the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 20 Apr 2026
Circum-Arctic Sediment PROvenance Database (CASPROD): A database of mineralogy and geochemistry for the Circum-Arctic surface sediments
Abstract. Arctic amplification is fundamentally reshaping the cryosphere, leading to accelerated sea-ice retreat, permafrost thaw, and intensified riverine discharge. These shifts collectively modify sediment source-to-sink dynamic processes in the Arctic Ocean. While surface sediments in this semi-enclosed basin integrate complex signals from diverse Eurasian and North American source regions, disentangling these provenance signatures requires a robust, multi-proxy framework that has historically been hampered by fragmented, heterogeneous datasets. Here, we present CASPROD (Circum-Arctic Sediment PROvenance Database), a standardized and high-resolution mineralogical and geochemical synthesis of Arctic surface sediments. The dataset integrates multi-proxy records from a broad spatial network, comprising 4308 sampling stations, including bulk sediment Sr-Nd isotopes (n=175 stations), detrital zircon U-Pb ages (n=4671 grains from 21 key stations), clay mineral assemblages (n=1647 stations), and detrital mineral proportions (n=2465 stations). These integrated proxies provide cross-validated sediment provenance constraints: Sr-Nd isotopes discriminate between ancient cratonic shields and juvenile orogenic belts; detrital zircon geochronology yields diagnostic age spectra distinguishing Eurasian versus North American crustal affinities; and clay and detrital mineralogy reflects different circum-Arctic sediment provenances, lithologies and transport processes. By synthesizing these diverse datasets, CASPROD delineates robust pan-Arctic spatial provenance domains and transport pathways. This database thus provides a critical benchmark for reconstructing palaeoceanographic, glacial, and sedimentary dynamics over geological timescales. CASPROD is freely available online (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31926927; Yao et al., 2026) in multiple machine-readable formats (e.g., tabular tables, GIS shapefiles, and GEOTIFF).
- Preprint
(3908 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(154 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 16 Jul 2026)
-
CC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-253', Dennis Darby, 11 May 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Zhengquan Yao, 01 Jun 2026
reply
Dear Professor Darby,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. In response to your first point, we have added a review of the Fe grain chemical fingerprinting method in the Introduction of the revised manuscript. Regarding your second point, we fully agree that the Arctic Ocean provenance system is complex. However, previous studies have also demonstrated that the methods listed in our paper are effective for provenance identification in the circum-Arctic region. While a single proxy may have limitations, the combined use of multiple indicators can yield more reliable constraints on sediment provenance. We have clarified this point in the revised manuscript.
Revisions in the TEXT
“A range of provenance tracers, such as Sr-Nd isotopes, clay mineral assemblages, detrital mineral compositions, detrital zircon U-Pb ages and Fe-oxide minerals, provide complementary constraints on sediment sources in the Arctic Ocean.” “In addition, Fe-oxide minerals have been widely utilized to constrain sediment provenance in the Arctic Ocean and to reconstruct past sea-ice conditions (e.g., Darby, 2014; Darby et al., 2015; Tripati and Darby, 2018; Cofield and Darby, 2025).”
“While individual proxy may have limitations in discriminating sediment provenance, the integration of multiple indicators, such as geochemical parameters, mineral assemblages, and detrital zircon U-Pb ages, can provide more robust and reliable constraints on source contributions.”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-253-AC1 -
CC2: 'Reply on CC1. Suggested addition', Dennis Darby, 15 Jun 2026
reply
The database by Yao et al. misses an important component of provenance studies. This is the relative accuracy of source determinations. Users would greatly benefit from knowing how accurate each provenance method is. This does not mean how precise each method is!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-253-CC2
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Zhengquan Yao, 01 Jun 2026
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-253', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Jun 2026
reply
I have reviewed the manuscript that presents the Circum-Arctic Sediment PROvenance Database (CASPROD). This databese combines four key provenance proxies: Sr–Nd isotopes, detrital zircon U–Pb ages, clay mineral assemblages, and detrital mineral proportions from 4308 sampling stations across the Arctic Ocean. By synthesizing data from 117 previously published studies and incorporating newly available datasets from previously underrepresented regions, the authors have developed an important community resource for Arctic sediment provenance research and paleoenvironmental reconstructions. The manuscript is well-written and scientifically rigorous. I believe it is suitable for publication in ESSD, after minor revisions.
