The late Pleistocene pluvial history of Surprise Valley, California
Daniel E. Ibarra , Anne E. Egger , Kate Maher
1*
300
400
500 Meters
Figure 4. Airborne LIDAR data of the Middle Lake
Shorelines was processed to remove vegetation to
produce a digital elevation model (DEM) with a 0.5 m
resolution. Distinct shorelines are visible in the LIDAR
data on the east side of the valley. Tufa sample
locations (yellow) with radiocarbon ages are shown.
4.0
(230Th/232Th)
West
Greatest effect = 11 m
Tufa Sample Shoreline Transects
-37.5
1545 m (Irwin and Zimbelman, 2012)
150
15 20 25 30 35 40
Radiocarbon Age (ka cal. BP)
45
rs
100
Isotopes in Precipitation Calculator - Bowen and Revenaugh, 2003)
18
atm
- Average atmospheric vapor δ O = -21‰ (δ18OVSMOW) (Hostetler and Benson, 1994)
- Minimal change in annual average relative humidity compared to
modern observations (RH ≈ 58%)
Hydrologic Index Model
No Ev
ap D
10 %
50
Evap
D
25 %
Isotope Model
50
25 %
0
10
12
14
se
ecrea
Evap
D
se
ecrea
No E
vap
D
10 %
Hydrologic Index (Z) Model (Mifflin and Wheat, 1979; Reheis, 1999)
ecrea
Evap
D
se
Isotope Model (Steady State) (adapted from Li, 1995)
8
9
10
238
232
( U/ Th)
11
12
Evap
D
ase
ecrea
se
16
18
Age (ka cal. BP)
20
8
(
9
10
232
U/ Th)
238
11
MRI-CGCM3
NCAR-CCSM4
250
Anomalous Age?
Anomalous Age?
1550
1500
?
1450
Accommodation Zone
Upper Lake
Middle Lake
Lower Lake
10
12
14
16
18
Age (ka cal. BP)
20
22
24
-250
12
-500
120°W
Figure 10. Lake Surprise lake levels based
on radiocarbon ages (left). Combining
sample ages from the four localities in the
basin records the transgression and
regression of Lake Surprise during the last
deglaciation. The radiocarbon ages were
calibrated using IntCal09 (Reimer et al., 2009).
110°W
120°W
110°W
120°W
110°W
Figure 13. LGM anomaly maps as predicted by three climate models from the PMIP3/CMIP5 ensemble. Monthly
climatologies were calculated from 300 to 1000 year model runs. CNRM-CM5, MRI-CGCM3 and NCAR-CCSM4 are three of the
higher resolution models available from the PMIP3/CMIP5 ensemble. Precipitation is not bias corrected. Modern simulations
are the pre-industrial (1850 AD) control runs. (Paleoclimate Model Intercomparison Project 3, PMIP3 Database and boundary condition description: http://pmip3.lsce.ipsl.fr/)
Raw Climate Model Precipitation
Weather Station Composite
NCAR-CCSM4
CNRM-CM5
FGOALS-g2
IPSL-CM5A-LR
MIROC-ESM
MPI-ESM
MRI-CGCM3
150
100
50
20
Normalized Precipation
Figure 14.
Normalization of climate
model precipitation
output. Due to the large
spread in absolute
precipitation values,
seven models from the
PMIP3/CMIP5 ensemble
were normalized to the
percent of annual rainfall.
15
10
5
26
0
0
Jan
Surprise Valley Lake
Elevation (m)
1400
0
-10
(B)
Flux of Glacier Flour
(kg/m-yr)
Figure 15. Comparison of PMIP3/CMIP5 ensemble to
the stable isotope model calculations for changes in
precipitation (LGM-Modern). Seven climate models
were included in the ensemble average. Due to the
inconsistencies in absolute precipitation predicted by the
models (Fig 14), we compare the percent change in
annual precipitation between the LGM and modern. All
calculations for LGM (19-26 ka) dated tufa samples (n=7)
were included. Error bars are 1σ.
