As there are plenty of dating methods available in literature. Which one would be the best?
Thankyou.
It depends on the type of lake and its assumed age of formation because based on these facts you can decide which sort of in-situ / authigenic minerals you might expect and use as age-dating target.
For perennial lakes which normally have a reducing environment you can use the radiocarbon dating method for C-bearing organic matter and carbonate minerals, if the sedimentary units cover the Holocene and Late Pleistocene, with OSL (optically stimulated luminescence) you can extent the dating to the Plio-Pleistocene border using quartz and feldspar. Here you have a chance to get an overlap with U-bearing minerals using the U/Pb dating of uranyl-bearing phosphates and hydro-silicates or the U equilibrium method (800 ka). K/Ar and Ar/Ar can be used for mica but too often they are detrital in origin and less meaningful.
Ephemeral lakes may in addition to the afore-mentioned minerals may also host sylvite and “bittern” (langbeinite, kainite) and, in places, K-bearing zeolites (clinoptilite-K, heulandite-K, phillipsite-K, chabazite-K)
I would recommend Pb-210 method is as the best to date lake sediments.
It all depends on the compositional variation of the sediments and their most expected age as per the literature of its surrounding areas because lakes have transported sediments. I really appreciate Prof Harald G. Dill for giving a very extensive and precise answer.
Thank You.
Each dating method is limited by physical and organic parameters (half-life, stratigraphic range...) and the availability of target and host minerals.
This is valid for each and every environment of formation.
HGD
You can also use Palynofloral indices of Quaternary and Recent for such sediments.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts