Easternmost Mediterranean evidence of the Zanclean flooding event

and subsequent surface uplift: Adana Basin, southern Turkey

PAOLA CIPOLLARI1,2*, DOMENICO COSENTINO1,2, GIUDITTA RADEFF1,

TAYLOR F. SCHILDGEN3, COSTANZA FARANDA1, FRANCESCO GROSSI1,

ELSAGLIOZZI1,2,ALESSANDRASMEDILE4,ROCCOGENNARI5,GULDEMINDARBAS6,

FRANCIS O. DUDAS7, KEMAL GURBUZ8, ATIKE NAZIK8 & HELMUT ECHTLER9

1Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche, Universita Roma Tre, Rome, Italy2Istituto di Geologia Ambientale e Geoingegneria, IGAG-CNR, Rome, Italy

3Institut fur Erd- und Umweltwissenschaften, and DFG Leibniz Center for Surface Processes and

Climate Studies, Universitat Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany4Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Roma, Italy

5Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Universita di Parma, Parma, Italy6Jeoloji Muhendisligi Bolumu, Kahramanmaras Sutcu imam

Universitesi, Kahramanmaras, Turkey7Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA8Jeoloji Muhendisligi Bolumu, Cukurova Universitesi, Adana, Turkey

9Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ), Potsdam, Germany

*Corresponding author: (e-mail: cipollar@uniroma3.it)

Abstract: According to the literature, the Adana Basin, at the easternmost part of the Mediterra-nean Basin in southern Turkey, records the Pliocene stage with shallow-marine to fluvial deposits.Our micropalaeontological analysis of samples from the Adana Basin reveal Late Lago–Marebiofacies with Paratethyan ostracod assemblages pertaining to the Loxocorniculina djafarovizone. Grey clays rich in planktonic foraminifera lie above the Lago–Mare deposits. Within thegrey clays, the continuous occurrence of the calcareous nannofossil Reticulofenestra zancleanaand the base of the Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilicus paracme points to an Early Zanclean age(5.332–5.199 Ma). Both ostracod and benthic foraminifera indicate epibathyal and bathyalenvironments. 87Sr/86Sr measurements on planktonic and benthic foraminifera fall below themean global ocean value for the Early Zanclean, indicating potentially insufficient mixing oflow 87Sr/86Sr Mediterranean brackish ‘Lago–Mare’ water with the global ocean in the earliestPliocene. We utilize the ages and palaeodepths of the marine sediments together with their modernelevations to determine uplift rates of the Adana Basin of 0.06 to 0.13 mm a21 since 5.2–5.3 Ma(total uplift of 350–650 m) from surface data, and 0.02–0.13 mm a21 since c. 1.8 Ma (total upliftof 30–230 m) from subsurface data.

Supplementary material: Microphotographs of foraminifers, ostracods, and calcareous nannofos-sils, plots of the calcareous nannofossil frequencies, occurrence of foraminifers and ostracods inthe study sections, results of Sr isotopic analysis, and a complete list of fossils are available atwww.geolsoc.org.uk/SUP18535.

The present-day configuration of the Mediterraneanregion mainly results from the relative motion ofthe African, Arabian and Eurasian plates, whichhas created a complex spatio-temporal distributionof crustal and lithospheric deformation. As a con-sequence of plate convergence, the Tethys Ocean

seaway was progressively consumed, resultingaround 12 Ma in the closure of the eastern Tethys(Sengor et al. 1985; Husing et al. 2009).

Later, in the same area of plate convergence,another episode of oceanic changes occurred inthe western ‘relict’ of the Tethys Ocean, the

From: Robertson, A. H. F., Parlak, O. & Unlugenc, U. C. (eds) 2012. Geological Development of Anatolia and theEasternmost Mediterranean Region. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 372,http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP372.5 # The Geological Society of London 2012. Publishing disclaimer:www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics

Mediterranean Sea. During latest Miocene time, theoutflow restriction of saline and warmer waterthrough the Gibraltar gateway resulted in a deep,desiccated Mediterranean Basin and the depositionof thick evaporites during the Messinian salinitycrisis (MSC; e.g. Hsu et al. 1973). Sr isotopic com-positions of post-evaporitic successions point toa non-marine water mass, influenced by riverineinput, showing Sr isotopic values much lower thanglobal ocean water at the time (e.g. McCulloch &De Deckker 1989; Flecker & Ellam, 1999, 2006;Bassetti et al. 2004). Geochemical data supportthe observation of decreased salinity and increasedfreshwater input during the Late Messinian (Bassettiet al. 2004; Pierre et al. 2006; Sampalmieri et al.2010; Cosentino et al. 2012a).

As a consequence of the complete closure of theGibraltar gateway, whose triggering process haslong been debated (e.g. Weijermars 1988; Kastens1992; Hodell & Woodruff 1994; Clauzon et al.1996; Krijgsman et al. 1999, 2004; Hodell et al.2001; Duggen et al. 2003; Govers 2009), and theshift to a wetter climate phase with increased conti-nental runoff (Griffin 2002), the Mediterranean Basinexperienced changes in water salinity from hyper-haline (.40‰) to oligo-mesohaline (0.5–18‰)during the last stage of the MSC (5.53–5.33 Ma,CIESM 2008). This change in salinity has beenobserved throughout the Mediterranean Basin

(e.g. Benson 1976; Orszag-Sperber 2006 and refer-ences therein; Pierre et al. 2006; Grossi et al. 2008)immediately prior to the Pliocene marine reflooding.According to Govers (2009), dynamic subsidenceowing to the subducting dense Gibraltar slab wasresponsible for lowering of the Gibraltar Arc, indu-cing the Pliocene reflooding at the end of theMSC and reinstating the Mediterranean–Atlanticconnection.

The Pliocene marine reflooding event (Iaccarinoet al. 1999a) at the Messinian/Zanclean Transition(MZT), which refilled the Mediterranean Basin inas little as 10 years (Blanc 2002), is recognizablethroughout the Mediterranean by an abrupt changein biofacies from Late Messinian continental depos-its (Lago–Mare biofacies) to deep, fully marineZanclean deposits rich in planktonic foraminifera(Iaccarino & Bossio 1999; Iaccarino et al. 1999b;Orszag-Sperber 2006, and references therein; Pierreet al. 2006; Fig. 1). In the western Mediterranean,the basal Zanclean was detected in Spain (VeraBasin; Pierre et al. 2006 and references therein), inthe Balearic Basin (ODP Site 975, Iaccarino et al.1999b), in the Melilla and Chelif basins (Rouchyet al. 2003, 2007) and in the Tyrrhenian Basin(ODP Site 974), where clays rich in planktonic for-aminifera lie just above sediments that are barren orcontain rare, brackish water ostracods (Iaccarino &Bossio 1999; Iaccarino et al. 1999a, b). Moving

Fig. 1. Location map of the sections that record earliest Pliocene deposition from land outcrops and ODP sites in theMediterranean Basin.

P. CIPOLLARI ET AL.

eastward across the Mediterranean, the MZT isrecorded in Sicily (Eraclea Minoa and CapoRossello; Cita & Gartner 1973; Brolsma 1978; Citaet al. 1999; Van Couvering et al. 2000), in Calabria(Hilgen 1987, 1991b; Langereis & Hilgen 1991;Zijderveld et al. 1991; Di Stefano et al. 1996;Sgarrella et al. 1997), in Tuscany (Di Stefano et al.1996; Sgarrella et al. 1999; Riforgiato et al. 2011),in the central and northern Apennines (Crescentiet al. 2002; Cosentino et al. 2005, 2012a; Gennariet al. 2008; Roveri et al. 2008a; Sampalmieri et al.2010) and in northwestern Italy (Violanti et al.2009, 2011). In the eastern Mediterranean, the Plio-cene flooding was recognized in Zakynthos Island(Pierre et al. 2006 and references therein), Corfu(Vismara-Schilling 1978; Pierre et al. 2006), Crete,where the basal Zanclean is lacking (Meulenkamp1979; Rouchy 1982, Pierre et al. 2006; Cosentinoet al. 2007), and in Cyprus (Pissouri section), wherethe basal Zanclean is recorded (Orszag-Sperberet al. 1989; Rouchy et al. 2001; Orszag-Sperber2006). In the eastern Mediterranean, the MZT wasdrilled by ODP sites 967, 968 and 969 (Blanc-Valleron et al. 1998; Spezzaferri et al. 1998).

In southern Turkey, Pliocene deposits arereported in both onshore and offshore sections ofthe Antalya and Adana basins. In the onshore por-tion of the Antalya Basin, Early Pliocene depositscrop out mainly in the Aksu valley (Akay & Uysal1985; Glover 1995; Poisson et al. 2003, 2011),and are characterized by marls with Early Pliocenecalcareous plankton assemblages (MPl 2 and MPl3 biozones, Bizon et al. 1974; Poisson 1977). In thestratigraphy of the Adana Basin, however, Plio-cene deposits within the Handere Formation weredescribed as shallow marine to fluvial sediments(Schmidt 1961; Yalcın & Gorur 1984; Gurbuz &Kelling 1993; Unlugenc 1993; Nazik 2004; Burton-Ferguson et al. 2005; Darbas & Nazik 2010). TheHandere Formation has been suggested to correlatewith the lower part of Unit 1 in the offshore portionof the Antalya Basin (Isler et al. 2005) and theAdana–Cilicia Basin (Aksu et al. 2005). The lowerpart of Unit 1 is mainly composed of deltaic silici-clastic deposits resting just above the M-reflector ofthe seismic stratigraphy of the Mediterranean Basin(Ryan 1969).

In the Adana Basin, we recently found the MZTin a stratigraphic section (Avadan section) repre-senting the easternmost onshore section that recordsthe Zanclean flooding event of the Mediterra-nean Basin. We present a multidisciplinary studyon the MZT in the Avadan section that includes stra-tigraphy, micropalaeontology (calcareous nannofos-sils, planktonic foraminifera, benthic foraminiferaand ostracods) and Sr isotope stratigraphy. Moreover,we present the results of a multidisciplinary analysisperformed on cuttings from a borehole (T-191) that

was recently drilled (January 2010) in the AdanaBasin by the Soda Sanayii A. S., to the SE of Yenice.The T-191 well, which is 3.5 km SE of the Avadansection, drilled the MZT at around 220 m depth.

We apply the results of the Avadan section andthe T-191 borehole to define a new stratigraphicmodel for the Late Miocene–Pliocene deposits ofthe Adana Basin. Using this model to calibrate theseismic lines in the Adana Basin yields a differentseismic stratigraphy compared with the one assumedby previous workers in the neighbouring Cilicia andAntalya basins (Aksu et al. 2005; Isler et al. 2005).The stratigraphic model presented here may, there-fore, be useful to recalibrate the seismic stratigra-phy of the neighboring basins. Together with ourinterpretation of the palaeodepths of deposition,our new model also allows us to calculate the totalmagnitude of surface uplift and the average upliftrates that the Adana Basin has experienced sincemarine sediment deposition, providing new insightsinto the relative uplift histories of the Adana Basinand the bordering Central Anatolian plateau.

Geological setting of the Adana Basin

Regional setting

The Adana Basin is located on the SE margin ofthe Anatolian peninsula (Fig. 2), close to the triplejunction of the African plate with the Arabian andAnatolian microplates. The Adana Basin representsthe onshore portion of the Adana–Cilicia Basin,which is a morpho-structural depression in southernTurkey bounded to the north and NW by the south-ern margin of the Central Anatolian plateau, and tothe south and SE by the Kyrenia Range (northernCyprus) and the Misis Mountains (SE Turkey).

Many different models have been suggested forthe inception and subsequent development of theAdana–Cilicia Basin. Sengor et al. (1985) sug-gested that the basin developed as a pull-apartbasin in the left-lateral transform zone of the EastAnatolian Fault. Kelling et al. (1987) located theAdana–Cilicia Basin in a back-arc setting, whereOligo-Miocene extensional tectonics induced intra-continental subsidence to form the Adana–CiliciaBasin, north of the Kyrenia Range in Cyprus. Boththe Adana–Cilicia and the Iskenderun–Latakiabasins were related to the Early Miocene left-lateraltranstensional kinematics along the Misis–Kyreniafault zone (Karig & Kozlu 1990). According toKempler (1994), Neogene sedimentary basins bound-ing the fault zone, including the Adana–Cilicia andIskenderun–Latakia–Mesaoria basins, originated bydiffuse extensional tectonics. Unlugenc (1993) andWilliams et al. (1995) proposed that the Miocenesuccession was deposited in a foreland subsiding

ZANCLEAN FLOODING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

domain, induced by the orogenic load of the Tauridesin the north. Robertson (1998, 2000) suggested thatthe Adana–Cilicia Basin developed in a regionaffected by extensional tectonics owing to the south-ward African slab retreat. Finally, Aksu et al. (2005)suggested that the Miocene succession of theAdana–Cilicia Basin was deposited in a foredeepbasin, affected by compressional tectonics south ofthe Tauride fold-and-thrust belt.

Aksu et al. (2005) interpreted multichannel seis-mic reflection profiles in the Adana–Cilicia Basin toinfer that compressional tectonics ceased in theAdana–Cilicia Basin in Early Messinian time. Sub-sequently, NE–SW striking steep extensional faultscontrolled the sedimentation of the Plio-Pleistocenedeposits and defined the boundary of the Adana–Cilicia Basin (Aksu et al. 2005). The northern basin-bounding fault system, including the Kozan fault,is suggested to be a set of transtensional antitheticstructures related to the southern basin-boundingmaster fault, which separates a contractional domainto the south (Cyprus Arc) from a transtensionaldomain to the north (Aksu et al, 2005).

The Adana Basin stratigraphy

The Adana Basin is a fault-bounded sedimentarybasin mainly filled by Neogene deposits. The NWmargin of the basin is defined by the transtensionalNE–SW Kozan fault zone, which, together with theEcemis fault zone (Kocyigit & Beyhan 1998; Jaffey

& Robertson, 2001, 2005; Aksu et al. 2005), boundsthe central Taurides to the SE, whereas the Kyrenia–Misis fault zone (Misis structural high) boundsthe Adana Basin to the SE (Robertson et al. 2004;Aksu et al. 2005). Basement rocks of the AdanaBasin, which crop out in the central Taurides andon the Misis structural high, consist mainly ofdeformed Palaeozoic and Mesozoic metamorphic,carbonate and clastic rocks, together with an ophio-litic melange tectonically transported to the SEduring the Tauride orogeny.

Oligocene–Early Miocene fluvial red beds andlacustrine deposits (Karsantı intramontane basindeposits and Gildirli Formation; Schmidt 1961;Yetis 1988; Unlugenc et al. 1991, 1993; Gurbuz &Kelling 1993) lie unconformably on the Palaeozoicand Mesozoic basement rocks, representing thebase of the Adana Basin succession. The overlyingKaplankaya Formation (Aquitanian–Burdigalian)consists mainly of shallow marine coarse-graineddeposits (sandstones and sandy limestones) and isheteropic with the Gildirli red beds, the Karaisalıreef limestones and the lower part of the deepermarine Cingoz Formation (Gurbuz & Kelling 1993).The Cingoz Formation (Schmidt 1961) is a turbi-ditic sand body (Yetis & Demirkol 1986; Yetis1988; Unlugenc & Demirkol 1988; Unlugencet al. 1991; Gurbuz & Kelling 1993; Unlugenc1993; Williams et al. 1995) deposited during theLate Burdigalian–Early Serravallian (Nazik &Gurbuz 1992). The Serravallian Guvenc Formation

Fig. 2. Geological map of the Adana Basin. White circles correspond to the studied sections.

P. CIPOLLARI ET AL.

includes both deeper marine basin-floor fine-graineddeposits, which are heteropic with the upper Cingozfan turbidites, and shallow marine outer shelf claysand marls (Unlugenc et al. 1991; Nazik & Gurbuz1992; Gurbuz & Kelling 1993; Unlugenc 1993). Inthe Adana Basin, a well-developed erosional surfacecharacterizes the top of the Guvenc Formation,formed when a relative sea-level drop exposed theAdana Basin to terrestrial conditions at the base ofthe Tortonian. The Early Tortonian terrestrial redbeds of the Kuzgun Formation rest unconformablyon the outer shelf clays and marls of the GuvencFormation (Unlugenc 1993). The middle–upperportion of the Kuzgun Formation mainly consistsof shallow marine, fine-grained and coarse-graineddeposits. According to Gurbuz & Kelling (1993),Nazik (2004), and Darbas and Nazik (2010), theHandere Formation (Upper Miocene–Pliocene),which consists of fluvial and shallow marineclastic sediments, including some gypsum layers,rests conformably above the Kuzgun Formation.

Recently, Cosentino et al. (2010a, b) amendedthe chronology for the Handere Formation in thelight of their identification of events related to theMSC of the Mediterranean Basin (CIESM 2008).In the western part of the basin (Karayayla andTopcu villages), Cosentino et al. (2010a, b) recog-nized a cyclical succession of anhydrites and blackshales that record the main evaporite event of theMediterranean (Lower Evaporite). In the Karayaylasection, the anhydrites with black shales seem to lieconformably on pre-evaporitic Messinian marls(Kuzgun Formation). Most gypsum deposits thatcrop out in different sections of the Adana Basin(Topcu, Tepecaylak, Gokkuyu, Adana, etc.) con-tain resedimented gypsum beds (gypsumruditesand gypsarenites), and pertain to the ResedimentedLower Evaporite, a unit recognized throughout theMediterranean Basin (CIESM 2008; Roveri et al.2008a, b). The base of this unit corresponds to aspectacular erosional surface (MES1) cutting downto either the Lower Evaporite or the pre-evaporiticTortonian–Early Messinian deposits (Kuzgun For-mation). This erosional surface correlates with theMessinian Erosional Surface (MES) of the Mediter-ranean area found in both offshore (Escutia &Maldonado 1992; Guennoc et al. 2000; Lofi et al.2005, 2011; Maillard et al. 2006) and onshore sec-tions (Guillemin & Honzay 1982; Costa et al. 1986;Cita & Corselli 1990; Riding et al. 1999; Roveri et al.2001; Rouchy et al. 2003; Soria et al. 2005; Corneeet al. 2006; Sampalmieri et al. 2010; Cosentino et al.2010a, b). The Resedimented Lower Evaporiterecognized in the Adana Basin contains Cyprideissp. and Loxoconcha mulleri, which pertain to theMessinian Early Lago–Mare biofacies (L. mulleriZone; Gliozzi et al. 2010; Grossi et al. 2011). Ayounger erosional surface (MES2) also affects the

Messinian succession of the Adana Basin, separatingLower Evaporite (Karayayla), Resedimented LowerEvaporite (Topcu, Tepecaylak, Adana) and pre-evaporitic marls (Gokkuyu, Kuzgun Formation)below, from an unconformably overlying continen-tal unit consisting mainly of coarse-grained fluvialdeposits. Some fine-grained intercalations both atthe base and at the top of those mainly channelizedfluvial deposits contain ostracods with Paratethyanaffinities pertaining to the Messinian late Lago–Mare biofacies (Loxocorniculina djafarovi Zone).Although these deposits have been considered Plio-cene in age (Yalcın & Gorur 1984; Kozlu 1987;Gurbuz & Kelling 1993; Aksu et al. 2005; Burton-Ferguson et al. 2005; Darbas & Nazik 2010), thenew findings allowed Cosentino et al. (2010a, b) toassign the thick fluvial conglomerates of theHandere Formation to the latest Messinian Lago–Mare event.

The Avadan section

The study section is located at the southern marginof the Neogene Adana Basin, about 15 km west ofthe city of Adana (Fig. 2). In this area, the top ofthe Handere Formation crops out close to Avadanvillage. The Avadan section is a composite sectionthat consists of a lower portion (AVA samples inFig. 3) sampled very close to Avadan village (N378 02′ 00.7′′; E 0358 05′ 53.9′′) and an upperportion (AVA-1 samples in Fig. 3) sampled 300 mto the south (N 378 01′ 50.9′′; E 0358 06′ 00.5′′).The c. 10 m thick lower portion of the Avadan sec-tion (AVA) mainly consists of south-dipping, well-stratified sands and marls. Some of the sandylayers are characterized by slump structures. Fieldinspection revealed that the fine-grained sedimentsof the lower portion of the Avadan section areeither barren or contain few ostracods. The upperportion of the Avadan section (AVA-1) consists of4 m of grey clays rich in fully marine fauna. Inthe field, bivalves, planktonic and benthic forami-nifera were identified, including large Orbulinauniversa.

T-191 borehole stratigraphy

Approximately 3.5 km to the SE of the Avadan sec-tion, a soda company (Soda Sanayii A.S.) drilled awell field to reach the Messinian salt layers. Fol-lowing an agreement between Cukurova University(Department of Geological Engineering) and SodaSanayii A.S., we had the opportunity to analyse boththe cuttings and two sedimentary cores from theT-191 drilling site (total depth 703 m), located inArapali (N 378 00′ 22.37′′; E 0358 07′ 34.39′′,40 m elevation).

ZANCLEAN FLOODING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

During drilling operations, cutting samples wererecovered each 10 m of penetration depth, and twosedimentary cores were recovered at depths of 698and 701 m. Lithologic analysis of the cuttings andcores from the T-191 borehole allowed us to recon-struct the subsurface lithostratigraphy of the drilledarea (Fig. 3). The uppermost part of the drilledsection (0–90 m) is characterized by coarse-graineddeposits, with particle sizes from 2 to 10 mm. In thisinterval, both well-rounded and less-rounded poly-genic clasts were found in a reddish or brownishclayey matrix. A succession of fine-grained deposits,

consisting mainly of grey clays and marls, was drilledfrom 90 to 410 m. Within this depth interval, somelithological differences were observed between120 and 230 m, with the occurrence of up to 50%greenish-grey marly-clays. From the deeper part ofthe T-191 borehole, cuttings from salt bodies (50–90% salt) were recovered at 420–430 and 540–700 m depths. These two salt bodies are separatedby fine-grained deposits mainly consisting of greyclays and marls.

The sedimentary cores recovered at 698 and701 m depth allowed us to define the base of thethicker salt body precisely. The upper half of thesedimentary core at 698 m was drilled in halite,whereas the lower half of the same sedimentarycore consisted of thin-laminated dark marly clays,similar to the sediment core drilled at 701 m.

Material and methods

From the Avadan composite section, 16 sampleswere analysed for ostracods and six (collected fromthe uppermost portion) for benthic and planktonicforaminifera and calcareous nannofossils (Fig. 3).From the T-191 borehole (Fig. 4) 48 samples con-sisting of bottom sediment cores and cuttings wereanalysed for ostracods and foraminifera.

Samples were soaked in a H2O2 5%vol solutionfor 24–48 h, then gently washed with water on0.063 and 0.125 mm mesh sieves. For foraminif-era, semi-quantitative analysis were performed onsamples from the uppermost part of the Avadancomposite section to estimate the abundance ofSphaeroidinellopsis spp. by counting the numberof specimens in nine out of 45 fields of a standardpicking tray. The counting was normalized to onefield. Because most of the samples from the T-191borehole consist of cuttings, only semi-quantitativeanalyses with relative frequencies were carried outon foraminifera from these samples. For ostracods,the total dried residues were hand-picked, but fre-quencies were too scarce for quantitative analyses.For calcareous nannofossil analyses, a smear slidewas prepared for each sample following standardtechniques. Optical adhesive (Norland 61) was usedas a mounting medium for all of the smear slides,which were exsiccated under ultraviolet light. Theywere analysed with a Zeiss Axioscope microscopeunder 1000× magnification. Quantitative analysesof the nannofossil assemblages were obtainedcounting an index species within a predeterminednumber of taxonomically related forms (Backman &Shackleton 1983; Rio et al. 1990). This method wasapplied to Discoaster (50–100 specimens), helico-liths (50 specimens) and Reticulofenestra greaterthan 3 mm (100 specimens). A second method,consisting of counting an index species within a

Fig. 3. Avadan composite section.

P. CIPOLLARI ET AL.

Fig. 4. Stratigraphy of the T-191 borehole. Age, lithology, fossil content and palaeoenvironments are shown.

ZANCLEAN FLOODING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

fixed area of the slide (about 5 mm2), was usedto detect very rare taxa such as ceratolithids andtriquetrorhabdulids.