Chewaucan Basin
10
0
100
Searles Lake, CA
(C)
50
Lake Lahontan, NV
0
Glacial Records
%
Ev
De apor
cre ati
ase on
Isotope Model (n=7)
Pecent of Maximum No. of Lake
Lake Level (%)
Highstands
10
Lake Highstands (Munroe and Laabs, 2012)
0.4
(D)
Lake Bonneville, UT
Sawtooth Mountains, ID (retreat)
Wallowa Mountains, OR (maximum)
Sierra Nevada, CA
(Tioga 1 - 4 advances)
(E)
Klamath Lake, OR
Glacial Flour Record
0.2
0
10
12
14
16
Figure 16. Comparison of the Lake Surprise lake level record with other western US
paleoclimate records. (A) Lake Surprise shoreline tufa radiocarbon ages. (B) Basin and Range
lake highstands individually plotted and illustrated as a histogram. Compiled and calibrated
by Munroe and Laabs (2012). (C) Additionaly lake level curves plotted as percent of maximum
from Lake Bonneville (Oviatt et al., 1992; and others compiled in McGee et al., 2012), Lake Lahontan (Benson et al., 1995; Adams,
2008) and Searles Lake (Smith, 1984). (D) Glacial records: Sierra Nevada, CA glacier advances recorded
in glacial moraines (Tioga 1-4) using cosmogenic 36Cl (Phillips et al., 2009), maximal glaciations
documented using cosmogenic 10Be ages in the Wallowa Mountains, OR (Licciardi et al., 2004), and
glacial retreat recorded by radiocarbon ages in the Sawtooth Mountains, ID (Thackray et al., 2004). (E)
Southeast Cascades glacier flour flux recorded recorded in Klamath Lake, OR (Rosenbaum et al., 2012).
18
20
Age (ka)
22
24
26
Legend
Surprise Valley Tufa Radiocarbon Ages
Bonneville Lake Level
Lahontan Lake Level
Searles Lake Level
Histogram of Lake Highstands
Great Basin Lake Highstands
Glacial Flower Flux
Glacial Termination Ages
All Age Errors 2σ
Implications
- Lake Surprise’s late Pleistocene history was characterized by low to medium lake levels during the LGM
rising to a peak highstand at 14.9 ka to 16.5 ka. This evidence is consistent with other nearby large
(Lahontan) and smaller (Chewaucan) lake systems.
- Oxygen isotopes and basin geometry, along with the paleo lake level data, suggest that minimal
increases (<50%) in precipitation, coupled with decreased evaporation, created conditions to maintain
pluvial Lake Surprise during the LGM and deglaciation.
22
35°N
7
1450
Implications and Future Work
ecre
0
6
20
Surprise Valley Radiocarbon Ages
1500
20
30
(A)
ase
14
10
1550
ecre
CMIP5/PMIP3 Model-Data Comparison
200
8
0.6
PMIP3/CMIP5 Precipitation Anomaly (Last Glacial Maximum - Modern, Annual)
1600
1400
0.4
45°N
ion
Version 3.3; Cardoza, 2012)
10
16
ss
gre
Figure 5. 2-D model of the flexural response of the
crust to loading by the lake highstand. Two models
were constructed: approximately E-W across the lake,
and N-S across the valley (not shown). This provides
an absolute maximum constraint on the isostatic
rebound affecting modern elevations of
paleoshorelines. For a deep, narrow valley the E-W
model is likely closer to the real flexure that occurred
during the Last Glacial Maximum. (Modeled using OSXFlex2D
0.2
2
500
s
ran
id T
Figure 3. Map of Surprise Valley, CA.
- Paleoshorelines are preserved on the east side of the valley.
- Shoreline tufa samples were collected from four localities on the
east side of the valley.
- Two different highstand elevations have been previously proposed
(Reheis, 1999; Irwin and Zimbelman, 2012).
- Erosional relationship with the Bidwell Landslide indicates that the
lake highstand was ~17 ka (Elder and de la Fuente, 2009).
- Basin bedrock is primarily volcanic (basalt and lahars).
Distance (km)
87.5
-3
CNRM-CM5
Rap
-120°0'
25
7
n
1567 m (Reheis, 1999)
-200
-100
5
Figure 9. Example isochron plots for SVDI12-T10 (elevation = 1517 m, location in Fig. 4) for the Total Sample
Dissolution (TSD) method. Error-weighted linear regressions are calculated using Isoplot’s “Yorkfit” function
(Ludwig, 2003a;b). The slopes of the error-weighted linear regressions provide the detrital corrected calculation of
(230Th/238U)authigenic and (234U/238U)authigenic needed to determine the sample’s isochron age. All analytical errors and
regression error bands are 2σ. The paired radiocarbon age of this sample is 14.95 ± 0.28 (ka cal BP).
-50
1500
12
sio
Height of Water Column (m)
East
Bidwell landslide
Proposed Lake Surprise highstand elevations
3.2
2.4
6
100
1000
18
2.8
Elevation (m)
41°0'
250
500
Precipitation Anomaly (mm/yr)
Lower Lake
Elastic thickness of crust = 32 km
Young modulus = 30 GPa
Poisson ratio = 0.25
3
Density = 3300 g/cm
BSE Detrital Corrected Age vs 14C Age
TSD Isochron Age vs 14C Age
Sample: SVDI12-T10a/b (n=7)
Slope = 1.884 ± 0.096 = (234U/238U)authigenic
Isochron Age = 17.23 ± 1.74 ka
20
3.6
400
SVDI12-T10 (Isochron Example - Fig 9)
Figure 8. Plot of paired 230Th-U and 14C ages from the
same sample. 230Th-U ages are calculated using the BSE
detrital correction and TSD isochron age method (when
suitable). BSE detrital corrected ages are the error
weighted average of 1 to 5 samples. TSD isochron ages
are constructed from isochrons of 3 to 7 coeval samples
(e.g. Fig. 9).
Sample: SVDI12-T10a/b (n=7)
Slope = 0.277 ± 0.025 = (230Th/238U)authigenic
Intercept = 0.78 ± 0.21 = (230Th/232Th)detrital
3
Precipitation (% of Annual)
200
100 150 200
-4
20
5
(234U/232Th)
100
gr
es
0
25
10
Figure 7. Comparison of tufa (234U/238U)initial ratios
with modern waters and carbonates. Most
calculated (234U/238U)initial ratios lie within the range of
measured modern sample values. Surface playa
sediments were sequentially leached (1:1 MΩ H2O
followed by NaOAc) to obtain exchangeable and
carbonate fractions.
Re
41°30'
Middle Lake
P
(Ex laya
ch 1:1
an
ge DI H
ab 2 0
le Le
Fra ac
cti h
on
Pla
)
y
(Ca a
N
rb
on aOA
ate c L
Fra eac
cti h
on
)
Upper Lake
Accommodation Zone
Wa
te
14.52 ± 0.36
SVDI12-T10: 14.95 ± 0.28
1:1 line
15
Mo
d
Ca ern
rb Pla
on ya
ate
21.81 ± 0.56
ce
10.71 ± 0.14
rfa
21.03 ± 0.2
Su
Tu
fa 2
( 3
BS 4U
E M / 238
eth U)
od initia
l
0.8
30
LGM vs. Modern
Precipitation Increase (%)
U-Th Age (ka)
Secular Equilibrium
50
Lake Volume (km )
Lake Surface Area (km ) Hydrologic Index (Z)
Figure 11. Determination of Lake Surprise hypsometric data using modern topography. (A) Using the ArcGIS
hydrology toolbox, the USGS National Elevation Dataset DEM with a resolution of 1/3 arc-second (~10 m) was analyzed to
calculate the basin size, lake surface area and volume. This also confirmed from modern topography that Surprise Valley is a
closed, inward draining basin. B) Volume vs. depth, surface area vs. depth and hydrologic index (Z) vs. depth. Z = Surface
Area/Tributary Area = Runoff/Net Lake Evaporation. (Mifflin and Wheat, 1979; Reheis, 1999)
Figure 12. Calculated increases in precipitation based on the
Hydrologic Index (Z) and stable isotopes. Percent of precipitation
150
increase relative to modern are calculated for three scenarios using
steady-state mass balance and isotope equations below. 0%, 10% and 25%
100
net lake evaporation decrease. Key assumptions:
- Runoff (R) to Precipitation (P) ratio in basin tributary remains constant
50
- ~6 °C decrease in Mean Annual Temperature
- Annual average incoming rainwater δ18Orain = -13.5 ‰ (δ18OVSMOW) (Online
δ18OVPDB (‰)
35
40
-20
Lake Level (m)
40
Highest elevation samples
1400
0
LGM vs. Modern
Precipitation Increase (%)
1.6
1450
0
45
1.0
100
0.6
Precipitation (m/month)
> 200 m
(234U / 238U)
1.8
1.2
Middle Lake
0.4
(230Th/238U)
Figure 6. Th-U evolution diagram of BSE detrital Th
corrected (230Th/238U) vs. (234U/238U). Detrital Th is
corrected using Isoplot (Ludwig, 2003a;b) assuming a
230
Th/232Th ratio equal to that of bulk silicate earth (4.46 x
106 ± 2.23 (2σ)) and a 232Th/238U of 3.8 ± 1.9 (2σ).
Changes in the calculated (234U/238U)initial ratios (Fig. 7)
may reveal changes in lake U chemistry, basin-scale
hydrology and residence times at different lake levels.
1.4
-120°0'
0.2
230
2.0
1500
50
1.0
0.0
2.2
Pleistocene Lake Surprise
1.4
150
1.2
2.4
Figure 2. Middle Lake Paleoshoreline Set - Surprise Valley, CA. Paleoshorelines are well-preserved from late Pleistocene
pluvial lakes across the Basin and Range. Dating of shoreline materials (e.g., tufa) places absolute constraints on both past
climatic/hydrologic changes and basin-scale Quaternary deformation caused by faulting and isostasy.
1.6
1550
50
25
~5 coeval samples were analyzed for Th and U isotopes on
the MC-ICP-MS at Stanford University. Due to high detrital
Th (which results in excess initial 230Th) we have employed
two methods for the detrital correction:
- Bulk Solid Earth (BSE) single sample correction
method. (e.g. Ludwig and Titterington, 1994; Maher
et al., 2007)
- Total Sample Dissolution (TSD) isochron method
(e.g. Fig. 9). (e.g. Ku et al., 1998; Blard et al., 2011)
Lake Level (m)
1.8
U-Th Age Detrital Correction
Surprise Valley
200
2.0
(234U/238U)
Lake Lahontan
(B)
%
Ev
De apor
cre ati
ase on
Obtain paired radiocarbon and 230Th-U ages on ~15
shoreline tufa from Surprise Valley. Combining two
geochronologic approaches will help constrain potential
radiocarbon reservoir effects for 14C ages, as well as detrital
correction constraints on 230Th-U ages.
(A)
Regional Synthesis
Elevation (m.a.s.l.)
Figure 1. Western US Pluvial Lakes and Glaciers (right).
Surprise Valley, CA (red) is a small, inward draining,
hydrologically closed basin in the northwest Basin and
Range.
2.2
Objective
Chewaucan Basin
Basin-scale Hydrologic Modelling
10
Shoreline Tufa Geochronology
PM
Mo IP3/C
de
M
ls ( IP5
n=
7)
PM
En
sem IP3/C
ble MIP
Av 5
era
ge
No
Eva
De pora
cre tio
ase n
Introduction
Annual Precipitation (LGM - Modern, %)
1
- To test climate model reconstruction of the hydrologic cycle
through model-data intercomparison at the Last Glacial
Maximum (~21 ka).
- To produce a lake level reconstruction from a previously
unexplored basin.
- To investigate the utility of radiocarbon and U-series
geochronology to shoreline tufa deposits.
1
Dept. of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University; 2 Dept. of Geological Sciences, Central Washington University
*Corresponding Author: danieli@stanford.edu
26th Pacific Climate Workshop
March 3-6 2013, Pacific Grove, CA
Motivation
2
Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct
Nov Dec
Jan
Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct
Nov Dec
Future Work
- Completion of U-series measurements will help constrain detrital Th correction.
- Examination of LIDAR data to map individual shorelines along the length of the valley and look for
potential offset by faults.
- Development of a non-steady-state stable isotope model to more accurately and quantitatively
determine the changes in precipitation and evaporation during latest late Pleistocene lake cycle.
- Incorporation of additional PMIP3/CMIP5 models as model outputs are made available.
References
Acknowledgements
1. Adams K. D., Goebel T., Graf K., Smith G. M., Camp A. J., Briggs R. W. and Rhode D. (2008)
Geoarchaeology 23, 608–643. 2. Benson L., Kashgarian M. and Rubin M. (1995)
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 117, 1–30. 3. Blard P. H., Sylvestre F.,
Tripati A. K., Claude C., Causse C., Coudrain A., Condom T., Seidel J.-L., Vimeux F. and Moreau C.
