Radiocarbon, 2018, p 1–18 DOI:10.1017/RDC.2018.

21
© 2018 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona

A HIGH-RESOLUTION 14C CHRONOLOGY TRACKS PULSES OF AGGRADATION OF

GLACIOFLUVIAL SEDIMENT ON THE CORMOR MEGAFAN BETWEEN 45 AND
20 KA BP
Kristina Hippe1* • Alessandro Fontana2 • Irka Hajdas1 • Susan Ivy-Ochs1
1
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, ETH Zürich, Otto-Stern-Weg 5, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland.
2
Università degli Studi di Padova, Dipartimento di Geoscienze, Via Gradenigo 6, 35131 Padova, Italy.

ABSTRACT. During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) the Tagliamento glacier delivered large amounts of
sediment to the Cormor alluvial megafan on the southern Alpine foreland basin. To build a chronology of Late
Pleistocene glacier fluctuations and assess the timing of the transition from interstadial to glacial conditions, we have
performed radiocarbon (14C) dating on peat and macrofossil samples obtained from a drilling core from the distal
Cormor megafan. Our chronology records fluvial and glaciofluvial aggradation from the end of MIS 3 until the end
of the LGM. It shows a rapid transmission of signals of environmental change along the Cormor megafan, so that
changes in the activity of the Tagliamento glacier directly affect glaciofluvial sedimentation. Our data demonstrate
that the intrinsic heterogeneity of peat is most critical for the reliability and reproducibility of the obtained 14C ages.
Macrofossil subsamples give evidence for significant mixing of organic components of different ages within single
peat samples. Sample heterogeneity is also underlined by the results obtained from testing of different laboratory pre-
cleaning methods. Our results suggest that a rigorous ABA pretreatment is sufficient for peat cleaning. In contrast,
the chemically stronger ABOX methods appear to rapidly degrade the peat, particularly destroying older organic
components.

KEYWORDS: Alluvial megafan, LGM, radiocarbon, Southern Alps, Tagliamento glacier.

INTRODUCTION
The Pleistocene glaciations have been a principal element forming the present geomorphology
of the Alps and their foreland. As such, the reconstruction of both the timing and the controls
on glacier growth and decay remains a major question in Alpine Quaternary geochronology, in
particular with regard to the last glacial cycle. For the Southern Alps, the vast sedimentary
sequences deposited onto the foreland plain represent an extensive and unique archive
recording sedimentary processes and, thus, environmental conditions throughout the entire last
glacial cycle within the southern circum-Alpine area (e.g., Miola et al. 2006; Pini et al. 2009,
2010; Fontana et al. 2014a). Absolute chronologies of these sediments are a basic prerequisite to
infer past glacier fluctuation. However, for large sectors of the Alps such chronologies are rather
scarce and often poorly constrained (cf. Rossato and Mozzi 2016).

Moreover, generating reliable and reproducible ages for high-precision 14C chronologies does
not only require the availability of datable material but was also shown to be affected by the
sample pretreatment methods applied in the laboratory. ABA (acid-base-acid, also known as
AAA = acid-alkali-acid) is the most widely used chemical pretreatment technique for organic
material (e.g., peat, wood, soils, macrofossils, charcoal) prior to radiocarbon analysis. It pro-
vides a fast and simple cleaning procedure which is generally considered sufficient to generate
accurate ages. However, depending on the organic material dated and the remaining 14C
activity, limitations and potential drawbacks of the ABA pretreatment have been debated
(e.g., Gillespie et al. 1992; Bird et al. 1999; Hatté et al. 2001; Smith et al. 2001). The main
difficulty is posed by unremoved contaminants which might influence the measured 14C age and
prohibit a robust 14C age determination, particularly for dating old samples close to the dating
limit of 14C. Several studies have reported apparently too young ages for samples analyzed after
ABA treatment, both for charcoal samples (Gillespie et al. 1992; Gillespie 1997; Bird et al. 1999;
Smith et al. 2001; Higham et al. 2009a; Wood et al. 2012; Bird et al. 2014) as well as for wood

*Corresponding author. Email: hippe@phys.ethz.ch.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
 2 K Hippe et al.

and paleosol samples (Hatté et al. 2001). Thus, alternative pretreatment protocols proposed to
improve decontamination include the ABOX wet oxidation (acid-base-oxidation) procedure,
mostly combined with stepped-combustion (Bird et al. 1999; Smith et al. 2001), hydrogen
pyrolysis (e.g., Ascough et al. 2009), and the use of a stronger acid for the final acid wash (Hatté
et al. 2001). However, the efficiency of these methods is not entirely unambiguous. Studies by
Santos and Ormsby (2013) and Hajdas et al. (2016) on radiocarbon dating of old wood samples
found that the ABA treatment, in comparison with other preparation methods, is absolutely
adequate to reproduce accurate results.

This study was designed to attain two goals: (1) to test the effect of various laboratory pre-
treatment methods (ABA vs. two ABOX procedures) on 14C ages obtained from peat, and (2) to
establish a detailed chronology of fluvial and glaciofluvial sediment deposition on the Southern
Alpine alluvial plain based on high-resolution 14C dating of peat and macrofossils. We focus
our research on the Tagliamento glacier system (Figure 1). Although this system represents a
reference for the reconstruction of LGM glacier evolution in the Southern Alps as well as on the
European scale (Luetscher et al. 2015; Monegato et al. 2017), a detailed chronostratigraphy
from the alluvial plain connected to the Tagliamento palaeoglacier is not available so far.
Previous research has concentrated on the chronology of the Tagliamento megafan (Pini et al.
2009). Attempts to extent the ages even beyond the radiocarbon dating limit using OSL dating
of fine grained quartz have proven difficult, especially for the period >70 ka (Lowick et al.
2010). For the Cormor megafan investigated here, only a few isolated radiocarbon ages are
available (Fontana et al. 2014b).

Figure 1 Alluvial systems of Friulian plain and the eastern portion of the Venetian Plain (after Fontana 2006,
2014b). The red star marks the coring site of the investigated drilling core PNC1. The light blue color represents the
maximum ice extent during the LGM after Ehlers et al. (2011). (See online version for color.)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
 14
C Chronology of Glaciofluvial Megafan Deposition 3

STUDY LOCATION
From the southern Alpine foreland, a number of long stratigraphic cores are available. The
drilling core PNC1 investigated in this study was taken at the locality of Marianis, near the
village of Piancada (coring location: lat. 45°46'N, lon. 13°06'E; elevation +1.4 m asl). close to
the Lagoon of Marano (Figure 1). This area is part of the Venetian-Friulian Plain, NE Italy,
which consists of Pliocene to Quaternary sediments deposited on the subsiding foreland basin of
the southeastern Alps (Carminati et al. 2003). The Venetian-Friulian Plain is characterized by
huge alluvial landforms described as alluvial megafans that have mainly formed during the Last
Glacial Maximum (LGM) and partly also during the Holocene (Figure 1; Fontana et al.
2014a). Although the formation of these megafans was favored by the tectonic setting, the rate
and character of sedimentation has been largely controlled by changes in climate and glacio-
eustatic variations governed by the Late Pleistocene glaciations (Fontana et al. 2008; Toscani
et al. 2016). Previous studies provided detailed information on the geomorphology as well as the
subsurface sedimentological setting of the plain (e.g., Paiero and Monegato 2003; Fontana
2006; Fontana et al. 2008, 2010, 2014a; Zanferrari et al. 2008a, 2008b).

