upper cretaceous stratigraphy of the bey daÛlarÝ carbonate
Post on 02-Oct-2021
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences (Turkish J. Earth Sci.), Vol. 11, 2002, pp. 39-59. Copyright ©TÜB‹TAK
39
Upper Cretaceous Stratigraphy of the Bey Da¤lar›Carbonate Platform, Korkuteli Area
(Western Taurides, Turkey)
B‹LAL SARI & SAC‹T ÖZER
Department of Geological Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Dokuz Eylül University, Bornova,TR-35100 ‹zmir - TURKEY (e-mail: bilal.sari@deu.edu.tr)
Abstract: The Upper Cretaceous Korkuteli (Antalya) carbonate sequence of the Bey Da¤lar› autochthonous unit(western Taurides) comprises two formations. The Cenomanian-Santonian Bey Da¤lar› formation lies at the baseof this sequence and can be divided into two parts. Neritic part is characterized by platform-type, peritidallimestones and comprises an approximately 600-m-thick sequence that contains two main rudistid horizonscorresponding to Cenomanian and early Santonian. The neritic limestones pass gradually upward into the 15-m-thick, middle-upper Santonian massive hemipelagic limestones that form the upper part. The upper Campanian-middle Maastrichtian Akda¤ formation consists totally of pelagic limestones that indicate basinal conditions anddisconformably overlies different stratigraphic levels of the Bey Da¤lar› formation. Palaeogene pelagic marls formthe base of the Tertiary sequence and disconformably overlie different stratigraphic levels of the Upper Cretaceoussequence. The presence of two erosional phases in the Upper Cretaceous sequence is obvious. The autochthonousunit was subaerially exposed after post-Santonian and middle Maastrichtian regressions.
Key Words: Upper Cretaceous, Bey Da¤lar›, carbonate platform, erosion, planktonic foraminifera
Bey Da¤lar› Karbonat Platformunun Üst Kretase Stratigrafisi,Korkuteli Bölgesi (Bat› Toroslar, Türkiye)
Özet: Bey Da¤lar› otoktonunun (Bat› Toroslar) Korkuteli (Antalya) bölgesindeki Üst Kretase karbonat istifi ikiformasyon içerir. Senomaniyen-Santoniyen yafll› Bey Da¤lar› formasyonu istifin taban›nda yer al›r ve iki bölümdenoluflur. Alttaki Senomaniyen-erken Santoniyen yafll› neritik bölüm, gelgit ortam›nda çökelmifl, platformkarbonatlar›ndan oluflur ve yaklafl›k 600 m kal›nl›¤›nda bir istif oluflturur. Bu istif Senomaniyen ve erkenSantoniyen’e karfl›l›k gelen iki rudist resifi içerir. Senomaniyen rudist resifi radiolitid ve caprinid’lerden yap›l›d›r ve10 m kal›nl›¤a sahiptir. Yanal yönde sürekli olan alt Santoniyen rudist resifi ise hippuritid’lerden yap›l›d›r ve 20 mkal›nl›¤a sahiptir. Senomaniyen yafll› düzeylerde rudistlere efllik eden bentonik foraminiferler çeflitlilik aç›s›ndanfakir ancak birey say›s› bak›m›ndan zengindirler. Senomaniyenin üstündeki düzeylerde ise hem tür çeflitlili¤i hem debirey say›s› oldukça s›n›rl›d›r.
Neritik kireçtafllar› üste do¤ru dereceli olarak Bey Da¤lar› formasyonunun üst bölümünü oluflturan 15 mkal›nl›¤›ndaki, planktonik foraminifer içeren yar› pelajik massif kireçtafllar›na geçer.
Santoniyen sonras› regresyonu ve afl›nman›n ard›ndan, havza koflullar›nda çökelmifl, transgresif Akda¤formasyonu, Bey Da¤lar› formasyonunun farkl› stratigrafik düzeylerini belirgin bir erozyon yüzeyi ile, koflutuyumsuz olarak üstler. ‹nce katmanl› çörtlü kireçtafllar›nda oluflan, 75 m kal›nl›¤›ndaki formasyon, geçKampaniyen-orta Maastrihtiyen yafl›n› veren zengin bir planktonik foraminifer faunas› içerir.
Bölgedeki ikinci regresyon orta Maastrihtiyen sonunda gerçekleflmifltir ve Alt Kretase’ye ait karbonatlar büyükoranda afl›nm›fllard›r. Planktonik foraminifer içeren Paleojen yafll› transgresif marnlar, Üst Kretase istifinin farkl›stratigrafik düzeylerini koflut uyumsuz olarak üstler.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Üst Kretase, Bey Da¤lar›, karbonat platformu, afl›nma, planktonik foraminifer
Introduction
The study area is located around the Korkuteli district ofAntalya, southwestern Turkey (Figure 1). The area coversan area of ~25 km2 between Korkuteli and Ulucak(formerly Simand›r) on the northern flank of the BeyDa¤lar› autochthonous unit that is bounded on the westby the Lycian nappes, and on the east by the Antalyanappes. The Upper Cretaceous carbonate sequence of theKorkuteli area contains facies variations and widespreadstratigraphic gaps (Poisson 1967, 1977; Farinacci &Köylüo¤lu 1982; Özye¤in et al. 1985; Farinacci & Yeniay1986; Gültekin 1986; Köylüo¤lu 1987; Özkan &Köylüo¤lu 1988; Naz et al. 1992). In order to elucidatethe precise age of the rocks beneath and above thedisconformity surfaces, detailed (1/25,000 and 1/10,000in scale) geological mapping was carried out and morethan 40 closely spaced stratigraphic sections weremeasured. Five representative sections are presented inthis paper (Figure 2). Field observations and thin-sectionstudy have yielded important stratigraphic andpalaeontological data. Planktonic foraminifera and rudistshave been the source of the main palaeontological dataused in reappraising the age of the Upper Cretaceouscarbonates.
Geological Setting
The Jurassic-Cretaceous Taurus sediments, that is, theautochthonous part of the Alpine Taurus belt, weredeposited in shallow water on the unstable northern-northwestern palaeomargin of the Arabian-African plate.In Mesozoic times, this was part of the same sedimentaryfacies as the rest of Taurides and Zagrides to the east andthe Hellenides and Dinarides to the west, as well as theother shelves of the northern African palaeomargin, suchas the Apennines (Farinacci & Köylüo¤lu 1982; Farinacci& Yeniay 1986).
The Bey Da¤lar› is an important fragment rifted, withthe Anatolian block (Taurus platforms) away from thenorthern margin of Gondwana in two steps: first, duringthe Permo-Triassic, there was a general break-up of theGondwana margin, and then there was a second eventduring the Early Cretaceous opening of the easternMediterranean basin. This second event completelyseparated the Bey Da¤lar› fragment from the motherplate (i.e., the Africa plate). Permo-Triassic riftingseparated the Bey Da¤lar› fragment from the Anatolian
fragment but not completely from the Gondwana/Africaplate (Poisson 2001). Regional compression began in thelatest Cretaceous (Maastrichtian), and the deep-waterpassive margins of the carbonate platforms weredeformed and thrust-imbricated (Robertson 1993).
The Bey Da¤lar› autochthonous unit oriented, NE-SWdirection, is a segment of a Mesozoic Tethyan platform onwhich carbonate accumulation persisted until the EarlyMiocene. This segment was thrust over to the east by theAntalya nappes and to the northwest by the Lyciannappes, and is partially exposed in the Göcek windows(Naz et al. 1992) (Figure 1).
