Pliocene-Pleistocene Calcareous Nannofossil Biostratigraphy of Iodp

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2013 Pliocene-Pleistocene Calcareous Nannofossil Biostratigraphy of IODP Hole 1396C Adjacent to Montserrat Island in the Lesser Antilles, Caribbean Sea, Plus Experimentally Induced Diagenesis Mohammed H. Aljahdali

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

PLIOCENE-PLEISTOCENE CALCAREOUS NANNOFOSSIL BIOSTRATIGRAPHY OF

IODP HOLE 1396C ADJACENT TO MONTSERRAT ISLAND IN THE LESSER

ANTILLES, CARIBBEAN SEA, PLUS EXPERIMENTALLY INDUCED DIAGENESIS

MOHAMMED H. ALJAHDALI

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester 2013

Mohammed H. Aljahdali defended this thesis on March 27, 2013.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Sherwood W. Wise, Jr. Professor Directing Thesis

Yang Wang Committee Member

William Parker Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that this thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

Dedicated To my family whose support has made this project possible.

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank and express my gratitude to my major advisor Professor Sherwood “Woody” Wise for his encouragement and suggestion that made this work valuable. Woody introduced me to the Nannofossil micropaleontology field back in 2010 when I was looking for an advisor to work within the foraminifera field. I took classes in his lab with almost no idea about what nannofossils were. A year later, I was invited to sail with the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) on Expedition 340 to the Lesser Antilles; as the only nannofossil specialist yet to complete his master‟s degree to date. I sailed for 7-weeks with 30-high class scientists from all over the world from who I earned the name “NANNO-MAN”, a name denoted to me from volcanologists that never believed nannofossils could precisely age-date sediment in less than 5 minutes! It was one of the happiest moments in my life to sail on the JOIDES RESOLUTION. I would also like to thank many my committee members, Drs. Yang Wang and William Parker. Dr. Wang helped me tremendously in understanding the geochemistry of stable isotopes in marine sediment. Bill Parker, on the other hand, greatly assisted me in the process of geostatistical analyses. Drs. Abdulaziz Al-Suwailem and Thomas Missimer from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) generously allowed me to use the latest scanning electron microscope at KAUST, “Free of charge”, for the summer. Drs. Ali Behzad and Zenon Batang of KAUST were always there to help me improve the resolution of the SEM, and offer a more detailed discussion of the mathematical equations I used for quantitative analysis. The Nannofossil Research Lab Group (NRLG) in our department has many people that I am proud to be working with. I am thankful to our NRLG group: Nick Myres, Tugba Sezen, and Aaron Avery. Nick and Dr. Eric Lochner, from Physics Department, helped me use the SEM of the Physics Department at Florida State University to complete the comparisons I needed. Tugba, with her great ability in using graphic design software, developed the sketch of the nannofossil biostratigraphy summary and correlation. Aaron, one of the smartest people I‟ve ever met, made good discussion about the simulation of artificial late diagenesis produced by elevated temperatures. iv Many thanks go to my colleagues who sailed with me on EXP 340, of the IODP. I had a wonderful time sharing ideas and meeting different cultures from all over the world. I would like to thank our Co-chief scientists Drs. Osamu Ishizuka and Anne Le Friant. Thanks go to my foraminifera specialists colleagues, Andrew Fraass, Michael Martinez-Colon and Debbie Palmer. In Saudi Arabia, I wish to express my regards to our chair professor Ali Basaham, a great marine geochemist and close friend of mine, who never hesitated to guide me and provide invaluable suggestions. I am thankful to all my colleagues in our department at King Abudlaziz University, Faculty of Marine Sciences, Department of Marine Geology. This work has been officially funded by the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program. The scholarship of the Master degree was provided from King Abdulaziz University, Faculty of Marine Sciences. Last, I would like to extend my deepest thanks to my family who encouraged me to pursue my education. My parents, indeed, deserve this work to be dedicated to them.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

ABSTRACT ...... xii

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1. Calcareous Nannoplankton ...... 1

1.2. Classical Studies of Nannoplankton ...... 1

1.3. The Historical Development of Nannofossil Biostratigraphy ...... 2

1.4. IODP Expedition 340 to the Lesser Antilles ...... 3

1.5. Expedition 340, SITE 1396 ...... 4

1.6. The Geological Evolution of Montserrat Island ...... 5

1.7. SITE 1000, ODP LEG 165 in the Western Caribbean Sea ...... 5

1.8. Objective ...... 6

2. STUDY AREA AND METHODS ...... 12

2.1. Preparation Techniques ...... 12

2.1.1. Smear Slides ...... 12

2.1.2. Settling Technique ...... 12

2.1.3. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Technique ...... 13

2.2. Nannofossil Zonation ...... 13

vi 2.3. Counting Method...... 13

3. RESULTS ...... 15

3.1. Pleistocene ...... 16

3.1.1. Emiliania huxleyi Zone (0-0.29 Ma) ...... 16

3.1.2. Gephyrocapsa oceanica Zone (0.29 to 0.43 Ma) ...... 16

3.1.3. Pseudoemiliania lacunosa Zone (0.43-1.24 Ma) ...... 17

3.1.4. Helicosphaera sellii Zone (1.24-1.60 Ma) ...... 17

3.1.5. Calcidiscus macintyrei Zone (1.60-1.93 Ma) ...... 18

3.2. Pliocene ...... 18

3.2.1. Discoaster brouweri Zone (CN12d C. macintyrei Subzone; 1.93-2.39

Ma) ...... 18

3.2.2. Discoaster brouweri Zone (CN12c Discoaster pentaradiatus

Subzone; 2.39-2.53 Ma) ...... 18

3.2.3. Discoaster brouweri Zone (CN12b Discoaster surculus Subzone;

2.53-2.76 Ma) ...... 19

3.2.4. Discoaster brouweri Zone (CN12a Discoaster tamalis Subzone;

2.76-3.65 Ma) ...... 19

3.2.5. Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica Zone (CN11; 3.61-4.37 Ma) ...... 20

3.3. Experiments on Diagenesis ...... 34

4. DISCUSSION ...... 38

4.1. Nannofossil Correlation ...... 38

vii 4.2. Age-Depth Plot ...... 39

4.3. Abnormal Diagenesis ...... 39

5. CONCLUSION ...... 47

APPENDICES ...... 49

A. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF CALCAREOUS NANNOFOSSILS CONSIDERED IN THIS

THESIS...... 49

B. PLATES ...... 51

C. COPYRIGHT PERMISSIONS ...... 54

REFERENCES ...... 56

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 62

viii LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Nannofossil ages of the Pliocene-Pleistocene ...... 21

Table 3.2. Stratigraphic positions of the Pliocene-Pleistocene nannofossil datums...... 21

Table 3.3. Calcareous Nannofossil Range Chart of Hole 1396C...... 23

Table 3.4. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C ...... 24

Table 3.5. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C ...... 25

Table 3.6. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C...... 26

Table 3.7. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C...... 27

Table 3.8. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C...... 28

Table 3.9. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C...... 29

Table 3.10. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C...... 30

Table 3.11. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C...... 31

Table 3.12. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C...... 32

Table 4.1. Magnetic ages constructed during Expedition 340 (Expedition 340 Scientist, 2013). 42

Table 4.2. Nannofossil ages for Hole 1000A used by Kameo and Bralower (2000)...... 43

ix LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1.1. Location and distribution of the volcanic islands in the Lesser Antilles island arc. The outer arc consists of older volcanic islands, whereas the inner arc consists of active volcanic islands (La Friant et al., 2008). Countour lines (bathymetry; Smith and Sandwell, 1997). ... 7

Fig. 1.2. Map of the IODP, Expedition 340 sites in the eastern Caribbean Sea (from Expedition 340 Scientists, 2013)...... 8

Fig. 1.3. Location of Site 1396 (CARI-01C) and its topographic area (from Expedition 340 Scientists, 2013) ...... 9

Fig. 1.4. Seismic profiles of Site 1396 carried out during the Caraval cruise (Deplus et al., 2002)...... 10

Fig. 1.5. Location of Montserrat Island in the eastern Caribbeans Sea. (1) The geological evolution of Montserrat. (2) Location of Site 1396 (from La Friant et al., 2008; Bathymetry Smith and Sandwell, 1997)...... 10

Fig. 1. 6. Site 1000 from ODP Leg 165. Black star is the location of Site 1396. (modified from Kameo and Bralower, 2000)...... 11

Fig. 3.1. Nannofossil zonation scheme combined of Gartner (1977) and Okada and Bukry (1980) zonations...... 22

Fig. 3.2. Summary of the nannofossil biostratiraphy of Hole 1396C...... 33

Fig. 3.3. Comparison of scanning electron micrographs between heated samples (left) and non- heated, original sample (right). A Helicosphaera kamptneri. (Sample 6H-6, 105-107cm). B. Helicosphaera kamptneri in original Sample (14H-1, 90-92cm). C. Discoaster surculus (11H-1, 85-87cm). D. Discoaster surculus original Sample (14H-1, 90-92cm). E. Discoaster assymetricus (14H-6, 115-117 cm). F. Discoaster assymetricus in original Sample (14H- 1,90-92 cm)...... 35

Fig. 3.4. Comparison of scanning electron micrographs between heated samples (left) and non- heated, original sample (right). A. Discoaster pentaradiatus (Sample 7H-6, 73-75cm). B. Discoaster pentaradiatus in original Sample (14H-1, 90-92cm). C. Discoaster surculus (10H-5, 76-78cm). D. Discoaster surculus in original Sample (14H-1, 90-92cm). E. Calcidiscus leptoporus (5H-1, 47-49cm). F. Calcidiscus leptoporus in original Samples (10H-6, 121-123 cm)...... 36

Fig. 3.5. Comparison of scanning electron micrographs between heated samples (left) and non- heated, original sample (right). A. Discoaster assymetricus? (6H-6, 105-107 cm). B. Discoaster assymetricus? in original Sample (14H-1, 90-92-123 cm). C. Helicosphaera kamptneri (13H-5, 87-89 cm). D. Helicosphaera kamptneri in original Sample (14H-1, 90- 92 cm). E. Reticulofenestra sp., (10H-5, 105-106 cm). F. Reticulofenestra sp., in original Sample (14H-1, 90-92cm)...... 37

Fig. 4.1. Correlation of calcareous events of Hole 1396C with Hole 1000A. Biostratigraphic summary of Hole 1000A is from Kameo and Bralower, 2000...... 41

Fig. 4.2. Age-depth plot by nannofossils for Hole 1396C. B refers to Base or (FO), whereas T refers to Top or (LO)...... 44

Fig. 4.3. Integration of nannoffossil and magnetic age-model for Hole 1396C...... 45

Fig. 4.4. Comparison between nannofossil and magnetic ages for Hole 1396C and Hole 1000A (nannofossil ages)...... 46

Fig. B.1. (1) Hayaster preplexus, Sample 7H-3, 32-34 cm. (2, 9-10). Ceratolithus rugosus Sample 9H-6, 106-108. (3). Braarudosphaera bigelowi Sample 7H-3, 130-132 cm. (4). Coccolithus pelagicus Sample 5H-3, 105-107 cm. (5-6). Helicosphaera sellii Sample 6H-6, 96-98 cm. (7). Pontosphera discopora Sample 9H-2, 51-53 cm. (8). Pontosphaera plana Sample 6H-4, 140-142 cm. (11). Calcidiscus leptoporus Sample 2H-3, 43-45 cm. (12). Rhabdosphaera claviger Sample 7H-2, 124-126 cm...... 51

Fig. B.2. (1) Pontosphera multipora Sample 10H-5, 93-95 cm. (2). Spehnolithus sp. Sample 11H-5, 32-34 cm. (3). Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica Sample 15H-6, 102-104 cm. (4). Pseudoemiliania lacunosa Sample 7H-4, 85-87 cm. (5,11). (cross nicoles and polarized light) Reticulofenestra ampla Sample 8H-1, 78-80 cm. 6. Scyphosphaera sp. Sample 10H-2, 108-110. (7-8). (polarized and cross nicoles) Reticulofenestra asanoi Sample 3H-2, 107- 109. (9). Gephyrocapsa oceanica Sample 2H-5, 127-129 cm. (10). Gephyrocapsa caribbeanica Sample 3H-3, 85-87 cm...... 52

Fig. B.3. (1). Discoaster challengeri Sample 9H-CC. (2). Discoaster pentaradiatus Sample 9H- 2, 106-108 cm. (3). Discoaster surculus Sample 9H-CC. (4). Discoaster tamalis Sample 9H-6, 106-108 cm. (5-6). Discoaster brouweri Sample 7H-3, 32-34 cm. (7). Discoaster assymtericus Sample 9H-CC. (8-9). Calcidiscus macintyrei Sample 6H-6, 96-98 cm. (10- 11). Oolithus fragilis Sample 7H-4, 124-126 cm. (12). Florisphaera profunda Sample 7H-2, 95-97 cm...... 53

xi ABSTRACT

Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Hole 1396C, adjacent to Montserrat Island, provides a lower Pliocene to Pleistocene record of calcareous nannofossil assemblages (CN11 to CN15). The nannofossil assemblages are generally common to abundant with moderate preservation in the upper Pleistocene, and very abundant with good preservation in the lower Pleistocene and the Pliocene. The sequence was zoned via the Gartner (1977) scheme for the Pleistocene and the Okada and Bukry (1980) zonation for the Pliocene using the recent age updates from Backman et al. (2012). Sedimentation rates inferred by nannofossil biostratigraphy suggest low sedimentation rates in the Pleistocene and high sedimentation rates during the Pliocene. This sedimentation pattern was also observed at Site 1000 from Ocean Drilling Program Leg 165 in the central Caribbean Sea, suggesting a regional event caused by the closure of the Central American seaway. During the expedition (IODP, Expedition 340), selected samples from Holes 1396A and C were used to determine the sediment water content by heating them at 105°C at room pressure for 24 hours. This process produced an artificial "late diagenesis" effect with severe overgrowth features on the nannofossils. Further examination of the diagenetic progression in these samples should provide a better understanding of the progression of carbonate diagenesis in cases of high temperatures and pressures.

xii CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Calcareous Nannoplankton Calcareous nannoplankton (or coccolithophores) are golden-brown, unicellular marine algae, belonging to the class Haptophyceae (Haq, 1978). The term “nano” is originally derived from the Greek word meaning “dwarf” which refers to those organisms that range in size from 1 to 20 µm (Wise, 1982). Coccolithophores are unique and significant autotrophic marine algae, due to their ability to secrete individual calcareous, disk-like scales called coccoliths, which are easily distinguished from other algae in the marine realm (Haq, 1978). Every coccolithophore includes a cell that produces up to 30 interlocking coccoliths constructing a coccosphere. When the organism dies, a disintegration of coccospheres within the water column occurs leading to scattering coccoliths at the seafloor (Haq, 1978). Hence, coccoliths make up the major constituents of pelagic oozes in both the deep and marginal seas (Wise, 1982). Calcareous nannoplankton have been in existence since the Early Triassic (Bown and Young, 1998), therefore, the term calcareous nannofossil refers to those extinct forms that are preserved in the geological sequence.

1.2. Classical Studies of Nannoplankton The first observation of calcareous nannoplankton was made by the German biologist C.G. Ehrenberg during the examination of a chalk sample from the Rugen Island in the Baltic Sea (Ehrenberg, 1836). However, Ehrenberg regarded them as being of inorganic origin similar to chemically precipitated carbonate crystals that form in supersaturated water with respect to calcite (Ehrenberg, 1854). During the construction of the telegraphic cable in the North Atlantic, Huxley (1858) observed nannoplankton in mud samples and named them coccoliths, an informal name that has been widely used in academia (Wise, 1982). Following Ehrenberg‟s conclusion, Huxley (1858) considered them to be of an inorganic origin. In 1861, Sorby and Wallich, independently, examined mud samples from different localities and reached to the conclusion that coccoliths are of organic origin (Sorby, 1861; Wallich, 1861).

