Open Access

Estimation of the durations of breaks in deposition – Speleothem case study

J. Pawlak
J. Pawlak
, 
H. Hercman
H. Hercman
, 
P. Sierpień
P. Sierpień
, 
P. Pruner
P. Pruner
, 
M. Gąsiorowski
M. Gąsiorowski
, 
A. Mihevc
A. Mihevc
, 
N. Zupan Hajna
N. Zupan Hajna
, 
P. Bosák
P. Bosák
, 
M. Błaszczyk
M. Błaszczyk
 and 
B. Wach
B. Wach
   | Dec 31, 2020
Geochronometria's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Article Category: CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 13TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE “METHODS OF ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY” JUNE 5-7TH, 2019, TARNOWSKIE GORY, POLAND
Published Online: Dec 31, 2020
Page range: 154 - 170
Received: Oct 07, 2019
Accepted: Aug 28, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/geochr-2020-0022
Keywords
© 2020 D. Jacek Pawlak. published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Fig 1

Sample localization: A – map of Central Europe; B – map of Korea; C – PD-4 stalagmite (photo by J. Pawlak); D – SC-3 stalagmite (photo by J. Pawlak); E – sketch of the LDH profile with sampled sections (rectangles) and principal hiatuses (lines); F – LDH flowstone.
Sample localization: A – map of Central Europe; B – map of Korea; C – PD-4 stalagmite (photo by J. Pawlak); D – SC-3 stalagmite (photo by J. Pawlak); E – sketch of the LDH profile with sampled sections (rectangles) and principal hiatuses (lines); F – LDH flowstone.

Fig 2

Age-depth models for the PD-4 stalagmite with estimated hiatus duration.
Age-depth models for the PD-4 stalagmite with estimated hiatus duration.

Fig 3

Age-depth models for the SC-3 stalagmite with the estimated durations of the hiatuses H1 and H2: A – the age-depth model chart of the whole profile; B– enlarged H1 and H2 zones; age-depth model for the oldest deposition phase (green lines); age-depth model for the deposition phase between H1 and H2 (blue lines); and age-depth model for the youngest deposition phase (red lines).
Age-depth models for the SC-3 stalagmite with the estimated durations of the hiatuses H1 and H2: A – the age-depth model chart of the whole profile; B– enlarged H1 and H2 zones; age-depth model for the oldest deposition phase (green lines); age-depth model for the deposition phase between H1 and H2 (blue lines); and age-depth model for the youngest deposition phase (red lines).

Fig 4

The δ18O data for the SC-3 profile: A – the δ18O record in the depth scale; B – the result of the correlation with the LR04 record.
The δ18O data for the SC-3 profile: A – the δ18O record in the depth scale; B – the result of the correlation with the LR04 record.

Fig 5

The results of OIS for the LDH profile: A – the δ18O record of the LDH profile in a depth scale; B – age-depth models estimated based on the OIS and the PM approaches (black lines); C – the δ18O record of LDH placed in both age scales and compared with the LR04 record (gray line).
The results of OIS for the LDH profile: A – the δ18O record of the LDH profile in a depth scale; B – age-depth models estimated based on the OIS and the PM approaches (black lines); C – the δ18O record of LDH placed in both age scales and compared with the LR04 record (gray line).

Fig 6

LDH profile: A – sketch of the LDH profile with sampled sections (rectangles) and principal hiatuses (lines); B – the result of OIS and the PM age-depth modeling, with detected hiatuses and their duration (gray rectangles). Arrows show the relation between the hiatuses visible in the profile and the hiatuses detected by the model.
LDH profile: A – sketch of the LDH profile with sampled sections (rectangles) and principal hiatuses (lines); B – the result of OIS and the PM age-depth modeling, with detected hiatuses and their duration (gray rectangles). Arrows show the relation between the hiatuses visible in the profile and the hiatuses detected by the model.

