The ages of the soils sampled for this study (11H, 11P, etc.) were estimated from field morphologic data using the soil development index. The index values were compared with values for soils of known age that formed under similar conditions of climate and, where possible ,parent material (Taylor, 1986.i.Taylor, 1986;; Reheis and others, 1989.i.Reheis and others, 1989;, 1992.i.Reheis and others, 1992; Harden and others, 1991a; Slate, 1992.i.Slate, 1992;), and "best" ages and age ranges were assigned to th esoil profiles. Harden and others (1991b).i.Harden and others (1991);, using a statistically based version of this technique in a study of soil chronosequences in the southern Great Basin (some of the sites used in this study), suggested that average rates of most soil-development parameters within this area are precise to about a factor of two and that, at least for Holocene soils, estimated ages derived from these rates might be accurate within about a factor of two or three.
Laboratory Analyses.
Most of the samples were analyzed using standard laboratory techniques (Singer and Janitzky, 1986.i.Singer and Janitzky, 1986;) for grain size, CaCO3 and organic-matter content, pH, and salt content, except that the total salt equations in Singer and Janitzky, published with an error, were corrected using a multiplication factor of 0.32 rather than 320. pH for the soils sampled specifically for this study was measured in 1:1 H2O, whereas the pH for soils from other sources was measured using CaCl2. Some other analytical techniques for the Kyle Canyon soils were also different because the soils formed in carbonate-rich alluvium. The contents of CaCO3 and silt plus clay reported in this table were measured using a combination of chemical, microscopic, and photographic techniques (Sowers, 1988; Reheis et al., 1992) and are the amounts of pedogenic (non-parent material) carbonate and silt plus clay, not total amounts. In addition, the salt content reported for Kyle Canyon soils is for gypsum only, not total salt.
Determination of profile weights of soil components.
In this study, we assume that the dust component of soils is pedogenic, not parent material, and that all silt, clay, and CaCO3 present in greater proportions in a soil than in the parent material is pedogenic material and ultimately derived from dust. Soils that formed in carbonate alluvium are one exception; they contain abundant CaCO3 derived from solution of the parent material (Sowers, 1985; Reheis and others, 1992). The major-oxide composition and clay mineralogy of the dust and soil horizons support this assumption. Previous work in the study area (McFadden, 1982; McFadden and others, 1986; Taylor, 1986; Reheis and others, 1989, 1992) indicated little chemical weathering in soils of this age. Soils that are more than about 100,000 years old or that formed in semiarid to subhumid climates have likely been chemically weathered. However, much of the silt, clay, and CaCO3 in older aridic soils is likely to be of eolian origin, in part transformed into other minerals or grain sizes by chemical or physical processes.Profile weights for Coyote Mountains soils (AC and FC) were recalculated from original data because profile weights given in Goodmacher and Rockwell (1990) did not account for parent-material values.
Major Element Analyses
In order to compare the soil analyses with those of nearby dust samples, which did not include Ca from CaCO3, the contents of major oxides in the soil samples from Kyle Canyon and Silver Lake were recalculated on a CaCO3-free basis (Wilson Creek soils contained no CaCO3).
Clay Mineralogy
Observed differences between the clay mineralogy of soils and dust at some sites are attributed either to clay formation within the soils, to variability not explored sufficiently because too few samples were analyzed, or to slightly different analytical procedures used for the soil and dust samples (different ion saturations, etc.). In addition, the published reports used different methods to estimate abundances of clay minerals from peak heights on X-ray diffraction traces.
Bulk Density of Soil Horizons
At most sites, the parent material consisted of alluvial-fan deposits, commonly debris flows. Debris flows are usually unsorted and unbedded, so the content of silt, clay, and CaCO3 in a C horizon formed in these deposits was assumed to be representative of that originally present in the other horizons. For soils at Wilson Creek that formed in fluvial deposits potentially containing fine-grained overbank sediment (Harden and Matti, 1989), amounts of silt and clay in the parent material of the A and B horizons were estimated to be greater than those in the C horizons. Basalt flows were assumed to contain no silt, clay, or CaCO3 when deposited.
