4.6 Review

Fluvial sequences as evidence for landscape and climatic evolution in the Late Cenozoic: A synthesis of data from IGCP 518

Journal

GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE
Volume 68, Issue 4, Pages 237-253

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2009.02.009

Keywords

Late Cenozoic; Miocene; Pliocene; Pleistocene; uplift; fluvial sequences; IGCP 518

Funding

  1. Royal Society
  2. Geological Society, London

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This editorial synthesis introduces a collection of papers derived from International Geoscience Programme (IGCP) Project 518, entitled 'Fluvial Sequences as Evidence for Landscape and Climatic Evolution in the Late Cenozoic'. Building on information collected during an earlier project (IGCP 449: 'Global Correlation of Late Cenozoic Fluvial Deposits'), this has examined the data accumulated on fluvial records, particularly river terrace sequences, for patterns that contribute to the interpretation of Late Cenozoic landscape and climatic evolution. This introductory paper reviews the baseline evidence, noting that there are patterns (from terrace sequences in different regions) of differing amounts of fluvial incision, indicating differing uplift rates, that appear to be related to crustal province. There seems to be no general role for plate tectonics; instead the patterns are of regional uplift, probably an isostatic response to erosion, enhanced by positive feedback effects, arguably due to lower-crustal flow. As well as depocentres, which are subsiding due to loading by accumulating sediment, cratonic areas are also exceptions to the rule of widespread uplift; these show minimal Late Cenozoic uplift, presumably because they lack mobile lower crust. The ten papers that follow are reviewed briefly in this context, these being contributions concerning Turkey, the Black Sea margin of Ukraine, Morocco (x2), the Czech Republic, Britain (x2), the Netherlands, New Zealand, and China. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available