Previous Article in Journal
Cooling Following the Magnetic Field Weakening During the Matuyama–Brunhes Transition Recorded by Paks Loess, Hungary
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Quaternary
Volume 8
Issue 4
10.3390/quat8040055
quaternary-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Examination of Age-Depth Models Through Loess-Paleosol Sections in the Carpathian Basin

by
László Makó
1,
Péter Cseh
2,* and
Júlia Hupuczi
1
1
Institute of Plant Sciences and Environmental Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Szeged, Andrássy Street 15, H-6800 Hódmezővásárhely, Hungary
2
Department of Geology, Faculty of Science and Informatics, University of Szeged, Egyetem Street 2-6, H-6722 Szeged, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Quaternary 2025, 8(4), 55; https://doi.org/10.3390/quat8040055 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 28 July 2025 / Revised: 13 September 2025 / Accepted: 10 October 2025 / Published: 15 October 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The Carpathian Basin holds exceptional significance for Quaternary research, particularly in loess studies. In this study, we attempted to create age-depth models based on age data from scientific journals to investigate accumulation rates. We examined eleven open profile sections for loess and paleosol, including seven in Hungary, two in Croatia, and two in Serbia. We demonstrated that radiocarbon age data are much more useful and reliable than OSL/IRSL data for this type of investigation. The results indicate that the Pécel, Dunaszekcső, Madaras and Katymár sections exhibit accumulation rates an order of magnitude higher than the other sections, exceeding one millimeter per year. These findings suggest that, owing to the basin’s geographic position, these areas were consistently exposed to dust deposition, irrespective of changes in climate or wind direction. A secondary accumulation maximum was also detected along the Katymár–Surduk axis, indicating an additional phase of intensified sediment deposition within this transect. The absence of a young sediment maximum in the Máza section is interpreted as resulting from a shift in prevailing wind direction, which caused the incoming dust to be intercepted by the Mecsek Mountains.

1. Introduction

The Carpathian Basin was a periglacial area during the Pleistocene, and as such it was located at the front of the main loess accumulation zone of the European continent e.g., [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. The basin nature of the site provided optimal conditions for the accumulation of airborne dust and fluvial sediments, which were repeatedly reworked by changing climatic and geomorphological processes, e.g., [9,10,11,12,13]. Due to its sheltered topography and large catchment area, the basin functioned as a natural sediment trap for fine-grained particles, leading to the development of thick and laterally extensive loess mantles. Loess–paleosol sections are most commonly found in riverine environments and in areas of former brick production or mining, where natural or artificial exposures allow detailed stratigraphic investigation. These sections have also been identified in numerous boreholes across the plain areas, confirming their widespread distribution and stratigraphic significance. The thickest and oldest loess section examined from a borehole in Hungary is located near Udvari, a settlement situated between the currently examined Ságvár and Máza sections in western Hungary. Its formation has been dated to approximately 1.1 million years ago, corresponding to Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 23 [14,15].
The investigation of loess sediments in the Carpathian Basin has yielded substantial research material, thereby playing a pivotal role in enhancing our understanding of Quaternary environments, particularly with regard to the Late Pleistocene, e.g., [16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. Studies of grain-size distribution, geochemistry, and paleomagnetism, combined with chronological methods, provide crucial insights into the timing of loess deposition, the nature of soil formation processes, and the climatic oscillations that controlled sediment supply. Consequently, the Carpathian Basin is often regarded as one of the key loess regions of Europe, offering sequences that can be directly correlated with records from neighboring areas such as the Pannonian Plain, the Balkans, and Central Europe.
A total of 12 loess-paleosol sequences were selected from the Carpathian Basin (Figure 1). A total of eight deposits were identified in Hungary, including Tokaj, Pécel, Ságvár, Máza, Dunaszekcső, Madaras, Katymár and Szeged. In addition, two deposits were located in Croatia, namely Zmajevac and Šarengrad, and two more were identified in Serbia, namely Črvenka and Surduk. Each section was carefully selected to provide multiple age data, preferably radiocarbon dates, so that the spatial extent of the paleoecology and paleoclimatology of the Carpathian Basin could be examined using robust age-depth models. In some cases, optically stimulated luminescence (OSL [23,24]) and Infrared Stimulated Luminescence (IRSL [25,26,27]) dating has also been applied to extend the chronological framework beyond the limits of radiocarbon dating.
The utilisation of age-depth models facilitates the acquisition of accumulation rate data, thereby enabling a comparative analysis of variations in dust accumulation across both space and time. Such models allow researchers to identify phases of intensified dust deposition, which can be linked to periods of increased aridity, glacial advance, or changes in vegetation cover. All of the loess-paleosol sequences that were examined are in an open-profile wall; however, the direction of exposure varies, ranging from north-facing sections with limited solar radiation to more exposed southern profiles. This variability may have a slight influence on the extent of accumulation, weathering, and preservation of the stratigraphic record, but when considered together, the sites provide a highly valuable and complementary dataset for reconstructing Late Pleistocene environmental dynamics in the region.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Dating

In the course of this study, we primarily focused on sections for which radiocarbon dating data were available. This preference reflects the fact that 14C measurements generally carry an uncertainty of approximately ~1% [28], whereas ages derived from OSL and IRSL techniques are typically associated with much larger error margins ranging from 5 to 10% [24]. Such elevated uncertainties can significantly distort the outcomes of chronological modelling, particularly when the reconstruction of subtle temporal changes is required. Age–depth models were constructed using the Bacon software package [29], which enabled Bayesian-based modelling grounded in the most recent and reliable chronological information. The resulting radiocarbon ages were subsequently calibrated against the IntCal20 calibration curve [30], ensuring both chronological accuracy and compatibility with the current international radiocarbon framework.
The uncalibrated age data, together with the corresponding depth information entered into the program, were recorded at centimeter-scale resolution, corresponding to the predefined depth intervals. Based on these raw datasets, we calculated sediment accumulation rates at millimeter-per-year (mm/year) resolution, from which the minimum, mean, and maximum values were extracted. For the purposes of interpretation and discussion presented in this manuscript, the mean accumulation rates were considered and applied, as they provide a representative measure of the long-term depositional dynamics.
For the Hungarian loess–paleosol sequences, accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating provided the chronological framework of the age–depth models [31,32]. In contrast, for the sections from Croatia and Serbia, luminescence dating (OSL and IRSL) was predominantly employed for the sections from Croatia and Serbia, with the exception of the Surduk section in Croatia, where both luminescence and radiocarbon ages were available, thus allowing direct comparison and cross-validation between the two approaches. With few exceptions, the radiocarbon ages were obtained from terrestrial gastropod shells, a commonly utilised material in loess studies because it is widely distributed and its biogenic carbonates are well preserved [33].
The modelling procedure incorporated stratigraphic boundaries (boundary), section thickness parameters (d.min, d.max), as well as sampling depths (thick), following the standardised input structure of Bacon [29]. Notably, extrapolation beyond the range of measured data was deliberately avoided to minimise the introduction of additional uncertainties. The complete set of chronological information utilised in the modelling is summarised in Table A1, which provides laboratory codes, geographic locations, dating methods, and the materials analysed. Detailed descriptions of sample extraction, material preparation protocols, and laboratory background corrections are provided in the cited references.

2.2. Sequences

2.2.1. Tokaj

The Tokaj loess–paleosol section represents an 11.25 m-thick sedimentary sequence located in northeastern Hungary, within the area of Kopasz Hill (48°13′ N, 20°27′ E). The stratigraphy of the profile is composed of three distinct loess horizons intercalated with two paleosol layers, reflecting alternating phases of aeolian deposition and soil formation. For chronological control, five radiocarbon ages are available from the Patkó Mine exposure, including three determinations obtained from land snail shells (A. arbustorum) and two from charcoal fragments. All of the radiocarbon ages are derived from the uppermost loess unit, providing age constraints primarily for the younger part of the sequence. To ensure high-resolution paleoenvironmental reconstruction, the entire section was systematically sampled at 25 cm intervals [21,34,35,36,37].

2.2.2. Pécel

The Pécel section is south-facing and located in the northern part of Hungary, east of the capital, Budapest (47°29.797′ N, 19°21.235′ E). It consists of a 25.72 m-thick loess–paleosol sequence, which preserves seven loess units distinguished with six paleosol horizons. The uppermost paleosol is weakly developed, indicating limited pedogenic activity during its formation. For analytical purposes, the profile was sampled at high resolution: every 4 cm for sedimentological, geochemical, and magnetic susceptibility measurements, and every 12 cm for malacological investigations. Chronological control is based on twenty radiocarbon determinations obtained from land snail shells (G. frumentum, T. hispidus, H. striata). These ages were derived from the uppermost two loess horizons and from the uppermost paleosol layer, thereby constraining the Late Pleistocene portion of the record [38,39,40].

2.2.3. Ságvár

The Ságvár section is located in central Hungary, between the Danube River and Lake Balaton (46°49.202′ N, 18°8.346′ E). The profile, which faces eastward, is relatively short compared to other Hungarian loess sequences, with a total thickness of 1.84 m. Its stratigraphy is simple, comprising two loess horizons separated by a single intercalated paleosol. Sampling was carried out at 4 cm intervals to allow for detailed sedimentological and paleoenvironmental analyses. For chronological purposes, three radiocarbon ages were obtained from land snail shells (T. hispidus): two specimens from the lower loess unit and one from the paleosol. These ages provide a chronological framework for interpreting environmental changes recorded in this short yet valuable sequence [41,42,43,44].

2.2.4. Máza

The Ságvár loess–paleosol sequence is located in southwestern Hungary, within a brickyard north of the Mecsek Mountains (46°17.159′ N, 18°24.352′ E). The section has a total thickness of 8.64 m and is oriented toward the south. Its stratigraphy consists of two loess horizons interbedded with two paleosol layers, reflecting alternating depositional and pedogenic phases. Sampling was conducted at 12 cm intervals, providing material for sedimentological and chronological analyses. Radiocarbon chronology is based on six age determinations obtained from land snail shells collected within both the lower and upper loess horizons, although the specific snail taxa were not specified in the original studies [45,46].

2.2.5. Dunaszekcső

The Dunaszekcső loess–paleosol sequence, with a total thickness of 17 m, is one of the most intensively investigated Quaternary records in Hungary. Its significance is underscored by the exceptionally large number of radiocarbon determinations available from the site, amounting to 133 ages in total. This large-scale dating program was designed to evaluate the reliability and usability of different mollusc species for chronological reconstruction. The section is located adjacent to the River Danube, in the south–southwestern part of Hungary (46°5.417′ N, 18°45.75′ E), and faces east. Stratigraphically, it is composed of three loess units intercalated with three paleosol horizons, providing a well-preserved alternation of depositional and pedogenic phases. Sampling intervals varied with depth, ranging from 5 to 10 cm (including intermediate 7.5 cm resolution) to ensure detailed coverage. Altogether, 23 radiocarbon dates were obtained from charcoal, while 110 determinations were based on land snail shells representing a wide taxonomic spectrum (V. crystallina, T. hispidus, O. dolium, P. muscorum, E. fulvus, V. costata, N. hammonis, A. arbustorum, D. ruderatus, C. cf. dubia, Clausiliidae sp., S. oblonga, and C. tridens) [17,47,48,49].

2.2.6. Madaras

The Madaras loess–paleosol sequence is located in the southern part of Hungary, near the present-day Serbia–Hungary border (46°2.24′ N, 19°17.25′ E). The profile, which is oriented toward the north, reaches a total thickness of 10 m. Its stratigraphy consists of three loess units intercalated with three well-developed paleosols and two weaker paleosol horizons, documenting multiple cycles of aeolian deposition and soil formation. The section was sampled at high resolution, with material collected at 4 cm intervals for sedimentological, geochemical, and chronological studies. Radiocarbon dating has provided a total of 32 age determinations: thirty from land snail shells (G. frumentum, T. hispidus, F. fruticum, C. columella, V. tenuilabris, E. fulvus, C. tridens, and P. planorbis), one from soil organic matter, and one from charcoal [21,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62].

2.2.7. Katymár

The Katymár loess–paleosol sequence is located in the southern part of Hungary, 6 km from the Madaras section as the crow flies. (46°1.05′ N, 19°11.71′ E). The profile, which is oriented toward the west, reaches a total thickness of 10.32 m. Its stratigraphy consists of three loess units intercalated with two well-developed paleosols and one weaker paleosol horizon, documenting multiple cycles of aeolian deposition and soil formation. The section was sampled at high resolution, with material collected at 4 cm intervals for sedimentological, geochemical, and chronological studies. Radiocarbon dating has provided a total of 10 age determinations: seven from land snail shells (S. oblonga, O. dolium, C. dubia, P. sterri, G. frumentum), and three from charcoal [21,54,57,63,64,65,66,67].

2.2.8. Szeged-Öthalom

The Öthalom loess–paleosol sequence is located in the south–southeastern part of Hungary, near the city of Szeged and approximately 10 km from the present-day Serbian border (46°17.238′ N, 20°6.178′ E). The profile is oriented to the south and reaches a total thickness of 6 m. Both aeolian and reworked (infusion) loess deposits occur within the section; however, for the purposes of this study only the aeolian loess is considered. The stratigraphy is relatively simple, consisting of a single loess unit overlain by one paleosol horizon. Sampling was conducted at 25 cm intervals, yielding material for sedimentological and chronological analyses. Radiocarbon dating provided six ages in total: five derived from the loess horizon and one from the paleosol. All dated samples were obtained from land snail shells, although the original studies did not specify the species represented. Despite its limited thickness, the Öthalom section contributes useful chronological information to the loess records of the southern Great Hungarian Plain [68,69,70].

2.2.9. Surduk

The loess–paleosol sequence north of Belgrade, has a total thickness of 20 m and is located adjacent to the River Danube (45°17.766′ N, 20°11.267′ E). The profile faces east and preserves a simple stratigraphy of two loess horizons separated by two paleosol layers, reflecting alternating periods of aeolian deposition and soil formation. High-resolution sampling was conducted at 5 cm intervals to support detailed sedimentological and chronological analyses. Chronological control includes ten infrared–optically stimulated luminescence (IR-OSL) ages and fourteen radiocarbon determinations; however, the original publications did not specify the source material for these measurements [71,72,73,74].

2.2.10. Zmajevac

The loess–paleosol sequence at the border of Croatia and Serbia has a total thickness of 25 m and is located adjacent to the Danube River (45°48.633′ N, 18°49.116′ E). The profile faces east and comprises two loess horizons separated by a single paleosol layer, representing alternating phases of aeolian deposition and soil formation. Sampling was conducted at 10 cm intervals, allowing for high-resolution sedimentological and chronological analyses. Chronological control is based on nine infrared-stimulated luminescence (IRSL) age determinations, providing an age framework for the depositional history of this section [75,76,77,78,79].

2.2.11. Šarengrad II

The loess–paleosol sequence at the Croatia–Serbia border, adjacent to the Danube River, has a total thickness of 23 m and faces east (45°13.9′ N, 19°17.833′ E). The stratigraphy consists of two loess horizons separated by a single paleosol layer, reflecting alternating periods of aeolian deposition and soil formation. Sampling was conducted at 10 cm intervals to ensure high-resolution sedimentological and chronological coverage. Chronological control is provided by three infrared-stimulated luminescence (IRSL) age determinations, which establish a framework for the timing of loess accumulation and pedogenesis at this site [75,78,79,80,81].

2.2.12. Črvenka

The Črvenka loess–paleosol sequence is located in northern Serbia, exposed in a brickyard (45°39.75′ N, 19°28.77′ E). The profile reaches a total thickness of 12 m and comprises three loess horizons intercalated with two paleosol layers. Similar to the Pécel section in Hungary, the uppermost paleosol is poorly developed, indicating limited pedogenic activity during its formation. Sampling and analysis have been supported by twelve optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) age determinations, which provide a chronological framework for the sequence [22,82].

3. Results

3.1. Age-Depth Models from Radiocarbon Ages

3.1.1. Tokaj

The age–depth model was constructed using five radiocarbon ages spanning 200 to 550 cm, with sampling at 25 cm intervals. The model was run for 3,375,000 iterations. No stratigraphic boundaries were applied, as all radiocarbon ages originated from the same loess layer. All dates fall within the 95% confidence interval, indicating strong internal consistency. The resulting model is illustrated in Figure 2, where it is shown as the orange line.

3.1.2. Pécel

The age–depth model was generated using twenty radiocarbon ages covering the interval from 44 to 884 cm, with samples taken at 25 cm intervals. The model was run for 3,375,000 iterations. Stratigraphic boundaries were applied at 300 cm and 564 cm to reflect changes in depositional or pedogenic conditions. All radiocarbon dates fall within the 95% confidence interval, indicating excellent internal consistency. The resulting age–depth model is shown in Figure 2 as the dark blue line.

3.1.3. Ságvár

The age–depth model was constructed using three radiocarbon ages covering the interval from 0 to 184 cm, with sampling at 4 cm intervals. The model was run for 9,375,000 iterations. Two stratigraphic boundaries were applied at 18 cm and 25 cm to account for changes in depositional conditions. All radiocarbon dates fall within the 95% confidence interval, indicating strong internal consistency. The resulting age–depth model is illustrated in Figure 2 as the red line.

3.1.4. Máza

The age–depth model was generated using six radiocarbon ages spanning 10 to 580 cm, with sampling at 12 cm intervals. The model was run for 9,562,500 iterations. Two stratigraphic boundaries were applied at 335 cm and 435 cm to account for changes in depositional or pedogenic conditions. Unlike the previous models, 67% of the radiocarbon dates fall within the 95% confidence interval, indicating slightly lower internal consistency. The resulting age–depth model is illustrated in Figure 2 as the green line.

