the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Nov 2023
Luminescence dating approaches to reconstruct the formation of plaggic anthrosols
Abstract. Plaggic anthrosols are one of the major features that contributed to the formation of the present-day landscape of northern part of Europe since the Middle Ages, but their formation history is rather poorly understood. The formation of plaggic anthrosols had an impact beyond the arable fields, impacting the entire landscape surrounding the arable fields, mainly through plaggen management activities. Therefore, plaggic anthrosols are a valuable archive for studying the interactions between human, soil, and landscape. Recently, luminescence dating methods have recently emerged as a tool for tracing the past movement of grains, including within the soil column. This study combines two primary luminescence methods – single-grain feldspar infrared (IRSL) and post-infrared infrared (pIRIR) measurements, and small-aliquot quartz optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) – to reconstruct the formation of a plaggic anthrosol at Braakmankamp (eastern Netherlands). We test: 1) how to identify well-bleached grains for single-grain feldspar pIRIR dating; 2) whether the single-grain feldspar pIRIR and the small-aliquot quartz OSL ages are consistent; 3) what additional information on the formation of plaggic anthrosols is provided by examining both single-grain feldspar pIRIR and small-aliquot quartz OSL equivalent-dose distributions. Toward this aim, we present a new method to identify well-bleached single grains of feldspar using the ratio of the grains’ IRSL and pIRIR signals. Feldspar pIRIR ages obtained from bootstrapped Minimum Age Model (BsMAM) analyses of grains identified as well-bleached were in agreement with the BsMAM ages of small-aliquot quartz OSL for samples from the plaggen layer. In contrast, ages obtained from the two methods do not agree for samples where grains of different burial age are mixed through natural bioturbation. Our results demonstrate that single-grain feldspar pIRIR measurements provide a useful tool to identify the past light exposure and soil-mixing of sand grains in sediments of different depositional and burial histories. Augmenting this information with conventional quartz OSL dating allow us to reconstruct the timing and processes of plaggic anthrosol formation in Braakmankamp. According to luminescence dating results, land clearance around 900–1000 CE and accumulation of plaggen material began around 1200–1300 CE with the average accumulation rate of ~ 1.14 mm/yr.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1601 KB)
-
Supplement
(194 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1601 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(194 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2471', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Dec 2023
This paper seeks to reconstruct the formation of plaggenic anthrosols using luminescence dating techniques. The data presented look good and the discussions are generally persuasive. While I think that the work is appropriate for the journal and ultimately deserves to be published, I have several suggestions for how this paper might be improved.
For sections
- The abstract is a little bit cumbersome, consider deleting the second and third sentences.
- The second section might be merged into the first section, placed just before presenting the scientific questions and research objectives.
For figures:
①Figure 2 should be labeled with latitude and longitude.
②The title of Figure 3 (b)'s z-coordinate should be changed to "Dose recovery ratio".
③In the caption of Figure 4, it should be specified that the average value is calculated from how many results.
④In Figure 6c, it is mentioned in line 388 of the text that the OD results of the filtered feldspar and quartz are very similar. However, comparing Figure 5 and Figure 6c separately is not intuitive. It may be worth considering including the OD of quartz in Figure 6c for comparison.
⑤In Figure 7, what does each point represent? Are they the age results of each sample? More detailed explanations should be provided in the caption.
⑥Table 3 should include a depth column for easier comparison with the figures.
For lines
Line 17, "Recently, luminescence... have recently", one of the "recently” should be removed.
Line 69, the second goal has not been introduced in the previous text. Why is it important to identify changes in disturbances? What is the significance?
Line 110, "They conclude that~", who does the "They" refer to?
Line 240, the sample ID does not match that in the Table 1.
Line 265, it is good to consider the influence of fading on the ratio. However, is the ratio of Pirir290 really applicable to Pirir175? Is it possible to obtain a reference value by fitting data from published measurements of IR50 and pirir175 results taken simultaneously?
Line 268, "To determine the ages of samples", what specific ages are being referred to? If it refers to the poorly-bleached sample, it is understandable to use MAM to determine the depositional age. However, since the filtered pIRIR ages are already from well-bleached grains, why not use CAM to derive the depositional age? Actually, in your context, it doesn't seem like MAM is being used to obtain the conventional "depositional age", correct? So, this should be explained in more detail.
