Abstract
Although recent studies have revealed more widespread occurrences of magnetofossils in pre-Quaternary sediments than have been previously reported, their significance for paleomagnetic and paleoenvironmental studies is not fully understood. We present a paleo- and rock-magnetic study of late Miocene marine sediments recovered from the Guadalquivir Basin (SW Spain). Well-defined paleomagnetic directions provide a robust magnetostratigraphic chronology for the two studied sediment cores. Rock magnetic results indicate the dominance of intact magnetosome chains throughout the studied sediments. These results provide a link between the highest-quality paleomagnetic directions and higher magnetofossil abundances. We interpret that bacterial magnetite formed in the surface sediment mixed layer and that these magnetic particles gave rise to a paleomagnetic signal in the same way as detrital grains. They, therefore, carry a magnetization that is essentially identical to a post-depositional remanent magnetization, which we term a bio-depositional remanent magnetization. Some studied polarity reversals record paleomagnetic directions with an apparent 60–70 kyr recording delay. Magnetofossils in these cases are interpreted to carry a biogeochemical remanent magnetization that is locked in at greater depth in the sediment column. A sharp decrease in magnetofossil abundance toward the middle of the studied boreholes coincides broadly with a major rise in sediment accumulation rates near the onset of the Messinian salinity crisis (MSC), an event caused by interruption of the connection between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. This correlation appears to have resulted from dilution of magnetofossils by enhanced terrigenous inputs that were driven, in turn, by sedimentary changes triggered in the basin at the onset of the MSC. Our results highlight the importance of magnetofossils as carriers of high-quality paleomagnetic and paleoenvironmental signals even in dominantly terrigenous sediments.
INTRODUCTION
Magnetosomes are submicron crystals of magnetite (Fe3O4) or greigite (Fe3S4) that grow intracellularly, forming chains, within magnetotactic bacteria (MTB) to assist them in navigation within aquatic environments (; ; ; ). Aside from having important applications in microbiology and biotechnology (see ), magnetosomes (or magnetofossils when found in the sedimentary record) are important in Earth science because they have ideal sizes (single domain, SD) for recording stable paleomagnetic signals. In addition, variations in magnetofossil abundances in sediments and sedimentary rocks have been interpreted to provide information concerning the response of MTB communities to changing paleoenvironmental conditions (Tarduno and Wilkison, 1996; ; Tarduno et al., 1998; Yamazaki and Kawahata, 1998; ; ; ; ; Yamazaki and Ikehara, 2012; Yamazaki et al., 2013).
Magnetite-producing MTB thrive typically around the oxic–anoxic transition zone (OATZ; ; ), although they have also been linked with micro-aerobic environments (; ) and even oxic conditions (Yamazaki and Shimono, 2013) decoupled from the occurrence of an OATZ (). Under reducing diagenetic conditions, the OATZ can occur within the water column or the uppermost centimeters of the sediment column (e.g., the bioturbated surface sedimentary mixed layer). In this case, magnetosome chains that accumulate after bacterial death will behave in the same way as any other detrital grain subjected to pelitization, bioturbation and other processes within the surface mixed layer (; ; ). Magnetofossil chains are expected to adhere onto sediment particles instead of being freely suspended in pore waters, which explains the overall poor alignment of magnetofossil chains (as compared with water) typically reported in MTB-bearing modern sediments (). With ongoing sedimentation and burial, magnetofossils are likely to acquire a magnetization that is essentially identical to a post-depositional remanent magnetization (PDRM) but that, given its origin and distinctive significance, we refer to as a bio-depositional remanent magnetization (BDRM). Magnetofossils in this case should carry a syn-depositional signal that can be used to study short-period geomagnetic field behavior and will provide reliable magnetostratigraphic data. They will also record a paleoenvironmental signal that is contemporaneous with any other sediment constituent (e.g., detrital particles, foraminiferal tests, etc.). Under anoxic conditions, however, preservation of magnetofossils (and detrital magnetic minerals) is unlikely given that reductive dissolution will occur under such conditions (Figure 1A; ; ; ). Such reductive dissolution is responsible for liberation of Fe2+ that, after its upward flux, is used by MTB to synthesize magnetosomes around the OATZ (; ; , ). Strongly reducing conditions are typical in continental margin sediments, where high organic carbon supply and high accumulation rates favor burial and degradation of organic matter within sediments (). Magnetofossils might be preserved at discrete intervals due to transient disruption of reducing conditions. This seems to have been the case for magnetofossils that accumulated during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum in the North American Atlantic continental margin ( ; ; ).
FIGURE 1
When oxic depositional conditions prevail, it is possible that microaerobic conditions persist throughout the sediment column. In this case, upward diffusion of Fe2+ liberated by dissolution of the most reactive iron (oxyhydr)oxides [e.g., ferric hydrous oxide, ferrihydrite and lepidicrocite (
When diagenetic conditions are neither strongly reducing, nor strongly oxic, suboxic conditions can be found through thick sedimentary sequences (
In recent years, technical improvements aimed at discriminating sources of fine-grained magnetic minerals, such as hysteresis measurements, unmixing of isothermal remanent magnetization (IRM) curves, first-order reversal curve (FORC) diagrams, ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) measurements, high- and low-temperature magnetic measurements, and transmission electron microscope (TEM) observations, enable improved identification of magnetofossils in the sedimentary record (
Here we present a magnetostratigraphic study of marine sediments from the late Miocene sedimentary fill of the Guadalquivir Basin (GB). These sediments were recovered in two boreholes drilled in the western sector of the basin (Huelva-1 and Montemayor-1). Paleomagnetic data from these sediments have been used to constrain age models for the boreholes (
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The GB is an ENE-WSW elongated basin that constitutes the foreland of the Betic Cordillera in SW Spain (
FIGURE 2

(A) Geological sketch map of the lower Guadalquivir Basin, with location of the two studied boreholes (Huelva-1 and Montemayor-1). (B) Paleogeographic reconstruction of the Guadalquivir Basin in the late Tortonian (based on
The Huelva-1 and Montemayor-1 boreholes were drilled by the IGME (Spanish Geological Survey) in the city of Huelva and near the village of Moguer, respectively, in the western sector of the GB (the so-called lower GB; Figure 2A). In this part of the basin, the sedimentary sequence reaches its maximum thickness and is not affected by tectonic uplift, so that sediments retain their original horizontal attitude. In the Huelva-1 and Montemayor-1 boreholes, marine sediments were recovered from the three lowermost lithostratigraphic units that constitute the sedimentary fill of the lower GB (
FIGURE 3

Magnetostratigraphic and biostratigraphic results from the Huelva-1 borehole, and correlation of polarity intervals with the astronomically tuned Neogene timescale (ATNTS) of
FIGURE 4

Magnetostratigraphic and biostratigraphic results from the Montemayor-1 borehole, and correlation of polarity intervals with ATNTS (
Paleomagnetic samples were taken from the cores parallel to the bedding plane using an electric drill. Sampling resolution ranges between 10 and 100 cm and excluded the uppermost 10–20 m of each core, where the unconsolidated nature of the sediments prevented this type of sampling. The natural remanent magnetization (NRM) was measured using two cryogenic magnetometers (GM400 and 2-G Enterprises) and was demagnetized using a TSD-1 thermal demagnetizer at the Paleomagnetic Laboratory of the Institute of Earth Sciences Jaume Almera (CCiTUB-CSIC), Barcelona. Biostratigraphic results are based on identification of a series of planktic foraminiferal (PF) events, whose determination is based on quantitative and qualitative changes of globorotaliid and neogloboquadrinid species (
In order to characterize the magnetic mineralogy of the studied samples, variations in magnetic susceptibility from room temperature to 700°C (χ–T curves) were measured in an argon atmosphere using a Kappabridge KLY-3 magnetic susceptibility meter equipped with a CS-3 furnace. Magnetic hysteresis and FORC measurements were conducted on selected samples to discriminate magnetic mineralogy, domain state, and magnetic interactions among magnetic particles (
A representative set of carbon-coated sediment chip fragments was studied using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to determine the relative amount and microtextures of pyrite, and hence to obtain insights into the presence and strength of reducing diagenetic conditions in the Gibraleón Formation marls. This was done using a Jeol JSM6400, operated at 20 kV, at the National Centre for Electron Microscopy in Madrid. Chemical compositions of sediment constituents were determined using energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS).
RESULTS
MAGNETOBIOSTRATIGRAPHY
Thermal demagnetization results indicate the presence of two paleomagnetic components. A low-T component unblocks typically below 200°C and has shallow inclinations. This component is interpreted as an unstable component acquired during drilling, and will not be discussed further. A characteristic remanent magnetization (ChRM) directed toward the origin of the orthogonal vector component plot with both positive and negative directions is identified above 200°C and up to 600°C, which suggests that magnetite is the main carrier of the NRM (Figure 5). Stable ChRM directions with unblocking temperatures up to 600°C are typically associated with larger NRM intensities (Figures 5A,B). When the NRM is weaker, the ChRM has maximum unblocking temperatures of <450°C but still with a well-defined linear trend directed to the origin of the demagnetization plots (Figures 5C–E). Regardless, samples with reliable ChRM directions are labeled as Type 1. Type 2 samples have less clearly identified ChRM directions (e.g., Figure 5F), and are not considered further. Type 1 ChRM directions have both positive and negative inclinations regardless of NRM intensity, which suggests that the ChRM provides a reliable record of geomagnetic polarity reversals. The mean of the positive (normal polarity) ChRM directions in the Huelva-1 core is 33.6° ± 17.5°, whereas the mean of the negative (reversed polarity) ChRM directions is -39.4° ± 14.5° (the error given is the standard deviation because the azimuth of the boreholes is unknown and α95 cannot be calculated). For the Montemayor-1 core, these mean values are 30.6° ± 15.8° and -37.9° ± 12.9°, respectively. The mean values are significantly shallower than the expected inclination for a geocentric axial dipole field at the studied site latitude during the late Miocene (over 50°). The azimuth of the boreholes is unknown, therefore the magnetic polarity stratigraphy is based on the ChRM inclination. Eleven polarity intervals are documented (labeled N1–N5 and R1–R6 for normal and reversed polarity intervals, respectively). The Huelva-1 core includes magnetozones R1–R5, whereas the Montemayor-1 core includes magnetozones R1–R6. The polarity record has a largely square-wave shape that attests to its quality. The exceptions are magnetozones N3 and R4 in the Huelva-1 borehole (Figure 3), where reversed and normal polarity directions are recorded down to 2.7 and 4.6 m below their upper boundaries, respectively. A sharp decrease in NRM intensity occurs at around 208 m and 76 m in the Montemayor-1 and Huelva-1 boreholes, respectively (Figures 3 and 4).
FIGURE 5

Representative orthogonal demagnetization diagrams for samples from the Huelva-1 and Montemayor-1 boreholes. Samples are azimuthally unoriented, so declinations are meaningless. The stratigraphic positions for each sample are indicated in parentheses. (A–C) Samples with high NRM intensities. (D–F) Samples with weak NRMs.
Planktic foraminiferal event 2 (appearance of abundant Globorotalia menardii, dextral coiling) is identified in the uppermost part of magnetozone R1 in the Huelva-1 borehole (Figure 3). PF3 (regular appearance of G. miotumida, a marker for the Tortonian/Messinian boundary) and PF4 (dextral coiling of Neogloboquadrina acostaensis) are identified within magnetozone R2 and at the top of magnetozone N3, respectively, in both boreholes (Figures 3 and 4). PF 5 (disappearance of G. miotumida) is only identified in the Huelva-1 borehole, in the uppermost part of magnetozone R4. PF6 (first abundant occurrence of G. margaritae) has been identified in both boreholes near the magnetozone N4/R5 boundary. The appearance of G. puncticulata is found in the lower part of magnetozone R6 in the Montemayor-1 core.
The magnetozone pattern and the position of PF events enable straightforward correlation of the studied cores to the astronomically tuned geomagnetic polarity timescale (ATNTS2004) of
ROCK MAGNETISM
Our rock magnetic study focuses on the clays of the Gibraleón Formation because they represent most of the recovered sequences and, as opposed to the Huelva and Niebla formations, have high NRM intensities and sedimentary facies suitable for hosting biogenic magnetite. The main decay observed in the χ–T heating curves for samples located below 208 m and 76 m in the Montemayor-1 and Huelva-1 boreholes, respectively, which are characterized by high NRMs, is a drop at around 580°C (Figures 6A,B). This drop, which is sometimes preceded by a Hopkinson peak (Figure 6B), indicates the presence of magnetite. Above 580°C, the magnetic susceptibility signal persists and does not disappear completely until about 680°C (Figures 6A,B), which indicates variable contributions from hematite. In many samples, a subtle hump can be observed superimposed on the χ–T curve just below 300°C (Figures 6A,B). This can be interpreted as due to the thermally induced breakdown of minor amounts of maghemite (
FIGURE 6

(A–C) Representative χ–T curves for samples from the Huelva-1 and Montemayor-1 boreholes. Mt, magnetite; Ht, hematite; Mh, maghemite. (D–F) Representative low-T experiments for samples from the Huelva-1 and Montemayor-1 boreholes, with indication of the Verwey transition (Tv) and δFC/δZFC ratios of
Hysteresis loops for all of the studied samples saturate below 200 mT, which is consistent with the dominance of magnetite. All samples lie between the SD field and the upper left-hand part of the pseudo-single domain (PSD) region of the Day plot (
FIGURE 7

Magnetic hysteresis results from the Huelva-1 and Montemayor-1 boreholes plotted on a Day diagram (
First-order reversal curve distributions of samples from the two studied boreholes are similar in all cases. They are characterized by closed concentric contours about a central peak located between 20 and 30 mT (Figure 8). Vertical profiles through the peak of the coercivity distributions have a narrow distribution (e.g., <5 mT) around the dominant central peak, whereas horizontal profiles along Bb = 0 mT have a skewed Gaussian shape with variable spreading. These features, which are statistically significant at the 0.05 level (see dark contours calculated following
FIGURE 8

Representative FORC diagrams for samples from the Gibraleón Formation in the Huelva-1 (A) and Montemayor-1 (B,C) boreholes, plotted with horizontal and vertical profiles through the FORC distributions. The stratigraphic position for each sample is shown in parentheses. All samples have a central ridge signature typical of intact magnetosome chains (
Low-T data indicate the presence of the Verwey transition at around 105 K both in the FC and ZFC curves in all samples (Figures 6D–F). The FC and ZFC cooled curves typically diverge below the Verwey transition, which gives further support for the occurrence of magnetofossils in the studied samples. δFC/δZFC values range between ~1 and 1.21, which suggests that the magnetosome surfaces are partially oxidized (
Scanning electron microscope observations indicate that the studied sediments contain minor amounts of pyrite that occur typically within foraminiferal tests or near other organic remains such as coccolithophore shells (Figure 9). Most pyrite occurs in framboids that are <15 μm in diameter and that consist of small (<1 μm) individual crystals. Framboidal pyrite is often accompanied by euhedral pyrite crystals that are typically <15 μm in size (Figure 9A).
