Central and western Europe were affected by a compressional
tectonic event in the Late Cretaceous, caused by the convergence of Iberia
and Europe. Basement uplifts, inverted graben structures, and newly formed
marginal troughs are the main expressions of crustal shortening. Although
the maximum activity occurred during a short period of time between 90 and 75 Ma, the
exact timing of this event is still unclear. Dating of the start and end of Late
Cretaceous basin inversion gives very different results depending on the
method applied. On the basis of borehole data, facies, and thickness maps,
the timing of basin reorganization was reconstructed for several basins in
central Europe. The obtained data point to a synchronous start of basin
inversion at 95 Ma (Cenomanian), 5 Myr earlier than commonly
assumed. The end of the Late Cretaceous compressional event is difficult to
pinpoint in central Europe, because regional uplift and salt migration
disturb the signal of shifting marginal troughs. Late Campanian to Paleogene
strata deposited unconformably on inverted structures indicate slowly
declining uplift rates during the latest Cretaceous. The differentiation of
separate Paleogene inversion phases in central Europe does not appear
possible at present.
Introduction
During the Late Cretaceous, Europe was affected by a compressional event,
which led to the deformation of the Central European Basin. This compression
induced significant shortening of the basement, accompanied by the uplift of
basement anticlines within the basin; inversion of normal faults, which were
appropriately oriented to the newly established stress field; and folding of
sedimentary pre-inversion sequences above the thick Permian Zechstein salt
(e.g. Ziegler, 1987; Baldschuhn et al., 2001; Kockel, 2003; de Jager, 2007;
Krzywiec, 2006, 2012; Kley and Voigt, 2008; Kley, 2018; Mazur et al., 2005). Transpression
occurred at normal faults oblique to compression (Deckers and van der Voet,
2018; van der Voet et al., 2019). Inverted graben fills and uplifted
basement units were eroded and redeposited in newly formed flexural basins
(marginal troughs), filled with Upper Cretaceous redeposited syn-tectonic
clastic sediments and/or hemipelagic to pelagic limestones. Late Cretaceous
compressive deformation occurred in a belt along the margin of the East
European Platform (Fig. 1) as well as at intraplate structures from southern
England across the North Sea and central Europe up to the basement of the
Molasse Basin in front of the Alps, beneath the Alpine nappes on the
Helvetian Shelf, and to southern France. Their orientation is oblique to the
deformation front of the Alpine Orogen.
Overview of Mesozoic–Cenozoic structures and Late Cretaceous basins
in central Europe and surrounding areas, modified from Kley and Voigt
(2008). Cretaceous isopachs are modified from Ziegler (1990b). The hatched area
in the Regensburg Basin has preserved thickness < 500 m. Red boxes
show the locations of Figs. 3 to 5 and 8 to 10 as indicated. The abbreviations used in the figure are as follows: LSB –
Lower Saxony Basin, MPA – Mid-Polish Anticlinorium, SO – South Oldenburg Basin,
M – Münsterland Basin, SH – Subhercynian Basin, AM – Altmark Basin, NSB – North
Sudetic Basin, BS – Bohemian–Saxonian Basin, RB – Regensburg Basin, Ha – Harz, F – Flechtingen High, TW – Thüringer Wald (Thuringian
Forest), FL – Franconian Line, P – Prignitz
High, L-S-H – Lusatian–Sudetic High.
Late Cretaceous Central European Basin deformation – facts and
assumptions
The strongest deformation of the European lithosphere is focused on a 200 km
wide belt which trends in a NW–SE direction and contains numerous basement
highs uplifted by several kilometres. It comprises parts of the inverted
Lower Saxony Basin, the Harz Mountains, the Flechtingen High, the Thuringian
Forest with its southern prolongations in Bavaria, and the Lusatian–Sudetic
High (Senglaub et al., 2006; von Eynatten et al., 2019; Thomson and Zeh,
2000; Hejl et al., 1997; Lange et al., 2008; Danišík et al., 2010).
Less pronounced inversion (uplift magnitudes of 500–2000 m) is observed
along the margin of the East European Platform (Mid-Polish Anticlinorium;
e.g. Dadlez, 2003; Krzywiec, 2002, 2006; Hansen and Nielsen, 2003; van Buchem
et al., 2018), some anticlinal structures of the North German Basin
(Prignitz High: Voigt, 2009; Malz et al., 2020), and in northwestern Europe (Zijerveld
et al., 1992; Geluk et al., 1994; Michon et al., 2003; de Jager, 2003;
Luijendijk et al., 2011). The amount of vertical displacement may exceed 10 km, such as in the cases of the Lower Saxony Basin–Münsterland Basin (Petmecky et al., 1999; Senglaub et al., 2005, 2006), the
Harz–Subhercynian Basin (von Eynatten et al., 2019), and the
Lusatian–Sudetic High–Bohemian–Saxonian Cretaceous Basin inversion structures (Danišík et al., 2010; Käßner et al., 2020).
Major discussions concern the kinematics of deformation. While some authors have
argued for a NW–SE-directed dextral strike-slip fault system by attributing
the uplifts to restraining bends and related basins to transtension (Ziegler, 1990a; Wrede, 1988;
Uličný, 2001), most authors have
agreed that frontal thrusting was the main process that developed the observed
structures (Franzke et al., 2004; Kley and Voigt, 2008; Nielsen and Hansen,
2000; Deckers and van der Voet, 2018). This was also confirmed by
small-scale structural features (slickensides, fold axes, and fault
orientations), which in many cases preserved both the extensional phase and
N–S to NE–SW convergence (Vandycke, 2002; Franzke et al., 2004; Kley, 2018;
Malz et al., 2020; Coubal et al., 2014; Navabpour et al., 2017). The
strike-slip model addresses the problem that the principal faults should be
orientated in an E–W direction to explain the subsidence anomalies at the
assumed releasing Riedel shears, which were in fact never observed.
Furthermore, the symmetric shape of the marginal troughs and their spatial
relations to the inverted structures strongly point to frontal convergence
as the driving force for basin formation (Voigt et al., 2009).
On the basis of a detailed structural analysis of faults, Navabpour et al. (2017) were able to detect an early phase of N–S compression, oblique to the
main NW–SE-striking faults, between the extension phase and the frontal
thrusting. Nevertheless, this event has not been precisely dated yet.
While earlier interpretations emphasized the role of collision in the Alps
as the cause of compression (e.g. Ziegler, 1987; Ziegler et al., 1995) or
sought the cause for basin inversion in upper-mantle processes (Kockel et
al., 2003), later authors interpreted the deformation as the result of a
general Africa–Europe convergence during the Late Cretaceous (Nielsen et
al., 2007; Deckers, 2015). Kley and Voigt (2008) emphasized that concurrent
deformation occurred in a broad belt from northern Africa (Morocco) and
Iberia across the North Sea and southern England to the Baltic Sea and
Poland. It was related to a change in the relative motion of the European and
African plates, resulting in a short-term Iberia–Europe convergence. With
respect to direction or timing, this synchronous compression is not related
to any deformation phase in the Alps. Instead, the opening of the South
Atlantic Ocean caused a northward drift of the African Plate and led to a
transfer of compression via the Iberian Peninsula to the European Craton and
its foreland.
Voigt (1963) first recognized the formation of Late Cretaceous “marginal
troughs” or thrust-load basins (compare Nielsen and Hansen, 2000; Voigt
et al., 2008; Hindle and Kley, 2020) in central Europe and found
their development to be frequently related to the inversion of former basin
structures. Nielsen and Hansen (2000) explained the formation of primary
marginal troughs through loading by the thickened lithosphere of the inverted
structures. Primary Late Cretaceous to early Paleocene and secondary late
Paleocene marginal troughs, found at the margin of inverted Danish basins,
differ in structure and origin (Nielsen et al., 2005). While the former
developed due to the load of thickened lithosphere and sediment deposits on
the foreland, the latter show a shift of the basin axis away from the
inverted structure, and they are shallower and wider than the narrow primary
basins. They were explained as having evolved due to relaxation of the
lithosphere and are taken as a marker of a sudden end of inversion tectonics
within the early Paleocene (Nielsen et al., 2005, 2007).
This is in good agreement with the results of Deckers and van der Voet (2018) regarding the timing of inversion in the Roer Valley Graben and the
West Netherland Basin respectively. Krzywiec and Stachowska (2016)
challenged this concept by emphasizing that the Upper Cretaceous thickness
maxima do not represent narrow primary marginal troughs but are due to more
complete preservation in synclines. Their example at the southern flank of
the Mid-Polish Swell shows a remarkable hiatus below an unconformity
overlain by Eocene post-inversion deposits. The lack of Paleocene deposits
and pre-Eocene erosion of both marginal troughs and uplifted structures
preclude a comparison of original Late Cretaceous vs. Paleogene basin
geometries. Therefore, it is not clear to date whether Paleocene secondary
troughs are restricted to the Danish Basin or had been a common feature of
Late Cretaceous basin inversion.
A major discussion concerns the continuous or discontinuous nature of
deformation during the Late Cretaceous (Subhercynian) inversion (Stille,
1924; Mortimore et al., 1998; Voigt et al., 2004; Kley, 2018; Deckers and
van der Voet, 2018). In the type region, the Subhercynian Basin at the
northern margin of the Harz Mountains, tilted Triassic–Jurassic sedimentary
successions are overlain by Upper Cretaceous clastic deposits of different
age (see Voigt et al., 2004, for a summary). These unconformities span the period
from middle Coniacian to lower Campanian (e.g. Voigt, 1929; Mortimore et
al., 1998) and were initially used to distinguish several phases of tilting,
erosion, and deposition on the newly created erosion surfaces: the Ilsede
phase in the Coniacian, the Wernigerode phase (with several sub-phases) in
the Santonian–early Campanian, and the Peine phase in the late Campanian.
Stille (1924) interpreted these phases as separate (and worldwide) tectonic
pulses. Following the same line of reasoning, the Laramide phase was
imported from Northern America to explain the major unconformity of Eocene
deposits overlying Mesozoic and Palaeozoic basement and deformed Permian to
Late Cretaceous deposits' units through western and central Europe (Stille,
1924). Even younger tilting and erosional unconformities were also observed
in western subbasins of the Southern Permian Basin and related to late
Eocene (“Pyrenean”) and late Oligocene (“Savian”) phases of inversion
(de Jager, 2007; Deckers et al., 2016).
Mortimore et al. (1998) and de Jager (2007) correlated these pulses for the Cretaceous and the
Paleogene respectively across western and central Europe.
Mostly, the ages of these unconformities are poorly defined, because they
were determined from sedimentary units covering tilted older rocks. As
deposition on such unconformities needs a base level rise, a single
“phase” is often related to major transgressions. The observed five
particular Late Cretaceous “phases” of the Subhercynian Basin reflect only
the interplay of continuous deformation and changes in base level, which led
to phases of erosion and phases of deposition at the margins of continuously
active structures. They represent progressive unconformities (Voigt et
al., 2004). Late Cretaceous marginal troughs within the Polish Basin and the
Danish Basin show continuous deformation, expressed by growth strata
(Nielsen and Hansen, 2000; Krzywiec, 2002), while unconformities are limited
to the margins and tops of inverted structures. More recently, Van der Molen
et al. (2005), Deckers and van der Voet (2018), and van der Voet et al. (2019)
argued for discrete pulses of inversion in the Netherlands' offshore areas.
However, as in the case of the Subhercynian Basin, the age of unconformities
within the chalk in the southern North Sea seem to correlate to sea-level
drops, followed by pronounced transgression (Hancock, 1989). There is no
evidence of a changing basin configuration during the Late Cretaceous
inversion, except at the structures oriented oblique to compression (e.g.
the Dutch Central Graben; van der Voet et al., 2019). The Paleogene inversion is
mainly expressed in the western part of the Southern Permian Basin, in the
Dutch North Sea area and western Europe, spanning the middle Paleocene
(Laramide phase), the late Eocene (Pyrenean phase; de Jager, 2003; Deckers
et al., 2016), and the latest Oligocene–earliest Miocene (Savian phase; de
Jager, 2003).
A crude timing of Cretaceous deformation was already established by Ewald (1862) who observed unconformities at the northern margin of one of the most
prominent basement structures within the Central European Basin, the Harz
Mountains, and concluded a Late Cretaceous age of uplift. Suggestions aimed
at a more precise timing were based on several methods but came to very
different conclusions. Most authors have agreed that rapid inversion in central
Europe started about 88 Myr ago (Coniacian), expressed by rapidly
increasing sedimentation rates and a transition from hemipelagic limestones
to marly sediments (e.g. Arnold, 1964; Mortimore et al., 1998; Voigt et
al., 2006). The first evidence of units redeposited by submarine sliding (Voigt, 1962) and considerably enhanced thickness of Turonian deposits were
taken as markers for the first weak phase of inversion (Voigt et al.,
2006; Niebuhr et al., 2011; Janetschke and Wilmsen, 2014). Van der Molen et
al. (2005) and van der Voet et al. (2019) argued for a late, Santonian or end
Campanian start of Subhercynian inversion in the Dutch North Sea.
The fastest uplift of inverted structures and most pronounced subsidence of
marginal troughs occurred from Coniacian to Campanian, as reflected by both
cooling ages and sedimentation rates. The end of Central European Basin
inversion is still under discussion: intervals proposed by different authors
reach from late Campanian to Danian (70–64 Ma) to even Eocene or Oligocene
(40 Ma). The studies of Deckers (2015), Deckers et al. (2016), and Deckers
and van der Voet (2018) showed gentle middle Paleocene undulations of
100–200 km wavelength in and around the southern North Sea, matching a
lithospheric folding mechanism but distinct from the Late Cretaceous
inversion process. Kley (2018) suggested that Paleogene inversion and uplift
in western and central Europe was unrelated to compression altogether,
making it different from Late Cretaceous and younger Cenozoic events
concerning both spatial extent and underlying causes. In this paper, we will
concentrate on a more precise timing of the Late Cretaceous inversion in
central Europe. Our focus is on basins from the Lower Saxony Basin to the
Bohemian–Saxonian Basin (Fig. 1), with some remarks on regions to the west and
east. A second problem that we want to address is the question of whether basin
inversion occurred contemporaneously across the whole basin or by successive
activation of different fault zones. We present sedimentological data from
different marginal troughs of basins in Germany that pinpoint the start and
end of basin inversion more precisely. The database was mainly compiled from
published isopach maps, thermochronological and seismic data, and the
interpretation of sedimentological and geophysical data obtained from cores
and boreholes stored at the Geological Surveys of the German federal states
of Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Lower Saxony.
Timing of inversion in the basins studied
Investigation of geometrical patterns, in particular seismic stratigraphy of
strata deposited during the Jurassic to Early Cretaceous extensional phase
in adjacent marginal troughs (e.g. Baldschuhn et al., 1985, 1991; Krzywiec, 2006;
Nielsen and Hansen, 2000; Vejbæk and Andersen, 2002),
thermochronological data from uplifted basement blocks (Hejl et al., 1997;
Thomson and Zeh, 2000; Fischer et al., 2012; Lange et al., 2008;
Käßner et al., 2020; von Eynatten et al., 2019; Danišík et
al., 2010, 2012; Botor et al., 2019), and thermal maturity of the exhumed
basin fill (Petmecky et al., 1999; Senglaub et al., 2005, 2006; Luijendijk
et al., 2011; Beyer et al., 2014) allowed for the basin history to be constrained for
the majority of active structures. Additionally, the sediment composition
(clasts, heavy minerals, and zircon ages) in marginal troughs reflects the
rocks that were eroded and redeposited from the uplifting structures and
constrains timing and rates of inversion. This method was applied to few
basins only, such as the Subhercynian Basin (Voigt et al., 2006; von
Eynatten et al., 2008) and the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin (Voigt et al.,
2009; Hofmann et al., 2018; Nádaskay et al., 2019; Niebuhr et al., 2020).
According to these data, most authors agree that inversion did not commence
before the Late Cretaceous and peaked during Coniacian, Santonian, and
Campanian times. However, the precise start and end of basin inversion are
still debated, according to the variable sensitivity and precision of the
methods applied.
Fission track and dating
Low-temperature thermochronology, in particular apatite fission track dating
(AFT), has been applied to basement rocks across central Europe (e.g. Hejl
et al., 1997; Ventura and Lisker, 2003; Lange et al., 2008; Thomson et al.,
1997; Thomson and Zeh, 2000; von Eynatten et al., 2019; Käßner et
al., 2020, Danišík et al., 2010, 2012; Botor et al., 2019). In many places, the
data show a rather homogenous signal of rapid uplift and
associated cooling of basement rocks between 90 and 70 Ma (Turonian to
Maastrichtian), in some cases continuing to 55 Ma (Paleocene; von Eynatten
et al., 2019; Botor et al., 2019; Sobczyk et al., 2019). Cooling ages from
the eastern Sudetes show that the basement of Cretaceous basins underwent a
full thermal reset of the AFT system and was subsequently disrupted (63–45 Ma) by intra-basinal uplifts (Danišík et al., 2012; Sobczyk et al.,
2019).
Complete annealing of the AFT system occurs at
temperatures above 120–110 ∘C. Partial annealing with shortening
of track lengths on geologically relevant timescales occurs down to about
60 ∘C. Fully reset samples must have moved rapidly through the
ca. 60–50 ∘C temperature window of the partial annealing zone
(PAZ). Estimates of the heat flow during the Cretaceous and results of
thermal modelling suggest that the PAZ was about 1.4–2.2 km thick, and
exhumation of this magnitude is required to cool a sample through the PAZ.
Exhumation rates were estimated for the well-constrained case study of the
Harz Mountains. Modelled uplift rates based on different cooling ages are of
the order of > 0.5 km/Ma and in good agreement with the
depositional record in the adjacent basin (von Eynatten et al., 2019). Earlier
estimates were around 1 km/Ma (von Eynatten et al., 2008). It would take a
rock residing at the base of the PAZ between 1.4 and 4.0 Ma to rise to the
top of the PAZ where its age becomes fixed. Thus, the onset of deformation may predate the timing of cooling deduced from AFT data by a few million
years. This effect is accounted for when time–temperature histories are
modelled, but they should be considered for ages from older studies or when only
central ages are used for comparison with other data.
Discrepancies between thermo-chronologic ages and stratigraphic indicators of
inversion are evident for the southern basement highs, which were affected
by regional uplift, also leading to the partial erosion of adjacent basins.
Both in the Bohemian–Saxonian Cretaceous Basin and the North Sudetic Basin
that are related to the uplift of the Lusatian–Sudetic High and in the
Regensburg Basin, which forms the marginal trough southeast of the
Franconian line (Fig. 1), major parts of the basin fill of the marginal
troughs were removed. The remaining successions only reflect early stages of
the inversion process, because the youngest deposits are of early Coniacian to
earliest Santonian age. The main stage of basin inversion, as known from the
northern marginal troughs, is not preserved, although AFT ages point to
rapid exhumation and later maximum redeposition, particularly in the
Santonian to Campanian. In contrast to the strongly fault-controlled uplift
and subsidence during basin inversion, the following regional uplift
affected both the source areas and the marginal troughs to regional
exhumation and erosion.
Growth strata and progressive unconformities
The evolution of marginal troughs related to basin inversion is caused by
thickened crust, which loads and depresses the foreland (e.g. Hansen and
Nielsen, 2003). As long as uplifting structures in the inverted basin remain
below the erosion level in the early stages of tectonic activity, the
thickness of a particular unit is increased in the marginal trough and
reduced on top of the uplifting structure. However, if swells and basins
remain below the influence of storms and surface currents, sedimentation
derives only from “planktonic rain” of coccoliths and foraminifers, which
forms a carpet of uniform thickness and, thus, obliterates the growing
structure to some extent (Hancock, 1989). By interpreting seismic profiles, Lykke-Andersen and Surlyk (2004),
Surlyk and Lykke-Andersen (2007), Van der Molen (2005), and van der Voet et
al. (2019) have shown that
inversion-controlled changes in sea-floor bathymetry have generated both
erosional features and current-induced redeposition in pelagic chalk
successions below the storm wave base, resulting from different strengths of
bottom current flows. Continuing growth of a swell to above the erosion
level leads to erosion, transport, and deposition from the swell into the
basin and to formation of growth strata at the margin of the uplifting
structure. As the uplift of most structures has proceeded beyond the erosion
level, this early stage is rarely preserved and only the thickened basin
fill reflects, probably with some delay due to the early position below the
erosion level, the tectonic event. Thickening and growth strata can be
detected in seismic sections, provided that the thickness difference is high
enough (Evans and Hopson, 2000; Lykke-Andersen and Surlyk, 2004; Surlyk and
Lykke-Andersen, 2007; van Buchem et al., 2018). The resolution depends on
the variability of lithology and seismic impedance.
Growth structures and unconformities were observed in Upper Cretaceous
seismic sections across Europe (e.g. Mortimore et al., 1998; Vejbæk and
Andersen, 2002; Nielsen and Hansen, 2000; Krzywiec, 2006; van Buchem et al.,
2018) and were used to date inversion. Krzywiec and Stachowska (2016) argued that
higher total thickness of Upper Cretaceous strata results from folding and
erosional truncation at the margin of the inverted structure and, to a much
lesser degree, from increased subsidence in a marginal trough. The
distinction between these two cases is not straightforward and is only possible
if thickness trends of single units are detectable (Krzywiec, 2006; Krzywiec
et al., 2009, Krzywiec and Stachowka, 2016). If the basin margin is involved
in the uplift, unconformities can develop. These structures are significant
markers of basin deformation, but they only occur in a few places. In the
Subhercynian Basin, mainly at the northern margin of the Harz Anticline,
progressive unconformities related to basin inversion are exposed at the
surface. All of them are rotated or affected by thrusts, indicating that
inversion had not ended by the early Campanian. Precise dating of
progressive unconformities is critical, because in most cases a time gap
between the youngest deformed and the oldest covering units is observed. At
the northern margin of the Harz Mountains, the first inversion-related
unconformity occurs at the base of the middle Santonian (∼85 Ma), overlying Upper Triassic to Turonian deposits. Three succeeding
unconformities occur in the upper Santonian, in the lower Campanian, and at
the base of the upper Campanian in the northern part of the basin. Further,
an older, middle Coniacian unconformity is exposed at the northern margin of
the basin, and composition and thickness of the basin fill shows clearly
that inversion started earlier in the Turonian. This time gap at the main
structure is caused by progressive tilting of the basin margin and
accompanying erosion of older deposits. Older unconformities, which may have
been present at the frontal thrust of the Harz Mountains, were eroded during
the main inversion phase (Voigt et al., 2004). This situation is sometimes
misinterpreted in the sense that the overlying sequence post-dates the
deformation event immediately. van Buchem et al. (2018) described an
unconformity on top of the inverted Danish Central Graben at the base of the
upper Campanian to Maastrichtian chalk and argued that inversion was limited
to the early Campanian. Nevertheless, seismic sections show two
well-expressed marginal troughs (Turonian to lower Campanian) on both sides
of the inverted structure, which is characterized by reduced thickness of
these units, thereby indicating that compression started earlier and was masked
by the high sea level during the Late Cretaceous. The unconformity developed
from Turonian to early Campanian and cannot be used as a marker of a
short-term tectonic event.
Facies and provenance
Facies changes may even occur in the very early stages of basin inversion
because facies are mainly controlled by water depth and source areas. Facies
changes are observed in Turonian and Coniacian hemipelagic deposits of
northern Germany and southern England (e.g. Mortimore, 2018; Mortimore et al., 1998; Wilmsen,
2003), characterized by changes in composition, fossil diversity and
abundance, colour, and occurrence of hardgrounds or condensed sections.
These features are mainly caused by carbonate productivity and the relationship
of the sediment surface to the base level (Wilmsen, 2003). Tectonic uplift is
difficult to distinguish from processes related to climate change, active
salt diapirism, or sea-level changes. The best marker of inversion tectonics
is represented by material shed from uplifting structures. Marginal troughs
close to the southern margin of the Central European Basin contain sands,
mostly derived from older Triassic to Lower Cretaceous clastic deposits.
Inversion-related sandy to conglomeratic deposits allow provenance studies
on the basis of clast and grain composition, heavy mineral analysis, and
zircon ages. The unroofing sequence was reconstructed for the Subhercynian
Cretaceous Basin (von Eynatten et al., 2008) and the Bohemian–Saxonian
Cretaceous Basin (Voigt, 2009; Hofmann et al., 2018; Nádaskay et al.,
2019), with the main result that adjacent basement uplifts had been covered
by upper Paleozoic to Mesozoic sedimentary sequences.
Late Cretaceous marginal troughs of the North Sea, accompanying the inverted
Sole Pit Basin, Broad Fourteens Basin, and the Central Netherlands Basin, the
Oldenburg and Münsterland basins in northern Germany and the marginal
troughs at the Mid-Polish Swell and the Danish Basin were filled with
autochthonous and redeposited fine-grained deposits, marls, hemipelagic
limestones, and chalks. They mostly preserve no particular provenance signal
of the eroded succession, except reworked fossils (e.g. Wulff and Mutterlose,
2019: Cenomanian calcareous nannofossils in Turonian limestones). The
provenance signal of uplifted basement structures is also commonly obscured,
because Permian to Mesozoic sediments covered them. The composition often shows only the signal of the basement which acted as the primary source of
the eroded sediments (Niebuhr et al., 2014; Hofmann et al., 2013, 2014, 2018;
Nádaskay et al., 2019). Both in the Münsterland Basin and in the
Subhercynian Basin, the main coarse clastic input during the early stages of
inversion was apparently delivered laterally from other uplifted structures,
not from the main evolving highs related to the evolution of the
marginal trough (Arnold, 1964; Voigt et al., 2006; von Eynatten et al., 2008).
Coniacian sands in the Subhercynian Basin were probably redeposited from
Lower Cretaceous sandstones covering the uplifting Calvörde High (part
of “F” in Fig. 1) and its southeastern prolongation (Voigt et al., 2006;
von Eynatten et al., 2008), whereas the basin margin in front of the uplifted
Harz Mountains shows only a very thick marlstone succession in this period.
This facies probably results from the removal of thick Upper Triassic to
Jurassic claystones, which covered the Harz Mountains. The same is observed
in the Münsterland Basin where Santonian sands were shed from the
inverting Central Netherland Basin, while the inverting Lower Saxony Basin
with its thick fine-grained Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous succession
delivered the thick marly succession to the axis of the marginal trough
(Arnold, 1964). Although the sedimentary record allows a precise
reconstruction of uplift rates and exhumation of uplifting structures in a
few cases, recognition of early inversion in the sedimentary record is often
ambiguous.
Slumps, slides, and debris flow deposits
Voigt (1962, 1977) deduced a significantly earlier onset of deformation
than previously inferred from unconformities and sediment composition by the
observation of slumped and brecciated Turonian marly deposits close to the
faulted margin of the Münsterland Basin (Osning Thrust). The oldest
affected deposits are of middle Turonian age, and the slumps were initiated
during the late Turonian or early Coniacian. Similar slumps and
sedimentation anomalies occur frequently in the chalk of western Europe.
They were described from the North Sea Basin, the Danish Basin, and the
Anglo-Paris Basin (Hardman, 1982; Bromley and Ekdale, 1987; Lykke-Andersen and Surlyk, 2004; Surlyk and Lykke-Andersen, 2007; Arfai et al., 2016; van Buchem et
al., 2018).
Resedimentation is particularly common in Coniacian and Campanian deposits
(Kennedy, 1987; Mortimore and Pomerol, 1997; Mortimore et al., 1998;
Mortimore, 2011). The oldest occurrences of slumps and slides were reported
in deposits of late Turonian age (Bromley and Ekdale, 1987; Arfai et al.,
2016). Outcrops in the Weald Anticline (Sussex, Dorset) of the Anglo-Paris
Basin additionally show indications of tectonically induced resedimentation
in the chalk (Mortimore and Pomerol, 1991) starting in the middle
Cenomanian.
Submarine slumps develop on slopes of about 3–4∘ inclination in
marly sediments if shear strength is exceeded by gravitational forces (e.g.
Embley, 1982; Hance, 2003). Especially, unconsolidated, water-saturated mud
is prone to such deformation processes. If additional loading of sediments
results in pore water overpressure or if cohesion is low, a few degrees of
steepening are sufficient to trigger mass flows. As the origin of mass flows
depend on the shear strength of unconsolidated deposits, their initiation
requires higher angles in pure chalk and hemipelagic limestones than in
cohesive clay-rich sediments, although, again, the steepening has to be above
3∘ (Hance, 2003). Unconsolidated sandy deposits form sediment
avalanches, resulting in turbidites, if the angle of repose is exceeded.
Therefore, mass flows are especially abundant in marly and clay-rich
hemipelagic deposits (e.g. Hance, 2003). Slumps and debris flows at the
active northern margin of the Münsterland Basin involve partly cemented
hemipelagic limestones, evidenced by isolated angular clasts of varying size
in marly breccias, proving that the inclination of the basin floor was
probably of the order of several degrees. Thus, they post-date the onset
of inversion.
Changes in sediment thickness as evidence of basin formation
Flexure and subsidence of an elastic crust under a tectonic load immediately
create new accommodation space (Nielsen and Hansen, 2000; Hindle and Kley,
2020). If this space is completely filled by deposits, enhanced
sediment thickness directly reflects the onset of loading and, thus, basin
inversion. If sedimentation rates are low and the basin deepens without
compensation for sediment accumulation, only subdued facies and thickness
changes may show the onset of basin inversion. In the case of mild
inversion, syn-tectonic deposition may persist on the tops of uplifting
structures that may be revealed by a reduced thickness in comparison with the
neighbouring marginal troughs.
Several studies have shown that thickness variations of clastic deposits in
inversion-related basins of central Europe become evident before the onset
of inversion determined from thermo-chronologic ages and provenance studies.
This is the case for the Subhercynian Basin (Voigt et al., 2006; von
Eynatten et al., 2008), the Münsterland Basin (Arnold, 1964), and the
basin flanking the inverted Mid-Polish Trough (Krzywiec, 2006; Krzywiec and
Stachowska, 2016). In comparison to other features taken as markers for the
timing of basin inversion, the differentiation of sediment thickness is
probably best suited to pinpoint the onset and end of inversion in central
Europe. Therefore, in the following, we use the sediment thickness variation
of the marginal troughs to determine the onset of deformation during
Cretaceous basin inversion in central Europe more precisely. We will use
several case studies as well as data from the Bohemian–Saxonian Cretaceous Basin,
the Subhercynian Cretaceous Basin, the Altmark Basin, and the basins
bordering the inverted Lower Cretaceous Lower Saxony Basin: the
Münsterland Basin and the hitherto unnamed Upper Cretaceous basin north
of the Rheder Moor–Oythe Thrust Belt in the subsurface of Lower Saxony,
which we designate as the South Oldenburg Basin. Additionally, we will address
the question of whether all prominent basement anticlines developed
concurrently or in a particular pattern.
