Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary

Volumina Jurassica, 2011, iX: 105–128 Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval in the Western Tethys and its correlations with other regions: a review Jacek GRABOWSKI1 Key words: magnetostratigraphy, Tithonian, Berriasian, Western Tethys. Abstract. Magnetostratigraphy is an important method in regional and worldwide correlations across the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary. The M-sequence of magnetic anomalies, embracing this boundary, provides an easily recognizable pattern which might be identiied in biostratigraphically calibrated land sections. The polarity chrons between M21r and M16n are well correlated to calpionellid and calcareous nannofossil stratigraphy in the Tethyan Realm. This results in a very high precision of stratigraphic schemes of pelagic carbonates (ammonitico rosso and maiolica limestones), integrating the two groups of fossils with magnetostratigraphy. The main clusters of the reference sections are located in the Southern Alps and Apennines, but the database was recently enriched by sections from the Western Carpathians and Eastern Alps. Quite a few Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary sections with magnetostratigraphy are known in the Iberian Peninsula and south-eastern France but their importance relies on the integration of magnetostratigraphy also with the Tethyan ammonite zonation. Correlation of Boreal and Tethyan regions still remains a major problem. Just two sections with reliable correlation to the global polarity time scale are documented outside Tethys: a shallow marine to non-marine Tithonian–Berriasian–Valanginian sequence in southern England (Portland–Purbeck beds) and the marine clastic Upper Tithonian–Middle Berriasian (= Middle Volgian–lowermost Ryazanian) sequence at Nordvik Peninsula (Siberia). The Volgian/Ryazanian boundary at Nordvik seems to be located in the lower part of magnetochron M18n, while the most commonly accepted deinitions of the Tethyan Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary are situated either within magnetochron M19n (A/B calpionellid zonal boundary, Durangites/Jacobi ammonite zonal boundary), or at the boundary of M19n/M18r (Jacobi/Grandis ammonite subzonal boundary). InTroduCTIon The worldwide deinition of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary is still not established (e.g. Remane, 1991; Zakharov et al., 1996; Wimbledon, 2008; Pessagno et al., 2010; Wimbledon et al., 2011; Michalík, Reháková, 2011). The problems in global correlation of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary arise primarily from: 1. Lack of any important faunal change which might be used as a biostratigraphical marker (see also Rogov et al., 2010). 2. General regression and profound biogeographical provincialism, especially between ammonites of the Boreal and Tethyan Realms. As a consequence, a variety of regional stages developed such as Tithonian and Berriasian in the Tethyan region, Bolonian, Portlandian and Purbeckian in north-western Europe, Volgian and Ryazanian in Russia and the Arctic (see e.g. Cope, 2008; Harding et al., 2011 for review). That is also the reason why the Jurassic/Cretaceous is the only Phanerozoic system boundary not yet ixed by a GSSP. Additionally, the accuracy of numerical dating of the Jurassic/Cretaceous 1 Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Rakowiecka 4, 00-975 Warszawa, Poland; e-mail: [email protected] 106 Jacek Grabowski boundary, estimated as 145.5 Ma, amounts to ±4 My (Gradstein et al., 2004). This is the highest error among all system boundaries in the Phanerozoic and results from the paucity of reliable radiometric ages (Pálfy, 2008). Historically at least three deinitions of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary are considered, tied to ammonite zonation in the Tethyan realm (Fig. 1A): 1. Base of the Jacobi ammonite Subzone, which is often (e.g. Gradstein et al., 2004) regarded as equivalent to the boundary between calpionellid Zones A and B, correlated with the upper part of magnetosubzone M19n2n (Colloque sur la limite Jurassique-Crétacé, 1973). According to Tavera et al. (1994) and Pruner et al. (2010) the base of the Jacobi Zone must be correlated with the upper part of calpionellid Zone A and the lowermost part of magnetosubzone M19n2n. 2. Base of Grandis ammonite Subzone, in the lower part of calpionellid Zone B, almost coinciding with the base of magnetozone M18r (Colloque sur la Crétacé inferieur, 1963). 3. Boundary between Grandis and Subalpina ammonite subzones (= between Jacobi and Occitanica ammonite zones), correlated with the middle part of calpionellid Zone B and the lower part of magnetozone M17r (Hoedemaeker, 1991; Gradstein et al., 2004). Gradstein et al. (2004) in their time scale accepted the irst of the three options listed above, which has in fact been applied in most recent studies integrating calpionellid stratigraphy (Fig. 1B) and magnetostratigraphy in the Tethyan region (e.g. Houša et al., 1999a, 2004; Grabowski, Pszczółkowski, 2006; Grabowski et al., 2010a; Pruner et al., 2010). However, recent developments in calpionellid stratigraphy seemed to question also the basic methodology in deining the A/B calpionellid zone boundary: depending on criteria, the boundary falls either in the middle part of the M19n2n magnetosubzone or slightly below the bottom of M19n1r magnetosubzone, as in the case in the Brodno section in the Western Carpathians (see Houša et al., 1999a, b; Michalík et al., 2009; Michalík, Reháková, 2011). Channell et al. (2010) suggested that the position of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary can be recognized by the irst occurrence of the nannofossil Nannoconus steinmannii minor, which occurs at the base of magnetozone M18r. Magnetostratigraphy might be used as a correlation tool between different kinds of biostratigraphical scales and distant areas or sections, and therefore its signiicance in the global deinition of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary is appreciated. It works equally well in deep water, shallow water and terrestrial sediments and might be applied also in radiometrically dated volcanic rocks. The problem of the method is that not all rocks preserve their primary magnetization (e.g. McCabe, Elmore, 1989) and that magnetostratigraphy must be integrated with other stratigraphical methods. The aim of this paper is to review magnetostratigraphic data from the broad Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval, between the magnetozones M21r (Lower Tithonian) and M16n (Upper Berriasian). An emphasis is put on the Western Tethyan sections (Fig. 2), indicating correlation possibilities with coeval sections in other palaeogeographic realms, where magnetostratigraphic calibration is available. MagneTIC anoMalIes, bloCk Models and MagneTosTraTIgraphy Marine magnetic anomalies constitute a base for the construction of a global polarity time scale (GPTS). The M-sequence of magnetic anomalies, which covers the Jurassic/ Cretaceous transition, refers to anomalies older than the Cretaceous Quiet Zone (Cretaceous Normal Superchron). They are numbered from M0 (Aptian/Barremian stage boundary) to M37, which corresponds to the Upper Callovian (Opdyke, Channell, 1996). They are documented in the Paciic, Atlantic and Indian oceans, but the best record of lineation sets is derived from the Paciic. Most M anomaly models were based on the magnetic proiles from the Hawaiian spreading center (Larson, Hilde, 1975; Channell et al., 1995; Gradstein et al., 2004) but recently Tominaga and Sager (2010) built a new model incorporating data also from other Paciic lineation sets: Japanese and Phoenix. Its rough accordance with the linear magnetic anomalies of the Atlantic and West Australia set was tested. The model seems superior to previous ones since it takes into account subtle differences in spreading rates between the three lineation systems. Older models assumed either constant spreading rates in the Hawaiian lineations (Channell et al., 1995) or accepted four intervals of constant spreading rate (Gradstein et al., 2004). Assignment of numerical ages to magnetic anomalies, and hence, to magnetozones is very important. The model of Tominaga and Sager (2010) was calibrated with two dates only. These are: 155.7 Ma for the base of M26r (the 40Ar/39Ar age of celadonite from the oceanic crust of the north-western Australian margin, see Ludden, 1992) and 125.0 Ma for the base of M0r (the 40Ar/39Ar age of the MIT Guyot in the Western Paciic, ide Gradstein et al., 20041). Comparison of inferred dating of magnetozones between the models of Channell et al. (1995), Gradstein et al. (2004) and Tominaga and Sager (2010) is shown in the Fig. 1A. 1 Not Channell et al. (2000) as indicated in the paper of Tominaga and Sager (2010) GR2004 136.49 141.05 TS2010 Bralower et al.,1989 Channell et al., 2010 139.94 Cs. oblonga Cs. simplex M16 C 141.37 141.52 137.85 142.06 141.75 138.50 142.55 142.32 138.89 142.84 Zone Subzone Zone Subzone 142.73 NK-2a NK-1 NK-2 NK-2a NK-1 M17 3. Ammonite zonation Zone Subzone Picteti NK-2b NK-2b NK-2 stratigraphic range of sections with ammoniteand magnetostratigraphy M15 CENT95 Paramimounum Dalmasi Privasensis Berrias D Calcareous nannofossil zonation Boisseri L. hungarica Numerical time scale (Ma) Polarity Occitanica Stages B E R R IAS IAN First occurrence Subalpina 144.13 141.22 144.57 144.64 141.63 141.78 141.88 1. 144.88 144.99 145.06 145.20 NJK TITH O N IAN 143.07 143.36 C. alpina 143.77 143.84 M20 144.70 145.95 146.16 146.47 146.52 147.16 146.18 146.42 NJK-B Chitinoidellidae M21 NJT-17b 146.87 147.02 NJK-A NJT-16b 147.46 NJT-16 145.52 147.77 148.18 146.56 148.54 148.70 NJ-20B NJ-20 NJ-20A Grandis Jacobi NJT-17 NJT-17a Ch. boneti Chit. NKT NJK-C 145.43 145.60 M19 A NJK-D Durangites Microacanthum Transitorius Simplisph. Burckhardticeras NJT-16a NJT-15 NJT-15b Admirandum/ biruncinatum Richteri Sierra Gorda 2. 144.04 Carcabuey M18 140.51 Puerto Escano B Jacobi C. elliptica Fig. 1a. summary of bio- and magnetostratigraphic correlations across the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary for the Mediterranean province and dating of M-sequence magnetic intervals according to different timescales: CENT95 – Channell et al. (1995); GR2004 – Gradstein et al. (2004); TS2010 – Tominaga, Sager (2010) Three definitions (1–3) of the Jurassic/cretaceous boundary are given: 1 – after colloque sur la limite Jurassique–crétacé (1973); 2 – after colloque sur la crétacé inferieur (1963); 3 – after Hoedemaeker (1991). more explanation and comments in the text. correlation of calpionellid zones to magnetostratigraphy after Grabowski et al. (2010 a). correlation of ammonite zones to magnetostratigraphy after Gradstein et al. (2004) supplemented by data of Pruner et al. (2010) Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval in the Western Tethys and its correlations with other regions... Calpionellid zones 107 108 STAGES AND SUBSTAGES Microfossil zonations published by various authors Grün, Blau, 1997 Pop, 1994a, b, 1997, 1998 Remane et al., 1986 Borza, 1984 Remane, 1963, 1964, 1971 dadayi murgeanui 3 intermedia remanei Praetintinnopsella Chitinoidella boneti dobeni LOWER Chitinoidella Calpionellopsis Calpionellopsis colomi intermedia remanei (parvula) Praetintinnopsella Chitinoidella boneti dobeni Calpionella alpina 2 D 1 simplex C elliptica B alpina catalanoi Crassicollaria UPPER Remaniella Calpionella alpina ferasini oblonga cadischiana longa elliptica filipescui intermedia Chitinoidella Crassicollaria TITHONIAN Crassicollaria Calpionella elliptica simplex Calpionella Calpionella LOWER simplex oblonga andrusovi bermudezi boneti dobeni remanei “malmica” “pulla-tithonica” Fig. 1B. Calpionellid zonations in the Tithonian and Berriasian, published by various authors (after Grabowski, Pszczółkowski, 2006) 3 A 2 1 Jacek Grabowski MIDDLE oblonga Crassicollaria Calpionellopsis Calpionella BERRIASIAN UPPER Calpionellopsis murgeanui Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval in the Western Tethys and its correlations with other regions... London Berlin 109 Warsaw 23 Paris Munchen Milan13 Lyon 15–19 14 Venice 1 Vienna 4 7 6 5 Kraków 2 3 Budapest 12 Madrid 20–22 Rome 9–10 8 11 Fig. 2. location of the magnetostratigraphically studied Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary sections in europe 1 – Brodno; 2 – Western Tatra; 3 – strážovce; 4 – Hlboča; 5 – lókút; 6 – sümeg; 7 – nutzhof; 8 – sierra Gorda; 9–10 – carcabuey and Puerto Escaňo; 11 – rio argos; 12 – Berrias; 13 – Torre de’Busi; 14 – colme di Vignola; 15–19 – Foza, Frisoni, Xausa, Bombatierle and mezzosilva; 20–22 – Bosso, arcevia and Fonte Giordano; 23 – Durlston Bay. The nomenclature of magnetostratigraphic units is not very strictly formalized. A polarity chron or magnetochron is deined as a time interval of constant magnetic ield polarity delimited by reversals. The corresponding interval in the stratigraphic section is called a polarity zone or magnetozone. The terms subchrons and subzones are also in use but their meaning is not well constrained. Usually the term magnetozone or magnetochron is applied to a normal (n) or reversed (r) polarity interval which is numbered according to marine magnetic anomalies (Ogg et al., 1991). For example, magnetochron M19r corresponds to magnetic anomaly M19, while magnetochron M19n – to the normal interval between anomalies M19 and M18 (Fig. 3). A magnetosubchron is deined as a short polarity interval within a magnetochron, like e.g. magnetosubchron M19n1r within M19n magnetochron. Such a deinition was applied in the present study. However some authors recommend the use of duration time as a criterion in the hierarchy of magnetostratigraphic units. According to McElhinny and McFadden (2000), the approximate duration of a magnetochron is 106–107 years, while that of a magnetosubchron is 105–106 years. In this case most of polarity intervals within an M-sequence (M19r, M18n etc.) should be deined as magnetosubchrons. Two parallel symbols are currently used for naming the magnetochrons of an M-sequence. J.E.T Channell (e.g. Opdyke, Channell, 1996; Channell et al., 2010) applies the term CM. A preix “C” is added to distinguish polarity chrons from marine magnetic anomalies. Other authors 110 M18 M18r Magnetosubzones Magnetozones Magnetic Polarity Pair of linear magnetic anomalies Jacek Grabowski M19n M19 M19n1n M19n1r M19n2n M19r M20n M20 M20n1n M20n1r M20n2n M20r Fig. 3. nomenclature of magnetostratigraphic units at the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary applied in the paper Black colour – normal polarity, white colour – reversed polarity (e.g. Ogg et al., 1991; Gradstein et al., 2004; Pruner et al., 2010) use the same terminology for magnetic anomalies and the corresponding magnetochrons (M), with the sufix n or r for polarity indication. This nomenclature is accepted also in this paper. global polarITy TIMe sCale (gpTs) For The JurassIC/CreTaCeous boundary InTerval and ITs bIosTraTIgraphIC CalIbraTIon The frequency of magnetic reversals is not very high in the Late Tithonian and Berriasian (e.g. Gradstein et al., 2004; Kurazhovskii et al., 2010). Some magnetozones are of almost 1 My duration (e.g. M20n, M19n, M17r, M16n) which is not as common in the Oxfordian–Kimmeridgian and Valanginian–Hauterivian. Moreover, magnetozones M20n and M19n reveal a characteristic pattern: they are divided in two parts by short reversed magnetosubzones (M20n1r and M19n1r) in their 50–60% and 80–90% respectively (see Fig. 1A, 3). The pattern is relatively easy to recognize in the magnetic record and, in the presence of even rough biostratigraphic markers, might usually be reliably matched with GPTS (e.g. Houša et al., 2007). Correlation between GPTS and biostratigraphy, especially micro- and nannofossil stratigraphy, is well established. Correlation of calpionellid zones (e.g. Remane, 1986, see also Fig. 1B) to magnetozones has been achieved by integrated bio- and magnetostratigraphic studies in the Ammonitico Rosso and Maiolica formations of the Southern Alps and Apennines (Ogg, Lowrie, 1986; Channell, Grandesso, 1987; Channell et al., 1987). The correlation was performed based on 5 sections in the Trento Plateau of the Southern Alps: Capriolo, Xausa, Frisoni, Valle de Mis, Quero, and a single section in the Apennines (Bosso) (Fig. 2). It is worth mentioning that the same southern Alpine sections were used to calibrate the δ13C isotope curve in the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval (Weissert, Channell, 1989). The correlation of calpionellid zonation to magnetostratigraphy has been positively tested and only slightly reined in numerous papers (e.g. Houša et al., 1999a, b; Grabowski, Pszczółkowski, 2006; Houša et al., 2004; Pruner et al., 2010; Grabowski et al., 2010a, b). Bralower et al. (1989) established a correlation scheme between magneto- and nannofossil stratigraphy based on 5 land sections (Bosso and Fonte Giordano in Apennines, Foza in Southern Alps, Carcabuey in Betic Cordillera, and Berrias in south-eastern France) and one DSDP site (534A). Channell et al. (2010) correlated the new nannofossil zonation of Casellato (2010) with GPTS in 6 sections from the Southern Alps. The new nannofossil stratigraphy was juxtaposed also with the magnetostratigraphy of DSDP site 534A (Casellato, 2010). Integration of magnetostratigraphy with ammonite zonation is not as robust as with micro- and nannofossils. It has been reported from four land sections only (Fig. 2): the Berriasian historical type locality (Galbrun, 1985) and three sections from the Betic Cordillera of Spain (Ogg et al., 1984; Pruner et al., 2010). Moreover, in none of those studies were magnetostratigraphy and ammonite stratigraphy truly integrated (as is a usual case in magnetostratigraphic studies integrated with calpionelid or nannofossil stratigraphy) and there is an urgent need for modern reassessment of the stratigraphically important Lower Berriasian ammonites (Wimbledon et al., 2011). Other groups of organisms were not routinely utilized in the biostratigraphic calibration of magnetostratigraphic sections. A notable exception are the summary results of DSDP sites on the Western Atlantic, where magnetostratigraphy was integrated with nannofossils, calpionellids, radiolarians, dinolagellates and foraminifers (Initial reports of DSDP, vol. 76. www.deepseadrilling.org). Also in the recent studies of the Brodno and Nutzhof sections (Fig. 2), magnetostratigraphy was integrated with calcareous nannofossils and dinolagellate stratigraphy (Michalík et al., 2009; Lukeneder et al., 2010). Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval in the Western Tethys and its correlations with other regions... NJK-C Calpionella alpina Proxima Crassicollaria Brevis NJK NJK-A NJK-B Colomi Fortis Tenuis NJ-20B Semiradiata Malmica 3 Czorsztyn Formation M20r 4 NJ-20A 5 1 Praetintinnopsella Chitinoidella Boneti Dob. M20n Kysuca magnetosubzone Chitinoidella Boneti Pieniny Formation 6 Crassicollaria Remanei Intermedia 7 M19r 8 Calpionella alpina M18r M19n 9 2 Fig. 4. Magnetostratigraphy of the brodno section (pieniny klippen belt), after houša et al. (1999a) and its two biostratigraphic calibrations Brodno magnetosubzone 10 M21n The irst magnetostratigraphic results from the Jurassic/ Cretaceous boundary beds from the Western Carpathians area were published by Houša et al. (1996a, b). These authors studied the Brodno section, near Žilina (Slovakia), situated in the Kysuca unit of the Pieniny Klippen Belt (Michalík et al., 1990a). The papers (Houša et al., 1996a, b) documented the 21 m long record of magnetic reversals from the top of M21r (upper part of the Lower Tithonian) to M17r (upper part of the Lower Berriasian). Three years later, new results were published from that section (Houša et al., 1999a, b) based on a very high resolution of the sampling (oriented samples taken each 3–5 cm). An important achievement of the second phase of magnetostratigraphic work at Brodno was a detailed documentation of two short reversed polarity events named: (1) Kysuca magnetosubzone (M20n1r) within the middle part of M20n (55% of local thickness) and (2) Brodno magnetosubzone (M19n1r) within the upper part of M19n (82% of local thickness) – see Fig. 4. The Jurassic/ Cretaceous boundary based on calpionellids (base of Calpionella Zone) was situated at 34% of the local thickness of M19n. Houša et al. (1999a) presented a correlation between the magnetostratigraphic results and the identiied calpionellid taxa (which was lacking in older papers about the Brodno section). However, the high resolution magnetostratigraphic log published in 1999 did not embrace the higher part of the section, i.e. between 11.2 and 21.0 m, which corresponds to magnetozones M18r to M17r. Therefore this part of the section still awaits integrated bio- and magnetostratigraphic study. The boundary between the Czorsztyn Limestone Formation and the Pieniny Limestone Formation was situated at the top of the Kysuca magnetosubzone (at ca. 5.7 m of the section). Michalík et al. (2009) presented a modiied biostratigraphical scheme of the section (including calpionellid, calcareous dinocyst and nannofossil stratigraphy), integrated with the earlier magnetostratigraphy as well as other stratigraphical methods (δ18O, δ13C, TOC, and CaCO3, and detailed microfacies and cyclic stratigraphy). The Jurassic/ Cretaceous boundary was shifted higher by about 1.4 m, 11 M21r PiEniny KliPPEn BElT Michalik et al. (2009) Remanei Housa et al. (1999a) m Dob. NJ-20 TeThys MagneTosTraTIgraphy 111 Tith. Jacek Grabowski 112 almost to the base of the Brodno magnetosubzone1. The lower boundary of the Chitinoidella Zone was moved down the section and some other boundaries of calpionellid subzones were signiicantly changed (see Fig. 4). However, the frequencies of occurrence of calpionellid species for the extended Colomi Subzone were not published for the Brodno section. Concerning the correlation of nannofossil stratigraphy to magnetostratigraphy, it should be noted that this deviates in some respects from the scheme of Bralower et al. (1989). In the Brodno section, zone NJ-20 terminates in the uppermost part of M20n2n and not in the middle part of M20r, as plotted by Bralower et al. (1989). The mean sedimentation rate within the section was quite low (average 2.26 m/My), slightly increasing between the Czorsztyn and Pieniny Formation (Grabowski et al., 2010a). This agrees with low magnetic susceptibility (MS) values (mostly below 20 × 10–6 SI, with a decreasing trend between Tithonian and Berriasian), indicating most probably a low input of detrital material towards the basin. cEnTral WEsTErn carPaTHians An extensive study of Mesozoic rocks in the Tatra Mts (Grabowski, 2000) revealed that the Tithonian–Berriasian calpionellid limestones of the Križna nappe preserved their primary magnetization. First indications about the position of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary were based on ammonites found in the biancone-type limestone (Lefeld, 1974). Detailed calpionellid biostratigraphy and the position of the Tithonian–Berriasian boundary were studied by Pszczółkowski (1996). A composite magnetostratigraphic section, based on four overlapping sections situated in the western part of the Križna nappe (the so-called Bobrowiec unit, see Bac, 1971), was published by Grabowski and Pszczółkowski (2006). A record of magnetic reversals was successfully revealed from M20r (uppermost Lower Tithonian) to the upper part of M16n (Upper Berriasian) The total thickness of the composite section was between 70 and 80 m. Palaeomagnetic sampling and biostratigraphic resolution was not as high as in the Brodno section, and the positions of the biostratigraphic boundaries in relation to magnetozones were determined only roughly. Nevertheless the position of the crucial biohorizons is concordant with those in the Brodno section (Fig. 5). The Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary is situated at the bottom of the Alpina Subzone, at ca. 40% of the thickness of magnetozone M19n. The position of the Brodno magnetosubzone is concordant with that of the Brodno section – within the upper half of M19n. However the position of the Kysuca magnetosubzone is anomalous, within the uppermost part of M20n (Grabowski, Pszczółkowski, 2006). This was not commented on in the original paper, but subsequent inspection in the ield proved that the proile is dissected by a thrust fault (Grabowski et al., 2010b) and a part of the section comprising the larger part of the post-Kysuca part of M20n (M20n1n), and a bottom part of M19r, is missing. The boundary between the Jasenina Formation and the Osnica Formation is located within M19n, just below the Brodno magnetosubzone (ca. 0.5 m), within the lowermost Berriasian, while the Osnica/Kościeliska formation boundary is situated in the lowermost part of M16n, in the Upper Berriasian. Within the magnetostratigraphically studied subsections in the Tatra Mts some rock magnetic analyses were performed which shed some light on the dynamics of sedimentation. Each formation within the section revealed its distinct rock magnetic signature. The Jasenina Fm., which contains a lot of clay minerals, reveals high magnetic susceptibility (between 60–150 × 10–6 SI), abundance of hematite and relatively low sedimentation rates, close to 5 m/My. The magnetic susceptibility of Osnica Fm., which is more carbonaceous, is lower (40–60 × 10–6 SI) and its magnetic mineralogy is different: almost exclusively magnetite. The sedimentation rate rises to 5–10 m/Ma. The Kościeliska Marl Formation again contains a higher amount of detrital clays, as well as increasingly higher magnetic susceptibility (up to 160 × 10–6 SI), but its magnetic mineralogy remains the same as in the Osnica Fm. (Fig. 6). The explanation given by Grabowski and Pszczółkowski (2006) was that the marly limestones of the Jasenina Formation sedimented during a period of low input of detrital material and low carbonate productivity. Hematite is often regarded as an indicator of low sedimentation rate (Channell et al., 2000), although sometimes it is of early diagenetic nature and carries a magnetization that is ca. 105 years younger than time of sediment deposition (Channell et al., 1982). The increase of sedimentation rate during the Early Berriasian was caused by increased carbonate productivity and a bloom of carbonate micro- and nannofossils. Stepwise increase of sedimentation rate in the Late Berriasian correlates with an onset of marly sedimentation which is a regional phenomenon within the basinal sections of the entire Central Western Carpathians (Vašiček et al., 1994; Michalík et al., 1995) and Eastern Alps (Rasser et al., 2003). The second magnetostratigraphic investigations were performed on the Strážovce section in the Strážovské Vrchy Mts in Central Slovakia (Vašiček et al., 1983; Michalík et 1 In the most recent paper of Michalík and Reháková (2011) the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary in the Brodno section occurs even higher – in the middle of M19n1r (Brodno) magnetosubzone (see their ig. 7) 113 Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval in the Western Tethys and its correlations with other regions... WESTERN TATRA (Pośrednie–Rówienka composite section) M15 Formation D M16 Ch. 0 M21 ? 4 Ch 0 A/B’ 20 Prae/A Ch Prae/A 4 2 Osnica Formation M17 10 Ch/Prae 0 B/C M18 30 M19 6 Ch/Prae 2 A/B” C/D M20 6 M20 Ch/A M21 5 M20 Tegernsee Fm. A 21n 148 Tithonian 147 M20 8 146 8 A/B Pieniny Fm. 10 Czorsztyn Fm. A/B M19 10 M19 10 M20 145 40 BRODNO M21 m 12 M18 M18 Mogyor. Fm. LÓKÚT B tranistional beds 15 m 12 Palihalas Fm. M17 m 50 B/C M19 20 C Padla Voda Fm. 144 Berriasian 143 m 25 141 142 HLBOČA Ch Jasenina Fm. M14 Kościeliska M13 M16 E M17 140 Polarity M19 139 Valanginian 138 Ma A/B thrust fault Prae/A Ch/Prae Ch Ch 0 149 Fig. 5. Correlation of magnetostratigraphically studied Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary sections within the Carpathian domain (after grabowski et al., 2010 b, modified) Boundaries of calpionellid zones are indicated by arrows: ch – bottom of chitinoidella Zone; Prae – Praetintinnopsella Zone; a, B, c and D – calpionellid zones. Within the Brodno section a/B’ and a/B” correspond to the a/B calpionellid zonal boundary as defined by Houša et al. (1999a) and michalík et al. (2009), respectively al., 1990c). Here, however, the strata appeared to be heavily remagnetized and not suitable for magnetostratigraphy (Grabowski et al., 2009). Successful magnetostratigraphic study was performed in the Malé Karpaty Mts, located in the south-western termination of the Western Carpathian arc (Grabowski et al., 2010b). The Hlboča section is situated within the Vysoká nappe, which reveals a peculiar, more shallow-water development of the Fatric domain. The Upper Jurassic (Oxfordian to Tithonian) is developed here as red nodular limestones attributed to the Tegernsee Formation, which is an equivalent of the Czorsztyn Limestone Formation. The overlying Padlá Voda Formation consists of grey, poorly or thick-bedded grey calpionellid limestones (Michalík et al., 1990b). The Tithonian part of the Tegernsee Fm. revealed the presence of magnetozones from the upper part of M21n to the upper part of M20n, with the Kysuca magnetosubzone in the middle of M20n. A signiicant stratigraphic gap is present at the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary (Michalík et al., 1995; Michalík, Reháková, 2011) evidenced by sedimentary breccia beds of up to 1 m thickness. The sediments comprising the upper part of the Intermedia Subzone and most of the Alpina Subzone were eroded and occur in the form of clasts. It was possible to date this gap using the magnetostratigraphic method. It appears that erosion removed the uppermost part of M20n, the entire M19r and also the pre-Brodno part of M19n, that is M19n2n (Grabowski et al., 2010b), see Fig. 5. The rock magnetic properties and the state of outcrops of the Berriasian Padlá Voda Formation were not suitable for detailed magnetostratigraphy. The Berriasian limestones contained a lot of ultra-ine grained magnetite (in the superparamagnetic state) which is typically encountered in chemically remagnetized carbonates (e.g. Jacek Grabowski 114 Sedimentation rate (m/My) Age (My) 5 10 15 20 25 30 + M18n 144 magnetite magnetite + hematite M20n 147 M19r 146 M19n 145 M18r M17r 143 Osnica Fm. - M16n M16r 142 Jasenina Fm. 35 Magnetic susceptibility 141 M17n Kościeliska 0 Magnetic mineralogy Fig. 6. Western Tatra Mts: Pośrednie–Rówienka composite section (Grabowski, Pszczółkowski, 2006) sedimentation rate (calculated after the timescale of Gradstein et al., 2004) is plotted against lithostratigraphy, magnetic mineralogy and smoothed magnetic susceptibility curve Jackson et al., 1993; Grabowski et al., 2009). Although the quality of the magnetostatigraphic results was quite poor, the presence of magnetozones from the uppermost part of M19n (M19n1n) to M17n is postulated1. A peculiar feature of the section is an inverse pattern of MS changes across the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary, lower MS values in the Tithonian part and higher within the Lower and Middle Berriasian. This is at odds with the common pattern where usually a decrease of MS is observed across the Jurassic/ Cretaceous boundary (Houša et al., 1999a, b; Houša et al., 2004; Grabowski, Pszczółkowski, 2006; Pruner et al., 2010; Lukeneder et al., 2010; Grabowski et al., 2010a). TransDanuBian mTs Magnetostratigraphic investigations of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary in the Transdanubian Mts started as early as in the Southern Alpine and Apennine sections in Italy – in the early 1980s (Márton, 1982). The irst section studied was that of Sümeg, situated close the south-eastern margin of Balaton Lake – in fact this was the irst land section studied covering the interval from the Kimmeridgian to the Berriasian. The Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary occurs within a succession of white to light grey limestones of maiolica facies, dating from Tithonian to Valanginian. The 140 m thick interval of Upper Kimmeridgian–Lower Berriasian rocks was sampled there with a resolution ca. 1 sample per meter. Primary magnetization of dual polarity was undoubtedly revealed. Unfortunately, problems with the stratigraphic interpretation arose from two reasons: 1. Poor biostratigraphical dating of the section (just 8 biostratigraphically dated horizons) and the calpionellid zonation not fully established yet; 2. Lack of other reference land sections studied. Therefore, although a number of reversals was documented, the section could be correlated only tentatively to the Larson and Hilde (1975) scheme of oceanic magnetic 1 Not as high as M15r as erroneously plotted by Michalík and Reháková (2011), in their ig. 7 Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval in the Western Tethys and its correlations with other regions... anomalies. The age of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary was put at 136.5 Ma, in the lowermost part of the M16n magnetozone. It is thus not surprising that the magnetostratigraphic data from the Sümeg section is not fully accepted at present. Nowadays only a small part of the Sümeg section is available for direct observations. Two other sections where magnetostratigraphy was done, also in the Transdanubian Mts (Borzavar and Harskut), were only briely mentioned in a paper of Márton (1986), but without extensive biostratigraphic descriptions, only with the boundaries of the standard calpionellid zones indicated. A new magnetostratigraphic study was performed on the Lókút section (Grabowski et al., 2010a). The thickness of the section amounts to 13 m. It comprises a continuous passage between Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks. The bottom part of the section is developed as multicoloured (reddish, yellowish, white) nodular limestones of the Pálihálás Formation. Based on ammonites, the formation was assigned to the Kimmeridgian–Lower Tithonian (Vígh, 1984). The Upper Tithonian–Lower Berriasian part of the section is represented by white calpionellid limestones with cherts (Mogyorósdomb Formation). Magnetozones from the uppermost part of M21r to the bottom of M18r were identiied, which indicates that the Lókút section is almost equivalent to the Brodno section (Fig. 5). The magnetic stratigraphy was calibrated on calpionellid zonation using the same samples (Grabowski et al., 2010a). The Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary was established at the base of calpionellid Zone B, in magnetozone M19n at 30% of its thickness. Stepwise decrease of MS to almost negative values in the uppermost part of the section is observed indicating most probably a relative decrease of lithogenic input. The sedimentation rate reveals roughly an opposite trend, increasing from 1–3 m/My within the Tithonian to 5–7 m/My in the Berriasian. As in the sections from the Tatra Mts (see section 4.2), higher sedimentation rates are attributed to increasing productivity of calcareous micro- and nannoplankton. EasTErn alPs The Nutzhof section is located in the Gresten Klippenbelt in Lower Austria, ca. 60 km ESE from Vienna (Lukeneder et al., 2010) – see Fig. 2. It is now tectonically incorporated into the Rhenodanubian Flysch Zone, but the original place of deposition was a Helvetian unit, on the southern shelf of the European continent. This is the only Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary section studied magnetostratigraphically in the Eastern Alps. Its thickness is 18 m and magnetozones from M21r to M18n were documented. Beside magnetic 115 stratigraphy, also detailed chemostratigraphy (δ18O, δ13C, TOC, S) and biostratigraphy (calpionellids, calcareous dinolagellates, calcareous nannofossils and macrofossils: ammonoids, aptychi, belemnites etc.) of the deposits were studied. The Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary, deined as the boundary between A/B calpionellid zones, falls within the Blassenstein Formation, in the pre-Brodno part of M19n (M19n2n). The lower part of the Formation (mostly Tithonian) consists of marl/limestone alternations, while the upper part of the Formation is represented by pure, grey limestones. It is characteristic that ammonitico rosso facies is not present in the Tithonian within that section. The boundary between the two parts of the Blassenstein Formation correlates with the uppermost part of the M20n2n magnetosubzone (just below the Kysuca magnetosubzone). The two parts of the Blassenstein Fm. differ distinctly in MS values. The agreement of the MS curve with the gamma log and variations of CaCO3 content (Lukeneder et al., 2010) supports the view that the MS decreasing trend across the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary is caused by lowering input of detrital material. Correlation of the calpionellid zonation with the magnetostratigraphy signiicantly deviates from a reference pattern (see Fig. 1A). The upper boundary of the Chitinoidella Zone falls as low as in the uppermost part of M20r (usually in the upper part of M20n2n, cf. Figs 4, 5). The Praetintinnopsella Zone embraces the boundary between M20r and M20n2n, while typically it is situated in the uppermost part of M20n2n (Michalík et al., 2009; Grabowski et al., 2010a). Also the position of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary, as well as calcareous nannofossil and dinolagellate divisions, differs from those established in the Brodno section by the same authors (Michalík et al., 2009). The sedimentation rate in the Nutzhof section was highly variable (between 2 and 11 m/Ma – see Lukeneder et al., 2010). However, it seems doubtful if the calculations relect the real values. The positions of the two short magnetosubzones in the Nutzhof section are anomalous. The Kysuca Subzone is situated in the uppermost part of M20n which makes the post-Kysuca part of M20n zone (M20n1n) anomalously thin. Again, the Brodno magnetosubzone occurs in a quite low position within M19n, which implies an unexpectedly big thickness of magnetosubzone M19n1n. It might be only speculated that a large part of M20n1n is most probably missing and the big thickness of M19n1n might be caused either by allodapic low (the allodapic horizons are carefully marked in the paper) or other sedimentological or diagenetic (selective remagnetization?) phenomena. 87Sr/86Sr, Jacek Grabowski 116 Generally the section somehow resembles the Pośrednie section from the Western Tatra Mts because of: (1) the lack of ammonitico rosso facies at its bottom (in the Tithonian) and (2) the high input of detrital material (and still low sedimentation rate) in the Tithonian. iBErian PEninsula The irst magnetostratigraphic results in Spain which approached the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary were those of Ogg et al. (1984). They were obtained in the the Sub-Betic Cordillera (south-eastern Spain), which was formerly the passive margin of the Iberian Plate. Two sections, developed on submarine swells, mostly in ammonitico rosso facies, were studied magnetostratigraphically: Carcabuey and Sierra Gorda. The Sierra Gorda section, embraced sediments of ca. 9 m thickness, from the lowermost Kimmeridgian (Platynota ammonite Zone) to the Lower Tithonian (Admirandum/ Biruncinatum Zone). Magnetozones from M21n to M25r were interpreted within the section. The second section, Carcabuey, embraced a longer interval between the uppermost Oxfordian (Planula Zone) and the Lower Berriasian (Jacobi Zone) of ca. 11 m thickness. The magnetozones identiied were from M19n to M25 or even lower (the correlation of the Kimmeridgian/Oxfordian boundary to GPTS was still disputable). The Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary within the Carcabuey section was indicated at the Durangites/Jacobi zonal boundary which coincides with the middle part of M19n and the A/B boundary of calpionellid zones (Fig. 7). The Carcabuey section was subsequently calibrated with nannofossil stratigraphy (Bralower et al., 1989). More than 25 years later, Pruner et al. (2010) revisited the Sub-Betic sections, focusing on detailed (30 mm average sampling interval) magnetostratigraphic documentation of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary. They choosed the Puerto Escaño section (GA-7) which is 8.1 m thick and developed typically in ammonitico rosso and related facies. It is situated just a few km from the Carcabuey section, studied by Ogg et al. (1984). The Puerto Escaño section was carefully dated by calpionellids and ammonites, which is not possible in the Carpathian and Alpine sections. The section comprised the tintinnid zones from the Chitinoidella Zone at the bottom to the Calpionella Zone in its upper part, and from the Burckhardticeras to the Jacobi ammonite zones (Fig. 7). Magnetozones from the top of M20r to M18n were documented, with the Kysuca and Brodno magnetosubzones situated in their “typical” positions: Kysuca at 58% thickness of M20n and Brodno at 95% thickness of M19n. The authors placed the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary at the base of Calpionella Zone B, which falls in magnetozone M19n at 40% of its thickness. However, the boundary of the Durangites/ Jacobi ammonite zones is situated within the lowermost part of M19n. That conirms that the A/B calpionellid zonal boundary is not always coeval with the boundary between the Durangites and Jacobi zones (Tavera et al., 1994) and seems to demonstrate the advantage of integrated magnetoand calpionellid stratigraphy against ammonite zonation in placing the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary. The sedimentation rate in the Puerto Escaño was rather low and its mean value amounted to 2.87 m/My. However the highest values of the sedimentation rate might be calculated for magnetozone M18r: 4.05 m/My, while in the underlying magnetozones it varied between 2.24 in M20n2n to 3.26 in M20n1n. Calculated mean MS values are lower for the Berriasian than for the Upper Tithonian. Indeed a stepwise decrease of MS is observed up the section, except for a sudden increase of MS in the topmost part (M18n). An attempt to establish a magnetostratigraphic zonation was performed in the thick Lower Cretaceous basinal section in Rio Argos, situated in the Betic Cordillera, south-eastern Spain (see Fig. 2) (Hoedemaeker et al., 1998). However the section appeared to be totally remagnetized, either syn- or post-tectonically, in the Neogene. That must be considered as a great disappointment because the section was considered as a possible candidate of Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary stratotype (Zakharov et al., 1996). souTHErn alPs Since the pioneering studies on the magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary in the southern Alps (see Ogg et al., 1991 and references herein) new data from 7 sections were published recently by Channell et al. (2010). Six sections are from the Trento Plateau (Colme di Vignola, Passo Branchetto, Bombatierle, Foza, Frisoni and Sciapala), and one section is located in the Lombardian Basin (Torre de’Busi). The Trento Plateau sections are the most thoroughly studied. Especially numerous sections are located to the E and SE of Asiago town (so-called Asiago Plateau in Trentino Alps – see Ogg et al., 1991 and Fig. 2, sections no. 15–19). Magnetozones from the base of M13r (Early Valanginian) to M22A (Kimmeridgian/Tithonian boundary) were reliably documented there and correlated to micro- and nannofosil zonation (Channell, Grandesso, 1987; Channell et al., 1987; Bralower et al., 1989; Ogg et al., 1991). The Trento Plateau sections are typically bipartite, consisting of the Ammonitico Rosso Superiore in its lower (mostly Tithonian) part and the Biancone Formation in its upper (uppermost Tithonian– Berriasian) part. The conclusion of Ogg et al. (1991) about diachronism of these two formations was conirmed. Although Channell et al. (2010) did not put any sharp boundary Intermedia Calpionellid zones Crassicollaria Remanei Chitinoidella 0 Praet. Boneti Durangites Transitorius S. Burckh. Burckhardticeras 1 ? M21n? M20r Calpionella M19n 2 S. Ch. 7 M19r A M20n 3 M20r 8 Jacobi Ammonite zones Calpionellid zones M20n 9 4 Durangites M19r 10 5 B Transitorius M19n 12 11 6 Jacobi Carcabuey M18r 7 m Calpionellid subzones Doliphormis M18n m 8 117 Alpina Puerto Escaño Ammonite zones Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval in the Western Tethys and its correlations with other regions... Dob. Fig. 7. bio- and magnetostratigraphy at the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval in the sections from the sub-betic zone of south-eastern spain: Carcabuey (after ogg et al., 1984) and Puerto Escaòo (after Pruner et al., 2010) between them, usually distinguishing a “transitional interval”, diachronism was evident even in a relatively small area like the Asiago Plateau. The “transitional interval” falls between top M20r and bottom M19n in the Foza A+ B section, within M19n in the Frisoni A section (Fig. 8), and in the topmost part of M21n in the Bombatierle section. The sections were calibrated biostratigraphically using nannofossils only. The position of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary was proposed as the FO of Nannoconus steinmannii minor which correlates with the bottom of M18r (Channell et al., 2010). (see Fig. 1A). The study of Channell et al. (2010) was a good opportunity to verify older magnetostratigraphic results, 118 A B Xausa Age (Ma) 0 2 C Frisoni 4 0 2 4 D Frisoni A 6 0 2 4 Foza A+B Foza 0 2 F H I Mezzosilva Colme di Vignola Torre de’Busi E 4 6 0 2 4 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 0 4 8 12 Maiolica Maiolica “transitional” Maiolica Maiolica “transitional” Maiolica Maiolica Maiolica Maiolica M19 145 Lower Berriasian M18 144 Fig. 8. litho- and magnetostratigraphy and sedimentation rate (in m/My) in the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary sections from the southern alps. source data from: Channell and grandesso (1987), Channell et al. (1987), ogg et al. (1991) and Channell et al. (2010) Rosso ad Aptici Ammonitico Rosso “transitional” Transitional Ammonitico Rosso “transitional” Ammonitico Rosso Ammonitico Rosso Ammonitico Rosso Ammonitico Rosso Ammonitico Rosso M20 M21 148 Lower Tithonian 147 Jacek Grabowski Upper Tithonian 146 Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval in the Western Tethys and its correlations with other regions... since two sections (Frisoni and Foza) studied by Channell and Grandesso (1987 – Frisoni) and Ogg (1981; Ogg et al., 1991 – Foza) were restudied, although the exact location of Channell et al. (2010) sections was slightly different than that in older papers. The consistency of the results might be assessed by comparison of sedimentation rates, calculated for speciic magnetozones from the two sets of data available for the same section, as is attempted in Fig. 8. The consistency between the old and new data for Frisoni (Fig. 8B, C) and Foza (Fig. 8D, E) is indeed very good. As the amount of data from the Asiago Plateau is signiicant, it may be possible to check whether any regional trends in sedimentation rate can be observed. The ammonitico rosso facies sedimented with a rate around 1–3 m/My and there is no clear trend in