1 Huxley (1868) reexamined his original mud sample from the North Atlantic using a higher magnification in which he observed a gelatinous material he thoughts was protoplast, and concluded that coccoliths are of an organic origin.

1.3. The Historical Development of Nannofossil Biostratigraphy Beginning in the twentieth century, many studies began to focus on the classification and life-cycle of different species of living calcareous nannoplankton (Deflandre, 1947; Kamptner, 1941; Lohmann, 1902; Lohmann, 1909; Tan Sin Hok, 1927; and others). Lohmann (1909) introduced the term nannoplankton referring to all plankton less than 63 µm. Tan Sin Hok (1927) coined the name discoaster for rosette-shaped fossils, whereas Kamptner (1941) produced the first extensive systematic work on living coccolithophores. In the mid 50‟s, calcareous nannoplankton received considerable attention as stratigraphic indicators, and were used for age assignments and global correlations (Bramlette and Riedel, 1954; Bramlette and Sullivan, 1961; Bramlette and Martini, 1964; Bramlette and Wilcoxon, 1967; Hay et al., 1967; Hay and Mohler, 1967; Levin and Joerger, 1967). Bramlette and Riedel (1954) were the first to point out the importance and usefulness of calcareous nannofossils in biostratigraphy when they delineated the stratigraphic positions of various Discoaster species. Bramlette and Sullivan (1961) recognized six biostratigraphic zones in the Paleocene-Eocene of the Lodo Formation in California. Hay and Mohler (1967) correlated the Paleocene-Eocene sequences in different localities of Europe and Americas. They were among the first to correlate nannofossil assemblages worldwide between Europe and Americas. All of these important contributions were essentially developed from land-based materials; hence, a more complete record for both the Mesozoic and Cenozoic was needed to achieve more accurate correlations and extensive zonations. The advent of the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), and the subsequent Ocean Drilling (ODP) and Integrated Ocean Drilling Programs (IODP) provided considerably more complete oceanic records of geological sequences are rich in nannofossils. These sequences have led to more global zonations and precise age assignments. There are two major zonations for the Cenozoic that are widely used in both low and mid-latitude regions: Martini (1971) and Okada and Bukry (1980). Martini (1971) introduced his "Standard" Tertiary Zonation based mainly on materials from outcrops. Okada and Bukry (1980), on the other hand, developed the low-latitude

2 zonation based on materials recovered from the Deep Sea Drilling Project. Gartner (1977) proposed a zonation for the Quaternary that has a higher resolution with seven zones in only a two million-year period. His zonation is widely applied at low latitudes for detailed biostratigraphic work, but the age correlations and some zones have been updated or modified by Backman et al. (2012).

1.4. IODP Expedition 340 to the Lesser Antilles The writer sailed on Expedition 340 of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) that drilled nine sites in the Caribbean Sea (Fig. 1.1) around three active volcanic islands (Montserrat, Dominica and Martinique) in the Lesser Antilles (Fig. 1.2) between March to April 2012. The main objective of this expedition was to investigate the constructive and destructive processes (i.e., debris-avalanche emplacements) associated with volcanism along island arcs (La Friant et al., 2011). Four sites were drilled around Montserrat Island, whereas five sites were drilled to the south of the Grenada Basin of the Caribbean Sea, near Dominica and Martinique Islands. The recovered materials were mainly pure hemipelagic muds interbedded with tephra layers and volcaniclastic turbidites (Expedition 340 Scientists, 2013). In general, eight sites recovered only an upper to lower Pleistocene record of calcareous nannofossil assemblages, whereas Site 1396 was the only site to provide the longest record (Zone CN11) as indicated by the nannofossil biostratigraphy in core catcher samples during the expedition. The Lesser Antilles arc is the result of the westward subduction of Atlantic oceanic crust beneath the Caribbean plate (Fig. 1.1; Bouysse et al., 1990). This subduction formed an 800 km long arcuate chain of islands from Anguilla in the north to Grenada in the south (Bouysse, 1984; Reid et al., 1996). Minster and Jordan (1978) estimated the convergence rate of this subduction at about 2.2 cm/year. Deep Sea Drilling Project, Leg 78A investigated in detail the evolution of the Lesser Antilles arc in which Bouysee et al. (1990) covered its geodynamic evolution. North of Dominica, the arc is divided into two distinct chains of islands: (1) a chain of older volcanically inactive islands located in the outer arc, and (2) a chain of young volcanically active islands situated in the inner arc (Bouysse, 1984; Le Friant et al., 2008; La Friant et al., 2011).

3 Volcanism in this region has been active since 40 Ma (Bouysse et al., 1990; Reid et al., 1996). The islands located in the outer arc (Fig. 1.2; e.g., Anguilla, Antigua) were volcanically active from the Eocene to mid Oligocene (Bouysse, 1984). Those islands have extinct volcanoes bounded by shallow thick carbonate platforms called limestone caribbees (Bouysse et al., 1990). The islands located in the inner arc (e.g., Montserrat, Dominica and Martinique) have been volcanically active from the late Miocene to present, and are thus called the volcanic caribbees (Bouysse, 1984; Reid et al., 1996). This division of two different chains of islands developed when the locus of volcanism north of Dominica shifted 50 km to the west during the late Miocene due to the arrival of the aseismic ridge in the northern part of the subduction zone (Bouysse, 1990).

1.5. Expedition 340, SITE 1396 Site 1396 is located at 16°30.49„N, 62°27.10‟W in the back-arc of the Lesser Antilles in 801 meters of water (Fig 1.3). It is 35 km west of Montserrat Island, and located on a topographic high where no structural or other major complications were detected by seismic profiles (Fig.1.4). The principal objective of this site was to determine the eruptive history of Montserrat Island (Expedition 340 Scientists, 2013). Drilling at this site recovered dominantly hemipelagic mud intercalated with tephra layers and volcanoclastic sand with a recovery of 104% (Expedition 340 Scientists, 2013). Three holes were drilled using the Advanced Piston Core (APC) coring system. Hole 1396A penetrated 134.9 meters of sediment. Hole 1396B penetrated to only 15 meters below seafloor (mbsf). Hole 1396C was cored to 139.4 mbsf, recovering a stratigraphic section from the Pleistocene to lower Pliocene. Lithologically, Site 1396 recovered five different units (Expedition 340 Scirntists, 2013). Unit A is ~40 cm thick and primarily composed of a sequence of bioclastic rich-fine ungraded massive sand with high water content. Unit B consists of a 121.5 meters sequence of tephra layers of varying thickness. The number of tephra increased below 90 mbsf to reach ~35 layers of varying thickness. Unit C is 4-meters thick medium-sand volcaniclastic sand. Unit D between 122 to 123.9 mbsf consists of coarse pinkish breccias. Unit E comprises a 16-meters thick, well-sorted tephra layer interbedded with hemipelagic sediments. Of these characteristics, Hole 1396C is an excellent candidate for a detailed calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphic analysis, and for comparison and correlation with other geographic regions.

4 1.6. The Geological Evolution of Montserrat Island Montserrat is one of the volcanic islands in the Lesser Antilles arc. It is 61.8 mi2 (~160 km2) located at 16°45„N, 62°12‟W (Fig. 1.5). Montserrat is a volcanic island formed from three major recent eruptions: Silver Hills, Center Hills and South Soufriers Hills-Soufriere Hills complex (Rea, 1974; Briden et al., 1979; Harford et al., 2002; La Friant et al., 2008). The Silver Hills in the north of the Island had the oldest eruption between 2600 to 1200 Ka (Harford et al., 2002). Volcanism then moved south to the Center Hills that was volcanically active between 950 to 550 Ka. From 170 Ka to present, the volcanism migrated and settled in the south of the Island, the Soufriere Hills, where it was responsible for the destruction in the last century (Harford et al., 2002). Most of the landslides and debris avalanches associated with volcanic eruptions were deposited on the southeastern flank of the island as many of our drill sites (e.g., Sites 1393, 1394, and 1395) recovered dominantly coarse volcanoclastic sand (Expedition 340 Scientists, 2013). Ash-falls, however, settled in the back-arc west to southwest of the islands.

1.7. SITE 1000, ODP LEG 165 in the Western Caribbean Sea Site 1000, in 916 meters of water, is located at 16°33.20„N, 79°52.04‟W on the northern Nicaraguan Rise (NNR; Fig. 1.6; Shipboard Scientific Party, 1997). Site 1000 is one of the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 165 sites that were drilled in the Caribbean Sea to reconstruct the Cenozoic paleoceanographic record of the basin. Two holes were drilled at Site 1000. Drilling at Hole 1000A was used the APC and Extended Core Barrel (XCB). The APC yielded a total recovery of about 103.5% which penetrated 312.90 mbsf, whereas the XCB coring system penetrated 240.30 mbsf with a total recovery of about 89.2%. Thus, the total recovery of both coring system is 97.3%. Hole 1000A recovered middle Miocene sediments, whereas Hole 1000B provided a complete lower Miocene section. Kameo and Bralower (2000) provided the calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy by applying the zonation of Okada and Bukry (1980) at Sites 998, 999 and 1000. The sedimentation rate at Site 1000 is quite similar to our Site 1396 in the eastern Caribbean. Thus, Site 1000 is an excellent candidate for a correlation with Site 1396. Since our Site 1396 in the eastern Caribbean bottomed out in the lower Pliocene, only the top 160 mbsf of Hole 1000 A was used for correlation with the Hole 1396C.

5 1.8. Objective The principal objective of this study is to build a detailed calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy for Hole 1396C located in the back-arc of the Lesser Antilles in the Caribbean Sea using both Gartner‟s (1977) zonation for the Pleistocene, and Okada and Bukry (1980) for the Pliocene with age-date updates from Backman et al. (2012). The sampling resolution of 50- cm record will provide a detailed biostratigraphy as this site recovered an appreciable number of tephra layers. A stratigraphic correlation with Hole 1000A from Leg 165 will elucidate the similarities between these sites that are located in the same basin but ~1100 miles (~1785 km) apart.

Fig. 1.2. Map of the IODP, Expedition 340 sites in the eastern Caribbean Sea (from Expedition 340 Scientists, 2013).

Fig. 1.3. Location of Site 1396 (CARI-01C) and its topographic area (from Expedition 340 Scientists, 2013)

Fig. 1.4. Seismic profiles of Site 1396 carried out during the Caraval cruise (Deplus et al., 2002).

U1396

Fig. 1. 6. Site 1000 from ODP Leg 165. Black star is the location of Site 1396. (modified from Kameo and Bralower, 2000).

11 CHAPTER TWO

STUDY AREA AND METHODS

2.1. Preparation Techniques

2.1.1. Smear Slides Three samples from every section at sample spacing of 50 cm as recovery allows were taken for Hole U1396C. This provided a resolution of 29 Ka for the Pleistocene, and 12.5 Ka for the Pliocene. A total of 243 samples were taken by scoop, therefore, the outermost portion of each sample was first removed prior the preparation of the smear slides to avoid any contamination via the core liner. Standard smear slides were prepared directly from unprocessed samples using standard techniques. A small amount of sediment taken by the head of a toothpick was placed on a clean cover glass, and one drop of distilled water with a pH of 8 was added. Using a wooden rounded toothpick, each sample was smeared and distributed over a cover glass in a thin evenly distributed layer. The cover glass was then dried on a hot plate for less than a minute, and the Norland Optical Adhesive #61 was used as a mounting medium. Last, all slides were cured under an ultraviolet light for at least 5 minutes.

2.1.2. Settling Technique Some samples were prepared by a settling technique, due to the generally coarse nature of the material. After removing the outermost portion of the sediment, a quarter of a pea-sized piece of sediment was placed in a clean beaker containing 12 ml of distilled water of a pH of 8. The sample was then stirred allowed to stand for two minutes. A disposable pipette was used to withdraw the upper portion of the solution from the beaker that was then poured on a clean cover glass. The cover glass was heated on hot plate until completely dry mounted with the Norland Optical Adhesive #61.

12 2.1.3. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Technique The scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to evaluate the state of preservation of calcareous nannofossils. SEM preparation technique will be used as follows:

 A sediment suspension in a beaker was prepared according to the settling technique described above.  A disposable pipette was used to place suspension on a 18x18 mm coverslip.  The cover slip was then dried on a hot plate.  A double faced aluminum tape was used to attach the coverslip on a stub.  Using a sputter coater, the coverslips were coated by Gold/Palladium prior to examination in the SEM.

2.2. Nannofossil Zonation As noted previously Gartner‟s (1977) calcareous nannofossil zonation scheme was used to provide a detailed biostratigraphic record for the Pleistocene, whereas the zonation of Okada and Bukry (1980) was used for the Pliocene (Table 2.1). Hole 1396C recovered an appreciable number of tephra layers for which a detailed biostratigaphic record will help to determine the ages. Most nannofossil ages used in this study to construct age-depth plots and linear sedimentation rates were compiled from the latest study of Backman et al. (2012).

2.3. Counting Method Qualitative analysis was conducted by examining all smear slides under plain light, phase contrast and cross-polarized light using a Zeiss Axioscope II at a magnification of 1000x to 1250x. The identification of calcareous nannofossils in this study followed the taxonomy of Young (1998) and Perch-Nielsen (1985). Two traverses were used to count and to make sure rare species were recorded. The estimates of the overall nannofossil abundance were given the following letter codes: V= very abundant (more than 10 nannofossils /field of view). A= abundant (1-10 nannofossils/field of view). C= common (1 nannofossil/2-10 fields of view). F= few (1 nannofossil/more than 10 field of view).

13 R= rare (1 nannofossil/ more than 100 fields of view). B= barren (no nannofossils/ 200 fields of view). The average state of preservation of the nannofossil assemblage was determined as follows: VG= very good (no evidence of dissolution and/or overgrowth; no alteration of primary morphological characteristics, identification is possible). G= good (little or no evidence of dissolution and/or overgrowth; primary morphological characteristics are slightly altered identification is possible). M= moderate (specimens exhibit some etching and/or overgrowth; primary morphological characteristics sometimes altered; however, most specimens are identifiable to the generic level). P= poor (specimens are severely etched or exhibit overgrowth; primary morphological characteristics largely destroyed; fragmentation has occurred; specimens cannot be identified at both specie and generic level). The relative abundance of individual species was estimated by the methods of Hay (1970): VA = Very Abundant (over 10 specimens per field of view). A = Abundant (1-10 specimens per field of view). C = Common (one specimen per 2 to 10 fields of view). F = Few (one specimen per 11 to 100 fields of view). R= rare (1 to 2 specimens per slide).

14 CHAPTER THREE

RESULTS

A 140-meter sequence of hemipelagic mud rich in nannofossils and interbedded with tephra layers was recovered from Hole 1396C. Based on a qualitative analysis, twenty-two genera and forty-five species were identified in this material. A range chart showing the distribution and relative nannofossil abundances is given in Table (3.3). In this hole, nannofossils are common to very abundant and exhibit moderate to good preservation. The upper sequence contains some samples that are moderately affected by diagenesis with dissolution and/or reprecipitation in only a few species. The lower sequence, on the contrary, is characterized by abundant nannofossils and excellent preservation. Samples slightly affected by early diagenesis in the upper sequence are normally show a drop in nannofossil abundance and an increase in fragmentation. In general, the slight diagenesis in the upper sequence did not hinder the identification of most of the taxa at the species level. The number of reworked species, on the other hand, is minimal; therefore the recognition of zonal datums was not difficult. The Gartner (1977) zonation proved to be applicable in Hole 1396C, allowing for better resolution in the Pleistocene. Only the Small Gephyrocapsa Zone could not be consistently recognized, owing to their small sizes and susceptibility to dissolution. Thus, the Pseudoemiliania lacunosa Zone was expanded to include this zone (Fig. 3.1). The zonation of Okada and Bukry (1980) was applied for the Pliocene (CN12 to CN11), and all zones were easily recognized throughout the lower sequence. Subzones of CN11 (e.g., Discoaster asymmetricus and Sphenoloithus sp.), however, could not be recognized because the Base acme of Discoaster asymmetricus was not observed as the marker species displayed a uniform abundance pattern without an abrupt increase in the lower sequence. Nannofossil ages compiled from the latest study of Backman et al. (2012; Table 3.1) were used to construct age-depth plots and linear sedimentation rates for Hole 1396C. The stratigraphic position of the nannofossil datums and their ages are listed in Table (3.2). The summary of the nannofossil biostratigraphy of Hole 1396C is found in Fig (3.3). Based on those ages, a graph showing the FO and the LO of every datum was constructed (Fig. 4.2 in

15 discussion). Systematically, small Gyphrocapsa species include the following species due to their small sizes that can be difficult to distinguish in the light microscope: G. ericsonii, G. omega, G. muellerae, and G. lumina.

3.1. Pleistocene The Pleistocene assemblage is characterized by dominant Gephyrocapsa oceanica, G. caribbeanica, small Gephyrocapsa, Calcidiscus leptoporus, Pseudoemiliania lacunosa, Umbellosphaera tenuis, Helicosphaera and Reticulofenestra species. Helicosphaera species are very dominant throughout the sequence ranging from common to abundant. Florisphaera profunda occurs sporadically, few to common. The overall nannofossil preservation is moderate to good with a variety of abundances.

3.1.1. Emiliania huxleyi Zone (0-0.29 Ma) Samples from 1H1, 58-60 cm (0.6 mbsf) to 1H4, 93-95 cm (5.45 mbsf) were assigned to the Emiliania huxleyi Zone (CN15; Okada and Bukry, 1980) due to the presence of E. huxleyi. This interval is characterized by moderate to good preservation with no significant reworked species. Helicosphaera inversa, a useful datum in the Quaternary, was not found probably due to the state of preservation along with the drop in the nannofossil abundance in the upper sequence. Because of the slightly moderate state of preservation and fluctuation in E. huxleyi abundance, the acme of E. huxleyi acme could not be recognized. The FO of E. huxleyi (0.29 Ma), however, lies between Samples 1H-4, 93-95 cm to 1H-4, 126-128 cm. The main assemblage in this zone is characterized by abundant G. oceanica, G. caribbeanica and small Gephyrocapsa; common to few E. huxleyi, Ceratolithus cristatus, Rhabdosphaera clavigera, F. profunda and Pontosphaera plana.

3.1.2. Gephyrocapsa oceanica Zone (0.29 to 0.43 Ma) Samples 1H-4, 126-128 cm (5.78 mbsf) through 1 HCC (8.39 mbsf) contain neither E. huxleyi, nor Pseudoemiliania lacunosa; hence, they were assigned to the Gephyrocapsa oceanica Zone. Nannofossils are common to abundant and exhibit moderate to good preservation. The overall assemblage consists mainly of abundant G. oceanica, G. caribbeanica, small Gephyrocapsa, Reticulofenestra and Helicosphaera species, and common to few C. leptoporus, U. tenuis, R. claviger and F. profunda.

16 3.1.3. Pseudoemiliania lacunosa Zone (0.43-1.24 Ma) This zone encompassed both the P. lacunosa and small Gephyrocapsa Zones. Samples from 2H-1, 55-57 cm (8.97 mbsf) to 3H-7, 61-63 cm (27.53 mbsf) were assigned to the P. lacunosa Zone, based on the presence of P. lacunosa. Nannofossils are abundant to very abundant with moderate to good preservation. This zone yielded an early Pleistocene assemblage dominated by abundant P. lacunosa, Calcidiscus leptoporsu, Dictyococcites productus, small Gephyrocapsa, G. oceanica, G. caribbeanica, Helicosphaera and Reticulofenestra sp., common to few F. profunda, Oolithus and Pontosphaera sp. Reticulofenestra asanoi, a very useful datum in the early Pleistocene, was observed between Samples 2H-5, 63-66 cm (15.05 mbsf) and 3H-3, 37-39 cm (21.29 mbsf). The age of this interval lies between the FO of R. asanoi (21.29 mbsf; 1.16 Ma) to the LO of the same marker (15.05 mbsf; 0.85 Ma). The main assemblage in this interval consists of abundant P. lacunosa, G. oceanica, and Helicosphaera sp.; common small Gephyrocapsa sp., F. profunda, and few G. parallela and Oolithus species. Only one sample showed a reworked species from the early Pliocene, Sample 3H-1, 129-131 (19.21 mbsf), in which Sphenolithus abies/neoabies were observed. The FO of G. parallela (1.06 Ma), another useful datum in the early Pleistocene, occurs between Samples 3H-2, 107-109 (20.49 mbsf) and 3H-1, 129-131 (19.21 mbsf).

3.1.4. Helicosphaera sellii Zone (1.24-1.60 Ma) Samples from 3HCC (27.92 mbsf) to 4H-2, 53-55 cm (29.45 mbsf) were assigned to the Helicospahera sellii Zone, based on the presence of H. sellii and the absence of Calcidiscus macintyrei. Helicospahera sellii was found rare to few even though a lower magnification (e.g., 40x) was used to observe the overall abundance of this marker. Overall, H. sellii is few to rare throughout the sequence. The LO of H. sellii (1.24 Ma) lies between Samples 3H-7, 61-63 cm (27.53 mbsf) and 3HCC (27.92 mbsf). The general preservation in this interval is characterized by moderate to good preservation with an assemblage characteristic of the early Pleistocene with abundant to common Helicosphaera sp., C. leptoporus, G. oceanica, G. caribbeanica, P. lacunosa, small Gyphrocapsa and Reticulofenestra species; few to rare Oolithus fragilis, Pontosphaera discopora, and Discosphaera tubifer. Due to fluctuations in preservation, F. profunda is absent in this interval. At the base of this zone, the FO of G. oceanica (1.59 Ma) occurs between Samples 4H-2, 101-103 cm and 4H-2, 53-55 cm.

17 3.1.5. Calcidiscus macintyrei Zone (1.60-1.93 Ma) Sediments from Samples 4H-2, 101-103 cm (29.93 mbsf) through 4H-7, 49-51 cm (36.91 mbsf) were assigned to the Calcidiscus macintyrei Zone due to the presence of C. macintyrei with no record of Discoaster brouweri. The LO C. macintyrei (1.60 Ma), which defines the top of this zone, lies between Samples 4H-2, 53-55 cm and 4H-2, 101-103 cm. The overall preservation in this interval is moderate to good with abundant to very abundant nannofossil assemblages. This zone yielded an assemblage mainly of abundant Reticulofenestra and Helicosphaera sp., H. preplexus, Oolithus sp., and Pontosphaera sp., whereas H. sellii, D. productus and U. tenuis were recorded as few to rare. Within this zone, the FO of G. caribbeanica (1.71Ma) lies between Samples 4H-5, 101 cm (34.41 mbsf) and 4H-5, 53 cm (33.93 mbsf).

3.2. Pliocene

3.2.1. Discoaster brouweri Zone (CN12d C. macintyrei Subzone; 1.93-2.39 Ma) This zone was assigned to Samples 4HCC (37.35 mbsf) through 6H-2, 88-90 cm (48.80 mbsf) based on the presence of both C. macintyrei and D. brouweri, and the absence of D. pentaradiatus. The LO of Discoaster brouweri (1.93 Ma), a marker that defines the top of Zone CN12d, occurs between Samples 4H-7, 49 cm and 4HCC. Nannofossils in this interval are generally abundant to very abundant and exhibit excellent preservation. The main assemblage in this zone is characterized by abundant small Gephyrocapsa, P. lacunosa and Reticulofenestra sp., common D. brouweri, C. macintyrei, C. leptoporus, Helicosphaera sp, and few.D. triradiatus, and Coccolithus pelagicus. The latter species was only recorded in three samples as few (5H-3, 105-107 cm, 6H-2, 59-61 cm, and 6H2-88-90 cm). Florisphaera profunda was common to its highest occurrence at the base of this zone.

3.2.2. Discoaster brouweri Zone (CN12c Discoaster pentaradiatus Subzone; 2.39-2.53 Ma) Samples from 6H-2, 130-132 cm (49.22 mbsf) to 6H-5, 131-133 cm (53.73 mbsf) were assigned to this zone based on the presence of D. pentaradiatus and D. brouweri in the absence of D. surculus. The LO of D. pentaradiatus (2.39 Ma), which defines the top of this zone, lies between Samples 6H-2, 90 cm to 6H-2, 132 cm.

18 The overall preservation in this zone is generally good with nannofossil abundance ranges from abundant to very abundant. This zone is characterized by abundant small Gephyrocapsa, P. lacunosa, and small Reticulofenestra sp. Calcidiscus macintyrei, C. leptoporus, H. preplexus, Helicospahera sp., D. asymmetricus, D. triradiatus, were common to few. Florisphaera profunda was also found in this zone ranging from common to abundant.

3.2.3. Discoaster brouweri Zone (CN12b Discoaster surculus Subzone; 2.53-2.76 Ma) Samples 6H-6, 39-41 cm (54.31 mbsf) through 7H-5, 109-111 cm (63.01 mbsf), based on the presence of D. surculus were assigned to this zone. The LO of D. surculus (2.53 Ma) that defines the top of this zone lies between Samples 6H-5, 131 cm to 6H-6, 41 cm. Overall preservation in this zone is excellent and abundances range between abundant to very abundant. The assemblage consists of common to abundant Helicosphaera and Reticulofenestra sp., few C. macintyrei, D. asymmetricus, D. brouweri, D. pentaradiatus, H. preplexus, and Oolithus fragilis. Florisphaera profunda is present in this interval ranging between very abundant to abundant. Coccolithus pelagicus is rare in Sample 6H-7, 34-36 cm (55.76 mbsf) and few from Samples 7H- 1, 129-131 cm (57.21 mbsf) to 7H-5, 109-111 cm (63.01 mbsf).

3.2.4. Discoaster brouweri Zone (CN12a Discoaster tamalis Subzone; 2.76-3.65 Ma) Samples 7H-5, 138-140 cm (63.30 mbsf) to 11H-1, 100-102 cm (94.92 mbsf) were assigned to this zone based on the presence of Discoaster tamalis because neither Sphenolithus sp., nor R. pseudoumbilica was found. The LO of D. tamalis (2.78 Ma) that marks the top of this zone occurs between Samples 7H-5, 109-111 cm and 7H-5, 138-140 cm. Nannofossils are abundant to very abundant and exhibit excellent preservation. This zone is quite long thickness of ~20 m and is characterized by common C. macintyrei, D. productus, D. brouweri and D. pentaradiatus plus few D. surculus, D. triradiatus, D. variabilis, D. challengerii and Oolithus antillarum. Florisphaera profunda is abundant to very abundant. Helicosphaera sellii was observed sporadically as few to rare. Reticulofenestra ampla is a useful datum whose LO (2.78 Ma) occurs before the LO of D. tamalis (2.76 Ma), between Samples 7H-5, 138-140 cm to 7H-6, 46-48 cm.

19 3.2.5. Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica Zone (CN11; 3.61-4.37 Ma) This zone was assigned to Samples 11H-2, 82-84 cm (96.24 mbsf) to 15HCC (140.0 mbsf) based on the presence Sphenolithus spp. the LO of Sphenolithus spp. (3.61 Ma) is used here for the top of this zone because the LO of R. pseudoumbilica (3.80 Ma) lies between Samples 12H-2, 54-56 cm and 12H-2, 142-144 cm. Sphenolithus spp were used as the main marker for our Zone CN11 because R. pseudoumbilica is absent only in the middle Pliocene. The recognition of the CN11 subzones was difficult because the base of the acme of Discoaster asymmetricus could not be recognized, even though this zone has a thickness of ~40 m, the longest zone in this study. Thus, the zone CN11 was utilized without subzones. Nannofossils in this zone are abundant to very abundant with excellent preservation. The main assemblage of this zone is characterized by abundant F. profunda, Sphenolithus spp. and small Reticulofenestra sp.; common to few D. brouweri, D. challengerii, D. pentaradiatus, D. tamalis, D. varibilis, P. lacunosa and Helicosphaera sp. Reticulofenestra Pseudoumbilica was observed as few to common. Coccolithus pelagicus was recorded as rare in this zone. Within this zone, the FO of P. lacunosa lies between Samples 12H-7, 30-32 cm and 12HCC. The drilling in this hole was abandoned at 140.0 mbsf depth; therefore Zone CN11 was not completely recovered. Consequently, the age 4.37 Ma was arbitrary placed as the base of Zone CN11.

20 Table 3.1. Nannofossil ages of the Pliocene-Pleistocene.

Event Zone Age Reference (Base) (Ma)

B Emiliania huxleyi CN15 0.29 Rio et al. (1990) T Pseudoemiliania lacunosa CN14b 0.43 Backman et al. (2012

T Reticulofenestra asanoi _ 0.91 Raffii (2002)

B Gephyrocapsa parallela _` 1.06 Raffii (2002)

B Reticulofenestra asanoi _ 1.14 Raffii (2002)

T Helicosphaera sellii _ 1.24 Raffii et al. (1993)

B Gephyrocapsa oceanica _ 1.59 Raffii (2002)

T Calcidiscus macintyrei _ 1.60 Raffii (2002)

B Gephyrocapsa caribbeanica CN13b 1.71 Raffii (2002)

T Discoaster brouweri CN13a 1.93 Curry, Shackleton et al. (1995) T Discoaster pentaradiatus CN12d 2.39 Curry, Shackleton et al. (1995) T Discoaster surculus CN12c 2.53 Curry, Shackleton et al. (1995) T Dicoaster tamalis CN12b 2.76 Curry, Shackleton et al. (1995) T Reticulofenestra ampla _ 2.78 Sato et al. (1991)

T Sphenolithus spp. CN12a 3.61 Curry, Shackleton et al. (1995) T Reticulofenestra _ 3.82 Curry, Shackleton et al. pseudoumbilica (1995)

Table 3.2. Stratigraphic positions of the Pliocene-Pleistocene nannofossil datums.

Zone Age Core, section, interval Depth Event (Base) (Ma) (cm) (mbsf)

B Emiliania huxleyi CN15 0.29 1H4, 93 to 1H5, 58 5.45 T Pseudoemiliania lacunosa CN14b 0.43 1HCC to 2H1, 57 8.97 T Reticulofenestra asanoi _ 0.91 2H4, 117 to 32H5, 65 15.05 B Gephyrocapsa parallela _ 1.06 3H1, 129 to 3H1, 109 19.21 B Reticulofenestra asanoi _ 1.14 3H3, 37 to 3H3, 87 21.29 T Helicosphaera sellii _ 1.24 3H7, 61 to 3HCC 27.92 B Gephyrocapsa oceanica _ 1.59 4H2, 101 to 4H3, 97 29.45 T Calcidiscus macintyrei _ 1.60 4H2, 101 to 4H2, 103 29.93 B Gephyrocapsa caribbeanica CN13b 1.71 4H5, 51 to 4H5, 101 33.93 T Discoaster brouweri CN13a 1.93 4H7, 49 to 4HCC 37.35 T Discoaster pentaradiatus CN12d 2.39 6H2, 88 to 6H2, 132 49.22 T Discoaster surculus CN12c 2.53 6H5, 131 to 6H6, 41 54.31 T Dicoaster tamalis CN12b 2.76 7H5, 109 to 7H5, 140 63.30 T Reticulofenestra ampla _ 2.78 7H5, 138 to 7H6, 48 63.88 T Sphenolithus spp. CN12a 3.61 11H1, 100 to 11H2, 84 96.24 T Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica _ 3.82 12H2, 100 to 12H2, 144 106.3

Fig. 3.1. Nannofossil zonation scheme combined of Gartner (1977) and Okada and Bukry (1980) zonations.

