Difference between revisions of "Category:Lake Sediments Working Group"

From Linked Earth Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
( Pages with a poll, Working Group )
(Add results from Twitter Poll)
(Task 1: Depth)
Line 23: Line 23:
 
* provide separate recommendations for new and legacy datasets
 
* provide separate recommendations for new and legacy datasets
  
Initial thoughts on depth:
+
=== Sample Depth ===
*We want to know both  mid-point depth and thickness, or top and bottom depth.
+
 
**Top and bottom depth is more explicit and self explanatory, but typically requires an additional step to use for analysis
+
In all cases, most simply, we want to report the geometry of a sample from a core. This requires two pieces of information, typically this is either the mid-point depth and thickness, or top and bottom depth. Each has its advantages:
**Mid-point depth is more typically reported, and is what is needed for most age models, but can be ambiguous
+
 
 +
*Top and bottom depth is more explicit and self explanatory, but typically requires an additional step to use for analysis
 +
*Mid-point depth is more typically reported, and is what is needed for most age models, but can be ambiguous
  
 
[[File:LakeSediment Depth TwitterPoll.png|thumb|right|Results from Twitter Poll (3/14/17 to 3/21/17)]]
 
[[File:LakeSediment Depth TwitterPoll.png|thumb|right|Results from Twitter Poll (3/14/17 to 3/21/17)]]
Line 36: Line 38:
 
Something else
 
Something else
 
</poll>
 
</poll>
** I suggest we allow both, and recognizing that conversion is staightforward
+
 
 +
'''The wiki and twitter polls indicate a slight preference for mid-point and thickness'''
 +
 
 +
=== Dealing with multiple cores ===
 
* We need to distinguish between measured depth and modeled depth, in the cases where a composite depth scale is used.
 
* We need to distinguish between measured depth and modeled depth, in the cases where a composite depth scale is used.
 
* We need to ensure a common reference. I suggest that depth always refers to depth below lake floor.
 
* We need to ensure a common reference. I suggest that depth always refers to depth below lake floor.

Revision as of 15:04, 22 March 2017


Overview

In the Linked Earth context, a working group (WG) is a self-organized coalition of knowledgeable experts, whose activities are governed herewith. This page is dedicated to the discussion of data and metadata standards for lake sediments (see this page for a definition of the lake sediment archive), and aims to formulate a set of recommendations for such a standard. Note that chronological aspects should be discussed within the Chronologies WG.

Specific tasks

Thinking about data standards for lakes is a challenging task because of the incredible diversity of observations made on this archive. To start this process, the working group will focus on developing standards for the one variable in lake sediments that all scientists rely on: depth.

After we've done this process for depth, I suggest we reach out and broaden this group to include broad expertise of different sensor and observations types. A preliminary list is presented below.

Task 1: Depth

How should we report depth?

For this discussion we recommend:

  • structuring discussions around what scientific questions one would want to ask of the data
  • listing essential, recommended, and optional information for:
    • the measurements themselves
    • any inference made from the measurements (e.g. calibration to temperature)
    • the underlying uncertainties, and what those numbers correspond to (e.g. 1-sigma or 2-sigma?)
  • provide an ideal data table for each type of observation, so the community knows what to report and how to report it.
  • provide separate recommendations for new and legacy datasets

Sample Depth

In all cases, most simply, we want to report the geometry of a sample from a core. This requires two pieces of information, typically this is either the mid-point depth and thickness, or top and bottom depth. Each has its advantages:

  • Top and bottom depth is more explicit and self explanatory, but typically requires an additional step to use for analysis
  • Mid-point depth is more typically reported, and is what is needed for most age models, but can be ambiguous
Results from Twitter Poll (3/14/17 to 3/21/17)
What should be the primary way of reporting depth of samples taken from lake sediments:
You are not entitled to vote.
You are not entitled to view results of this poll.
There were 10 votes since the poll was created on 12:18, 21 September 2016.
poll-id BE3AECAB02A5C21AD92F447B763D2C96

The wiki and twitter polls indicate a slight preference for mid-point and thickness

Dealing with multiple cores

  • We need to distinguish between measured depth and modeled depth, in the cases where a composite depth scale is used.
  • We need to ensure a common reference. I suggest that depth always refers to depth below lake floor.

Sensors

Sensors in lakes fall into several different categories

Sediment

Several observations can be made on sedimentary sensors including:

  • grain size
  • mineralogy
  • geochemistry
    • bulk organic carbon concentrations
    • bulk inorganic carbon concentrations
    • bulk nitrogen concentrations
    • C:N
  • isotope geochemistry
    • bulk organic carbon isotopic composition
    • bulk inorganic carbon isotopic composition
    • bulk nitrogen isotopic composition

Aquatic organisms

Several sensors may be found in lakes including

  • Diatoms
    • may contribute silicic microfossils and biomarkers
  • Ostracods
    • may contribute carbonate microfossils
  • Algae
    • may contribute biomarkers, including alkenones
  • Archaea
    • may contribute biomarkers, including GDGTs
  • Bacteria
    • may contribute biomarkers, including GDGTs
  • Fish
    • may contribute macrofossils, including otoliths

Terrestrial plants

Plants growing around the lake and in the catchment of the lake may contribute macro and microfossils as well as biomarkers to the sediments. Plants are the sensors of the environment and the observations include:

  • Organic geochemical biomarkers:
    • plant wax n-alkanes
    • plant wax n-alkanoic acids
    • plant wax n-alkanols acids
    • plant wax terpenoids
    • lignin
  • Macro/microfossils
    • pollen
    • leaf
    • wood
    • charcoal

Insects

Several sensors in the air above and around lakes may leave microfossils in lake sediments, these include

  • chironimid tests, these are organic microfossils

Polls

Here are polls that the group might want to consider:


References

This category currently contains no pages or media.