sedimentation rate. The bottom of M19n is usually marked by an increase in the sedimentation rate to 4–6 m/My. It is broadly related to the facies change from the ammonitico rosso to the biancone/maiolica facies. As a sharp boundary between these two formations cannot be indicated (e.g. Martire et al., 2006), the changes in sedimentation rate are most probably not as sharp as in Fig. 8, but rather stepwise. It is remarkable that in magnetozone M18r and especially in M18n, well within the maiolica facies, the sedimentation tends to decrease in all sections. Detailed magnetic mineralogy data (even MS logs) are not available for the Southern Alpine sections, therefore it cannot be speculated about the nature of this phenomenon. Moreover, it seems that even on the scale of the Trento Plateau local sedimentary conditions varied – as can be judged from the example of the Colme di Vignola section, situated more to the west from Asiago Plateau (see Fig. 2) where the ammonitico rosso facies continues quite high stratigraphically and a major increase in sedimentation rate is observed in magnetozone M18r, with the onset of “real” maiolica, above the transitional interval (Fig. 8H). A comparison of overall sedimentation rates within the Trento Plateau with those calculated by Grabowski et al. (2010a) for the Lókút section in the Transdanubian Mts (Hungary), conirms the model of palaeogeographic proximity of these two regions in the Mesozoic (Vörös, Galácz, 1998). Torre de’Busi is the irst magnetostratigraphically calibrated section located within the Lombardian Basin. Magnetozones between M22n and M18n were identiied within the section, with both short magnetosubzones Kysuca and Brodno. It must be emphasized that these magnetosubzones were not easy to document within the more condensed sections of the Trento Plateau: both magnetosubzones were found in the Foza section only, and the Brodno magnetosubzone within Frisoni A section (Channell et al., 2010). As might be expected the sedimentation rate within the Torre de’Busi section is almost twice as high as in the Trento Plateau sections: between 3 to 5 m/My in the Rosso ad Aptici 119 Formation and between 9 and 13 m/My in the Maiolica Formation (which corresponds to the sedimentation rates of the Jasenina and Osnica formations in the Tatra Mts – see Grabowski, Pszczółkowski, 2006). The major increase in sedimentation rate in the Torre de’Busi coincides with the onset of “transitional beds” between the Rosso ad Aptici and Maiolica formations (Fig. 8I). The magnetostratigraphy of deposits below the Kimmeridgian/Tithonian is still to be done within both the Trento Plateau and the Lombardian Basin. In the Torre de’Busi section, it was not possible to identify reliably the bottom of M22n magnetozone (lower part of Rosso ad Aptici and upper part of Radiolariti units). In the Colme di Vignola, Foza, Sciapala and Bombatierle sections, although magnetostratigraphy was performed in the lower part of the Ammonitico Rosso Superiore, Calcare Selcifero di Fonzaso and Ammonitico Rosso Inferiore (Callovian–Kimmeridgian), it was not possible to correlate the sections with GPTS, due to very frequent polarity changes, most probably low sedimentation rates, and a still poorly deined general pattern of GPTS in this time interval, as well as a lack of reference sections with correlations between nannofossils and magnetozones (see also Channell et al., 1990). aPEnninEs There are only two sections in the Appenines that cover the magnetostratigraphically documented Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary: Bosso and Arcevia (Fig. 2). The reference Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary section is without doubt Bosso situated in the Umbria – Marche Apennines – its magnetostratigraphy was described in three independent studies (Lowrie, Channell, 1983; Houša et al., 2004; Speranza et al., 2005). The section constitute a part of a deep water trough located at the southern margin of the Monte Nerone pelagic carbonate platform (Houša et al., 2004 and references therein). Two formations cover the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval there. The irst, Calcari ad Aptici (or Calcari diasprigni) is 19 m thick, and the uppermost 12 m consists of pinkish to reddish, thin-bedded cherty limestones with aptychi and Saccocoma (Cecca et al., 1987; Speranza et al., 2005). The second, Maiolica, starting from the uppermost level of red chert (Speranza et al., 2005) encompasses ca. 80 m of white cherty limestones within the Berriasian. Magnetozones from M20n to M15n, and possibly higher were documented by Lowrie and Channell (1983), see Fig. 9. Their results were essentially conirmed by subsequent studies. The Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary was placed close to the bottom of M17r, in the uppermost part of the Alpina Subzone. The calpionellid biostratigraphy of the 120 350 ? Maiolica M17r M18r M18n NJK-D NJK-C NJK-B M19n A Calcari ad Aptici M20n 310 NJK-A Calpionella Alpina M20n Calcari ad Aptici M20n 90 0 320 Interm. 19r 80 Crassicollaria 10 B 330 Chitinoidella M19n M19n 20 70 340 m 30 18r M18n Maiolica M17r 60 Housa et al. (2004) 18r 18n 50 Nannofossil zones (Bralower et al.,1989) NK-2B NK-2A C 40 NK-1 360 D M16n M16n 30 370 M17n M16r m 380 M15r 20 M17n M16r m 10 M15r Lowrie and Channell (1983) Speranza et al. (2005) Calpionellid zones (Channell, Grandesso, 1987) Jacek Grabowski NJ-20B 300 –10 Fig. 9. Magneto- and biostratigraphy of the bosso section (apennines), after lowrie and Channell (1983), houša et al. (2004) and speranza et al. (2005) section was subsequently revised (see Channell, Grandesso, 1987) and a nannofossil stratigraphy established (Bralower et al., 1989). Houša et al. (2004) put the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary at the base of calpionellid Zone B (base of the Alpina Subzone). They focused on the lower part of the section, covering the magnetozones from M20n to the lowermost part of M17r. Speranza et al. (2005) restudied the interval of Lowrie and Channell (1983), but attempted to obtain results from the older part of the Calcari ad Aptici, sampling the beds below M20n2n. However, they were unable to correlate the polarity intervals to GPTS, most probably due to extreme condensation of the sediments. Both studies, Houša et al. Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval in the Western Tethys and its correlations with other regions... (2004) and Speranza et al. (2005), documented the two short magnetosubzones Brodno (M19n1r) and Kysuca (M20n1r). The latter is situated close to the boundary of the Calcari ad Aptici and Maiolica formations (Houša et al., 2004; Speranza et al., 2005), at the beginning of the upper half of M20n. The characteristic feature of the Bosso section is an apparent decrease in sedimentation rate across the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary, from 16–20 m/My in M20n1n to ca. 5–8 m/my in M19r, 11–12 m/My in the entire M19n, 9–10 m/My in M18r up to 6.5–7.7 m/My in M18n, which is an entirely different trend from that in sections on the Trento Plateau (see above). Decreasing trend in sedimentation rate is accompanied by a systematic decrease in magnetic susceptibility (Houša et al., 2004). The Arcevia section is situated several tens of kilometres to the east of Bosso. Magnetozones from the topmost part of M21n to M17r were reliably documented within the section. Its biostratigraphy is based only on calcareous nannofossils: biozones NJ-20B and NJ-K (Bralower et al., 1989) were distinguished in the section. NJ-20B is correlated with M20r and the lower part of M20n2n while NJ-K is correlated to M20n1n–M19n1n inclusively. It differs slightly from the integrated scheme presented by Channell et al. (2010 – their ig. 11), where the NJ20/NJ-K zonal boundary is located within magnetozone M20r. It seems there is no biostratigraphic data from the upper part of the section. Arcevia is claimed to be the most expanded land section documented so far between the bottom of M20n and the top of M19n (Speranza et al., 2005). The Calcari ad Aptici Formation attains an apparent thickness of almost 55 m, between the uppermost part of M21n and M19n1n. It is developed atypically as ine–grained, greenish limestones with cherts. This results in a high sedimentation rate in the Upper Tithonian: almost 17 m/My in magnetozones M20n1n and M19n. It is worth noting that a large diachronism exists between the Bosso and Arcevia sections in the timing of the lower boundary of the Maiolica Formation: in the lower part of M20n1n in Bosso, and in the top of M19n1n in Arcevia (Speranza et al., 2005). It is also peculiar that the base of the Maiolica Fm. is not related to an increase in sedimentation rate, as is the case with the Trento Plateau sections. In the Fonte del Giordano section, located also in Umbria – in the Marche Appenines, a well documented magnetostratigraphy embrace magnetozones from the topmost part of M18n up to M14r, roughly attached to calpionellid and nannofossil zonation (Cirilli et al., 1984; Bralower et al., 1989). The Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary is situated in a gap in the section between 18 and 30 m. The normally magnetized lower part of the section might be correlated with magnetozone M20n, as it contains the lower boundary of the Crassicollaria Zone (Grabowski, Pszczółkowski, 2006; Grabowski et al., 2010a). 121 VoconTian TrouGH, souTH-EasTErn FrancE The importance of sections in the Vocontian Trough for magnetostratigraphy, like those of Sub-Betic region, relies on the co-occurrence of calpionellids and ammonites. The only section where primary magnetization was documented is the Berriasian stratotype at Berrias, at the south-eastern margin of the Massif Central (Galbrun, 1985). The section is ca. 25 m thick and comprises blue-gray micritic pelagic limestones. The section is well dated by ammonites and calpionellids (Le Hégarat, Remane, 1968; Le Hégarat, 1971) as well as nannofossils (Bralower et al., 1989). It contains the Grandis to Boissieri ammonite zones (with ammonite subzones distinguished) and the calpionellid zones B to D. The Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary was recognized in south-eastern France at the Jacobi/Grandis zonal boundary (Le Hégarat, 1971), which corresponds to the lower (but not lowermost) part of calpionellid Zone B and almost coincides with the bottom of M18r magnetozone (Gradstein et al., 2004). Magnetozones from M18r to M15r were documented in the Berrias section. The palaeomagnetic record is broken at the M17r/M17n boundary (ca. 2.3 m sampling gap), where slump breccia occurs. There are no palaeomagnetic results from the Jurassic/Cretaceous transition due to the very low intensities of the NRM in that interval (Galbrun, 1985). Generally, the magnetostratigraphic correlation of the section poses some problems (see also Bralower et al., 1989). Magnetozone M16n contains a small reversed magnetozubzone (Ber.Z.R.3) which, until recently, was not deined in the M-sequence (Gradstein et al., 2004). The most recent geomagnetic polarity time scale (Tominaga, Sager, 2010) documents a new magnetosubchron (M16n1r) which might correspond to the Ber.Z.R.3 subzone of Galbrun (1985). However the existence of another short normal polarity subzone within the interpreted M17r (Ber.SZ.N.7) has not been conirmed in any other section. The sedimentation rate within the magnetozones which are complete in this section, M16r and M16n, amounts to ca. 8 m/My, while in magnetozone M17n it is at least 6 m/My. Any subsequent attempts at magnetostratigraphy in the Vocontian sections failed due to the presence of remagnetization, related either to clay mineral diagenesis (Katz et al., 1998, 2000) or luid circulation (Henry et al., 2001; Kechra et al., 2003). However recent activities of the Berriasian Working Group (Wimbledon et al., 