Table 3.3. Calcareous Nannofossil Range Chart of Hole 1396C. Hole 1396C

Nannofossil Sample (core- s zones or section- interval Gephyrocapsa Age

Abundance subzone in cm Preservation Oolithus fragilis fragilis Oolithus Depth(mbsf) huxleyi Emilianina Helicosphaera sellii Helicosphaera antillarum Oolithus sp. Scyphosphaera Discophaera tubifer Discophaera preplexus Hayaster plana Pontosphaera small Helicosphaera carteri carteri Helicosphaera Ceratolithus cristatus Ceratolithus Calciosolenia murrayi Calciosolenia Florisphaera profunda Florisphaera Syracosphaera pulchra Syracosphaera leptoporus Calcidiscus wallichii Helicosphaera asanoi Reticulofenestra tenius Umbellosphaera Gephyrocapsa oceanica Gephyrocapsa parallela Gephyrocapsa minuta Reticulofenestra Pontosphaera discopora Pontosphaera multipora Pontosphaera Rhabdosphaera clavigera Rhabdosphaera sibogae Umbilicosphaera Helicosphaera kamptneri kamptneri Helicosphaera lacunosa Pseudoemiliania Reticulofenestra minutula Reticulofenestra Dictyococcites productus productus Dictyococcites Braarudosphaera bigelowii Braarudosphaera Gephyrocapsa caribbeanica Gephyrocapsa abies/neoabies Sphenolithus 0.60 1H-1, 58-60 VA M .CF.FFAFCA.ACCC.C.CC.C..ACC.A.CC 1.09 1H-1,107-109 VA M RCF...AFAA.ACCC.FCCR.F..A.C.A.CC 2.24 1H-2, 72-74 CM .C...RR.AA.A.CC...... C..F.F.C.AA Emiliania 2.73 1H-2, 121-123 CM .....RF.CC.CFCC.CFCF.C..FFF...FF huxleyi 2.89 1H-2, 137-139 AG .C.R..C.AA.A.C...FF..F..A.C.C.CC zone 4.00 1H-3, 98-100 CM .C....C.AA.ARF....R..F..C.RrC.CR 4.33 1H-3, 131-133 AG .C.FF.AFCA.ACCC.F.FF....AFF.A.FC 4.98 1H-4, 46-48 AG .F.FF.F.AA.A.CF...... C.C.A.CC 5.45 1H-4, 93-95 AG .F.CF.FFCA.ACAC.FCC.....ACC.C.F. 5.78 1H-4, 126-128 AG .F.CF..CCA.VFAC.FFCC.F..CFF.C.FA

Pleistocene Late Gephyroca 6.58 1H-5, 56-58 CM .F..C..ACA.A.CF.FFCF.F..AA..C.FC psa 7.05 1H-5, 103-105 AM .C..F..FAA.A.C..F.F.....ACC...CF oceanica 7.85 1H-6, 33-35 AM .C.FFF.CCA.ACCF.FFCF.Cr.CCC.A.FA zone 8.01 1H-6, 49-51 CM .C.F...CCA.AFAF...CCrFr.FCC.A..A 8.39 1H-CC AP .C..F...AA.AFC...FFC.Fr.CC..A.FA 8.97 2H-1, 55-57 AP .C..F..CFC.AFCC..FCC.FF.AC..C.FC 9.45 2H-1, 103-105 CM .A..CF..CA.A.CC..CFC..F.CAC.A..A 9.77 2H-1, 135-137 AM .C..CF..CC.AFC....FC.FF.AAC.C.FC 10.57 2H-2, 65-67 CM .C..FF..FC.A.C....F..FF.AF..C.AC Pseudoemil 11.05 2H-2, 113-115 CM .C..F...CC.AFCC...F..CF.AA..C.FC iania 11.21 2H-2, 129-131 VA M RA.FCF.CCA.ACAF..CF..FF.ACF.C.FA lacunosa AM .A.FFF.AAA.ACAC..FC..CF.AAC.C.CC zone 11.85 2H-3, 43-45 12.17 2H-3, 75-77 CM .A.FFF..CC.AFCC...F..CF.AC..C..A Pliestocene Early 12.65 2H-3, 123-125 CP .C...C.CCA.A.AC...F..CF.AC..C..A 13.45 2H-4, 53-55 AM .C..C..CCA.A.CC..CF..CA.ACC.A..A 13.61 2H-4, 69-71 CG .C.FFF.CCACACA...F...CA.ACC.C.FC

Table 3.4. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C

Hole 1396C

Sample (core- Nannofossils Age section- interval zones or subzone Gephyrocapsa Abundance in cm Preservation Oolithus fragilis fragilis Oolithus S. abies/neoabies Depth(mbsf) Helicosphaera sellii Helicosphaera antillarum Oolithus sp. Scyphosphaera Discophaera tubifer Discophaera preplexus Hayaster plana Pontosphaera Helicosphaera carteri carteri Helicosphaera

small Coccolithus pelagicus Coccolithus murrayi Calciosolenia Florisphaera profunda Florisphaera Syracosphaera pulchra Syracosphaera Calcidiscus leptoporus Calcidiscus asanoi Reticulofenestra tenius Umbellosphaera Gephyrocapsa oceanica Gephyrocapsa parallela Gephyrocapsa minuta Reticulofenestra Pontosphaera discopora Pontosphaera Rhabdosphaera clavigera Rhabdosphaera sibogae Umbilicosphaera Helicosphaera kamptneri kamptneri Helicosphaera lacunosa Pseudoemiliania Reticulofenestra minutula Reticulofenestra Dictyococcites productus productus Dictyococcites Braarudosphaera bigelowii Braarudosphaera Gephyrocapsa caribbeanica Gephyrocapsa 14.09 2H-4, 117-119 CM .F.F...AA.F.FF...CFF.ACC.C..C 15.05 2H-5, 63-65 VM .A.CC..CACAFCC.C.FFACAAC.C..A 15.69 2H-5, 127-129 VG .C.CCF.AACVACF.CCFCAFAAC.C..C 16.49 2H-6, 57-59 CM .C...... A.ACA.....FAFCCC.C..A 17.13 2H-6, 121-123 VM .A..F.CAA.AFFF...FCAFACC.C.FA 17.77 2H-7, 35-37 VM .A.CC.CCACVFAC.CF.FACAAC.C.FC 18.12 2H-7, 70-72 CP .C..C...ACA.F.....CFFCCC.A.FA 18.27 3H-1, 35-37 AM .A...CCAACVFC..F.CCACAAA.A..A 18.57 3H-1, 65-67 AG ....FC.CA.ACAC.CCCCCCAAA.A..A 19.21 3H-1, 129-131 AG .C.CF..CACAFA.. .C.CCCACArC. .A 19.85 3H-2, 43-45 AM .A..CF..A.A.AA....CACCAA.A.FC 20.49 3H-2, 107-109 VM .A.C..CC.FAFAC..C.CACAAC.C..C Pseudoemiliania 21.29 3H-3, 37-39 VM .A..C..CACAFCC.CFFCCFAAC.C..A lacunosa zone 21.77 3H-3, 85-87 VG RA.CCFVFF.V.AF.AACCA.AAA.CF.A 22.09 3H-3 117-119 AM .A.F...FF.VCAF..FCFA.AAA.CF.A

Early Pleistocene Pleistocene Early 22.89 3H-4, 47-49 VG .C.CC..FCFVCAC.CCFFA.ACC.CR.C 23.21 3H-4, 79-81 VG .A..C..FC.VFAC..FFCA.AAC.C.CA 23.69 3H-4, 127-129 VM .C.FC..FCFV.AF.C..FC.ACC.CFCC 24.49 3H-5, 57-59 VM .A..CCAAA.VCAC.CFCCA.AAA.C.AA 25.13 3H-5, 121-123 VM RA.CFFCAA.VFCC.FCCFA.AAA.ARCA 25.61 3H-6, 19-21 AM .A.CCF.AC.ACAC.CFFFA.ACA.ARAA 26.09 3H-6, 67-69 VG .A.FCF.CA.ACAC.FCCCA.ACA.AFCA 26.73 3H-6, 131-133 VM .A.CCF.CA.ACAC.FFCCA.ACC.AFAA 27.05 3H-7, 13-15 CM .C..F..C..A.AC...FFA.AAC.C.CA 27.53 3H-7, 61-63 AM .C..C.FAA.ACCCRFFCCF.ACC.ARCA

Table 3.5. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C

Hole 1396C

Nannofossils Sample (core- Age zones or section- Gephyrocapsa Abundance subzone interval in cm Preservation Oolithus fragilis fragilis Oolithus S. abies/neoabies Depth(mbsf) Helicosphaera sellii Helicosphaera antillarum Oolithus sp. Scyphosphaera Disosphaera tubifer Disosphaera preplexus Hayaster plana Pontosphaera Discoaster brouweri Discoaster Helicosphaera carteri carteri Helicosphaera Discoaster triradiatus Discoaster small Coccolithus pelagicus Coccolithus murrayi Calciosolenia Florisphaera profunda Florisphaera Calcidiscus macintyrei Calcidiscus pulchra Syracosphaera Calcidiscus leptoporus Calcidiscus tenius Umbellosphaera Gephyrocapsa oceanica Gephyrocapsa minuta Reticulofenestra Pontosphaera discopora Pontosphaera multipora Pontosphaera Rhabdosphaera clavigera Rhabdosphaera sibogae Umbilicosphaera Helicosphaera kamptneri kamptneri Helicosphaera lacunosa Pseudoemiliania Reticulofenestra minutula Reticulofenestra Dictyococcites productus productus Dictyococcites Braarudosphaera bigelowii Braarudosphaera Gephyrocapsa caribbeanica Gephyrocapsa 27.92 3H-CC AM .A...F....ACA.ACRCFC.CAAFC.AFCA 28.01 4H-1, 59-61 AM .C...F..F.ACC.CCF..F.CAACC...CA H. sellii 28.49 4H-1, 107-109 AM .C..FC....ACAFCCFF.F.FAACC.A.CA 29.45 4H-2, 53-55 CP .C...F....AFAFFCR....FCACC.F.CA 29.93 4H-2, 101-103 V M .Cr.FC. .FFA.ACACRCCC.FAACC.C.CA 30.89 4H-3, 47-49 VM .AR.FC....C.ACACRCFF.CAACC.A.CA 31.37 4H-3, 95-97 VM .AF..C....C.ACCCRCFC.CACCC.ARCA 32.49 4H-4, 57-59 AM .CF.FF..F.F.ACCF..FF.FAACC.C.FA 33.29 4H-4 137-139 AM AR.FF...... ACACFCCF.CAACC.A.FA Calcidiscus 33.93 4H-5, 51-53 AM .CF.FF...CF.CFCFRFFF.CCACC.C.RA macintyrei 34.41 4H-5, 99-101 VM .CF.FC...... ACCCRCFF.CAACC.A.FA Early Pleistocene Early 34.73 4H-5, 131-133 AM .CF.FC...C..CFCCFFCF.CAACC.A.FA 35.53 4H-6, 61-63 AM .CF.FC...F..AFCFRAFF.CAAC..C.FA 36.17 4H-6, 125-127 VM .FC..F...... ACCC.CFF.CACCC.AFFA 36.62 4H-7, 20-22 AM .CC..F...... CFCF.CFC.FCCAC.CRFA 36.91 4H-7, 49-51 VM .CF.FF..FC..CFCCRCFF.FAACA.A.FA 37.35 4H-CC AM .CF..AFFCC..AFCCFCCF.CAACA.CC.C 37.49 5H-1, 57-59 VM .AF..CCFFC..ACFCRC.F.CAACC.CFFA 38.07 5H-1, 115-117 AM .FF.FCFFF...CCCC.CFF.FAAAC.CFFA 38.94 5H-2, 52-54 CM .FR..CRR.C..AFFF.FFF.FFACC.C..C 39.52 5H-2, 110-112 CP .AF..CR.....C.C...F..FCCCF.C.RC CN12d 40.39 5H-3, 47-49 VG .AC.FCCF....CFFC.CCF.FAACC.CF.A 40.97 5H-3, 105-107 VM .CFFCCFFFF..CCCC.C.F.FAACC.AFFC Late Pliocene Late 41.84 5H-4, 42-44 VG .AC.CCCF....A.CC.FCC.FAACC.AFCA 42.42 5H-4, 100-102 VG .FC.CCCFFF..CCCC.CCF.CAACC.CF.A 43.58 5H-5, 66-68 AM .FC.CCCF.C..CCCC..FF.FAACC.C..C

Table 3.6. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C.

Hole 1396C

Nannof ossils Sample (core-

Age zones section- Gephyrocapsa Abundance P. lacunosa Preservation G. caribbeanica

or interval in cm fragilis Oolithus S. abies/neoabies Scyphosphaera sp. Scyphosphaera Discoaster surculus Discoaster preplexus Hayaster sellii Helicosphaera antillarum Oolithus Discophaera tubifer Discophaera plana Pontosphaera Discoaster brouweri Discoaster Depth(mbsf) Helicosphaera carteri carteri Helicosphaera Coccolithus pelagicus Coccolithus murrayi Calciosolenia triradiatus Discoaster small Calcidiscus macintyrei Calcidiscus profunda Florisphaera subzone leptoporus Calcidiscus pulchra Syracosphaera tenius Umbellosphaera Reticulofenestra minuta Reticulofenestra Pontosphaera discopora Pontosphaera multipora Pontosphaera Rhabdosphaera clavigera Rhabdosphaera Discoaster pentaradiatus Discoaster kamptneri Helicosphaera sibogae Umbilicosphaera Discoaster asymmetricus Discoaster Dictyococcites productus productus Dictyococcites minutula Reticulofenestra Braarudosphaera bigelowii Braarudosphaera

43.87 5H-5, 95-97 VM .CC.CF.C..F...AFCC.C.F.CAAAC.C..A 45.03 5H-6, 61-63 VG .CC.CF.C..F.C.CFCC.CFC.FAAAC.AF.C 45.61 5H-6, 119-121 VG .CC.CC.C..F.C.CFCC.CFF.FAACC.C..C 46.22 5H-7, 30-32 VG .CC..C.C..F.C.CFCCRCFC.CAACC.CF.A CN12d 47.01 5H-CC VM .CC.CF.C..F.F.CFCCF.FF.CAACC.CF.A 47.06 6H-1, 64-66 VM .CC.FF.C..FFC.AFCA.FFF.CAAAC.CFFC 47.66 6H-1, 124-126 VG .CC.FF.A..FFV.CFCCFCCCFCAACC.CF.C 48.51 6H-2, 59-61 VG .CCFFC.A..FCA.CCCC.CCCFCAACC.AF.A 48.80 6H-2, 88-90 VG .FCFFF.C..F.V.CFCC.CFFFCCAAF.CFFA 49.22 6H-2, 130-132 VM .CCFCCFAC.FC..ACCCFCCFFFAACA.AF.A 49.96 6H-3, 54-56 AM .CC.FCFFF.FFC.AFCC.AFCFCAACC.FFRC 50.25 6H-3, 83-85 VM RCF.FFFFF.F.F.AFCAFFFF.CAACC.AFFC 50.62 6H-3, 120-122 AM .CFRFCFCF.FFC.ACCC.CFFFFAACC.CF.C 51.41 6H-4, 49-51 VM .AF.CFCFC.F.C.ACCC.CFF.FAACC.CF.A CN12c 51.92 6H-4, 100-102 AM .CF.CFFCC.F.C.ACCC.CFC.CAACC.CF.C Late Pliocene Pliocene Late 52.32 6H-4, 140-142 AM .CF.CCFFC.F.C.AFCC.CFCFCACFC.FC.C 52.86 6H-5, 44-46 VM .CF.CCFFC.FFA.AFCCFCFFFCAACC.AF.C 53.44 6H-5, 102-104 AM .CF.FFFCC.F.C.CCCC.FFF.FAACC.FF.C 53.73 6H-5, 131-133 AG .CC..FCCC.F.C.CFCF.CCFFFAACC.C..C 54.31 6H-6, 39-41 VM .CC.CCCCCFF.C.AFCCCF.FFCAACC.AF.C 54.89 6H-6, 97-99 VG .CF.FCCFCFF.V.AFCCFCCF.CAAFC.CF.C 55.76 6H-7, 34-36 AG .CCRCFCFCFF.A.ACCCFFCFFFAACC.CF.. CN12b 56.43 6H-CC VM .CC.CCCCCCF.F.CCCC.FFF.FACFC.CF.C 56.63 7H-1, 71-73 VG .CCFFFCCCFFFV.AFCCCFFF.FAACC.FF.C 56.92 7H-1, 100-102 AG .CF.FCFFFFF.A.AFCCFFFFFFAACC.CF.C 57.21 7H-1, 129-131 AG .CCF.AFFCFF.A.CFCCFFFF.FAACC.C.C

Table 3.7. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C.

