No abstract

The upper Viséan–Serpukhovian strata in the type region for the Serpukhovian Stage is an epeiric‐sea succession ca. 90 m in thickness. The predominantly Viséan Oka Group (comprising the Aleksin, Mikhailov, and Venev formations) is dominated by photozoan packstones with fluvial siliciclastic wedges developed from the west. The Lower Serpukhovian Zaborie Group is composed of the Tarusa and Gurovo formations. The latter is a new name for the shale‐dominated unit of Steshevian Substage age in the studied area. The Zaborie Group is composed of limestones and marls in its lower (Tarusa and basal Gurovo) part and black smectitic to grey palygorskitic shales in the main part of the Gurovo Formation. The Gurovo Formation is capped by a thin limestone with oncoids and a palygorskitic–calcretic palaeosol. The Upper Serpukhovian is composed of a thin (3–12 m) Protva Limestone heavily karstified during a mid‐Carboniferous lowstand. The succession shows a number of unusual sedimentary features, such as a lack of high‐energy facies, shallow‐subtidal marine sediments penetrated by Stigmaria, the inferred atidal to microtidal regime, and palustrine beds composed of saponitic marls. The succession contains many subaerial disconformities characterized by profiles ranging from undercoal solution horizons to palaeokarsts. Incised fluvial channels are reported at two stratigraphic levels to the west of the study area. The deepest incisions developed from the Kholm Disconformity (top of the Mikhailov Formation). This disconformity also exhibits the deepest palaeokarst profile and represents the major hiatus in the Oka–Zaborie succession. The new sea‐level curve presented herein shows two major cycles separated by the Kholm Unconformity at the Mikhailov/Venev boundary. The Lower Serpukhovian transgression moved the base‐level away from falling below the seafloor so that the section becomes conformable above the Forino Disconformity (lower Tarusa). The maximum deepening is interpreted to occur in the lower dark‐shale part of the Gurovo Formation. The base of the Serpukhovian Stage is defined by FADs of the conodont Lochriea ziegleri and the foraminifer Janischewskina delicata in the middle of the sequence VN2. The Aleksinian–Mikhailovian interval is provisionally correlated with the Asbian (Lower–Middle Warnantian) in Western Europe. Based on FODs of Janischewskina typica and first representatives of Climacammina, the Venevian is correlated with the Brigantian in Western Europe. The Tarusian–Protvian interval contains diverse fusulinid and conodont assemblages, but few forms suitable for international correlation. FADs of the zonal conodont species Adetognathus unicornis and Gnathodus bollandensis at several metres above the Protvian base suggest correlation of the entire Zaborie Group and may be the basal Protvian to the Pendleian. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

This case study provides insight into magnetic susceptibility (MS), iron and bulk-sample geochemistry patterns in an Upper Mississippian siliciclastic–carbonate cyclothemic section Polotnyanyi Zavod (Moscow Basin, Russia), with many subaerial disconformities and Stigmaria impressions. The goal of this paper is to test whether the MS and geochemical signals in this section are linked to any specific geological processes. The section is dominated by limestones but contains several siliciclastic units and numerous subaerial disconformities. This lithological heterogeneity is vividly expressed on MS and bulk geochemical logs. MS shows the strongest positive correlation to bulk iron and also strong correlations to Al2O3, MgO, K2O and TiO2, pointing to close association of iron with siliciclastic fines rich in detrital mica and clays. The correlation of iron and MS to siliciclastic fines or subaerial exposure horizons is not straightforward. The highest ferruginization with most intense MS excursions occurs in basal sooty silts and shales of three main siliciclastic units of the studied section. In addition, many other thin pedogenized shales are ferruginized and show a relative high magnetism, but some ferruginized shales are not palaeosols.

No abstract

No abstract

Large datasets increasingly provide critical insights into crustal and surface processes on Earth. These data come in the form of published and contributed observations, which often include associated metadata. Even in the best-case scenario of a carefully curated dataset, it may be nontrivial to extract meaningful analyses from such compilations, and choices made with respect to filtering, resampling, and averaging can affect the resulting trends and any interpretation(s) thereof. As a result, a thorough understanding of how to digest, process, and analyze large data compilations is required. Here, we present a generalizable workflow developed using the Sedimentary Geochemistry and Paleoenvironments Project database. We demonstrate the effects of filtering and weighted resampling on Al 2 O 3 and U contents, two representative geochemical components of interest in sedimentary geochemistry (one major and one trace element, respectively). Through our analyses, we highlight several methodological challenges in a "bigger data" approach to Earth science. We suggest that, with slight modifications to our workflow, researchers can confidently use large collections of observations to gain new insights into processes that have shaped Earth's crustal and surface environments. 1 Supplemental Material: table of valid lithologies; map depicting sample locations; crossplot illustrating analytical uncertainty; flowchart of the proposed workflow; histograms showing the effects of progressive filtering, the distribution of spatial and age scales, and proximity and probability values; and results of sensitivity tests.

No abstract