4.6 Article

Geomorphology and accommodation space as limiting factors on tsunami deposition: Chatham Island, southwest Pacific Ocean

期刊

SEDIMENTARY GEOLOGY
卷 229, 期 1-2, 页码 41-52

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2010.06.001

关键词

Sediments; Pollen; Geochemical signature; Stratigraphy; Tsunamis; Late Quaternary

类别

资金

  1. University of Auckland Research Committee [3606886]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chatham Island in the southwest Pacific Ocean is exposed on all sides to potential tsunami impact In historical time, tsunamis are known to have inundated the coast on several occasions, with the largest event in 1868 Coastal dunes along the northeast coast of Chatham Island preserve sedimentary evidence of this and possibly earlier tsunami events, as localised gravel lags However, these deposits lack a clear stratigraphic context and establishing their age is difficult This study examines the sediment record in a freshwater wetland at Okawa Point, located directly landward of the dunes where apparent tsunami gravels occur Sediment descriptions, pollen, foraminifera, chemical data and radiocarbon dates from cores are used to reconstruct the environmental history of the wetland The record extends from ca. >43 ka to the present and incorporates glacial, post-glacial and human-influenced phases Throughout this time the wetland appears to have remained isolated from catastrophic marine inundation. The only evidence for saltwater intrusion is observed in the historic period, via geochemical, grain size and pollen data, which record a marine inundation event that forced the transport of a thin (cm-thick) deposit of dune and beach sand into the seaward edge of the wetland This is interpreted as the signature of the 1868 tsunami The lack of more widespread physical evidence for this and other tsunami events in the wetland is attributed to the morphological roughness afforded by coastal dunes and limited accommodation space for Holocene deposits (C) 2010 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

4.6
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