Ecosystems, University of Göttingen, Büsgenweg 2, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
Konstantin Pustovoytov
Affiliation:
Institute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation (310), University of Hohenheim, Schloss Hohenheim 1, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany Institute for Archaeological Sciences, University of Tübingen, Rümelinstr. 23, 72070 Tübingen, Germany
Yakov Kuzyakov
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science of Temperate Ecosystems, University of Göttingen, Büsgenweg 2, 37077 Göttingen, Germany Institute of Environmental Sciences, Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia
*
*Corresponding author. Email: kzamani@gwdg.de.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fruit carbonate of Buglossoides arvensis (syn. Lithospermum arvense) is a valuable dating and paleoenvironmental proxy for late Quaternary deposits and cultural layers because CaCO3 in fruit is assumed to be accumulated from photosynthetic carbon (C). However, considering the uptake of HCO3– by roots from soil solution, the estimated age could be too old depending on the source of HCO3– allocated in fruit carbonate. Until now, no studies have assessed the contributions of photosynthetic and soil C to the fruit carbonate. To evaluate this, the allocation of photo-assimilated carbon and root uptake of HCO3– was examined by radiocarbon (14C) labeling and tracing. B. arvensis was grown in carbonate-free and carbonate-containing soils (sand and loess, respectively), where 14C was provided as (1) 14CO2 in the atmosphere (5 times shoot pulse labeling), or (2) Na214CO3 in soil solution (root-labeling; 5 times by injecting labeled solution into the soil) during one month of fruit development. Distinctly different patterns of 14C distribution in plant organs after root- and shoot labeling showed the ability of B. arvensis to take up HCO3– from soil solution. The highest 14C activity from root labeling was recovered in roots, followed by shoots, fruit organics, and fruit carbonate. In contrast, 14C activity after shoot labeling was the highest in shoots, followed by fruit organics, roots and fruit carbonate. Total photo-assimilated C incorporated via shoot labeling in loess-grown plants was 1.51 mg lower than in sand, reflecting the presence of dissolved carbonate (i.e. CaCO3) in loess. Loess carbonate dissolution and root-respired CO2 in soil solution are both sources of HCO3– for root uptake. Considering this dilution effect by carbonates, the total incorporated HCO3– comprised 0.15% of C in fruit carbonate after 10 hr of shoot labeling. However, if the incorporated HCO3– during 10 hr of shoot labeling is extrapolated for the whole month of fruit development (i.e. 420-hr photoperiod), fruit carbonate in loess-grown plants incorporated approximately 6.3% more HCO3– than in sand. Therefore, fruit carbonates from plants grown on calcareous soils may yield overestimated 14C ages around 500 yr because of a few percentage uptake of HCO3– by roots. However, the age overestimation because of HCO3– uptake becomes insignificant in fruits older than approximately 11,000 yr due to increasing uncertainties in age determination.

Keywords

Buglossoides arvensisLithospermum arvensebiogenic carbonatereservoir effect14C labeling,radiocarbon datingpaleoenvironmental proxy
Type
Research Article
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 141 - 150
Copyright
© 2017 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

