Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12136/506
Item metadata
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorScholz, Denis-
dc.contributor.authorHoffmann, Dirk-
dc.contributor.authorHellström, John-
dc.contributor.authorBronk Ramsey, Christopher-
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-21T14:26:07Z-
dc.date.issued2012-12-
dc.identifier.citationQuaternary Geochronology, 2012, 14, 94-104es_ES
dc.identifier.issn1871-1014-
dc.identifier.issn1878-0350-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12136/506-
dc.description.abstractSpeleothems, such as stalagmites and flowstones, can be dated with unprecedented precision in the range of the last 650,000 a by the 230Th/U-method, which is considered as one of their major advantages as climate archives. However, a standard approach for the construction of speleothem age models and the estimation of the corresponding uncertainty has not been established yet. Here we apply five age modelling approaches (StalAge, OxCal, a finite positive growth rate model and two spline-based models) to a synthetic speleothem growth model and two natural samples. All data sets contain problematic features such as outliers, age inversions, large and abrupt changes in growth rate as well as hiatuses. For data sets constrained by a large number of ages and not including problematic sections, all age models provide similar results. In case of problematic sections, the algorithms provide significantly different age models and uncertainty ranges. StalAge, OxCal and the finite positive growth rate model are, in general, more flexible since they are capable of modelling hiatuses and account for problematic sections by increased uncertainty. The spline-based age models, in contrast, reveal problems in modelling problematic sections. Application to the synthetic data set allows testing the performance of the algorithms because the ‘true’ age model is available and can be compared with the age models. OxCal and StalAge generally show a good performance for this example, even if they are inaccurate for a short section in the area of a hiatus. The two spline-based models and the finite positive growth rate model show larger inaccurately modelled sections.es_ES
dc.language.isoenes_ES
dc.publisherElsevieres_ES
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Estados Unidos de América*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/*
dc.subjectSpeleothemes_ES
dc.subjectChronologyes_ES
dc.subjectAge modellinges_ES
dc.subjectSoftwarees_ES
dc.subjectU-series datinges_ES
dc.titleA comparison of different methods for speleothem age modellinges_ES
dc.typeArticlees_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.quageo.2012.03.015-
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2012.03.015es_ES
dc.date.available2018-06-21T14:26:07Z-
Appears in Collections:Geocronología y Geología

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
A comparison of different methods for speleothem age modelling_Scholz_et_al_2012.pdf2,51 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons