Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T11:22:43.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The expression of the Hangenberg Event (latest Devonian) in a relatively shallow-marine succession (Pomeranian Basin, Poland): the results of a multi-proxy investigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2014

HANNA MATYJA*
Affiliation:
Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Rakowiecka Str. 4, 00-975 Warszawa, Poland
KATARZYNA SOBIEŃ
Affiliation:
Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, Rakowiecka Str. 4, 00-975 Warszawa, Poland
LESZEK MARYNOWSKI
Affiliation:
Faculty of Earth Sciences, University of Silesia, Będzińska Str. 60, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland
MARZENA STEMPIEŃ-SAŁEK
Affiliation:
Faculty of Oceanography and Geography, University of Gdańsk, Marszałka Piłsudzkiego Str. 46, 81-378 Gdynia, Poland
KRZYSZTOF MAŁKOWSKI
Affiliation:
Institute of Palaeobiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Twarda Str. 51/55, 00-818 Warszawa, Poland
*
†Author for correspondence: hanna.matyja@pgi.gov.pl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The uppermost Famennian – lowermost Tournaisian interval has been analysed in detail using biostratigraphy, sedimentology, magnetic susceptibility and geochemistry in a reference section of the relatively shallow carbonate ramp environment within the Pomeranian Basin. High-resolution biostratigraphic study, based on miospores, allows recognition of the standard western European lepidophyta–nitidus (LN) and verrucosus–incohatus (VI) zones, as well as the Convolutispora major Zone, a local Pomeranian equivalent of the European standard hibernicus–distinctus (HD) Zone. The sedimentary succession and specific phenomena recognized close to the Devonian/Carboniferous boundary, such as fluctuations in water column euxinia, wildfire evidence, relative sea-level changes and perturbations of the carbon cycle reflected by positive carbon excursions, display a pattern partly similar to that observed in many areas in Europe during the Hangenberg Event, although the Hangenberg Black Shale horizon is not developed here. These important microscale environmental perturbations were observed not only within the Famennian LN miospore Zone but in a wide interval between the LN and the lowermost local Convolutispora major miospore zones ( = lower part of HD standard miospore Zone). It is still uncertain whether the recognized event(s) were connected solely with the Hangenberg Event, which was possibly complex and multi-phased as is sometimes suggested, or whether they represent a succession of regionally limited, post-Hangenberg events. This question needs to be further investigated on broader stratigraphic and geographical scales.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 
Figure 0

Figure 1. Simplified sub-Pennsylvanian geological map of northwestern Poland (Pomerania area) with location of selected boreholes; modified after Matyja (2006). TESZ – Trans-European Suture Zone.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Lithofacies pattern for the latest Famennian – earliest Tournaisian (a) and early Tournaisian (b) in northwestern Poland; modified after Matyja (2008, 2009).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Microfacies across the Devonian/Carboniferous boundary interval in the Chmielno–1 borehole section – an example of a monotonous succession where the Hangenberg Black Shale horizon is not developed; constituent grains as well as rock fabrics allow recognition of grey marls (Ch 64, Ch 58, Ch 53, Ch 52, Ch 51, Ch 49) and more or less marly limestones (Ch 63, Ch 50) with relatively high amounts of silt and organic matter.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Correlation of the miospore zonal schemes for the uppermost Famennian and lower Tournaisian with the standard conodont and entomozoid zonations.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Distribution of the most important miospores, individual conodonts and entomozoacean ostracods in the uppermost Famennian – lower Tournaisian part of the Chmielno–1 succession; solid bars indicate certain ranges of species; empty bars indicate uncertain ranges of species, probably redeposited from older deposits.

Figure 5

Table 1. Distribution and frequency of miospore species; probable reworked miospores are asterisked