Dawn of inversion based on thickness differentiationMünsterland Basin
The Münsterland Basin represents the southern marginal trough of the
inverted Lower Saxony Basin (Fig. 2). The monotonous Albian to Campanian
basin fill reaches its highest thickness (> 2000 m) close to the
Osning Thrust (Arnold, 1964). Thickness of Coniacian to Campanian strata
(the marly “Emscher Facies”) significantly increases towards the thrust.
Slides and slumps indicate Turonian to Coniacian uplift and synsedimentary
deformation close to the thrust (Voigt, 1962, 1977). The thickness of the
syn-inversion deposits increases towards the thrust, although most sediments
derived from the inverting Roer Valley Graben and Central Netherland Basin
in the west (Gras and Geluk, 1999) as well as from the southern margin of the
Cretaceous Sea (Fig. 1). As the northern margin of the Münsterland Basin
was tilted and even partly overturned by the displacement along the Osning
Thrust, the increasing thickness towards the central segment of the Osning
Thrust can even be demonstrated in surface outcrops (Lehmann, 1999; Wilmsen
et al., 2005; Voigt et al., 2008). Thickness differentiation had already occurred in the Cenomanian and Turonian with the same depocentres as in the
Coniacian to Campanian (Arnold, 1964). Sedimentation rates, however, are
much lower than in the Coniacian and Santonian (Lehmann, 1999; Voigt et
al., 2008), approximately 20 m/Myr. As the contour of the Cenomanian basin is
identical to the structure of the inversion-related Coniacian to Campanian
basin, a Cenomanian start of inversion is only indicated by increasing
sediment accumulation, although no evidence of redeposition from the rising
swell of the inverted Lower Saxony Basin has been observed.
The southern and the northern margins of the inverted Lower Saxony
Basin show enhanced thickness of Cenomanian deposits, indicating higher
subsidence. In these fault-bounded symmetric marginal troughs, the thickness of
the complete Late Cretaceous succession exceeds 2000 m. Enhanced thickness
also occurs in the peripheral sinks of salt diapirs in the North German
Basin north of the South Oldenburg Basin (modified from Voigt et al.,
2008; compiled from Baldschuhn et al., 2001; Arnold et al., 1964 and Frieg
et al., 1990).
South Oldenburg Basin
The South Oldenburg Basin is part of the North German Basin (Fig. 2) and
evolved as a depocentre during the Late Cretaceous north of the inverting
Lower Saxony Basin. The Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous basin fill of the Lower
Saxony Basin was uplifted several kilometres during the Late Cretaceous
(Senglaub et al., 2005). The northern margin of the inverted Jurassic to
Lower Cretaceous Lower Saxony Basin is marked by a system of thrust faults
forming the Rheder Moor–Oythe Thrust System (Fig. 3). These thrusts
developed from the reverse reactivation of a swath of normal faults
accompanying the northern margin of the Lower Saxony Basin, a large Jurassic
to Lower Cretaceous graben system (Baldschuhn et al., 1991; Kockel, 2003).
The northern foreland (South Oldenburg Block; Pompeckj Block) is
characterized by a strong influence of salt diapirs on deposition, starting
no later than the Jurassic and probably already during the Triassic (Kockel, 2003; Warsitzka et al., 2019). Rising salt domes and subsiding
peripheral sinks around those diapirs also influenced the general pattern of
Late Cretaceous thicknesses. The facies pattern of northern Germany is
dominated by chalk in the north and hemipelagic coccolithic to calcispheric
limestones in the south, well investigated with respect to typical
log-patterns and biostratigraphy in boreholes (Baldschuhn and Jaritz, 1977;
Koch, 1977; Wilmsen 2003).
Detailed thickness maps of the northern margin of the inverted Lower
Saxony Basin show that the syn-inversion Coniacian thickness distribution of
the marginal trough had already developed during the Cenomanian (modified from a
thickness map of Baldschuhn et al., 2001). The shift of the basin axis of
the marginal trough to the north can be explained by the propagation of
thrusting towards the basin. Additionally, salt migration in the
surroundings of salt diapirs (orange colour) created local highs and related
local depocentres.
Hemipelagic to pelagic deposits characterize the facies of the paired
marginal troughs on both sides of the inverted Lower Saxony Basin. Chalk and
hemipelagic limestones with upward-increasing marl content prevail, whereas
coarser-grained deposits are absent. Most of the marls probably derived from
redeposited Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous sediments, because the Lower
Saxony Basin fill was primarily composed of limestones, marlstones, and
claystones. The thickness of Coniacian and Santonian deposits in the
adjacent marginal trough (South Oldenburg Basin) increases towards the
inverted normal faults of the graben structure of the Lower Saxony Basin. In
the marginal trough, it attains about 3 times the background
sedimentation thickness (Fig. 3). A key observation is that Turonian and
Cenomanian deposits already reflect the same basin centres as the Coniacian
to Campanian succession, although thicknesses remain low (Fig. 3). The
complete thickness of Cenomanian deposits varies between 50 and 200 m in the
marginal trough, with a clear tendency toward higher thicknesses in front of the
thrust system, whereas the Cenomanian thickness on the stable foreland remains
between 20 and 50 m. The slightly varying thickness in the foreland is
caused by salt migration. Comparison of thickness maxima shows that the zone
of maximum thickness migrates trough time away from the inversion structure
(Fig. 3). The Coniacian thickness atop the southernmost thrust sheet in the
South Oldenburg Basin is reduced. This observation probably indicates a
successive activation of thrusts, propagating into the basin (thin-skinned
tectonics), but this requires further investigation.
Subhercynian Basin
The Subhercynian Basin contains a more than 2000–2500 m thick succession of
Late Cretaceous sediments, which form a symmetric trough in front of the
overthrust northern margin of the Harz basement anticline (Voigt et al.,
2006, 2009). The thickness of deposits is highest close to the
thrust front. Sedimentation starts above a regional unconformity, which
formed during the global Cenomanian sea-level rise. High sedimentation rates
occur during the Coniacian to Santonian (Voigt et al., 2006), but the
first enhancement of thickness in the marginal trough in front of the Harz
Mountains is already observed in the middle Turonian (Karpe, 1973; Voigt
et al., 2006).
Cenomanian to lower Coniancian thickness data of the Subhercynian Basin
(Fig. 4) were obtained from borehole logs (SP and GR) and corrected to dip.
All sections show the general log pattern of northern Germany (Baldschuhn
and Jaritz, 1977). Therefore, a good correlation of sedimentary units is
possible, and stratigraphic gaps are very apparent, partly supported by
sedimentary features and inoceramids in the cores (Karpe, 1973). No boreholes
reached the base of the Cenomanian in the central marginal trough;
therefore, the isopach map only displays a decreasing thickness trend to the
southeast, not influenced by the Harz Mountains (Fig. 4).
The first evidence of tectonic activity in the Subhercynian
Cretaceous Basin is provided by the strongly reduced thickness of Cenomanian
deposits along the southern margin of the Quedlinburg Anticline, the
Westerhausen Thrust (W.F.), which represents the master fault of an inverted
Early Cretaceous half-graben. The Turonian isopach map reflects the
formation of a symmetric marginal trough in front of the Harz uplift and the
continued uplift of the northern basin margin, accompanied by a reduction of
Turonian thickness and the erosion of a major part of the succession prior to
the Mid-Coniacian transgression.
The Quedlinburg 1 (Q1) borehole, which is situated close to the thrust front
but at the southeastern edge of the marginal trough, does not show an
increased thickness of the Cenomanian (32 m) in comparison to the overall
trend (Fig. 4).
The most striking evidence of a Cenomanian onset of compression in the
Subhercynian Basin comes from an intra-basinal structure. The Quedlinburg
Anticline represents a former half-graben, which formed during the Early
Cretaceous. The master fault of the graben that was about 40 km long became
reactivated as a thrust/reverse fault during Late Cretaceous inversion.
Along the fault, at the margin of the adjacent syncline, lower Turonian
limestones cover middle Cenomanian marly deposits (Karpe, 1973). While the
thickness of the lower and middle Cenomanian is similar to adjacent
sections, the upper Cenomanian is missing or condensed. This points to a
late Cenomanian activity of the thrust fault. During the Turonian and early
Coniacian, the structure remained active, but later erosion removed the
evidence of tectonic activity close to the thrust. Nevertheless, at the
western tip of the Quedlinburg Anticline, the complete Turonian succession
is preserved; hardgrounds and reduced thickness prove further activity of
the thrust. Simultaneously, the Fallstein and Huy anticlines at the northern
basin margin started to grow (Fig. 4), expressed in a significant
unconformity of middle Coniacian on middle Turonian sediments and strongly
reduced thickness in the Coniacian (Kölbel, 1944; Voigt et al.,
2004).
Bohemian–Saxonian Cretaceous Basin
The Bohemian–Saxonian Basin is bordered by a significant post-depositional
thrust (Lusatian Thrust) underlying the basement uplift of the
Lusatian–Sudetic High. This thrust cuts through both coastal and hemipelagic
deposits and clearly developed after the Coniacian (Fig. 5). Nevertheless, apatite fission
track data, facies distribution, and thickness data show that
the central segment of the fault had already influenced sedimentation during
Cenomanian and Turonian times (Seifert, 1955; Voigt, 2009; Lange et al.,
2008; Danišík et al., 2010), probably by creating a
fault-propagation fold (Voigt, 2009). Detritus derived from the exhumed
Permian to Jurassic cover of the Neoproterozoic to early Paleozoic basement
of the Lusatian High indicates the inversion of a Mesozoic graben structure
(Voigt, 2009; Nádaskay, 2019). The preserved part of the basin fill ends
in the Coniacian, with the exception of some deeply subsided remnants of
Santonian sediments in the Ohře Graben, a segment of the European
Cenozoic Rift System which was active in the Oligocene to Miocene. Fission
track data point to a maximum uplift and exhumation between 85 and 75 Ma
(Santonian to Campanian; Lange et al., 2008; Käßner et al., 2020),
indicating that only parts of the basin fill are preserved. A subsequent
regional uplift, which ended about 40 Ma ago, is shown by a regional
unconformity at the base of upper Eocene (?) and lower Oligocene deposits of
the Ohře Graben, which cuts across both the Lusatian–Sudetic uplift and its
marginal trough (e.g. Standke and Suhr, 2008; Migoń, and Danišík, 2012).
These post-inversion deposits cover the basement, Permian red beds, and
Cretaceous deposits – with early Santonian deposits as youngest strata. In
the east of the Bohemian–Saxonian Basin, main tectonic events occurred
during the Paleogene and led to the uplift of intra-basinal highs by several
kilometres (e.g. Danišík, 2012; Sobczyk et al., 2019).
Late Cretaceous basins surrounding the Lusatian–Sudetic High show a
strong confinement of clastic deposits to its margins. Regional Cenozoic
uplift and denudation removed 1–4 km from both the Lusatian–Sudetic High and
the related Cretaceous basins. Therefore, only the remains of the primary basin
fills were preserved, comprising deposits of Cenomanian to early Santonian
age (modified from Voigt, 2009).
Sedimentation within the marginal trough of the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin
started in the Cenomanian, concurrently with the global sea-level rise.
Deeply incised river valleys reflect a structured morphology with about 50 m
of relief before the transgression (Voigt, 1998; Tonndorf, 2000;
Uličný et al., 2009). The valley fills were preserved by the rising
sea level from the (early?/late Cenomanian to lower Turonian, during a
time span of about 3 Myr. The pattern and evolution of these large
palaeo-drainage systems were investigated by Uličný et al. (2009) in
detail. Additionally, uranium exploration in the German part of the basin
provided detailed data of the palaeo-valley pattern in the northwestern part.
More than 1000 uranium exploration wells determined the palaeo-valley limits
of the Niederschöna palaeo-river, the Pirna palaeo-river, and the Hermsdorf
palaeo-river precisely (Tonndorf, 2000, Fig. 6). Considering the whole basin,
a central water shed divided a northern palaeo-drainage system which was
directed to the Boreal from a system draining towards the Tethys
(Uličný et al., 2009; Fig. 6). The most striking feature of the
valleys in the northern palaeo-drainage system is their orientation, because
they reflect an inclination of the valley floors to the north. The Lusatian
Thrust cuts at least four large and three minor palaeo-river valleys
discharging to the North. Uličný et al. (2009) assume a hypothetical
principal stream running on the later exhumed Lusatian–Sudetic High parallel
to the Lusatian Thrust collecting all the tributaries from the south.
Nevertheless, there is no evidence of a river mouth in lower Cenomanian
deposits in the northern part of the basin, where lower and middle
Cenomanian nearshore facies are preserved, so that a direct connection of the
rivers to the North Sudetic Basin can be also assumed (Fig. 6).
Deposition within the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin started in the early
to middle Cenomanian with the filling of river valleys. Marine deposits were
preserved at the northernmost edge of the basin. River orientation was
directed to the north, towards the area that acted as source during the late
Cenomanian. The late Cenomanian basin configuration reflects the onset of
uplift of the Lusatian–Sudetic High: the evolving marginal trough collects
about 100 m of late Cenomanian sandstones compared with less than 30 m on the
flooded shelf of the Bohemian platform. (palaeo-drainage pattern and
Cenomanian facies and thickness after Uličný et al., 2009).
The thickness of upper Cenomanian deposits still partly reflects the
morphology of the pre-transgression landscape, because the river valleys were
gradually filled by clastic deposits eroded from the surrounding highs,
while a NW–SE elongated depositional centre additionally developed outside
the ancient valleys. There, marine upper Cenomanian deposits reach a
thickness of up to 110 m (Fig. 7). This thickness increase is observed even
on the former drainage divide between the palaeo-valleys of the central and
northern palaeo-drainage system (Fig. 7). Cenomanian sedimentation rates are
slightly lower (about 30 m/Myr) than those of the Turonian (50 m/Myr), but they
indicate a slow onset of basin subsidence. The hemipelagic facies on the
northwestern edge of the basin shows also increased thickness compared with
the Cenomanian of the Bohemian platform outside the marginal trough. Upper
Cenomanian deposits in the Gröbern borehole reach sedimentation rates of
the order of 35–40 m/Myr (Voigt et al., 2006) compared with 5–15 m away from
the basin axis on both the Bohemian platform and in the western Saxonian
part of the basin. The higher thickness probably indicates the extension of
the marginal trough further to the northwest, although facies belts remained
stable.
Detailed facies maps of the Saxonian part of the Bohemian Cretaceous
Basin. Early to middle Cenomanian rivers discharge to the north.
The distribution of sandstones in the Cenomanian and early Turonian reflects a
marginal trough in front of the rising high and, thus, the complete
reorganization of the basin configuration. Coastal sandstones of middle and
late Turonian age mark the northwestern edge of the Lusatian–Sudetic High.
The Late Cretaceous to Paleogene Lusatian Thrust cuts through the basin
margin and distal deposits. The data used in the isopach maps are derived from
numerous boreholes and geological maps.
The facies distribution clearly indicates a major source area in the
northeast, reflected by sandstones and conglomerates close to the
northeastern basin margin (Fig. 7) and, thus, reversing the drainage
direction during early and middle Cenomanian. The position of the Cenomanian thickness maxima reflects a basis axis which is nearly identical with the later Turonian to Coniacian marginal trough, but it consisted of several subbasins
(Uličný, 2001; Niebuhr et al., 2020). A possible explanation for this is the
separate evolution of several small uplifts, which later unified to form a
single source area, and the integration of the separated depocentres into one
marginal trough. Alternatively, the oblique convergence phase observed by
Navabpour et al. (2017) in small-scale structures, and which predates the
frontal thrusting, could have induced the subsidence of oblique
en échelon subbasins.
Together with the significant change in the basin floor morphology, this
change during the late Cenomanian indicates a complete reorganization not
only of the depositional system but also of the stress field within the
basin. Regardless of whether the hypothetical NW-directed trunk stream of
Uličný et al. (2009) existed or not, the appearance of a large
source area in a direction downstream of the former drainage indicates the
uplift of a former topographic low.
The dusk of Late Cretaceous basin inversion
The end of basin inversion/basin uplift in central Europe is even more
difficult to define than its onset because the region was affected by large-scale regional uplift that continued, possibly in different uplift phases,
until the Paleogene, or even longer south of the inverted Lower Saxony
Basin and uplifted Harz Mountains (von Eynatten et al., 2021). Due to
this event, some thermochronological data show a continuation of uplift up
to 60 or even 50 Ma (von Eynatten et al., 2019). The end of the tectonic
activity of a single structure can be shown if the structural configuration
of highs and lows changes, new depositional centres evolve, or formerly
active structures and folds are covered by younger sedimentary units. If no
deposition occurred during reconfiguration (for example, because the whole
region was above base level or the area was affected by later uplift), the
recognition of a new stress field and differentiation between regional
uplift and inversion remains ambiguous. Only in the subsurface of the deeply
subsided Central European Basin, a complete succession of syn- and
post-inversion deposits is preserved, such as in the inverted Danish Basin,
in the North Sea, and in the Dutch basins. At the border of the inverted
Danish Basin, a rapid shift of the basin axis and, therefore, the end of basin
inversion occurred in the Danian, followed by moderate further uplift caused
by crustal relaxation (Nielsen et al., 2007). In the Roer Valley Graben and
in other inverted basins in the Netherlands, Late Cretaceous inversion ended
in the latest Maastrichtian, which is evident from the cover of uppermost
Maastrichtian and Danian chalks on top of the inverted axis (Deckers and van
der Voet, 2018). The Polish part shows a differentiated evolution:
deformation seems to have continued until the Paleocene on the northern side
of the Mid-Polish Anticlinorium (Krzywiec, 2006), while its south side
experienced regional uplift, expressed by a marked unconformity across the
marginal trough and the swell below an Eocene succession.
A similar situation is observed in central Germany, where Eocene to
Oligocene deposits cover large areas of the structures resulting from Late
Cretaceous inversion, including most of the basement uplifts. Only a few
places in northern Germany allow for the recognition of the basin configuration
change. In general, the youngest deposits preserved within the marginal
troughs are of early Campanian age (Subhercynian Basin, South Oldenburg
Basin, East Brandenburg Basin). Deposition in the Münsterland Basin
continued until the late Campanian. In all of these basins, thermochronological
data, erosional unconformities, and composition of the basin fill prove a
younger uplift that involved both the source area and the adjacent marginal
trough. This long-lasting unconformity, covered by Eocene to Oligocene
sediments, is still partly visible in the recent morphology. In the
Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge), in the Lusatia (Lausitz), and in the Harz Mountains and their forelands, peneplains
of Late Cretaceous to Paleogene age are still preserved (e.g. Standke and Suhr, 2008;
Blumenstengel and Krutzsch, 2008).
The time gap to younger deposits above those unconformities spans mostly
more than 30 Myr, due to the absence of late Campanian to Paleocene deposits.
This is partly caused by a significant sea-level fall, which occurred during
this period (Haq, 2014), but is mainly generated by regional uplift of those
structures (“Laramide uplift”). Therefore, Maastrichtian and Paleocene deposits are rarely preserved in central Europe, whereas Maastrichtian and Danian
deposits occur on top of several inverted basins and their flanks in the
Netherlands (Roer Valley Graben, Broad Fourteens Basin, Central Netherlands
Basin, Dutch Central Graben) according to Van der Molen et al. (2005) and Deckers
and van der Voet (2018). The widespread deposition on top of formerly
inverted structures there reflects the end of Late Cretaceous inversion.
Remains of similar deposits occur only at the margins of active diapirs and
in a few narrow basins that do not reveal the configuration of former, Late
Cretaceous marginal troughs. These remnants witness an extended facies belts
of a shallow shelf from continental to shallow marine environments, which
grade into the hemipelagic and pelagic chalk environments of the central
basins (Diener, 1968; Voigt, 2009). Their patchy occurrence indicates a
nearly flat surface across both inverted highs and marginal troughs.
To better constrain the timing of the formation of this significant
unconformity, we consider the examples of the Altmark Basin and the inverted
Lower Saxony Basin with the unconformably overlying Campanian deposits of
the Damme Syncline as well as the Prignitz High, which represents the less
inverted prolongation of the Lusatian–Sudetic High (Fig. 1). The
Subhercynian Basin and the Harz Mountains are taken as an example of an
inversion structure with poorly constrained end of contraction and are
therefore only briefly discussed.
Dusk of Cretaceous and dawn of Paleogene inversion in the Altmark Basin
The Altmark Basin is an elongate, about 60 km long and only 15 km wide
marginal trough (Fig. 8), which formed north of the uplifted Calvörde
Block above a salt detachment linked to the Gardelegen Fault (Schulze, 1964;
Kossow, 2001; Malz et al., 2020). AFT ages from the Permian sandstones of
the Flechtingen High, a part of the exhumed basement of the Calvörde
High, suggest rapid cooling around 70 Ma (Fischer et al., 2012), confirming
the overall pattern of Late Cretaceous syn-tectonic basin formation in
central Europe. The thermochronological age is, however, not in good
agreement with the accompanying marginal trough north of the Gardelegen
Thrust, which preserves a syncline filled by a more than 700 m thick
succession of syn-inversion deposits very similar to those of the
Subhercynian Basin, indicating main inversion between 85 and 75 Ma. A late
anticline divides the basin into two parts. Increased subsidence in
comparison with neighbouring basins began slowly in the Turonian (Cenomanian
thickness has not yet been studied in detail) and reached its maximum during
the Coniacian to early Campanian. The youngest preserved deposits are of
early Campanian age in the central marginal trough and reach at least 450 m
thickness (Schulze, 1964). Close to the Gardelegen Fault, Santonian sediments
contain conglomerates and sands derived from the exhumed Mesozoic cover of
the Calvörde Block (Schulze, 1964). This indicates that the uplift of
the Flechtingen High, which is the central part of the Calvörde Block
and was thrust onto Mesozoic deposits along the Haldensleben reverse fault,
post-dates the exhumation of the greater structure which demonstrably acted
as a source area in the Santonian (85–82 Ma). To obtain a well-constrained
exhumation age, the uplift of the Flechtingen High relative to the
Calvörde Block must be about an additional 2–4 km, because the PAZ of
the preceding uplift is not preserved.
The Altmark Basin represents a narrow marginal trough north of the
uplifted Flechtingen High. Deposition within the basin, which is dissected
by a salt-intruded anticline, ended in the early Campanian. A shallower
basin developed north of the Altmark Basin above an unconformity cutting
across the highs and basins at the base of the Maastrichtian. Note that
Paleogene deposits reflect the same depocentres as the Maastrichtian and are
therefore considered as secondary marginal troughs. The map was constructed
on the base of Malz et al. (2020), Schulze (1964), and the interpretation of
borehole data. Location in Fig. 1.
Zircons and volcanic quartz grains, resulting from the erosion of the
Permian volcanic basement of the Flechtingen High appear late in
Maastrichtian sands (Walbeck, Weferlingen), south of the uplifted structure
at the Allertal Fault Zone (Götze and Lewis, 1994). The provenance
signal confirms the modelled AFT ages precisely (Fischer et al., 2012). These
Maastrichtian shallow marine sands rest unconformably on Triassic deposits,
again indicating the covering of an inverted structure, which was eroded and
started to subside again. The total uplift of the region since 70 Ma
(Maastrichtian) is less than 2 km, indicating that the post-inversion
configuration is more or less preserved. This inference is also supported by
the nearly complete cover of the area by early Oligocene deposits
(Blumenstengel and Krutzsch, 2008). Especially the base of the Rupelian
transgression is a good representation of the base level. Elevation changes
of this marker horizon indicate post-Rupelian tectonic movements, salt flow,
or both.
The DEKORP “Basin '96” regional seismic section (e.g. DEKORP-BASIN '96 Research Group,
1999; Kossow, 2001) and boreholes drilled for gas exploration allow one to
reconstruct the structural pattern. The succession of the marginal trough
containing Cenomanian to Santonian deposits is bounded in the south by the
Gardelegen Thrust Fault and in the north by a thin-skinned contractional
salt anticline, which developed after deposition of the basin fill (Malz et
al., 2020). Borehole stratigraphy and reflection patterns in the seismic
section indicate a varying proportion of preserved strata (Schulze, 1964;
Musstow, 1976). The shortened marginal trough was uplifted and eroded
without further deformation. The flat erosion surface was tilted and can be
traced beyond the extent of Cretaceous deposits onto the Calvörde Block
(Malz et al., 2020). It is inclined to the north and forms the flank of a
new depocentre, which developed north of the Cretaceous depocentre and
covers the partly eroded salt anticline. The sedimentary succession above
this erosion surface shows a progressive onlap, starting with continental to
shallow marine Maastrichtian sands (Oebisfelde member of the Nennhausen
Formation; 200–330 m), followed by a Paleocene (uppermost Danian) succession
(Wülpen Formation; maximum 200 m), indicating slow subsidence of the
trough. Numerous boreholes document a saucer-shaped, symmetric structure
(Fig. 8) of the secondary marginal trough. In comparison with the Late
Cretaceous one, it is wider and shallower than the primary marginal trough.
Thanetian sandy deposits cover both the Calvörde High and the complete
foreland with the marginal troughs (Blumenstengel and Krutzsch, 2008). The
difference in structural elevation between the marine Maastrichtian on top
of the Calvörde High and in the syncline is 500 to 1000 m, indicating
Paleogene subsidence of the Altmark Basin. After late Paleocene erosion,
upper Eocene marine deposits transgressed locally even onto the Flechtingen
High, demonstrating the transition from uplift to subsidence there (Fig. 8).
Nevertheless, the area was not completely covered by marine deposits before
the Rupelian.
This structural situation matches the evolution of primary and secondary
marginal troughs described by Nielsen and Hansen (2000) and Nielsen et al. (2007) from the inverted Danish Basin. However, the trough is deeper and is
situated closer to the inverted structure. The described sudden shift of the
basin axis occurred before the Maastrichtian and is, thus, like the inversion
history of the Vlieland Basin (Deckers and van der Voet, 2018).
A differing interpretation of the secondary marginal trough could be that
collapse of the salt-cored anticline with extrusion and marine dissolution
of salt caused the newly created depocentre. However, the extent, the
smoothness, and the undisturbed succession above the suggested dissolution
surface disagree with this interpretation, because sediment deposition would
cease further dissolution by sealing. Regardless of this interpretation, the
base-Maastrichtian unconformity is a prominent feature at many structures in
the North German Basin such as at the western Allertal Fault Zone (Lohr et
al., 2007) and the Prignitz High (Voigt, 2015).
Dusk of Cretaceous inversion in the Subhercynian Basin
The preserved sediment column of the Subhercynian Basin ends in the lower
Campanian, although fission track data suggest continuous erosion of the Harz
Mountains during the entire Campanian and even into the Paleogene (von
Eynatten et al., 2019). Those younger deposits were eroded before the
Eocene, because deposits of this age are preserved close to the front of the
Harz Mountains and at the borders of some anticlines at the northern margin of the
marginal trough. Because the central Harz Mountains was covered by deposits of
Oligocene age (König et al., 2011), inversion had apparently ended in
the Eocene and only mild regional uplift affected the region subsequently
(König et al., 2011; von Eynatten et al., 2019; Paul, 2019).
Late uplift involved both the basement uplift and the surrounding basins.
The time gap between the last preserved lower Campanian inversion-related
deposits (∼82 Ma) and the Eocene–Oligocene deposits
(∼ 34 Ma) within the Subhercynian Basin is approximately 40 Myr. Therefore, a more precise time estimate of the basin configuration change is
not possible. However, both the Harz Mountains and its foreland
show a significant peneplanation cutting across all lithologies of the
uplifted block and the basin (König et al., 2011), which formed between
early Campanian and Oligocene times. In the Harz Mountains, remains of
Oligocene (Rupelian) deposits are preserved in karst caves within Devonian
limestones of the Elbingerode Complex (Blumenstengel and Krutzsch, 2008;
König et al., 2011). They are about 140 m above the level of the
Oligocene transgressive surface in comparison with the same stratigraphic
horizon south and east of the Harz Mountains and indicate moderate uplift
which was not accompanied by major erosion since then. While König et
al. (2011) interpreted this elevation difference as an effect of renewed
motion on the Harznordrand Thrust, Paul (2019) argued that the observed
offset was the result of foreland subsidence due to salt dissolution at
depth.
The Damme Syncline: the end of inversion in the Lower Saxony Basin?
The Damme Syncline is an erosional remnant of uppermost lower Campanian to
Maastrichtian sediments of about 300 m thickness resting on the inverted
Lower Saxony Basin (Fig. 9). Inversion of the Lower Saxony Basin was
asymmetric, leading to the uplift of Triassic deposits and some small
basement uplifts (Ibbenbüren High, Piesberg, Hüggel) to the surface
in the south. In the north, a lower degree of uplift is observed, resulting
in the preservation of parts of the Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous basin fill
(Baldschuhn et al., 1991; Senglaub et al., 2005).
The oldest deposits on top of the inverted Lower Saxony Basin middle
to upper Campanian bioclastic limestones resting transgressively on a
peneplain cutting Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous deposits. They predate the
uplift of the strongly inverted southern part of the Lower Saxony Basin and
suggest that compression of the lithosphere ceased slowly. Deformation of
the Damme Syncline and thrusting within Campanian deposits in the north
suggest progressive deformation. IH and PB denote the respective Ibbenbüren High and Piesberg
basement uplifts. Regional uplift prevented the deposition of Paleogene
sediments older than Oligocene both on the high and the adjacent
Münsterland and South Oldenburg basins. The map and cross sections are based
on Baldschuhn et al. (2001); AFT data are from Senglaub et al. (2005).
The syncline is gently folded and affected by a thrust (Damme–Lembruch
Thrust) of about 200 m displacement, indicating post-depositional
contraction (Fig. 9). The marine Campanian sediments unconformably cover
deformed Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous strata. Their deposition post-date the
subsidence of the marginal troughs, which are flanked on both sides of the
inverted basin and contain syn-tectonic basin fills of Cenomanian to early
Campanian age. The Pompeckj Block on the north side preserved deposits of
that age but with a chalk facies differing from the clastic succession on
top of the inverted basin. The transgressive succession of the Damme
Syncline consists of bioclastic nearshore limestones and reworked ironstones
at the base, followed by sandy marls (e.g. Mortimore et al., 1998). In
contrast, the nearest upper Campanian units of the South Oldenburg Basin
exhibit typical mid-to-outer shelf marine chalk facies, assumed to have been
deposited in water depths between 100 and 150 m (e.g. Boussaha et al.,
2017; Machalski and Malchyk, 2019). AFT cooling ages range between 72 ± 7 and 78 ± 6 Ma in the hanging wall of the adjacent
Wiehengebirge flexure zone (Senglaub et al., 2005), generally covering the
same time span as the sediments above the unconformity (Fig. 9). The
southern Lower Saxony Basin acted as a source for the siliciclastic share of
sediments in the Damme Syncline.
Eocene to Oligocene deposits cover both the inverted Lower Saxony Basin and
the South Oldenburg Basin above a second unconformity and show that no major
uplift has affected this part of the inverted Lower Saxony Basin since the late
Campanian. The weak folding of the first unconformity and the incipient
Damme–Lembruch Thrust demonstrate deposition in the same tectonic regime as
during deformation of the underlying inverted Lower Saxony Basin. The
preservation of these deformed late-inversion sediments indicates the
absence of major erosion since the Late Cretaceous.
End of inversion tectonics at the Lusatian–Sudetic High
The inverted Lusatian–Sudetic Block is bounded by the marginal troughs of
the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin and the North Sudetic Basin. Investigations of
the Late Cretaceous to Paleogene basin evolution by different authors are
mainly based on thermochronology and thermal maturity of the hanging wall
and the footwall block (Käßner et al., 2020; Lange et al., 2008;
Danišík et al., 2010; Sobczyk et al., 2019) and time constraints
derived from geometrical relationships of strata, magmatic dykes, and faults
(Tietz and Büchner, 2015; Coubal et al., 2014). The sedimentary record of basin
inversion ends with the remains of lower Santonian deposits, preserved in the
central Ohře Graben, or with lower Campanian deposits, drilled in a
syncline in the central North Sudetic Basin. A late, Paleogene, activity of
a segment of the Lusatian Thrust was inferred by Käßner et al. (2020). AFT cooling ages (84–70 Ma) show an accelerated uplift during the
latest Cretaceous. Younger ages (ca. 40 Ma) in the area of the Krkonosze and
the Jizera mountains provide evidence of Paleogene uplift. Renewed
sedimentation started in the Oligocene with the formation of the Ohře
Graben, which cross-cuts the Lusatian Thrust and covers both the basin and
the inverted Lusatian Massif (Coubal et al., 2015; Špičáková
et al., 2000). A later, weak reactivation of the Lusatian Thrust was
reconstructed based on offset Oligocene tuffs (of 30–27 Ma age) by Tietz and
Büchner (2015), although the orientation of the fault displacing the
tuffs is oblique to the thrust. The end of inversion of the Lusatian Massif
is poorly constrained to a period of at least 40 Myr duration
(Santonian–early Campanian to Oligocene), with the limitation that
post-Cretaceous exhumation did not exceed 2 km (Käßner et al.,
2020).
Thermochronology data derived from intra-basinal highs within the eastern
part of the Bohemian–Saxonian Basin (Intra-Sudetic Basin) indicate partially
fully reset AFT ages during the Late Cretaceous, thereby proving that ranges of the
Sudetes were initially part of the marginal trough (Danišík et al.,
2012; Botor et al., 2019). The main rapid exhumation of these structures
occurred in the Paleogene along N–S-oriented thrusts, mainly between 63 and
40 Ma (Sobczyk et al., 2015, 2019; Botor et al., 2019). The
deep burial and formerly enormous thickness of the marginal trough of the
Lusatian–Sudetic High is supported by recent unpublished maturity data of
organic matter, derived from basal Cenomanian coals in Saxony, which point
to a very thick filling of the marginal trough, with burial depths of > 3–4 km during the Cenomanian–Campanian. The AFT cooling ages
of deeply buried Upper Cretaceous sediments (46 Ma) are slightly younger
than the highs and indicate regional uplift and erosion during Paleogene.
Better time constraints are found in the northwestern prolongation of the
Lusatian–Sudetic High, the Prignitz High (Fig. 10). In this part, the
Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous basin shows only mild inversion of less than
1000 m. During Coniacian to Campanian uplift, the Prignitz High delivered
clastic material into shallow marginal troughs north and south of the rising
swell. As the uplift rates were low, marginal and even central parts were
transgressed as is shown by the preservation of marine sediments in
peripheral sinks of major diapirs on the swell (Haller, 1965; Musstow, 1976;
Karpe, 2008). To the southeast, the broad uplift of the Prignitz High is
bounded by the deeply subsided Altmark Basin, which was predominantly filled
with sands and marls from the narrow uplift of the Flechtingen High (Fig. 8). The facies distribution changed significantly from the Campanian to the
Maastrichtian.
The Prignitz High represents a gentle Late Cretaceous inversion
structure in the northwestern prolongation of the Lusatian–Sudetic High.
Note the preservation of marly deposits in a peripheral sink of a diapir at
the centre of the swell. During the main inversion phase, it was surrounded
by a belt of marlstones derived from the erosion of Jurassic to Lower
Cretaceous claystones. Marine sands were restricted to the margins of the
prominent inversion structures of the Flechtingen High, the Harz Mountains,
and the Lusatian–Sudetic High, which brought Permian to Lower Cretaceous
sandstones into the erosion level. Slightly modified from Voigt (2015).
During the Maastrichtian, the Prignitz High was flooded and completely
covered with sands of the Nennhausen Formation (Fig. 11). The facies belts
show a pattern of extended shallow marine sands that give way to marlstones
of mid-shelf environments. They occur on top of the Prignitz High at the
same elevation as on the former marginal troughs. Glauconitic sands of the
Nennhausen Formation reach their highest thickness of 600–1000 m in the
peripheral sinks of salt diapirs. Together with the thinner deposits, they
reflect a single extended coastal facies belt (Ahrens et al., 1965; Voigt,
2008). They are overlain conformably by Paleocene marine deposits. The end
of inversion of the western Prignitz High can be dated to have occurred in
the late Campanian to early Maastrichtian.
The end of inversion of the Prignitz High is shown by its cover of
Maastrichtian marine sands (Nennhausen Formation). Maastrichtian deposits
extend across the Altmark Basin and to the northern Subhercynian Block
(Walbeck Formation). The latter overlies conformably late Campanian marine
deposits (Beienrode Formation), which rest unconformably on Triassic and
Jurassic deposits. Post-inversion deposits are mainly restricted to peripheral sinks
of salt diapirs and the narrow secondary trough of the Flechtingen High,
where they were protected from later erosion. The widespread marine facies
belts point to complete flooding of both former highs and basins. Modified
from Voigt (2015).
Discussion
Basin reorganization and formation of new depocentres that spatially
coincide with those of the Coniacian and Santonian had already occurred in the majority
of the investigated basins during the late Cenomanian (96 Ma). This
is about 5 Myr earlier than previously deduced from AFT ages (Fig. 12). In
particular, basins clearly related to the compressive reactivation of major
normal faults seem to reflect an early beginning with respect to thickness
differentiation, like the Osning Thrust and the Rheder Moor–Oythe Thrust
bounding the Lower Saxony Basin as well as the central part of the Lusatian
Thrust, where slices of Jurassic deposits prove the reactivation of a
previous major normal fault (Voigt, 2009). The same is true for the
reactivated normal fault of the Quedlinburg Graben within the Subhercynian
Basin (Westerhausen Thrust), where its late Cenomanian reverse activity is
indicated by strongly reduced thickness and erosional unconformities.
The oldest AFT data point to a rapid passing of basement rocks of the PAZ
around 89–90 Ma (Turonian–Coniacian transition) presently exposed at the
surface. The precise timing when these rocks entered the PAZ is probably not
resolvable by thermochronology, whereas even small increments (tens of
metres) of surface uplift can modify patterns of deposition and erosion.
Nevertheless, recent (U–Th) / He ages of the Harz basement are between 90
and 96 Ma (von Eynatten et al., 2019) and are consistent with the results from
the basin (Fig. 12). The same is true for the Flechtingen High (Fischer et
al., 2012) and the oldest ages at the eastern boundary of the
Bohemian–Saxonian Cretaceous Basin (Danišík et al., 2010, 2012).
The most precise time constraint from the sediments comes from the Bohemian
Cretaceous Basin, where the early to middle Cenomanian fluvial depositional
system is replaced by a marine environment in coincidence with a complete
reversal of the main sediment input direction. North and southeast
transport directions of the old northward tilted relief still prevail during
the Cenomanian, but a source area in the northeast provided the majority of
clastic material. The sudden appearance of a northern source area, which
coincides with the Lusatian–West Sudetic High that controls the inversion
during the entire Late Cretaceous (e.g. Tröger, 1964; Skoček and
Valečka, 1983; Uličný et al., 2009; Voigt, 2009), strongly hints
at inversion beginning in the middle to late Cenomanian.
Wilmsen (2003) reconstructed the facies distribution of the Cenomanian in
northern Germany and established a well-funded sedimentary model of
Cenomanian hemipelagic and pelagic deposits. High thicknesses of Cenomanian
deposits were interpreted as being the result of a high-productivity facies belt
(“calcisphere system”) in contrast to a low-productivity belt (“coccolith
system”) in the north and condensed, accommodation-controlled sections
closer to the ancient coast. The belt with greater thickness, interpreted as
being the result of varying sedimentation rates, corresponds to the marginal
troughs on both sides of the inverted Lower Saxony Basin proposed here.
However, the section with the highest thickness of the model of Wilmsen (2003) is situated in the peripheral sink of the Bokeloh diapir (Wunstorf)
and the most condensed section (Langenstein) is situated at the western
margin of the Quedlinburg Anticline, close to the Westerhausen Thrust, which
was active during Cenomanian (Fig. 4). Lines of equal Cenomanian thickness
follow the contour of the marginal troughs and not the orientation of the
coast (Fig. 2). Highest thickness of the Cenomanian (200 m) occurs in the
front of the Rheder Moor–Oythe Thrust System. Further, the rapid thickness
decrease in the South Oldenburg Basin from 200 to 50 m (Fig. 9) points more
to enhanced tectonic subsidence than to primary facies differentiation. The
influence of salt migration can be excluded due to the low thickness of
Zechstein deposits there (Fig. 9). Detailed facies investigations of the
Cenomanian succession are necessary to decide whether subsidence of the
marginal troughs or facies differentiation was responsible for thickness
trends.
Compilation of time constraints fixing the start of inversion.
Varying methods based on thermochronology, sediment redistribution,
provenance, progressive unconformities, and thickness differentiation show a
significant disparity in timing between Cenomanian and Coniacian/Santonian.
The first evidence of changes in basin configuration had already appeared during
middle to late Cenomanian times across western and central Europe.
The positions of the marginal troughs and the principal regions of maximum
thickness do not change from Cenomanian to Turonian (Malkovský, 1987).
Uličný et al. (2009) observed the migration of the sandy margin
facies to the southeast from the Turonian to the Coniacian. They interpreted
this pattern as reflecting a lateral shift of the source area and concluded
that the basin evolved in a NW-SE-striking transtensional strike-slip
system. However, the northwestern margin of shoreface sands in the Saxonian
part of the Bohemian–Saxonian Basin migrates about 15 km in the opposite,
northwestern direction during the same time (Fig. 7). This pattern better
matches an increase in size of the uplift than unidirectional displacement
of the source area. The increased sediment input beginning in the middle to
late Turonian seems to cause a general extension of the sandy facies belt.
The increasing sedimentation rates from about 50 m/Myr in the late Cenomanian
to 75–110 m/Myr in the early to middle Turonian and to > 300 m/Myr
in the late Turonian and lower Coniacian point to accelerated subsidence of
the marginal trough accompanied by clastic input which was mostly
accommodated by the subsidence close to the uplifting margin. The absence of
lower to middle Cenomanian fluvial deposits in the region of highest
thickness of Upper Cretaceous sediments and their independent thickness
trends prove basin reorganization and the post-middle Cenomanian formation
of the marginal trough.
The marginal troughs of the inverted Lower Saxony Basin show only a
thickening signal in the Cenomanian close to the uplifting margins but no
facies change as the uplifted area did not rise above sea level at this
time. As in the Bohemian–Saxonian Basin, inversion started slowly and
accelerated particularly during the late Turonian and Coniacian. It is still
unclear whether this trend comprises the entire Cenomanian or only its
latest part, as documented in the well-investigated Bohemian–Saxonian Basin.
The Subhercynian Basin clearly shows the influence of a
basin-internal structure on sedimentation in the Cenomanian. Cenomanian thickness on the
southern flank of the Quedlinburg Anticline is strongly reduced, and an
erosional unconformity even developed above middle Cenomanian and below lower
Turonian deposits. The area of this anomaly coincides with the
northeast-dipping bounding fault of a half-graben filled with Hauterivian
and Barremian coastal sandstones. We interpret the reduced thickness to
indicate the start of inversion. Alternatively, the uplift could be related
to salt tectonics, but the northern flank of the narrow anticline shows no
evidence of similar reduction of Cenomanian thickness. Surprisingly, no
clear evidence of Cenomanian tectonic activity has yet been observed close
to the Harz uplift, even though the Harz Mountains are the most prominent
structure. The widespread erosion below the middle Santonian unconformity at
the northern margin of the Harz Mountains probably erased the entire sedimentary
record of earlier fault activity. A possible thickening of Cenomanian
deposits in the axis of the marginal trough is not known, because no
borehole has reached the Cenomanian in the deeply subsided basin part close to
the Harz uplift margin.
In contrast to these examples of early activities in basin evolution, the
deep marginal troughs of the Altmark Basin show no significant variations in
Cenomanian thickness. Neither the Harznordrand Thrust nor the Gardelegen
Thrust are proven to have formed from inherited normal faults (e.g. Voigt
et al., 2009; Malz et al., 2020). They may have nucleated later in stronger
lithosphere in comparison with the easily reactivated normal faults of the
Lower Saxony Basin and the Quedlinburg Anticline in the Subhercynian Basin.
No drilling or high-resolution seismic data exist for the deeply subsided
centres of the Subhercynian and Altmark basins; thus, the question of whether or not inversion-related subsidence began
early in these basins remains open.
The early start of inversion tectonics in the Cenomanian is observed in a
variety of basins of central Europe, but it has not been reported from the
inverted Polish and Danish basins to date. Here, a detailed areal
evaluation of Cenomanian thicknesses is necessary to date the start of
inversion tectonics more precisely or to conclude that only the southern
basin exhibits an early start because deformation propagated northward. An
early start of inversion was excluded for the Regensburg Basin south of the
Central European Basin on the basis of a detailed basin study (Niebuhr et al.,
2014). Instead, the Cenomanian transgression show a stepwise flooding of the
basement surface towards the later high. Depositional thickness started to
rise during the middle Turonian, accompanied by a significant increase in
the mean grain size. This could indicate that the marginal trough of this
basin is not preserved or that the uplift started later due to higher lithosphere strength. Because the Anglo-Paris Basin also shows clear evidence
of Cenomanian contractional fault activity (Mortimore and Pomerol, 1991), we
assume a synchronous onset of inversion in central and western Europe with
the above-mentioned exceptions.
