Shannon A. Mahan Emma T. Krolczyk Tyler E. Huth 20260430 CSV Denver, CO U.S. Geological Survey https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/68278be2d4be02693eeab8a8 https://doi.org/10.5066/P13EMTYG Tyler E. Huth Thure E. Cerling David W. Marchetti Amy L. Ellwein Shannon A. Mahan David R. Bowling Benjamin H. Passey Victor J. Polyak Yemane Asmerom 20260429 1 publication AGU Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GC012660 Laminated soil carbonate rinds are a Quaternary paleoclimate archive whose isotope composition is linked to soil formation conditions. At Rio Mesa, Utah (USA), we investigated the fidelity of rind records in a river terrace setting by determining the seasonal timing of rind formation and testing for inter-record replication. We infer soil carbonate formed in the spring season, contrasting with our prior inference of summer formation at Teasdale, Utah, ≈200 km distant. This apparent discrepancy occurs because of differences in the timing of the largest annual infiltration (spring vs. summer). At Rio Mesa, modern soil data show that soil carbonate δ13C would have high values (−2 to 2‰ VPDB) regardless of seasonal activity of C3 versus C4 plants because respiration rate is a strong control. We accordingly suggest reassessment of published records interpreting soil carbonate δ13C only via C3 versus C4 plant abundance. Three rind δ13C and δ18O records generally replicated. Intriguingly, rind δ13C may inversely correlate with summer insolation, evidence for global-scale influence on soils. Rind δ18O is not as clearly correlated with published western USA paleoclimate records, potentially due to regional differences in climate and because rinds record soil-specific processes. Our results support the fidelity of the soil carbonate rind paleoarchive and suggest that because rind formation seasonality is intimately tied to infiltration seasonality, spatial transects of rind records might be used to delineate boundaries between areas dominated by spring and summer infiltration, permitting reconstruction of the geographic extent of large-scale hydrologic phenomena such as the North American Monsoon. To place rind formation in the context of soil development, we characterized the soil using soil stratigraphic techniques and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating. Then, we inferred likely times and mechanisms of soil carbonate formation using environmental data (soil temperature, moisture, and CO2 concentration) in a model framework and via comparison of soil isotope composition (meteoric water for O, soil and atmospheric CO2 for C) with that of the youngest soil carbonate. 2017 ground condition Complete None planned -109.1812 -109.1811 37.7970 37.7969 ISO 19115 Topic Category farming USGS Thesaurus luminescence dating optically-stimulated luminescence age estimation methods geochronology radiation dosimetry USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:68278be2d4be02693eeab8a8 USGS Thesuarus Rio Mesa, Utah Moab, Utah Entrada Sandstone Dolores River Colorado Plateau None. Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. Shannon A Mahan U.S. Geological Survey, ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION Research Geologist mailing address

