Quantifying the Mediterranean freshwater budget throughout the late Miocene:New implications for sapropel formation and the Messinian Salinity Crisis

The cyclic sedimentary record of the late Miocene Mediterranean shows a clear transition from open marine to restricted conditions and finally to evaporitic environments associated with the Messinian Salinity Crisis. This evolution has been attributed to changes in Mediterranean–Atlantic connectivity and regional climate, which has a strong precessional pulse. 31 Coupled climate simulations with different orbital configurations have been combined in a regression model that estimates the evolution of the freshwater budget of the Mediterranean throughout the late Miocene. The study suggests that wetter conditions occur at precession minima and are enhanced at eccentricity maxima. We use the wetter peaks to predict synthetic sapropel records. Using these to retune two Mediterranean sediment successions indicates that the overall net freshwater budget is the most likely mechanism driving sapropel formation in the late Miocene. Our sapropel timing is offset from precession minima and boreal summer insolation maxima during low eccentricity if the present-day drainage configuration across North Africa is used. This phase offset is removed if at least 50% more water drained into the Mediterranean during the late Miocene, capturing additional North African monsoon precipitation, for example via the Chad-Eosahabi catchment in Libya. In contrast with the clear expression of precession and eccentricity in the model results, obliquity, which is visible in the sapropel record during minimum eccentricity, does not have a strong signal in our model. By exploring the freshwater evolution curve in a box model that also includes Mediterranean–Atlantic exchange, we are able, for the first time, to estimate the Mediterranean's salinity evolution, which is quantitatively consistent with precessional control. Additionally, we separate and quantify the distinct contributions regional climate and tectonic restriction make to the lithological changes associated with the Messinian Salinity Crisis. The novel methodology and results of this study have numerous potential applications to other regions and geological scenarios, as well as to astronomical tuning

Precessional drivers of late Miocene Mediterranean sedimentary sequences: African summer monsoon and Atlantic winter storm tracks

Cyclic sedimentary patterns in the marine record of the Mediterranean Sea have been consistently correlated with orbitally‐driven shifts in climate. Freshwater input driven by the African summer monsoon is thought to be the main control of such hydrological changes, where the runoff signal is transferred from the eastern to the western Mediterranean. The geological record from the Atlantic margin also contains precession‐driven dilution cycles that have been correlated with the sedimentary sequences in the western and eastern Mediterranean despite the lack of a direct connection with the basin. In these regions, Atlantic winter storms have also been invoked to explain the wet phases. In the absence of seasonally‐resolved proxy data, climate simulations at high temporal resolution can be used to investigate the drivers of Mediterranean hydrologic changes both on precessional and seasonal timescales. Here, we use the results of 22 ocean‐atmosphere‐vegetation simulations through an entire late Miocene precession cycle. These show that the African summer monsoon drives the hydrologic budget in the Eastern Mediterranean during precession minima, while the western marginal basins are generally dominated by local net evaporative loss. During precession minima, the western Mediterranean and the Atlantic margin are also influenced by enhanced winter precipitation from the Atlantic storm tracks. We can, therefore, identify two different moisture sources affecting the circum‐Mediterranean area, characterized by the same phasing with respect to precession, but with opposite seasonality. This supports the interregional correlation of geological sections in these areas, as we show for the Messinian and speculate for other time periods

Chronostratigraphy and geochronology: a proposed realignment

We propose a realignment of the terms geochronology and chronostratigraphy that brings them broadly into line with current use, while simultaneously resolving the debate over whether the Geological Time Scale should have a “single” or “dual” hierarchy of units: Both parallel sets of units are retained, although there remains the option to adopt either a single (i.e., geochronological) or a dual hierarchy in particular studies, as considered appropri-ate. Thus, geochronology expresses the timing or age of events (depositional, diagenetic, biotic, climatic, tectonic, magmatic) in Earth’s history (e.g., Hirnantian glaciation, Famennian-Frasnian mass extinction). Geochronology can also qualify rock bodies, stratified or unstratified, with respect to the time interval(s) in which they formed (e.g., Early Ordovician Ibex Group). In addition, geochronology refers to all methods of numerical dating. Chronostratigraphy would include all methods (e.g., biostrati-graphy, magnetostratigraphy, chemostratigraphy, cyclostrati-graphy, sequence stratigraphy) for (1) establishing the relative time relationships of stratigraphic successions regionally and worldwide; and (2) formally naming bodies of stratified rock that were deposited contemporaneously with units formally defined at their base, ideally by a GSSP (Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point = “golden spike”) that represents a specific point in time. Geochronologic units may be defined and applied generally by either GSSPs or—as currently in most of the Precambrian—by Global Standard Stratigraphic Ages (GSSAs). Geochronologic units would continue as the time units eons/eras/periods/epochs/ages, and chronostratigraphic units as the time-rock units eonothems/erathems/systems/series/stages. Both hierarchies would remain available for use, as recommended by a formal vote of the International Commission on Stratigraphy in 2010. Geological context helps determine the appropriate usage of the component units

The Neogene and Quaternary : chronostratigraphic compromise or non-overlapping magisteria?

