%0 Journal Article %1 dimakis_etal:1998 %A Dimakis, P. %A Braathen, B. I. %A Faleide, J. I. %A Elverhøi, A. %A Gudlaugsson, S. T. %D 1998 %J Tectonophysics %K %N 1-4 %P 311--327 %R 10.1016/S0040-1951(98)00245-5 %T Cenozoic erosion and the preglacial uplift of the Svalbard--Barents Sea region %U http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(98)00245-5 %V 300 %X The creation of the huge fans observed in the western Barents Sea margin can only be explained by assuming extremely high glacial erosion rates in the Barents Sea area. Glacial processes capable of producing such high erosion rates have been proposed, but require the largest part of the preglacial Barents Sea to be subaerial. To investigate the validity of these proposals we have attempted to reconstruct the western preglacial Barents Sea. Our approach was to combine erosion maps based on prepublished data into a single mean valued erosion map covering the whole western Barents Sea and consequently use it together with a simple Airy isostatic model to obtain a first rough estimate of the preglacial topography and bathymetry of the western Barents Sea margin. The mean valued erosion map presented herein is in good volumetric agreement with the sediments deposited in the western Barents Sea margin areas, and as a direct consequence of the averaging procedures employed in its construction we can safely assume that it is the most reliable erosion map based on the available information. By comparing the preglacial sequences with the glacial sequences in the fans we have concluded that 1/2 to 2/3 of the total Cenozoic erosion was glacial in origin and therefore a rough reconstruction of the preglacial relief of the western Barents Sea could be obtained. The results show a subaerial preglacial Barents Sea. Thus, during interglacials and interstadials the area may have been partly glaciated and intensively eroded up to 1 mm/y, while during relatively brief periods of peak glaciation with grounded ice extending to the shelf edge, sediments have been evacuated and deposited at the margins at high rates. The interplay between erosion and uplift represents a typical chicken and egg problem; initial uplift is followed by intensive glacial erosion, compensated by isostatic uplift, which in turn leads to the maintenance of an elevated, and glaciated, terrain. The information we have on the initial tectonic uplift suggests that the most likely mechanism to cause an uplift of the dimensions and magnitude of the one observed in the Barents Sea is a thermal mechanism.

@article{dimakis_etal:1998, abstract = {The creation of the huge fans observed in the western Barents Sea margin can only be explained by assuming extremely high glacial erosion rates in the Barents Sea area. Glacial processes capable of producing such high erosion rates have been proposed, but require the largest part of the preglacial Barents Sea to be subaerial. To investigate the validity of these proposals we have attempted to reconstruct the western preglacial Barents Sea. Our approach was to combine erosion maps based on prepublished data into a single mean valued erosion map covering the whole western Barents Sea and consequently use it together with a simple Airy isostatic model to obtain a first rough estimate of the preglacial topography and bathymetry of the western Barents Sea margin. The mean valued erosion map presented herein is in good volumetric agreement with the sediments deposited in the western Barents Sea margin areas, and as a direct consequence of the averaging procedures employed in its construction we can safely assume that it is the most reliable erosion map based on the available information. By comparing the preglacial sequences with the glacial sequences in the fans we have concluded that 1/2 to 2/3 of the total Cenozoic erosion was glacial in origin and therefore a rough reconstruction of the preglacial relief of the western Barents Sea could be obtained. The results show a subaerial preglacial Barents Sea. Thus, during interglacials and interstadials the area may have been partly glaciated and intensively eroded up to 1 mm/y, while during relatively brief periods of peak glaciation with grounded ice extending to the shelf edge, sediments have been evacuated and deposited at the margins at high rates. The interplay between erosion and uplift represents a typical chicken and egg problem; initial uplift is followed by intensive glacial erosion, compensated by isostatic uplift, which in turn leads to the maintenance of an elevated, and glaciated, terrain. The information we have on the initial tectonic uplift suggests that the most likely mechanism to cause an uplift of the dimensions and magnitude of the one observed in the Barents Sea is a thermal mechanism.}, added-at = {2012-09-01T13:08:21.000+0200}, author = {Dimakis, P. and Braathen, B. I. and Faleide, J. I. and Elverh{\o}i, A. and Gudlaugsson, S. T.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2dfd68d72fbfe30e440e58690acfbbe7e/nilsma}, day = 31, doi = {10.1016/S0040-1951(98)00245-5}, interhash = {2697285c35b625e4518fff5af38d8ee8}, intrahash = {dfd68d72fbfe30e440e58690acfbbe7e}, issn = {00401951}, journal = {Tectonophysics}, keywords = {}, month = dec, number = {1-4}, pages = {311--327}, timestamp = {2021-02-09T13:27:55.000+0100}, title = {Cenozoic erosion and the preglacial uplift of the Svalbard--Barents Sea region}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(98)00245-5}, volume = 300, year = 1998 }