QPA-Color

Quantitative Phytolith Analysis

Sudbury, J.B. 2011a. Quantitative Phytolith Analysis: A Working Example from Modern Prairie and
Buried Holocene A Horizons. Phytolith Press. 288 p. 123 Figures, 80 Tables, Indexed.

The volume abstract (p 280) reads:

“Scope and Method of Study:
The purpose of this study is to quantitatively recover and analyze the phytoliths from modern and prehistoric prairie soils, and to use the resulting phytolith signatures to develop a better understanding of pedogenic processes and to determine past climatic conditions. Improvements in analytical laboratory protocols will be developed as needed to meet these objectives.

“Findings and Conclusions:
Phytoliths were quantitatively recovered from A horizons of three modern prairies (Shortgrass, Mixedgrass, and Tallgrass Prairies) and from three sites with buried soils of known age. Phytoliths were separated from other soil particles based on differences in particle size and particle density. Using polarized light microscopy, the morphologic distribution of Poaceae short cell phytoliths present in the
isolated soil sample fractions was ascertained. The phytolith distribution within buried A horizons reveals information about soil forming processes. The relative phytolith concentration mirrors the soil organic carbon content in well-developed melanized A horizons. In a normal melanized A horizon, the
phytolith concentration decreases exponentially with depth, in a soil developed by cumulic growth the phytolith concentration is relatively constant, and in a new soil formed on an alluvial deposit the phytoliths are concentrated in the upper portion of the deposit. The phytolith signature of modem soils mirrors the environmental conditions at the time of soil formation. Comparison of modern prairie short cell phytolith signatures to the signature in buried soils permits determination of climatic conditions at the time of past stable environments. The various phytolith forms evaluated are indicative of C3 vs. C4
grasses thus revealing climatic information. A higher C3 phytolith content indicates a cooler moister climate whereas a stronger C4 signature indicates a warmer climate. Phytolith seasonality groupings proved to be more reproducible that the individual phytolith short cell morphotypes. It was discovered that saddle-shaped phytoliths appear to hold great potential for understanding changes in botanical signature due to climate. Significant improvements to available published laboratory protocols for phytolith isolation were developed and implemented. Phytolith analysis leads to a better understanding of soil genesis and provides a method to ascertain past climatic changes.”

However, this volume goes far beyond phytolith recovery and paleoenvironmental interpretation suggested in the title. A number of major improvements were made in established laboratory methods (and more are in the mill).

This book is available in two versions:

    1. Full color, hard-cover, stitched binding. This version is printed on heavy slick coated paper which greatly
        enhances the photograph quality of the many high resolution images.

    2. Black and White, soft-cover, perfect bound version. The figures are excellent, but are printed on
        a regular (slightly porous textured) paper, so the black and white images are not quite as crisp. Still an
        excellent very well illustrated resource loaded with information. The contents of the black and white volume
        are identical to the hard-cover color version; it is simply printed in black and white on non-coated paper.

Both published versions better than the UMI version. Typographical errors were corrected, the books are single-spaced, and about 10 pages of text and several figures were added. The detailed index is very useful. Figures from the two versions’are are compared in the galley links below.

The example images selected represent the range of cases (from minor to most extreme) present in the 123
figures.   The information loss in the phytolith images is relatively minor between versions, although the slick paper makes the photos clearer. The laboratory images, although aesthetically different, do not experience a significant information loss in the black and white version. The colored-coded charts and tables show some loss, but are still readily navigable and the content remains clear. Both soil profile images are still very clear in their content. Only two cross polar quarter wave plate images are present (oxalate, starch)—both have information loss, but as background topics are ancillary to the report core. I personally prefer the color version due to the glossy paper enhancing all images, but both versions are excellent resources.