FIGURE 9

Representative back-scattered scanning electron microscope images of pyrite microtextures in the Gibraleón Formation clays.(A) Framboidal and euhedral pyrite infilling a calcareous foraminifer shell dispersed within a matrix dominated by clays and quartz. (B) Framboidal pyrite located beside a coccolith embedded within the sediment matrix. The stratigraphic positions for each sample are indicated in parentheses. Py (fr), framboidal pyrite; Py (eu), euhedral pyrite crystal; Foram, foraminifer shell; Cocco, coccolith.
DISCUSSION
PALEOMAGNETIC IMPLICATIONS OF MAGNETOFOSSIL PRESERVATION
χ–T and low-T experiments, coupled with hysteresis and FORC results, indicate that the magnetic mineral assemblage of the Gibraleón Formation clays is dominated by fossilized intact magnetosome chains that are in some cases partially oxidized. Significant disruption of magnetofossil chains might have been prevented by adhesion of magnetofossil chains onto the surface of clay particles (e.g.,
FIGURE 10

NRM, Ms and sediment accumulation rate (SAR) variations as a function of age for the Huelva-1 (A) and Montemayor-1 (B) boreholes, shown with trophic conditions and depositional context (C) inferred from benthic foraminiferal assemblages in the Montemayor-1 borehole (
PALEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF MAGNETOFOSSIL PRESERVATION
Benthic foraminiferal assemblages and sedimentary facies indicate that clays of the Gibraleón Formation accumulated in a slope environment, although its lowermost (until about 7.2 Ma) and uppermost (after about 5.85 Ma) parts (Figure 10) accumulated in outer continental shelf environments (
In view of the mild diagenetic conditions that favored preservation of magnetofossils throughout the Gibraleón Formation, and keeping in mind that they largely appear to carry a BDRM that is affected by inclination shallowing, we interpret that MTB lived within the surface mixed layer and, therefore, carry a reliable syn-depositional paleoenvironmental signal. In this case, the main feature needing explanation is the sharp drop observed in magnetofossil abundance at 5.9 Ma and 5.97 Ma in the Huelva-1 and Montemayor-1 boreholes, respectively (Figure 10). Pollen data from the Montemayor-1 borehole indicate that glacial/interglacial variability reported at orbital timescales was not significantly modified after the onset of the MSC at 5.97 Ma (
FIGURE 11

Illustration of the inverse correlation between Ms, which is taken as a proxy for the concentration of magnetofossils, and estimated SAR.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that the magnetic mineral assemblage from the late Miocene Gibraleón Formation is dominated by intact magnetofossil chains. We suggest that ventilation of bottom waters in the lower GB, coupled with mostly oligotrophic and mesotrophic conditions, led to sustained suboxic diagenetic conditions suitable for flourishing of MTB and preservation of their magnetofossils throughout the Gibraleón Formation. Our results expand the range of settings in which magnetofossils can dominate the magnetic properties to include expanded continental margin sedimentary sequences, provided that diagenetic conditions remained suboxic and not anoxic. The concentration of magnetofossils also determines the quality of paleomagnetic data, which provides a robust magnetostratigraphic chronology for the studied sedimentary sequence despite recording paleomagnetic inclinations that are 15–20° shallower than expected. This observation is interpreted to indicate that MTB lived within the sedimentary surface mixed layer, so that magnetofossils were affected by sediment compaction upon burial. Our results might also indicate depositional flattening of magnetosome chains due to their large length/width ratio. Regardless, our results suggest that magnetofossils carry a magnetization that is essentially identical to a post-depositional remanent magnetization, which, given its origin and distinctive significance, we refer to as a BDRM. The only exceptions to this syn-depositional pattern of remanence acquisition occur at the tops of chrons C3An.1r and 2n, where paleomagnetic directions appear to be delayed by ~60–70 kyr. Magnetofossils in these cases are interpreted to carry a BGRM. Magnetofossil abundances decrease sharply in the two studied boreholes that coincided, within the limits of the age model, with a major rise in sediment accumulation rate near the onset of the MSC. Sedimentary changes triggered in the GB at the onset of the MSC appear to have caused enhanced terrigenous inputs and dilution of magnetofossil abundances. Our results indicate that magnetofossils can carry high-quality paleomagnetic data and useful paleoenvironmental signals even in dominantly terrigenous sediments.
