Hostname: page-component-594f858ff7-c4bbg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-09T05:36:32.468Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "corePageComponentUseShareaholicInsteadOfAddThis": true, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Radiocarbon Dating of Modern Peat Profiles: Pre- and Post-Bomb 14C Variations in the Construction of Age-Depth Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Tomasz Goslar
Faculty of Physics, A. Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 85, 61-614 Poznań, Poland. Email: Poznań Radiocarbon Laboratory, Rubież 46, 61-612 Poznań, Poland
W O van der Knaap
Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Altenbergrain 21, 3013 Bern, Switzerland
Sheila Hicks
Institute of Geosciences, P.O. Box 3000, 90014 University of Oulu, Finland
Maja Andrič
Slovenian Forestry Institute, Večna pot 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Institute of Archaeology, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Novi trg 2, PB 306, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Justyna Czernik
Poznań Radiocarbon Laboratory, Rubież 46, 61-612 Poznań, Poland
Ewa Goslar
Poznań Radiocarbon Laboratory, Rubież 46, 61-612 Poznań, Poland
Satu Räsänen
Institute of Geosciences, P.O. Box 3000, 90014 University of Oulu, Finland
Heidi Hyötylä
Institute of Geosciences, P.O. Box 3000, 90014 University of Oulu, Finland
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]


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

We present studies of 9 modern (up to 400-yr-old) peat sections from Slovenia, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, and Finland. Precise radiocarbon dating of modern samples is possible due to the large bomb peak of atmospheric 14C concentration in 1963 and the following rapid decline in the 14C level. All the analyzed 14C profiles appeared concordant with the shape of the bomb peak of atmospheric 14C concentration, integrated over some time interval with a length specific to the peat section. In the peat layers covered by the bomb peak, calendar ages of individual peat samples could be determined almost immediately, with an accuracy of 2–3 yr. In the pre-bomb sections, the calendar ages of individual dated samples are determined in the form of multi-modal probability distributions of about 300 yr wide (about AD 1650–1950). However, simultaneous use of the post-bomb and pre-bomb 14C dates, and lithological information, enabled the rejection of most modes of probability distributions in the pre-bomb section. In effect, precise age-depth models of the post-bomb sections have been extended back in time, into the “wiggly” part of the 14C calibration curve.

Our study has demonstrated that where annual resolution is concerned, tissues of Sphagnum are the only representative material for 14C dating, although even samples of pure Sphagnum collected from a very thin slice of the peat section contain tissues grown in different years, so they integrate the atmospheric 14C signal over a period of time. This time period (0.5–8 yr, depending on the site) seems to correlate with the peat accumulation rate, but it also depends on how the sampled peat sections were handled. When constructing age-depth models, for some peat sections we used the strategy of multi-stage 14C dating. This led to a drastic reduction in the uncertainty of the age-depth models, by dating only a few additional samples in the profile.

Our study is the first in which peat sections from the late pre-bomb time (AD 1900–1960) have been precisely dated at a high temporal resolution. In this time interval, 14C ages of all the samples dated were younger than those derived from the atmospheric calibration curve, apparently due to the effect of integration. Evidently, the determination of calendar ages based on 14C dating of single peat samples from that interval may be affected by a serious error if the possibility of integration is ignored.