Fig 7

The results of testing reference curves: A – quality indicators for the series of test correlations with different reference curves; B – Reciska Pecina curve correlated with the MEDI curve (Wang et al. 2010); C – Reciska Pecina curve correlated with the LR04 curve (Lisiecki & Raymo 2005); D – Reciska Pecina curve correlated with the PISO curve (Channell et al. 2009).
The results of testing reference curves: A – quality indicators for the series of test correlations with different reference curves; B – Reciska Pecina curve correlated with the MEDI curve (Wang et al. 2010); C – Reciska Pecina curve correlated with the LR04 curve (Lisiecki & Raymo 2005); D – Reciska Pecina curve correlated with the PISO curve (Channell et al. 2009).

Fig 8

The comparison of age-depth models for stalagmites from an unsurveyed Macedonian cave located near Lake Ohrid (Regattieri et al. 2018): A – the results of age-depth model estimation – (1) age-depth model made by the authors; (2) age-depth model made by MOD-AGE; (3) age-depth model made by the OIS approach; B – the result of the correlation with the MEDI record (Wang et al. 2010).
The comparison of age-depth models for stalagmites from an unsurveyed Macedonian cave located near Lake Ohrid (Regattieri et al. 2018): A – the results of age-depth model estimation – (1) age-depth model made by the authors; (2) age-depth model made by MOD-AGE; (3) age-depth model made by the OIS approach; B – the result of the correlation with the MEDI record (Wang et al. 2010).

Fig 9

The result of correlation of the DY-1 δ18O record with the LR04 record: A – the δ18O record correlated with LR04; B – age-depth model estimated for phase B (blue lines) and age-depth models estimated for phases A and C based on the U-series ages (data from Jo et al. 2011) – (1) LR04 record; (2) DY-1 δ18O record; (3) age-depth model made by the authors (Jo et al. 2011); (4) age-depth model made by the OIS approach.
The result of correlation of the DY-1 δ18O record with the LR04 record: A – the δ18O record correlated with LR04; B – age-depth model estimated for phase B (blue lines) and age-depth models estimated for phases A and C based on the U-series ages (data from Jo et al. 2011) – (1) LR04 record; (2) DY-1 δ18O record; (3) age-depth model made by the authors (Jo et al. 2011); (4) age-depth model made by the OIS approach.

Fig 10

The comparison of age-depth models for stalagmites from Spanish Cobra Cave (Rossi et al. 2014): A – the results of age-depth model estimation – (1) age-depth model made by the authors, fluorescence lamina counting (Fl); (2) age-depth model made by MOD-AGE; (3) age-depth model made by the OIS approach; B – the result of the correlation with the GRIP record.
The comparison of age-depth models for stalagmites from Spanish Cobra Cave (Rossi et al. 2014): A – the results of age-depth model estimation – (1) age-depth model made by the authors, fluorescence lamina counting (Fl); (2) age-depth model made by MOD-AGE; (3) age-depth model made by the OIS approach; B – the result of the correlation with the GRIP record.

Fig 11

The comparison of the GPTS record (Ogg 2012) with the time scale of the LDH section obtained by integrated OIS and PM chronology: 1 – normal polarity, 2 – reverse polarity, 3 – non-deposition time (hiatus).
The comparison of the GPTS record (Ogg 2012) with the time scale of the LDH section obtained by integrated OIS and PM chronology: 1 – normal polarity, 2 – reverse polarity, 3 – non-deposition time (hiatus).

U-series dating results for the SC-3 and PD-4 stalagmites.

