Advertisement

Journal of Paleolimnology

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 107–118 | Cite as

Sediment focusing and210Pb dating: a new approach

  • D. J. Rowan
  • R. J. Cornett
  • K. King
  • B. Risto
Article

Abstract

In this paper we test the utility of the mud deposition boundary depth (mud DBD) theory (Rowanet al. 1992) as a means of maximizing sampling efficiency in paleolimnological investigations, particularly those that apply to210Pb dating. The mud DBD is defined by the relationship between near bottom wave velocity and particle threshold velocity, with wave and particle threshold theory simplified to terms of exposure and depth. Mud DBD theory can be used to define the depositional zone in lakes, and within the depositional zone defined by the mud DBD: 1) there is a high probability of obtaining a representative core, 2) variation in mass sediment accumulation rate (MSAR) is not correlated with water depth, and 3) variation in MSAR is considerably reduced from the whole lake average. This suggests that mud DBD theory can account for the effects of sediment focusing, and that the mud DBD defined depositional zone is the zone to which fine-grained sediments are focused. Finally, we have shown that to optimize sampling effort, 5 to 10 cores within the depositional zone are necessary for a reasonably precise estimate of the mean mass sediment accumulation rate. In addition, the use of mud DBD theory prior to sampling can dramatically reduce the cost associated with analyzing large numbers of cores for210Pb.

Key words

210Pb sediments cores paleolimnology lakes sediment focusing sampling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baudo, R., 1989. Uncertainty in description of sediment chemical composition. Hydrobiologia 176/177: 441–448.Google Scholar
  2. Cornett, R. J. & L. A. Chant, 1988.239,240Pu residence times in freshwaters and accumulation in shield lake sediments. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45: 407–415.Google Scholar
  3. Cornett, R. J., L. A. Chant & B. A. Risto, 1992. Arsenic transport between water and sediments. Hydrobiologia 235/236: 533–544.Google Scholar
  4. Cornett, R. J., L. A. Chant & D. Link, 1984. Sedimentation of210Pb in Laurentian Shield lakes. Wat. Pollut. Res. J. Can. 19: 97–109.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, M. B., 1968. Pollen grains in lake sediments: redeposition caused by seasonal water circulation. Science 162: 769–799.Google Scholar
  6. Evans, R. D., 1980. Measurement of sediment accumulation and phosphorous retention using lead-210 dating. PhD. Thesis, McGill University.Google Scholar
  7. Evans, R.D. & F. H. Rigler, 1983. A test of lead-210 dating for the measurement of whole lake soft sediment accumulation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: 506–515.Google Scholar
  8. Floderus, S., 1989. Sediment sampling evaluated with a new weighting function and index of reliability. Hydrobiologia 176/177: 451–464.Google Scholar
  9. Foster, I. D. L., J. A. Dearing, A. Simpson, A. D. Carter & P. G. Appleby, 1985. Lake catchment based studies of erosion and denudation in the Merevale catchment, Warwickshire, U.K. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 10: 45–68.Google Scholar
  10. Håkanson, L., 1977. The influence of wind, fetch, and water depth on the distribution of sediments in Lake Vanern, Sweden. Can. J. Earth Sci. 14: 397–412.Google Scholar
  11. Håkanson, L., 1981. On lake bottom dynamics — the energy-topography factor. Can. J. Earth Sci. 18: 899–909.Google Scholar
  12. Håkanson, L., 1984. Sediment sampling in different aquatic environments: statistical aspect. Wat. Resour. Res. 20: 41–46.Google Scholar
  13. Håkanson, L., 1992 Sediment variability. In Sediment Toxicity Assessment (ed. G. A. Burton, Jr.), Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton: 19–35.Google Scholar
  14. Håkanson, L. & M. Jansson, 1983. Principles of Lake Sedimentology Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 316 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Hermanson, M. H. & E. R. Christensen, 1991. Recent sedimentation in Lake Michigan. J. Great Lakes Res. 17: 33–50.Google Scholar
  16. Hilton, J., 1985. A conceptual framework for predicting the occurrence of sediment focusing and sediment redistribution in small lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 30: 1131–1143.Google Scholar
  17. Kimmel, B. L., 1978. An evaluation of recent sediment focusing in Castle Lake (California) using a volcanic ash layer as a stratigraphic marker. Verh. Int. Ver. Limnol. 20: 393–400.Google Scholar
  18. Lehman, J. T., 1975. Reconstructing the rate of accumulation of lake sediment: the effect of sediment focusing. Quat. Res. 5: 541–550.Google Scholar
  19. Likens, G. E. & M. B. Davis, 1975. Post-glacial history of Mirror Lake and its watershed in New Hampshire, USA: an initial report. Verh. Int. Ver. Limnol. 19: 982–993.Google Scholar
  20. Peterman, R. M., 1990. Statistical power analysis can improve fisheries research and management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 2–15.Google Scholar
  21. Robbins, J. A. & D. N. Edgington, 1975. Determination of recent sedimentation rates in Lake Michigan using Pb-210 and Cs-137. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 39: 285–304.Google Scholar
  22. Robbins, J. A., J. R. Krezoski & S. C. Mozley, 1977. Radioactivity in sediments of the Great Lakes: post-depositional redistribution by deposit-feeding organisms. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 36: 325–333.Google Scholar
  23. Rowan, D. J., J. Kalff & J. B. Rasmussen, 1992. Estimating the mud deposition boundary depth in lakes from wave theory. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 2490–2497.Google Scholar
  24. Saulesleja, A., 1986. Great Lakes climatological atlas. Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Ont., 145 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Wilkinson, L., 1989. SYSTAT: the system for statistics. SYSTAT, Inc., Evanston, II., 822 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. J. Rowan
    • 1
  • R. J. Cornett
    • 1
  • K. King
    • 1
  • B. Risto
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Research BranchChalk River LaboratoriesChalk RiverCanada

Personalised recommendations