Abstract
The Cretaceous Normal Superchron (CNS) was first defined in the 1960s to explain the Cretaceous Quiet Zone in marine magnetic anomaly profiles, which includes no or fewer geomagnetic reversals. This ∼37 million years period is considered the most unique and extreme geomagnetic feature for the last 160 Myr. Superchrons may be caused by the geodynamo operating at peak efficiency with a unique heat flux at the core-mantle boundary (CMB). Previous studies suggest that the CNS is a sign of the connection between Earth’s interior and surface. During the CNS, the geomagnetic intensity may have fluctuated significantly, and the average may have changed with time, and the paleosecular variations had unique features. The warm climate around the CNS may have been caused by volcanic activity associated with active mantle convection. Such mantle convection increases heat flux at the CMB during the CNS, but geodynamo simulations predict small heat flux, which are inconsistent. This discrepancy may be resolved by the growth and collapse of a superplume or by an increase and decrease in the subduction flux.
Introduction
The Cretaceous Normal Superchron (CNS) is an irregular stable polarity period in which no or few geomagnetic reversals occurred, lasting from 120 to 83 million years ago (Ma) (e.g., Ogg, 2020). Marine magnetic anomaly (MMA) includes the Cretaceous Quiet Zone (KQZ), which is considered evidence for the absence of geomagnetic reversals, defined as superchron. Until now, the absence of magnetic stripes in the KQZ made it challenging to use them for plate reconstructions. In 2012, two time-markers (named Q1 and Q2) were discovered by deep-tow magnetic anomaly observations in the Atlantic Ocean and the Southwest Indian Ridge (). These possible time-markers are expected to be helpful for plate reconstructions during the CNS. Other superchrons during the Phanerozoic have also been actively discussed, of which the CNS is the most well-studied. The CNS is generally considered a consequence of the thermal effects of mantle activity on the outer core (e.g., McFadden and Merrill, 1984). Superchrons may result from the geodynamo operating at peak efficiency with a unique heat flux at the core-mantle boundary (CMB), as suggested by geodynamo numerical simulations and paleointensities estimated from single silicate crystals (Tarduno et al., 2006).
Its Discovery
From the 1960s, terrestrial paleomagnetic data and MMA began to reveal periods of no or fewer reversals. By summarizing published paleomagnetic measurements of igneous and sedimentary rocks at more than 35 sites in North America and elsewhere, Helsley and Steiner (1968) found that there was a period when normal magnetic polarity was dominant for at least 25 million years (Myr) in the Cretaceous. Between ∼150 Ma and ∼110 Ma, Larson and Chase (1972) revealed that there are reversal periods sandwiched between periods of normal polarity (KQZ and the Jurassic Quiet Zone, JQZ). In fact, during the JQZ, geomagnetic reversals were frequent and the geomagnetic intensity was weak, as shown by MMA (e.g., Tominaga et al., 2021) and the absolute paleomagnetic intensity (paleointensity) of volcanic rocks (e.g., Tauxe et al., 2013). Larson and Pitman (1972) pointed out that the CNS corresponded in time to the KQZ of previous studies (e.g., Helsley and Steiner, 1968), designating C34n as the KQZ.
Possible Short Events
Here, I introduce a short reversal event that may exist during the CNS. Ryan et al. (1978) summarized three events or clusters of brief reversed polarity during the CNS that have been reported from drill cores, particularly in deep-sea sediments: (1) Late Aptian Chron M″-1r″, referred to as the ISEA event (Tarduno, 1990); (2) the Chron M″-2r″ event group during the mid-Albian; and, (3) the Chron M″-3r″ event group in the late Albian. The details of these short events are enigmatic because they have not been resolved in surveys of coeval MMA (Ogg, 2020). The paleomagnetic directions of possible ISEA event have also been found from Chinese lavas (Rao and Rao, 1996; Zhu et al., 2004a; Shi et al., 2004). The name of the ISEA event comes from the name of a section of the Umbria Apennines in northern Italy (VandenBerg et al., 1978). Furthermore, a recent study reports multiple geomagnetic reversals during the CNS (Zhang et al., 2021). Using paleomagnetic direction and U-Pb ages, they conclude that samples from two sections of Laos, and other magnetostratigraphy from previous studies indicate that there are at least five global and two single reversals during the CNS. However, no reversals such as the ISEA event have been found from deep-tow observations of MMA around the Atlantic Ocean (). The altitude from the seafloor of deep-tow observations and the slow rate of seafloor spreading around the Atlantic Ocean may prevent the detection of such events shorter than 0.1 Myr ().
Even if we consider potential short geomagnetic reversal events, the geomagnetic reversal frequency during the CNS is likely to be significantly lower than in other periods (Figure 1A). For example, if 6 to 14 reversals occurred during the CNS (37.3 Myr, Ogg, 2020), a simple calculation gives a reversal frequency range of 0.16–0.37/Myr for the period. In , the reversal frequency appears to be mainly above 1/Myr for all ages except the CNS. Considering them, perhaps we should call the KQZ period the “Cretaceous Reversal Minimum” rather than the CNS.
FIGURE 1
Paleointensity Average and Variation
It has been investigated whether the paleointensity during the CNS is strong or weak because a strong geomagnetic intensity may have suppressed geomagnetic reversals (). However, while the geomagnetic reversal frequency during the CNS is relatively well understood from the geomagnetic polarity time scale (e.g., ), the paleointensity during the CNS remains ambiguous.
I summarize previous paleointensities during the CNS of submarine basaltic glass (SBG) (Pick and Tauxe, 1993; Selkin and Tauxe, 2000; Riisager et al., 2003; Tauxe and Staudigel, 2004; Tauxe, 2006; ), subaerial volcanic whole rocks (Thomas et al., 2000; Riisager et al., 2001; Tanaka and Kono, 2002; Zhu et al., 2002; Zhu et al., 2004a, 2004b; Zhao et al., 2004; Shi et al., 2005; Shcherbakova et al., 2007; Shcherbakova et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2008; Qin et al., 2011; Shcherbakova et al., 2011; Shcherbakova et al., 2012), baked contact (Shcherbakova et al., 2008; Shcherbakova et al., 2009), and gabbro (). Virtual (axial) dipole moments (V(A)DMs) in the CNS have been reported from 1.1 to 19.9 × 1022 Am2 (Figure 1B). The average of these paleointensities is 5.6 ± 3.2 × 1022 Am2 (140 sites), which is stronger than ∼4 × 1022 Am2 recently reported as reliable time-averaged V(A)DMs for other periods (Yamamoto and Tsunakawa, 2005; Yamazaki and Yamamoto, 2014; ; Yoshimura et al., 2020), and the median V(A)DM of 4.2 × 1022 Am2 for the past 160 million years (Tauxe et al., 2013). However, this average value is weaker than the paleointensity of granite (∼9 × 1022 Am2) (Tsunakawa et al., 2009; Kato et al., 2018), which average out paleosecular variations of paleointensity due to its slow cooling rate (e.g., ). The reported time-averaged dipole moments vary from study to study. Considering these results, perhaps the average geomagnetic intensity during the CNS varied with time. Besides, found quasi-cyclic paleointensity variations around 5.4 ± 2.0 × 1022 Am2. This paleointensity variability is consistent with the temporal changes in the amplitude of MMA during the CNS ().
On the other hand, absolute paleointensities estimated from single plagioclase crystals from the CNS show a different pattern. Two coincident strong paleomagnetic intensities have been estimated from two flood basalts that erupted in the CNS, 12.5 ± 1.4 × 1022 Am2 (Tarduno et al., 2001) and 12.7 ± 0.7 × 1022 Am2 (Tarduno et al., 2002). They concluded that the average geomagnetic field strength of the CNS was stronger than the present strength, and its variability was small based on the two studies. This feature is consistent with the geodynamo simulation (). If the strong average of the CNS is true, it could be caused by the large heat flux heterogeneity of the CMB with equatorial symmetry (Takahashi et al., 2008).
I propose that there is a possibility that the number of paleomagnetic units used for time-averaging is insufficient. Tauxe and Staudigel (2004) presented the minimum number as 25 sampling sites required to average the paleosecular variations (PSVs) of paleointensity. Based on this required number of paleointensities, the studies using single plagioclase crystals lack the number of paleointensities required for the average PSVs. A sufficient time span is also required to average out PSVs. Future studies should estimate a lot of paleointensities using single plagioclase crystals with a sufficient time span, and test whether time-averaged paleointensity during the CNS is strong or weak.
Paleosecular Variations
The primary characteristic of the CNS is the dearth of geomagnetic reversals. It is essential to investigate the PSVs during this period because it may have been a different style of PSVs compared to other periods when reversals are relatively common. The analysis of PSV is usually analyzed by collecting virtual geomagnetic poles from a large number of lava flows and using dispersion curves of the virtual geomagnetic poles, in which the angular dispersion of the poles is plotted against the paleolatitude of the samples. McFadden et al. (1991) reported that there are apparently large differences in the dispersion curves of virtual geomagnetic poles at different times of the mean geomagnetic reversal frequency over the past 195 million years. They found that the VGP scatter tends to be lower at low paleolatitudes during periods of low reversal frequency than during periods of high reversal frequency and that the scatter significantly increases with high paleolatitude in the former compared to the latter. In other words, during periods of low reversal frequency, the slope of the dispersion curve of the virtual geomagnetic pole is larger than during periods of high reversal frequency. However, it has been reported that the slope of the dispersion curve is significantly smaller than McFadden’s result based on more reliable research results (Tarduno et al., 2002; ; ).
Paleoenvironment
The mid-Cretaceous had a warm climate, with carbon dioxide concentrations of ∼1,000 ppm, more than twice the present-day levels (). The sea level of 160–85 Ma was the highest (>150 m) during the Phanerozoic (van der Meer et al., 2017). There was a temperate rainforest in Antarctica during the Turonian-Santonian period (92–83 Ma) (Klages et al., 2020). Why did the warm climate of the mid-Cretaceous occur? Lee et al. (2013) proposed the hypothesis that the Cretaceous to Paleogene was a period when the continental arc was dominant and that the mid-Cretaceous greenhouse Earth was caused by the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere due to the interaction of ancient carbonates and magma in the continents. proposed that the length of the Cretaceous continental rift may have been a driving force for carbon dioxide release and warming, based on reconstructions of the length of the continental rift over the past 200 Myr and numerical carbon cycle models. Both hypotheses may have contributed to the warming of the mid-Cretaceous. On the other hand, Lee et al. (2013) explained that Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs) would have to erupt every 1 Myr for LIPs to cause the Cretaceous global warming, which is based on the response time of CO2 withdrawal from the exogenic system (<1 Myr) and the typical duration of LIPs (<2 Myr). However, it has recently been found that there were some LIPs with long eruption durations that lasted for tens of millions of years during the CNS (; Jiang et al., 2021). In addition, Johansson et al. (2018) suggested that there is a link between the timing of LIPs eruptions around 90–50 Ma and the increase in atmospheric CO2. Therefore, it is possible that the activities of LIPs had an influence on the warm climate during the mid-Cretaceous.
