Early Miocene Climate and Biomes of Turkey Evidence from Leaf Fossils
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 530 (2019) 236–248 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/palaeo Early Miocene climate and biomes of Turkey: Evidence from leaf fossils, T dispersed pollen, and petrified wood ⁎ Thomas Denka, , H. Tuncay Günera,b, Johannes M. Bouchala a Swedish Museum of Natural History, Department of Palaeobiology, Box 50007, 10405 Stockholm, Sweden b Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest Botany, 34473 Bahçeköy, Istanbul, Turkey ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The early Miocene was a period of major palaeogeographic reorganization in the eastern Mediterranean region, Miocene climate during which time the Anatolian Plateau became subaerial and several intracontinental basins intermittently Laurel Forest Biome became connected to the Paratethys and Mediterranean seas. In this paper, we analyse early Miocene vegetation CLAMP and climate using leaf records, palynological assemblages, and fossil wood at 36 localities from western and Köppen signatures central Turkey, most of which have precise age control based on radiometric dating and mammal faunal ages. Aquitanian Using the leaf flora of Güvem (Beş Konak, Keseköy), Climate Leaf-Analysis Multivariate Program (CLAMP) Burdigalian analyses and Köppen signatures were employed to infer a palaeoclimate typical of modern laurel forest regions. Based on the palynological records, abundance of various pollen-taxa was used as a measure of openness of vegetation and regional presence of major tree taxa. Most pollen floras are dominated by tree pollen (ranging from 85 to 98%) and indicated widespread afforestation. In the pollen diagrams, shifts in dominance from swamp forest elements (Taxodioideae) to well-drained forests (Pinaceae) indicate changes in lake levels or phases of basin development. Such shifts may have been associated with the development of more xeric forest vegetation. Wood anatomical features such as false tree rings further may indicate seasonal climate. Pollen diagrams and macrofossils reflect zonal and azonal broadleaf and needleleaf forest and extrazonal openvege- tation. The latter occurred in areas with shallow soils on volcanic rocks or limestone (e.g. cycads, Dracaena), or coastal areas (herb dominance). Taxonomic composition and biogeographic affinities suggest laurel forest asa major forest biome on well-drained soils and ecotones between laurel forest and broadleaf deciduous forest biomes. A comparison with younger floras shows that these are neither more diverse nor more warmth-loving despite an increase in global temperature (Mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum) suggesting bottlenecks during previous (Oligocene) cooler times for warmth-loving taxa. 1. Introduction This exchange included African immigrants such as the Proboscidae (Koufos et al., 2003). While large parts of Asia Minor were submerged during the Eocene There is conflicting evidence for the type of vegetation andpa- (Rögl, 1998, 1999), western and parts of central Turkey became sub- laeoenvironments that existed in Anatolia during the early Miocene. aerial during the Oligocene (Rögl, 1999; Popov et al., 2004). During the Strömberg et al. (2007) analysed phytoliths from three early Miocene early Miocene, western Anatolia remained subaerial (e.g. Alcicek, 2010; localities in the Galatian Volcanic Province (GVP) and inferred rela- Ersoy et al., 2014), while emergent areas in central and east Turkey tively open vegetation such as savanna or open woodland. In contrast, were repeatedly transgressed by shallow seas (Paicheler et al., 1978; palynological data from the GVP suggest a flora dominated by trees and Popov et al., 2004; Poisson et al., 2016). During the later Burdigalian a mixed mesophytic forest (Yavuz-Işık, 2008; Yavuz-Işık and Demirci, (19–18 Ma), eastern Turkey emerged and the Tethys Seaway closed, 2009), and silicified woods from the GVP suggest diverse forest vege- resulting in a terrestrial connection between Anatolia and Africa-Arabia tation during the early Miocene with some aridity (Akkemik et al., and Eurasia. The formation of a temporary land bridge (Gomphotherium 2016, 2017, 2018a, 2018b). land bridge) enabled faunal exchange at the base of mammal zone MN4 The objectives of this present paper are (i) to assess palaeoenvir- between Africa and Eurasia (Rögl, 1999; Harzhauser and Piller, 2007). onmental signal in 36 pollen, leaf and wood floras, (ii) to assess the ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Denk). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2019.05.042 Received 28 February 2019; Received in revised form 28 May 2019; Accepted 28 May 2019 Available online 31 May 2019 0031-0182/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/). T. Denk, et al. Table 1 Early Miocene plant fossil localities (1 to 36; see Fig. 1) from Turkey considered in the present study. Abbreviations: (P) pollen, (L) leaf flora, (W) petrified wood, (PH) phytoliths, M Zone = planktonic foraminiferal zone, MN Zone = Neogene European mammal zone, NN Zone = nannofossil zone. No. Locality Abbrev. Province Element and reference Stage Age/ M Zone/ MN Zone/ NN Age constraint and reference Zone 1 Haymana HAY Ankara (W) Akkemik et al., 2018b Late Chattian/ 24.7 ± 1.9 Ma Radiometric (Ar/Ar): Atıcı et al., 2014 early Aquitanian 2 Sivas Basin SIV1 Sivas (P) Akkiraz et al., 2018 Aquitanian Unspecified Aquitanian Molluscs: Akkiraz et al., 2018 3 Muş Basin MUS Muş (P) Sancay et al., 2006 Aquitanian M1 (EM1–EM2) Foraminifera: Sancay et al., 2006 4 Kalkim-Gönen (Bengiler KAL Çanakkale (P) Üçbaş Durak and Akkiraz, 2016 Aquitanian 22.26 ± 0.06 Ma Radiometric (Ar/Ar): Üçbaş Durak and Akkiraz, 2016 section) 5 Tunçbilek TUB Kütahya (L) Mädler and Steffens, 1979; Aquitanian 22.12 ± 0.02 Ma to 21.56 ± Radiometric (Ar/Ar): Helvacı et al., 2017 (P) Akkiraz et al., 2012 0.04 Ma 6 Seytömer SEY Kütahya (P) Nakoman, 1968; (P) Yavuz-Işık, 2007; Aquitanian 22.12 ± 0.02 Ma to 21.56 ± Radiometric (Ar/Ar): Helvacı et al., 2017 (P) Akkiraz et al., 2012 0.04 Ma 7 Harami HAR Konya (P) Karayiğit et al., 1999; Aquitanian 22.268 to 21.936 Ma; Magentostratigraphy: Krijgsman et al., 1996 (P) Biltekin, 2018 MN1(–2) Vertebrates: de Bruijn et al., 1992; van den Hoek Ostende, 2001; Joniak et al., 2018 8 Kargı 2 KRG Çorum (P) Yavuz-Işık et al., 2011 Aquitanian MN1 Vertebrates: Saraç, 2003; NOW Community, 2019 9 Kılçak KCK Çankırı (P) Yavuz and Demırer, 2018 Aquitanian MN1–2 (–3) Vertebrates: de Bruijn and Saraç, 1992; de Bruijn et al., 1993; de Bruijn and von Koenigswald, 1994; Ünay, 1994; van den Hoek Ostende, 1992, 1995a, 1995b, 2001 10 Balya lignite mine BAL Balıkesir (L) Engelhardt, 1903; Denk et al., 2017b Aquitanian to 22.97 ± 0.23 to 18.72 ± 0.17 Radiometric (U-Pb): Aslan et al., 2017 Burdigalian Ma 11 Gördes Basin GRD Manisa (P) Akgün and Akyol, 1987 Aquitanian to 21.7 ± 0.04 to 16.4 ± 0.01 Radiometric (Ar/Ar): Purvis et al., 2005 Burdigalian Ma; MN3 Vertebrates: Peláez-Campomanes et al., 2018 237 12 Çan CAN Çanakkale (L) Mädler and Steffens, 1979; (P) Ediger, 1990; (P) Bozcu Aquitanian to 21.5 to 16.2 Ma for Ezine Radiometric (K/Ar): Borsi et al., 1972; et al., 2015 Burdigalian region Ercan et al., 1985; Yılmaz, 1990 13 Soma SOM Manisa (L) Mädler and Steffens, 1979; (P) Akgün et al., 1986; (P) Aquitanian to 20.72 ± 0.10 to 18.76 ± 0.05 Radiometric (Ar/Ar): Ersoy et al., 2014 Takahashi and Jux, 1991; (L, P) Gemici et al., 1991; (P) Burdigalian Ma; Vertebrates: Kaya et al., 2007 Akgün, 1993; (L) Erdei et al., 2010; (L) Güner and Denk, MN3 2012; (L) Denk et al., 2014, 2015, 2017b 14 Bigadiç Basin BIG Balıkesir (P) Akyol and Akgün, 1990 Aquitanian to 20.6 ± 0.7 to 17.8 ± 0.4 Ma Radiometric (Ar/Ar, K/Ar): Erkül et al., 2005 Burdigalian Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology530(2019)23 15 Güvem (including the sites GUV Ankara (P) This study; (L) Kasaplıgil, 1977; (L) Mädler and Steffens, Burdigalian 19.7 ± 0.6 to 17.9 ± 0.5 Ma; Radiometric (K/Ar): Wilson et al., 1997 Beş Konak and Keseköy) 1979; (L) Paicheler and Blanc, 1981; (PH) Strömberg et al., MN3 Vertebrates: de Bruijn et al., 1992; 2007; (P) Yavuz-Işık, 2008; (P) Yavuz-Işık et al., 2011; (L) van den Hoek Ostende, 2001; Wessels, 2009 Güner and Denk, 2012; (L) Denk et al., 2014, 2015, 2017a, b 16 Kocacay KOC Izmir (P) Kayseri-Özer et al., 2014 Burdigalian MN3–4 Vertebrates: Kaya et al., 2007 17 Kıbrısçık-Kuzca KUZ Bolu (W) Acarca Bayam et al., 2018 Burdigalian 20 to 18 Ma Radiometric (K/Ar): Toprak et al., 1996 18 Beypazarı- Aşağıgüney AGU Bolu (W) Acarca Bayam et al., 2018 Burdigalian 20 to 18 Ma Radiometric (K/Ar): Toprak et al., 1996 19 Beypazarı-Kıraluç KIR Bolu (W) Acarca Bayam et al., 2018 Burdigalian 20 to 18 Ma Radiometric (K/Ar): Toprak et al., 1996 20 Beypazarı-Mençeler MEN Ankara (W) Acarca Bayam et al., 2018 Burdigalian 20 to 18 Ma Radiometric (K/Ar): Toprak et al., 1996 21 İnözü Deresi kuzey taraf INL Ankara (W) Acarca Bayam et al., 2018 Burdigalian 20 to 18 Ma Radiometric (K/Ar): Toprak et al., 1996 22 İnözü Deresi güney taraf INO Ankara (W) Acarca Bayam et al., 2018 Burdigalian 20 to 18 Ma Radiometric (K/Ar): Toprak et al., 1996 23 Beypazarı-Karaşar Köyü KAR Ankara (W) Acarca Bayam et al., 2018 Burdigalian 20 to 18 Ma Radiometric (K/Ar): Toprak et al., 1996 24 Çamlıdere-Elmalı Köyü ELM Ankara (W) Acarca Bayam, 2018 Burdigalian 19.7 ± 0.6 to 17.9 ± 0.5 Ma Radiometric (K/Ar): Tankut et al., 1995