4.7 Article

Geomagnetic excursions and paleointensities in the Matuyama Chron at Ocean Drilling Program Sites 983 and 984 (Iceland Basin)

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH
Volume 107, Issue B6, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2001JB000491

Keywords

paleomagnetism; paleointensity; Matuyama Chron; excursions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

[1] We report natural remanent magnetization (NRM) directions and geomagnetic paleointensity proxies for part of the Matuyama Chron (0.9-2.2 Ma interval) from two sites located on sediment drifts in the Iceland Basin. At Ocean Drilling Program Sites 983 and 984, mean sedimentation rates in the late Matuyama Chron are 15.9 and 11.5 cm kyr(-1), respectively. For the older part of the record (>1.2 Ma), oxygen isotope data are too sparse to provide the sole basis for age model construction. The resemblance of the volume susceptibility record and a reference delta(18)O record led us to match the two records to derive the age models. This match, based on Site 983/984 susceptibility, is consistent with available Site 983/984 benthic delta(18)O data. Paleointensity proxies were derived from the slope of the NRM versus anhysteretic remanent magnetization plot for alternating field demagnetization in the 30-60 mT peak field range. Paleointensity lows correspond to polarity reversals at the limits of the Jaramillo, Olduvai, Cobb Mountain, and Reunion Subchrons and to seven excursions in NRM component directions. Magnetic excursions (defined here by virtual geomagnetic polar latitudes crossing the virtual geomagnetic equator) are observed at 932, 1048, 1115, 1190-1215 (Cobb Mountain Subchron), 1255, 1472-1480, 1567-1575 (Gilsa Subchron), and 1977 ka. The results indicate that geomagnetic directional excursions, associated with paleointensity minima, are a characteristic of the Matuyama Chron and probably of polarity chrons in general.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available