Large Igneous Provinces
LIPs are massive volcanic complex formed by the eruption or intrusion of giant, mainly mafic magmas, which was not formed by the spreading or subduction of the ocean floor (). On the continent, it is often called a continental flood basalt, and on the ocean floor, it is called an oceanic plateau. At the time of the CNS, the eruption of LIPs was frequent (Figures 2A,B). This has been termed the “pulse” during the mid-Cretaceous by Larson (1995), and discussions of its relevance to the effects on the geomagnetic field through the CMB, as indicated by the occurrence of the CNS, have been continued (; ; Olson and Amit, 2015). Based on geochronological data, the LIPs known to have erupted during the CNS period include the Ontong-Java Plateau (Mahoney et al., 1993; Timm et al., 2011), the Kerguelen Plateau (; Jiang et al., 2021), Rajmahal, Bengal, Sylhet Traps (; Kent et al., 2002; Ray et al., 2005), the High Arctic LIP (), the Caribbean LIP (Serrano et al., 2011), Madagascan flood basalts (Storey et al., 1995; ), the Agulhas Plateau, the Northeast Georgia and Maud Rise (Parsiegla et al., 2008), and the Hess Rise (Pringle and Dalrymple, 1993). It is interesting to note that volcanism in China (Zhu et al., 2008), production of granite (Yokoyama et al., 2016), and kimberlites (Griffin et al., 2014) were active during the CNS. Besides, seamount volcanism was active in the Western Pacific during the Cretaceous of 115–60 Ma (Koppers et al., 2003). What they show is the fact that mantle convection was unusually active during the CNS. proposed that high subduction fluxes before the CNS caused the mantle return flow, which increased the activity of LIPs.
FIGURE 2
Discussion of the cause of the CNS
The cause of the CNS is an open question in earth science. The influence of mantle convection has long been considered as a cause of the CNS (McFadden and Merrill, 1984; Larson, 1991; Larson and Olson, 1991; Larson, 1995; ; ; Olson et al., 2010; ; Olson and Amit, 2015). During the CNS, there was a lot of volcanic activity and seafloor production. These activities imply vigorous mantle convection, which could have affected the outer core. The numerical geodynamo simulation predicts a minimum heat flux at the CMB during the CNS (Olson et al., 2010), while the mantle convection simulation predicts a maximum heat flux (Zhang and Zhong, 2011). This is a contradiction.
Changes in the CMB heat flux due to growth and collapse of the superplume were proposed as the cause of the CNS, which can resolve the above contradiction (Olson and Amit, 2015) (Figure 2C). When superplumes (they referred it as Large low-shear-velocity provinces, LLSVP) grow, the D″ layer is pulled down by superplumes and becomes thinner. Conversely, when superplumes collapse, the original shortage returns to the D″ layer and thickens it. The thicker the D″ layer, the harder it is for slabs to affect the outer core thermally, which reduces geomagnetic reversals. On the other hand, as it becomes thinner, the outer core becomes more strongly influenced by the slabs, and geomagnetic reversals increase. The change in the thickness of the D″ layer is predicted by viscose fluids experiments (Olson and Kincaid, 1991) and numerical thermochemical convection simulation (Li et al., 2018). When a superplume collapses, a hot plume is thought to be generated from its edge (Steinberger and Torsvik, 2012). Olson and Amit (2015) argued that it was a reasonable scenario because the time-lag (30–60 Myr) that the hot plume reaches the lithosphere and erupts LIPs is consistent with the time lag between the geomagnetic reversal frequency and the frequency of LIPs. Such correlation was also pointed out by . However, can the shape of the superplume (LLSVP) and D″ layer variable with time? Whether the shape of LLSVP is vertically variable or remains stable is still inconclusive ().
Another candidate for the cause of the CNS is the change in subduction rates (Figure 2D). Hounslow et al. (2018) found a 120 Myr time lag between the subduction flux and the geomagnetic reversal frequency. This time lag is intermediate between the seismologically expected long time lag for the subducted slab to reach the CMB from the surface (∼150–300 Ma) and the short time lag predicted by numerical mantle convection models (∼30–60 Ma), which may be real value. More recently, Williams et al. (2021) found that the two peaks of oceanic heat flow were roughly consistent with the onset of two superchrons (CNS and the Permian-Carboniferous Reversed Superchron), respectively. These results are consistent with Hounslow et al. (2018). In summary, the subduction flux may control the reversal frequency. This means that the occurrence of the CNS may be due to low subduction flux.
Why do subduction fluxes vary so widely and periodically on a scale of tens of millions of years? Based on the relationship between the subduction zone lengths and the convergence rates (Ruff and Kanamori, 1980), the long subduction zone would have accelerated the plate spreading rate since 180 Ma. Or, as an exotic idea, a true polar wander (TPW) might change the regime of mantle convection and affect its convection speed. In addition, when the spreading rate of the mid-ocean ridge becomes high like around the CNS, the density and temperature of the subducting plate are lower and hotter than in other periods. In the future, we will also have to consider the effect of this hot and low-density plate subduction on mantle convection. I think it is more likely that a relatively hot slab would reach the CMB but not cool it, which decreases the heat flux average at the CMB, which may also cause the CNS. The slab effect on the CMB must be tested by the slab-sinking model.
Summary
The small CMB heat flux would cause the CNS. The mantle convection was active during the CNS and may have affected the geomagnetic field and the Earth’s environment. Future studies need to elucidate the effects of active mantle convection on the CMB.
Statements
Author contributions
YY designed the research and prepared the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by R3QR Program (Qdai-jump Research Program) 01265, “Wakaba Challenge” of Kyushu University.
Acknowledgments
I appreciate Masakazu Fujii, Roi Granot, Chie Kato, Joseph Kirschvink, Hironao Matsumoto, Kyoko Okino, Masahiko Sato, and Toshitsugu Yamazaki for discussion. I thank Catherine Constable and Lisa Tauxe for providing data. I also thank Adam Sproson for English language editing. The manuscript was greatly improved by constructive comments from Peter Driscoll and the Associate Editor Yohan Guyodo.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AhnH.-S.KidaneT.YamamotoY.OtofujiY.-i. (2016). Low Geomagnetic Field Intensity in the Matuyama Chron: Palaeomagnetic Study of a Lava Sequence from Afar Depression, East Africa. Geophys. J. Int.204 (1), 127–146. 10.1093/gji/ggv303
2
AmitH.OlsonP. (2015). Lower Mantle Superplume Growth Excites Geomagnetic Reversals. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.414, 68–76. 10.1016/j.epsl.2015.01.013
3
BallmerM. D.SchmerrN. C.NakagawaT.RitsemaJ. (2015). Compositional Mantle Layering Revealed by Slab Stagnation at ∼1000-km Depth. Sci. Adv.1 (11), e1500815. 10.1126/sciadv.1500815
4
BigginA. J.SteinbergerB.AubertJ.SuttieN.HolmeR.TorsvikT. H.et al (2012). Possible Links between Long-Term Geomagnetic Variations and Whole-Mantle Convection Processes. Nat. Geosci5 (8), 526–533. 10.1038/ngeo1521
5
BigginA. J.ThomasD. N. (2003). Analysis of Long-Term Variations in the Geomagnetic Poloidal Field Intensity and Evaluation of Their Relationship with Global Geodynamics. Geophys. J. Int.152 (2), 392–415. 10.1046/j.1365-246x.2003.01849.x
6
BigginA. J.van HinsbergenD. J.LangereisC. G.StraathofG. B.DeenenM. H. (2008). Geomagnetic Secular Variation in the Cretaceous Normal Superchron and in the Jurassic. Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors169 (1-4), 3–19. 10.1016/j.pepi.2008.07.004
7
BonoR. K.TardunoJ. A.NimmoF.CottrellR. D. (2019). Young Inner Core Inferred from Ediacaran Ultra-low Geomagnetic Field Intensity. Nat. Geosci12 (2), 143–147. 10.1038/s41561-018-0288-0
8
BruneS.WilliamsS. E.MüllerR. D. (2017). Potential Links between continental Rifting, CO2 Degassing and Climate Change through Time. Nat. Geosci10 (12), 941–946. 10.1038/s41561-017-0003-6
9
CandeS. C.KentD. V. (1995). Revised Calibration of the Geomagnetic Polarity Timescale for the Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic. J. Geophys. Res.100 (B4), 6093–6095. 10.1029/94jb03098
10
CoffinM. F.EldholmO. (1994). Large Igneous Provinces: Crustal Structure, Dimensions, and External Consequences. Rev. Geophys.32 (1), 1–36. 10.1029/93rg02508
11
CoffinM. F.PringleM. S.DuncanR. A.GladczenkoT. P.StoreyM.MüllerR. D.et al (2002). Kerguelen Hotspot Magma Output since 130 Ma. J. Petrol.43 (7), 1121–1137. 10.1093/petrology/43.7.1121
12
ConstableC. (2000). On Rates of Occurrence of Geomagnetic Reversals. Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors118 (3-4), 181–193. 10.1016/s0031-9201(99)00139-9
13
CottrellR. D.TardunoJ. A. (2000). In Search of High‐Fidelity Geomagnetic Paleointensities: A Comparison of Single Plagioclase Crystal and Whole Rock Thellier‐Thellier Analyses. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth105, 23579–23594. 10.1029/2000JB900219
14
CourtillotV.OlsonP. (2007). Mantle Plumes Link Magnetic Superchrons to Phanerozoic Mass Depletion Events. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.260 (3-4), 495–504. 10.1016/j.epsl.2007.06.003
15
CoxA. (1968). Lengths of Geomagnetic Polarity Intervals. J. Geophys. Res.73 (10), 3247–3260. 10.1029/jb073i010p03247
16
CuccinielloC.MorraV.MellusoL.JourdanF. (2021). Constraints on Duration, Age and Migration of the Feeder Systems of the Madagascan Flood basalt Province from High-Precision 40Ar/39Ar Chronology. London: Geological SocietySpecial Publications, 518.
