d.a. wysocki*, usda-nrcs-nssc, lincoln, nebraska j.k ... · 1998 field book for describing and...

Figure 1. Two Rivers glacial advance 11,800 BP.

Figure 2. Two Rivers glacial retreat11,200 BP.

Figure 3. Extent of Glacial Lake Algonquin at 11,000 BP.

Figure 4. Study area in the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Figure 5. Topographic map of study area 1.

Figure 6. Topographic map of study area 2.

Figure 7. Wave-cut scarps on southeast flank of study area 2.

Figure 8. Soil at site 1 showing OSL sample tube.

SURFACE MANTLES AND SOIL FORMATION IN THE UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGANSURFACE MANTLES AND SOIL FORMATION IN THE UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAND.A. Wysocki*, USDA-NRCS-NSSC, Lincoln, NebraskaJ.K. Calus, USDA-NRCS, Flint, Michigan

G.D. Whitney, USDA-NRCS, Manistique, MichiganR.J. Goble, Univ. of Nebraska Geology Dept., Lincoln, Nebraska

INTRODUCTIONMichigan’s eastern Upper Peninsula is a complex array of glacial landforms and sediments formed directly by glacial ice, or by glacial fluvial, and glacial lacustrine processes. As expected, principal soil parent materials include till (lodgment and melt out), outwash, and glacial lacustrine materials. Soil survey field observations suggest that many soils in this region are formed in two or more parent materials. The surficial parent material exists as a “loamy” (silty to fine sandy loam) mantle that occurs across multiple landforms and covers various underlying deposits. We postulate three potential processes that can account for the mantles. These are eolian deposition, lacustrine sedimentation, or glacial melt-out. We designed a study to examine the mantle at selected locations. Our objectives were threefold:

Document mantle character, distribution, and thickness.Establish the time of mantle emplacement.Deduce the mantle origin(s) based on our observations and measurements.

BACKGROUNDPresent landforms and surficial deposits in the glacial terrain of the eastern Upper Peninsula (UP) result from the two youngest of several Wisconsin age glacial advances and retreats. Specifically these are Two Rivers (11.8 ka) (Mickelson et al., 1984) and the Marquette (9,900 ka) (Hughes, 1978) advances. The Two Rivers advance extended south beyond Green Bay, Wisconsin (Figure 1) to the central Lake Michigan basin. As the Two Rivers ice margin receded northward, it was continually fronted by a large proglacial lake -- Glacial Lake Algonquin(Figure 2). Initial drainage for Glacial Lake Algonquin was southward via the Chicago outlet. The maximum Algonquin level (Kirkfield phase) in the UP occurred at about 11,000 B.P (Figure 3) (Clayton, 1983, Hansel, et al., 1985, Fullerton, 1980) and then declined as ice retreated from the Mackinaw Straits, which opened lower elevation outlets to the east. The declining lake stabilized at elevations between 210 and240 meters, and are marked by beach scarps, and relict shore features (e.g., spits, beach ridges) on present landforms. Major landforms created in the eastern UP during the Two Rivers advance and retreat are till-capped bedrock highs along the Silurian (Niagara) escarpment, relict lakebeds, and isolated relict islands, which are cored mainly by outwash, but also bedrock and till. The Marquette advance reached the northern portion of the UP, but did not front a glacial lake, as the Chippewa low phase is coincident with this advance (Hough, 1955). Major landforms produced during the Marquette advance are an extensive braided outwash plain through the western part of the Seney Lowland, outwash fans, and a series of ice contact slopes that mark successive ice margins.

METHODSWe selected two areas in Schoolcraft County, Michigan, for our study (Figure 4). Our selection criteria were twofold -- presence of a field recognizable surface mantle and landforms of similar geomorphic evolution. Study area 1 is in northeast Schoolcraft County (Figure 5). The landform is a topographic high that existed as an island in Glacial Lake Algonquin. The landform is underlain by glacial fluvial deposits including entrained till bodies. The surficial deposit is a fine sandy loam mantle. Study area 2 (Figure 6), in south central Schoolcraft County, is also a topographic high that is a relict island. The landform is glacially scoured dolomite of the Manistique Group that is a subdued portion of the Niagara escarpment. Thin till, outwash, or beach deposits cap the dolomite. The surficial material is a silty mantle. Slopes along the landform margins represent beach scarps (Figures 5, 6, 7) cut by one or more stands of Glacial Lake Algonquin. Soils form in and through the surficial mantles at both study areas.

