Journal of Geographical Sciences >
Crescentic dune migration and stabilization: Implications for interpreting paleo-dune deposits as paleoenvironmental records
Author: Xu Zhiwei, PhD, E-mail: zhiweixu@nju.edu.cn
Received date: 2017-07-01
Accepted date: 2017-08-02
Online published: 2017-09-07
Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.41501208
The Global Change Program of Ministry of Science and Technology of China, No.2016YFA0600503
The U.S. National Science Foundation, No.ATM-0502489
Copyright
Paleo-dune deposits have been widely used as a proxy indicator of past dune activity, which is further used to reconstruct paleoclimates. However, recent studies have critically examined the reproducibility of dune chronologies and the complexity of paleo-dune deposits as paleoenvironmental records. This paper addresses questions on the paleoenvironmental implications of dune chronostratigraphies that have been raised by those reviews, in the specific case of crescentic dunes, using a case study from the Mu Us dune field, north-central China. The processes of turn-over and stabilization of relatively small crescentic dunes are first investigated by observational evidence. In combination with the analysis of a simplified sand preservation model and stratigraphic records, the effect of dune morphodynamics on sand preservation is demonstrated. It is especially evident that thick, nearly instantaneously deposited sand units record dune stabilization near the very end of a dune activity episode, while thin sand units may signal the preservation of sand deposited earlier in episodes of activity. Interpreting the distribution of luminescence ages that indicate sand deposition over time is not as simple as assumed in some previous work. Low frequency of sand ages could indicate an interval of either dune field stabilization or extensive dune activity but poor sand preservation. A peak of sand age frequency likely represents a shift in dune field activity towards stabilization, not a peak of active dune extent, especially if it partially overlaps with an independently identified interval of stabilization (e.g. one recorded by paleosols). The nature and magnitude of these biases in the distribution of sand ages over time are strongly affected by the magnitude of net sand accumulation, which is in turn related to sand supply, transport capacity and sand availability, and ultimately climate change. Relatively short dune stabilization and turn-over time (101 to 102 yrs) indicate that dune geomorphic processes can quickly respond to short-term disturbance, but the chronology of that response must be interpreted in light of how those processes influence age distributions.
XU Zhiwei , Joseph A. MASON , LU Huayu , YI Shuangwen , ZHOU Yali , WU Jiang , HAN Zhiyong . Crescentic dune migration and stabilization: Implications for interpreting paleo-dune deposits as paleoenvironmental records[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2017 , 27(11) : 1341 -1358 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-017-1439-8
Figure 1 Example of dune morphodynamics in the Mu Us dune field. Red triangles mark the dunes with ID labeled nearby. Yellow and red lines mark the positions of the dunes in 2010 and in 2002 respectively. The dunes were partially fixed by vegetation, but still migrating toward the southeast (lower right). Sands from the stoss toe and dune horns were stabilized in-situ, forming residual dune ridges (RDRs) and upwind trailing arms (Arms), while a major part of the dunes kept migrating forward. North is toward top. Image source: GoogleTM Earth. See Xu et al. (2015b) for site coordinates and more examples illustrating crescentic dune migration and stabilization. |