3.1.5. Dunaszekcső

The age–depth model was constructed using 133 radiocarbon ages spanning 250 to 1010 cm, with sampling at 5 cm intervals. The model was run for 29,250,000 iterations. A single stratigraphic boundary was applied at 840 cm to reflect a change in depositional or pedogenic conditions. Approximately 61% of the radiocarbon dates fall within the 95% confidence interval, indicating moderate internal consistency compared with the other models. The resulting age–depth model is shown in Figure 2 as the purple line.

3.1.6. Madaras

The age–depth model was constructed using 32 radiocarbon ages, with the sequence sampled at 4 cm intervals over the 6–998 cm depth range. The model was run for 47,250,000 iterations. Seven stratigraphic boundaries were applied at 60, 150, 450, 550, 800, 870, and 980 cm to account for changes in depositional or pedogenic conditions. Approximately 67% of the radiocarbon dates fall within the 95% confidence interval, indicating good internal consistency. The resulting age–depth model is shown in Figure 2 as the brown line.

3.1.7. Katymár

The age–depth model was constructed using 10 radiocarbon ages, with the sequence sampled at 4 cm intervals over the 62–1032 cm depth range. The model was run for 36,937,500 iterations. Seven stratigraphic boundaries were applied at 100, 600, 620, 920, 940, 1000, and 1020 cm to account for changes in depositional or pedogenic conditions. All radiocarbon dates fall within the 95% confidence interval, indicating good internal consistency. The resulting age–depth model is shown in Figure 2 as the dark red line.

3.1.8. Szeged-Öthalom

The age–depth model was constructed using five radiocarbon ages, with sampling at 25 cm intervals over the 150–450 cm depth range. The model was run for 3,000,000 iterations. No stratigraphic boundaries were applied, as all radiocarbon ages originated from the same layer. All dates fall within the 95% confidence interval, indicating excellent internal consistency. The resulting age–depth model is shown in Figure 2 as the black line.

3.1.9. Surduk—Radiocarbon

The age–depth model was constructed using fourteen radiocarbon ages, with sampling at 10 cm intervals over the 180–1180 cm depth range. The model was run for 19,312,500 iterations. Two stratigraphic boundaries were applied at 820 cm and 1150 cm to account for changes in depositional or pedogenic conditions. Approximately 86% of the radiocarbon dates fall within the 95% confidence interval, indicating strong internal consistency. The resulting age–depth model is shown in Figure 2 as the pale deep yellow line.

3.1.10. Summary of the Age-Depth Models Derived from Radiocarbon Ages

The first notable increase in accumulation rate is observed in the Pécel section between 41,000 and 43,000 cal. BP (Figure 2), where the rate triples from 0.2 to 0.6 mm/year. A similar pattern occurs in the Máza section, although the magnitude of the increase is smaller. Between 37,000 and 39,000 cal. BP, the accumulation rate in the Máza profile drops below 0.2 mm/year, but the average rate for the entire examined section remains around 0.2 mm/year. A slight increase is noted again in the uppermost part of the profile.
Another striking period occurs between 28,000 and 35,000 cal. BP, during which the Tokaj, Katymár and Surduk sections show increasing accumulation values. In contrast, the Dunaszekcső section exhibits a decline in accumulation between 31,000 and 35,000 cal. BP. The Madaras section, however, maintains a steady rate of approximately 1 mm/year from 27,000 to 38,000 cal. BP.
Three sequences—Pécel, Madaras, and Dunaszekcső—exhibit relatively high accumulation rates, averaging around 1 mm/year. Within these sections, the highest values occur between 23,000 and 27,000 cal. BP. During the same interval, the Tokaj sequence also shows an increase, although it is modest compared to the other sections. Conversely, the Katymár and Surduk profiles displays a continuous decline, dropping from 0.8 to 0.2 mm/year.
Between 18,000 and 23,000 cal. BP, accumulation rates peak in the Tokaj, Madaras, Surduk, and Szeged–Öthalom sections, following the order listed. In contrast, the Pécel section reaches its lowest values during this interval, falling below 0.2 mm/year.
In the uppermost part of the profiles, between 12,000 and 20,000 cal. BP, the Madaras section exhibits highly variable accumulation, making clear trends difficult to discern. Although the Szeged and Madaras profiles are separated by approximately 70 km, they display markedly different accumulation patterns, highlighting local variability in depositional processes.

3.2. Age-Depth Models from IRSL Ages

3.2.1. Surduk—IRSL

The age–depth model was constructed using ten IRSL ages, with sampling at 10 cm intervals over the 260–1940 cm depth range. The model was run for 32,062,500 iterations. Eleven stratigraphic boundaries were applied at 650, 820, 860, 900, 940, 1130, 1250, 1320, 1570, 1600, and 1840 cm to account for changes in depositional or pedogenic conditions. Approximately 60% of the ages fall within the 95% confidence interval, indicating moderate internal consistency. The resulting age–depth model is shown in Figure 3 as the black line.

3.2.2. Zmajevac

The age–depth model was constructed using nine IRSL ages, with sampling at 10 cm intervals over the 150–2560 cm depth range. The model was run for 23,062,500 iterations. Seven stratigraphic boundaries were applied at 600, 770, 1040, 1200, 1410, 1890, and 2320 cm to account for changes in depositional or pedogenic conditions. Approximately 44% of the ages fall within the 95% confidence interval, indicating lower internal consistency compared with other models. The resulting age–depth model is shown in Figure 3 as the blue line.

3.2.3. Šarengrad II

The age–depth model was constructed using three IRSL ages, with sampling at 10 cm intervals over the 1000–1500 cm depth range. The model was run for 19,500,000 iterations. Two stratigraphic boundaries were applied at 1200 cm and 1450 cm to account for changes in depositional or pedogenic conditions. Approximately 50% of the ages fall within the 95% confidence interval, indicating moderate internal consistency. The resulting age–depth model is shown in Figure 3 as the brown line.

3.2.4. Črvenka

The age–depth model was constructed using twelve OSL ages, with sampling at 10 cm intervals over the 10–1130 cm depth range. The model was run for 21,562,500 iterations. Five stratigraphic boundaries were applied at 40, 480, 520, 850, and 1080 cm to account for changes in depositional or pedogenic conditions. Approximately 75% of the ages fall within the 95% confidence interval, indicating good internal consistency. The resulting age–depth model is shown in Figure 3 as the red line.

3.2.5. Summary of the Age-Depth Models Derived from OSL/IRSL Ages

In the Zmajevac section, increases in accumulation rate are observed between 50,000–60,000 cal. BP and 20,000–30,000 cal. BP (Figure 3). A similar pattern is seen in the Črvenka section, where accumulation rates rise between 20,000 and 40,000 cal. BP. In contrast, the Surduk section exhibits highly variable accumulation, making clear trends difficult to identify. For the Šarengrad section, no notable changes in accumulation rate are apparent over the examined interval.

4. Discussion

Higher accumulation rates are observed in the Madaras, Pécel, and Dunaszekcső sections (Figure 4, red ellipse), with values exceeding 1 mm/year (Figure 2). However, the timing and magnitude of accumulation maxima vary between sections, and in some cases, maxima are not clearly identifiable.
On the other hand, the age–depth model constructed from the radiocarbon data of the Katymár and Surduk sections delineates a distinct group characterized by an average accumulation rate of approximately 0.5 mm/year (Figure 2). The two accumulation curves exhibit an almost identical temporal pattern, with only minimal differences in the recorded values. If one were to designate the intermediate zone between these sections, the Črvenka site would also be included within it (Figure 4, blue ellipse). However, as no radiocarbon age determinations are currently available from Črvenka, it cannot be substantiated whether an accumulation maximum comparable to that observed in the Pécel–Dunaszekcső–Madaras transect can also be defined along this axis.
Accumulation rates in the OSL/IRSL-dated sections are generally lower, ranging between 0.05 and 0.3 mm/year, compared to the radiocarbon-dated sections, which show values between 0.2 and 3.4 mm/year. Among the non-Hungarian sites, Surduk is the only section with available radiocarbon dates; its accumulation maximum follows a trend similar to Tokaj, but with a difference of 8–10,000 years.
For the Máza section, younger intervals do not show an increase in accumulation, whereas earlier intervals display a modest rise, comparable in pattern but smaller in magnitude that of the Pécel section.
In addition to the two designated zones, similarities can also be identified in the accumulation rate trends of the Tokaj and Szeged sections. In both cases, the accumulation maximum occurs in deposits younger than the minimum accumulation values observed at around ~22,000 cal. BP. years. Nevertheless, the temporal progression of the two sections is not entirely congruent, as more pronounced differences can be detected in their respective accumulation rates.

5. Conclusions

As demonstrated in previous research [83], comparing OSL/IRSL and radiocarbon age data in age–depth models is prone to high uncertainty. Due to the relatively large errors associated with OSL/IRSL ages, these models often produce near-linear accumulation patterns, making them less suitable for precise temporal reconstrucsctions. This limitation is exemplified by the radiocarbon results from the Surduk section. Although OSL/IRSL dating remains essential for establishing the chronology of older sediments that cannot be measured by radiocarbon methods, it is generally less reliable for constructing detailed age–depth models.
Within the central Carpathian Basin, a north–south axis of higher accumulation can be identified (Figure 4, red ellipse), in contrast to the lower accumulation observed in the western and eastern regions. For the Serbian and Croatian sections, additional radiocarbon data would be necessary to better define and extend this axis. The absence of nearby rivers at the Pécel and Madaras sections suggests that fluvial processes did not significantly influence sediment accumulation there. It is therefore plausible that the central parts of the basin experienced the greatest deposition due to alternating wind directions, which delivered airborne material to all examined profiles.
The identical accumulation maxima observed at the Surduk and Tokaj sections may be explained by their topographic positions, as both are the easternmost profiles. However, if topography were the sole factor, similar patterns would be expected at the Szeged section. This might hold true for Szeged’s upper parts, but no earlier data are available to confirm it.
A secondary accumulation maximum was identified along the Katymár–Surduk axis, which also encompasses the Črvenka section. However, due to the absence of radiocarbon dating results from Črvenka, this assumption cannot be conclusively verified for that locality. In contrast, when comparing the Katymár and Madaras sections, substantial differences in accumulation are evident, despite the fact that the two sites are situated only ~6 km apart in a straight line. This pronounced variability highlights the strong spatial heterogeneity of depositional processes, even at relatively short distances.
Within the Máza section, a distinct accumulation maximum can be identified between 39,000 and 41,000 cal. BP. years. In contrast, the younger sediments display an approximately linear accumulation trend. The other radiocarbon-dated sections, however, show pronounced peaks in accumulation rates over the same interval.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.M., P.C. and J.H.; methodology, L.M. and J.H.; software, L.M.; validation, L.M. and J.H.; formal analysis, P.C.; investigation, L.M., P.C. and J.H.; resources, L.M., P.C. and J.H.; data curation, L.M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.M.; writing—review and editing, L.M., P.C. and J.H.; visualization, L.M.; supervision, J.H.; project administration, L.M. and J.H.; funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the data will also be used in ongoing research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Materials and laboratory data of the age data.
Table A1. Materials and laboratory data of the age data.
Lab CodeLocationDepth (cm)Data TypeMaterialUncal. BP yrσ
Deb-4364Tokaj, Patkó-mine200–22514CA. arbustorum16,300150
Deb-4332Tokaj, Patkó-mine250–27514CA. arbustorum17,750150
Deb-2661Tokaj, Patkó-mine300–32514CA. arbustorum18,500300
Deb-4349Tokaj, Patkó-mine400–42514CCharcoal23,500500
Deb-3043Tokaj, Patkó-mine525–55014CCharcoal27,500350
DeA-34288Pécel12–2414CG. frumentum129721
DeA-34278Pécel108–12014CT. hispidus18,10558
DeA-34289Pécel132–14414CH. striata19,69863
DeA-34279Pécel264–27614CT. hispidus20,13568
DeA-34290Pécel276–28814CH. striata20,36169
DeA-34280Pécel300–31214CT. hispidus20,00467
DeA-34291Pécel336–34814CH. striata20,55666
DeA-34281Pécel360–37214CT. hispidus20,63471
DeA-34282Pécel408–42014CT. hispidus20,77572
DeA-34292Pécel432–44414CH. striata2090270
DeA-34283Pécel468–48014CT. hispidus2111370
DeA-34293Pécel480–49214CT. hispidus2054167
DeA-34284Pécel516–52814CT. hispidus34640206
DeA-34294Pécel540–55214CT. hispidus2126673
DeA-34285Pécel552–56414CT. hispidus2100873
DeA-34295Pécel576–58814CT. hispidus2014166
DeA-34296Pécel624–63614CH. striata35214214
DeA-34286Pécel648–66014CT. hispidus38904325
DeA-34287Pécel744–75614CT. hispidus39385334
DeA-34297Pécel756–76814CH. striata38639290
DeA-11788Ságvár20–2414CT. hispidus18,35065
DeA-11789Ságvár56–6014CT. hispidus20,33375
DeA-11793Ságvár116–12014CT. hispidus22,156102
DeA-20934Máza9014Cshell12,43249
DeA-20935Máza31814Cshell24,278123
D-AMS 002121Máza41414Cshell19,36198
DeA-20936Máza48614Cshell26,379148
D-AMS 002122Máza51014Cshell35,156224
DeA-20937Máza57014Cshell35,632292
DeA-4700Dunaszekcső25014Cshell (V. crystallina)19,51581
DeA-4699Dunaszekcső28014Cshell (V. crystallina)20,40986
DeA-4698Dunaszekcső28014Cshell (T. hispidus)20,99576
DeA-4696Dunaszekcső31014Cshell (O. dolium)21,18267
DeA-4693Dunaszekcső34014Cshell (O. dolium)20,45767
DeA-4694Dunaszekcső34014Cshell (P. muscorum)20,555116
DeA-4695Dunaszekcső34014Cshell (V. crystallina)21,066112
DeA-4689Dunaszekcső37014Cshell (E. fulvus)19,81396
DeA-4691Dunaszekcső37014Cshell (V. costata)20,28376
DeA-4692Dunaszekcső37014Cshell (V. crystallina)20,45778
DeA-4690Dunaszekcső37014Cshell (N. hammonis)22,086102
DeA-2068Dunaszekcső40014Cshell (T. hispidus)18,67868
DeA-2067Dunaszekcső40014Cshell (A. arbustorum)20,58575
DeA-4688Dunaszekcső40014Cshell (V. costata)20,851133
DeA-4687Dunaszekcső40014Cshell (V. crystallina)20,94676
DeA-4635Dunaszekcső42514Cshell (V. crystallina)20,88980
DeA-4634Dunaszekcső42514Cshell (D. ruderatus)21,32872
DeA-4631Dunaszekcső45514Cshell (E. fulvus)21,27197
DeA-4632Dunaszekcső45514Cshell (P. muscorum)21,695147
DeA-4633Dunaszekcső45514Cshell (V. costata)22,137261
DeA-4629Dunaszekcső48514Cshell (N. hammonis)20,82873
DeA-4628Dunaszekcső48514Cshell (E. fulvus)21,075233
DeA-4627Dunaszekcső48514Cshell (O. dolium)21,46972
DeA-4630Dunaszekcső48514Cshell (V. costata)21,540150
DeA-8739Dunaszekcső49014Cshell (T. hispidus)21,42575
DeA-8740Dunaszekcső49514Cshell (T. hispidus)20,65264
DeA-2071Dunaszekcső50014Cshell (T. hispidus)19,65676
DeA-2070Dunaszekcső50014Cshell (A. arbustorum)20,50479
DeA-8741Dunaszekcső50514Cshell (T. hispidus)26,01891
DeA-8742Dunaszekcső51014Cshell (C. cf dubia)22,09483
DeA-4626Dunaszekcső51514Cshell (N. hammonis)21,71995
DeA-4625Dunaszekcső51514Cshell (E. fulvus)22,191176
DeA-4624Dunaszekcső51514Cshell (O. dolium)22,27265
DeA-8743Dunaszekcső52014Cshell (Clausiliidae sp.)22,11576
DeA-8744Dunaszekcső52514Cshell (T. hispidus)21,56172
DeA-8745Dunaszekcső53014Cshell (Clausiliidae sp.)21,54080
DeA-8746Dunaszekcső54014Cshell (S. oblonga)21,95471
DeA-3743Dunaszekcső54514Cshell (S. oblonga)22,280104
DeA-8747Dunaszekcső55014Cshell (S. oblonga)22,09071
DeA-8748Dunaszekcső55514Cshell (S. oblonga)21,64973
DeA-8749Dunaszekcső56014Cshell (S. oblonga)21,79970
DeA-8750Dunaszekcső56514Cshell (S. oblonga)21,76575
DeA-8751Dunaszekcső57014Cshell (S. oblonga)22,16774
DeA-3745Dunaszekcső57514Cshell (O. dolium)22,708101
DeA-3744Dunaszekcső57514Cshell (S. oblonga)22,841112
DeA-8826Dunaszekcső58014Cshell (S. oblonga)21,82868
DeA-8827Dunaszekcső58514Cshell (S. oblonga)20,38560
DeA-8828Dunaszekcső59514Cshell (S. oblonga)18,15355
DeA-2930Dunaszekcső60014Cshell (T. hispidus)22,33280
DeA-2931Dunaszekcső60014Cshell (S. oblonga)23,03688
DeA-8829Dunaszekcső60514Cshell (S. oblonga)22,42695
DeA-8830Dunaszekcső61014Cshell (C. cf dubia)21,30862
DeA-8831Dunaszekcső61514Cshell (S. oblonga)22,50172
DeA-8832Dunaszekcső61514Cshell (Clausiliidae sp.)23,05177
DeA-8833Dunaszekcső62014Cshell (S. oblonga)22,15871