Statements
Author contributions
Juan C. Larrasoaña, Pilar Mata and Jorge Civis designed the study. Juan C. Larrasoaña, Francisco J. Sierro and Jorge Civis produced magnetobiostratigraphic data. Qingsong Liu, Pengxiang Hu, and Andrew P. Roberts provided and processed rock magnetic data. José N. Pérez-Asensio provided paleoenvironmental data from the Montemayor-1 borehole. Juan C. Larrasoaña led the writing of the paper, with input from all co-authors.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the Guadaltyc project (MINECO, CGL2012–30875), ARC grant DP120103952, and NSFC grant 41374073. We are grateful to E. Beamud and M. Garcés for technical assistance at the paleomagnetic laboratory of the Institute of Earth Sciences Jaume Almera (CCiTUB-CSIC).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
1
AbrajevitchA.KodamaK. (2009). Biochemical vs. detrital mechanism of remanence acquisition in marine carbonates: a lesson from the K-T boundary interval.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.286269–277. 10.1016/j.epsl.2009.06.035
2
BazylinskiD. A.FrankelR. B. (2004). Magnetosome formation in prokaryotes.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.2217–230. 10.1038/nrmicro842
3
BlakemoreR. P. (1975). Magnetotactic bacteria.Science190377–379. 10.1126/science.170679
4
BlakemoreR. P.ShortK. A.BazylinskiD. A.RosenblattC.FrankelR. B. (1985). Microaerobic conditions are required for magnetite formation within Aquaspirillum magnetotacticum.Geomicrobiol. J.453–71. 10.1080/01490458509385920
5
BrothersL. A.EngelM. H.ElmoreR. D. (1996). The late diagenetic conversion of pyrite to magnetite by organically complexed ferric iron.Chem. Geol.1301–15. 10.1016/0009-2541(96)00007-1
6
ChangL.WinklhoferM.RobertsA. P.HeslopD.FlorindoF.DekkersM. J.et al (2013). Low-temperature magnetic properties of pelagic carbonates: oxidation of biogenic magnetite and identification of magnetosome chains.J. Geophys. Res.1181–17. 10.1002/2013JB010381
7
ChannellJ. E. T.OhneiserC.YamamotoY.KeslerM. S. (2013a). Oligocene-Miocene magnetic stratigraphy carried by biogenic magnetite at Sites U1334 and U1335 (equatorial Pacific Ocean).Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.14265–282. 10.1029/2012GC004429
8
ChannellJ. E. T.HodellD. A.MargariV.SkinnerL. C.TzedakisP. C.KeslerM. S. (2013b). Biogenic magnetite, detrital hematite, and relative paleointensity in quaternary sediments from the Southwest Iberian Margin.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.37699–109. 10.1016/j.epsl.2013.06.026
9
DayR.FullerM.SchmidtV. A. (1977). Hysteresis properties of titanomagnetites: grain size and composition dependence.Phys. Earth Planet. Inter.13260–266. 10.1016/0031-9201(77)90108-X
10
DickensG. R. (2008). The riddle of the clays.Nat. Geosci.186–88. 10.1038/ngeo118
11
Dinarès-TurellJ.HoogakkerB. A. A.RobertsA. P.RohlingE. J.SagnottiL. (2003). Quaternary climatic control of biogenic magnetite production and eolian dust input in cores from the Mediterranean Sea.Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol.190195–209. 10.1016/S0031-0182(02)00605-3
12
DunlopD. J. (2002). Theory and application of the Day plot (Mrs/Ms versus Hcr/Hc). 1. Theoretical curves and tests using titanomagnetite data.J. Geophys. Res.107B205610.1029/2001JB000486
13
EgliR. (2004). Characterization of individual rock magnetic components by analysis of remanence curves. 3. Bacterial magnetite and natural processes in lakes.Phys. Chem. Earth29869–884. 10.1016/j.pce.2004.03.010
14
EgliR. (2013). VARIFORC: an optimized protocol for calculating non-regular first-order reversal curve (FORC) diagrams.Global Planet. Change110302–320. 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.08.003
15
EgliR.ChenA. P.WinklhoferM.KodamaK. P.HorngC.-S. (2010). Detection of noninteracting single domain particles using first-order reversal curve diagrams.Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.11Q01Z11 10.1029/2009GC002916
16
FaivreDSchülerD. (2008). Magnetotactic bacteria and magnetosomes.Chem. Rev.1084875–4898. 10.1021/BR078258w
17
García-CastellanosD.FernàndezMTornéM. (2002). Modelling the evolution of the Guadalquivir foreland basin (southern Spain).Tectonics21. 10.1029/2001TC001339
18
González-DelgadoJ. A.CivisJ.DabrioC. J.GoyJ. L.LedesmaS.PaisJ.et al (2004). “Cuenca del Guadalquivir”, inGeología de Españnaed.VeraJ. A.(Madrid: SGE-IGME)543–550.