Soil Accumulation Rates
Soil accumulation rates must be treated with caution for the following reasons:
(1) Variation in amount of a pedogenic material is expectable for soils of the same age because soils are inherently variable. Data from more than one profile per geomorphic surface is critical for quantitative soil studies (e.g. data for field properties of soils at Silver Lake; Reheis and others, 1989). Standard deviations were only calculated for the interval rates at the Fortymile Wash area, Silver Lake, the Cima fans, Wilson Creek, and the Coyote Mountains, which had quantitative data for more than one profile per surface (file "intrtdev.xls"). Excluding soils that were strongly eroded or leached, the standard deviations average 75% of the rates, but range widely (5-200%).
(2) There are uncertainties in the assigned ages of the geomorphic surfaces and their soils. This problem is most acute for the youngest deposits; for example, if a deposit is thought to be 200 years old but in fact is 400 years old, an error of only 200 years would yield a doubled accumulation rate. In addition, radiometric ages are available only for soils from Silver Lake, the Fortymile Wash area, Kyle Canyon, and the Coyote Mountains. We have not included age uncertainties in the calculation of interval rates because generally the minimum and maximum ages greatly exaggerate the probable errors. For studies in which the ages of soils were better constrained, as at Silver Lake and Fortymile Wash, interval-rate uncertainties calculated from the minimum and maximum soil ages were similar to the range of standard deviations calculated using replicate soils of the same age.
(3) Assumptions and simplifications were used in the calculations of profile weights of pedogenic materials, mainly in the estimation of parent-material values and of bulk density (in this study, a range of 1.2-2.0 g/cm3), which is difficult to measure accurately in gravelly deposits (Vincent and Chadwick, 1994).
This report includes the results of investigations performed by several investigators at Silver Lake, or on samples collected at Silver Lake. Two labeling standards have been followed.
The first is a system which numerically encodes information about locality, unit sampled, the profile sampled and the collector of the sample.
A) If the first number is 1, the sample number corresponds to a lower fan locality and 2 refers to an upper fan locality.
B) The first number following the decimal represents the fan unit on which the soil was sampled: 1=Qf1, 2=Qf2, etc.; this is the same as the profile numbers elsewhere.
C) The second number is the profile number on that surface in that fan position: the first described is 1, the second 2, etc.
D) The last number is only used for one profile, 1.231 to 1.235, because we had five different people describe the same soil profile separately. Thus there are five descriptions of this profile but it was only sampled once.
Example 1: Sample 1.110 = a sample from the lower fan area, fan unit Qf1, and is the first profile sampled.
The second system is alpha numeric.
A) The first set of characters indicates the locality and collection year. A label for a sample collected at Silver Lake in 1985 would begin "SL85".
B) The next character indicates the position of the sample site on the fan. A, B, C, D samples are from the lower fan and W, X, Y, Z samples are from the upper fan.
C) The second character indicates which profile in a sequence of profiles described in one position on the fan. A = the first profile described, B = the second profile described etc.
Example 2: Sample SL85-1A = a sample from the lower fan area, fan unit Qf1, and is the first profile sampled. (it is also equal to sample 1.110 of example 1)
Example 3: A sample labeled 2.340 in the numeric system equals a sample labeled SL85-3Z in the alphanumeric system and would indicate a sample from the upper fan area, from fan unit Qf3, and it would be the fourth profile sampled.
Soil Descriptions
Numbered profiles (11H, 11P, etc.) were sampled specifically for this study. Two profiles from San Felipe Creek (SF1 and SF3) are unpublished data contributed by Tom Rockwell (San Diego State University). Methods for the descriptions of all of the soils were the same.
Soil Development Index Values
The soil development index (Harden, 1982) provides a means of quantifying field properties of soils in order to compare their development. Index values of field properties including rubification, melanization, paling, lightening, texture, structure, dry consistence, pH decrease, pH increase, and carbonate are calculated for each profile using a spreadsheet template (Taylor, 1988). Horizon and profile index values are given for all of the soils sampled for this study.
Laboratory Analyses
Most of the samples were analyzed using standard laboratory techniques (Singer and Janitzky, 1986.i.Singer and Janitzky, 1986;) for grain size, CaCO3 and organic-matter content, pH, and salt content, except that the total salt equations in Singer and Janitzky, published with an error, were corrected using a multiplication factor of 0.32 rather than 320. pH for the soils
The salt content reported for Kyle Canyon soils is for gypsum only, not total salt. Data for Kyle Canyon (KC) soils is from Reheis and others (1992).
Calculation of Profile Weights
The bulk density for each soil horizon, if not measured by previous reports using either the paraffin-clod method or the excavation technique, was estimated from particle size and the contents of gravel and organic matter using the technique of Rawls (1983).
The contents (percentages) of soil components in each horizon were subtracted from the contents estimated to have been present in the parent material multiplied by the bulk density of the less-than-2mm fraction and by horizon thickness, and then summed for the soil.
Debris flows are usually unsorted and unbedded, so the content of silt, clay, and CaCO3 in a C horizon formed in these deposits was assumed to be representative of that originally present in the other horizons.
Soils at Wilson Creek that formed in fluvial deposits potentially containing fine-grained overbank sediment, amounts of silt and clay in the parent material of the A and B horizons were estimated to be greater than those in the C horizons.
Basalt flows were assumed to contain no silt, clay, or CaCO3 when deposited.
Major Element Analyses
In order to compare the soil analyses with those of nearby dust samples, which did not include Ca from CaCO3, the contents of major oxides in the soil samples from Kyle Canyon and Silver Lake were recalculated on a CaCO3-free basis (Wilson Creek soils contained no CaCO3).
Clay Mineralogy
Observed differences between the clay mineralogy of soils and dust at some sites are attributed either to clay formation within the soils, to variability not explored sufficiently because too few samples were analyzed, or to slightly different analytical procedures used for the soil and dust samples (different ion saturations, etc.). In addition, the published reports used different methods to estimate abundances of clay minerals from peak heights on X-ray diffraction traces.
2) Results of laboratory chemical analyses of sample material.
3) Results of major-element analyses for soil samples obtained from Kyle Canyon localities
In each area, two alluvial-fan surfaces were selected that were thought to be late Pleistocene and middle to late Holocene in age by comparison of surface characteristics such as pavement, varnish, and preservation of depositional topography to those of dated surfaces from previous studies in the region (for example, McFadden and others, 1989; Reheis and others, 1993.i.Reheis, 1992;). One soil profile was described and sampled on each surface using either fresh stream cuts or hand-dug pits. Soil descriptions and horizon names followed Guthrie and Witty (1982) and Birkeland (1984). Stages of CaCO3 , silica, and salt follow definitions of Gile and others (1966), Taylor (1986), and Reheis (1987), respectively.
Most of the samples were analyzed using standard laboratory techniques (Singer and Janitzky, 1986.i.Singer and Janitzky, 1986;) for grain size, CaCO3 and organic-matter content, pH, and salt content, except that the total salt equations in Singer and Janitzky, published with an error, were corrected using a multiplication factor of 0.32 rather than 320. pH for the soils sampled specifically for this study was measured in 1:1 H2O, whereas the pH for soils from other sources was measured using CaCl2. Some other analytical techniques for the Kyle Canyon soils were also different because the soils formed in carbonate-rich alluvium.
The bulk density for each soil horizon, if not measured by previous reports using either the paraffin-clod method or the excavation technique, was estimated from particle size and the contents of gravel and organic matter using the technique of Rawls (1983).i.Rawls (1983);.Profile weights (g/cm2/soil column) were calculated for pedogenic silt, clay, CaCO3, and salt (where possible). The contents (percentages) of these components in each horizon of a soil were subtracted from the contents estimated to have been present in the parent material (method of Machette, 1985), multiplied by the bulk density of the less-than-2mm fraction and by horizon thickness, and then summed for the soil.
Accumulation rates were calculated for pedogenic silt, clay, CaCO3, and salt depending on the availability of data. At sites with more than one analyzed soil profile of the same age, the profile-weight values were averaged. The average "best" accumulation rates were calculated using the "best" age (the most reasonable age assigned to the geomorphic surface), and average maximum and minimum rates were calculated using the likely minimum and maximum ages respectively. The following are example calculations for the silt accumulation rate of soils on surface Q5, Coyote Mountains, where the average profile weight of silt in Q5 soils is 0.8 g/cm2, the "best" age is 12 ka, the minimum age is 9 ka, and the maximum age is 20 ka:
average "best" accumulation rate = 0.8 g/cm2 / 12,000 yr = 0.7 g/m2/yr average maximum accum. rate = 0.8 g/cm2 / 9,000 yr = 0.9 g/m2/yr average minimum accum. rate = 0.8 g/cm2 / 20,000 yr = 0.4 g/m2/yr
The interval-accumulation rate for each profile is the rate of accumulation of a pedogenic component in a soil forming on a surface from the time of deposition of that surface to the time of deposition of the next younger surface. If there is no younger profile, the interval rate is the same as the average rate. Interval age is the period of time between the formation of one surface and the formation of the next younger surface.
