4.7 Article

Modern foraminifera, δ13C, and bulk geochemistry of central Oregon tidal marshes and their application in paleoseismology

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.02.032

关键词

Foraminifera; Paleoseismology; delta C-13; Bulk geochemistry; Oregon; Cascadia; Earthquake; Relative sea level

资金

  1. NSF [EAR-0842728]
  2. Earthquake Hazards Program of the U.S. Geological Survey
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [bgs05002] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. NERC [bgs05002] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We assessed the utility of delta C-13 and bulk geochemistry (total organic content and C:N) to reconstruct relative sea-level changes on the Cascadia subduction zone through comparison with an established sea-level indicator (benthic foraminifera). Four modern transects collected from three tidal environments at Siletz Bay, Oregon, USA, produced three elevation-dependent groups in both the foraminiferal and delta C-13/bulk geochemistry datasets. Foraminiferal samples from the tidal flat and low marsh are identified by Miliammina fusca abundances of >45%, middle and high marsh by M. fusca abundances of <45% and the highest marsh by Trochamminita irregularis abundances >25%. The delta C-13 values from the groups defined with delta C-13/bulk geochemistry analyses decrease with an increasing elevation; -24.1 +/- 1.7 parts per thousand in the tidal flat and low marsh; -27.3 +/- 1.4 parts per thousand in the middle and high marsh; and -29.6 +/- 0.8 parts per thousand in the highest marsh samples. We applied the modern foraminiferal and delta C-13 distributions to a core that contained a stratigraphic contact marking the great Cascadia earthquake of AD 1700. Both techniques gave similar values for coseismic subsidence across the contact (0.88 +/- 0.39 m and 0.71 +/- 0.56 m) suggesting that delta C-13 has potential for identifying amounts of relative sea-level change due to tectonics. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据