The article I am critiquing is a scientific study titled “Long-term carbon accumulation in two tropical

mountain peatlands, Andes Mountains, Ecuador”. In the study, the researchers used carbon dating to
determine rates of accumulation of peat and the age of peat. Tropical peatlands are large carbon sinks
and their destruction can result in significant reductions in atmospheric CO2
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_peat). The study proposed a linkage between regional climate
and peat formation which might possibly help in the preservation of these peatlands. From carbon-
dating, the researchers determined that the specimens were approximately 3000 years old. They then
inferred that their growth was as a result of the weather in the region becoming wetter about 4000
years ago. Considering this discovery, which might potentially lead to information for the preservation of
peatlands, the author makes a good case for using radiocarbon dating.

The study determined that the peat accumulated at a relatively constant rate for 2500 years. Peat is an
accumulation of decayed vegetation or organic matter (google.com). A proposed chemical reaction is
shown below:

CH2O + O2 ----> Nutrients + H2O + CO2 + Chemical Energy (earthguide.ucsd.edu)

(Organic (e.g NO3

Matter) & PO4)

From kinetics: rate = -d[CH2O]/dt.

Assuming vegetation is abundant and always decaying, [CH2O] is constant and therefore the rate of
reaction is constant. Therefore, the result of peat accumulating at a relatively constant rate is valid from
kinetics.