Lofi11 by Jacques Deverchere

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge warmly everyone who brought support and assistance during

TOTAL, BRGM and Action Marges (Action coordonnée CNRS-INSU; TOTAL; IFREMER; BRGM; IFP)

the preparation of this atlas. Thanks are due to the INSU (Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers)-

are acknowledged for their support to the printing of the Atlas.

CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) ECLIPSE French research program (20012004 and 2004-2007), which is at the origin of this project. Part of this work was funded by the following programs or partners: GDR (Groupe De Recherche) “Marges”, INSU-CNRS, ACI (Action Concertée Incitative) Algeria, Ministry of Research and High Education France, GEMME and SAGA. The BRGM's research works have been funded in the framework of the Geological Mapping Program of France - "Land-Sea transition" project. The authors wish to thank IFREMER for giving us access to seismic data from the BlaSON and Calmar surveys. We are grateful to Yves Lagabrielle, for his receptiveness to our project in its initial form, his precious advices and his encouraging words throughout the development of the atlas. Françoise Rangin is acknowledged for her help, careful reading and constant support during the editing process. Philippe Rossi and Olivier Lacombe are also acknowledged. François Guillocheau and an anonymous reviewer are thanked for their constructive comments on the first version of this atlas. Thanks are also due to Joelle Gastambide for the design of the atlas cover and to Simon Barry for the English corrections. The Messinian community is wide, bringing together several disciplines and several approaches in order to better understand the Messinian salinity crisis event. We are thankful to all our “Messinian” colleagues and friends for discussions during congresses and meetings. Special thanks are due to George Clauzon, William B.F. Ryan and Jean-Pierre Suc who kindly shared with us their knowledge and their passion for this fascinating event. All those mentioned above considerably helped us to achieve this global work, that we hope to be as consistent as possible.

SEISMIC ATLAS OF THE "MESSINIAN SALINITY CRISIS" MARKERS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND BLACK SEAS J. Lofi1, J. Déverchère2, V. Gaullier3, H. Gillet4, C. Gorini5, P. Guennoc6, L. Loncke3, A. Maillard7, F. Sage8, I. Thinon6

With contributions from J. Benkhelil3, S. Berné3,9, C. Bertoni10,11, L. Camera8, J.A. Cartwright11, A. Capron2, J.-J. Cornée1, S. Dümmong12, C. Hübscher12, G. Lericolais9, P. Le Roy2, S. Leroy13, J. Mascle8, A. Mauffret5, B. Mercier de Lépinay8, E. M. Obone-ZuéObame3, J.-P. Rehault2, B. Savoye9, N. Sellier13, E. Tahchi3, G. Von Gronefeld8, A.K. Yelles14.

1 Géosciences

Montpellier, cc60, Bât. 22, Université de Montpellier 2, Place Eugène Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier cedex 05, France Européenne de Bretagne, Domaines Océaniques, UMR 6538 CNRS, Université de Brest (UBO), IUEM, Place N. Copernic, 29280 Plouzané, France 3 Laboratoire IMAGES, E.A. 4218, Université de Perpignan, Via Domitia, 52 avenue Paul Alduy, 66860 Perpignan cedex, France 4 UMR 5805-EPOC, Université Bordeaux 1, 33405 Talence, France 5 ISTeP, Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France 6 BRGM, GEO-GBS, 3 avenue Claude Guillemin, BP 6009, 45060 Orléans cedex 02, France 7 LMTG, Université de Toulouse-CNRS-IRD-OMP, 14 avenue Ed. Belin, 31400 Toulouse, France 8 Géoazur, Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, UNS-CNRS-IRD-OCA, B.P. 48, 06235 Villefranche-sur-Mer cedex, France 9 IFREMER, Géosciences Marines, Technopôle Brest-Iroise, BP 70, 29280 Plouzané, France 10 Repsol-YPF, Paseo de la Castellana 278-280, 28046 Madrid, Spain 11 3DLab, School of Earth, Ocean and Planetary Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK 12 University of Hamburg, Bundesstrasse 55, 20146 Hamburg, Germany 13 Laboratoire PBDS, Université de Lille 1, UMR 8110, SN5, 59655 Villeneuve d'Ascq cedex, France 14 C.R.A.A.G. (Centre de Recherche en Astronomie, Astrophysique, et Géophysique), Route de l’Observatoire, BP63, Bouzaréah, Algiers, Algeria 2 Université

CONTENTS

3.A- Regional setting 3.B- MSC surfaces 3.C- MSC basinal units 3.D- MSC clastics 4. Provenรงal Basin 4.A- Regional setting 4.B- MSC surfaces and basinal units 4.C- Salt tectonics 5. Northern Ligurian Margin 5.A- Regional setting 5.B- Slope MSC surfaces and units 5.C- MSC basinal units 6. East-Corsica Basin 6.A- Regional setting 6.B- MSC surfaces 6.C- MSC basinal units 7. West-Corsica Basin 7.A- Regional setting 7.B- MSC surfaces 7.C- MSC basinal units 8. Western Sardinia 8.A- Regional setting 8.B- MSC surfaces and basinal units 9. Nile Deep Sea Fan 9.A- Regional setting 9.B- MSC surfaces and clastics 9.C- MSC basinal units 10. Levant Basin 10.A- Regional setting (1) 10.B- Regional setting (2) 10.C- MSC surfaces and clastics 10.D- MSC basinal units 10.E- Salt tectonics and fluid dynamics 11. Cyprus Arc 11.A- Regional setting 11.B- MSC surfaces 11.C- MSC basinal units 12. Florence Ridge and South Antalya Basin 12.A- Regional setting 12.B- MSC surfaces and clastics 12.C- MSC basinal units 13. Western Black Sea 13.A- Regional setting 13.B- MSC surfaces

Acknowledgements Forewords ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Use of the seismic atlas of the Messinian markers in the Mediterranean and Black seas.................... 4 1.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5

The Messinian salinity crisis event: main facts and uncertainties ............................................... 5

Why studying the MSC in the offshore area? .............................................................................. 6

Atlas design ................................................................................................................................. 7 4.1. Messinian marker nomenclature and colour code ............................................................. 7 4.2. Organisation ...................................................................................................................... 9 4.3. References to figures and numerotation.......................................................................... 10

Description of the Messinian markers in the offshore domain ................................................... 10 5.1. Messinian salinity crisis surfaces ..................................................................................... 10 5.1.1. Margin Erosion Surface (MES) .............................................................................. 10 5.1.2. Bottom Surface (BS) and Bottom Erosion Surface (BES)...................................... 12 5.1.3. Intermediate Erosion Surfaces (IES)...................................................................... 13 5.1.4. Top Surface (TS) and Top Erosion Surface (TES) ................................................ 14 5.2. Messinian salinity crisis units ........................................................................................... 15 5.2.1. Lower Unit (LU) ...................................................................................................... 15 5.2.2. Mobile Unit (MU) .................................................................................................... 16 5.2.3. Upper Unit (UU) ..................................................................................................... 18 5.2.4. Bedded Units (BU) ................................................................................................. 19 5.2.5. Complex Units (CU) ............................................................................................... 19 5.3. Limits of the offshore approach ....................................................................................... 20

Comparing the MSC markers at the scale of the Mediterranean area ...................................... 21

Conclusions and perspectives ................................................................................................... 23

ILLUSTRATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 25 Synthesis Map 1. Algerian Margin 1.A- Regional setting 1.B- MSC surfaces and clastics 1.C- MSC basinal units 2. Valencia Basin 2.A- Regional setting 2.B- MSC surfaces 2.C- MSC basinal units 2.D- MSC clastics 3. Gulf of Lions

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................67 2

FOREWORDS Although the Messinian salinity crisis is commonly treated as a pan-Mediterranean event, its impact was far reaching. More than five percent of the salt of the global ocean was extracted by evaporation in a fraction of a million years. This salt is now archived in the enormous deposit so clearly portrayed in the seismic reflection profiles of this comprehensive atlas. Marine aquatic life within the Mediterranean, Black and Red Seas was extinguished. Brine stratification induced anoxia, resulting in vast storage of carbon. The drop in atmospheric CO2 so thoroughly chilled Earth that glaciers started to grow on Greenland and shed icebergs into the North Atlantic. Extreme temperatures seared the surfaces of saltpans. Alluvial plains appeared at elevations thousands of meters below former shorelines. The loss of the weight of water removed by evaporation and the addition of load from concentrating brines deformed the edges of surrounding continents. But of all the impacts of a sea drying up, the change in the shape of the landscape has left the most dramatic scenery. Yet, until the publication of this atlas, this physical world has been hidden by water and five million years of subsequent sediment cover. Now with the atlas in your lap, you can travel back through time to see the ravages of erosion and the consequences of brine precipitation profile-by-profile and map-by-map stretching from Iberia to the Levant. I hope you enjoy your explorations. There is treasure to be found in this imagery. Guided by the skillful interpretation of the authors, I am confident that all of us will gain new knowledge of this brief, but extraordinary event, that we call the Messinian salinity crisis.

William B. F. Ryan

Use of the seismic atlas of the Messinian markers in the Mediterranean and Black seas

It is recommended that reference to the whole atlas should be made as follows: Lofi J., Déverchère J., Gaullier V., Gillet H., Gorini C., Guennoc P., Loncke L., Maillard A., Sage F. & Thinon I. (2011). –

This atlas provides an overview of the most important characteristics of the offshore Messinian

Atlas of the Messinian seismic markers in the Mediterranean and Black seas. – Mém. Soc. géol.. fr.,

salinity crisis (MSC) seismic markers. Throughout several study areas located in the Mediterranean

n.s., 179, and World Geological Map Commission, 72p.

and Black seas, this collective work aims at evidencing the most significant features (seismic facies,

Reference to part of this atlas should be made as follows (see also Table A, below): e.g. Loncke L.,

geometry and extent) of Messinian surfaces and depositional units in the offshore domain. However,

Gaullier V., Camera L. & Mascle J. (2011). – Nile deep sea fan, detritism and erosion. In: J. Lofi et

this atlas does not intend to provide a complete description of all what is known on the MSC and on

al., Eds, Atlas of the Messinian seismic markers in the Mediterranean and Black seas. – Mém. Soc.

the geology of each study area. Accordingly, illustrations in the atlas should be used for a global

géol.. fr., n.s., 179, and World Geological Map Commission, 72p.

description of the offshore imprints of the MSC at the scale of the Mediterranean and Black seas, or for local information or site-specific general interpretations. The listed references should be used for more detailed or additional information. The atlas summarizes geophysical investigations that have been made over many years by a large number of marine geophysicists. It aims to share the geological interpretation of seismic reflection data and to be a reference work that can be used by teachers and researchers working on the Messinian event.

STUDY AREAS 1. Algerian margin 2. Valencia through 3. gulf of Lions 4. Ligurian margin 5. Provençal margin 6. western Corsica 7. eastern Corsica 8. western Sardinia 9. Nile deep sea fan 10. Levant basin eastern Mediterranean 11. Cyprus arc 12. Florence ridge and Antalya basin Black sea 13. Romanian shelf and Black sea Synthesis of the Messinian markers in the Mediterranean and Black seas western Mediterranean

AUTHORS Capron A., Déverchère J., Gaullier V., Le Roy S., Mercier de Lépinay B., Yelles A.K. /Obone-Zué-Obame E.M., Gaullier V., Déverchère J., Capron A., Mercier de Lépinay B., Le Roy S., Yelles A.K. /Capron A., Déverchère J., Obone-Zué-Obame E.M., Gaullier V., Mercier de Lépinay B., Le Roy S., Yelles A.K. Maillard A. and Mauffret A. Lofi J., Berné S. and Gorini C. Sage F. and Déverchère J. Obone-Zué-Obame E.M., Gaullier V., Sage F., Maillard A. and Déverchère J. Guennoc P., Réhault J.-P. and Thinon I. Thinon I., Réhault J.-P. and Guennoc P. Sage F., Déverchère J. and Von Gronefeld G. Loncke L., Gaullier V., Camera L. and Mascle J. Bertoni C. and Cartwright J.A./ Hübscher C. and Dümmong S./ Dümmong S. and Hübscher C. Maillard A., Tahchi E. and Benkhelil J. Loncke L., Sellier N. and Mascle J. Gillet H., Lericolais G. and Réhault J.-P. Maillard A., Lofi J., Déverchère J., Gaullier V., Loncke L., Sage F., Thinon I., Guennoc P., Gillet H. and Gorini C.

Table A: List of the illustrations presented in the atlas of the Messinian salinity crisis seismic markers in the Mediterranean and Black seas with reference to their authors. 4

1. Introduction

a new global and consistent terminology for MSC markers in the entire offshore Mediterranean area in order to avoid nomenclatural problems and (3) to make this information accessible to the non-

The Messinian salinity crisis (hereafter referred as MSC) is a huge, outstanding succession of events

geophysicist community. Interpreted seismic data were therefore carefully selected according to their

that has deeply modified the Mediterranean region environment within a relatively limited time span.

quality, position and significance in order to reach these objectives, and are presented here. Raw and

Since the discovery of the thick evaporitic Messinian layer of the deep basin in the seventies [Hsü et

interpreted data seismic profiles are available in the CR-Rom.

al., 1973], the MSC has been the object of a large number of studies, especially on land, as it offers a unique opportunity to analyze and understand the controlling factors and the paleogeographic,

2. The Messinian salinity crisis event: main facts and uncertainties

paleoenvironmental, sedimentary and geodynamic consequences of a large-scale sea-level drop

Less than 6 Ma ago, the Pan-Mediterranean realm underwent rapid and dramatic paleo-

(> 1 km) of uncommon amplitude on Earth [e.g. McKenzie, 1999, and references therein].

environmental changes known as the Messinian salinity crisis [Hsü et al., 1973]. This short-term

The atlas of the Messinian seismic markers in the Mediterranean and Black seas provides a

event at the geological scale [~5.96-5.32 Ma, Gautier et al., 1994; Krijgsman et al., 1999a] results

summary of the most important observations available from seismic profiles on the MSC markers in

from the progressive closure of the two-way connection between the Atlantic ocean and the

the offshore domains of the Mediterranean and Black seas. This work has been initiated in the

Mediterranean sea [e.g. Benson et al., 1991; Krijgsman et al., 1999b; Govers, 2009; Ryan, 2011].

framework of the French research programs “ECLIPSE” 1 and 2 (Institut National des Sciences de

Among the most important characteristics of this event, we note: (1) a reduction of the Atlantic water

l’Univers, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique). These two successive projects aimed to

supply resulting in an increased salinity and in the deposition of evaporites within shallow water

define and quantify the responses of the Mediterranean environment to the MSC event, from an

marginal/peripheral basins (today located onshore and isolated from the deep basins); (2) a

ecological point of view as well as from a sedimentary point of view. A multidisciplinary approach has

subsequent major sea-level fall exceeding 1500 m [Ryan and Cita, 1978] and resulting in the

thus been deliberately put forward. In the offshore area, the main objective was to define the

massive erosion of the margins and the development of deep subaerial canyons [Chumakov, 1973;

consequences of the MSC, particularly concerning the relationship between erosion surfaces and

Clauzon, 1973; Guennoc et al., 2000]; (3) the accumulation of the product of the erosion in the

depositional units. It rapidly came out that a better understanding of the crisis required an accurate

downslope domain of the margins [Rizzini et al., 1978; Barber, 1981; Savoye and Piper, 1991; Lofi et

comparisons from one study area to another and the identification and quantification of the main

al., 2005; Sage et al., 2005; Maillard et al., 2006]; (4) the deposition of thick (> 1 km) evaporitic

tectonic and sedimentary changes encountered on the various Mediterranean and Black sea basins

sequences above the deep Mediterranean abyssal plains [Montadert et al., 1970; Hsü et al., 1973];

and margins since 6 Ma. For this purpose, an integrated study at the scale of the Mediterranean area

and (5) a very rapid refilling of the Mediterranean basin during the Latest Miocene/Lower Pliocene,

has been initiated in 2001. This new approach, based on multi-site studies, lies on a comparative

following the re-opening of the communication with the Atlantic ocean at the Gibraltar straight

seismic analysis of the MSC surfaces and depositional units recovered from several offshore areas

[McKenzie, 1999; Blanc, 2002; Loget and Van Den Driessche, 2006]. For more details concerning

[Lofi et al., 2008b]. This allows us to discuss the impact of the MSC on margin segments and basins

the modalities and scenario of the MSC, the history of its discovery and the evolution of the main

that have various geodynamical, structural and geological backgrounds [Lofi et al., 2011]. In this

ideas since the 70’s, one can refer to recent publications, which fully summarize what the MSC is [eg.

framework, the purpose of the atlas is to summarize, in one publication with a common format, the

Rouchy and Caruso, 2006; CIESM, 2008; Ryan, 2009].

most relevant information that has been collected over many years from the offshore domain, and not to discuss either the absolute time succession of the MSC events, or the processes responsible for

As summarized by Rouchy and Caruso [2006], numerous recent MSC scenarii enhance differences

their occurrence in space and time. More precisely, our objectives are: (1) to image the Messinian

in our understanding of the crisis, essentially regarding the timing and numbers of the drawdown

seismic markers on the main margins and in the Mediterranean and Black sea basins; (2) to propose

phases (and related erosions) and the chronology of the deposition of the evaporitic units in the 5

different Mediterranean settings (fig. A). A near-consensus (that still need to be tested) has recently

recognition and understanding of these Messinian markers [eg. Lofi et al., 2005; Sage et al., 2005;

been proposed [CIESM, 2008] around an adaptation of the deep-desiccated basin model [Hsü et al.,

Maillard et al., 2006; Bertoni and Cartwright, 2006, 2007a; Gillet et al., 2007; Lofi et al., 2008a; Lofi et

1973] and of the two-step model of Clauzon et al. [1996]. Several points are however still under

al., 2011]. Indeed, until the nineties, seismic data used to study the deep Mediterranean basins were

debate and the detailed modalities of the crisis are not fully established. Disagreements are mainly

mostly acquired with seismic sources of moderate strength and with 6 channel streamers. The atlas

linked to the fact that most of the works dealing with the Messinian salinity crisis are based on

of the Messinian seismic markers in the Mediterranean and Black seas provides here a summary of

outcrops actually located onshore and isolated from the deep basins (e.g. Morocco, Cyprus, Spain,

the most important observations and recent advances available from seismic profiles for the

Italy…). Some of those outcrops contain MSC evaporites that accumulated in shallow water

Messinian salinity crisis markers.

marginal/peripheral basins (e.g. Spanish basins). These deposits predate the drawdown phase and are not coeval with the Messinian successions of the deep basin [Clauzon et al., 1996; CIESM, 2008]. In addition, these deposits contain incomplete Messinian successions because the marginal basins (and the continental margins) are above the main depressions and have undergone subaerial erosion during the drawdown phase. For these reasons, these outcrops cannot help constraining the Messinian event during the drawdown. Some other MSC deposits, outcropping in the Central Sicilian basin (containing halite), are considered by some authors as part of the deep basin MSC succession [Decima and Wezel, 1973; Ryan and Cita, 1978; Roveri et al., 2008a,b; Ryan, 2009], whereas some other authors propose that they belong to a deeper, but still marginal, setting [Clauzon et al., 1996]. Because of tectonics, those outcrops are now totally disconnected from the deep basin Messinian sequence, and no stratigraphical, geographical, geometrical or sedimentological correspondences can be directly established with offshore MSC deposits. Correlations with the deep basin are thus complex, preventing from constructing an integrated scenario of the MSC that would provide a time

Figure A. – Some examples of different scenarios of the MSC [Roveri et al., 2008b; modified from Rouchy and Caruso, 2006].

link between the evaporites of the marginal basins, the erosion of the margins, and the thick depositional units of the abyssal plains.

3. Why studying the MSC in the offshore area?

During the crisis, the drawdown gives a new configuration to the Mediterranean basin and creates a succession of morphological and sedimentological changes. A major contrast exists between the

At the present time, for obvious reasons of data accessibility, most of the works dealing with the MSC

surficial and isostasic responses of the margins to the crisis and that of the deep basins: the former,

event are based on the study of outcrops located onshore (Sicily, Morocco, Cyprus, Spain, Italy…).

mostly emerged, have been largely eroded whereas the latter accumulated sediments mostly made

However, as discussed above, the whole MSC event cannot be studied directly from these series,

of thick evaporites (up to 1.5 sec twtt (two-way travel time)) and clastics arising from the erosion of

either because most of them are not contemporary with the MSC deposits accumulated offshore, or

the margins. Consequently, the seismic markers of the Messinian salinity crisis in the offshore

because they are tectonically/geometrically disconnected from them. At the present time however,

domain correspond to erosion surfaces, depositional units and associated bounding surfaces. Recent

most of the MSC scenarii are based on field works that rarely rest on observations from the offshore

works based on better quality seismic section analysis have allowed some important advances in the

domain, because of (1) scale integration problems (limitation in resolution and lateral correlations), 6

(2) the scarcity and heterogeneity of marine seismic data available today, and (3) the ambiguous

the Mobile Unit (MU, mainly halite), which is generally the easiest unit to evidence on the seismic

labelling of the MSC units (regarding e.g. the so-called lower evaporites), leading to some confusions

profiles thanks to its transparent facies and associated plastic deformation, producing diapirs and

and ambiguities. Studying the MSC in the offshore area however offers one major advantage. If the

listric faults in the overlying sediments [eg. Dos Reis et al., 2005; Gaullier et al., 2006; Loncke et al.,

margins have been mainly eroded as a result of the sea-level fall, the deepest part of the

2006]. We then define a Lower Unit LU below MU, and an Upper Unit UU above MU (fig. B and tab.

Mediterranean basin accumulated MSC units that are several kilometers thick (see section 5.2).

B). On the margins, two other units are defined according to their acoustic facies, geometry, an

These units offer the best (and the only) manner allowing to document what happened during the

spatial extent: a Complex Unit (CU) which appears closely related to the sediment supply sources

drawdown phase, when the margins were only recording erosion. In addition, because the deepest

during the MSC; a Bedded Unit (BU), observed only locally, and geometrically disconnected from the

areas have probably never been fully desiccated, the offshore MSC units probably locally constitute a

other Messinian units. The MSC surfaces have been defined based on their relationship with the Pre-

continuous record of the entire MSC event (i.e. before, during and after the drawdown phase).

MSC units, the offshore MSC units, and the Plio-Quaternary sedimentary cover. The Messinian units are bounded at top and bottom by a Bottom Surface (BS) and a Top Surface (TS), named BES and

4. Atlas design

TES respectively where they present erosion indications (fig. B and tab. B). IES are an intermediate surfaces observed within the MSC deposition units.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the content of the atlas of the Messinian seismic markers

A variety of illustrations is used to describe the Messinian markers in each regional area. Seismic

in the Mediterranean and Black seas and to present the labeling of the MSC seismic markers.

4.1.

profiles with enlargements are used to illustrate the seismic facies of the markers and their

Messinian marker nomenclature and colour code

geometrical relationships. Maps are used to show the location and extent of the markers and the

In this atlas, we propose a new global and consistent terminology for Messinian markers (MSC

thicknesses of the depositional units. Most of the illustrations in the atlas use colours to emphasize

surfaces and depositional units) identified from seismic reflection profiles in the entire offshore

the information and to increase the clarity and understanding of the data or interpretations that are

Mediterranean region (see fig. B and tab. B). In the deep basin, the terminology of the depositional

presented. To help maintain consistency, each Messinian seismic marker is assigned a unique colour

units is based on their seismic facies and/or the geometrical relationship of the units with respect to

that is used throughout the atlas to map the marker wherever it appears in the different areas (see tab. B). Figure B. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Dip schematic section of the gulf of Lion margin, from the continental shelf to the deep basin. During the MSC, the margin has been deeply eroded (creation of the MES) whereas the deep basin accumulated sediments (LU, MU, UU and CU) bounded below and above by the BS/BES and TS/TES respectively. The present day geometry of the MSC markers reflect the post-MSC evolution of the margin (subsidence, compaction, salt tectonics). 7

With evidence for erosion

DEPOSITIONAL UNITS

BOUNDING SURFACES

Without evidence for erosion

Upper/ Lower Intermediate Deep Land Middle slope depth basin basin shelf slope

Mediterranean basins Black sea West East

Labeling Name

Colour code

Green line (dotted)

Orange Bottom Surface line (dotted)

Yes

MES

Margin Erosion Red line Surface

Yes

Green line

Yes

IES

Intermediate Yellow Erosion Surface line

Yes

No?

Yes

BES

Bottom Erosion Orange Surface line

Yes

Top Surface

Top Erosion Surfaces

TES

Yes

Seismic expression

M horizon or M surface [Ryan, 1973; 1978]

- at the bottom of MSC deposits. - above Pre-MSC deposits.

N reflector [Mart and Ben Gai, 1982]

Widespread erosional or angular Yes discordance with subaerial drainage pattern topography.

- beneath PQ - top of the pre-MSC deposits.

M horizon, M surface [Ryan, 1973]; H horizon [Mauffret et al., 1973; Montadert et al., 1970]; Messinian erosional surface [Barber, 1981]

Conformable surfaces or angular discordances.

- beneath PQ - top of MSC deposits. Erosional discordances very well expressed in intermediate-depth basins and in the eastern Mediterranean basin No (excepted IES). - within UU or CU - flat with drainage pattern and valleys (TES). - gullied morphologies and drainage - bottom of MSC deposits. No pattern (BES). - above pre-MSC deposits.

Grey

Yes

Either chaotic, more or less bedded, transparent or disorganized.

Bedded Unit

Blue

Yes

More or less bedded unit. Locally chaotic.

Upper Unit

Green

Yes

No?

High frequency, high amplitude continuous reflections.

UU1

M horizon [Ryan, 1973]; Younger M surface [Ryan, 1973];

Complex Unit

UU2

Previous labeling

- beneath PQ - at the top of MSC deposits.

Geometrical characteristics

(sec twtt)

Type of marker

LOCATION

Mean thickness

MSC SEISMIC MARKERS

Mobile Unit

Yellow

Yes/No

Yes

- transparent facies (with internal reflections in the Eastern basin) No - plastic deformation (listric faults, anticlines and diapirs)

Lower Unit

Purple

Yes/No

Yes

No?

Low frequency, high continuity reflections.

variable spatio-temporal relationship with other MSC depositional units. Often fan shaped at the outlet of the Messinian thalwegs. - geometrically disconnected from the other MSC units - in onlap on the margin feet - beneath PQ - above MU - in onlap on the margin feet - in onlap on the margin slopes - above LU and below UU (western basin) - above pre-MSC deposits. - below MU. - in onlap on the margin feet

Table B. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Labeling and colour code used in the atlas of the Messinian salinity crisis seismic markers in the Mediterranean and Black seas. 8

none Basal discordance [Ryan, 1978]; N surface [Ryan, 1978]; N reflector [Mart and Ben Gai, 1982]; BES [Maillard et al., 2006] 0.15 0.7

Messinian detritals [Lofi et al., 2005]

0.15

Messinian formation [Aleria group, 1979]

0.3 0.5

M reflectors [Ryan and Cita, 1978]; Upper Evaporites [Mauffret et al., 1973]

0.5 (west) couche fluante [Montadert et al., and 1.0 1970]; salt [Auzende et al., 1971] (east) 0.25 0.35

N reflectors [Ryan, 1973]

4.2.

In this atlas, the seismic profiles are used as a tool, and the geometry of reflections and the seismic

Organisation

facies have been voluntarily put forward. Thus, seismic profiles are the primary types of illustrations

The atlas consists of one explanatory note and 41 illustrative sheets organized under 13 study

in each atlas sheet. Interpreted and non-interpreted seismic profiles in the atlas are available on CD.

areas (fig. C). Each of the 13 areas begins with an overview of the geological, sedimentary and

They are supplemented by line drawings, maps or graphs as needed to describe the depositional

architectural context through a regional setting sheet. This overview contains maps showing the

architecture over the study area. Most of the plates in the atlas use colours to emphasize the

location of the area, bathymetry, location of the seismic lines used in the atlas, and a general

information and to increase the clarity and understandability of the seismic data that are presented.

structural sketch of the margin/basin. Origin and processing of the seismic data used for this purpose

Simplified figure captions describe the main features of each plate. References are included for each

are also presented. One to several separated sheets also follow that depict the characteristics of the

study area. They are listed in the references chapter at the end of this document, in order to assist

MSC seismic markers over the study area. These markers are regrouped under the following themes:

readers who may require additional information.

MSC surfaces, MSC basinal units and, according to the study areas, clastics and/or salt

Observations that have been done over the 13 study areas presented in this atlas have been

tectonics.

compiled through a synthesis sheet (see appropriate map). This document illustrates: (1) some synthetic sketches. They illustrate under the form of dip-line drawings the most representative organization of the Messinian markers over each study area; (2) the present-day spatial extent of some specific MSC markers at the scale of the Mediterranean and Black seas: i) the deep basin Mobile Unit (MU, section 5.2.2 for description) and Upper Unit (UU, see section 5.2.3); ii) some clastics deposits (CU, see section 5.2.5); and iii) the Messinian thalwegs on some margins. Note that this mapping has not been performed for the central Mediterranean domain. The extent of these MSC basinal units results from a synthesis of all the study areas shown within this atlas. The spatial extent of the MSC markers that have been mapped corresponds to their present-day position (i.e. after Mediterranean basin geodynamic evolution during the Plio-Quaternary and possible tectonic or salt-related deformation, gravity-gliding or spreading processes, etc..) and not to the Messinian one. For example, as a result of salt tectonics (and basinward displacement of the salt), the mapped present day onlap limit of Mobile Unit MU generally does not reflect the initial Messinian pinch-out on the margin feet. However, considering the scale of the map, differences are

Figure C. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Relief map of the Mediterranean and Black sea area [Smith and Sandwell, 1997]. Black boxes show location of the 13 study areas illustrated in this atlas. The multi-site approach allows analyzing the impact of the MSC on margin segments and basins that have various structural, geodynamical and geological backgrounds. Algerian margin (1), Valencia through (2), gulf of Lions (3), ProvenĂ§al (4) and Ligurian (5) margins, eastern Corsica basin (6), western Corsica (7), and western Sardinia (8) margins, Nile (9), Levant basin (10), Cyprus arc (11), Florence ridge (12), and western Black sea margin (13).

generally relatively small on passive margins. Out of the studied areas, distribution of the markers comes from a compilation of numerous data. Some Messinian thalwegs are mapped in blue whereas the limit onshore of the Messinian erosion has been drawn in red, mostly after the map from Clauzon et al. [1995]. For the eastern 9

Mediterranean, a pre-existing map was used [Sage and Letouzey, 1990]. The work by Moussat

the Bottom Surface (BS) observed in the basins and slopes at the base of MSC units, labelled

[1988] has been reinterpreted in terms of Upper and Mobile Units for the Tyrrhenian sea.

Bottom Erosion Surface (BES) [Maillard et al., 2006] when arguments for erosion processes

Reinterpretation of a great number of seismic lines permitted to draw the exact extents of the Upper

exist;

and Mobile Units in the western Mediterranean [works in progress: Maillard et al., for the South

Balearic domain and the Sardinia channel; Gorini and Maillard for the Alboran sea; Maillard and

units (CU, BU or UU, see section 5.2 for labelling explanation);

Gorini for western Sardinia]. Extrapolations along the Algerian and Tunisian margins are shown in

dashed lines. This document provides a new and more accurate map of the present-day MSC units

The above labelling is based on: (1) the spatial distribution of the surfaces with respect to the preMSC margin/basin morphology; (2) the relationship of the surfaces with the MSC units; and (3)

References to figures and numerotation

evidences or not for associated erosion. These characteristics are illustrated in figure B and

For the comfort of the reader, the explanatory note contains some references to figures, which are

described hereafter. The MES is only observed on the paleo-margins and is systematically overlain

referred as follow: -

by the Plio-Quaternary sequence. The BS/BES, TS/TES and IES are only observed in association

figures that are part of the notice have been labelled from “figure A” to “figure Y”. Two tables

with Messinian units, either in the deep basins or in the intermediate-depth basins (i.e. the Valencia

are part of the notice, they have been labelled “table A” and “table B”; -

and East Corsica offshore basins, which were shallower than the deep basins during the crisis).

figures that are part of the illustrative sheets start with the study area number (i.e. 1 to 13),

These surfaces merge together upslope into the MES, generally at (or close to) the pinch-out (onlap

followed by the figure number. As an example, figure 2.5 refers to the figure 5 from the study

point) of the deep basin Messinian units.

area 2 (Valencia through); -

some enlargement (zooms) of seismic line sections are show in the illustrative sheets. They have been numbered as previously, but are preceded by a “Z”. As an example, figure Z5.1

5.1.1.

refers to the zoom 5 from the study area n°5 (Ligurian margin).

records of deep erosion features in offshore areas [Ryan et al., 1978]. Among them, the MES (former “M horizon” [Ryan, 1973]) is the most striking feature, consisting in a widespread erosion surface

The Messinian seismic markers observed in each of the study area illustrated in this atlas are

generally well identified on the upper margins (eg. fig. 1.7). The MES has been correlated with

described below. Most of the time, depths and thicknesses are given in two-way travel time (sec twtt

several exploration boreholes in the Mediterranean sea. Boreholes located on the shelves reveals an

or msec twtt).

unconformity between pre-MSC and Pliocene deposits (or extremely incomplete successions) [e.g. Cravatte, 1974; Lanaja, 1987]. Subaerial erosion features (e.g. desiccation cracks and stromatolite

Messinian salinity crisis surfaces

layering, DSDP, Leg 42A; fossil meanders and fluvial terraces) [Stampfli and Höcker, 1989] have

Several surfaces have been evidenced on seismic data. In this atlas, we newly refer to these surfaces

been described from margin edges, suggesting fluvial erosion. The MES is thus commonly

as follows: -

Margin Erosion Surface (MES)

Evidences for a substantial drop of the sea-level during the MSC have been collected from numerous

5. Description of the Messinian markers in the offshore domain

5.1.

the Top Surface (TS) observed in the basins and slopes at the top of MSC units, labelled Top Erosion Surface (TES) [Maillard et al., 2006] when arguments for erosion processes exist.

extent in the deep Mediterranean.