17
Di ChiaraA.TauxeL.StaudigelH.FlorindoF.ProttiM.YuY.et al (2021). Earth's Magnetic Field Strength and the Cretaceous Normal Superchron: New Data from Costa Rica. Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems22, e2020GC009605. 10.1029/2020gc009605
18
DockmanD. M.PearsonD. G.HeamanL. M.GibsonS. A.SarkarC. (2018). Timing and Origin of Magmatism in the Sverdrup Basin, Northern Canada-Implications for Lithospheric Evolution in the High Arctic Large Igneous Province (HALIP). Tectonophysics742-743, 50–65. 10.1016/j.tecto.2018.05.010
19
DoubrovineP. V.VeikkolainenT.PesonenL. J.PiispaE.OtsS.SmirnovA. V.et al (2019). Latitude Dependence of Geomagnetic Paleosecular Variation and its Relation to the Frequency of Magnetic Reversals: Observations from the Cretaceous and Jurassic. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.20 (3), 1240–1279. 10.1029/2018gc007863
20
DriscollP.OlsonP. (2011). Superchron Cycles Driven by Variable Core Heat Flow. Geophys. Res. Lett.38 (9), L09304. 10.1029/2011gl046808
21
DuncanR. A. (2002). A Time Frame for Construction of the Kerguelen Plateau and Broken Ridge. J. Pet.43 (7), 1109–1119. 10.1093/petrology/43.7.1109
22
EastM.MüllerR. D.WilliamsS.ZahirovicS.HeineC. (2020). Subduction History Reveals Cretaceous Slab Superflux as a Possible Cause for the Mid-cretaceous Plume Pulse and Superswell Events. Gondwana Res.79, 125–139. 10.1016/j.gr.2019.09.001
23
FosterG. L.RoyerD. L.LuntD. J. (2017). Future Climate Forcing Potentially without Precedent in the Last 420 Million Years. Nat. Commun.8 (1), 14845–14848. 10.1038/ncomms14845
24
GarneroE. J.McNamaraA. K.ShimS.-H. (2016). Continent-sized Anomalous Zones with Low Seismic Velocity at the Base of Earth's Mantle. Nat. Geosci9 (7), 481–489. 10.1038/ngeo2733
25
GlatzmaierG. A.CoeR. S.HongreL.RobertsP. H. (1999). The Role of the Earth's Mantle in Controlling the Frequency of Geomagnetic Reversals. Nature401 (6756), 885–890. 10.1038/44776
26
GranotR.DymentJ.GalletY. (2012). Geomagnetic Field Variability during the Cretaceous Normal Superchron. Nat. Geosci5 (3), 220–223. 10.1038/ngeo1404
27
GranotR.TauxeL.GeeJ. S.RonH. (2007). A View into the Cretaceous Geomagnetic Field from Analysis of Gabbros and Submarine Glasses. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.256 (1-2), 1–11. 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.12.028
28
GriffinW. L.BatumikeJ. M.GreauY.PearsonN. J.SheeS. R.O’ReillyS. Y. (2014). Emplacement Ages and Sources of Kimberlites and Related Rocks in Southern Africa: U–Pb Ages and Sr–Nd Isotopes of Groundmass Perovskite. Contrib. Mineralogy Pet.168 (1), 1–13. 10.1007/s00410-014-1032-4
29
HarlandW. B.ArmstrongR. L.CoxA. V.CraigL. E.SmithA. G.SmithD. G. (1990). A Geologic Time Scale 1989. Cambridge University Press.
30
HellerR.MerrillR. T.McFaddenP. L. (2002). The Variation of Intensity of Earth’s Magnetic Field with Time. Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors131 (3-4), 237–249. 10.1016/s0031-9201(02)00038-9
31
HelsleyC. E.SteinerM. B. (1968). Evidence for Long Intervals of normal Polarity during the Cretaceous Period. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.5, 325–332. 10.1016/s0012-821x(68)80060-3
32
HounslowM. W.DomeierM.BigginA. J. (2018). Subduction Flux Modulates the Geomagnetic Polarity Reversal Rate. Tectonophysics742-743, 34–49. 10.1016/j.tecto.2018.05.018
33
JiangQ.JourdanF.OlierookH. K. H.MerleR. E.WhittakerJ. M. (2021). Longest Continuously Erupting Large Igneous Province Driven by Plume-ridge Interaction. Geology49 (2), 206–210. 10.1130/g47850.1
34
JohanssonL.ZahirovicS.MüllerR. D. (2018). The Interplay between the Eruption and Weathering of Large Igneous Provinces and the Deep‐Time Carbon Cycle. Geophys. Res. Lett.45 (11), 5380–5389. 10.1029/2017gl076691
35
JuárezM. T.TauxeL.GeeJ. S.PickT. (1998). The Intensity of the Earth's Magnetic Field over the Past 160 Million Years. Nature394 (6696), 878–881. 10.1038/29746
36
KatoC.SatoM.YamamotoY.TsunakawaH.KirschvinkJ. L. (2018). Paleomagnetic Studies on Single Crystals Separated from the Middle Cretaceous Iritono Granite. Earth, Planets and Space70 (1), 1–19. 10.1186/s40623-018-0945-y
37
KentR. W.PringleM. S.MüllerR. D.SaundersA. D.GhoseN. C. (2002). 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology of the Rajmahal Basalts, India, and Their Relationship to the Kerguelen Plateau. J. Pet.43 (7), 1141–1153. 10.1093/petrology/43.7.1141
38
KlagesJ. P.SalzmannU.SalzmannU.BickertT.HillenbrandC.-D.GohlK.et al (2020). Temperate Rainforests Near the South Pole during Peak Cretaceous Warmth. Nature580 (7801), 81–86. 10.1038/s41586-020-2148-5
39
KoppersA. A.StaudigelH.PringleM. S.WijbransJ. R. (2003). Short‐lived and Discontinuous Intraplate Volcanism in the South Pacific: Hot Spots or Extensional Volcanism. Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems4 (10), 1089. 10.1029/2003gc000533
40
LarsonR. L.ChaseC. G. (1972). Late Mesozoic Evolution of the Western Pacific Ocean. Geol. Soc. America Bull.83 (12), 3627–3644. 10.1130/0016-7606(1972)83[3627:lmeotw]2.0.co;2
41
LarsonR. L. (1991). Geological Consequences of Superplumes. Geol19 (10), 963–966. 10.1130/0091-7613(1991)019<0963:gcos>2.3.co;2
42
LarsonR. L.OlsonP. (1991). Mantle Plumes Control Magnetic Reversal Frequency. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.107 (3-4), 437–447. 10.1016/0012-821x(91)90091-u
43
LarsonR. L.PitmanW. C.III (1972). World-wide Correlation of Mesozoic Magnetic Anomalies, and its Implications. Geol. Soc. America Bull.83 (12), 3645–3662. 10.1130/0016-7606(1972)83[3645:wcomma]2.0.co;2
44
LarsonR. L. (1995). The Mid-cretaceous Superplume Episode. Sci. Am.272 (2), 82–86. 10.1038/scientificamerican0295-82
45
LeeC.-T. A.ShenB.SlotnickB. S.LiaoK.DickensG. R.YokoyamaY.et al (2013). Continental Arc-Island Arc Fluctuations, Growth of Crustal Carbonates, and Long-Term Climate Change. Geosphere9 (1), 21–36. 10.1130/ges00822.1
46
LiM.ZhongS.OlsonP. (2018). Linking Lowermost Mantle Structure, Core-Mantle Boundary Heat Flux and Mantle Plume Formation. Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors277, 10–29. 10.1016/j.pepi.2018.01.010
47
MahoneyJ. J.StoreyM.DuncanR. A.SpencerK. J.PringleM. (1993). “Geochemistry and Geochronology of Leg 130 Basement Lavas: Nature and Origin of the Ontong Java Plateau,” in Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, Texas A&M University, College Station130, 3–22.
48
McFaddenP. L.MerrillR. T. (1984). Lower Mantle Convection and Geomagnetism. J. Geophys. Res.89 (B5), 3354–3362. 10.1029/jb089ib05p03354
49
McFaddenP. L.MerrillR. T.McElhinnyM. W.LeeS. (1991). Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field and Temporal Variations of the Dynamo Families. J. Geophys. Res.96 (B3), 3923–3933. 10.1029/90jb02275
50
OggJ. G. (2020). “Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale,” in Geologic Time Scale 2020 (Elsevier), 159–192. 10.1016/b978-0-12-824360-2.00005-x
51
OlsonP.AmitH. (2015). Mantle Superplumes Induce Geomagnetic Superchrons. Front. Earth Sci.3, 38. 10.3389/feart.2015.00038
52
OlsonP.KincaidC. (1991). Experiments on the Interaction of thermal Convection and Compositional Layering at the Base of the Mantle. J. Geophys. Res.96 (B3), 4347–4354. 10.1029/90jb02530
53
OlsonP. L.CoeR. S.DriscollP. E.GlatzmaierG. A.RobertsP. H. (2010). Geodynamo Reversal Frequency and Heterogeneous Core–Mantle Boundary Heat Flow. Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors180 (1-2), 66–79. 10.1016/j.pepi.2010.02.010
54
ParsieglaN.GohlK.Uenzelmann-NebenG. (2008). The Agulhas Plateau: Structure and Evolution of a Large Igneous Province. Geophys. J. Int.174 (1), 336–350. 10.1111/j.1365-246x.2008.03808.x
55
PickT.TauxeL. (1993). Geomagnetic Palaeointensities during the Cretaceous normal Superchron Measured Using Submarine Basaltic Glass. Nature366 (6452), 238–242. 10.1038/366238a0
56
PringleM. S.DalrympleG. B. (1993). Geochronological Constraints on a Possible Hot Spot Origin for Hess Rise and the Wentworth Seamount Chain, 77. Washington DC American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph Series, 263–277. 10.1029/gm077p0263
57
QinH.HeH.LiuQ.CaiS. (2011). Palaeointensity Just at the Onset of the Cretaceous Normal Superchron. Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors187 (3-4), 199–211. 10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.009
58
RaoG. V. S. P.RaoJ. M. (1996). Palaeomagnetism of the Rajmahal Traps of India: Implication to the Reversal in the Cretaceous Normal Superchron. J. Geomagn. Geoelec48 (7), 993–1000. 10.5636/jgg.48.993
59
RayJ. S.PattanayakS. K.PandeK. (2005). Rapid Emplacement of the Kerguelen Plume–Related Sylhet Traps, Eastern India: Evidence from 40Ar‐39Ar Geochronology. Geophys. Res. Lett.32 (10), L10303. 10.1029/2005gl022586
60
RiisagerJ.PerrinM.RiisagerP.VandammeD. (2001). Palæomagnetic Results and Palæointensity of Late Cretaceous Madagascan basalt. J. Afr. Earth Sci.32 (3), 503–518. 10.1016/s0899-5362(01)90111-3
61
RiisagerP.RiisagerJ.ZhaoX.CoeR. S. (2003). Cretaceous Geomagnetic Paleointensities: Thellier Experiments on Pillow Lavas and Submarine Basaltic Glass from the Ontong Java Plateau. Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems4 (12), 8803. 10.1029/2003gc000611
62
RuffL.KanamoriH. (1980). Seismicity and the Subduction Process. Phys. Earth Planet. interiors23 (3), 240–252. 10.1016/0031-9201(80)90117-x
63
RyanW. B.BolliH. M.FossG. N.NatlandJ. H.HottmanW. E.ForesmanJ. B. (1978). Objectives, Principal Results, Operations and Explanatory Notes of Leg 40, South Atlantic, 40. Washington, DC: Initial reports of the deep sea drilling project, 5–28. 10.2973/dsdp.proc.40.101.1978
64
SelkinP. A.TauxeL. (2000). Long-term Variations in Palaeointensity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.358 (1768), 1065–1088. 10.1098/rsta.2000.0574
65
SerranoL.FerrariL.MartínezM. L.PetroneC. M.JaramilloC. (2011). An Integrative Geologic, Geochronologic and Geochemical Study of Gorgona Island, Colombia: Implications for the Formation of the Caribbean Large Igneous Province. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.309 (3-4), 324–336. 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.07.011
66
ShcherbakovaV. V.AsanidzeB. Z.ShcherbakovV. P.ZhidkovG. V. (2007). Geomagnetic Field Paleointensity in the Cretaceous from Upper Cretaceous Rocks of Georgia. Izv., Phys. Solid Earth43 (11), 951–959. 10.1134/s1069351307110055
67
ShcherbakovaV. V.BakhmutovV. G.ShcherbakovV. P.ZhidkovG. V.ShpyraV. V. (2012). Palaeointensity and Palaeomagnetic Study of Cretaceous and Palaeocene Rocks from Western Antarctica. Geophys. J. Int.189 (1), 204–228. 10.1111/j.1365-246x.2012.05357.x
68
ShcherbakovaV. V.KovalenkoD. V.ShcherbakovV. P.ZhidkovG. V. (2011). Paleointensity of the Geomagnetic Field in the Cretaceous (From Cretaceous Rocks of Mongolia). Izv., Phys. Solid Earth47 (9), 775–791. 10.1134/s1069351311070081
69
