Hughes, P.

Mauquoy, D.

van Geel, B.

English

Analyses of plant macrofossils can be used to reconstruct the development of the local vegetation on peatlands, and thus to elucidate successional processes. In the case of ombrotrophic peatlands, such analyses can also be used to generate palaeoclimate data. Identification of plant macrofossils in peat deposits is essential for accurate 14C dating. We present a brief overview of the sample pre-treatment procedure and available techniques for estimating macrofossil composition, and we recommend identification guides

International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion online publications

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)A protocol for plant macrofossil analysis of peat depositsMauquoy, D.; Hughes, P.; van Geel, B.Publication date2010Document VersionFinal published versionPublished inMires and PeatLink to publicationCitation for published version (APA):Mauquoy, D., Hughes, P., & van Geel, B. (2010). A protocol for plant macrofossil analysis ofpeat deposits. Mires and Peat, 7, 1-5. http://www.mires-and-peat.net/map07/map_07_06.pdfGeneral rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an opencontent license (like Creative Commons).Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, pleaselet the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the materialinaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letterto: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Youwill be contacted as soon as possible.Download date:08 Mar 2023 Mires and Peat, Volume 7 (2010/11), Article 06, 1–5, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2010 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peat Society 1A protocol for plant macrofossil analysis of peat deposits  D. Mauquoy1, P.D.M. Hughes2 and B. van Geel3  1School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, UK 2School of Geography, University of Southampton, UK 3Palaeoecology and Landscape Ecology Research Group, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands _______________________________________________________________________________________  SUMMARY  Analyses of plant macrofossils can be used to reconstruct the development of the local vegetation on peatlands, and thus to elucidate successional processes. In the case of ombrotrophic peatlands, such analyses can also be used to generate palaeoclimate data. Identification of plant macrofossils in peat deposits is essential for accurate 14C dating. We present a brief overview of the sample pre-treatment procedure and available techniques for estimating macrofossil composition, and we recommend identification guides.   KEY WORDS:  ombrotrophic bogs, palaeoclimate, palaeohydrology, Sphagnum. _______________________________________________________________________________________  1. INTRODUCTION  Plant macrofossils, with a median size range of 0.5–2 mm, are visible to the naked eye (Birks 2007, Figure 1). Unlike pollen and non-pollen microfossils, many of them can be identified to species level, enabling more accurate palaeoenvironmental reconstructions. Because of their size and/or weight, plant macrofossils are not usually transported far from the parent plants, and in peat deposits represent the former in situ vegetation. Excellent preservation is possible in raised bog deposits. Macrofossil analyses of fen (Hughes & Barber 2003) and blanket peats, as well as archaeological deposits (Chambers et al. 2007), are also commonplace. They have been used extensively to reconstruct bog surface wetness (BSW) as evidence for climate change (van Geel et al. 1996, Barber et al. 1998, Hughes et al. 2000, Mauquoy et al. 2008), to trace mire development pathways (Hughes & Barber 2003), in studies of long-term vegetation development to inform conservation management (Chambers et al. 2007), to investigate the rate and nature of carbon sequestration in peat deposits (Heijmans et al. 2008), and to reconstruct archaeological contexts. Numerous plant macrofossil diagrams have been generated using European and North American peat deposits, but application of the technique has not been confined to these parts of the world. Macrofossils with excellent preservation have also been identified in southern South American peatlands (Mauquoy et al. 2004), Ile de la Possession (Van der Putten et al. 2008) and South Georgia (Van der Putten et al. 2009). Various techniques are available for estimating the abundance of macrofossils in peat deposits. The simplest techniques assign ordinal values, for example: 1 = rare, 2 = occasional, 3 = frequent, 4 = common and 5 = abundant (Walker & Walker 1961, Barber 1981). The most detailed (and the most time consuming) techniques estimate absolute numbers, calculated as either concentrations (number of objects per unit volume) (Janssens 1983, Booth et al. 2004) or influx (based on age-depth models). The Quadrat and Leaf Count (QLC) technique (Barber et al. 2003) adopts an intermediate approach which delivers quantitative estimates of the major peat components (%) and numbers (n) of fruits, seeds and charcoal