We laid out study transects (Figures 5 and 6) along the north to south landform trend and east to west across the trend. From pit excavations along the transects, we described and sampled (Schoeneberger et al., 2002) sixteen soils through the surface mantle into the underlying material. We recorded mantle thickness, underlying material, and approximate surface elevation. We collected bulk from each horizon. Bulk samples were air dried, crushed, and 2mm sieved. Crushed samples were analyzed for particle size, water retention, and cation exchange properties. The analytical measurements follow procedures given in Soil Survey Staff (1996). At three sites from each study area, we collected pipe-encased samples (Figure 8) from the middle of the surface mantle for optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating. Samples for OSL dating used the sand-sized (1.50-1.80 mm) quartz fraction processed using blue-green light stimulation and the single-aliquot regenerative protocol (Murray and Wintle, 2000).

Soils and Mantle Distribution, cont.

The underlying material at study area 2 is more variable. Here, the mantle rests directly on outwash, beach deposits, or dolomite bedrock. The outwash is thin or absent along the easterly landform slope, which is a series of wave-cut scarps on the bedrock surface (Figure 7). This process also accounts for the greater difference in site elevations at study area 2. Gravel deposits at site 15 are a storm beach remnant that is a record of a former Algonquin shoreline. A lacustrine origin for the mantle would require multiple inundation events because the mantle occurs at different elevations and over various underlying materials.

Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) Ages

Table 2 presents the measured OSL ages. Study area 1 has a mean age of 9.69 ka, which is slightly younger than the age for area 2(10.99 ka). Both ages are close to, but postdate, the expected age and drainage (11,000 BP) of Glacial Lake Algonquin. The ages also postdate any glacial melt out from the Two Rivers advance. Drainage of Glacial Lake Algonquin exposed a broad unvegetated sandy to siltylakebed to subaerial influences including eolian redistribution. The OSL ages at study area 1 also suggest a second eolian source. The mean age corresponds closely to the Marquette advance, which provided a sediment source (outwash) to the west and a driving mechanism via adiabatic winds. Our OSL ages are older than ages determined on interior dunes in Luce County, Michigan, (Arbogast et. al., 2002) which yielded ages ~6,000-6,600 cal BP. This study attributed dune activity to Altithermal drying. A recent study (Loope et. al., 2003) on five dunes in Chippewa and Luce counties yielded optical ages centered on 9,500 BP with dune activity related to water levels in Glacial Lake Minong.

Particle Size

Tables 3, 4, and 5 summarize particle size data for our study areas. In general, the surface mantles display upward fining, as evidenced by decreasing silt and increasing sand with depth. The contacts with underlying material are commonly marked by discontinuities of silt or sand content. In some cases (e.g., site 9) the transition to the underlying material is gradual. Ratios of fine/coarse silt and very fine/fine sand also demonstrate fining upward deposits. These relationships are consistent with eolian deposition. The mantle at study area 2 contains noticeably more silt than area 1. We attribute this to sediment source in the expose lakebed.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSOur results effectively indicate that the surface mantles are of eolian origin. Elevation and stratigraphic (parent material) relationships on these landforms argue against either lucustrine or glacial melt out processes. The optical ages slightly postdate the expected ages for glacial or lacustrine deposits in the vicinity. Drainage of Glacial Lake Algonquin and outwash from the Marquette advance provide ample exposed sediment as eolian sources. Particle size data is consistent with eolian deposition. Based on our results we suggest the following.

Eolian mantles, although relatively thin, have a large role in soil formation. The Spodic horizons form mostly or exclusively in the mantle.The mantles generally are finer in texture and therefore have better nutrient and water holding than deeper material.