ShcherbakovaV. V.PerrinM.ShcherbakovV. P.PavlovV. E.Ayvaz’yanA.ZhidkovG. V. (2009). Rock Magnetic and Paleointensity Results from Mesozoic Baked Contacts of Armenia. Earth Planet. Sp61 (1), 23–39. 10.1186/bf03352882
70
ShcherbakovaV. V.ZhidkovG. V.ShcherbakovV. P. (2008). Revised Determination of the Paleointensity in the Cretaceous from the Collection of A.S. Bol'shakov and G.M. Solodovnikov. Izv., Phys. Solid Earth44 (10), 816–821. 10.1134/s1069351308100091
71
ShiR.HeH.ZhuR.PanY. (2004). ISEA Reversed Event in the Cretaceous Normal Superchron (CNS):40Ar/39Ar Dating and Paleomagnetic Results. Chin. Sci. Bull.49 (9), 926–930. 10.1007/bf03184013
72
ShiR.HillM. J.ZhuR.HeH.ShawJ. (2005). 40Ar/39Ar Dating and Preliminary Paleointensity Determination on a Single Lava Flow from Chifeng, Inner Mongolia. Phys. Earth Planet. interiors152 (1-2), 78–89. 10.1016/j.pepi.2005.06.005
73
SteinbergerB.TorsvikT. H. (2012). A Geodynamic Model of Plumes from the Margins of Large Low Shear Velocity Provinces. Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems13 (1). 10.1029/2011gc003808
74
StoreyM.MahoneyJ. J.SaundersA. D.DuncanR. A.KelleyS. P.CoffinM. F. (1995). Timing of Hot Spot-Related Volcanism and the Breakup of Madagascar and India. Science267 (5199), 852–855. 10.1126/science.267.5199.852
75
TakahashiF.TsunakawaH.MatsushimaM.MochizukiN.HonkuraY. (2008). Effects of Thermally Heterogeneous Structure in the Lowermost Mantle on the Geomagnetic Field Strength. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.272 (3-4), 738–746. 10.1016/j.epsl.2008.06.017
76
TanakaH.KonoM. (2002). Paleointensities from a Cretaceous basalt Platform in Inner Mongolia, Northeastern China. Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors133 (1-4), 147–157. 10.1016/s0031-9201(02)00091-2
77
TardunoJ. A. (1990). Brief Reversed Polarity Interval during the Cretaceous normal Polarity Superchron. Geol18 (8), 683–686. 10.1130/0091-7613(1990)018<0683:brpidt>2.3.co;2
78
TardunoJ. A.CottrellR. D.SmirnovA. V. (2001). High Geomagnetic Intensity during the Mid-cretaceous from Thellier Analyses of Single Plagioclase Crystals. Science291 (5509), 1779–1783. 10.1126/science.1057519
79
TardunoJ. A.CottrellR. D.SmirnovA. V. (2002). The Cretaceous Superchron Geodynamo: Observations Near the tangent cylinder. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.99 (22), 14020–14025. 10.1073/pnas.222373499
80
TardunoJ. A.CottrellR. D.SmirnovA. V. (2006). The Paleomagnetism of Single Silicate Crystals: Recording Geomagnetic Field Strength during Mixed Polarity Intervals, Superchrons, and Inner Core Growth. Rev. Geophys.44 (1), RG1002. 10.1029/2005rg000189
81
TauxeL.GeeJ. S.SteinerM. B.StaudigelH. (2013). Paleointensity Results from the Jurassic: New Constraints from Submarine Basaltic Glasses of ODP Site 801C. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.14 (10), 4718–4733. 10.1002/ggge.20282
82
TauxeL. (2006). Long-term Trends in Paleointensity: the Contribution of DSDP/ODP Submarine Basaltic Galss Collections. Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors156 (3-4), 223–241. 10.1016/j.pepi.2005.03.022
83
TauxeL.StaudigelH. (2004). Strength of the Geomagnetic Field in the Cretaceous Normal Superchron: New Data from Submarine Basaltic Glass of the Troodos Ophiolite. Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems5 (2). 10.1029/2003gc000635
84
TauxeL.YamazakiT. (2015). “Paleointensities,” in Treatise on Geophysics. 2nd ed. (Elsevier), Vol. 5, 461–509. 10.1016/b978-0-444-53802-4.00107-x
85
ThomasD. N.BigginA. J.SchmidtP. W. (2000). A Palaeomagnetic Study of Jurassic Intrusives from Southern New South Wales: Further Evidence for a Pre-cenozoic Dipole Low. Geophys. J. Int.140 (3), 621–635. 10.1046/j.1365-246x.2000.00049.x
86
TimmC.HoernleK.WernerR.HauffF.van den BogaardP.MichaelP.et al (2011). Age and Geochemistry of the Oceanic Manihiki Plateau, SW Pacific: New Evidence for a Plume Origin. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.304 (1-2), 135–146. 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.01.025
87
TominagaM.TiveyM. A.SagerW. W. (2021). A New Middle to Late Jurassic Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale (GPTS) From a Multiscale Marine Magnetic Anomaly Survey of the Pacific Jurassic Quiet Zone. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth126 (3), e2020JB021136. 10.1029/2020JB021136
88
TsunakawaH.WakabayashiK. I.MochizukiN.YamamotoY.IshizakaK.HirataT.et al (2009). Paleointensity Study of the Middle Cretaceous Iritono Granite in Northeast Japan: Implication for High Field Intensity of the Cretaceous Normal Superchron. Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors176 (3-4), 235–242. 10.1016/j.pepi.2009.07.001
89
Van der MeerD. G.van den Berg van SaparoeaA. P. H.Van HinsbergenD. J. J.Van de WegR. M. B.GodderisY.Le HirG.et al (2017). Reconstructing First-Order Changes in Sea Level during the Phanerozoic and Neoproterozoic Using Strontium Isotopes. Gondwana Res.44, 22–34. 10.1016/j.gr.2016.11.002
90
VandenBergJ.KlootwijkC. T.WondersA. A. H. (1978). Late Mesozoic and Cenozoic Movements of the Italian Peninsula: Further Paleomagnetic Data from the Umbrian Sequence. Geol. Soc. America Bull.89 (1), 133–150. 10.1130/0016-7606(1978)89<133:lmacmo>2.0.co;2
91
WilliamsS.WrightN. M.CannonJ.FlamentN.MüllerR. D. (2021). Reconstructing Seafloor Age Distributions in Lost Ocean Basins. Geosci. Front.12 (2), 769–780. 10.1016/j.gsf.2020.06.004
92
YamamotoY.TsunakawaH. (2005). Geomagnetic Field Intensity during the Last 5 Myr: LTD-DHT Shaw Palaeointensities from Volcanic Rocks of the Society Islands, French Polynesia. Geophys. J. Int.162 (1), 79–114. 10.1111/j.1365-246x.2005.02651.x
93
YamazakiT.YamamotoY. (2014). Paleointensity of the Geomagnetic Field in the Late Cretaceous and Earliest Paleogene Obtained from Drill Cores of the Louisville Seamount Trail. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.15 (6), 2454–2466. 10.1002/2014gc005298
94
YokoyamaK.ShigeokaM.OtomoY.TokunoK.TsutsumiY. (2016). Uraninite and Thorite Ages of Around 400 Granitoids in the Japanese Islands. Mem. Natl. Mus. Nat. Sci.51, 1–24.
95
YoshimuraY.YamazakiT.YamamotoY.AhnH. S.KidaneT.OtofujiY. (2020). Geomagnetic Paleointensity Around 30 Ma Estimated from Afro‐Arabian Large Igneous Province. Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems21 (12), e2020GC009341. 10.1029/2020gc009341
96
ZhangD.YanM.SongC.ZhangW.FangX.LiB. (2021). Frequent Polarity Reversals in the Cretaceous Normal Superchron. Geophys. Res. Lett.48 (5), e2020GL091501. 10.1029/2020gl091501
97
ZhangN.ZhongS. (2011). Heat Fluxes at the Earth's Surface and Core–Mantle Boundary since Pangea Formation and Their Implications for the Geomagnetic Superchrons. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.306 (3-4), 205–216. 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.04.001
98
ZhaoX.RiisagerP.RiisagerJ.DraegerU.CoeR. S.ZhengZ. (2004). New Palaeointensity Results from Cretaceous basalt of Inner Mongolia, China. Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors141 (2), 131–140. 10.1016/j.pepi.2003.12.003
99
ZhuR.HoffmanK. A.NomadeS.RenneP. R.ShiR.PanY.et al (2004a). Geomagnetic Paleointensity and Direct Age Determination of the ISEA (M0r?) Chron. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.217 (3-4), 285–295. 10.1016/s0012-821x(03)00613-7
100
ZhuR.LoC. H.ShiR.ShiG.PanY.ShaoJ. (2004b). Palaeointensities Determined from the Middle Cretaceous basalt in Liaoning Province, Northeastern China. Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors142 (1-2), 49–59. 10.1016/j.pepi.2003.12.013
101
ZhuR.PanY.HeH.QinH.RenS. (2008). Palaeomagnetism and 40Ar/39Ar Age from a Cretaceous Volcanic Sequence, Inner Mongolia, China: Implications for the Field Variation during the Cretaceous Normal Superchron. Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors169 (1-4), 59–75. 10.1016/j.pepi.2008.07.025
102
ZhuR.PanY.ShiR. (2002). New Cretaceous Palaeointensity Data and the Constraints on Geodynamics. Sci. China Ser. D-earth Sci.45 (10), 931–938. 10.1360/02yd9092
Summary
Keywords
cretaceous normal superchron, paleointensity, paleosecular variation, paleoenviroment, large igneous province (LIP)
Citation
Yoshimura Y (2022) The Cretaceous Normal Superchron: A Mini-Review of Its Discovery, Short Reversal Events, Paleointensity, Paleosecular Variations, Paleoenvironment, Volcanism, and Mechanism. Front. Earth Sci. 10:834024. doi: 10.3389/feart.2022.834024
Received
12 December 2021
Accepted
13 January 2022
Published
02 February 2022
Volume
10 - 2022
Edited by
Yohan Guyodo, UMR7154 Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (IPGP), France
Reviewed by
Peter E. Driscoll, Carnegie Institution for Science, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Yoshimura.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Yutaka Yoshimura, yoshimura.yutaka.36w@kyoto-u.jp
This article was submitted to Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism, a section of the journal Frontiers in Earth Science
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.