A quick and inexpensive method to determine absolute nannofossil abundance in deep sea sediments – the “drop” technique (modified dilutionmethod) – was compared to two other available methods – the filtration and random settling techniques. All techniques rely on the same basicprinciple, under which a volume of known concentration (bulk sediment weight/mL) is distributed evenly over a known total area (glass slide orfilter) to then count particles within a set of (randomly) selected fields of view. The three preparation techniques were also calibrated by spiking thesamples with microbeads to approach the “real values” as closely as possible. Significant offsets in abundance estimates between methods mainlyreflect bias due to the uneven distribution and/or loss of particles. We show that the drop technique is most consistent and accurate in estimating“real values” and offers similar or better reproducibility than the other techniques. The drop method also allows detection of the same trends withor without calibration with microbeads. The filtration method holds the risk to drastically underestimate absolute abundances, while the settlingtechnique is demanding in terms of time and may suffer from advection processes. The composition of nannofossil assemblages can be reliablydetermined by any of the three different techniques.

Absolute nannofossil abundance estimates: quantifying the pros and cons of different techniques

Bordiga M.
;
2015-01-01

Abstract

A quick and inexpensive method to determine absolute nannofossil abundance in deep sea sediments – the “drop” technique (modified dilutionmethod) – was compared to two other available methods – the filtration and random settling techniques. All techniques rely on the same basicprinciple, under which a volume of known concentration (bulk sediment weight/mL) is distributed evenly over a known total area (glass slide orfilter) to then count particles within a set of (randomly) selected fields of view. The three preparation techniques were also calibrated by spiking thesamples with microbeads to approach the “real values” as closely as possible. Significant offsets in abundance estimates between methods mainlyreflect bias due to the uneven distribution and/or loss of particles. We show that the drop technique is most consistent and accurate in estimating“real values” and offers similar or better reproducibility than the other techniques. The drop method also allows detection of the same trends withor without calibration with microbeads. The filtration method holds the risk to drastically underestimate absolute abundances, while the settlingtechnique is demanding in terms of time and may suffer from advection processes. The composition of nannofossil assemblages can be reliablydetermined by any of the three different techniques.
2015
Eocene–Oligocene, Reticulofenestra daviesii, Calcareous nannofossils, Atlantic Ocean, Placolith size
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Bordiga et al_2017_iReticulofenestra daviesii-i.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 1.91 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.91 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14083/15269
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 40
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact