4.5 Article

Cyclic palaeokarst surfaces in Aptian peritidal carbonate successions (Taurides, southwest Turkey):: internal structure and response to mid-Aptian sea-level fall

期刊

CRETACEOUS RESEARCH
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 814-827

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cretres.2006.03.011

关键词

Taurides; peritidal carbonates; palaeokarst; Mid-Aptian sea-level fall; mantling breccia; Milankovitch cycles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sedimentology and cyclic stratigraphy of palaeokarst structures in Aptian peritidal carbonate successions are interpreted using field and laboratory microfacies analyses of closely spaced samples from measured outcrop stratigraphic sections in southwest Turkey. Cycles displaying shallowing-upward metre-scale cyclicity are generally composed of lime mudstones/wackestones/packestones at the bottom and stromatolites or lime mudstones with charophytes and ostracods at the top. Subaerial exposure structures such as in situ karst breccias, dissolution vugs/pipes, mud cracks and sheet cracks are encountered at the top of the cycles. The presence of limestone layers between the successive karst breccia levels indicates that they are in situ palaeokarst structures, not recent karstifications or deep penetration from the upper palaeokarst surface down to the older strata. Palaeokarst breccia deposits are interpreted as mantling breccia formed as a result of epikarstification. Three main palaeokarst levels are recorded in nearly all sections. The sedimentology of the palaeokarst breccias, their position in cyclic peritidal carbonates and the biostratigraphic framework are used to trace the record of the global mid-Aptian sea-level fall in the southwest Taurides. The successive occurrences of three karst breccia levels close to the mid-Aptian sea-level fall correspond to failing periods of high-amplitude sea-level fluctuation within a late high-stand or early fall condition of a third-order sea level. (c) 2006 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

4.5
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