Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-w9nzq Total loading time: 0.324 Render date: 2021-08-04T22:40:08.372Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Radiocarbon Dating of Soil Organic Matter Fractions in Andosols in Northern Ecuador

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Femke H Tonneijck
Affiliation:
ICG Centre for Geo-ecological Research, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Johannes van der Plicht
Affiliation:
ICG Centre for Geo-ecological Research, Centre for Isotope Research, University of Groningen, the Netherlands; also Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, the Netherlands
Boris Jansen
Affiliation:
ICG Centre for Geo-ecological Research, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Jacobus M Verstraten
Affiliation:
ICG Centre for Geo-ecological Research, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Henry Hooghiemstra
Affiliation:
ICG Centre for Geo-ecological Research, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Corresponding
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Volcanic ash soils (Andosols) may offer great opportunities for paleoecological studies, as suggested by their characteristic accumulation of organic matter (OM). However, understanding of the chronostratigraphy of soil organic matter (SOM) is required. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of SOM is necessary, but unfortunately not straightforward. Dating of fractions of SOM obtained by alkali-acid extraction is promising, but which fraction (humic acid or humin) renders the most accurate 14C dates is still subject to debate. To determine which fraction should be used for 14C dating of Andosols and to evaluate if the chronostratigraphy of SOM is suitable for paleoecological research, we measured 14C ages of both fractions and related calibrated ages to soil depth for Andosols in northern Ecuador. We compared the time frames covered by the Andosols with those of peat sequences nearby to provide independent evidence. Humic acid (HA) was significantly older than humin, except for the mineral soil samples just beneath a forest floor (organic horizons), where the opposite was true. In peat sections, 14C ages of HA and humin were equally accurate. In the soils, calibrated ages increased significantly with increasing depth. Age inversions and homogenization were not observed at the applied sampling distances. We conclude that in Andosols lacking a thick organic horizon, dating of HA renders the most accurate results, since humin was contaminated by roots. On the other hand, in mineral soil samples just beneath a forest floor, humin ages were more accurate because HA was then contaminated by younger HA illuviated from the organic horizons. Overall, the chronostratigraphy of SOM in the studied Andosols appears to be suitable for paleoecological research.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Aerts-Bijma, AT, van der Plicht, J, Meijer, HAJ. 2001. Automatic AMS sample combustion and CO2 collection. Radiocarbon 43(2A):293–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, JGM, Salomons, JB. 1989. A palaeoecological record of a volcanic soil sequence in the Nevado del Ruiz area, Colombia. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 60(1–2):149–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barois, I, Dubroeucq, D, Rojas, P, Lavelle, P. 1998. Andosol-forming process linked with soil fauna under the perennial grass Mulhembergia macroura. Geoderma 86(3–4):241–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birks, HJB, Birks, HH. 1980. Quaternary Palaeoecology. London: Edward Arnold. 289 p.Google Scholar
Bradley, RS. 1999. Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary. 2nd edition. New York: Academic Press. 610 p.Google Scholar
Dalsgaard, K, Odgaard, BV. 2001. Dating sequences of buried horizons of podzols developed in wind-blown sand at Ulfborg, Western Jutland. Quaternary International 78(1):5360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, DA, Carter, S, Boag, B, Long, D, Tipping, R, Tyler, A. 1999. Analysis of pollen in soils: processes of incorporation and redistribution of pollen in five soil profile types. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31(5):643–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellenberg, H. 1979. Man's influence on tropical mountain ecosystems in South America. Journal of Ecology 67(2):401–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdtman, G. 1943. An Introduction to Pollen Analysis. Waltham, Massachusetts, USA: The Chronica Botanica Company. 239 p.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations [FAO]. 1990. Guidelines for Soil Description. Rome: FAO/ISRIC. 70 p.Google ScholarPubMed
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. 1998. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. Rome: FAO/ISRIC/ISSS. 91 p.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Perez, JA, Gonzalez-Vila, FJ, Almendros, G, Knicker, H. 2004. The effect of fire on soil organic matter—a review. Environment International 30(6):855–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graphpad Software Inc. 1999. Graphpad Prism User's Guide Version 3. The fast, organized way to analyze and graph scientific data. San Diego, USA. 108 p.Google Scholar
Hetier, JM, Guillet, B, Brousse, R, Delibrais, G, Maury, RC. 1983. 14C dating of buried soils in the volcanic Chaine des Puys (France). Bulletin Volcanologique 46(2):193201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, RGM. 1995. The effects of grazing and burning on soil and plant nutrient concentrations in Colombian páramo grasslands. Plant and Soil 173(1):111–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keatinge, TH. 1983. Development of pollen assemblage zones in soil profiles in southeastern England. Boreas 12:112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovda, IW, Lynn, W, Williams, D, Chichagova, O. 2001. Radiocarbon age of Vertisols and its interpretation using data on gilgai complex in the north Caucasus. Radiocarbon 43(2B):603–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, S, Dalsgaard, K, Hoist, MK, Aaby, B, Heinemeier, J. 2003. Dating of prehistoric burial mounds by 14C analysis of SOM fractions. Radiocarbon 45(1):101–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laegaard, S. 1992. Influence of fire in the grass páramo vegetation of Ecuador. In: Balslev, H, Luteyn, JL editors. Paramo, an Andean Ecosystem Under Human Influence. London: Academic Press. p 151–70.Google Scholar