Unaltered samples of foraminifera provide reli-able sea water Sr records (DePaolo & Ingram 1985;Hodell & Woodruff 1994; Oslick et al. 1994). ForSr analyses, foraminifera were separated fromencasing marls of the Avadan section samples bydisaggregation in a H2O2 5%vol solution, wet siev-ing to retain the .71 mm fraction, drying at 45 8C,and hand-picking under a microscope. Microscopicand SEM inspection of the larger benthic foramini-fera tests helped to eliminate ones that showedobvious discolouration or filled chambers. Samplealiquots of planktonic foraminifera included up to100 tests, while aliquots of benthic foraminiferaranged from one to 15 tests. For our first batch ofsamples, subsequent steps in preparation followedprocedures modified from Gao et al. (1996) andBailey et al. (2000). Samples were washed threetimes in an ultrasonic bath for 15 min with 1 mL of0.2 M ammonium acetate. This step should replaceall Sr that is not structurally bound in carbonatewith ammonium. The samples were then rinsedthree times for 15 min in an ultrasonic bath with1 mL of ultrapure water to remove excess ammo-nium and some fraction of clay contaminants. Totest if cleaning procedures have a significant effecton Sr results, we crushed a second set of foraminiferatests prior to the ammonium acetate treatment andalso added three additional ultrasound washingsteps of 15 min with 1 mL of 1:1 mixture of methanoland ultrapure water, according to procedures inMcArthur et al. (2006). The second set of sampleswas then rinsed three times for 15 min in an ultra-sonic bath with 1 mL of ultrapure water to removeexcess methanol and any remaining clay contami-nants. After cleaning, the samples were reacted for5 min in 1 mL of acetic acid (samples in the firstbatch were reacted in 1.4 M acetic acid, whilethose of the second batch were reacted in 0.5 Macetic acid), centrifuged for 5 min, and the aceticacid solution was pipetted into Teflon beakers.This solution was dried down with 1 mL of concen-trated HNO3. The resulting sample cake was dis-solved in 0.5 mL of 3.5 M HNO3 and processedthrough ion exchange columns containing 50 mLof Eichrom SrSpec resin. The Sr fraction was drieddown with H3PO4 and then loaded onto degassedRe filaments with a TaCl5–H3PO4 mixture. Massspectrometric analyses were completed on anIsotopX IsoProbe-T, using a three-sequence, dy-namic multicollector analysis routine with targetbeam intensity of 88Sr ¼ 3V. All analyses were frac-tionation corrected using 86Sr/88Sr ¼ 0.1194. Aminimum of 60 ratios was collected for each sample,providing 2s uncertainties of less than 30 ppm for87Sr/86Sr. The long-term average of NIST-987

analyses at MIT is 0.710240 + 0.000014 (2s of thedata, n .100 over the period 2007–2011). All datahave been adjusted to a value of 0.710248 forNIST-987. Samples of EN-1, processed as the secondbatch of foram samples, showed average 87Sr/86Sr ¼ 0.709165+0.000011.

Palaeontological analyses

Borehole T-191

Foraminifera. The sediment core samples from 701to 698 m and the cuttings collected from 390 to230 m yielded very rare and poorly preserved,reworked foraminifera assemblages. From 220 to90 m, foraminifera were well preserved and morefrequent, except those collected from cuttings at90, 100, 160 and 170 m, which were poorly pre-served and scarce. No quantitative analyses wereperformed, but benthic foraminifera were ratherabundant throughout the upper portion of borehole,except for the cuttings at 220 m.

The list of the species collected from the bore-hole samples included both planktonic and benthicforaminifera. Among the planktonic foraminifera,the majority was represented by long-lasting spe-cies (mainly Globigerinoides spp., Orbulina uni-versa and subordinate, small-sized globigerinids).The shorter-lasting species included Sphaeroidinel-lopsis seminulina (MMi 12b-MPl 4b), which wasrare in cuttings at 220 and 190 m and frequent in cut-tings at 210 m, Neogloboquadrina dutertrei (MPl5b-Present), which was recovered at 110 m, andNeogloboquadrina pachyderma dextral coiled (MPl6-Present), which was also recovered at 110 m.

Benthic foraminifera occurred in three mainassemblages: (1) a Bolivina spp.–Bulimina spp.–Epistominella exigua–Uvigerina spp. dominatedassemblage prevalent in cuttings at 220, 190–150and 130–110 m; (2) an Anomalinoides helicinus–Cibicidoides spp.–Heoglundina elegans–Planulinaariminensis–Sphaeroidina bulloides dominatedassemblage at 210 m; and (3) an Ammonia spp.–Elphidium dominated assemblage occurred in cut-tings at 100–90 m.

Ostracods. Ostracods from the T-191 borehole werewell preserved but very rare and scattered: Cypri-deis agrigentina Decima was collected from cut-tings at 230 m, Rectobuntonia subulata (Ruggieri)and Argilloecia acuminata Muller from cuttings at190 m, and Urocythereis exedata Uliczny, Acanto-cythereis hystrix (Reuss), and Ruggeria tetraptera(Seguenza) from cuttings at 110 m. The majority ofthe species are long lasting, except for C. agrigentina,which is limited to the Messinian post-evaporitictime interval, and U. exedata, which is limited tothe Late Pliocene (Piacenzian) to Present.

P. CIPOLLARI ET AL.

Avadan composite section

Calcareous nannofossils. Calcareous nannofossilswere generally abundant but commonly overgrown.Despite the large quantity of reworked specimens,which sometimes dilute the presence of markerspecies (e.g. sample AVA-1 6), the total assemblagewas dominated by reticulofenestrids ranging in sizefrom 3 to 6 mm (grouped as Reticulofenestra spp.),by Sphenolithus, and by Dictyococcites of thesame size, whereas Dictyococcites .7 mm was notpresent. The genus Discoaster was also commonand easily detectable. The results of the quantitativeanalyses performed by counting index species in afixed number of taxonomically related forms wereplotted.

R. pseudoumbilicus (.7 mm, according to For-naciari et al. 1996) is virtually absent in the sectionexcept for the lowermost sample, probably signal-ling the paracme interval of this species. The smallspot detected in sample AVA-1 6 is probably dueto a peak in the presence of reworked specimens.

R. zancleana, a small new species (Di Stefano &Sturiale 2010) defined by a circular outline, wasdetected starting from the basal part of the sectionwith percentages of about 8–11% within the popu-lation of Reticulofenestra. Circular morphotypes ofReticulofenestra were found in other Mediterraneansections at the base of the Zanclean, including Site969B (Castradori 1998), ODP Sites 969B and975B (Di Stefano & Sturiale 2010), southern Italy(Capo Spartivento) and Cyprus (Pissouri; DiStefano et al. 1999).

The Helicosphaera group is dominanted by H.carteri. H. intermedia was continuously presentwith lower percentages. The latter is a typical Mio-cene species, but it has also been detected with a sig-nificant presence in the basal Zanclean (Castradori1998; Siesser & de Kaenel 1999). H. sellii, a markerspecies that defines the base of MNN13 biozone(Rio et al. 1990), was not detected.

Among discoasters, D. variabilis was the mostabundant species; its abundance did not show thesharp decrease that has been observed in some EarlyPliocene sections (Driever 1988; Staerker 1998). D.pentaradiatus, D. brouwerii and D. surculus showedvariable percentages, in agreement with what wasdetected in other Early Pliocene Mediterranean sec-tions (Rio et al. 1990).

We did not plot Triquetrorhabdolids and cer-atholids because they were extremely rare and scat-tered. Triquetrorhabdolus rugosus, whose LastOccurrence (LO) is considered an additional eventto recognize the CN10a/CN10b subzonal boundary(Okada & Bukry 1980), was not detected in thestudied section. Amaurolithus primus and A. delica-tus were found in only one sample and no Cerato-lithus rugosus was detected. The First Occurrence

(FO) of C. rugosus marks the NN12/NN13 bound-ary in Martini’s (1971) biostratigraphy, but it hasbeen considered to be an unreliable datum owingto its rare and scattered presence in other Mediterra-nean sections (Rio et al. 1990).

Foraminifera. Foraminifera were collected through-out the Avadan composite section. In the lower por-tion (AVA subsection), only one or two planktonicspecimens were collected from samples AVA 2, 4, 7,8 and 10. In the upper portion (AVA-1subsection) for-aminifera were abundant and well preserved. Plank-tonic foraminifera were prevalent from samplesAVA-1 1–5. Globigerinoides spp. and Orbulinauniversa were the dominant taxa in all the sam-ples, although they decreased from AVA-1 2 to thetop of the section. Globoturborotalita decorapertawas abundant as well. In sample AVA-1 4 manyspecimens were small (globigerinids) and non-desegregated grains were more common comparedwith the lower samples, while they were prevalentin sample AVA-1 5. In all the samples, neoglobo-quadrinids were rare and prevalently dextral coiled.Sphaeroidinellopsis spp. was always present throug-hout the section, but it was particularly abundant insamples AVA-1 1, 2 and 4 where 1.44, 3.33 and 1.22specimens per field were counted, respectively.Benthic foraminifera were always subordinate,with similar assemblages throughout the subsectionthat included mainly Lenticulina spp. and Cibicidesspp. Other common taxa included Uvigerina rutilaand U. peregrina, Bolivina sp., Bulimina aculeata,Planulina ariminensis, Pullenia bulloides and P. sal-isburyi, Globocassidulina subglobosa, Sigmoilopsiscelata, Dentalina leguminiformis and Gyroidinoidessoldanii.

Ostracods. Ostracods were identified throughout theAvadan composite section. In the lower part (AVAsubsection), they rarely occurred from samplesAVA 5–8 and in sample AVA 10. They aremainly represented by juvenile and adult valvesand carapaces of Cyprideis agrigentina Decima.Only in sample AVA 5 was Cyprideis accompaniedby juvenile valves of Tyrrhenocythere sp. and Lep-tocytheridae indet. In the upper part (AVA-1 sub-section), ostracods were rare and fairly wellpreserved, where they were represented throughoutthe subsection by Argilloecia acuminata Muller,Krithe compressa (Seguenza) and fragments of thelarge-sized genera Macrocypris and Bythocypris.

Biostratigraphy

Borehole T-191

Foraminifera and ostracods recovered from theT-191 borehole were useful to constrain the

ZANCLEAN FLOODING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

depositional age of the drilled succession. At 230 mdepth, the occurrence of the ostracod C. agrigentinalimits the age to the short post-evaporitic Messiniantime-interval (5.60–5.33 Ma), when that species waswidespread throughout the Mediterranean Basin fromSpain and Algeria (Rouchy et al. 2007; Guerra-Merchan et al. 2010) eastwards to Cyprus (Benson1978; Rouchy et al. 2001). The presence of reworked,scarce and poorly preserved foraminifera in thelower portion of the borehole (down to 701 m)demonstrates a non-marine environment, meaningthat all these sediments may be associated with thepost-evaporitic Messinian time interval. Extinct orlong-lasting reworked planktonic foraminiferahave been recorded in the Messinian Lago–Maresediments in other Mediterranean sections or bore-holes (Cita et al. 1978; Spezzaferri et al. 1998; Bas-setti et al. 2006; Rouchy et al. 2007).

From 220 to 110 m, foraminifera were abundantand well preserved, signalling the restoration of fullymarine conditions. The frequency fluctuation ofSphaeroidinellopsis seminulina from 220 to 190 mand its peak abundance in the cuttings at 210 m

could be attributed to the Sphaeroidinellopsisacme bioevent recognized in the Mediterraneanfrom 5.30 to 5.21 Ma (MPl 1, Early Zanclean;Lourens et al. 2004). The presence in the cuttingsat 110 m of N. dutertrei and N. pachyderma dx, dis-tributed from the Early Pleistocene (Late Gelasian,MPl 6, Iaccarino et al. 2007) to the Present, coupledwith the co-occurrence of R. tetraptera (Langhian-Calabrian, Guernet 2005), constrains the upper partof the T-191 borehole to an age not older than Gela-sian and not younger than Calabrian (Fig. 5).

Unfortunately, no marker species of globorota-lids were recovered in the borehole. This absencecould be related to (1) dissolution phenomena(Weaver & Bergsten 1991); (2) higher water temp-eratures in the eastern Mediterranean comparedwith the central and western Mediterranean, whichwould have increased the depth of the thermoclinewhere they commonly inhabit (Norris et al. 1993,1994); and (3) oligotrophic conditions of the easternMediterranean, which would have lowered the nutri-cline by 400–500 m (Pujol & Vergnaud-Grazzini1995).

