A signature of cosmic-ray increase in ad 774–775 from tree rings in Japan

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
486,
Pages:
240–242
Date published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nature11123
Received
Accepted
Published online

Increases in 14C concentrations in tree rings could be attributed to cosmic-ray events1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, as have increases in 10Be and nitrate in ice cores8, 9. The record of the past 3,000 years in the IntCal09 data set10, which is a time series at 5-year intervals describing the 14C content of trees over a period of approximately 10,000 years, shows three periods during which 14C increased at a rate greater than 3‰ over 10 years. Two of these periods have been measured at high time resolution, but neither showed increases on a timescale of about 1 year (refs 11 and 12). Here we report 14C measurements in annual rings of Japanese cedar trees from ad 750 to ad 820 (the remaining period), with 1- and 2-year resolution. We find a rapid increase of about 12‰ in the 14C content from ad 774 to 775, which is about 20 times larger than the change attributed to ordinary solar modulation. When averaged over 10 years, the data are consistent with the decadal IntCal 14C data from North American and European trees13. We argue that neither a solar flare nor a local supernova is likely to have been responsible.

At a glance

Figures

  1. Measured radiocarbon content and comparison with IntCal98.
    Figure 1: Measured radiocarbon content and comparison with IntCal98.

    The concentration of 14C is expressed as Δ14C, which is the deviation (in ‰) of the 14C/12C ratio of a sample with respect to modern carbon (standard sample), after correcting for the age and isotopic fractionation30. a, Δ14C data for tree A (filled triangles with error bars) and tree B (open circles with error bars) for the period ad 750–820 with 1- or 2-year resolution. The typical precision of a single measurement of Δ14C is 2.6‰. Most data were obtained by multiple measurements, yielding smaller errors. Error bars, 1 s.d. b, The decadal average of our data (filled diamonds with error bars) compared with the IntCal98 data13 (open squares with error bars), which is a standard decadal Δ14C time series. Six standard samples (NIST SRM4990C oxalic acid, the new NBS standard) were measured in the same batch of samples. Because Δ14C is calculated as the deviation of the 14C/12C ratio of a sample with respect to an average of 14C/12C of the six standard samples, the errors are the resultant of error propagation. An error for a sample is a statistical one from a Poisson distribution, and an error for the standard sample is the greater of either averaged statistical error from a Poisson distribution of Δ14C for the six standard samples or the s.d. of values of 14C/12C for six standard samples.

  2. Comparison of our data with a four-box carbon cycle simulation.
    Figure 2: Comparison of our data with a four-box carbon cycle simulation.

    Filled diamonds represent the Δ14C values of our data, and lines represent an expected change by a four-box carbon cycle simulation. Various lines represent different cosmic-ray input durations of 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 years. The Δ14C value of the simulation in ad 773 is fixed at a value calculated by the weighted average of the three data from ad 770 to 772. Error bars, as in Fig. 1 legend.