19
HeslopD.RobertsA. P. (2012). Estimation of significance levels and confidence intervals for first-order reversal curve distributions.Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.13Q12Z40 10.1029/2012GC004115
20
HeslopD.RobertsA. P.ChangL.DaviesM.AbrajevitchADe DeckkerP. (2013). Quantifying magnetite magnetofossil contributions to sedimentary magnetizations.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.38258–65. 10.1016/j.epsl.2013.09.011
21
Jiménez-MorenoG.Pérez-AsensioN.LarrasoañaJ. C.AguirreJ.CivisJ.Rivas-CarballoM. R.et al (2013). Vegetation, sea-level and climate changes during the Messinian salinity crisis.Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.125432–444. 10.1130/B30663.1
22
KentD. V. (1973). Post-depositional remanent magnetisation in deep-sea sediment.Nature24632–34. 10.1038/246032a0
23
KindJ.GehringA. U.WinklhoferM.HirtA. M. (2011). Combined use of magnetometry and spectroscopy for identifying magnetofossils in sediments.Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.12Q08008 10.1029/2011GC003633
24
KingR. F. (1955). The remanent magnetism of artificially deposited sediments.Geophys. J. Int.7115–134. 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1955.tb06558.x
25
KoppR. E.KirschvinkJ. L. (2008). The identification and biogeochemical interpretation of fossil magnetotactic bacteria.Earth Sci. Rev.8642–61. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2007.08.001
26
KoppR. E.RaubT. D.SchumannD.ValiH.SmirnovA. V.KirschvinkJ. L. (2007). Magnetofossil spike during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum: ferromagnetic resonance, rock magnetic, and electron microscopy evidence from Ancora, New Jersey, United States.Paleoceanography22PA4103 10.1029/2007PA001473
27
KoppR. E.WeissB. P.MaloofA. C.ValiH.NashC. Z.KirschvinkJ. L. (2006). Chains, clumps, and strings: magnetofossil taphonomy with ferromagnetic resonance spectroscopy.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.24710–25. 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.05.001
28
KrijgsmanW.HilgenF. J.RaffiI.SierroF. J.WilsonD. S. (1999). Chronology, causes and progression of the Messinian salinity crisis.Nature400652–655. 10.1038/23231
29
LarrasoañaJ. C.González-DelgadoJ. A.CivisJ.SierroF. J.Alonso-GavilánG.PaisJ. (2008). Magnetobiostratigraphic dating and environmental magnetism of Late Neogene marine sediments recovered at the Huelva-1 and Montemayor-1 boreholes (lower Guadalquivir Basin, Spain).Geotemas101175–1178.
30
LarrasoañaJ. C.RobertsA. P.ChangL.SchellenbergS. A.Fitz GeraldJ. D.NorrisR. D.et al (2012). Magnetotactic bacterial response to Antarctic dust supply during the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.333–334122–133. 10.1016/j.epsl.2012.04.003
31
LeanC. M. B.McCaveI. N. (1998). Glacial to interglacial mineral magnetic and palaeoceanographic changes at Chatham Rise, SW Pacific Ocean.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.163247–260. 10.1016/S0012-821X(98)00191-5
32
LiJ. H.WuW. F.LiuQ. S.PanY. X. (2012). Magnetic anisotropy, magnetostatic interactions and identification of magnetofossils.Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.13Q10Z51 10.1029/2012GC004384
33
LinW.WangY. Z.PanY. X. (2012). Short-term effects of temperature on the abundance and diversity of magnetotactic cocci.Microbiologyopen153–63. 10.1002/mbo3.7
34
LippertP. C.ZachosJ. C. (2007). A biogenic origin for anomalous fine-grained magnetic material at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary at Wilson Lake, New Jersey.Paleoceanography22PA4104 10.1029/2007PA001471
35
LiuQ. S.RobertsA. P.LarrasoañaJ. C.BanerjeeS. K.GuyodoY.TauxeL.et al (2012). Environmental magnetism: principles and applications.Rev. Geophys.50RG4002 10.1029/2012RG000393
36
LourensL. J.HilgenF. J.ShackletonN. J.LaskarJ.WilsonD. S. (2004). “The Neogene period”, inA Geologic Time Scale 2004edsGradsteinF. M.OggJ. G.SmithA. G.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)409-440.
37
ManziV.GennariR.HilgenF.KrijgsmanW.LugliS.RoveriM.et al (2013). Age refinements of the Messinian salinity crisis onset in the Mediterranean.Terra Nova25315–322. 10.1111/ter.12038
38
MaoX.EgliR.PetersenN.HanzlikM.ZhaoX. (2014). Magnetotaxis and acquisition of detrital remanent magnetization by magnetotactic bacteria in natural sediment: first experimental results and theory.Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 10.10002/2013GC005034[Epub ahead of print].
39
MartínJ. M.BragaJ. C.AguirreJPuga-BernabéuA. (2009). History and evolution of the North-Betic Strait (Prebetic Zone, Betic Cordillera): a narrow, early Tortonian, tidal-dominated, Atlantic–Mediterranean marine passage.Sediment. Geol.21680–90. 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2009.01.005
40
MayoralEPendónJ. G. (1987). Icnofacies y sedimentación en zona costera. Plioceno superior (?), litoral de Huelva.Acta Geol. Hisp.21–22507–513.
41
MoskowitzB. M.FrankelR. B.BazylinskiD. A. (1993). Rock magnetic criteria for the detection of biogenic magnetite.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.120283–300. 10.1016/0012-821X(93)90245-5
42
PatersonG. A.WangY. Z.PanY. X. (2013). The fidelity of paleomagnetic records carried by magnetosome chains.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.38382–91. 10.1016/j.epsl.2013.09.031
43
PendónJ. G.RuizF.AbadM.González-RegaladoM. L.BacetaJ. I.TosquellaJ. (2004). Transgressive sequences on foreland margins: a case study of the Central Guadalquivir Basin.Riv. Ital. Paleont. Strat.110503–515.
44
Pérez-AsensioJ. N. (2012). Paleoecological and Paleoceanographical Study of Messinian Deposits from the Lower Guadalquivir Basin (SW Spain).Ph. D. thesis, University of GranadaSpain.
45
Pérez-AsensioJ. N.AguirreJ.SchmiedlG.CivisJ. (2012a). Impact of restriction of the Atlantic-Mediterranean gateway on the Mediterranean Outflow Water and eastern Atlantic circulation during the Messinian.Paleoceanography27PA3222 10.1029/2012PA002309
46
Pérez-AsensioJ. N.AguirreJ.SchmiedlG.CivisJ. (2012b). Messinian paleoenvironmental evolution in the lower Guadalquivir Basin (SW Spain) based on benthic foraminifera.Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol.326–328135–151. 10.1016/j.palaeo.2012.02.014
47
PoultonS. W.KromM. D.RaiswellR. (2004). A revised scheme for the reactivity of iron (oxyhydr)oxide minerals towards dissolved sulphide.Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta683703–3715. 10.1016/j.gca.2004.03.012
48
RobertsA. P.ChangL.HeslopD.FlorindoFLarrasoañaJ. C. (2012). Searching for single domain magnetite in the “pseudo-single-domain” sedimentary haystack: implications of biogenic magnetite preservation for sediment magnetism and relative paleointensity determinations.J. Geophys. Res.117B08104 10.1029/2012JB009412
49
RobertsA. P.FlorindoF.ChangL.HeslopD.JovaneLLarrasoañaJ. C. (2013). Magnetic properties of pelagic marine carbonates.Earth Sci. Rev.127111–139. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.09.009
50
RobertsA. P.FlorindoF.VillaG.ChangL.JovaneL.BohatyS. M.et al (2011). Magnetotactic bacterial abundance in pelagic marine environments is limited by organic carbon flux and availability of dissolved iron.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.310441–452. 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.08.011
51
RobertsA. P.PikeC. R.VerosubK. L. (2000). First-order reversal curve diagrams: a new tool for characterizing the magnetic properties of natural samples.J. Geophys. Res.10528461–28475. 10.1029/2000JB900326
52
RowanC. J.RobertsA. P. (2006). Magnetite dissolution, diachronous greigite formation, and secondary magnetizations from pyrite oxidation: Unravelling complex magnetizations in Neogene marine sediments from New Zealand.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.241119–137. 10.1016/j.epsl.2005.10.017
53
SalvanyJ. M.LarrasoañaJ. C.MediavillaC.RebolloA. (2011). Chronology and tectono-sedimentary evolution of the upper pliocene to quaternary deposits of the lower Guadalquivir basin, SW Spain.Sediment. Geol.24122–39. 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2011.09.009
54
SantistebanC.TabernerC. (1983). Shallow marine and continental conglomerates derived from coral reef complexes after desiccation of the deep marine basin: the Tortonian-Messinian deposits of the Fortuna Basin, SE Spain.J. Geol. Soc. Lond.140401–411. 10.1144/gsjgs.140.3.0401
55
SchülerD.BaeuerleinE. (1998). Dynamics of iron uptake and Fe3O4 biomineralization during aerobic and microaerobic growth of magnetospirillum gryphiswaldense.J. Bacteriol.180159–162.