Many studies that have focused on the Bey Da¤lar›carbonate platform have found that sequences arecharacterized by breaks in deposition and importantfacies variations in both neritic and pelagic carbonates(Poisson 1967, 1977; Özgül 1976, 1977; Gutnic etal.1979; Farinacci & Köylüo¤lu 1982; Özye¤in et al.1985; Farinacci & Yeniay 1986; Gültekin 1986;Köylüo¤lu 1987; Özkan & Köylüo¤lu 1988; Naz et al.1992).
According to Günay et al. (1982), Triassic dolomiteslie at the bottom of the carbonate sequence of theautochthonous unit and the Beyda¤› formationgradationally overlies the dolomites and forms a thickmonotonous sequence (910 to 2500 m), extending fromLower Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous. The thickness of thismonotonous carbonate sequence exceeds 3000 m in drillholes (André Poisson, personal communication 2001).
The Cenomanian deposits of the Bey Da¤lar› aretypically of the marine-open platform type (rudistaccumulations and reefs) and the major part of the BeyDa¤lar› (especially the northern part) subsided during theTuronian and were invaded by pelagic deposits. Pelagicsedimentation persisted there until the Oligocene(Poisson et al. 1983). These carbonates are typical of ashelf environment and contain a rich benthic foraminiferaland rudist fauna (Bignot & Poisson 1974; Poisson 1977;Farinacci & Köylüo¤lu 1982; Özye¤in et al. 1985;Farinacci & Yeniay 1986; Gültekin 1986; Köylüo¤lu1987; Özkan & Köylüo¤lu 1988; Özer 1988; Naz et al.1992).
The presence of benthic foraminifera and calcispheressuggests a Cenomanian to- ? early Turonian age for theuppermost levels of the Bey Da¤lar› formation (Özkan &Köylüo¤lu 1988).
UPPER CRETACEOUS STRATIGRAPHY OF BEY DA⁄LARI
40
B. SARI & S. ÖZER
41
BE
YD
A
LA
RI
AU
TO
CH
TH
ON
BE
YD
A
LA
RI
AU
TO
CH
TH
ON
Figu
re 1
.M
aps
show
ing
(a)
the
mai
n te
cton
ic b
elts
of t
he w
este
rn T
aurid
es (s
impl
ified
from
Poi
sson
et a
l.19
83; s
ee in
set f
or lo
catio
n), a
nd (
b)th
e lo
catio
n of
the
stud
y ar
ea. 1
– U
pper
Mio
cene
-Q
uate
rnar
y po
st-c
ompr
essi
onal
tect
onic
form
atio
ns, 2
– N
eoge
ne fo
rmat
ions
pre
ceed
ing
the
Aksu
com
pres
sion
al e
vent
, 3–
Low
er a
nd M
iddl
e M
ioce
ne o
f the
Bey
Da¤
lar›
Auto
chth
on,
4– B
ey D
a¤la
r› au
toch
thon
(U
pper
Tria
ssic
to
Olig
ocen
e),
5– A
ntal
ya n
appe
s, a
nd 6
– Ly
cian
nap
pes.
The Akda¤ formation of Coniacian-Maastrichtian ageis represented by planktonic foraminifera-bearing, thin-bedded, clayey limestones with chert nodules, anddisconformably overlies the Bey Da¤lar› formation(Poisson 1977; Farinacci & Köylüo¤lu 1982; Özye¤in etal. 1985; Farinacci & Yeniay 1986; Gültekin 1986;Köylüo¤lu 1987; Özkan & Köylüo¤lu 1988; Naz et al.1992). The same authors state that the hiatus betweenthe Bey Da¤lar› and Akda¤ formations corresponds to theearly Turonian to Maastrichtian. Poisson (1967, 1977) isthe only author to report the presence of Santonian-lower Campanian rudistid neritic limestones from theKorkuteli area.
The Tertiary is represented by various formations, ofdifferent lithologies and ages (Poisson 1977; Özye¤in etal. 1985; Özkan & Köylüo¤lu 1988). Palaeogene pelagicmarls form the base of the Tertiary sequence, anddisconformably overlie different levels of the underlyingtwo formations.
Stratigraphy
The Upper Cretaceous sequence of the Bey Da¤lar›autochthonous unit comprises two formations in theKorkuteli area (Figures 2 & 3). The Cenomanian-Santonian Bey Da¤lar› formation lies at the base and isdisconformably overlain by the upper Campanian-middleMaastrichtian Akda¤ formation along an erosionalsurface. As mentioned above, Palaeogene pelagic marlsform the base of the Tertiary sequence anddisconformably overlies different stratigraphic levels oftwo Upper Cretaceous formations.
Upper Cretaceous
Bey Da¤lar› Formation
Description and Depositional Environment – Poisson(1977) named the Cenomanian rudistid limestones in theKatran Da¤ as the Ya¤ca Köy formation, however he didnot name the Santonian rudistid limestones. Günay et al.(1982) described the neritic limestones ranging fromLower Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous, as the Beyda¤›formation and noted that the Beyda¤› formationgradationally overlies the Upper Triassic dolomites.
Later, some researchers used Beyda¤› formation(Erakman et al. 1982; Naz et al. 1992) and others usedBey Da¤lar› formation (Özye¤in et al. 1985; Gültekin
1986; Özkan & Köylüo¤lu 1988) for the Jurassic toCenomanian neritic limestones.
In this study, because of their lithologic similarity, theBey Da¤lar› formation is used for the neritic limestones ofCenomanian-early Santonian age and the overlyinghemipelagic limestones of middle-late Santonian age(Figures 2 & 3). The formation is recognizable by itstypical prominent high relief and forms K›z›lçamda¤ thatextends from SW to NE through the study area (Figure2).
The Bey Da¤lar› formation can be divided into twoparts (Figures 2 & 3). Neritic limestones of Cenomanian-early Santonian age lie at the base and hemipelagiclimestones of middle-late Santonian age at the top. Theneritic part of the formation is approximately 600-m-thick and is generally made up of cream coloured,massive, mainly medium- to thickly but locally thinlybedded limestones.
In the neritic limestones, two main rudistid horizonshave been identical, one of which is observed in theCenomanian limestones and distinguished fromunderlying and overlying medium- to thickly beddedlimestones by its massive structure (Figure 3). It is about10-meters-thick and can be traced laterally for 70-80 m.The unique outcrop is in the Bozcalar Dere (Figure 2).The other horizon is observed within the Santonianlimestones and is about 20-m-thick. This horizon iscomposed of thickly or massively bedded limestones andgenerally forms high relief in outcrop profile. Theserudistid level is more widespread and distinctive ascompared to the Cenomanian reefs, and is especiallyprevalent in the western part of Kargal›köy (NE part ofthe study area) (Figure 2).
Microfacies studies on the neritic limestones havedetermined five main microfacies and relatedmicroenvironments that are gradational, both laterallyand vertically. These microfacies are: (1) laminatedpelsparitic/pelmicritic and fenestral micritic microfacies,(2) an alternation of cryptalgal and pelsparite/pelmicritelamina microfacies, (3) sparse benthonic foraminiferabearing pelsparitic/pelmicritic microfacies, (4) benthicforaminifera-bearing biomicritic microfacies, and (5)rudist fragment-bearing biosparitic/biomicriticmicrofacies. These microfacies are the result ofdeposition in supratidal, intertidal, tidal ponds, tidalchannel, subtidal (lagoonal), and reef and fore-reefsubenvironments (Wilson 1975; Sar› & Özer 2001).