Mail Stop 963, W 6th Ave Kipling St

Lakewood CO 80225 US 303-236-7928 303-236-5556 smahan@usgs.gov Washington University No formal attribute accuracy tests were conducted. Map elements and topography were checked if needed. Again, no formal logical accuracy tested were conducted. Data set is considered complete for the information presented, as described in the abstract. Users are advised to read the rest of the metadata record carefully for additional details. 0.1000 0.1000 All samples were prepared for dating using standard procedures of Mahan et al. (2015) and Nelson et al. (2015) at the USGS luminescence lab in Denver, Colorado. Subsamples for equivalent dose (DE) measurements (i.e. natural luminescence accumulations) were obtained from the center of the core tubes. The end portion of the sample tubes (∼3-4 cm) were used for moisture and elemental concentrations. These sub samples were dried in an oven at 30o C, homogenized, packaged, and analyzed at the USGS Gamma Spectrometry facility to determine radioisotope concentrations for the dose rate. The middle part of the tube sample was sieved to 90-250 microns, leached in 10% HCl for 24 hours, and then in 30% H2O2 for 24 hours. The 90-250 micron quartz and feldspar fractions were separated from magnetic and heavy minerals using a Franz magnetic separator and heavy liquids (lithium sodium polytungstate or LST; density=2.58 gcm-3 for feldspar). Feldspar grains were lightly etched in 10% HF for 5 minutes, rinsed, dried and then measured for luminescence. A single grain thick layer of refined feldspar grains (~50-150 grains) was dispersed onto steel discs pre-prepared with a 1 mm “mask” of silica spray. About 15-40 aliquots were measured to ensure reliable statistical trends (Rodnight, 2008). The dose rate was obtained through elemental data analyses. The concentrations of K, U, and Th were determined using gamma spectrometry following the procedures described in Snyder and Duval (2003). The gamma-ray spectrometer provides the isotopic discrimination of gamma rays; correspondingly, beta and alpha dose rates may be estimated. In the laboratory, the bulk samples were counted in a low-resolution gamma spectrometer fitted with a germanium detector. Measured elemental concentrations, associated dose rates, and cosmic ray contributions are presented in Table 3. Cosmic-ray dose rate data was estimated for each sample as a function of depth, elevation above sea level, and geomagnetic latitude and added to the total dose rate (Prescott and Hutton, 1994). 2017 0.0001 0.0001 Decimal degrees Table Name,Field Name,Description,Units,Valid Values or Range RioMesa_Data,Sample_ID,Collector's sample name,n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Unique_ID,Unique identifier for IWP database.,n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Data_Source_ID,Unique identifier of citation where data are published.,n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Parent_ID,Unique identifier of parent - 'sample_id',n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Parent_Rel,"Relationship to parent, e.g., sample X from parent_id soil profile",n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Lum_ID,Unique identifier for analysis from analyzing laboratory,n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Laboratory,Name of Laboratory producing the age,n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Quad,Quadrangle that the sample was collected from,n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Latitude,Latitude of sample,Degrees,37.7969370 RioMesa_Data,Longitude,Longitude of sample ,Degrees,-109.1811650 RioMesa_Data,Elevation(m),Elevation of sample in meters above sea level,Meters,1300 RioMesa_Data,Depth(cm),Depth of sample below modern surface in cm,Centimeters,33.5 to 120 RioMesa_Data,Field_Moisture(Percent),The water content in weight percent of the sample as initially extracted from the sample container,Percentage,0 to 6 RioMesa_Data,Saturation_Moisture(Percent),The water content in weight percent of the sample after the sample has been saturated with water,Percentage,23 to 33 RioMesa_Data,K_Percent,The weight percent of potassium as measured by ICP-MS or Gamma spectrometry,Percentage,1.38 to 1.59 RioMesa_Data,K_Percent_Error,The uncertainty (in weight percent) of the potassium weight percent,Percentage,0.05 to 0.06 RioMesa_Data,U_ppm,The concentration of uranium in parts per million (ppm) as measured by ICP-MS or Gamma spectrometry,Parts per million,2.2 to 2.38 RioMesa_Data,U_ppm_Error,The uncertainty (in ppm) of the uranium concentration,Parts per million,0.12 to 0.2 RioMesa_Data,Th_ppm,The concentration of thorium in parts per million (ppm) as measured by ICP-MS or Gamma spectrometry,Parts per million,5.42 to 6.49 RioMesa_Data,Th_ppm_Error,The uncertainty (in ppm) of the thorium concentration,Parts per million,0.31 to 0.32 RioMesa_Data,Rb_ppm,Rubidium concentration in sample in parts per million,Parts per million,n/a RioMesa_Data,Rb_ppm_Error,Rubidium concentration uncertainty in parts per million,Parts per million,n/a RioMesa_Data,Cosmic_Dose_Rate(Gy/ka),The contribution of cosmic radiation to the background ionizing dose rate calculated by DRAC (in Gray/ka),Gray/ka,n/a RioMesa_Data,Cosmic_Dose_rate_Error,The uncertainty in the cosmic dose rate (in Gray/ka),Gray/ka,2.53 to 2.63 RioMesa_Data,Total_Dose_Rate_Quartz,Luminescence dose rate in Grays per thousand years (quartz),Gray/ka,0.08 RioMesa_Data,Total_Dose_Rate_Quartz_Error,1 sigma uncertainty in equivalent dose for in Grays (quartz),Gray,n/a RioMesa_Data,Total_Dose_Rate_Feldspar,Luminescence dose rate for in Grays per thousand years (feldspar),Gray/ka,n/a RioMesa_Data,Total_Dose_Rate_Feldspar_Error,1 sigma uncertainty in dose for feldspar in Grays (feldspar),Gray,n/a RioMesa_Data,Dose_Rate_Ref,Literature reference and/or link to original data source,n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Grain_Size_Min(µm),Maximum grain size of the treated sample in