The timing of the end of inversion tectonics in central Europe is
difficult to constrain due to a post-inversion uplift of most structures,
involving both highs and related marginal troughs. While sedimentary
covering of the Lower Saxony Basin with post-inversion deposits had already occurred in the Campanian, a significant shift in the evolution of the
marginal troughs occurred either in the Maastrichtian or later. FH denotes the
Flechtingen High.
The incomplete preservation of marginal troughs in central Europe mostly prevents a precise timing of the end of inversion (Fig. 13). The regional uplift after basin
inversion, which affected both the highs and the adjacent syn-inversion
basins, obscured the signal of the change in basin configuration, which
occurs with the end of compression. A major erosion surface bevelled both
highs and basins. This unconformity appears flat outside the areas of salt
migration, but marine deposits of varying age, reaching from the
Maastrichtian to late Eocene and early Oligocene, cover it and indicate a
long-lasting evolution of a low-relief palaeo-surface. This surface is very
gently inclined towards the northwest, and the deposits covering the
unconformity are continuously younger to the south.
Thus, primary and secondary marginal troughs are only preserved where an
area remained below base level. The Harz Mountains with the Subhercynian
Basin and the Lusatian–Sudetic High with its paired marginal troughs show a
time gap of 30–40 Myr between the youngest Santonian–lower Campanian
sediments of the marginal trough and the Eocene post-inversion unconformity
(Fig. 13).
The marginal troughs situated more to the north preserved better evidence of
the end of inversion due to the local preservation of Maastrichtian and
Paleocene deposits. These indicate a shift of the basin axis between the
early Campanian and Maastrichtian times. On top of the inverted highs, the
ages of the overlying sequences differ between the Prignitz High (early
Maastrichtian) and the inverted Lower Saxony Basin (latest early Campanian)
by 7–9 Myr. In both cases, marine deposits were
preserved. Although Maastrichtian and Paleocene units are generally
only preserved in isolated marginal troughs of salt diapirs, marine deposits
prove that the surrounding highs had also been close to sea level and were
flooded by the advancing sea. In the case of the Damme Syncline on top of
the inverted Lower Saxony Basin, the influence of a salt diapir can be
excluded.
The diachroneity between the basal deposits overlying the unconformity on the
Prignitz High, in the Damme Syncline, and in the Altmark Basin probably
suggest slowly waning uplift and transition to subsidence, in contrast to
the sudden shift of the axis of marginal troughs in the Danish Basin within
the Danian (early Paleogene). This can probably be explained by continuing
salt migration: in addition to tectonics, the preservation of sediments is
controlled by the redistribution and sub-solution of thick Permian
(Zechstein) salt, which is or was present in the majority of
inversion-related basins in central Europe, except the Bohemian–Saxonian
Basin and the Regensburg Basin.
In comparison to the well-investigated primary and secondary marginal
troughs of the Danish Basin and to the deeply buried inversion structures in
the North Sea and western Europe, the timing of the end of Late Cretaceous
inversion in central Europe remains poorly constrained. The proposed
secondary marginal trough of the Altmark Basin predates the Danish secondary
marginal trough, is closer to the previously active thrust, and is deeper
than the Danish example. The start of subsidence in the Maastrichtian, which
lasted until the late Eocene, could also be the result of salt migration
into the adjacent pillows north of the basin due to doming of the southern
region. Despite this possible alternative interpretation of the secondary
marginal trough formation, the unconformity cuts both the Altmark Basin and
the intra-basin anticlines formed between early Campanian and Maastrichtian
times and, thus, marks the end of differentiated subsidence. This is in
contrast to the exact timing of the shift of marginal troughs in the Danish
Basin in the Paleocene, interpreted as the transition from convergence to
relaxation by Nielsen et al. (2005, 2007). A
base-Maastrichtian unconformity was also observed in the Vlieland Basin
(Deckers and van der Voet, 2018). Indications of a change in the stress
field at the Campanian–Maastrichtian transition were found in palaeo-stress
records in the Mons Basin (Vandycke et al., 1991).
The onset of basin inversion in central Europe coincides with major changes
in relative plate motion between Africa, Iberia, and Eurasia (Kley and Voigt,
2008; Rosenbaum et al., 2002; Seton et al., 2012), which in turn coincide
with a mid-Cretaceous global plate reorganization event (Scotese et al.,
1988; Veevers, 2000; Matthews et al., 2012). The exact age of this event is
difficult to pinpoint because it occurred in the magnetic quiet period or
Cretaceous Normal Superchron (CNS) between chrons M0 and 34 (120.4–83.5 Ma). Matthews et al. (2012) used interpolation between magnetic anomalies to
suggest that the reorganization took place between 105 and 100 Ma, in Albian to
Cenomanian times. The start of deformation in central Europe is
contemporaneous with the global late Cenomanian sea-level rise, a
consequence of the rapid formation of new oceanic crust. This supports a
causal link between global plate reorganization and intraplate deformation.
The termination of inversion was either due to a latest Maastrichtian to
Paleocene drop in Africa–Iberia–Europe plate convergence (found by Rosenbaum
et al., 2002, but not Vissers and Meijer, 2012) or to mechanical weakening
of the Iberia–Europe plate boundary caused by the incorporation of continental
crust (Dielforder et al., 2019).
Conclusions
The start of inversion in many Late Cretaceous basins of central Europe can
be dated to about 96 Ma, 5 Myr earlier than hitherto assumed based on
detailed analysis of new depocentres forming close to the inverting
structures. The first signals of inversion are weak, because the
sedimentation rates are only approximately 20 % of the maximum
sedimentation rates attained during the Coniacian and Santonian. This slow
increase in sedimentation rate probably also indicates a slow development of
the tectonic loads inducing the subsidence. There is no evidence of a
different compression direction during the Cenomanian in the Central
European Basin, except in the Saxonian part of the Bohemian–Saxonian Basin,
where a secondary oblique axis of a single depocentre develops and
southeast-trending highs appear, not obviously correlated with the previous
palaeo-drainage system, which generally reflects a dissected peneplain gently
tilted to the north.
A regional unconformity between the inversion structures (highs and basins)
and a covering sequence developed between the early Campanian and
Maastrichtian. A similar surface was formed again during the Maastrichtian
and Paleocene, probably due to erosive levelling in the course of recurrent
transgressions, and resulted neither in major deposition nor major erosion.
Only in the surroundings of active diapirs and in a few secondary marginal
troughs, relict sediments of coastal plains and shallow marine environments
witness the existence of an extended marine cover on this surface. The
covering of inverted structures by deposits varying in age from Campanian to
Maastrichtian indicates rather a gradual deceleration than a sudden end of
compression and uplift. Large-scale salt migration is probably the main
reason for the preservation of a complete marine succession from Maastrichtian
to Paleocene on top of the Prignitz High, which gives strong evidence that
the inversion in this part of the basin was finished before the late
Maastrichtian. The end of basin inversion should be better constrained in
the areas deep in the subsurface (northern slope of the inverted Mid-Polish
Trough, Grimmen Swell, Danish Trough), because the conservation of the
unconformity is much better there than in the south, where several
transgressions wore down the original surface.
The start of deformation in central Europe was probably caused by a global
plate reorganization event. This event induced both the changes in plate
kinematics and the coeval global late Cenomanian sea-level rise due to a
peak in the production of new ocean floor. The reorganization event, dated
to Albian to Cenomanian time between 105 and 100 Ma, would be the earliest
possible age for the onset of compression and basin inversion.
Data availability
Borehole and thickness data are stored at the geological surveys of Saxony Anhalt, Saxony, Brandenburg, North Rhine Westphalia, and Lower Saxony.
Author contributions
TV was responsible for the general idea and conceptualization of the study, borehole data acquisition, the thickness
maps and interpretations, the production of Figs. 3–13, writing the original
draft of the paper, and funding acquisition (EU, DFG). JK contributed to the conceptualization of the study, the production of Fig. 1, discussions, additional and critical information, validation, critical
review of the paper in the pre-publication stage, and funding acquisition (DFG). SV was responsible for
contributions on the general problem of Late Cretaceous basin inversion in
central Europe, data acquisition of Cenomanian thicknesses in the northern
study area, compilation of thickness data, the production of Fig. 2., discussions
and validation, revision, and critical review of the paper in the pre-publication stage.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Special issue statement
This article is part of the special issue “Inversion tectonics – 30 years later”. It is a result of the EGU General Assembly 2019, Vienna, Austria, 7–12 April 2019.
Acknowledgements
This paper was initiated by discussions with the late Franz Kockel, who was known as “the
Godfather of Central European Basin inversion”, that took place 20 years ago. We
gratefully acknowledge his inspiration. The Geological Surveys of
Brandenburg, Saxony, and Saxony Anhalt supported this work by providing
access to research borehole data and some cores for new interpretations. We especially wish to
thank Frank Horna, Gerhard Beutler, Karl-Heinz Friedel, Bodo Ehling, Werner Stackebrandt, and Michael Goethel for granting us access to
old cores and the data repositories as well as for helpful hints concerning rare data
and maps.
The authors are grateful to Roland Nádaskay, Jiři Adamovic, and Markus Wilmsen for
discussions on facies and thickness in the Bohemian–Saxonian Basin. They also
contributed critical remarks and additional information that
improved the quality of the paper. We especially wish to thank the two reviewers,
Jef Deckers and Pawel Aleksandrowski, for their insightful and constructive
remarks that improved the quality of the paper. Markus Wilmsen and
Roland Nádaskay contributed ideas and critical remarks during the
review process. Christoph Heubeck is gratefully acknowledged for polishing
the language in a late stage of the paper.
The compilation of borehole data in the Bohemian–Saxonian Cretaceous
Basin in the framework of the “GRACE” and “ResiBil” projects sparked the idea that the inversion of the
Lusatian–Sudetic High had already began in the late Cenomanian.
Financial support
This research has been supported by the German Research Foundation (grant nos. KL 495/9 and
GA 457/6 as well as the SPP 1135 “Dynamics of sedimentary basins” programme). The European
Union financially supported research in the Bohemian–Saxonian Cretaceous
Basin in the framework of the “GRACE” and “ResiBil” projects.
Review statement
This paper was edited by Piotr Krzywiec and reviewed by Pawel Aleksandrowski and Jef Deckers.
References
Ahrens, H., Lotsch, D., and Musstopf, R.: Zur Geologie der Grenzschichten
Kreide/Tertiär im Gebiet der Bohrung Nennhausen 2/63, Abh. Zentrales
Geolog. Inst. 1, 127–136, 1965.
Arfai, J., Lutz, R., Franke, D., Gaedicke, C., and Kley, J.: Mass-transport
deposits and reservoir quality of Upper Cretaceous Chalk within the German
Central Graben, North Sea, Int. J. Earth Sci., 105, 797–818, 2016.
Arnold, H.: Die Erforschung der Westfälischen Kreidemulde und zur
Definition der Oberkreidestufen und -zonen, Fortschritte in der Geologie von
Rheinland und Westfalen, 7, 1–14, 1964.
Baldschuhn, R. and Jaritz, W.: Stratigraphie der Oberkreide in
Nordwestdeutschland (Pompeckjsche Scholle), Teil 1: Korrelation der
Bohrlochdiagramme und des Kernmaterials, Geol. Jahrb. A, 38, 3–9, 1977.
Baldschuhn, R., Frisch, U., and Kockel, F.: Inversionsstrukturen in
NW-Deutschland und ihre Genese, Z. dt. Geol. Ges., 136, 129–139, 1985.
Baldschuhn, R., Best, G., and Kockel, F.: Inversion tectonics in the
northwest German Basin, in: Generation, accumulation,
and production of Europe's hydrocarbons, edited by: Spencer, A. M., Sp. Pub. EAPG,
1, 149–159, 1991.
Baldschuhn, R., Binot, F., Fleig, S., and Kockel, F.: Geotektonischer Atlas
von Nordwest-Deutschland und dem deutschen Nordsee-Sektor [Tectonic Atlas of
Northwest Germany and the German North Sea Sector], Geol. Jahrb. A, 153, 1–88,
2001.Beyer, D., Kunkel, C., Aehnelt, M., Pudlo, D., Voigt, T., Nover, G., and
Gaupp, R.: Influence of depositional environment and diagenesis on
petrophysical properties of clastic sediments (Buntsandstein of the
Thuringian Syncline, Central Germany), Z. Dtsch.
Ges. Geowiss., 165, 345–365, 10.1127/1860-1804/2014/0072, 2014.
Blumenstengel, H. and Krutzsch, W.: Tertiär, in: Geologie von Sachsen-Anhalt, edited by: Bachmann, G. H.,
Ehling, B. C., Eichner, R., and Schwab, M.,
267–292, 2008.Botor, D., Anczkiewicz, A. A., Mazur, S., and Siwecki, T.: Post-Variscan
thermal history of the Intra-Sudetic Basin (Sudetes, Bohemian Massif) based
on apatite fission track analysis, Int. J. Earth Sci.,
108, 2561–2576, 10.1007/s00531-019-01777-9, 2019.
Bromley, R. G. and Ekdale, A. A.: Mass transport in European Cretaceous
chalk; fabric criteria for its recognition, Sedimentology, 34, 1079–1092,
1987.
Boussaha, M., Thibault, N., Anderskouv, K., Moreau, J., and Stemmerik, L.:
Controls on upper Campanian-Maastrichtian chalk deposition in the eastern
Danish Basin, Sedimentology, 64, 1998–2030, 2017.
Coubal, M., Adamovič, J., Málek, J., and Prouza, V.: Architecture of
thrust faults with alongstrike variations in fault-plane dip: anatomy of the
Lusatian Thrust Fault, Bohemian Massif, J. Geosci., 59,
183–208, 2014.Coubal, M., Málek, J., Adamovič, J., and
Štěpančíková, P.: Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic dynamics
of the Bohemian Massif inferred from the Paleostress history of the Lusatian
Thrust Fault Belt, J. Geodyn., 87, 26–49,
10.1016/j.jog.2015.02.006, 2015.
Dadlez, R.: Mesozoic thickness pattern in the Mid-Polish Trough, Geological
Quarterly, 47, 223–240, 2003.
Danišík, M., Migoń, P., Kuhlemann, J., Evans, N. J., Dunkl, I.,
and Frisch, W.: Thermo-chronological constraints on the long-term erosional
history of the Karkonosze Mts., Central Europe, Geomorphology, 117,
78–89, 2010.Danišík, M., Štěpančiková, P., and Evans, N. J.:
Constraining longterm denudation and faulting history in intraplate regions
by multi-system thermochronology – an example of the Sudetic Marginal Fault
(Bohemian Massif, Central Europe), Tectonics, 31, TS2003, 10.1029/2011TC003012, 2012.
Deckers, J.: The Paleocene stratigraphic records in the Central Netherlands
and close surrounding basins: Highlighting the different responses to a late
Danian change in stress regime within the Central European Basin Systems,
Tectonophysics, 659, 102–108, 2015.
Deckers, J. and van der Voet, E.: A review on the structural styles of
deformation during Late Cretaceous and Paleocene tectonic phases in the
southern North Sea area, J. Geodynam., 115, 1–9, 2018.Deckers, J., Vendenberghe, N., Lanckacker, T., and de Koninck, R.: The
Pyrenean inversion phase in northern Belgium: an example of a relaxation
inversion?, Int. J. Earth Sci., 105, 583–593, 10.1007/s00531-015-1189-8, 2016.
de Jager, J.: Inverted basins in the Netherlands, similarities and
differences, Neth. J. Geosci.,
82, 355–366, 2003.
de Jager, J.: Geological development, in: Geology of the Netherlands, edited by: Wong, T. E., Batjes, D. A. J., and
de Jager, J., Amsterdam, Roy.
Netherlands Acad. Arts Sci., 5–26, 2007.
DEKORP-BASIN '96 Research Group: Deep crustal structure of the Northeast German
basin: New DEKORP-BASIN'96 deep-profiling results, Geology, 27, 55–58,
1999.
Dielforder, A., Frasca, G., Brune, S., and Ford, M.: Formation of the
Iberian-European convergent plate boundary fault and its effect on
intraplate deformation in Central Europe, Geochem. Geophy.
Geosy., 20, 2395–2417, 2019.
Diener, I.: Kreide, Grundriß der Geologie der Deutschen Demokratischen
Republik, 1, 320–342, 1968.
Embley, R. W.: Anatomy of some Atlantic margin sediment slides and some
comments on ages and mechanisms, in: Marine slides and other mass movements,
Springer, Boston, MA, 189–213, 1982.
Evans, D. J. and Hopson, P. M.: The seismic expression of synsedimentary
channel features within the Chalk of southern England, Proceedings of the
Geologists' Association, 111, 219–230, 2000.Ewald, J.: Die Lagerung der oberen Kreidebildungen am Nordrand des Harzes,
Monatsberichte der Königlich-Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
zu Berlin, available at: https://digilib.bbaw.de/digitallibrary/digilib.html?fn=/silo10/Bibliothek.tiff/09-mon/1862/tif&pn=690 (last access: 24 June 2021), 674–680, 1862.
Fischer, C., Dunkl, I., von Eynatten, H., Wijbrans, J. R., and Gaupp, R.:
Products and timing of diagenetic processes in Upper Rotliegend sandstones
from Bebertal (North German Basin, Parchim Formation, Flechtingen High,
Germany), Geol. Mag., 149, 827–840, 2012.
Franzke, H. J., Voigt, T., von Eynatten, H., Brix, M. R., and Burmester, G.:
Geometrie und Kinematik der Harznordrandstörung, erläutert an
Profilen aus dem Gebiet von Blankenburg, Geowiss. Mitt. Thüringen, 11,
39–62, 2004.
Frieg, C., Hiss, M., and Kaever, M.: Alb und Cenoman im zentralen und
südlichen Münsterland, Neues Jahrb. Geol.
P., 181, 325–363, 1990.
Geluk, M. C., Duin, E. J. T., Dusar, M., Rijkers, R. H. B., van den Berg, M. W.,
and van Rooijen, P.: Stratigraphy and tectonics of the Roer Valley Graben,
Netherlands J. Geosci./Geol. Mijnb., 73, 129–141, 1994.Götze, J. and Lewis, R.: Distribution of REE and trace elements in
size and mineral fractions of high-purity quartz sands, Sedimentology,
114, 43–57, 10.1016/0009-2541(94)90040-X, 1994.
Gras, R. and Geluk, M.: Late Cretaceous–Early Tertiary sedimentation and
tectonic inversion in the southern Netherlands, Geol. Mijnbouw, 78,
1–19, 1999.
Haller, W.: Ammoniten aus dem Maastricht der Bohrung Nennhausen 2/63, Abh. zentr. geol. Inst., 1, 137–148, 1965.
Hance, J. J.: Development of a database and assessment of seafloor slope
stability based on published literature, Doctoral dissertation, University
of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 2003.Hancock, J. M.: Sea-level changes in the British region during the Late
Cretaceous, P. Geologist. Assoc., 100, 565–594, 10.1016/S0016-7878(89)80027-6,
1989.
Hansen, D. L. and Nielsen, S. B.: Why rifts invert in compression,
Tectonophysics, 373, 5–24, 2003.
Haq, B.: Cretaceous eustasy revisited, Global Planet. Change, 113,
44–58, 2014.
Hardman, R. F. P.: Chalk reservoirs of the North Sea, B.
Geol. Soc. Denmark, 30, 119–137, 1982.
Hejl, E., Coyle, D., Lal, N., VandenHaute, P., and Wagner, G. A.: Fission
track dating of the western border of the Bohemian massif: Thermochronology
and tectonic implications, Geol. Rundsch., 86, 210–219, 1997.Hindle, D. and Kley, J.: The Subhercynian Basin: An example of an intraplate foreland basin due to a broken plate, Solid Earth Discuss. [preprint], 10.5194/se-2020-185, in review, 2020.
Hofmann, M., Linnemann, U., and Voigt, T.: The Upper Cretaceous section at
Schmilka in Saxony (Elbsandsteingebirge, Germany) – syntectonic
sedimentation and inverted zircon age populations revealed by LA-ICP-MS U/Pb
data, Geologica Saxonica, 59, 101–130, 2013.
Hofmann, M., Niebuhr, B., Linnemann, U., and Wilmsen, M.: Detrital zircon
ages and provenance data from the Early–Middle Turonian boundary interval
of Amberg (upper Winzerberg Formation, Danubian Cretaceous Group, Bavaria),
Z. Dtsch. Ges. Geowiss., 165, 655–668, 2014.Hofmann, M., Voigt, T., Bittner, L., Gärtner, A., Zieger, J., and
Linnemann, U.: Reworked Middle Jurassic sandstone as a marker for Upper
Cretaceous basin inversion in Central Europe – a case study for the U-Pb
detrital zircon record of the Upper Cretaceous Schmilka section and their
implication for the sedimentary cover of the Lausitz Block (Saxony,
Germany), Int. J. Earth Sci., 107, 913–932,
10.1007/s00531-017-1552-z, 2018.
Janetschke, N. and Wilmsen, M.: Sequence stratigraphy of the lower Upper
Cretaceous Elbtal group (Cenomanian–Turonian of Saxony, Germany), Z. Dsch.
Ges. Geowiss., 165, 179–207, 2014.
Karpe, W.: Zur Feinstratigraphie der oberkretazischen Karbonatgesteine in
der östlichen subherzynen Kreidemulde, Z. Geol.
Wissenschaft., 1, 269–292, 1973.
Karpe, W.: Kreide, in: Bachmann, G. H., Ehling, B. C., Eichner, R., and
Schwab, M.: Geologie von Sachsen-Anhalt, 244–266, 2008.Käßner, A., Stanek, K. P., and Lapp, M.: Post-Variscan tectonic and
landscape evolution of the Elbe Fault Zone and the Lusatian Block based on
apatite fission-track data and geomorphologic constraints, Geomorphology,
355, 106860, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.106860, 2020.
Kennedy, W. J.: Late Cretaceous and early Palaeocene Chalk Group
sedimentation in the Greater Ekofisk area, North Sea central graben,
B. Cent. Rech. Expl., 11, 91–126, 1987.
Kley, J.: Timing and spatial patterns of Cretaceous and Cenozoic inversion
in the Southern Permian Basin, in: Mesozoic resource
potential in the Southern Permian Basin, edited by: Kilhams, B., Kukla, P. A., Mazur, S.,
McKie, T., Mijnlieff, H. F., and Van Ojik, K., Geol. Soc. Lond., Spec. Pub., 469,
19–31, 2018.Kley, J. and Voigt, T.: Late Cretaceous intraplate thrusting in Central
Europe: Effect of Africa-Iberia-Europe convergence, not Alpine collision,
Geology, 36, 839–842, 10.1130/G24930A.1, 2008.
Koch, W.: Biostratigraphie in der Oberkreide und Taxonomie von
Foraminiferen. Geologisches Jahrbuch, A38, Stratigraphie der Oberkreide in
Nordwestdeutschland (Pompeckjsche Scholle), 11–123, 1977.
Kölbel, H.: Die tektonische und paläogeographische Entwicklung des
Salzgitterer Gebietes, Abhandlungen des Reichamtes für Bodenforschung,
207, 1–100, 1944.Kockel, F.: Inversion structures in Central Europe – Expressions and
reasons, an open discussion, Neth. J. Geosci., 82, 351–366, 10.1017/S0016774600020187, 2003.
Kossow, D.: Die kinematische Entwicklung des invertierten,
intrakontinentalen Nordostdeutschen Beckens, PhD thesis, University of
Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany, 1–105, 2001.
König, W., Köthe, A., and Ritz, I.: Die marine Beeinflussung der
Subherzynen Senke und der Mittelharzhochfläche im
Oligozän – Biostratigraphische und sedimentpetrographische Analysen
tertiärer Sandvorkommen, Z. Geol. Wissenschaft., 39, 387–431, 2011.
Krzywiec, P.: Mid-Polish Trough inversion – Seismic examples, main
mechanisms and its relationship to the Alpine – Carpathian collision.
Continental collision and the tectonosedimentary evolution of forelands:
European Geophysical Society Special Publication, 1, 151–165, 2002.
Krzywiec, P.: Structural inversion of the Pomeranian and Kuiavian segments
of the Mid-Polish Trough–lateral variations in timing and structural style,
Geol. Q., 50, 151–168, 2006.Krzywiec, P.: Mesozoic and
Cenozoic evolution of salt structures within the Polish basin: An overview,
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 363, 381–394,
10.1144/SP363.17, 2012.
Krzywiec, P., Gutowski, J., Walaszczyk, I., Wróbel, G., and Wybraniec,
S.: Tectonostratigraphic model of the Late Cretaceous inversion along the
Nowe Miasto-Zawichost Fault Zone, SE Mid-Polish Trough, Geol.
Q., 53, 27–48, 2009.Krzywiec, P. and Stachowska, A.: Late Cretaceous inversion of the NW segment
of the Mid-Polish Trough – how marginal troughs were formed, and does it
matter at all?, Z. Dtsch. Ges. Geowiss., 167, 107–119,
10.1127/zdgg/2016/0068, 2016.Lange, J.-M., Tonk, C., and Wagner, G. A.: Apatitspaltspurendaten zur
postvariskischen thermotektonischen Entwicklung des sächsischen
Grundgebirges – erste Ergebnisse, Zeitschrift der deutschen geologischen
Gesellschaft, 159, 123–132, 10.1127/1860-1804/2008/0159-0123, 2008.
Lehmann, J.: Integrated stratigraphy and palaeoenvironment of the
Cenomanian-Lower Turonian (Upper Cretaceous) of northern Westphalia, north
Germany, Facies, 40, 25–69, 1999.
Lohr, T., Krawczyk, C. M., Tanner, D. C., Samiee, R., Endres, H., Oncken,
O., and Kukla, P. A.: Strain partitioning due to salt: insights from
interpretation of a 3D seismic data set in the NW German Basin, Basin
Res., 19, 579–597, 2007.Luijendijk, E., Van Balen, R. T., Ter Voorde, M., and Andriessen, P. A. M.:
Reconstructing the Late Cretaceous inversion of the Roer Valley Graben
(southern Netherlands) using a new model that integrates burial and
provenance history with fission track thermochronology, J.
Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 11, B06402, 10.1029/2010JB008071, 2011.
Lykke-Andersen, H. and Surlyk, F.: The Cretaceous–Palaeogene boundary at
Stevns Klint, Denmark: inversion tectonics or sea-floor topography?, J.
Geol. Soc., 161, 343–352, 2004.
Machalski, M. and Malchyk, O.: Relative bathymetric position of opoka and
chalk in the Late Cretaceous European Basin, Cretaceous Res., 102, 30–36, 2019.
Malkovský, M.: The Mesozoic and Tertiary basins of the Bohemian Massif
and their evolution, Tectonophysics, 137, 31–42, 1987.Malz, A., Nachtweide, C., Emmerlich, S., and Schimpf, L.: Mesozoic
intraplate deformation in the southern part of the Central European Basin –
Results from large-scale 3D modelling, Tectonophysics, 776,
228–315, 10.1016/j.tecto.2019.228315, 2020.
Matthews, K. J., Seton, M., and Müller, R. D.: A global-scale plate
reorganization event at 105–100 Ma, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett.,
355, 283–298, 2012.
Mazur, S., Scheck-Wenderoth, M., and Krzywiec, P.: Different modes of Late
Cretaceous-Early Tertiary inversion in the North German and Polish basins,
Int. J. Earth Sci., 94, 782–798, 2005.
Michon, L., Van Balen, R. T., Merle, O., and Pagnier, H.: The Cenozoic evolution of the Roer Valley Rift System integrated at a European scale, Tectonophysics, 367, 101–126, 2003.
Migoń, P. and Danišík, M.: Erosional history of the Karkonosze
Granite Massif–constraints from adjacent sedimentary basins and
thermochronology, Geol. Q., 56, 441–456, 2012.
Mortimore, R.: A chalk revolution: what have we done to the Chalk of
England?, P. Geologist. Assoc., 122, 232–297, 2011.Mortimore, R.: Late Cretaceous tectono-sedimentary events in NW Europe,
P. Geol. Assoc., 129, 392–420, 10.1016/j.pgeola.2017.12.004, 2018.
Mortimore, R. N., Wood, C. J., Pomerol, B., and Ernst, G.: Dating the phases
of the Subhercynian tectonic epoch: Late Cretaceous tectonics and eustatics
in the Cretaceous basins of northern Germany compared with the Anglo-Paris
Basin, Zbl. Geo. Pal., 11, 1349–1401,
1998.
Mortimore, R. N. and Pomerol, B.: Upper Cretaceous tectonic disruptions in a
placid Chalk sequence in the Anglo-Paris Basin, J. Geol. Soc., 148, 391–404, 1991.
Mortimore, R. and Pomerol, B.: Upper Cretaceous tectonic phases and end
Cretaceous inversion in the Chalk of the Anglo-Paris Basin, Proceedings of
the geologists' association, 108, 231–255, 1997.Musstow, R.: Lithologisch-paläogeographische Karte der DDR 1:500000,
Oberkreide: Cenoman, Turon, Coniac-Santon, Campan, Maastricht, Geological map, Zentrales
Geologisches Institut, Berlin, 1976.Nádaskay, R., Žák, J., Sláma, J., Sidorinová, T., and
Valečka, J.: Deciphering the Late Paleozoic to Mesozoic tectono
sedimentary evolution of the northern Bohemian Massif from detrital zircon
geochronology and heavy mineral provenance, Int. J. Earth
Sci., 108, 2653–2681, 10.1007/s00531-019-01781-z, 2019.Navabpour, P., Malz, A., Kley, J., Siegburg, M., Kasch, N., and Ustaszewski, K.:
Intraplate brittle deformation and states of paleostress constrained by
fault kinematics in the central German platform, Tectonophysics, 694,
146–163, 10.1016/j.tecto.2016.11.033, 2017.
Niebuhr, B., Wilmsen, M., Chellouche, P., Richardt, N., and Pürner, T.: Stratigraphy and facies of the Turonian (Upper Cretaceous) Roding Formation at the southwestern margin of the Bohemian Massif (Southern Germany, Bavaria), Z. dt. Ges. Geowiss., 162, 295–316, 2011.
Niebuhr, B., Wilmsen, M., and Janetschke, N.: Cenomanian–Turonian sequence
stratigraphy and facies development of the
Danubian Cretaceous Group (Bavaria, Southern Germany), Z. Dtsch. Ges. Geowiss., 165, 621–640, 2014.
Niebuhr, B., Wilmsen, M., and Voigt, T.: Die Oberkreide
(Cenomanium–Mittelconiacium) im Zittauer Sandsteingebirge (Deutschland,
Tschechien), Z. Dtsch. Ges. Geowiss., 171, 163–197, 2020.
Nielsen, S. B. and Hansen, D. L.: Physical explanation of the formation and
evolution of inversion zones and marginal troughs, Geology, 28, 875–878,
2000.
Nielsen, S., Thomsen, E., Hansen, D. L., and Clausen, O. R.: Plate-wide
stress relaxation explains European Palaeocene basin inversions, Nature,
435, 195–198, 2005.
Nielsen, S. B., Stephenson, R., and Thomsen, E.: Dynamics of mid-Paleocene
north Atlantic rifting linked with European intra-plate deformations,
Nature, 450, 1071–1073, 2007.
Paul, J.: Hat sich der Harz im jüngeren Tertiär und Quartär
gehoben?, Z. Dtsch. Ges. Geowiss., 170, 95–107, 2019.
Petmecky, S., Meier, L., Reiser, H., and Littke, R.: High thermal maturity
in the Lower Saxony Basin: intrusion or deep burial?, Tectonophysics,
304, 317–344, 1999.
Rosenbaum, G., Lister, G. S., and Duboz, C.: Relative motions of Africa,
Iberia and Europe during Alpine orogeny, Tectonophysics, 359, 117–129,
2002.
Schulze, G.: Erste Ergebnisse geologischer Untersuchungsarbeiten im Gebiet
der Scholle von Calvörde, Z. Angew. Geol., 10, 338–348, 1964.
Scotese, C. R., Gahagan, L. M., and Larson, R. L.: Plate tectonic
reconstructions of the Cretaceous and Cenozoic ocean basins, Tectonophysics,
155, 27–48, 1988.
Seifert, A.: Stratigraphie und Paläogeographie des Cenomans und Turons
im sächsischen Elbtalgebiet – Freiberger Forsch.-H., C 14,
Freiberg, 1–218, 1955.
Senglaub, Y., Brix, M. R., Adriasola, A. C., and Littke, R.: New information
on the thermal history of the southwestern Lower Saxony Basin, northern
Germany, based on fission track analysis, Int. J. Earth
Sci., 94, 876-896, 2005.
Senglaub, Y., Littke, R., and Brix, M.: Numerical modelling of burial and
temperature history as an approach for an alternative interpretation of the
Bramsche anomaly, Lower Saxony Basin, Int. J. Earth
Sci., 95, 204–224, 2006.
Seton, M., Müller, R. D., Zahirovic, S., Gaina, C., Torsvik, T.,
Shephard, G., Talsma, A., Gurnis, M., Turner, M., Maus, S., and Chandler,
M.: Global continental and ocean basin reconstructions since 200 Ma,
Earth-Sci. Rev., 113, 212–270, 2012.
Scotese, C. R., Gahagan, L. M., and Larson, R. L.: Plate tectonic
reconstructions of the Cretaceous and Cenozoic ocean basins, Tectonophysics,
155, 27–48, 1988.
Skoček, V. and Valečka, J.: Paleogeography of the late cretaceous
Quadersandstein of central Europe, Palaeogeogr. Palaeocl., 44, 71–92, 1983.Sobczyk, A., Danišik, M., Aleksandrowski, P., and Anczkiewicz, A.:
Post-Variscan cooling history in the central Western Sudetes (NE Bohemian
Massif) and its implications for topographic evolution: Insights from
apatite fission-track and zircon (U–Th) / He thermochronology, Tectonophysics,
649, 47–57, https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2015.02.021, 2015.Sobczyk, A., Sobel, E. R., and Georgieva, V.: Meso–Cenozoic cooling and
exhumation history of the Orlica-Śnieżnik Dome (Sudetes, NE Bohemian
Massif, Central Europe): Insights from apatite fission-track
thermochronometry, Terra Nova, 32, 122–133, 10.1111/ter.12449, 2019.
Špičáková, L., Uličný, D., and Koudelková, G.:
Tectonosedimentary Evolution of the Cheb Basin (NW Bohemia, Czech Republic)
between Late Oligocene and Pliocene: A Preliminary Note, Stud. Geophys.
Geod., 44, 556–580, 2000.
Standke, G. and Suhr, P.: Tertiär, in: Geologie von Sachsen, edited by: Pälchen, W. and Walter, H., Geologischer Bau und Entwicklungsgeschichte,
358–419, 2008.
Stille, H.: Grundfragen der vergleichenden Tektonik, Borntraeger, Berlin,
443 pp., 1924.
Surlyk, F. and Lykke-Andersen, H.: Contourite drifts, moats and channels in
the Upper Cretaceous chalk of the Danish Basin, Sedimentology, 54,
405–422, 2007.
Thomson, S. N. and Zeh, A.: Fission-track thermochronology of the Ruhla
Crystalline Complex: new constraints on the post-Variscan thermal evolution
of the NW Saxo-Bohemian Massif, Tectonophysics, 324, 17–35, 2000.
Thomson, S. N., Brix, M. R., and Carter, A.: Late Cretaceous denudation of the Harz Massif assessed by apatite fission track analysis, Schriftenreihe deut. Geol. Ges., 2, p. 115, 1997.
Tonndorf, H.: Die Uranlagerstätte Königstein – Bergbaumonographie
Bd. 7, Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie –
Oberbergamt, 208 pp., 2000.Tietz, O. and Büchner, J.: The landscape evolution of the Lausitz Block
since the Palaeozoic – with special emphasis to the neovolcanic edifices in
the Lausitz Volcanic Field (Eastern Germany), Z. Dtsch. Ges. Geowiss., 166, 125–147, 10.1127/zdgg/2015/0031, 2015.
Tröger, K.-A.: Zur Ausbildung der Kreide (Cenoman bis Coniac) in der Umrandung des Lausitzer Massivs, Geologie, 13, 717–730, 1964.
Uličný, D.: Depositional systems and sequence stratigraphy of
coarse-grained deltas in a shallow-marine, strike-slip setting: The Bohemian
Cretaceous Basin, Czech Republic, Sedimentology, 48, 599–628, 2001.Uličný, D., Laurin, J., and Čech, S.: Controls on clastic
sequence geometries in a shallow-marine, transtensional basin: the Bohemian
Cretaceous Basin, Czech Republic, Sedimentology, 56, 1077–1114,
10.1111/j.1365-3091.2008.01021.x, 2009.van Buchem, F. S. P., Smit, F. W. H., Buijs, G. J. A., Trudgill, B., and
Larsen, P. H.: Tectonostratigraphic framework and depositional history of
the Cretaceous–Danian succession of the Danish Central Graben (North
Sea) – new light on a mature area, Geological Society, London, Petroleum
Geology Conference series, 8, 9–46, Geological Society of London, 10.1144/PGC8.24, 2018.
Van der Molen, A. S., Dudok van Heel, H. W., and Wong, T. E.: The influence of
tectonic regime on chalk deposition: examples of the sedimentary development
and 3D-seismic stratigraphy of the Chalk Group in the Netherlands offshore
area, Basin Res., 17, 63–81, 2005.
Van der Voet, Hejnen, L., and Reijmer, J. J. G.: Geological evolution of the
Chalk Group in the northern Dutch North Sea: inversion, sedimentation and
redeposition, Geol. Mag., 156, 1265–1284, 2019.
Vandycke, S.: Palaeostress records in Cretaceous formations in NW Europe:
extensional and strike–slip events in relationships with
Cretaceous–Tertiary inversion tectonics, Tectonophysics, 357, 119–136,
2002.
Vandycke, S., Bergerat, F., and Dupuis, C.: Meso-Cenozoic faulting and inferred palaeostresses in the Mons Basin, Belgium, Tectonophysics, 192, 261–271, 1991.
Vejbæk, O. and Andersen, C.: Post mid-Cretaceous inversion tectonics in
the Danish Central Graben – regionally synchronous tectonic events?,
Bull. Geol. Soc. Denmark, 49, 129–144, 2002.
Veevers, J. J.: Change of tectono-stratigraphic regime in the Australian
plate during the 99 Ma (mid-Cretaceous) and 43 Ma (mid-Eocene) swerves of
the Pacific, Geology, 28, 47–50, 2000.
Vissers, R. L. M. and Meijer, P. T.: Iberian plate kinematics and Alpine
collision in the Pyrenees, Earth-Sci. Rev., 114, 61–83, 2012.
Ventura, B. and Lisker, F.: Long-term landscape evolution of the
northeastern margin of the Bohemian Massif: apatite fission-track data from
the Erzgebirge (Germany), Int. J. Earth Sci., 92,
691–700, 2003.
Voigt, E.: Frühdiagenetische Deformation der turonen Plänerkalke bei
Halle/Westf. als Folge einer Grossgleitung unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung des Phacoid-Problems, Mitteilungen des Geologischen
Staatsinstitutes zu Hamburg, 31, 146–275, 1962.
Voigt, E.: Die Lithogenese der Flach- und Tiefwassersedimente des
jüngeren Oberkreidemeeres, eine Parallelisierung orogenetisch bedingter
Ablagerungsverhältnisse am Harzrand in Südschweden und im
preussisch-holländischen Grenzgebiet, Jahrbuch des Halleschen Verbandes
zur Erforschung der Mitteldeutschen Bodenschätze, 8, 3–162, 1929.
Voigt, E.: Über Randtröge vor Schollenrändern und ihre Bedeutung
im Gebiet der Mitteleuropäischen Senke und angrenzender Gebiete, Z.
Deutsch. Geol. Ges., 114, 378–418, 1963.
Voigt, E.: Neue Daten über submarine Großgleitung turoner Gesteine
im Teutoburger Wald bei Halle/Westf. – Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Geologischen Gesellschaft, 128, 57–79, 1977.
Voigt, S., Erbacher, J., Mutterlose, J., Weiss, W., Westerhold, T., Wiese,
F., Wilmsen, M., and Wonik, T.: The Cenomanian – Turonian of the Wunstorf
section – (North Germany): global stratigraphic reference section and new
orbital time scale for Oceanic Anoxic Event 2, Newsletter on Stratigraphy,
43, 65–89, 2008.
Voigt, T.: Entwicklung und Architektur einer fluviatilen Talfüllung –
die Niederschöna Formation im Sächsischen Kreidebecken, Abhandl.
Staatl. Museum Min. Geol. Dresden, Band 43/44, 121–139, 1998.
Voigt, T.: Die Lausitz-Riesengebirgs-Antiklinalzone als kreidezeitliche
Inversionsstruktur: Geologische Hinweise aus den umgebenden Kreidebecken,
Z. Geol. Wissenschaft., 37, 15–39, 2009.
Voigt, T.: Kreide, in: Geologie von
Brandenburg, edited by: Stackebrandt, W. and Franke, D., Schweizerbart, Stuttgart, 240–256, 2015.
Voigt, T., von Eynatten, H., and Franzke, H.-J.: Late Cretaceous
unconformities in the Subhercynian Cretaceous Basin (Germany), Acta Geol.
Pol., 54, 673–694, 2004.
Voigt, T., Wiese, F., von Eynatten, H., Franzke, H.-J., and Gaupp, R.: Facies
evolution of syntectonic Upper Cretaceous Deposits in the Subhercynian
Cretaceous Basin and adjoining areas (Germany), Z. Dt. Geol. Ges., 157,
203–244, 2006.
Voigt, T., Reicherter, K., von Eynatten, H., Littke, R. Voigt, S., and Kley,
J.: Sedimentation during basin inversion, in: Dynamics of complex sedimentary
basins. The example of the Central European Basin System, edited by: Littke, R., Bayer, U.,
Gajewski, D., and Nelskamp, S., Springer, Berlin, 211–232, 2008.
Voigt, T., von Eynatten, H., and Kley, J.: Kommentar zu ,,Nördliche
Harzrandstörung: Diskussionsbeiträge zu Tiefenstruktur, Zeitlichkeit
und Kinematik von Volker Wrede (ZDGG 159/2: 293-316), Z. Dt. Ges. Geowiss.,
160, 93–99, 2009.
von Eynatten, H., Voigt, T., Meier, A., Franzke, H.-J., and Gaupp, R.:
Provenance of the clastic Cretaceous Subhercynian Basin fill: constraints to
exhumation of the Harz Mountains and the timing of inversion tectonics in
the Central European Basin, Int. J. Earth Sci., 97, 1315–1330, 2008.von Eynatten, H., Dunkl, I., Brix, M., Hoffmann, V.-E., Raab, M., Thomson, S.
N., and Kohn, B.: Late Cretaceous exhumation and uplift of the Harz
Mountains, Germany: a multi-method thermochronological approach, Int. J.
Earth Sci., 108, 2097–2111, 10.1007/s00531-019-01751-5, 2019.von Eynatten, H., Kley, J., Dunkl, I., Hoffmann, V.-E., and Simon, A.: Late Cretaceous to Paleogene exhumation in central Europe – localized inversion vs. large-scale domal uplift, Solid Earth, 12, 935–958, 10.5194/se-12-935-2021, 2021.
Warsitzka, M., Jähne-Klingberg, F., Kley, J., and Kukowski, N.: The
timing of salt structure growth in the Southern Permian Basin (Central
Europe) and implications for basin dynamics, Basin Res., 31, 337–360,
2019.
Wrede, V.: Der nördliche Harzrand – flache Abscherbahn oder
wrench-fault-system?, Geol. Rundsch., 77, 101–114, 1988.
Wilmsen, M.: Sequence stratigraphy and palaeoceanography of the Cenomanian
Stage in northern Germany, Cretaceous Res., 24, 525–568, 2003.Wilmsen, M., Niebuhr, B., and Hiss, M.: The Cenomanian of northern Germany:
facies analysis of a transgressive biosedimentary system, Facies, 51,
242–263, 10.1007/s10347-005-0058-5, 2005.
Wulff, L. and Mutterlose, J.: Late Cretaceous tectonic inversion processes
deciphered by micropalaeontology – a case study from northern Germany,
Newsl. Stratigr., 52, 487–500, 2019.Zijerveld, L., Stephenson, R. A., Cloetingh, S. A. P. L., Duin, E., and van den
Berg, M.: Subsidence analysis and modelling of the Roer Valley Graben (SE
Netherlands), Tectonophysics, 208, 159–171, 1992.
Ziegler, P. A.: Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic intra-plate compressional
deformations in the Alpine foreland – a geodynamic model, Tectonophysics,
137, 389–420, 1987.
Ziegler, P. A.: Collision related intra-plate compression deformations in
Western and Central Europe, J. Geodynam., 11, 357–388, 1990a.
Ziegler, P. A.: Geological Atlas of Western and Central Europe, 2nd edition.
Shell Internationale Petroleum Mij, BV and Geological Society of London, London, 239 pp., 1990b.
Ziegler, P. A., Cloetingh, S., and van Wees, J. D.: Dynamics of intra-plate compressional deformation: the Alpine foreland and other examples, Tectonophysics, 252, 7–59, 1995.