4.5 Review

Researches of soft-sediment deformation structures and seismites in China - A brief review

Journal

JOURNAL OF PALAEOGEOGRAPHY-ENGLISH
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages 311-317

Publisher

SPRINGER SINGAPORE PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jop.2016.06.001

Keywords

Soft-sediment deformation structures (SSDS); Multi-origin; Seismites; Palaeoearthquake; Lingshan Island; China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During the past 30 years (1987-2016), a great progress has been made in researches of soft-sediment deformation structures (SSDS), seismites and palaeoearthquakes in China. However, the research thought of this academic field is not open enough. It is almost with one viewpoint or one voice, i.e., almost all the papers published in journals of China considered the layers with SSDS as seismites. On the other hand, the authors are very glad to learn that the professors and students of China University of Petroleum (East China) have proposed different academic viewpoints on the origin of SSDS in Lingshan Island, Qingdao, Shandong Province, China. It is a very active academic atmosphere. The authors' ideas are as follows: (1) The SSDS are sedimentary structures with multi-origin. The term SSDS is a good sedimentary and geological term and should be utilized continually. (2) The term seismites is a term which is definitely assigned to the layers with SSDS induced by earthquakes. It is one type of the layers with SSDS. It is not equal to SSDS. (3) Some geologists suggested obsoleting the term seismites. These suggestions are rational. However, since the term seismites has been utilized for a long time in China and worldwide, to obsolete this term should be discussed and agreement should be acquired from numerous geologists in China and worldwide. It may be suitable that let the geological practice decide whether to obsolete it or not. (4) Hopefully, further progress will be made in the researches of SSDS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available