Line 291, why is the sigmab input for quartz determined as 0.15±0.04?
Line 373, why is it at most an overestimate of 30%? Isn't there unfiltered/filtered ratio over 1.5?
Line 473, I now understand that the high proportion of poorly bleached grains in the plaggen layer can be attributed to intensive cultivation activities, as you have clearly explained. However, why can we infer that the sedimentation rate also increased during the same time?
Line 488, I am not arguing against the idea of using MaxAM to estimate the depositional age. However, it should be noted that bioturbation not only introduces younger grains but can also bring older grains from lower layers. Therefore, the use of MaxAM cannot completely eliminate the influence of bioturbation.
Line 496, the expression of this age is somewhat confusing. I suppose it should be "900-1000 years ago"? The same issue applies to Line 503. Please check the consistency of age expression throughout the article, abstract, and discussion sections.
Line 517, “The ratio of DeIRSL~” at single grain scale. As you have mentioned that the ratio has already been applied in single-aliquot.
Line 519, Single-grain feldspar pIRIR yields similar ages as single-aliquot quartz OSL ages when~.
Lastly, I am interested to know if the authors have checked the variations in the proportions of zero-age grains throughout the profile.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2471-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jungyu Choi, 19 Feb 2024
Dear reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your positive and constructive comments. We are planning to incorporate the large majority of your suggestions to further improve the quality of the manuscript.
One comment that gained our attention centers on section divisions, suggesting that the second section might be merged with the first section. We have discussed with the author team and concluded that it may be better to keep the introduction section relatively short and direct to highlight the research questions and objectives. In contrast, much more detail is needed in the subsequent section to help members of both the archaeological and luminescence communities to grasp the study and its technical and geographic aspects. However, we agree that there is space for improvement in the introduction section, and we will revise it.
Another important comment relates to the 90% criteria for the filtering method (De ratio IRSL50 / pIRIR175). We adopted this threshold following Buylaert et al. (2013), even though we are using a different stimulation temperature of the pIRIR signal than the original publication by those authors. We acknowledge in the manuscript that the 90% threshold is indeed arbitrary; we would expect the ratio to depend on the age of the samples and the fading rate of the signals used for the mineral extract that is measured. We like the suggestion that the threshold could be obtained from a fit between published IRSL50 and pIRIR175 data. However, given the dependency on sample age and provenance, we argue that a ratio based on published information would be equally arbitrary. Moreover, there is not a lot of published pIRIR175 data for well-bleached samples that would allow comparison of results at single-grain level.
For our detailed response to the rest of the comments, please check the attached file.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2471', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Jan 2024
Review of Luminescence dating approaches to reconstruct the formation of plaggic anthrosols - Choi et al
I have read this manuscript with great interest, and found it to be well-structured and well-written (with the exception of the introduction which would benefit from a good look from the team of experienced authors). The work focuses on dating methods suited for soils subject to bio- and anthroturbation, and the results achieved with those methods for a site in the Netherlands. The innovation in the dating method is a new kind of filtering of dating results for feldspar grains, which is well explained and seems to work well. The results achieved are probably not the main point of the paper, but are of regional interest as well (where the region is NW-Europe, the region where plaggen agriculture was practiced). The work is well embedded in the landscape archeology literature, but doesn't seem to add much to that literature - perhaps because of the weak spatial component of the work.
Overall, there is clear value to the work in my opinion, and it deserves to be published with minor revisions.
l147 - are you sure that veneered is the right word? It's beautiful! But it feels not quite right. Maybe 'covered' is better?
l160 - I'd like to read more about the location of the pit inside the B. site. It may be important for your interpretation whether the site is right in the middle, on the edge, close to the river, etc.
l163 - Be clear about which soil classification system you're using also in the text. You're using Dutch classifiers for your horizons (Aap for instance). The FAO system, which I think you should adopt, has different meaning for the lowercase a than the dutch system (see page 72 https://www.fao.org/3/a0541e/a0541e.pdf). Since most readers will know the FAO system but not the dutch system, please either switch to FAO (recommended) or spend some space on explaining what Aap and other codes mean to non-Dutch speakers.
l181 I'd appreciate a picture of the tubes inside the pit, with a scale-ribbon. Reference your figure 5 here, or duplicate its right half as your new figure 3. That's less abstract than reading the depths from Table 1.
l210 You mentioned using the Wageningen lab for pre work. Were the readers also there, or in Koeln?
l313 It seems the test results are well documented here in the results. Well done, and appropriate given your first objective. They are results here (otherwise, they might have fitted in your methods).