Soils series concepts and Official Series Descriptions (OSDs) should recognize and include eolian deposits as major parent material, inaddition to till, outwash, and lucustrine deposits. Eolian deposits (dunes and surface mantles) are widespread in the UP.

OSL ages demonstrate that the eolian mantles in our study are tied to glacial lake drainage and de-glaciation rather than Holocene climateshifts. We do not rule out Holocene climate shift as a potential sediment source and driving mechanism for dunes. In fact, age differencesis part explain a varying degree of soil development across dune systems. We suggest that OSL signatures in the UP can have three causes,lakebed exposure, eolian sediment derived from the Marquette glaciation, and Holocene climate shifts.

REFERENCESArbogast, A.F., A.G. Wintle, and S. Packman. Widespread Mobilization of Eolian Sand During the Middle Holocene in the Interior of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Geology 30:55-58.

Clayton, Lee. 1983. Chronology of Lake Agassiz drainage to Lake Superior, In J.T. Teller and Lee Clayton, eds., Glacial Lake Agassiz: Geological Association of Canada special paper 26. p 291-307.

Fullerton, D.S. 1980. Preliminary correlation of Post-Erie interstadial events (16,000-10,000 radiocarbon years before present) central and eastern Great Lakes region and Hudson, Champlain, andSt Lawrence Lowlands, United States and Canada. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1089, 52p.

Hansel, A.K., D.E. Mickelson, A.F. Schneider, and C.E. Larsen. 1985. Late Wisconsinan and Holocene history of the Lake Michigan basin. In Quaternary evolution of the Great lakes, Eds. P.F. Karrowand P.E. Calkin. Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 30:39-53.

Hughes, J.D. 1978. Marquette buried forest 9850 years old: Abstract for the American Association of the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, February 12-17.

Hough, J.L. 1955. Lake Chippewa, a low stage of Lake Michigan indicated by bottom sediments: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 73. p 613-619.

Mickelson, D.M., L. Clayton, R.W. Baker, W.N. Mode, and A.F. Schneider. 1984. Pleistocene stratigraphic units of Wisconsin: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 199 p.

Murray, A.S. and A.G. Wintle. 2000. Luminescence dating of quartz using an improved single-aliquot regenerative-dose protocol. Radiation Measurements, v. 32, pp. 57-73.

Loope, W.L., H.M. Loope, and R.J. Goble. 2003. Latest Pleistocene and Holocene dune building in eastern Upper Michigan. Geol. Society of America Abstracts with Programs Vol. 35, No. 6, p. 169.

Schoeneberger, P.J., D.A. Wysocki, E.C. Benham, and W.D. Broderson. 1998 Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, Version 1.2. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil SurveyCenter, Lincoln, NE. 251 pp.

Soil Survey Staff. 1996. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual. SSIR 42 Version 3.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. 693 pp.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSoils and Mantle Distribution

Soils at the study sites all contain Spodic horizons and classify as Alfic, Entic, Lammellic, or Typic Haplorthods (Figure 9). Table 1 presents data for mantle thickness and distribution. At study area 1, the surface mantle ranged in thickness from 0 to 50 cm. No recognizable mantle existed at Site 7. Mantle thickness at study area 2 was slightly greater -- 33 to about 100 cm. Landform location and site elevation showed no consistent relationship to mantle thickness. The surface mantle at the study area directly overlies either outwash or entrained till over outwash.

Figure 9. AlficHaplorthod at site 1.

till The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Table 1. Parent materials and mantle thickness at study areas 1 and 2.

