δC13 Ratios of several soil and cave fill samples
Doug Love
1.
Jay
Gregg and I are trying to answer two different questions, so we split the
presentation. Two of the samples are
from my study area, and may contain ice-age material. I am looking for clear differences between
recently disturbed soil and possibly ancient soil in these samples:
1.
Type
section of the Sunnyside Loam from in front of the new USDA HQ.
formerly farmed, now a waste area.
2.
Bog
soil from a permanent wetlands in nearby Indian Creek
3.
Ruined
4.
Rich
humus from between roots of the Witch Tree,
5.
recently
worked garden soil, 3-D
6.
black
soil from a possibly glaciated slot valley above
7.
from the floor of Snyder's
2.
Preparation
Dr. A. J. Kaufman of the Geology Dept. showed us how to
prepare samples to be tested for % Carbon and δC13 ratios. His
lab techs Chrissy France and Nick Collins were also
very helpful.
a.
Samples
were dried in a drying oven for 24 hours.
b.
a few grams of each sample were crushed with mortar and pestle, after
visible plant and animal debris were removed.
c.
Crushed
samples were put in small sealed containers, and the mortar and pestle were
washed and dried to prevent contamination of the next sample.
d.
Weighing
of the samples was done in a clean lab, inside a vibration-proof booth, on a
marble table.
i. Less than a gram of each sample was
placed in pre-weighed tin cups, which were then weighed again when filled to
determine sample weight.
ii. A small screwdriver was used as a
sample shovel.
iii. The filled tin cups were then
crimped and placed in a plastic holder to be tested.
iv. Two cups of each sample and 10
control samples of pure urea were processed.
v. An attempt was made to use .2 to .4
gram of low-carbon soil and .5 to 1 gram of high-carbon soil.
e.
Carbonates
had to be acidified, cleaned, dried and reweighed.
i. Sample 7 reacted strongly.
ii. Sample 1 may have reacted a little,
so it was also decarbonated.
f.
Finally,
after Nick Collins fixes the machine, Chrissy France ran
the samples.
3.
Results
a.
Results
were given to us as
permil vs. the PDB standard, so no conversion was
necessary.
b.
saturated values for samples 4, 5 and 7 were discarded.
c.
differences between sample 1 and decarbonated
sample 1b were minor, so it was concluded that samples 1-6 contained little or
no carbonate.
d.
Decarbonated sample 7b was compared with samples 1-6, and was found to
be 5.73 ‰ higher than the others. This was considered within the 3-8‰ reduction
suggested by Deleens et al in Sundquist
and Visser, but far below the 15-25‰ reduction
suggested by OLeary in the same paper. I concluded that there was no forest cover here in glacial times, as all of the
photosynthetic activity was in C4 plants.
4.
Other
benefits of doing this study
a.
We
were exposed to sample preparation and analysis techniques
b.
We
gained a good practical knowledge of what a microgram is
References:
Sundquist, E. T., and K Visser, USGS,
Woods Hole, MA, The Geologic History of the Carbon
Cycle,
O'Leary,
MH (1988) Carbon Isotopes in Photosynthesis. BioScience 38, 328-335
Deleens E., Ferhi A., and Queiroz O., (1983) Carbon isotope fractionation by plants
using the C4 pathway Physiol. Veg. 21, 897-905