Rise and fall of the Paratethys Sea during the Messinian Salinity Crisis

Earth and Planetary Science Letters 290 (2010) 183–191Contents lists available at ScienceDirectEarth and Planetary Science Lettersjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epslRise and fall of the Paratethys Sea during the Messinian Salinity CrisisW. Krijgsman a, ⁎, M. Stoica b , I. Vasiliev a , V.V. Popov ca Paleomagnetic Laboratory ‘Fort Hoofddijk’, Utrecht University, Budapestlaan 17, 3584 CD, Utrecht, The Netherlandsb Department of Palaeontology, Faculty of Geology and Geophysics, University of Bucharest, Bălcescu Bd. 1, 010041, Romaniac VNIGRI, All-Russia Petroleum Research Exploration Institute, St. Petersburg, RussiaarticleinfoabstractArticle history:Received 9 July 2009Received in revised form 16 November 2009Accepted 8 December 2009Available online 3 January 2010Editor: P. DeMenocalKeywords:ParatethysMediterraneanMessinian Salinity Crisismagnetostratigraphyfloodingsea level changeExtremely thick evaporite units were deposited during the so-called Messinian Salinity Crisis (MSC: 5.96–5.33 Ma) in a deep Mediterranean basin that was progressively disconnected from the Atlantic Ocean. A crucial,but still poorly understood component in Messinian evaporite models is the connectivity between Mediterraneanand Paratethys, i.e. the former Black Sea domain. Inadequate stratigraphic correlations and insufficient agecontrol for Paratethys sediments have so far hampered a thorough understanding of hydrological fluxes andpaleoenvironmental changes. Here, we present a new chronology for the Eastern Paratethys by integratingbiostratigraphic and paleomagnetic data from Mio–Pliocene sedimentary successions of Romania and Russia. Weshow that a major flooding event from the Mediterranean surged the Paratethys basins at the Maeotian–Pontianboundary, 6.04 million years ago. This indicates that sea level in both Mediterranean and Paratethys was high atthe beginning of the MSC. We argue in favor of changes in Paratethys–Mediterranean connectivity to initiate theMSC in combination with elusive tectonic processes in the Gibraltar arc. A subsequent fall of Paratethyan waterlevel closely coincides to the Mediterranean isolation-event, corresponding in age to the glacial cycles TG12–14(5.60–5.50 Myr). In the latest Messinian, a major climate change towards more humid conditions produced apositive hydrological balance and likely a transgression in the Paratethys, although our stratigraphic resolutioncannot exclude a possible relation to the Pliocene flooding of the Mediterranean here.© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.1. IntroductionMajor sea level fluctuations, causing dramatic paleoenvironmentalchanges and related mass-extinctions, form an intricate part of Earthhistory (Hallam and Wignall, 1997). Renowned examples are thebiblical flood of Noah and the Messinian Salinity Crisis (MSC) of theMediterranean. Geological investigations indicated that a great delugesurged the Black Sea basin roughly 8000 years ago, rapidly raising thelake level by some 100 m (Ryan et al., 1997, 2003) so that civilizationsand populations inhabiting the Black Sea shores may have suddenlydrowned (Ryan and Pitman, 1998). The sudden influx hypothesis ishighly debated between geologists and archeologists (Aksu et al., 2002),but may also have occurred in late Messinian times (Hsü and Giovanoli,1979) when the Black Sea domain was part of the Eastern Paratethys(Fig. 1). During the Messinian (7.24–5.33 Ma), the Mediterraneanbecame progressively isolated from the Atlantic Ocean, triggeringwidespread precipitation of gypsum (5.96–5.6 Ma), massive saltdeposition (5.6–5.5 Ma), and a dramatic sea level lowering followedby brackish water environments of “Lago-Mare” (Lake Sea) facies (e.g.Hilgen et al., 2007; Krijgsman and Meijer, 2008; Roveri et al., 2008). Acatastrophic re-flooding from the Atlantic at the beginning of the⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 30 2531672.E-mail address: krijgsma@geo.uu.nl (W. Krijgsman).Pliocene (5.33 Ma) abruptly ended the salinity crisis by re-establishingopen marine conditions in the Mediterranean (Hsü et al., 1973).The hydrological flux from Paratethys to Mediterranean is a crucialcomponent in quantitative studies on paleocirculation patterns andprecipitation models of evaporites (Meijer and Krijgsman, 2005;Flecker and Ellam, 2006), but connectivity between the two basins iscontroversial (Çagatay et al., 2006). Overspilling of Paratethys watersinto the Mediterranean has been argued to explain the presence ofbrackish water fauna in the Lago-Mare sediments (Cita et al., 1978),but a lowering of Paratethys levels during the Messinian event is alsosuggested (Hsü and Giovanoli, 1979). Seismic profiles of the Black Seabasin show evidence of deep canyon cutting, but the exactstratigraphic position differs; at the base of the Pontian Stage (Dinuet al., 2005) or intra-Pontian (Gillet et al., 2007). Sequencestratigraphic