Fig. 5. Integrated Mediterranean biostratigraphic scheme of Late Miocene–Pleistocene. The grey lines correspond tothe proposed age of the T-191 borehole and Avadan composite section. ATNTS 2004 and calcareous nannofossilbiostratigraphy from Lourens et al. (2004) and Di Stefano & Sturiale (2010); planktonic biostratigraphy from Iaccarinoet al. (2007); ostracod biostratigraphy from Grossi et al. (2011). NDZ, Non-distinctive zone; MSC: Messinian SalinityCrisis.

P. CIPOLLARI ET AL.

Avadan composite section

The occurrence of marker species among ostra-cods, foraminifera and calcareous nannofossils inthe Avadan composite section tightly limits the sedi-mentation age of the succession. In the lower part(AVA subsection), the presence of C. agrigentinapoints to a post-evaporitic Messinian age (Lago–Mare event, 5.60–5.33 Ma, CIESM 2008; Gliozziet al. 2007; Grossi et al. 2011). The age of the upperpart of Avadan composite section (AVA-1 subsec-tion) is well constrained by calcareous nannofossils.The continuous presence of R. zancleana limits theAVA-1 subsection to within the distribution rangeof this species (MNN 12a subzone, Di Stefano &Sturiale 2010). More precisely, AVA-1 was depos-ited after the FO of R. zancleana, which correspondsto the base of the first Pliocene precessional cycle(5.332 Ma) and before its Last Common Occur-rence (LCO), which occurs at the base of cycle 7(5.199 Ma; Fig. 6).

The sharp drop of abundance of R. pseudoumbi-licus in sample AVA-1 2 points to the paracme baseof this species. Unfortunately, this event is slightlydiachronous in Mediterranean sections: in Calabriansections, at site 653 and in Cyprus it occurs duringthe Pliocene precessional cycle 6 (Rio et al. 1990;

Di Stefano et al. 1996; Di Stefano et al. 1999), atODP Site 975 during cycle 5, at ODP Site 969Bduring cycle 4, and in sections from Sicily andTuscany during cycle 2 (Di Stefano & Sturiale 2010;Fig. 6). In the AVA-1 section, the paracme base ofR. pseudoumbilicus occurs within the range of R.zancleana. This is in agreement with other Mediter-ranean sections, but we cannot be more preciseabout its position with respect to the Zanclean pre-cessional cyclicity. Among planktonic foraminifera,the relative abundance of Sphaeroidinellopsis ssp.(particularly S. seminulina and S. disjuncta) couldbe linked to the Sphaeroidinellopsis acme bioevent,recognizable in the Mediterranean between 5.30 and5.21 Ma (Lourens et al. 2004; Iaccarino et al.2007). The absence of Siphonina reticulata, whosere-appearance in the Mediterranean after the EarlyMessinian local extinction is dated 5.234 Ma (baseof the 6th precessional cycle, Lourens et al. 1996),may imply that the sedimentation of the AVA-1 sub-section occurred earlier.

In summary, based on the presence of R. zan-cleana during the Sphaeroidinellopsis acme and theabsence of S. reticulata, it is possible to constrainthe age of the AVA-1 subsection to the earliest Zan-clean MPl 1 zone p.p. and MNN12a subzone, moreprecisely to the interval 5.30–5.234 Ma (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Early Pliocene nannofossil biostratigraphic scheme (Di Stefano & Sturiale 2010, modified).

ZANCLEAN FLOODING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

Sr isotope results

The samples yielded a clustering of 87Sr/86Srvalues, with nine out of 13 sample aliquots overlap-ping within a 2s range of analytical uncertainty.We interpret the consistency of 87Sr/86Sr through-out the section to indicate that diagenetic alterationis unlikely, as it may otherwise lead to unsystem-atic changes in the Sr isotope composition (e.g.McArthur 1994; McArthur et al. 2004, 2006;Steuber et al. 2005). Nevertheless, wholesale dia-genesis could produce consistent 87Sr/86Sr acrossstratigraphy. The second batch of three samples,which included a more aggressive cleaning pro-cedure, yielded 87Sr/86Sr values that are statisticallysignificantly higher than those of equivalent sam-ples in the first batch by roughly 0.00001. This differ-ence implies that the two different cleaning methodshave a minor effect on the results, and ratios fromthe first batch could be adjusted upwards by asmuch as 0.00001, an adjustment that is within the+0.000014 2s analytical uncertainty of singleanalyses.

There is no clear trend in 87Sr/86Sr values fromthe bottom to the top of the section, which show afull range from 0.708970 to 0.709024, or from 0.708980 to 0.709034 after increasing values of the firstbatch by 0.00001. Changes in the sea water Sr com-position over the time period of the section are thusprobably smaller than the limits of analytical pre-cision. Comparison of our data with the LOWESS4 curve (McArthur et al. 2001, Version 4:08/04)and its source datasets (Farrell et al. 1995; Martin

et al. 1999) for the Late Miocene to Early Pliocenetime period (Fig. 7) shows that, when our firstbatch of samples is adjusted upwards by 0.00001,our ratios are slightly lower (by c. 0.00001), butoverlap with the estimated global ocean values,particularly considering the 0.000014 average 2sanalytical uncertainty for a single sample.

Discussion

Palaeoenvironmental interpretation

Borehole T-191. From the bottom of the T-191 bore-hole (701 m depth) to 230 m depth, the clayey–siltyportions (intervals 701–698, 510–440 and 390–230 m), which contain two salt bodies (intervals698–530 and 430–410 m), were barren and onlyscarce reworked foraminifera were recovered.Only in the cuttings at 230 m were in situ C. agri-gentina collected, indicating a stressed environmentin a shallow (less than 10 m), brackish water body.Cyprideis agrigentina and C. anlavauxensis Car-bonnel are the most widespread Cyprideis speciesthat inhabited the brackish post-evaporitic Messi-nian lakes that characterized the Mediterraneanduring the end of the Messinian Salinity Crisis(Lago–Mare event; Carbonnel 1979; Gliozzi et al.2007; Grossi et al. 2011). Studies carried out onseveral post-evaporitic Messinian sections in Spainand Italy showed that these two species were vicar-iant: C. agrigentina tolerated more saline waters,while C. anlavauxensis was confined to oligo- to

Fig. 7. (a) New Sr isotopic data plotted using biostratigraphic age constraints (5.332–5.199 Ma, shown in x-error bars)compared with published records of open ocean Sr ratios LOWESS 4 curve (McArthur et al. 2001), its associated sourcedata sets (Farrell et al. 1995; Martin et al. 1999) and Sr data from the Tyrrhenian Sea (Castorina & Vaiani 2009).Thin black lines denote range of published data. Black ‘ × ’ with vertical error bar denotes long-term 2s analyticaluncertainty for individual sample analyses at MIT (+0.000014). Note that the data from Farrell et al. (1995) have beenplotted using the Schackleton/LOWESS timescale (equivalent to the Gradstein et al. 2004 timescale) to be consistentwith the timescale used in interpreting the Martin et al. (1999) and the biostratigraphic data. All data are plottedwith respect to NIST-987 ¼ 0.710248. (b) Zooms into area of main interest.

P. CIPOLLARI ET AL.

low mesohaline aquatic environments (Grossi &Gennari 2008; Grossi et al. 2008; Guerra-Merchanet al. 2010). Thus, the sediments of the basalportion of the T-191 borehole were probably depos-ited in a shallow, saline environment, not favourablefor the development of abundant and diversifiedostracod communities.

From 220 to 90 m depth, the environmentcompletely changed. Abundant and well preservedplanktonic and benthic foraminifera indicate fullymarine conditions. Planktonic foraminifera arepresent throughout the interval, even if with lowdiversity assemblages. They outnumber benthic for-aminifera particularly in the cuttings at 220 and210 m, whereas towards the top, benthic formsprevail. From 220 to 110 m depth, the planktonicassemblages dominated by Globigerinoides spp.signal warm temperatures of superficial waters.

The benthic fauna is extremely variable, domi-nated in some cases by epifaunal and oxyphilictaxa (e.g. Cassidulina carinata, Cibicidoides spp.,Lenticulina spp., Oridorsalis umbonatus, Sphaeroi-dina bulloides; Kaiho 1994), but more frequentlyby infaunal assemblages dominated by Bolivinaspp. and Bulimina spp. taxa that easily tolerate per-iodic reductions in dissolved oxygen (Boltovskoy& Wright 1976; Van der Zwaan 1982; Jorissen et al.1992; Kaiho 1994). Such alternation could be linkedto fluctuating oxygen conditions at the sea bottomand could mirror the conditions recognized in theMediterranean during the Plio-Pleistocene, whenthe cyclic presence of sapropels characterized sedi-mentation in epibathyal environments (Parker 1958;Hilgen 1991a; Spezzaferri et al. 1998). In particular,at borehole depths of 220–130 m, upper epibathyalwater depths (200–500 m) can be interpreted fromthe occurrence of some benthic foraminifera (e.g.C. kullenbergi, E. exigua, O. umbonatus and P. ari-minensis) and from the presence of epibathyal ostra-cods such as A. acuminata and R. subulata.

From borehole depths 130–110 m, water depthsdecrease from upper epibathyal towards lower cir-calittoral depths (100–300 m), as indicated by thepresence of Cibicidoides spp., R. tetraptera, A. hystrix,and U. exedata. A further water depth decrease (to,50 m) is detected from 110 to 90 m in the borehole.The fauna consists of infralittoral species such asAmmonia spp., Elphidium and Nonion.

From 90 m depth to the top of the T-191 borehole,the absence of fossils or the very scarce presence ofbroken, abraded and poorly preserved (clearlyreworked) benthic foraminifera points to an emer-gent continental environment in which oxidationand soil development are recorded by the reddishsilts and pebbles at the top of the T-191 borehole.

Avadan composite section. Microfauna in the lowerportion of the Avadan composite section (AVA

subsection) is scarce. The very rare, poorly pre-served foraminifera are reworked. The presence ofC. agrigentina, characteristic of the Lago–Marebiofacies (Benson 1978; van Harten 1990; Grossiet al. 2008), points to shallow, brackish waters. Frag-ments of Tyrrhenocythere sp. and Leptocytheridaecollected along the succession indicate possiblelow-mesohaline conditions.

The upper portion of the Avadan composite sec-tion (AVA-1 subsection) records an abrupt palaeo-environmental change, as the presence of abundantcalcareous nannofossils, ostracods A. acuminata andK. compressa, and the dominance of planktonic overbenthic foraminifera, indicate fully open marine,upper epibathyal conditions (200–500 m waterdepth). The most common benthic foraminifera havea wide bathymetric range, from outer circalittoral toepibathyal. Superficial warm water conditions aretestified by the prevalence of Globigerinoides spp.and O. universa.

Sr isotope stratigraphy

The general proximity of our Sr isotopic ratiosto global ocean values at c. 5.2 Ma, together withthe identification of rich marine fauna, supportthe palaeoenvironmental interpretation of a fullymarine Mediterranean Sea at the time that the sedi-ments of the Avadan section were deposited. None-theless, we consistently found Sr ratios (and meanvalues for the whole dataset) that fall below themean value of the LOWESS 4 curve by 0.00001.Although this discrepancy is within the range ofanalytical uncertainty, the effect on interpreted agesis significant. For example, the LOWESS 4 look-uptable indicates an age of 5.67 Ma for our preferredaverage 87Sr/86Sr of 0.709012 (excluding the onehigh and the two low ratios, and correcting thefirst batch of samples upward by 0.00001), with arange of 5.36–5.91 Ma, considering the 0.0000102s uncertainty on the mean value. Although thefull range nearly overlaps with our biostratigraphicconstraints, the mean age is too old by 0.4–0.5Ma. The large effect of the analytical uncertaintyon interpreted ages also underscores the need toperform multiple analyses on single stratigraphiclayers in order to best characterize the Sr isotopecomposition.