The PNC1 coring site is in the distal sector of the alluvial megafan of the Cormor River
(Figure 1), which was one of the four outwashes fed by the Alpine Tagliamento glacier during
the LGM (Castiglioni 1997; Fontana et al. 2014b). In phases of maximum ice extent during the
Pleistocene glaciations, the Tagliamento glacier repeatedly reached onto the piedmont plain
creating an extensive set of moraine ridges known as the Tagliamento morainic amphitheater
(Figure 1; Paiero and Monegato 2003; Monegato et al. 2007). With the withdrawal of the
Tagliamento glacier from its maximum ice extent at the end of the LGM, the Cormor entren-
ched into the glaciofluvial sediments previously deposited during glacier advance. This led to a
decoupling of large parts of the Cormor megafan from the active system and to an almost
complete abandonment of the megafan surface after about 19 ka BP (Fontana et al. 2014b).

In the distal sector of the Venetian-Friulian Plain, layers of peat or organic-rich sediment within
the LGM clastic deposits are fairly common in the first 20–30 m of subsoil and some display a
significant lateral continuity. These layers are also documented in the subsoil of the Cormor
megafan, and their formation has been associated with the existence of ponds or fens in tem-
porarily inactive sectors of the megafan that allowed for an in situ accumulation of macro-
phytes. Peat deposition was sustained by the shallow depth of the groundwater table (within the
uppermost 2 m) and by inhibited drainage of the closed basins formed, e.g., between the fluvial
ridges (Miola et al. 2006; Rossato and Mozzi 2016). With the reactivation of (glacio-) fluvial
sedimentation the organic deposits were buried and preserved.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sampling and Material Selection

The PNC1 core was drilled by a mechanical probe Atlascocpo with a simple core sampler (Ø
88 mm) and reached a total depth of 65 m. Coring operations were carried out in June 2008 and
the cores were immediately enveloped in nylon sheets and stored in the refrigerated room of the
Department of Mathematics and Geosciences at the Trieste University. Datable material was
taken from the 4–36 m interval and a detailed log of the uppermost 40 m of the core, including
the position of all analyzed samples, is illustrated in Figure 2. While the first 4.5 m of the core
consists of sands and silts almost without organic material, the interval between 4.5 m and 13 m
contains frequent humic silt horizons and peat layers. These peat layers have mostly a thickness
of few centimeters to decimeters. The large section between 13 m and 26.7 m depth contains few

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
 4 K Hippe et al.

Figure 2 Stratigraphic log of the

radiocarbon dated section of the
PNC1 drilling core showing sampling
depths; sample IDs are given as
PNC1-x (Table 2).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
 14
C Chronology of Glaciofluvial Megafan Deposition 5

peat layers embedded between massive sand to silt deposits. The latter include sporadic plant
macrofossils. Between 26.7 and 35.8 m depth, the stratigraphic sequence is formed by silty to
fine sandy sediments which frequently alternate with thick peat horizons and organic-rich
deposits. This interval represents alluvial sediments of MIS 3 to MIS 4. Below 35.8 m depth,
lagoon and shallow marine deposits of the last interglacial are present.

Samples of 1–4 cm thickness were taken with sampling distances from few centimeters within
compact peat sections to some decimeters in organic-poorer sediment intervals. Generally, at
least one sample was analyzed from each peat layer. For peat sections thicker than 10 cm, a top
and bottom sample from each section was analyzed as well as additional samples in between
where feasible. Altogether, we analyzed 59 samples which were separated into 139 sample
fractions ( = subsamples) of peat and plant macrofossils. All samples were disaggregated in MQ
water and washed over 63 µm and 500 µm sieves. Peat samples were separated into two peat
fractions: (1) a coarser fraction with organic material larger than 500 µm, and (2) a fraction of
finer organics of 63–500 µm size. Whenever possible, macroremains were additionally extracted
from the peat to investigate possible age discrepancies between the individual sample fractions.
Macroremains were also extracted from silty-clayey sediment samples and include reed, mosses,
seeds as well as unidentified macrofossils.

Laboratory Pretreatment and Measurement Procedures

To evaluate the efficiency of different laboratory pretreatment methods and their effect on 14C
ages of peat samples, two wet oxidation pretreatment procedures (here termed ABOX-1 and
ABOX-2) following the protocols of Bird et al. (1999) and Hatté et al. (2001) were tested in
comparison to the ABA method (Table 1). All three pretreatment protocols consisted of three
cleaning steps. The first cleaning step applied hydrochloric acid (0.5 M HCl) for about 15 hr
(overnight) to remove carbonates. This was followed by a base step (0.1 M NaOH) with reac-
tion times of 6–8 hr to eliminate humic acids. For the standard ABA treatment, the third step
consisted of another wash with 0.5 M HCl for ~15 hr to remove any atmospheric CO2 intro-
duced during the prior base step. The ABOX-1 treatment applied an oxidation step for the final
acid wash using a mixture of 0.1 M K2Cr2O7 and 2 M H2SO4. Samples were left for oxidation
for about 30 min which is significantly shorter than proposed by other lab protocols (Bird et al.
1999, 2014) but necessary to retain sufficient organic material for analysis. A longer reaction

Table 1 Summary of the different chemical pretreatment techniques applied in this study.
Pretreatment protocols
Bulk peat Macrofossils
ABA at 60°C HCl 0.5M ~15 hr 1 hr
(acid-base-acid) NaOH 0.1M 6–8 hr 1 hr
HCl 0.5M ~15 hr 1 hr
ABOX-1 at 60°C HCl 0.5M ~15 hr
(acid-base-oxidation) NaOH 0.1M 6–8 hr
K2Cr2O7/ H2SO4 0.1M/2M 30 min
(extended: 1.5 hr)
ABOX-2 at 60°C HCl 0.5M ~15 hr
(acid-base-oxidation) NaOH 0.1M 6–8 hr
H2SO4 2M 2 hr

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
 6 K Hippe et al.

time of 1.5 hr (ABOX-1-ext) was tested for two samples but showed a significant degradation
and dissolution of the peat. For the alternative ABOX-2 treatment, the final acid step was
performed with a 2 M H2SO4 solution and a reaction time of 2 hr (after Hatté et al. 2001). Each
chemical reaction step took place in an oven at 60°C with samples being washed neutral with
MQ water after each step.

Out of 52 analyzed peat samples, 17 have been cleaned parallel with the ABA and ABOX-1
treatment, five of those additionally also with the ABOX-2 treatment. One sample has been
treated parallel with ABA and ABOX-2; the remaining peat samples have been subject to ABA
pretreatment only. If available, ABA and ABOX pretreatments were performed on both peat
fractions, the 63–500 µm as well as the >500 µm peat fraction. Macrofossil samples and
subsamples are very fragile and were cleaned with the ABA treatment only, mostly using chemical
reaction times as short as one hour for each step (Table 1; Hajdas 1993). After chemical
pretreatment, samples were dried in an oven at 60°C before being weighed and wrapped into tin
cups for combustion and graphitization. Sample sizes for peat and macroremains were about
4.5–5.0 mg and ~2.5 mg (if available), respectively, to provide an equivalent of 1 mg carbon.
Samples were combusted in an Elemental Analyser and subsequently graphitized in the fully
automated graphitization system AGE (Wacker et al. 2010) where reduction of the extracted CO2
gas was performed by addition of H2 (and Fe powder as catalyst) and heating to 580°C. Graphite
samples were pressed into aluminium targets and measured at the MICADAS AMS facility at
ETH Zurich (Synal et al. 2007). Measured 14C/12C ratios were normalized to the Oxalic Acid II
standard and corrected for blank and isotopic fractionation (δ13C measured on graphite).
Radiocarbon ages were determined following the convention of Stuiver and Polach (1977).