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

REFERENCES

Amiro, BD, Ewing, LL. 1992. Physiological conditions and uptake of inorganic carbon-14 by plant roots. Environmental and Experimental Botany 32:203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aylward, GH. 2007. SI chemical data. Milton, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Brix, H. 1990. Uptake and photosynthetic utilization of sediment-derived carbon by Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel. Aquatic Botany 38:377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, MD, Gao, ZF, Lips, SH. 1999. The influence of dissolved inorganic carbon in the rhizosphere on carbon and nitrogen metabolism in salinity-treated tomato plants. New Phytologist 142:441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, MD, Lips, SH. 1995. Enriched rhizosphere CO2 concentrations can ameliorate the influence of salinity on hydroponically grown tomato plants. Plant Physiology 94:425–432.Google Scholar
Cramer, MD, Richards, MB. 1999. The effect of rhizosphere dissolved inorganic carbon on gas exchange characteristics and growth rates of tomato seedlings. Journal of Experimental Botany 50:79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, CR, Wurzburger, N, Hendrick, RL, Teskey, RO. 2007. Soil DIC uptake and fixation in Pinus taeda seedlings and its C contribution to plant tissues and ectomycorrhizal fungi. Tree Physiology 27:375–383.Google Scholar
Gocke, M, Pustovoytov, K, Kuzyakov, Y. 2011. Carbonate recrystallization in root-free soil and rhizosphere of Triticum aestivum and Lolium perenne estimated by 14C labeling. Biogeochemistry 103:209–222.Google Scholar
Goodfriend, GA. 1987. Radiocarbon age anomalies in shell carbonate of land snails from semi-arid areas. Radiocarbon 29(2):159–167.Google Scholar
Jahren, AH, Amundson, R, Kendall, C, Wigand, P. 2001. Paleoclimatic reconstruction using the correlation in δ18O of hackberry carbonate and environmental water, North America. Quaternary Research 56:252–263.Google Scholar
Kuzyakov, Y, Shevtzova, E, Pustovoytov, K. 2006. Carbonate re-crystallization in soil revealed by 14C labeling: Experiment, model and significance for paleo-environmental reconstructions. Geoderma 131:45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, R, Ruben, S, Broyer, TC. 1940. The absorption of bicarbonate ion by barley plants as indicated by studies with radioactive carbon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 26:688–695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelkonen, P, Vapaavuori, EM, Vuorinen, H. 1985. HCO3 – uptake through the roots in willow and sunflower and effect of HCO3 – uptake on the productivity of willow cuttings. In: Palz W, Coombs J, Hall DO, editors. Energy from Biomass, 3rd E.C. Conference. London: Elsevier. p 417–421.Google Scholar
Pigati, JS, Quade, J, Shahanan, TM, Haynes, CV Jr. 2004. Radiocarbon dating of minute gastropods and new constraints on the timing of late Quaternary spring-discharge deposits in southern Arizona, USA. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 204:33–45.Google Scholar
Pigati, JS, Rech, JA, Nekola, JC. 2010. Radiocarbon dating of small terrestrial gastropod shells in North America. Quaternary Geochronology 5:519–532.Google Scholar
Pustovoytov, KE, Riehl, S, Mittmann, S. 2004. Radiocarbon age of carbonate in fruits of Lithospermum from the early Bronze Age settlement of Hirbet ez-Zeraqōn (Jordan). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 13:207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustovoytov, K, Riehl, S. 2006. Suitability of biogenic carbonate of Lithospermum fruits for 14C dating. Quaternary Research 65:508–518.Google Scholar
Pustovoytov, K, Riehl, S, Hilger, HH, Schumacher, E. 2010. Oxygen isotopic composition of fruit carbonate in Lithospermeae and its potential for paleoclimate research in the Mediterranean. Global and Planetary Change 71:258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quade, J, Shanying, L, Stiner, M, Clark, AE, Mentzer, S. 2014. Radiocarbon dating, mineralogy, and isotopic composition of hackberry endocarps from the Neolithic site of: Asikli Höyük, central Turkey. Tree-Ring Research 70:17–25.Google Scholar
Stolwijk, JAJ, Thimann, KV. 1957. On the uptake of carbon dioxide and bicarbonate by roots, and its influence on growth. 1. Plant Physiololgy 32:513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viktor, A, Cramer, MD. 2003. Variation in root-zone CO2 concentration modifies isotopic fractionation of carbon and nitrogen in tomato seedlings. New Phytologist 157:45–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viktor, A, Cramer, MD. 2005. The influence of root assimilated inorganic carbon on nitrogen acquisition/assimilation and carbon partitioning. New Phytologist 165:157–169.Google Scholar
Vuorinen, AH, Vapaavuori, EM, Lapinjoki, S. 1989. Time-course of uptake of dissolved inorganic carbon through willow roots in light and in darkness. Physiol. Plant 77:33–38.Google Scholar
Wang, Y, Jahren, AH, Amundson, R. 1997. Potential for 14C dating of biogenic carbonate in cackberry (Celtis) endocarps. Quaternary Research 47:337–343.Google Scholar