4.3.

the Intermediate Erosion Surfaces (IES), observed in the basins and slopes within the MSC

interpreted as the result of subaerial erosion, essentially by river action and retrogressive erosion

the Margin Erosion Surface (MES) observed in the absence of MSC units, on the margins and

[Loget and Van Den Driessche, 2006]. Onshore, the MES is characterized by the presence of deep

slopes; 10

narrow incisions (“canyons”), which correspond to the entrenchment of streams in response to the

slope, the relatively smooth morphology of MES may result from wave-ravinement during the re-

huge sea-level drop [Chumakov, 1973; Clauzon, 1973].

flooding phase at the achievement of the crisis.

Offshore, on the seismic profiles, the MES generally forms a prominent reflection with a strong erosional character as usually indicated by the truncation of the pre-MSC reflections (figs D and E). The MES displays various morphologies, generally extremely rugged with deep incision beneath the inner and middle shelves (valley incisions > 0.5 sec twtt deep, eg. fig. 3.14) and becoming smoother basinward (eg. fig. 3.15). The MES is also commonly evidenced by a high angular discordance between pre-MSC and Plio-Quaternary deposits (downlaps and onlaps of the overlying prograding Plio-Quaternary reflections downslope and upslope respectively, and/or toplaps of underlying Figure E. – Above, southwest of Corsica, the MES (in red) has a strong erosional character illustrated by the truncation of some pre-MSC reflections (blue arrows). The MES is buried beneath the PlioQuaternary sequence. See area n°7 for more details and for profile location.

truncated reflections). The existence of the MES has been confirmed in the Black sea [Gillet, 2004; Gillet et al., 2007] (fig. F).

Figure F. – On the Roumanian shelf, the MES (in red) displays a set of deep canyons incising the Miocene sequence. The MES is buried beneath the PlioQuaternary sequence See area n°13, for more details and for profile location.

Figure D. – Beneath the gulf of Lions inner shelf, the MES (in red) has a strong erosional character illustrated by the truncation of some pre-MSC reflections (blue arrows). The MES is buried beneath the Plio-Quaternary sequence. See area n°3 for more details. Modified from Lofi et al. [2011]. Numerous investigations have enabled reconstructions of the detailed paleomorphologies of the MES

From a spatial point of view, the MES lies at the uppermost part of the margins and extends

at several margins, revealing the existence of Messinian paleo-fluvial networks: e.g. Egyptian margin

downslope to the onlap pinch-out of the deep basin Messinian units (eg. figs 2.3, 3.4, 8.3) . There, it

[Barber, 1981], gulf of Lions shelf (Guennoc et al. [2000] and fig. 3.5), Ebro margin and Valencia

passes laterally to the BS/BES, IES and TS/TES, each of these erosion surfaces being defined

trough [Stampfli and Höcker, 1989]. On large margins with thick sediment cover, it has however been

based on their relationship with downslope Messinian units. From a temporal point of view, the MES

proposed that sub-aquatic processes may have also contributed to the shaping of the MES at the

is a time equivalent of the entire pile of Messinian units and surfaces included between the BES/BS

beginning of the drawdown [Lofi et al., 2005]. Bache et al. [2009] also suggested that beneath the

and the TES/TS. 11

5.1.2.

Bottom Surface (BS) and Bottom Erosion Surface (BES)

The BS and the BES are considered as the same bounding surface marking the base of the MSC

In the Western Basin, the BS/BES passes basinward beneath the three Messinian units (UU, MU and

deposits. However, in some places, the base of the MSC deposits is a conformable surface, whereas

LU) and extends toward the centre of the basin, where it is conformable (fig. B). At the margin slopes,

in other places, it shows evidence of erosion. We thus use two different labellings:

evidence for erosion of the pre-MSC deposits is frequent on the seismic data. For instance, the

the bottom surface is labelled BS (Bottom Surface) when it corresponds to a concordant surface

erosional character of the BES is absolutely unequivocal in the intermediate-depth basins: it is clearly

(e.g. The deepest part of the gulf of Lions, area n°3) or to an angular unconformity with no

observed beneath UU in the Valencia basin (fig. H and area n°2) and beneath the Messinian bedded

evidence for truncation of the pre-MSC reflections (i.e. due for example to tectonics, Algerian

unit (BU, see section 5.2.4) of the eastern Corsica basin (area n°6). In those areas, the BES displays

margin, area n°1);

locally small discontinuous gully-type incisions.

the bottom surface is labelled BES (Bottom Erosion Surface) when clear erosion markers exist (eg. gullied morphology and/or evidences for truncation of underlying pre-MSC reflections). Often, differentiation between BS and BES is not easy.

On the Messinian middle/lower slopes, the BS/BES is absent except beneath the clastics (CU) infilling the Messinian thalwegs as illustrated in figure G (see also areas 3, 5 and 9). Generally, in these sectors of the margins, this surface shows evidences for erosion of the underlying deposits (truncated reflections, valley like morphology) and is thus labelled BES.

Figure H. – On the Valencia basin, an intermediate-depth basins, the BES (in orange) shows clear erosion. It is buried below the Messinian Upper Unit (UU) with gully-type incisions. See area n°2 for more details and for profile location. In the gulf of Lions, there is also locally evidence for erosion (truncations) quite far away basinward. In this area, the BES extends beneath UU, MU and for a while, beneath LU (Lofi et al. [2005] and fig. 3.5). However, it is often difficult to determine if the pre-MSC truncated reflections observed on the seismic lines are related to the Messinian event (creation of the BES) or instead reflect a pre-existing paleo-morphology predating the MSC. In any case, the BES becomes progressively conformable

Figure G. – On the Ligurian lower slope, the BES (in orange) displays valley like morphology, incising the pre-Messinian deposits. The BES is buried below the Messinian Upper Unit (UU) infilling the Messinian valley. See area n°5 for more details and for profile location.

(BS) with the underlying strata. In the deepest part of the Western Basin (fig. I), where observed, the lower limit of the MSC units is mostly conformable at the base of LU (BS). 12

canyons and accumulated beneath MU. On the Cyprus arc (area n°11) the BES/BS is also observed at the base of MU, and shows large scale deformation (fig. 11.9). Most of the time, no clear signs of erosion are observed (BS, Z11.6) although reflections below are locally clearly truncated (BES, fig. 11.9). In the Nile deep sea fan (area n°9), the BES is observed at the bottom of CU (see section 5.2.5). In this area, this surface is more complex because it is associated with several canyon incisions, which migrated spatially, making the BES a polyphased diachronous surface. In the Florence ridge, the BES is drawn with caution beneath a bedded unit identified locally beneath MU that may correspond to LU.

Figure I. – In the deep basin off the gulf of Lion, the BS (in orange) is a conformable surface at the bottom of the oldest MSC unit (LU). See area n°3 for more details and for profile location.

5.1.3.

Intermediate Erosion Surfaces (IES)

The IES represent some intermediate unconformities contained in the MSC depositional units. From a stratigraphical point of view, they were created after the BS/BES and before the TS/TES. One or several IES, clearly erosional with gullied morphologies, are well imaged within the thin Messinian deposits UU and BU of the intermediate-depth basins: the Valencia and East Corsica basins (see areas n°2 and 6). In the northern Ligurian margin (area n°5), an IES is also observed within the MSC upper unit pinching out on the lower slope (UU) as attested by the truncations of some of the underlying reflections (fig. K). In the deep part of the Western Basin and in the eastern Mediterranean basin, IES have not been observed on the seismic profiles.

Figure J. – In the Levant basin, the BES (in orange) shows locally clear erosion at the base of the MSC deposits. Here, it is buried below the Mobile Unit (MU). See area n°10 for more details and for profile location. Figure K. – On the Ligurian lower slope, an IES (in yellow) shows clear erosion (truncation of the underlying reflections) within the Messinian Upper Unit (UU) accumulated in a Messinian valley. See area n°5 for more details and for profile location.

In the eastern Mediterranean, the BS/BES generally extends beneath MU (fig. J). In the Levant basin (area n°10), this surface clearly shows evidence for erosion thanks to the truncation of the underlying reflections. It is thus labelled BES. In this area, the BES is related to MSC canyons systems [Bertoni and Cartwright, 2006]. Locally, this surface passes at the bottom of some deposits supplied by the 13

of the top MSC deposits is however frequent on the seismic data. As an example, an erosion is 5.1.4.

identified locally at the top of UU in the gulf of Lions (figs. Z3.4 and 3.7). In the Valencia intermediate-

Top Surface (TS) and Top Erosion Surface (TES)

depth basin (fig. 2.14) the erosion character of the TES is much more pronounced and absolutely

The TS and the TES correspond to the same bounding surface marking the top of the MSC deposits

unequivocal at the top of UU. It consists there of a very flat surface at the top of UU, with a sinuous

(either UU or CU/BU in the Western Basin or MU, in the Eastern Basin). In some places, the top of

central paleo-valley (fig. 2.7) and its tributaries extending toward the Provençal basin [Escutia and

the MSC deposits is a conformable surface, whereas in other places, it shows evidence for erosion.

Maldonado 1992; Maillard et al., 2006; see also area n°2]. In boreholes, the TES has been detected

We thus use two different labellings: -

at the top of the pinch-out of UU, at the edge of the Balearic abyssal plain (DSDP drilling site 372

the top surface is labelled TS (Top Surface) when it corresponds to a concordant surface (eg. fig.

[Cita et al., 1978]).

K). Locally, it may correspond to an angular unconformity with no evidence for truncation of the -

pre-MSC reflections (eg. downlap of the Lower Pliocene reflections);

As illustrated in figure M, in the East Corsica basin also, the TES shows large and deep incisions (up

the top surface is labelled TES (Top Erosion Surface) when clear erosion markers exist (eg.

to 0.4 sec twtt deep) at the flat top of a bedded unit (BU). In this intermediate-depth basin (see area

gullied morphology and/or evidences for truncation of underlying MSC reflections; fig. 2.5).

n°6), the TES draws a complex valley system composed of two networks. These networks merge downslope in the south to form one wider and deeper valley supposed to have flown into the deeper

On the Messinian middle/lower slopes, where the Messinian units (UU, MU and LU) are absent, the

Tyrrhenian basin (fig. 6.5). Unfortunately, the connection is not identified at the present time.

TS/TES is absent, except at the top of the clastics (CU) infilling the Messinian thalwegs (eg. fig. L and figs. 2.16, 3.10 and 5.4) [see also Barber, 1981; Guennoc et al., 2004].

Figure M. – In the eastern Corsican basin, the TES (in green) shows deep V-shaped incision in the Messinian deposits (BU). See area n°6 for more details and for profile location. Figure L. – On the gulf of Lion middle slope, the TES (in green) is observed at the top of the Messinian clastics (CU) infilling a Messinian valley (transversal cut). Modified from Lofi et al. [2005].

In the eastern Mediterranean basin, the TS/TES generally extends out at the top of MU where it has

In the western Mediterranean basin, the TS/TES passes basinward to the top of the most recent

a mostly erosional character [Ryan, 1978]. The TES is thus clearly imaged on the Levantine margin

Messinian unit (top of UU) and extends toward the center of the basin, where it is conformable (thus

(fig. N and figs 10.5 and 10.8) thanks to the areal truncation of intra-MU reflections (see area n°10).

labelled TS), if undisturbed by salt tectonics (figs. B and I). At the margin slopes, evidence for erosion

This unconformity has been interpreted as a subaerial exposure linked to a regression that occurred 14

during the last stages of deposition of the Messinian Mobile Unit [Bertoni and Cartwright, 2007a].

Gaullier, 1993; Dos Reis et al., 2005; Loncke et al., 2006]. Two other MSC units have been identified

However, unlike in the Western Basin (eg. Valencia basin), no evidence of valley like morphologies

in the western Mediterranean deep basin, one above the salt and one below [Montadert et al., 1970].

associated to the TES has been observed. The TES has also been clearly evidenced at the top of

These three seismic units are also called together “Messinian trilogy”. They also have for a long time

MU (fig. 11.4) on the Cyprus arc. In some other areas of the Eastern Basin, the location of the

been called “Lower Evaporites”, “Salt”, and “Upper Evaporites” [e.g. Ryan, 1973; Mauffret et al., 1978;

TS/TES limit is more uncertain, either because of the complexity of the area, the resolution of the

Réhault et al., 1985]. However, a “Lower Evaporite Unit” is also described onshore, but

seismic profiles or the lack of calibration wells. In the Nile deep sea fan (area n°9), for example, the

lithological/stratigraphical/geometrical correlations are not demonstrated. This ambiguous labelling is

TS/TES is observed either at the top of MU (fig. 9.15) or, with care, at the top of a bedded unit of

puzzling. In order to avoid misleading uses of these terms, we newly refer to the deep basin

unknown age and which could be interpreted as UU (fig. 9.8). In the Florence ridge, the TES is also

Messinian units as follow (see also fig. B):

drawn with caution either above CU (fig.12.8 and Z12.2) or above a bedded unit identified locally

the Lower Unit (LU) observed in the basins at the base of the MSC units, below MU;

above MU and that may correspond to UU.

the Mobile Unit (MU) observed in the basins;

the Upper Unit (UU) observed in the basins at the top of the MSC units, above MU.

The above labelling is based on: (1) the spatial distribution of the MSC units with respect to MU and (2) the relationship of the units with the MSC surfaces. These characteristics are illustrated in figure B. Two other MSC units are observed at a more local scale: -

the Complex Unit (CU) observed on the slope and at the margin foot;

the Bedded Unit (BU) observed on the slope and in intermediate-depth basins.

The relative age of the above two units cannot be established because BU is geometrically disconnected from the others Messinian units and CU shows a wide spatio-temporal variability from one area to another. No MSC depositional units are observed on the margins where only the MES is imaged. LU, MU, UU,

Figure N. – In the Levant basin (see area n°10), the TES (in green) has a strong erosional character illustrated by the truncation (blue arrows) of some reflections belonging to the MU unit.

BU and CU are only observed in the deep or intermediate-depth basins. Their characteristics are described hereafter.

5.2.

Messinian salinity crisis units 5.2.1.

Deep basin Messinian evaporites occupy most of the present-day Mediterranean domain (see

Lower Unit (LU)

synthesis map). The easiest MSC unit that can be evidenced on the seismic profiles is the Messinian

LU is the oldest MSC unit of the western Mediterranean Messinian trilogy and is bounded below by

salt (unit MU), thanks to its transparent facies and characteristic plastic deformation creating listric

the BS/BES (fig. B). LU has been observed and defined for the first time in the gulf of Lion area (area

normal faults and diapirs in the overlying Plio-Quaternary sedimentary cover [e.g. Le Cann, 1987;

n°3, Montadert et al. [1970]), where it corresponds to a group of continuous high amplitude 15

reflections and has only been observed in the deepest part of the basin, in onlap on the Miocene

In the Antalya basin (see area 12), a basinward thickening sequence of high amplitude reflections is

lower slopes (Réhault, pers. comm.) [Lofi et al., 2005] (fig. O).

observed below the Mobile Unit MU, and may correspond to LU. However, because of the low resolution of the seismic profiles and the lack of data density, those seismic reflections could also reflect pre-MSC deposits. At the present time, the age, lithology and depositional environment of LU are still speculative, as it has never been drilled. Some authors proposed that LU deposited in a fully subaqueous environment and may contain a large part of sediments eroded from the margins at the beginning of the drawdown and accumulated as giant turbidites above the abyssal plain [Lofi et al., 2005]. A chronostratigraphic correlation possibly exist between LU and the thick resedimented Messinian gypsum turbidites outcropping in the Apennine or in Sicily, also known as RLG (Resedimented Lower Gypsum) [Roveri et al., 2001, 2008a,b]. However, these outcrops are geometrically disconnected from the MSC

Figure O. – In the gulf of Lion, the LU (in purple) is characterized by low frequency sub-continuous reflections in onlap on the Miocene lower slope. See area n°3 for more details and for profile location.

deposits observed offshore, thus preventing any direct correlation.

The twtt thickness of LU spans from 0 (pinch out point on the Miocene slope) to up to 0.35 sec twtt

5.2.2.

(basinward). It onlaps the Miocene margin at a depth of ~4.5-5 sec twtt in the gulf of Lions (see area

This unit has been described both in the Western and Eastern Basins (eg. areas n°3, 4, 5 and 10). It

n°3), but this geometry is generally poorly imaged. In other places, LU has not been observed with

corresponds to the Messinian salt accumulated in the deep basins and onlaping the Miocene

certitude with the same seismic facies, either because this reflective unit does not exist or because

margins. MU is evidenced on the seismic profiles by a characteristic transparent acoustic facies (fig.

salt prevents acoustic waves to propagate deep enough. Its extension and thickness throughout the

I), interpreted as consisting dominantly of halite [Nely, 1994], and by an associated plastic

Western Basin is still thus poorly known. In the Algerian margin (see fig. P and area n°1), a reflective

deformation. Listric normal growth faults linked to the post-MSC salt tectonics are currently observed

unit located below MU is interpreted as the LU. However, its reflectivity is slightly lower than in the

at the lower slopes of the margins (fig. Q), passing progressively seaward to salt anticlines and

gulf of Lions and because of tectonics, no onlap of this unit on the Miocene lower slope has been

diapirs in the more distal areas [e.g. Le Cann, 1987; Gaullier and Bellaiche, 1996; Dos Reis et al.,

evidenced.

2005; Loncke et al., 2006; Gaullier et al., 2006] (see also fig. R). The root of the uppermost fault

Mobile Unit (MU)

indicates the location of the initial Messinian pinch-out of the salt (before salt tectonics) along the margin foot (eg. fig. Q; see also areas n° 4, 5, and 8).

MU shows characteristic plastic deformation in both the western and eastern Mediterranean basins. Figure P. – On the Algerian margin, the LU (in purple) is accumulated beneath MU and characterized by low frequency sub-continuous reflections. See area n°1 for more details and for profile location.

However, the seismic facies and thickness of this unit differs at the scale of the Mediterranean sea:

in the Western Basin, MU is < 0.5 sec twtt thick (i.e. ~1100 m thick using a mean internal velocity of 4.5 km/s) and shows essentially a reflection-free seismic facies (fig. I). It is bounded above and below by two other MSC units: UU and LU, respectively;

in the Eastern Basin, MU is up to 1 sec twtt thick (i.e. ~2100 m thick using a mean internal

In the Eastern Basin (see Levant basin, area n°10), refraction velocities analysis [Hübscher et al.,

velocity of 4.2 km/s) and shows a reflection-free seismic facies, with several internal reflections

2008] (fig. 10.5) evidenced that the MU shows reflection-free seismic facies with internal velocities of

(fig. S). Most of the time, MU is bounded above and below by two MSC surfaces that are

up to 4.5 km/sec. This transparent facies alternates with several discontinuous reflection packages,

clearly erosional (at least in the Levant basin (area n°10) and on the Cyprus arc (area n°11)):

with internal velocities below 4 km/sec. Those internal reflection packages delimitate up to six

the TES (fig. S) and the BES respectively (e.g. fig. J; Ryan [1978]; Tahchi et al. [2004]; Bertoni

depositional sequences that can be traced throughout the Levant basin [Netzeband et al., 2006b;

and Cartwright [2006, 2007b]; Maillard et al., [2011]). In the Eastern Basin, MU is thus directly

Bertoni and Cartwright 2006; Ottes et al., 2008]. They also suggest vertical changes in the evaporitic

recovered by the Plio-Quaternary, although, some seismic units resembling UU and LU are

facies of MU, with intercalated clastics and/or trapped fluids. Fluid escape structures have been

observed locally in the Nile and Florence areas (areas n°9 and 12).

frequently reported in the Eastern Basin, possibly linked to fluid resources located beneath or within MU [e.g. Loncke et al., 2004; Gradmann et al., 2005; Netzeband et al., 2006b; Huebscher et al., 2008] (see also Levant basin, area n°10). In the Levant basin lower slope, well data indicate the presence of thick halite intervals, intercalated with anhydrite, limestone and siliciclastic sediments in the upper and marginal part of the Mobile Unit [Bertoni and Cartwright, 2005]. However, this lithological information has a local character and cannot be directly extrapolated to the entire MU unit, as the wells only drilled part of the Messinian evaporites.

Figure Q. – In the Ligurian margin, MU (in yellow) shows characteristic transparent acoustic facies associated with listric normal growth faults linked to post-MSC salt tectonics. See area n°5 for more details and for profile location.

Figure R. – In the deepest part of the Provençal basin, MU (in yellow) shows characteristic transparent acoustic facies. Shortening and sediment loading created diapirs piercing through the Plio-Quaternary cover. See area n°4 for more details and for profile location.

Figure S. – In the Levant basin, MU (in yellow) shows alternating reflection-free and layered seismic facies. Internal reflections are sloping toward the NW and are eroded at the top by the TES. MU is directly overlain by the Plio-Quaternary sequence. See area n°10 for more details and for profile location. 17

5.2.3.

Provençal, Ligurian and western Sardinian margins (areas n°4, 5, 8), seismic facies can be either

Upper Unit (UU)

roughly bedded (UU1) or relatively well bedded (UU2). Some lateral facies variations within UU have

In the western Mediterranean basin, UU is the upper and most recent unit of the Messinian trilogy. In

also been evidenced while approaching the canyons outlets, where the facies often becomes less

the deepest areas, UU is identified by a group of parallel and relatively continuous reflections of

organized (see areas n°4 and 8). The strong internal reflectivity of UU, related to strong impedances

relatively high amplitude, deposited above MU and below the Plio-Quaternary (fig. I). In more

contrasts within the unit, supports that the unit consists of contrasted natures of sediments.

proximal areas, UU pinches out at the Miocene margin slopes above the BS/BES, and is often faulted due to post-MSC salt tectonics (figs. T and U). The top of UU correlates with a prominent seismic reflection usually referred to as the “M” reflection [Ryan and Hsü., 1973] and corresponding to the TS/TES in this atlas.

Figure U. – On the western Sardinia lower slope, UU (in green) is characterized by slight vertical variations in seismic facies, allowing to distinguish two sub-units (UU1 and UU2) separated by an erosion surface (IES). See area n°8 for more details and for profile location. The top of UU has been sampled during DSDP Leg XIII [Hsü et al., 1973] with the discovery of the

Figure T. – On the gulf of Lion lower slope, UU (in green) is identified by a group of parallel and relatively continuous reflections pinching out on the Miocene margin. UU lies above MU and is affected by faults due to salt tectonics. See area n°3 for more details and for profile location.

"pillar of Atlantis", made of layers of dolomitic marls and anhydrite. Stromatolites characterizing arid and shallow marine depositional environments (Sabkha) have also been observed, interbedded with marly levels locally rich brackish fauna. Such alternation can explain the internal reflectivity of UU.

The thickness of this unit spans from 0 (pinch out point on the Miocene slope) to up to 0.4 sec twtt

Because several different lithologies can generate the same seismic facies, the stratigraphical and

(i.e. 700 m thick using a mean internal velocity of 3.5 km/s). UU is mostly aggrading and onlaps the

depositional environment equivalency of two apparently identical seismic objects must be carefully

margin foots (fig. T). Such a geometry evidences the shoaling of the basin floor during the

discussed. Moreover, the vertical and lateral facies variability evidenced at the basin scale suggest

accumulation of UU. In some places, UU contains some erosion surfaces labelled IES (fig. G) that

that the nature of UU may vary from one point to another. We thus suspect that UU displays an

are observed at intermediate depths only (see Valencia through, area n°2 and Ligurian margin, area

important variability in terms of lithologies and depositional environments since it is recovered at river

n°5). Slight vertical variations in seismic facies are punctually observed in UU and two sub-units

mouths (increase of the clastic fraction), in the centre of the deep basins (possible increase of the

(labelled UU1 and UU2) have consequently been distinguished in some areas (fig. U). Indeed, on the

evaporitic fraction) or in an intermediate-depth basins (possible increase of the lacustrine fraction). 18

While a thick and widespread UU has been shown all around the northwestern Mediterranean (see

presence of a volcanic intrusion at the outlet of the Messinian Corsica basin (see eastern Corsica

Synthesis map), it is not the case in the deep eastern Mediterranean (e.g. fig. S and Ryan [1978]).

basin, area n°6). Moreover, BU has not been drilled in the East Corsican basin.

Indeed, in many areas, only the thick salt unit (MU) is visible on the seismic profiles (see also 5.2.5.

Levantine domain, area n°10 and Cyprus arc, area n°11). Deposits tens of meters thick, containing

Complex Units (CU)

gypsum have been drilled in the Cretan basin and on the crest of the Mediterranean ridge (Florence

Several Complex Units CU have been observed in the Mediterranean basin, commonly organized as

rise, Hsü et al. [1978]). However, those deposits could be too thin to be clearly observed on the

fan shaped accumulations at the margin foot (Figure V, see areas n°2 and 3). They display generally

seismic profiles or could have been subsequently eroded locally by a late phase of erosion during the

a chaotic seismic facies, with incoherent reflection configuration, more or less transparent. A careful

last stage of deposition in the Eastern Basin [Bertoni and Cartwright, 2007a]. In the Nile deep sea fan

examination of the seismic profiles however shows that the internal configuration does not only

(fig. 9.7) and in the Antalya basin (fig. 12.11), a bedded reflective unit is locally observed at the top of

consist of hyperbolic diffractions but contains a mix of seismic facies ranging from reflection free to

either MU or CU. This unit resembles the UU of the Western Basin, but may also be Pliocene in age,

sporadic high-amplitude semi-continuous reflections within the unit. In some places, CU can also

such as the bedded unit lying above MU in the Levantine basin (area n°10). Without borehole

contain be relatively continuous reflections. In order to avoid the multiplicity of labelling, we have

calibration, no definitive conclusion can be made regarding its origin.

chosen to gather these facies into a unique global term of “Complex Unit” and to describe them as

5.2.4.

distinct sub-units (CU1, CU2...) in case they depict significant differences. Thus, on the Algerian

Bedded Units (BU)

margin, a mostly chaotic unit (CU2) lays above a more bedded unit (CU1) that may correspond to a first stage of MSC deposition or to pre-MSC deposits.

Some Bedded Units BU have been observed in the Mediterranean basin. They are geometrically disconnected from the others Messinian units and their relative age thus cannot be established. These unit have consequently been labelled Bedded Unit (BU), with reference to their seismic facies, which consists most of the time of relatively continuous sub-parallel reflections (fig. M). Where described, BU are up to 0.2 sec twtt thick (i.e. 350 m thick using a mean internal velocity of 3.5 km/s). They are bracketed by very well expressed TES (fig. 6.11) and BES (fig. 7.11). In some places, BU also contain internal erosion surfaces labelled IES (fig. G).

Figure V. – In the Valencia basin, CU (in grey) is fan shaped and accumulated at the margin foot. See area n°2 for more details and for profile location.

Up to now, BU have only been observed in the East-Corsica basin (area n°6) and on the WestCorsica margin (area n°7) in MSC topographic lows that are located at intermediate depths, above the pinch out of MU (fig. 7.11). In the East Corsican intermediate-depth basin (area n°6), BU is characterized by a bedded seismic facies that can be divided into two sub-units based on a careful examination of the seismic facies and erosion surfaces [Aleria Group, 1978]. From a geometrical

CU are irregular in terms of lateral extent and overall thickness (up to 1 sec twtt thick). They are

point of view only, this unit strongly resembles the UU of the Valencia basin (in onlap on the Miocene

absent (or below the resolution of the seismic) on the upper slopes or on the margin shelves. On the

slopes and bounded above and below by the TES and the BES, Thinon et al. [2004]). The lateral

lower-middle slopes CU are mainly imaged above the BES, as infilling the Messinian thalwegs (fig.

equivalence is however not demonstrated at the present time because the eastern Corsican

W). In the Nile area, the internal configuration of CU is very complex CU because it is related to the

Messinian unit cannot be correlated with the rest of the western Mediterranean as a result of the

infilling of several canyon incisions which migrated spatially (fig. 9.6). At the transition with the basin, 19

CU display a complex relationship with the other Messinian units: CU are imaged either beneath MU

The products of the margin erosion have been observed at many margin feet: Ligurian and Provencal

(eg. gulf of Lions, fig. 3.14) or above MU (eg. Algerian margin, fig. 1.5; Provençal margin, Z4.3 ), and

margins [Savoye and Piper 1991], gulf of Lions [Lofi et al., 2005], Valencia basin [Maillard et al.,

a lateral facies change to UU and/or MU is locally inferred.

2006], Valencia seamount flanks [Mitchell and Lofi, 2008], western Sardinia [Sage et al., 2005], Provençal [Obone-Zué-Obame et al., 2011], Algerian margins [Déverchère et al., 2005; Gaullier et

Based on their external shape and spatial connection with the main Messinian thalwegs, CU are

al., 2006], Levant basin [Bertoni and Cartwright, 2007b]. The Nile system is however the best

interpreted as clastic deposits eroded from the margin during the drawdown phase and accumulated

documented case because of the high reservoir potential of these deposits [Rizzini et al., 1978;

at the MSC river mouth. Based on seismic attributes, the thin CU (up to 0.12 sec twtt thick) recovered

Barber, 1981; Ottes et al., 2008]. At the scale of the Mediterranean basin, CU are highly diachronous

locally at the base of MU in the Levant basin are also interpreted as MSC clastics, although these

and show a high variability in terms of seismic facies, spatial extent and stratigraphic position (see

deposits are very local, and not regionally correlated to other CUs (area n°10).

Synthesis map).

Where they have been sampled on the slopes, CU consist of sands and conglomerates intercalated with marly levels and overlain by early Pliocene deep marine sediments. They are therefore

5.3.

interpreted as Messinian fluviodeltaic deposits with stratified organisation when the facies is bedded

Limits of the offshore approach

Marine seismic data exploitations are submitted to some limitations summarized hereafter.

[Rizzini et al., 1978; Estocade, 1978; Stampfli and Höcker, 1989; Savoye and Piper, 1991]. Downslope, in the distal part accumulated below MU, CU may consist of subaqueous gravity-driven

The Messinian sequence of the abyssal plain has never been fully drilled for scientific purpose.

deposits resulting from an early erosion of the margin at the beginning of the drawdown [Lofi et al.,

Studies of the Messinian markers offshore are thus limited by the lack of lithological and

2005]. The presence of thick MSC deposits redeposited through gravitary processes into relatively

stratigraphical calibrations. In the absence of fully recovering deep boreholes, our knowledge of the

deep waters has also been evidenced in the Apennine foredeep [Roveri et al., 2001]. Transparency

nature and age of the deep evaporite sequence is weak, in particular concerning MU and LU (see

could in some cases be due to high gas contents as proposed along the Egyptian margin [Loncke et

section 5.2 for seismic unit descriptions). Divings can bring invaluable information (e.g. cirque Marcel

al., 2004].

on the Ligurian margin, Savoye and Piper [1991]) but they are limited because of sampling difficulties and because MSC deposits, generally overlain by the Plio-Quaternary deposits, rarely outcrop in the Mediterranean sea. Industrial boreholes could be very useful [Ottes et al., 2008] but data are generally not easily accessible to the scientific community. Thus, considerable progress will be done when this sequence is drilled integrally [eg. Rouchy, 2004; Gorini et al., 2006; Hübscher et al., 2007; Bassetti and Lofi, 2009]. Meanwhile, only the correlation of the seismic approach with information from IODP and DSDP drillings (that only partly sampled a few percent of the MSC units) can be envisaged [Hsü et al., 1973; Hsü et al., 1978; Kastens et al., 1987]. Regarding the geophysical data, offshore seismic studies are based on the recognition and interpretation of seismic facies and of the geometry of the depositional units and erosion surfaces, correlated where possible with borehole or core data. Because several different lithologies can lead

Figure W. – Beneath the gulf of Lions middle shelf, strike seismic reflection profile shows a paleoMessinian valley infilled with Complex Unit, CU (in grey). Modified from Lofi and Berné [2008].

to the same seismic facies, the stratigraphic and depositional environment equivalence of two a-priori 20

identical seismic objects must be carefully discussed. The seismic facies of one sedimentary unit

bedded seismic unit (BU) that strongly resembles the UU observed elsewhere [Thinon et al., 2004].

also depends on the seismic source used. It would thus be of interest to use systematically one

Their lateral equivalence however cannot be demonstrated at the present time because of the

unique and adapted seismic source allowing the direct comparison of the seismic facies. This would

presence of a volcanic intrusion at the outlet of the Messinian basin. Concerning the comparison

partly relieve ourselves from the data heterogeneity problem. Seismic data interpretation may also be

between the western and eastern Mediterranean basins, although a mobile unit has been evidenced

limited by data quality: various source types, analogical data, bad signal penetration in CU (Complex

in both basins, their synchronicity is not obvious because both basins are disconnected at the

Unit usually interpreted as Messinian clastics) or beneath MU (Mobile Unit mainly consisting of

present time. Some authors have thus suggested that it may exist a delay between the deposition of

halite), inadequate orientation of the seismic profiles, bubble pulses of air guns, remnants of

the MU in the Eastern and Western basins [Blanc, 2000; Ryan, 2008, 2009]. The knowledge of the

hyperbolas after inadequate migration, poor signal resolution or low signal-to-noise ratio may strongly

paleo-geography of the Mediterranean and Paratethys during the MSC is also crucial in order to

limit or even bias the interpretations. More specifically, evaporites have generally a high acoustic

recover the paleo-connections among the basins during higher sea-levels [Jolivet et al., 2006;

impedance and high velocity relative to overlying sediments: they produce pull-down and pull-up of

Clauzon et al., 2005; Popescu et al., 2006; Clauzon et al., 2008].

underlying units, and also frequency content decreases within the salt, making resolution lower than As a last point, land/sea correlations of the Messinian depositional units and erosion surfaces are

in the overburden. The high reflectivity of the evaporite layers also causes multiples and ringing

also a difficult challenge essentially because of both geometrical problems and scale integration

noise, distorting the image below them. Industry data are not usually targeted to image Messinian

limitations [eg. Cornée et al., 2008]. Firstly, correlations at the scale of a margin are difficult as no

evaporites, thus acquisition and processing parameters are not optimized for salt imaging (eg. AGC,

continuous record allows the connection between the abyssal plains, where deposition prevailed, and

over-under migration effects).

the margins, where erosion prevailed. Secondly, post-MSC tectonics locally produced a geometrical

The architectural complexity of one studied system, the lateral changes in seismic facies, the

disconnection of some deposits outcropping onshore from the rest of the Mediterranean (eg. Sicily).

deformations related to salt tectonics, volcanism or deep-seated tectonics are among the factors that

Thirdly, the vertical resolution is critical in seismic works. It concerns the minimum thickness of a bed,

make interpretation or reflection picking complex or equivocal at a local scale. For example, the

so that reflections from the top and the base of the bed can be distinguished. Resolution is

Messinian units found on the slope of the Ligurian margin (see area n°5) cannot be definitely

dependent on the data frequency content, which becomes more bandwidth-limited with depth of

correlated with the abyssal plain units, and especially with the Mobile Unit MU, because a set of salt-

penetration. For Messinian seismic marker imaging, the vertical resolution of seismic data used is

related listric faults strongly deforms the Messinian and post-Messinian units. In the Levant basin

therefore usually several meters or several tens of meters, which is much weaker than onshore

(see area n°10), the geometry of the MU is relatively close to its initial one and the MU seismic facies

resolution, where depositional units are sometimes few meters (or less) thick. Finally, note that

can be traced throughout the entire basin. However, further north and at the Cyprus arc (area n°11),

because of shallow bathymetries, it is generally difficult to acquire seismic profiles close to the

geometry and thickness of MU have been modified by subsequent crustal-scale tectonics and the

coastline, preventing us from an easy land-sea connection.

present-day geometry does not reflect the initial geometry. Correlation at a large scale is limited, mainly by the existence of topographic sills that disconnect the

6. Comparing the MSC markers at the scale of the Mediterranean area

different Mediterranean basins and sub-basins (ex. Western vs. Eastern basins, eastern Corsica, Tyrrhenian sea…). Thus, if it is relatively easy to correlate geometrically the Upper Unit (UU) at the

Seismic interpretation allows to study the spatial distribution of the MSC sedimentary units, their

scale of the Algero-Provençal basin (see Synthesis map), it is more difficult for sub-basins. This

internal geometries and spatial relationships. The multi-site data set presented in the atlas allowed to

problem is encountered for example in the eastern Corsica basin (study area n°6) containing a

solve some of the problems discussed above (Section 5.3) and to evidence the crucial influence of 21

the initial geological-morphological setting on the recording of the crisis [Lofi et al., 2011]. Indeed, the responses of the margin/basin to the MSC appear to be closely related to local and regional factors (morphology, dimensions and initial bathymetry of the area, type of pre-Messinian rocks, lithology and dimension of the drainage basins and of the continental shelves, proximity and height of aerial reliefs, tectonic context, subsidence…). These factors have played a key role on the spatial and temporal organisation of the Messinian erosions, the location, the amount and the nature of the eroded sediments and the modalities of sediment transport and sedimentation toward the basins. In this context, a careful observation of the MSC seismic markers at the scale of the entire Mediterranean area should allow discuss the paleo-environmental evolution of the basins and margins during the MSC and refine our knowledge of this event [see Lofi et al., 2011 for more

Figure X. – Ideal schematic section of the western Mediterranean basin illustrating the organisation of the Messinian salinity seismic markers in the offshore domain, in absence of salt tectonics. In the marginal basins, some evaporites accumulated at a first stage of the crisis, before the major sealevel drawdown [Clauzon et al., 1996]. Modified from Lofi et al. [2011].

details]. Indeed, one major result of the atlas is that, whatever the study area considered, we evidence a more or less complete association of characteristic seismic markers depicting, at a time, similarities and differences (spatial, temporal and geometrical). The MSC factors are thus superimposed to local trends, and should allow, in some cases, to differentiate/discuss their respective impacts. The aim of this section is to summarize the main characteristics of the surfaces and seismic units of the MSC within each of the main basins, namely the western Mediterranean basin, the eastern Mediterranean basin, and the Black sea basin. The general organisation of the MSC seismic markers in the western Mediterranean basin is shown in figure X. In the deepest part of the basin, in the absence of salt tectonics, the “trilogy” is generally concordant at the base and at the top with the Pre-MSC and the Plio-Pleistocene sequences, respectively (see e.g. gulf of Lions, area n°3 and Algerian margin, area n°1). Although a concordance does not necessarily mean that no erosion occurred, the observations suggest a permanent immersion of the deepest part of the abyssal plain during the “desiccation” phase.

Figure Y. – Ideal schematic section of the eastern Mediterranean sea basin illustrating the organisation of the Messinian salinity seismic markers in the offshore domain. Modified from Lofi et al. [2011].

Therefore, the deep Western Basin probably never emerged and appears as a continuous recorder of the entire MSC, with no hiatus. In more proximal areas, the deep basin trilogy is observed as a lateral onlap on margin foots. This peripheral onlap shows that, unlike in the more distal areas, the recording of the MSC is incomplete onshore and in the intermediate-depth basins. This onlap possibly reflects the progressive infilling of the abyssal plain by the Messinian deposits, as the

In the eastern Mediterranean basin (fig. Y), the three Messinian units (UU, MU, LU) have not been

subsidence did not compensate the extremely high sedimentation rate in the basin (i.e. more than

identified on the seismic profiles. For example, in the Levant basin (see area n°10) and in the Cyprus

1500 m in less than 300,000 years).

arc (see area n°11), only a thick Mobile Unit is visible, which is not bracketed by any LU and UU [e.g. 22

Bertoni and Cartwright, 2007a; Maillard et al., 2011]. However, further east in the Nile area (study

7. Conclusions and perspectives

area n°9) and in the Antalya basin (study area n°12), a bedded reflective continuous unit is locally

The Messinian salinity crisis (MSC) is a unique, outstanding event that have left imprints both

observed at the top of the MSC deposits. This unit resembles the UU observed in the Western Basin

onshore and offshore in the Mediterranean region, from far inside the neighbouring continents down

but may also correspond to Pliocene deposits. In the Antalya basin, MU lies sometimes above a

to the deepest parts of the sea. Although they have identified these imprints for long, offshore studies

basinward thickening sequence of high amplitude reflections that may correspond to either pre-MSC

dealing with the MSC failed until recently to provide a comprehensive and unified overview of the

deposits, LU, or MSC-clastics. In addition, the clear erosion surfaces found above MU along the

various markers left by the crisis and to favour comparisons between different areas in the

Levant margin [Bertoni and Cartwright, 2007a; Huebscher et al., 2008] attest for an important sea

Mediterranean.

level drop after salt deposition in the Eastern Basin.

Our purpose through the seismic atlas of the “deep parts” of the MSC is not to solve the debates on

In the Black sea, until now, none of these three seismic units (UU, MU, LU) have been observed on

the exact timing of the crisis, the importance and distribution of erosion, dissolution and deposition

the seismic profiles, but a major erosion surface (MES) has been described (see area n°13). Down

processes, and the factors responsible for its birth and death, which still remain today [e.g. Clauzon

slope, off the Bosphorus straight, the MES correlates with a Late Messinian shallow water unit drilled

et al., 1996, 2005; Rouchy and Caruso, 2006; Roveri et al., 2008; Govers, 2009; Govers et al., 2009].

during DSDP leg [Hsü and Giovanoli, 1979]. This shows that the Black sea, like the Mediterranean

Indeed, the MSC itself, the scenarii, the history and evolution of related ideas, have recently been

sea, suffered a desiccation period at the end of the Messinian [eg. Gillet et al., 2007].

developed and detailed, in a comprehensive and approachable way, in several publications [see e.g. Rouchy et al., 2006; Rouchy and Caruso, 2006; CIESM Consensus report, 2008; Ryan, 2009, 2011].

We conclude that major differences exist between the western, eastern Mediterranean, and Black

This atlas is built in order to fill two main gaps: (1) firstly, it proposes a new and consistent

sea MSC markers regarding the seismic facies, the number of depositional units, and their

terminology for Messinian markers (MSC surfaces and depositional units) identified from seismic

thicknesses (see Synthesis plate). Especially, whereas a clear deep basin trilogy (LU, MU, UU) is

reflection profiles in the entire offshore Mediterranean, resulting from an accurate observation and

observed in the Western Basin, only the Mobile Unit is clearly recovered on seismic data in the

picking of all the markers available: this new terminology is a key step in order to clarify the meaning

Eastern Basin. In addition, the Mobile Unit MU is generally characterized by a transparent facies in

of various descriptions of markers of the MSC reported both onshore and offshore; (2) secondly,

the Western Basin whereas it contains internal reflection packages in the Eastern Basin. These

using most recent seismic data as a mean to display the space and time organisation of these

observations suggest that the paleo-environmental changes or triggering factors during the crisis

markers, it provides a selection of high-quality, characteristic seismic lines that help identify and

were different in the two basins. Because the two Mediterranean basins are now disconnected, the

compare the various imprints of the MSC in the deep domain, the margin slopes and the perched

lateral correlation between the observed MU is not possible and the synchronicity between those two

basins.

units in both basins is far from obvious. Note that unfortunately, only the top part of the deep basin MSC sequence has been sampled during the ODP and DSDP legs [Hsü et al., 1973; Kastens et al.,

One of the inputs of this atlas is finally to highlight and provide further support to the major

1987]. Although the halite and potash salts encountered in Holes 134, 374 and 376 all belong to the

differences that indeed exist between the western, eastern Mediterranean, and Black sea basins

top deposits of MU, the latter was not fully penetrated due to safety concerns. The greatest part of

regarding the MSC markers (see Synthesis plate). The lack of 2 units (LU, UU) as well as the

the Messinian evaporites (around 90%) is therefore still unknown [Rouchy, 2004] and the lithology,

strikingly different facies of the Mobile Unit in the eastern Mediterranean sea reveal important

stratigraphy and depositional environments can only be studied indirectly. Seismic profiles remain the

changes during the crisis that are not understood yet and deserve further studies based on seismic

only mean until now to decipher the internal structure of the deep basin MSC sequence.

profiles but also on corings, deep drillings, onshore geological field investigation and modelling. 23

One other of the inputs of this atlas is that despite the above discrepancies, whatever the study area

In the future, as a support to the multi-site comparative study and in order to propose a coherent

considered, we evidence a more or less complete association of characteristic seismic markers

scenario of the MSC at the Mediterranean scale, several complementary approaches need to be put

showing, at a time, similarities and differences in space/time distribution and geometry (see

forward in our view, especially: (1) land-sea correlations of Messinian markers; (2) 3-D case studies

Synthesis plate). We related these differences to geological, structural and geodynamical settings:

at the scale of several drainage systems; (3) inter-site regional correlations with similar seismic

they result in contrasted sedimentary and morphological responses of the margins and basins that

acquisition systems, (4) backstripping of considered margins and basins [Steckler and Watts, 1980]

appear highly dependent on local triggering factors (e.g. paleo-bathymetry, paleo-topography,

in order to quantify post-Messinian tectonic motions and to restitute the initial MSC depth of all

morphology of the margin, lithology of the eroded terrains, dimension of the drainage areas,

markers, and (5) probably the most important step, chrono-stratigraphic calibrations requiring a

structural and tectonic settings, etc…), but also on superimposed regional triggering factors linked to

series of fully recovering deep boreholes to identify the nature and age of the deep basin depositional

the MSC s.s. (amplitude and modalities of the drawdown, location of the paleo-sills, erosional

units.

processes, isostatic rebound, climate changes, etc…). The MSC is such a complex event that cannot be fully understood based on observations from one single area. The multi-site comparative approach developed here should thus be considered as a new and powerful tool which could allow to extract and discriminate from the MSC sedimentary record the relative importance of these two superimposed types of factors (local and “Messinian”), and to discuss how the MSC shaped the offshore area at the scale of the Mediterranean basins. We emphasize the importance of the morphological and tectonic evolution of the study areas since the achievement of the MSC: obviously, the initial morphology of the margins and the paleo-topography/bathymetry of the subbasins (and their connections) play a key role, but this restoration also requires the quantification of the successive deformations that are quite contrasted in the Mediterranean. Accordingly, the Messinian events appear to provide several excellent stratigraphic markers of the geodynamic evolution, which has occurred over the last 5 Ma [e.g. Rubino and Clauzon, 2008].

Biju-Duval B., Letouzey J. and Montadert L. (1978). – Variety of margins and deep basins in the Mediterranean. – AAPG Bull., 29, 293-317. Blanc P.L. (2000). – Of sills and straits: a quantitative assessment of the Messinian salinity crisis. – Deep-Sea Res., 47, 14291460. Blanc P.L. (2002). – The opening of the Plio-Quaternary Gibraltar strait: assessing the size of a cataclysm. – Geodin. Acta, 15, 303- 317. Boccaletti M. and Guazzone G. (1974). – Remnant arcs and marginal basins in the Cenozoic development of the Mediterranean. – Nature, 252, 18-21. Bouillin J.-P. (1986). – Le bassin maghrébin : une ancienne limite entre l'Europe et l'Afrique à l'ouest des Alpes. – Bull. Soc. géol. Fr., 8, II, 547-558. Brunet C., Monié P., Jolivet L. and Cadet J.-P. (2000). – Migration of compression and extension in the Tyrrhenian sea, insights from 40Ar/39Ar ages on micas along a transect from Corsica to Tuscany. – Tectonophysics, 321(1), 127-155. Buchbinder B. and Zilberman E. (1997). – Sequence stratigraphy of Miocene-Pliocene carbonate siliciclastic shelf deposits in the eastern Mediterranean margin (Israel): effects of eustasy and tectonics. – Sediment. Geol., 112, 7-32. C Camera L. (2006). – Structure profonde de la marge passive égyptienne au large du Nil : contribution des données de sismique multi-traces et de gravimétrie. – Thèse de 3ème cycle, Université de Paris 6, 167pp. Carminati E., Wortel M.J.R., Spakman W. and Sabadini R. (1998). – The role of slab detachment processes in the opening of the western-central Mediterranean basins: some geological and geophysical evidence. – Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 160, 651-665. Cartwright J. and Jackson M. (2008). – Initiation of gravitational collapse of an evaporite basin margin: The Messinian saline giant, Levant basin, eastern Mediterranean. – Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., 120(3), 399-413. Casula G., Cherchi A., Montadert L., Murru M. and Sarria E. (2001). – The Cenozoic graben system of Sardinia (Italy): geodynamic evolution from new seismic and field data. – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 18, 863-888. Chumakov I.S. (1973). – Pliocene and Pleistocene deposits of the Nile valley in Nubia and Upper Egypt. In: W.B.F. Ryan, K.J. Hsü et al., Eds, Init. Repts Deep Sea Drill. Project, 13. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 12421243. CIESM (2008). – The Messinian salinity crisis from mega-deposits to microbiology - A consensus report. In: F. Briand, Ed., CIESM Workshop monographs n° 33, Monaco, 168pp. Cita M.B., Wright R.C., Ryan W.B.F. and Longinelli A. (1978). – Messinian paleoenvironments. In: K.J. Hsü, L. Montadert et al., Eds, Init. Repts Deep Sea Drill Project 42, Part 1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C, 1003-1035. Clauzon G., Suc J.-P., Popescu S. M., Melinte-Dobrinescu M.C., Quillévéré F., Warny S.A., Fauquette S., Armijo R., Meyer B., Rubino J.-L., Lericolais G., Gillet H., Çağatay M.N., Ucarkus G., Escarguel G., Jouannic G. and Dalesme F. (2008). – Chronology of the Messinian events and paleogeography of the Mediterranean region s.l. In: F. Briand, Ed., The Messinian salinity crisis from mega-deposits to microbiology. – In: CIESM Workshop monographs, N°33, Monaco, 31-38. Clauzon G., Suc J.-P., Popescu S.M., Marunteanou M., Rubino J.-L., Marinescu F. and Melinte M.C. (2005). – Influence of Mediterranean sea-level changes on the Dacic basin (Eastern Paratethys) during the late Neogene: the Mediterranean Lago Mare facies deciphered. – Basin Res., 27, 437-462. Clauzon G., Suc J.-P., Gautier F., Berger A. and Loutre M.F. (1996). – Alternate interpretation of the Messinian Salinity Crisis: controversy resolved? – Geology, 24(4), 363-366. Clauzon G., Rubino J.-L. and Savoye B. (1995). – Marine Pliocene Gilbert-type fan deltas along the French Mediterranean coast. – Field Trip Guide Book, 16th IAS regional meeting of Sedimentology. – Publication de l’Association des Sédimentologues Français, 23, 143-222. Clauzon G. (1973). – The eustatic hypothesis and the pre-Pliocene cutting of the Rhône valley. In: W.B.F. Ryan, K.J. Hsü et al., Eds, Init. Repts Deep Sea Drill. Project, 13. – U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1251-1256. Clavell E. and Berastegui X. (1991). – Petroleum geology of the Gulf of Valencia. In: A.M. Spencer, Ed., Generation, accumulation and production of Europe's hydrocarbons. – Oxford University Press, Oxford, 355-368. Cohen A. (1988). – Stratification of the Messinian evaporites in Israel. – Israel J. Earth Sci., 37, 193-203. Contrucci I., Mauffret A., Brunet C., Nercessian A., Béthoux N. and Ferrandini J. (2005). – Deep structure of the North Tyrrhenian Sea from multi-channel seismic profiles and on land wide angle reflection/refraction seismic recording (LISA cruise): Geodynamical implications. – Tectonophysics, 406, 141-163. Cornée J.-J., Maillard A., Conesa G., Garcia F., Saint Martin J.-P., Sage F. and Münch P. (2008). – Onshore to offshore reconstruction of the Messinian erosion surface in western Sardinia, Italy: MSC implications. – Sediment. Geol., 210(1-2), 48-60. Cravatte J., Dufaure P., Prim M. and Rouaix S. (1974). – Les sondages du golfe du Lion: stratigraphie, sédimentologie. – Notes et Mémoires de la Compagnies Françaises des Pétroles, 209-274.

REFERENCES

A Abdel Aal A., El Barkooky A., Gerrits M., Meyer H., Schwander M. and Zaki H. (2001). – Tectonic evolution of the eastern Mediterranean basin and its significance for hydrocarbon prospectivity in the ultradeepwater of the Nile delta. – GeoArabia, 6, 363-384. Aksü A.E., Hiscott R.N., Yasar D., Isler F.I. and Marsh S. (2002). – Seismic stratigraphy of Late Quaternary deposits from the southwestern Black Sea shelf: evidence for non catastrophic variations in sea-level during the last ~10000 yr. – Mar. Geol., 190(1-2), 61-94. Aleria group (1978). – Le Messinien du canal de Corse et des bassins nord-tyrrhéniens. – C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 288, 15211524. Almagor G. (1984). – Salt-controlled slumping on the Mediterranean slope of central Israel. – Mar. Geophys. Res., 6, 227-243. Almagor G. and Garfunkel Z. (1979). – Submarine slumping in the continental margin of Israel and northern Sinai. – AAPG Bull., 63, 324-340. Alonso B., Canals M., Palanques A. and Rehault J.-P. (1995). – A deep-sea channel in the northwestern Mediterranean sea: morphology and seismic structure of the Valencia channel and its surroundings. – Mar. Geophys. Res., 15, 469-484. Aunay B. (2007). – Apport de la stratigraphie séquentielle à la gestion et à la modélisation des ressources en eau des aquifères côtiers. – Thèse de 3ème cycle, Université de Montpellier, 418pp. Auzende J.-M., Bonnin J., Olivet J.-L., Pautot G. and Mauffret A. (1971). – Upper Miocene salt layer in the western Mediterranean basin. – Nature Physical Science, 230, 82-84. B Babault J., Loget N., Van Den Driessche J., Castelltort, S., Bonnet S. and Davy P. (2006). – Did the Ebro basin connect to the Mediterranean before the Messinian salinity crisis? – Geomorphology, 81, 155-165. Bache F., Olivet J.-L., Gorini C., Rabineau M., Baztan J., Aslanian D. And Suc J.-P. (2009). – Messinian erosional and salinity crises: View from the Provence basin (gulf of Lions, western Mediterranean). – Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 286, 1-2, 139157. Barber P.M. (1981). – Messinian subaerial erosion of the proto-Nile delta. – Mar. Geol., 44(3-4), 253-272. Bartrina M.T., Cabrera L.L., Jurado M.J., Guimera J. and Roca E. (1992). – Cenozoic evolution of the central Catalan margin (Valencia trough, western Mediterranean). Geology and Geophysics of the Valencia trough, western Mediterranean. – Tectonophysics, 203, 219-248. Bartov Y. (1990). – Geological photomap of Israel and adjacent areas, 1:750,000. – Geological Survey of Israel. Bassetti M.A. and Lofi J. (2009). – Drilling through the Messinian evaporites: the beginning of a new adventure? – EGU General Assembly 2009, Geophysical Research Abstracts, 11, 10875. Benson R.H., Rakic-El Bied K. and Bonaduce G. (1991). – An important current reversal (influx) in the Rifian corridor (Morocco) at the Tortonian-Messinian boundary: the end of the Tethys ocean. – Paleoceanography, 6(1), 164-192. Berné S. and Gorini C. (2005). – The gulf of Lions: An overview of recent studies within the French ‘margin’ program, Editorial. – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 22(6-7), 691-693. Berné S., Loubrieu B and équipe CALMAR embarquée (1999). – Canyons et processus sédimentaires récents sur la marge du golfe du Lion occidental. – C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, IIA, Earth and Planetary Science, 328(7), 471-477. Bertoni C. and Cartwright J.A. (2007b). – “Messinian (Late Miocene) intra-evaporitic clastic deposits in the eastern Mediterranean: evidence from 3D seismic data”. – Geol. Soc. London, Sp. Publ., 285, 37-52. Bertoni C. and Cartwright J.A. (2007a). – Major erosion at the end of the Messinian salinity crisis: evidence from the Levant basin, eastern Mediterranean. – Basin Res., 19, 1-18. Bertoni C. (2006). – 3D tectono-stratigraphic analysis of the Messinian evaporites in the Levant basin, eastern Mediterranean. – PhD Thesis, Cardiff University, 250pp. Bertoni C. and Cartwright J.A. (2006). – Controls on the basinwide architecture of the Messinian evaporites on the Levant margin, eastern Mediterranean. – Sediment. Geol., 188-189, 93-114. Bertoni C. and Cartwright J.A. (2005). – 3D seismic analysis of circular evaporite dissolution structures, eastern Mediterranean. – J. Geol. Soc., London, 162, 909-926. Béthoux N., Fréchet J., Guyoton F., Thouvenot F., Cattaneo M., Eva C., Nicolas M. and Granet M. (1992). – A closing Ligurian Sea ? – Pure Applied Geophys., 139, 179-194. Bigot-Cormier F., Sage F., Sosson M., Déverchère J., Ferrandini M., Guennoc P., Popoff M. and Stéphan J.-F. (2004). – Déformations pliocènes de la marge nord-Ligure (France) : les conséquences d'un chevauchement crustal subalpin. – Bull. Soc. géol. Fr., 175(2), 197-211.

D Dan G., Sultan N., Cattaneo A., Déverchère J. and Yelles K. (2009). – Mass-transport deposits on the Algerian margin (Algiers area): Morphology, lithology and sedimentary processes: advances in natural and technological hazards research. In: D.C. Mosher, C. Ship, L. Moscardelli, J. Chaytor, C., H. Baxter Lee and R. Urgeles, Eds., Submarine mass movements and their consequences. – Adv. Nat. Tech. Hazards Res., 28, 527-539. Daniel J. M. and Jolivet L. (1995). – Detachment faults and pluton emplacement: Elba island (Tyrrhenian Sea). – Bull. Soc. géol. Fr., 164(4), 341-354. Decima A. and Wezel F.C. (1973). – Late Miocene evaporites of the Central Sicilian basin. In: W.B.F. Ryan, K.J. Hsü et al., Eds., Init. Repts Deep Sea Drill. Proj., 13. – U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1234-1240. Déverchère J., Yelles K., Domzig A., Mercier de Lépinay B., Bouillin J.-P., Gaullier V., Bracène R., Calais E., Savoye B., Kherroubi A., Le Roy P., Pauc H. and Dan G. (2005). – Active thrust faulting offshore Boumerdes, Algeria and its relations to the 2003 Mw 6.9 earthquake. – Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L04311, doi:10.1029/2004GL021646. Dewey J.F., Pitman III W.C., Ryan W.B.F. and Bonin J. (1973). – Plate tectonics and the evolution of the Alpine system. – Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., 84, 3137-3180. Domzig A., Gaullier V., Giresse P., Pauc H., Déverchère J. and Yelles K. (2009). – Deposition processes from echo-character mapping along the western Algerian margin (Oran-Tenes), western Mediterranean. In: V. Gaullier and B. Vendeville, Eds, Thematic set on new insights on slope instabilities from recent studies within the French margin program GDR "Marges". – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 26(5), 673-694. Dos Reis A.T., Gorini C and Mauffret A. (2005). – Implications of salt-sediment interactions for the architecture of the Gulf of Lions deep-water sedimentary systems - western Mediterranean. – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 22(6-7), 713-746. Dos Reis A.T. (2001). – La tectonique salifère et son influence sur l’architecture sédimentaire quaternaire de la marge du golfe du Lion- Méditerranée occidentale. – Thèse de 3ème cycle, Université de Pierre et Marie Curie, 373 p. Druckman Y., Buchbinder B., Martinotti G. M., Siman Tov R. and Aharon P. (1995). – The buried Afiq canyon (eastern Mediterranean, Israel): a case study of a Tertiary submarine canyon exposed in Late Messinian times. – Mar. Geol., 123, 167-185. Duvail C., Gorini C., Lofi J., Le Strat P. and Berné S. (2005). – Onshore-offshore correlations of the Plio-Quaternary deposits in the Languedoc-Roussillon (NW Mediterranean). – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 22(6-7), 747-756. E Eaton S. and Robertson A. (1993). – The Miocene Pakhour Formation, southern Cyprus, and its relationship to the Neogene tectonic evolution of the eastern Mediterranean. – Sediment. Geol., 86, 273-292. Escutia C. and Maldonado A. (1992). – Paleogeographic implications of the Messinian surface in the Valencia trough, northwestern Mediterranean sea. In: E. Banda and P. Santanach, Eds, Geology and geophysics of the Valencia trough, western Mediterranean. – Tectonophysics, 203, 263-284. Estocade G. (1978). – Messinian subaerial erosion of the Stoechades and Saint-Tropez canyons - a submersible study. – Mar. Geol., 27, 247-269. Eyal Y. (1996). – Stress field fluctuations along the Dead Sea rift since the Middle Miocene. – Tectonics, 15, 157-170. F Fais S., Klingele E.E. and Lecca L. (1996). – Oligo-Miocene half graben structure in western Sardinian shelf (western Mediterranean): reflexion seismic and aeromagnetic data comparison. – Mar. Geol., 133, 203-222. Farran M. and Maldonado A. (1990). – The Ebro continental shelf: Quaternary seismic stratigraphy and growth patterns. – Mar. Geol., 95, 289-312. Finetti I. and Morelli C. (1973). – Geophysical exploration of the Mediterranean Sea. – Boll. Geofis. Teor. Appl., 28, 75-156. Finetti I., Bricchi G., Del Ben A., Pipan M. and Xuan Z. (1988). – Geophysical study of the Black Sea. – Boll. Geofis. Teor. Appl., 30(117-118), 197-324. Ferrandini J., Gattacceca J., Ferrandini M., Deino A. and Janin M.-C. (2003). – Chronostratigraphie et paléomagnétisme des dépôts oligo-miocènes de Corse : implications géodynamiques pour l'ouverture du bassin liguro-provençal. – Bull. Soc. géol. Fr., 174(4), 357471. Frey-Martinez J., Cartwright J. and Hall B. (2005). – 3D seismic interpretation of slump complexes: examples from the continental margin of Israel. – Basin Res., 17, 83-108. G Gabin R. (1972). – Résultats d'une étude de sismique réflexion dans le canal de Corse, et de sondeur de vase dans le Bassin toscan. – Mar. Geol., 13(4), 267-286. Gardosh M. and Druckmann Y. (2006). – Stratigraphy and tectonic evolution of the Levantine basin, offshore Israel. In: A. Robertson, Ed., Tectonic development of the eastern Mediterranean region. – Geol. Soc. Sp. Publ., 260, 210-227. Garfunkel Z. (2004). – Origin of the eastern Mediterranean basin: a reevaluation. – Tectonophysics, 391, 11-34.

Garfunkel Z. and Almagor G. (1987). – Active salt dome development in the Levant basin, southeast Mediterranean. In: I. Lerche and J. O'Brien, Eds., Dynamical geology of salt and related structures. – Academic Press, New York, 263300. Gargani J. (2004). – Modelling of the erosion in the Rhone valley during the Messinian crisis (France). – Quatern. Internat., 121(1), 13-22. Gattacceca J., Deino A., Rizzo R., Jones D.S., Henry B., Beaudoin B. and Valeboin F. (2007). – Miocene rotation of Sardinia: New paleomagnetic and geochronological constraints and geodynamic implications. – Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 258, 359-377. Gaullier V., Lofi J. and the “METYSS” Scientific Party (2008). – The « METYSS » cruise: The Messinian event in the Tyrrhenian from seismic study. – 84° Congresso Nazionale, Societa Geologica Italiana, Sassari, Sardinia, Italy, 1517 Settembre. – Rendiconti Online, 3(2), 419-420. Gaullier V., Loncke L., Vendeville B., Déverchère J., Droz L., Obone Zue Obame E.M. and Mascle J. (2008). – Salt tectonics in the deep Mediterranean: indirect clues for understanding the Messinian Salinity Crisis. In: F. Briand, Ed., The Messinian Salinity Crisis from mega-deposits to microbiology. – CIESM Workshop monographs, n°33, Monaco, 9196. Gaullier V., Vendeville B.C., Huguen H., Déverchère J., Droz L., Domzig A., Obone Zue Obame E., Yelles K. and the MARADJA and PROGRES Scientific Parties (2006). – Role of thick-skinned tectonics on thin-skinned salt tectonics in the western Mediterranean: a comparison between the Algerian and North-Balearic basins. – European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, Abstract volume 8, 1029-7006. Gaullier V. and Vendeville B. (2005). – Salt tectonics driven by sediment progradation. Part II: Radial spreading of sedimentary lobes prograding above salt. – AAPG Bull., 89(8), 1081-1089. Gaullier V., Adroher S., Sage F. and the MAURESC Scientific Party (Déverchère J., Gorini C., Maillard A., Miralles J.F., Vendeville B.) (2004). – The sedimentary consequences of the Messinian salinity crisis on the Provençal margin, Northwestern Mediterranean: Preliminary results from the "MAURESC" cruise. – 4th International Congress "Environment and identity in the Mediterranean": The Messinian salinity crisis revisited, Corte, Corsica (France), July 19-25, Abstract volume, 42. Gaullier V., Mart Y., Bellaiche G., Mascle J., Vendeville B., Zitter T. and Prismed II scientific parties (2000). – Salt tectonics in and around the Nile deep-sea fan: insights from the ‘PRISMED II’ cruise: from the arctic to the Mediterranean: salt, shale and igneous diapirs in and around Europe. – Geol. Soc. London, 174, 111-129. Gaullier V. and Bellaiche G. (1998). – Diapirisme liguro-provençal: Les effets d'une topographie résiduelle sous le sel messinien. Apport de la modélisation analogique. – C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 322(2a), 213-220. Gaullier V. (1993). – Diapirisme salifère et dynamique sédimentaire dans le bassin Liguro-Provençal. – Thèse de 3ème cycle, Université de Paris 6, 327pp. Gautier F., Clauzon G., Suc J.-P., Cravatte J. and Violanti D. (1994). – Age et durée de la crise de salinité messinienne. – C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 318(2), 1103-1109. Gennesseaux M., Réhault J.-P. and Thomas B. (1989). – La marge continentale de la Corse. – Bull. Soc. géol. Fr., 5(2), 339351. Gillet H., Lericolais G. and Réhault J.-P. (2007). – Messinian event in the Black Sea: evidence of a Messinian erosional surface. – Mar. Geol., 244(1-4), 142-165. Gillet H. (2004). – La stratigraphie tertiaire et la surface d'érosion messinienne sur les marges occidentales de la mer Noire : Stratigraphie sismique haute résolution. – Thèse de 3ème cycle, Université de Bretagne Occidentale (Brest - France), 259 p. Gillet H., Lericolais G., Rehault J.-P. and Dinu C. (2003). – La stratigraphie oligo-miocène et la surface d'érosion messinienne en mer Noire, stratigraphie sismique haute résolution. The Oligo-Miocene stratigraphy and the Messinian erosional surface in Black Sea, high-resolution seismic stratigraphy. – C.R. Géoscience, 335(12), 907-916. Gorini C, Rabineau M, Olivet J.-L., Aslanian D., and the GDR Marges Gulf of Lions Team (2006). – What are we expecting from a deep drilling in the gulf of Lion? – EUG06-A-10106. – Geophys. Res. abstract volume 8, ISSN:1029-7006. Gorini C., Lofi, J., Duvail, C., Guennoc, P and Dos Reis A.T. (2005). – The Late Messinian (5.6-5.32 Ma) salinity crisis and Late Miocene tectonism: interaction and consequences on the physiography and post-rift evolution of the Gulf of Lions margin. – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 22(6-7), 695-712. Gorini C., Le Marrec A. and Mauffret A. (1993). – Contribution to the structural and sedimentary history of the Gulf of Lions (western Mediterranean), from the ECORS profiles, industrial seismic profiles and well data. – Bull. Soc. géol. Fr., 164(3), 353-363. Govers R. (2009). – Choking the Mediterranean to dehydration: The Messinian salinity crisis. – Geology, 37, 167-170.

Krijgsman W., Hilgen F.J., Raffi I. and Sierro F.J. (1999a). – Chronology, causes and progression of the Messinian salinity crisis. – Nature, 400, 652-654. Krijgsman W., Langereis C.G., Zachariasse W.J., Boccaletti M., Moratti G., Gelati R., Iaccarino S., Papani G. and Villa G. (1999b). – Late Neogene evolution of the Taza-Guercif basin (Riftian corridor, Morocco) and implications for the Messinian salinity crisis. – Mar. Geol., 153, 147-160. L Lanaja J.M. (1987). – Contribucion de la exploracion petrolifera al conocimiento de la geologia de Espana. – IGME, Servicio Publico del Ministeria de la Industria y Energia, Madrid, 465pp. Larroque C., Delouis B., Godel B. and Noquet J.-M. (2009). – Active déformation at the southwestern Alps-Ligurian basin junction (France-Italy boundary): Evidence for recent change from compression to extensión in the Argentera massif. – Tectonophysics, 467, 22-34. Laurent O., Stephan J.-F. and Popoff M. (2000). – Modalités de la structuration miocène de la branche sud de l’arc de Castellane (Chaînes subalpines méridionales). – Géol. France, 3, 33-65. Le Cann C. (1987). – Le diapirisme dans le bassin Liguro-provençal (Méditerranée occidentale). Relations avec la tectonique et la sédimentation. Implications géodynamiques. – Thèse de 3ème cycle, Université de Brest, 296pp. Lecca L., Lonis R., Luxoro S., Melis E., Secchi F. and Brotzu P. (1997). – Oligo-Miocene volcanic sequences and rifting stages in Sardinia: a review. – Periodico di Mineralogia, 66, 7-61. Le Pichon X., Pautot G., Auzende J.-M. and Olivet J.-L. (1971). – La Méditerranée occidentale depuis l'Oligocène, schéma d'évolution. – Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., North-Holland Publishing Company, 13, 145-152. Letouzey J., Biju-Duval B., Dorkel A., Gonnard R., Kristchev K., Montadert L. and Sungurlu O. (1977). – The Black Sea: a marginal basin; geophysical and geological data. In: B. Biju-Duval and L. Montadert, Eds, International symposium on the Structural history of the Mediterranean basins. – Technip, Paris, 363-376. Lofi J., Sage F., Déverchère J., Loncke L., Maillard A., Gaullier V., Thinon I., Gillet H., Guennoc P. and Gorini C. (2011). – Refining our knowledge of the Messinian salinity crisis in the offshore domain through multi-site seismic analysis. – Bull. Soc. géol. Fr., 182(2), 163-180. Lofi J. and Berné S. (2008). – Evidence for pre-Messinian submarine canyons on the Gulf of Lions Miocene slope (western Mediterranean). – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 25(8), 804-817. Lofi J., Déverchère J., Gaullier V., Gillet H., Gorini C., Guennoc P., Loncke L., Maillard A., Sage F. and Thinon I. (2008b). – Atlas of the Messinian seismic markers in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. – 84° Congresso della Società Geologica Italiana. "Evoluzione geologica del Mediterraneo Occidentale", Sassari, Italy, September 15-17, Abstract volume, 494-495. Lofi J., Déverchère J., Gaullier V., Gillet H., Guennoc P., Gorini P., Loncke L., Maillard A., Sage F., Thinon I., Capron A. and Obone Zue Obame E. (2008a). – The Messinian salinity crisis in the offshore domain: an overview of our knowledge through seismic profile interpretation and multisite approach. In: F. Briand, Ed., The Messinian salinity crisis from mega-deposits to microbiology. – CIESM Workshop monographs, n°33, Monaco, 83-90. Lofi J., Gorini C., Berné S., Clauzon G., Dos Reis T., Ryan W.B.F. and Steckler M.S. (2005). – Erosional processes and paleoenvironmental changes in the western Gulf of Lions (SW France) during the Messinian salinity crisis. – Mar. Geol., 217, 1-30. Lofi J., Gorini C., Dos Reis A.T., Berné S. and Mauffret A. (2003b). – La marge du golfe du Lion et La crise messinienne : devenir des produits de l’érosion ? – 9ème congrès de l’ASF, Association des Sédimentologistes, Bordeaux, France, October 14-16, Abstract volume. Lofi J., Rabineau M., Gorini C., Berné S., Clauzon G., De Clarens P., Moutain G.S., Ryan W.B.F., Steckler M.S. and Fouchet C. (2003a). – Plio-Quaternary prograding clinoform wedges of the western Gulf of Lion continental margin (NW Mediterranean) after the Messinian salinity crisis. – Mar. Geol., 198(3-4), 289-317. Lofi J. (2002). – La crise de salinité messinienne : incidences directes et différées sur l´évolution sédimentaire de la marge du golfe du Lion. – Thèse de 3ème cycle, Université de Lille I, 277pp. Loget N. and Van Den Driessche J. (2006). – On the origin of the strait of Gibraltar. – Sediment. Geol., 188-189, 341-356. Loncke L., Gaullier V., Mascle J., Vendeville B. and Camera L. (2006). – The Nile deep-sea fan: an example of interacting sedimentation, salt tectonics and inherited subsalt paleotopographic features. – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 23, 297-315. Loncke L., Mascle J. and Fanil Scientific Parties (2004). – Mud volcanoes, gas chimneys, pockmarks and mounds in the Nile deep-sea fan (eastern Mediterranean): geophysical evidences. – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 21(6), 669-689. Lonergan L. and White N. (1997). – Origin of the Betic-Rif mountain belt. – Tectonics, 16, 504-522. M Mahsas A., Lammal K., Yelles K., Calais E., Freed A.M. and Briole P. (2008). – Shallow afterslip following the 2003 May 21, M-w=6.9 Boumerdes earthquake, Algeria. – Geophys. J. Internat., 172(1), 155-166. Maillard A., Huebscher C, Benkhelil J. and Tahchi E. (2011). – Deformed Messinian markers in the Cyprus arc: tectonics and/or Messinian salinity crisis indicators? – Basin Res., 23(2), 146-170.

Govers R., Meijer P. and Krijgsman W. (2009). – Regional isostatic response to Messinian Salinity Crisis events. – Tectonophysics, 463, 109-129. Gradmann S., Hübscher C., Ben-Avraham Z., Gajewski D. and Netzeband G. (2005). – Salt tectonic off northern Israel. – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 22(5), 597-611. Gvirtzman G. and Buchbinder B. (1978). – The late Tertiary of the coastal plain and continental shelf of Israel and its bearing on the history of the eastern Mediterranean. In: J. L. Usher and P. Supko, Eds., Init. Repts Deep Sea Drill. Project 42, Part 2. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1195-1222. Guardia P., Ivaldi J.-P., Dubar M., Guglielmi Y. and Perez J.-L. (1996). – Paléo-tectonique linéamentaire et tectonique active des Alpes maritimes franco-italiennes : une synthèse. – Géol. France, 1, 43-45. Gueguen E., Doglioni C. and Fernandez M. (1998). – On the post-25 Ma geodynamic evolution of the western Mediterranean. – Tectonophysics, 298, 259-269. Guennoc P., Ferrandini J., Réhault J.-P. and Thinon I. (2004). – The Messinian paleomargin of the Western Bonifacio straits: a witness of a multiple rifting history between Corsica and Sardinia. In: 4th International Congress "Environment and identity in the Mediterranean": The Messinian Salinity Crisis Revisited, Corte, Corsica (France), July 19-25, Abstract volume. Guennoc P., Gorini C. and Mauffret A. (2000). – Histoire géologique du golfe du Lion et cartographie du rift oligo-aquitanien et de la surface messinienne. – Géol. France, 3, 67-97. Guennoc P., Rehault J.-P., Gilg-Capar L., Déverchère J., Rollet N. and Le Suavé R. (1998). – Les marges ouest et nord de la Corse ; Nouvelle cartographie à 1/250 000. – Réunion des Sciences de la Terre, Brest, France, March 31 - April 3, abstract volume. H Hall J., Aksu A.E., Calon T.J., and Yaar D. (2005). – Varying tectonic control on basin development at an active microplate margin: Latakia basin, eastern Mediterranean. – Mar. Geol., 221, 15-60. Hirsch F., Flexer A., Rosenfield A. and Yellin-Dror A. (1995). – Palinspastic and crustal setting of the eastern Mediterranean. – J. Geol., 18, 149-170. Hsü K.J. and Giovanoli F. (1979). – Messinian event in the Black Sea. – Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., 29, 7593. Hsü K.J., Montadert L., Bernoulli D., Cita M.B., Erikson A., Garrison R. E., Kidd R. B., Melieres F., Muller C. and Wright R. H. (1978). – Init. Repts Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 42, Part 1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C, 1249 p. Hsü K.J., Cita M.B. and Ryan W.B.F. (1973). – The origin of the Mediterranean evaporates. In: W.B.F. Ryan, K.J. Hsü, M.B. Cita et al., Eds, Init. Repts Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 13, Part 2. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1203-1231. Hübscher C., Tahchi E., Maillard A. and Sahling H. (2008). – Plate and salt tectonic control of fluid dynamics in the Latakia and Cyprus basin, eastern Mediterranean. – Tectonophysics, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2008.08.019. Hübscher C. and Netzeband G. (2007). – Evolution of a young salt giant: The example of the Messinian evaporites in the Levantine basin. In: M. Wallner, K.-H. Lux, W. Minkley, H.R. Hardy Jr., Eds, The mechanical behaviour of salt understanding of THMC processes in salt. – Taylor et Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-44398-2, 175-184. Hübscher C., Cartwright J., Cypionka H., De Lange G., Robertson A., Suc J.-P. and Urai J. (2007). – Global look at salt giants. – EOS, 88(16), 177-179. I Iler F.I., Aksu A.E., Hall J., Calon T.J. and Yaşar D. (2005). – Neogene development of the Antalya basin, eastern Mediterranean: An active forearc basin adjacent to an arc junction. – Mar. Geol., 221, 1-4, 299-330. IOC, IHO and BODC (2003). – GEBCO, One Minute Grid, Centenary edition of the GEBCO Digital Atlas [CD-ROM]. – British Oceanographic Data Centre on behalf of the IOC and IHO, Liverpool. J Jackson J. and McKenzie D.P. (1988). – The relationship between plate motions and seismic moment tensors, and the rates of active deformation in the Mediterranean and Middle East. – Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc., 93, 45-73. Jolivet L., Augier R., Robin C., Suc J.-P. and Rouchy J.-M. (2006). – Lithospheric-scale geodynamic context of the Messinian salinity crisis. – Sediment. Geol., 188-189, 9-33. K Kahle H.G., Straub C., Reilinger R., McClusky S., King R., Hurst K., Veis G., Kim Kastens K. and Cross P. (1998). – The strain rate field in the eastern Mediterranean region, estimated by repeated GPS measurements. – Tectonophysics, 294, 237-252. Kastens K.A., Mascle J., Auroux C.A., Bonatti E., Broglia C., Channel J., Curzi P., Emeis K.-C., Glacon G., Hasegawa S., Hieke W., McCoy F., McKenzie J., Mascle G., Mendelson J., Mueller C., Réhault J.-P., Robertson A., Sartori R., Sprovieri R., Torii M. and Stewart N. (1987). – Proc. Ocean Drill. Progr., Part A, Init. Repts, 107, College Station, Texas, 1013pp.

O Obone-Zue-Obame E., Gaullier V., Sage F., Maillard A., Lofi, J. and l’équipe Scientifique Mauresc (2010). – The sedimentary markers of the Messinian salinity crisis and their relation with salt tectonics on the Provençal margin (western Mediterranean): Results from the « MAURESC » cruise. – Bull. Soc. géol. Fr., 182(2), 181-196. Obone-Zue-Obame E.M., Gaullier V., Sage F. and Maillard A. (2007). – Conséquences sédimentaires de la crise de salinité messinienne sur la marge provençale (Méditerranée nord-occidentale) : résultats de la campagne MAURESC. – 11ème Congrès Français de Sédimentologie (ASF), 23-25 octobre, Caen, France, Abstract volume 57, 232. Ottes W., Lambregts P. and El Barkooky A. (2008). – The Messinian salinity crisis in the Nile delta: chasing shallow marine reservoirs in a deep-water basin. In: F. Briand, Ed., The Messinian salinity crisis from mega-deposits to microbiology. – CIESM Workshop monographs, n°33, Monaco, 107-110. P Polonia A., Camerlenghi A., Davey F. and Storti F. (2002). – Accretion, structural style and syn-contractional sedimentation in the eastern Mediterranean sea. – Mar. Geol., 186, 127-144. Popescu S.M., Melinte M.C., Suc J.-P., Clauzon G., Quillévéré F. and Süto-Szentai M. (2007). – Earliest Zanclean age for Colombacci and uppermost Di Tetto formations of the “latest Messinian” northern Apennines: New palaeoenvironmental data from the Maccarone section (Marche Province, Italy). – Geobios, 40(3), 359-373. R Rizzini A., Vezzani F., Cococcetta V. and Milad G. (1978). – Stratigraphy and sedimentation of a Neogene-Quaternary section in the Nile delta area (A.R.E.). – Mar. Geol., 27, 327-348. Réhault J.-P., Boillot G. and Mauffret A. (1985). – The western Mediterranean basins. In: D.J. Stanley and F.C. Wezel, Eds., Geological evolution of the Mediterranean basins. – Springer-Verlag, New York, 101-129. Réhault J.-P., Boillot G. and Mauffret A. (1984). – The western Mediterranean basin, geological evolution. – Mar. Geol., 55, 447-477. Ritz J.-F. (1992). – Tectonique récente et sismotectonique des Alpes du Sud : analyse en termes de contraintes. – Quaternary, 3, 111-124. Robertson A.H.F. (1998b). – Formation and destruction of the Eratosthenes seamount, eastern Mediterranean Sea, and implications for collisional processes. In: A.H.F Robertson, K.C. Emeis et al., Eds, Proc. Ocean Drill. Progr., Sci. Res., 160, College Station, Texas, 681-699. Robertson A.H.F. (1998a). – Mesozoic-Tertiary tectonic evolution of the easternmost Mediterranean area: Integration of marine and land evidence. In: A.H.F. Robertson, K.C. Emeis et al., Eds, Proc. Ocean Drill. Progr., Sci. Res., 160, College Station, Texas, 723782. Robinson A.G., Rudat J.H., Banks C.J. and Wiles R.L.F. (1996). – Petroleum geology of the Black sea. – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 13(2), 195-223. Rollet N., Déverchère J., Beslier O., Guennoc P., Réhault J.-P., Sosson M. and Truffert C. (2002). Back-arc extension, tectonic inheritance and volcanism in the Ligurian ocean, Mediterranean sea. – Tectonics, 21(3), 1-27. Rosenbaum G., Lister G.S. and Duboz C. (2002). – Reconstruction of the tectonic evolution of the western Mediterranean since the Oligocene. In: G. Rosenbaum and G.S. Liste, Eds, Reconstruction of the evolution of the Alpine-Himalayan orogeny. – J. Virt. Expl., 8, 107-130. Ross D.A., Neprochnov Y.P., Degens E.T., Erickson A.J., Hsü K.J., Hunt J.M., Manheim F.T., Percival S.F., Senalp M., Stoffers P., Supko P., Traverse A., Trimonis E.S. and Usher J. L. (1978). – Site 381. In: J.L. Usher and P. Supko, Eds, Init. Repts Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 42, Part 2. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 293-355. Rouchy J-M. and Caruso A. (2006). – The Messinian salinity crisis in the Mediterranean basin: a reassessment of the data and an integrated scenario. – Sediment. Geol., 188-189, 35-67. Rouchy J.-M. (2004). – What can be expected from coring the whole Messinian evaporitic succession in the deep basins of the Mediterranean? In: 4th International Congress "Environment and identity in the Mediterranean": The Messinian salinity crisis revisited, Corte, Corsica (France), July 19-25, Abstract volume. Rouire J., Autran A., Prost A., Rossi P. and Rousset C. (1980). – Notice explicative de la feuille Nice a 1/250 000. – BRGM, Orléans, France. Roveri M., Manzi V., Gennari R., Iaccarino S.M. and Lugli S. (2008b). – Recent advancements in the Messinian stratigraphy of Italy and their Mediterranean-scale implications. – Boll. Soc. Paleont. It., 47 (2), 71-85. Roveri M., Lugli S., Manzi V. and Schreiber B.C. (2008a). – The Messinian Sicilian stratigraphy revisited: new insights for the Messinian salinity crisis. – Terra Nova, 20, 483-488. Roveri M., Bassetti M.A and Ricci Lucchi F. (2001). – The Mediterranean Messinian salinity crisis: an Apennine foredeep perspective. – Sediment. Geol., 140, 201-214.

Maillard A., Gorini C., Mauffret A., Sage, F., Lofi J. and Gaullier V. (2006). – Offshore evidence of polyphase erosion in the Valencia basin (northwestern Mediterranean): Scenario for the Messinian salinity crisis. – Sediment. Geol., 188-189, 69-91. Maillard A. and Mauffret A. (2006). – Relationship between erosion surfaces and Late Miocene salinity crisis deposits in the Valencia basin (northwestern Mediterranean): evidence for an early sealevel fall. – Terra Nova, 18, 321-329. Maillard A., Thinon I. and the Eclipse team (2006). – Identical seismic markers of the Messinian salinity crisis within the intermediate depth type basins (Valencia basin and East-Corsica basin)? – EGU, Vienna, Austria, Geophys. Res. Abstr., 8. Maillard A., Gaullier V., Vendeville B.C. and Odonne F. (2003). – Influence of differential compaction above basement steps on salt tectonics in the Ligurian-Provençal basin, northwest Mediterranean. – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 20, 13-27. Maillard A. and Mauffret A. (1999). – Crustal structure and riftogenesis of the Valencia trough (northwestern Mediterranean sea). – Basin Res., 11, 357-379. Maillard A., Mauffret A., Watts A.B., Torne M., Pascal G., Buhl P. and Pinet B. (1992). – Tertiary sedimentary history and structure of the Valencia trough (western Mediterranean). – Tectonophysics, 203, 57-76. Mauffret A., Durand de Groussouvre B., Dos Reis A.T., Gorini C. and Nercessian A. (2001). – Structural geometry in the eastern Pyrenees and western Gulf of Lion (western Mediterranean). – J. Struct. Geol., 23, 1701-1726. Mauffret A., Contrucci I. and Brunet C. (1999). – Structural evolution of the northern Tyrrhenian sea from new seismic data. – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 16, 381-407. Mauffret A., Maillard A., Pascal G., Torne M., Buhl P. and Pinet B. (1992). – Long listening multichannel seismic profiles in the Valencia trough (Valsis2) and the Gulf of Lions (ECORS): a comparison. – Tectonophysics, 203, 285-304. Mauffret A., Montadert L., Lavergne M. and Wilm C. (1978). – Geological and geophysical setting of DSDP Site 372 (western Mediterranean). In: K.J. Hsü, L. Montadert et al., Eds, Init. Repts Deep Sea Drill. Proj., 42, Part 1. – U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C, 889-896. Mauffret A., Montadert L., Sancho J., Fial J.P. and Winnock E. (1973). – Northwestern Mediterranean sedimentary basin from seismic reflection profile. – AAPG Bull., 57, 2245-2262. Mart Y. and Ben-Gai Y. (1982). – Some depositional patterns at the continental margin of the southeastern Mediterranean sea. – AAPG Bull., 60, 460-470. Martı́ J., Mitjavila J., Roca E. and Aparicio A. (1992). – Cenozoic magmatism of the Valencia trough (western Mediterranean): relationship between structural evolution and volcanism. – Tectonophysics, 203, 145-165. McKenzie J.A. (1999). – From desert to deluge in the Mediterranean. – Nature, 400, 613-614, doi:10.1038/23131 MediMap Group, Loubrieu B., Mascle J. et al. (2005). – Morpho-bathymetry of the Mediterranean Sea. – CIESM et Ifremer Special Publications, Atlases and maps, sheet 1: Western Mediterranean, sheet 2 : eastern Mediterranean, 1:2,000,000 scale. Migeon S., Mulder T., Savoye B. and Sage F. (2006). – The Var turbidite system (Ligurian Sea, northwestern Mediterranean): morphology, sediment supply, construction of turbidite levee and sediment waves: implications for hydrocarbon reservoirs. – Geo-Mar. Lett., 36, 361-371, doi: 10.1007/s00367-006-0047-x. Mitchell N. and Lofi J. (2008). – Submarine and subaerial erosion of volcanic landscapes: comparing Apu'upu'u and other Pacific Ocean seamounts with Valencia seamount, exposed during the Messinian salinity crisis. – Basin Res., 10.1111/j.1365-2117.2008.00355.x Montadert L., Sancho J., Fial J.P. and Debysser J. (1970). – De l’âge tertiaire de la série salifère responsable des structures diapiriques en Méditerranée Occidentale (Nord-Est des Baléares). – C. R. Acad. Sci., 271, 812-815. Moussat E. (1988). – Evolution de la mer Tyrrhénienne centrale et orientale et de ses marges septentrionales en relation avec la néotectonique dans l’arc calabrais. – Thèse de 3ème cycle, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 241pp. Morelli C. (1978). – Eastern Mediterranean geophysical results and implications. – Tectonophysics, 46, 333-346. N Neev D. and Ben-Avraham Z. (1977). – The Levantine countries: the Israeli coastal region. In: E.M. Nairn and W.H. Kanes, Eds., The ocean basins and margins. Vol. 4A: The eastern Mediterranean. – Plenum Press, New York, United States, 355-377. Nely G. (1994). – Evaporite sequences in petroleum exploration. 2. Geophysical Methods. – GRECO52, CNR French Oil and Gas Industry Association, Technical Committee. – EditionTechnip, Paris, 252pp. Netzeband G., Gohl K., Hübscher C.P., Ben-Avraham Z., Dehghani A.G., Gajewski D. and Liersch P. (2006a). – The Levantine basin crustal structure and origin. – Tectonophysics, 418, 178-188. Netzeband G., Hübscher C. and Gajewski D. (2006b). – The structural evolution of the Messinian evaporites in the Levantine basin. – Mar. Geol., 230(3-4), 249-273.

Rubino J.-L. and Clauzon G. (2008). – Upper Miocene and Pliocene key surfaces: Stratigraphic markers used to quantify PériMediterranean geodynamics. In: Géodynamique et paléogéographie de l’aire méditerranéenne au Mio-Pliocène : l’interférence eustatisme-tectonique, Villeurbanne, May 5-6 2008, Univ. Claude-Bernard, Lyon I, Abstract volume, 64-66. Ryan W.B.F. (2011). – Geodynamic responses to a two-step model of the Messinian salinity crisis. – Bull. Soc. géol. Fr., 182, 2, pp. Ryan W.B.F. (2009). – Decoding the Mediterranean salinity crisis. – Sedimentology, 56(1), 95-136. Ryan W.B.F. (2008). – Modeling the magnitude and timing of evaporative drawdown during the Messinian salinity crisis. – Stratigraphy, 5(3-4), 227-243. Ryan W.B.F. and Cita M.B. (1978). – The nature and distribution of Messinian erosion surfaces, indicators of a severalkilometer-deep Mediterranean in the Miocene. – Mar. Geol., 27, 193-230. Ryan W.B.F. (1978). – Messinian badlands on the southeastern margin of the Mediterranean sea. – Mar. Geol., 27, 349-363. Ryan W.B.F. (1976). – Quantitative evaluation of the depth of the western Mediterranean before, during and after the late Miocene salinity crisis. – Sedimentology, 23(6), 791-813. Ryan W.B.F. (1973). – Geodynamic implications of the Messinian crisis of salinity. In: C.W. Drooger, Ed., Messinian events in the Mediterranean. – North-Holland Pub. Co., Amsterdam, Netherlands, 26-38. Ryan W.B.F, Hsü K.J., Cita M.B., Dumitrica P., Lort J.M., Maync W., Nesteroff W.D., Pautot G., Stradner H., Wezel F.C. and Kaneps A.G. (1973). – Init. Repts Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 13, Part 2. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1447pp. Ryan W.B.F, Hsü K.J., Cita M.B., Dumitrica P., Lort J., Maync W., Nesteroff W.D., Pautot G., Stardner H. and Wesel F.C. (1973). – Boundary of Sardinia slope with Baelaric abyssal plain - Sites 133 and 134. In: W.B.F Ryan, K.J. Hsü et al., Eds., Init. Repts Deep Sea Drill. Proj., 13. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 465-514. S Saadallah A. and Caby R. (1996). – Alpine extensional detachment tectonics in the Grande Kabylie metamorphic core complex of the Maghrebides (northern Algeria). – Tectonophysics, 267, 257-273. Sage F., Von Gronefeld G., Déverchère J., Gaullier V., Maillard A. and Gorini C. (2005). – Seismic evidence for Messinian detrital deposits at the western Sardinia margin, northwestern Mediterranean. – Mar. Petrol. Geol., 22, 757-773. Sage L. and Letouzey J. (1990). – Convergence of the African and Eurasian plates in the eastern Mediterranean. In: J. Letouzey, Ed., Petroleum and tectonics in mobile belts. – Editions Technip, Paris, 49-68. Savoye B. and Piper D.J.W. (1991). – The Messinian event on the margin of the Mediterranean Sea in the Nice area, southern France. – Mar. Geol., 97, 279-304. Seber D., Vallveä M., Sandvol E., Steer D. and Barazangi M. (1997). – Middle east tectonics. Applications of geographic information systems (GSI). – Geol. Soc. Am. Today, 7, 2. Sellier N., Loncke L., Vendeville B. C. and Mascle J. (2007). – Tectonic coupling and decoupling between pre-Messinian basement and Plio-Quaternary overburden South of the Florence rise (eastern Mediterranean): Structural analysis and analogue modelling. – EUG 2007, Vienna Austria, April 2007. Serpelloni E., Vannucci G., Pondrelli S., Argnani A., Casula G., Anzidei M., Baldi P. and Gasperini P. (2007). – Kinematics of the western Africa-Eurasia plate boundary from focal mechanisms and GPS data. – Geophys. J. Internat., 169(3), 1180-1200. Smith W.H.F. and Sandwell D.T. (1997). – Global sea floor topography from satellite altimetry and ship soundings. – Science, 277, 1956-1962. Stampfli G.M. and Höcker C.F.W. (1989). – Messinian palaeorelief from 3-D seismic survey in the Tarraco concession area (Spanish Mediterranean Sea). – Geol. Mijnb., 68(2), 201-210. Steckler M.S. and Watts A.B. (1980). – The gulf of Lion: subsidence of a young continental margin. – Nature, 287, 425-429. Stich D., Serpelloni E., Mancilla F-L. and Morales J. (2006). – Kinematics of the Iberia-Maghreb plate contact from seismic moment tensors and GPS observations. – Tectonophysics, 426, 3-4, 295-317. T Tahchi E., Gaullier V., Benkhelil J., Maillard A. and the BLAC scientific Party (2004). – The effects of the Messinian salinity crisis in the Levantine basin between the Cyprus arc and the Syrian margin: Preliminary results from the «BLAC» cruise. In: 4th International Congress "Environment and identity in the Mediterranean": The Messinian salinity crisis revisited, Corte, Corsica (France), July 19-25, Abstract volume. Tibor G. and Ben-Avraham Z. (1992). – Late Tertiary sedimentary facies and structure of the Levant continental margin off central Israel. – Mar. Geol., 105, 253-273. Thinon I., Guennoc. P., Réhault. J.-P. and Ferrandini J. (2004). – Reconstitution of the Messinian events on the eastern Corsican margin and in the Corsica basin. In: 4th International Congress "Environment and identity in the Mediterranean": The Messinian salinity crisis revisited, Corte, Corsica (France), July 19-25, Abstract volume.

Thomas B., Lecca L. and Gennesseaux M. (1988). – Structuration et morphogenèse de la marge occidentale de la Sardaigne au Cénozoïque. – C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 306(Série II), 903-910. Thomas B. and Gennesseaux M. (1986). – A two-stage rifting in the basins of the Corsica-Sardinia straits. – Mar. Geol., 72, 225-239. V Vendeville B.C. (1999). – Large-scale gravity gliding and spreading above salt or shale. In: K.L. Hanson, K.I. Kelson, M.A. Angell and W.R. Lettis, Eds, Identifying faults and determining their origins. – Appendix A, A-207-A-232, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), NUREG/CR-5503. Vidal N., Klaeschen D., Kopf A., Docherty C., Von Huene R. and Krasheninnikov V.A. (2000). – Seismic images at the convergence zone from south of Cyprus to the Syrian coast, eastern Mediterranean. – Tectonophysics, 329, 157170. Viaris de Lesegno L. (1978). – Etude structurale de la mer Tyrrhénienne septentrionale. – Thèse de 3ème cycle, Université de Paris 6, 170pp. W Watts A.B. and Torne M. (1992). – Crustal structure and the mechanical properties of extended continental lithosphere in the Valencia trough (western Mediterranean). – J. Geol. Soc., London, 149, 813-827. Woodside J.M., Mascle J., Zitter T.A.C., Limonov A.F., Ergün M., Volkonskaia A. and shipboard scientists of the PRISMED II Expedition (2002). – The Florence rise, the western bend of the Cyprus arc. – Mar. Geol., 185, 177-194. Z Zitter T.A.C., Woodside J.M. and Mascle J. (2003). – The Anaximander mountains: a clue to the tectonics of southwest Anatolia. – Geol. J., 38, 375-394.

Published in 2011 by COMMISSION FOR THE GEOLOGICAL MAP OF THE WORLD 77, rue Claude-Bernard, 75055 Paris, France E-mail : ccgm@club-internet.fr Internet: http://www.ccgm.org SOCIETE GEOLOGIQUE DE FRANCE 77 rue Claude Bernard 75005 Paris, France e-mail : accueil@sgfr.org Internet: http://www.sgfr.org/ ISSN : 0249-7549 ISBN : 2-85363-097-8 © 2011. Toute reproduction même partielle de cet ouvrage est interdite.