A magnetostratigraphic reassessment of correlation between Chinese loess and marine oxygen isotope records over the last 1.1Ma

Long-term Pleistocene aridification and possible linkage to high-latitude forcing: New evidence from grain size and magnetic susceptibility proxies from loess-paleosol record in northeastern China

“…Many paleomagnetic investigations on the CLP have indicated that the B/M and TJS are generally located around L8-S8 and L10-S10, respectively (Guo et al, 2002a;Kukla and An, 1989;Liu et al, 1986;Pan et al, 2002;Wang et al, 2006;Zhu et al, 1994). These discrepancies in the positions of the geomagnetic reversal boundaries among Chinese loess sections has been primarily attributed to local variations in sediment accumulation rate and pedogenesis causing varying degrees of directional smoothing; loss of resolution due to non-continuous sampling strategies; and dissimilar demagnetization/analytical techniques used in different studies (Wang et al, 2006). In spite of these uncertainties, the B/M and TJS provide the key stratigraphic control for pedostratigraphic subdivision in the Chinese loess-paleosol sequence.…”

Problems of magnetostratigraphy of Pleistocene loess-soil deposits of the South of Ukraine

“…Однако в публикации [Большаков, 2004] были выдвинуты обоснованные возражения по поводу излишне большой глубины фиксации намагниченности в лессе. Позднее в других ра-ботах [Wang et al, 2006;Liu et al, 2008;Jin, Liu, 2011] было показано, что, по крайней мере, в лессе, где проходит граница Матуяма-Брю-нес, глубина фиксации не может существенно превышать таковую для глубоководных осад-ков (10-20 см). В то же время для почв глуби-на фиксации может быть существенно боль-ше.…”

“…В работе [Wang et al, 2006] граница Матуяма-Брюнес оказалась проходящей в почве. Это дало авторам основа-ние утверждать, что несоответствие в положе-нии этой границы в разрезах лессового плато Китая связано с региональной и/или местной климатической изменчивостью.…”

A sedimentary paleomagnetic record of the upper Jaramillo transition from the Lantian Basin in China

“…The TJ was also placed in L10 from the loess sections of Weinan at the southern CLP (Zhu et al 1994;Pan et al 2002), and Xifeng in the central CLP , and close to the stratigraphy boundary of the L10/S9 in the section of Jingbian at the northern CLP . Meanwhile, a series of studies from other loess sections, such as Luochuan in the central CLP (Heller and Liu 1984;Kukla and An 1989;Liu et al 2010), Duanjiapo at the southern CLP (Zheng et al 1992), and Sanmenxia at the southeastern CLP (Wang et al 2005(Wang et al , 2006 defined the final position of the TJ in the paleosol unit of S10. Jin and Liu (2011a) put the TJ in the middle-lower S10 of the classical Luochuan section but present no paleomagnetic data for the reversal.…”

“…According to their strategy, S10 should consist of two sub-paleosol units (former S9-2 and S10), then it could be well-correlated to the two weak interglacials of marine isotope stage (MIS) 27 in marine sediments. A similar strategy was proposed to deal with the long-standing discrepancy of Matuyama-Brunhes boundary (MBB) between Chinese loess and marine sediments (e.g., Wang et al 2006;Liu et al 2008;Jin and Liu 2011b). These adjustments would bring the marine and terrestrial records into better age agreements for both the TJ and MBB but might result in a confused correlation of Chinese loess-paleosol sequences and marine sediments (e.g., Zhao et al 2014;Zhou et al 2014).…”