Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ksp62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T18:23:04.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Omission and pacing of events at the Norian–Rhaetian and Triassic–Jurassic transitions in Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2025

Mark W. Hounslow*
Affiliation:
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Earth, Ocean and Ecological Sciences, Univ. of Liverpool, Jane Herdman Building, Liverpool, UK
Paulette E. Posen
Affiliation:
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Geoffrey Warrington
Affiliation:
School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, UK
Kevin N. Page
Affiliation:
Geodiversity & Heritage, Sandford, Devon, UK Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, UK
*
Corresponding author: Mark W Hounslow; Email: m.hounslow@lancaster.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Magnetostratigraphy, palynology and ammonite biochronology of the Staithes S-20 core are used in an integrated evaluation of the late Norian to early Hettangian successions in Britain. The polarity patterns of the Blue Anchor and Westbury formations differ from their counterparts in SW England, indicating younger and older ages, respectively, for those units in NE England. Magnetostratigraphy indicates an underlying Sevatian age hiatus coeval with the D5 disconformity of the German Keuper. The miospore succession from S-20 is divisible into zones like those from the St Audrie’s Bay section in SW England. Using magnetic susceptibility datasets for the earliest Hettangian chronozones from S-20, Lavernock, St Audrie’s Bay and Lyme Regis, a new method is used to derive a TimeOpt-based astrochronology for the earliest Hettangian. This is anchored to radioisotopic dates from Peru correlated into British sections using carbon isotope excursions. A brief reverse magnetozone in the basal Cotham Member in the Staithes S-20 core and the astrochronological evaluation demonstrate that CAMP volcanics are coeval with the end-Triassic extinction in UK sections. An eco-plant model assessment of the miospores indicates greater proportions of eurythermic and europhyte floras, suggesting stronger seasonality in palaeoclimate was probably a key factor in the end-Triassic extinction.

Information

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. a) Summary map of locations and environmental facies for the interval occupied by the Branscombe Mudstone Fm and its equivalents. The Staithes S-20 borehole is located at Boulby. Base map modified from Geluk (2005), with facies concepts from McKie (2014); b) Summary lithostratigraphy for England from this work, with that for the southern North Sea region from Cameron et al. (1992); other correlations and disconformities based on Barnasch (2010), Hounslow & Andrews (2024) and this work. Summary polarity and substage scale from Hounslow & Gallois (2023). Numbered subdivisions of the Rhaetian based on Krystyn (2008). NRB1 and NRB2 are the two proposed options for the position of the Norian–Rhaetian boundary.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Summary of petromagnetic data for the Staithes S-20 core. a) Summary lithologic log (see SM Fig. S3 for details); b) surface (Ksurf) and c) specimen volumetric magnetic susceptibility; d) natural remanent magnetisation (NRM) intensity; e) lithostratigraphy and ammonite biostratigraphy. Var.= variegated interval, CM=Cotham Member, LM=Langport Member, Cz=chronozone, Pl.=Planorbis Cz. Hatching in column (e) indicates uncertainty in the position of the base of the Hettangian.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Surface magnetic susceptibility (Ksurf) records from Langport Mbr and basal Lias Gp. Staithes S-20 from this work and others from Weedon et al. (2019). The x-axis is an arbitrary scale with the base of the Lias Gp at zero and those of the Planorbis and Johnstoni subchronozones at 10 and 20, respectively (chronozonal thickness indicated assuming base Lias Group ≅ base Jurassic). Right hand scales are the ammonite biohorizons (orange symbols, and non-underlined bold numbers). Possible hiatus levels (marked as H?) from Weedon et al. (2019). Black vertical lines connect biohorizon bases. The inferred short eccentricity cycle (E2–3) is marked within [ ] for St Audrie’s Bay (StAB) from Ruhl et al. (2010) and by a red line with a tick for Lavernock (from Weedon et al., 2019). Grey bands are plausible correlations of the Ksurf changes constrained by position within the chronozones. Original error in exponent of Ksurf corrected for the StAB, Lyme Regis and Lavernock datasets. Bed numbers from Weedon et al. (2019). On panel (b), the inferred positions of the base of the Hettangian correlated from the GSSP at Kuhjoch are: J1, J2, J3 (discussed by Jeram et al.2021), L1, L2 = Lindström et al. (2021) and Lindström et al. (2017), respectively; C = Clemence et al. (2010) (using first occurrence of Ps. spelae in the New York Canyon section); K = Korte et al. (2019); R= Ruhl et al. (2020); W=Weedon et al. (2019), and correlation (purple dotted line); ws=Whiteside et al. (2010). Positions located by bed-by-bed correlation between the slightly differing logs of Weedon et al. (2019) and Hesselbo et al. (2002). The negative carbon isotope excursions (CIE) on b), c) are the positions of the Spelae ② and top Tilmanni ③ events. White bar in b) is the reverse polarity magnetozone SA5r (UT28r magnetochron). Position of the top Tilmanni δ13Ccarb CIE ③ on the Lavernock section from Korte et al. (2009; 2019).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Outline of astrochronologic processing steps used here in developing the sediment accumulation rate (SAR) models for the sections: a) The steps principally using evolutionary TimeOpt and selecting the baseline SAR model (SARbase), b) Steps in selecting the modulated SAR models, which may include hiatus levels (SARβ,H). The blue steps shown are for producing the β- testing, but equally apply to variable hiatus (symbolised as H in purple step)- and β-H testing. {±} indicates β can take positive or negative values for either the TS-SAR or CD-SAR type models. The exit condition from this loop is when any element of SARβ,H is at a minimum >0.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Summary palynomorph dataset from the Staithes S-20 core (full data in SM Fig. S4): a) selected palynomorphs from S-20 with miospore assemblage zones (SAB1 to 4) adapted from the St Audrie’s Bay data of Bonis et al. (2010), and rarity intervals (MR1, MR2) inferred from criteria in Lindström (2021). b) relative numbers of pollen and spore taxa, and the probable parent plant groups, c) the average values for Eco-plant model EGT and EPH proxies of the pollen and spore taxa. See SM section 2 for discussion of taxonomic issues.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Earliest Jurassic ammonites from the northern Cleveland Basin (in following Pnnn= BGS photo assess number): Psiloceras erugatum (Phillips): A, B- GSM BKK 3156 (P1057099, P1057097), C- GSM 3157 (Staithes S-20 at 1192.2 ft, 363.38 m, P1057104), D- NHM37881, “Robin Hoods Bay, Yorkshire”, ex W. Bean coll.1859 (detail of typical concretion recovered ex-situ) (note node-like tubercles on nuclei and variable expression of ribbing on middle and outer whorls). E- cf. Neophyllites sp (GSM 3154, P1057092), Staithes S-20 at 1181.17 ft, 360.02 m). F- Neophyllites sp. cf. antecedens Lange (GSM 3151, P1057084), Staithes S-20 at 1179.00 ft, 359.35 – note relatively steep umbilical wall when compared to typical Psiloceras spp. (scale bar with 1 cm intervals for A-C, E, F; field of view for D. 70x120 mm). A-C, E, F by S. Harris BGS, D by KNP. British Geological Survey materials © UKRI 2024; containing public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Figure 6

Figure 7. Summary magnetostratigraphic data for the Staithes S-20 core. a) Simplified sedimentary log (SM Fig. S3 for details, key in Fig. 2). b) Demagnetisation behaviour classification of specimen data. c) Characteristic remanent magnetisation (ChRM) isolation method during demagnetisation (T=thermal, A= alternating field, C= combined). d) Specimen polarity classification. e) Specimen ChRM inclination. f) Specimen virtual geomagnetic pole latitude (VGPR) with respect to the mean poles for the Branscombe Mudstone Formation and the Penarth and Lias groups (core re-oriented using joint mean-run rotation angle). g) Section polarity, lithostratigraphy (Lith.) and biostratigraphy. MZ=labels of magnetozone couplets (BM = Boulby Mine, the location of the core). LM= Langport Member, CM= Cotham Member, var.=variegated unit. Hatching in column (g) represents the interval of probable base Hettangian.