Hole 1396C

Nannof ossils Sample (core- Age zones section- interval Gephyrocapsa Abundance or in cm Preservation Oolithus fragilis fragilis Oolithus Depth(mbsf) tamalis Discoaster Discoaster varibilis varibilis Discoaster sellii Helicosphaera antillarum Oolithus sp. Scyphosphaera Discoaster surculus Discoaster tubifer Discophaera preplexus Hayaster plana Pontosphaera Discoaster brouweri Discoaster Ceratolithus rugosus Ceratolithus

subzone carteri Helicosphaera Discoaster triradiatus Discoaster small Calciosolenia murrayi Calciosolenia pelagicus Coccolithus Florisphaera profunda Florisphaera Calcidiscus macintyrei Calcidiscus pulchra Syracosphaera Calcidiscus leptoporus Calcidiscus ampla Reticulofenestra Reticulofenestra minuta Reticulofenestra Pontosphaera discopora Pontosphaera Discoaster pentaradiatus Discoaster clavigera Rhabdosphaera sibogae Umbilicosphaera Discoaster asymmetricus Discoaster kamptneri Helicosphaera lacunosa Pseudoemiliania Reticulofenestra minutula Reticulofenestra Dictyococcites productus productus Dictyococcites Braarudosphaera bigelowii Braarudosphaera 58.08 7H-2, 66-68 VG FCF..FCFFCC..F.ACCCC.CFFFA.AACCFC 58.37 7H-2, 95-97 V G .CCFFFCFCAC..F.VCFCCCFCFFA.ACCCFC 58.66 7H-2,124-126 AM .CFF.FCFCFC..F.AAFCCFFFFFA.AACAFC 59.24 7H-3, 32-34 VG .CFF.FCCCCC..F.ACFCCCCC.FA.ACCFFC 59.72 7H-3, 80-82 VG .CCF..CCACF..F.VCCCC.CCFFA.ACCA.C CN12b 60.22 7H-3, 130-132 VG RCCF..CCCCC..F.ACCCCCFCCFA.ACCCFC 60.98 7H-4, 56-58 AM .CF...CFCFF..F.AACCC.FFFCA.ACCCFC 61.27 7H-4, 85-87 VM .CFC.FFFCCF..F.ACCCC.FFFCA.ACCAFC 61.64 7H-4, 122-124 AM .C.C.FCFCC...FFAAFCC.FC.FC.ACCCFC 62.43 7H-5, 51-53 VG .ACF.FCCCCC..F.VAFCCCFCCCA.ACCCFC 63.01 7H-5, 109-111 AG .CCF.FCFACC..FFVACCCFFCFFA.CCCCFC 63.30 7H-5, 138-140 VG .CCF.FCCCCCF.F.VACCCFFFCCA..ACCFC 63.88 7H-6, 46-48 VG .CCF..CCCCFF.FCVCCCCCFCF.AAACCC.C 64.46 7H-6, 104-106 VG .CCF.FCFCFFF.F.ACFACFFFFFACACCC.A 64.75 7H-6, 133-135 VG .CCCR.FCCCFC.FFVCFCCCFCCCACACCCFA Late Pliocene Pliocene Late 65.12 7H-7, 20-22 AG .CCC..CCCCCC.FFVCCCCCFCFCAFACCCFA 65.72 7H-7, 80-82 AM .CFF..CFCFFF.F.ACCCCFCCFFAFACCCCA 66.0 7H-CC AM .CC...FCCCFC.FFFCCCCFFF.CFFACCCCC CN12a 66.20 8H-1, 78-80 AG .CCCF.CCACFF.F.ACCFC..F.CFCACCFFC 66.49 8H-1, 107-109 AG .CC.F.CCCCFF.F.ACFFC.FFCFFCACCCFC 66.78 8H-1, 136-139 CG .CCF..CCCCRR...ACFCCFFF.FACACCCF. 67.36 8H-2, 44-46 CG .CCF..FACCFFFF.VCFCCFCCCCAFCCCCFC 67.94 8H-2, 102-104 VG .CF...CACCFCFF.VCCCCFCCFCFCCCCCFC 68.23 8H-2, 131-133 AM .CFF.FFCCCCFFF.ACCCC.FC.CCFCCCCFC 68.81 8H-3, 39-41 AG .CF...CCCCFFRF.ACCCCFCCFFCACFCCFC 69.39 8H-3, 97-99 VG .CCFFRCCCCCFFF.VCCCCFCFCFCAACCC.A

Table 3.8. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C. Hole 1396C

Nannof ossils Sample (core- Age zones section- interval Gephyrocapsa Abundance or in cm Preservation Oolithus fragilis fragilis Oolithus Depth(mbsf) tamalis Discoaster Helicosphaera sellii Helicosphaera antillarum Oolithus sp. Scyphosphaera Discoaster surculus Discoaster tubifer Discophaera preplexus Hayaster plana Pontosphaera Discoaster brouweri Discoaster variabilis Discoaster Ceratolithus rugosus Ceratolithus

69.68 8H-3, 126-128 VG CC.FRCAC.CFFF..VCCCCCFFFCCCACCA.A 70.55 8H-4, 63-65 VG CCFFFCAC.CFFF..ACCFCFCCCCCCACCAFA 70.84 8H-4, 92-94 VM CCFFFCFC.CFFF..ACCCCFCFFFCCACCAFC 71.13 8H-4, 121-123 AM FC...CCC.FFFF..ACFCC.C.CFCCACFAFC 71.70 8H-5, 27-29 VG CC..FCCC.CFFF.FACFCCFCFFFFCAACC.A 72.00 8H-5, 57-59 VG CC...CCA.CFFF..ACCCC.CFCFFAACCCFA 72.58 8H-5, 115-117 VM CCFFFCCCFCCFF..AACCCFFFCFCFACCCFA 73.45 8H-6, 50-52 VG CCFF.CCFFCFCF..ACCCC.FFCFFCCCCC.C 74.03 8H-6, 108-110 VG CCF.FCCA.CFFF..AACFC.CFCFCCACCCFC 74.90 8H-7, 43-45 VG CCC..CCC.CCCF..AACCCCFCCCFFACCCFA 75.47 8H-CC VG CCF..CCF.FFFF.F.CCFC.FFCFFCACC.FC 75.77 9H-1, 85-87 VG CCFF.CCCFFCFF..ACCCCFF.CFCAAACCCA 76.93 9H-2, 51-53 VM CCFF.CACFCFCF..VCCCCFCCCCCCAFCACC CN12a 78.96 9H-3, 104-106 AM CC...FCCFCFCF..VCCCC.CFCCCFACCACA 80.12 9H-4, 70-72 AM CCF..FCC.FFCF..CCCFCFC.CCFFACCCFA Late Pliocene Late 80.70 9H-4, 128-130 VG CCC.FFCC.CCCF..AAFCC.CFCFFFACC.FA 81.72 9H-5, 80-82 VG CCFC.CCC.CCCF..ACCCA.F.CFCCACCACA 82.16 9H-5, 124-126 VG CCCF.CCF.CFFFFFACCCF.FFFCAFAFCCFC 83.04 9H-6, 62-64 VG CCFFFCCC.CCCF..VCCAC.FFCCAFCCCF.A 83.48 9H-6, 106-108 VG CCFF.CCC.CFC...VCFACF.FCFAFCCCFFA 84.36 9H-7, 44-46 VG CCFF.CCc.CFC.F.ACCCC. .FFCACACCCCA 84.88 9H-CC VG CCFFRCCCFCCCFF.VCFCC.FFCCAFACCCCA 85.24 10H-1, 82-84 VG CCFFFCCC,CCCFFFVACCC,FFCCAFCFCCFA 85.68 10H-1, 126-128 VG CCFF.CCC.CCCFF.ACFCC.FFCFFFCFCCCA 86.56 10H-2, 64-66 VG CC...CCCFCFF.F.VCFCC.FFCFCFCFCCFA 87.00 10H-2, 108-110 VG CC.F.CCC.CCC.F.ACFCCFFFCCCCCFCC.A

Table 3.9. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C. Hole 1396C

Nannof ossils Sample (core- Age zones section- interval Gephyrocapsa

Abundance or in cm Preservation Oolithus fragilis fragilis Oolithus S. abies/neoabies Depth(mbsf) tamalis Discoaster Helicosphaera sellii Helicosphaera antillarum Oolithus sp. Scyphosphaera Discoaster surculus Discoaster tubifer Discophaera preplexus Hayaster plana Pontosphaera pseudoumbilicus R.

brouweri Discoaster variabilis Discoaster Ceratolithus rugosus Ceratolithus

subzone carteri Helicosphaera Discoaster triradiatus Discoaster small Calciosolenia murrayi Calciosolenia pelagicus Coccolithus challengeri Discoaster Florisphaera profunda Florisphaera Calcidiscus macintyrei Calcidiscus pulchra Syracosphaera Calcidiscus leptoporus Calcidiscus ampla Reticulofenestra Reticulofenestra minuta Reticulofenestra Pontosphaera discopora Pontosphaera multipora Pontosphaera Discoaster pentaradiatus Discoaster clavigera Rhabdosphaera sibogae Umbilicosphaera Discoaster asymmetricus Discoaster kamptneri Helicosphaera lacunosa Pseudoemiliania Reticulofenestra minutula Reticulofenestra productus Dictyococcites 87.88 10H-3, 44-46 VG CCFFRCCCFCFCFF.AAFCC...C.CCCAC.C.CFC 88.32 10H-3, 88-90 VG CCFF.CCCCCCFFF.ACFCC.FFC.CCCAF.C.CFC 88.76 10H-3, 132-134 AG CCFFFCCCFFFFFFFFAFCC.FFC.FFFCF.C.C.C VG CF...CCCFCFFFFFACFFC.FFC.FCCAC.C.CFA 89.64 10H-4, 70-72 90.08 10H-4, 114-116 AG CCFF.CCCFCCCFFFACFFC.FFC.FFFAC.C.CCC 90.96 10H-5, 49-51 AG CCFF.CCCFFFCFFFAAFCC..FC.FFFCF.C.C.C CN12a 91.40 10H-5, 93-95 AG CCFF.CCCFFFFFF.ACFCC.FFC.CCCAC.C.CFC 91.84 10H-5, 137-139 CG CCC..FFCFFFFFF.ACFCC.F.F.CFFAF.F.FFC

Pliocene Late 92.72 10H-6, 75-77 CG CCFFRCCCFCFFFF.AC.CC.FFC.FACAF.C.CFA 93.18 10H-6, 121-123 VG CC...FFC.FCFFF.ACFCC.FFC.CFCAF.C.CFA 94.04 10H-7, 57-59 CM FCFF.FFF.FFF.F.ACFFC.F.C.FCFAC.C.CFC VG CCC.RFCF.CFF.FFFCCCCFCFCFCFFCF.C.CFC 94.49 10H-CC 94.92 11H-1, 100-102 AG CCC.FFCCFFFC.F.FCFCC.CFC.CCFAF.C.CFA 96.24 11H-2, 82-84 VG CCCF.FACFFFFFF.CAFAC.FFCFFCFAC.CFCFA 96.68 11H-2, 126-128 VG CCCFRFACFCFFF.FAAFCCFFFCFCCCAC.CAFFA 98.00 11H-3, 108-110 AG CCFFFFAC.CFCF.FAACCC.FCCFCCFAC.CFCFA 98.88 11H-4, 46-48 VG CCCF.FCCFFFFFF.CCFCCFF.CFCF.AC.CCC.A 99.35 11H-4, 93-95 VG C C FF.FCCFCFFF..CAFCC...CFCA.AC.CAFFA 99.76 11H-4, 134-136 VG CCC..FAAFCCFFF,AAFCCFC,CFCF,AF,CCCFA CN11 100.2 11H-5, 32-34 VG CCF..FCC.CCFFFFCCFCCFFFCFCF.AC.CACFA 100.7 11H-5, 85-87 VG CCCF.FCCFCFFFF.AAFCC...CFCF.AF.CACFA Pliocene Early 101.1 11H-5, 120-122 VG FCF.FFCCCFFFFF.CCFCC.F.CFFC.AF.CACFA 102.0 11H-6,63-65 VG CC...FCCFCFF...CCFCC.FCCFCF.AF.CAC.C 103.3 11H-7, 45-47 AG FCF.RFCFFCFFF..CAFCC.F.F.FC.AC.CACFC 103.4 11H-CC AG FF...FCFFFFR.FFAC.FF.FFFF.F.AF.CAF.C

Table 3.10. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C. Hole 1396C

Nannof ossils Sample (core- Age zones section- interval Gephyrocapsa Abundance P. lacunosa or in cm Preservation Oolithus fragilis fragilis Oolithus S. abies/neoabies Depth(mbsf) tamalis Discoaster Helicosphaera sellii Helicosphaera antillarum Oolithus sp. Scyphosphaera Discoaster surculus Discoaster tubifer Discophaera preplexus Hayaster plana Pontosphaera pseudoumbilicus R. Discoaster brouweri Discoaster variabilis Discoaster Ceratolithus rugosus Ceratolithus

103.9 12H-1, 50-52 VG FC.F.FCCCFFFFF.AAFCC...CFCF.CA.CACF.C 104.4 12H-1, 100-102 VG CF..RFACCFFFFF.AAFCC...CFCF.CA.CACF.C 105.5 12H-2, 54-56 AG CC...CACCFFFFF.AAFCC...CFCC.AA.CACF.C 105.9 12H-2, 100-102 VG CCFFRFACFFFFFFFAAFCF.F.C.CC.AA.CACF.C 106.3 12H-2, 142-144 VG CFF..FCCFCFFFF.FCFCC.FFCFFF.AARCACF.C 106.8 12H-3, 35-37 VG CC..RFCF.CCFF..ACFCC.F.FFFF.AAFCACF.C 107.2 12H-3, 79-81 VG CFF..CCCFCCFF.FACFCC.C.CFCF.AAFCACF.A 107.8 12H-3, 135-137 VG FF.FRCCC.FCFF..ACFCF.F.CFFF.AARCACF.C 108.6 12H-4, 61-63 FM C..F...F...... AC.FF...... F.C..FA.... 109.0 12H-4, 105-107 VG CFF..FCCCCFFFF.AA.CC.F.FFFF.AAFCACF.A 109.9 12H-5, 47-49 VG CFF.RFCCCCCFFF.AAFCC.F..FFF.AAFFAFF.C 110.8 12H-5, 135-137 VG FCFF.FCCFFFFFF.CCFCC.F.CFCF.AAFCACF.C 111.1 12H-6, 18-20 VG CF...FCCFCFFF..CCFCF.FFFFCF.AAFCACF.A CN11 111.6 12H-6, 73-75 VG CCF..FCCFCFFFF.AAFCCFF.FFFF.AAFFAFF.A 112.1 12H-6, 117-119 VG CC...FCCFCFFFF.CCFCCF..CFFR.AAFFAFF.C Early Pliocene Pliocene Early 112.5 12H-7, 30-32 VM FCF..FCCFFF....CCFCC...CFCR.AAFFA.F.C 113.0 12H-CC AM FC...FFF.FF....AC.CF.F.F.F..AAFFA.... 113.4 13H-1, 48-50 VG CF..F.ACFCF.FF.AC.CCFCFFFC..AAFCAF..A 113.8 13H-1, 92-94 VG CC...FCFFCFFF..ACCCC..FCFC..AAFCACF.F 114.3 13H-1, 136-138 VM FF.C.FCFFCFF.F.CCCCC..CFFF..AAFCAC... 114.7 13H-2, 30-32 AG FF...FCC.CF.FFFAC.CC..FFFF..AAFFAC..A 115.2 13H-2, 74-76 VG CF...FCCFFFFFF.AC.CC.C.CFF..AACCAF..A 115.6 13H-2, 118-120 VG CC.FFFCCCCC.F..ACFCC.F.CFC..AACCAA..A 116.2 13H-3, 27-29 B...... 116.9 13H-4, 41-43 CM ..F...F...... CF.F...... CFFFCFF.F 117.8 13H-5, 73-75 FM R...R...... CF..C....