(2011) Quaternary Science Reviews 30, 3973–3989. 4. Bowen G. J. and Revenaugh J. (2003)
Water Resources Research 39(10), 1299. 5. Cardozo, N., 2012, OSXFlex2D, downloadable from
http://www.ux.uis.no/~nestor/work/programs.html. 6. Elder, D. and de la Fuente, J. (2009)
Portland, OR, Annual Meeting, Geological Society of America, 41, 7, 325. 7. Hostetler S. W. and
Benson L. V. (1994) Limnology and oceanography, 356–364. 8. Irwin R. P. III and Zimbelman J.
R. (2012) J. Geophys. Res. 117, E07004–. 9. Ku T. L., Luo S., Lowenstein T. K., Li J. and Spencer R.
J. (1998) Quaternary Res 50, 261–275. 10. Li, J. (1995) University of Southern California, PhD
Thesis; Licciardi J. M., Clark P. U., Brook E. J., Elmore D. and Sharma P. (2004) Geology 32, 81. 11.
Ludwig K. and Titterington D. (1994) Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58, 5031–5042. 12.
Ludwig, K.R. (2003a). Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 52(1), 631–656. 62. 13.
Ludwig, K.R. (2003b). User’s manual for Isoplot 3.00: A geochronological toolkit for microsoft
Excel. Berkeley Geochronology Center, Berkeley CA, Special Publication No. 4. 14. Maher K.,
Wooden J. L., Paces J. B. and Miller D. M. (2007) Quaternary International 166, 15–28. 15.
McGee D., Quade J., Edwards R. L., Broecker W. S., Cheng H., Reiners P. W. and Evenson N.
(2012) Earth and Planetary Science Letters 351-352, 182–194. 16. Mifflin, M. D., and Wheat, M.
M., 1979, Pluvial lakes and estimated pluvial climates of Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and
Geology Bulletin 94. 17. Munroe J. S. and Laabs B. J. C. (2012) J. Quaternary Sci. 18. Oviatt C.
G., Currey D. R. and Sack D. (1992) Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 99,
225–241. 19. Phillips F. M., Zreda M., Plummer M. A., Elmore D. and Clark D. H. (2009) Geol Soc
America Bull 121, 1013–1033. 20. Reheis M. (1999) Quaternary Res 52, 196–205. 21. Reheis,
M.C., 1999, Extent of Pleistocene lakes in the western Great Basin: U.S. Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Field Investigations Map MF-2323 (digital map). 22. Reimer P. J., Baillie M. G.,
Bard E., Bayliss A., Beck J. W., Blackwell P. G., Ramsey C. B., Buck C. E., Burr G. S. and Edwards R.
L. (2009) Radiocarbon; Rosenbaum J. G., Reynolds R. L. and Colman S. M. (2012) Quaternary
Res 78, 333–340. 23. Smith G. I. (1984) Quaternary Res 22, 1–17; Thackray G. D., Lundeen K. A.
and Borgert J. A. (2004) Geology 32, 225.
Tufa U-series geochronology was conducted in the Stanford
ICP-MS/TIMS Laboratory, with support from Dr. Caroline Harris, Dr.
Karrie Weaver, Kim Lau, Miguel Cruz, and Conni De Masi. Tufa
radiocarbon dating was conducted by Beta Analytic, Inc. in Miami,
FL. Dr. Guangchao Li assisted with cation analyses at Stanford’s
Environmental Measurements 1 Laboratory and Dr. David
Mucciarone assisted with stable isotope analyses in Stanford’s
Stable Isotope Biogeochemistry Laboratory. Funding for
geochemical analyses was provided by NSF grant EAR 0921134 to
Professor Kate Maher.
Airborne LIDAR data presented here was collected by the National
Center for Airborne Laser Mapping (NCALM) with funding from a
grant to Professor Anne Egger, Dr. Jonathan Glen and Corey
Ippolito from NASA’s UAS-Enabled Earth Science program.
David Medeiros assisted with volume, surface area and basin
delineation calculations using ArcGIS at the Stanford Geospatial
Center.
We gratefully acknowledge support from local landowners, the
Bureau of Land Management, and business owners in Surprise
Valley. Sabina Kraushaar (USGS Intern) provided field assistance
and support during the 2011 field season.