4.7 Article

A new 6 Myr stratigraphic framework for the Atlantic-Arctic Gateway

期刊

QUATERNARY SCIENCE REVIEWS
卷 92, 期 -, 页码 170-178

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.08.022

关键词

Stratigraphic framework; Atlantic-Arctic Gateway; Yermak Plateau; Svalbard; High-resolution seismic data; Ocean Drilling Program (ODP); Paleoenvironment; Depositional setting

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council (NRC) [200672/S60, 223259]
  2. Statoil
  3. Det Norske
  4. BG Norge

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comprehensive stratigraphic framework for the Atlantic-Arctic Gateway has been established for the last 6 Myr on the Yermak Plateau, NW Svalbard, based on new paleomagnetic and biostratigraphic sampling and correlation of high-resolution seismic data between Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Holes 911A, 910C and 912A. The new results indicate a Late Miocene age for the base of both Holes 911A and 910C, providing the first complete late Neogene record for the marginal Arctic Ocean and extending the previously published age model by several million years. During the late Miocene-Pleistocene, the southern Yermak Plateau was dominated by contourite deposition. From the intensification of the Northern Hemisphere glaciation at similar to 2.7 Ma, glacial fans from NW Svalbard prograded onto the southernmost Yermak Plateau. This indicates that the ice sheet on NW Svalbard reached the shelf break at similar to 2.7 Ma, much earlier than on the western Barents Sea-Svalbard margin (similar to 1.5 Ma). Simultaneous with the first shelf break glaciation on the western Barents Sea-Svalbard margin at similar to 1.5 Ma, we observe the first signs of extensive glacial erosion on the Yermak Plateau, indicating a regional glacial intensification at this time for the whole Barents Sea-Svalbard region. Our results agree well with the widening/deepening of the Fram Strait and the opening of the Atlantic Arctic Gateway during the middle Miocene. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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