Age Calibration
All processed samples are listed in Table 2 providing the sampling depth within the core, the type
of the dated material, the sample fraction, the applied pretreatment method, the obtained
radiocarbon age, and the calibrated and modeled age range. Analyses marked as “1st” and “2nd”
denote that these subsamples have been split again after pretreatment. The clean sample material
was separated prior to graphitization and further processed and measured as two individual
subsamples. Since results for 6 out of 7 of these split subsamples agree within 1σ, the other one
within 2σ, any bias due to the graphitization process can be excluded. Calibration of the 14C ages
was done with OxCal v 4.2 using the IntCal13 calibration curve (Ramsey 2009; Reimer et al.
2013). For ages obtained within 4.4–30.0 m depth, a Bayesian approach using a Poisson based
deposition model was applied to develop the age-depth model of the core (Ramsey 2008).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Radiocarbon Ages in the Stratigraphic Context

Ages obtained from peat samples range from 17,295 ± 70 14C yr BP at 4.64 m (PNC1-01,
4.64 m) to >45,000 14C yr BP at about 32 m (Figure 3). The two topmost samples retrieved from
the core consist of a mix of inseparable, unidentified organic remains yielding ages of
16,970 ± 65 14C yr BP (PNC1-M02, 4.40 m) and 13,940 ± 55 14C yr BP (PNC1-M01, 4.14 m).
The latter age is interpreted to result from a younger rootlet. The sample consisted only of few
isolated plant remains not embedded into a peat layer. It largely predates the upper peat ages
from the PNC1 core as well as other ages constraining the deactivation of the Tagliamento
fluvioglacial system and the deactivation of Cormor megafan (cf. Fontana et al. 2014b).
Moreover, at this time the Tagliamento River was already incising into the glaciofluvial
deposits along the western sector of its megafan. For all samples above 10 m core depth,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Table 2 Radiocarbon ages obtained for the PNC1 drilling core. Subsample ages marked with an asterisk as well as all samples below 30 m
core depth were excluded from calculation of the sediment deposition model.
Mean Dated material and Preparation Calibrated age Modeled age
Lab code Sample code depth (m) fraction method δ13C (‰) 14
C age ± 1σ mg C C% (unmodeled, 2σ range) BP (2σ range)
ETH-57389.1.1 PNC1-M01 4.14 undiff. org. remains ABA −28.3 13940 ± 55 0.80 25.8 17122–16631*
ETH-57390.1.1 PNC1-M02 4.40 undiff. org. remains ABA −26.5 16970 ± 65 1.00 59.7 20670–20245 20755–20345
ETH-51552.1.1 PNC1-01 4.64 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.4 17325 ± 65 0.61 25.4 21129–20660
ETH-51552.2.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 −30.7 17305 ± 70 0.52 21.5 21110–20640 21013–20759
ETH-51552.3.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −30.6 17295 ± 70 0.52 22.4 21096–20621
ETH-51552.4.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 −26.7 17325 ± 65 0.54 20.3 21132–20661
ETH-57312.1.1 PNC1-05 4.78 Peat >500 μm ABA −30.7 17505 ± 65 1.00 24.8 21385–20900 21397–20973
ETH-57312.2.1 macrofossils: seeds ABA −23.8 17570 ± 65 0.98 56.7 21494–20975
ETH-51553.1.1 PNC1-08 4.90 Peat >500 μm ABA −20.1 17825 ± 65 1.00 40.5 21830–21370
ETH-51553.2.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 −24.0 17690 ± 70 0.63 25.2 21681–21118
ETH-51553.3.1 macrofossils: seeds ABA −18.3 18020 ± 65 1.00 53.3 22049–21590 21771–21481
ETH-51553.4.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −21.3 17860 ± 65 0.67 26.8 21863–21410

14
Peat 63-500 μm −34.1

C Chronology of Glaciofluvial Megafan Deposition 7

ETH-51553.5.1 ABOX-1 17915 ± 85 0.48 18.2 21942–21432
ETH-57391.1.1 PNC1-M03 4.99 undiff. org. remains ABA −27.4 17805 ± 65 0.98 43.1 21825–21334 21832–21567
ETH-51554.1.1 PNC1-09 5.13 Peat >500 μm ABA −25.8 17995 ± 70 0.56 25.4 22025–21554
ETH-51554.2.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 −24.2 18095 ± 65 0.79 32.2 22190–21692 21934–21721
ETH-51554.3.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −33.9 18015 ± 90 0.38 14.8 22120–21545
ETH-51554.4.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 −29.3 18040 ± 80 0.37 14.0 22138–21587
ETH-51555.1.1 PNC1-10 5.47 Peat >500 μm ABA −25.6 18350 ± 65 0.85 32.0 22418–21968
ETH-51555.2.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 −33.3 18365 ± 60 1.00 30.1 22425–21989 22152–21925
ETH-51555.3.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −31.5 18170 ± 60 1.00 34.7 22248–21827
ETH-51555.4.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 −31.2 18320 ± 60 0.99 25.7 22390–21952
ETH-51556.1.1 PNC1-15 5.62 Peat >500 μm ABA −29.3 18040 ± 60 0.99 36.6 22072–21621
ETH-51556.2.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 −29.4 18110 ± 60 1.00 30.1 22202–21753 22178–21952
ETH-51556.3.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −28.1 18245 ± 60 0.67 18.0 22323–21890
ETH-51556.4.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 −28.9 18205 ± 60 0.75 18.1 22281–21855
ETH-51557.1.1 PNC1-16 6.90 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.2 18550 ± 60 0.99 30.8 22568–22293 22482–22367
ETH-51557.2.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 −28.1 18590 ± 60 0.99 32.6 22611–22325
ETH-51558.1.1 PNC1-17 7.07 Peat >500 μm ABA −27.9 18575 ± 60 1.00 57.7 22591–22315
ETH-51558.2.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 −27.6 18625 ± 60 1.00 36.9 22650–22355 22507–22415
ETH-51558.3.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −27.6 18775 ± 60 0.74 21.3 22852–22445
ETH-51558.4.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 −28.8 18610 ± 60 0.98 27.7 22632–22342
ETH-51559.1.1 PNC1-18 7.22 undiff. org. remains ABA −28.7 18630 ± 60 0.99 46.4 22653–22355 22526–22428
ETH-51560.1.1 PNC1-19 7.36 Peat >500 μm ABA −27.0 18555 ± 60 0.99 38.5 22574–22300 22552–22437
ETH-51560.2.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 −27.2 18580 ± 70 0.99 26.0 22615–22310
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