interpretations on a seismic transect from the westernDacian Basin also reveal significant sea level changes within thePontian Stage (Leever et al., 2009). Seismic and borehole data fromthe Pannonian Basin show unconformities as well, but these areinterpreted to have a regional tectonic origin and no relation toMessinian drawdown (Magyar and Sztanó, 2008). A concurrent baselevel drop has been proposed for the Caspian Sea (Reynolds et al.,1998; Popov et al., 2006), although numerical ages are poorly defined.Paratethys time scales comprise regional stages (e.g. Maeotian–Pontian–Dacian or Kimmerian within the Mio–Pliocene interval) andsubstages (e.g. Odessian–Portaferrian–Bosphorian within the Pontian)0012-821X/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.12.020

186 W. Krijgsman et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 290 (2010) 183–191Fig. 3. Ostracod distribution of the Râmnicu Sărat section in the east Carpathian foredeep of the Dacian Basin. The magnetostratigraphic pattern is after Vasiliev et al. (2004) and correlatesexcellently to the GTS. It allows high-resolution dating of the ostracod assemblages and related stages and substages. The resulting new ages of the (sub)stage boundaries are indicated.sediments indicating deposition in shallow water, probably on thelower shore face (Panaiotu et al., 2007). The Portaferrian thusrepresents a regressive event where the bathymetry of the DacianBasin decreased. In marginal settings, the rich Odessian ostracod faunaindicative of basinal conditions is replaced by littoral, fluvial andlacustrine Portaferrian species: Amplocypris dorsobrevis, C. pannonica,

W. Krijgsman et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 290 (2010) 183–191187Fig. 4. Detailed integrated stratigraphic data of the Maeotian/Pontian interval. Pontian–Kimmerian are regional stages of the Black Sea Basin. Magnetostratigraphic data from Râmnicu Săratare after Vasiliev et al. (2004), from Zheleznyi Rog of this paper. Red circles represent reliable directions from thermal demagnetization, whereby small circles denote greigite, large circlesmagnetite. The blue diamonds indicate directions from alternating field demagnetization .The Maeotian–Pontian boundary interval is marked by a short influx of marine calcareous benthicforaminifera (A–C) Porosononian ex. gr. subgranosus (Egger), (D) Ammonia ex. gr. beccarii (Linné), agglutinated foraminifera, (E,H) Ammotium sp. and planktonic foraminifera comprisingStreptochilus sp. (I–J).C. sp., Tyrrhenocythere ex. gr. motasi, Candoniella sp., andZonocyprismembranae (Fig. 3).The Portaferrian low-stand is determined magnetostratigraphically inthe middle part of chron C3r, and precize ages can thus not be obtainedhere. Assuming constant sedimentation rates for the Râmnicu Săratsection results in interpolated ages of ∼5.8 and ∼5.5 Ma for the lower andupper Portaferrian boundary, respectively (Fig. 3). Seismic data from thewestern part of the Dacian Basin confirm a general regressive middlePontian low-stand (Leever et al., 2009), while an erosional unconformityof regional significance has been observed between Maeotian and upperPontian sediments at marginal regions (Stoica et al., 2007).The section at the Black Sea margin shows a conspicuous change atthe top of this interval by deep lacustrine brackish marls with Pontianfauna indicative of the photic zone (b100 m deep) abruptly changingto condensed coastal sequences of reddish sands, with some minorsedimentary hiatuses, attributed to the base of the Kimmerian (Fig. 5).This red sequence comprises oolites/pisolites plus nodular marls thatsuggest high-energetic coastal environments (Fig. 5E). It furthermorecontains molluscs that are characteristic of the Portaferrian (Fig. 5F–H)and minerals indicative of evaporitic conditions (selenite, gypsum andjarosite), which probably formed after deposition (Fig. 5I–L). Thisindicates that the Black Sea experienced a sea level drop of about 50–100 m at the base of the Kimmerian (middle Portaferrian), which iscoeval to the intra-Pontian unconformities observed in seismic profilesof the Romanian Black Sea margin (Gillet et al., 2007).The Caspian Sea may have become isolated during this period, assuggested by the expansion of the deltaic systems of the ‘ProductiveSeries’, which are Kimmerian in age. This is the main hydrocarbonreservoir unit of the South Caspian Basin, thought to represent thelow-stand wedge of a dramatic sea level fall (Hinds et al., 2004). Atentative link has been made with the late Messinian eustatic sea levelfall (Reynolds et al., 1998), but other studies have suggested a relationto large scale plate-tectonic processes (Allen et al., 2002). The base ofthe Productive Series is radiometrically dated at ∼5.5 Ma and isinterpreted as the sudden southward expansion of the Miocene Volgadelta resulting from a major regression (Dumont, 1998).Consequently, we conclude that all regions in the Eastern Paratethysshow evidence for a marked sea level lowering of at least 50 m during theMessinian (5.6–5.5 Myr) time interval, corresponding to the Portaferrianof the Dacian Basin and the lowermost Kimmerian of the Black Sea andCaspian basins.6. Paratethys transgression during the BosphorianThe upper Pontian (Bosphorian) corresponds to a second transgressiveevent in the Dacian Basin, showing a major faunal change in the

