Next Article in Journal
Regional Trends of Biodiversity Indices in the Temperate Mesic United States: Testing for Influences of Anthropogenic Land Use on Stream Fish while Controlling for Natural Landscape Variables
Previous Article in Journal
Role of Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria in the Removal of Hexavalent Chromium by Biosynthetic Iron Sulfides (FeS1+x)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/w15081590
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Tsunamis Struck Coasts of Triassic Oceans and Seas: Brief Summary of the Literary Evidence

by
Dmitry A. Ruban
Department of Organization and Technologies of Service Activities, ITSCI, Southern Federal University, 23-ja Linija Street 43, Rostov-on-Don 344019, Russia
Water 2023, 15(8), 1590; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15081590
Submission received: 27 March 2023 / Revised: 14 April 2023 / Accepted: 18 April 2023 / Published: 19 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Geological and Geomorphological Studies in Coastal Areas, Volume II)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Studying palaeotsunamis is important to the comprehensive understanding of these events and their role in the geological evolution of the coasts of oceans and seas. The present work aims at summarizing the published information on Triassic tsunamis to document their spatiotemporal distribution and the related knowledge gaps and biases. A bibliographical survey was undertaken to collect the literature sources, and their content was examined to extract the principal information about palaeotsunamis. The certainty of the literary evidence for particular localities and regions is addressed by checking the consistency of the published interpretations. It is found that tsunamis were discussed commonly in different parts of the world for the Permian–Triassic transition and the end-Triassic. However, the certainty of the literary evidence is questionable in both cases. Some interpretations of palaeotsunamis were disputed, and storm versus tsunami interpretations were offered in several cases. A few tsunamis were also reported from the Olenekian–Carnian interval but with the same quality of literary evidence. Taking into account the frequency of tsunamis in the historical times and the Holocene, as well as the presence of their possible triggers in the Triassic, it is proposed that the analyzed literary evidence is significantly incomplete, and, thus, our knowledge about Triassic tsunamis is imperfect. Further research should aim at studying them in a bigger number of localities, paying attention to the Olenekian–Norian interval and trying to relate them to different triggers.

1. Introduction

Tsunamis are not only devastative events of outstanding magnitude and different nature but also factors of geological evolution, which affect coastal landforms, depositional systems, and habitats [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Although there have been significant advances in their understanding after the two catastrophes that occurred at the beginning of the 21st century [20,21,22,23,24], there is much to be studied yet in regard to their spatiotemporal regularities, causes and mechanisms, and effects.
Indeed, the geological records of tsunamis can facilitate a comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon in general. Palaeotsunamis have been studied actively, with significant attention to their sedimentological and palaeoecological evidence [25,26,27,28,29,30]. The oldest tsunami was interpreted for the Archaean [31]. However, the preservation potential of tsunamis and/or the scientists’ ability to identify them and interpret them correctly is limited. That is why the knowledge of pre-Quaternary tsunamis remains scarce. However, it is available and not too limited, and the related studies have experienced growth. Taking into account that this knowledge is scattered through the geological literature and the related notions sometimes appear “marginally”, it appears very reasonable to synthesize it regularly and with attention to particular intervals of geological time.
The Triassic Period, which lasted ~50.5 Ma [32], was marked by palaeoenvironmental changes (for instance, fluctuations of the thermal regime [33,34] and global sea-level changes [35,36]), which were superimposed by a series of extraordinary events such as the Permian/Triassic (P/T) [37,38,39] and Triassic/Jurassic (T/J) [40,41,42] catastrophes and lesser crises [43,44,45,46,47]. Taking into account these changes, it appears intriguing to investigate Triassic tsunamis, irrespective of whether they were related to the noted events or not. Some high-resolution studies of Triassic sequences in search of the evidence of these above-mentioned catastrophes might have led to finding tsunamis. A brief check of the available literature (see review below) implies that the related lines of evidence exist. Arguments pro et contra palaeotsunami interpretations were expressed. However, it appears that the knowledge of Triassic tsunamis is not only heterogeneous but also fragmented and controversial to a certain degree.
The objective of the present work is to summarize briefly the available literary evidence of Triassic tsunamis. Attention is paid to their spatiotemporal distribution. However, even more important is the examination of the certainty of the lines of evidence because palaeotsunamis can only be interpreted (hypothesized) with more or less strong arguments. Judgments about these interpretations are out of the scope of this study, but it appears essential to check controversies and alternative explanations already stated in the published literature. The author neither favors nor criticizes the previous interpretations but tries to synthesize the information to reflect the present understanding of Triassic tsunamis, as evidenced by the entity of the related literature sources. In other words, this work offers a general and neutral view of these events—a kind of view from the outside (for instance, of any professional geologist needing to learn about palaeotsunamis of this age and caring about the consistency of this information). The present synthesis has been stimulated by the examination of the regional geological record of the hypothetic, earliest Induan tsunami in the Western Caucasus; nonetheless, bringing together the dispersed published information from different stratigraphical levels of the Triassic and different parts of the world is the central task, solution of which may be helpful for further developments, both of regional and global scale.

2. Materials and Methods

The present study follows the Triassic time scale established by the International Commission on Stratigraphy [32]. The period consisted of three epochs and seven stages, and its subdivision is highly disproportional because the Late Triassic was longer than the Early and Middle Triassic taken together, and the Norian Stage lasted more than two Triassic epochs (Figure 1). The Triassic world was organized rather simply, with one supercontinent, namely Pangaea, surrounded by the Panthalassa Ocean; the Palaeo- and Neo-Tethys oceans intruded into the interiors of Pangaea and formed a giant “tongue” [48,49,50]. The climate was warm, with global average temperatures above 20 °C [33,34]. A thermal maximum with extreme temperatures took place in the Early Triassic [51,52,53]. The global sea level was relatively low, and it fluctuated generally near or above the present level [35,36]. Palaeoenvironmental and palaeoecological perturbations stressed the world during a significant part of the Triassic (Figure 1).
The material of the present study is the entity of literature sources, chiefly articles mentioning Triassic tsunamis and published in international journals. In order to collect these sources, a bibliographical survey was undertaken. The principal part of the information was obtained with the major bibliographical database “Scopus”, which boasts extensive coverage of sources and outstanding richness [54,55,56]. However, various additions were made via search with the bibliographical databases of particular publishers such as “Elsevier” and “Springer”. Direct search on the Internet was also helpful. The sources mentioning Triassic tsunamis in their titles, abstracts, keywords, and full text were collected this way. After “filtering” (deletion of duplicating or irrelevant works), the set of the literature includes 39 publications, which is not so small taking into account the consideration of the highly-specific subject and the poor preservation of palaeotsunamis in pre-Quaternary geological records. This set seems to be representative because the used bibliographical databases include all leading and numerous national/local journals, including those published in languages other than English (indeed, missing a few papers published is possible, but such biases are principally unavoidable; anyway, the set is treated as not fully comprehensive, but only representative).
Essentially, the present analysis is a kind of bibliographical survey aimed at a concise, systematic description of the matter. The content of the collected literature sources was analyzed to extract the basic information about Triassic tsunamis. In several cases, the same section or group of sections is addressed in several works. To reduce the heterogeneity of the information, the sections are attributed to the localities, which can be either small or rather large, but presumably, each of them represents the same event or series of events. These localities are specified for only descriptive purposes, and thus, differences in their size do not matter. For each locality, the evidence of tsunami is summarized to reveal its certainty resulting from the consistency of the interpretations from the related works. For instance, some works hypothesize palaeotsunami, others imply the presence of either tsunami or storm, and there are situations when the authors argue for the absence of palaeotsunami. Such interpretations are based on sedimentological and somewhere palaeoecological and geochemical observations. The age of palaeotsunamis is further considered. When possible, it is established at the stage level. It should be noted that many works focus on the Permian–Triassic or Triassic–Jurassic transitions. Naturally, these transitions go beyond the Triassic’s limits, and older and younger tsunamis should also be considered because they are directly related to the Triassic geological history, with two outstanding catastrophes that marked its beginning and end. If mentioned in the analyzed literature sources, the possible triggers of palaeotsunamis are outlined. Finally, the temporal (not necessarily causal) correspondence to the global events (Figure 1) can be traced.
The certainty of evidence can be established as follows: it is very high when palaeotsunami is hypothesized without an alternative, it is high when the majority of the works propose palaeotsunami, but some specialists propose alternative interpretations, it is medium when palaeotsunami is hypothesized together with some other factors or some specialists question it, and it is low when the evidence is too weak, or palaeotsunami is one of many possible explanations. Finally, arguments against palaeotsunamis are specified for some localities. Indeed, this procedure is somewhat subjective, but it appears to be useful for the general judgments of the certainty of evidence. Moreover, it should be stressed that this certainty is always only relative because even the strongest and currently undisputed evidence allows only to hypothesize palaeotsunami, not to prove it. In this work, the quality of the evidence from each particular work is not checked because this would require detailed field studies in all considered localities and also because such a critical assessment of the previous literature would require avoiding the neutrality of judgments and choosing any particular methodological framework.
Then, the information is again generalized and grouped by major spatial domains and principal time slices. Domains are outlined provisionally and include closely situated localities (also those localities, the relations discussed in the literature sources) with comparable palaeogeographical settings (for instance, it appears reasonable to consider all West European localities together). The literature has paid significant attention to the Permian–Triassic transition and the end-Triassic interval (Rhaetian and Triassic–Jurassic transition), and the rest information characterizes the Olenekian–Carnian interval. These slices reflect the different temporal “density” of the available lines of evidence, i.e., the former depends on the concentration of the latter. The interpretations of the certainty of evidence are generalized for all major domains in each time slice.