UPPER CRETACEOUS STRATIGRAPHY OF BEY DA⁄LARI
42
The faunal turnover during the Santonian, from rudistand benthic foraminifera to planktonic foraminifera, andgradual facies change indicate a slight drowning of theplatform which produced hemipelagic conditions on theplatform until the end of the Santonian. The limestonesdeposited under hemipelagic conditions are massive,cream-coloured, fractured and contain sparse planktonicforaminifera and abundant spheroidal forms. The neritic
and hemipelagic limestones are both massive and cream-coloured and nearly the same in appearance. In thinsections of samples coming from at and near the contact,benthic and planktonic fauna are found together (Figure4a, b; samples 76, 30-32). The maximum thickness ofthe hemipelagic levels was measured at the ÇakmakKerti¤i locality as about 15 m (Figure 4b).
B. SARI & S. ÖZER
43
50 10
3037
30
30
4070
4530
50
50
Kaklýk Tepe
Kargalýköy
Orta Tepe?
Çakmak Kertiði
Meydandüz Tepe
45
5530
6070
Yörükalan
50
1406
Hacýemin Çiftliði
Fedil Dere
to Fethiye
70
45
Küçüktepe
1374
45
30
50
40 20
70
7570
50
50
Savran Ekinliði
7070
10
50
60
1277
1501
1501
48 50
00
02
Boztaþ Tepe1803
to Korkuteli(3 km)
to Ulucak(3 km)
N
0 500 m
Binge
çitDer
e
Bozcalar Dere
KI
ZI
L
ÇA
M
D
A
Ð
06
04
4442
+
+
+
+
+
+
20
50
Kargalýk Boðazý
3
2
1
4
5
Terrace
Erosional Surface
Section line andsection number
Cenomanian rudist reef
Cenomanianbenthonic foraminifera
Santonian rudist reef
Strike and dip of bedding
Stream
Peak of hill
Road
Explanation for all figures
Rudist biostrome
Individual rudist
Rudist fragmentLate Cretaceousplanktonic foraminifera
Tertiaryplanktonic foraminifera
Benthonic foraminifera
Stromatolitic lamination
Fault
Middle-LateSantonian
Tertiary (undifferentiated)
Quaternary
Middle Maastrichtian-Upper Campanian
Lower Santonian-Cenomanian
Bey
Dað
larý
fm.
Akd
aðfm
.
Conglomerate
Pelagic marls at the base
Massive hemipelagic limestones
Thick-bedded neritic limestones
Thin-bedded chertypelagic limestones
4
Figure 2. Geological map of the Korkuteli area (between Korkuteli and Ulucak). The Tertiary sequence is undifferentiated because of the scale.Palaeogene pelagic marls form the base of the Tertiary sequence.
Middle-UpperSantonianLower Santon-ian-
UPPER CRETACEOUS STRATIGRAPHY OF BEY DA⁄LARI
44
ME
SO
ZO
IC
CE
NO
ZO
IC
CR
ET
AC
EO
US
Up
pe
rC
re
tac
eo
us
Cen
oman
ian
Tur
onia
n(?
)C
onia
cian
(?)
San
toni
anU
.Cam
pani
an-
M.M
aast
rich
tian
Akd
aðB
ey
Da
ðla
rý
PAL
EO
GE
NE
TE
RT
IAR
Y
600
1575
250
DISCONFORMITY
DISCONFORMITY
Pelagic marls
Thinly to medium bedded pelagic clayeylimestones with chert nodules.
Massive hemipelagic limestones
Massively or thickly bedded limestoneswith rudist reef
Medium to thickly sometimes thinlybedded neritic limestones and dolomiticlimestones with stromatolitic laminationand rudist biostromes
Massively bedded limestones withrudist reef
FO
RM
AT
ION
STA
GE
SE
RIE
S
SY
ST
EM
ER
A
-QUAT.P
leis
t.
LIT
HO
LO
GY
FO
SS
IL EXPLANATIONS
TH
ICK
NE
SS
?
ANGULAR UNCONFORMITYReddish conglomerates
SY
MB
OL
PC
KA
KB
PA
LA
EO
GE
NE
Figure 3. Generalized columnar section of the study area (see Figure 2 for explanation).
Age and Fossil Content – Benthic foraminifera and rudistsare the unique fossil components to use in dating theneritic limestones of the Bey Da¤lar› formation. TheCenomanian part of the formation is rich in benthicforaminifera, specifically, it is rich in number ofindividuals but poor in diversity because of the restrictingenvironmental conditions. The following fauna indicatinga Cenomanian age has been determined for the unit (Sar›
1999): Pseudedomia viallii (COLALONGO), Chrysalidinagradata d’ORBIGNY, Pseudolituonella reicheli MARIE,Pseudorhapydionina dubia (de CASTRO), P. cf. laurinensis(de CASTRO), Nummoloculina sp., Nezzazata sp. andCuneolina sp. Similar benthic foraminifer associationswere reported from the Cenomanian of the Korkuteliarea (Çakmak Kerti¤i locality, west of Kargal›köy) byPoisson (1967, 1977) and Gutnic et al. (1979), and from
B. SARI & S. ÖZER
45
NW
SE
9291
9089
88
85
80
7576
70
65
62
3,5 m
a) SECTION-4
Pelagic limestones of theAkdað formation(late Campanian)
Hemipelagic limestones of theBey Daðlarý formation(middle-late Santonian)
Neritic limestones of theBey Daðlarý formation(early Santonian)
Transitional contact:benthonic and planktonicfauna exist together
Erosional surface
NW
SE5 m
1 5 1617
1820
25
3032
Fethiye-Korkuteliroad
b) SECTION-5
Rudist reef(early Santonian)
Hemipelagic limestones(middle-late Santonian)
Akdað formation(middle Maastrichtian)
Plio-Quaternaryconglomerates
Paleogenepelagic marls
Erosional surface
97-392B
97-437
97-435B
97-436
97-435
97-434
97-433
97-432
Sample number
Palaeogenepelagic marls
Figure 4. Contact relationship between the neritic and hemipelagic limestones of the Bey Da¤lar› formation and the pelagic limestones of theAkda¤ formation at the Çakmak Kerti¤i locality. The erosional surface, marked by bioturbation and reworked pebbles derived from theunderlying hemipelagic limestones in Section 4, is characterized by flat surface, and shows intense silicification and iron oxidation inSection 5 (see Figure 2 for locations of the sections).
the Ya¤ca Köy formation (Cenomanian) of Katran Da¤(Sam Da¤) (30 km east of the study area) by Bignot &Poisson (1974) and Poisson (1977). Poisson (1977)recognized a succession of Early Jurassic to Cenomanianage in the Katran Da¤ carbonate platform. TheCenomanian Ya¤ca Köy formation has a rich benthicforaminiferal fauna that is associated with rudists(caprinids), algae, gastropoda and chondrodonta. Bignot& Poisson (1974) and Poisson (1977) distinguished twolevels in the neritic carbonates of the Ya¤ca Köyformation. The lower level containing Pseudedomia viallii(COLALONGO) corresponds to the middle Cenomanianand the upper level containing Pseudorhapydioninalaurinensis (de CASTRO) corresponds to the lateCenomanian.
The upper part of the Lower Jurassic-Cenomaniansuccession along the eastern margin of the Katran Da¤carbonate platform was re-examined by Robertson(1993) with the aim of shedding light on theemplacement history of the Antalya complex. Heproposed that the upper surface of the Cenomanianplatform carbonates, occupied largely by rudistlimestones, is fissured and karstic and then overlain by 40m of medium-bedded micritic limestones, with abundantLate Cretaceous planktonic foraminifera (e.g,Globotruncana).
Farinacci & Yeniay (1986) noted that the Cenomanianlayered carbonates of the Bey Da¤lar› are typical of anopen-shelf environment and contain a rich benthicforaminiferal fauna. They also stated that rudistid debrisis rare and very localized, and became more abundant inthe early Turonian, together with calcisphaeurulids andthe first planktonic foraminifers to appear on thisplatform.