1. DIVA is an appropriate method for spatial interpolation here, but I think the manuscript would be benefit from a brief discussion on the spatial uncertainty of the interpolated dataset. Regions such as parts of the Canada Basin and Canadian Arctic Archipelago, have sparse sampling, so their interpolated values might carry relatively high uncertainty. Pointing out these potential limitations would be important for anyone who intends to run quantitative analyses on this database.
2. The Arctic environment is changing rapidly, such as, intensified riverine discharge, sea-ice retreat, enhanced permafrost thaw... For this reason, surface sediments collected at different times might reflect partially different source configurations. I advise the authors to add a brief comment on the potential temporal heterogeneity within the compiled dataset, and how users might consider this when interpreting the data.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-253-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2026-253', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jun 2026
reply
This manuscript presents the first circum-Arctic surface sediment provenance database (CASPROD), which systematically integrates multi-proxy datasets including Sr-Nd isotopes, detrital zircon U-Pb ages, clay mineral assemblages, and detrital mineral compositions from 4308 sampling stations. The dataset is rich in volume and broad in spatial coverage. The study has a clear objective and holds significant scientific significance for understanding sediment source-to-sink processes in the Arctic, as well as for reconstructing past ice-sheet dynamics, paleoceanographic circulation, and sea-ice variability. The database thus fills a critical gap caused by previously fragmented and non-standardized sediment provenance data in the Arctic region, and provides a reliable baseline for future paleoceanographic and paleoclimate research in the Arctic region. Given the scientific importance and the quality of the compiled dataset, I strongly recommend publication after minor revisions as outlined below.
- The current introduction focuses primarily on Sr-Nd isotopes, detrital zircon U-Pb ages, clay minerals, and detrital mineral compositions. However, in Arctic sediment provenance studies, iron oxide minerals have also been used to trace sediment sources and transport pathways, particularly for distinguishing ice-rafted debris and current-transported materials from different source regions. I suggest that the authors briefly mention other potential provenance indicators, e.g., iron oxides in the introduction. This would help to contextualize the chosen proxy system and further highlight the comprehensiveness and rationale of the approach adopted in this study.
- Section 3.2 provides a relatively detailed interpretation of the provenance implications of the dataset. For a data paper, this section could be shortened to focus more on the spatial patterns, major trends, and key findings revealed by the database. Overly extended discussion of individual proxy interpretations may be better placed in follow-up research papers. This adjustment would better highlight the contribution of the dataset itself and align with the conventions of data journals.
- Figure 1: this figure includes red and blue arrows indicating ocean circulation patterns, but these are not mentioned in the figure caption. Please add a clear description of these arrows in the caption and include the relevant literature sources.
- Figure 3: In figure 3, the depth legend appears to be incorrectly labeled. Ocean bathymetry values should be negative numbers. Please correct this.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-253-RC2
Data sets
Clay and detrital minerals, Sr-Nd isotopes, and zircon U-Pb ages in Arctic Ocean surface sediments – Circum-Arctic Sediment PROvenance Database (CASPROD): A database of mineralogy and geochemistry for the Circum-Arctic surface sediments Zhengquan Yao et al. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31926927
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 350 | 93 | 19 | 462 | 36 | 19 | 18 |
- HTML: 350
- PDF: 93
- XML: 19
- Total: 462
- Supplement: 36
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Comment on Yao et al. Provenance preprint. This paper provides a useful listing of provenance techniques applicable to the Arctic Ocean. It suffers for two major omissions: 1) The preprint ignores the Fe grain chemical fingerprinting method used in a dozen or more papers. 2) It avoids any scrutiny of the listed methods as to their accuracy. While the precision of several listed methods might be high, when dealing with multiple sources of ice-rafted sediment in the Arctic Ocean, the accuracy can be quite low. The Fe grain fingerprinting method has been shown to have an accuracy of less than 2% error of misidentifying the correct source or provenance.