4.2 Article

Organic and soil material between tills in east-midland England - direct evidence for two episodes of lowland glaciation in Britain during the Middle Pleistocene

期刊

JOURNAL OF QUATERNARY SCIENCE
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 547-569

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jqs.3307

关键词

Middle Pleistocene glaciations; midland England; MIS 12 glaciation; MIS 8 glaciation; organic and soil material

资金

  1. NERC [bgs06003] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides a record and analysis of a site in east-midland England, demonstrating two separate glaciations. The study of organic and soil material reveals changes in climate from periglacial to warm and then cool temperate.
This paper provides a record and analysis of a site in east-midland England, at which organic and soil material are found between two Middle Pleistocene tills. This is the first discovery of its kind in the area, and demonstrates unequivocally that the region was glaciated on two separate occasions, something that has long been inferred and articulated, but not actually demonstrated. The landforms, sediments and soils are studied with respect to their geomorphological, lithological, pedological, palaeobotanical and structural properties. The organic and soil material along with soil structures indicate, sequentially, a periglacial climate, a long period of warm temperate weathering and a cool temperate climate. Evaluation of this evidence in terms of existing published work identifies a number of problems with existing models and suggests that the most likely model for the glacial history of this part of midland England is an early Middle Pleistocene glaciation which is represented only by trace erratics, a Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 12 age glaciation which moved across the area from the NW and deposited a chalk-free till, and an MIS 8 age glaciation that transported and deposited an upper chalky till from the NE. (c) 2021 The Authors. Journal of Quaternary Science Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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