56
SierroF. J.FloresJ. A.CivisJ.González-DelgadoJ. AFrancésG. (1993). Late Miocene globorotaliid event-stratigraphy and biogeography in the NE-Atlantic and Mediterranean.Mar. Micropal.21143–168. 10.1016/0377-8398(93)90013-N
57
SierroF. J.González-DelgadoA.DabrioC. J.FloresA.CivisJ. (1996). “Late Neogene depositional sequences in the foreland basin of Guadalquivir (SW Spain)”, inTertiary Basins of SpainedsFriendP. F.DabrioC. J.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)339–345. 10.1017/CBO9780511524851.048
58
SmirnovA.TardunoJ. A. (2000). Low-temperature magnetic properties of pelagic sediments (Ocean Drilling Program Site 805C): tracers of maghemitization and magnetic mineral reduction.J. Geophys. Res.10516457–16471. 10.1029/2000JB900140
59
TardunoJ. A.WilkisonS. (1996). Non-steady state magnetic mineral reduction, chemical lock-in, and delayed remanence acquisition in pelagic sediments.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.144315–326. 10.1016/S0012-821X(96)00174-4
60
TardunoJ. A.TianW.WilkisonS. (1998). Biogeochemical remanent magnetization in pelagic sediments of the western equatorial Pacific Ocean.Geophys. Res. Lett.253987–3990. 10.1029/1998GL900079
61
WeissB. P.KimS. S.KirschvinkJ. L.KoppR. E.SankaranM.KobayashiA.et al (2004). Ferromagnetic resonance and low-temperature magnetic test for biogenic magnetite.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.22473–89. 10.1016/j.epsl.2004.04.024
62
YamazakiT. (2008). Magnetostatic interactions in deep-sea sediments inferred from first-order reversal curve diagrams: implications for relative paleointensity normalization.Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.9Q02005 10.1029/2007GC001797
63
YamazakiT. (2009). Environmental magnetism of pleistocene sediments in the North Pacific and Ontong-Java Plateau: temporal variations of detrital and biogenic components.Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.10Q07Z04 10.1029/2009GC002413
64
YamazakiT.KawahataH. (1998). Organic carbon flux controls the morphology of magnetofossils in sediments.Geology261064–1066. 10.1130/0091-7613(1998)026<1064:OCFCTM>2.3.CO;2
65
YamazakiT.IkeharaM. (2012). Origin of magnetic mineral concentration variation in the Southern Ocean.Paleoceanography27PA2206 10.1029/2011PA002271
66
YamazakiT.ShimonoT. (2013). Abundant bacterial magnetite occurrence in oxic red clay.Geology411191–1194. 10.1130/G34782.1
67
YamazakiT.YamamotoY.ActonG.GuidryE. P.RichterC. (2013). Rock magnetic artifacts on long-term relative paleointensity variations in sediments.Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.1429–43. 10.1002/ggge.20064
Summary
Keywords
Guadalquivir Basin, late Miocene, marine sediments, rock magnetism, magnetotactic bacteria, Messinian salinity crisis
Citation
Larrasoaña JC, Liu Q, Hu P, Roberts AP, Mata P, Civis J, Sierro FJ and Pérez-Asensio JN (2014) Paleomagnetic and paleoenvironmental implications of magnetofossil occurrences in late Miocene marine sediments from the Guadalquivir Basin, SW Spain. Front. Microbiol. 5:71. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00071
Received
31 October 2013
Accepted
10 February 2014
Published
04 March 2014
Volume
5 - 2014
Edited by
Damien Faivre, Max Planck Society, Germany
Reviewed by
Ann Marie Hirt, Swiss Institute of Technology Zürich, Switzerland; Michael Winklhofer, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany
Copyright
© 2014 Larrasoaña, Liu, Hu, Roberts, Mata, Civis, Sierro and Pérez-Asensio.
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) or licensor 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: Juan C. Larrasoaña, Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, calle Ríos Rosas, 23 28003 Madrid, Spain e-mail: jc.larra@igme.es
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.