Comments on Brugger and others (2018) ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’
ABSTRACT In our comments, we re-evaluate Brugger and others (2018) Lycopodium / Eucalyptus double marker approach, based on the fact that previous evidence already demonstrated that the batch of Eucalyptus tablets used by Brugger and others (2018) is not suitable for quantitative comparisons as they...
| Published in: | Journal of Glaciology |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jog.2019.10 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0022143019000108 |
| Summary: | ABSTRACT In our comments, we re-evaluate Brugger and others (2018) Lycopodium / Eucalyptus double marker approach, based on the fact that previous evidence already demonstrated that the batch of Eucalyptus tablets used by Brugger and others (2018) is not suitable for quantitative comparisons as they are characterized by inconsistent pollen concentration. We present clear evidence that the Eucalyptus tablets do feature inaccurate pollen concentrations, and are therefore improper for all quantitative comparisons of microfossil extraction methods. Consequently, the results of the quantitative and qualitative assessment of different pollen extraction methods from ice samples compiled by Brugger and others (2018) are highly questionable due to the use of faulty marker tablets. |
|---|