188 W. Krijgsman et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 290 (2010) 183–191Fig. 5. A) The reddish interval of the Zheleznyi Rog section. Portaferrian molluscs found in the marl interval below the red unit; B) Valenciennius sp.,C)Paradacna abichi,D)Dreissenarostriformis. Characteristic mollusc species and the most relevant evaporitic minerals found in the reddish interval, marking the beginning of the Kimmerian: E) oolithic/pisolithicsandstone, F) Caladacna steindachneri, G)D. rostriformis, H)Pteradacna edentula, I) jarosite, J) prismatic gypsum crystals, K) jarosite, and L) radial gypsum. The corresponding levelsare indicated right of the schematic lithological column.ostracod assemblages (Fig. 3) and a lithological change to more basinalsequences (Jipa, 1997). The Portaferrian–Bosphorian transition ismarked by a second bloom of ostracod fauna, and most Pontian speciesare well represented. Some species pass through the limit with lowerDacian (Getian substage).Interpolation assuming constant sedimentation rates, suggeststhat this upper Pontian transgression started at an age of 5.5±0.1 Ma(Table 1). Detailed micropalaeontological studies have not revealedthe presence of marine foraminifera here. In the western Dacian Basin,seismic profiles also show a transgressive system tract at the base ofthe Bosphorian (Leever et al., 2009). In the Topolog region of the southCarpathian foredeep, the Bosphorian is found transgressive onMaeotian deposits while the upper Maeotian and lower-middlePontian are missing (Stoica et al., 2007). In addition, the bottom setsof a ‘Gilbert fan delta’ are correlated to this sea level rise (Clauzonet al., 2005), although stratigraphic data from Romanian geologistsindicate that these fan deposits are of pre-Maeotian age (Savu andGhenea, 1967; Nastaseanu and Bercia, 1968).In the Black Sea Basin, the Miocene–Pliocene boundary is commonlyplaced at the Pontian/Kimmerian boundary. This is in slight disagreementwith our stratigraphic results, which shows that the red level ofthe lowermost Kimmerian corresponds to the Portaferrian of the DacianTable 1New magnetostratigraphic ages for the (sub)stage boundaries in the Dacian and BlackSea basins of the Eastern Paratethys.Dacian BasinBoundaryAge(Ma)Black Sea BasinBoundaryAge(Ma)Pontian/Dacian 4.70 ±0.05 × ×Portaferrian/Bosphorian 5.5 ±0.1 Portaferrian/Kimmerian 5.6±0.1Odessian/Portaferrian 5.8 ±0.1 Novorossian/Portaferrian 5.8±0.1Maeotian/Pontian 6.04 ±0.01 Maeotian/Pontian 6.04±0.01Basin and thus to the latest Miocene (Fig. 4). Faunal elements ofKimmerian marls, overlying the reddish interval at Zheleznyi Rog, aresimilar to the Bosphorian and can be largely attributed to the Pliocene.The “Productive Series” of the Caspian Basin are also biostratigraphicallydated as Kimmerian in terms of Eastern Paratethyan chronostratigraphy(Nevesskaya et al., 2002). The numerical age is still a matter of debate,because of conflicting paleomagnetic evidence on which calibration tothe global record is based, and because biostratigraphic control forinterregional correlation is hindered by the presence of mostly localfaunas and by massive reworking (Jones and Simmons, 1996).Our integrated stratigraphic results from the Dacian Basin showthat the Pontian/Dacian boundary is younger than the Sidufjall normalchron (C3n.3n) and is magnetostratigraphically dated at ∼4.7 Ma(Fig. 3). This is significantly younger than presumed in otherParatethys time scales, where the Pontian–Dacian stage boundary istentatively positioned at, or close to, the Miocene–Pliocene boundary(5.33 Ma) (Steininger et al., 1996; Clauzon et al., 2005; Snel et al.,2006). It is clear that different definitions have been used for theupper Pontian boundary in Romanian and Russian literature (Fig. 6;Table 1), which is especially problematic when working on the Mio–Pliocene sedimentary successions and seismic sequences of the BlackSea domain. A formal re-definition of the Paratethys regional stagesaccording to international stratigraphic codes is urgently required.7. Causes and consequences for the Messinian Salinity CrisisOur new chronological framework for the Eastern Paratethysallows high-resolution correlations with the oxygen isotope curves(Hodell et al., 2001; Hilgen et al., 2007) and the Messinian successionsof the Mediterranean (Fig. 6). These are subdivided into threeastronomically dated evaporite phases; M1) marine “Lower Gypsum”(5.96–5.6 Ma), M2) halite and resedimented evaporites (5.6–5.5 Ma),M3) Lago-Mare sediments with gypsum (5.5–5.3 Ma) (Krijgsmanet al., 1999; Hilgen et al., 2007; Roveri et al., 2008).

W. Krijgsman et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 290 (2010) 183–191189Fig. 6. A new chronology for the different local and regional stages of the Paratethys allows detailed correlations to the GTS, the Mediterranean event stratigraphy during theMessinian Salinity Crisis (M1–M3) (Krijgsman et al., 1999; Roveri et al., 2008) and to the oxygen isotope curves of the Atlantic margin of Morocco (Hilgen et al., 2007). Red star/foraminifer indicates influx of marine nannofossils (Marunteanu and Papaianopol, 1998)/foraminifera (see Fig. 4). Schematic cross-sections show the changes in connectivity andthe phases of basin isolation of the Paratethys and Mediterranean during the Messinian Salinity Crisis.7.1. The onset of “Lower Gypsum” formation in the MediterraneanOur new data shows that the onset of the Messinian Salinity Crisisin the Mediterranean was directly preceded by the marine flooding ofthe Eastern Paratethys, confirming the hypothesis that the LowerGypsum units formed during a relative high-stand of Mediterraneansea level (Flecker et al., 2002; Krijgsman and Meijer, 2008). Atransgression at the onset of the Messinian evaporite formation is inserious contrast to hypotheses inferring glacio-eustatic sea levellowering (Hsü et al., 1973; Clauzon et al., 2005), but has earlier beensuggested on the basis of strontium isotope models (Flecker et al.,2002; Flecker and Ellam, 2006). It is interesting to note that the bloomof Odessian ostracods (Fig. 3), indicating re-stabilization of paleoenvironmentalconditions in the Paratethys, coincides with the onset ofMSC evaporites at 5.96 Ma in the Mediterranean (Krijgsman et al.,1999). Consequently, the changes in Paratethys–Mediterraneanconnectivity at the Maeotian–Pontian transition interval probablygenerated a new hydrological equilibrium in both Paratethys andMediterranean that allows gypsum to precipitate during astronomically-forcedoptimum (=dry) climate conditions on a precessionalresolution in the Mediterranean Basin (Krijgsman et al., 2001).A flooding of the Paratethys basin could only have happened if itswater level was significantly below global ocean and Mediterranean level.This indicates that the hydrological budget for the Paratethys region inMaeotian times was slightly negative. Establishing a Mediterranean–Paratethys connection would result in an increased hydrological flux intothe Paratethys and consequently an increase in water and salt flux fromthe Atlantic into the highly restricted evaporation-dominated Mediterranean.We speculate that creating a connection to the Paratethys willincrease Mediterranean stratification and ultimately influence thehydrodynamics of the Gibraltar gateways, two crucial factors to explainthe onset of widespread gypsum deposition during the MSC (Meijer andKrijgsman, 2005).7.2. Location of Paratethys floodingAnother intriguing question is: where did the Paratethys floodingactually come from? The Aegean region of the Mediterranean Sea isthe most likely source area according to the paleogeographicreconstructions of the Paratethys domain (e.g. Popov et al., 2006),although we cannot exclude the Indian Ocean on the basis of our data.A flooding event is further expected to leave marked traces ofsignificant erosion on land and offshore the Bosporus region (e.g.Loget et al. 2005). The Karadeniz-1 borehole in the European part ofthe Turkish Black Sea shelf indeed shows Messinian erosional surfaces(Gillet et al., 2007), which can possibly be traced to the Karacaköyregion at the Black Sea margin northwest of Istanbul. We thusconsider a Karacaköy–Karadeniz passage as potential candidate toaccount for the flooding event, but more detailed biostratigraphic datais necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