Figure 6

Figure 6. Characteristic miospores of the Retispora lepidophyta – Verrucosisporites nitidus (LN) Zone; Chmielno–1 section; scale bar 10 μm. (a, c) Vallatisporites pusillites (Kedo) Dolby & Neves, 1970; (a) sample Ch 62, (c) Ch 67. (b) Grandispora lupata Turnau, 1975; sample Ch 67. (d) Auroraspora macra Sullivan, 1986; sample Ch 67. (e) Vallatisporites verrucosus Hacquebard, 1957; sample Ch 68. (f) Tumulispora rarituberculata (Luber) Potonié, 1966; sample Ch 68. (g) Grandispora famenensis (Naumova) Streel, 1974; sample Ch 67. (h) Grandispora uncata (Hacquebard) Playford, 1971; sample Ch 68. (i) Raistrickia ramiformis (Kedo) Avchimovitch & Higgs in Avchimovitch et al.1988; sample Ch 68. (j) Retispora macroreticulata (Kedo) Byvsheva, 1985; sample Ch 62. (k) Umbonatisporites abstrusus (Playford) Clayton, 1971; sample Ch 62. (l) Diducites cf. poljessicus (Kedo) van Veen, 1981; sample Ch 67. (m) Tumulispora malevkensis (Kedo) Turnau, 1978; sample Ch 62. (n) Retispora lepidophyta (Kedo) Playford, 1976; sample Ch 62. (o) Indotriradites explanatus (Luber) Playford, 1991; sample Ch 62. (p) Grandispora echinata Hacquebard, 1957; sample Ch 62. (q) Lophozonotriletes excisus Naumova, 1953; sample Ch 65. (r) Raistrickia corynoges Sullivan, 1986; sample Ch 62.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Characteristic miospores of the Retispora lepidophyta – Verrucosisporites nitidus (LN) Zone; scale bar 10 μm. (a) Vallatisporites sp., abnormal specimen with bulbous appendages with thin echinae spines (see black arrow); sample Ch 62. (b) Corbulispora cancellata (Waltz) Bharadwaj & Venkatachala, 1961; sample Ch 60. (c) Umbonatisporites abstrusus (Playford) Clayton, 1971; sample Ch 61. (d) Vallatisporites pusillites (Kedo) Dolby & Neves, 1970; sample Ch 59. (e) Verrucosisporites nitidus Playford, 1964; sample Ch 57. (f, l) Grandispora lupata Turnau, 1975; (f) sample Ch 60, (l) Ch 53. (g) Tumulispora malevkensis (Kedo) Turnau, 1978; sample Ch 61. (h) Retispora lepidophyta (Kedo) Playford, 1976; sample Ch 61. (i) Grandispora cornuta Higgs, 1975; sample Ch 61. (j) Auroraspora hyalina (Naumova) Streel, 1974; sample Ch 59. (k) Indotriradites explanatus (Luber) Playford, 1991; sample Ch 59. (m, n) Retusotriletes incohatus Sullivan, 1964; (m) sample 53, (n) Ch 52. (o) Vallatisporites verrucosus Hacquebard, 1957; sample Ch 52. (p) Bascaudaspora mischkinansis Byvscheva (Byvscheva); sample Ch 53. (q) Grandispora uncata (Hacquebard) Playford, 1971; sample Ch 52. (r) Convolutispora mellita Hoffmeister, Staplin & Malloy, 1955; sample Ch 53.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Characteristic miospores of the Vallatisporites vallatus – Retusotriletes incohatus (VI) assemblage zone (a–f) and local Convolutispora major (Ma) Zone (g–s); scale bar 10 μm. (a) Tumulispora malevkensis (Kedo) Turnau, 1978; sample Ch 51. (b) Lophozonotriletes excisus Naumova, 1953; sample Ch 51. (c, d, j) Vallatisporites vallatus Hacquebard, 1957; (c) sample Ch 51, (d) Ch 49, (j) Ch 47. (e) Raistrickia corynoges Sullivan, 1986; sample Ch 51. (f) Grandispora cornuta Higgs, 1975; sample Ch 51. (g) Tumulispora obscura Staplin & Jansonius, 1964; sample Ch 43. (h, m) Cymbosporites acutus (Kedo) Byvscheva, 1985; (h) sample Ch 47, (m) Ch 42. (i, n) Grandispora lupata Turnau, 1975; (i) sample Ch 43, (n) Ch 42. (k) Vallatisporites pusillites (Kedo) Dolby & Neves, 1970; sample Ch 43. (l) Raistrickia variabilis Dolby & Neves, 1970; sample Ch 43. (o) Vallatisporites verrucosus Hacquebard, 1957; sample Ch 42. (p) Retusotriletes incohatus Sullivan, 1964; sample Ch 42. (q) Verrucosisporites nitidus (Naumova) Playford, 1964; sample Ch 42. (r) Convolutispora major (Kedo) Turnau, 1978; sample Ch 37.

Figure 9

Figure 9. SEM image of sample Ch 42 (Ma1 miospore Zone) with large pyrite framboidal spherules, probably being a result of organic matter transformation.

Figure 10

Figure 10. Correlation graph between magnetic susceptibility (MS) and some geochemical proxies: Al2O3 (diamonds), r = 0.98 and Th (crosses), r = 0.95. Two clusters of values illustrate the lack of gradual lithological changes along the section.

Figure 11

Table 2. Bulk geochemical data and basic molecular parameters

Figure 12

Table 3. Bulk carbon and oxygen isotope values

Figure 13

Figure 11. Distribution of rock magnetic properties, and carbon and oxygen isotope ratios across the uppermost Famennian – lower Tournaisian part of the section; MS – magnetic susceptibility; ARM – anhysteretic remnant magnetization; CC – carbonate content. (a) Details; note reverse correlation between MS and CC.

Figure 14

Figure 12. Composite plot of the Chmielno–1 section showing organic carbon (TOC), total sulphur (TS), carbonate content (CC) and pyrolytic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations.

Figure 15

Figure 13. Summed mass chromatograms for (a) m/z 178+192+202+226+228+252+276 showing the distribution of major PAHs in sample Ch 54, (b) m/z 133+134 showing distribution of aryl isoprenoids (numbers identify the individual carbon number of pseudohomologues) and short-chain diaryl isoprenoids in sample Ch 64 and (c) mass spectrum of C18 aryl isoprenoid. MePh – methylphenanthrenes; MeA – methylanthracenes. A DB-35MS column was used.

Figure 16

Table 4. Trace metal ratios and degree of pyritization (DOP) values estimated from the TOC–TS–Fe diagram (according to Dean & Arthur, 1989)

Figure 17

Figure 14. Rock magnetic properties across the Devonian–Carboniferous boundary interval. (a) Magnetic susceptibility drop at lower temperatures indicates paramagnetic mineral behaviour; (b) cross-plot between S-ratio and IRM. Values close to −1 indicate low coercive minerals (magnetite) dominating in the ferromagnetic spectrum.