Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-z2ts4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-13T23:31:12.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Climatic and cave settings influence on drip water fluorescent organic matter with implications for fluorescent laminations in stalagmites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2023

Laura Sibylla Endres*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Céline Jacquin
Affiliation:
Department of Process Engineering, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
Saúl González-Lemos
Affiliation:
Departamento de Geología, Universidad de Oviedo, 33005 Oviedo, Spain
Laura Rodríguez-Rodríguez
Affiliation:
Departamento de Geología, Universidad de Oviedo, 33005 Oviedo, Spain
Jakub Sliwinski
Affiliation:
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews KY16 9TS, Scotland
Nikita Kaushal
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Oliver Kost
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Heather Marie Stoll
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
*
Corresponding author: Laura Sibylla Endres: Email endres@erdw.ethz.ch
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Speleothem fluorescence can provide insights into past vegetation dynamics and stalagmite chronology. However, its origin and especially the formation of fluorescent laminations in stalagmites are poorly understood. We conducted a year-long monthly monitoring of drip water fluorescence in La Vallina Cave (northern Iberian Peninsula) and compared the results to drip water chemistry and active speleothems from the same sites. Drip waters were analyzed using fluorescence spectroscopy and parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC). The resulting five-component model indicates contributions from vegetation, microbial activity, and bedrock. Intra-site fluorescence variability is mainly influenced by changes in overlying vegetation, water reservoir time, and respiration rates. Contrary to prevailing views, we find no systematic increase in drip water fluorescence during rainy conditions across drip sites and seasonal variations in drip water fluorescence are absent at a location where present-day speleothem layers form. Our findings challenge the notion of a higher abundance of humic-like fluorescence during the rainy season as the primary cause for layer formation and suggest additional controls on drip water fluorescence, such as bedrock interaction and microbial reprocessing. We also propose that growth rate may control the dilation of the fluorescence signal in stalagmites, indicating other potential mechanisms for fluorescent layer formation.

Information

Type
Thematic Set: Speleothem Paleoclimate
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Quaternary Research Center
Figure 0

Figure 1. Studied area. (A) Reference map with red circle denoting the cave location. (B) Plan map of the cave upper gallery (green outline) and lower gallery (orange outline) indicating the location of drip water sampling (labeled drop symbols) overlaid on aerial image from 2017 (Plan Nacional Ortofotografía Aérea - PNOA of Spanish IGN; available at https://centrodedescargas.cnig.es; last access: 30 December 2022), and showing topographic contours (white lines) with elevation above sea level (m). Pasture use, large trees, and the position of root systems penetrating the cave are noted based on our own field observations. (C) Cross section (X–X’) of the cave with projected sampling locations, based on our Leica Disto X310 survey. (D) Monthly mean air temperature and cumulative precipitation from Llanes weather station over the sampling period (AEMET, 2021). Llanes weather station is located directly at the coast, 4.2 km NE of the cave. (E) Image of vegetation above the cave entrance, dominated by Eucalyptus trees. The red arrow marks the position of the GPS, which here is placed at the position of a prominent root feature seen in the cave, close to the entrance and sampling locations FOR and SNO. (F) Image of intermediate, fern-dominated vegetation. The red arrow marks the position of the GPS above the sampling location GLO. (G) Image taken above sampling location SKY (towards SW), highlighting the extent of agriculture in the doline-shaped landscape.

Figure 1

Table 1. Sampling locations discussed in this study, their overall cave properties, and mean optical values. Variability is given in the form of one standard deviation (1SD). Overall fluorescence over the entire EEM is given in Raman units (R.U.). FI is the fluorescence index (McKnight et al., 2001). In the first column, the dominant vegetation type forested, intermediate cover (intermed.), and pasture are given, but extended descriptions of the overlying vegetation and cave setting can be found in Supplementary Table 1. Cave temperature, pCO2, and cover thickness have been reported previously in Kost et. al (2023). The drip rates and the δ18O variance were recalculated based on measurements from the same study but only for the time period covered in this fluorescence study.

Figure 2

Table 2. Properties of the derived 5-component parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC) model. Exmax and Emmax give wavelengths of peak excitation-emission pairs (double peaks for humic-like components). Pearson correlations between individual components across all samples are given in the column Fmax correlation in the top right triad. The bottom left triad indicates the respective p-values (italic, in brackets). Components are described by comparison to literature(1–6) and the OpenFluor(7–9) database (1Coble et al., 2014; 2Aitken et al., 2014; 3Xia et al., 2022; 4Zhou et al., 2013; 5Yamashita and Jaffé, 2008; 6Cory and McKnight, 2005; 7Chen et al., 2018; 8Dandrilli and McConnell, 2021; 9Wünsch et al., 2015).

Figure 3

Figure 2. Drip water parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC) model and bedrock endmember excitation-emission matrix (EEM). (A) Drip water 5-component PARAFAC model and its spectral loadings. Fluorescence intensity is normalized to unity. Spectral loadings maxima in emission and excitation wavelengths are indicated with solid and dashed lines, respectively. (B) EEM of dissolved organic-rich bedrock. Fluorescence intensity is given in arbitrary units (a.u.). Yellow triangles indicate peak positions of drip water PARAFAC component C3 for comparison.

Figure 4

Figure 3. Solid-phase fluorescence features of actively growing speleothems and bedrock from La Vallina Cave. (A) Stalagmite PG-2, sampled 5 m from drip water point PLA; (B) stalagmite SKY, sampled beneath the drip water sample point SKY; (C) stalagmite SNO, sampled beneath the drip water sample point SNO; (D) polished bedrock. CLSM images were created with an Olympus Fluoview 3000 generated by excitation at 488 nm and detection at 490–590 nm; images were post-processed with Fiji (Schindelin et. al, 2012) and Adobe Illustrator. Bomb spike age models for these active stalagmites are presented in Sliwinski et al. (2022).

Figure 5

Figure 4. Absorption properties of drip water samples for each sampling location. (A) Loess smoothed median absorption spectra for all locations. (B) Spectral slope ratio values for individual absorbance measurements.

Figure 6

Figure 5. Spatial distribution of fluorescence across drip sites. (A) Mean and standard deviation (SD) of excitation-emission matrices (EEM) for each sampling location compiled over the monitoring period. Fluorescent intensities are given in Raman units (R.U.). (B) Mean intensity of all PARAFAC components for each sampling location, stacked to illustrate the total PARAFAC characterized fluorescence intensity at each location. C1 and C5 are described as “humic-like” and “fulvic-like,” respectively. C3 is described as “fossil-like,” C2 is described as “tyrosine-like,” and C4 is described as “protein-like.”

Figure 7

Figure 6. Temporal evolution of the 5 components of the PARAFAC model throughout the monitored period at each site. Each component y axis is given in normalized PARAFAC fluorescence intensity.

Figure 8

Figure 7. Schematic diagram of processes contributing to the observed drip water fluorescence, from vegetation through soil, epikarst, and into the cave. Red labels denote potential end-member sources of different fluorescent organic component classes. Lavender boxes highlight proposed interactions among climate, vegetation/plant litter, and bedrock including dissolution or leaching of bedrock by respired CO2, and adsorption of fluorescent matter to bedrock, as well as cave conditions potentially affecting incorporation of fluorescent organic matter in speleothems.

Figure 9

Figure 8. Overview of the relationship between fluorescence and cave settings. (A) Comparison of the summed C1 and C5 (humic-like and fulvic-like) components plotted versus ascending thickness of bedrock cover over the drip water sampling site. (B) Comparison of summed C1 and C5 components plotted versus the drip water δ18O variance. (C) Comparison of the ratio of C3/(C1+C5), interpreted as the ratio of reworked or fossil components to humic-like and fulvic-like components, plotted against the drip water δ18O variance. The δ18O variance is computed from data in Kost et al. (2023) and is thought to increase for shorter drip water residence times.

Figure 10

Figure 9. Relationship of climate conditions versus fluorescence intensity of each PARAFAC component for the five locations FOR GLO, GRA, PLA, and SKY. In the upper row, data were split in dry or wet conditions based on the total precipitation in the 10 days before sampling. In the middle row, data were split in a high and a low drip rate group, based on the normalized drip rate (previously reported in Kost et al., 2023). The bottom row shows an analogous comparison of warm versus cold average surface temperatures to fluorescence. The sample size of each group (n = 4) was limited by the total length of the time series of location FOR. The boxplots show the median, first, and third quartiles; the attached whiskers extend from the hinges to the extreme values, no farther than 1.5 × inter-quartile range; and data outside of whiskers are plotted as single black dots.

Figure 11

Figure 10. Graphical representation of relationships between fluorescence (C1, C3, C3/(C5+C1), C2+C4) and selected drip water geochemistry parameters. Drip water chemistry data (δ13CDIC, Sr concentration, Cu concentration) is re-used from the study Kost et. al, 2023. For numerical values of Spearman rank correlation coefficients, see Table 3. (A) Comparison of fluorescence with the δ13C of DIC in drip water, which is an indicator of soil and epikarst CO2 and respiration rates. (B) Comparison of fluorescence with drip water Sr concentration, which is an indicator of the extent of dissolution of karst bedrock. (C) Comparison of fluorescence with the total drip water Cu concentration as an indicator for the presence of colloidal organic complexes.

Figure 12

Table 3. Strength of selected monotonic relationships between drip water chemistry (re-used from Kost et al., 2023) and PARAFAC model variables (this study), based on splits of the same drip water samples. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient is given in the top row by location and for the complete data set for each combination. The bottom row (in parentheses) shows the number of joint observations, followed by the p-value. Significant monotonic relationships with p-values < 0.05 appear in bold type. The correlations at MUS and SNO locations, and between SKY and δ13CDIC, are not given because fewer than three joint observations between drip water chemistry and the PARAFAC model are available.

Supplementary material: File

Endres et al. supplementary material

Endres et al. supplementary material
Download Endres et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.1 MB