Table 3.11. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C.

Hole 1396C

Nannof ossils Sample (core- Age zones section- interval Gephyrocapsa Abundance P. lacunosa B. bige;owii B. or in cm Preservation Oolithus fragilis fragilis Oolithus S. abies/neoabies Depth(mbsf) tamalis Discoaster Helicosphaera sellii Helicosphaera antillarum Oolithus sp. Scyphosphaera Discoaster surculus Discoaster tubifer Discophaera preplexus Hayaster plana Pontosphaera pseudoumbilicus R. Discoaster brouweri Discoaster variabilis Discoaster Ceratolithus rugosus Ceratolithus

120.5 13H-6, 91-93 AM. CF.FRFFFFFF.F..CC.FF...FFF..AFFFCF..C 120.8 14H-1, 40-42 VG. CC.F.FCCFCFFFF.AAFCC.CFCFF..AAFCAFF.C 120.9 14H-1, 52-54 VG. C..F.FFCFCF.FF.AC.CC.CFCFF..AAFCACF.C 121.3 14H-1, 90-92 VG. CCC..FCC.FC.FFFACCCC.FCFF...AACCAC..A 122.4 14H-2, 51-54 VG. CCFFFFCC.CF.FF.ACFCC.FFCCC..AACCAC..A 122.6 14H-2, 73-75 VG. CFF..FFCFFF.FF.AC.AF.FFCFC..AAFCACF.C 122.9 14H-2, 100-102 VG. CCCF..CCFCF.FF.AC.CF...CFF..ACCCACC.. 124.4 14H-3, 99-101 VG. CCC.R.CCFCF.F..ACCCC..FCF...AACCAFF.A 125.3 14H-4, 50-52 VG. CF..F.CCCCF.F..AC.CC...CFF..AACCAFF.. 125.7 14H-4, 94-96 VG. CFCF..CCCCCFFF.RC.CC.FFCFC..AAC.A.F.C 126.6 14H-5, 34-36 VG. CF.F..CFFCC.FF.AC.CCF..CF...AACCACF.A 127.0 14H-5, 78-80 VM. CF.F..CCFCF.CF.FC.CC.FFCFF..ACCCACF.A 127.5 14H-5, 122-124 VG. CFFF..CCCCC.FF.ACFCC...CFC..ACCCAC..A CN11 128.4 14H-6, 60-62 VG. CC.F..CCFCF.F..ACFCC.FFCFF..AAC.A.F.A 128.8 14H-6, 104-106 VG. CCFF..CCCCC.F..ACFCCF..CFC..AACCACF.A

Early Pliocene Pliocene Early 129.7 14H-7, 46-48 VG. CCFF..CCFCF.F..ACFCC.FFCFC..AAFCACF.A 130.1 14H-CC VGR FCFFR.FCFCF.F..AC.CC..FCFC..AACCACF.A 130.6 15H-1, 64-66 VG. CCFF..CCCCC.F..ACCCC...CFC..AACCACF.. 131.0 15H-1, 108-110 VG. .CFF..CCFCC.F..A.FCC.CFCFF..AACFAAC.A 131.9 15H-2, 45-47 VG. C..FR.CCFCC.F..A.FCC.FFCFC..AAAFACC.C 132.3 15H-2, 89-91 VG. CFFFR.CCFCF.F..V..CC...CFF..AAFFAFF.A 133.2 15H-3, 25-27, VG. CCFF..CCFCF.F..A..CC..FFF...ACFFAFF.C 134.1 15H-3, 113-115 VG. CCFF...CCCF....A.FCC...CFF..ACFFAF..C 134.6 15H-4, 18-20 FG. .F...... F...... CF..C.... 135.1 15H-4, 60-62 VG. CCFFF.CCCCC.FF.A.FFF...CFF..ACC.AFC.C 135.5 15H-4, 103-105 VG. CCFF..CFFFF.FF.A..CF...CFC..ACCFAF..C

Table 3.12. Calcareous nannofossil range chart of Hole 1396C.

Hole 1396C

Nannof ossils Sample (core- Age zones section- Abundance or interval in cm Preservation Depth(mbsf) Helicosphaera sellii Helicosphaera sp. Scyphosphaera Discoaster surculus Discoaster preplexus Hayaster plana Pontosphaera pseudoumbilicus R. Discoaster brouweri Discoaster variabilis Discoaster Ceratolithus rugosus Ceratolithus

subzone carteri Helicosphaera Discoaster triradiatus Discoaster Calciosolenia murrayi Calciosolenia pelagicus Coccolithus challengeri Discoaster Florisphaera profunda Florisphaera Calcidiscus macintyrei Calcidiscus pulchra Syracosphaera Calcidiscus leptoporus Calcidiscus Reticulofenestra minuta Reticulofenestra Pontosphaera discopora Pontosphaera multipora Pontosphaera Discoaster pentaradiatus Discoaster clavigera Rhabdosphaera sibogae Umbilicosphaera Discoaster asymmetricus Discoaster kamptneri Helicosphaera Reticulofenestra minutula Reticulofenestra Sphenolithus abies/neoabies Sphenolithus 136.5 15H-5, 52-54 GV CFFF..CCCC..ACCCFCF.AAC.AC.A 137.0 15H-5, 102-104 GV C....CCCCCFFAF...FFCAAC.A..C 137.9 15H-6, 52-54 GV CFFCFCCCCCFFA.CC..FCACCAACCC 138.4 15H-6, 102-104 GV CF..RCFCCCFFA.CC.CFFAACFACCA CN 11 138.8 15H-6, 136-138 GV CF...CFCCFFCAFCC.CFCAAC.AFFC 139.3 15H-7, 40-42 GV .F...CFCCFFCAFCF.CFCAACCA..C Early Pliocene Pliocene Early 139.7 15H-7, 74-76 GV CC..RCFCCFFCA.CC..FFAAC.AC.. 140.0 15H-CC G V CF..RCC.CCF.AFCC..FFAAC.A..C

Fig. 3.2. Summary of the nannofossil biostratiraphy of Hole 1396C. First occurrence

Last occurrence

3.3. Experiments on Diagenesis During the expedition, thirty-six samples throughout Holes 1396A and C were used for water content determinations that required heating each sample in a non-sealed oven at 105°C for 24 hours. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations were carried out during the summer at KAUST, Saudi Arabia to evaluate the overall preservation of nannofossils in these samples. The SEM, a FEG Quanta 200, is a high resolution machine that is ideal for observations of nanno-size objects. The preparation technique of the SEM was previously described in chapter two, section 2.2.2 and 2.2.4. Severe diagenesis was observed on nannofossils in all samples. Although carbonate diagenesis includes both secondary overgrowth and dissolution, all thirty-six samples showed considerably more overgrowth than dissolution. Most of the placoliths, including Gephyrocapsa, Reticulofenestra, and Calcidiscus spp, still have their shields intact. Dissolution in these species was apparently common to few, whereas heavy overgrowth is present in every sample. Small Gephyrocapsa that are readily susceptible to dissolution, are common and overgrown in all samples. Discoaster species have severe overgrowths and minimal dissolution in the center area and part of the arms. Similarly, Helicosphaera, a genus that are quite dominant throughout this sequence, are heavily overgrown, and few were found with even slight etching. To understand the reason of this abnormal carbonate diagenesis, and to evaluate the original nature preservation of the samples, a comparison with unprocessed, non-heated samples was carried out (Figs. 3.4; 3.5 and 3.6). A comparison with non-heated samples was carried out using the SEM of the Physics Department at Florida State University. This comparison shows that the nannofossils of Hole 1396C are generally well-preserved. Although the resolution of the FSU SEM is less than the Saudi Arabian machine, placoliths in the original samples are well-preserved, whereas little sign of diagenesis was observed in discoasters. Helicosphaera sp., and Calcidiscus sp., are also abundant and well-preserved. It is evident that the overgrowth features seen in the samples used for water content determinations were not the product of biological calcification; hence, heating the samples at 105°C at room pressure caused this "artificial" abnormal diagenesis.

A B

C D

E F

Fig. 3.3. Comparison of scanning electron micrographs between heated samples (left) and non-heated, original sample (right). A Helicosphaera kamptneri. (Sample 6H-6, 105-107cm). B. Helicosphaera kamptneri in original Sample (14H-1, 90-92cm). C. Discoaster surculus (11H-1, 85-87cm). D. Discoaster surculus original Sample (14H-1, 90-92cm). E. Discoaster assymetricus (14H-6, 115-117 cm). F. Discoaster assymetricus in original Sample (14H-1,90- 92 cm).

A B

C D

E F

Fig. 3.4. Comparison of scanning electron micrographs between heated samples (left) and non-heated, original sample (right). A. Discoaster pentaradiatus (Sample 7H-6, 73-75cm). B. Discoaster pentaradiatus in original Sample (14H-1, 90-92cm). C. Discoaster surculus (10H-5, 76-78cm). D. Discoaster surculus in original Sample (14H-1, 90-92cm). E. Calcidiscus leptoporus (5H-1, 47-49cm). F. Calcidiscus leptoporus in original Samples (10H-6, 121-123 cm).

A B

C D

E F

Fig. 3.5. Comparison of scanning electron micrographs between heated samples (left) and non-heated, original sample (right). A. Discoaster assymetricus? (6H-6, 105-107 cm). B. Discoaster assymetricus? in original Sample (14H-1, 90-92-123 cm). C. Helicosphaera kamptneri (13H-5, 87-89 cm). D. Helicosphaera kamptneri in original Sample (14H-1, 90-92 cm). E. Reticulofenestra sp., (10H-5, 105-106 cm). F. Reticulofenestra sp., in original Sample (14H-1, 90-92cm).

CHAPTER FOUR

DISCUSSION

4.1. Nannofossil Correlation Nannofossil events in Hole 1396C correlate well with Hole 1000A in the Caribbean Sea. A summary of nannofossil correlations is found in Fig. 4.1. Kameo and Bralower (2000) used the LO of Sphenolithus spp. as an event included within the subzone Discoaster tamalis (CN12a) following Bukry (1991) who subdivided Subzone CN12a into three subzones at Site 806B in the Pacific Ocean:  Subzone CN12aA Discoaster tamalis (Subzone Sphenolithus spp. defined by the LO of R. pseudoumbilica to LO of Sphenolithus spp.)  Subzone CN12aB Discoaster tamalis (Subzone Discoaster varabilis, defined by the LO of Sphenolithus spp., to the LO. Of Discoaster variabilis)  Subzone CN12aC Discoaster tamalis (No D. varabilis, defined by the LO of D. variabilis to the LO of D. tamalis). Kameo and Bralower (2000) used only the LO of Sphenolithus spp as an event (CN12aA) without recording the other two subdivions (CN12aB and CN12aC). This division of the subzone CN12a, however, was not followed in this study owing to the inability to distinguish them. In addition, these events, proposed by Bukry (1991), are neither calibrated by astronomical ages or by magnetic polarity. According to Okada and Bukry (1980), the LO of both Sphenolithus spp., and R. pseudoumbilica defines the top of the CN11 zone. However, many DSDP, ODP and IODP low-latitude studies have found the LO of Sphenolithus spp., well above the LO R. pseudoumbilica, (Kameo and Bralower, 2000; Manivit, 1989; Rio et al., 1990b; and others) thereby supporting the hypothesis of Hay (1972) that no two events occur at the same time. Perch-Nielsen (1985) suggested using Sphenolithus spp. as the primary marker when the R. pseudoumbilica is rare or absent in low-latitude regions. Hence, the LO of Sphenolithus spp. in this study was included within the Zone CN11, following Okada and Bukry (1980), and designated as the marker defining the top of the zone.

The Zone CN11 was not subdivided into subzones based on the acme of Discoaster assymetricus due to the lack any major changes in its abundance throughout the drilled sequence. Hole 1396C was abandoned as planned in advance, hence before the Miocene-Pliocene boundary was penetrated. The base of Zone CN11, marked by the LO of Amaurolithus primus and/or A. tricorniculatus, therefore, was not completely reached and its subzones could not be distinguished.

4.2. Age-Depth Plot Age-depth plot based on nannofossil ages provide sedimentation rates for Hole 1396C (Fig 4.2). Nannofossil events (Table 3.1) show low sedimentation rates in the Pleistocene (between 0.60 mbsf to 35 mbsf) and high sedimentation rates during the Pliocene (40 mbsf to 140 mbsf, to the base of the hole). To evaluate the accuracy and precision of these ages, they were correlated with magnetic polarity ages (Table 4.1; Expedition 340 Scientists, 2013; Fig 4.3). The two ages sets show a drastic change in sedimentation rates suggesting reliable nannofossil age-dates for Hole 1396C. This pattern of sedimentation rates by nannofossils was compared with that in Hole 1000A (Fig 4.4) which shows a similar trend. The similar sedimentation rates at both Sites 1396 and 1000 are considered to be regional events attributed to the closing of the Central American seaway during the Pliocene (Shipboard Scientific Party, 1997). Although the comparison between nannofossil and magnetic ages of Hole 1396C (Fig. 4.3) shows a similar sedimentation rate trend, a discrepancy between the two ages occurs in the Helicosphaera sellii Zone (27.92 to 29.45 mbsf). As noted previously, Helicosphaera sellii was only recorded in four samples (Table.3.5) showing few to rare abundance. This marker species is sporadic throughout the sequence. Hence, the LO of H. sellii may not precisely reflect a reliable event as it is inconsistent agreement the magnetic ages in the age-depth plot (Fig. 4.3).

