-
General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications
made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors
and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing
publications that users recognise and abide by the legal
requirements associated with these rights.
Users may download and print one copy of any publication from
the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
You may not further distribute the material or use it for any
profit-making activity or commercial gain
You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in
the public portal If you believe that this document breaches
copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove
access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Jun 04, 2021
A post-IR IRSL chronology and dust mass accumulation rates of
the Nosak loess-palaeosol sequence in northeastern Serbia
Peri, Zoran M.; Markovi, Slobodan B.; Sipos, György; Gavrilov,
Milivoj B.; Thiel, Christine; Zeeden,Christian; Murray, Andrew
S.
Published in:Boreas
Link to article, DOI:10.1111/bor.12459
Publication date:2020
Document VersionPeer reviewed version
Link back to DTU Orbit
Citation (APA):Peri, Z. M., Markovi, S. B., Sipos, G., Gavrilov,
M. B., Thiel, C., Zeeden, C., & Murray, A. S. (2020). A
post-IRIRSL chronology and dust mass accumulation rates of the
Nosak loess-palaeosol sequence in northeasternSerbia. Boreas,
49(4), 841-857. https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12459
https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12459https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/46953450-0cc9-4e81-a513-c5c183df5d0ahttps://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12459
-
Apost-IRIRSLchronologyanddustmassaccumulationratesof
theNosakloess-palaeosol sequence in northeastern Serbia
ZORAN M. PERI�C , SLOBODAN B. MARKOVI�C, GY€ORGY SIPOS, MILIVOJ
B. GAVRILOV, CHRISTINE THIEL,CHRISTIAN ZEEDEN AND ANDREW S.
MURRAY
Peri�c, Z. M., Markovi�c, S. B., Sipos, G., Gavrilov, M. B.,
Thiel, C., Zeeden, C. & Murray, A. S.: A post-IR IRSLchronology
and dust mass accumulation rates of the Nosak loess-palaeosol
sequence in northeastern Serbia.Boreas,
https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12459. ISSN 0300-9483.
In the Middle Danube Basin, Quaternary deposits are widely
distributed in the Vojvodina region where they coverabout 95%of the
area.Major researchduring the last twodecades has been focusedon
loess deposits in theVojvodinaregion.During this period, loess in
theVojvodina regionhasbecomeoneof themost
importantPleistoceneEuropeancontinentalclimaticandenvironmental
records.Herewepresent thedating resultsof15samples taken
fromtheNosakloess-palaeosol sequence in northeastern Serbia in
order to establish a chronology over the last three
glacial–interglacial cycles. We use the pIRIR290 signal of the 4–11
lmpolymineral grains. The calculated ages are within theerror
limits partially consistent with the proposedmulti-millennial
chronostratigraphy for Serbian loess. The averagemass accumulation
rate for the last three glacial–interglacial cycles is 265 g m�2
a�1, which is in agreement with thevalues of most sites in the
Carpathian Basin. Our results indicate a highly variable deposition
rate of loess, especiallyduring theMIS 3 andMIS 6 stages, which is
contrary tomost studies conducted in Serbiawhere linear
sedimentationrates were assumed.
ZoranM. Peri�c ([email protected]), Research Group for
Terrestrial Paleoclimates,Max Planck Institute forChemistry,
Hahn-Meitner Weg 1, Mainz 55128, Germany; Slobodan B. Markovi�c,
Serbian Academy of Sciences andArts, Knez Mihajlova 35, Belgrade
11000, Serbia and Chair of Physical Geography, Faculty of Sciences,
University ofNovi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovi�ca 3, Novi Sad 21000
Serbia; Gy€orgy Sipos, Department of Physical Geography
andGeoinformatics, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary; Milivoj
B. Gavrilov, Chair of Physical Geography, Faculty ofSciences,
University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovi�ca 3, Novi Sad 21000
Serbia; Christine Thiel, Centre forNuclear Technologies, Technical
University of Denmark, Risø Campus, Frederiksborgvej 399, Roskilde
DK-4000,Denmark and Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural
Resources, Stilleweg 2, Hannover 30655,
Germany;ChristianZeeden,Leibniz Institute forAppliedGeophysics,
Stilleweg 2,Hannover 30655,Germany;AndrewS.Murray,Nordic Laboratory
for Luminescence Dating, Department of Geoscience, Aarhus
University, Risø Campus,Frederiksborgvej 399, Roskilde DK-4000,
Denmark; received 3rd November 2019, accepted 24thMay 2020.
The focus of most Quaternary research conducted inSerbia to
datewas related to the loess plateaus situated inthe Vojvodina
region. These studies contributed to thebetter understanding of
climate changes during thePleistocene in this part of Europe (e.g.
Markovi�c et al.2008, 2015; Obreht et al. 2019). However, beside
theseextensive and continuous loess-palaeosol sequences,there are
also numerous loess areas in the southeastern,central and
northeastern parts of the country (Markovi�cet al. 2014a; Obreht et
al. 2014, 2016). These sequencesappear as smaller, isolated loess
spots and do not showthe continuity that is recorded in the loess
plateaus in theVojvodinaregion,whichwasoneof the
reasonswhythesesites remained almost unexplored. Nevertheless,
recentfindings revealed that, beside unique fossil
records(Dimitrijevi�c et al. 2015; Tomi�c et al. 2015), these
loesssequences contain an exceptional record of palaeocli-matic and
palaeoenvironmental conditions during theQuaternary, on the
transitional zonebetween theBalkanregion and the Carpathian
Basin.
One of the most important sites in this region is theNosak
loess-palaeosol section located in the KostolacCoal Basin. The
Kostolac Basin hosts the secondlargest active lignite mine in
Europe, where extensivecoal exploitation began at the end of the
19th century,
and continues until this day (Dimitrijevi�c et al. 2015).The
coal mining has led to several archaeological,palaeontological and
geological findings, raising thepublic interest in this region. The
most significantdiscoveries to date have been a Kostolac
steppemammoth skeleton from Middle Pleistocene fluvialdeposits,
discovered in 2009 (Lister et al. 2012) and thelater finding of a
rich palaeontological layer, includingfurther steppe mammoth
fossils from the latest MiddlePleistocene loess-palaeosol
succession, in 2012(Markovi�c et al. 2014a; Dimitrijevi�c et al.
2015; Tomi�cet al. 2015). The discovery of the mammoth
skeletons,after which the mining operations in this area came to
atemporary halt, gave us the opportunity to furtherinvestigate the
Nosak loess-palaeosol profile. At thesite, environmental magnetic
analyses, malacologicalanalysis, general reconstruction of
environmentaldynamics, preliminary luminescence dating of
twosamples and ESR dating of an enamel plate removedfrom a
mandibula mammoth tooth were performed(e.g. Markovi�c et al. 2014a;
Dimitrijevi�c et al. 2015).These studies yielded valuable results,
which establishedthe Nosak section as one of the most
significantrepresentative records of Middle and Late
Pleistocenepalaeoclimate and palaeoenvironment dynamics as well
DOI 10.1111/bor.12459 © 2020 The Authors. Boreas published by
John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Boreas CollegiumThis is
an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial License,
which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited andis not used for
commercial purposes.
bs_bs_banner
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0116-8895https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0116-8895https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0116-8895https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5559-1862https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5559-1862https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5559-1862https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12459http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1111%2Fbor.12459&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-07-23
-
as mammoth distribution in this region (Markovi�cet al.
2014a).
The most critical requirements for retrieving accurateclimate
records are independent chronologies and sed-imentation rates. In
order to establish the first chronol-ogy of the Nosak
loess-palaeosol sequence, we areemploying a two-step post-IR IRSL
(Thomsen et al.2008) protocol. Thismethod has been proven to
producea stable elevated temperature IRSL signal recorded aftera
preceding lower temperature IR stimulation, andseeminglydoes not
suffer fromanomalous fading,whichis commonly an undesirable effect
in feldspar IRSL(Huntley & Lamothe 2001). One further advantage
ofthis approach is the ability to date material from the lastthree
glacial–interglacials, as opposed to quartz OSLdating, which cannot
be used to reliably date samplesfromSerbian loess
recordsbeyondaDevalueof~120 Gy(36 ka; Peri�c et al. 2019).
This study aims to establish the first luminescence-based
chronology of a site in northeastern Serbia fromthe last three
glacial–interglacial cycles and investigatethepastdustactivity in
thisareabycalculating theMARsfor the Nosak loess-palaeosol
sequence.
Regional setting
The Nosak loess-palaeosol sequence is situated innortheastern
Serbia (latitude 44°44″310N, longitude21°15″280E) in a lowland
region at the southeastern limitof the great Carpathian (Pannonian,
Middle Danube)Basin in between the Danube and Mlava rivers (17
kmnorth from the city of Po�zarevac) (Fig. 1). This area isalso
referred to as the Kostolac Basin, which is enclosedby the Danube
River to the north, the Velika MoravaRiver to the west, while to
the east the Basin extends tothe Po�zareva�cka greda, a geological
structure that risesover an alluvial plain of the Danube and Mlava
rivers(Dimitrijevi�c et al. 2015).
The Basin was formed during the Lower throughUpper Miocene due
to strong tectonic movements(faulting) during the formation of the
Pannonian Basinalongside favourable peat-forming
conditions(Markovi�c et al. 2014a; Muttoni et al. 2018). The baseof
the Kostolac Basin is composed of Devonian crys-talline rocks and
is covered by Neogene sediments. Thetotal thicknessof
theNeogenesedimentsranges from300to5000 m in the central partof
thedepression (Markovi�cet al. 2014a).
Litho- and pedostratigraphy
At the Nosak section, modern soil (S0) and four recentglacial
loess units L1, L2, L3 and L4 associated withseveral weakly
developed interstadial soils, as well asinterglacial pedocomplexes
S1, S2 and S3 are present(Fig. 2). The nomenclature for this
chronostratigraphyfollows the Danubian loess stratigraphical
model
developed by Markovi�c et al. (2015). This model wasestablished
to correlate the loess-palaeosol units of theDanube Basin with the
Chinese Loess plateau stratig-raphy ‘L and S’ labelling system
(e.g. Kukla 1987;Kukla & An 1989). The modern soil (S0)
covering thetop of the section is represented by a
90-cm-thickchernozem layer (10 YR 4/2 – colour is determined fordry
samples using the Munsell soil colour chart). The870-cm-thick Last
Glacial loess unit L1 (10 YR 7/3) isintercalated with numerous
weakly developed palaeo-sols (10 YR 5/3). The last interglacial
pedocomplex S1is 295 cm thick and composed of a lower dark
Ahhorizon indicating a fossil chernozem formation (10YR 4/2)
overlain by a middle lighter A horizon (10 YR5/3) and the uppermost
weakly developed A horizon(10 YR 5/2) characterized by numerous
crotovinas. Theunderlying succession has a thickness of ~600 cm
andcontains the penultimate glacial L2 loess unit (10 YR 7/3),
intercalated with numerous weakly developedpalaeosols (Markovi�c et
al. 2014a). This loess unitcovers a double pedocomplex (S2)
including a lowerstrongly developed S2SS2 fossil cambisol B
horizonthat is gradually transformed to an upper altered Ahorizon
(7.5 YR 5/8) and upper weakly developed Ahorizon (S2SS1; 7.5 YR
5/8) intercalated by a darkerloessic layer (S2LL1). The
approximately 150-cm-thickL3 loess, which is in a zone close to the
boundary withpalaeosol S2SS2, is heavily bioturbated and rich
incarbonate concretions. The lowermost pedocomplex S3is ~180 cm
thick and has a very similar morphology tothe upper S2SS2 fossil
cambisol. The lowermost, 50-cm-thick L4 loess has many carbonate
concretions andhumic infiltrations in fossil root channels. At
thetransitional zone between the palaeosol S2SS1 andthe overlying
L2 loess, a palaeontological layer wasdiscovered (Markovi�c et al.
2014a).
Sampling, preparation and facilities
The sampling was performed during the palaeontolog-ical
excavations in 2012, after the discovery of thepalaeontological
layer and themammoth skeletonby theresearch team from the Institute
of Archaeology at theSerbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. The
samples forluminescencedatingwere recoveredbyhammeringblackPVC
tubes (15 cm long and 5 cm in diameter) into theface of the freshly
cleaned profile (Fig. 3). In total, 15sampleswere
collectedwheremostof the samples yieldedenough polymineral grains
for De measurements. Thesamples were processed in the Nordic
Laboratory forLuminescence Dating (NLL), Aarhus University,
RisøCampus, Denmark, under subdued orange light. Theinner material
of the cylinders was used for equivalentdose measurements
(conducted at the LuminescenceDating Laboratory,Universityof
Szeged,Hungary) andthe outer, light-exposed material for the water
contentand dose rate determination (conducted at the NLL).
2 ZoranM. Peri�c et al. BOREAS
-
The inner, non-light-exposed material was sievedthrough 90, 63
and 40 lm sieves. The 24 h on a gamma spectrom-eter with a
high-purity Germanium detector at theNLL. The calibration of the
spectrometers is presentedin Murray et al. (1987). The radionuclide
concentra-tions were converted to dry dose rates according to
theconversion factors presented by Gu�erin et al. (2011).The
activities of 238U, 226Ra, 232Th and 40K are shownin Table 2 and
Fig. 4. The contribution of cosmic raysto the total dose rate was
calculated according toPrescott & Hutton (1994), using depth,
altitude, den-sity, latitude and longitude for each sample,
assumingan uncertainty of 5%. The field water content wasmeasured
directly on the samples. However, in severalcases, the calculated
water content displayed very lowvalues. For the middle part of the
profile (L1-S1), thewater content varied between 1% (samples 133056
and133057) and 7% (sample 133053). Such low values maybe the result
of the exposure of the Nosak section to airfor a long period of
time prior to sampling. For thisreason, we do not consider the
measured water content
Fig. 1. Mapof the loessdistribution in theVojvodinaandadjacent
regions showing thegeographical positionof theNosak
sectionandothermainloess sites (modified fromMarkovi�c et al.
2012).
BOREAS Post-IR IRSL chronology and accumulation rates of Nosak
loess-palaeosol sequence, NE Serbia 3
-
to be reliable estimates over the geological time. Thus,based on
field observations and previous studiesconducted in this region
(Schmidt et al. 2010; Antoineet al. 2009), the water content was
estimated to be12�5% and was assumed to apply throughout theburial
period. For the 4–11 lm polymineral grains aninternal a dose rate
contribution from U and Th of0.08�0.02 was assumed (Rees-Jones
1995).
Disequilibrium between 238U and 226Ra was notdetected in any
sample (average of the 238U to 226Raratio is 1.03�0.24), except for
the lowermost sample(133046 – 2320 cm depth). Here, a
disequilibrium wasobserved with a calculated ratio of 7.33�24.81.
Thereason for this may be associated with the groundwater,as
indicated by hydromorphic features and bioturba-tion at the depth
where the sample was collected. Thedose rates for the polymineral
fraction range from2.58� 0.10 Gy ka�1 for sample 133046, to
4.37�0.19 Gy ka�1 for sample 133048. The resulting totaldose rates
do not vary significantly with depth (except
for sample 133046), and are summarized in Fig. 4 andTable 2.
Post-IR IRSL measurements
In order to establish the temperature for a stable pIRIRsignal,
we tested the dependence of De on the firststimulation temperature
on 15 aliquots of the sample133057.The results of the IR
stimulationplateau showedthat therearenosignificantvariationsof
thepIRIR290Dewith temperature. The pIRIR290 signal intensity did
notdisplay a considerable decrease with increasing first
IRstimulation temperature and we can conclude that evenfor first IR
stimulation temperatures as lowas 50 °Candas high as 250 °C, the
intensity of the signals is sufficientto allow precise measurements
of the De (Fig. 5).However, the most stable signal was observed at
the firstIR stimulation temperature of 200 °C. Based on
theseobservations, the pIRIR200, 290 signal was chosen for
allpolymineral measurements in this study.
Fig. 2. Revised lithology of Nosak section, position of the
luminescence samples (red circles) together with the pIRIRages and
the ESRage (fordetails see text). The rejected pIRIRage is
highlighted in red.AC= transitional horizonbetween initial
pedogenesis andbackground sediment;A=initial pedogenetic horizon;
Ah = accumulated humus horizon; B = cambisol; 1 = carbonate
pseudomycelia; 2 = crotovinas; 3 = carbonateconcretions; 4 =
hydromorphic features; 5 = former root channels filledwith
humicmaterial; 6 = palaeontological layer.Modified fromMarkovi�cet
al. (2014a, b).
4 ZoranM. Peri�c et al. BOREAS
-
After a preheat of 320 °C for 60 s, the aliquots werestimulated
twicewithIRdiodes for200 s.Duringthe firststimulation, the
temperature was kept at 200 °C (IRsignal),while the second IR
stimulation temperaturewasheld at 290 °C (post-IR IRSL signal,
pIRIR200, 290). Thetest dose signal (~40 to ~260 Gy) was measured
in thesameway. At the end of eachmeasurement cycle, a
high-temperature IRclean-out at 325 °Cfor 200 swas carriedout. All
aliquotsweremeasured ‘one at a time’. For eachsample, at least six
aliquots were measured, except forsamples 133052 and133051 (five
aliquots per sample), aswewere not able to extract a greater amount
of 4–11 lmpolymineral grains. For the calculation, the signal
fromthe initial 2 s of stimulation, less a background from thelast
50 s, was used. The dose response curves were fittedwith single
exponential functions using Analyst version4.31.9. A representative
dose response and decay curvefor the pIRIR200, 290 signal are
presented in Fig. 6.
In every measurement, we included the standardrecycling and
recuperation tests (Wintle & Murray2006). Recycling ratios
within a maximum deviation of10% from unity were considered
acceptable, as was arecuperation signal amounting to less than 5%
of thenatural signal. The aliquots that did not meet
thesecriteriawere rejected and not used in the age calculation.The
average D0 value for all the accepted aliquots was~567 Gy. The
uncertainty on De was calculated as thestandard error of the mean.
The average SAR pIRIR290recycling ratio (99 aliquots from 15
samples) is1.03�0.02. Recuperation and recycling ratios are
pre-sented in Table 2.
To test the ability of the pIRIR200, 290 to accuratelymeasure
laboratory doses given prior to any laboratoryheat treatment, a
dose recovery test was performed onbleachedaliquots (24 h
inaH€onleSOL2solar simulator)of sample 133057. Doses ranging from
100 to 800 Gywere administered (three aliquots per dose), and
thenmeasured in the samemanner as the equivalentdose.Thetest dose
was set between 30 and 50% of the given dose.Three aliquots were
measured to determine the residualdose for this sample after
bleaching in the solar simula-tor. The residual dose was 25�1 Gy
andwas subtractedfrom themeasuredDe. The result of this test is
presentedinFig. 7 and shows that our SARpIRIR200, 290 protocolis
able to successfully recover laboratory doses up to atleast ~800
Gy. From the results of the dose recovery test,it was noticeable
that the best measured to given doseratio (6%of unity) was
foundwhen the test dose of ~30%of the total dose was applied. The
ratio was higher (~9–10%ofunity)when the test doseof~50%of the
total dosewas employed. Similar results are presented in the
studyof Yi et al. (2016), where it was concluded that the ideal
Fig. 3. The Nosak loess-palaeosol sequence with the position of
the palaeontological layer. Revised fromMarkovi�c et al. (2014a,
b).
Table 1. Single aliquot regenerative (SAR) protocol used for
Demeasurements.
Step A BpIRIR200, 290 IR50
1 Give dose Give dose2 Preheat 320 °C for 60 s Preheat 250 °C
for 60 s3 IRSL 200 °C for 200 s IRSL 50 °C for 200 s? Lx4 IRSL 290
°C for 200 s? Lx –5 Give test dose Give test dose6 Preheat 320 °C
for 60 s Preheat 250 °C for 60 s7 IRSL 200 °C for 200 s IRSL 50 °C
for 200 s? Tx8 IRSL 290 °C for 200 s? Tx –9 IR bleach at 325 °C for
200 s IRSL 290 °C for 200 s10 Return to step 1 Return to step 1
BOREAS Post-IR IRSL chronology and accumulation rates of Nosak
loess-palaeosol sequence, NE Serbia 5
-
test dose size when applying pIRIR at 290 °C is 30% ofthe
measured dose. Based on our observations and Yiet al. (2016), the
test dose size for all our De measure-ments was kept at ~30% of the
measured dose.