8 K Hippe et al.
Table 2 (Continued )

Mean Dated material and Preparation Calibrated age Modeled age

Lab code Sample code depth (m) fraction method δ13C (‰) 14
C age ± 1σ mg C C% (unmodeled, 2σ range) BP (2σ range)
ETH-51561.1.1 PNC1-20 7.65 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −27.2 18725 ± 70 0.99 40.1 22798–22405 22677–22486
ETH-51561.2.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 −27.0 18810 ± 70 0.78 20.6 22897–22461
ETH-51562.1.1 PNC1-21 9.00 Peat >500 μm ABA −27.9 19115 ± 70 1.00 58.1 23354–22780 23060–22850
ETH-51563.1.1 PNC1-22 9.41 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.1 19310 ± 70 0.99 40.2 23517–22991 23103–22995
ETH-51563.2.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −27.6 19520 ± 75 0.99 45.4 23787–23201
ETH-51564.1.1 PNC1-23 9.79 Peat >500 μm ABA −29.5 19320 ± 70 0.99 36.8 23526–23001
ETH-51564.2.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 −29.0 19225 ± 70 0.94 22.7 23443–22915 23125–23045
ETH-51564.3.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −29.2 19470 ± 75 0.96 22.5 23699–23130
ETH-51564.4.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 −25.3 19385 ± 75 0.51 13.7 23597–23054
ETH-51565.1.1 PNC1-27 9.91 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.4 19305 ± 70 0.99 53.7 23515–22989 23130–23053
ETH-51565.2.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 −26.7 19435 ± 75 0.99 31.9 23658–23101
ETH-51566.1.1 PNC1-28 10.18 Peat >500 μm ABA −27.6 19700 ± 75 0.99 57.1 23982–23478 23138–23065
ETH-51566.2.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −27.4 19365 ± 70 0.99 31.7 23575–23044
ETH-51567.1.2 PNC1-31 10.29 Peat >500 μm ABA −27.1 19610 ± 70 0.99 33.8 23900–23375
ETH-51567.2.2 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 (1st) −22.9 18940 ± 65 0.88 16.8 23030–22555
ETH-51567.2.3 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 (2nd) −33.7 18925 ± 65 0.84 19.4 23010–22545
ETH-51567.3.2 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −32.1 19550 ± 75 1.00 41.2 23837–23265
ETH-51567.4.2 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 (1st) −29.2 18820 ± 70 0.97 27.0 22905–22470
ETH-51567.4.3 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 (2nd) −33.9 18955 ± 65 0.92 24.6 23045–22569 23142–23069
ETH-51567.5.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-2 −29.3 19300 ± 75 0.99 31.7 23511–22986
ETH-51567.6.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-2 −24.7 18675 ± 70 0.99 26.0 22735–22376
ETH-51567.7.1 undiff. org. remains ABA −28.2 18870 ± 75 1.00 54.1 22964–22498
ETH-51567.8.1 macrofossils: seeds ABA −29.5 19225 ± 80 0.85 66.3 23455–22906
ETH-51567.9.1 undiff. org. remains ABA −27.5 18690 ± 75 1.00 50.3 22763–22380
ETH-51567.10.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1-ext −27.2 19145 ± 70 1.00 26.6 23376–22832
ETH-51568.1.2 PNC1-32 12.01 Peat >500 μm ABA −25.9 20140 ± 75 0.99 32.5 24439–23970
ETH-51568.2.2 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 (1st) −24.8 19775 ± 70 0.86 19.2 24046–23563
ETH-51568.2.3 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 (2nd) −25.3 19510 ± 75 1.00 26.7 23771–23179
ETH-51568.3.2 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −28.3 20005 ± 75 0.99 29.5 24307–23837 23690–23541
ETH-51568.4.2 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 (1st) −28.1 19340 ± 70 1.00 20.5 23548–23021
ETH-51568.4.3 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 (2nd) −31.2 19310 ± 80 0.75 17.4 23530–22986
ETH-51568.5.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-2 −28.7 19175 ± 75 0.99 38.2 23406–22861
ETH-51568.6.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-2 −30.8 18315 ± 65 0.92 20.6 22390–21940*
ETH-51569.1.2 PNC1-33 12.08 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.8 20115 ± 75 1.00 30.6 24413–23944
ETH-51569.2.2 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 −27.4 19975 ± 75 0.88 18.1 24279–23800 24050–23886
ETH-51569.3.2 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −27.1 20170 ± 75 0.99 24.8 24471–24003
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

ETH-51569.4.2 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 −34.2 20135 ± 80 0.58 13.2 24442–23961

ETH-51570.1.2 PNC1-34 12.30 Peat >500 μm ABA −25.6 19980 ± 75 0.99 31.2 24283–23809 24059–23944
ETH-51570.2.2 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −27.7 20075 ± 75 1.00 32.2 24373–23910
ETH-51570.3.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-2 −30.1 17555 ± 65 0.98 28.8 21469–20958*
ETH-51570.4.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-2 −28.0 18105 ± 65 0.99 24.8 22205–21723*
ETH-51571.1.2 PNC1-35 12.46 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.5 20335 ± 85 1.00 28.2 24783–24133
ETH-51571.2.2 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 (1st) −29.4 19900 ± 85 0.99 21.3 24204–23681
ETH-51571.2.3 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 (2nd) −28.6 19835 ± 80 1.00 32.3 24117–23613
ETH-51571.3.2 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −27.7 20285 ± 85 0.99 28.8 24619–24069
ETH-51571.4.2 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 (1st) −27.2 19600 ± 80 0.91 18.6 23899–23342 24072–23959
ETH-51571.4.3 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 (2nd) −30.9 19495 ± 80 0.85 19.8 23755–23156
ETH-51571.5.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-2 −27.9 20275 ± 80 0.98 24.7 24579–24082
ETH-51571.6.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-2 −27.5 19610 ± 75 0.99 21.0 23902–23372
ETH-51571.7.1 macrofossils: seeds ABA −26.2 20260 ± 80 1.00 57.0 24560–24080
ETH-51571.8.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1-ext −28.3 20310 ± 75 1.00 31.2 24642–24100
ETH-51572.1.2 PNC1-37 13.93 Peat >500 μm ABA (1st) −26.4 19840 ± 80 0.99 42.0 24126–23617 24280–24066
ETH-51572.1.3 Peat >500 μm ABA (2nd) −30.1 19960 ± 80 0.87 49.5 24269–23767
ETH-55360.1.1 PNC1-38 19.71 Peat >500 μm ABA −27.6 20860 ± 110 0.99 27.4 25530–24742 25730–25305

14
Peat >500 μm −31.7

C Chronology of Glaciofluvial Megafan Deposition 9

ETH-55361.1.1 PNC1-39 20.45 ABA 22360 ± 125 0.99 36.3 27075–26249 26491–26077
ETH-55362.1.1 PNC1-40 20.59 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.3 22005 ± 125 0.99 37.8 26548–25950 26532–26113
ETH-55363.1.1 PNC1-43 22.09 Peat >500 μm ABA −33.9 22445 ± 130 0.98 26.5 27160–26356 27243–26662
ETH-55364.1.1 PNC1-45 26.72 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.2 26360 ± 185 0.99 33.6 31007–30231 31057–30484
ETH-553651.1 PNC1-52 26.99 Peat >500 μm ABA −27.8 27395 ± 195 1.00 29.0 31536–31000 31540–31019
ETH-553661.1 PNC1-53 27.21 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.6 28130 ± 210 0.98 47.6 32676–31414 32408–31531
ETH-55367.1.1 PNC1-54 27.26 Peat >500 μm ABA −34.7 28745 ± 225 0.99 21.1 33545–32047 32474–31704
ETH-55368.1.1 PNC1-55 27.30 Peat >500 μm ABA −29.1 28235 ± 210 0.99 29.5 32788–31493 32514–31745
ETH-55369.1.1 PNC1-58 27.54 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.8 28145 ± 215 0.99 27.9 32698–31420 32715–32002
ETH-55369.2.1 undiff. org. remains ABA −27.0 28710 ± 180 0.99 71.7 33442–32120
ETH-55370.1.1 PNC1-65 27.76 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.1 28855 ± 230 0.98 32.0 33654–32291 32873–32231
ETH-56741.1.1 PNC1-67 27.83 Peat >500 μm ABA −25.7 28730 ± 195 0.98 28.8 33487–32114 32906–32288
ETH-55371.1.1 PNC1-68 27.85 Peat >500 μm ABA −27.4 28350 ± 210 0.74 14.2 32925–31570 32916–32299
ETH-55372.1.1 PNC1-69 28.00 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.8 28940 ± 230 0.98 26.0 33705–32477 32997–32377
ETH-55373.1.1 PNC1-70 28.76 Peat >500 μm ABA −29.1 28450 ± 215 0.99 34.7 33098–31642 33292–32666
ETH-55374.1.1 PNC1-73 29.02 Peat >500 μm ABA −30.1 28690 ± 165 0.99 36.1 33391–32131 33424–32794
ETH-55375.1.1 PNC1-74 29.73 Peat >500 μm ABA −29.6 29350 ± 180 0.98 40.9 33922–33128 34035–33431
ETH-56742.1.1 PNC1-79 29.83 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.6 30255 ± 235 0.98 51.2 34706–33874 34534–33907
ETH-55376.1.1 PNC1-82 29.89 Peat >500 μm ABA −31.8 30415 ± 200 1.00 58.7 34780–34016 34608–34099
ETH-55376.2.1 macrofossils: moss ABA −34.0 30305 ± 210 0.99 55.9 34714–33932
ETH-55377.1.1 PNC1-87 29.99 Peat >500 μm ABA −31.9 31035 ± 215 1.00 56.5 35436–34529 34885–34187
Unconformity
ETH-56743.1.1 PNC1-90 30.55 Peat >500 μm ABA −27.9 30510 ± 240 0.98 25.2 34908–34029
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