Best interval age = best age (older) - best age (younger). Minimum interval age = minimum age (older) - maximum age (younger). Maximum interval age = maximum age (older) - minimum age (younger).
Core/meta/averate.txt
Column 1 Area
Column 2 Dust Trap
Column 3 surface (no. for ave.)
Column 4 Age, Best
Column 5 Age, Min
Column 6 Age, Max
Column 7 Prof. Mass, Silt, (g/cm2/soil col.) Silt
Column 8 Prof. Mass, Clay, (g/cm2/soil col.) Clay
Column 9 Prof. Mass, CaCO3, (g/cm2/soil col.) CaCO3
Column 10 Prof. Mass, Salt, (g/cm2/soil col.) Salt
Column 11 Silt, Best
Column 12 Silt, Max
Column 13 Silt, Min
Column 14 Clay, Best
Column 15 Clay, Max
Column 16 Clay, Min
Column 17 CaCO3, Best
Column 18 CaCO3, Max
Column 19 CaCO3, Min
Column 20 Salt, Best
Column 21 Salt, Max
Column 22 Salt, Min
Core/meta/dsindrpn.txt
Column 1 Sample number
Column 2 Horizon
Column 3 Thickness, (cm)
Column 4 Rubification, Norm. value
Column 5 Rubification, Horizon value
Column 6 Rubification, Profile value
Column 7 Melanization, Norm. value
Column 8 Melanization, Horizon value
Column 9 Melanization, Profile value
Column 10 Paling, Norm. value
Column 11 Paling, Horizon value
Column 12 Paling, Profile value
Column 13 Lightening, Norm. value
Column 14 Lightening, Horizon value
Column 15 Lightening, Profile value
Column 16 Total, Texture Norm. value
Column 17 Total, Texture Horizon value
Column 18 Total, Texture Profile value
Column 19 Structure, Norm. value
Column 20 Structure, Horizon value
Column 21 Structure, Profile value
Column 22 Dry Consistence, Norm. value
Column 23 Dry Consistence, Horizon value
Column 24 Dry Consistence, Profile value
Column 25 Clay Films, Norm. value
Column 26 Clay Films, Horizon value
Column 27 Clay Films, Profile value
Column 28 Carbonate, Norm. value
Column 29 Carbonate, Horizon value
Column 30 Carbonate, Profile value
Column 31 pH decrease, Norm. value
Column 32 pH decrease, Horizon value
Column 33 pH decrease, Profile value
Column 34 pH increase, Norm. value
Column 35 pH increase, Horizon value
Column 36 pH increase, Profile value
Column 37 Profile Index 1, Norm. value (rb, ml, tx, st, dc, cf, pHde)
Column 38 Profile Index 1, Horizon value (rb, ml, tx, st, dc, cf, pHde)
Column 39 Profile Index 1, Profile value (rb, ml, tx, st, dc, cf, pHde)
Column 40 Profile Index 2, Norm. value (pl, lt, tx, st, dc, cf, pHin)
Column 41 Profile Index 2, Horizon value (pl, lt, tx, st, dc, cf, pHin)
Column 42 Profile Index 2, Profile value (pl, lt, tx, st, dc, cf, pHin)
Column 43 Profile Index 3, Norm. value (pl, lt, tx, st, dc, cf, pHin)
Column 44 Profile Index 3, Horizon value (pl, lt, tx, st, dc, cf, pHin)
Column 45 Profile Index 3, Profile value (pl, lt, tx, st, dc, cf, pHin)
Core/meta/dsolab.txt
Column 1 Sample number
Column 2 Profile number
Column 3 Horizon name
Column 4 Depth to base (cm)
Column 5 Gravel content, Est. vol.%
Column 6 Gravel content, Weight%
Column 7 pH
Column 8 Weight percent of less-than-2mm fraction O.M.
