| Literature DB >> 25858780 |
M Väliranta1, J S Salonen2, M Heikkilä1, L Amon3, K Helmens4, A Klimaschewski5, P Kuhry4, S Kultti2, A Poska3,6, S Shala4, S Veski3, H H Birks7.
Abstract
Holocene summer temperature reconstructions from northern Europe based on sedimentary pollen records suggest an onset of peak summer warmth around 9,000 years ago. However, pollen-based temperature reconstructions are largely driven by changes in the proportions of tree taxa, and thus the early-Holocene warming signal may be delayed due to the geographical disequilibrium between climate and tree populations. Here we show that quantitative summer-temperature estimates in northern Europe based on macrofossils of aquatic plants are in many cases ca. 2 °C warmer in the early Holocene (11,700-7,500 years ago) than reconstructions based on pollen data. When the lag in potential tree establishment becomes imperceptible in the mid-Holocene (7,500 years ago), the reconstructed temperatures converge at all study sites. We demonstrate that aquatic plant macrofossil records can provide additional and informative insights into early-Holocene temperature evolution in northernmost Europe and suggest further validation of early post-glacial climate development based on multi-proxy data syntheses.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25858780 PMCID: PMC4403309 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms7809
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Figure 1Locations of the study sites.
The 13 study sites selected represent four different biomes: boreonemoral, southern boreal, northern boreal and subarctic-arctic vegetation zones. Fossil pollen and macrofossil study sites are indicated with numbered circles. (1) Lielais Svetinu, (2) Nakri, (3) Kankaanjärvi, (4) Laihalampi, (5) Kråkenes Lake, (6) Loitsana, (7) Kipojärvi, (8) Njargajavri, (9) Korsajavri, (10) Jansvatnet, (11) Llet-Ti, (12) Tumbulovaty and (13) Kharinei. See Supplementary Table 1 for details and references about these sites. The study site locations with pollen data adopted from the literature, Lake Tsuolbma16 and Toskal67, are indicated by capital letter A. The pollen–climate calibration data sets were selected from the 583-sample surface-pollen data set of Salonen et al.59, marked with small circles. To represent the modern pollen–climate relationships in the continentality regimes of different fossil sites, three different subsets (A: low continentality, B: intermediate continentality, C: high continentality) were selected from all the surface pollen assemblages. The modern Tjul gradient varies from 17.7 °C (Latvia) to 7.5 °C (northern Fennoscandia) and the annual precipitation varies between 1,280 mm (west coast of Norway) and 500 mm (Finnish Lapland). The elevation range of the sites is 38–705 m.a.s.l.
Figure 2A comparison of macrofossil- and pollen-based mean Tjul in northern Europe for the four early post-glacial time windows.
It should be noted that in Russia, the mean s.e. for pollen are somewhat higher at 1.05–1.15 °C, probably because the Russian calibration data set is smaller and the species-response estimates are thus less certain. (a) The spatio-temporal pattern of macrofossil- and pollen- based mean July temperatures (TjulP and TjulM, respectively) in early- and mid-Holocene time windows (Supplementary Table 3). The pollen-based TjulP for each site is calculated as the median of all reconstructed values from fossil samples dating to the time window in question. The macrofossil-based TjulM is the highest site-specific value for the time window in question (see Methods for details). In addition, essential information about the ice-margin position and post-glacial stages of the Baltic Sea are shown (adapted and modified from ref. 38). Modern Tjul isolines (in grey) are also presented. (b) Temperature anomalies between TjulM and TjulP reconstructions (Supplementary Table 3). Red colour indicates positive anomalies where macrofossil-based temperatures are higher than pollen-based temperatures, while blue colour indicates negative anomalies. Note that pale pink and pale blue spots can both indicate no difference (0 °C). However, it should also be noted that due to the nature of TjulM as a lowest estimate for mean Tjul, negative TjulM–TjulP anomalies are difficult to interpret, as it is impossible to verify whether the anomaly is for instance due to a false absence of macrofossils. In contrast, positive TjulM–TjulP anomalies can be more confidently taken to suggest a negative bias in the TjulP values (see Methods for more detailed methodological discussion and data interpretation). If pollen data were not available from the same lake as macrofossil data, the TjulM was compared with TjulP derived from an adjacent lake from the same climate zone.