10 K Hippe et al.
Table 2 (Continued )

Mean Dated material and Preparation Calibrated age Modeled age

Lab code Sample code depth (m) fraction method δ13C (‰) 14
C age ± 1σ mg C C% (unmodeled, 2σ range) BP (2σ range)
ETH-59829.1.1 PNC1-92 30.59 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −29.2 30580 ± 220 0.87 21.4 34942–34095
ETH-59829.2.1 undiff. org. remains ABA −28.3 30675 ± 225 0.87 42.0 35039–34159
ETH-56842.1.1 PNC1-96 30.74 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −26.3 28425 ± 190 0.98 21.9 32984–31669
ETH-56842.2.1 undiff. org. remains ABA −24.6 36875 ± 425 0.93 63.4 42138–40643
ETH-56842.2.2 undiff. org. remains ABA −27.9 28520 ± 190 0.43 43.3 33150–31767
Unconformity
ETH-55379.1.1 PNC1-98 30.82 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.8 27590 ± 145 1.00 40.7 31620–31118
ETH-61898.1.1 PNC1-98_2 undiff. org. remains ABA −25.9 27765 ± 175 0.90 35.7 31941–31167
ETH-55380.1.1 PNC1-99 30.94 Peat >500 μm ABA −30.4 30640
± 205 0.99 38.1 34972-34160
ETH-55380.2.1 undiff. org. remains ABA −26.4 29480
± 185 0.99 45.9 34032-33314
ETH-55381.1.1 PNC1-100 31.96 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.5 >45000 0.99 51.7
ETH-55381.2.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-1 −25.0 >45000 0.98 34.5
ETH-55381.3.1 Peat >500 μm ABOX-2 −28.9 >45000 0.99 43.6
ETH-56745.1.1 PNC1-101 31.99 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.2 >45000 0.99 49.7
ETH-56745.2.1 undiff. org. remains ABA −28.2 >45000 0.99 72.7
ETH-59830.1.1 PNC1-102 32.02 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −28.9 >45000 0.99 54.6
ETH-59830.2.1 undiff. org. remains ABA −28.4 42850 ± 925 0.99 68.1 48462–44600
ETH-56746.1.1 PNC1-103 32.05 Peat >500 μm ABA −28.3 >45000 1.00 41.2
ETH-56746.2.1 undiff. org. remains ABA −27.6 >45000 0.99 48.4
ETH-55382.1.1 PNC1-104 32.08 Peat >500 μm ABA −26.2 44350 ± 1025 1.00 47.0 49833–45973
ETH-55382.2.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −28.4 >45000 0.99 29.0
ETH-55382.3.1 undiff. org. remains ABA −29.8 44270 ± 1085 0.99 48.8 49850–45863
ETH-55383.1.1 PNC1-105 32.58 Peat 63-500 μm ABA −27.8 39710 ± 590 0.99 24.8 44539–39641
ETH-55383.2.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-1 −30.7 35950 ± 455 0.49 10.5 41538–41605
ETH-55383.3.1 Peat 63-500 μm ABOX-2 −31.7 38110 ± 530 0.70 15.7 43063–35303
ETH-61899.1.1 PNC1-105_2 undiff. org. remains ABA −23.3 32055 ± 280 0.51 49.9 36542–37869
ETH-61899.2.1 undiff. org. remains ABA −21.2 34195 ± 350 0.47 66.0 39626–42582
ETH-61900.1.1 PNC1-106 35.14 Peat >500 μm ABA −27.5 >45000 1.00 41.7
ETH-61900.2.1 macrofossils: moss ABA −27.8 42880 ± 975 0.94 36.3 48641–44567
 14
C Chronology of Glaciofluvial Megafan Deposition 11

Figure 3 Uncalibrated 14C ages (with 1σ error bars) obtained for different sample fractions and variable laboratory
pretreatment protocols (cf. Table 1). Small numbers next to the data points denote the sample ID as PNC1-x. Panels
B and C represent a larger view on the uppermost and lowermost dated core sections. The data points between
14 and 30 m core depth are only shown in panel A.

individual subsample ages show a very good agreement without any systematic age trend with
regard to the peat particle size or the applied pretreatment method. Results of samples below
10 m depth show a significantly larger variation in their individual ages (Figure 3). However,
above the two major discontinuities located at 30.5 and 30.8 m depth, the obtained ages are
generally in good agreement with the stratigraphic order (within their 2σ errors; Figure 3A). It is
important to note that the scatter in the 14C ages obtained on subsamples in the uppermost 30 m
of the core has no significant effect on the final calendar chronology (Table 2), both using the
sediment deposition model approach as well as simple data calibration. Below 30 m depth,
several significant age inversions occur which strongly point at material reworking and surface
erosion. Thus, samples below 30 m depth (below sample PNC1-87) were excluded from the
chronology of sedimentation calculated by the deposition model.

A most important aspect in the discussion and interpretation of the obtained 14C ages from peat
is the intrinsic heterogeneity of some peat samples. Peat is a compound of various organic
particles of different sizes and sometimes also different ages that have grown or accumulated at
the site of deposition over a certain time span (cf. Kilian et al. 1995; Nilsson et al. 2001; Blaauw
et al. 2004). Reworking and erosion of peat or other organic remains farther upstream can lead
to an incorporation of older components into younger peat deposits forming downstream. Such
mixing of material of different ages is more likely to occur in peat partly affected by pedogenetic

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
 12 K Hippe et al.

degradation or in peat containing some amount of clastic input than in (nearly) purely organic
peat deposits, which are formed mainly disconnected from the active channel. On the other
hand, the formation of a peat layer over several hundreds to thousands of years implies that
roots from plants growing at the surface can penetrate into lower layers and introduce young
organic material into the older subsurface peat deposit. Other bioturbation processes like ani-
mal burrow activity can generate further complex subsoil mixing. In general, if evident traces of
erosion and pedogenesis are absent, radiocarbon ages obtained from the top of a peat section
are considered to provide an estimate on the onset of sedimentation sealing the peat. Ages from
the bottom of a peat section supposedly represent the end of clastic sedimentation, however,
taking into consideration a possible time gap between the final clastic input and the beginning of
plant accumulation (cf. Törnqvist and Van Dijk 1993).

ABA vs. ABOX Pretreatment

Different trends in age distribution with regard to the three applied pretreatment protocols can
be observed. The good agreement between individual subsample ages from the uppermost 10 m
of the core, with ages around 19–17 14C ka BP, suggests an excellent and equally efficient
performance of the ABA and ABOX-1 cleaning methods for peat material (ABOX-2 was not
used on samples within that core section). Below 10 m core depth, age variations point at two
major observations. First, the ABA dates are nearly consistently older than ABOX-1 dates. For
example, age discrepancies of about 800 years between the oldest ABA and youngest ABOX-1
age were found for samples PNC1-31, PNC1-32, and PNC1-35 (Figure 3B). Secondly, there
appears to be a better general agreement between individual ABA ages from a set of subsamples
compared to individual ages obtained for ABOX-1. With one exception (PNC1-28), ABA-
treated peat of both particle sizes show identical ages within 2σ. In contrast, peat subsamples
treated with ABOX-1 show larger age discrepancy (Figure 3B).