Site Mantle Surface UnderlyingNumber Thickness (cm) Elevation (m) Material

Study Area 1

1 46 237.8 Outwash2 30 239.9 Outwash3 46 239.3 Outwash4 30 237.1 Till/Outwash5 51 234.1 Outwash6 40 230.1 Till/Outwash7 0 234.7 Outwash8 48 236.5 Till/Outwash9 25 239.3 Outwash10 36 237.7 Outwash

Mean 35.2*

Study Area 2

11 33 206.6 OutwashDolomite Bedrock

12 45 209.4 Dolomite Bedrock13 21 223.1 Outwash14 46 222.5 Outwash

Dolomite15 66 239.6 Beach Deposits16 101 228.6 Dolomite Bedrock

Mean 52.0

Table 2. Optical luminescence ages for study areas 1 and 2.

Site Sample Horizon K2O U Th Dose Rate AgeDepth (cm) % ppm ppm Gy/ka ka

Study Area 1

1 22 Bs2 2.60 1.3 4.1 2.37+0.36 9.25+0.565 24 Bhs 3.04 1.5 4.5 2.64+0.14 8.76+0.568 20 Bhs 2.42 1.1 3.3 2.28+.0.74 11.06+.0.68

Mean 9.69

Study Area 2

11 30 Bs1 2.47 1.4 4.3 2.42+0.87 10.52+0.6414 24 Bs2 2.52 1.7 4.9 2.19+0.87 12.65+0.9715 25 Bs 2.89 1.7 5.0 2.58+0.14 9.80+0.65

Mean 10.99

Table 3. Particle size data for study area 1, sites 1 through 5.

Depth Horizon Clay Fine Co Total V Fine Fine Fi Silt Vf SandSilt Silt Sand Sand Sand Co Silt Fi Sand

Ratio Ratiocm ----------------------------------------------------- % ----------------------------------------------------

Site 1

3-8 E 5.3 14.9 41.7 38.1 10.5 11.9 0.36 0.888-10 Bhs ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -------- ---- ----

10-20 Bs1 1.0 6.5 42.8 49.7 12.5 14.3 0.15 0.8720-46 Bs2 0.7 4.1 31.4 63.1 10.7 16.1 0.13 0.6646-64 2Bw 0.6 2.1 21.0 76.3 14.5 20.7 0.10 0.70

Site 2

5-13 E 6.7 13.9 19.2 60.2 5.3 8.7 0.72 0.6113-30 Bhs 7.1 11.8 12.1 69.0 3.2 8.5 0.97 0.3730-41 2BC 4.8 4.7 2.6 87.9 0.6 9.2 1.81 0.0741-104 2C 2.4 1.5 1.8 94.3 4.8 45.8 0.83 0.01

Site 3

3-13 E 3.9 6.3 33.6 56.2 13.3 16.1 0.19 0.8313-25 Bs1 1.1 2.5 18.0 78.4 9.2 20.2 0.14 0.4625-46 Bs2 2.1 4.2 8.5 85.2 5.4 18.4 0.49 0.2946-104 2C 2.7 2.9 6.4 88.0 8.5 38.2 0.45 0.22

Site 4

3-12 E 3.7 14.0 26.2 56.1 6.7 17.3 0.53 0.3912-30 Bs 7.8 10.2 17.1 64.9 5.8 23.2 0.60 0.2530-76 2BC 4.4 1.9 3.7 90.0 6.1 33.7 0.51 0.18

Site 5

5-20 E 6.5 14.0 41.4 38.1 11.6 13.0 0.34 0.8920-28 Bhs 1.9 14.1 49.5 34.5 12.8 9.9 0.28 0.4328-51 Bs1 2.5 9.2 26.8 61.5 14.0 16.6 0.34 0.5351-112 2B/E 2.1 4.5 6.7 86.7 13.3 27.2 0.67 0.31



Ratio Ratiocm ----------------------------------------------------- % ----------------------------------------------------

Site 6

5-8 E 6.1 15.7 37.0 41.2 8.4 13.7 0.42 0.6110-23 Bs1 6.4 16.1 24.8 52.7 7.8 18.9 0.65 0.4123-40 Bs2 14.0 18.9 9.7 57.4 8.2 23.1 0.94 0.35

Site 7

5-13 E 3.3 5.5 5.7 85.5 1.8 18.2 0.96 0.1013-33 Bs 2.5 4.8 6.0 86.7 1.7 22.2 0.80 0.0833-51 E/B 2.8 3.6 5.8 87.8 1.6 18.8 0.62 0.0951-71 BC 1.1 3.4 4.6 90.9 1.5 20.8 0.74 0.07

Site 8

5-20 E 7.3 17.4 38.6 36.7 8.5 12.4 0.45 0.6925-40 Bs1 3.1 17.7 48.8 30.4 9.4 8.1 0.36 1.1640-48 Bs2 3.0 15.2 34.4 47.4 8.5 17.4 0.44 0.4848-71 2B/E 4.3 8.6 11.0 76.1 8.9 31.5 0.78 0.28

Site 9

5-10 E 1.3 7.9 9.3 81.5 2.8 4.1 0.85 0.6815-25 Bhs 2.7 5.4 7.3 84.6 1.9 3.1 0.74 0.6125-38 2Bs 2.5 3.3 4.1 90.1 0.8 2.5 0.81 0.32

Site 10

10-23 E 5.1 9.6 19.4 65.9 7.2 20.2 0.49 0.3623-36 Bs1 2.3 6.3 14.1 77.3 5.4 30.8 0.45 0.1636-42 2B2 0.9 2.3 4.5 92.3 2.7 31.5 0.51 0.09



Ratio Ratiocm ----------------------------------------------------- % ----------------------------------------------------

Site 11

8-15 E 3.3 26.4 61.3 9.0 5.0 1.9 0.43 2.6315-33 Bs1 1.5 13.6 42.2 42.7 4.0 13.3 0.32 0.4033-55 2Bs2 2.8 5.5 8.3 83.4 2.9 22.1 0.66 0.13

Site 12

5-13 E 5.2 27.0 58.2 9.6 4.6 1.8 0.46 2.5513-21 Bhs 0.8 16.9 67.6 14.7 7.0 2.6 0.25 2.6921-45 Bs1 1.8 16.9 48.7 32.6 5.9 8.5 0.35 0.6945-61 2Bs2 1.5 2.1 3.4 92.0 1.1 46.4 0.62 0.02

Site 13

5-13 E 4.8 23.0 44.9 27.3 4.1 6.1 0.51 0.6713-21 Bhs 3.7 21.1 43.9 31.3 5.1 5.0 0.48 1.0221-41 2Bs2 1.7 3.4 4.6 90.3 1.6 1.6 0.74 0.73

Site 14

0-8 A 4.0 20.6 55.3 20.1 6.0 3.8 0.37 1.5813-18 Bhs ----- 18.5 73.1 8.4 5.0 0.9 0.25 6.3318-30 Bs1 ----- 10.6 79.1 10.3 9.3 0.5 0.13 18.6030-46 Bs2 1.1 13.7 80.2 5.0 4.1 0.5 0.17 8.2046-71 2C 1.6 1.5 7.3 89.6 0.6 22.9 0.21 0.26

Site 15

5-15 E 5.7 20.6 63.5 10.2 9.2 0.6 0.32 15.3318-36 Bs 0.4 14.9 76.1 8.6 7.8 0.6 0.20 13.0036-43 BC 0.7 12.9 74.0 12.4 10.5 0.9 0.17 11.6643-66 C1 1.0 15.2 72.6 11.2 6.1 2.9 0.21 3.3866-203 2C2 2.9 12.5 41.9 42.7 4.9 24.4 0.29 0.62

Site 16

5-12 E 4.5 20.5 65.5 9.5 8.9 0.5 0.31 17.8012-18 Bhs 0.5 17.8 66.1 15.6 14.0 1.4 0.27 10.0018-46 Bs ---- 14.8 76.0 9.2 8.4 0.5 0.19 16.8046-65 C1 0.9 14.5 71.5 13.1 10.3 1.4 0.20 7.3665-101 C2 0.5 10.8 71.8 16.9 13.9 1.3 0.15 10.70

d.a. wysocki*, usda-nrcs-nssc, lincoln, nebraska j.k ... · 1998 field book for describing and...

Documents