DeA-3746Dunaszekcső62514Cshell (S. oblonga)22,848110
DeA-3747Dunaszekcső62514Cshell (E. fulvus)22,943130
DeA-8834Dunaszekcső63014Cshell (S. oblonga)22,76577
DeA-8836Dunaszekcső64014Cshell (S. oblonga)23,32776
DeA-8837Dunaszekcső64514Cshell (S. oblonga)23,36376
DeA-3748Dunaszekcső65514Cshell (S. oblonga)24,311135
DeA-8838Dunaszekcső66014Cshell (S. oblonga)23,63874
DeA-8722Dunaszekcső66514Cshell (S. oblonga)24,477118
DeA-7782Dunaszekcső67014Cshell (S. oblonga)24,00397
DeA-8723Dunaszekcső67514Cshell (S. oblonga)22,332128
DeA-8724Dunaszekcső68014Cshell (S. oblonga)23,879128
DeA-3749Dunaszekcső68514Cshell (S. oblonga)24,262138
DeA-8726Dunaszekcső69014Cshell (T. hispidus)21,870100
DeA-8725Dunaszekcső69014Cshell (S. oblonga)24,425111
DeA-8727Dunaszekcső69514Cshell (S. oblonga)22,781159
DeA-7784Dunaszekcső70014Cshell (T. hispidus)23,12387
DeA-7783Dunaszekcső70014Cshell (S. oblonga)23,913101
DeA-8729Dunaszekcső70514Cshell (Clausiliidae sp.)19,60996
DeA-8728Dunaszekcső70514Cshell (C. tridens)24,652122
DeA-3750Dunaszekcső71014Cshell (S. oblonga)23,349163
DeA-7785Dunaszekcső72514Cshell (O. dolium)23,783108
DeA-7787Dunaszekcső75514Cshell (T. hispidus)24,670105
DeA-7786Dunaszekcső75514Cshell (S. oblonga)25,901125
DeA-7789Dunaszekcső76514Cshell (Clausiliidae sp.)23,69598
DeA-3751Dunaszekcső77514Cshell (S. oblonga)26,159157
DeA-7790Dunaszekcső78514Cshell (S. oblonga)25,748112
DeA-7791Dunaszekcső78514Cshell (S. oblonga)26,121118
DeA-8947Dunaszekcső79014Cshell (S. oblonga)27,450123
DeA-8948Dunaszekcső79514Cshell (S. oblonga)26,080112
DeA-3752Dunaszekcső80014Cshell (S. oblonga)25,187141
DeA-8949Dunaszekcső80514Cshell (S. oblonga)26,284115
DeA-8950Dunaszekcső81014Cshell (S. oblonga)21,82593
DeA-8951Dunaszekcső81014Cshell (Clausiliidae sp.)25,680107
DeA-8952Dunaszekcső81514Cshell (S. oblonga)25,884138
DeA-11448Dunaszekcső81514Ccharcoal26,156159
DeA-11546Dunaszekcső81514Ccharcoal25,319430
DeA-2918Dunaszekcső82014Cshell (T. hispidus)15,84456
DeA-2922Dunaszekcső82014Cshell (V. crystallina)25,838123
DeA-2917Dunaszekcső82014Ccharcoal26,433178
DeA-2919Dunaszekcső82014Cshell (S. oblonga)26,142125
DeA-2921Dunaszekcső82014Cshell (C. tridens)26,851118
DeA-2920Dunaszekcső82014Cshell (Clausiliidae sp.)26,979126
DeA-6596Dunaszekcső82014Ccharcoal26,726142
DeA-6597Dunaszekcső82014Ccharcoal27,320158
DeA-6601Dunaszekcső82014Cshell (D. ruderatus)26,010148
DeA-6602Dunaszekcső82014Cshell (Clausiliidae sp.)26,954151
DeA-6603Dunaszekcső82014Cshell (E. fulvus)25,548171
DeA-6604Dunaszekcső82014Cshell (T. hispidus)26,553142
DeA-2924Dunaszekcső82514Cshell (V. crystallina)20,724111
DeA-2923Dunaszekcső82514Ccharcoal25,868165
DeA-2925Dunaszekcső82514Cshell (Clausiliidae sp.)26,113129
DeA-11449Dunaszekcső83014Ccharcoal22,346152
DeA-11547Dunaszekcső83014Ccharcoal21,226301
DeA-11450Dunaszekcső83514Ccharcoal24,419117
DeA-11451Dunaszekcső83514Ccharcoal24,482142
DeA-8953Dunaszekcső84014Cshell (T. hispidus)26,000108
DeA-3810Dunaszekcső85014Ccharcoal26,015320
DeA-5943Dunaszekcső85014Ccharcoal26,139162
DeA-5944Dunaszekcső85014Ccharcoal27,492179
DeA-3811Dunaszekcső86514Ccharcoal29,547537
DeA-8587Dunaszekcső87014Cshell (T. hispidus)26,75699
DeA-5945Dunaszekcső89014Ccharcoal29,063449
DeA-8608Dunaszekcső90014Ccharcoal27,727277
DeA-8588Dunaszekcső90014Cshell (Clausiliidae sp.)28,008108
DeA-8589Dunaszekcső91014Cshell (G. frumentum)30,122131
DeA-5946Dunaszekcső92514Ccharcoal31,954862
DeA-8590Dunaszekcső94014Cshell (Clausiliidae sp.)29,221176
DeA-8609Dunaszekcső95514Ccharcoal30,487384
DeA-8610Dunaszekcső95514Ccharcoal33,159672
DeA-8591Dunaszekcső95514Cshell (Clausiliidae sp.)32,402188
DeA-8592Dunaszekcső97014Cshell (C. cf dubia)30,005120
DeA-8612Dunaszekcső97014Ccharcoal32,533548
DeA-5947Dunaszekcső98014Ccharcoal28,813776
DeA-8593Dunaszekcső99514Cshell (C. cf dubia)28,060125
DeA-5948Dunaszekcső101014Ccharcoal31,528436
DeA-5949Dunaszekcső101014Ccharcoal33,785636
DeA-8614Dunaszekcső102514Ccharcoal38,643811
DeA-8594Dunaszekcső104514Cshell (G. frumentum)35,058214
D-AMS 4172Madaras16–2014CG. frumentum10,98657
DeA-11787Madaras60–6414CT. hispidus12,89146
D-AMS 4173Madaras100–10414CG. frumentum13,56141
DeA-1467Madaras148–15214CT. hispidus14,49881
DeA-11908Madaras200–20414CT. hispidus14,89153
DeA-11907Madaras248–25214CT. hispidus16,13363
DeA-20947Madaras272–27614CF. fruticum16,54154
DeA-11906Madaras300–30414CT. hispidus16,62863
D-AMS 4174Madaras400–40414CC. columella17,15050
DeA-11905Madaras448–45214CT. hispidus17,36863
DeA-11903Madaras500–50414CV. tenuilabris17,85864
DeA-11904Madaras548–55214CT. hispidus17,87071
DeA-11902Madaras548–55214CG. frumentum17,93566
DeA-1466Madaras588–59214CC. columella18,528121
DeA-11901Madaras600–60414CE. fulvus18,94271
DeA-11900Madaras648–65214CC. tridens19,28872
DeA-11860Madaras700–70414CC. tridens20,19393
DeA-11898Madaras748–75214CT. hispidus20,50375
DeA-11896Madaras748–75214CC. tridens20,54479
DeA-20943Madaras800–80414CT. hispidus20,50972
DeA-1465Madaras892–89614CC. tridens21,266159
DeA-11895Madaras896–90014CC. tridens21,38182
DeA-11897Madaras900–90414CG. frumentum21,41586
DeA-19221Madaras900–90414Csoil organic matter21,899126
DeA-8796Madaras904–90814CG. frumentum21,51898
Deb-3104Madaras900–90814CPinus charcoal21,937252
DeA-8799Madaras908–91214CG. frumentum21,96884
DeA-11861Madaras920–92414CG. frumentum22,062106
DeA-20946Madaras924–92814CC. tridens22,06682
D-AMS 005122Madaras948–95214CG. frumentum23,636104
DeA-11790Madaras952–95614CP. planorbis23,899102
D-AMS 004636Madaras996–100014CG. frumentum34,654264
D-AMS 016719Katymár6214CS. oblonga12,64843
deb-3253Katymár13714CO. dolium13,94493
GdA-579Katymár28114CO. dolium16,57070
GdA-582Katymár33814CC. dubia18,55090
GdA-557Katymár53514CP. sterri21,490110
GdA-558Katymár54014CG. frumentum21,760120
deb-3064Katymár60014Ccharcoal23,749360
GdA-551Katymár92014Ccharcoal27,180180
deb-3058Katymár100014Ccharcoal29,828554
D-AMS 004636Katymár103214CG. frumentum34,654264
Deb-2056Szeged-Öthalom150–17514Cshell16,000200
Deb-1486Szeged-Öthalom175–20014Cshell16,080150
Deb-3159Szeged-Öthalom200–22514Cshell16,323145
Deb-3184Szeged-Öthalom250–27514Cshell18,205206
Deb-2049Szeged-Öthalom425–45014Cshell25,200300
n.a.Surduk18014Cn.a.6400190
n.a.Surduk33014Cn.a.17,13585
n.a.Surduk44514Cn.a.23,740145
n.a.Surduk53014Cn.a.26,000330
n.a.Surduk67514Cn.a.26,500370
n.a.Surduk78014Cn.a.26,775530
n.a.Surduk80514Cn.a.27,550175
n.a.Surduk84514Cn.a.26,640340
n.a.Surduk85014Cn.a.27,870440
n.a.Surduk90014Cn.a.28,360645
n.a.Surduk92514Cn.a.28,950180
n.a.Surduk97014Cn.a.29,335725
n.a.Surduk102514Cn.a.29,145710
n.a.Surduk118014Cn.a.44,0251350
BT 140Surduk260IRSLn.a.15,8001600
BT 141Surduk490IRSLn.a.19,7002100
BT 142Surduk800IRSLn.a.36,3003900
BT 143Surduk840IRSLn.a.31,8003400
BT 144Surduk980IRSLn.a.39,8004500
BT 145Surduk1160IRSLn.a.53,4005600
BT 146Surduk1270IRSLn.a.53,1005500
BT 147Surduk1420IRSLn.a.66,0007000
BT 148Surduk1480IRSLn.a.82,6009000
BT 149Surduk1940IRSLn.a.120,70012,800
Z-1Zmajevac150IRSLn.a.17,8001900
ZMA-7Zmajevac300IRSLn.a.16,7001800
ZMA-6Zmajevac450IRSLn.a.20,2002100
ZMA-5Zmajevac800IRSLn.a.49,9005000
Z-8Zmajevac950IRSLn.a.61,0006200
ZMA-4Zmajevac1170IRSLn.a.68,6006900
ZMA-3Zmajevac1275IRSLn.a.101,00010,000
ZMA-2Zmajevac2100IRSLn.a.121,00012,000
ZMA-1Zmajevac2560IRSLn.a.217,00022,000
Š3–1663Šarengrad900IRSLn.a.230,00018,000
Š2–1662Šarengrad1000IRSLn.a.228,00019,000
Š1–1661Šarengrad1500IRSLn.a.298,00024,000
SB070112Črvenka30OSLn.a.7700600
SB070111Črvenka85OSLn.a.13,0001000
SB070110Črvenka130OSLn.a.15,0001000
SB070109Črvenka210OSLn.a.23,0002000
SB070108Črvenka290OSLn.a.24,0002000
SB070107Črvenka400OSLn.a.22,0002000
SB070106Črvenka470OSLn.a.33,0003000
SB070105Črvenka550OSLn.a.38,0004000
SB070104Črvenka670OSLn.a.45,0004000
SB070103Črvenka770OSLn.a.56,0004000
SB070102Črvenka910OSLn.a.58,0004000
SB070101Črvenka1130OSLn.a.114,0007000