2011) indicate that there is still a potential for magnetostratigraphic studies in southeastern France. dsdp sITes The best documentation of Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary magnetostratigraphy is derived from DSDP site 534 situated in the western part of the Atlantic Ocean, close to the 122 Jacek Grabowski Florida coast, within the Blake–Bahama Basin (Ogg, 1983). The drilling penetrated Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous sediments from Middle to Upper Callovian up to Valanginian–Hauterivian. The Jurassic/Cretaceous transition takes places in the upper part of the red claystone of the Cat Gap Formation and a lower part of the white limestones of the Blake–Bahama Formation, being the equivalents of Ammonitico Rosso and Maiolica formations in the southern Alps and Apennines. The continuous magnetostratigraphic record embraces magnetozones from M20r up to the bottom part of M16n. The section was calibrated biostratigraphically with calpionellids (Remane, 1983) and nannofossils (Bralower et al., 1989; Bornemann et al., 2003). The base of B calpionellid Zone was identiied within the lower part of M19n magnetozone, however it was impossible to document higher calpionellid zones (C, D, E) due to the complete absence of calpionellid associations in the Middle Berriasian – Lower Valanginian interval. A complete calcareous nannofossil zonation was applied from NJ-19A (Lower Tithonian) up to the lowermost part of NK-3 (Lower Valanginian). The boundary between the Cat Gap and Blake Bahama formations is placed either in the middle part of magnetozone M19n, just close to A/B and the NJK-B/C calpionellid and nannofossil zonal boundaries, which coincides with the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary (Ogg, 1983; Ogg et al., 1991), or in the lower part of M19r magnetozone, in the middle part of NJK-A nannofossil zone (Bornemann et al., 2003). The sedimentation rate, calculated from the magnetostratigraphy, dramatically increases close to the Cat Gap/Blake Bahama formational boundary, from 8–9 m/My in magnetozones M20r–M20n to 27–31 m/My in magnetozones M19r and M19n, 17–18 m/ My in M18r and M18n, and 25 m/My in M17r (Grabowski et al., 2010a). The section was recently a subject of integrated palaeoenvironmental studies which included the palaeoecology of calcareous nannoplankton as well as δ13C and δ18O isotope stratigraphy (Tremolada et al., 2006). The magnetostratigraphic documentation of the Jurassic/ Cretaceous boundary transition in other DSDP sites is mostly fragmentary. In neighbouring DSDP 603 site only magnetozones M16n and M15r were reported from the Berriasian, although the interpretation is very tentative (Ogg, 1987). Mostly normal magnetization (with two poorly represented reversed polarity intervals in shallow water limestones, passing upwards to clayey limestone and marlstone) from Hole 639D from the Galicia margin of the Iberian Peninsula (Ogg, 1988), was correlated to the M21n–M20n (?M19n) interval on the basis of calpionellid Zone A at the top of the section. Brown-red silty claystones at the bottom of the sedimentary sequence in ODP site 765 in the Argo abyssal plain (off north-western Australia), were correlated very roughly to M17r–M16n magnetozones (Ogg et al., 1992); however more detailed biostratigraphy suggested their Tithonian age (Kaminski et al., 1992). Quite recent results from Berriasian sediments drilled in 1213B hole in Shatsky Rise (Sager et al., 2005) bring evidence for the presence of M18n to M16n magnetozones in ca. 60 m of calcareous ooze with frequent chert and porcellanite intercalations. The magnetostratigraphic interpretation was performed contrary to biostratigraphic data indicating that the entire section is situated within NK-2A nannofossil Subzone (Bown, 2005) indicating Upper Berriasian only. It is worth noting that from this site useful radiometric dates (144.6 ±0.8 Ma) were obtained which are matched with the earliest Berriasian (Mahoney et al., 2005). boreal and norThern european realM Ogg et al. (1994) correlated magnetostratigraphically the Portland–Purbeck sediments from southern England to the GPTS. The quality of their magnetostratigraphic data was much worse than that from pelagic limestones of the maiolica and ammonitico rosso type. The only biostratigraphic markers at that time, correlative with the Berriasian Stage, were miospore palynomorph assemblages from the Cinder Beds and overlying Intermarine Beds, which were dated as Late Berriasian. However, subsequent studies of palynomorphs and ostracods provided a fairly good ground for correlation with the Tithonian and Berriasian stages (Hunt, 2004; see also Wimbledon, 2008). The terrestrial to marginal-marine Purbeck Beds, investigated in the Durlston Bay section, start within M19r magnetozone and continue up to M14r magnetozone (Fig. 10A). Magnetozone M19n, where the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary is situated in most calpionellid bearing sections (e.g. Houša et al., 1999a, 2004) occurs between the Cypris Freestone and the Cockle Beds (see also Wimbledon, 2008). This correlation was accepted by Hoedemaeker and Herngreen (2003) and itted in their sequence stratigraphic scheme of Tethyan–Boreal correlation. The magnetostratigraphy of the underlying shallow marine Portland Beds is more speculative due to weaker NRM intensities and a hiatus/erosion surface in the middle part of the division. The most probable correlation situates the Portland Beds between magnetozones M21r and M19r, but the reversed magnetozones are thin and based on lower quality results. As the Purbeck Formation is correlated roughly to the Boreal ammonite zonation in eastern England (Cope, 2008; Wimbledon et al., 2011), the English sections can be indirectly correlated also with the Russian Upper Tithonian– Berriasian (Volgian) (e.g. Rogov, Zakharov, 2009). Recently obtained magnetostratigraphic data from the Tithonian–Berriasian (Volgian–Ryazanian) section at Nordvik Peninsula in northern Siberia (Houša et al., 2007) provide a framework for the direct correlation of the Jurassic/ Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval in the Western Tethys and its correlations with other regions... Sibiricus m 6 Stages Lithostratigraphic units Nordvik section (Anabar bay, Siberia) Ammonite zones m 110 B Ryazanian Durlston Bay section (Dorset, southern England) A Cypris Freestone M19n M19r? ? ? Chetae 8 10 14 Taimyrensis Okensis 6 12 10 M17r 4 Exoticus 2 Variabilis 20 18r Upper Volgian Intermarine Beds Cinder Beds M18r 30 Cockle Beds M18n 40 0 Middle Volgian 50 Freshwater Beds M16r 60 M17r 70 M17n 80 2 M18n Corbula Beds M16n Chief Beef M19n 90 4 M19r M15r 100 M20n Upper Cypris M15n M14r Fig. 10. Magnetostratigraphy of Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval outside Tethys. a. durlston bay section, purbeckian (after ogg et al., 1994). b. nordvik section, northern siberia (after houša et al., 2007) Grey colour – intervals of “intermediate” polarity (not determined) 123 124 Jacek Grabowski Cretaceous boundary in the Tethyan and Boreal realms. The composite section, 27 m thick, consists of marine clay and silty beds with frequent siderite nodules and pyrite occurrences (Chadima et al., 2006). The interval studied magnetostratigraphically (21 m – see Fig. 10B) is dated by ammonites, from the Variabilis Zone of the Middle Volgian to the bottom of the Kochi Zone of the Lower Ryazanian. The samples for magnetostratigraphy were taken relatively densely (each 2–4 cm) in the middle part (Upper Volgian) and with a lower resolution (10 cm) in the Middle Volgian and Ryazanian. Although some horizons appeared to be remagnetized, most probably during siderite diagenesis, the bulk of sample collection revealed a double polarity component with a very steep inclination, which might be interpreted as primary. Correlation of the polarity pattern to GPTS was based on the presence of thin reversed magnetosubzones within the normal polarity intervals. They were interpreted as the Kysuca (M20n1r) and Brodno (M19n1r) magnetosubzones. Indeed their position within the normal magnetozones is identical as in the type locality Brodno (Houša et al., 1999a, b). The magnetosubzone interpreted as being Brodno is situated in the topmost part of its normal magnetozone (in Brodno: at 82% local thickness of M19n). The magnetosubzone interpreted as Kysuca is situated in the upper half of the presumed M20n magnetozone, although it must be kept in mind that the bottom of this magnetozone was not documented in the Nordvik section. This interpretation is very convincing in the present state of knowledge. The Tethyan Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary (boundary between A and B calpionellid zones), located in magnetozone M19n2n, must be correlated with the Taimyrensis Zone which is situated in the upper (but not uppermost) part of the Upper Volgian (Rogov, Zakharov, 2009). The Volgian/Ryazanian boundary falls in the lower part of magnetozone M18n. The sedimentation rate calculated for the Nordvik section from the data of Houša et al. (2007), seems to be quite uniform in M20n1n and M19r (ca. 11–12 m/My), M18n (ca. 9 m/My) and at least 8 m/My in M20n2n. In magnetozones M19n and M18r the sedimentation rate seems to fall dramatically to 1.5–2.0 m/My which resembles the rate from condensed ammonitico rosso sections (see above). In the lithological log of Houša et al. (2007 – their ig. 2) there is no indication of any sedimentation change which could justify such condensation. However it cannot be excluded that the condensation (or erosion of a part of the sediments) might be somehow related to the Mjølnir impact event at the Barents Sea, which occurred close to the Volgian/Ryazanian boundary (Smelror et al., 2001; Dypvik et al., 2006; Wierzbowski et al., 2011). More magnetostratigraphic studies, integrated with biostratigraphy and sedimentology is deinitely required to provide a correlation of the Jurassic/ Cretaceous boundary between Boreal and Tethyan realms. ConClusIons Magnetostratigraphy should be considered as a valuable tool for regional and global correlation at the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval. In the Western Tethyan Realm integration of calpionellid and magnetic stratigraphy is nowadays almost routinely applied which results in high resolution stratigraphic calibration of the sections studied. Correlation of Chitinoidella and A–D zones to magnetostratigraphy is fairly robust and has been tested in more than 20 land sections as well as some ODP and DSDP sites. Some improvement is required in estimating the real extent of calpionellid subzones relatively to GPTS, because the methodology of calpionellid zonation sometimes differs between sections and particular authors. Integration of magnetic stratigraphy with calcareous nannofossil stratigraphy is a promising option, however, from quite numerous studies it is evident that this integration still needs much reinement. The correlation of magnetostratigraphy and ammonite stratigraphy must be considered as still poorly constrained. There are just four sections when the correlation has been achieved, three of them based on work from the 1980s. In some intervals (e.g. between magnetozones M18n and M17n) the correlation is based on just one marine section (Berrias). In places where the sections overlap (e.g. between M20n and M19n), there are some important discrepancies (as in the position of the Durangites/Jacobi zonal boundary in relation to calpionellid stratigraphy and GPTS in south-eastern Spain). Important progress has been made in the magnetostratigraphical correlation of the non-marine sequences of north-western Europe and the Siberian Boreal Realm with the Tethyan Province; this however must be treated as a starting point for further testing since in both NW Europe and Siberia, results from only two magnetostratigraphically studied sections have been published. Acknowledgements. The paper has beneitted from critical remarks of the journal referees: Petr Pruner, Andrzej Pszczółkowski and William A.P. Wimbledon. The paper is a contribution to the activity of the Berriasian Working Group of the International Subcomission on Cretaceous Stratigraphy. reFerenCes BAC M., 1971 — Tektonika jednostki Bobrowca w Tatrach Zachodnich (Tectonics of the Bobrowiec unit in the Western Tatra Mts). Acta Geologica Polonica, 21: 279–317. Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval in the Western Tethys and its correlations with other regions... BORNEMANN A., ASCHWER U., MUTTERLOSE J., 2003 — The impact of calcareous nannofossils on the pelagic carbonate accumulation across the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 199: 287–228. BORZA K., 1984 — The Upper Jurassic–Lower Cretaceous parabiostratigraphic scale on the basis of Tintinninae, Cadosinidae, Stomiosphaeridae, Calcisphaerulidae and other microfossils from the West Carpathians. Geologický Zborník – Geologica Carpathica, 35: 539–550. BOWN P.R., 2005 — Early to Mid-Cretaceous calcareous nannoplankton from the Northwest Paciic Ocean, Leg 198, Shatsky Rise. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientiic Results, 198: 1–82. BRALOWER T.J., MONECHI S., THIERSTEIN H.R., 1989 — Calcareous nannofossil zonation of the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary interval and correlation with the geomagnetic polarity timescale. Marine Micropaleontology, 14: 153–235. CASELLATO C.E., 2010 — Calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy of Upper Callovian–Lower Berriasian successions from the Southern Alps, North Italy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigraia, 116: 357–404. CHADIMA M., PRUNER P., šLECHTA S., GRyGAR T., HIRT A.M., 2006 — Magnetic fabric variations in Mesozoic black shales, Northern Siberia, Russia: Possible paleomagnetic implications. Tectonophysics, 418: 145–162. CHANNELL J.E.T., FREEMAN R., HELLER F., LOWRIE W., 1982 — Timing of diagenetic hematite growth in red pelagic limestones from Gubbio (Italy). Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 58: 189–201. CHANNELL J.E.T., BRALOWER T.J., GRANDESSO P., 1987 — Biostratigraphic correlation of Mesozoic polarity chrons CM1 to CM23 at Capriolo and Xausa (Southern Alps, Italy). Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 85: 203–221. CHANNELL J.E.T., GRANDESSO P., 1987 — A revised correlation of Mesozoic polarity chrons and calpionellid zones. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 85: 222–240. CHANNELL J.E.T., MASSARI F., BENETII A., PEZZONI N., 1990 — Magnetostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of Callovian– Oxfordian limestones from the Trento Plateau (Monti Lessini, northern Italy). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 79: 289–303. CHANNELL J.E.T., ERBA E., NAKANISHI M., TAMAKI K., 1995 — Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous time scales and oceanic magnetic anomaly block models. In: Geochronology, Time Scales and Global Stratigraphic Correlation (Eds W.A. Berggren et al.). SEPM Special Publication, 54: 51–63. CHANNELL J.E.T., ERBA E., MUTTONI G., TREMOLADA F., 2000 — Early Cretaceous magnetic stratigraphy in the APTICORE drill core and adjacent outcrop at Cismon (Southern Alps, Italy), and correlation to the proposed Barremian–Aptian boundary stratotype. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 112: 1430–1443. CHANNELL J.E.T., CASELLATO C.E., MUTTONI G., ERBA E., 2010 — Magnetostratigraphy, nannofossil stratigraphy and 125 apparent polar wander for Adria – Africa in the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary interval. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 293: 51–75. CIRILLI S., MÁRTON P., VIGLI L., 1984 — Implications of a combined biostratigraphic and paleomagnetic study of the Umbrian Maiolica Formation. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 69: 203–214. COLLOQUE sur la limite Jurassique-Crétacé, Lyon – Neuchatel (1973) — 1975. Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières, Memoires, 86: 393 pp. COLLOQUE sur la Crétacé inferieur, Lyon, (1963) — 1965. Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières, Memoires, 34: 840 pp. COPE J.C.W., 2008 — Drawing the line: the history of the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Associations, 119: 105–117. DyPVIK H., SMELROR M., SANDBAKKEN P.T., SALVIGSEN O., KALLESON E., 2006 — Traces of the marine Mjølnir impact event. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 241: 621–636. GALBRUN B., 1985 — Magnetostratigraphy of the Berriasian stratotype section (Berrias, France). Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 74: 130–136. GRABOWSKI J., 2000 — Palaeo- and rock magnetism of Mesozoic carbonate rocks in the Sub-Tatric series (Central West Carpathians) – palaeotectonic implications. Polish Geological Institute Special Papers, 5: 1–88. GRABOWSKI J., PSZCZółKOWSKI A., 2006 — Magneto- and biostratigraphy of the Tithonian–Berriasian pelagic sediments in the Tatra Mountains (central Western Carpathians, Poland): sedimentary and rock magnetic changes at the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary. Cretaceous Research, 27: 398–417. GRABOWSKI J., MICHALíK J., SZANIAWSKI R., GROTEK I., 2009 — Synthrusting remagnetization of the Krížna nappe: high resolution palaeo- and rock magnetic study in the Strážovce section, Strážovské Vrchy Mts, Central West Carpathians (Slovakia). Acta Geologica Polonica, 59: 137–155. GRABOWSKI J., HAAS J., MáRTON E., PSZCZółKOWSKI A., 2010a — Magneto- and biostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary in the Lókút section (Transdanubian Range, Hungary). Studia Geophysica et Geodetica, 54: 1–26. GRABOWSKI J., MICHALíK J., PSZCZółKOWSKI A., LINTNEROVÁ O., 2010b — Magneto- and isotope stratigraphy around the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary in the Vysoká unit (Male Karpaty Mountains): correlations and tectonic implications. Geologica Carpathica, 61: 309–326. GRADSTEIN F.M., OGG J.G., SMITH A., 2004 — A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press: 589 pp. GRÜN B., BLAU J., 1997 — New aspects of calpionellid biochronology: proposal for a revised calpionellid zonal and subzonal division. Revue de Paléobiologie, Genève, 16: 197–214. HARDING I.C., SMITH G.A., RIDING J.B., WIMBLEDON W.A.P., 2011 — Inter-regional correlation of Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary strata based on the Tithonian–Valanginian 126 Jacek Grabowski dinolagellate cyst biostratigraphy of the Volga Basin, western Russia. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 167: 82–116. HENRy B., ROUVIER H., Le GOFF M., LEACH D., MACQUAR J.-D., THIBIEROZ J., LEWCHUK M.T., 2001 — Palaeomagnetic dating of widespread remagnetization on the southeastern border of the French Massif Central and implications for luid low and Mississippi Valley-type mineralization. Geophysical Journal International, 145: 368–380. HOEDEMAEKER P.J., 1991 — Tethyan–Boreal correlations and the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary. Newsletters on Stratigraphy, 25: 37–60. HOEDEMAEKER P.J., KRS M., MAN O., PARES J.M., PRUNER P., VENHODOVá D., 1998 — The Neogene remagnetization and petromagnetic study of the Early Cretaceous limestone beds from the Rio Argos (Caravaca, Province of Murcia, SE Spain). Geologica Carpathica, 49: 15–32. HOEDEMAEKER P.J., HERNGREEN G.F.W., 2003 — Correlation of Tethyan and Boreal Berriasian–Barremian strata with emphasis on strata in subsurface of the Netherlands. Cretaceous Research, 24: 253–275. HOUšA V., KRS M., KRSOVá M., PRUNER P., 1996a — Magnetostratigraphic and micropaleontological investigations along the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary strata, Brodno near Žilina (Western Slovakia). Geologica Carpathica, 47: 135–151. HOUšA V., KRS M., KRSOVA M., PRUNER P., 1996b — Magnetostratigraphy of Jurassic–Cretaceous limestones in the Western Carpathians. In: Paleomagnetism and tectonics of the Mediterranean region (Eds A. Morris, D.H. Tarling). Geological Society Special Publication, 105: 185–194. HOUšA V., KRS M., KRSOVá M., MAN O., PRUNER P., VENHODOVá D., 1999a — High-resolution magnetostratigraphy and micropaleontology across the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary strata at Brodno near Žilina, western Slovakia: summary of results. Cretaceous Research, 20: 699–717. HOUšA V., KRS M., MAN O., PRUNER P.,VENHODOVá D., 1999b — Correlation of magnetostratigraphy and calpionellid biostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary strata in the Western Carpathians. Geologica Carpathica, 50: 125–144. HOUšA V., KRS M., MAN O., PRUNER P., VENHODOVá D., CECCA F., NARDI G., PISCITELLO M., 2004 — Combined magnetostratigraphic, palaeomagnetic and calpionellid investigations across the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary strata in the Bosso Valley, Umbria, central Italy. Cretaceous Research, 25: 771–785. HOUšA V., PRUNER P., ZAKHAROV V.A., KOSTAK M., CHADIMA M., ROGOV M.A., šLECHTA S., MAZUCH M., 2007 — Boreal–Tethyan correlation of the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary interval by magneto- and biostratigraphy. Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation, 15: 297–309. HUNT C.O., 2004 – Palynostratigraphy of the classic Portland and Purbeck sequences of Dorset, southern England, and the correlation of Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary beds in the Tethyan and Boreal realms. In: The palynology and micropaleontology of boundaries (Eds A.B Beaudoin, Head M.J). Geological Society of London, Special Publications, 230: 173–186. JACKSON M., ROCHETTE P., FILLION G., BANERJEE S., MARVIN J., 1993 — Rock magnetism of remagnetized Paleozoic carbonates: low temperature behaviour and susceptibility characteristics. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98, B4: 6217–6225. KAMINSKI M.A., BAUMGARTNER P.O., BOWN P.R., HAIG D.W., MC MINN A., MORAN M.J., MUTTERLOSE J., OGG J.G., 1992 — Magnetobiostratigraphic synthesis of Leg 123: sites 765 and 766 (Argo abyssal plain and Lower Exmouth Plateau). Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientiic Results, 123: 717–737. KATZ B., ELMORE R.D., COGOINI M., FERRy S., 1998 — Widespread chemical remagnetization: orogenic luids or burial diagenesis of clays? Geology, 26: 903–606. KATZ B., ELMORE R.D., COGOINI M., ENGEL M.H., FERRy S., 2000 — Associations between burial diagenesis of smectite, chemical remagnetization and magnetite authigenesis in the Vocontian trough, SE France. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105, B1: 851–868. KECHRA F., VANDAMME D., ROCHETTE P., 2003 — Tertiary remagnetization of normal polarity in Mesozoic marly limestone from SE France. Tectonophysics, 362: 219–238. KURAZHOVSKII A.yu., KURAZHOVSKAyA N.A., KLAIN B.I., BRAGIN V.yu., 2010 — The Earth’s magnetic ield history for the past 400 Myr. Russian Geology and Geophysics, 51: 380–386. LARSON R.W., HILDE T.W.C., 1975 — A revised time scale of magnetic reversals for the Early Cretaceous and Late Jurassic. Journal of Geophysical Research, 80: 2586–2594. LEFELD J., 1974 — Middle–Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous biostratigraphy and sedimentology of the Sub-Tatric succession in the Tatra Mts (Western Carpathians). Acta Geologica Polonica, 24: 277–364. Le HéGARAT G., 1971 — Le Berriasien du sud-est de la France. Documents de Laboratoires de Géologie de Lyon, 43: 1–308. Le HéGARAT G., REMANE J., 1968 — Tithonique supérieur et Berriasien de la bordure cévenole, corrélation des ammonites et des calpionelles. Géobios, 1: 7–70. LOWRIE W., CHANNELL J.E.T., 1983 — Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary in the Maiolica limestone (Umbria, Italy). Geology, 12: 44–47. LUDDEN J.N., 1992 — Radiometric age determinations for basements from Sites 765 and 766, Argo Abyssal Plain and northwestern Australian margin. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientiic Results, 123: 557–559. LUKENEDER A., HALáSOVá E., KROH A., MAyRHOFER S., PRUNER P., REHáKOVá D., SCHNABL P., SPROVIERI M., WAGREICH M., 2010 — High resolution stratigraphy of the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary interval in the Gresten Klippenbelt (Austria). Geologica Carpathica, 61: 365–381. MARTIRE L., CLARI P., LOZAR F., PAVIA G., 2006 — The Rosso Ammonitico Veronese (Middle–Upper Jurassic of the Trento Plateau): a proposal of lithostratigraphic ordering and formalization. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigraia, 112: 227–250. Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary interval in the Western Tethys and its correlations with other regions... MÁRTON E., 1982 — Late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous magnetic stratigraphy of the Sümeg section, Hungary. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 57: 182–190. MÁRTON E., 1986 — The problem of correlation between magnetozones and calpionellid zones in Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous sections. Acta Geologica Hungarica, 29: 125–131. MAHONEy J.J., DUNCAN R.A., TEJADA M.L.G., SAGER W.W., BRALOWER T.J., 2005 — Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary age and mid-ocean-ridge-type mantle source for Shatsky Rise. Geology, 33: 185–188. McCABE C., ELMORE R.D., 1989 — The occurrence and origin of late Paleozoic remagnetization in the sedimentary rocks of North America. Revue of Geophysics, 27: 471–494. McELHINNy M.W., McFADDEN P.L., 2000 — Paleomagnetism: Continents and Oceans. San Diego, CA, Academic Press. MICHALíK J., REHáKOVá D., 2011 — Possible markers of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary in the Mediterranean Tethys: a review and state of art. Geoscience Frontiers, 2: 475–490. MICHALíK J., REHáKOVá D., PETERčAKOVá M., 1990a — To the stratigraphy of Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary beds in the Kysuca sequence of the West Carpathian Klippen Belt, Brodno section near Žilina. Knihovnička Zemniho Plynu a Nafty, 9b: 57–71. Hodonín [in Slovak, with English summary]. MICHALíK J., REHáKOVá D., HALáSOVá E., 1990b — Stratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary beds in the Hlboč Valley (Vysoká Unit of the Krížna Nappe, Malé Karpaty Mts). Knihovnička Zemniho Plynu a Nafty, 9a: 183–204. Hodonín [in Slovak, with English summary]. MICHALíK J., VAšíčEK Z., BORZA K., 1990c — Aptychi, tintinnids and stratigraphy of the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary beds, in the Strážovce section (Zliechov unit of the Krizna nappe, Strážovské Vrchy Mts., Central Western Carpathians, Western Slovakia). Knihovnička Zemniho Plynu a Nafty, 9a: 69–92. Hodonín [in Slovak, with English summary]. MICHALIK J., REHáKOVá D., VAšíčEK Z., 1995 — Early Cretaceous sedimentary changes in west Carpathian area. Geologica Carpathica, 46: 285–296. MICHALíK J., REHáKOVá D., HALáSOVá E., LINTNEROVÁ O., 2009 — The Brodno section – a potential regional stratotype of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary (Western Carpathians). Geologica Carpathica, 60: 213–232. OGG J.G., 1981 — Sedimentology and paleomagnetism of Jurassic pelagic limestones: ‘Ammonitico Rosso’ facies. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego: 212 pp. OGG J.G., 1983 — Magnetostratigraphy of Upper Jurassic and lowest Cretaceous sediments, Deep Sea Drilling Project site 534, Western North Atlantic. Initial Reports of Deep Sea Drilling Project, 76: 685–696. OGG J.G., 1987 — Early Cretaceous magnetic polarity time scale and the magnetostratigraphy of Deep Sea Drilling Project sites 603 and 534, Western Central Atlantic. Initial Reports of Deep Sea Drilling Project, 93: 849–880. OGG J.G., 1988 – Early Cretaceous and Tithonian magnetostratigraphy of the Galicia margin (Ocean Drilling Program Leg 127 103). Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientiic Results, 103: 659–682. OGG J.G., LOWRIE W., 1986 — Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary. Geology, 14: 547–550. OGG J.G., STEINER M.B., OLORIZ F., TAVERA J.M., 1984 — Jurassic magnetostratigraphy, 1. Kimmeridgian–Tithonian of Sierra Gorda and Carcabuey, southern Spain. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 71: 147–162. OGG J.G., HASENyAGER R.W., WIMBLEDON W.A., CHANNELL J.E.T., BRALOWER T.J., 1991 — Magnetostratigraphy of the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary interval — Tethyan and English faunal realms. Cretaceous Research, 12: 455–482. OGG J.G., KODAMA K., WALLICK B.P., 1992 — Lower Cretaceous magnetostratigraphy and paleolatitudes off northwest Australia, ODP site 765 and DSDP site 261. Argo abyssal plain, and ODP site 766, Gascoyne abyssal plain. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientiic Results, 123: 523–548. OGG J.G., HASENyAGER W., WIMBLEDON W., 1994 — Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary: Portland–Purbeck magnetostratigraphy and possible correlation to the Tethyan faunal realm. Geobios, 17: 519–527. OPDyKE N.D., CHANNELL J.E.T., 1996 — Magnetic stratigraphy. Academic Press, San Diego: 346 pp. PáLFy J., 2008 — The quest for reined calibration of the Jurassic time-scale. Proceedings of the Geologists’Association, 119: 85–95. PESSAGNO JR., E.A., CANTú-CHAPA A., MATTINSON J.M., MENG X., KARIMINIA S.M., 2010 — The Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary: new data from North America and the Caribbean. Stratigraphy, 6: 185–262. POP G., 1994a — Calpionellid evolutive events and their use in biostratigraphy. Romanian Journal of Stratigraphy, 76: 7–24. POP G., 1994b — Systematic revision and biochronology of some Berriasian–Valanginian calpionellids (genus Remaniella). Geologica Carpathica, 45: 323–331. POP G., 1997 — Tithonian to Hauterivian praecalpionellid and calpionellid bioevents and biozones. Mineralia Slovaca, 29: 304–305. POP G., 1998 — Stratigraphic distribution and biozonation of Tithonian praecalpionellids and calpionellids from the South Carpathians. Romanian Journal of Stratigraphy, 77: 3–25. PRUNER P., HOUšA V., OLóRIZ F., KOšŤáK M., MAN O., SCHNABL P., VENHODOVá D., TAVERA J.M., MAZUCH M., 2010 — High-resolution magnetostratigraphy and biostratigraphic zonation of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary strata in the Puerto Escaño section (southern Spain). Cretaceous Research, 31: 192–206. PSZCZółKOWSKI A., 1996 — Calpionellid stratigraphy of the Tithonian–Berriasian pelagic limestones in the Tatra Mts (Western Carpathians). Studia Geologica Polonica, 109: 103–130. RASSER M.W., VAšIčEK Z., SKUPIEN P., LOBITZER H., BOOROVÁ D., 2003 — Die Schrambach-Formation an ihrer Typuslokalität (Unter-Kreide, Nördlichen Kalkalpen, Salzburg): Lithostratigraphische Formaliesierung und “historische” Irrtürmer. In: Stratigraphia Austriaca (Ed. W.E. Piller). 128 Jacek Grabowski Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Schriftenreihe der Erdwissenschaftlichen Kommisionen, 16: 193–216. REMANE J., 1963 — Les Calpionelles dans les couches de passage jurassiques-crétacé de la fosse vocontienne. Travaux du Laboratoire de Géologie de la Faculté des Sciences de Grenoble, 39: 25–82. REMANE J., 1964 — Untersuchungen zur Systematik und Stratigraphie der Calpionellen in den Jura-Kreide-Grenzschichten des Vocontischen Troges. Paleontographica, A 123: 1–57. REMANE J., 1971 — Les calpionelles, Protozoaires planctoniques des mers mésogeennes de l’Epoque Secondaire. Annales Guébhard, 47: 1–25. REMANE J., 1983 — Calpionellids and the Jurassic – Cretaceous boundary at Deep Sea Drilling Project site 534, western North Atlantic. Initial Reports of Deep Sea Drilling Project, 76: 561–567. REMANE J., 1986 — Calpionellids and the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary. Acta Geologica Hungarica, 2: 15–26. REMANE J., 1991 — The Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary: problems of deinition and procedure. Cretaceous Research, 12: 447–453. REMANE J., BORZA K., NAGy I., BAKALOVA-IVANOVA D., KNAUER J., POP G., TARDI-FILACZ E., 1986 — Agreement on the subdivision of the standard calpionellid zones deined at the IInd Planktonic Conference, Roma 1970. Acta Geologica Hungarica, 29: 5–14. ROGOV M., ZAKHAROV V., 2009 — Ammonite- and bivalvebased biostratigraphy and Panboreal correlation of the Volgian Stage. Science in China Series D., Earth Sciences, 52: 1890–1909. ROGOV M.A., ZAKHAROV V.A., NIKITENKO B.L., 2010 — The Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary problem and the myth on Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary extinction. Earth Science Frontiers, 17: 13–14. SAGER W.W., EVANS H.E., CHANNELL J.E.T., 2005 — Paleomagnetism of Early Cretaceous (Berriasian) sedimentary rocks, Hole 1213B, Shatsky Rise. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientiic Results, 198: 1–14. SMELROR M., KELLEy S., DyPVIK H., MøRK A., NAGy J., TSIKALAS F., 2001 — Mjølnir (Barents Sea) meteorite impact ejecta offers a Boreal Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary marker. Newsletters on Stratigraphy, 38: 129–140. SPERANZA F., SATOLLI S., MATTIOLI E., CALAMITA F., 2005 — Magnetic stratigraphy of Kimmeridgian–Aptian sections from Umbria-Marche (Italy): New details on the M polarity sequence. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110: B12109, doi: 10.1029/2005JB003884, 2005. TAVERA J. M., AGUADO R., COMPANy M., OLóRIZ F., 1994 — Integrated biostratigraphy of the Durangites and Jacobi Zones (Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary) at the Puerto Escaño section in southern Spain (Province of Cordoba). Geobios, Mémoire Spécial, 17: 469–476. TOMINAGA M., SAGER W.W., 2010 — Revised Paciic M-anomaly geomagnetic timescale. Geophysical Journal International, 182: 203–232. TREMOLADA F., BORNEMANN A., BRALOWER T.J., KOEBERL C., VAN DE SCHOOTBRUGGE B., 2006 — Paleoceanographic changes across the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary: The calcareous phytoplankton response. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 241: 361–371. VAšIčEK Z., MICHALíK J., BORZA K., 1983 — To the “Neocomian” biostratigraphy in the Krížna-Nappe of the Strážovské Vrchy Mountains. In: 2. Symposium Kreide München 1982. Zitteliana, 10: 467–483. VAšIčEK Z., MICHALíK J., REHáKOVá D., 1994 — Early Cretaceous stratigraphy, palaeogeography and life in Western Carpathians. Beringeria, 10: 3–169. VíGH G., 1984 — Die biostratigraphische Auswertung einiger Ammoniten-Faunen aus dem Tithon des Bakonygebirges sowie aus dem Tithon-Berrias des Gerecsegebirges. Annals of the Hungarian Geological Institute, 67: 1–210. VöRöS A., GALáCZ A., 1998 — Jurassic paleogeography of the Transdanubian Central Range (Hungary). Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigraia, 104: 69–84. WEISSERT H., CHANNELL J.E.T., 1989 — Tethyan carbonate carbon isotope stratigraphy across the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary: an indicator of decelerated global carbon cycling? Paleoceanography, 4: 483–494. WIMBLEDON W.A.P., 2008 — The Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary: an age-old correlative enigma. Episodes, 31: 423–428. WIMBLEDON W.A.P., CASELLATO C.E., REHáKOVá D., BULOT L.G., ERBA E., GARDIN S., VERREUSSEL R.M.C.H., MUNSTERMAN D.K., HUNT C.O., 2011 — Fixing a basal Berriasian and Jurassic/Cretaceous (J/K) boundary – is there perhaps some light at the end of the tunnel? Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigraia, 117: 295–307. ZAKHAROV V., BOWN P., RAWSON P.F., 1996 — The Berriasian stage and the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary. Bulletin de l’Institut Royal de Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Sciences de la Terre, 66-Supp.: 7–10.