References

  1. Konstantinov, B. P. & Kocharov, G. E. Astrophysical Events and Radiocarbon (NASA-CR-77812, ST-CMG-AC-10430, 1965)
  2. Damon, P. E., Kaimei, D., Kocharov, G. E., Mikheeva, I. B. & Peristykh, A. N. Radiocarbon production by the gamma-ray component of supernova explosions. Radiocarbon 37, 599604 (1995)
  3. Damon, P. E. & Peristykh, A. N. Radiocarbon calibration and application to geophysics, solar physics, and astrophysics. Radiocarbon 42, 137150 (2000)
  4. Menjo, H. et al. in Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. Vol. 2 (ed. Acharya, B. S.) 357360 (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, 2005)
  5. Usoskin, I. G., Solanki, S. K., Kovaltsov, G. A., Beer, J. & Kromer, B. Solar proton events in cosmogenic isotope data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L08107, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026059 (2006)
  6. Brakenridge, G. R. Core-collapse supernovae and the Younger Dryas/terminal Rancholabrean extinctions. Icarus 215, 101106 (2011)
  7. LaViolette, P. A. Evidence for a solar flare cause of the Pleistocene mass extinction. Radiocarbon 53, 303323 (2011)
  8. McCracken, K. G., Dreschhoff, G. A. M., Zeller, E. J., Smart, D. F. & Shea, M. A. Solar cosmic ray events for the period 1561–1994 1. Identification in polar ice, 1561–1950. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 2158521598 (2001)
  9. Motizuki, Y. et al. An Antarctic ice core recording both supernovae and solar cycles. Preprint at http://arXiv.org/abs/0902.3446 (2009)
  10. Reimer, P. J. et al. IntCal09 and marin09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51, 11111150 (2009)
  11. Stuiver, M., Reimer, P. J. & Braziunas, T. F. High-precision radiocarbon age calibration for terrestrial and marine samples. Radiocarbon 40, 11271151 (1998)
  12. Takahashi, Y. et al. in Proc. 30th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. Vol. 1 (ed. Caballero, R.) 673676 (Universitad nacional autonoma de Mexico, 2007)
  13. Stuiver, M. et al. INTCAL98 Radiocarbon age calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40, 10411083 (1998)
  14. Horiuchi, K. et al. Ice core record of 10Be over the past millennium from Dome Fuji, Antarctica: a new proxy record of past solar activity and a powerful tool for stratigraphic dating. Quat. Geochronol. 3, 253261 (2008)
  15. Nakamura, T., Nakai, N. & Ohishi, S. Applications of environmental 14C measured by AMS as a carbon tracer. Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 29, 355360 (1987)
  16. Masarik, J. & Beer, J. An updated simulation of particle fluxes and cosmogenic nuclide production in the Earth’s atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D11103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010557 (2009)
  17. GEANT4. http://www.geant4.org/geant4
  18. Burrows, A. Supernova explosions in the Universe. Nature 403, 727733 (2000)
  19. Iyudin, A. F. et al. Emission from 44Ti associated with a previously unknown Galactic supernova. Nature 396, 142144 (1998)
  20. Katsuda, S., Tsunemi, H. & Mori, K. Is Vela Jr. a young supernova remnant? Adv. Space Res. 43, 895899 (2009)
  21. Telezhinsky, I. A new model for Vela Jr. supernova remnant. Astropart. Phys. 31, 431436 (2009)
  22. Sato, T., Yasuda, H., Niita, K., Endo, A. & Sihver, L. Development of PARMA: PHITS based Analytical Radiation Model in the Atmosphere. Radiat. Res. 170, 244259 (2008)
  23. Baker, D. N. in Space Weather: The Physics Behind a Slogan (eds Scherer, K., Fichtner, H., Heber, B. & Mall, U.) 3 (Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 656, Springer, 2004)
  24. Schaefer, B. E., King, J. R. & Deliyannis, C. P. Superflares on ordinary solar-type stars. Astrophys. J. 529, 10261030 (2000)
  25. Lanza, A. F. Hot Jupiters and stellar magnetic activity. Astron. Astrophys. 487, 11631170 (2008)
  26. Ip, W. H., Kopp, A. & Hu, J. H. On the star-magnetosphere interaction of close-in exoplanets. Astrophys. J. 602, L53L56 (2004)
  27. Willson, L. A. & Struck, C. Hot flashes on Miras? J. Am. Assoc. Variable Star. Obs. 30, 2325 (2001)
  28. Struck, C., Cohanim, B. E. & Wilson, L. A. Continuous and burst-like accretion on to substellar companions in Mira winds. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 347, 173186 (2004)
  29. Cuntz, M., Saar, S. H. & Musielak, Z. E. On stellar activity enhancement due to interactions with extrasolar giant planets. Astrophys. J. 533, L151L154 (2000)
  30. Stuiver, M. & Polach, H. A. Discussion: reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19, 355363 (1977)

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Solar-Terrestrial Environment Laboratory, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan

    • Fusa Miyake,
    • Kentaro Nagaya &
    • Kimiaki Masuda
  2. Center for Chronological Research, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan

    • Toshio Nakamura

Contributions

K.M. conducted the research. F.M. prepared samples. T.N. measured 14C content by AMS at Nagoya University. F.M., K.M. and K.N. discussed the result. F.M. prepared the manuscript. K.M. and T.N. commented on the manuscript.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. Supplementary Information (489K)

    This file contains Supplementary Text and Data 1-6, Supplementary Figures 1-2, Supplementary Tables 1-3 and additional references.

Comments

  1. Report this comment #62717

    Fusa Miyake said:

    In this paper, we calculated the best fitted production rate for the 775 event as 6×10^8^ atoms/cm^2^. After our paper was published, Usoskin et al. [2012, 2013] has revisited the AD 775 event and calculated a ^14^C production rate for this event using other carbon cycle models. They claimed that the biggest difference between theirs and our model is having the deep ocean box or not. They concluded that the production rate is (1.3 ± 0.2)×10^8^ atoms/cm^2^ which corresponds to 5 times smaller than our result.
    However, the reason of the different result is the definition of the production rate. That is, we calculated the production rate as ^14^C atoms/(?R^2^), while, they calculated as ^14^C atoms/(4?R^2^). If we calculated using ^14^C atoms/(4?R^2^), the production rate becomes (1.5 ± 0.3)×10^8^ atoms/cm^2^, and this value is consistent with the result of Usoskin et al. 2013. In this case, the total global production of ^14^C is almost same as their calculation.

Subscribe to comments

Additional data