Cyclostratigraphy Intercomparison Project

Cyclostratigraphy is an important tool for understanding astronomical climate forcing and reading geological time in sedimentary sequences, provided that an imprint of insolation variations caused by Earth’s orbital eccentricity, obliquity and/or precession is preserved (Milankovitch forcing). Numerous stratigraphic and paleoclimate studies have applied cyclostratigraphy, but the robustness of the methodology and its dependence on the investigator have not been systematically evaluated. We developed the Cyclostratigraphy Intercomparison Project (CIP) to assess the robustness of cyclostratigraphic methods using an experimental design of three artificial cyclostratigraphic case studies with known input parameters. Each case study is designed to address specific challenges that are relevant to cyclostratigraphy. Case 1 represents an offshore research vessel environment, as only a drill-core photo and the approximate position of a late Miocene stage boundary are available for analysis. In Case 2, the Pleistocene proxy record displays clear nonlinear cyclical patterns and the interpretation is complicated by the presence of a hiatus. Case 3 represents a Late Devonian proxy record with a low signal-to-noise ratio with no specific theoretical astronomical solution available for this age. Each case was analyzed by a test group of 17-20 participants, with varying experience levels, methodological preferences and dedicated analysis time. During the CIP 2018 meeting in Brussels, Belgium, the ensuing analyses and discussion demonstrated that most participants did not arrive at a perfect solution, which may be partly explained by the limited amount of time spent on the exercises (~4.5 hours per case). However, in all three cases, the median solution of all submitted analyses accurately approached the correct result and several participants obtained the exact correct answers. Interestingly, systematically better performances were obtained for cases that represented the data type and stratigraphic age that were closest to the individual participants’ experience. This experiment demonstrates that cyclostratigraphy is a powerful tool for deciphering time in sedimentary successions and, importantly, that it is a trainable skill. Finally, we emphasize the importance of an integrated stratigraphic approach and provide flexible guidelines on what good practices in cyclostratigraphy should include. Our case studies provide valuable insight into current common practices in cyclostratigraphy, their potential merits and pitfalls. Our work does not provide a quantitative measure of reliability and uncertainty of cyclostratigraphy, but rather constitutes a starting point for further discussions on how to move the maturing field of cyclostratigraphy forward.

The objective of this project is to investigate and quantify reproducibility of cyclostratigraphic studies and to provide a platform to discuss the merits and pitfalls of different methodologies, and their applicability. The project will be structured around several “test scenarios”, which are signals to be analyzed by participants that feature state-of-the-art challenges in time-series analysis of geologic signals. Participants will be solicited to submit and/or present and describe their solutions to one or several of the ”test scenarios” at a common event (e.g. workshop).

The study of astronomical climate forcing and the application of cyclostratigraphy have experienced a spectacular growth over the last decades. In the field of cyclostratigraphy a broad range in methodological approaches exist. However, comparative study between the different approaches is lacking. Different cases demand different approaches, but with the growing importance of the field, questions arise about reproducibility, uncertainties and standardization of results. The radioisotopic dating community, in particular, has done far-reaching efforts to improve reproducibility and intercomparison of radioisotopic dates and their errors. To satisfy this need in cyclostratigraphy, we initiate a comparable framework for the community. The aims are to investigate and quantify reproducibility of, and uncertainties related to cyclostratigraphic studies and to provide a platform to discuss the merits and pitfalls of different methodologies, and their applicabilities. With this poster, we ask the feedback from the community on how to design this comparative framework in a useful, meaningful and productive manner. In parallel, we would like to discuss how reproducibility should be tested and what uncertainties should stand for in cyclostratigraphy. On the other hand, we intend to trigger interest for a cyclostratigraphic intercomparison project. This intercomparison project would imply the analysis of artificial and genuine geological records by individual researchers. All participants would be free to determine their method of choice. However, a handful of criterions will be required for an outcome to be comparable. The different results would be compared (e.g. during a workshop or a special session), and the lessons learned from the comparison could potentially be reported in a review paper. The aim of an intercomparison project is not to rank the different methods according to their merits, but to get insight into which specific methods are most suitable for which specific problems, and obtain more information on different sources of uncertainty. As this intercomparison project should be supported by the broader cyclostratigraphic community, we open the floor for suggestions, ideas and practical remarks.