The rudist fauna is especially made up of caprinids andaccompanies the benthic foraminiferal fauna. Bignot &Poisson (1974) recognized a rudist fauna, consistingespecially of caprinids and radiolitids from the Cenomanianof Katran Da¤. Özer (1988) described this fauna in detail.The present forms resemble the fauna reported by Özer’s(1988) that consists of Neocaprina gigantea PLENICAR,Caprina schiosensis BOEHM, Caprina cf. carinata (BOEHM)and Ichthyosarcolites bicarinatus (GEMMELLARO),indicating a middle-late Cenomanian age.
The Cenomanian rudistid limestones grade intomedium- to thickly bedded limestones which have thesame macroscopic and microscopic features as the
underlying limestones, however, they do not includediagnostic foraminifera and rudist fossils. Dicyclina cf.schlumbergeri MUNIER-CHALMAS Moncharmontiaapenninica (de CASTRO) and miliolids form the benthicforaminifera fauna. Small rudist biostromes (0.5- to 1.5-m-thick) constructed especially by the radiolitids(Sauvagesia sp. and Durania sp.) also occur throughoutthese limestones and are thought to be distributedpatchily within the restricted platform. The thickness ofthe limestones in the Cenomanian and early Santonianinterval is about 250 m and may arguably correspond toTuronian and Coniacian (Figure 3). Upward, theselimestones pass into lower Santonian massive limestoneswith rudist reefs forming the uppermost part of theneritic carbonates (Figure 3). Poisson (1967)determined this rudist fauna in the Korkuteli area (FedilDere). The fauna of Poisson (1967) comprised Vaccinitesatheniensis KTENAS, Sauvagesia cf. sharpie BAYLE,Vaccinites cf. boehmi DOUVILLE, V. cf. sulcatusDEFRANCE and Hippurites gr. sulcatus DOUVILLE,indicating a Santonian-early Campanian age.
The best outcrops of the rudist reefs can be seen atthe Yörükalan locality and in the Korkuteli-Fethiye roadcut, 1.5 km west of Kargal›köy (Figure 2). The reefs arechiefly made up of Vaccinites taburni (GUISCARDI),Hippurites nabresinensis FUTTERER and H. colliciatusWOODWARD. The fauna indicates a Santonian-Campanian age. Massive hemipelagic limestones formingthe uppermost part of the formation include rareplanktonic foraminifera and abundant spheroidal forms.At the boundary between the neritic and hemipelagiclimestones, benthic and planktonic fauna are observedtogether (Figure 4a). The limestones, in which theplanktonic foraminifera first appear, are considered to bea transitional zone between the neritic and hemipelagicfacies. Rudist fragments, echinids, bryozoans and bivalviaaccompany this foraminiferal fauna. A special microfaciesis encountered in almost all measured stratigraphicsections. This microfacies lies just beneath thehemipelagic limestones, and generally has biomicritic,intramicritic, and intrasparitic texture and containsCuneolina sp., rotalids, bryzoans, spheroidal forms andrudist fragments. Dicarinella asymetrica (SIGAL), D.concavata (BROTZEN), Marginotruncana pseudolinneianaPESSAGNO, M. coronata (BOLLI), M. cf. sigali (REICHEL),Marginotruncana sp., Contusotruncana fornicata(PLUMMER), Heterohelix sp., Rotalina sp., Goupillaudinasp., and Hedbergella sp. (Plate-I) make-up the planktonic
UPPER CRETACEOUS STRATIGRAPHY OF BEY DA⁄LARI
46
foraminiferal association of the hemipelagic limestones,suggesting a Coniacian-Santonian age (Sar› 1999). Thefirst appearance of the Globotruncanids, together with D.concavata in the transition zone between the neritic andthe hemipelagic limestones, is accepted as the beginningof the zone. The first appearance of D. asymetricacharacterizes the end of the zone. The Dicarinellaconcavata interval zone is the oldest planktonicforaminiferal zone identified in this study andcorresponds to the lower part of the Santonian. Thelower limit of this zone does not reach the Coniacian-Santonian boundary because these hemipelagic limestones
grade into the rudistid neritic limestones to the base.Thus the age of the rudistid limestones cannot be youngerthan the early Santonian. The first and the lastappearances of D. asymetrica characterize the Dicarinellaasymetrica total range zone (Robaszynski et al. 1984;Caron 1985; Sliter 1989) and the interval corresponds tothe middle and late Santonian (Figure 5).
The planktonic foraminiferal zonation of Robaszynskiet al. (1984) and Caron (1985) is followed in this paper.Robaszynski & Caron (1995) calibrated the verticaldistribution of some zone marker planktonic foraminifera
B. SARI & S. ÖZER
47
BIOZONESPlanktonicforaminifera AmmoniteSUBSTAGESTAGE STAGE
Robaszynski &Caron (1995)
Robaszynski et al. (1984)Caron (1985)Sliter (1989)
Abathomphalusmayaroensis
Gansserinagansseri
Glo
botr
unca
nafa
lsos
tuar
ti
Globotruncanaaegyptiaca
Globotruncanellahavanensis
Globotruncanitacalcarata
Globotruncanaventricosa
Globotruncanitaelevata
Dicarinellaasymetrica
Dicarinellaconcavata
89.0
85.8
83.5
71.3
65.066.5
74.5
84.0
87.5
88.5
TURONIAN TURONIAN
CONIACIAN CONIACIAN
SANTONIANSANTONIAN
CAMPANIAN
CAMPANIAN
MAASTRICHTIAN
MAASTRICHTIAN
LOWER
MIDDLE
UPPER
LOWER
MIDDLE
UPPERGOLL.
NEUB.
HYAT
DONE
POLY
PHAL
H. III
BIDO.
PARA.
TEXA.
SERR.MARG.TRID.PETR.NEPT.DEVE.
Robaszynski et al. (1984)Caron (1985)Sliter (1989)
Figure 5. Chart showing the planktonic foraminifera and ammonite zonations and the shiftedCampanian-Maastrichtian boundary.
and the ranges of some biozones with another importantfossil group (ammonites) and palaeomagnetic reversals(Figure 5).
Contact – The lower contact of the Bey Da¤lar› formationhas not been observed in the study area because of faultsand young cover, but it was stated by Günay et al. (1982)that the contact was vertically transitional into UpperTriassic dolomites. The Akda¤ formation disconformablyoverlies the different stratigraphic levels of the BeyDa¤lar› formation (Figures 4 & 6). In these sections,strikes and dips of the carbonates of the Bey Da¤lar› andAkda¤ formations are nearly the same.
Akda¤ Formation
Description and Depositional Environment – The Akda¤formation was first named by Günay et al. (1978 inÖzye¤in et al. 1985). Since then, many researchers haveused this name for the Coniacian-Maastrichtian pelagiclimestones (Özye¤in et al. 1985; Gültekin 1986;Köylüo¤lu 1987; Özkan & Köylüo¤lu 1988; Naz et al.1992).
In this study, the Akda¤ formation is used for theupper Campanian-middle Maastrichtian planktonic
foraminifera-bearing thinly bedded cherty–clayeylimestones (‘scaglia’ of Italian authors; Farinacci & Yeniay1986). They are distinguished from the middle-upperSantonian hemipelagic limestones by their distinctive thinbedding. The middle-upper Santonian hemipelagiclimestones are massive and have high relief in outcropprofile (Figures 3, 4 & 7).
The Akda¤ formation is composed of thinly tomedium bedded (8-10 cm), planktonic foraminifera-bearing dirty-white to cream-coloured, cherty–clayeylimestones. The formation has a 75 m maximumthickness that varies laterally. These limestones aredistinctly bedded and rather strong at the base of theformation. They include brown iron-oxide spots thatgradually disappear upward. The middle and upper partsof the formation have no clear bedding because of thefractured nature of the limestones, especially at theÇakmak Kerti¤i locality. Brown and gray chert nodulesare abundant in these levels. These nodules are irregularin shape, their diameters range from 3 to 20 cm and evenreach 120 cm near the Savran Ekinli¤i locality. Thesenodules are sometimes coated with white coloured chalk.The limestones of the Akda¤ formation have planktonicforaminifera-bearing biomicritic texture which isindicative of basinal depositional conditions (cf. Wilson1975).
UPPER CRETACEOUS STRATIGRAPHY OF BEY DA⁄LARI
48
Figure 6. Contact relationship between the Bey Da¤lar› and Akda¤ formations and Palaeogene pelagic marls in the Bozcalar Dere. Pelagic limestonesof the Akda¤ formation disconformably overlie the neritic limestones of the Bey Da¤lar› formation. The hemipelagic limestones of the BeyDa¤lar› formation were completely eroded. The erosional surface is rather distinct. The thickness of the pelagic limestones of the Akda¤formation is 1.5 m, and the age of this level is middle Maastrichtian. The Palaeogene marls disconformably overlie the Akda¤ formationand include pebbles derived from the Akda¤ formation. (a) cross section, (b) sketch map (see Figure 2 for the location).
193
194195196 198 199 200 201 202 203 204
205206
207
208
209
210
1 m
N
Boz
cala
rD
ere
Erosional surface
Section line
b)
Neritic limestones of theBey Daðlarý formation(pre-Santonian)
193
194
198
200
202
205206
210
W
E
50 cm
SECTION-1
Chert nodules
Pebbles from the limestonesof the Akdað formation
Erosional surface
Pelagic limestones of theAkdað formation(middle Maastrichtian)
Paleogenepelagic marls
a)
97-297-3
97-4
97-597-697-7
Palaeogenepelagic marls
Age and Fossil Content – The Akda¤ formation has a richplanktonic foraminiferal fauna: Globotruncana arca(CUSHMAN), G. bulloides VOGLER, G.(?) insignisGANDOLFI, G. linneiana (d’ORBIGNY), G. mariei BANNER& BLOW, G. orientalis EL NAGGAR, G. rosetta (CARSEY),G. ventricosa WHITE, Globotruncanita atlantica (CARON),Gt. calcarata (CUSHMAN), Gt. elevata (BROTZEN), Gt.stuartiformis (DALBIEZ), Gt. subspinosa (PESSAGNO),Contusotruncana fornicata (PLUMMER),Archaeglobigerina sp., Rugoglobigerina sp. andHeterohelix sp. (Plate-I) make up the late Campanianassemblage (Sar› 1999). The Globotruncanita calcaratatotal range zone is characterized by the first and lastappearance of Gt. calcarata (CUSHMAN), andcorresponds to the late Campanian (Robaszynski et al.1984; Caron 1985; Sliter 1989). The Campanian-Maastrichtian boundary is marked by the disappearanceof Gt. calcarata (CUSHMAN) as determined by manyresearchers (Robaszynski et al. 1984; Caron 1985;Almogi-Labin et al. 1986; Sliter 1989). Robaszynski &Caron (1995) shifted the Campanian-Maastrichtianboundary from 74.3 Ma to 71.3 Ma (Figure 5).
Globotruncana aegyptiaca NAKKADY, G. arca(CUSHMAN), G. bulloides VOGLER, G. dupeublei CARONet al., G. esnehensis NAKKADY, G. falsostuarti SIGAL, G.
linneiana (d’ORBIGNY), G. mariei BANNER & BLOW, G.orientalis EL NAGGAR, G. rosetta (CARSEY), G.ventricosa WHITE, Globotruncanita angulata (TILEV), Gt.conica WHITE, Gt. pettersi (GANDOLFI), Gt. stuarti (deLAPPARENT), Gt. stuartiformis (DALBIEZ), Gt.subspinosa (PESSAGNO), Contusotruncana contusa(CUSHMAN), C. fornicata (PLUMMER), Gasserinagansseri (BOLLI), G. wiedenmayeri (GANDOLFI),Archaeglobigerina sp., Rugoglobigerina rugosa(PLUMMER), Heterohelix sp., and Racemiguembelina sp.(Plate-II) make up the early-middle Maastrichtianassemblage (Sar› 1999). The lower-middle Maastrichtianhas two planktonic foraminiferal zones. TheGlobotruncana falsostuarti partial range zone ischaracterized by the last appearance of Gt. calcarata(CUSHMAN) and the first appearance of G. gansseri(BOLLI) and corresponds to the early Maastrichtian. Thefirst appearance of G. gansseri (BOLLI), is used to drawthe early-middle Maastrichtian boundary, as reported bymany researchers (Robaszynski et al. 1984; Caron 1985;Almogi-Labin et al. 1986; Sliter 1989). The G. gansseriinterval zone is characterized by the first appearance ofthe G. gansseri (BOLLI) and the last appearance of thenominal species together with whole Late Cretaceousplanktonic foraminifera around the lower part of themiddle Maastrichtian. According to the zonation ofRobaszynski & Caron (1995), the Globotruncanafalsostuarti partial range zone and the lower part of theGansserina gansseri interval zone correspond to theupper part of the Campanian (Figure 5).
Contact – The Akda¤ formation disconformably overliesdifferent stratigraphic levels of the Bey Da¤lar› formationalong a prominent erosional surface. Distinctly beddedpelagic limestones (upper Campanian) of the Akda¤formation overlie the massive hemipelagic limestones(Santonian) of the Bey Da¤lar› formation at the ÇakmakKerti¤i locality (Figures 2 & 4a, b). The erosional surfaceat this locality is characterized by iron oxidation,silicification and bioturbation, indicative of a later periodof low rates of sedimentation due to relative starvation(Rosales et al. 1994). At the Bozcalar Dere locality, thinlybedded pelagic limestones (middle Maastrichtian) of theAkda¤ formation disconformably overlie the neriticlimestones (? pre-Santonian) of the Bey Da¤lar›formation (Figure 6).
B. SARI & S. ÖZER
49
1 m
NW168155
156157
158159
160161
163
164
165166
167
SE
16297-366
97-367
97-368
97-36997-370
SECTION-3
Hemipelagic limestones ofthe Bey Daðlarý formation(Santonian)
Paleogenepelagic marls
Erosional surface
Neritic limestones of theBey Daðlarý formation
Sample numbers
Palaeogenepelagic marls
Figure 7. Contact between the hemipelagic limestones of the BeyDa¤lar› formation and the pelagic marls of the Palaeogene(See Figure 2 for location of the section).
Palaeogene
The Palaeogene is represented by various lithologies andformations that show lateral and vertical facies variationsthroughout the Bey Da¤lar› autochthonous unit; hencemany names have been used for these formations.Because it is beyond the scope of this study, thePalaeogene is not described in detail.
Planktonic foraminifera-bearing thin-bedded, lightgreenish to cream-coloured marls form the base of theTertiary sequence. These marls disconformably overliethe different stratigraphic levels of the Upper CretaceousBey Da¤lar› and Akda¤ formations. The thickness of thesemarls is about 250 m.
Contact – The pelagic marls of the Palaeogenedisconformably overlie pelagic limestones of the Akda¤formation at the Çakmak Kerti¤i locality (Figure 4a, b)and Bozcalar Dere locality (Figure 6). Blocks and bigpebbles of the Akda¤ formation are seen at the base ofthe Palaeogene at this locality. At the Meydandüz Tepelocality, the Palaeogene disconformably overlies thehemipelagic levels of the Bey Da¤lar› formation (Figure 2,section 3; Figure 7).
A rather extreme case is encountered in section 2 atwhich the Palaeogene lies directly on neritic limestones ofthe Bey Da¤lar› formation (Figure 8). Hemipelagiclimestones of the Bey Da¤lar› formation and the Akda¤formation are totally absent. The Palaeogene begins with
UPPER CRETACEOUS STRATIGRAPHY OF BEY DA⁄LARI
50
1,5 m
NW
SE
161 162163
170
165
169
166
167
168
171
172
173
164
Erosional surface
Sample no
Conglomeratic limestones
Paleogene
Pelagic marls
SECTION-2
Neritic limestones of theBey Daðlarý formationPre-Santonian(?)
Palaeogene
Neritic limestones of theBey Da ları formation[pre-Santonian(?)]
Figure 8. Section showing the contact between the neritic limestones of the Bey Da¤lar› formation (? pre-Santonian) and the pelagic conglomeraticlimestones of the Palaeogene. Pebbles are embedded in a lime-mud matrix with planktonic foraminifera. Note the total absence ofhemipelagic limestones of the Bey Da¤lar› formation and pelagic limestones of the Akda¤ formation.
a 1.5-m-thick conglomeratic level composed of pebblesembedded in abundant planktonic- foraminifera andscarce benthic-foraminifera-bearing, pelagic lime mudmatrix. The pebbles are mostly derived from the pelagic,hemipelagic and neritic limestones of the UpperCretaceous formations. Rudistid fragments are alsoobserved.
Evolution of the Carbonate Platform
Peritidal conditions persisted from the Cenomanian to theearly Santonian in the Bey Da¤lar› autochthonous unit.Slight drowning of the Korkuteli part of the platform atthe end of the early Santonian produced a hemipelagicenvironment that would persist until the end of theSantonian.
The major part of the Bey Da¤lar› carbonate platform(especially the northern part) subsided during theTuronian and was invaded by pelagic deposits (Bignot &Poisson 1974; Poisson 1977; Gutnic et al. 1979;Farinacci & Köylüo¤lu 1982; Poisson et al. 1983; Özye¤inet al. 1985; Farinacci & Yeniay 1986; Gültekin 1986;Köylüo¤lu 1987; Özkan & Köylüo¤lu 1988; Naz et al.1992; Robertson 1993).
Poisson et al. (1983) reported that three mainextensional events are well documented in the westernTaurides during Middle and Late Triassic, at the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary and during the Turonian-earlySenonian. Robertson (1993) proposed that subduction ofold, dense (Late Triassic ?) oceanic crust and mantle couldhave led to regional crustal extension, and this may havebeen the driving force for subsidence of the carbonateplatforms after Cenomanian time. The extensionaltectonics may have been the cause of subsidence of theBey Da¤lar› carbonate platform during Turonian;alternatively short-term major sea-level fall in the lateTuronian (90 Ma) as proposed by Haq et al. (1987), mayhave been the main control. The Korkuteli part of theplatform retained its neritic character until the earlySantonian. Deepening began in the middle Santonian andshort term major sea-level fall in the middle Santonian(85 Ma) (Haq et al. 1987) or Turonian extension(Poisson et al. 1983) may have been the major control.
The lower and middle Campanian, the upper part ofthe middle Maastrichtian and the upper Maastrichtian areabsent in all sections. The absence of the lower andmiddle Campanian may have been related to the
discontinuity of pelagic sedimentation at the Santonian-Campanian boundary and nondeposition during post-Santonian subaerial exposure. The absence of the upperpart of the middle Maastrichtian and the upperMaastrichtian should have been related to another breakin pelagic deposition at the Cretaceous-Tertiaryboundary. Measured stratigraphic sections show that theplatform was subaerially exposed after the Santonian andduring the middle Maastrichtian. Discontinuity may havebeen related to nondeposition during these times ofsubaerial exposure.
Farinacci & Yeniay (1986) suggested that the basin inwhich the Upper Cretaceous pelagic carbonates weredeposited was not so deep, and facies variations (e.g.,presence of cherts) and gaps in the pelagic sequence ofthe Bey Da¤lar› was caused by sub-marine volcaniceruptions, represented now by an ophiolitic complex thatcrops out immediately north. They also noted thateustatic variations and tectonic pulses are also importantevents that change environment. The large platform ofthe Arabo-African palaeomargin divided into numerousbasins; a large part of that palaeomargin, the Bey Da¤lar›area, was subaerially exposed for short periods of time,between which there were long periods of drowning(Farinacci & Yeniay 1986).
The last transgression of the Mesozoic wasCampanian in age and ceased in the Early Palaeocenewhen a new regression took place (Farinacci & Köylüo¤lu1982). The Maastrichtian was the closure time for theArabo-African and Eurasiatic plates in this particularlycritical area of Tethys (Farinacci & Yeniay 1986). It wasalso the time of the onset of collision (Poisson et al.1983) and the initial stages of emplacement time of theAntalya Complex in the Katran Da¤ area (Robertson1993).
The hiatus at the end of the Late Cretaceous (aftermiddle Maastrichtian), and subaerial exposure anderosion, may have been caused by the aforementionedtectonic events and/or short-term major sea-level fallduring the middle Maastrichtian (68 Ma) (Haq et al.1987).
Discussion
The age of the neritic limestones of the Bey Da¤lar›formation extends from Cenomanian to the earlySantonian. The uppermost level of the neritic part is
B. SARI & S. ÖZER
51
characterized by massive lower Santonian rudistidlimestones (Figure 4b). In the study area, the platformretained its shallow character until the end of the earlySantonian, on contrary to the general agreement thatestablishment of the pelagic facies began in the Turonianthroughout the major parts of the Bey Da¤lar›autochthonous unit.
Slight drowning of the platform at the end of theearly Santonian produced a hemipelagic environment thatwould persist until the end of the Santonian. Thishemipelagic level was included in the Akda¤ formation inmost previous studies (Farinacci & Köylüo¤lu 1982;Özye¤in et al. 1985; Farinacci & Yeniay 1986; Gültekin1986; Köylüo¤lu 1987; Özkan & Köylüo¤lu 1988; Naz etal. 1992) due to its hemipelagic character (Figure 9), butthe present authors propose that it should be included inthe Bey Da¤lar› formation because of its transitionalcontact with the neritic limestones, its massive structure,and the presence of a prominent erosional surfacebetween the hemipelagic limestones of the Bey Da¤lar›formation and the pelagic limestones of the Akda¤formation.
Figure 212 of Poisson (1977) clearly shows thelateral and vertical facies changes in the neritic and pelagiccarbonates of the Upper Cretaceous Bey Da¤lar›carbonate sequence. Subsidence of the platform, thusinitiation of the pelagic facies is diachronous throughoutthe platform. Poisson (1977) separated the lowerSenonian and upper Senonian carbonates along a surfacewhich corresponded to a gap ‘discontinuité desedimentation en régime pélagique’.
Farinacci & Yeniay (1986) reported upper Coniacian-Santonian pelagic limestones over lower Turonian neriticdeposits, interposing sedimentary gap between them insome sections. They proposed that the early-middleSenonian foraminiferal assemblage might be considered atransitional benthic neritic facies and a planktonic marineassemblage. They also reported a hiatus betweenSantonian and Campanian pelagic limestones.