References

  1. Vandenberghe, J.; Hujizer, B.; Mücher, H.; Laan, W. Short climatic oscillations in a western European loess sequence (Kesselt, Belgium). J. Quat. Sci. 1998, 13, 35–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Antoine, P.; Rousseau, D.D.; Zöller, L.; Lang, A.; Munaut, A.V.; Hatté, C.; Fontugne, M. High resolution record of the last interglacial-glacial cycle in loess palaeosol sequences of Nussloch (Rhine Valley-Germany). Quat. Int. 2001, 76–77, 211–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rousseau, D.D.; Zöller, L.; Valet, J.P. Climatic variations in the Upper Pleistocene loess sequence at Achenheim (Alsace, France): Analysis of magnetic susceptibility and thermoluminescence chronology. Quat. Res. 1998, 49, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rousseau, D.D.; Gerasimenko, N.; Matvviishina, Z.; Kukla, G.J. Late Pleistocene environments of central Ukraine. Quat. Res. 2001, 56, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rousseau, D.D.; Antoine, P.; Christine, H.; Lang, A. Abrupt millennial climatic changes from Nussloch (Germany) Upper Weichselian eolian records during the last glaciation. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2002, 21, 1577–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jary, Z. Periglacial markers within the Late Pleistocene loess-palaeosol sequences in Poland and Western Ukraine. Quat. Int. 2009, 198, 124–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moine, O.; Rousseau, D.D.; Antoine, P. The impact of Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles on the loessic environment and malacofauna of Nussloch (Germany) during the Upper Weichselian. Quat. Res. 2008, 70, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lehmkuhl, F.; Nett, J.J.; Potter, S.; Schulte, P.; Sprafke, T.; Jary, Z.; Antoine, P.; Wacha, L.; Wolf, D.; Zerboni, A.; et al. Loess landscapes of Europe—Mapping, geomorphology, and zonal differentiation. Earth Sci. Rev. 2021, 215, 103769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pye, K. The nature, origin and accumulation of loess. Quat. Sci. Rev. 1995, 14, 653–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kohfeld, K.E.; Harrison, S.P. DIRTMAP: The geological record of dust. Earth Sci. Rev. 2001, 54, 81–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gábris, G.; Horváth, E.; Novothny, Á.; Rszkiczay-Rüdiger, Z. Fluvial and aeolian landscape evolution in Hungary—Results of the last 20 years research. Neth. J. Geosci. 2014, 91, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lehmkuhl, F.; Bösken, J.; Hošek, J.; Sprafke, T.; Marković, S.B.; Obreht, I.; Hambach, U.; Sümegi, P.; Thiemann, A.; Steffens, S.; et al. Loess distribution and related Quaternary sediments in the Carpathian Basin. J. Maps 2018, 14, 661–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Obreht, I.; Zeeden, C.; Hambach, U.; Veres, D.; Marković, S.B.; Lehmkuhl, F. A critical reevaluation of palaeoclimate proxy records from loess in the Carpathian Basin. Earth Sci. Rev. 2019, 190, 498–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Koloszár, L. The thickest and the most complete loess sequence in the Carpathian basin: The borehole Udvari-2A. Cent. Eur. J. Geosci. 2010, 2, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sümegi, P.; Gulyás, S.; Molnár, D.; Sümegi, B.P.; Almond, P.C.; Vandenberghe, J.; Zhou, L.; Pál-Molnár, E.; Törőcsik, T.; Hao, Q.; et al. New chronology of the best developed loess/paleosol sequence of Hungary capturing the past 1.1 ma: Implications for correlation and proposed pan-Eurasian stratigraphic schemes. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2018, 191, 144–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Smalley, I.J.; Leach, J.A. The origin and distribution of the loess in the Danube basin and associated regions of East-Central Europe—A review. Sediment. Geol. 1978, 21, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Marković, S.B.; Stevens, T.; Kukla, G.J.; Hambach, U.; Fitzsimmons, K.E.; Gibbard, P.; Buggle, B.; Zech, M.; Guo, Z.; Hao, Q.; et al. Danube loess stratigraphy—Towards a pan-European loess stratigraphic model. Earth Sci. Rev. 2015, 148, 228–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Újvári, G.; Kovács, J.; Varga, G.y.; Raucsik, B.; Marković, S.B. Dust flux estimates for the Last Glacial Period in East Central Europe based on terrestrial records of loess deposits: A review. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2010, 29, 3157–3166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Marković, S.B.; Stevens, T.; Mason, J.; Vandenberghe, J.; Yang, S.; Veres, D.; Újvári, G.; Timar-Gabor, A.; Zeeden, C.; Guo, Z.; et al. Loess correlations—Between myth and reality. Palaeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2018, 509, 4–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Marković, S.B.; Hambach, U.; Stevens, T.; Jovanović, M.; O’Hara-Dhand, K.; Basarin, B.; Lu, H.; Smalley, I.; Buggle, B.; Zech, M.; et al. Loess in the Vojvodina region (Northern Serbia): An essential link between European and Asian Pleistocene environments. Neth. J. Geosci. 2012, 91, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sümegi, P.; Krolopp, E. Quatermalacological analyses for modeling of the Upper Weichselian palaeoenvironmental changes in the Carpathian Basin. Quat. Int. 2002, 91, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Stevens, T.; Marković, S.B.; Zech, M.; Hambach, U.; Sümegi, P. Dust deposition and climate in the Carpathian Basin over an independently dated last glacial-interglacial cycle. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2011, 30, 662–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Huntley, D.J.; Godfrey-Smith, D.I.; Thewalt, M.L.W. Optical dating of sediments. Nature 1985, 313, 105–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rhodes, E.J. Optically stimulated luminescence dating of sediments over the past 250,000 years. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2011, 39, 461–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Auclair, M.; Lamothe, M.; Lagroix, F.; Banerjee, S.K. Luminescence investigations of loess and tephra from Halfway House section, Central Alaska. Quat. Geochronol. 2007, 2, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Buylaert, J.P.; Murray, A.S.; Vandenberghe, D.; Vriend, M.; De Corte, F.; Van den haute, P. Optical dating of Chinese loess using sandsized quartz: Establishing a time frame for Late Pleistocene climate changes in the western part of the Chinese Loess Plateau. Quat. Geochronol. 2008, 3, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Buylaert, J.P.; Murray, A.S.; Thomsen, K.J.; Jain, M. Testing the potential of an elevated temperature IRSL signal from K-feldspar. Radiat. Meas. 2009, 44, 560–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Stuiver, M.; Reimer, P.J.; Braziunas, T.F. High-precision radiocarbon age calibration for terrestrial and marine samples. Radiocarbon 1998, 40, 1127–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Blaauw, M.; Christen, A.J. Flexible paleoclimate age-depth models using an autoregressive gamma process. Bayesian Anal. 2011, 6, 457–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Reimer, P.J.; Austin, W.E.N.; Bayliss, A.; Blackwell, P.G.; Ramsey, C.B.; Butzin, M.; Cheng, H.; Edwards, R.L.; Friedrich, M.; Grootes, P.M. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 2020, 62, 725–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Molnár, M.; Janovics, R.; Major, I.; Orsovszki, J.; Gönczi, R.; Veres, M.; Leonard, A.G.; Castle, S.M.; Lange, T.E.; Wacker, L.; et al. Status report of the new AMS C-14 preparation lab of the Hertelendi Laboratory of Environmental Studies, Debrecen, Hungary. Radiocarbon 2013, 55, 665–676. [Google Scholar]