fragments. The different macrofossil components of a single peat sequence may be presented at different levels; for example Väliranta et al. (2003) express mosses, dwarf shrub remains and cyperaceous roots as percentages, small leaves and bud scales as ordinal values, and fruits and seeds as absolute numbers. However, before deciding which technique(s) to adopt, thought must be given to the goal of the macrofossil analysis. If the intention is simply to determine the approximate composition of the peat samples, for example to inform selection of the best location for a ‘master’ core in stratigraphic survey of a peatland, the ordinal technique is likely to be the optimum method. On the other hand, if the goal of the research is to reconstruct a detailed record of changes in BSW as a palaeoclimate proxy, then the QLC technique or absolute estimates will be required to enable subsequent conversion of the data into reconstructions of mire surface wetness using either the Dupont index (Dupont 1986) or ordination techniques (for example DCA or PCA). Ordination techniques work best with data expressed asD. MAUQUOY et al.  PLANT MACROFOSSIL ANALYSIS OF PEAT DEPOSITS   Mires and Peat, Volume 7 (2010/11), Article 06, 1–5, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2010 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peat Society 2 Figure 1. Examples of plant macrofossils commonly encountered in bog peat. A1: Calluna vulgaris, stem with flower; A2: Calluna vulgaris, leaf epidermis; B1: Erica tetralix, leaf; B2: Erica tetralix, leaf epidermis; C1: Eriophorum vaginatum, part of stem with in situ spindles and separate spindles; C2: Eriophorum vaginatum, epidermis; D1: Sphagnum austinii, leaf; D2: Sphagnum austinii, leaf detail; E1: Sphagnum sect. Cuspidata, leaf; E2: Sphagnum sect. Cuspidata, leaf detail. D. MAUQUOY et al.  PLANT MACROFOSSIL ANALYSIS OF PEAT DEPOSITS   Mires and Peat, Volume 7 (2010/11), Article 06, 1–5, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2010 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peat Society 3percentages. If it is necessary to include species that were originally quantified using ordinal values, the data can be degraded to presence-absence format to allow this, but the resultant ordinations are usually less satisfactory than those conducted on percentage data because significant information is lacking. In the sections below we describe the QLC methodology, since this is the technique that is most commonly used for palaeoclimate reconstruction.   2. SAMPLE PRE-TREATMENT  The preparation of peat for macrofossil analyses is simple and straightforward. For accurate reconstruction of former peat-forming plant assemblages we recommend a sample size of ca. 5 cm3. The sample should be warmed (boiling is not necessary) with 5% KOH/NaOH for 30–45 minutes to dissolve humic and fulvic acids, then disaggregated on a sieve (100 or 125 µm) using a 'squeezy' bottle of distilled water for rinsing. When sieving, the residue in the sieve should be kept just below the water surface in order to minimise damage to any plant macrofossils and charcoal fragments. This is especially important when Sphagnum is present, in order to avoid the detachment of stem leaves, which are highly distinctive in many species (e.g. Sphagnum fimbriatum) and thus enable identification of Sphagnum remains to species level. We do not recommend the use of stains in sample preparation because the colours of macrofossils can be helpful in the identification process.   3. DETERMINATION OF MACROFOSSIL COMPOSITION  The first stage of the analysis estimates volume percentages of Sphagnum and other main peat components - for example ericaceous rootlets, Eriophorum remains, other mosses (where present) - for the whole sample. Ideally, the pre-treated sample is poured into a trough (e.g. a ca. 20×10 cm glass beaker or bowl) and sufficient distilled water is added to just float the remains, which are then scanned using a low power (×10 – ×50) stereo-zoom microscope with a 10×10 square grid graticule inserted into one of the eyepieces. If a large beaker/bowl is unavailable or there is insufficient space under the stereo-zoom microscope to accommodate such a receptacle, petri-dishes may be used but the material must then be examined in parts; a little of it is poured into a petri-dish, gently stirred, inspected, then more is poured into another petri-dish and the procedure repeated until all of the remains from the sample have been scanned. The trough or petri-dish is moved randomly to 15 different views, plant macrofossil types are estimated as percentages for each view using the graticule, and the results are averaged to represent the whole sample.  Sub-samples which contain well preserved epidermal tissues of monocotyledon species should be mounted on microscope slides (temporary preparations can be made using water) and identified at ×100 – ×400 magnification. However, there is usually no need to make microscope slides of Eriophorum vaginatum remains because, with experience, its characteristics can be recognised under the stereo-zoom microscope. A random selection of at least 100 Sphagnum leaves should also be mounted on slides, identified at ×400 magnification, and the results expressed as percentages of the total identifiable Sphagnum estimated in the first stage of the macrofossil analysis. Where several parts of a single species are represented in the plant macrofossil assemblage - for example the roots, leaf bases/leaves and seeds of Rhynchospora alba - we recommend that each of these parts is logged as a separate pseudo-taxon. Adopting this recording convention will aid interpretation of the resultant macrofossil diagram; for example, the roots of a species typically penetrate older peat strata and it is helpful to know whether the first occurrence of a taxon is represented by above-ground or below-ground vegetative parts or by seeds that could be more widely transported. Fruits/seeds and macroscopic charcoal fragments are simply counted and expressed as the total number (n) present in the sample (i.e. in the trough or all of the petri-dishes). If multiple petri-dishes are used, heavier fruits/seeds and macroscopic charcoal fragments are more likely to be found in the last part of the sample examined. Charcoal fragments can be placed into size (length) classes, e.g. <0.5 mm, 0.5–1 mm, 1–1.5 mm, 1.5–2 mm and >2 mm. Volume percentages of 'above-ground' remains are often very low, for example Andromeda polifolia leaves, Calluna vulgaris leaves, Calluna vulgaris stems, Empetrum nigrum leaves, Erica tetralix leaves and Vaccinium spp. These remains should also be counted separately.  When the macrofossil analysis is complete, the sample should be stored in a sealed plastic bag or tube with a few drops of 5% HCl to prevent further decomposition and contamination by bacteria or fungi. Where possible, sub-samples should be stored in the dark in a cold room at 3–4°C so that they remain available for subsequent 14C dating. D. MAUQUOY et al.  PLANT MACROFOSSIL ANALYSIS OF PEAT DEPOSITS   Mires and Peat, Volume 7 (2010/11), Article 06, 1–5, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2010 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peat Society 44. IDENTIFICATION GUIDES  Examples of commonly occurring macrofossils are presented in Figure 1. The use of a reference collection of type material is highly recommended, along with the identification plates in Mauquoy & van Geel (2007). There are also good plant macrofossil plates in Grosse-Brauckmann (1972, 1974, 1992), and drawings in Katz et al. (1977). Branch and stem leaves of Sphagnum and the branch leaves of brown mosses can be identified using Smith (2004). The drawings in Daniels & Eddy (1990) are also very good for Sphagnum identification although the taxonomy is now out of date. For the study of Sphagnum macrofossils from eastern North America, Bastien & Garneau (1997) is very useful. European wood samples may be identified with the aid of Schweingruber (1990), whilst many European seed types can be found as colour plates in Cappers et al. (2006) or online at www.seedatlas.nl (access code required).   5. REFERENCES  Barber, K.E. (1981) Peat Stratigraphy and Climatic Change: a Palaeoecological Test of the Theory of Cyclic Peat Bog Regeneration. Balkema, Rotterdam, 219 pp.  Barber, K.E., Chambers, F.M. & Maddy, D. (2003) Holocene palaeoclimates from peat stratigraphy: macrofossil proxy climate records from three oceanic raised bogs in England and Ireland. Quaternary Science Reviews, 22, 521–539. Barber, K.E., Dumayne-Peaty, L., Hughes, P.D.M., Mauquoy, D. & Scaife, R.G. (1998) Replicability and variability of the recent macrofossil and proxy-climate record from raised bogs: field stratigraphy and macrofossil data from Bolton Fell Moss and Walton Moss, Cumbria, England. Journal of Quaternary Science, 13, 515–528. Bastien, D-F. & Garneau, M. (1997) Macroscopic Identification Key of 36 Sphagnum Species in Eastern Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, Miscellaneous Report 61. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, 41 pp. Birks, H.H. (2007) Plant macrofossil introduction. In: Elias, S.A. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science, Volume 3. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2266–2288. Booth, R.K., Jackson, S.T. & Gray, C.E.D. (2004) Paleoecology and high-resolution paleo-hydrology of a kettle peatland in Upper Michigan. Quaternary Research, 61, 1–13. Cappers, R.T.J., Bekker, R.M. & Jans, J.E.A. (2006) Digitale Zadenatlas van Nederland (Digital Seed Atlas of The Netherlands). Groningen Archaeological Studies, Volume 4. Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library, Groningen, 502 pp. (in Dutch). Chambers, F.M., Mauquoy, D., Gent, A., Pearson, F., Daniell, J.R.G. & Jones, P.S. (2007) Palaeoecology of degraded blanket mire in South Wales: Data to inform conservation management. Biological Conservation, 137, 197–209. Daniels, R.E. & Eddy, A. (1990) Handbook of European Sphagna. HMSO, London, 263 pp. Dupont, L.M. (1986) Temperature and rainfall variations in the Holocene based on comparative palaeoecology and isotope geology of a hummock and hollow (Bourtangerveen, The Netherlands). Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 48, 71–159. Grosse-Brauckmann, G. (1972) Über pflanzliche Makrofossilien mitteleuropäischer Torfe. I. Gewebereste krautiger Pflanzen und ihre Merkmale (On plant macrofossils in central European peat. I. Remnants of vascular plant tissues and their characteristics). Telma, 2, 19–55 (in German). Grosse-Brauckmann, G. (1974) Über pflanzliche Makrofossilien mitteleuropäischer Torfe. II. Weitere Reste (Früchte und Samen, Moose u.a.) und ihre Bestimmungsmöglichkeiten (On plant macrofossils in central European peat. II. Other remnants (e.g. fruits and seeds, mosses) and possibilities for their identification). Telma, 4, 51–117 (in German). Grosse-Brauckmann, G. (1992) Über pflanzliche Makrofossilien mitteleuropäischer Torfe. III. Früchte, Samen und einige Gewebe (Fotos von fossilen Pflanzenresten) (On plant macrofossils in central European peat. III. Fruits, seeds and some tissues (photos of fossil plant remains)). Telma, 22, 53–102 (in German). Heijmans, M.M.P.D., Mauquoy, D., van Geel, B. & Berendse, F. (2008) Long-term effects of climate change on vegetation and carbon dynamics in peat bogs. Journal of Vegetation Science, 19, 307–320. Hughes, P.D.M. & Barber, K.E. (2003) Mire development across the fen-bog transition on the Teifi floodplain at Tregaron Bog, Ceredigion, Wales, and a comparison with 13 other raised bogs. Journal of Ecology, 91, 253–264. Hughes, P.D.M., Mauquoy, D., Barber, K.E. & Langdon, P. (2000) Mire-development pathways and palaeoclimatic records from a full Holocene peat archive at Walton Moss, Cumbria, England. The Holocene, 10, 465–479. Janssens, J.A. (1983) A quantitative method for D. MAUQUOY et al.  PLANT MACROFOSSIL ANALYSIS OF PEAT DEPOSITS   Mires and Peat, Volume 7 (2010/11), Article 06, 1–5, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2010 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peat Society 5stratigraphic analyses of bryophytes in Holocene peat. Journal of Ecology, 71, 189–196. Katz, N.J., Katz, S.V. & Skobeyeva, E.I. (1977) Atlas Rastitel'nyh Oostatkov v Torfje (Atlas of Plant Remains in Peats). Nedra, Moscow, 736 pp. (in Russian). Mauquoy, D., Blaauw, M., van Geel, B., Borromei, A., Quattrocchio, M., Chambers, F.M. & Possnert, G. (2004) Late Holocene climatic changes in Tierra del Fuego based on multi-proxy analyses of peat deposits. Quaternary Research, 61, 148–158. Mauquoy, D. & van Geel, B. (2007) Mire and peat macros. In: Elias, S.A. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science, Volume 3. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2315–2336. Mauquoy, D., Yeloff, D., van Geel, B., Charman, D. & Blundell, A. (2008) Two decadally resolved records from north-west European peat bogs show rapid climate changes associated with solar variability during the mid-late Holocene. Journal of Quaternary Science, 23, 745–763. Schweingruber, F.H. (1990) Anatomie europäischer Hölzer (Anatomy of European Woods). Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft, Birmensdorf. Haupt, Bern und Stuttgart, 800 pp. Smith, A.J.E. (2004) The Moss Flora of Britain and Ireland. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1012 pp. Väliranta, M., Kaakinen, A. & Kuhry, P. (2003) Holocene climate and landscape evolution East of the Pechora Delta, East-European Russian Arctic. Quaternary Research, 59, 335–344. Van der Putten, N., Hébrard, J.-P., Verbruggen, C., Van de Vijver, B., Disnar, J.-R., Spassov, S., de Beaulieu, J.-L., De Dapper, M., Keravis, D., Hus, J., Thouveny, N. & Frenot, Y. (2008) An integrated palaeoenvironmental investigation of a 6200 year old peat sequence from Ile de la Possession, Iles Crozet, sub-Antarctica. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeo-ecology, 270, 179–195. Van der Putten, N., Verbruggen, C., Ochyra, R., Spassov, S., de Beaulieu, J.-L., De Dapper, M., Hus, J. & Thouveny, N. (2009) Peat bank growth, Holocene palaeoecology and climate history of South Georgia (sub-Antarctica), based on a botanical macrofossil record. Quaternary Science Reviews, 28, 65–79. van Geel, B., Buurman, J. & Waterbolk, H.T. (1996) Archaeological and palaeoecological indications of an abrupt climate change in the Netherlands and evidence for climatological teleconnections around 2650 BP. Journal of Quaternary Science, 11, 451–460. Walker, D. & Walker, P.M. (1961) Stratigraphic evidence of regeneration in some Irish bogs. Journal of Ecology, 49, 169–185.  Submitted 01 May 2010, revision 04 Nov 2010 Editor: Olivia Bragg _______________________________________________________________________________________  Author for correspondence: Dr Dmitri Mauquoy, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UF, UK. Tel: +44 (0)1224 272364;  Fax: +44 (0)1224 272331;  E-mail: d.mauquoy@abdn.ac.uk 

A protocol for plant macrofossil analysis of peat deposits

https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/1248148/102121_345803.pdf

A protocol for plant macrofossil analysis of peat deposits

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion online publications