The slight inconsistency between the ages of ourbiostratigraphically-constrained Sr isotope ratiosand global ocean Sr record leads to a number ofpotential interpretations. First, our lower valuescould result from insufficient cleaning of our sam-ples or post-mortem exchange. We believe thatinsufficient cleaning is an unlikely explanation, asour second, more aggressive cleaning procedureyielded only slightly higher ratios compared withthe previously analysed samples, and even these

ZANCLEAN FLOODING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

higher ratios remain below the LOWESS curve atthe time of deposition. Post-mortem exchange isdifficult to rule out definitively, and could accountfor some differences. Another possibility is thatthe LOWESS 4 curve overestimates global oceanvalues for the earliest Pliocene, although this cannotbe confirmed without more data spanning a widertime interval. Interestingly, well-dated 87Sr/86Srresults from McKenzie et al. (1988) and Castorinaand Vaiani (2009) similarly show values that areon average c. 0.00001 below mean global oceanvalues reported by Farrell et al. (1995) and theassociated values for the LOWESS 4 curve(Fig. 7). Finally, our lower ratios could result frominsufficient mixing of low 87Sr/86Sr Mediterraneanbrackish ‘Lago–Mare’ water (e.g. McCulloch & DeDeckker 1989; Flecker & Ellam 1999, 2006) withthe global oceans in the earliest Pliocene, implyingthat the Lago–Mare water mass had some lingeringeffects on the Sr isotopic composition in the AdanaBasin, even if a marine connection allowed for acomplete return of marine fauna. Pierre et al. (2006)recognized a transition zone in stable isotope values,CaCO3 content and foraminifera assemblages thatbridged the conditions between the Lago–Marebrackish water body and the fully marine conditionsin the Pliocene, although that transition spannedonly a single precessional cycle (e.g. c. 20 ka). Untilthe second and third possibilities can be bettertested, our data show that Sr isotopic compositionsshould be used with caution for interpreting agesin the Mediterranean basin sections, not only forthe Messinian interval, but also continuing into theearliest Pliocene.

The Messinian–Zanclean Transition in the

Adana Basin

Both the Avadan section and the stratigraphy of theT-191 borehole in the Adana Basin reveal a tran-sition from a late Messinian brackish environment(Messinian Lago–Mare event) to an early Zanclean,deep (200–500 m depth), fully marine environment.Thus, the Miocene/Pliocene facies transition inthe Adana Basin shows the same characteristics asthe MZT recognized throughout the MediterraneanBasin.

Our results on the stratigraphy of the Avadansection and the T-191 borehole also have importantimplications for interpretations of seismic reflectionprofiles in the Adana–Cilicia Basin and in the off-shore Antalya Basin. Seismic reflection profiles ofthe Adana–Cilicia Basin show Unit 1 resting on aregional unconformity surface (M unconformity,Aksu et al. 2005; Burton-Ferguson et al. 2005),which was correlated with the M-reflector recog-nized in the eastern Mediterranean Basin (Ryan

1969). According to Burton-Ferguson et al. (2005)and Aksu et al. (2005), Unit 1 is Plio-Quaternaryin age, and correlates with the post-Messinian pro-gradational deltaic successions of the Handere andKuransa formations of the Adana Basin. Isler et al.(2005) applied a similar interpretation to theseismic stratigraphy of the offshore Antalya Basin.Importantly, we recognize the two intra-Messinianunconformities (MES1 and MES2) in outcrops inthe Adana Basin (Cosentino et al. 2010a, b) and inthe seismic profiles (Fig. 8). Although we recog-nized two major infra-Messinian unconformities,instead of just one unconformity on top of the Mes-sinian deposits (M unconformity; Burton-Fergusonet al. 2005), the major difference in the interpret-ations of the seismic stratigraphy from these differ-ent areas concerns the age of the deposits overlyingthe M unconformity. Regardless of how we corre-late the MES1 and MES2 with the M unconformityof Burton-Ferguson et al. (2005), we have demon-strated that sediments overlying this regional uncon-formity are Messinian rather than Pliocene in age,and represent the Messinian Lago–Mare event ofthe Mediterranean Basin. In some places along theseismic profile of Figure 8, the base of the Pliocenedeposits (the MZT) occurs around 1 s two-waytravel time above the younger infra-Messinianunconformity (MES2).

Surface uplift of the SE margin of the Central

Anatolian Plateau and the Adana Basin

The new stratigraphic model for the Late Miocene–Pliocene deposits of the Adana Basin, based on pre-vious work by Cosentino et al. (2010a, b) and newresults presented here, shows that the .1 km of ter-restrial deposits (fluvial conglomerates and marls ofthe Handere Formation) were deposited during thelate Messinian Lago–Mare event on top of theMES2 unconformity, just before the Zanclean flood-ing event. The great thickness of the late MessinianLago–Mare deposits implies that the Adana Basinwas actively subsiding, probably in front of anarea affected by rapid uplift (e.g. the southernmargin of the Central Anatolian plateau; Cosentinoet al. 2012b; Schildgen et al. 2012a, b), which wasable to supply huge quantities of clastics from thecentral Taurides basement rocks.

We can derive an uplift history of the AdanaBasin based on our analysis of the palaeodeposi-tional depths of marine sediments and the revisedchronology. Because the grey clays of the AVA-1subsection are currently found at an elevation of150 m, the palaeodepths of deposition from 200 to500 m imply that the Adana Basin has experienceda total of 350–650 m of surface uplift since 5.2–5.3 Ma, yielding an average post-early-Zanclean

P. CIPOLLARI ET AL.

uplift rate of 0.07–0.13 mm a21. Uplift constraintscan also be derived from the T-191 borehole sam-ples. Circalittoral marine deposition (100–300 mpalaeodepth) continued as late as Calabrian time(c. 1.8 Ma), as shown by the sample 110 m belowthe top of the well, which is at 40 m elevation).The total implies that 30–230 m of uplift took placesince c. 1.8 Ma yielding an average post-1.8 Mauplift rate of 0.02–0.13 mm a21. In contrast, alongthe SE margin of the Central Anatolian plateau,which borders the Adana Basin to the NW, averageuplift rates are 0.25 mm a21 after 8 Ma (Cosentinoet al. 2012b), 0.45 mm a21 after 5.45 Ma (Cosentinoet al. 2010a, b), 0.6–0.7 mm a21 after 1.6 Ma(Schildgen et al. 2012a) and post-130 ka fluvialincision rates are 0.5–0.7 mm a21 (Schildgen et al.2012a). These rates reveal that differential uplift ofthe SE margin of the Central Anatolian plateau rela-tive to the Adana Basin, which probably startedaround 5.45 Ma (Cosentino et al. 2010a, b) and con-tinued into Pleistocene time, even as the AdanaBasin itself started to be uplifted.

Conclusions

In the Adana Basin, surface (Avadan section) andsubsurface data (T-191 borehole) reveal the occur-rence of the Zanclean flooding event, which at theend of the MSC (5.33 Ma) refilled the Mediter-ranean Basin through the Gibraltar Strait withmarine water from the Atlantic Ocean. The MZT

recognized in the Adana Basin shows the samefeatures as the Zanclean GSSP at Eraclea Minoa(Sicily) and other stratigraphic sections in the Med-iterranean Basin showing the Miocene/Pliocenetransition.

The Sr isotopic composition of the early Zan-clean deposits of the Adana Basin shows valuesthat are slightly lower than the mean global oceanvalues, similar to recent results from the TyrrhenianBasin (Castorina & Vaiani 2009). These results mayindicate incomplete mixing of low 87Sr/86Sr Medi-terranean brackish ‘Lago–Mare’ water with theglobal oceans in the earliest Pliocene.

We suggest a new stratigraphic model for theLate Miocene–Pliocene deposits of the AdanaBasin, characterized by the occurrence of two infra-Messinian discontinuities (MES1 and MES2) andthe Zanclean flooding surface. These stratigraphicfeatures, which were recognized in the surface geo-logy of the Adana Basin (Cosentino et al. 2010a, b),are recognizable and easily traceable in seismic pro-files. Our new stratigraphic model helps to confirmthe previously suggested Late Messinian age ofmore than 1 km of terrestrial deposits (fluvial con-glomerates and marls of the Handere Formation)deposited on top of the MES2 unconformity, justbefore the Early Zanclean flooding event.

Our interpretations of the palaeodepths of depo-sition, combined with our new stratigraphic model,imply that the Adana Basin was uplifted at an aver-age 0.07–0.13 mm a21 after 5.2 to 5.3 Ma based onsurface data, or 0.02–0.13 mm a21 after c. 1.8 Ma

Fig. 8. Line-drawing of a seismic profile at the NW margin of the Adana Basin. The stratigraphy of the borehole T-191(projected) is also shown. U2, late Serravallian-early Tortonian erosional surface; MES1, early Messinian-ErosionalSurface; MES2, late Messinian-Erosional Surface; P, base Zanclean flooding surface; RLE, Resedimented LowerEvaporites; ULM, Upper Lago-Mare; Pl-Q, Pliocene-Quaternary.

ZANCLEAN FLOODING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

based on subsurface data. Faster uplift rates over thesame time interval along the SE margin of theCentral Anatolian plateau, which borders the AdanaBasin to the NW, imply that differential uplift of theplateau margin relative to the basin continued evenafter the basin started to be uplifted.

This work is part of the Vertical Anatolian MovementsProject (VAMP), funded by the TOPO-EUROPE initiativeof the European Science Foundation, including contri-butions by the IGAG-CNR (com. TA.P05.009, mod.TA.P05.009.003) and the German Science Foundation(DFG: STR373/25-1; EC 138/5-1). T.F.S. was supportedby the Leibniz Center for Surface Processes and ClimateStudies at the University of Potsdam (DFG: STR373/20-1) and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Theauthors are grateful to the Soda Sanayii A. S. for havingkindly provided sediment cores and cuttings from theT-191 borehole. In particular authors like to acknowledgeDr Erdal Cinar, project chief of the Soda Sanayii A. S.,who introduced us to the geology of the Arabali salt field.We are indebted to the national oil and gas company ofTurkey (Turkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortaklıgı, TPAO) forallowing us to work on the seismic lines of the Adana Basin,kindly providing, among the others, the seismic line used inthis paper. Alastair Robertson, Ulvi Can Unlugenc, and ananonymous reviewer provided detailed and constructivereviews that helped to improve the manuscript.

References

Akay, E. & Uysal, S. 1985. Orta Toroslar’ın batısindaki(Antalya) Neojen cokellerinin stratigrafisi, sedimento-lojisi ve yapısal jeolojisi. MTA Report. Turkey.

Aksu, A. E., Calon, T. J., Hall, J., Mansfield, S. &Yasar, D. 2005. The Cilicia–Adana basin complex,Eastern Mediterranean: neogene evolution of an activefore-arc basin in an obliquely convergent margin.Marine Geology, 221, 121–159.

Backman, J. & Shackleton, N. J. 1983. Quantitative bio-chronology of Pliocene and Pleistocene calcareousnannofossils from the Atlantic, Indian and Pacificoceans. Marine Micropaleontology, 8, 141–170.

Bailey, T. R., McArthur, J. M., Prince, H. & Thirlwall,M. F. 2000. Dissolution methods for strontium isotopestratigraphy: whole rock analysis. Chemical Geology,167, 313–319.

Bassetti, M.-A., Manzi, V., Lugli, S., Roveri,M., Longinelli, A., Ricci Lucchi, F. & Barbieri,M. 2004. Paleoenvironmental significance of Mes-sinian post-evaporitic lacustrine carbonates in thenorthern Apennines, Italy. Sedimentary Geology, 172,1–18.

Bassetti, M. A., Miculan, P. & Sierro, F. J. 2006.Evolution of depositional environments after theend of Messinian Salinity Crisis in Nijar basin (SEBetic Cordillera). Sedimentary Geology, 188–189,279–295.

Benson, R. H. 1976. Changes in the ostracodes in theMediterranean with the Messinian salinity crisis.Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology,20, 147–160.

Benson, R. H. 1978. The palaeoecology of the ostracodesof DSDP Leg 42A. Initial Reports Deep Sea DrillingProject, 42, 777–787.

Bizon, G., Biju-Duval, B., Monod, O., Poisson, A.,Ozer, G. & Oztumer, E. 1974. Nouvelles precisionsstratigraphiques concernant les bassins tertiaires dusud de la Turquie (Antalya, Mut, Adana). Revue del’Institut francais du Petrole, 29, 305–325.

Blanc, P.-L. 2002. The opening of the Plio-QuaternaryGibraltar Strait: assessing the size of a cataclysm.Geodinamica Acta, 15, 303–317.