Column 9 Weight percent of less-than-2mm fraction Sand
Column 10 Weight percent of less-than-2mm fraction Silt@
Column 11 Weight percent of less-than-2mm fraction Clay
Column 12 Weight percent of less-than-2mm fraction CaCO3*
Column 13 Weight percent of less-than-2mm fraction Salt**
Core/meta/dsoldes.txt
Column 1 Surface / Elevation (m)/ age
Column 2 Profile / Describer(s)
Column 3 Sample / Number
Column 4 Horizon
Column 5 Boundary Depth (cm) top
Column 6 Boundary Depth (cm) base
Column 7 Boundary nature
Column 8 Matrix Color #1, Dry
Column 9 Matrix Color #1, Moist
Column 10 Carbonate Color #2, Dry
Column 11 Carbonate Color #3, Dry
Column 12 Carbonate Color #4, Dry
Column 13 Texture
Column 14 Structure, Primary
Column 15 Structure, Secondary
Column 16 Consistence, Dry
Column 17 Consistence, Wet
Column 18 Clay films, Primary
Column 19 Clay films, Secondary
Column 20 CaCO3 Matrix
Column 21 CaCO3 Gravel
Column 22 % gravel <2 mm
Column 23 Parent material and lithology
Column 24 Roots
Column 25 Pores
Column 26 SiO2
Column 27 Salt
Column 28 Miscellaneous notes
Core/meta/dsolloc.txt
Column 1 Soil-study site(&)
Column 2 Source of soil data (@)
Column 3 Parent material type*
Column 4 Parent material lithology
Column 5 Trap (T-)
Column 6 Trap latitude
Column 7 Trap longitude
Column 8 Trap elevation
Column 9 est. (+) MAT (±1.3C)
Column 10 est. (+) MAP (cm)
Core/meta/dsolmin.txt
Column 1 Area
Column 2 Profile
Column 3 Best age (ka)
Column 4 Horizon
Column 5 Chlorite
Column 6 Kaolinite
Column 7 Mica
Column 8 Vermiculite
Column 9 Smectite
Column 10 Mixed-layer
Column 11 Palygorskite
Column 12 Quartz
Core/meta/dsolox.txt
Column 1 Profile no.
Column 2 Horizon
Column 3 Percent SiO2
Column 4 Percent Al2O3
Column 5 Percent Fe2O3
Column 6 Percent FeO
Column 7 Percent MgO
Column 8 Percent CaO
Column 9 Percent Na2O
Column 10 Percent K2O
Column 11 Percent TiO2
Column 12 Percent P2O5
Column 13 Percent MnO
Column 14 Percent ZrO2
Column 15 factor
Column 16 Percent oxides recalculated to 100%, SiO2
Column 17 Percent oxides recalculated to 100%, Al2O3
Column 18 Percent oxides recalculated to 100%, Fe2O3
Column 19 Percent oxides recalculated to 100%, FeO
Column 20 Percent oxides recalculated to 100%, MgO
Column 21 Percent oxides recalculated to 100%, CaO
Column 22 Percent oxides recalculated to 100%, Na2O
Column 23 Percent oxides recalculated to 100%, K2O
Column 24 Percent oxides recalculated to 100%, TiO2
Column 25 Percent oxides recalculated to 100%, P2O5
Column 26 Percent oxides recalculated to 100%, MnO
Column 27 Percent oxides recalculated to 100%, ZrO2
Column 28 Percent CaCO3
Column 29 Percent CaO in CaCO3
Column 30 iterations factor 1
Column 31 factor 2
Column 32 Percent recalculated with CaO due to CaCO3 removed, SiO2
Column 33 Percent recalculated with CaO due to CaCO3 removed, Al2O3
Column 34 Percent recalculated with CaO due to CaCO3 removed, Fe2O3
Column 35 Percent recalculated with CaO due to CaCO3 removed, FeO
Column 36 Percent recalculated with CaO due to CaCO3 removed, MgO
Column 37 Percent recalculated with CaO due to CaCO3 removed, CaO
Column 38 Percent recalculated with CaO due to CaCO3 removed, Na2O
Column 39 Percent recalculated with CaO due to CaCO3 removed, K2O
Column 40 Percent recalculated with CaO due to CaCO3 removed, TiO2
Column 41 Percent recalculated with CaO due to CaCO3 removed, P2O5
Column 42 Percent recalculated with CaO due to CaCO3 removed, MnO
Column 43 Percent recalculated with CaO due to CaCO3 removed, ZrO2
Column 44 Sum
Core/meta/dsolpw.txt
Column 1 Sample number
Column 2 Profile number
Column 3 Horizon name
Column 4 Thickness (cm.)
Column 5 Gravel content vol.%
Column 6 Gravel content wt.%
Column 7 Organic matter
Column 8 Silt content of less-than-2mm fraction (weight %) lab
Column 9 Silt content of less-than-2mm fraction (weight %) PM
Column 10 Clay content of less-than-2mm fraction (weight %) lab
Column 11 Clay content of less-than-2mm fraction (weight %) PM
Column 12 CaCO3 content of less-than-2mm fraction (weight %) lab
Column 13 CaCO3 content of less-than-2mm fraction (weight %) P.M
Column 14 Salt content of less-than-2mm fraction (weight %) lab
Column 15 Salt content of less-than-2mm fraction (weight %) P.M.
Column 16 Assigned mineral B.D., min
Column 17 Assigned mineral B.D., max
Column 18 Calculated B.D. of soil, min
Column 19 Calculated B.D. of soil, max
Column 20 Calculated < 2mm B.D., min
Column 21 Calculated < 2mm B.D., max
Column 22 Change from parent material, (weight percent) silt
Column 23 Change from parent material, (weight percent) clay
Column 24 Change from parent material, (weight percent) CaCO3
Column 25 Change from parent material, (weight percent) salt
Column 26 Pedogenic silt, Horizon, min
Column 27 Pedogenic silt, Horizon, max
Column 28 Pedogenic silt, Profile sum, min
Column 29 Pedogenic silt, Profile sum, max
Column 30 Pedogenic clay, Horizon, min
Column 31 Pedogenic clay, Horizon, max
Column 32 Pedogenic clay, Profile sum, min
Column 33 Pedogenic clay, Profile sum, max
Column 34 Pedogenic CaCO3, Horizon, min
Column 35 Pedogenic CaCO3, Horizon, max
Column 36 Pedogenic CaCO3, Profile sum, min
Column 37 Pedogenic CaCO3, Profile sum, max
Column 38 Pedogenic salt, Horizon, min
Column 39 Pedogenic salt, Horizon, max
Column 40 Pedogenic salt, Profile sum, min
Column 41 Pedogenic salt, Profile sum, max
Core/meta/intrate.txt
Column 1 soils
Column 2 trap
Column 3 Assigned age, best
Column 4 Assigned age, min
Column 5 Assigned age, max
Column 6 Interval age, best
Column 7 Interval age, min
Column 8 Interval age, max
Column 9 Silt mass, (g/cm2/col), total
Column 10 Silt mass, (g/cm2/col), interval
Column 11 Silt interval rate,(g/m2/yr), best
Column 12 Silt interval rate,(g/m2/yr), max
Column 13 Silt interval rate, (g/m2/yr), min
Column 14 Clay mass, (g/cm2/col), total
Column 15 Clay mass, (g/cm2/col), interval
Column 16 Clay interval rate, (g/m2/yr), best
Column 17 Clay interval rate, (g/m2/yr), max
Column 18 Clay interval rate, (g/m2/yr), min
Column 19 CaCO3 mass, (g/cm2/col), total
Column 20 CaCO3 mass, (g/cm2/col), interval
Column 21 CaCO3 interval rate, (g/m2/yr), best
Column 22 CaCO3 interval rate, (g/m2/yr), max
Column 23 CaCO3 interval rate, (g/m2/yr), min
Column 24 Salt mass, (g/cm2/col), total
Column 25 Salt mass, (g/cm2/col), interval
Column 26 Salt interval rate, (g/m2/yr), best
Column 27 Salt interval rate, (g/m2/yr), max
Column 28 Salt interval rate, (g/m2/yr), min
Core/meta/intrtdev.txt
Column 1 soils
Column 2 best age
Column 3 int. age
Column 4 Silt mass, (g/cm2/col), total
Column 5 Silt mass, (g/cm2/col), interval
Column 6 Silt interval rate, (g/m2/yr), rate
Column 7 Silt interval rate, s.d.
Column 8 Clay mass, (g/cm2/col), total
Column 9 Clay mass, (g/cm2/col), interval
Column 10 Clay interval rate, (g/m2/yr), rate
Column 11 Clay interval rate, s.d.
Column 12 CaCO3 mass, (g/cm2/col), total
Column 13 CaCO3 mass, (g/cm2/col), interval
Column 14 CaCO3 interval rate, (g/m2/yr), rate
Column 15 CaCO3 interval rate, s.d.
Column 16 Salt mass, (g/cm2/col), total
Column 17 Salt mass, (g/cm2/col), interval
Column 18 Salt interval rate, (g/m2/yr), rate
Column 19 Salt interval rate, s.d.