Gültekin (1986) and Naz et al. (1992) mentioned thepresence of the late Maastrichtian in their generalizedcolumnar sections (Figure 9) but did not give the fossilassociation. Poisson (1977) and Farinacci & Yeniay(1986) reported the presence of the late Maastrichtianfrom the Korkuteli area (Figure 9). The planktonicforaminiferal assemblage given by Poisson (1977) in theBozcalar Dere (Ulucak) section (table 6 in Poisson 1977)
does not indicate the late Maastrichtian according torecent planktonic foraminiferal zonations (Robaszynski etal. 1984; Caron 1985; Robaszynski & Caron 1995).Farinacci & Yeniay (1986) also suggested the presence ofthe pelagic upper Maastrichtian in their Tarakl› andKüçüktepe sections (Figure 9). Photomicrographs ofupper Maastrichtian samples in plates 7 and 8 of theirpaper are very similar to our observations in theKüçüktepe sequence, but the planktonic foraminiferalassociation given in their paper does not indicate lateMaastrichtian. In the absence of zone markerAbathomphalus mayaroensis (BOLLI), it is very difficult todetermine the late Maastrichtian.
Conclusions
1- The Upper Cretaceous Korkuteli sequence comprisestwo formations. The Cenomanian-Santonian BeyDa¤lar› formation lies at the base of the sequence andis disconformably overlain by the upper Campanian-middle Maastrichtian Akda¤ formation. Palaeogenepelagic marls form the lowermost part of the Tertiarysection and disconformably overlie the differentstratigraphic levels of the Upper Cretaceous sequence.
2- The Bey Da¤lar› formation can be divided into twoparts. The 600-m-thick Cenomanian-lower Santonianneritic peritidal carbonates form the basal part andare gradationally overlain by the 15-m-thick, middle-upper Santonian hemipelagic limestones that form theupper part.
3- The neritic part is characterized by two rudistidhorizons, corresponding to the Cenomanian and earlySantonian. Massive hemipelagic limestones are easilydistinguished due to their high relief.
4- The Akda¤ formation disconformably overliesdifferent stratigraphic levels of the Bey Da¤lar›formation with a prominent erosional surface formedduring a nondepositional and/or an erosional event inthe early Campanian to early Maastrichtian. The lowerand middle Campanian is totally missing.
5- The Upper Cretaceous sequence was truncated by anerosional surface. The upper part of the middleMaastrichtian and the upper Maastrichtian are totallyabsent in all sections.
6- The presence of two erosional phases has beenobviously observed. During post-Santonian
UPPER CRETACEOUS STRATIGRAPHY OF BEY DA⁄LARI
52
B. SARI & S. ÖZER
53
MA
AS
TR
ICH
TIA
N
L LM MU U
CA
MPA
NIA
N
SA
NT
ON
IAN
CO
NIA
CIA
N
STA
GE
SU
B-
STA
GE
TU
RO
NIA
N
CE
NO
MA
NIA
N
PO
ISS
ON
,197
7
KA
RG
AL
IKB
OZ
CA
LA
RD
ER
EB
OZ
CA
LA
RD
ER
E
FAR
INA
CC
I&
KÖ
YL
ÜO
ÐL
U,
1982
KIZ
ILC
AÐ
AÇ
ÖZ
YE
ÐÝN
etal
.,19
85
KÜ
ÇÜ
KT
EP
EK
AR
GA
LIK
GÜ
LTE
KÝN
,19
86
GE
NE
RA
LIZ
ED
FAR
INA
CC
I&
YE
NÝA
Y,1
986
TAR
AK
LI
MU
LL
AK
DE
RE
KÜ
ÇÜ
KT
EP
E
ÖZ
KA
N&
KÖ
YL
ÜO
ÐL
U,
1988
GE
NE
RA
LIZ
ED
NA
Zet
al,
1992
BU
CA
K-A
LA
DA
Ð(B
AS
INW
AR
D)
???
? ?
PAL
EO
GE
NE
M-LE.
D ?
?
? ??
?L.SenonianU.P.
?
TH
ISS
TU
DY
GE
NE
RA
LIZ
ED
M.E.
NO
TT
OS
CA
LE
PO
ISS
ON
19
77
FA
RIN
AC
CI&
KÖ
YL
ÜO
LU
19
82
ÖZ
YE
Ne
t a
l. 1
98
5G
ÜLT
EK
N1
98
6FA
RIN
AC
CI
& Y
EN
AY
19
86
ÖZ
KA
N &
KÖ
YL
ÜO
LU
19
88
NA
Z e
t a
l.1
99
2
PA
LA
EO
GE
NE
Figu
re 9
. Ch
art s
how
ing
sequ
ence
s pr
evio
usly
sug
gest
ed b
y re
sear
cher
s w
ho h
ave
stud
ied
the
Bey
Da¤
lar›
auto
chto
nous
uni
t, an
d co
mpa
rison
with
the
pres
ent s
tudy
. D
– D
ania
n, U
.P.–
Upp
erPa
laeo
cene
, M
.E.–
Mid
dle
Eoce
ne.
UPPER CRETACEOUS STRATIGRAPHY OF BEY DA⁄LARI
54
regression, hemipelagic limestones of the Bey Da¤lar›formation were partially or totally eroded and aprominent erosional surface was formed. The middleMaastrichtian erosional phase was more profound.Erosion reached the neritic limestones of the BeyDa¤lar› formation. These data demonstrate thatconditions were rather changeable on the platformduring the Late Cretaceous, especially from theSantonian to the Palaeogene. These importantvariations correspond to regional and local tectonicmovements and also short-term major drops in sealevel.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank André Poisson and ananonymous reviewer for their incisive reviews andsuggestions that improved the paper significantly. Weparticularly thank to Sevinç Özkan-Alt›ner for invaluablediscussions on planktonic foraminifera and Demir Alt›nerfor permitting us the use this microscope. The field workwas supported financially by the Dokuz Eylül UniversityResearch Foundation project, no. 0922.97.01.32. StevenK. Mittwede helped with the English.
ALMOGI-LABIN, A., REISS, Z. & CARON, M. 1986. SenonianGlobotruncanidae from Israel. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 79,849-895.
BIGNOT, G. & POISSON, A. 1974. Le Cénomanien du flanc oriental duKatran Da¤ (Sam da¤) pres d’Antalya (Turquie). Mineral Researchand Exploration Institute of Turkey (MTA) Bulletin 82, 71-77.
CARON, M. 1985. Cretaceous planktic foraminifera. In: BOLLI, H. M.,SAUNDERS, J. B. & PERCH-NIELSEN, K. (eds) Plankton Stratigraphy.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 17-86.
ERAKMAN, B., MEflHUR, M., GÜL, M.A., ALKAN, H., ÖZTAfl, Y. & AKP›NAR, M.1982. Fethiye-Köyce¤iz-Tefenni-Elmal›-Kalkan aras›nda kalanalan›n jeolojisi. Abstracts of the 6th Petroleum Congress of Turkey,23-31.
FARINACCI, A. & KÖYLÜO⁄LU, M. 1982. Evolution of the Jurassic-Cretaceous Taurus shelf (southern Turkey). Boletino della SocietàPaleontologica Italiana 21, 267-276.
FARINACCI, A. & YEN‹AY, G. 1986. Biostratigraphy and event-analysis ofthe Cenomanian-Maastrichtian carbonates of the Bey Da¤lar›(western Taurus, Turkey). Geologica Romana 25, 257-284.
GÜLTEK‹N, M.C. 1986. Bat› Toroslar Beyda¤› Otokton Birli¤indekiBeyda¤› Formasyonunun Senomaniyen Yafll› KarbonatDizilimlerinin Mikrofasiyesleri, Çökelme Ortamlar›, KarbonatÇökelme Modeli ve Diyajenezi. Turkish Petroleum Corporation(TPAO) Report No: 930. [in Turkish, Unpublished].
GÜNAY, Y., BÖLÜKBAfl›, S. & YOLDEM‹R, O. 1982. Beyda¤lar›n›n stratigrafisive yap›s›. Abstracts of the 6th Petroleum Congress of Turkey 91-101.
GUTNIC M., MONOD O., POISSON, A. & DUMONT, J.F. 1979. Géologie desTaurides occidentale (Turquie). Mémoires de la SociétéGéologique de France 137, 1-112.
