2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.tecto.2013.02.039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Middle Pleistocene to Holocene fluvial terrace development and uplift-driven valley incision in the SE Carpathians, Romania

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
1
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
13
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on Danube incision they found a considerable increase of uplift from ∼0-0.50 mm/y from ∼3 Ma to ∼140 ka, and uplift rates of ∼0.2 mm/yr since ∼140 ka. Although the latter rate of uplift is clearly less than our calculated uplift rate of ∼0.73 mm/yr for the past 60 ka, their comparison with other Carpathian settings shows values up to 2.2 mm/yr in that approximate time range (e.g., in the east Carpathians [Necea et al, 2013]), confirming a remarkable, widely distributed increase of uplift rates in the last 60 ka (figure 9 and references in Ruszikczay-Rüdiger et al, 2020). In addition, the latter authors provide an extensive overview of European uplift rates which illustrate mountain uplift and river incision rates that are quite comparable to the value we calculated at Petrovaradin for the past 60 ka (Ruszikczay-Rüdiger et al, 2020).…”
Section: Tectonic Uplift and Terrace Dissectioncontrasting
confidence: 69%
“…Based on Danube incision they found a considerable increase of uplift from ∼0-0.50 mm/y from ∼3 Ma to ∼140 ka, and uplift rates of ∼0.2 mm/yr since ∼140 ka. Although the latter rate of uplift is clearly less than our calculated uplift rate of ∼0.73 mm/yr for the past 60 ka, their comparison with other Carpathian settings shows values up to 2.2 mm/yr in that approximate time range (e.g., in the east Carpathians [Necea et al, 2013]), confirming a remarkable, widely distributed increase of uplift rates in the last 60 ka (figure 9 and references in Ruszikczay-Rüdiger et al, 2020). In addition, the latter authors provide an extensive overview of European uplift rates which illustrate mountain uplift and river incision rates that are quite comparable to the value we calculated at Petrovaradin for the past 60 ka (Ruszikczay-Rüdiger et al, 2020).…”
Section: Tectonic Uplift and Terrace Dissectioncontrasting
confidence: 69%
“…These sedimentary cascades are also influenced by complicated local tectonics (Matenco et al, 2016;Krézsek and Olariu, 2021). The strong tectonic subsidence in the Lower Danube area, that comprises several km thick Quaternary marine to brackish, lacustrine, and fluvial deposits (Matenco and Andriessen, 2013;Matenco et al, 2016;Krézsek and Olariu, 2021) coupled with uplifting in the Carpathian Bending area (Necea et al, 2013;Krézsek and Olariu, 2021) considerably influence the riverine morphocharacteristics and sediment yield. Thus, the exposed large valley plains act as deflation areas within and in the foreland of the Carpathian Bending area (Jipa, 2014).…”
Section: Possible Sedimentary Pathways Of the Lower Danube Loessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a physiographic feature, its continued existence as a sediment trap is aided by the barrier of the Carpathian range. The Carpathians were tectonically active through most of the Miocene (Kováč et al 2017), while tectonic activity in the southern edge of the East Carpathians continued into the Pliocene (Matenco et al 2003;Necea et al 2013). Due to the Carpathian uplift, the Pannonian Basin was isolated from the Eastern Paratethys around 12.6 Ma.…”
Section: Tectonic and Geologic Settingmentioning
confidence: 99%