Figure 7

Figure 8. Component directional data when re-oriented: a) Specimen ChRM directions re-oriented by the mean MT component (inferred Brunhes-age) in each run; b) MT-component (MTC) re-oriented by the mean-run ChRM declination; c) and d) specimen ChRM directions for formational groupings, re-oriented by the combined MTC and ChRM declinations for each run. Fisher mean directions shown for b), c) and d), and the reversal test for c) and d), with classification, observed (γobs) and critical (γcrit) angle of divergence.

Figure 8

Figure 9. a) Evolutionary harmonic analysis (EHA) map for the Staithes S-20 Ksurf data, with possible astronomical periods indicated (based on the SAR constraints). E=eccentricity cycles, O=obliquity, and P=precession (targets listed in SM Table S1); b) the S20 Ksurf data with depth in metres; c) SAR tracks based on the evolutionary TimeOpt method (Meyers, 2019) for four width windows (5.5 m to 7.0 m; coloured lines); full lines are primary tracks and dashed lines secondary tracks. The SAR constraints (dotted vertical black lines) and inferred composite baseline SAR tracks (in thick grey line, St1, St2, St2x) are shown. Comparable plots for Lavernock, St Audrie’s Bay and Lyme Regis are in SM Figs. S10 to S12.

Figure 9

Figure 10. Evaluation of the baseline SAR models. SA= St Audrie’s Bay (StAB), Ly=Lyme Regis, La=Lavernock and St= Staithes S-20 models, respectively. Those with an appended + indicate the hiatus (or missing interval) inserted (in kyr) into the baseline SAR model (only for S-20 models). a) shows the r2opt and the normalised SAR across the Tilmanni plus Planorbis chronozones interval (nSART+PS), with the upper SAR constraint for each section being the normaliser (giving nSART+PS =1). b) Shows the durations of the Tilmanni Cz and Planorbis Scz. σT,P= standard deviation of the durations of the Tilmanni Cz and Planorbis Scz for the SAR sets indicated inside the marked regions (solid blue line for set-1). The numbers in a) inside […] are the mean nSART+PS ±1σ and mean r2opt for the SAR sets inside the solid blue/black dotted lines (set 1 models marked in blue). The SAR model with the maximum r2opt in each section has a grey background. Examples of hiatus- testing data shown in SM Figs. S13 to 15.

Figure 10

Figure 11. β- testing of the better-performing baseline models from Figure 10 without hiatus (except for the Staithes S-20 dataset), for the CD-SAR type models. Plot of r2opt with respect to β shown in Fig. 12a. Labelling details as in Figure 10. SAR model set 1 and 2 statistics in Table 1. The equivalent TS-SAR models are shown in SM Figure S16.

Figure 11

Figure 12. a) Plot of r2opt with respect to β for the CD-SAR β-testing models in Fig. 11. Labelling details as in Figure 10. b) Power spectra of the SAR models included in SAR model sets 1 and 2 from Fig. 11, with linear (black) and logarithmic scaling of spectra (in grey), and eccentricity, obliquity and precession frequencies (red vertical dashed-lines) as in SM Table S1. Blue line is the bandpass filter for evaluation of the precession amplitude envelope.

Figure 12

Table 1. Data for the sets of baseline and combined β-testing duration models are indicated in Figs. 10, 11, 12 and SM Figure S16. In column 1, Hopt is the hiatus inferred by the TimeOpt optimised age models shown inside round brackets, as well as the that inserted in the baseline age model (shown as H), with both in kyrs. Column 6: the statistical significance values (P(AR1’)) of the model using a Monte Carlo simulation of an AR1 process (Meyers, 2019), with values listed in the same model order as in column 1 (1000 simulations with 100 sedimentation rates). The AR1 process is modelled with ‘raw’ ρ values for S-20, StAB, Lavernock and Lyme of 0.7325, 0.6189, 0.7481 and 0.7639, respectively. Δ r2opt = the mean improvement in r2opt over the baseline models in Figure 10

Figure 13

Table 2. Data for the sets of combined β-H duration models indicated in Figures 13, 14 and SM Figs. S18, S19. In column 6, Hopt= the hiatus inferred by the TimeOpt optimised age models (in the same model order as in column 1), rather than that inserted in the baseline age model (shown as H, kyrs in column 1). Other columns as in Table 1

Figure 14

Figure 13. β-H- testing of the better-performing baseline models from Figure 10 with hiatus inserted at the base of the Planorbis Scz for Lyme Regis and StAB models. Plot of r2opt with respect to β shown in Fig. 14a. Notation details as in Figures 10 and 11. SAR model set-1, set-2 and set-3 statistics in Table 2.