Blanc-Valleron, M.-M., Rouchy, J.-M., Pierre, C.,Badaut-Trauth, D. & Schuler, M. 1998. Evidenceof Messinian non-marine deposition at Site 968(Cyprus Lower Slope). In: Robertson, A. H. F.,Emeis, K.-C., Richter, A. & Camerlenghi, A. (eds)Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, ScientificResults, 160. Ocean Drilling Program, Texax A & MUniversity, College Station, TX, 437–445.

Boltovskoy, E. & Wright, R. 1976. Recent Foramini-fera. Junk, The Hague.

Brolsma, M. J. 1978. Quantitative foraminiferal analysisand environmental interpretation of the Pliocene andtopmost Miocene of the South coast of Sicily.Utrecht Micropaleontology Bulletin, 18, 1–143.

Burton-Ferguson, R., Aksu, A. E., Calon, T. J. &Hall, J. 2005. Seismic stratigraphy and structuralevolution of the Adana Basin, eastern Mediterranean.Marine Geology, 221, 189–222.

Carbonnel, G. 1979. La zone a Loxoconcha djaffaroviSchneider (Ostracoda, Miocene superieur) ou le Messi-nien de la vallee du Rhone. Revue de Micropaleontolo-gie, 21, 106–118.

Castorina, F. & Vaiani, S. C. 2009. Early Pliocene 87Sr/86Sr isotopic record from DSDP Site 132 (TyrrhenianSea). GeoActa, 8, 25–31.

Castradori, D. 1998. Calcareous nannofossils in the basalZanclean of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea: remarkson paleoceanography and sapropel formation. In:Robertson, A. H. F., Emeis, K. C., Richter, A. &Camerlenghi, A. (eds) Proceedings of the OceanDrilling Program, Scientific Results, 160. Ocean Dril-ling Program, Texax A & M University, CollegeStation, TX, 113–123.

CIESM (COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE POURL’EXPLORATION DE LA MER MEDITERRANEE,MONACO) 2008. The Messinian Salinity Crisis frommega-deposits to microbiology: a consensus report, no.33, In: Briand, F. (ed.). CIESM Workshop Monographs.

Cita, M. B. & Corselli, C. 1990. Messinian paleogeo-graphy and erosional surfaces in Italy: an overview.Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology,77, 67–82.

Cita, M. B. & Gartner, S. 1973. Studi sul Pliocene e glistrati d passaggio dal Miocene al Pliocene. IV. Thestratotype Zanclean foraminiferal and nannofossilbiostratigraphy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia eStratigrafia, 79, 503–558.

Cita, M. B., Wright, R. C., Ryan, W. B. F. & Longi-

nelli, A. 1978. Messinian palaeoenvironments. In:Hsu, K., Montader, L. et al. (eds) Initial ReportsDeep Sea Drilling Project, 42, 1003–1035.

Cita, M. B., Rio, D. & Sprovieri, R. 1999. The Plioceneseries: chronology of the type Mediterranean record

P. CIPOLLARI ET AL.

and standard chronostratigraphy. In: Wrenn, J. H.,Suc, J.-P. & Leroy, S. A. G. (eds) The Pliocene:Time of Change. American Association of Strati-graphic Palynologists Foundation, Dallas, TX, 49–63.

Clauzon, G., Suc, J.-P., Gautier, F., Berger, A. &Loutre, M. F. 1996. Alternate interpretation of theMessinian Salinity Crisis: constroversy resolved?Geology, 24, 363–366.

Cornee, J. J., Ferrandini, M. et al. 2006. The lateMessinian erosional surface and the subsequentreflooding in the Mediterranean: new insights from theMelilla-Nador basin (Morocco). Palaeogeography,Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 230, 129–154.

Cosentino, D., Cipollari, P., Lo Mastro, S. &Giampaolo, C. 2005. High-frequency cyclicity in thelatest Messinian Adriatic foreland basin: insight intopalaeoclimate and palaeoenvironments of the Mediter-ranean Lago–Mare episode. Sedimentary Geology,178, 31–53.

Cosentino, D., Gliozzi, E. & Pipponzi, G. 2007. The lateMessinian Lago–Mare episode in the MediterraneanBasin: preliminary report on the occurrence of Para-tethyan ostracod fauna from central Crete (Greece).Geobios, 40, 339–349.

Cosentino, D., Darbas, G., Gliozzi, E., Grossi, F.,Gurbuz, K. & Nazik, A. 2010a. How did the Mes-sinian salinity crisis impact the Adana Basin? 7thInternational Symposium on Eastern MediterraneanGeology, Adana, Turkey, 18–22 October 2010. AbstractBook, 145.

Cosentino, D., Darbas, G. & Gurbuz, K. 2010b. TheMessinian salinity crisis in the marginal basins ofthe peri-Mediterranean orogenic systems: examplesfrom the central Apennines (Italy) and the AdanaBasin (Turkey). Geophysical Research Abstracts,12, EGU2010-2462, 2010. EGU General Assembly2010.

Cosentino, D., Bertini, A. et al. 2012a. Orbitally-forcedpalaeoenvironmental and palaeoclimate changes inthe late post-evaporitic Messinian of the central Med-iterranean Basin. Geological Society of America Bulle-tin, 124, http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/B30462.1

Cosentino, D., Schildgen, T. F. et al. 2012b. LateMiocene surface uplift of the southern margin of theCentral Anatolian plateau, Central Taurides, Turkey.Geological Society of America Bulletin, 124133–145; http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/B30466.1

Costa, G. P., Colalongo, M. L., De Giuli, C., Mara-

bini, S., Masini, F., Torre, D. & Vai, G. B. 1986.Latest Messinian vertebrate fauna preserved in aPaleokarst-neptunian dike setting. Le grotte d’Italia,12, 221–235.

Crescenti, U., Biondi, R., Raffi, I. & Rusciadelli, G.2002. The S. Nicolao section (Montagna dellaMaiella): a reference section for the Miocene–Plio-cene boundary in the Abruzzi area. Bollettino dellaSocieta Geologica Italiana, 1, 509–516.

Darbas, G. & Nazik, A. 2010. Micropaleontology andpaleoecology of the Neogene sediments in the AdanaBasin (South of Turkey). Journal of Asian EarthSciences, 39, 136–147.

DePaolo, D. J. & Ingram, B. L. 1985. High-resolutionstratigraphy with strontium isotopes. Science, 227,938–941.

Di Stefano, A. & Sturiale, G. 2010. Refinements of cal-careous nannofossil biostratigraphy at the Miocene/Pliocene Boundary in the Mediterranean region.Geobios, 43, 5–20.

Di Stefano, E., Sprovieri, R. & Scarantino, S. 1996.Chronology of biostratigraphic events at the base ofthe Pliocene. Paleopelagos, 6, 401–414.

Di Stefano, E., Cita, M. B., Spezzaferri, S. & Spro-

vieri, R. 1999. The Messinian–Zanclean PissouriSection (Cyprus, eastern Mediterranean). Memoriedella Societa Geologica Italiana, 118, 133–144.

Driever, B. W. M. 1988. Calcareous nannofossil biostra-tigraphy and paleoen- vironmental interpretation of theMediterranean Pliocene. Utrecht MicropalaeontologyBulletin, 36, 1–245.

Duggen, S., Hoernie, K., Van den Bogaard, P., Rupke,L. & Morgan, J. P. 2003. Deep roots of the Messiniansalinity crisis. Nature, 422, 602–606.

Escutia, C. & Maldonado, A. 1992. Palaeogeographicimplications of the Messinian surface in the Valenciatrough, north-western Mediterranean Sea. Tectonophy-sics, 203, 263–284.

Farrell, J. W., Clemes, S. C. & Gromet, L. P. 1995.Improved chronostratigraphic reference curve of LateNeogene seawater Sr–87/Sr–86. Geology, 23, 403–406.

Flecker, R. & Ellam, R. M. 1999. Distinguishing cli-matic and tectonic signals in the sedimentary succes-sion of marginal basins using Sr isotopes: an examplefrom the Messinian salinity crisis, Eastern Mediterra-nean. Journal of the Geological Society, London,156, 847–854.

Flecker, R. & Ellam, R. M. 2006. Identifying LateMiocene episodes of connection and isolation in theMediterranean–Paratethyan realm using Sr isotopes.Sedimentary Geology, 188–189, 189–203.

Fornaciari, E., Di Stefano, A., Rio, D. & Negri, A.1996. Middle Miocene quantitative calcareous nanno-fossil biostratigraphy in the Mediterranean region.Micropaleontology, 42, 137–63.

Gao, G., Dworkin, S. I., Land, L. S. & Elmore, R. D.1996. Geochemistry of Late Ordovician Viola Lime-stone, Oklahoma: implications for marine carbonatemineralogy and isotopic compositions. Journal ofGeology, 104, 359–367.

Gennari, R., Iaccarino, S. M. et al. 2008. The Messi-nian–Zanclean boundary in the Northern Apennine.Stratigraphy, 5, 309–325.

Gliozzi, E., Ceci, M. E., Grossi, F. & Ligios, S. 2007.Parathethyan ostracod immigrants in Italy during LateMiocene. Geobios, 40, 325–337.

Gliozzi, E., Cosentino, D., Darbas, G., Grossi, F.,Gurbuz, K. & Nazik, A. 2010. Late Messinian ostra-cod biozonation: stratigraphical constraints for thebase of the Loxoconcha mulleri Zone derived fromcentral Apennine (Italy) and Adana Basin (southernTurkey) successions. 7th International Symposiumon Eastern Mediterranean Geology, Adana, Turkey,18–22 October 2010. Abstract Book, 141.

Glover, P. G. 1995. Plio-Quaternary sediments and neo-tectonics of the Isparta angle, SW Turkey. PhD thesis,Edinburg University (unpublished).

Govers, R. 2009. Choking the Mediterranean to dehy-dration: the Messinian salinity crisis. Geology, 37,167–170.

ZANCLEAN FLOODING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J. G. & Smith, A. G. 2004. AGeologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 610.

Griffin, D. L. 2002. Aridity and humidity: two aspectsof the late Miocene climate of North Africa and theMediterranean. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology, 182, 65–91.

Grossi, F. & Gennari, R. 2008. Palaeoenvironmentalreconstruction across the Messinian/Zanclean bound-ary by means of ostracods and foraminifers: theMontepetra borehole (northern Apennine, Italy). AttiMuseo Civico di Storia Naturale, Trieste, 53 (suppl.),67–88.

Grossi, F., Cosentino, D. & Gliozzi, E. 2008. Palaeoen-vironmental recostruction of the late MessinianLago–Mare successions in central and easternMediterranean using ostracod assemblages. Bollettinodella Societa Paleontologica Italiana, 47, 131–146.

Grossi, F., Gliozzi, E. & Cosentino, D. 2011. Parateth-yan ostracod immigrants mark the biostratigraphy ofthe Messinian Salinity Crisis. Joannea Geologie undPalaontologie, 11, 66–68.

Guennoc, P., Gorini, C. & Mauffret, A. 2000. Histoiregeologique du Golfe du Lion et cartographie du riftoligo-Aquitanien et de la surface messinienne. Geolo-gie de la France, 3, 67–97.

Guernet, C. 2005. Ostracodes et stratigraphie du neogeneet du quaternarie mediterraneens. Revue de Micropa-leontologie, 48, 83–121.

Guerra-Merchan, A., Serrano, F., Garces, M., Gofas,S., Esu, D., Gliozzi, E. & Grossi, F. 2010. MessinianLago–Mare deposits near the Strait of Gibraltar(Malaga Basin, S Spain). Palaeogeography, Palaeocli-matology, Palaeoecology, 285, 264–276.

Guillemin, M. & Honzay, J. P. 1982. Le Neogene post-nappe et le Quaternaire du Rif nord-oriental (Maroc).Stratigraphie et tectonique des bassins de Melilla, duKert, de Boudinar et du piedmont des Kebdana.Notes et Memoires du Service Geologique du Maroc,314, 7–238.

Gurbuz, K. & Kelling, G. 1993. Provenance of Miocenesubmarine fans in the northern Adana Basin, southernTurkey: a test of discriminant function analysis. Geo-logical Journal, 28, 277–293.

Hilgen, F. J. 1987. Sedimentary rhithms and high-resolution chronostratigraphic correlations in the Med-iterranean Pliocene. Newsletter on Stratigraphy, 17,107–127.