Despite the good dose recovery test results, thecalculated
residual dose appeared to be surprisinglyhigh.Various authorshave
reported that thebleachingofhigh temperature pIRIR signals is more
problematicthan thebleachingof lowtemperatureIRSLsignals (Li&Li
2011; Buylaert et al. 2012). It was suggested that alonger exposure
of the samples to sunlight or a solarsimulator can reduce the pIRIR
signals significantly.However, in several studies, it has been
shown that theresidual dose measured after bleaching in a
solarsimulator is not consistent with the residual dose
afterbleaching in sunlight (e.g. Stevens et al. 2011). Bleachingof
aeolian dust in nature is likely to be conducted overrepeated
intervals and to take place over much longertimes than in the
laboratory, meaning that the pIRIR290signal can be reset to a
negligible value (Buylaert et al.2012;Yi et al.2015).To test this
andpossiblydeterminealower residual dose for the De calculations
than the oneestablished for the dose recovery test, we exposed
sixaliquots of the sample 133046 to direct sunlight over aperiod of
30 days. The aliquots were kept in a glass Petridish and placed
outside during the months of June andJuly. The calculated residual
dose in this case was3.4�0.4 Gy, confirming that natural sunlight
is able toreset the pIRIR290 signal far more efficiently than
thesolar simulator. This remaining De value, which isnegligible
compared to the measured Des, was assumedto be an unbleachable
residual dose and was subse-quently subtracted from all De results
prior to the agecalculation.
In several studies (e.g. Buylaert et al. 2012, 2015;Roberts
2012) where the pIRIR290 signals from bothsand-sized K-rich
feldspar and polymineral fine grainshave been investigated,
evidence has been presented thatfading uncorrected pIRIR290 ages
show a very goodagreementwith independentagecontrol
foraworld-wideset of samples. In the study of Buylaert et al.
(2012),fading tests on three quartz samples and the standardRisø
calibration quartz were performed. The test yieldeda mean g2 days
value of 0.98�0.08% per decade. Such afading rate would result in
age underestimates of ~10%whenemployingastandardfadingmodel.These
findingssuggest that the pIRIR290 signal is unlikely to suffer
fromfading to a greater degree than the quartz OSL fastcomponent.
Even though in some studies (e.g. Laueret al. 2017) a detectable
fading value was observedwhenusing thepIRIR290 signal,most fading
rateswere
-
assumptions included in the fading correctionmodels. Inour
study, such a fading correction would not improvethe calculated
ages, which is why we do not attempt anyfading correction.
Incomplete bleaching detection
The calculated ages in most cases show a stratigraphi-cally
consistent increase, ranging from 261�23 ka
(sample 133046) to 25�6 ka (sample 133059), exceptfor the
uppermost sample (taken at the S0–L1 bound-ary), which displayed an
age overestimation of ~30 ka,possibly because of incomplete
bleaching. The mostreliableway to test if ayounger sample is
affectedbypoorbleaching is to compare the pIRIR ages with the
agesobtained from blue OSL on quartz grains. However, nousable
amount of quartz fine grains could be recoveredfromtheNosak
samples,which iswhywewerenot able toperform this comparison. An
alternative method toexamine whether the pIRIR290 signal is likely
to havebeen fully reset is comparison with other IR signals
thathave different sensitivities to daylight. It is known thatthe
IR50 signal bleachesmore rapidly in sunlight than IRsignals
stimulated at elevated temperatures (Thomsenet al. 2008) or the
pIRIR290 signal (Buylaert et al. 2012;Murray et al. 2012). In order
to test whether sample133060 was actually not fully reset, we
exposed 42aliquots of the polymineral fine grains to
artificialsunlight in a solar simulator for different lengths of
time,ranging from 1 to 100 000 s. Subsequently, wemeasuredthe
relative bleaching of the IR50 and pIRIR290 signalsusing protocols
presented in Table 1. The results of thetest (Fig. 8) showed that
the IR50 signal bleaches at asignificantly faster rate than the
pIRIR290 signal. After10 000 seconds of bleaching, the normalized
IR50 signalwas reduced to ~7% of the natural, while the
equivalentpIRIR290 signaldisplayedadecreaseofbarely~40%.ThepIRIR290
to IR50 ratio of the naturalmeasuredDe in thiscase was 1.4
(pIRIR290 – 151 Gy; IR50 – 107 Gy), whichlies outside the 10%
rejection criterion and is consistent
Fig. 4. Summaryof the radionuclide activity
concentrationsmeasuredusinghigh resolutiongammaspectrometryand
thederived total dose rates.The analytical data are presented in
Table 2.
Fig. 5. First IRstimulationplateau for sample133057 (345
cmdepth).The results display no significant trend of De with
increasing first IRstimulation temperature,which suggests that the
unstable IR signal canbe removed at first IR stimulation
temperatures as low as 50 °C(Buylaert et al. 2012). The error bars
represent one standard error.
BOREAS Post-IR IRSL chronology and accumulation rates of Nosak
loess-palaeosol sequence, NE Serbia 7
-
with the assumption that the pIRIR290 is less wellbleached than
the corresponding IR50 signal. In thestudies of Thiel et al. (2011)
and Buylaert et al. (2013),similar IR50 to pIRIR290 De ratios for
some of theirsamples were reported, where it was suggested that
thereason for this may be incomplete bleaching of thepIRIR290
signal during postdepositional reworking.
Given that the sample was recovered at the S0–L1boundary, we
have to also consider the possibility thatthe pIRIR290 protocol is
not suited for dating Holocenesamples and that using post-IR IRSL
stimulation at
lower temperatureswould yield amore consistent age. Inthe study
of Kars et al. (2014) measurements of youngsamples using the
pIRIR290 showed large variations inresidual doses. In some cases,
the residual dose evenexceeded the equivalentdose. In the same
study,basedonthe presented data, it has been advised that for
datingyoungsediments, a lowtemperaturepIRprotocol shouldbe used and
for the identification ofwell-bleached coarsegrains the single
grain dating method (Reimann et al.2012; van Gorp et al. 2013).
Unfortunately, in this case,we are not able to perform any
additionalmeasurementsbecause of the lack of material. In order to
get moreclarity on the problems stated above, high
samplingresolution dating must be applied, preferably usingquartz
OSL dating.
Nevertheless, here we argue that the sample 133060 ismost likely
incompletely bleached due to postdeposi-tional processes and choose
to reject and not consider itfor further analysis.At this
point,wehave to state thatwecannot exclude the possibility that
some of the othersamples could also be affected by incomplete
bleaching.However, we do not find it likely, given that the all of
thecalculatedagespassed the conducted internal tests and inmost
cases show a fairly good agreement with theexpected ages and are
stratigraphically consistent.
Age-depth modelling
The luminescence ages allow the development of acontinuousand
fully independentagevs.depthmodel fortheNosaksite.At
thispoint,wehavetounderline that thesampling resolution is not high
enough to detect slightaccumulation variations and hiatuses;
however, it is
Fig. 6. Representative
sensitivitycorrectedpIRIR290doseresponsecurve foranaliquotof
sample133055(855 cmdepth).Thedoseresponsecurvewas fittedwith a
single saturating exponential function.TheDevalue for this
aliquotwas providedby interpolating the sensitivity
correctednaturalluminescence level on thedose response curve
(dashed line).Theopen triangle represents the remeasureddosepoint
(toprovide the recycling ratio),the open circle is the response to
a zero dose (recuperation) and the red square shows the sensitivity
corrected IRSLof the natural signal. The insetshows the natural
pIRIR290 decay curve for the same aliquot.
Fig. 7. Results of the dose recovery test on sample 133057. The
solidline indicates the ideal 1:1 dose recovery ratio while the
dashed linesbracketa10%variation fromunity.Doses ranging from~100
to800 Gywereadministeredwith test doses set at 30–50%of the
givendose.Threealiquotswere measured per dose point. The average
given to measureddose ratio was 1.08�003. Error bars represent one
standard error.
8 ZoranM. Peri�c et al. BOREAS
-
sufficient to identify general accumulation trends andpatterns
of dust deposition.
The methods for developing continuous age-depthmodels from
discrete luminescence age points differ inthe literature (e.g.
�Ujv�ari et al. 2014; Kang et al. 2015;Stevens et al.2016;Zeeden et
al. 2018) andmost of themare based on contrasting assumptions. Here
we chose toimplement the ADmin age-depth model (Zeeden et al.2018)
based on 14 pIRIR200, 290 data points, which wasdesigned
specifically for application to luminescencedates. Contrary to
other methods (e.g. Bacon model ofBlaauw & Christen 2011) the
ADmin age-depth modeldoes not make any assumptions on sedimentation
rates.We first created a density function for random andsystematic
uncertainty from the data set, assuming thatboth ages and
uncertainties are correct. Here we use anadjusted computer code,
which also puts out all individ-ual Monte Carlo (MC) chains, and
derives sedimenta-tion rates and their variability directly from
theseindividual (MC) chains,whichyieldsmoreprecise resultsthan
using the distributions of these. The modellingresults arepresented
inFig. 9.Thedata set showsa singleinversion of themean ages, but
nonewhenuncertainty isconsidered. Therefore, the age-depth model
was createdwith rather few resampling attempts for
stratigraphicallyconsistent data. It can be seen that the applied
ADminage-depth model is sensitive to changes in luminescenceage
with depth, which resulted in a nonlinear age-depthfunction,
indicating variable sedimentation rates (SRs),at least within the
error limits of the technique. Theresulting SRs are presented in
Table S1 and variedbetween 0.04 and 0.46 mm a�1 with median (~x)
andmean (�x) values of 0.13 and 0.18 mm a�1, respectively.
Inorder to reliably estimatepast atmospheric dust flux(Albani et
al. 2015), we calculated the mass accumula-tion rate (MAR) (Kohfeld
& Harrison 2003) for theNosak site. Reconstructing dust MARs
from loessdeposits is critical to understanding past
atmosphericmineral dust activity and requires accurate
independentagemodels from loess deposits. In the territoryof
Serbia,except for the dust MAR investigations focused on thelast
glacial–interglacial cycle (e.g. �Ujv�ari et al. 2010;Stevens et
al. 2011; Peri�c et al. 2019), thus far, no suchstudies have been
conducted. Hence, we use the SRsprovidedby
theADminage-depthmodelling tocalculatetheMARfor theNosak
loess-palaeosol section.Again, ithas to be pointed out that the
resolution of luminescenceages isnot sufficient toallowforrobust
interpretationatamillennial level.
The aeolian MAR (g m�2 a�1) (Kohfeld & Harrison2003) was
calculated using the following equation:
MAR ¼ SR� feol � BD ð1Þ
where SR is the sedimentation rate (m a�1), ƒeol is
theproportionof thesediment that isaeolian (assumedvalueis 1) and
BD is bulk density of the loess (g cm�3). Thevalue of dry bulk
density (BD) for loess deposits varies inthe literature, ranging
from 1.3 to 1.7 g cm�3 ( �Ujv�ariet al.2010).For
theChineseLoessPlateau, themeasuredaverage BD was 1.48 g cm�3
(Kohfeld & Harrison2003), while for North America the value was
1.45 gcm�3 (Muhs et al. 2003). Frechen et al. (2003) used1.65 g
cm�3 for European loess deposits, which appearsto be too high when
compared to the previouslymentioned values. Here we measured the BD
directlyusing the volumetric cylinder method (direct coremethod).
In total, 268 samples were collected by ham-mering a steel ring
(7.0 cm height; 3.8 cm internaldiameter; 79.0 cm�3 volume) into the
face of the undis-turbed loess profile. The collected samples were
individ-ually packed in plastic zip-lock bags after which
theyweredried inamicrowaveoven for600 s.ThedryBDwassubsequently
calculated using the formula:
qb ¼ Ms=Vs ð2Þ
where qb is the dry bulk density in mg m�3, Ms is theweight of
the dry soil sample inmg, andVs is the volumeof the dry soil sample
in m3 (Han et al. 2016).
Themeasuredvalues range from ~1.22 to 1.83 g cm�3
with a mean of 1.491�0.008 g cm�3 (Table S1). Thisequals nearly
exactly the most recent measurements ofloess dry BD in the
Carpathian Basin carried out for thedeposits at Dunaf€oldv�ar
(Hungary) where a mean dryvalue of 1.497�0.079 g cm�3 was
determined ( �Ujv�ariet al. 2010).Hence,weuse the dryBDof 1.49 g
cm�3 forthe MAR calculations in this study.
Fig. 8. Post-IR IR290 and IR50 bleaching curves measured for
sample133060 using protocols A and B in Table 1, respectively.
Aliquots wereexposed for different lengths of time to artificial
light in a solarsimulator after which wemeasured their
sensitivity-corrected lumines-cence. The data are normalized to the
natural sensitivity correctedluminescence (zero exposure time).
Each data point is the average ofthree aliquots.
BOREAS Post-IR IRSL chronology and accumulation rates of Nosak
loess-palaeosol sequence, NE Serbia 9
-
Results
pIRIR chronology
The pIRIR200, 290 ages are presented against depth inFig. 10A as
closed and open circles and in Table 2. Thecalculated ages of the
Nosak loess-palaeosol sectiongenerally show a consistent increase
with depth, rangingfrom 261�23 ka for sample 133046 (2320 cm depth)
to25�6 ka for the uppermost sample (133059 – 185 cmdepth). The
proposed multi-millennial chronostratigra-phy for Serbian loess
(Martinson et al. 1987; Lisiecki &Reymo 2005; Thompson &
Goldstein 2006; Markovi�cet al. 2008, 2015) suggests that the S0
unit correspondswithMIS1 (0.0–12.1�3.1 ka), L1most likely
coversMIS2-4 (12.1�3.1 to 80.5�0.9 ka), S1 corresponds toMIS
5(80.5�0.9 to 129.3�1.0 ka), L2 is equivalent to MIS 6(129.3�1.0 to
179.2�1.7 ka), S2 is consistent withMIS 7(179.2�1.7 to 243.0�2.1
ka), L3 is related to MIS 8(243.0�2.1 to 291.5�0.0 ka), and finally
S3 is equivalentto MIS 9 (291.5�0.0 to 337�0.0 ka). In this study,
theLastGlacial loess unitL1 is representedby six samples intotal,
andaccumulatedbetween69�7and25�6ka (MIS4 – MIS 2). As expected,
most of the samples from theupper part of the L1 unit fall into MIS
3, except for thesample 133059, which is at the transition to MIS
2,defined as the Last Glacial Maximum. The uppermostintercalated
soil (sample 133058) was dated at 31�4 ka,which suggests that it
developed during the late stage ofMIS3.Thisage showsagoodmatchwith
the27�2kaage
of the upper palaeosol of the Last Glacial unit at theTokaj
section in Hungary (Schatz et al. 2012), althoughthe soil at Nosak
is far less developed, which is possiblythe result of diverse
palaeoclimatic conditions. Similarages of the upper palaeosols have
been also reported inthe Vojvodina region at Surduk: 31.8�3.7 ka
(Fuchset al. 2008), Stari Slankamen: 34.4�2.2 ka, (Schmidtet al.
2010), Crvenka: 38�4 ka (Stevens et al. 2011), andVeliki Surduk at
the Titel loess plateau: 34.2�2.4 ka(Peri�c et al.2019), implying
that the soil formationmighthave had a similar timing across the
Carpathian Basin.However, it should be noted that these ages do
notnecessarily specify the time of soil formation, but ratherthe
time of deposition of the sediment in which the soilsubsequently
developed (Schatz et al. 2012). The twounderlying loess layers were
dated at 39�3 ka (sample133057) and 41�3 ka (sample 133056),
respectively,falling into MIS 3. Even though this stage is
generallycharacterized by soil formation, loess deposition
duringMIS 3 has been reported at a number of sites in theCarpathian
Basin, most recently at Tokaj in Hungary(e.g. Schatz et al. 2012)
and Stratzing in Lower Austria(Thiel et al. 2011). The pIRIR200,
290 age of the lower-most L1 sample is consistent with MIS 4 (69�7
ka).
The S1 soil is represented by two samples and
alsopresentsagoodpedostratigraphical age control for itwasformed
during MIS 5 (130–75 ka; Yi et al. 2015). Theupper sample taken
from the upper part of the S1pedocomplex (sample 133054) was dated
at 110�6 kafalling into MIS 5. Sample 133053, recovered from
themiddle part of S1 (1160 cm depth), is dated at 112�7
ka,(MIS5e)definedas thepeakof theEemiansubstage.Thisis in good
agreement with the expected age, confirmingthe reliability of our
results. These results imply that,most likely, the complete last
glacial–interglacial cycle isrepresented at the Nosak site. The
penultimate glacial isrepresented by the L2 unit where five samples
wererecovered. The uppermost intercalated L2 palaeosol isdated at
130�10 ka indicating that it formed at thetransition ofMIS 5 andMIS
6. The overlying loess layerdisplayed an age of 120�10 ka. This
date suggests thatthe L2 loess may have continued deposition well
into theMIS 5 stage. The following two samples display a steadyage
increase with depth; however, the lowermost L2sample (sample 133048
– 1725 cm depth) displayed anage inversion of ~15 ka.
The S2 palaeosol where one sample was taken at theapproximate
depth of the palaeontological layer, wasdatedat185�13ka, falling
into the transitionofMIS7 toMIS6.The calculated age also
showedagoodagreement(within the error limits) with the ESR date
(192�5 ka;Fig. 2) of the mandibular tooth of the mammothskeleton
discovered in 2012. The L3 loess, where onesample was recovered
from the lower part of the layer,which is affected by hydromorphic
features, was dated at261�23ka, suggesting that itaccumulatedduring
the latephase of MIS 8.
Fig. 9. Agemodelling results and pIRIR200, 290 ages fromNosak.
Theresults were obtained using the ADmin age-depth modelling
methodspecifically developed for treating luminescence data (Zeeden
et al.2018). The original data and uncertainty are plotted as
diamondswitherror bars: 1-sigma uncertainty as ablack line and
2-sigma uncertaintyas a grey line. Mean age and uncertainty were
linearly interpolatedbetween the age-depth points used in the
modelling.
10 ZoranM. Peri�c et al. BOREAS
-
Mass accumulation rates
The calculated MARs based on the modelled pIRIR290ages are
presented in Fig. 11 and Table S1. Although inmost studies theMAR
calculations of aeolian sedimentsare based on themean ages,
according to Leighton et al.(2014), this can result in
misinterpretations of theluminescence ages. Accordingly, we include
the resultsfor the minimum MAR values. The resulting MARsshow the
data structure where jumps in ages correspondto low MARs and
similar ages relate to higher MARs.Whether this is always a true
representation ofMARs orpartly the result of luminescence age
uncertainty is herenot perfectly clear (Peri�c et al. 2019). The
MARestimates range between 56 and 684 g m�2 a�1 (~x =196 g m�2 a�1
and �x= 265 g m�2 a�1;minimumvalues~x = 85 g m�2 a�1 and �x = 105 g
m�2 a�1). For thepenultimate glacial period the MAR record is
charac-terized by high variability with values ranging from97 to450
g m�2 a�1 (minimum values 61 to 95 g m�2 a�1),peaking between ~160
and 185 ka, during the MIS 6stage.DuringMIS5,
theMARsonaveragedisplay lowervalues reaching 293 g m�2 a�1 (minimum
�x =127 g m�2 a�1); however, a rapid increase was observedbetween
~112 and 120 ka. For the Last Glacial theabsolute values range from
262 to 682 g m�2 a�1 (min-imum values 106 to 204 g m�2 a�1) peaking
between 39and 41 ka. The weighted mean for the interval covering~25
to 31 ka is 262 g m�2 a�1 (minimum �x =106 g m�2 a�1). Similar
values for theCarpathianBasin
were reported by �Ujv�ari et al. (2010) for the periodbetween 12
and 28 kawhere the calculatedMARswere ~x= 338 and 417 g m�2 a�1
(range 150–1422 g m�2 a�1).For the loess sites in Serbia average
values of MARsrange from 150 to 510 g m�2 a�1: Batajnica 329;
Irig192; Mo�sorin 395; Petrovaradin 174; Stari Slankamen168; Surduk
434; Susek 150 and Titel 510 g m�2 a�1
( �Ujv�ari et al. 2010), which generally agrees with
thecalculatedMARs atNosak. It has been reported by bothFrechen et
al. (2003) and �Ujv�ari et al. (2010) that lowerMARs occur in plain
and hill slope settings while thehighest MAR values appear to be
related to terracedeposition in major river systems. This also
seems to bethe case at Nosak. This suggests that, at a broad
scale,during the Last Glacial cycle, the past atmospheric
dustactivity may have had a similar trend across theCarpathian
Basin.
Discussion
Lithology and stratigraphical position of the lumines-cence
samples are presented in Fig. 2 and the post-IRIRSL ages are
presented in Fig. 10A as a function ofdepth. The dose rates do not
show any detectable trendwith depth, which is also noticeable in
theDe values andthe resulting ages. Figure 10B shows the expected
agemodel according to the ages of the MIS transitions(Martinson et
al. 1987; Thompson & Goldstein 2006)together with the
calculated age model for the Nosaksequence. It can be seen that the
pIRIR200, 290 ages
Fig. 10. Age vs. depth for the Nosak site. A. Luminescence ages
(the rejected age is presented as an open circle). B. Age models.
The black line isbasedon the pIRIR200, 290 ages and the greydashed
line represents the agemodel basedon connecting the stratigraphical
boundaries to themarineisotope record (Martinson et al. 1987;
Thompson &Goldstein 2006). See text for details.
BOREAS Post-IR IRSL chronology and accumulation rates of Nosak
loess-palaeosol sequence, NE Serbia 11
-
partiallydisplayagoodagreementwith the expectedagesand are
stratigraphically consistent, however, with somenoticeable
irregularities. Most ages of the L1 loess arecoherent with MIS 2
and MIS 3, suggesting that theentireLastGlacial–interglacial cycle
is representedat theNosak site. While it can be observed that our
lumines-cence dates show avery good agreement from the top
tothebaseofL1, theupperS1sampledisplayedahigheragethan expected
from the MIS chronostratigraphy(Fig. 10B). In this case, it is
conceivable that theproposed multi-millennial chronostratigraphy
for Ser-bian loess does not entirely apply to the Nosak
loess-palaeosol sequence. In several studies, it has beendiscussed
that there are reasons why the accuracy of theMIS based correlation
ages should be taken withcaution. It is known that soil development
into under-lying glacial-age loess has been detected in many
loessregions, which could potentially conceal the true
depo-sitional age of sediments at a soil–loess boundary (e.g.Liu et
al. 2004). Moreover, it is often the case thatcorrelation based
models do not consider postdeposi-tional processes such as mixing,
erosion or bioturbation(Stevens et al. 2006; Buylaert et al. 2007;
Lai et al. 2007;Lai 2010), which can result in very large
inconsistenciesbetween correlation and independent age models
(Ste-vens et al. 2008, 2011). Here we argue that in the case ofthe
sample 133054 taken at the S1–L1 boundary, theproposed
chronostratigraphy might be in error. It ispossible that soil
development continued to a later stagethan is generally accepted
from themarine record, whichresulted in the difference to the
expected age. Neverthe-less, despite the offset, the calculated age
shows anacceptable agreement with the proposed chronostratig-raphy
within the uncertainty limits (1-sigma uncertaintyis reported
here). The ages for the L2 loess layer show a
steady increase with depth and are in good accordancewith the
MIS chronostratigraphy. This stratigraphicalinterpretation is
largelyconfirmedby thepublishedpost-IR ages of Stari Slankamen
(from 186�11 to 146�9 ka)presented by Schmidt et al. (2010).
However, the lower-mostL2 sample (133048)
displayedanagedropof~15kacompared to the overlying sample. Here we
have toconsider the possibility that there might be a
disconti-nuity above the sample where the age inversion
wasobserved. It is possible that there was a break insedimentation
or an erosion event around 170–165 ka.After such an event, the
underlying soil might have beenreworked, which would result in the
resetting of theluminescence signal. Unfortunately, the sampling
reso-lution is not sufficient to identify the extent and
preciseposition of this hiatus and these require
additionalinvestigation. Still, the calculated age displayed a
satis-factoryagreementwith the expectedage (within the errorlimit),
which allowed us to include it in the age-depthmodelling.
Markovi�c et al. (2014a) proposed that the S1
unitrepresentsasinglepedocomplexand isequivalent toMIS5.
Nevertheless, contrary to these conclusions, the initiallow field
magnetic susceptibility record (for details seeMarkovi�c et al.
2014a) and our data suggest that S1comprises three subunits: (i)
S1SS2 (corresponding withthe S1 pedocomplex previously described by
Markovi�cet al. (2014a)), (ii) a thin, weakly developed
palaeosol(S1SS1), and (iii) a thin loess layer (S1LL1). The
S1SS1and S1LL2 subunits can be described as a palaeosol–loess
‘couple’, which was previously interpreted as theoldest part of the
composite last glacial loess L1, or theintroductory part of MIS 4
(Markovi�c et al. 2014a).However, according to the pIRIR age of
sample 133054(110�6 ka), this part of the sequence falls into MIS
5.
Fig. 11. Dust mass accumulation rate (MAR) as a function of age
for the Nosak site. TheMARvalues were obtained using the model of
Zeedenet al. (2018). The solid black line represents
themeanMARvalues, while the dashed grey line shows the lower
95%probability. Because some agesarealmostoverlapping, thevaluesof
theupper95%probabilityof theMARsare in some intervals
veryhigh,which iswhy theyarenotpresentable inthis figure. These
highMARs are not always realistic but represent the result of not
assuming strict sedimentation boundaries. For details see textand
Table S1.
12 ZoranM. Peri�c et al. BOREAS
-
This can be explained by the proximity of the main dustsource
(Danube alluvial plain) and high dust inputduring the latter stage
of MIS 5, contributing to thedistinctivecompositionof
theS1pedocomplexatNosak.
Based on the presented luminescence age of theoverlying loess
unit (260�23 ka; Fig. 2), the lowermostpalaeosol (S2SS2 according
to Markovi�c et al. 2014a)previously correlatedwith the oldest part
ofMIS 7 needsto be re-interpreted as S3 and equivalent
toMIS9.Giventhe fact this loess layer is represented by only one
age,which is not sufficient to drawadefinitive conclusion,wecannot
exclude the possibility of age overestimation forsample 133046 due
to bioturbation and that thepalaeosol we labelled as S3 does not
represent MIS 7. Itis also conceivable that the soil development
startedearlier than suggested by the MIS record; however, wefind it
more probable that the L3 sample slightlyunderestimates the true
age. It is possible that the soildevelopment during MIS 9 resulted
in mixing andbioturbation of the overlying loess that caused
theresetting of the luminescence signal during this period.This
would result in an age underestimation that cannotbe detected by
theMIS chronostratigraphy. Thus, basedon the calculated age and
field observations,weconcludethat the loess layerpreviously
indicatedasS2LL1should,most likely, be re-labelled as L3
corresponding withMIS8.This is themain re-interpretationof the
stratigraphicalmodel presented byMarkovi�c et al. (2014a).
The arguments stated above illustrate the complexityof the
establishment of accurate chronologies for loesssites when applying
age models based on correlation.This is especially true for
luminescence based modelswhere the uncertainties about the time of
the last signalresetting caused by postdepositional processes may
bevery significant.While these uncertainties can impact
theluminescence age model considerably, a correlationbased age
model would not be able to detect suchvariations. Similar problems
in this regionwere reportedby Stevens et al. (2011) for the Crvenka
loess-palaeosolsequence where age underestimation and reversals
wereobserved for several samples. These issues were attrib-uted
mainly to postdepositional processes (i.e. mixing,erosion,
bioturbation and sedimentation changes). Itwould seem that this
problem is not confined solely to theNosak site, but may have also
played a major role in thedevelopment of further loess sites in
theMiddle DanubeBasin. In order to definitively identify such
problems,high sampling resolution dating is required.
Neverthe-less, in the case of the Nosak site, we argue
thatpostdepositional processes are, most likely, the maincause for
the observed discrepancies in the age model.
TheMARvalues at the Nosak site are highly variableover the last
three glacial–interglacial cycles, demon-strating the importance of
local conditions and thechanging position of the Danube River and
its alluvialplain as the main silt source (towards the
south).Generally, our MARs displayed higher and more vari-
able values during the glacial periods when comparedwith
interglacial intervals, which is consistent with thefindings of
e.g. Zhang et al. (1999, 2002), Kohfeld &Harrison (2003), Sun
et al. (2005), and Stevens et al.(2011). The MARs displayed values
of ~x = 195 and265 g m�2 a�1 (minimum values ~x = 85 and105 g m�2
a�1), which is in good accordance with theresults reported by
�Ujv�ari et al. (2010) for the Car-pathian Basin. However, these
values are considerablylower than reported for other European
sites. One of themain reasons for this is that loess accumulations
in theCarpathian basin are mostly represented by loessplateaus,
contrary to other European regions whereloess formation is usually
related to slope sedimentationconditions (Markovi�c et al. 2018).
Frechen et al. (2003)reported MARs around the River Rhine ranging
from800 to 3200 g m�2 a�1. At Wallertheim (terrace) thereported
mean value was 6930 g m�2 a�1 (Wintle &Brunnacker 1982) while
for the Nussloch site the valuesranged from 1213 to 6129 g m�2 a�1
(Lang et al. 2003).The lowest MARs were reported in Belgium at
Kesselt(Van den Haute et al. 1998), Remicourt (Frechen et
al.2003)andRocourt (Wintle 1987)and ineasternFranceatAchenheim
(Rousseau et al. 1998) represented by threeslope sites and one
terrace location where the valuesrange from 93 to 450 g m�2 a�1.
Extremely highMARswere observed at Grubgraben in Lower Austria
(Dam-blon et al. 1996) and Paks in Hungary (Frechen et al.1997)
with values between 1600 and 3200 g m�2 a�1
along the Danube. The comparison between the MARsat Nosak and
those at other European loess sites shows,in some cases,
significant inconsistencies. The disagree-ments arepartially the
result of different datingmethods,BDs and SRs used in the MAR
calculations, partiallybecause various time periods are
investigated butprobably mostly due to the different local
conditions.In order to make a realistic comparison (and
determinethe degree to which local conditions impact the
MARvaluesmoreaccurately) itwouldbenecessary tocalculateMARs for
similar types of loess profiles, applying thesame dating method,
and averaging over the same timeinterval. However, this would
require an extensive studythatwould necessitate an enormous amount
of resourcesand time, which is, at least currently, not
possible.Nonetheless, the general conclusion that can be drawnfrom
these comparisons is that the amplitudes of MARrecords for the
majority of the investigated sites inEurope display similar
glacial–interglacial fluctuations.Furthermore, it is apparent that,
as already stated, lowerMARs occur in plain and hill slope settings
while thehighestMARvalues are found at sites alongmajor riversin
Europe (e.g. Rhine and Danube), which is alsoapplicable for the
Nosak site.
Based on the calculated pIRIR ages a rapid MARincrease is
observed at Nosak duringMIS 4 peaking ~70ka, with values ranging
from 219 to 682 g m�2 a�1
(minimum 171–204 g m�2 a�1). However, the MARs
BOREAS Post-IR IRSL chronology and accumulation rates of Nosak
loess-palaeosol sequence, NE Serbia 13
-
remain high also duringMIS 3, although they are muchmore
variable (Fig. 11). In spite of the proximity of theNosak site and
the loess sequences in Vojvodina, it isobvious that the maximumMARs
during the LastGlacial period appear to occur during different
timeintervals. At most investigated sites in the Vojvodinaregion,
maximum MAR values were recorded duringMIS 2 while during MIS 3
lower and more constantMARswere detected (e.g. �Ujv�ari et al.
2010; Peri�c et al.2019). Unfortunately, we are missing samples for
MIS 1and MIS 2, which is why we cannot have certaintywhether
theMARs atNosak truly peak duringMIS 3 orif the
valuesmayhavebeenhigher inMIS2.Even thoughthe averageMARs display
lower values duringMIS 5, ashort term peak was observed between
~112 and 120 kaduring MIS 5e. However, between 109 and 112 ka
theMARs display a rapid decrease to a value of56 g m�2 a�1 (minimum
45 g m�2 a�1). Such fluctua-tions could be the result of changes in
the main siltsource, wind intensity and direction shifts,
activation ofan additional silt source or a combination of
thesefactors.
For the high MAR values during the MIS 3 stage atNosak, we
cannot exclude or prove site-specific reasonsas similar results
have also been reported at other sites inthe Carpathian Basin, most
notably at Surduk (Fuchset al.2008), S€utt€o (Novothnyet al.2009,
2011) andPaks(Thiel et al. 2014), or for the MAR peak during MIS
5.Higher transport rates, more efficient trapping, palae-owind
intensity (e.g. Gavrilov et al. 2018) or the relativeproximity of
the Danube River may have contributed tothe apparently continuous
loess accumulation at theNosak site. The high accumulation rates
could also be anartefact of dating uncertainty (see Peri�c et al.
2019 foruncertainty) or of sampling resolution,which is here
nothigh enough todetect all thebreaks anddecreases in dustinput
over time, but may also represent a true feature.
According to the presented MARs, it is obvious thatloess
accumulation at Nosak was highly variable. This iscontrary to most
assumptions where continuous loessdeposition is assumed.
Furthermore, loess profilesmostly appear to have a uniform
composition, which iswhy hiatuses are often very hard to detect
solely bystratigraphical interpretation. This also seems to be
thecase at Nosak. In order to have a more complete insightinto the
extent to which hiatuses and postdepositionalprocesses affected the
formation of the Nosak profile,further dating is needed, with a
higher sampling resolu-tion, especially for the uppermost part of
the L1 loess.
Themain palaeo-environmental pattern of the Nosakloess sequence
is evidence of progressive aridization ofthe reconstructed ancient
landscapes. The lower penul-timate interglacial S2 pedocomplex
indicates morehumid conditions than during the formation of the
lastinterglacial S1 pedocomplex. This may be the conse-quence of
more shallow groundwater at the Nosak loesssequence, which can
support the existence of a more
intensive vegetation cover during the enhanced pedoge-nesis of
the older pedocomplexes.
Conclusions
Our study presents the first pIRIR chronology over thelast three
glacial–interglacial cycles for northeasternSerbia. The pIRIR200,
290 based age model is in goodagreement with the geological
situation; however, itsuggests the need for a partial revision of
the chronos-tratigraphical model proposed by Markovi�c et
al.(2014a) for the Nosak loess-palaeosol sequence. Thepresented
results suggest a chronological re-interpreta-tion of the oldest
palaeosol-loess couple (previouslyindicated as S2SS2
andS2LL1byMarkovi�c et al. 2014a)and their stratigraphical
re-labelling as L3 and S3respectively. Our results also imply that
the S1–L1boundary is located stratigraphically higher in
thesequence than proposed in previous studies (Markovi�cet al.
2014a; Muttoni et al. 2018). Thus, the S1 soildevelopment continued
to a later stage than previouslyassumed and here we suggest a
revision of the S1–L1boundary and a reinterpretation of the S1
pedocomplexcomposition.
ThemeanMARvalueof 265 g m�2 a�1 shows agoodagreement with the
MAR values of other sites in theCarpathian Basin, although our
model shows muchhigher variability especiallyduring theLastGlacial.
Thisdiscrepancy might be the result of the applied
age-depthmodelling methodology where each method makesdiverse
assumptions over loess accumulation rates (ornot) and the weight
given to individual age points butcould also represent a true
feature. Contrary to most ofthe investigated sites in the region
(e.g. �Ujv�ari et al. 2010;Stevens et al. 2011), very high MAR
values wererecorded during the MIS 3 stage, which may be
aconsequence of missing samples from the upper part ofthe L1 loess
at the Nosak site. However, at this point, wecannot absolutely
exclude the possibility that site-specific reasons caused peak MAR
values during theMIS 3 stage as similar results havebeen reported
at otherloess-palaeosol sequences in the Carpathian Basin.
In order to obtain a better understanding of thedeposition
evolution of the Nosak sequence and estab-lish a more accurate
chronostratigraphy (especially forthe transition zone between the
L1 loess layer and thepedocomplex S1), further studies are required
by apply-ing pIRIR measurements with a higher sampling reso-lution.
Additionally, for the upper part of the L1 loessunit, quartz OSL
measurements are needed as these areconsidered to bemore suitable
for younger samples. Thiswould allow us to gain more insights into
the deposits ofthe Last Glacial period and atmospheric dust
fluxestimates at the Nosak site.
Acknowledgements. – The authors would like to thank Dr
MiomirKora�c and Dr Nemanja Mrdji�c from the Viminacium
Archeological
14 ZoranM. Peri�c et al. BOREAS
-
Park for their help during fieldwork. We thank Dr Jan-Pieter
Buylaertfor the delivery of the prepared luminescence samples. We
also expressour gratitude to the reviewer Dr Frank Lehmkuhl and the
anonymousreviewer for their useful comments and suggestions on the
originalmanuscript.We especially thank Prof. Jan A. Piotrowski for
his help inthe final correction of this paper.
Author contributions. – Sample collection: SBM;
gammaspectrometrymeasurements: CT and ASM; sample preparation: CT
and ZMP;luminescence measurements: GS and ZMP; age-depth modelling:
CZ;data analysis: ZMP and SBM; data presentation: ZMP and
SBM;original draft preparation: ZMP, SBM andMBG; review and
editing:all authors. The authors declare no conflict of
interest.
References
Albani, S., Mahowald, N. M., Winckler, G., Anderson, R.
F.,Bradtmiller, L. I., Delmonte, B., Franc�ois, R.,
Goman,M.,Heavens,N.G., Hesse, P. P., Hovan, S. A.,Kang,
S.G.,Kohfeld,K. E.,
Lu,H.,Maggi,V.,Mason,J.A.,Mayewski,P.A.,McGee,D.,Miao,X.,Otto-Bliesner,
B. L., Perry, A. T., Pourmand, A., Roberts, H. M.,Rosenbloom, N.,
Stevens, T. & Sun, J. 2015: Twelve thousand yearsof dust: the
Holocene global dust cycle constrained by naturalarchives. Climate
of the Past 11, 869–903.
Antoine, P., Rousseau, D. D., Fuchs, M., Hatt�e, C., Gautier,
C.,Markovi�c, S. B., Jovanovi�c, M., Gaudeenyi, T., Moine, O.
&Rossignol, J. 2009: High resolution record of the last
climatic cyclein the Southern Carpathian basin (Surduk, Vojvodina,
Serbia).Quaternary International 198, 19–36.
Blaauw, M. & Christen, J. A. 2011: Flexible palaeoclimate
age-depthmodels using an autoregressive
gammaprocess.BayesianAnalysis 6,457–474.
Bøtter-Jensen, L., Thomsen, K. J. & Jain,M. 2010: Review of
opticallystimulated luminescence (OSL) instrumental developments
forretrospective dosimetry.RadiationMeasurements 45, 253–257.
Buylaert, J.-P., Jain, M., Murray, A. S., Thomsen, K. J., Thiel,
C. &Sohbati, R. 2012: A robust feldspar luminescence
datingmethod forMiddle and Late Pleistocene sediments. Boreas 41,
435–451.
Buylaert, J.-P.,Murray,A. S.,Gebhardt,A.C.,
Sohbati,R.,Ohlendorf,C., Thiel, C., Wasteg�ard, S. &
Zolitschka, B. 2013: Luminescencedating of the PASADO core 5022-1D
from Laguna Potrok Aike(Argentina) using IRSL signals from
feldspar. Quaternary ScienceReviews 71, 70–80.
Buylaert, J.-P.,Murray,A. S., Vandenberghe,D.,
Vriend,M.,DeCorte,F. & Van den haute, P. 2007: Optical dating
of Chinese loess usingsand-sized quartz: establishing a time frame
for Late Pleistoceneclimate changes in the western part of the
Chinese Loess Plateau.Quaternary Geochronology 3, 99–113.
Buylaert, J.-P., Yeo, E.-Y., Thiel, C., Yi, S., Stevens, T.,
Thompson, W.,Frechen, M., Murray, A. & Lu, H. 2015: A detailed
post-IR IRSLchronology for the last interglacial soil at the
Jingbian loess site(northern China).Quaternary Geochronology 30,
194–199.
Damblon, F., Haesaerts, P. & van den Pflicht, J. 1996:
Newdatings andconsiderations on the chronology of Upper
Palaeolithic sites in theGreat Eurasiatic Plain. Pr�ehistoire
Europ�eenne 9, 177–231.
Dimitrijevi�c, V.,Mrdji�c, N., Kora�c,M., Chu, S., Kosti�c, D.,
Jovi�ci�c,M.& Blackwell, B. A. B. 2015: The latest steppe
mammoths (Mam-muthus trogontherii (Pohlig)) and associated fauna on
the LateMiddle Pleistocene steppe at Nosak, Kostolac Basin,
NortheasternSerbia.Quaternary International 379, 14–27.
Frechen,M.,Horv�ath,E.&G�abris,G.
1997:GeochronologyofMiddleand Upper Pleistocene loess sections in
Hungary. QuaternaryResearch 48, 291–312.
Frechen, M., Oches, E. A. & Kohfeld, K. E. 2003: Loess in
Europe -mass accumulation rates during the LastGlacial
Period.QuaternaryScience Reviews 22, 1835–1857.
Fuchs, M., Rousseau, D.-D., Antoine, P., Hatt�e, C., Gauthier,
C.,Markovi�c, S. & Zoeller, L. 2008: Chronology of the Last
ClimaticCycle (Upper Pleistocene) of the Surduk loess sequence,
Vojvodina,Serbia. Boreas 37, 66–73.
Gavrilov,M.B.,Markovi�c, S.B., Schaetzl,R. J.,To�si�c,
I.A.,Zeeden,C.,Obreht, I., Sipos, G., Ruman, A., Putnikovi�c, S.,
Emunds, K., Peri�c,Z., Hambach, U. & Lehmkuhl, F. 2018:
Prevailing surface winds inNorthern Serbia in the recent and past
time periods; modern- andpast dust deposition.Aeolian Research 31,
117–129.
vanGorp,W.,Veldkamp,A.,Temme,A.
J.A.M.,Maddy,D.,Demir,T.,vanderSchriek,T.,Reimann,T.,Wallinga,
J.,Wijbrans, J.&Schoorl,J. 2013: Fluvial response to Holocene
volcanic damming andbreaching in the Gediz and Geren rivers,
western Turkey. Geomor-phology 201, 430–448.
Gu�erin, G., Mercier, N. & Adamiec, C. 2011: Dose-rate
conversionfactors: update. Ancient TL 29, 5–8.
Han, Y. Z., Zhang, J.W.,Mattson, K. G., Zhang,W. D. &Weber,
T. A.2016: Sample sizes to control error estimates in determining
soil bulkdensity in California forest soils. Soil Science Society
of AmericaJournal 80, 756–764.
Huntley,D.J.&Lamothe,M.2001:UbiquityofanomalousfadinginK-feldspars
and themeasurementandcorrection for it inopticaldating.Canadian
Journal of Earth Sciences 38, 1093–1106.
Kang, S., Roberts, H. M., Wang, X., An, Z. & Wang, M. 2015:
Massaccumulation rate changes in Chinese loess during MIS 2,
andasynchronywith records fromGreenland ice cores
andNorthPacificOcean sediments during the Last Glacial maximum.
AeolianResearch 19B, 251–258.
Kars, R. H., Reimann, T., Ankjærgaard, C. & Wallinga, J.
2014:Bleaching of the post-IR IRSL signal: new insights for
feldsparluminescence dating. Boreas 43, 780–791.
Kohfeld, K. E. & Harrison, S. P. 2003: Glacial-interglacial
changes indust deposition on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Quaternary
ScienceReviews 22, 1859–1878.
Kukla, G. 1987: Loess stratigraphy in Central China.
QuaternaryScience Reviews 6, 191–219.
Kukla, G. & An, Z. 1989: Loess stratigraphy in Central
China.Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 72,
203–225.
Lai, Z. P. 2010: Chronology and upper dating limit for loess
samplesfrom Luochuan section in the Chinese Loess Plateau using
quartzOSL SAR. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 37, 176–185.
Lai, Z. P., Wintle, A. G. & Thomas, D. S. G. 2007: Rates of
dustdeposition between 50 ka and 20 ka revealed by OSL dating
atYuanbao on the Chinese Loess Plateau.Palaeogeography,
Palaeocli-matology, Palaeoecology 248, 431–439.
Lang,A.,Hatt�e,C.,Rousseau,D.D.,Antoine,P.,Fontugne,M.,Z€oller,L.
& Hambach, U. 2003: High-resolution chronologies for
loess:comparing AMS 14C and optical dating results.Quaternary
ScienceReviews 22, 953–959.
Lauer, T., Frechen, M., Vlaminck, S., Kehl, M., Lehndorff,
E.,Shahriari, A. & Khormali, F. 2017: Luminescence-chronology
ofthe loess palaeosol sequence Toshan, Northern Iran - A
highlyresolved climate archive for the last glacial-interglacial
cycle.Quaternary International 429 B, 3–12.
Leighton,C.L.,Thomas,D.S.G.&Bailey,R.M.2014:Reproducibilityand
utility of dune luminescence chronologies. Earth-ScienceReviews
129, 24–39.
Li, B. & Li, S.-H. 2011: Luminescence dating of K-feldspar
fromsediments: A 548 protocol without anomalous fading
correction.Quaternary Geochronology 6, 468–479.
Lisiecki, L.E.&Raymo,M.E. 2005:APliocene-Pleistocene stackof
57globally distributed benthic d 18O records. Paleoceanography
20,PA1003, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004pa001071
Lister, A. M., Dimitrijevi�c, V., Markovi�c, Z., Kne�zevi�c, S.
& Mol, D.2012: A skeleton of ‘steppe’ mammoth (Mammuthus
trogontherii(Pohlig)) from Drmno, near Kostolac, Serbia. Quaternary
Interna-tional 276/277, 129–144.
Liu, Q. S., Banerjee, S. K., Jackson, M. J., Chen, F. H., Pang,
Y. X. &Zhu, R. X. 2004: Determining the climatic boundary
between theChinese loess and palaeosol: evidence from aeolian
coarse-grainedmagnetite. Geophysical Journal International 156,
267–274.
Markovi�c, S. B., Bokhorst, M. P., Vandenberghe, J., McCoy, W.
D.,Oches,E.A.,Hambach,U.,Gaudenyi,T., Jovanovi�c,M.,
Stevens,T.,Z€oller, L. & Machalett, B. 2008: Late Pleistocene
loess-palaeosolsequences in the Vojvodina region, North Serbia.
Journal ofQuaternary Science 23, 73–84.
BOREAS Post-IR IRSL chronology and accumulation rates of Nosak
loess-palaeosol sequence, NE Serbia 15
https://doi.org/10.1029/2004pa001071
-
Markovi�c, S. B., Kora�c, M., Mr�di�c, N., Buylaert, J.-P.,
Thiel, C.,McLaren, S. J., Stevens, T., Tomi�c, N., Peti�c, N.,
Jovanovi�c, M.,Vasiljevi�c, D. A., S€umegi, P., Gavrilov, M. B.
& Obreht, I. 2014a:Palaeoenvironment and geoconservation of
mammoths from theNosak loess-palaeosol sequence (Drmno,Northeastern
Serbia): Initialresults and perspectives.Quaternary International
334–335, 30–39.
Markovi�c, S., Hambach, U., Stevens, T., Jovanovi�c, M.,
O‘Hara-Dhand, K., Basarin, B., Lu, H., Smalley, I., Buggle, B.,
Zech, M.,Svir�cev, Z., S€umegi, P.,Milojkovi�c,N.&Z€oller, L.
2012: Loess in theVojvodina region (northern Serbia): an essential
link betweenEuropean and Asian Pleistocene environments.Netherlands
Journalof Geosciences 91, 173–188.
Markovi�c, S. B.,Oches, E.A.,McCoy,W.D.,
Frechen,M.&Gaudenyi,T. 2007: Malacological and sedimentological
evidence for ‘‘warm’’glacial climate from the Irig loess sequence,
Vojvodina. Serbia.Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 8, Q09008,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GC001565.
Markovi�c, S. B., Stevens, T., Kukla, G. J., Hambach, U.,
Fitzsimmons,K. E., Gibbard, P., Buggle, B., Zech, M., Guo, Z.,
Qingzhen, H.,Haibin, W., Dhand, O. K., Smalley, I. J., �Ujv�ari,
G., S€umegi, P.,Timar-Gabor, A., Veres, D., Sirocko, F.,
Vasiljevi�c, D. A., Jary, Z.,Svensson, A., Jovi�c, V., Lehmkuhl,
F., Kov�acs, J. & Svir�cev, Z. 2015:Danube loess stratigraphy -
towards a pan-European loess strati-graphic model. Earth-Science
Reviews 148, 228–258.
Markovi�c, S. B., Stevens, T., Mason, J., Vandenberghe, J.,
Yang, S.,Veres,D.,
�Ujv�ari,G.,Timar-Gabor,A.,Zeeden,C.,Guo,Z.,Hao,Q.,Obreht,
I.,Hambach,U.,Wu,H.,Gavrilov,M.B.,Rolf,C.,Tomi�c,N.&Lehmkuhl,
F. 2018:Loess correlations –Betweenmyth and
reality.Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 509,
4–23.
Markovi�c, S. B., Timar-Gabor, A., Stevens, T., Hambach, U.,
Popov, D.,Tomi�c,N.,Obreht, I.,
Jovanovi�c,M.,Lehmkuhl,F.,Kels,H.,Markovi�c,R.&Gavrilov,M.B.2014b:Environmentaldynamicsandluminescencechronology
from the Orlovat loess–palaeosol sequence (Vojvodina,northern
Serbia). Journal of Quaternary Science 29, 189–199.
Martinson,D.G.,Pisias,N.G.,Hays, J.D., Imbrie, J.L.,Moore,T.C.
Jr&Shackleton,N. J. 1987:Age dating and the orbital theoryof
the iceages: development of a high resolution 0 to 300,000-year
chronos-tratigraphy.Quaternary Research 27, 1–29.
Muhs, D. R., Ager, T. A., Bettis, E. A. III, McGeehin, J., Been,
J. M.,Beg�et,
J.E.,Pavich,M.J.,Stafford,T.W.Jr&Stevens,D.A.S.P.2003:Stratigraphy
and palaeoclimatic significance of Late Quaternaryloessepalaeosol
sequences of the Last InterglacialeGlacial cycle incentral
Alaska.Quaternary Science Reviews 22, 1947–1986.
Murray,A. S.,Marten,R., Johnston,A.&Martin, P. 1987:Analysis
fornaturally occurring radionuclides at environmental
concentrationsby gamma spectrometry. Journal of Radioanalytical and
NuclearChemistry 115, 263–288.
Murray, A. S., Thomsen, K. J., Masuda, N., Buylaert, J.-P. &
Jain, M.2012: Identifying well-bleached quartz using the different
bleachingrates of quartz and feldspar luminescence signals.
Radiation Mea-surements 47, 688–695.
Muttoni,G., Scardia,G.&Kent,V.D. 2018:Early hominins
inEurope:theGalerianmigration hypothesis.Quaternary Science Reviews
180,1–29.
Novothny, �A., Frechen, M., Horv�ath, E., Brad�ak, B., Oches, E.
A.,McCoy, W. & Stevens, T. 2009: Luminescence and amino
acidracemization chronology and magnetic susceptibility record of
theloess-paleosol sequence at S€utt€o,Hungary.Quaternary
International198, 62–76.
Novothny, �A., Frechen, M., Horv�ath, E., Wacha, L. & Rolf,
C. 2011:Investigating the penultimate and last glacial cycles of
the S€utto loesssection (Hungary) using luminescence dating,
high-resolution grainsize, andmagnetic susceptibility
data.Quaternary International 234,75–85.
Obreht, I., Buggle, B., Norm, C., Markovi�c, S. B., Boesel,
S.,Vandenberghe, D. A. G., Hambach, U., Svir�cev, Z., Lehmkuhl,
F.,Basarin, B., Gavrilov, M. B. & Jovi�c, G. 2014: The Late
PleistoceneBelotinac section (southern Serbia) at the southern
limit of theEuropean loess belt: Environmental and climate
reconstructionusing grain size and stable C and N isotopes.
Quaternary Interna-tional 334/335, 10–19.
Obreht, I., Zeeden, C., Hambach, U., Veres, D., Markovi�c, S.
B.,B€osken, J., Svir�cev, Z., Ba�cevi�c, N., Gavrilov, M. B. &
Lehmkuhl, F.2016: Tracing the influence of Mediterranean climate on
SoutheastEurope during the past 350,000 years. Scientific Reports
6, 36334,https://doi.org/10.1038/srep36334.
Obreht, I., Zeeden, C., Hambach, U., Veres, D., Markovi�c, S. B.
&Lehmkuhl, F. 2019: A critical reevaluation of palaeoclimate
proxyrecords from loess in the Carpathian Basin. Earth Science
Reviews190, 498–520.
Peri�c, Z., Lagerb€ackAdophi, E., Buylaert, J.-P., Stevens, T.,
�Ujv�ari, G.,Markovi�c, S. B., Hambach, U., Fischer, P., Zeeden,
C., Schmidt, C.,Schulte, P., Huayu, L., Shuangwen, Y., Lehmkuhl,
F., Obreht, I.,Veres,D.,Thiel,C., Frechen,M.,
Jain,M.,V€ott,A.&Z€oller, L. 2019:Quartz OSL dating of late
Quaternary Chinese and Serbian loess: across Eurasian comparison of
dating results andmass accumulationrates.Quaternary International
502, 30–44.
Prescott, J. R. & Hutton, J. T. 1994: Cosmic ray
contributions to doserates for luminescence and ESR dating: Large
depths and long-termtime variations. RadiationMeasurements 23,
497–500.
Rees-Jones, J. 1995:Optical dating of young sediments using
fine-grainquartz. Ancient TL 13, 9–13.
Reimann, T., Thomsen, K. J., Jain, M., Murray, A. S. &
Frechen, M.2012: Single-grain dating of young sediments using the
pIRIR signalfrom feldspar.Quaternary Geochronology 11, 28–41.
Roberts, H. M. 2012: Testing Post-IR IRSL protocols for
minimisingfading in feldspars, using Alaskan loess with independent
chrono-logical control. RadiationMeasurements 47, 716–724.
Rousseau,D.D., Z€oller, L. &Valet, J. P. 1998: Late
Pleistocene climaticvariations at Achenheim, France, based on
amagnetic susceptibilityand TL chronology of loess.Quaternary
Research 49, 255–263.
Schatz, A.-K., Buylaert, J.-P., Murray, A., Stevens, T. &
Scholten, T.2012: Establishing a luminescence chronology for a
palaeosol-loessprofile at Tokaj (Hungary): A comparison of quartz
OSL andpolymineral IRSL signals.Quaternary Geochronology 10,
68–74.
Schmidt, E. D., Machalett, B., Markovi�c, S. B., Tsukamoto, S.
&Frechen,M. 2010:Luminescence chronologyof the upper part of
theStari Slankamen loess sequence (Vojvodina, Serbia).
QuaternaryGeochronology 5, 137–142.
Stevens, T., Armitage, S. J., Lu, H. & Thomas, D. S. G.
2006:Sedimentation and diagenesis of Chinese loess: implications
for thepreservation of continuous, high resolution climate
records.Geology34, 849–852.
Stevens, T., Buylaert, J.-P., Lu, H., Thiel, C., Murray, A.,
Frechen,M.,Yi, S.&Zeng,L.
2016:Massaccumulationrateandmonsoonrecordsfrom Xifeng, Chinese
Loess Plateau, based on a luminescence agemodel. Journal of
Quaternary Science 31, 391–405.
Stevens, T., Lu, H., Thomas, D. S. G. & Armitage, S. J.
2008: Opticaldating of abrupt shifts in the Late Pleistocene East
Asian monsoon.Geology 36, 415–418.
Stevens,T.,Markovi�c, S. B., Zech,M.,Hambach,U.&S€umegi, P.
2011:Dust deposition and climate in the Carpathian Basin over
anindependently dated last glacial-interglacial cycle.
QuaternaryScience Reviews 30, 662–681.
Sun, Y. B., Clemens, S. C., An, Z. S. & Yu, Z. W. 2005:
Astronomicaltimescale and palaeoclimatic implication of stacked
3.6-Myr mon-soon records from the Chinese Loess Plateau. Quaternary
ScienceReviews 25, 33–48.
Thiel, C., Buylaert, J.-P., Murray, A., Terhorst, B., Hofer,
I.,Tsukamoto, S. & Frechen, M. 2011: Luminescence dating of
theStratzing loess profile (Austria) - testing the potential of an
elevatedtemperature post-IR IRSL protocol. Quaternary International
234,23–31.
Thiel, C., Horv�ath, E. & Frechen, M. 2014: Revisiting the
loess/palaeosol sequence in Paks, Hungary: a post-IR IRSL
basedchronology for the ‘Young Loess Series’. Quaternary
International319, 88–98.
Thompson, L. G. & Goldstein, S. L. 2006: A radiometric
calibration ofthe SPECMAP timescale.QuaternaryScienceReviews 25,
3207–3215.
Thomsen, K. J., Murray, A. S., Jain, M. & Bøtter-Jensen, L.
2008:Laboratory fading rates of various luminescence signals
fromfeldspar-rich sediment extracts. Radiation Measurements 43,
1474–1486.
16 ZoranM. Peri�c et al. BOREAS
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep36334
-
Tomi�c, N., Markovi�c, S. B., Kora�c, M., Mr�di�c, N., Hose, T.
A.,Vasiljevi�c, D. A., Jovi�ci�c, M. & Gavrilov, M. B. 2015:
Exposingmammoths - fromloess
researchdiscoverytopublicpalaeontologicalpark.Quaternary
International 372, 142–150.
�Ujv�ari, G., Kov�acs, J., Varga, G., Raucsik, B. &
Markovi�c, S. B. 2010:Dust flux estimates for the Last Glacial
Period in East CentralEurope based on terrestrial records of loess
deposits: a review.Quaternary Science Reviews 29, 3157–3166.
�Ujv�ari, G., Molnar, M., Novothny, A., Pall-Gergely, B.,
Kov�acs, J. &Varhegyi, A. 2014: AMS 14C and OSL/IRSL dating of
theDunaszekcso loess sequence (Hungary): chronology for 20 to
150kaand implications for establishing reliable age-depthmodels for
thelast 40 ka.Quaternary Science Reviews 106, 140–154.
Van den Haute, P., Vancraeynest, L. & de Corte, F. 1998: The
latePleistocene loessdeposits andpalaeosols of
easternBelgium:newTLage determinations. Journal of Quaternary
Science 13, 487–497.
Wintle, A. G. & Brunnacker, K. 1982: Ages of volcanic tuff
inRheinhessen obtained by thermoluminescence dating of
loess.Naturwissenschaften 69, 181–183.
Wintle, A. G. 1987: Thermoluminescence dating of loess.
CatenaSupplement 9, 103–114.
Wintle, A. G. & Murray, A. S. 2006: A review of quartz
opticallystimulated luminescence characteristics and their
relevance in single-aliquot regeneration dating protocols.
Radiation Measurements 41,369–391.
Yi, S.,Buylaert, J.-P.,Murray,A.S.,Lu,H.,Thiel,C.&Zeng,L.
2016:Adetailed post-IR IRSLdating studyof theNiuyangzigou loess
site innortheastern China. Boreas 45, 644–657.
Yi, S., Buylaert, J.-P., Murray, A. S., Thiel, C., Zeng, L.
& Lu, H. 2015:High resolution OSL and post-IR IRSL dating of
the last inter-glacial-glacial cycle at the Sanbahuo loess site
(northeastern China).Quaternary Geochronology 30, 200–206.
Zeeden, C., Dietze, M. & Kreutzer, S. 2018: Discriminating
lumines-cence age uncertainty composition for a robust Bayesian
modelling.Quaternary Geochronology 43, 30–39.
Zhang, X. Y., Arimoto, R. & An, Z. S. 1999: Glacial and
interglacialpatterns for Asian dust transport. Quaternary Science
Reviews 18,811–819.
Zhang, X.Y., Lu, H.Y., Arimoto, R.&Gong, S. L. 2002:
Atmosphericdust loadings and their relationship to rapid
oscillations of theAsianwinter monsoon climate: two 250-kyr loess
records. Earth andPlanetary Science Letters 202, 637–643.
Zhao,H.&Li, S.-H. 2005: Internal dose rate toK-feldspar
grains fromradioactive elements other
thanpotassium.RadiationMeasurements40, 84–93.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Informationmay be found in theonline
version of this article at http://www.boreas.dk.
Table S1. Summary of bulk density measurements andage-depth
modelling results.
BOREAS Post-IR IRSL chronology and accumulation rates of Nosak
loess-palaeosol sequence, NE Serbia 17