  32. Molnár, M.; Rinyu, L.; Veres, M.; Seiler, M.; Wacker, L.; Synal, H.A. EnvironMICADAS: A mini 14C AMS with enhanced Gas Ion Source Interface in the Hertelendi Laboratory of Environmental Studies (HEKAL), Hungary. Radiocarbon 2013, 55, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pigati, J.S.; McGeehin, J.P.; Muhs, D.R.; Bettis, E.A. III. Radiocarbon dating late Quaternary loess deposits using small terrestrial gastropod shells. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2013, 76, 114–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Schatz, A.K.; Scholten, T.; Kühn, P. Paleoclimate and weathering of the Tokaj (Hungary) loess-paleosol sequence. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2015, 426, 170–182. [Google Scholar]
  35. Schatz, A.K.; Buylaert, J.P.; Murray, A.; Stevens, T.; Scholten, T. Establishing a luminescence chronology for a palaeosol-loess profile at Tokaj (Hungary): A comparison of quartz OSL and polymineral IRSL signals. Quat. Geochronol. 2012, 10, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sümegi, P.; Hertelendi, E. Reconstruction of microenvironmental changes in the Kopasz Hill loess area at Tokaj (Hungary) between 15 and 70 ka BP. Radiocarbon 2016, 40, 9. [Google Scholar]
  37. Schatz, A.-K.; Zech, M.; Buggle, B.; Gulyás, S.; Hambach, U.; Marković, S.B.; Sümegi, P.; Scholten, T. The late Quaternary loess record of Tokaj, Hungary: Reconstructing palaeoenvironment, vegetation and climate using stable C and N isotopes and biomarkers. Quat. Int. 2011, 240, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Makó, L.; Molnár, D.; Runa, B.; Bozsó, G.; Cseh, P.; Nagy, B.; Sümegi, P. Selected Grain-Size and Geochemical Analyses of the Loess-Paleosol Sequence of Pécel (Northern Hungary): An Attempt to Determine Sediment Accumulation Conditions and the Source Area Location. Quaternary 2021, 4, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Makó, L.; Molnár, D.; Cseh, P.; Nagy, B.; Sümegi, P. Development history of the loess-paleosol profiles of Pécel, Kisdorog and Bonyhádvarasd, Hungary. Quaternary 2023, 6, 38. [Google Scholar]
  40. Makó, L.; Cseh, P.; Nagy, B.; Sümegi, P.; Molnár, D. Paleoecological Reconstruction Derived from an Age-Depth Model and Mollusc Data, Pécel, Hungary. Quaternary 2025, 8, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lengyel, G. An aspect to re-evaluation of Ságvár (Lyukas-domb) Upper Paleolithic site. Folia Archeol. 2010, 54, 25–37. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lengyel, G. Reassessing the Middle and Late Upper Palaeolithic in Hungary. Acta Archaeol. Carpathica 2017, 51, 47–66. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bösken, J.J. Luminescence dating of eolian and fluvial archives in the middle and lower Danube catchment and the paleoenvironmental implications. EG Quat. Sci. J. 2020, 69, 89–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Molnár, D.; Sümegi, P.; Makó, L.; Cseh, P.; Zeeden, C.; Nett, J.; Lehmkuhl, F.; Törőcsik, T.; Sümegi, B.P. Palaeoecological background of the Upper Palaeolithic site of Ságvár, Hungary: Radiocarbon-dated malacological and sedimentological studies on the Late Pleistocene environment. J. Quat. Sci. 2021, 36, 1353–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Molnár, D.; Sümegi, P.; Fekete, I.; Makó, L.; Sümegi, B.P. Radiocarbon dated malacological records of two Late Pleistocene loess-paleosol sequences from SW-Hungary: Paleoecological inferences. Quat. Int. 2019, 504, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Molnár, D.; Makó, L.; Molnár, M.; Sümegi, P. Case Study from Máza Brickyard (SW-Hungary): Paleoecology and Sediment Accumulation Changes in the Southern Part of the Carpathian Basin. Quaternary 2024, 7, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Újvári, G.; Molnár, M.; Novothny, Á.; Páll-Gergely, B.; Kovács, J.; Várhegyi, A. AMS 14C and OSL/IRSL dating of the Dunaszekcső loess sequence (Hungary): Chronology for 20 to 150 ka and implications for establishing reliable age-depth models for the last 40 ka. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2014, 106, 140–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Újvári, G.; Molnár, M.; Páll-Gergely, B. Charcoal and mollusc shell 14C-dating of the Dunaszekcső loess record, Hungary. Quat. Geochronol. 2016, 35, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Újvári, G.; Stevens, T.; Molnár, M.; Demény, A.; Lambert, F.; Varga, G.; Tull, A.J.T.; Páll-Gergely, B.; Buylaert, J.-P.; Kovács, J. Coupled European and Greenland last glacial dust activity driven by North Atlantic climate. Earth Atmos. Planet. Sci. 2017, 114, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Molnár, B.; Krolopp, E. Latest Pleistocene Geohistory of the Bácska Loess area. Acta Mineral.-Petrogr. Szeged 1978, 22, 245–265. [Google Scholar]
  51. Krolopp, E. Results of malacofaunal investigations on the LPS of Madaras brickyard. Cumania 1989, 11, 13–27. (In Hungarian) [Google Scholar]
  52. Sümegi, P. Upper Pleistocene Evaluation of Hajdúság Region Based on Fine-Stratigraphical (Sedimentological, Paleontological, Geochemical) Analyses. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary, 1989. (In Hungarian). [Google Scholar]
  53. Sümegi, P. New Pleistocene locality of Cochlicopa nitens (Gallenstein, 1848) in Hungary. Malakológiai Tájékoztató 1992, 11, 23–25. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sümegi, P. Comparative Paleoecological and Stratigraphical Valuation of the NE Hungarian Loess Areas. Ph.D. Thesis, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest-Debrecen, Hungary, 1996. (In Hungarian). [Google Scholar]
  55. Sümegi, P.; Szöőr, G.; Hertelendi, E. Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of the last period of the Upper Würm in Hungary, based on malacological and radiocarbon data. Soosiana 1991, 19, 5–12. [Google Scholar]
  56. Krolopp, E.; Sümegi, P. Palaeoecological reconstruction of the Late Pleistocene, based on Loess Malacofauna in Hungary. GeoJournal 1995, 36, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sümegi, P.; Krolopp, E. Late Quaternary Palaeoecology and Historical Geography of Hungary based on quartermalacological and radiocarbon analyses. In Proceedings of the 12th International Malacological Congress, Vigo, Spain, 3–7 September 1995; pp. 330–331. [Google Scholar]
  58. Hupuczi, J.; Sümegi, P. The Late Pleistocene paleoenvironment and paleoclimate of the Madaras section (South Hungary), based on preliminary records from mollusks. Cent. Eur. J. Geosci. 2010, 2, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hupuczi, J.; Sümegi, P. Latest malacological results of the loess section at Madaras brickyard. Archeom. Műhely 2011, 8, 157–162. (In Hungarian) [Google Scholar]