Hilgen, F. J. 1991a. Astronomical calibration of Gaussto Matuyama sapropels in the Mediterranean andimplication for the geomagnetic polarity time scale.Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 104, 226–244.

Hilgen, F. J. 1991b. Extension of the astronomically cali-brated (polarity) time scale to the Miocene/Plioceneboundary. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 107,349–368.

Hodell, D. A. & Woodruff, F. 1994. Variations inthe strontium isotopic ratio of seawater during theMiocene: stratigraphic and geochemical implications.Paleoceanography, 9, 405–426.

Hodell, D. A., Curtis, J. H., Sierro, F. J. & Raymo,M. E. 2001. Correlation of late Miocene to early Plio-cene sequences between the Mediterranean and NorthAtlantic. Paleoceanography, 16, 164–178.

Hsu, K., Ryan, W. B. F. & Cita, M. B. 1973. LateMiocene desiccation of the Mediterranean. Nature,242, 240–244.

Husing, S. K., Zachariasse, W.-J. et al. 2009. Oligo-cene Miocene basin evolution in SE Anatolia,Turkey: constraints on the closure of the easternTethys gateway. Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications, 311, 107–132.

Iaccarino, S. & Bossio, A. 1999. Paleoenvironment ofuppermost Messinian sequences in the western Medi-terranean (Sites 974, 975, and 978). In: Zahn, R.,Comas, M. C. & Klaus, A. (eds) Proceedings of theOcean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, 161.Ocean Drilling Program, Texax A & M University,College Station, TX, 529–541.

Iaccarino, S., Castradori, D. et al. 1999a. TheMiocene–Pliocene boundary and the significance ofthe earliest Pliocene flooding in the Mediterranean.Memorie della Societa Geologica Italiana, 54, 109–131.

Iaccarino, S., Cita, M. B., Gaboardi, S. & Grappini,G. M. 1999b. High-Resolution biostratigraphy at theMiocene/Pliocene boundary in Holes 974B and975B, western Mediterranean. In: Zahn, R., Comas,M. C. & Klaus, A. (eds) Proceedings of the OceanDrilling Program, Scientific Results, 161. OceanDrilling Program, Texax A & M University, CollegeStation, TX, 197–221.

Iaccarino, S. M., Premoli Silva, I., , Biolz, M., Foresi,L. M., Lirer, F., Turco, E. & Petrizzo, M. R. 2007.Practical manual of Neogene Planktonic foraminifera.International School on Planktonic Foraminifera. VIcourse: Neogene. Perugia (Italy), February 19–232007, 1–181.

Isler, F. I., Aksu, A. E., Hall, J., Calon, T. J. & Yasar,D. 2005. Neogene development of the Antalya basin,eastern Mediterranean: an active forearc basin adjacentto arc junction. Marine Geology, 221, 299–330.

Jaffey, N. & Robertson, A. H. F. 2001. New sedimen-tological and structural data from the Ecemis FaultZone, southern Turkey: implications for its timingand offset and the Cenozoic tectonic escape of Anato-lia. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 158,367–378.

Jaffey, N. & Robertson, A. 2005. Non-marine sedimen-tation associated with Oligocene–Recent exhumationand uplift of the Central Taurus Mountains, S Turkey.Sedimentary Geology, 173, 53–89; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2004.11.025

Jorissen, F. J., Barmawidjaja, D. M., Puskaric, S. &Van der Zwaan, G. J. 1992. Vertical distribution ofbenthic foraminifera in the northem Adriatic Sea: therelation with the organic flux. Marine Micropaleontol-ogy, 19, 131–146.

Kaiho, K. 1994. Benthic foraminiferal dissolved-oxygenindex and dissolved-oxygen levels in the modernoceans. Geology, 22, 719–722.

Karig, D. E. & Kozlu, H. 1990. Late Paleogene–Neogene evolution of the triple junction region nearMaras, south-central Turkey. Journal of the GeologicalSociety, London, 147, 1023–1034.

Kastens, K. A. 1992. Did glacio-eustatic sea level droptrigger the Messinian salinity crisis? New evidencefrom ocean drilling program site 654 in the TyrrhenianSea. Paleoceanography, 7, 333–356.

P. CIPOLLARI ET AL.

Kelling, G., Gokcen, S. L., Floyd, P. A. & Gokcen, N.1987. Neogene tectonics and plate convergence in theeastern Mediterranean: new data from southernTurkey. Geology, 15, 425–429.

Kempler, D. 1994. An outline of northeastern Mediterra-nean tectonics in view of Cruise 5 of the AkademikNikolaj Strakhov. In: Krasheninnikov, V. A. &Hall, J. K. (eds) Geological Structure of the North-eastern Mediterranean (Cruise 5 of the researchvessel ‘Akademik Nikolaj Strakhov’). Historical Pro-duction Hall, Jerusalem, 396.

Kocyigit, A. & Beyhan, A. 1998. An intracontinentaltranscurrent structure: the Central Anatolian FaultZone, Turkey. Tectonophysics, 284, 317–336.

Kozlu, H. 1987. Structural development and stratigraphyof the Misis–Andirin region Proceedings of the 7thPetroleum Congress of Turkey. Turkish Associationof Petroleum Geologists, 104–116.

Krijgsman, W., Hilgen, F. J., Raffi, I., Sierro, F. J. &Wilson, D. S. 1999. Chronology, causes and pro-gression of the Messinian salinity crisis. Nature, 400,652–655.

Krijgsman, W., Gaboardi, S., Hilgen, F. J., Iaccarino,S., de Kaenel, E. & Van der Laan, E. 2004. Revisedastrochronology for the Ain el Beida section (AtlanticMorocco): no glacio-eustatic control for the onset ofthe Messinian Salinity Crisis. Stratigraphy, 1, 87–101.

Langereis, C. G. & Hilgen, F. J. 1991. The Capo Ros-sello composite: a Mediterranean and global referencesection for the Early to early Late Pliocene. Earth andPlanetary Science Letters, 104, 211–225.

Lofi, J., Deverchere, J. et al. 2011. Atlas of the Messi-nian Seismic Markers in the Mediterranean and BlackSeas. Commission for the Geological Map of theWorld/Memoire de la Societe geologique de France,n.s., 179, 72pp.

Lofi, J., Gorini, C., Berne, S., Clauzon, G., Dos Reis,A. T., Ryan, W. B. F. & Steckler, M. S. 2005. Ero-sional processes and paleo-environmental changes inthe western Gulf of Lions (SW France) during the Mes-sinian Salinity Crisis. Marine Geology, 217, 1–30.

Lourens, L. J., Antonarokou, A., Hilgen, F. J.,Van Hoof, A. A. M., Vergnaud-Grazzini, C. &Zachariasse, W. J. 1996. Evaluation of the Plio-Pleistocene astronomical timescale. Paleoceanogra-phy, 11, 391–413.

Lourens, L., Hilgen, F., Shackleton, N. J., Laskar, J.& Wilson, J. 2004. Appendix 2. Orbital tuning calibra-tions and conversions for the Neogene Period. In:Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J. G. & Smith, A. G. (eds)A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 469–471.

Maillard, A., Gorini, C., Mauffret, A., Sage, F., Lofi,J. & Gaullier, V. 2006. Offshore evidence of poly-phase erosion in the Valencia Basin (NorthwesternMediterranean): scenario for the Messinian SalinityCrisis. Sedimentary Geology, 188–189, 69–91.

Martin, E. E., Shackleton, N. J., Zachos, J. C. &Flower, B. P. 1999. Orbitally-tuned Sr isotope che-mostratigraphy for the late middle to late Miocene.Paleoceanography, 14, 74–83.

Martini, E. 1971. Standard Tertiary and Quaternary cal-careous nannoplankton zonation. In: Farinacci, A.(ed.) Proceedings of the second International

Conference (Roma 1970) of Planktonic Microfossils,2. Edizioni Tecno-scienza, Rome, 739–785.

McArthur, J. M. 1994. Recent trends in strontium isotopestratigraphy. Terra Nova, 6, 331–358.

McArthur, J. M., Howarth, R. J. & Bailey, T. R. 2001.Strontium isotope stratigraphy: LOWESS Version 3:Best fit to the marine Sr-isotope curve for 0–509 Maand accompanying look-up table for deriving numeri-cal age. Journal of Geology, 109, 155–170.

McArthur, J. M., Mutterlose, J., Price, G. D.,Rawson, P. F., Ruffell, A. & Thirlwall, M. 2004.Belemnites of Valanginian, Hauterivian and Barremianage: Sr isotope stratigraphy, composition (87Sr/86Sr,d13C, d18O, Na, Sr, Mg), and palaeo-oceanography.Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology,202, 253–272.

McArthur, J. M., Rio, D., Massari, F., Castratori, D.,Bailey, T. R., Thirlwall, M. & Houghton, S. 2006.A revised Pliocene record for marine 87Sr/86Sr usedto date an interglacial event recorded in the CockburnIsland Formation, Antarctic Peninsula. Palaeogeogra-phy Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 242, 126–136.

McCulloch, M. T. & De Deckker, P. 1989. Sr isotopeconstraints on the Mediterranean environment at theend of the Messinian salinity crisis. Nature, 342, 62–65.

McKenzie, J. A., Hodell, D. A., Mueller, P. A. &Muller, D. W. 1988. Application of strontium iso-topes to late Miocene–early Pliocene stratigraphy.Geology, 16, 1022–1025.

Meulenkamp, J. 1979. Field guide to the Neogene ofCrete. Publication of the Department of Geology andPaleontology. University of Athens, Athens, A 32.

Nazik, A. 2004. Planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphyof the Neogene sequence in the Adana Basin,Turkey, and its correlation with standard biozones.Geological Magazine, 141, 379–387.

Nazik, A. & Gurbuz, K. 1992. Planktonik foramin-iferal biostratigraphy of the Lower–Middle Mio-cene sequence of Karaisali–Catalan–Egner region(NW-Adana). Bulletin of the Geological Society ofTurkey, 5/1, 67–80 (in Turkish).

Norris, R. D., Corfield, R. M. & Cartlidge, J. E. 1993.Evolution of depth ecology in the planktic forami-nifera lineage Globorotalia (Fohsella). Geology, 21,975–978.

Norris, R. D., Corfield, R. M. & Cartlidge, J. E. 1994.Evolutionary ecology of Globorotalia (Globoconella)(planktic foraminifera). Marine Micropaleontology,23, 121–145.

Okada, H. & Bukry, D. 1980. Supplementary modifi-cation and introduction of code numbers to the low-latitude coccolith biostratigraphic zonation (Bukry,1973, 1975). Marine Micropaleontology, 5, 321–325.

Orszag-Sperber, F. 2006. Changing perspectives in theconcept of ‘Lago–Mare’ in Mediterranean LateMiocene evolution. Sedimentary Geology, 188–189,259–277.

Orszag-Sperber, F., Rouchy, J.-M. & Elion, P. 1989.The sedimentary expression of regional tectonicevents during the Miocene–Pliocene transition in thesouthern Cyprus basins. Geological Magazine, 126,291–299.

Oslick, J. S., Miller, K. G., Feigenson, M. D. &Wright, J. D. 1994. Oligocene–Miocene strontium

ZANCLEAN FLOODING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

isotopes: stratigraphic revisions and correlations to andinferred glacioeustatic record. Paleoceanography, 9,427–443.

Parker, F. L. 1958. Eastern Mediterranean foraminifera.Reports of the Swedish Deep Sea Expedition, III:Sediment cores from the Mediterranean and the RedSea, 4, 219.

Pierre, C., Caruso, A., Blanc-Valleron, M.-M.,Rouchy, J. M. & Orzsag-Sperber, F. 2006. Recon-struction of the paleoenvironmental changes aroundthe Miocene–Pliocene boundary along a West–Easttransect across the Mediterranean. SedimentaryGeology, 188–189, 319–340.

Poisson, A. 1977. Recherches Geologiques dans les Taur-ides Occidentales (Turquie). Doctorat d’Etat thesis,Universite de Paris-Sud, Orsay, France.

Poisson, A., Wernli, R., Sagular, E. K. & Temiz, H.2003. New data concerning the age of the Aksuthrust in the south of the Aksu valley, Isparta angle(SW Turkey): consequences for the Antalya basinand the eastern Mediterranean. Geological Journal,38, 311–327.

Poisson, A., Orszag-Sperber, F., Kosun, E., Bassetti,M. A., Muller, C., Wernli, R. & Rouchy, J. M.2011. The Late Cenozoic evolution of the Aksu basin(Isparta Angle; SW Turkey). New insights. Bulletinde la Societe Geologique de France, 182, 133–148.

Pujol, C. & Vergnaud-Grazzini, C. 1995. Distributionpattern of live planktic foraminifers as related toregional hydrography and productive systems of theMediterranean Sea. Marine Micropaleontology, 25,187–217.

Riding, R., Braga, J. C. & Martın, J. M. 1999. LateMiocene Mediterranean desiccation: topography andsignificance of the ‘Salinity Crisis’ erosion surfaceon-land in southeast Spain. Sedimentary Geology,123, 1–7.

Riforgiato, F., Foresi, L. M. et al. 2011. The Miocene/Pliocene boundary in the Mediterranean area: newinsights from a high-resolution micropalaeontologicaland cyclostratigraphical study (Cava Serredi section,Central Italy). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology, 305, 310–328.

Rio, D., Raffi, I. & Villa, G. 1990. Pliocene–Pleistocenecalcareous nannofossil distribution in the westernMediterranean. In: Kastens, K. A., Mascle, J. et al.(eds) Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program.Scientific Results, 107, Ocean Drilling Program,Texax A & M University, College Station, TX,513–533.

Robertson, A. H. F. 1998. Mesozoic–Tertiary tectonicevolution of the easternmost Mediterranean area: inte-gration of marine and land evidence. In: Robertson,A. H. F., Emeis, K.-C., Richter, C. & Camerlenghi,A. (eds) Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program.Scientific Results, 160, Ocean Drilling Program, TexaxA & M University, College Station, TX, 723–782.

Robertson, A. H. F. 2000. Mesozoic–Tertiary tectonic-sedimentary evolution of a South Tethyan oceanicbasin and its margins in Southern Turkey. Geolog-ical Society (London) Special Publications, 173,97–138.

Robertson, A., Unlugenc, U. C., inan, N. & Tasli, K.2004. The Misis–Andırın Complex: a Mid Tertiary

melange related to late-stage subduction of theSouthern Neotethys in S Turkey. Journal of AsianEarth Sciences, 22, 413–453.

Rouchy, J.-M. 1982. La genese des evaporites messi-niennes de Mediterrannee. Memoire Museum Nationald’Histoire Naturelle (Paris), Sciences de la Terre, 50,267pp.

Rouchy, J.-M., Orszag-Sperber, F., Blanc-Valleron,M. M., Pierre, C., Riviere, M., Combourieu-

Nebout, N. & Panayides, I. 2001. Paleoenvironmen-tal changes at the Messinian–Pliocene boundary inthe eastern Mediterranean (southern Cyprus basins):significance of the Messinian Lago–Mare. Sedimen-tary Geology, 145, 93–117.

Rouchy, J.-M., Pierre, C., Et-Touhami, M., Kerzazi,M., Caruso, A. & Blanc-Valleron, M.-M. 2003.Late Messinian to Early Pliocene paleoenvironmentalchanges in the Melilla Basin (NE Morocco) and theirrelation to Mediterranean evolution. SedimentaryGeology, 163, 1–27.

Rouchy, J.-M., Caruso, A., Pierre, C., Blanc-

Valleron, M. M. & Bassetti, M. A. 2007. The endof the Messinian salinity crissis: evidences from theChelif Basin (Algeria). Palaeogeography Palaeocli-matology Palaeoecology, 254, 386–417.

Roveri, M., Bassetti, M. A. & Ricci Lucchi, F. 2001.The Mediterranean Messinian salinity crisis: an Apen-nine foredeep perspective. Sedimentary Geology, 140,201–214.

Roveri, M., Bertini, A. et al. 2008a. A high-resolutionstratigraphic framework for the latest Messinian eventsin the Mediterranean area. Stratigraphy, 5, 323–342.

Roveri, M., Lugli, S., Manzi, V. & Schreiber, B. C.2008b. The Messinian Sicilian stratigraphy revisited:new insights for the Messinian Salinity Crisis. TerraNova, 20, 483–488.

Ryan, W. B. F. 1969. The Floor of the Mediterranean Sea.PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York, 236pp.

Sampalmieri, G., Iadanza, A., Cipollari, P., Cosen-

tino, D. & Lo Mastro, S. 2010. Palaeoenvironmentsof the Mediterranean Basin at the Messinian hypersa-line/hyposaline transition: evidence from naturalradioactivity and microfacies of post-evaporitic suc-cessions of the Adriatic sub-basin. Terra Nova, 22,239–250; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2010.00939

Schildgen, T. F., Cosentino, D., Bookhagen, B., Nie-

dermann, S., Yıldırım, C., Echtler, H. P. &Strecker, M. R. 2012a. Multi-phased uplift of thesouthern margin of the Central Anatolian plateau,Turkey: a record of tectonic and upper mantle pro-cesses. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 317–318, 85–95; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2011.12.003.

Schildgen, T. F., Cosentino, D. et al. 2012b. Surfaceexpression of Eastern Mediterranean slab dynamics:neogene topographic and structural evolution of theSW margin of the Central Anatolian Plateau, Turkey.Tectonics; http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011TC003021

Schmidt, G. C. 1961. Stratigraphic nomenclature for theAdana region petroleum district VII. PetroleumAdministration Bulletin, 6, 47–63.

Sengor, A. M. C., Gorur, N. & Saroglu, F. 1985.Strike–slip faulting and related basin formation in

P. CIPOLLARI ET AL.

zones of tectonic escape: Turkey as a case study.Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralo-gists, Special Publications, 37, 227–264.

Sgarrella, F., Sprovieri, R., Di Stefano, E. & Caruso,A. 1997. Paleoceanographic conditions at the base ofthe Pliocene in the Southern Mediterranean basins.Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia, 103,207–220.

Sgarrella, F., Sprovieri, R., Di Stefano, E., Caruso,A., Sprovieri, M. & Bonaduce, G. 1999. The CapoRossello bore-hole (Agrigento, Sicily): cyclostrati-graphic and paleoceanographic reconstructions fromquantitative analyses of the Zanclean foraminiferalassemblages. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stra-tigrafia, 105, 303–322.

Siesser, W. G. & de Kaenel, E. P. 1999. Neogene calcar-eous nannofossils: Western Mediterranean biostrati-graphy and paleoclimatology. In: Zahn, R., Comas,M. C. & Klaus, A. (eds) Proceedings of the OceanDrilling Program, Scientific Results, 161. Ocean Dril-ling Program, Texax A & M University, CollegeStation, TX, 223–237.

Soria, J. M., Caracuel, J. E., Yebenes, A., Fernandez, J.& Viseras, C. 2005. The stratigraphic record of theMessinian Salinity crisis in the northern margin of theBajo Segura Basin (SE Spain). Sedimentary Geology,179, 225–247.

Spezzaferri, S., Cita, M. B. & McKenzie, J. A. 1998.The Miocene–Pliocene boundary in the eastern Medi-terranea: results from ODP Leg 160, Sites 967 and 969.In: Robertson, A. H. F., Emeis, K. -C., Richter, C. &Camerlenghi, A. (eds) Proceedings of the OceanDrilling Program, Scientific Results, 160. Ocean Dril-ling Program, Texax A & M University, CollegeStation, TX, 9–28.

Staerker, T. S. 1998. Quantitative calcareous nannofossilbiostratigraphy of Pliocene and Pleistocene sedimentsfrom the Eratosthenes Seamount Region in theEastern Mediterranean. In: Robertson, A. H. F.,Emeis, K.-C., Richter, C. & Camerlenghi, A. (eds)Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, ScientificResults, 160. Ocean Drilling Program, Texax A & MUniversity, College Station, TX, 83–98.

Steuber, T., Korbar, T., Jelaska, V. & Gusic, I. 2005.Strontium-isotope stratigraphy of Upper Cretaceousplatform carbonates of the island of Brac (AdriaticSea, Croatia): implications for global correlation ofplatform evolution and biostratigraphy. CretaceousResearch, 26, 741–756.

Unlugenc, U. C. 1993. Controls on Cenozoic sedimen-tation, Adana Basin, Southern Turkey. Ph.D. thesis,University of Keele.

Unlugenc, U. C. & Demirkol, C. 1988. Stratigraphy ofKızıldag Yayla (Adana region). Geological Engineer-ing, 32–33, 17–25 (in Turkish).

Unlugenc, U. C., Kelling, G. & Demirkol, C. 1991.Aspects of basin evolution in the Neogene AdanaBasin, SE Turkey. In: International Earth Scien-tific Congress on Aegean Regions, Proceedings, 1,357–370.

Unlugenc, U. C., Demirkol, C. & Safak, U. 1993.Adana Baseni K-KD’sunda yeralan Karsantı Basenicokellerinin stratigrafik-sedimantolojik nitelikleri.

In: Proceedings of A. Suat Erk Jeoloji Sempozyumu.215–227 [in Turkish with English abstract].

Van Couvering, J. A,, Castratori, D., Cita, M. B.,Hilgen, F. J. & Rio, D. 2000. The base of the ZancleanStage and of the Pliocene Series. Episodes, 23, 179–187.

Van der Zwaan, G. J. 1982. Paleoecology of late MioceneMediterranean foraminifera. Utrecht Micropaleontol-ogy Bulletin, 25, 1–201.

Van Harten, D. 1990. The Neogene evolutionary radi-ation of Cyprideis Jones (Ostracoda: Crustacea) inthe Mediterranean area and the Paratethys. CourierForschung-Institut Senkenberg, 123, 191–198.

Violanti, D., Trenkwalder, S., Lozar, F. & Gallo,L. M. 2009. Micropaleontological analyses of theNarzole core: biostratigraphy and palaeoenvironmentof the late Messinian and early Zanclean of Piedmont(northwestern Italy). Bollettino della Societa Paleonto-logica Italiana, 48, 167–181.

Violanti, D., Dela Pierre, F., Trenkwalder, S.,Lozar, F., Clari, P., Irace, A. & D’Atri, A. 2011.Biostratigraphic and palaeoenvironmental analyses ofthe Messinian/Zanclean boundary and Zanclean suc-cession in the Moncucco quarry (Piedmont, northwes-tern Italy). Bulletin de la Societe Geologique deFrance, 182, 149–162.

Vismara-Schilling, A., Stradner, H., Cita, M. B. &Gaetani, M. 1978. Stratigraphic investigations onthe late Neogene of Corfou (Greece) with special refer-ence to the Miocene/Pliocene boundary and to its geo-dynamical significance. In: Catalano, R., Ruggieri,G. & Sprovieri, R. (eds) Messinian Evaporites in theMediterranean. Memorie della Societa GeologicaItaliana, 16, 279–318.

Weaver, P. P. E. & Bergsten, H. 1991. Assessing theaccuracy of fossil datum levels: globorotalia margari-tae Foraminiferidae, a Pliocene Test Case. Journal ofMicropaleontology, 9, 225–231.

Weijermars, R. 1988. Neogene tectonics in the WesternMediterranean may have caused the Messinian SalinityCrisis and an associated glacial event. Tectonophysics,148, 211–219; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/0040–1951(88)90129–1

Williams, G. D., Unlugenc, U. C., Kelling, G. &Demirkol, C. 1995. Tectonic controls on stratigraphicevolution of the Adana Basin, Turkey. Journal of theGeological Society, London, 152, 873–882.

Yalcın, N. M. & Gorur, N. 1984. Sedimentological evol-ution of the Adana Basin. In: Tekeli, O. & Goncuo-

glu, M. C. (eds) Proceedings of the InternationalSymposium on the Geology of the Taurus Belt,Ankara, 165–172.

Yetis, C. 1988. Reorganisation of the Tertiary stratigraphyin the Adana Basin, southern Turkey. Newsletters Stra-tigraphy, 20, 43–58.

Yetis, C. & Demirkol, C. 1986. Adana baseni batı kesimi-nin detay jeoloji etudu. MTA Report, 8037, 187,Ankara.

Zijderveld, J. D. A., Hilgen, F. J., Langereis, C. G.,Verhallen, P. J. J. M. & Zachariasse, W. J. 1991.Integrated magnetostratigraphy and biostratigraphy ofthe upper Pliocene–lower Pleistocene from theMonte Singa and Crotone area in Calabria (Italy).Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 107, 697–714.

ZANCLEAN FLOODING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN