2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2015.04.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A new contribution to the Late Quaternary tephrostratigraphy of the Mediterranean: Aegean Sea core LC21

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
117
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(122 citation statements)
references
References 82 publications
5
117
0
Order By: Relevance
“…According to the speleothem-based chronology proposed for core LC21, the Pantelleritic layer was dated at ca. 133.5 ± 2 ka (Grant et al, 2012;Satow et al, 2015). This would be slightly older (although statistically indistinguishable) compared to the age reported from the Unit P at Pantelleria (ca.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 65%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…According to the speleothem-based chronology proposed for core LC21, the Pantelleritic layer was dated at ca. 133.5 ± 2 ka (Grant et al, 2012;Satow et al, 2015). This would be slightly older (although statistically indistinguishable) compared to the age reported from the Unit P at Pantelleria (ca.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…3; Sprovieri et al, 2006;Tamburrino et al, 2012) this tephra layer (here correlated with ODP3 layer) corresponds to the first increase in the abundance of Globigerinoides ruber (a warm foraminifera taxa) after the end of MIS6. In core LC21 from the eastern Mediterranean, a pantelleritic tephra (Satow et al, 2015) was found at the beginning of the first decrease of G. ruber δ 18 O (Fig. 3).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Wacha and Frechen (2011) dated a tephra in Croatian loess to 139 ± 9 ka (above) and 145 ± 12 ka (below), which is consistent with the L2 tephra found at Stalać. Moreover, a tephra in Lake Ohrid with an 40 Ar/ 39 Ar-age of 133.5 ± 2 ka (Leicher et al, 2016;Satow et al, 2015) might correlate to this L2 tephra. Unfortunately, the glass shards from this layer were weathered, and consequently this tephra cannot be identified geochemically.…”
Section: Stratigraphical Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 88%