Author Posting. © Micropaleontology Press, 2009. This article is posted here by permission of Micropaleontology Press for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Stratigraphy 6 (2009): 1-16.The International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) together with its subcommissions on Neogene Stratigraphy (SNS) and Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) are facing a persistent conundrum regarding the status of the Quaternary, and the implications for the Neogene System/Period and the Pleistocene Series/Epoch. The SQS, in seeking a formal role for the Quaternary in the standard time scale, has put forward reasons not only to truncate and redefine the Neogene in order to accommodate this unit as a third System/Period in the Cenozoic, but furthermore to shift the base of the Pleistocene to c. 2.6 Ma to conform to a new appreciation of when “Quaternary climates” began. The present authors, as members of SNS, support the well-established concept of a Neogene extending to the Recent, as well as the integrity of the Pleistocene according to its classical meaning, and have published arguments for workable options that avoid this conflict. In this paper, we return to the basic principles involved in the conversion of the essentially marine biostratigraphic/ biochronologic units of Lyell and other 19th-century stratigraphers into the modern hierarchical arrangement of chronostratigraphic units, embodied in the Global Standard Stratotype-section and Point (GSSP) formulation for boundary definitions. Seen in this light, an immediate problem arises from the fact that the Quaternary, either in its original sense as a state of consolidation or in the more common sense as a paleoclimatic entity, is conceptually different from a Lyellian unit, and that a Neogene/Quaternary boundary may therefore be a non sequitur. Secondly, as to retaining the base of the Pleistocene at 1.8 Ma, the basic hierarchical principles dictate that changing the boundary of any non-fundamental or “higher” chronostratigraphic unit is not possible without moving the boundary of its constituent fundamental unit. Therefore, to move the base of the Pleistocene, which is presently defined by the Calabrian GSSP at 1.8 Ma, to be identified with the Gelasian GSSP at 2.6 Ma, requires action to formally redefine the Gelasian as part of the Pleistocene. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the subject under discussion is chronostratigraphy, not biostratigraphy. Both systems are based on the fossil record, but biostratigraphic units are created to subdivide and correlate stratigraphic sequences. The higher-level units of chronostratigraphy, however, were initially selected to reflect the history of life through geological time. The persistence of a characteristic biota in the face of environmental pressures during the last 23 my argues strongly for the concept of an undivided Neogene that extends to the present. Several ways to accommodate the Quaternary in the standard time scale can be envisaged that preserve the original concepts of the Neogene and Pleistocene. The option presently recommended by SNS, and most compatible with the SQS position, is to denominate the Quaternary as a subperiod/subsystem of the Neogene, decoupled from the Pleistocene so that its base can be identified with the Gelasian GSSP at c. 2.6 Ma. A second option is to retain strict hierarchy by restricting a Quaternary subperiod to the limits of the Pleistocene at 1.8 Ma. As a third option, the Quaternary could be a subera/suberathem or a supersystem/ superperiod, decoupled from the Neogene and thus with its base free to coincide with a convenient marker such as the base of the Pleistocene at 1.8 Ma, or to the Gelasian at 2.6 Ma, as opinions about paleoclimatology dictate. If no compromise can be reached within hierarchical chronostratigraphy, however, an alternative might be to consider Quaternary and Neogene as mutually exclusive categories (climatostratigraphic vs. chronostratigraphic) in historical geology. In this case, we would recommend the application of the principle of NOMA, or Non-Overlapping Magisteria, in the sense of the elegant essay by the late Stephen J. Gould (1999) on the mutually exclusive categories of Religion and Science. In this case the Quaternary would have its own independent status as a climatostratigraphic unit with its own subdivisions based on climatic criteria

What, if anything, is Quaternary?

The formal recognition of Quaternary as a Period/ System was approved by IUGS in June 2009, in accordance with a proposal originated by INQUA. There are reasons to believe that this will have destabilizing consequences for the geological time scale. Until now, the primary divisions of the stratigraphic record, at the Period level and above, have been based on the progressive change of Earth’s biota. The Quaternary, on the other hand, is a paleoclimatic concept based on glacial-interglacial variability, expressed in lithological change. The IUGS vote holds that this paradigm now supersedes the biochronological identity of the Neogene Period/System. Furthermore, to accommodate the most recent INQUA opinion about “when the Ice Ages began”, the ICS agreed to relocate the base of the Pleistocene to 2.59 Ma from 1.81 Ma, enlarging the epoch by 43% and again without regard for its original paleontological definition, or for the vast literature in other fields of Pleistocene research. If history is a guide, the resulting disruption in late Cenozoic marine and vertebrate paleontology, human evolution, paleoceanography and paleoclimatology will be widely resisted, with potential impact on the authority of IUGS. The consequence of abandoning basic principles in order to satisfy the interest of a special group deserves a wider consideration than it has so far received

Chronology with a pinch of salt:Integrated stratigraphy of Messinian evaporites in the deep Eastern Mediterranean reveals long-lasting halite deposition during Atlantic connectivity