sampleH [mm]U [ppm]234U/238U AR230Th/234U AR230Th/232Th ARAge [ka]
SC-5182±11.038 ± 0.0021.158 ± 0.0020.970 ± 0.0057842 ± 46290 ± 7
SC-6192±10.610 ± 0.0021.105 ± 0.0020.944 ± 0.00445 ± 0.2273 ± 5
SC-8198.5±11.000 ± 0.0061.158 ± 0.0020.936 ± 0.0053345 ± 21254 ± 5
SC-9200±10.941 ± 0.0021.100 ± 0.0020.915 ± 0.0089078 ± 90242 ± 7
PD4-14±11.659 ± 0.0031.143 ± 0.0010.351 ± 0.001374 ± 246.6 ± 0.2
PD4-212.5±12.000 ± 0.011.197 ± 0.0030.334 ± 0.002654 ± 443.8 ± 0.3
PD4-323±13.335 ± 0.0061.182 ± 0.0030.322 ± 0.0022401 ± 1841.9 ± 0.3
PD4-438±12.578 ± 0.0041.161 ± 0.0010.320 ± 0.0012254 ± 841.7 ± 0.2
PD4-540±12.330 ± 0.011.185 ± 0.0030.314 ± 0.0022960 ± 1740.7 ± 0.3
PD4-650±11.840 ± 0.011.179 ± 0.0030.311 ± 0.005832 ± 1340.1 ± 0.7
PD4-758±13.540 ± 0.0071.152 ± 0.0010.305 ± 0.001781 ± 339.3 ± 0.1
PD4-873±12.111 ± 0.0041.149 ± 0.0020.295 ± 0.0022352 ± 1937.9 ± 0.3
PD4-986±13.700 ± 0.0201.142 ± 0.0010.297 ± 0.001210 ± 137.8 ± 0.3
PD4-1088±12.320 ± 0.0041.160 ± 0.0020.282 ± 0.002220 ± 235.8 ± 0.2
PD4-1190±12.318 ± 0.0101.203 ± 0.0040.277 ± 0.0051043 ± 1735 ± 0.7
PD4-12107±10.751 ± 0.0051.269 ± 0.0070.133 ± 0.00381 ± 215.5 ± 0.4
PD4-13129±11.479 ± 0.0091.219 ± 0.0040.103 ± 0.002671 ± 1511.9 ± 0.3
PD4-14154±11.183 ± 0.0071.215 ± 0.0040.082 ± 0.001338 ± 49.4 ± 0.2
PD4-15183±11.386 ± 0.0081.235 ± 0.0030.084 ± 0.001332 ± 69.3 ± 0.2
PD4-16224±11.243 ± 0.0071.242 ± 0.0020.056 ± 0.001585 ± 146.3 ± 0.2
PD4-17291±11.467 ± 0.0091.249 ± 0.0020.055 ± 0.001667 ± 136.2 ± 0.2
PD4-18364±11.469 ± 0.0081.277 ± 0.0030.049 ± 0.001293 ± 65.4 ± 0.1
PD4-19377±12.088 ± 0.0131.302 ± 0.0070.023 ± 0.001115 ± 62.5 ± 0.1

Position of magnetozones in the LDH profile.

Age*PolarityMagnetozonePaleomagnetic benchmarks
[Ma]chron*SymbolDepth** [cm]Age*** [Ma]
(2.581–) <3.03C2An.1nN1
N1/R113 ± 43.03 ± 0.03
3.03–3.12C2An.1rR1
R1/N232 ± 13.12 ± 0.03
3.12–3.21C2An.2nN2N2/R239 ± 23.21 ± 0.035
3.21–3.33C2An.2rR2R2/N353 ± 23.33 ± 0.035
3.33–3.60C2An.3nN3N3/R360 ± 13.60 ± 0.04
3.60–4.19C2ArR3R3/N4124 ± 14.19 ± 0.04
4.19–4.30C3n.1nN4N4/R4139 ± 24.30 ± 0.045
4.30–4.49C3n.1rR4R4/N5151 ± 44.49 ± 0.045
4.49–4.63C3n.2nN5N5/R5167 ± 24.63 ± 0.05
4.63–4.80C3n.2rR5R5/N6195 ± 24.80 ± 0.05
4.80-4.90C3n.3nN6N6/R6200 ± 14.90 ± 0.05
4.90–4.98C3n.3rR6R6/N7218 ± 14.98 ± 0.05
>4.98(–5.23)C3n.4nN7
eISSN:
1897-1695
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
Volume Open
Journal Subjects:
Geosciences, other
Journal RSS Feed