This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (17) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Finsinger, W. Articles by Tinner, W. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Minimum count sums for charcoal concentration estimates in pollen slides: accuracy and potential errors

Institute of Plant Sciences, Universitiat Bern, Altenbergrain 21, CH-3013 Bern, Switzerland; walter.finsinger{at}ips.unibe.ch

Willy Tinner

Institute of Plant Sciences, Universitiat Bern, Altenbergrain 21, CH-3013 Bern, Switzerland

Charcoal particles in pollen slides are often abundant, and thus analysts are faced with the problem of setting the minimum counting sum as small as possible in order to save time. We analysed the reliability of charcoal-concentration estimates based on different counting sums, using simulated low-to high-count samples. Bootstrap simulations indicate that the variability of inferred charcoal concentrations increases progressively with decreasing sums. Below 200 items (i.e., the sum of charcoal particles and exotic marker grains), reconstructed fire incidence is either too high or too low. Statistical comparisons show that the means of bootstrap simulations stabilize after 200 counts. Moreover, a count of 200-300 items is sufficient to produce a charcoal-concentration estimate with less than+5% error if compared with high-count samples of 1000 items for charcoal/marker grain ratios 0.1-0.91. If, however, this ratio is extremely high or low (> 0.91 or < 0.1) and if such samples are frequent, we suggest that marker grains are reduced or added prior to new sample processing.

Key Words: Charcoal analysis • palaeoecology • random sampling • sample size • error estimation

The Holocene, Vol. 15, No. 2, 293-297 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0959683605hl808rr


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				V. Valsecchi, W. Finsinger, W. Tinner, and B. Ammann Testing the influence of climate, human impact and fire on the Holocene population expansion of Fagus sylvatica in the southern Prealps (Italy) The Holocene, June 1, 2008; 18(4): 603 - 614. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K.I. Duffin, L. Gillson, and K.J. Willis Testing the sensitivity of charcoal as an indicator of fire events in savanna environments: quantitative predictions of fire proximity, area and intensity The Holocene, February 1, 2008; 18(2): 279 - 291. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Finsinger and W. Tinner Pollen and plant macrofossils at Lac de Fully (2135 m a.s.l.): Holocene forest dynamics on a highland plateau in the Valais, Switzerland The Holocene, December 1, 2007; 17(8): 1119 - 1127. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Bendel, M. Bendel, W. Tinner, and B. Ammann Forest dynamics in the Pfyn forest in recent centuries (Valais, Switzerland, Central Alps): interaction of pine (Pinus sylvestris) and oak (Quercus sp.) under changing land use and fire frequency The Holocene, January 1, 2006; 16(1): 81 - 89. [Abstract] [PDF]