The Messinian Salinity Crisis (MSC; 5.97–5.33 Ma) is considered an extreme environmental event driven by changes in climate and tectonics, which affected global ocean salinity and shaped the biogeochemical composition of the Mediterranean Sea. Yet, after more than 50 years of research, MSC stratigraphy remains controversial. Recent studies agree that the transition from the underlying pre-evaporite sediments to thick halite deposits is conformal in the deep Eastern Mediterranean Basin. However, the age of the base and the duration of halite deposition are still unclear. Also disputed is the nature of the intermediate and upper MSC units, which are characterized as periods of increased clastic deposition into the Eastern Mediterranean based on marginal outcrops and seismic data. We provide a multidisciplinary study of sedimentary, geochemical, and geophysical data from industrial offshore wells in the Levant Basin, which recovered a sedimentary record of deep-basin Mediterranean evaporites deposited during the MSC. In combination with previous observations of the MSC throughout the Mediterranean Basin, our results promote the need for a new chronological model. Remarkably, the one-kilometer-thick lower part of the evaporitic unit is composed of essentially pure halite, except for a thin transitional anhydrite layer at its base. The halite is undisturbed and homogeneous, lacking diverse features apparent in more proximal sections, indicating a deep-sea depositional environment. We find that distinct, meters-thick non-evaporitic intervals interbedded with the halite, previously thought to be clastic layers, are diatomites. While XRD analysis confirms an increase in clastic components in these sediments, they are composed primarily of well-preserved marine and freshwater planktonic diatoms. The occurrence of marine planktonic diatoms in these intervals indicates the input of Atlantic waters into the Mediterranean Basin during the deposition of the massive halite unit. Seismic stratigraphy and well-log cyclostratigraphy further support deep basin halite deposition, which started about 300 kyr earlier than widely assumed (~5.97 Ma). We propose that halite deposition in the deep Mediterranean took place during stage 1 of the MSC, rather than being limited to the short 50 kyr MSC acme when sea level was presumably at its lowest. Thus, brine formation, salt precipitation, and faunal extinction occurred at least in part in a deep, non-desiccated basin, with a restricted yet open Mediterranean-Atlantic connection that allowed inflow of oceanic water. We observe an increase in heavy minerals and reworked fauna within the clastic-evaporitic, Interbedded Evaporites of the basinal MSC section, and argue that these settings correspond in the deep basins with a significant sea-level drawdown during stage 2 of the MSC, as observed in the marginal sections. This correlation is corroborated by astrochronology and chemostratigraphic markers, such as the distribution of n-alkanes and biomarker-based thermal maturity indices. The Levant deposits indicate that high sea level and partial connectivity with global oceans promoted the deposition of deep-basin deep-water halite, while sea-level drawdown promoted deposition of reworked and transported material from the margins into deep Mediterranean basins. This study modifies the current understanding of the mechanisms governing salt deposition throughout the MSC with implications for other evaporitic events in the geologic record

Ипотека морского судна в контексте восстановление отечественного торгового флота в Украине

Торговельне мореплавство – одна з тих галузей світової економіки, яка має найбільш швидкий розвиток у наш час. Перш за все, це пов’язано із прискоренням міжнародного товарообміну. Наростання обсягів міжнародної торгівлі, у якій прагне приймати участь також Україна, обумовлює необхідність адекватно швидкого зростання її транспортної галузі. Попри значний транспортний потенціал, що має Україна, багато в чому завдячуючи її географічному положенню, стан вітчизняного транспортного комплексу й, особливо, його морської ланки, потребує покращення. Це, в свою чергу, безпосередньо залежить від правового регулювання, що впорядковує такі процеси

The Gibraltar Corridor:Watergate of the Messinian Salinity Crisis

The existence and evolution of a Messinian salt giant in the Mediterranean Sea has caused much debate in the marine science community. Especially the suggestion that the Mediterranean was a deep desiccated basin during the Messinian Salinity Crisis (MSC, 5.97–5.33 Ma), triggered by a temporal disconnection from the global ocean, made it a well-known crisis beyond the scientific boundaries. Approximately ~50 years after this provocative statement, it remained unknown which Mediterranean–Atlantic seaway delivered the 5–6% of the global ocean's salt into the Mediterranean basin. Here, we review the changes in Mediterranean-Atlantic connectivity throughout the late Miocene in order to locate, date and quantify the missing Messinian gateway that provided the salt water inflow during the MSC. We conclude that all the known pre-MSC gateways through southern Spain and northern Morocco were closed, leaving the “Gibraltar Corridor” at its Messinian configuration as the sole candidate. We consider the possibility of longer and narrower straits existing at depth below the present Gibraltar region, and using strait dynamic theory we calculate its dimensions during the Messinian based on the salinity changes in the Mediterranean. A marine Messinian gateway through the Gibraltar Corridor is in agreement with growing evidence that Atlantic waters reached the Mediterranean Sea during all three stages of the MSC