From radiocarbon analysis to interpretation: A comment on “Phytolith Radiocarbon Dating in Archaeological and Paleoecological Research: A Case Study of Phytoliths from Modern Neotropical Plants and a Review of the Previous Dating Evidence”, Journal of Arc
From radiocarbon analysis to interpretation: A comment on “Phytolith Radiocarbon Dating in Archaeological and Paleoecological Research: A Case Study of Phytoliths from Modern Neotropical Plants and a Review of the Previous Dating Evidence”, Journal of Arc
复制标题
从放射性碳分析到解释：对“考古和古生态研究中的植硅体放射性碳测年：现代新热带植物植硅体的案例研究和对先前测年证据的回顾”的评论，《Arc杂志》
DOI：
10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.015
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Prior, Christine A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Santos, Guaciara M.;Alexandre, Anne;Prior, Christine A.
Dolores R.Piperno的论文《考古和古生态研究中的植硅体放射性碳测年：现代新热带植物植硅体的案例研究和先前测年证据的回顾》一文对1964至2013年间收集的现代新热带植物植硅体进行了放射性碳分析。提出的分析旨在反驳新兴的假设，即调用根-植物吸收、运输和重新分配土壤有机碳到植硅体，该假说是最近提出的，作为对Santos等人报告的现代草植硅体异常放射性碳(14C)年龄(数百到数千年)的解释。(2010a、2012a、b)。我们认为，Piperno(2015)中提出的结果缺乏方法论上的严密性，这主要是因为缺乏任何程序性空白评估，以及Santos等人试图推翻植物硅体吸收土壤有机质(SOM)的假说。(2012a)没有得到仔细分析的支持。不支持植硅体中100%的碳来自光合作用的观点，而是支持将植硅体碳(或植酸C)作为测年工具的观点，研究中提出的对现代新热带植物植硅体中14C的分析表明，14C年龄受到其他碳源的强烈影响。在这篇评论中，我们在14C炸弹脉冲方法、SOM年龄和周转率的背景下，仔细地重新评估了Piperno(2015)中提出的现代新热带植物植硅体的14C结果，并对实验结果提供了另一种解释。
The paper “Phytolith Radiocarbon Dating in Archaeological and Paleoecological Research: A Case Study of Phytoliths from Modern Neotropical Plants and a Review of the Previous Dating Evidence” by Dolores R. Piperno presents radiocarbon analysis of phytoliths from modern Neotropical plants collected between 1964 and 2013. The analyses presented were intended to rebut the emerging hypothesis that invokes root-plant uptake, transport and reallocation of soil organic carbon into phytoliths that has been recently put forward as an explanation for the anomalous radiocarbon (14C) ages (of hundreds to thousands of years old) reported for modern grass phytoliths in Santos et al. (2010a, 2012a,b). We believe that the results presented in Piperno (2015) lack methodological rigor, mostly due to the absence of any procedural blank assessment, and that the attempts to disprove the hypothesis of uptake of soil organic matter (SOM) by phytoliths in Santos et al. (2012a) are not supported by a careful analysis. Rather than supporting the position that 100% of the carbon in phytoliths is of photosynthetic origin, which allows the use of phytolith carbon (or phytC) as a dating tool, the analysis of14C in phytoliths from modern Neotropical plants presented in the study shows that the14C ages are strongly affected by other sources of carbon. In this comment, we carefully reassess the14C results in phytoliths from modern Neotropical plants presented in Piperno (2015) in the context of the14C bomb-pulse methodology, SOM ages and turnover rates, and offer an alternative interpretation of the experimental results.