Mesozoic calcareous nannofossils — state of the art

Calcareous nannofossil response to the Weissert episode (Early Cretaceous): Implications for palaeoecological and palaeoceanographic reconstructions

“…As a close phylogenetic affinity between Braarudosphaera and Micrantholithus can hardly be questioned (Kelly et al, 2003), Micrantholithus is hypothesised to have a similar palaeoaffinity and is interpreted to proliferate under conditions of low surface-water salinity (Bersezio et al, 2002;Bown, 2005;Company et al, 2005;Tremolada et al, 2009) and enhanced nutrient content (Street and Bown, 2000) during the Early Cretaceous. It is usually interpreted as a warm water taxon (Mutterlose, 1991;Mutterlose, 1992a;Street and Bown, 2000;Melinte and Mutterlose, 2001;Mutterlose et al, 2005) but the fairly broad latitudinal range of the genus (50°N-50°S) seems to indicate tolerance to a relatively wide temperature range (Street and Bown, 2000;Bartol et al, 2008). At Angles, the main decline in pentalith abundances is documented in period 2, when reduced weathering conditions and runoff are associated with cooler and drier conditions (Figs.…”

Paleoenvironments and Geochemical Signals from the Late Barremian to the Middle Aptian in a Tethyan Marginal Basin, Northeast Spain: Implications for Carbon Sequestration in Restricted Basins

“…In fact, there is increasing evidence from both modern (McIntyre and Bé, 1967) and past environments that the actual record in the sediment results from multiple environmental (Mutterlose et al, 2005) and preservation factors that influence the composition of nannofossil assemblages observed in the biomass (e.g., Molfino and McIntyre, 1990;Gaudy and Champalbert, 2003;.…”

Revealing deep structural influences on the Upper Cretaceous Chalk of East Anglia (UK) through inter-regional geophysical log correlations

“…Given that tectonically induced thinning occurred in the Early to Mid Turonian, it seems unlikely that there was any more accommodation space for later Turonian sediments in East Anglia compared to the Sussex Trough. Possible answers to this are greater coccolith productivity in response to nutrient enrichment (Mutterlose et al, 2005;Schulz et al, 2004), or a sheltered palaeogeographical aspect that protected the region from sediment erosion.…”