4.2 Article

Dating recent floodplain sediments in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system, eastern Australia using single-grain quartz OSL

期刊

BOREAS
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 1-21

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bor.12018

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. Sydney Catchment Authority
  3. Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering [09067, 08091]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two fluvial sediment cores taken from a floodplain of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system in the Sydney region, eastern Australia are dated using Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) to provide a reliable chronology essential for the management and planning of water resources. Nine charcoal C-14 (AMS) dates constrain these OSL ages. Quartz extracted from seven OSL samples from each of the cores was measured using both single-grain and multi-grain OSL techniques. Three of the single-grain natural dose distributions appear to be well bleached, but the others appear to be incompletely bleached to various degrees. Three minimum-age models (MAM, MAM(UL) and IEU) are applied to the single-grain dose distributions. We conclude that these models give consistent age estimates. For one of the cores it appears to be necessary to use a minimum-age model to obtain accurate ages, but in the other core incomplete bleaching is probably less important than postdepositional mixing and mixing during sampling. As a result, the burial age is probably best estimated using the weighted average of the individual single-grain dose estimates. The application of multi-grain OSL techniques to these samples results in an average apparent age overestimation of approximate to 200 years, which is significant for these samples, but negligible for sediments older than a few thousand years. The intention is that the chronology obtained in this study will be used in conjunction with a proxy flood record, derived from floodplain sediments, to gain an understanding of the long-term variability in periods of high and low rainfall in eastern Australia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据