Comments on Brugger and others (2018) ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’
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 charac...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2019-04-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Glaciology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022143019000108/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1811155802786889728 |
|---|---|
| author | DANIELA FESTI WERNER KOFLER KLAUS OEGGL |
| author_facet | DANIELA FESTI WERNER KOFLER KLAUS OEGGL |
| author_sort | DANIELA FESTI |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T04:40:49Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-810da8984c914c61ab6a11fd499a8267 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0022-1430 1727-5652 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T04:40:49Z |
| publishDate | 2019-04-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Glaciology |
| spelling | doaj.art-810da8984c914c61ab6a11fd499a82672023-03-09T12:40:44ZengCambridge University PressJournal of Glaciology0022-14301727-56522019-04-016534434610.1017/jog.2019.10Comments on Brugger and others (2018) ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’DANIELA FESTI0https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1250-4815WERNER KOFLER1KLAUS OEGGL2Department of Botany, University of Innsbruck, Sternwartestraße 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, AustriaDepartment of Botany, University of Innsbruck, Sternwartestraße 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, AustriaDepartment of Botany, University of Innsbruck, Sternwartestraße 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, AustriaIn 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.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022143019000108/type/journal_articleice biologyice/atmosphere interactionspolar biology |
| spellingShingle | DANIELA FESTI WERNER KOFLER KLAUS OEGGL Comments on Brugger and others (2018) ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’ Journal of Glaciology ice biology ice/atmosphere interactions polar biology |
| title | Comments on Brugger and others (2018) ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’ |
| title_full | Comments on Brugger and others (2018) ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’ |
| title_fullStr | Comments on Brugger and others (2018) ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’ |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comments on Brugger and others (2018) ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’ |
| title_short | Comments on Brugger and others (2018) ‘A quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores’ |
| title_sort | comments on brugger and others 2018 a quantitative comparison of microfossil extraction methods from ice cores |
| topic | ice biology ice/atmosphere interactions polar biology |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022143019000108/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT danielafesti commentsonbruggerandothers2018aquantitativecomparisonofmicrofossilextractionmethodsfromicecores AT wernerkofler commentsonbruggerandothers2018aquantitativecomparisonofmicrofossilextractionmethodsfromicecores AT klausoeggl commentsonbruggerandothers2018aquantitativecomparisonofmicrofossilextractionmethodsfromicecores |