Cold Light from the Sediments of a Hot Desert: How Luminescence Dating Sheds Light on the Landscape Development of the Northeastern Atacama

Author(s):  
Annette Kadereit ◽  
Steffen Greilich ◽  
Clemens Woda ◽  
Günther A. Wagner
2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1345-1391 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. M. van der Meij ◽  
A. J. A. M. Temme ◽  
C. M. F. J. J. de Kleijn ◽  
T. Reimann ◽  
G. B. M. Heuvelink ◽  
...  

Abstract. Soils in Arctic regions currently enjoy significant attention because of their potentially substantial changes under climate change. It is important to quantify the natural processes and rates of development of these soils, to better define and determine current and future changes. Specifically, there is a need to quantify the interactions between various landscape and soil forming processes that together have resulted in current soil properties. Soil chronosequences are ideal natural experiments for this purpose. In this contribution, we combine field observations, luminescence dating and soil-landscape modelling to test and improve our understanding about Arctic soil formation. Our field site is a Holocene chronosequence of gravelly raised marine terraces in central Spitsbergen. Field observations suggest that soil-landscape development is mainly driven by weathering, silt translocation, aeolian deposition and rill erosion. Spatial soil heterogeneity is mainly caused by soil age, morphological position and depth under the surface. Substantial organic matter accumulation only occurs in few, badly drained positions. Luminescence dating confirmed existing radiocarbon dating of the terraces, which are between ~ 3.6 and ~ 14.4 ka old. Observations and ages were used to parameterize soil landscape evolution model LORICA, which was subsequently used to test the hypothesis that our field-observed processes indeed dominate soil-landscape development. Model results indicate the importance of aeolian deposition as a source of fine material in the subsoil for both sheltered beach trough positions and barren beach ridge positions. Simulated overland erosion was negligible. Therefore, an un-simulated process must be responsible for creating the observed erosion rills. Dissolution and physical weathering both play a major role. However, by using present day soil observations, relative physical and chemical weathering could not be disentangled. Discrepancies between field and model results indicate that soil formation is non-linear and driven by spatially and temporally varying boundary conditions which were not included in the model. Concluding, Arctic soil and landscape development appears to be more complex and less straight-forward than could be reasoned from field observations.


SOIL ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Marijn van der Meij ◽  
Arnaud J. A. M. Temme ◽  
Christian M. F. J. J. de Kleijn ◽  
Tony Reimann ◽  
Gerard B. M. Heuvelink ◽  
...  

Abstract. Soils in Arctic regions currently enjoy attention because of their sensitivity to climate change. It is therefore important to understand the natural processes and rates of development of these soils. Specifically, there is a need to quantify the rates and interactions between various landscape- and soil-forming processes. Soil chronosequences are ideal natural experiments for this purpose. In this contribution, we combine field observations, luminescence dating and soil–landscape modelling to improve and test our understanding of Arctic soil formation. The field site is a Holocene chronosequence of gravelly raised marine terraces in central Spitsbergen. Field observations show that soil–landscape development is mainly driven by weathering, silt translocation, aeolian deposition and rill erosion. Spatial soil variation is mainly caused by soil age, morphological position within a terrace and depth under the surface. Luminescence dating confirmed existing radiocarbon dating of the terraces, which are between  ∼  1.5 and  ∼  13.3 ka old. The soil–landscape evolution model LORICA was used to test our hypothesis that the field-observed processes indeed dominate soil–landscape development. Model results additionally indicated the importance of aeolian deposition as a source of fine material in the subsoil for both sheltered and vegetated trough positions and barren ridge positions. Simulated overland erosion was negligible. Consequently, an un-simulated process must be responsible for creating the observed erosion rills. Dissolution and physical weathering both play a major role. However, using present-day soil observations, the relative contribution of physical and chemical weathering could not be disentangled. Discrepancies between field and model results indicate that soil formation is non-linear and driven by spatially and temporally varying boundary conditions which were not included in the model. To conclude, Arctic soil and landscape development appears to be more complex and less straightforward than could be reasoned from field observations.


Boreas ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 164-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiri Chlachula ◽  
Rob Kemp ◽  
Catherine Jessen ◽  
Adrian Palmer ◽  
Phillip Toms

Erdkunde ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rüdiger Mäckel ◽  
Arne Friedmann ◽  
Dirk Sudhaus

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yesong Han ◽  
◽  
Jiafu Zhang ◽  
Zhijiu Cui ◽  
Gengnian Liu
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document