Figure 2 A simplified sand preservation model. Tan to brown colors indicate the time since burial (≈OSL age) of the sand, from short (light) to long (dark). Crescentic dunes migrate from left to right, maintaining constant morphology. In this model, we assume simplified inner structure (cross-bedding) as indicated by solid lines, and we assume the dunes have a constant migration rate and angle of repose, which means that most sands are recycled rather than contributing to in-situ accumulation. a: The age of the sands inside a dune is determined by the horizontal distance of the sand grains from the lee face toe (x), the vertical distance from the bottom surface (z), and angle of repose (α). b: The right-side dune is migrating from its former position (dotted line), leaving a small portion of sand in the interdune (thin darker colored wedge near position I). These residual sands were actually deposited when the right-side dune was near the current position of the left-side dune, before it reached the position indicated by dotted line. c: Simulated sampling sections. Sections I and II are simulated to be sampled from the interdune (position I) and the thickest part of the right-side dune (position II) as shown in b. For more details, see the main text, section 2.2. |
Figure 3 Dune migration rate (a) and dune turn-over time (b) in the Mu Us dune field. Initial length of dune lee face (LFL) was measured from the historical images. Grayness of the dots indicates the portion of vegetation cover on the dunes. White dots represent bare dunes. |
Figure 4 Modeled depth-age profiles. Red and blue lines represent sampling sections I and II, respectively, as shown in Figure 2. Ages 1 to 4 are simulated burial ages of the sands. T1 indicates the time when right-side dune was at the position of left-side dune, and T0 indicates the time when the dune arrived at its present location. |
Figure 5 Newly investigated dune sections (MU49 and HK) in the Mu Us dune field, and typical dune sections from our previous studies. Color columns illustrate alternation of sand and paleosol. OSL ages (ka; circles) are shown aside each column. Thick sand layers in HK, JB, SGDL N and New 2007 Road 116 km sections indicate sand deposition that was almost instantaneous (rate too high to be resolved by OSL dating), interpreted as deposition within a migrating dune, much of which is preserved. Thick sands from HK and JB sections were dated around 7 ka, and the paleosol in HK was formed after sand deposition. Thick sands in SGDL N and New 2007 Road 116 km sections were deposited around 0.63 ka. Sands dated in the 308 Road 132 km and SGDL S sections are separated by weak paleosols, and their age difference is about 200 years, approximately equal to ΔT for typical dune sizes in this region. They are regarded as residual sands left behind by migrating dunes and representing a small fraction of original dune height. JB section was from the Mu Us dune field, reported by Zhou et al. (2005). SGDL N, New 2007 Road 116 km, 308 Road 132 km and SGDL S sections were from the Otindag dune field, according to Zhou et al. (2008). |
Table 1 Newly obtained OSL ages |
Sample | Burial depth (m) | Water content (%) | K (%) | U (ppm) | Th (ppm) | De (Gy) | Dose rate (Gy/ka) | Aliquots Num. | Age (ka) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MU49-40 | 0.40 | 2.42 | 1.70 | 0.86 | 4.49 | 18.54±0.85 | 2.31±0.18 | 12 | 8.04±0.71 |
MU49-80 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 1.50 | 0.68 | 2.87 | 18.62±0.49 | 1.99±0.14 | 19 | 9.37±0.72 |
HK-0.15 m | 0.15 | 1.5 | 2.84 | 1.04 | 3.63 | 2.76±0.22 | 3.02±0.10 | 33 | 0.91±0.08 |
HK-0.4 m | 0.40 | 5.2 | 2.67 | 1.2 | 4.64 | 16.08±0.11 | 2.87±0.10 | 46 | 5.61±0.26 |
HK-0.6 m | 0.60 | 5.4 | 2.63 | 1 | 4.16 | 17.07±0.26 | 2.74±0.10 | 59 | 6.22±0.31 |
HK-0.8 m | 0.80 | 5.7 | 2.78 | 1.09 | 4.04 | 18.28±0.71 | 2.86±0.10 | 18 | 6.40±0.39 |
HK-1 m | 1.00 | 5.5 | 2.69 | 1.1 | 4.68 | 21.77±0.73 | 2.84±0.10 | 43 | 7.68±0.44 |
HK-1.4 m | 1.40 | 3.8 | 2.76 | 0.91 | 3.39 | 19.31±1.51 | 2.80±0.10 | 27 | 6.89±0.63 |
HK-3.3 m | 3.30 | 2 | 2.78 | 0.79 | 2.89 | 20.09±2.15 | 2.78±0.10 | 10 | 7.24±0.84 |
Figure 6 Histogram showing frequency distribution of OSL ages of aeolian sands and paleosols over time (25-6 ka, n>200) in dune fields of northern China |
Figure 7 Paleoenvironmental implications of the frequency distribution of OSL ages |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
|
[35] |
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
|
[38] |
|
[39] |
|
[40] |
|
[41] |
|
[42] |
|
[43] |
|
[44] |
|
[45] |
|
[46] |
|
[47] |
|
[48] |
|
[49] |
|
[50] |
|
[51] |
|
[52] |
|
[53] |
|
[54] |
|
[55] |
|
[56] |
|
[57] |
|
[58] |
|
[59] |
|
[60] |
|
[61] |
|
[62] |
|
[63] |
|
[64] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |