Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-kwdml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T12:07:22.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Late Wisconsin Advance and Retreat Pattern in the Miami Sublobe, Laurentide Ice Sheet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thomas V. Lowell
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, U.S.A.
Robert Stuckenrath
Affiliation:
Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15238, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ice-sheet advance and retreat chronologies reflect climatic change in a manner that is difficult to decipher. Especially difficult is the placement of records into a chronologic sequence. Multiple age estimates obtained from three stratigraphic positions at a site in Ohio show that organics within deposits of the Miami sublobe, along the southern margin of the Laurentide ice sheet, may be up to 3000 years older than the age of the maximum Late Wisconsin extension of that sublobe. In addition, recent studies on organic accumulations above glacial drift provide bracketing ages for ice recession. When the existing radiometric ages for the Miami sublobe are interpreted with these new radiometric constraints, several fluctuations suggested by prior workers are unsupported. A simpler chronology for the Miami sublobe suggests that in late Wisconsin time the southern margin of the Laurentide ice sheet advanced through Ohio about 22 ka to its maximum extent at 19.7 and remained near there until 15 ka. This is in agreement with newly-refined stratigraphic histories of other Laurentide lobes.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 1990
Figure 0

Fig. 1.Setting and distribution of radiocarbon ages in the Miami sublobe. Inverted triangles represent ages from bog or lake deposits; other triangles represent ages from below glaciogenic sediments. Sites with four or more ages are indicated with the number of ages. Data from Gooding, 1975; Mickelson and others, 1983; Shane, 1987, and personal communication, 1988; Lowell and others, in press. Only moraines near the Miami sublobe are shown.

Figure 1

Fig. 2.Ice advance-recession models, (a) Lake Michigan lobe (after Johnson and Hansel, 1987); (b) Miami sublobe (after Gooding (1975); Mickelson and others (1983)); (c) proposed Miami sublobe. '

Figure 2

Fig. 3.Simplified stratigraphy with radiocarbon ages for (a) the Sharonville site and (b) the Princeton H.S. site. No vertical scale implied.

Figure 3

Fig. 4.Temporal distribution of radiocarbon ages in the Miami sublobe.