4.7 Article

Constraints on Pennsylvanian glacioeustatic sea-level changes using oxygen isotopes of conodont apatite

期刊

GEOLOGY
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 277-280

出版社

GEOLOGICAL SOC AMERICA, INC
DOI: 10.1130/G22198.1

关键词

Pennsylvanian; conodonts; oxygen isotopes; sea level

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conodonts from U.S. Midcontinent cyclothems were studied for oxygen isotopes in order to constrain Pennsylvanian glacioeustatic sea-level fluctuations. Pennsylvanian deposits of the Midcontinent United States are composed of cyclic alternations of thin transgressive limestones, offshore gray to black phosphatic shales, and thick regressive limestones, a sequence that is underlain and overlain by nearshore to terrestrial shales with paleosols and coal beds. Glacioeustatic sea-level fluctuations are considered the primary cause for the formation of these cyclothems. Oxygen isotope analyses of conodont apatite from the black (20.1 +/- 0.5 parts per thousand, Vienna standard mean ocean water [VSMOW]) and gray shale units (20.5 +/- 0.5 parts per thousand VSMOW) show lowest average delta O-18 values, whereas conodont elements from the regressive (21.0 +/- 0.3 parts per thousand, VSMOW) and transgressive limestone units (21.1 +/- 0.6 parts per thousand VSMOW) are enriched in O-18. The maximum change in delta O-18 of conodonts from the black shale and carbonate units from individual cyclothems is 1.7 parts per thousand. The 1.7 parts per thousand difference in delta O-18 compares relatively well to Pleistocene interglacial-glacial changes in delta O-18 of equatorial surface-dwelling foraminifers and suggests that Pennsylvanian glacioeustatic sea-level changes may have been of comparable amplitude. However, since the Pennsylvanian glacial maxima are represented by terrestrial sediments and are not documented in the conodont oxygen isotope record, Pennsylvanian glacioeustatic sea-level changes were probably larger than the 120 m fluctuations recorded for the Pleistocene glaciations.

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

4.7
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