microns,microns,125 to 180 RioMesa_Data,Grain_Size_Max(µm),Minimum grain size of the treated sample in microns,microns,150 to 250 RioMesa_Data,Age_Model_Used,Age model used to provide preferred age,n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Analysis_Type_Qtz,"Type of luminescence analysis for quartz (OSL, IRSL, TL, etc.)",n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Instrumental_Method_Qtz,Method of luminescence analysis (quartz),n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Aliquots_Passed_Qtz,Number of aliquots measured that passed acceptance criteria (quartz),n/a,17 to 18 RioMesa_Data,Alliquots_Total_Qtz,Number of aliquots measured for sample (quartz),n/a,20 RioMesa_Data,Equiv_Dose_Quartz,Equivalent dose of luminescence in Grays (quartz),Gray,104 to 143 RioMesa_Data,Equiv_Dose_Quartz_Error,1 sigma uncertainty in equivalent dose in Grays (quartz),Gray,3.3 to 3.5 RioMesa_Data,Equiv_Dose_Quartz_Scatter,Scatter of equivalent dose of luminescence in percentage (quartz),Percentage,0 RioMesa_Data,MAM_Age_Quartz(yrs),Luminescence age provided by the minimum age model (quartz),Years,41110 to 54370 RioMesa_Data,MAM_Age_Quartz_Error(yrs),Luminescence age uncertainty provided by the minimum age model (quartz),Years,1860 to 2420 RioMesa_Data,CAM_Age_Quartz(yrs),Luminescence age provided by the central age model (quartz),Years,40230 to 54750 RioMesa_Data,CAM_Age_Quartz_Error(yrs),Luminescence age uncertainty provided by the central age model (quartz),Years,1900 to 2360 RioMesa_Data,Mean_Age_Quartz(yrs),Luminescence age provided by the weighted mean (quartz),Years,40510 to 54380 RioMesa_Data,Mean_Age_Quartz_Error(yrs),Luminescence age uncertainty provided by the weighted mean (quartz),Years,2910 to 3720 RioMesa_Data,Preferred_Age_Qtz(yrs),Preferred luminescence age of sample in thousands of years (quartz),Thousands of years,41110 to 54370 RioMesa_Data,Preferred_Age_Quartz_Error(yrs),Preferred luminescence age error in thousands of years (quartz),Thousands of years,1860 to 2420 RioMesa_Data,Analysis_Type_Fld,"Type of luminescence analysis for feldspar (OSL, IRSL, TL, etc.)",n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Instrumental_Method_Fld,Method of luminescence analysis (feldspar),n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Aliquots_Passed_Fld,Number of aliquots measured that passed acceptance criteria (feldspar),n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Alliquots_Total_Fld,Number of aliquots measured for sample (feldspar),n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data,Equiv_Dose_Feldspar,Equivalent dose of luminescence in Grays (feldspar),Gray,n/a RioMesa_Data,Equiv_Dose_Feldspar_Error,1 sigma uncertainty in equivalent dose in Grays (feldspar),Gray,n/a RioMesa_Data,Equiv_Dose_Feldspar_Scatter,Scatter of equivalent dose of luminescence in percentage (feldspar),Percentage,n/a RioMesa_Data,MAM_Age_Feldspar(yrs),Luminescence age provided by the minimum age model (feldspar),Years,n/a RioMesa_Data,MAM_Age_Feldspar_Error(yrs),Luminescence age uncertainty provided by the minimum age model (feldspar),Years,n/a RioMesa_Data,CAM_Age_Feldspar(yrs),Luminescence age provided by the central age model (feldspar),Years,n/a RioMesa_Data,CAM_Age_Feldspar_Error(yrs),Luminescence age uncertainty provided by the central age model (feldspar),Years,n/a RioMesa_Data,Mean_Age_Feldspar(yrs),Luminescence age provided by the weighted mean (feldspar),Years,n/a RioMesa_Data,Mean_Age_Feldspar_Error(yrs),Luminescence age uncertainty provided by the weighted mean (feldspar),Years,n/a RioMesa_Data,Uncorrected_Preferred_Age_Fld,Preferred luminescence age of sample before fading adjustment in thousands of years (feldspar),Thousands of years,n/a RioMesa_Data,Uncorrected_Preferred_Age_Fld_Error(yrs),Preferred luminescence age before fading adjustment uncertainty in thousands of years (feldspar),Thousands of years,n/a RioMesa_Data,Fading_Rate(G/decade),Fading rate of feldspar sample (in G/decade),G/decade,n/a RioMesa_Data,Fading_Rate_Error(G/decade),Fading rate of feldspar sample uncertainty (in G/decade),G/decade,n/a RioMesa_Data,Modeled_Age_Fld,Modeled luminescence age of sample after fading adjustment (feldspar),Years,n/a RioMesa_Data,Modeled_Age_Fld_Error(yrs),Uncertainty of modeled luminescence age of sample after fading adjustment (feldspar),Years,n/a RioMesa_Data,Sample_Comments,"Free text to describe features of a sample such as its components, texture, color, shape, etc.",n/a,n/a RioMesa_Data_Dictionary.csv GS ScienceBase U.S. Geological Survey mailing address

Denver Federal Center, Building 810, Mail Stop 302

Denver CO 80225 United States 1-888-275-8747 sciencebase@usgs.gov Any use of trade, product or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also contains copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items for other than personal use must be secured from the copyright owner. This database has been approved for release and publication by the Director of the USGS. Although this database has been subjected to rigorous review and is substantially complete, the USGS reserves the right to revise the data pursuant to further analysis and review. Furthermore, it is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the United States Government may be held liable for any damages resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use. Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the U.S. Geological Survey, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system, or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. The U.S. Geological Survey shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. Digital Data https://doi.org/10.5066/P13EMTYG None 20260430 Shannon A Mahan U.S. Geological Survey, ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION Research Geologist mailing address

Mail Stop 963, W 6th Ave Kipling St

Lakewood CO 80225 US 303-236-7928 303-236-5556 smahan@usgs.gov FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998