Copyright © 2005 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 


Benoit, JM, Fitzgerald, WF, Damman, AWH. 1998. The biogeochemistry of an ombrotrophic bog: evaluation of use as an archive of atmospheric mercury deposition. Environmental Research 78(A):118–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaauw, M. 2003. An investigation of Holocene Sun-climate relationships using numerical C-14 wiggle-match dating of peat deposits [PhD dissertation]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43(2A):355–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czernik, J, Goslar, T. 2001. Preparation of graphite targets in the Gliwice Radiocarbon Laboratory for AMS 14C dating. Radiocarbon 43(2A):283–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, AFM. 1981. Natural 14C variations [PhD dissertation]. Gröningen: University of Gröningen.Google Scholar
Goslar, T, Czernik, J, Goslar, E. Forthcoming. Low-energy 14C AMS in Poznań Radiocarbon Laboratory, Poland. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B.Google Scholar
Goodsite, ME, Rom, W, Heinemeier, J, Lange, T, Ooi, S, Appleby, PG, Shotyk, W, van der Knaap, WO, Lohse, Ch, Hansen, TS. 2001. High-resolution AMS 14C dating of post-bomb peat archives of atmospheric pollutants. Radiocarbon 43(2B):495515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, S, Goslar, T, van der Borg, K. 2004. A near annual record of recent tree line dynamics from northern Finland. Acta Palaeobotanica 223–224C:511.Google Scholar
Jungner, H, Sonninen, E, Possnert, G, Tolonen, K. 1995. Use of bomb-produced 14C to evaluate the amount of CO2 emanating from two peat bogs in Finland. Radiocarbon 37(3):567–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilian, MR, van der Plicht, J, van Geel, B. 1995. Dating raised bogs: new aspects of AMS 14C wiggle matching, a reservoir effect and climatic change. Quaternary Science Reviews 14:959–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilian, MR, van Geel, B, van der Plicht, J. 2000. 14C AMS wiggle matching of raised bog deposits and models of peat accumulation. Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 1011–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, I, Kromer, B, Schoch-Fischer, H, Bruns, M, Münnich, KO. 1997. 14CO2 records from two sites in central Schauinsland & Vermunt. URL: <>..>Google Scholar
Martínez-Cortizas, A, Pontevedra-Pombal, X, García-Rodeja, E, Nóvoa-Muñoz, JC, Shotyk, W. 1999. Mercury in a Spanish peat bog: archive of climate change and atmospheric metal deposition. Science 284:939–42.Google Scholar
Michczyńska, DJ, Pazdur, MF, Walanus, A. 1990. Bayesian approach to probabilistic calibration of radiocarbon ages. PACT 29:6979.Google Scholar
Nydal, R, Lövseth, K. 1983. Tracing bomb 14C in the atmosphere, 1962–1980. Journal of Geophysical Research 88:3621–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nydal, R, Lövseth, K. 1996. Carbon-14 measurements in atmospheric CO2 from Northern and Southern Hemisphere sites, 1962–1993. URL: <>..>Google Scholar
Shotyk, W, Weiss, D, Appleby, PG, Cheburkin, AK, Frei, R, Gloor, M, Kramers, JD, Reese, S, van der Knaap, WO. 1998. History of atmospheric lead deposition since 12,370 14C yr BP recorded in a peat bog profile, Jura Mountains, Switzerland. Science 281:1635–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, LC, MacDonald, GM, Velichko, AA, Beilman, DW, Borisova, OK, Frey, KE, Kremenetski, KV, Sheng, Y. 2004. Siberian peatlands a net carbon sink and global methane source since the early Holocene. Science 303:353–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Speranza, A, van der Plicht, J, van Geel, B. 2000. Improving the time control of the Subboreal/Subatlantic transition in a Czech peat sequence by 14C wiggle-matching. Quaternary Science Reviews 19:1589–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M, Braziunas, T. 1993. Sun, ocean, climate and atmospheric 14CO2: an evaluation of causal and spectral relationships. The Holocene 3:289305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M, Reimer, PJ, Bard, E, Beck, JW, Burr, GS, Hughen, KA, Kromer, B, McCormac, G, van der Plicht, J, Spurk, M. 1998. IntCal98 radiocarbon age calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40(3):1041–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telford, RJ, Heegaard, E, Birks, HJB. 2004. All age-depth models are wrong: but how badly? Quaternary Science Reviews 23:15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, JWC, Ciaia, P, Figge, RA, Kenny, R, Markgraf, V. 1994. A high-resolution record of atmospheric CO2 content from carbon isotopes in peat. Nature 367:153–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar