The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Phytolith14C Puzzle: A Tale of Background Determinations and Accuracy Tests
Open accessAbstract
Over the past decades, analysis of occluded carbon in phytoliths (opaline silica mineral bodies that form in and between plant cells) has become a workhorse of paleoclimate and archaeological studies. Since different plant types exhibit distinctive phytolith morphologies, their assemblages are used in identifying vegetation histories or food culture adaptations. A few direct radiocarbon AMS measurements of phytoliths have been carried out, but these measurements are difficult due to the low concentrations of phytoliths in some plant species, and the small amount of C per phytolith (<2%). In addition, no phytoliths samples of a known 14 C age are available to verify measurement accuracy and precision, and to check sample preparation protocols. Background corrections are also difficult to address due to the lack of suitable material. In this work, we designed a procedure to quantify a suitable blank using SiO 2 powder samples (close to the opal structure, and free of 14 C). The full phytolith extraction showed high carbon contamination components: a) ∼3 μg of modern C and ∼2 μg of dead C. We also performed accuracy tests on large phytolith-occluded carbon samples extracted from soils and harvested plants. The unexpected 14 C ages in some of the results triggered further investigations of possible sources of carbon contamination.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, procedural blanks in environmental samples that are subjected to complex extraction/isolation procedures before conversion to CO 2 and graphite are normally larger than those arising during these latter processes (Hwang et al. 2005; Beaupré et al. 2007; Santos et al. 2010), and become even more critical when samples are small (<0.100 mg C).”
From Blank Assessment for Ultra-Small Radiocarbon Samples: Chemical Extraction and Separation Versus AMS (2010) · cites this paper as Santos et al. 2010
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Santos et al. (2007a) developed formulas to correct the MC and DC contributions separately from unknown samples as small as ~0.001 mg C (Santos et al. 2007c, 2010).”
From Blank Assessment for Ultra-Small Radiocarbon Samples: Chemical Extraction and Separation Versus AMS (2010) · cites this paper as Santos et al. 2010
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The Keck Carbon Cycle AMS facility at the University of California, Irvine (KCCAMS/UCI) has demonstrated the analytical capability to accurately measure the 14 C content of graphite samples far smaller than 0.100 mg C (Santos et al. 2007a,c, 2010).”
From Blank Assessment for Ultra-Small Radiocarbon Samples: Chemical Extraction and Separation Versus AMS (2010) · cites this paper as Santos et al. 2007a,c, 2010
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Although we can produce and measure samples ~0.001 mg C (Santos et al. 2010), for conventional 14 C analyses we only report results from outside samples 0.015 mg C.”
From Blank Assessment for Ultra-Small Radiocarbon Samples: Chemical Extraction and Separation Versus AMS (2010) · cites this paper as Santos et al. 2010
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Discussion Reporting of 14 C Data
Stuiver, M., & Polach, H. A. (1977) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200003672 · Cited by 5,640
Characterizing aquatic dissolved organic matter.
Leenheer, J. A., & Croué, J.-P. (2003) · PubMed · Cited by 4,891
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
Blair, N. E. (1992) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/0016-7037(92)90334-f · Cited by 4,586
Phytoliths: a comprehensive guide for archaeologists and paleoecologists
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-0942 · Cited by 1,340
Morphological Classification of Grass Phytoliths
Twiss, P. C., Suess, E., & Smith, R. M. (1969) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj1969.03615995003300010030x · Cited by 797
Dinosaur Coprolites and the Early Evolution of Grasses and Grazers
Prasad, V., Strömberg, C. A. E., Alimohammadian, H., & Sahni, A. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1118806 · Cited by 457
Biologic cycling of silica across a grassland bioclimosequence
Blecker, S. W., McCulley, R. L., Chadwick, O. A., & Kelly, E. F. (2006) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1029/2006gb002690 · Cited by 318
Investigating crop processing using phytolith analysis: the example of rice and millets
Karoune, E., & Fuller, D. Q. (2005) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2004.12.010 · Cited by 285
Lü, H., Wu, N., Yang, X., Jiang, H., Liu, K., & Liu, T. (2005) · Quaternary Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.07.014 · Cited by 260
Ultra small-mass AMS 14C sample preparation and analyses at KCCAMS/UCI Facility
Santos, G. M., Southon, J. R., Griffin, S., Beaupré, S. R., & Druffel, E. R. M. (2007) · Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms · doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2007.01.172 · Cited by 253
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Rieser U , Carter JA , Prior CA . 2007. Phytoliths: a chronometer for the late Quaternary. Poster presented at the INQUA 2007 Conference, Cairns, Australia, July/August 2007.
- Prior CA , Carter JA , Rieser U . 2005. Are phytolith radiocarbon dates reliable? Poster presented at the 10th International Conference on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Berkeley, USA, September 2005.
- Meunier, 1999, Biogenic silica storage in soils, Geology, 27
- Piperno, 1993, Current Research in Phytolith Analysis: Applications in Archaeology and Paleoecology., 9
- Kelly, 1990, Method for extracting opal phytoliths from soil and plant material. Internal Report
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Core questions in domestication research
Zeder, M. A. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1501711112 · Cited by 584
A contemporary overview of silicon availability in agricultural soils
Haynes, R. J. (2014) · Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science · doi:10.1002/jpln.201400202 · Cited by 372
Hajdas, I., Ascough, P. L., Garnett, M. H., Fallon, S., Pearson, C. L., Quarta, G., Spalding, K. L., Yamaguchi, H., & Yoneda, M. (2021) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-021-00058-7 · Cited by 257
Zuo, X., Lü, H., Jiang, L., Zhang, J., Yang, X., Huan, X., He, K., Wang, C., & Wu, N. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1704304114 · Cited by 251
Occurrence, turnover and carbon sequestration potential of phytoliths in terrestrial ecosystems
Song, Z., McGrouther, K., & Wang, H. (2016) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.04.007 · Cited by 191
Metadata
- Authors
- Santos, G. M., Alexandre, A., Coe, H. H. G., Reyerson, P. E., Southon, J. R., & De Carvalho, C. N.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Universidade Federal Fluminense (BR)
- Corresponding author
- Santos, Guaciara M
- Venue
- Radiocarbon
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 113-128
- ISSN
- 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-5755
- OpenAlex
- W2137234119
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 4.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
- UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
- HAL AMU (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- University of California, Riverside
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Silicon Effects in Agriculture
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
- Keywords
- phytoliths, radiocarbon dating, AMS radiocarbon dating, background correction, carbon contamination, dead carbon, SiO2 powder, measurement accuracy, vegetation history, food culture
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