Figure 5: please extend also the top dashed line to the left of the figure
L327 can you argue with numbers that there is no clear trend? I see a weak trend that is the opposite of your expectation, which would be interesting/require explanation/speculation if it were significant
In Figure 8 and Table 2, can you add a column with years in CE? There may be a standard that calls for years before 2017, but it feels easier to read for a wider audience with years CE as a secondary x-axis or extra column.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2471-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jungyu Choi, 19 Feb 2024
Thank you for your positive and constructive comments. We find them very useful and think they will improve our manuscript. We will incorporate all your suggestions. For detailed responses to the individual comments, please check the attached file.
One comment that we discussed over is whether to adopt the FAO system for the descriptions of the soil horizons. Although we do agree that using the FAO system would be most familiar for the majority of the readers, it seems that it would be difficult to make a direct transition from the Dutch system to the FAO system. As an alternative, we will provide detailed descriptions for the suffixes used for the descriptions of the soil horizons, which would be sufficient enough for the readers to get a good understanding of the soil profile.
For our response to the rest of the comments, please check the attached file.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jungyu Choi, 19 Feb 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2471', Anonymous Referee #3, 23 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2471/egusphere-2023-2471-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Jungyu Choi, 19 Feb 2024
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your constructive comments on our paper. We found them very useful to improve our manuscript and are planning to adopt most of them. We agree that the elements that you mentioned in the major comments are essential to understand the dataset and to allow others to reproduce the research. Thanks also for the careful proofreading.
You mentioned that it would be important to show that BsMAM works for well-bleached materials by demonstrating that the two models provide the same results. You are indeed correct that the CAM and the BsMAM results are identical (agreeing with 1-sigma error) for the samples that can be considered as ‘well-bleached’, or ‘completely mixed’ by bioturbation or ploughing. We will provide the CAM results and demonstrate that well-bleached samples provide similar results for both CAM and BsMAM.
We unfortunately do not have an independent age control for this research. We agree that the solution that you provided, using the CAM ages of the well-bleached samples (NCL-1117128 ~ 130), would be the best alternative in this case. The CAM results of quartz OSL and BsMAM results of feldspar pIRIR are agreeing for two of the three samples (NCL-1117128 and NCL-1117130), but there is an underestimation by feldspar pIRIR in NCL-1117129. Despite one disagreement, we think two samples having agreeing ages from both single-aliquot quartz and single-grain feldspar still provides support for our arguments.
For our response for the rest of the comments, please check the attached file.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Jungyu Choi, 19 Feb 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2471', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Dec 2023
This paper seeks to reconstruct the formation of plaggenic anthrosols using luminescence dating techniques. The data presented look good and the discussions are generally persuasive. While I think that the work is appropriate for the journal and ultimately deserves to be published, I have several suggestions for how this paper might be improved.
For sections
- The abstract is a little bit cumbersome, consider deleting the second and third sentences.
- The second section might be merged into the first section, placed just before presenting the scientific questions and research objectives.
For figures:
①Figure 2 should be labeled with latitude and longitude.
②The title of Figure 3 (b)'s z-coordinate should be changed to "Dose recovery ratio".
③In the caption of Figure 4, it should be specified that the average value is calculated from how many results.
④In Figure 6c, it is mentioned in line 388 of the text that the OD results of the filtered feldspar and quartz are very similar. However, comparing Figure 5 and Figure 6c separately is not intuitive. It may be worth considering including the OD of quartz in Figure 6c for comparison.
⑤In Figure 7, what does each point represent? Are they the age results of each sample? More detailed explanations should be provided in the caption.
⑥Table 3 should include a depth column for easier comparison with the figures.