  60. Sümegi, P.; Gulyás, S.; Molnár, D.; Bozsó, G.; Fekete, I.; Makó, L.; Cseh, P.; Molnár, M.; Sümegi, B.P.; Almond, P.; et al. New chronology and extended palaeoenvironmental data to the 1975 loess profile of Madaras brickyard, South Hungary. J. Quat. Sci. 2021, 36, 1364–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sümegi, P.; Molnár, D.; Náfrádi, K.; Makó, L.; Cseh, P.; Törőcsik, T.; Molnár, M.; Zhou, L. Vegetation and land snail-based reconstruction of the palaeocological changes in the forest steppe eco-region of the Carpathian Basin during last glacial warming. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2022, 22, e01976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sümegi, P.; Molnár, D.; Gulyás, S.; Stevens, T.; Makó, L.; Cseh, P.; Molnár, M.; Fitzsimmons, K.; Nett, J.J.; Hlavatsky, D.; et al. Comparison of High-Resolution 14C and Luminescence-Based Chronologies of the MIS 2 Madaras Loess/Paleosol Sequence, Hungary: Implications for Chronological Studies. Quaternary 2022, 5, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rudner, E.; Sümegi, P. Recurring taiga forest steppe habitats in the Carpathian Basin in the upper weichselian. Quat. Int. 2001, 76–77, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bokhorst, M.P.; Vanberghe, J.; Sümegi, P.; Lanzont, M.; Gerasimenko, N.P.; Matviishina, Z.N.; Marković, S.B.; Frechen, M. Atmospheric circulation patterns in central and eastern Europe during the Weichselian Pleniglacial inferred from loess grain-size records. Quat. Int. 2011, 234, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gocke, M.; Gulyás, S.; Hambach, U.; Jovanović, M.; Kovács, G.; Marković, S.B.; Wiesenberg, G.L. Biopores and root features as new tools for improving paleoecological understanding of terrestrial sediment-paleosol sequences. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2014, 394, 42–58. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sümegi, P. Loess and Upper Paleolithic Environment in Hungary. Aurea Kiadó Nagykovácsi 2005, 4, 312. [Google Scholar]
  67. Sümegi, P.; Molnár, D.; Gulyás, S.; Náfrádi, K.; Sümegi, B.P.; Törőcsik, T.; Persaits, G.; Molnár, M.; Vandenberghe, J.; Zhou, L. High-resolution proxy record of the environmental response to climatic variations during transition MIS3/MIS2 and MIS2 in Central Europe: The loess-paleosol sequence of Katymár brickyard (Hungary). Quat. Int. 2019, 504, 40–55. [Google Scholar]
  68. Krolopp, E.; Sümegi, P.; Kuti, L.; Hertelendi, E.; Kordos, L. Szeged-Öthalom környéki löszképződmények keletkezésének palaeoökológiai rekonstrukciója. Földtani Közlöny 1995, 125, 309–361. (In Hungarian) [Google Scholar]
  69. Sümegi, P.; Náfrádi, K.; Molnár, D.; Sávai, S. Results of paleoecological studies in the loess region of Szeged-Öthalom (SE Hungary). Quat. Int. 2015, 372, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Molnár, D.; Makó, L.; Sümegi, P.; Sümegi, B.P.; Törőcsik, T. Revisiting the palaeolithic site at Szeged-Öthalom: Attempt for appoint the palaeolithic horizon. Stud. Quat. 2019, 36, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Fuchs, M.; Rousseau, D.D.; Antoine, P.; Hatté, C.; Gauthier, C.; Marković, S.B.; Zoeller, L. Chronology of the Last Climatic Cycle (Upper Pleistocene) of the Surduk loess sequence, Vojvodina, Serbia. Boreas 2008, 37, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Antoine, P.; Rousseau, D.D.; Fuchs, M.; Hatté, C.; Gauthier, C.; Marković, S.B.; Jovanović, M.; Gaudenyi, T.; Moine, O.; Rossignol, J. High-resolution record of the last climatic cycle in the southern Carpathian Basin (Surduk, Vojvodina, Serbia). Quat. Int. 2009, 198, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hatté, C.; Gauthier, C.; Rousseau, D.D.; Antoine, P.; Fuchs, M.; Lagroix, F.; Marković, S.B.; Moine, O.; Sima, A. Excursions to C4 vegetation recorded in the Upper Pleistocene loess of Surduk (Northern Serbia): An organic isotope geochemistry study. Clim. Past 2013, 9, 1001–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Radaković, M.G.; Gavrilović, B.; Gavrilov, M.B.; Marković, R.S.; Hao, Q.; Schaetzl, R.J.; Zeeden, C.; Cai, B.; Perić, Z.M.; Antić, A.; et al. A Glacial-Interglacial Malacofauna Record from the Titel Loess Plateau, Serbia, between ~350 and 250 ka. Quaternary 2024, 7, 28. [Google Scholar]
  75. Galović, L.; Frechen, M.; Halamić, J.; Durn, G.; Romić, M. Loess chronostratigraphy in Eastern Croatia—A luminescene dating approach. Quat. Int. 2009, 198, 85–97. [Google Scholar]
  76. Molnár, D.; Hupuczi, J.; Galović, L.; Sümegi, P. Preliminary malacological investigation on the loess profile at Zmajevac, Croatia. Cent. Eur. J. Geosci. 2010, 2, 52–56. [Google Scholar]
  77. Banak, A.; Mandic, O.; Kovačić, M.; Pavelić, D. Late Pleistocene climate history of the Baranja loess plateau—Evidence from the Zmajevac loess-paleosol section (northeastern Croatia). Geol. Croat. 2011, 65, 411–422. [Google Scholar]
  78. Molnár, D.; Sávai, S.; Hupuczi, J.; Galović, L.; Sümegi, P. Malacological investigations on East-Croatian loess-paleosol profiles. Archeom. Műhely 2011, 2, 127–136. (In Hungarian) [Google Scholar]
  79. Molnár, D.; Makó, L.; Cseh, P.; Sümegi, P.; Fekete, I.; Galović, L. Middle and Late Pleistocene loess-palaeosol archives in East Croatia: Multi-proxy palaeoecological studies on Zmajevac and Šarengrad II sequences. Stud. Quat. 2021, 38, 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  80. Hupuczi, J.; Molnár, D.; Galović, L.; Sümegi, P. Preliminary malacological investigation of the loess profile at Šarengrad, Croatia. Cent. Eur. J. Geosci. 2010, 2, 57–63. [Google Scholar]
  81. Wacha, L.; Galović, L.; Koloszár, L.; Magyari, Á.; Chikán, G.; Marsi, I. The chronology of the Šarengrad II loess-paleosol section (Eastern Croatia). Geol. Croat. 2013, 66, 191–203. [Google Scholar]
  82. Sümegi, P.; Marković, S.B.; Molnár, D.; Sávai, S.; Náfrádi, K.; Szelepcsényi, Z.; Novák, Z. Črvenka loess-paleosol sequence revisited: Local and regional Quaternary biogeographical inferences of the southern Carpathian Basin. Open Geosci. 2016, 8, 390–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Makó, L.; Molnár, D.; Cseh, P.; Sümegi, P. MAR comparisons between different chronometric methods for two profiles in the Bodrogkeresztúr area. Stud. Quat. 2021, 38, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Quaternary 08 00055 g001
Figure 1. Location of the loess-paleosol profiles in the Carpathian Basin. Red dots: capitals, black crosses: examined loess-paleosol profiles.
Figure 1. Location of the loess-paleosol profiles in the Carpathian Basin. Red dots: capitals, black crosses: examined loess-paleosol profiles.
Quaternary 08 00055 g001
Quaternary 08 00055 g002
Figure 2. Accumulation rates derived from the age-depth models from radiocarbon ages.
Figure 2. Accumulation rates derived from the age-depth models from radiocarbon ages.
Quaternary 08 00055 g002
Quaternary 08 00055 g003
Figure 3. Accumulation rates derived from the age-depth models from OSL/IRSL ages.
Figure 3. Accumulation rates derived from the age-depth models from OSL/IRSL ages.
Quaternary 08 00055 g003
Quaternary 08 00055 g004
Figure 4. Accumulation maxima in the middle of the Carpathian Basin. Red ellipse: area of the higher accumulation rates with the sections; blue ellipse: area of the other high accumulation pattern.
Figure 4. Accumulation maxima in the middle of the Carpathian Basin. Red ellipse: area of the higher accumulation rates with the sections; blue ellipse: area of the other high accumulation pattern.
Quaternary 08 00055 g004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Makó, L.; Cseh, P.; Hupuczi, J. Examination of Age-Depth Models Through Loess-Paleosol Sections in the Carpathian Basin. Quaternary 2025, 8, 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat8040055

AMA Style

Makó L, Cseh P, Hupuczi J. Examination of Age-Depth Models Through Loess-Paleosol Sections in the Carpathian Basin. Quaternary. 2025; 8(4):55. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat8040055

Chicago/Turabian Style

Makó, László, Péter Cseh, and Júlia Hupuczi. 2025. "Examination of Age-Depth Models Through Loess-Paleosol Sections in the Carpathian Basin" Quaternary 8, no. 4: 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat8040055

APA Style

Makó, L., Cseh, P., & Hupuczi, J. (2025). Examination of Age-Depth Models Through Loess-Paleosol Sections in the Carpathian Basin. Quaternary, 8(4), 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat8040055

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop