4.2 Article

EXPRESSION OF AN OCEANIC ANOXIC EVENT IN A NERITIC SETTING: LOWER APTIAN CORAL RUBBLE DEPOSITS FROM THE WESTERN MAESTRAT BASIN (IBERIAN CHAIN, SPAIN)

期刊

PALAIOS
卷 26, 期 1-2, 页码 18-32

出版社

SEPM-SOC SEDIMENTARY GEOLOGY
DOI: 10.2110/palo.2010.p10-055r

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Bi 1074/1-2]
  2. I+D+i [CGL2005-07445-CO3-01, CGL2008-04916, CGL2008-0809]
  3. Consolider-Ingenio 2010 program [CSD 2006-0004 Topo-Iberia]
  4. Grup Consolidat de Recerca Geologia Sedimentaria [2005SGR-00890, 2009SGR-1451]
  5. Departament d'Universitats, Recerca i Societat de la Informacio de la Generalitat de Catalunya i del Fons Social Europeu

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A singular lower Aptian lithofacies from the western Maestrat Basin (Iberian Chain) highlights the reaction of carbonate platform paleocommunities to natural disturbances of regional to global significance. It is composed mainly of sand- to cobble-sized coral rubble rigidly bound by Lithocodium uggregatum and is coeval with the early Aptian Oceanic Anoxic Event (OAE1a) and the intensified greenhouse conditions connected with this event. Severe storms induced by high atmospheric concentrations of CO2 had a recurrent catastrophic impact on coral populations, giving rise to sub-basin-wide coral rubble levels. Physical responses to elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, such as increased nutrient fluxes, together with low sedimentation rates, and the presence of a hard substratum, favored the mass occurrence of Lithocodium crusts, large flattened Palorbitolina lenticularis, and bioeroders such as lithophagid bivalves and endolithic sponges. These encrusted coral rubble deposits are here interpreted as records of chemical and physical disturbances linked to the OAE1a. Due to significant extension and normal faulting recorded in the lower Aptian of the western Maestrat Basin, however, earthquake-induced natural stresses might also have played a part in the generation and reworking of these coral rubble deposits.

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

4.2
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