Results for the ABOX-2 pretreatment show a similar trend as for ABOX-1, yielding an even
more pronounced discrepancy of the 14C ages for 7 out of 10 analyses with ABOX-2 ages up to
2000 years younger than their corresponding ABA ages (Figure 3). Only for three analyses, the
ABOX-2 ages agree with the ABA result within 2σ (PNC1-35, PNC1-100, PNC1-105).
Noticeably, the discrepancy between individual subsample ABOX-2 ages (up to 860 years) even
exceeds the variability observed for the ABOX-1 treatment. The variable degree of rejuvenation
of 14C ages after both ABOX treatments points to the internal heterogeneity of the dated peat
samples and a preferential dissolution of older and more fragile organic components by the
more aggressive treatment applied in the final ABOX acid steps. The K2Cr2O7 + H2SO4 solu-
tion as well as the H2SO4 alone have a much stronger corrosive effect on peat than the HCl
applied during ABA pretreatment and seem to particularly degrade the older components while
younger material can survive longer. The intense degradation of peat by K2Cr2O7 + H2SO4 was
demonstrated in tests performed on subsamples of PNC1-31 and PNC1-35 allowing longer
reaction times (than the usually applied 30 min) for the final ABOX-1 step. Both samples were
soaked in K2Cr2O7 + H2SO4 for 1.5 and 5 hr, respectively, resulting in a complete dissolution of
the peat after the 5 hour period. For samples left to oxidation for 1.5 hr the degradation was still
significant but left just enough material for 14C analysis (Table 2). For comparison, Bird et al.
(1999) reported oxidation of charcoal in K2Cr2O7 + H2SO4 of usually 14–24 hr (occasionally up
to 72 hr).

Although previous studies found the ABOX pretreatment methods more effective in removing
contamination for charcoal, wood, and paleosol samples (e.g., Bird et al. 1999, 2014; Hatté
et al. 2001; Santos et al. 2001; Higham et al. 2009a; Wood et al. 2012), our findings indicate a

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
 14
C Chronology of Glaciofluvial Megafan Deposition 13

very good cleaning efficiency of the ABA treatment for peat. Here, we applied a low-strength,
long reaction procedure for ABA. In comparison, studies reporting insufficient decontamina-
tion by ABA have often used higher-strength but short-reaction procedures (Hatté et al. 2001;
Higham et al. 2009b; Wood et al. 2012; Bird et al. 2014). The switch from ABA to ABOX,
however, did in some cases not just involve the replacement of the final HCl acid step by
K2Cr2O7 + H2SO4 but also replaced the two previous steps with significantly stronger acid and
base reagents as well as longer reaction times (e.g., Higham et al. 2009b; Wood et al. 2012). This
suggests that an overall more rigorous sample treatment might be needed to obtain a sufficient
decontamination with both, the ABA and ABOX pretreatment methods.

Dating Peat vs. Macroremains

The comparison of peat ages with results for separated macroremains from the same sample
provides no clear trend in the age distribution. While most analyses of macrofossils yielded
results identical to the associated peat data, few significantly older as well as younger ages for
macrofossils also occur. Seeds extracted from the dense peat sections within the uppermost core
part (samples PNC1-05, 4.78 m, and PNC1-08, 4.90 m) show consistent ages suggesting very
homogenous peat layers. Similar good agreement is found for fragments of reed and briophytes
extracted from the peat samples PNC1-58 and PNC1-82, respectively, both collected from
~30 cm thick peat sections at 27.54 m and 29.89 m depth. In contrast, significant differences
between the ages of different mixed assemblages of macroremains extracted from a peat layer at
10.29 m depth is recorded in sample PNC1-31 (Figure 4). Individual subsample ages vary by
more than 500 years and are all younger by about 900–350 years than the associated peat ages
of 19,610 ± 70 and 19,550 ± 75 14C yr BP (ABA), respectively. These notably younger ages from
undifferentiated macroremains, that correspond to ages occurring about 1 to 2.5 m higher up in
the stratigraphic section, are considered to result from later infiltration of younger organic
components into the previously deposited peat. Common sources of contamination are roots

Figure 4 Sample fractions separated from sample PNC1-31 (12.01 m depth) with their uncalibrated 14C ages (±1σ);
the scale bar is 1 mm. For both peat fractions (A and B), variable laboratory pretreatment methods were applied.
Younger ages for separated mixed macroremain assemblages reveal contamination of the samples by younger roots
(or other organic compounds).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
 14 K Hippe et al.

that can penetrate deep into the subsurface and thereby introduce too young 14C ages in older
layers. The comparatively young age of 18,690 ± 75 14C yr BP from one mixture of macro-
remains isolated from sample PNC1-31 clearly advocates infiltration and contamination by
roots (Figure 4D). In comparison, separated seeds provided a significantly older age
(19,225 ± 80 14C yr BP) illustrating the advantage of dating clearly identifiable and separable
macrofossils that can be well cleaned from rootlets or other contaminating organic fragments.

The incorporation of reworked older material is suspected for sample PNC1-96 (30.74 m
depth). Few small pieces of black, charcoal-like material could be isolated and dated to be
nearly 800 years older (36,875 ± 4255 14C yr BP) than the peat and extracted macroremains that
provided indistinguishable ages of 28,475 ± 135 and 28,425 ± 190 14C yr BP, respectively.
Interestingly, an overall good consistency between ages from peat and extracted macroremains
is observed within the ~35 cm thick peat layer at around 30.5 m depth. However, individual
samples from this narrow section show a significant spread in ages (Figure 3C) indicating
substantial compaction of material of different ages. Large age discrepancies over several 1000
years between peat and macroremains continue further downwards in the core for the lower-
most samples (below 32 m depth). Since some of the ages scatter around the radiocarbon dating
limit, an interpretation of the obtained age range is difficult.

Chronology of Sediment Deposition

Despite the effect of sample heterogeneity on peat radiocarbon ages, which is evident from the
impact variable pretreatment had on the obtained 14C ages, high-resolution sampling allowed
establishing an age-depth model (Figure 5), which comprises all age data from 4.4–30.0 m depth
(excluding three outliers, see Table 2) regardless of the applied pretreatment method and/or
sample fraction. The resulting robust chronology provides the timing for the sedimentary
buildup of the Cormor megafan.

Sedimentation from 30 m depth onwards initially reflects a fluvial environment and is char-
acterized by continuous and rapid deposition of organic-rich clays and silts and the formation
of several thick (up to 30 cm) peat layers between about 34.5 ka and 30.8 ka cal BP (PNC1-87 to
PNC1-45, 29.99–26.72 m). The end of MIS 3 fluvial sedimentation is marked by a prominent
peat layer accumulated at around 31 ka cal BP, which formed at least over several hundred
years (PNC1-52 to PNC1-45, 26.99–26.72 m). The first occurrence of glaciofluvial sediment in
the distal portion of the alluvial plain is dated to 31.1–30.5 ka cal BP (above 26.72 m in the
core). This age is in close agreement with the age of 31.9–30.5 ka cal BP (recalibrated after
Monegato et al. 2007), which is associated with the onset of sedimentation at the proximal belt
of the Tagliamento sandur, just before the glacier reached the plain and prior to the formation
of the morainic amphitheater (cf. Monegato et al. 2007, 2017; Figure 1). At that time, the
Tagliamento River was probably flowing more in a N-S direction, almost at the center of the
Friulian Plain (Monegato et al. 2007). In this setting it is likely that the Tagliamento River was
directly connected to the PNC core site whereas the Cormor River was a minor stream and did
not yet significantly aggrade the Cormor megafan. Following the initial stage of glaciofluvial
deposition (ca. 31–26 ka cal BP), a phase of apparent stagnation is suggested at 26.5–26.1 ka cal
BP (PNC1-39, 20.45 m). This could possibly relate to the onset of Cormor megafan sedi-
mentation after the buildup of the morainic amphitheater and the westward movement of the
Tagliamento River towards its present position. An increase in sedimentary activity, thus a
pulse in activity of the Tagliamento glacier at the morainic amphitheater, is indicated by the
deposition of massive glaciofluvial sands and silts starting from 25.7–25.3 ka cal BP (PNC1-38,
19.71 m). The occurrence of a peat layer at ~12.4 m core depth marks a pronounced shift in the

