A luminescence dating study of loess deposits from the Beglitsa section in the Sea of Azov, Russia

Significance of the Ukrainian loess-palaeosol sequences for Pleistocene climate reconstructions: rock magnetic, palaeosol and pollen proxies

“…The new advances in rock magnetic methodologies and analytical techniques expand our ability to obtain important information on palaeoenvironmental change, including reconstruction of past geomagnetic field variations and environmental parameters, and understanding the processes of loesspalaeosol magnetic properties formation. Palaeoclimatic studies of the key loess-palaeosol sequences in the Chinese Loess Plateau (CLP), Central Asia, Danube Basin and East European Plain [Heller, Liu, 1984;Kukla et al, 1988;Forster et al, 1994;Jordanova, Petersen, 1999;Evans, Heller, 2001Rousseau et al, 2001;Buggle et al, 2009;Fitzsimmons et al, 2012;Marković et al, 2015;Necula et al, 2015;Bakhmutov et al, 2017;Chen et al, 2018;Song et al, 2018;Sümegi et al, 2018;Költringer et al, 2020;Bradák et al, 2021;Laag et al, 2021 and many others] have shown that rock magnetic palaeoenvironmental proxies, primarily magnetic susceptibility (MS), display strong similarities and can be correlated with the marine oxygen-isotope stages (MIS) [Shackleton et al, 1990;Lisiecki, Raymo, 2005].…”

Revisiting Late Pleistocene Loess–Paleosol Sequences in the Azov Sea Region of Russia: Chronostratigraphy and Paleoenvironmental Record

“…Combined with OSL ages and MS variations, Chen et al (2018a, b) developed preliminary stratigraphic schemes for these two sections extending over the last full Glacial-Interglacial cycle (Supplementary Figure S1). However, this chronostratigraphy still needs to be further refined due to adopting several suboptimal ages that might exceed the upper limit of quartz OSL dating range and only individual MS proxy correlation.…”

“…Both sections have several visible paleosols intercalated by loess horizons (Figure 1). Detailed pedostratigraphic descriptions and main paleosol macro-and micromorphology features for the two sections are presented by Chen et al (2018a, b) and Panin et al (2018). Bulk samples were collected continuously at 2-cm intervals for the Beglitsa and 5-cm intervals for the Chumbur-Kosa from the top to the base of the section, respectively.…”

“…Therefore, previous research on LPS of the Azov Sea was mainly focused on paleosol identification and stratigraphic subdivision at individual sites based on faunal composition of small mammals from alluvial/marine deposits and overlying buried soils (Dodonov et al, 2000;Markova, 2005;Markova, 2007;Tesakov et al, 2007;Velichko et al, 2009b;Sotnikova and Titov, 2009). In addition, a common way to establish the age of LPS horizons is based on stratigraphic correlations with previously dated paleosols known from regions farther north on the East European Plain (Dlussky, 2007;Chen et al, 2018a;Sycheva et al, 2020), or via patterns in the mineral magnetic characteristics of the LPS in the Black Sea and Azov Sea region (Dodonov et al, 2006;Velichko et al, 2009b;Panin et al, 2018). The latter approach of using magnetic variation in stratigraphic correlation is also widely applied elsewhere in Europe, such as the Danube Basin region (Buggle et al, 2009;Fitzsimmons et al, 2012;Marković et al, 2015;Sümegi et al, 2018) and the East European Plain (Rutter et al, 2003;Velichko et al, 2006;Hlavatskyi and Bakhmutov, 2020).…”

“…Supported by additional chronological approaches such as radiocarbon and luminescence dating, the record of alternation between loess and paleosol, clearly represented by multiple proxy variations including physical and geochemical parameters, allows for direct inter-section correlations from the Central Russian Upland to the Black/Azov Sea region. For instance, Chen et al (2018a, b) applied optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating combined with magnetic susceptibility (MS) variations to develop a preliminary stratigraphic framework on two sections of the Azov Sea.…”