Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-nlwjb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T21:18:34.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluating possible sources of error in tree-ring 14C data using multiple trees across South America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2024

Guaciara M Santos*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth System Science, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
Lucas D Nguyen
Affiliation:
Department of Earth System Science, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
June N Griffin
Affiliation:
Department of Earth System Science, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
Nathan de Oliveira Barreto
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciências Florestais, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil
Daigard R Ortega-Rodriguez
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciências Florestais, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil
Ana Carolina Barbosa
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciências Florestais, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras, Brazil
Gabriel Assis-Pereira
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciências Florestais, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: Guaciara M Santos; Email: gdossant@uci.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A limitation in fine-tuned tree-ring radiocarbon (14C) data is normally associated with overall data uncertainty. Tree-ring 14C data variance as a result of sample heterogeneity can be reduced by adopting best practices at the time of sample collection and subsequent preparation and analysis. Variance-reduction of 14C data was achieved by meticulous sample handling during increment core or cross-sectional cuttings, in-laboratory wood reductions, and cellulose fiber homogenization of whole rings. To demonstrate the performance of those procedures to final 14C results, we took advantage of the replicated data from assigned calendar years of two Pantropical post-1950 AD tree-ring 14C reconstructions. Two Cedrela fissilis Vell. trees spaced 22.5 km apart, and two trees of this species together with one Peltogyne paniculata Benth tree spaced 0.2 to 5 km apart were sampled in a tropical dry and moist forest, respectively. Replicate 14C data were then obtained from grouped tree-ring samples from each site. A total of 88% of the replicated 14C results fell into a remarkably consistent precision/accuracy range of 0.3% or less, even though multiple tree species were used as pairs/sets. This finding illustrates how adopting a few simple strategies, in tandem with already established chemical extraction procedures and high-precision 14C analysis, can improve 14C data results of tropical trees.

Information

Type
Research Article
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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of University of Arizona
Figure 0

Figure 1. Map of South America, detailing the two sample sites in Brazil (A), i.e., Juvenília, Minas Gerais (blue star) and Jamari National Forest, Rondônia (red star). Aerial view of the Juvenília site, and tree locations for the Cedrela fissilis samples, MTV001D (cross-section) and MTV114B (increment-core) (B). Aerial view of the Jamari National Forest site (C) tree positions for the Cedrela fissilis JAC09C and JAC21A, and Peltogyne paniculata JAR26C. Equator (black line) and the Dec/Jan/Feb-TLPB delimiting mean position (white dashed-line; adapted from Hua et al (2022)) is shown here for reference. Further details on wood samples characteristics are displayed in Figure 2.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Types of wood samples used in this study (A) from Juvenília, Minas Gerais, and (B) from Jamari National Forest, Rondônia dendrochronology field collections. Site coordinates, tree species, field deployable sampling method and sample identification are shown under each image. Examples of basic tree-ring sampling methods are shown in Figure S2, in supplementary material.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Diagrammatic example of a misaligned tree ring received at the 14C-AMS laboratory (top right). Uneven tree rings with earlywood (EW) light-colored band somewhat shorter, than the latewood (LW). 14C-AMS laboratory and steps to trim the sample so the only potentially different dimension being sampled is the earlywood/latewood width. Proper transverse cutting will equalize the height and tangential dimensions of the ring block so only the ring widths would have different dimensions.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Radiocarbon data performance associated with trees of the Juvenília site. (A) Data reproducibility among pairs for different tree samples for calendar years ranging between 1964 and 1989. The legend/diagram describes the combinations tested. Solid arrows represent pairs within a tree and dashed arrows between trees. (B) Dendrochronological assigned calendar years (x-axis) were adjusted to 0.002 (middle of the growing season, as described in text) versus 14C-calibrated calendar years (y-axis) of averaged pairs/sets. The error for dendrochronological dates has been estimated based on the length of the growing season (i.e., ± 0.166; 4 months in total) and is hidden by symbols. The 14C-calibrated calendar year errors were calculated based on age ranges derived by CALIBomb. The black-dashed line shows the 1:1 ratio that is expected if all 14C-calibrated calendar years agree exactly with dendrochronological dates. Detailed results are provided in supplementary materials (Figure S4 and Table S2).

Figure 4

Figure 5. Radiocarbon data performance associated with the trees of the Jamari site. (A) Data reproducibility among sets of distinct tree samples of same or different tree species for calendar years between 1955 and 1990. The inset legend/diagram indicates the combinations tested. Open-square symbols compare reproducibility of two C. fissilis trees, open diamond symbols compare one C. fissilis and one P. paniculata tree, and solid diamond symbols compare all three trees. (B) Dendrochronologically determined calendar years (x-axis) were adjusted to 0.042 (middle of the growing season, as described in text) versus 14C calibrated calendar years (y-axis) of averaged pairs/sets. The error for dendrochronological dates has been estimated based on the length of the growing season (i.e., ± 0.291; 7 months in total), and are within the bounds of the symbol area. The 14C calibrated calendar years errors were calculated based on age ranges derived by CALIBomb. The black-dashed line shows the 1:1 ratio that is expected if all 14C calibrated calendar years agree exactly with dendrochronological dates. Detailed results are provided in supplementary materials (Figure S5 and Table S3).

Figure 5

Figure 6. Frequency distribution versus 14C precision of pair/sets from several sites and studies. Number of replicated pairs/sets were variable, i.e., 14 pairs from Bearing Head (Turnbull et al. 2017), 9 pairs from Camanducaia (Santos et al. 2015), 21 pairs from Altiplano (Ancapichún et al. 2021), and 51 pairs/sets from this study (15 pairs from Juvenília and 36 from Jamari sites). Precision bins are shown as percentages (%).

Supplementary material: File

Santos et al. supplementary material

Santos et al. supplementary material
Download Santos et al. supplementary material(File)
File 611.4 KB