A re‐evaluation of the Plenus Cold Event, and the links between CO2, temperature, and seawater chemistry during OAE 2

International audienceThe greenhouse world of the mid‐Cretaceous (~94 Ma) was punctuated by an episode of abrupt climatic upheaval: Oceanic Anoxic Event 2 (OAE 2). High‐resolution climate records reveal considerable changes in temperature, carbon cycling, and ocean chemistry during this climatic perturbation. In particular, an interval of cooling has been detected in the English Chalk on the basis of an invasive boreal fauna and bulk oxygen‐isotope excursions registered during the early stages of OAE 2—a phenomenon known as the Plenus Cold Event (PCE), which has tentatively been correlated with climatic shifts worldwide.Here we present new high‐resolution neodymium‐, carbon‐, and oxygen‐isotope data, as well as elemental chromium concentrations and cerium anomalies, from the English Chalk exposed at Dover, UK, which we evaluate in the context of >400 records from across the globe. A negative carbon‐isotope excursion that correlates with the original ‘PCE’ is consistently expressed worldwide, and CO2 proxy records, where available, indicate a rise and subsequent fall in CO2 over the Plenus interval. However, variability in the timing and expression of cooling at different sites suggests that, although sea‐surface paleo‐temperatures may reflect a response to global CO2 change, local processes likely played a dominant role at many sites. Variability in the timing and expression of changes in water‐mass character, and problems in determining the driver of observed proxy changes, suggest that no single simple mechanism can link the carbon cycle to oceanography during the Plenus interval and other factors including upwelling and circulation patterns were locally important. As such, it is proposed that the Plenus carbon‐isotope event is a more reliable stratigraphic marker to identify the Plenus interval, rather than any climatic shifts that may have been overprinted by local effects

Factors affecting consistency and accuracy in identifying modern macroperforate planktonic foraminifera

Planktonic foraminifera are widely used in biostratigraphic, palaeoceanographic and evolutionary studies, but the strength of many study conclusions could be weakened if taxonomic identifications are not reproducible by different workers. In this study, to assess the relative importance of a range of possible reasons for among-worker disagreement in identification, 100 specimens of 26 species of macroperforate planktonic foraminifera were selected from a core-top site in the subtropical Pacific Ocean. Twenty-three scientists at different career stages – including some with only a few days experience of planktonic foraminifera – were asked to identify each specimen to species level, and to indicate their confidence in each identification. The participants were provided with a species list and had access to additional reference materials. We use generalised linear mixed-effects models to test the relevance of three sets of factors in identification accuracy: participant-level characteristics (including experience), species-level characteristics (including a participant’s knowledge of the species) and specimen-level characteristics (size, confidence in identification). The 19 less experienced scientists achieve a median accuracy of 57 %, which rises to 75 % for specimens they are confident in. For the 4 most experienced participants, overall accuracy is 79 %, rising to 93 % when they are confident. To obtain maximum comparability and ease of analysis, everyone used a standard microscope with only 35× magnification, and each specimen was studied in isolation. Consequently, these data provide a lower limit for an estimate of consistency. Importantly, participants could largely predict whether their identifications were correct or incorrect: their own assessments of specimen-level confidence and of their previous knowledge of species concepts were the strongest predictors of accuracy