4.3. Abnormal Diagenesis Von Gumbel (1868) coined the term "diagenesis" referring to any non-metamorphic physical and chemical post-depositional alterations to the sediment. Two phases of diagenesis, early and late, are observed in calcareous marine microfossils from both deep-sea and outcrop sequences (Burns, 1975; Schlanger and Douglas, 1974; Schlanger et al., 1973; Roth, 1973; Wise,

1973; Weaver and Wise, 1973). Early diagenesis involves the alteration of the sediment at the sediment-water interface, when neither high temperature nor uplift above sea level is encountered (Berner, 1980). Late diagenesis, on the other hand, begins in a basin with considerably progressive burial between 600 to 1000 meters that induces compaction and recrystallization to lithify the sediment into a chalk or limestone (Wise, 1977). Early diagenesis in both carbonate and siliceous materials received considerable attention and has been investigated in much detail by the scanning electron microscope (SEM) to infer diagenetic history (Matter et al., 1975; Weaver and Wise, 1973; Wise and Kelts, 1972; Wise, 1977). Late diagenesis, however, has only been observed in deep-sea sequences (Roth, 1973; Schlanger and Douglas, 1974); thus, more investigations that simulate the progression of diagenesis are needed. The first experiment that simulated the development of late diagenesis in the deep sea was conducted by Adelseck et al. (1973) in which well-preserved nannofossil assemblages from the upper Pliocene were exposed for one month to different high temperatures and pressures (up to 300°C and 3 kb). Compared with untreated samples via the scanning electron microscope (SEM), Adelseck et al. (1973) found that minor morphological changes in nannofossils occurred at 200°C-1 kb, whereas major alterations (e.g., dissolution and/or overgrowth) began between 200°C to 300°C at 1 kb with little effect observed with increasing pressure. These major changes revealed minor etching but severe overgrowth on large placoliths and discoasters that were primarily caused by exposure to high temperature. Although our results from the water-content determination experiment show a trend similar to the overgrowth observed by Adelseck et al. (1973), the heavily overgrown nannofossils in our study indicate that a temperature at 105°C at room pressure for only 24 hours was quite sufficient to cause major alterations. This finding requires further investigation to determine the source of overgrowths and to develop a diagenetic model to elucidate the progression of diagenesis in nannofossils subject to tectonics activities and/or expose to high temperature and pressure.

First occurrence

Last occurrence

Fig. 4.1. Correlation of calcareous events of Hole 1396C with Hole 1000A. Biostratigraphic summary of Hole 1000A is from Kameo and Bralower, 2000.

Table 4.1. Magnetic ages constructed during Expedition 340 (Expedition 340 Scientist, 2013).

Magnetic ages (Ma; Expedition Depth (mbsf) Reference 340 Scientists, 2013) Cande and 0.78 11.37 Kent, 1995) Cande and 0.99 16.18 Kent, 1995) Cande and 1.07 19.65 Kent, 1995) Cande and 1.77 31.84 Kent, 1995) Cande and 1.95 36.5 Kent, 1995) Cande and 2.14 40.23 Kent, 1995) Cande and 2.15 41.25 Kent, 1995) Cande and 2.58 56.02 Kent, 1995) Cande and 3.04 71.21 Kent, 1995) Cande and 3.11 74.22 Kent, 1995) Cande and 3.22 77.04 Kent, 1995) Cande and 3.33 81.42 Kent, 1995) Cande and 3.58 92.59 Kent, 1995) Cande and 4.18 125.69 Kent, 1995) Cande and 4.29 130.46 Kent, 1995) Cande and 4.48 138.4 Kent, 1995)

Table 4.2. Nannofossil ages for Hole 1000A used by Kameo and Bralower (2000).

Event Zone Age Depth

B Emiliania huxleyi CN15 0.25 3.55

T Pseudoemiliania lacunosa CN14b 0.41 14.05

T Reticulofenestra asanoi _____ 0.85 25.05

B Gephyrocapsa parallela _____ 0.95 26.55

B Reticulofenestra asanoi _____ 1.16 28.05

T Gephyrocapsa spp. (large) _____ 1.21 32.05

T Helicosphaera sellii _____ 1.27 36.05

B Gephyrocapsa spp. (large) _____ 1.45 40.20

B Gephyrocapsa oceanica _____ 1.65 40.95

T Calcidiscus macintyrei _____ 1.65 40.95

B Gephyrocapsa caribbeanica CN13b 1.73 44.05

T Discoaster brouweri CN13a 1.97 52.05

T Dicoaster pentaradiatus CN12d 2.38 61.55

T Discoaster surculus CN12c 2.54 67.55

T Discoaster tamalis CN12b 2.74 77.05

T Reticulofenestra ampla _____ 2.78 78.55

T Reticulofenestra minutula _____ 3.36 91.55

T Sphenolithus spp. _____ 3.65 109.15

T Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilia CN12a 3.80 120.05

Age-Depth plot 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0.29 T Pseudoemiliania lacunosa 10 0.43 T R. asanoi BEmiliania huxleyi 0.91 1.06 20 1.14 B R. asanoi B G. parallela BG. oceanica 1.24 30 1.1.659 T C. macintyeri T H. sellii 1.71 1.93 T D. brouweri 40 B G. caribbeanica T D. pentaradiatus 50 2.39 2.53 T D. surculus 60 2.76 T D. tamalis 2.78 T R. ampla 70

80 Nannofossils 90 (this study) T Sphenolithusspp 3.61 100 3.82 T R. pseudoumbilica 110

120

130

140 4.37

150

Fig. 4.2. Age-depth plot by nannofossils for Hole 1396C. B refers to Base or (FO), whereas T refers to Top or (LO).

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.78 0.29 0.99 0.43 1.07 20 0.91 1.06 1.14 1.77 1.24 1.95 1.1.659 2.2.1415 40 1.71 1.93

2.58 2.39 60 2.53 3.04 2.762.78 3.11 3.22 3.33 80 3.58

100 3.61

3.82

120 4.18 4.29

4.48 140 4.37

160

Magnetic Nannofossils (this study)

Fig. 4.3. Integration of nannoffossil and magnetic age-model for Hole 1396C.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.29 0.25 0.43 0.91 0.41 1.06 20 1.14

1.24 1.59 0.850.95 1.6 1.16 1.71 1.21 1.93 40 1.27 1.45 1.65 1.73 2.39 2.53 1.97 60 2.2.7678 2.38 2.54 Nannofossils (this study) 80 2.2.7478

Nannofossils 1000 (Kameo and Bralower, 2000) 3.36 3.61 100 3.82 Magnetic (EXP 340, 2012) 3.65 120 3.8

140 4.37

4.37 160

Fig. 4.4. Comparison between nannofossil and magnetic ages for Hole 1396C and Hole 1000A (nannofossil ages).

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

Hole 1396C from the Expedition 340 of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), provides a lower Pliocene to Pleistocene record of calcareous nannofossil assemblages (CN11 to CN15). The calcareous nannofossils are generally common to abundant and exhibit moderate to good preservation. In the upper Pleistocene, nannofossils are common and exhibit moderate preservation with an increase in fragmentation. From the lower Pleistocene to Pliocene (base of the hole) nannofossils are abundant to very abundant with good to excellent preservation. The zonations of Gartner (1977) for the Pleistocene and Okada and Bukry (1980) for the Pliocene were applied and worked well throughout the sequence to improve the biostratigraphic record. In the Pleistocene, the Small Gephyrocapsa Zone was not consistently recognized because the small sizes of the specimens make them are readily susceptible to dissolution. Thus, the Pseudoemiliania lacunosa Zone was expanded to include this interval in the study. The Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica Zone was delineated in this study without subzones (i.e., without Subzones CN11a, (Discoaster asymmetricus) and CN11b (Sphenolithus neoabies) because no major change of Discoaster asymmetricus abundance was observed. This is probably because Zone CN11 was not recovered completely as the site was abandoned after recovering only 140 meters of hemiplagic sediment. Nannofossils ages compiled from the recent update of Backman et al. (2012) were used to construct an age-depth plot to infer the sedimentation pattern for the last 5 m.y. in the eastern Caribbean Sea. Sedimentation rates inferred by the nannofossil biostratigraphy suggest low sedimentation rates in the Pleistocene and high sedimentation rates in the Pliocene. Magnetic polarity ages, conducted during the expedition, agree with the sedimentation patterns and suggest that the nannofossils age-dates for Hole 1396C are reliable. Nannofossils at both Site 1396 and ODP Site 1000 to the west correlate quite well and show the same sedimentation pattern with in the central Caribbean Sea. It is evident that regional high sedimentation rates during the Pliocene in the Caribbean Sea were caused by the closing of the Central American seaway. Selected samples from Holes 1396A and C were heated abroad ship at 105°C in a non- sealed oven at room pressure for 24 hours to determine the water content of each sample. 47

Observations of these samples via the scanning electron microscope (SEM) show severe overgrowths and etching of the nannofossils. By comparing untreated samples from the same hole, the temperature of 105°C is responsible for this heavy overgrowth and a more detailed investigation is now needed to determine the source of the overgrowth material and build a diagenetic model for such cases with high temperatures and/or pressures.

APPENDX A

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF CALCAREOUS NANNOFOSSILS CONSIDERED IN THIS THESIS

(GENERA IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

Braarudosphaera bigelowii (Gran and Braarud, 1935) Deflandre (1947) Calcidiscus leptoporus (Murray and Blackman, 1898) Loeblich and Tappan (1978) Calcidiscus macintyrei (Bukry and Bramlette, 1969) Loeblich and Tappan (1978) Calciosolenia murrayi (Gran in Murray and Hjort, 1912) Ceratolithus cristatus (Kamptner, 1950) Ceratolithus rugosus Bukry and Bramlette (1968) Coccolithus pelagicus (Wallich, 1877) Schiller (1930) Dictyococcites productus (Kamptner, 963) Backman (1980) Discoaster asymmetricus (Gartner, 1969) Discoaster brouweri (Tan, 1927 emend. Bramlette and Riedel, 1954) Discoaster challengeri (Bramlette and Riedel, 1954) Discoaster pentaradiatus (Tan, 1927) emend. Bramlette and Riedel (1954) Discoaster surculus (Martini and Bramlette, 1963) Discoaster tamalis (Kamptner, 1967) Discoaster triradiatus Tan (1927) Discoaster variabilis (Martini and Bramlette, 1963) Emiliania huxleyi (Lohmann, 1902) Hay and Mohler in Hay et al., 1967 Florisphaera profunda (Okada and Honjo, 1973) Gephyrocapsa (small) Matusoka and Okada, 1989 Gephyrocapsa caribbeanica (Boudreaux and Hay in Hay et al., 1967) Gephyrocapsa oceanica (Kamptner, 1943) Gephyrocapsa parallela (Hay and Beaudry, 1973)

Hayaster perplexus (Bramlette and Riedel, 1954) Bukry (1973) Helicosphaera carteri (Wallich, 1877) Kamptner (1954) Helicosphaera kamptneri (Hay and Mohler in Hay et al., 1967) Helicosphaera sellii (Bukry and Bramlette, 1969) Oolithotus antillarum (Cohen, 1964) Reinhardt in Cohen and Reinhardt (1968) Oolithotus fragilis (Lohmann, 1912) Martini and Mueller (1972) Pontosphaera discopora (Schiller, 1925) Pontosphaera multipora (Kamptner, 1948) Roth (1970) Pontosphaera plana (Bramlette and Sullivan, 1961) Haq (1971) Pontosphaera pulchra (Deflandre in Deflandre and Fert, 1954) Romein (1979) Pseudoemiliania lacunosa (Kamptner, 1963) Gartner (1969) Reticulofenestra ampla (Sato et al., 1991) Reticulofenestra asanoi (Sato and Takayama, 1992) Reticulofenestra minuta (Roth, 1970) Reticulofenestra minutula (Gartner, 1967) Haq and Berggren, 1978 Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica (Gartner, 1967) Gartner (1969) Rhabdosphaera clavigera (Murray and Blackman, 1898) Schyphosphaera sp. Lohman (1902) Sphenolithus abies (Deflandre in Deflandre and Fert, 1954) Sphenolithus neoabies (Bukry and Bramlette, 1969) Syracosphaera pulchra (Lohmann, 1902) Umbellosphaera tenuis Kamptner (1937) Paasche in Markali and Paasche (1955) Umbilicosphaera sibogae (Weber-van Bosse, 1901) Gaarder (1970)

APPENDIX B

PLATES

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

12 9 10 11

1 2

4 3

6 8 7 5 6

9 10 11

Fig. B.2. (1) Pontosphera multipora Sample 10H-5, 93-95 cm. (2). Spehnolithus sp. Sample 11H-5, 32-34 cm. (3). Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica Sample 15H-6, 102-104 cm. (4). Pseudoemiliania lacunosa Sample 7H-4, 85-87 cm. (5,11). (cross nicoles and polarized light) Reticulofenestra ampla Sample 8H-1, 78-80 cm. 6. Scyphosphaera sp. Sample 10H-2, 108-110. (7-8). (polarized and cross nicoles) Reticulofenestra asanoi Sample 3H-2, 107-109. (9). Gephyrocapsa oceanica Sample 2H-5, 127-129 cm. (10). Gephyrocapsa caribbeanica Sample 3H-3, 85-87 cm.

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

Fig. B.3. (1). Discoaster challengeri Sample 9H-CC. (2). Discoaster pentaradiatus Sample 9H-2, 106-108 cm. (3). Discoaster surculus Sample 9H-CC. (4). Discoaster tamalis Sample 9H-6, 106-108 cm. (5-6). Discoaster brouweri Sample 7H-3, 32-34 cm. (7). Discoaster assymtericus Sample 9H-CC. (8-9). Calcidiscus macintyrei Sample 6H-6, 96-98 cm. (10-11). Oolithus fragilis Sample 7H-4, 124-126 cm. (12). Florisphaera profunda Sample 7H-2, 95-97 cm.

APPENDIX C

REFERENCES

Adelseck, C.G., Greehan, G.W., and Roth, P.H., 1973. Experimental evidence for the selective dissolution and overgrowth of t he calcareous nannofossils during diagenesis. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 84:2755-2762.

Backman, J., Raffi, I., Rio, D., Fornaciari, E., and Palike, H., 2012. Biozonation and biochronology of Miocene through Pleistocene calcareous nannofossils from low and latitudes. Newsletters on Stratigraphy., 45,221-224.

Backman, J., Rio, D., and Shackleon, N.J., 1993. Plio-Pleistocene nannofossil biostratigraphy and calibration to oxygen isotope stratigraphies from Deep Sea Drilling Progrct Site 607 and Ocean Drilling Program Site 677. Paleoceanography, 8: 387-408.

Berner, R.A., 1980. Early diagenesis a theoretical approach: Princeton University Press, 237 pp.

Bouysse, P. 1984. The Lesser Antilles island arc: structure and geodynamic evolution. In Biju Duval, B., Moore, J. C. et al., Init. Repts. DSDP, 78A: Washington (U.S.Govt. Printing Office), 83-103.

Bouysse, P., Westercamp, D., & Andreieff, P., 1990. The Lesser Antilles island arc. In Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program: Scientific results (Vol. 110, p. 29).

Bown, P.R., 1998. Calcareous Nannofossil Biostratigraphy: London (Chapman- Hall), 315 pp.

Bown, P.R., and Young, J.R., 1998. Introduction. In: Bown, P.R. (Ed.), Calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 225-265.

Briden, J.C., Rex, D.C., Faller, A.M., and Tomblin, J.F., 1979. K-Ar Geochronology and Palaeomagnetism of Volcanic Rocks in the Lesser Antilles Island Arc. Philosophical Transations of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physcial Sciences, v. 291, no. 1383, p. 485-528.

Bramlette, M.N, and Martini, E., 1964. The great change in calcareous nannoplankton fossils between the Maestrichtian and Danian. Micropaleontology., 10:291-322.

Bramlette, M.N., and Sullivan, F.R., 1961. Coccolithophorids and related Nannoplankton of the early Tertiary in California. Micropaleontology.,7: 129-188.

Bramlette, M.N. and Riedel W.R., 1954. Stratigraphic value of discoasters and some other microfossils related to recent coccolithophores. J. Paleontol., 28: 385-403.

Bramlette, M.N., and Wilcoxon, J.A., 1967. Middle Tertiary calcareous nannoplankton of the Cipero Section. Trinidad, W.I. Tulane Stud. Geol., 5: 93-132.

Bukry, D., 1973. Coccolith stratigraphy, eastern equatorial Pacific, Leg 16 Deep Sea Drilling Project. Init. Repts. DSDP, 16: Washington (U.S. Govt. Printing Office), 653 711.

Bukry, D., 1991. Paleoecological transect of western Pacific Ocean late Pliocene coccolith flora. Part I: Tropical Ontong-Java Plateau at ODP 806B. Open-File Rep.-U.S. Geol. Surv., 91-552:1- 35.

Burns, D.A., 1975. Changes in nannofossil morphology by diagenetic processes in Cretaceous chalk deposit. N.Z. Journal of Geology and Geophysics., 18:469-476.

Cande, S. C. & Kent, D. V., 1992. A new geomagneticpolarity time scale for the late Cretaceousand Cenozoic. J. geophys. Res. 97, 13917–13951.

Cohen, C.L., 1964. Coccolithophorids from two Caribbean deep-sea cores. Micropaleontology., 10: 231-250.

Curry, W.B., Shackleton, N.J., Richter, C., et al., 1995. Proc. ODP, Init. Repts., 154: College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling Program), 1111pp.

Deflandre, G., 1947. Braarudosphaera nov. gen.,type d'une famille nouvelle de Coccolithophoridés actuels à éléments composites. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences, 225, 439-441.

Deplus, C., Le Friant, A., Boudon, G., Komorowski, J.-C., Sparks, S., and Harford, C., 2002. Numerous debris avalanche deposits off the southern part of Montserrat revealed by recent oceanographic cruises [Montagne Pelée 1902–2002: Explosive Volcanism in Zones of Subduction, St. Pierre, Martinique Island, 12–16 May 2002].

Ehrenberg, C.G., 1836. Bemerkungen uber feste mikroscopische anorganische Formen in denerdigen und derben Mineralien. Bericht. Verh. K. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, pp. 84-85.

Ehrenberg, C.G., 1854. Microgeologie. Das Erden und Felsen Schaffande Wirken des Unsichtbar Kleinen Selbstandigen Lebens auf der Erde. Leipzig. V.I (375 p.); V.II (88p.).

Expedition 340 Scientists, 2013. Site 1396. In Le Friant, A. Ishizuka, O., Stroncik, N.A., and the Expedition 340 Scientists, Proc. IODP, 340: Tokyo (Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management International, INC). doi:10.2204/iodp.proc.340.106.2013.

Gartner, S., 1977. Calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy and revised zonation of the Pleistocene. Mar. Micropaleontol., 2:1–25. doi:10.1016/0377-8398(77)90002-0.

Harford, C.L., Pringle, M.S., Sparks, R.S.J., and Young, R.S., 2002. The volcanic evolution of Montserrat using 40Ar/39Ar geochronology: The Eruption of Soufriere Hills Volcano,Montserrat, from 1995 to 1999. Geological Society, London, Memoirs, v. 21, p. 93-113.

Hay, W. W, 1970. Calcareous nannofossils from cores recovered on DSDP Leg 4. In Bader, R. G., Gerard, R. D., et al., Init. Repts. DSDP, 4: Washington (U.S. Govt. Printing Office), 455-503.

Hay, W. W., 1972. Probabilistic stratigraphy. Ecologae. Geol. Helv., 65:255-266.

Hay, W. W. and Mohler, H.P., 1967. Calcareous nannoplankton from Early Tertiary rocks at Pont Labau, France and Paleocene-Early Eocene correlations. J. Paleontol., 41:1505-1541.

Hay, W.W., Mohler, H.P., Roth, P.H., Schmidt, R.R. and Boudreaux, J.E., 1967. Calcareous nannoplankton zonation of the Cenozoic of the Gulf of Coast and Caribbean-Antillean area and transoceanic correlation. Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc., 17: 428-480.

Huxley, T. H., 1858. Appendix to Capt. Dayman's Admiralty Report "Deep- Sea soundings in the N. Atlantic Ocean made in H.M.S. Cyclops."

Huxley, T.H., 1868. On some organisms living at great depths in the North Atlantic Ocean. Quart. J. Microscopical Sci., New Ser., 8: 203-12.

Hok, T. S., 1927. Over de samenstellung en het ontstaan van krijt-en mergel- gesteenten van de Molukkan (Doctoral dissertation, Algemene landsdrukkerij).

Haq, B.U., 1978. Calcareous Nannoplankton, p. 79-107. In B.U. Haq and A. Boersma (eds.), Introduction to marine micropaleontology, Elsevier.

Kameo, K., Bralower, T.J., 2000. Neogene calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy of Site 998, 999, and 1000, Caribbean Sea. In Leckie, R.M., Sigurdsson, H., Acton,G.D.,Draper, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program. Scientific Results, vol.165. Ocean Drilling Program, College Station, TX, pp. 3–17.

Kameo, K., Sato, T., and Takayama, T., 1995. Late Pliocene calcareous nannofossil datums and bioevents. In Flores, J.A., and Sierro, F.J. (Eds.), Proc. 5th INA Conf., Universidad de Salamanca, 87–98.

Kamptner, E., 1941. Die Coccolithineen der S dwestk ste von Istrien. Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien 54-149.

La Friant, A., Ishizuka, O., and Strincik, N., 2011. Lesser Antilles volcanism and landslides: drilling volcanic landslides deposits and volcanoclastic sediments in the Lesser Antilles arc: implications for hazard assessment and long-term magmatic evolution of the arc. IODP Sci. Prosp., 340. doi:10.2204/iodp.sp.340.2011.

Le Friant, A., Lock, E.J., Hart, M.B., Boudon, G., Sparks, R.S.J., Leng, M.J., Smart, C.W., Komorowski, J.C., Deplus, C., and Fisher, J.K., 2008. Late Pleistocene tephrochronology of marine sediments adjacent to Montserrat, Lesser Antilles volcanic arc. J. Geol. Soc. (London, U. K.), 165(1):279–289.

Levin, H.L., and Joerger, A.P., 1967. Calcareous nannoplankton from the Tertiary of Alabama. Micropaleontology., 13:163-182.

Lohmann, H., 1902. Die Coccolithoporidae. Arch. Protistenk. 1: 89-165.

Lohmann, H. 1909. Die Gehause und Gallert- blasen der Appendicularien und ihre Bedeu- tung fur die Erforschung des Lebens im Meer. Verh. Dtsch. Zool. Ges. 19: 200-239.

Manivit, H., 1989. Calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy of Leg 108 sediments. In Ruddiman, W., Sarnthein, M., et al. Proc. ODP. Sci. Results. 108: College Station, TX. (Ocean Drilling Program) 35-69.

Martini, E.,1971. Standard Tertiary and Quaternary calcareous nannoplankton zonation. In Farinacci, A., Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Planktonic Microfossils Roma. Rome, 739-785.

Matter, A., Douglas, R.G., and Perch-Nielsen, K., 1975. Fossils preservation, geochemistry, and diagenesis of pelagic carbonates from Shatsky Rise, Northwest Pacific. In Larson,R.,L.,Moberly, R., et al., Init. Repts. DSDP, 32: Washington (U.S. Govt. Printing Office), 891-921.

Minster, J.B., and Jordan, T.H., 1978. The present day plate motions., J. Geohys. Res., 83:5331- 5354.

Okada, H., and Bukry, D., 1980. Supplementary modification and introduction of code numbers to the low latitude coccolith biostratigraphic zonation (Bukry 1973,1975). Mar.Micropaleontology, 5:321-325.

Okada, H., and Honjo, S., 1973. The distribution of oceanic coccolithophorids in the Pacific. Deep-Sea Res., 20, 355-374.

Perch-Nielsen, K., 1985. Cenozoic calcareous nannofossils. In Bolli, H.M., Saunder, J.B., and Perch-Nielsen, K. (Eds.), Plankton Stratigraphy: Cambridge (Cambridge University Press), 427- 554.

Raffi, I., 2002. Revision of the early–middle Pleistocene calcareous nannofossil biochronology (1.75–0.85 Ma). Mar. Micropaleontol. 45, 25– 55.

Raffii, I., and Flores, J.-A., 1995. Pleistocene through Miocene calcareous nannofossils from the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. In Pisias, N.G., Mayer, L.A., Janecek, T.R., Palemer-Julson, A., and van Andel, T.H. (Eds.), Proc. ODP, Sci. Results, 138: College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling Program), 233-286.

Rea, J, W., 1974. The volcanic geology and petrology of Montserrat, West Indies. J. geol. Soc. Lond., 130: 341-366.

Reid, R. P., Carey, S. N., and Ross, D. R. (1996). Late Quaternary sedimentation in the Lesser Antilles island arc. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 108(1), 78-100. 59

Rio, D., Fornaciari, E., and Raffi, I., 1990a. Late Oligocene through early Pleistocene calcareous nannofossils from western equatorial Indian Ocean (Leg 115). In Duncan, R.A., Raffii, I, Backman, J., Peterson, L.C., et al., Proc. ODP, Sci. Results, 115: College Station,vTX (Ocean Drilling Program), 175–235.

Scientific Shipboard Party, 1997. Site 1000. In Sigurdsson, H., Leckie, R.M., Acton, G.D., et al., Proc. ODP, Sci. Results, 165: College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling Program). 232-289.

Rio, D., Raffi, I., and Villa, G., 1990b. Pliocene-Pleistocene calcareous nannofossil distribution pattern in the Western Mediterranean. In Kastens, K., Mascle, J., et al., Proc.ODP.Sci. Results. 107: College Station, TX. (Ocean Drilling Program) 513-533.

Roth, P.H., 1973. Calcareous nannoplankton: Leg 17 of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. In Winterer, E.L., Ewing, J.L., et al., Init. Repts. DSDP. Vol XVII: Washington (U.S. Government Printing Office), 695-742.

Sato, T., Kameo, K., and Takayama, T. 1991. Coccolith biostratigraphy of the Arabian Sea. In Prell, W.L., Niitsuma, N., et al., Proc. ODP, Sci, Results, 117: College Station TX (Ocean Drilling Program), 37-54.

Sato, T., and Takayama, T., 1992. A stratigraphically significant new species of the calcareous nannofossil Reticulofenestra asanoi. Centenary of Japan Micropaleontology, K. Ishizaki and T. Sato (eds.), 457-460.

Schlanger, S.O., and Douglas, r.G., 1974. The pelagic ooze-chalk-limestone transition and its implication for marine stratigraphy. In Hsu, K.J., and Jenkyns H.C. (Eds.), Pelagic sediment: On Land and Under the Sea. Spec. Publ.-Int. Assoc. Sedimentol., 1:117-148.

Schlanger, S.O., Douglas, R.C., Lancelot, Y., Moore, T.C., and Roth, P., 1973. Fossil preservation and diagenesis of pelagic carbonates from the Magellan Rise, Central North Pacific Ocean. In: Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, Vol. XVII (E.l. Winterer, J.I. Ewing et al.), pp. 467-527. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Sorby, H. C., 1861. On the organic origin of the so-called „crystalloids‟ of the chalk. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser., 3, 8: 193-200.

Smith, W.H.F., and Sandwell, D.T., 1997. Global sea floor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings. Science, 277(5334):19561962. doi:10.1126/science.277.5334.1956.

Takayama, T., 1993. Notes on Neogene calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy of the Ontong Java Plateau size variation of Reticulofenestra coccoliths. In Berger, W.H., Kroenke, L.W., Mayer, L.A., et al., Proc. ODP, Sci. Results, 130: College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling Program), 179-229.

Takayama, T., and Sato, T., 1987. Coccolith biostratigraphy of the North Atlantic Ocean, Deep Sea Drilling Project Leg 94. In Ruddiman, W.F., Kidd, R.B., Thomas, E. Et al., init. Repts. DSDP, 94 (Pt 2): Washington (U.S. Govt. Printing Office), 651-702.

Von Gumbel, C.W., 1868. Geognostische Beschreibung des Ostbayerischen Grenzebirges oder des Byerischen und Oberpfalzer Waldgebirges. Perthes, Gotha.

Wallich, G.C., 1861. Remarks on some novel phases of organic life, and on the boring powers of minute annelids, at great depths in the sea. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 3, 8: 52-58.

Weaver, F.M., and Wise, S.W., 1973. Early diagenesis of a deep-sea bedded chert. U.S. Antarctic J. 8:298-300.

Wise, S.W., 1973. Calcareous nannofossils from cores recovered during Leg 18, Deep Sea Drilling Project: biostratigraphy and observations of diagenesis. In Kulm, L.D., von Huene, R., et al., Init. Repts. DSDP, 18: Washington (U.S. Govt. Printing Office), 569-615.

Wise, S.W., 1977. Chalk formation: early diagenesis. In Anderson, N.R., and Malahoff, A. (Eds.), The fate of Fossil Fuel CO2 in the Oceans: New York (Plenum Press), 717-739.

Wise, S.W., 1982. Calcareous nannofossils: an update. Third Am. Paleontol. Conf., Proc.,2:588a- 588J.

Wise, S.W., Jr. and Kelts, K.R., 1972. Inferred diagenetic history of a weakly silicified deep sea chalk. Tran. Gulf-Cst Ass. Geol. Socs, 22:177-203. . Young, J.R., 1998. Chapter 9: Neogene. In: Bown, P.R. (Ed.), calcareous Nannofossil Biostratigraphy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 225-265.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Mohammed H. Aljahdali was born in 1984 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He is currently working as a teacher assistant at King Abdulaziz University,Faculty of Marine Sciences, Department of Marine Geology. In 2011, he received a scholarship from the Saudi Arabian Government to pursue his education at Florida State University, Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. His main academic advisor is Professor Sherwood "Woody" Wise, a well-known scientist specializing in marine micropaleontology "Calcareous nannofossils". In 2012, Mr. Aljahdali was invited to sail on the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) in Expedition 340 as the only nannofossil specialist for 7-weeks in the Caribbean Sea.

EDUCATION

Florida State University; Earth, Ocean & Atmospheric sciences Fall 2013-present Tallahassee, FL — Ph.D in Geology (Micropaleontology)

Florida State University; Earth, Ocean & Atmospheric sciences 2011-2013 Tallahassee, FL — Master of Science in Geology (Micropaleontology)

King Abdulaziz University, faculty of marine sciences 2003-2007 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia — Bachelor of Science in Marine Geology.

RESEARCH INTEREST

Biostratigraphy and paleoecology of calcareous nannofossils in both high and low latitude regions.

EXPERIENCE Nannofossils paleontologist

Integrated Ocean Drilling Program; Expedition 340 March 2012-April 2012

Micropaleontologist

Gulf of Mexico Project, Florida State University May & October 2011

Teacher Assistant

King Abdulaziz University, Faculty of Marine Sciences; Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 2008-2009

SKILLS

Biostratigraphy and paleoecology of Calcareous nannofossils in both low and high latitude regions. Core Description based on the Antarctica Research Facility at Florida State University, by using smear slides technique.

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP

Member of the Geological Society of America (GSA). Member of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG). Member of the International Nannoplankton Association (INA). Member of the society of Sedimentary Geology (SEMP). Member of the Smithsonian museum. Member of the Geology Club at Florida State University. Member of the NANNOTAX.

PUBLICATIONS

 Expedition 340 Scientists. (2012). Lesser Antilles volcanism and landslides: implications for hazard assessment and long-term magmatic evolution of the arc. IODP Prel. Rept., 340. doi:10.2204/iodp.pr.340.2012.

 Manga, Michael, Hornbach, Matthew J., Le Friant, Anne, Ishizuka, Osamu, Stroncik, Nicole, Adachi, Tatsuya, Aljahdali, Mohammed, Boudon, Georges, Breitkreuz, Christoph, Fraass, Andrew, Fujinawa, Akihiko, Hatfield, Robert, Jutzeler, Martin, Kataoka, Kyoko, Lafuerza, Sara, Maeno, Fukashi, Martinez-Colon, Michael, McCanta, Molly, Morgan, Sally, Palmer, Martin R., Saito, Takeshi, Slagle, Angela, Stinton, Adam J., Subramanyam, K.S.V., Tamura, Yoshihiko, Talling, Peter J., Villemant, Benoit, Wall-Palmer, Deborah and Wang, Fei (2012) Heat flow in the Lesser Antilles island arc and adjacent back arc Grenada basin. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 13, Q08007. (doi:10.1029/2012GC004260).