For lines
Line 17, "Recently, luminescence... have recently", one of the "recently” should be removed.
Line 69, the second goal has not been introduced in the previous text. Why is it important to identify changes in disturbances? What is the significance?
Line 110, "They conclude that~", who does the "They" refer to?
Line 240, the sample ID does not match that in the Table 1.
Line 265, it is good to consider the influence of fading on the ratio. However, is the ratio of Pirir290 really applicable to Pirir175? Is it possible to obtain a reference value by fitting data from published measurements of IR50 and pirir175 results taken simultaneously?
Line 268, "To determine the ages of samples", what specific ages are being referred to? If it refers to the poorly-bleached sample, it is understandable to use MAM to determine the depositional age. However, since the filtered pIRIR ages are already from well-bleached grains, why not use CAM to derive the depositional age? Actually, in your context, it doesn't seem like MAM is being used to obtain the conventional "depositional age", correct? So, this should be explained in more detail.
Line 291, why is the sigmab input for quartz determined as 0.15±0.04?
Line 373, why is it at most an overestimate of 30%? Isn't there unfiltered/filtered ratio over 1.5?
Line 473, I now understand that the high proportion of poorly bleached grains in the plaggen layer can be attributed to intensive cultivation activities, as you have clearly explained. However, why can we infer that the sedimentation rate also increased during the same time?
Line 488, I am not arguing against the idea of using MaxAM to estimate the depositional age. However, it should be noted that bioturbation not only introduces younger grains but can also bring older grains from lower layers. Therefore, the use of MaxAM cannot completely eliminate the influence of bioturbation.
Line 496, the expression of this age is somewhat confusing. I suppose it should be "900-1000 years ago"? The same issue applies to Line 503. Please check the consistency of age expression throughout the article, abstract, and discussion sections.
Line 517, “The ratio of DeIRSL~” at single grain scale. As you have mentioned that the ratio has already been applied in single-aliquot.
Line 519, Single-grain feldspar pIRIR yields similar ages as single-aliquot quartz OSL ages when~.
Lastly, I am interested to know if the authors have checked the variations in the proportions of zero-age grains throughout the profile.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2471-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jungyu Choi, 19 Feb 2024
Dear reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your positive and constructive comments. We are planning to incorporate the large majority of your suggestions to further improve the quality of the manuscript.
One comment that gained our attention centers on section divisions, suggesting that the second section might be merged with the first section. We have discussed with the author team and concluded that it may be better to keep the introduction section relatively short and direct to highlight the research questions and objectives. In contrast, much more detail is needed in the subsequent section to help members of both the archaeological and luminescence communities to grasp the study and its technical and geographic aspects. However, we agree that there is space for improvement in the introduction section, and we will revise it.
Another important comment relates to the 90% criteria for the filtering method (De ratio IRSL50 / pIRIR175). We adopted this threshold following Buylaert et al. (2013), even though we are using a different stimulation temperature of the pIRIR signal than the original publication by those authors. We acknowledge in the manuscript that the 90% threshold is indeed arbitrary; we would expect the ratio to depend on the age of the samples and the fading rate of the signals used for the mineral extract that is measured. We like the suggestion that the threshold could be obtained from a fit between published IRSL50 and pIRIR175 data. However, given the dependency on sample age and provenance, we argue that a ratio based on published information would be equally arbitrary. Moreover, there is not a lot of published pIRIR175 data for well-bleached samples that would allow comparison of results at single-grain level.
For our detailed response to the rest of the comments, please check the attached file.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2471', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Jan 2024
Review of Luminescence dating approaches to reconstruct the formation of plaggic anthrosols - Choi et al
I have read this manuscript with great interest, and found it to be well-structured and well-written (with the exception of the introduction which would benefit from a good look from the team of experienced authors). The work focuses on dating methods suited for soils subject to bio- and anthroturbation, and the results achieved with those methods for a site in the Netherlands. The innovation in the dating method is a new kind of filtering of dating results for feldspar grains, which is well explained and seems to work well. The results achieved are probably not the main point of the paper, but are of regional interest as well (where the region is NW-Europe, the region where plaggen agriculture was practiced). The work is well embedded in the landscape archeology literature, but doesn't seem to add much to that literature - perhaps because of the weak spatial component of the work.
