Towards understanding paleosols in Southern Levantine eolianites: Integration of micromorphology, environmental magnetism and mineralogy

Abstract

The paper addresses the controversial question of the role of clay-sized dust in the formation of paleosols in coastal eolianites, Israel. At the Habonim type section, the pedocomplex dated by archaeology and luminescence to 45-135 ka ago shows at least three paleosols, not separated by non-soil sediments. The oldest reddish paleosol (apparently related to MIS 5) is magnetically enhanced, leached from carbonates, with signs of bioturbation and strongly aged clay coatings. The reddening is due to very fine, ~20 nm, poorly crystallized, superparamagnetic (SP) hematite, as determined by Mössbauer studies. In subsoil, lithorelics of eolianite are found. Over time, the soil surface aggraded due to accelerated fine dust accumulation alongside local slope wash. On younger materials formed magnetically depleted vertisols, dominated by smectite-type expandable paramagnetic clays. In thin sections, vertisols exhibit strong stipple-speckled and striated b-fabric due to shrink-swell processes, impregnative calcite nodules and Fe-Mn redistribution. The uppermost hydric vertisol shows the strongest expression of juxtaposed features of recurrent calcite and Fe precipitation. This paleosol developed on colluvial soil materials, as evidenced by mixing of clay coated and uncoated grains of quartz and calcite allochems. Mössbauer spectra show high amounts of Fe(III) incorporated in the clay structure, low amounts of SP goethite and absence of SP hematite. Whilst magnetic susceptibility drops in vertisols to minimal values, ferrimagnetic grain sizes increase. The latter along with differences in the Towards Understanding Paleosols in Southern LevantineEolianites: Integration of Micromorphology,

New perspectives on coastal landscape reconstruction during the Late Quaternary: A test case from central Israel

“…1b). The correlation is based on the lithological description, petro-sedimentological characteristics, accompanying features, and a stratigraphic position comparison of our new OSL ages with published ages (Gvirtzman et al, 1983(Gvirtzman et al, , 1998Engelmann et al, 2001;Frechen et al, 2001Frechen et al, , 2002Gvirtzman and Wieder, 2001;Neber, 2002;Porat et al, 2004;Tsatskin et al, 2009;Moshier et al, 2010;Mauz et al, 2013). This correlation suggests that the coastal lowlands are dominated by palaeosol units with little if any aeolianites, while the coastal ridge sections consist primarily of aeolianites interbedded by palaeosols.…”

“…In the Carmel coast this unit has a red-dark red colour, high MS values and higher silt and clay contents ( Fig. 3; Frechen et al, 2004;Tsatskin et al, 2009;Mauz et al, 2013). The ages of the unit correlate to similar dark red silty clayey palaeosols that formed on the northern coasts of Egypt and Tunisia (El-Asmar and Wood, 2000;Elmejdoub et al, 2011, who propose their connection with the wetter climate of Sapropel 3) (Fig.…”

“…Based on this age range, the stratigraphical position of the units (Gvirtzman et al, 1983) and features can be correlated with the Kfar Vitkin palaeosol (Gvirtzman et al, 1998;Frechen et al, 2004), which was found at elevations ranging from about + 8 mILSD to about − 70 mILSD ( Fig. 1b; Gvirtzman et al, 1998;Frechen et al, 2004;Tsatskin et al, 2009). There are differences between the two units, with F1 having lower silt and clay concentrations and lower MS values than the Kfar Vitkin palaeosol (Mauz et al, 2013).…”

“…The sedimentological characteristics of the Orange palaeosol, consisting of light orange sandy loam with hard calcareous cemented irregularly-shaped sand pebbles, the size and abundance of which decrease from the bottom to the top of the unit, were identified in the Hadera-Alexander lowland (Fig. 1c, d) and on the Carmel coast (Frechen et al, 2004;Tsatskin et al, 2009;Roskin et al, 2015). These characteristics suggest that the basal aeolianite surface (BU) partly weathered back to its parent material (C horizon).…”

“…There are differences between the two units, with F1 having lower silt and clay concentrations and lower MS values than the Kfar Vitkin palaeosol (Mauz et al, 2013). These sedimentological differences are proposed to be a result of relief differences and slope angle variations between the two areas, leading to lateral erosion of sediments in the sloping areas and re-deposition in the depression (Dan et al, 1968;Yaalon, 1997;Tsatskin et al, 2009).…”