Mesozoic intraplate deformation in the southern part of the Central European Basin - Results from large-scale 3D modelling

Dawn and dusk of Late Cretaceous basin inversion in central Europe

“…While some authors have argued for a NW-SE-directed dextral strike-slip fault system by attributing the uplifts to restraining bends and related basins to transtension (Ziegler, 1990a;Wrede, 1988;Uličný, 2001), most authors have agreed that frontal thrusting was the main process that developed the observed structures (Franzke et al, 2004;Kley and Voigt, 2008;Nielsen and Hansen, 2000;Deckers and van der Voet, 2018). This was also confirmed by small-scale structural features (slickensides, fold axes, and fault orientations), which in many cases preserved both the extensional phase and N-S to NE-SW convergence (Vandycke, 2002;Franzke et al, 2004;Kley, 2018;Malz et al, 2020;Coubal et al, 2014;Navabpour et al, 2017). The strike-slip model addresses the problem that the principal faults should be orientated in an E-W direction to explain the subsidence anomalies at the assumed releasing Riedel shears, which were in fact never observed.…”

“…Less pronounced inversion (uplift magnitudes of 500-2000 m) is observed along the margin of the East European Platform (Mid-Polish Anticlinorium; e.g. Dadlez, 2003;Krzywiec, 2002Krzywiec, , 2006Hansen and Nielsen, 2003;van Buchem et al, 2018), some anticlinal structures of the North German Basin (Prignitz High: Voigt, 2009;Malz et al, 2020), and in northwestern Europe (Zijerveld et al, 1992;Geluk et al, 1994;Michon et al, 2003;de Jager, 2003;Luijendijk et al, 2011). The amount of vertical displacement may exceed 10 km, such as in the cases of the Lower Saxony Basin-Münsterland Basin (Petmecky et al, 1999;Senglaub et al, 2005Senglaub et al, , 2006, the Harz-Subhercynian Basin (von Eynatten et al, 2019), and the Lusatian-Sudetic High-Bohemian-Saxonian Cretaceous Basin inversion structures (Danišík et al, 2010;Käßner et al, 2020).…”

“…The Altmark Basin is an elongate, about 60 km long and only 15 km wide marginal trough (Fig. 8), which formed north of the uplifted Calvörde Block above a salt detachment linked to the Gardelegen Fault (Schulze, 1964;Kossow, 2001;Malz et al, 2020). AFT ages from the Permian sandstones of the Flechtingen High, a part of the exhumed basement of the Calvörde High, suggest rapid cooling around 70 Ma (Fischer et al, 2012), confirming the overall pattern of Late Cretaceous syn-tectonic basin formation in central Europe.…”

Dawn and Dusk of Late Cretaceous Basin Inversion in Central Europe

“…A possible thickening of Cenomanian deposits in the axis of the marginal trough is not proven, because no borehole reached the Cenomanian in the deeply subsided basin part close to the Harz uplift margin.In contrast to these examples of early activities in basin evolution, the deep marginal troughs of the Altmark Basin show no significant variations in Cenomanian thickness. Neither the Harznordrand Thrust nor the Gardelegen thrust are proven to have formed from inherited normal faults (e.g Voigt et al, 2009;Malz et al, 2020)…”

The Subhercynian Basin: An example of an intraplate foreland basin due to a broken plate

“…It has been suggested that the shallower Moho and thinner crust beneath the NGB may explain its unique, Mesozoic and Cenozoic subsidence history (Group, 1999). However, the precise mechanism of Mesozoic and in particular Cenozoic subsidence of the NGB remains a subject of discussion (Voigt et al, 2008;Malz et al, 2020). Perhaps most importantly for the question of the SCB and other Late Cretaceous basins, it seems reasonably clear that the NGB is mechanically distinct and hence behaves differently from its margins throughout the Mesozoic and Cenozoic periods (Malz et al, 2020;Voigt et al, 2008;Nielsen et al, 2005).…”