Overall, there is clear value to the work in my opinion, and it deserves to be published with minor revisions.
l147 - are you sure that veneered is the right word? It's beautiful! But it feels not quite right. Maybe 'covered' is better?
l160 - I'd like to read more about the location of the pit inside the B. site. It may be important for your interpretation whether the site is right in the middle, on the edge, close to the river, etc.
l163 - Be clear about which soil classification system you're using also in the text. You're using Dutch classifiers for your horizons (Aap for instance). The FAO system, which I think you should adopt, has different meaning for the lowercase a than the dutch system (see page 72 https://www.fao.org/3/a0541e/a0541e.pdf). Since most readers will know the FAO system but not the dutch system, please either switch to FAO (recommended) or spend some space on explaining what Aap and other codes mean to non-Dutch speakers.
l181 I'd appreciate a picture of the tubes inside the pit, with a scale-ribbon. Reference your figure 5 here, or duplicate its right half as your new figure 3. That's less abstract than reading the depths from Table 1.
l210 You mentioned using the Wageningen lab for pre work. Were the readers also there, or in Koeln?
l313 It seems the test results are well documented here in the results. Well done, and appropriate given your first objective. They are results here (otherwise, they might have fitted in your methods).
Figure 5: please extend also the top dashed line to the left of the figure
L327 can you argue with numbers that there is no clear trend? I see a weak trend that is the opposite of your expectation, which would be interesting/require explanation/speculation if it were significant
In Figure 8 and Table 2, can you add a column with years in CE? There may be a standard that calls for years before 2017, but it feels easier to read for a wider audience with years CE as a secondary x-axis or extra column.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2471-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jungyu Choi, 19 Feb 2024
Thank you for your positive and constructive comments. We find them very useful and think they will improve our manuscript. We will incorporate all your suggestions. For detailed responses to the individual comments, please check the attached file.
One comment that we discussed over is whether to adopt the FAO system for the descriptions of the soil horizons. Although we do agree that using the FAO system would be most familiar for the majority of the readers, it seems that it would be difficult to make a direct transition from the Dutch system to the FAO system. As an alternative, we will provide detailed descriptions for the suffixes used for the descriptions of the soil horizons, which would be sufficient enough for the readers to get a good understanding of the soil profile.
For our response to the rest of the comments, please check the attached file.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jungyu Choi, 19 Feb 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2471', Anonymous Referee #3, 23 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2471/egusphere-2023-2471-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Jungyu Choi, 19 Feb 2024
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your constructive comments on our paper. We found them very useful to improve our manuscript and are planning to adopt most of them. We agree that the elements that you mentioned in the major comments are essential to understand the dataset and to allow others to reproduce the research. Thanks also for the careful proofreading.
You mentioned that it would be important to show that BsMAM works for well-bleached materials by demonstrating that the two models provide the same results. You are indeed correct that the CAM and the BsMAM results are identical (agreeing with 1-sigma error) for the samples that can be considered as ‘well-bleached’, or ‘completely mixed’ by bioturbation or ploughing. We will provide the CAM results and demonstrate that well-bleached samples provide similar results for both CAM and BsMAM.
We unfortunately do not have an independent age control for this research. We agree that the solution that you provided, using the CAM ages of the well-bleached samples (NCL-1117128 ~ 130), would be the best alternative in this case. The CAM results of quartz OSL and BsMAM results of feldspar pIRIR are agreeing for two of the three samples (NCL-1117128 and NCL-1117130), but there is an underestimation by feldspar pIRIR in NCL-1117129. Despite one disagreement, we think two samples having agreeing ages from both single-aliquot quartz and single-grain feldspar still provides support for our arguments.
For our response for the rest of the comments, please check the attached file.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Jungyu Choi, 19 Feb 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 461 | 158 | 43 | 662 | 49 | 21 | 28 |
- HTML: 461
- PDF: 158
- XML: 43
- Total: 662
- Supplement: 49
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Roy van Beek
Elizabeth Chamberlain
Tony Reimann
Harm Smeenge
Annika van Oorschot
Jakob Wallinga
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1601 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(194 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper