Disruption of playa–lacustrine depositional systems at the Permo-Triassic boundary

22 Pages·2010·1.98 MB·English

JournaloftheGeologicalSociety,London,Vol.167,2010,pp.695–716.doi:10.1144/0016-76492009-103.
Disruption of playa–lacustrine depositional systems at the Permo-Triassic
boundary: evidence from Vyazniki and Gorokhovets on the Russian Platform
ANDREW J. NEWELL1, ANDREY G. SENNIKOV2, MICHAEL J. BENTON3*,
IYA I. MOLOSTOVSKAYA4, VALERIY K. GOLUBEV2, ALLAV. MINIKH4
& MAXIM G. MINIKH4
1BritishGeological Survey, Maclean Building, Wallingford OX10 8BB, UK
2PaleontologicalInstitute,Russian Academy ofSciences, Ulitsa Profsoyuznaya123,Moscow117997, Russia
3DepartmentofEarth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK
4Saratov State University,Ulitsa Astrakhanskaya 83,410012Saratov, Russia
*Correspondingauthor(e-mail: [email protected])
Abstract:Permo-Triassic sections at Vyazniki and Gorokhovets provide evidence on terrestrial events at, or
close to, the Permo-Triassic boundary, the time of the largest ever mass extinction. The sedimentary
succession records the overrun of a muddy playa–lacustrine depositional system by major channel belts
transportingsand-gradesediments.BiostratigraphyofsectionsatVyaznikiandGorokhovets(ZhukovRavine)
showsthatthiseventoccurredeitherattheveryendofthePermianor8maboveinthesections.Thetiming
and nature of this event, which records increased sediment flux from the Ural Mountains, is closely
comparablewiththatfromtheSouthernUralianForelandBasin.TheVyaznikiandGorokhovetssectionsare
800km from the mountain front and in a separate depositional basin, which strengthens the case that
increased sediment flux from the Urals at the Permo-Triassic boundary is related to devegetation of upland
catchments (increasing sediment yield) and a switch toward low-frequency but high-magnitude discharge
events (increasing sediment delivery). The interbedding of fluvial and aeolian deposits provides further
evidenceforclimaticinstabilityandextremesintheEarlyTriassic.
Supplementarymaterial:DetailedreportsontheostracodesandfossilfishremainsfromtheZhukovRavine
sectionsareavailableathttp://www.geolsoc.org.uk/SUP18402.
Permo-Triassic continental red beds cover 1.43106km2 of Here we present for the first time a sedimentological study of
European Russia (Fig. 1) and provide an important record of Permo-Triassic boundary sections in the Zhukov Ravine and
changestoterrestrialenvironmentsandecosystemsbefore,during around Vyazniki town. Vyazniki is located 1000km across the
and after the end-Permian mass extinction (Newell et al. 1999; Volgo-Uralian Anteclise (Tatarian High) from boundary sections
Zharkov & Chumakov 2001; Tverdokhlebov et al. 2003, 2005; that have previously been examined in the Southern Uralian
Benton et al. 2004; Sennikov & Golubev 2006; Shishkin et al. Foredeep(Newelletal.1999)andtheyprovideanopportunityto
2006; Shcherbakov 2008; Krassilov & Karasev 2009). Work on examine changes in terrestrial sedimentary environments and
Permo-TriassicfluvialsuccessionsintheSouthUrals(Fig.1)has ecosystems on the Russian Platform at the Permo-Triassic
shown that abrupt changes in sedimentary facies occur at the boundary in an independent tectonic and depositional setting
Permo-Triassicboundary,whichcouldhaveresultedfromclimatic (Fig.1).
instability and loss of stabilizing vegetation in river catchments The section in the Zhukov Ravine, near Gorokhovets, and
(Newell et al. 1999). These major environmental changes were other outcrops in the Vyazniki and Gorokhovets districts, were
associated with a devastating loss of life worldwide, the end- studiedduringgeologicalmapping inthe1960sand1970sbyN.
Permian mass extinction, responsible for the extinction of 80– I. Strok, T. I. Gorbatkina, S. V. Alekhin and I. I. Molostovskaya
95% of all species on Earth (Benton 2003; Benton & Twitchett but hitherto unpublished. Their work revealed definitive evi-
2003; Erwin 2006). Comparable changes in fluvial depositional dence, based on ostracodes and magnetostratigraphy for the
systems at the Permo-Triassic boundary have now been recog- Permo-Triassic boundary in the Zhukov Ravine, and we present
nized in other major basins such as the Karoo in South Africa thisremarkableboundarysuccessionhereforthefirsttime.
(Wardetal.2000)andtheBowenBasininAustralia(Michaelsen Vyazniki is historically important because Roderick Murchi-
2002). However, there is still a pressing need to examine other son first identified continental Permian in Russia here in 1841
well-dated terrestrial boundary sections, (1) to eliminate the (Benton et al. 2010), but the age, sediments and fossils from
possibility that changes in fluvial system at the Permo-Triassic Vyazniki have been debated ever since. A renewed phase of
boundary are the result of local factors such as tectonic uplift collecting and study of the Vyazniki deposits by A.G.S. and
ratherthanglobalclimatechange,(2)tounderstandtheresponse V.K.G. from 1999 has expandedthe fossil assemblages consider-
ofdifferenttypesofdepositionalsystem(e.g.aeolianandplaya– ably, with evidence for two main fossiliferous horizons, first in
lacustrine) to end-Permian climate change, and (3) to document dark grey laminated clays and fine sandstones in the lower part
environmental changes throughthe latest Permian and across the of the sequence (ostracodes, conchostracans, insects, bivalves,
Permo-Triassicboundaryandhowtheyrelatetotheextinctions. fishes, plants), and second in channelized coarse sandstones
695
696 A. J. NEWELL ETAL.
Fig.1.Locationmapshowingthe
distributionofPermianandTriassicoutcrop
ontheRussianPlatform.Majorbasinsand
structuresareshowntogetherwiththe
locationofthisstudyatVyazniki.Geology
isderivedfromF.M.Persits,D.W.
Steinshouer&G.F.Ulmishek,20010600,
fsu_geol.shp,SurfaceGeologyofthe
FormerSovietUnion,USGeological
Survey,Denver,CO.
and conglomerates higher in the succession (bivalves, fishes, LatePermianoftheRussianPlatform(Gorskyetal.2003)shows
tetrapods, plants). The new work, including field visits by the that Tatarian red beds range in thickness from 100 to 400m on
coauthors in 2008 and 2009, allows a thorough investigation of the Russian Platform, increasing to 600–1500m in the north–
theageandsignificanceoftheVyaznikisuccession,andwhether south-trending foredeep along the western margin of the Ural
it terminates immediately below the Permo-Triassic boundary or Mountains.TheUralsarealinear,north–south-trendingorogenic
passesthroughintotheTriassic. belt formed by the collision of the East European Platform and
Siberian plate during the Carboniferous and Permian and they
provided the major source of terrigeneous sediment for the
Geological setting
westward-thinningTatarianclasticwedge(Nikishinetal.1996).
Permiandeposits covera large partof th**eRussianPlatform in Vyaznikiislocatedaround800kmwestoftheUralMountains
a north–south belt that extends from the Ural Mountains onthesouthern limb ofthe Moscow Syncline (Fig. 1) and atthe
westward toward Moscow (Fig. 1). The overlying Triassic western extreme ofthe‘Perm’FaciesBelt’ asdefinedby Gorsky
sequencehasalessextensivedistribution,withthemainoutcrops etal.(2003).Withinthisfaciesbelt,Tatariancontinentaldeposits
occurring along the flanks of the synclinal Moscow, Mezen’ and thin from around 600m in the Perm’ area adjacent to the Urals
Pechora basins in thenorth and the margin ofthe North Caspian to around 100m at Vyazniki, which lies close to the western
Basininthesouth(Fig.1).ContinentalPermo-Triassicsequences limit of Permian sedimentation on the Russian Platform (Fig. 1).
in Russia range in age from the late Early Permian (Kungurian) Westward thinning is accompanied by a general westward
to Middle Triassic (Ladinian), a span of some 35Ma. This more reduction in grain size, with conglomerates interbedded with
or less matches the time span of the continental Permo-Triassic mudstones and sandstones in the Perm’ area, passing laterally
of the Karoo basin in South Africa, and most units can be into mudstone-dominated successions with carbonate, gypsum
equated in age by biostratigraphic and magnetostratigraphic and fine-grained sands in areas to the west. The generalized
evidence, although the Russian sequence is longer, including the lithostratigraphic descriptions provided by Gorsky et al. (2003)
Ladinian,a stage thatisapparently missing inSouth Africa.The suggestthatthecoarse,proximalfaciesbeltexpandedwestwards
base of the Russian Urzhumian Gorizont marks the onset of throughout the Late Permian, with cross-bedded gravelly facies
widespread continental sedimentation on the Russian Platform, restricted to the proximal Perm’ area in the Urzhumian (Urz-
with the westward progradation of terrigeneous clastic deposits humskaya Svita), reaching the Vyatka area at the start of the
across underlying Kazanian shallow-marine carbonates and eva- Severodvinian (Slobodskaya Svita) and the area to the north of
porites. A compilation of stratigraphic data for the Middle and Nizhny Novgorod at the start of the Vyatkian (Zamochnikovs-
PERMO-TRIASSIC BOUNDARY IN MOSCOW BASIN 697
kaya Svita). Vyazniki remained an area of fine-grained sedimen- Horizon and Svita as Suite) or the Russian divisions may be
tation until the latest Permian and early Triassic, at which time equatedwithinternationalunits(e.g.GorizontwithHorizon,and
there was an abrupt basinward shift of sandy fluvial facies into Svita with Formation). These approaches, however, mask funda-
the former playa–lacustrine basin. The nature and timing of this mental differences between the Russian and the international
facies change and its possible relationship to major climate- approaches to stratigraphy, and we prefer to retain transliterated
change events at the Permo-Triassic boundary are discussed in versions of the Russian terms to avoid confusion. Russian
followingsections. stratigraphy uses the concept of unified divisions of time, in
Detailed depositionalmodelshaveyettobedevisedforUpper whichaspecifictimespan,andtherocksofthatage,areequated
Permian red beds of theRussian Platform, but it isprobablethat and treated as one. Gorizonts are the main regional stratigraphic
they were deposited in an interior continental basin that was units, identified primarily from their palaeontological character-
closed, or had restricted connections to northern marine shelves. istics, and they do not pertain to lithostratigraphic units. The
Gravelly and sandy river systems with catchments in the Ural gorizont may unite several svitas, or parts of svitas, or deposits
Mountainstransportedwaterand sediment westwardsacross vast of different facies in various districts but clearly contempora-
muddyfloodplainsontheRussianPlatformbeforeterminatingin neous on the basis of included fossils. Svitas, on the other hand,
flood basins and playa lakes distal to the mountain front are largely lithostratigraphic units, given a locality name that is
(Nalivkin 1973). The presence of calcretes, evaporites and close to their characteristic exposure. The definition of a svita
aeolian sandstones within the predominantly fine-grained clastic incorporatesamixoffieldlithologicalobservationsandbiostrati-
wedge points toward a dryland environment for southern and graphic assumptions: ‘In distinguishing a new svita, one ought
centralpartsoftheRussianPlatform.However,Yakimenkoetal. without fail to establish at least an approximate, sufficiently
(2004) inferred sharp seasonal and longer-term fluctuations in proved correlation of it with the subdivisions of the unified
precipitation based on the presence of reduction features in [international]scale’(Zhamoida2006).
palaeosols shown by Upper Permian outcrops along the Suhkona MuchofthedetailedstratigraphicworkontheRussianPermo-
River. In conclusion, therefore, the outcrops at Vyazniki and Triassic red beds, using avariety offossil groups and magnetos-
Gorkhovets discussed in following sections represent the distal tratigraphy, is not well known outside Russia. This is partly
part of an extremely large Late Permian fluvial distributary because most of the key publications are in the Russian
systemdevelopedtothewestoftheUralMountainsinadryland language, but more importantly because many are in conference
setting. volumesandfieldguides,andsoarehardtoobtain.Further,until
1990,muchoftheworkwasclassifiedinformation.Fromthelate
1950s to the 1980s, large field teams from Moscow, Saratov,
Stratigraphyofthe Russian Permo-Triassicred beds
Kazan’,andother majorgeologicalinstitutes,workedonmostof
the Permo-Triassic basins, producing maps at 1:200 000 scale,
Background
and preparing detailed stratigraphic defences of their maps;
The claim that the Vyazniki beds include some of the youngest almost none of this material is readily available. The maps were
Permian horizons in Russia, and that the Vyazniki and Zhukov printed in runs of 100copies or so, and thewhereabouts of each
sections straddle the Permo-Triassic boundary (Sennikov 1996; was carefully monitored in Soviet days. The descriptive docu-
Modesto & Rybczynski 2000; Tverdokhlebov et al. 2005; ments (memoirs) for each map were never published, but lodged
Sennikov & Golubev 2006; Lozovskiy & Kukhtinov 2007; at the offices of the Geological Ministry in Saint Petersburg. A
Kukhtinovetal.2008;Krassilov&Karasev2009)mustbetested series of field guides written by senior geologists from these
against the wider picture of the stratigraphy of the Permo- Soviet surveys (e.g. Esaulova et al. 1998; Lozovskiy & Esaulova
TriassicredbedsofEuropeanRussia. 1998;Goman’kov 2001;Molostovskiy&Minikh2001),together
In the early phases of geological mapping of the continental with newer work (e.g. Golubev 2000; Grunt 2006), present
Permian and Triassic of the Moscow and northern basins, up to detailed overviews of the astonishing field knowledge that had
1930, Russian geologists defined svitas and noted fossil occur- beenacquiredduringtheSovietmappingcampaigns.
rences. As increasing numbers of fossil tetrapods (amphibians
and reptiles) came to light (the history has been reviewed by
Matchingthe Russian continental Permo-Triassic
Ochev & Surkov 2000), it became clear that a number of
stratigraphic schemeto the international marine standard
sequential tetrapod faunas could be identified, and these were
named as Zones I–IV in the Middle and Upper Permian, and The continental Permo-Triassic of European Russia is classified
Zones V–VII in the Lower and Middle Triassic (Efremov 1941; stratigraphically on the basis of schemes based on palynology,
Efremov & V’yushkov 1955). Subsequent comparisons with the macroplants, charophytes, bivalves, ostracodes, conchostracans,
Karoo tetrapod faunas from South Africa (e.g. Olson 1957) fishes and tetrapods. The marine units of the Kazanian are
showed broad equivalences. From the 1930s to the present day, subdivided based on foraminiferans, brachiopods, bryozoans,
palaeontologists from the Paleontological Institute in Moscow ammonoids and nautiloids. The summary scheme shown here
(PIN) and Saratov State University Geological Institute (SGU) (Fig. 2) presents information drawn from many recent Russian
havecontinuedtoamasshugecollectionsoftetrapodfossils,and publications, as cited in the caption, and these provide full
to further refine these tetrapod-based zonal schemes (e.g. Ochev details, with illustrations, of the fossil species and their occur-
&Shishkin1989;Sennikov1996;Golubev2000;Tverdokhlebov rences. The various biostratigraphic schemes have evolved
etal.2003,2005). through the past 50 years, and have been tested and retested
It is important to explain some fundamental differences be- againsthundredsofsectionsthroughoutthemajorPermo-Triassic
tween Russian and international stratigraphic terminology. Ac- basins (Fig. 1). The degree of testing and validation has been
cording to the Russian system (Benton 2000; Zhamoida 2006), intense because, from Soviet days, the Russian geological maps
rock units, and geological time, are subdivided into svitas, had to represent detailed information on svitas with precise age
gorizonts and other subdivisions (e.g. podgorizont, supergori- control.
zont). Sometimes these units are anglicized (e.g. Gorizont as Thisiswhymagnetostratigraphywasalsoexploredasadating
698 A. J. NEWELL ETAL.
Gradsteinetal.2004;Oggetal.2008,withrevisedPermo-magnetostratigraphiczones(fromMolostovskiyetal.1998;998;Molostovsky2005;Tverdokhlebovetal.2003,2005),v2000),ostracodezones(Molostovskaya2005;Kukhtinovetmplexes(Golubev2000;Ivakhnenko2008).ThePermo-
esandradiometricdates(from004;Steiner2006),theRussianuthUrals(Molostovskiyetal.1ko&Goman’kov1998;Golubeodzonesandtetrapodfaunalco
g2onp
gtheinternational(marine)stacscheme(fromMuttonietal.ntnames,majorsvitasintheS00),palynocomplexes(Yaroshe000;Molostovskiy2005),tetra
Fig.2.SummaryofthestratigraphyoftheredbedsofEuropeanRussia,showinTriassicboundarydatefromMundiletal.2004),theglobalmagnetostratigraphiMolostovsky2005),theRussianmarineandcontinentalstages,themajorgorizoVyatkaBasin(Goman’kov2001),SukhonaandNorthDvinarivers(Golubev20al.2008),fishzones(Minikh&Minikh1998;Yesin&Mashin1998;Golubev2Triassicboundary(PTB)runsacrossthetopofthediagram.
PERMO-TRIASSIC BOUNDARY IN MOSCOW BASIN 699
method from early days (e.g. Khramov 1963). Since then, Darwinula mera–Gerdalia variabilis, has been identified over
magnetostratigraphic studies have been made of hundreds of key the whole of the east of European Russia, but the later zones
sections in the Russian Permo-Triassic (reviewed by Molostovs- may be specific to the Moscow basin. Further, palynology
kiy 1983, 2005; Molostovskiy et al. 1979) and a detailed zonal (Goman’kov et al. 1998) and fossil fishes (Minikh & Minikh
schemeestablished(Fig.2).Doubthadbeencastonmuchofthe 1998) were also investigated in parallel with the ostracode and
older magnetostratigraphic work because of new methods and magnetostratigraphic work from the 1930s onwards to develop
revised standards, but recent reanalyses of older work (e.g. biostratigraphic schemes that were tested and retested against
Khramov et al. 2006) and new studies on freshly collected each other over wide areas of Permo-Triassic red beds between
material (e.g. Gialanella et al. 1997; Bazhenov et al. 2008; MoscowandtheUrals,andaroundtheUralsarea.Thesearealso
Taylor et al. 2009) have confirmed the older work and allowed showninoutlineinFigure2.
matching of the Russian chrons to the international scale (e.g. It is crucial here to establish biostratigraphic tie points that
Muttoni et al. 2004; Steiner 2006). For example, in the Permian, link the internally coherent Russian dating schemes (Fig. 2) to
theRussianstageN PisCapitanN(includingP2),R Pincludes the rest of the world, and to the international marine standard.
1 2
P3,N PisChangN(includingP4),andR PincludesP5(Steiner The base of the Russian succession has moved substantially
2 3
2006;Tayloretal.2009). downward in recent years. Until the 1990s, the Russian stages,
The key to the value of these recent correlations, from the the Ufimian, Kazanian and Tatarian, were the global standards,
Russian magnetostratigraphic scheme to the world, is that and theywere termed ‘Upper Permian’. With the introduction of
Russian magnetostratigraphic work on the Permo-Triassic red a Middle Permian epoch, the Guadalupian, it became clear that
beds has always been tightly tied to biostratigraphic work (see, the Russian succession spanned most of the newly delimited
e.g. reviews by Molostovskiy 1983, 2005; and chapters in Middle and Upper Permian. The base has been much debated,
Esaulova et al. 1998; Lozovskiy & Esaulova 1998; Goman’kov and it seems clear that the Ufimian is in fact mostly, or perhaps
2001;Molostovskiy&Minikh2001).Thesestudies,wherefossil all, Early Permian, and equates with the upper part of the
samples and magnetostratigraphic plugs were collected on the international marine Kungurian stage (Gradstein et al. 2004;
same field trips, and matched to single measured sections, Menning et al. 2006; Lozovskiy et al. 2009). This is based on
providethebasisoftheschemespresentedinFigure2. direct correlations using key marine species. For example,
Magnetostratigraphy provides one direct link from the con- Leonova (2007) reported an ammonoid assemblage from the
tinental red beds of Russia to the marine standard stratigraphic Verkhnekamyshlinskie Beds of the lower Kazanian Substage and
stages, and further work will doubtless sharpen and improve lower part of the Prikazanskie Beds of the upper Kazanian
those correlations. Further, studies of biostratigraphically signifi- Substage, from the Kremeshkie Quarry,10km southof the town
cant fossils, and interfingering marine units, have provided of Sovyetsk, in the south of Kirov Region, in the heart of the
further tie points. A common assumption is that such faunal Volga–Uralscontinentalredbedssuccessions.Theseammonoids
resemblances are no better than the identification of tetrapod (abundant Sverdrupites harkeri and S. amundseni, and rarer
familiessharedbetweenRussiaandSouthAfrica,asdocumented Biarmiceras and Medlicottia) indicate a Roadian age: Sverdru-
by Olson (1957), Modesto & Rybczynski (2000) and others, but pites is exclusively Roadian, and species of Biarmiceras and
this is far from the truth. Such comparisons are generally useful Medlicottia are known from the upper Kungurian and Roadian.
in establishing broad comparability between the patterns of Leonova’s (2007) view has been supported in a comprehensive
faunal evolution in both areas, but because of regional differ- review of the age of the Ufimian by Lozovskiy et al. (2009),
ences among the genera, and because Karoo stratigraphy is still incorporating biostratigraphic evidence from foraminiferans,
largely focused on the tetrapod assemblages, there is little point ammonoids, bivalves, brachiopods, ostracodes, conodonts, in-
in attempting to make correlations from Russia to South Africa. sects, fishes, tetrapods, macroplants and palynomorphs, in which
In fact, it is much more useful to tie the Russian continental the Ufimian, divided into a lower (Solikamian) and upper
Permo-Triassic directly to the international marine stratigraphic (Sheshmian)unit,correlateswiththeupperpartoftheKungurian
schemebycomparisonofmagnetostratigraphy,sharedfossilsand stage; whether the Kungurian, or this upper part of it, should be
interfingeringmarinedeposits. regardedasentirelyLowerPermian(¼Cisuralian)oraspartlyor
This is not the place to review all shared biostratigraphically wholly Middle Permian (¼ Guadalupian) is debated (Gradstein
significant fossils, but a few notes are offered on the ostracode etal.2004;Menningetal.2006;Lozovskiyetal.2009).
schemes. Since the 1930s, numerous Russian biostratigraphers Higher parts of the Permian succession are also tied to the
have studied the Late Permian ostracodes of the red beds across international scale. For example, the miospore assemblages of
the Russian Platform, and they have published a substantial the Late Permian (Yaroshenko & Goman’kov 1998), may be
literature on the evolution of cytherocopine, volganellacean and correlated directly with those of Arctic Canada, Greenland,
darwinulocopine ostracodes. In parallel with magnetostrati- Europe, Pakistan, Australia and China (Utting et al. 1997;
graphic studies from the 1960s onwards, they have established a Lozovskiy 1998; Peng et al. 2006). Ammonoids from marine
systemofnineostracodebiozones thatdefineUfimian,Kazanian beds of the Kungurian, Ufimian and Kazanian correspond to
and Tatarian beds, so spanning the entire Middle and Upper those from North America (Bogolovskaya 2006), and brachio-
Permian (Fig. 2; Molostovskiy et al. 1998; Molostovskaya 2005; pods and ammonoids from marine beds interfingering with
Molostovskiy 2005; Molostovskaya, Horne & Benton, in prep). continental red beds in the Biarmian and Tatarian of the Kanin
TheostracodebiostratigraphyofthePermianhasbeenembedded Peninsula, on the Arctic coast of European Russia, may be
in official Russian stratigraphic synopses, and the zones have matched directly with species in Spitsbergen and Greenland
been checked and rechecked on hundreds of sections scattered (Grunt 2006), so providing a direct link to the standard marine
through 10 major sedimentary basins, and over thousands of stagesofthePermian.
kilometres. The ostracode biostratigraphic scheme for the Trias- For the Triassic, Ochev & Shishkin (1989) and Shishkin et al.
sic(Fig.2)islesswellestablished,andweshowherethefindings (2000, 2006) summarized tetrapod taxa, and other age-indicative
ofE.M.Mishina,basedonlargecollectionsofmaterialfromthe fossils, that are shared between narrow stratigraphic units in
western half of the Moscow Syneclise. The first biozone, Russia and marine units elsewhere. For example, the basal
700 A. J. NEWELL ETAL.
Triassic unit in Russia, the Vokhmian Gorizont (Fig. 2), is at Vyazniki (Afonin 2005; Metcalfe et al. 2009; Krassilov &
equated with the marine Induan (Glyptophiceras martini to Karasev 2009; see below) with the lower Otoceras beds of East
Proptychitesrosenkrantzi ammonite zones) of East Greenland by Greenland and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and the upper
the shared occurrence of the amphibians Tupilakosaurus and partoftheLowerGuodikengFormationofXinjiang,China.This
Luzocephalus. This is confirmed by a sporomorph assemblage latter unit spans the Permo-Triassic boundary, and is correlated
that resembles those from the marine Induan of East Greenland, with the upper Changhsingian of the Permo-Triassic boundary
CanadaandPakistan,andtheconchostracanVertexiatauricornis, Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) at Meishan by the
which is widespread, and provides a correlation with the Lower occurrence of the alga Reduviasporonites chalastus (Afonin
Buntsandstein of Germany and the upper Induan of East Green- 2005;Metcalfeetal.2009).
land. The succeeding Rybinskian Gorizont is dated as early Of course it would be wrong simply to claim that the Russian
Induan on the basis of the presence of the lycopsid plant Vyatkian is identical in duration to the Changhsingian and the
Pleuromeia, recorded nowhere before the Olenekian, the mios- Vokhmian to the Induan. However, in that the Vyatkian is dated
poreassemblagethatissharedwiththeKumanskayaSvitaofthe as exclusively Changhsingian and the Vokhmian as exclusively
eastern Caucasus, whose early Olenekian age is indicated by Induan, from fossils and magnetostratigraphy, we treat the
conodonts, and the occurrence of the amphibian Benthosphenus boundarybetweenthetwoRussianunitsasbroadlyequivalentto
also in the Russian Far East accompanied by ammonites of the the Permo-Triassic boundary, whether marked with or without a
AnasibiritesnevolinilocalzoneoflateearlyOlenekianage.Asa meaningfulgapinsedimentation.
third example, the Yarenskian Gorizont is typified by the In conclusion, the summary scheme (Fig. 2), compiled from
amphibians Parotosuchus and Trematosaurus, known also from many sources, and representing thework of hundreds of Russian
the Middle Buntsandstein of Germany, and from Upper Olene- geologists from 1960 to the present, appears to be internally
kian estuarine and coastal deposits of the Caspian Depression in coherent throughout the numerous separate sedimentary basins
association with ammonites of the Tirolites cassianus local zone of European Russia. Further, the scheme may be tied to the
andfromKazakhstaninassociationwiththeColumbiteskaratau- internationalmarinestandardbytwoindependentmeans,through
cikus ammonite fauna, both of which correlate with ammonite magnetostratigraphy and through comparisons of assemblages
zones of the upper Olenekian Alpine standard zones. This age is and single species and genera of a broad range of fossils. This
confirmed further by miospore and charophyte assemblages scheme will be used as a basis for dating the Zhukov and
shared with Germany, and the Gamskian Gorizont, representing Vyaznikibeds.
the upper part of the Yarenskian Gorizont (Fig. 2), contains an
Atratisporites-dominated miospore assemblage, common in the
Previous work on dating the Vyazniki andZhukovbeds
upper Olenekian worldwide. Plagiosaurs link the Donguz Gor-
izont to the marine Muschelkalk of Germany, and the procolo- Murchison(1841)andMurchison&deVerneuil(1842)presented
phonid Kapes also links the Donguz to the upper Anisian Otter briefreportsontheVyazniki redbeds,whichtheyhadvisited in
SandstoneFormationofEngland.Miosporeassemblagesindicate 1840 (Benton et al. 2010), interpreting them as either latest
a late Anisian age for the lower part of the Donguz Gorizont, Permian or early Triassic on the basis of fossils, and tending to
and a Ladinian age for the upper part. Finally, the amphibian prefer the Permian assignment. Littlewas done onthese sections
Mastodonsaurus occurs both in the Bukobay Gorizont and the until the Russian geologist Sibirtsev (1896) restudied the Tolma-
Lettenkeuper (upper Ladinian) of Germany (Ochev & Shishkin chevosection,attheeasternendofVyaznikitown,aspartofhis
1989), and the Bukobay also shares macroplants and a miospore geologicalmappingfortheGeologicalCommitteeofRussia.Like
assemblagewiththeLettenkeuper(Shishkinetal.2000). Murchison,heidentifiedtherocksasUpperPermian,andreported
There are some important issues concerning the Permo- from Tolmachevo ‘scales of Palaeoniscus and cytheriinins—
Triassic boundary in Russia. This boundary in Russia has Estheriasp.andBairdiasp.’HisPaleoniscusisageneralizedterm
traditionally been set between the Vyatkian and the Vokhmian for thick, rhomboidal fish scales, his Estheria was a conchostra-
gorizonts(Fig.2),butsomedoubtwascastonthiscorrelationby can,andBairdiaanostracode.HealsodiscoveredUpperPermian
a recent definitive edition of the international geological time sand outcrops near Bykovka village and at the west edge of
scale (Gradstein et al. 2004) in which the entire Lopingian Vyazniki town, as well as in the Zhukov Ravine section near
(Upper Permian) and the Permo-Triassic boundary were deemed Gorokhovets.IntheZhukovRavine,Sibirtsev(1896)alsoreported
to be missing in European Russia. Instead, the Tatarian and woody plants, identified by him as Araucarites, Arthropitys and
Kazanian were compressed and correlated with the Guadalupian Calamites-like forms, as well as fish scales (‘Palaeoniscus’) and
(MiddlePermian)ratherthanwiththeLopingian(Wardlawetal. ‘lizard’(¼reptile)bones.
2004). If correct, thiswould imply a substantial 9–10Ma gap in Interest was reawakened by the discovery of vertebrate fossils
the Russian record that has major stratigraphic and palaeontolo- atthewesternendofVyaznikitownin1951byalocalgeologist,
gicalimplications.This2004conclusionhadbeenprecededbya and subsequent excavations by the Palaeontological Institute of
long debate among Russian stratigraphers about whether there the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 1952, 1955 and 1956,
was indeed a gap of 1–5Ma at the end of the Permian and the led by B. P. V’yushkov (Efremov & V’yushkov 1955). Finds
beginningoftheTriassic(e.g.Goman’kovetal.1998;Lozovskiy included a range of fishes, amphibians and reptiles, mostly
1998) or not (e.g. Tverdokhlebov et al. 1989; Afonin 2005; occurring as isolated bones in conglomerates and coarse sand-
Sennikov & Golubev 2006; Krassilov & Karasev 2009). These stones,butwithoccasionalmoresubstantialremains,suchasthe
researchers all agreed, however, that there was a substantial complete skulls of the temnospondyl Dvinosaurus and the
amount of Upper Permian in the Russian sections based on therocephalian Moschowaitsia. This tetrapod assemblage, repre-
strong biostratigraphic and magnetostratigraphic evidence. This senting an apparent mixture of latest Permian and earliest
hasbeenconfirmedbyrevisedmagnetostratigraphicwork(Taylor Triassic elements, led to the suggestion (Sennikov & Golubev
et al. 2009) and, independently, in the further revised interna- 2006) that the Vyazniki beds might represent the very youngest
tionaltimescale(Oggetal.2008). Permian anywhere in the Russian basins, and the unit has even
Further, recent work correlates the palynological assemblage been made the type of a new latest Permian stratigraphic stage,
PERMO-TRIASSIC BOUNDARY IN MOSCOW BASIN 701
the Vyaznikovian (Lozovskiy & Kukhtinov 2007; Kukhtinov et
The Zhukovand Vyazniki sections
al.2008),atermwedonotusehere,preferringtoretainthisunit
astheuppermostpartoftheVyatkianGorizont(Fig.2).Itshould
The Zhukov Ravine section
be noted that Krassilov & Karasev (2009) accepted the Vyazni-
kovian as a distinct time unit, and inserted a further, and even Description. Zhukov Ravine is located 2km SWof Gorokhovets
younger, time division between it and the earliest Triassic (Fig. 5). A composite 36m section can be assembled from three
Vokhmian, the Nedubrovian, based on the finding of plants, correlative exposures at the base, middle and top of the 1km
palynomorphs and the amphibian Tupilakosaurus at the Nedu- long NW–SE-oriented ravine (Fig. 6). The basal 26m of the
brovo locality on the Yug river, at the head of the North Dvina section comprises predominantly massive, rooted, red mudstones
river. The Vyazniki and Nedubrovo localities cannot be corre- with subordinate beds of laminated brown mudstone, massive or
lated by mapping as they lie too far apart, and their floras are ripple cross-laminated sandstone and pale grey, well-cemented
partly shared and they both sit in the terminal Changhsingian micritic limestones with root voids (Fig. 6). The limestones are
reversedmagneticpolarityzone(Krassilov&Karasev2009;R P, distinctive marker beds in the published sections of Strok et al.
3
Fig. 2), so it is not currently clear whether the two can be (1984),anumberofthemoccurringinoursection1,terminating
distinguishedandcharacterizedassuccessivetimedivisions. with a major, 1m thick rooted micritic limestone that providesa
Borehole information from the Gorokhovets–Vyazniki area link to our section 2 (Fig. 6). A second substantial rooted
presented by Strok et al. (1984) shows that a maximum of c. micriticlimestoneoccursafteragapatthetopofthecliff inour
130m of Permo-Triassic red beds overlie Kazanian limestones section 2, and provides a lateral marker to the base of a section
(Figs 3 and 4). As recognized by Murchison, the red bed logged by I.I.M., and the source of her ostracode samples (Fig.
successiondividesintotwobroadlithologicalparts,whichshould 6). Toward the head of the Zhukov Ravine a well-cemented
be named formally as formations (¼ svitas) at some point. The intraclastconglomeratewithfishremainsmarksanabruptchange
lower 60m is dominated by reddish brown mudstones with thin from the mudstones and occasional limestones to a succession
beds of gypsum at the base and grey mudstones and thin dominated by brown, fine- to medium-grained, cross-bedded,
sandstonesatthetop,whereastheupper partofthesuccessionis weakly consolidated sand and sandstone. Powerful springs
predominantly sand and sandstone, which reaches a maximum emerge from the base of the sands and sustain perennial flow in
preservedthicknessof70mintheVantinoBorehole10kmsouth the stream that flows down the heavily vegetated ravine. This
east of Vyazniki (Strok et al. 1984). The sands and sandstones overlyingsandstoneformationformsadeepchannelwhentraced
(Table 1) are an important aquifer in the region and the sharp laterally, apparently cutting out the upper limestone bed (Fig. 6),
contact with the underlying mudstone-dominated succession is andsolateralcorrelationsmustbeperformedwithcare.
commonly marked by springs along the foot of the escarpment
adjacent to the Klyaz’ma River. Ravines cut into the face of the Dating.The Permo-Triassic boundary in the Zhukov Ravine is
high escarpment between Vyazniki and Gorokhovets provide determined by(1)regionalcomparisons,(2)magnetostratigraphy
exposures of the Permo-Triassic succession in otherwise heavily and(3)biostratigraphy.RegionalcomparisonspresentedbyStrok
vegetated terrain (Fig. 3). The sands and weakly consolidated et al. (1984) used the deep Vantino and Luknovo boreholes as
sandstones are also exposed in several abandoned quarries guides, and a mix of ostracodes and conchostracans, as well as
aroundVyazniki. major lithological changes, to correlate from section to section.
Fig.3.MapshowingtheelevatedterrainbetweenVyaznikiandGorkhovetsandthesteepescarpmenttothesouthoftheKlyaz’maRiver.d,Localities
investigatedaroundVyaznikiandtheZhukovRavine;s,boreholedata.Theboldcontinuouslineshowstheboreholeandoutcropcorrelationshownin
Figure4,andrectanglesshowmapareasinFigure5.ThefinedottedlineshowsthecorrelationofoutcropsshowninFigure7.
702 A. J. NEWELL ETAL.
Fig.4.Correlationofboreholesandlogged
sectionsintheVyazniki–Gorokhovetsarea
basedonStroketal.(1984),andother
sources(seeFig.3forlocationofsection).
Approximately130mofLatePermianand
EarlyTriassiccontinentalstrataoverlie
Kazanianlimestonesanddivideintoa
lowermud-richformationandanupper
sandyformation.PTBshowsthepositionof
thePermo-Triassicboundaryasdiscussedin
thetext;maSL,metresabovesealevel.
Standardabbreviationsformagnetic
polaritychronsareindicatedtotheright
(N,normal;P,Permian;R,reversed;
T,Triassic).
Marine limestones of Kazanian age provide a clear marker for long normal interval at the base of the sandstone unit is
thebaseofthesections(Fig.4). presumably N T, representing the very top of the Permian
1 1
A magnetostratigraphic study of the Zhukov Ravine by (uppermost Vyatkian) and much of the Vokhmian (basal Trias-
Molostovskiy (1983; Fig. 4) showed a reversed interval in the sic), and perhaps passing into R T at the top (Fig. 4). If this is
1 1
lower part of the succession, a short positive interval, followed correct, the Permo-Triassic boundary lies near the base of the
byashortreversedinterval,andalongpositiveintervalspanning N T zone, some 19m from the top of the section (Strok et al.
1 1
the upper sandstone unit, and reversing just below the top of the 1984),or22minoursection(Fig.6).Thethicklimestonebedat
outcrop. This was interpreted (Molostovskiy 1983; Strok et al. thebaseofsection2andthetopofsection1isnearthetopofa
1984) as spanning part of the Urzhumian and Severodvinian reverse-polarity zone, presumably r R P, some 9m thick (Strok
2 3
(basal to mid-Tatarian) at the base, and the Vokhmian (lowest et al. 1984), below which is n R P. Our section is 36m thick,
1 3
Triassic) through the upper sandstones. Strok et al. (1984) were compared with a schematic log of a 43m section of Strok et al.
mistakenindatingthelowermudunitsintheareaastooancient (1984),which presumablyextendsfurtherdownstreamthanours,
(see below), but the magnetostratigraphic record from the and so includes a lower negative-polarity zone, presumably
Zhukov Ravine matches recent determination of the Permo- r R P,allwithintheVyatkian(Tayloretal.2009;Fig.4).
1 3
Triassic boundary in Russian sections (Taylor et al. 2009). The Ostracodes have been identified from six horizons in the
Table1. QualitativeX-raydiffractionanalysisofheavymineralseparatesfromfivesandsampleswhoselocationisshownontheloggedsections(Figs6
and7)
Mineralogy
Sample Major Minor Trace
Hm1 Quartz,epidote*,haematite*,albite Hornblende*,mica,chlorite,K-feldspar Goethite*
Hm2 Quartz,zircon*,almandine* Hematite*,rutile*,epidote*,grossular*,goethite*,magnetite*,albite Staurolite*,chlorite
Hm3 Quartz,epidote*,haematite*,albite Hornblende*,ferropargasite*,mica,chlorite,magnetite*,rutile* Magnetite*,K-feldspar
Hm4 Quartz,epidote* Rutile*,albite,chlorite,mica K-feldspar
Hm5 Quartz,epidote* Albite,hematite*,goethite*,mica,chlorite K-feldspar
*Density.2.9gcm(cid:1)3.
PERMO-TRIASSIC BOUNDARY IN MOSCOW BASIN 703
Fig.5.DetailedtopographicmapsshowingthelocationsofloggedsectionsatGorokhovetsandVyazniki.Globalpositioningsystem(GPS)readingsfor
eachnamedlocalityaregiveninTable2.
Zhukov section, four below and two above the Permo-Triassic Jan.), S. anjugensis Mishina and Suchonella ex. gr. typica
boundary. The uppermost Permian ostracode assemblage, from Spizharskyi,alltypicalofterminalVyatkian(latestPermian)age
some3–4mbelowthePermo-Triassic boundary (Fig. 6)yielded (the Suchonellina inornata–Prasuchonella nasalis ostracode
Suchonellina trapezoida (Sharapova), S. ignatjevi (Zekina et zone,Fig.2;Molostovskaya,citedbySennikov&Golubev2006;
704 A. J. NEWELL ETAL.
Fig.6.Compositeloggedsectionatthe
ZhukovRavinenearGorokhovets.
LocationsofZhukovRavinelogged
sections1–3aregiveninFigures3and5,
andexactGPSreadingsinTable2.The
stratigraphiclogofMolostovskayaather
location2,wellupstream,isadded.These
showthepositionofthePermo-Triassic
boundaryasdeterminedbyostracodesjust
abovetheconspicuouspackageof
limestonesandmarls.Theboundaryoccurs
at,orbelow,theundulatingerosional
contactwiththefluvialsandsdependingon
thedepthofincision.Molostovskaya
Location1islocatednearZhukovRavine1
andMolostovskayaLocation2islocated
nearZhukovRavine3(seeFig.5).
Kukhtinov et al. 2008). The other three Permian ostracode
assemblages from lower levels all confirmed Vyatkian age. The
two ostracode assemblages from above the postulated Permo-
Triassic boundary occurred in mudstones 7–8m above the
boundary,andhigher,andI.M.M.identifiedspeciesofDarwinula
Table2. Latitudeandlongitudeoflocationswithsedimentarylogs
and Gerdalia, namely Darwinula sima Mischina, 1969, D. acuta
Locality Latitude(N) Longitude(E) Reference Mischina, 1966, D. cara Mischina, 1969, D. unzhica Mischina,
1969, D. media Mischina, 1969, D. regia Mischina, 1969, D. cf.
Bykovka 56.258467 42.085450 prisca Mischina, 1969, D. ex gr. accuminata Belousova, 1961,
BykovkaQuarry 56.256350 42.100183 Locality4
Gerdalia clara Mischina, G. ex gr.variabilis Mischina, 1966, G.
Sokovka 56.256633 42.103350 Locality5
rixosa Mischina, 1966, and G. dactyla Belousova, 1961. Both
Metallist 56.256900 42.107733 Locality6
Pipetrench 56.257483 42.119250 Darwinula and Gerdalia are extremely rare in the Permian, and
Balymotikha 56.221300 42.157167 Locality10 thiscombinationofspecies,withabundantrepresentationofboth
ShchyokinoRavine 56.234783 42.296683 genera, is typical of the Vokhmian Darwinula mera–Gerdalia
ZhukovRavine1 56.180500 42.629933 variabilis ostracode zone, as recorded from many unequivocally
ZhukovRavine1 56.179817 42.634650
basalTriassiclocalitiesacrosstheRussianPlatform(Fig.2).
ZhukovRavine1 56.180000 42.634650
The basal Triassic (Vokhmian) age for the sandstones is
Positions are in decimal degrees; datum:WGS 1984. Reference localitynumbers confirmed by fish fossils recovered by A.G.S. and colleagues in
arefromSennikov&Golubev(2006). 2003 from the thin rust-brown conglomerate at the top of a sand