190 W. Krijgsman et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 290 (2010) 183–1917.3. Down drop of the sea level during the MSCThe observed fall in Paratethyan water level at the base of thePortaferrian is estimated to have occurred at 5.8 Ma in the DacianBasin (Fig. 3). This is remarkably close to glacial peaks TG22–20(Fig. 6), which are suggested to have caused a significant drop inglobal sea level (Shackleton et al., 1995). In the Zheleznyi Rogsuccession this interval also shows evidence of sea level lowering,expressed by the occurrence of white shell beds of Portaferrian age(Po 2 : Popov et al., 2006).The climax of the Messinian Salinity Crisis occurred during glacialpeaks TG12–14, when the water exchange with the Atlantic becamerestricted resulting in the formation of massive halite in the deepestparts of the Mediterranean and a dramatic fall in water level (Fig. 6).The potential connection to Paratethys thus also would have becomelost, lowering the water level in the Black Sea Basin immediately tothe level of the paleo-Bosphorus. Our data from Zheleznyi Rog suggestthat this event is clearly reflected in the sharp transition to the reddishinterval at the Russian Black Sea margin of the Taman Peninsula. Theultimate lake levels in the isolated Dacian, Black Sea and Caspianbasins will obviously be influenced by astronomically inducedchanges of regional climate. Depending on the hydrological budgetof the individual Paratethys basins desiccation (negative) or overflow(positive) will take place (Fig. 6).A marked change occurs in the oxygen isotope curves after TG12 at5.5 Ma (Fig. 6), interpreted to result in much warmer and humid globalclimates (Hodell et al., 2001; Hilgen et al., 2007). This resulted in apositive hydrological change and caused widespread transgression ofLago-Mare/Upper Evaporite facies over the Messinian erosional surfaces(Lofi et al., 2005; Roveri et al., 2008). Transgressional sequences areespecially clear in Northern Italy where they are attributed to anincreased hydrological flux from the Alps (Willet et al., 2006). The timeequivalenttransgression in the Paratethys can also be explained bythese regional climatic changes.The alternative hypothesis for this transgression is the re-establishmentof Paratethys–Mediterranean connectivity by the Zanclean delugeof the Mediterranean at the Miocene Pliocene boundary (5.33 Ma). Thiswould better explain the sharp transition from littoral and fluvialPortaferrian facies to predominantly pelitic facies in the lowerBosphorian. The Bosphorian ostracod and mollusc fauna do not showevidence of significant freshening of the water conditions, althoughtheir strontium isotope ratios suggest isolation from the Mediterranean(Vasiliev, 2006). Mio–Pliocene connectivity at high sea level has earlierbeen suggested by Clauzon et al. (2005), but these authors based it onthe nannofossil influxes in the Paratethys at the Pontian–Dacianboundary which are dated at 4.7 Ma and have thus no relation at allwith the Pliocene flooding. We realize that a correlation to the Zancleanflooding cannot be excluded on the basis of our data. However, were theParatethys transgression to be coeval with the Mediterranean flooding,substantial changes in sedimentation rate would be required, especiallyby a major (4×) increase in the lowermost part of the Bosphorian(below the Thvera). We have not seen any evidence for such an increasein the field, nor in the Râmnicu Sărat section (east Carpathian foredeep),nor in the Topolog region (south Carpathian foredeep). Future researchshould therefore aim at localizing marine influxes at the base of theBosphorian and focus on geochemical proxies that may quantifyParatethys–Mediterranean connectivity.8. ConclusionsOur integrated stratigraphic data results in a robust chronologicalframework for the Dacian and Black Sea basins of the Eastern Paratethys(Table 1), allowing high-resolution stratigraphic correlations betweenthe individual Paratethys subbasins and with the Messinian SalinityCrisis of the Mediterranean (Fig. 6). The Maeotian/Pontian boundary isdated at 6.04 Ma and corresponds to a major faunal change triggered byamarineflooding of the Paratethys, as evidenced by the presence ofplanktonic foraminifera. The lowermost Pontian (Odessian/Novorossian)substage relates to a general high-stand in the Paratethys, possiblywith interbasinal and Mediterranean connections. The onset of MSCevaporites closely coincides in age with the bloom of Odessian ostracodsin the Paratethys at ∼5.95 Ma. The peak of the MSC at 5.6–5.5 Madefinitely ended Mediterranean–Paratethys connectivity in the Portaferrian,causing a sudden drawdown of Paratethys water levels of atleast 50–100 m and isolating the Caspian Sea and the Dacian Basin fromthe Black Sea domain. From 5.5 Ma onward a major change in Eurasianclimate, resulting in much warmer and humid conditions changed thehydrological balance and resulted in a widespread transgression inMediterranean and Paratethys. The Miocene/Pliocene boundary maycorrespond to the Portaferrian/Bosphorian boundary in the Dacian Basinand to the top of the red layer in Zheleznyi Rog, i.e. within the lowerKimmerian of the Black Sea Basin, but certainly not to the Pontian/Dacian boundary in the Dacian Basin, which is dated ∼600 kyr youngerat 4.7 Ma.Our new stratigraphic framework has also serious consequences forthe Mediterranean MSC. Ever since the discovery of widespreadMessinian evaporites all over the Mediterranean seafloor, tectonic orglacio-eustatic processes restricting and closing the water exchange tothe Atlantic in the west have been put forward and modeled tounderstand the causes of the Messinian Salinity Crisis (Hsü et al., 1973;Meijer and Krijgsman, 2005; Ryan, 2009), but conclusive answers arestill lacking. Our data suggest that changing the connectivity to theParatethys in the northeast could play an essential role in the onset ofgypsum formation, which should give ample ammunition for new ideasand models concerning evaporite formation in semi-isolated basins.This will also have major implications for paleoceanographic circulationpatterns, Mediterranean paleosalinity models and the internal stratificationof its water column.AcknowledgementsWe thank Dan Jipa, Iulia Lazăr ar and Gheorghe Popescu for their helpwith sedimentological and biostratigraphical analyses of the RâmnicuSărat data. Alexandr Iosifidi is acknowledged for skilful paleomagneticsampling at Zheleznyi Rog. Cor Langereis, Frits Hilgen, Paul Meijer andPasha Karami are thanked for discussions and useful comments on anearlier version of this manuscript. Rachel Flecker, Miguel Garcés andfour anonymous EPSL reviewers are thanked for their constructivecomments. Sergei Yudin and Vika Tomsha assisted with the paleomagneticanalyses. This study was performed under the inspiring leadershipof Cor Langereis and Alexei Khramov, within the NWO program onDutch–Russian cooperation. This work was financially supported by theNetherlands Research Centre for Integrated Solid Earth Sciences (ISES)and the Netherlands Geosciences Foundation (ALW) with support fromthe Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).ReferencesAksu, A.E., Hiscott, R.N., Yasar, D., Isler, F.I., Marsh, S., 2002. Seismic stratigraphy of LateQuaternary deposits from the southwestern Black Sea shelf: evidence for noncatastrophicvariations in sea-level during the last 10000 yr. Mar. Geol. 190, 61–94.Allen, M.B., Jones, S., Ismail-Zadeh, A.D., Simmons, M.D., Anderson, L., 2002. Onset ofsubduction as the cause of rapid Pliocene/Quaternary subsidence in the SouthCaspian basin. Geology 30, 775–778.Çagatay, M.N., et al., 2006. Paratethyan–Mediterranean connectivity in the Sea of Marmararegion (NW Turkey) during the Messinian. Sediment. Geol. 188–189, 171–187.Chumakov, L.S., et al., 1992. Interlaboratory fission track dating of volcanic ash levelsfrom eastern Paratethys: a Mediterranean–Paratethys correlation. Palaeogeogr.Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 24, 287–295.Cita, M.B., Wright, R.C., Ryan, W.B.F., Longinelli, A., 1978. Messinian paleoenvironments.In: Hsü, K.J. (Ed.), Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, pp. 1003–1035.Clauzon, G., et al., 2005. Influence of Mediterranean sea-level changes on the DacicBasin (Eastern Paratethys) during the late Neogene: the Mediterranean Lago Marefacies deciphered. Basin Res. 17, 437–462.Dinu, C., Wong, H.K., Tambrea, D., Matenco, L., 2005. Stratigraphic and structuralcharacteristics of the Romanian Black Sea shelf. Tectonophysics 410, 417–435.

W. Krijgsman et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 290 (2010) 183–191191Dumont, H.J., 1998. The Caspian Lake: history, biota, structure, and function. Limnol.Oceanogr. 43, 44–52.Filippova, N.Y., 2002. Spores, pollen, and organic-walled Phytoplankton from neogenedeposits of the Zheleznyi Rog reference section (Taman Peninsula). Strat. Geol.Correlat. 10, 176–188.Flecker, R., Ellam, R.M., 2006. Identifying Late Miocene episodes of connection andisolation in the Mediterranean–Paratethyan realm using Sr isotopes. Sediment.Geol. 188–189, 189–203.Flecker, R., de Villiers, S., Ellam, R.M., 2002. Modelling the effect of evaporation on thesalinity −87Sr/86Sr relationship in modern and ancient marginal-marine systems:the Mediterranean Messinian salinity crisis. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 203, 221–233.Gillet, H., Lericolais, G., Rehault, J.-P., 2007. Messinian event in the Black Sea: evidenceof a Messinian erosional surface. Mar. Geol. 244, 142–165.Hallam, A., Wignall, P.B., 1997. Mass Extinctions and their Aftermath. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford. 320 pp.Hilgen, F.J., Kuiper, K.F., Krijgsman, W., Snel, E., Van der Laan, E., 2007. Astronomicaltuning as the basis for high resolution chronostratigraphy: the intricate history ofthe Messinian salinity crisis. Stratigraphy 2007, 231–238.Hinds, D.J., et al., 2004. Sedimentation in a discharge dominated fluvial/lacustrinesystem: the Neogene Productive Series of the South Caspian Basin, Azerbaijan.Mar. Petrol. Geol. 21, 613–638.Hodell, D.A., Curtis, J.H., Sierro, F.J., Raymo, M.E., 2001. Correlation of late Miocene to earlyPliocene sequences between the Mediterranean and North Atlantic. Paleoceanography16, 164–178.Hsü, K.J., Giovanoli, F., 1979. Messinian event in the Black Sea. Palaeogeogr.Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 29, 75–93.Hsü, K.J., Ryan, W.B.F., Cita, M.B., 1973. Late Miocene desiccation of the Mediterranean.Nature 242, 240–244.Jipa, D., 1997. Late Neogene–Quaternary evolution of Dacian basin (Romanian). Ananalysis of sediment thickness pattern. Geo-Eco-Marina 2, 127–134.Jones, R.W., Simmons, M.D., 1996. A review of the stratigraphy of eastern Paratethys(Oligocene–Holocene). Bull. Nat. Hist. Museum (Geol. Suppl.) 52, 25–49.Krijgsman, W., Meijer, P.T., 2008. Depositional environments of the Mediterranean“Lower Evaporites” of the Messinian salinity crisis: constraints from quantitativeanalyses. Mar. Geol. 253, 73–81. doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2008.04.010.Krijgsman, W., Hilgen, F.J., Raffi, I., Sierro, F.J., Wilson, D.S., 1999. Chronology, causes andprogression of the Messinian salinity crisis. Nature 400, 652–655.Krijgsman, W., Fortuin, A.R., Hilgen, F.J., Sierro, F.J., 2001. Astrochronology for theMessinian Sorbas Basin (SE Spain) and orbital (precessional) forcing for evaporitecyclicity. Sediment. Geol. 140, 43–60.Leever, K.A., 2007. Foreland of the Romanian Carpathians: controls on late orogenicsedimentary basin evolution and Paratethys paleogeography, PhD thesis, VUUniversity Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 182 pp.Leever, K.A., et al., 2009. Messinian sea level fall in the Dacic Basin (Eastern Paratethys):palaeogeographical implications from seismic sequence stratigraphy. Terra Nova.doi:10.1111/j.1365-3121.2009.00910.x.Lofi, J., et al., 2005. Erosional processes and paleo-environmental changes in the WesternGulf of Lions (SW France) during the Messinian salinity crisis. Mar. Geol. 217, 1–30.Loget, N., Van Den Driessche, J., Davy, P., 2005. How did the Messinian salinity crisis end.Terra Nova 17, 414–419.Magyar, I., Sztanó, O., 2008. Is there a Messinian unconformity in the CentralParatethys? Stratigraphy 5, 245–255.Marunteanu, M., Papaianopol, I., 1998. Mediterranean nannoplankton in the Dacicbasin. Rom. J. Stratigraphy 78, 115–121.Meijer, P.T., Krijgsman, W., 2005. A quantitative analysis of the desiccation and re-fillingof the Mediterranean during the Messinian salinity crisis. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.240, 510–520.Nastaseanu, S., Bercia, I., 1968. Baia de Arama. : Carte géologique de Roumanie au 1/200.000, vol. 32. Institut géologique, Bucharest.Nevesskaya, L.A., Goncharova, I.A., Ilyina, L.B., Paramonova, N.P., Khondkarian, S.O., 2002.The Neogene stratigraphic scale of the Eastern Paratethys. Strat. Geol. Correlat. 11,105–127.Panaiotu, C.E., Vasiliev, I., Panaiotu, C.G., Krijgsman, W., Langereis, C.G., 2007.Provenance analysis as a key to orogenic exhumation: a case study from the EastCarpathians (Romania). Terra Nova 19, 120–126.Pevzner, M.A., Semenenko, V.N., Vangengeim, E.A., 2003. Position of the Pontian of theEastern Paratethys in the Magnetochronological Scale. Strat. Geol. Correlat. 11, 482–491.Popov, S.V., et al., 2006. Late Miocene to Pliocene papaeogeography of the Paratethysand its relation to the Mediterranean. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 238,91–106.Reynolds, A.D., et al., 1998. Implications of outcrop geology for reservoirs in theNeogene Productive Series: Apsheron Peninsula, Azerbaijan. AAPG Bull. 82, 25–49.Roveri, M., Lugli, S., Manzi, V., Schreiber, B.C., 2008. The Messinian Sicilian stratigraphyrevisited: new insights for the Messinian salinity crisis. Terra Nova 20, 483–488.Ryan, W.B.F., 2009. Decoding the Mediterranean Salinity Crisis. Sedimentology 56,95–136.Ryan, W.B.F., Pitman, W.C., 1998. Noah's Flood: the New Scientific Discoveries Aboutthe Event that Changed History. Simon & Schuster, p. 319.Ryan, W.B.F., et al., 1997. An abrupt drowning of the Black Sea shelf. Mar. Geol. 138, 119–126.Ryan, W.B.F., Major, C.O., Lericolais, G., Goldstein, S.L., 2003. Catastrophic flooding ofthe Black Sea. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 31, 525–554. doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.31.100901.141249.Savu, H., Ghenea, C., 1967. Turnu Severin. : Carte géologique de Roumanie au 1/200.000,vol. 40. Institut géologique, Bucharest.Semenenko, V.N., 1979. Correlation of Mio–Pliocene of the Eastern Paratethys and Tethys.VII th International Congress on Mediterranean Neogene: Athens, pp. 1101–1111.Shackleton, N.J., Crowhurst, S., Hagelberg, T., Pisias, N.G., Schneider, D.A., 1995. A new LateNeogene time scale: application to leg 138 sites. Proc. ODP Sci. Results 138, 73–101.Snel, E., Marunteanu, M., Macalet, R., Meulenkamp, J.E., van Vugt, N., 2006. Late Mioceneto Early Pliocene chronostratigraphic framework for the Dacic Basin, Romania.Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 238 (1–4), 107–124.Steininger, F.F., et al., 1996. Circum-Mediterranean Neogene (Miocene and Pliocene)marine-continental chronologic correlations of European mammal units. In:Bernor, R.L., Fahlbusch, V., Mittmann, H.-W. (Eds.), The Evolution of WesternEurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas. Columbia Univ. Press, New York, pp. 7–46.Stevanovic, P., Nevesskaya, L.A., Marinescu, F., Sokac, A., Jámbor, A., 1989. Chronostratigraphieund Neostratotypen: Pliozän Pl1. Pontien.JAZU&SANU,Zagreb-Beograd.952pp.Stoica, M., Lazar, I., Vasiliev, I., Krijgsman, W., 2007. Mollusc assemblages of the Pontianand Dacian deposits from the Topolog-Arges area (southern Carpathian foredeep —Romania). Geobios 40, 391–405.Trubikhin, V.M., 1986. Neogene magnetostratigraphic scale of the Eastern Paratethys. IIIconference of Geomagnetism, Kiev, pp. 206–207.Vasiliev, I. 2006. A new chronology for the Dacian Basin (Romania). PhD Thesis UtrechtUniversity, Geologica Ultraiectina, 267, pp 191.Vasiliev, I., et al., 2004. Towards an astrochronological framework for the easternParatethys Mio–Pliocene sedimentary sequences of the Focşani basin (Romania).Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 227, 231–247.Vasiliev, I., Krijgsman, W., Stoica, M., Langereis, C.G., 2005. Mio–Pliocene magnetostratigraphyin the southern Carpathian foredeep and Mediterranean–Paratethyscorrelations. Terra Nova 17, 376–384.Vasiliev, I., et al., 2007. Early diagenetic greigite as a recorder of the palaeomagneticsignal in Miocene–Pliocene sedimentary rocks of the Carpathian foredeep(Romania). Geophys. J. Int. 171, 613–629.Vasiliev, I., et al., 2008. Putative greigite magnetofossils from the Pliocene epoch. Nat.Geosci. 1, 782–786. doi:10.1038/ngeo335.Willet, S.D., Schlunegger, F., Picotti, V., 2006. Messinian climate change and erosionaldestruction of the central European Alps. Geology 34 (8), 613–616. doi:10.1130/G22280.1.