Comment on “Formation of chenier plain of the Doñana marshland (SW Spain): Observations and geomorphic model” by A. Rodríguez-Ramírez and C.M. Yáñez-Camacho [Marine Geology 254 (2008) 187–196]

• Published in: Marine geology 2010, Vol.275 (1), p.290-291
• Main Author: Rodríguez-Ramírez, Antonio
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: calibration; chenier; Guadalquivir River; Gulf of Cádiz; Holocene; radiocarbon
• ISSN: 0025-3227; 1872-6151
• DOI: 10.1016/j.margeo.2010.03.013

It is paradoxical that work in question (Rodríguez-Ramírez and Yánez-Camacho, 2008) has started a debate in the scientific community about the values of the reservoir effect used in the 14C dates in the Gulf of Cádiz, since in their Comments Rodríguez-Vidal et al. (2009), Monges Soares (2010-this issue) and Lario et al. (2010-this issue), have not taken into account that these values are in reference to earlier studies (Morales et al., 2008). The new figures suggested by Rodríguez-Vidal et al. (2009) and Monges Soares (2010-this issue) for this part of the Gulf of Cadiz (Soares, 2008) had not been reported when the earlier papers were accepted and published. The values for the reservoir effect applied on the South Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula need to be continually adjusted, due to the new contributions that have been made in recent years as a result of developments of the research being undertaken in this field. Without doubt, in the future, as further progress is made, the values will be even more finely tuned and the present ones will become obsolete, as our understanding of marine and estuarine dynamics in this sector over the last few thousand years is a topic which remains open to new interpretations. The new figures for the reservoir effect are an important contribution in determining more accurately the chronology of events in the Holocene, and they make it necessary to revise the previous studies on marine Holocene formations in the Gulf of Cadiz with 14C dates, owing to the errors that have occurred in this respect. For this reason the Comment should not be aimed at one paper alone, and instead this matter should be reviewed at a regional level. Those of us who are not specialists in the topic welcome these clarifications, which can help shed additional light on the chronological problems.