Evidence of Early Cretaceous remagnetization in the Crimean Peninsula: a palaeomagnetic study from Mesozoic rocks in the Crimean and Western Pontides, conjugate margins of the Western Black Sea

Çinku, Mualla Cengiz; Hisarlı, Z. Mümtaz; Orbay, Naci; Ustaömer, Tı̇mur; Hirt, Ann M.; Kravchenko, S. N.; Rusakov, О. M.; Sayın, Nurdan

doi:10.1093/gji/ggt260

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Middle Eocene, a mean paleolatitude of ¼ 18:9°N þ5:5°À 4:8°, ¼ 19:4°N þ1:9°À 1:8°, and ¼ 28:2°N þ9:7°À 7:8°( Figure 11 and Table 2; TTE-G2, EG5, and TTE-G3) is calculated both from this study and previous studies Gürsoy et al, 1997;Çinku et al, 2013] (Table 2, TTE-G4, EG6; Figure 11).…”

Section: Paleolatitudesupporting

confidence: 55%

The tectonic history of the Niğde‐Kırşehir Massif and the Taurides since the Late Mesozoic: Paleomagnetic evidence for two‐phase orogenic curvature in Central Anatolia

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Niğde-Kırşehir Massif, known also as the Central Anatolian Block, is bordered by the sutures of the Neotethys Ocean. The massif suffered several deformation phases during and after the consumption of the surrounding oceans and the postcollisional events of the continental pieces of Anatolia in latest Cretaceous to Miocene. Previous paleomagnetic studies on the Niğde-Kırşehir Massif and its surroundings displayed either insufficient data or have claimed large rotations and/or remagnetization. In order to understand the tectonic history of the Niğde-Kırşehir Massif and its adjacent blocks we have sampled 147 different sites in the age range of Upper Jurassic to Miocene from the Niğde-Kırşehir Massif throughout its W/SW and E/SE boundaries and the central-southeastern Taurides. The results display that except the limestones in central Taurides, all rocks examined carry a primary magnetization. Among these an important finding is that rotations between the massif and the central-eastern Taurides indicate an oroclinal bending with counterclockwise rotation of R = 41.1°± 7.6°in the SE and clockwise rotation of R = 45.9°± 9.3°in the central Taurides from Upper Cretaceous rocks with respect to the African reference direction. Paleomagnetic rotations in the SE Taurides are compatible with the vergent direction of the thrusts generated from consumption of the Intra-Tauride Ocean prior to postcollisional convergence between Taurides and the massif. In the central Taurides it has been shown that the clockwise rotation of 45.9 ± 9.3 started in Middle Eocene, because of a remagnetization in Upper Cretaceous limestones. The deformation was linked to the final closure of the southern Neotethys and the collision between the African and Eurasian plates. In the Niğde-Kırşehir Massif counterclockwise rotation up to 25.5°± 7.3°is recognized during Middle Eocene and interpreted in terms of block rotation together with the Taurides. After the Miocene a counterclockwise rotation of 16.8°± 3.9°along the Eastern Taurides shows that this area was mostly affected by the westward movement of Anatolia despite the Niğde-Kırşehir Massif and its SW/W area-the central Taurides-which is recognized as stable with counterclockwise rotation less than 10°.

show abstract

Section: Paleolatitudesupporting

confidence: 55%

The tectonic history of the Niğde‐Kırşehir Massif and the Taurides since the Late Mesozoic: Paleomagnetic evidence for two‐phase orogenic curvature in Central Anatolia

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A large number of paleomagnetic studies that employ a Day-Dunlop plot find often that the samples fall into the PSD size range [e.g., Cinku et al, 2013;Di Chiara et al, 2014;Guzm an et al, 2011;Hao et al, 2012;Kapper et al, 2014;Li et al, 2014;Stanton et al, 2011;Tianshui et al, 2012]. One possible reason could be that the samples consist of mixtures of grain sizes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental mixtures of superparamagnetic and single‐domain magnetite with respect to Day‐Dunlop plots

Kumari

Hirt

Uebe

et al. 2015

Geochem Geophys Geosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Day-Dunlop plots are widely used in paleomagnetic and environmental studies as a tool to determine the magnetic domain state of magnetite, i.e., superparamagnetic (SP), stable single-domain (SD), pseudosingle-domain (PSD), multidomain (MD), and their mixtures. The few experimental studies that have examined hysteresis properties of SD-SP mixtures of magnetite found that the ratios of saturation remanent magnetization to saturation magnetization and the coercivity of remanence to coercivity are low, when compared to expected theoretical mixing trends based on Langevin theory. This study reexamines DayDunlop plots using experimentally controlled mixtures of SD and SP magnetite grains. End-members include magnetotactic bacteria (MSR-1) as the SD source, and a commercial ferrofluid or magnetotactic bacteria (DA12) as the SP source. Each SP-component was added incrementally to a SD sample. Experimental results from these mixing series show that the magnetization and coercivity ratios are lower than the theoretical prediction for bulk SP magnetic size. Although steric repulsion was present between the particles, we cannot rule out interaction in the ferrofluid for higher concentrations. The SP bacteria are noninteracting as the magnetite was enclosed by an organic bilipid membrane. Our results demonstrate that the magnetization and coercivity ratios of SD-SP mixtures can lie in the PSD range, and that an unambiguous interpretation of particle size can only be made with information about the magnetic properties of the end-members.

show abstract

“…The solid black line marks the normalized location at which BF = 1 (corresponding to p ( H A | R ) = p ( H B | R ) = 0.5). Open circles represent published Watson () test results from Irving and Runcorn (), Al‐Khafaji and Vincenz (), Stewart and Irving (), Kluth et al (), Smith and Piper (), Jesinkey et al (), Symons and Wellings (), Symons (), Magnus and Opdyke (), Trench et al (), Buchan and Hodych (), Didenko (), Trench et al (), Allerton et al (), Potts et al (), Hodych and Buchan (), MacConnell et al (), Meert et al (), Huang and Opdyke (), Potts et al (), Bazhenov (), Levashova et al (), Geuna and Vizán (), Huang and Opdyke (), McCausland and Hodych (), Meyers et al (), Wynne et al (), Bazhenov et al (), Levashova et al (), Klootwijk (), Enkin et al (), Levashova et al (), Strik et al (), Villalaìn (), Weaver et al (), Hnat et al (), Levashova et al (), Metelkin et al (), Levashova et al (), Vérand (), Harlan and Morgan (), Levashova et al (), Biggin et al (), Levashova et al (), Abrajevitch et al (), Liu et al (), Çinku et al (), Li et al (), Tarduno and Cottrell (), Wen et al (), Werner et al (), Yi et al (), and Dare et al () (see supporting information for details). Of the 76 tests considered, 26 result in weak support and no test produced greater than positive support for uniformly random directions, according to our classification scheme (i.e., none of the tests achieve strong or very strong support for uniformly random directions).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bayesian Approach to the Paleomagnetic Conglomerate Test

Heslop

Roberts

2018

JGR Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conglomerate test has served the paleomagnetic community for over 60 years as a means to detect remagnetizations. The test states that if a suite of clasts within a bed have uniformly random paleomagnetic directions, then the conglomerate cannot have experienced a pervasive event that remagnetized the clasts in the same direction. The current form of the conglomerate test is based on null hypothesis testing, which results in a binary “pass” (uniformly random directions) or “fail” (nonrandom directions) outcome. We have recast the conglomerate test in a Bayesian framework with the aim of providing more information concerning the level of support a given data set provides for a hypothesis of uniformly random paleomagnetic directions. Using this approach, we place the conglomerate test in a fully probabilistic framework that allows for inconclusive results when insufficient information is available to draw firm conclusions concerning the randomness or nonrandomness of directions. With our method, sample sets larger than those typically employed in paleomagnetism may be required to achieve strong support for a hypothesis of random directions. Given the potentially detrimental effect of unrecognized remagnetizations on paleomagnetic reconstructions, it is important to provide a means to draw statistically robust data‐driven inferences. Our Bayesian analysis provides a means to do this for the conglomerate test.

show abstract

Evidence of Early Cretaceous remagnetization in the Crimean Peninsula: a palaeomagnetic study from Mesozoic rocks in the Crimean and Western Pontides, conjugate margins of the Western Black Sea

Cited by 10 publications

References 64 publications

The tectonic history of the Niğde‐Kırşehir Massif and the Taurides since the Late Mesozoic: Paleomagnetic evidence for two‐phase orogenic curvature in Central Anatolia

The tectonic history of the Niğde‐Kırşehir Massif and the Taurides since the Late Mesozoic: Paleomagnetic evidence for two‐phase orogenic curvature in Central Anatolia

Experimental mixtures of superparamagnetic and single‐domain magnetite with respect to Day‐Dunlop plots

A Bayesian Approach to the Paleomagnetic Conglomerate Test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About