4.8 Article

Astrochronology of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum on the Atlantic Coastal Plain

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-33390-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2021YFA0718200]
  2. Heising-Simons Foundation, United States [2016-11]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [42072040]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Peking University [7100603368]
  5. National Science Foundation [OCE-1416663]
  6. U.S. Geological Survey Climate Research and Development Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents an astrochronology for the PETM carbon isotope excursion and suggests that astronomical forcing played a role in triggering the PETM event. The analysis of data from a paleoshelf environment indicates that the PETM onset lasted about 6 kyr and occurred during an extreme in precession. The study also supports the concept of carbonate saturation overshoot following global ocean acidification during the PETM.
The chronology of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, similar to 56 Ma) remains disputed, hampering complete understanding of the possible trigger mechanisms of this event. Here we present an astrochronology for the PETM carbon isotope excursion from Howards Tract, Maryland a paleoshelf environment, on the mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. Statistical evaluation of variations in calcium content and magnetic susceptibility indicates astronomical forcing was involved and the PETM onset lasted about 6 kyr. The astrochronology and Earth system modeling suggest that the PETM onset occurred at an extreme in precession during a maximum in eccentricity, thus favoring high temperatures, indicating that astronomical forcing could have played a role in triggering the event. Ca content data on the paleo-shelf, along with other marine records, support the notion that a carbonate saturation overshoot followed global ocean acidification during the PETM.

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

4.8
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