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
 14
C Chronology of Glaciofluvial Megafan Deposition 15

Figure 5 Deposition model for the uppermost 30 m of the PNC1 core;

calculated using OxCal v 4.2 (Ramsey 2008, 2009). Samples from below 30 m
depth were excluded because of supposed gaps in the sedimentary sequence.
Furthermore, a total of three very young ages obtained for samples PNC1-32
and -34 were excluded as outliers from the deposition model (see Table 2 and
Figure 3B) as well as the uppermost dated sample (PNC1-M01). P = peat,
C = clay, S = silt, Sa = sand.

sedimentation regime and a break in sediment activity at ca. 24 ka cal BP. A sharp drop in ages
of several hundred years within a few centimeters reflects a sedimentary hiatus allowing for a
prolonged time interval of plant growth and accumulation uninterrupted by clastic input.
Between ca. 24 to 21.6 ka cal BP, our data record almost continuously ongoing glaciofluvial
sedimentation dominated by organic-rich, silty sediments. This time interval is consistent with
the final glacier advance of the LGM recorded for the Southern Alps (Rossato and Mozzi 2016;
Monegato et al. 2017).

After about 22 ka cal BP (from 5 m upwards in the core) an increase in peat accumulation and
the formation of organic-rich, clayey-silty layers occurred concurrently to an abrupt decrease of

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
 16 K Hippe et al.

clastic input. The uppermost peat layer within the PNC1 core (4.90–4.64 m) provided an age
range of ca. 21.6 to 20.9 ka cal BP (PNC1-08 to PNC1-01) from bottom and top, respectively,
indicating more than 700 years of time for peat formation, thus a period of quiescence in
glaciofluvial sedimentation. The peat is overlain by sediments of floodplain facies those dates
give the maximum age of floodplain activity and represent the final period of glaciofluvial
aggradation from the Tagliamento glacier (cf. Fontana et al. 2014b). Macroremains isolated
from the silty sediment 25 cm above the peat layer provide an age of 20.8–20.3 ka cal BP
(PNC1-M02) and are attributed to the ultimate glaciofluvial sedimentation within the channel
that continues in an identical sedimentation style further upwards, possibly for another several
hundred to thousand years. The uppermost 4 m of the stratigraphic succession were deposited at
about 21–20 ka cal BP and were closely followed by the abandonment of the Cormor megafan
because of the withdrawal of the Tagliamento glacier from the end moraine system (cf. Fontana
et al. 2014b).

Some of the shorter sedimentary breaks documented in PNC1 core could potentially also relate
to shifting of the active channel belt of Cormor River due to avulsion processes that control the
formation of this large cone-shaped alluvial landform. Thus, to clearly distinguish a regional
climate signal (e.g., a temporary glacier retreat) from a local sedimentary hiatus it needs similar
chronologies from other cores in different sectors of the Cormor megafan as well as further
megafans connected to the Tagliamento glacier to compare with the PNC1 sequence. However,
comparatively detailed chronologies are not yet available for any core from this region.

CONCLUSIONS
Our results clearly show that establishing a robust chronology from peat embedded in a sedi-
mentary sequence requires a careful selection of the organic material used for dating as well as an
adequate number of analyses to recognize age variations due to the inherent heterogeneity of the
peat. Although sample heterogeneity yielded a significant spread of radiocarbon ages for the
different types of macroremains or sample fraction chosen for analysis, ages from bulk peat
samples with organic particles >500 µm provided the most consistent age data. Comparison
of different laboratory pretreatment methods (ABA vs. two different ABOX methods) for
cleaning peat prior to radiocarbon analysis suggests that the ABA procedure is fully adequate to
remove contamination and to provide robust and reproducible age results. Younger ages
repeatedly obtained after wet oxidation imply that these chemically stronger cleaning procedures
might preferentially dissolve older and potentially more corroded components from the peat.

The detailed chronology of fluvial and glaciofluvial sedimentation in the distal Cormor mega-
fan shows a good agreement with the timing of glacier activity recorded at the Tagliamento
morainic amphitheater. This indicates a close coupling between proximal and distal sectors of
the alluvial megafan and demonstrates the immediate transfer of the climate signal along the
megafan. The prominent peat intervals dated within the PNC1 drilling core demonstrate highly
variable time intervals of peat accumulation ranging from presumably only a few decades to
several hundred and up to more than a thousand years. This suggests a relative stability in
climate conditions as well as in fluvial channel position in the distal portion of the Cormor
alluvial megafan which allowed prolonged plant growth in fens and wetlands without burial by
floodplain clastic sediment. The PNC1 core is the only core from the southern Alpine foreland
for which the deposition chronology is now established with unprecedented detail. Our record
therefore provides a first reference for establishing a detailed LGM subsoil chronology for the
entire foreland plain and represents an important proxy to improve the reconstruction of glacier
fluctuations during the last glacial cycle.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
 14
C Chronology of Glaciofluvial Megafan Deposition 17

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Giorgio Fontolan and Fabrizio Antonioli for the possibility to study the PNC1
core, which was collected in the framework of the Project VECTOR (VulnErability of the Italian
coastal area and marine Ecosystems to Climatic changes and Their rOle in the Mediterranean
caRbon cycles). The Ente Regionale Sviluppo Agricolo of Friuli Venezia Giulia is acknowledged
for allowing to core in the area of Tenuta Marianis. We thank Mantana Maurer, Carol Biechele,
and Maria Belen Röttig for their help in laboratory and Lukas Wacker for his support in
performing the AMS measurements. This work was supported by the COST Action ES0907.

REFERENCES
Ascough PL, Bird MI, Brock F, Higham TFG,
Meredith W, Snape CE, Vane CH. 2009. Hydro-
pyrolysis as a new tool for radiocarbon pretreatment
and the quantification of black carbon. Quaternary
Geochronology 4(2):140–7.
Bird MI, Ayliffe LK, Fifield LK, Turney CSM,
Cresswell RG, Barrows TT, David B. 1999.
Radiocarbon dating of “old” charcoal using a wet
oxidation, stepped-combustion procedure.
Radiocarbon 41(2):127–40.
Bird MI, Levchenko V, Ascough PL, Meredith W,
Wurster CM, Williams A, Tilston EL, Snape CE,
Apperley DC. 2014. The efficiency of charcoal
decontamination for radiocarbon dating by
three pretreatments—ABOX, ABA and hypy.
Quaternary Geochronology 22:25–32.
Blaauw M, van der Plicht J, van Geel B. 2004.
Radiocarbon dating of bulk peat samples from
raised bogs: nonexistence of a previously reported
“reservoir effect”? Quaternary Science Reviews
23(14–15):1537–42.
Carminati E, Doglioni C, Scrocca D. 2003. Apennines
subduction-related subsidence of Venice (Italy).
Geophysical Research Letters 30:13.
Castiglioni GB. 1997. Geomorphological Map of Po
Plain. Scale 1:250,000, MURST-S.El.Ca, 3 sheets,
Firenze, Italia.
Ehlers J, Gibbard PL, Hughes PD. 2011. Quaternary
Glaciations – Extent and Chronology, A Closer
Look, 1st ed., Developments in Quaternary
Sciences 15:1126 p.
Fontana A. 2006. Evoluzione geomorfologica della
bassa pianura friulana e sue relazioni con le
dinamiche insediative antiche. Udine. Monografie
Museo Friulano Storia Naturale 47:288 p.
Fontana A, Mozzi P, Bondesan A. 2008. Alluvial
megafans in the Venetian-Friulian Plain
(north-eastern Italy): Evidence of sedimentary
and erosive phases during Late Pleistocene
and Holocene. Quaternary International 189:
71–90.
Fontana A, Mozzi P, Bondesan A. 2010. Late pleis-
tocene evolution of the Venetian-Friulian Plain.
Rendiconti Lincei–Scienze Fisiche e Naturali
21(S1):181–96.
Fontana A, Mozzi P, Marchetti M. 2014a. Alluvial
fans and megafans along the southern side of
the Alps. Sedimentary Geology 301:150–71.
Fontana A, Monegato G, Zavagno E, Devoto S,
Burla I, Cucchi F. 2014b. Evolution of an Alpine
fluvioglacial system at the LGM decay: the Cormor
megafan (NE Italy). Geomorphology 204:136–53.
Gillespie R, Hammond AP, Goh KM, Tonkin PJ,
Lowe DC, Sparks RJ, Wallace G. 1992. AMS
dating of a Late Quaternary tephra at Graham
Terrace, New Zealand. Radiocarbon 34(1):21–7.
Gillespie R. 1997. Burnt and unburnt carbon: dating
charcoal and burnt bone from the Willandra
Lakes, Australia. Radiocarbon 39(3):239–50.
Hajdas I. 1993. Extension of the radiocarbon cali-
bration curve by AMS dating of laminated sedi-
ments of lake Soppensee and lake Holzmaar.
Dissertation Nr. 10157. ETH Zürich. 147 p.
Hajdas I, Hendriks L, Fontana A, Monegato G. 2016.
Evaluation of preparation methods in radio-
carbon dating of old wood. Radiocarbon
59(3):727–37.
Hatté C, Morvan J, Noury C, Paterne M. 2001. Is
classical acid-alkali-acid treatment responsible for
contamination? An alternative proposition.
Radiocarbon 43(2A):177–82.
Higham T, Brock F, Peresani M, Broglio A, Wood R,
Douka K. 2009a. Problems with radiocarbon
dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition
in Italy. Quaternary Science Reviews 28(13–14):
1257–67.
Higham TFG, Barton H, Turney CSM, Barker G,
Ramsey CB, Brock F. 2009b. Radiocarbon dating
of charcoal from tropical sequences: results from
the Niah Great Cave, Sarawak, and their broader
implications. Journal of Quaternary Science
24(2):189–97.
Kilian MR, van der Plicht J, van Geel B. 1995. Dating
raised bogs: new aspects of AMS C-14 wiggle
matching, a reservoir effect and climatic change.
Quaternary Science Reviews 14(10):959–66.
Lowick SE, Preusser F, Pini R, Ravazzi C. 2010.
Underestimation of fine grain quartz OSL dating
towards the Eemian: comparison with palynostrati-
graphy from Azzano Decimo, northeastern Italy.
Quaternary Geochronology 5:583–90.
Miola A, Bondesan A, Corain L, Favaretto S, Mozzi
P, Piovan S, Sostizzo I. 2006. Wetlands in the
Venetian po plain (northeastern Italy) during the
last glacial maximum: interplay between vegeta-
tion, hydrology and sedimentary environment.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
 18 K Hippe et al.
Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 141(1–2):
53–81.
Monegato G, Ravazzi C, Donegana M, Pini R,
Calderoni G, Wick L. 2007. Evidence of a two–fold
glacial advance during the last glacial maximum in
the Tagliamento end moraine system (eastern Alps).
Quaternary Research 68(2):284–302.
Monegato M, Scardia G, Hajdas I, Rizzini F, Piccin
A. 2017. The Alpine LGM in the boreal ice-
sheets game. Scientific Reports 7(2078 doi:
10.1038/s41598–017–02148–7.
Nilsson M, Klarqvist M, Bohlin E, Possnert G. 2001.
Variation in C-14 age of macrofossils and differ-
ent fractions of minute peat samples dated by
AMS. Holocene 11(5):579–86.
Paiero G, Monegato G. 2003. The Pleistocene evolu-
tion of Arzino alluvial fan and western part of
Tagliamento morainic amphitheater (Friuli, NE
Italy). Il Quaternario. Italian Journal of
Quaternary Sciences 16(2):185–93.
Pini R, Ravazzi C, Donegana M. 2009. Pollen strati-
graphy, vegetation and climate history of the last
215 ka in the Azzano Decimo core (plain of Friuli,
north-eastern Italy). Quaternary Science Reviews
28(13–14):1268–90.
Pini R, Ravazzi C, Reimer PJ. 2010. The vegetation
and climate history of the last glacial cycle in a
new pollen record from Lake Fimon (southern
Alpine foreland, N-Italy). Quaternary Science
Reviews 29:3115–37.
Ramsey CB. 2008. Deposition models for chron-
ological records. Quaternary Science Reviews
27(1–2):42–60.
Ramsey CB. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon
dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337–60.
Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell
PG, Ramsey CB, Buck CE, Cheng H, Edwards
RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP,
Haflidason H, Hajdas I, Hatte C, Heaton TJ,
Hoffmann DL, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kaiser
KF, Kromer B, Manning SW, Niu M, Reimer
RW, Richards DA, Scott EM, Southon JR, Staff
RA, Turney CSM, van der Plicht J. 2013.
IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibra-
tion curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon
55(4):1869–87.
Rossato S, Mozzi P. 2016. Inferring LGM sedimen-
tary and climatic changes in the southern Eastern
Alps foreland through the analysis of a 14C ages
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Queen Mary University, on 27 Mar 2018 at 04:27:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.21
database (Brenta megafan, Italy). Quaternary
Science Reviews 148:115–27.
Santos GM, Bird MI, Pillans B, Fifield LK, Alloway
BV, Chappell J, Hausladen PA, Arneth A. 2001.
Radiocarbon dating of wood using different pre-
treatment procedures: application to the chronol-
ogy of Rotoehu Ash, New Zealand. Radiocarbon
43(2A):239–48.
Santos GM, Ormsby K. 2013. Behavioral variability
in ABA chemical pretreatment close to the 14C
age limit. Radiocarbon 55(2–3):534–44.
Smith MA, Bird MI, Turney CSM, Fifield LK, Santos
GM, Hausladen PA, di Tada ML. 2001. New
ABOX AMS-14C ages remove dating anomalies
at Puritjarra rock shelter. Australian Archaeology
53:45–7.
Stuiver M, Polach HA. 1977. Reporting of 14C data:
discussion. Radiocarbon 19(3):355–63.
Synal HA, Stocker M, Suter M. 2007. MICADAS: a
new compact radiocarbon AMS system. Nuclear
Instruments & Methods in Physics Research B
259(1):7–13.
Toscani G, Marchesini A, Barbieri C, Di Giulio A,
Fantoni R, Mancin N, Zanferrari A. 2016. The
Friulian-Venetian Basin I: architecture and sedi-
ment flux into a shared foreland basin. Italian
Journal of Geosciences 135(3):444–59.
Törnqvist TE, Van Dijk TJ. 1993. Optimizing sam-
pling strategy for radiocarbon dating of Holocene
fluvial systems in a vertically aggrading setting.
Boreas 22(2):129–45.
Wacker L, Nemec M, Bourquin J. 2010. A revolu-
tionary graphitisation system: fully automated,
compact and simple. Nuclear Instruments &
Methods in Physics Research B 268(7–8):931–4.
Wood RE, Douka K, Boscato P, Haesaerts P, Sinitsyn
A, Higham TFG. 2012. Testing the ABOx–SC
method: dating known-age charcoals associated
with the Campanian Ignimbrite. Quaternary
Geochronology 9:16–26.
Zanferrari A, Avigliano R, Fontana A, Paiero G.
2008a. Note illustrative della Carta Geologica
d’Italia alla scala 1:50.000–Foglio 086 “San Vito
al Tagliamento”. Tavagnacco: Graphic Linea.
190 p.
Zanferrari A, Avigliano R, Monegato G, Paiero G,
Poli ME. 2008b. Note illustrative della Carta
Geologica d’Italia alla scala 1:50.000–Foglio
066 “Udine”. Tavagnacco: Graphic Linea. 176 p.