3.9 Article

Astronomical calibration and global correlation of the Santonian (Cretaceous) based on the marine carbon isotope record

期刊

PALEOCEANOGRAPHY
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 847-865

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2016PA002941

关键词

Santonian; carbon isotope stratigraphy; cyclostratigraphy; astronomical calibration

资金

  1. Kingston University London

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-resolution records of bulk carbonate carbon isotopes have been generated for the Upper Coniacian to Lower Campanian interval of the sections at Seaford Head (southern England) and Bottaccione (central Italy). An unambiguous stratigraphic correlation is presented for the base and top of the Santonian between the Boreal and Tethyan realms. Orbital forcing of carbon and oxygen isotopes at Seaford Head points to the Boreal Santonian spanning five 405kyr cycles (Sa1 to Sa5). Correlation of the Seaford Head time scale to that of the Niobrara Formation (Western Interior Basin) permits anchoring these records to the La2011 astronomical solution at the Santonian-Campanian (Sa/Ca) boundary, which has been recently dated to 84.190.38Ma. Among the five tuning options examined, option 2 places the Sa/Ca at the 84.2Ma 405kyr insolation minimum and appears as the most likely. This solution indicates that minima of the 405kyr filtered output of the resistivity in the Niobrara Formation correlate to 405kyr insolation minima in the astronomical solution and to maxima in the filtered C-13 of Seaford Head. We suggest that variance in C-13 is driven by climate forcing of the proportions of CaCO3 versus organic carbon burial on land and in oceanic basins. The astronomical calibration generates a 200kyr mismatch of the Coniacian-Santonian boundary age between the Boreal Realm in Europe and the Western Interior, due either to diachronism of the lowest occurrence of the inoceramid Cladoceramus undulatoplicatus between the two regions or to remaining uncertainties of radiometric dating and cyclostratigraphic records.

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

3.9
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