HAQ B.U., HARDENBOL, J. & VAIL, P.R. 1987. Chronology of fluctuatingsea levels since the Triassic. Science 235, 1156-1167.
KÖYLÜO⁄LU, M. 1987. Beyda¤lar› Otoktonu Maestrihtiyenkarbonatlar›n›n Mikropaleontolojisi, Mikrofasiyes ve OrtamsalYorumlar›. Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) Report No:117. [in Turkish, Unpublished].
NAZ, H., ALKAN, H. & ERK, S. 1992. Facies and sequence characteristicsof the Late Cretaceous-Palaeocene drowning on the west Tauruscarbonate platform, S. W. Türkiye. Abstracts of the 9th PetroleumCongress of Turkey, 121-134.
Özer, S. 1988. Description de quelques Rudistes à canaux dans leCénomanien de Turquie. Géologie Méditerranéenne XV, 159-167.
ÖZGÜL, N. 1976. Toroslar›n baz› temel jeoloji özellikleri. GeologicalSociety of Turkey Bulletin 14, 75-87 [in Turkish with Englishabstract].
ÖZKAN S., & KÖYLÜO⁄LU, M. 1988. Campanian-Maastrichtian planktonicforaminiferal biostratigraphy of the Beyda¤lar› AutochtonousUnit, Western Taurids, Turkey. Middle East Technical University,Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 21, 377-388.
ÖZYE⁄‹N, G., KÖYLÜO⁄LU, M., KURU, F. & KIRICI, S. 1985. Beyda¤lar›Otoktonu Kretase ve Tersiyer Yafll› BirimlerinMikropaleontolojileri ve Fasiyesleri. Turkish PetroleumCorporation (TPAO) Report No: 808. [in Turkish, Unpublished].
POISSON, A. 1967. Données nouvelles sur le Crétacé superieur et leTertiaire du Taurus au NW d’Antalya (Turquie). Compte RenduAcademie Sciences, Paris 264, 2443-2446.
POISSON, A. 1977. Recherches géologiques dans les Taurides occidentals.Thése Doct. d’Etat, Universitie de Paris-Sud, Orsay, 795 p.
POISSON, A. 2001. The Bey Da¤lar› platform SW margin of the IspartaAngle (SW Turkey). Abstracts of the 4th International Symphosiumon Eastern Mediterranean Geology, 21.
POISSON, A., AKAY, E., DUMONT, J.F. & UYSAL, fi. 1983. The Isparta angle:a Mesozoic paleorift in the Western Taurides. In: TEKEL‹, O. &GÖNCÜO⁄LU, M.C. (eds) Geology of Taurus Belt, 11-26.
ROBASZYNSKI, F. & CARON, M. 1995. Cretaceous planktonic foraminifera:comments on the Europe–Mediterranean zonation. Bulletin de laSociete geologique de France 166, 681-692.
ROBASZYNSKI, F., CARON, M., GONZALES DONOSO, J.M. & WONDERS, A.A.H.(eds) 1984. Atlas of Late Cretaceous Globotruncanids. Revue deMicropaléontologie 26, 145-305.
References
B. SARI & S. ÖZER
55
ROBERTSON, A.H.F. 1993. Mesozoic-Tertiary sedimentary and tectonicevolution of Neotethyan carbonate platforms, margins and smallocean basins in the Antalya Complex, southwest Turkey. SpecialPublication of International Associations of Sedimentologists 20,415-465.
ROSALES, I., FERNÁNDEZ-MENDIOLA, P.A. & GARCIA-MONDÉJAR, J. 1994.Carbonate depositional sequence development on active faultblocks: the Albian in the Castro Urdiales area, northern Spain.Sedimentology 41, 861-882.
SAR›, B. 1999. Biostratigraphy of the Upper Cretaceous Sequences inthe Korkuteli Area (Western Taurides). MSc Thesis, Dokuz EylülUniversity, ‹zmir-Turkey.
SAR›, B. & ÖZER, S. 2001. Facies characteristics of the Cenomanian-Maastrichtian sequence of the Beyda¤lar› Carbonate platform inthe Korkuteli area (western Taurides). International GeologyReview 43, 830-839.
SLITER, W.V. 1989. Biostratigraphic zonation for Cretaceous planktonicforaminifers examined in thin section. Journal of ForaminiferalResearch 19, 1-19.
WILSON, J.L. 1975. Carbonate Facies in Geologic History. Springer-Verlag, 428 p.
Received 26 February 2001; revised typescript accepted 07 March 2002
UPPER CRETACEOUS STRATIGRAPHY OF BEY DA⁄LARI
56
PLATE-I
Figure 1. Globotruncana arca (CUSHMAN); sample no: 97-393A;
Globotruncanita calcarata total range zone; Upper Campanian
Figure 2. Dicarinella cf. asymetrica (SIGAL); sample no: 97-390A;
Dicarinella asymetrica total range zone; Upper Santonian.
Figure 3. Dicarinella concavata (BROTZEN); sample no: 97-434;
Dicarinella asymetrica total range zone; Upper Santonian.
Figure 4. Globotruncanita elevata (BROTZEN); sample no: 96-44;
Globotruncanita calcarata total range zone; Upper Campanian.
Figure 5. Globotruncana bulloides VOGLER; sample no: 97-457;
Globotruncanita calcarata total range zone; Upper Campanian.
Figure 6. Globotruncanita calcarata (CUSHMAN); sample no: 97-392A;
Globotruncanita calcarata total range zone; Upper Campanian.
Figure 7. Globotruncana linneiana (d’ORBIGNY); sample no: 97-4;
Gansserina gansseri interval zone; Middle Maastrichtian.
Figure 8. Globotruncanita subspinosa (PESSAGNO); sample no: 97-4;
Gansserina gansseri interval zone; Middle Maastrichtian.
Figure 9. Globotruncana ventricosa WHITE; sample no: 97-102;
Gansserina gansseri interval zone; Middle Maastrichtian.
B. SARI & S. ÖZER
57
UPPER CRETACEOUS STRATIGRAPHY OF BEY DA⁄LARI
58
PLATE-II
Figure 1. Globotruncana aegyptiaca NAKKADY; sample no: 97-436;
Gansserina gansseri interval zone; Middle Maastrichtian.
Figure 2. Globotruncana esnehensis NAKKADY; sample no: 97-101;
Gansserina gansseri interval zone; Middle Maastrichtian.
Figure 3. Globotruncana falsostuarti SIGAL; sample no: 97-5;
Gansserina gansseri interval zone; Middle Maastrichtian.
Figure 4. Globotruncanita angulata (TILEV); sample no: 97-102;
Gansserina gansseri interval zone; Middle Maastrichtian.
Figure 5. Globotruncanita conica (WHITE); sample no: 97-103;
Gansserina gansseri interval zone; Middle Maastrichtian.
Figure 6. Globotruncanita pettersi (GANDOLFI); sample no: 97-101;
Gansserina gansseri interval zone; Middle Maastrichtian.
Figure 7. Globotruncanita stuarti (de’LAPPARENT); sample no: 97-102;
Gansserina gansseri interval zone; Middle Maastrichtian.
Figure 8. Contusotruncana contusa (CUSHMAN); sample no: 97-5;
Gansserina gansseri interval zone; Middle Maastrichtian.
Figure 9. Gansserina gansseri (GANDOLFI); sample no: 97-102;
Gansserina gansseri interval zone; Middle Maastrichtian.
Figure 10. Gansserina wiedenmayeri (GANDOLFI); sample no: 97-102;
Gansserina gansseri interval zone; Middle Maastrichtian.
B. SARI & S. ÖZER
59
top related