Figure 15

Figure 14. a) Plot of r2opt with respect to β for the CD-SAR β-H- testing models in Fig. 13. Labelling details as in Figure 10. b) Power spectra of the SAR models included in sets-1 and set-2 from Fig. 13, with linear (black) and logarithmic scaling of spectra (in grey), and eccentricity, obliquity and precession frequencies (red vertical dash-lines) as in SM Table S1. Blue line is the bandpass filter for evaluation of the precession amplitude envelope.

Figure 16

Figure 15. Radioisotopic dates from Peruvian sections (Guex et al., 2012; Wotzlaw et al., 2014) correlated with the St Audrie’s Bay (StAB) section using organic carbon isotope excursions as in Ruhl et al. (2020). Each of the dates (circles) has horizontal and vertical error bars representing the 2σ age uncertainty, and the estimated stratigraphic uncertainty (in the duration scale of the SA2x=1 age model), respectively. Reverse magnetozones and negative carbon isotope excursions at StAB as in Figure 16. Ages of Newark Basin (N), Argana Basin (A) and Fundy Basin (F) CAMP pulses from Blackburn et al. (2013). The x-axis age scale shows Newark ‘E’ magnetozones from Kent et al. (2017). The blue regression line is a fit to the dates LM4-86, LM4-90 and LM4 100/101, using the method of Reed (1989). Black fixed-duration line is a fit to the same three dates, using a weighted regression fit, but with a fixed slope to match the durations in both x and y scales. TJB= Triassic–Jurassic boundary age from Wotzlaw et al. (2014) projected onto the SA2x=1 age model.

Figure 17

Figure 16. Comparison of the Staithes S-20 core magnetostratigraphy with other equivalent sections through the Sevatian and early Rhaetian. Other section data: St Audrie’s Bay (StAB) (Hounslow et al., 2004; Hüsing et al., 2014), Seaton, Upper Chinle Fm composite and GPTS-B from Hounslow & Gallois (2022), Lavernock (Hounslow & Andrews, 2024), Newark Supergroup (Kent et al., 2017). Sampling levels marked as ticks on the Seaton, StAB and Lavernock columns, shown as a green bar when densely sampled. Astrochronologic age (in blue) anchored to the Orange Mountain Basalt (Kent et al., 2017). Hatching in the S-20 column represents uncertainty regarding the position of the base Hettangian in the core. CBz= conodont biozone, SS=Substage, Ala.3= Alaunian 3. Magnetozone (MZ) names from data sources. Additional abbreviations in key to Fig. 17.

Figure 18

Figure 17. Comparison of the Staithes S-20 core magnetostratigraphy from the Penarth and Lias Groups with other key sections of Rhaetian-2 to early Hettangian age. Other section data: St Audrie’s Bay (StAB) (Hounslow et al., 2004, Hesselbo et al., 2002; Hüsing et al., 2014), Lombardian Basin (Muttoni et al., 2010; Zaffani et al., 2018), Oyuklu (Gallet et al., 2007), Argana Basin (Deenan et al., 2011) Newark Basin (Kent et al., 1995, 2017). GPTS-B (Hounslow & Gallois, 2023). Hatching in the S-20 and GPTS-B columns represents uncertainty regarding the position of the Triassic–Jurassic boundary, uncertainty in the StAB column that is shown by the various proposed positions for the boundary, which are labelled: L, R, H and J3, from Lindström et al. (2017), Ruhl et al (2020), Hillebrandt et al. (2013) and Jeram et al. (2021), respectively (also in Fig. 3b).

Supplementary material: File

Hounslow et al. supplementary material

Hounslow et al. supplementary material
Download Hounslow et al. supplementary material(File)
File 8 MB