Lee, KE, Foster, RC. 1991. Soil fauna and soil structure. Australian Journal of Soil Research 29(6):745–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, MR, Lowe, DC, Melhuish, WH, Sparks, RJ, Wallace, G, Brenninkmeijer, CAM, McGill, RC. 1990. The use of radiocarbon measurements in atmospheric studies. Radiocarbon 32(1):3758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijer, HAJ, van der Plicht, J, Gislefoss, JS, Nydal, R. 1995. Comparing long-term atmospheric 14C and 3H records near Groningen, the Netherlands with Fruholmen, Norway and Izaña, Canary Island 14C stations. Radiocarbon 37(1):3950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijer, HAJ, Pertuisot, MF, van der Plicht, J. 2006. High-accuracy measurements for atmospheric samples by AMS. Radiocarbon. This issue.Google Scholar
Mook, WG, Streurman, HJ. 1983. Physical and chemical aspects of radiocarbon dating. Pact 8(II.1):3155.Google Scholar
Mook, WG, van de Plassche, O. 1986. Radiocarbon dating. In: van de Plassche, O, editor. Sea-Level Research: A Manual for the Collection and Evaluation of Data. Norwich: Geo Books. p 525–60.Google Scholar
Moore, PD, Webb, JA, Collinson, ME. 1991. Pollen Analysis. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. 207 p.Google Scholar
Nierop, KGJ, Buurman, P. 1999. Insoluble organic matter fractions in incipient podzol B horizons: preservation of aliphatic biopolymers from roots. Humic Substances in the Environment 1(2):2937.Google Scholar
Nierop, KGJ, Buurman, P, de Leeuw, JW. 1999. Effect of vegetation on chemical composition of H horizons in incipient podzols as characterized by 13C NMR and pyrolysis-GC/MS. Geoderma 90(1–2):111–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nydal, R, Lövseth, K. 1983. Tracing bomb 14C in the atmosphere 1962–1980. Journal of Geophysical Research 88:3621–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlova, LA, Panychev, VA. 1993. The reliability of radiocarbon dating buried soils. Radiocarbon 35(3):369–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pessenda, LCR, Gouveia, SEM, Aravena, R. 2001. Radiocarbon dating of total soil organic matter and its comparison with 14C ages of fossil charcoal. Radiocarbon 43(2B):595601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulenard, JP, Podwojewski, P, Herbillon, AJ. 2003. Characteristics of non-allophanic Andosols with hydric properties from the Ecuadorian paramos. Geoderma 117(3–4):267–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, PM, Oxley, ERB. 1996. Fire temperatures and postfire plant community dynamics in Ecuadorian grass páramo. Plant Ecology 124(2):129–44.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Baillie, MGL, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Bertrand, CJH, Blackwell, PG, Buck, CE, Burr, GS, Cutler, KB, Damon, PE, Edwards, RL, Fairbanks, RG, Friedrich, M, Guilderson, TP, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kromer, B, McCormac, G, Manning, S, Bronk Ramsey, C, Reimer, RW, Remmele, S, Southon, JR, Stuiver, M, Talamo, S, Taylor, FW, van der Plicht, J, Weyhenmeyer, CE. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3):1029–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomons, JB. 1986. Paleoecology of volcanic soils in the Colombian Central Cordillera (Parque Nacional Natural de los Nevados) [PhD dissertation]. Dissertationes Botanicae 95, Cramer J, Berlin- Stuttgart. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. 212 p.Google Scholar
Scharpenseel, HW, Becker-Heidmann, P. 1992. Twenty-five years of radiocarbon dating soils: paradigm of erring and learning. Radiocarbon 34(3):541–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnitzer, M. 1982. Organic matter characterization. In: Page, A, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Madison, Wisconsin: American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America. p 581–94.Google Scholar
Shoji, SM, Nanzyo, M, Dahlgren, RA. 1993. Volcanic Ash Soils: Genesis, Properties and Utilization. New York: Elsevier. 288 p.Google Scholar
Shore, JS, Bartley, DD, Harkness, DD. 1995. Problems encountered with the 14C dating of peat. Quaternary Science Reviews 14(4):373–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPSS Inc. 2001. SPSS Base 11.0 User's Guide. Chicago, USA: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Stevenson, FJ. 1994. Humus Chemistry. Genesis, Composition, Reactions. 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley. 496 p.Google Scholar
Telford, RJE, Heegaard, E, Birks, HJB. 2004. All age-depth models are wrong: but how badly? Quaternary Science Reviews 23(1–2):15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torn, MSS, Trumbore, SE, Chadwick, OA, Vitousek, PM, Hendricks, DM. 1997. Mineral control of soil organic carbon storage and turnover. Nature 389(6647):170–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Plicht, J. 2005. WinCal25 [software program]. Groningen, the Netherlands, Center for Isotope Research, University of Groningen. URL: www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/cio-us/frb10.htm.Google Scholar
van der Plicht, J, Wijma, S, Aerts, AT, Pertuisot, MH, Meijer, HAJ. 2000. Status report: the Groningen AMS facility. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172(1–4):5865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Mourik, JM, Wartenbergh, PE, Mook, WG, Streurman, HJ. 1995. Radiocarbon dating of palaeosols in aeolian sands. Mededelingen Rijks Geologische Dienst 52:425–40.Google Scholar
Wang, YR, Amundson, R, Trumbore, S. 1996. Radiocarbon dating of soil organic matter. Quaternary Research 45(3):282–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wille, M, Hooghiemstra, H, Hofstede, R, Fehse, J, Sevink, J. 2002. Upper forest line reconstruction in a deforested area in northern Ecuador based on pollen and vegetation analysis. Journal of Tropical Ecology 18(3):409–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have Access
40
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Radiocarbon Dating of Soil Organic Matter Fractions in Andosols in Northern Ecuador
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Radiocarbon Dating of Soil Organic Matter Fractions in Andosols in Northern Ecuador
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Radiocarbon Dating of Soil Organic Matter Fractions in Andosols in Northern Ecuador
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? *