Journals / Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi / 2000 / Cilt: 122 - Sayı: 122

LITHOSTRATIGRAPHY AND SEDIMENTOLOGY OF THE MIOCENE BASIN BETWEEN MUT-KARAMAN, (CENTRAL TAURIDS)

Pages
40–41
Publication Date
2000-03-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

At the top, Pliocene continental elastics and lacustrine limestones unconformably overlies the Miocene sequence.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The study area includes Mut-Karaman part of the Mut Miocene Basin.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Lowermost lithostratigraphic unit of Miocene is Göcekler formation which is represented by mudstone and conglomerate of Aquatian age.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:At the top, Pliocene continental elastics and lacustrine limestones unconformably overlies the Miocene sequence.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The study area includes Mut-Karaman part of the Mut Miocene Basin. Lowermost lithostratigraphic unit of Miocene is Göcekler formation which is represented by mudstone and conglomerate of Aquatian age. This formation is unconforably overlies the late Cretaceous basement. The Göcekler formation gradually pass both laterally and vertically into the Aquatian-alt Burdigalian The Fakırca formation which is characterized by clayey limestone/sandstone and coal bearing shale. Clayey limestone part of the Fakirca formation is recognized as the Kestelkapızı member. Marine rock units in the region can be grouped into five formation: The Mut formation, the Köselerli formation, the Dağpazarı formation, the Tirtar formation and the Ballı formation. The Mut formation, the Köselerli formation and the Dağpazarı formation is form the lower part of the sequence. At the upper part of sequence there are the Tirtar formation and the Ballı formations. The Mut formation and the Köselerli formation are represented by limestones, clayey limestone and marl, whereas the Dağpazarı formation consist of calcarenite, limestone, claystone, mudstone. Mut formation and Köselerli formation are laterally transitional and are of Upper Burdigalian-LangianSerravalian (?Lower Serravalian) age. The Dağpazarı formation was deposited in Langian-Serravalian (?Lower Serravalian) time interval. The Tirtar formation is represented by limestone and unconformably overlies the Dağpazarın formation. The Tirtar formation is represented by limestones. The age of the Tirtar formation is Serravalian (?Upper Serravalian)- Tortonian. The lateral equivalent unit of the Tirtar formation is the Ballı formation and is composed of clayey limestone and marl. At the top, Pliocene continental elastics and lacustrine limestones unconformably overlies the Miocene sequence.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATABEY, E., ATABEY, N., HAKYEMEZ, A., İSLAMOĞLU, Y., SÖZERİ, Ş., ÖZÇELİK, N., SARAÇ, G., ÜNAY, E., BABAYİĞİT, S. (2000). LITHOSTRATIGRAPHY AND SEDIMENTOLOGY OF THE MIOCENE BASIN BETWEEN MUT-KARAMAN, (CENTRAL TAURIDS). Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi, Cilt: 122 - Sayı: 122, 40–41. https://ajindex.com/articles/54205

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Akarsu, i., 1960, Mut bölgesinin Jeolojisi: MTA Derg., 54, 36-45.
  2. Atabey, E., 1999a, Mut havzası Orta Miyosen yaşlı kar- bonat yığışımlarının litofasiyes özellikleri ve evri- mi: 52. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı Bildiri Kitabı, 1999, Ankara., 1999i), Mut havzası Orta-üst Miyosen istifinin sekans stratigrafik yorumu: 52. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı Bildiri Kitabı, 10-12 Mayıs-1999,
  3. Ankara., Ünay; E.; Saraç, G. ve Sözeri, Ş., 2000a, Mut yöresi klastiklerinin (Derinçay fm.) yaşı ile ilgili yeni bulgular ve paleocoğrafik verileri, Orta Toroslar: 53. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı Bildiri özleri, Ankara., Atabey, N.; Sözeri, Ş.; Islamoğlu, Y.; Hakyemez, A.; özçelik, N. N.; Saraç, G.; Ünay, E. ve Babayiğit, S., 20006, Mut (İçel)-Karaman arası Miyosen istifinin litostratigrafisi, kronostratigrafisi ve istif stratigrafik yorumu: MTA Rap., No. 10312(yayımlanmamış), Ankara.
  4. Atabey, N., 1998, Batı Toros Kuşağı Miyosen kırmızı alglerin paleoekolojisi ve çökelme ortamları: 51. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı Bildiri özleri, s. 58, Ankara.
  5. Bilgin, A. Z.; Uğuz, M. F.; Elibol, E,; Güner, E. ve Gedik, i. 1994, Mut-Silifke-Gülnar yöresinin (içel ili) jeolo- jisi: MTA. Rap., No. 9715 (yayımlanmamış), Ankara.
  6. Bizon, G.; Bizon. J. J.; Feinberg. H. ve öztemur, E., 1974,
  7. Antalya, Mut, Adana havzaları Tersiyer biyostra- tigrafisi ve mikropaleontolojisi yenilikleri: Türkiye ikinci Petrol Kongresi Tebliğleri, 217-218,
  8. Ankara.
  9. Clarkson, E.N.K., 1986, Invertebrata paleontology and evalution; University of Edinburg, second edition, London, 382 p. Derman, A.S. ve Derman, H.A., 2000, Mut basenindeki Miyosen öncesi alüvyon yelpazeler, dağılımları ve önemleri: 53. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı, Bildiri özleri, 208-209.
  10. Dunham, R.J., 1962, Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional texture, in: Classification of carbonate rocks (Ed. by. W.E. Ham). Mem. Amer. Ass. Petrol. Geol., 1, 108-121.
  11. Erünal-Erentöz, L., 1958, Mollusques du Neogene des bassing de Karaman, Adana et Hatay (Turquie), MTA Bulletin, Serie, C, No: 4, 232 p. 36 pl. Gedik, A.; Birgili, Ş.; Yılmaz, H. ve Yoldaş, R., 1979, Mut- Ermenek-Silifke yöresinin jeolojisi ve petrol olanakları: Türkiye Jeoloji Kurumu Bült., 27, 7-26.
  12. Gökten, E., 1976, Silifke yöresinin temel kaya birimleri ve Miyosen stratigrafisi: Türkiye Jeoloji Kurumu Bülteni, 19, 117-126.
  13. Heckel, P. H., 1974, Carbonate Buildups in the Geologie Record. A revievv, Laporte, L. F. (Ed.) Reefs in Time and Space, Soc. Econ. Paleont. Miner. Spec. Publ., 18,90-154.
  14. Hodell, D