3. Results

The literary evidence of Triassic tsunamis implies that the contemporary knowledge of them is far from being ideal. On the one hand, some palaeotsunamis are disputed or face alternative explanations (Table 1). Commonly, they are interpreted for beds with unusual sedimentary, palaeoecological, and geochemical characteristics, the origin of which can also be attributed to storms or seismicity. A typical example is found in the earliest Induan sandstones bearing boulders and megaclasts (Figure 2) reported from the Western Caucasus [57]. On the other hand, too little attention has been paid to the Ladinian–Norian interval (Table 1), which constitutes more than half of the Triassic history (Figure 1). It is also necessary to note the concentration of research in particular localities, such as the British Isles or Kashmir (Table 1). Nonetheless, the already published information generally proves tsunamis as a rather characteristic phenomenon of the Triassic or, at least, its particular intervals.
Tsunamis at the Permian–Triassic transition have been reported from several localities, from which the most studied is the Guryul Ravine in Kashmir (Table 1). However, the Parana Basin of Brazil is the only place where the evidence of palaeotsunami seems to be the most certain. For the other localities, alternative interpretations were proposed, with storms as the most common (Table 1). Nonetheless, it is notable that the available lines of literary evidence come from different parts of the world (Figure 3a), which means tsunamis could be a global phenomenon during the Permian–Triassic transition. Before the 2010s, researchers stated the absence of any tsunami deposits linked to the P/T catastrophe [96,97]. However, new information has been obtained from several localities (Table 1), and it appears to be promising to link this phenomenon to the P/T catastrophe, although one should note the questionable correlation of the described events. In Kashmir, they occurred near the beginning of the Permian–Triassic transition [68,69], but the hypothetic palaeotsunami took place near its end in the Western Caucasus [57]. Moreover, one should note that different specialists indicated different triggers of the palaeotsunamis hypothesized for the Permian–Triassic transition, in which a bolide impact could cause massive remote volcanism and earthquakes (Table 1). In the latter case, they were not necessarily related to planetary mechanisms.
Olenekian tsunamis were discussed for three localities (Table 1). Surprisingly, their absence was argued in two places, and thus, only their presence in western North America was hypothesized with certainty. More publications focused on the possible Anisian tsunamis, but the majority of them deal with the Germanic Basin (Table 1). The certainty of evidence from this major Central European palaeogeographical domain is high because many works offered interpretations of the only earthquake-triggered palaeotsunamis, although alternative explanations of the observed features (first of all, storms) cannot be totally excluded. Ladinian–Norian tsunamis were mentioned from only a few localities (Table 1). The certainty of this evidence is usually limited. On the one hand, alternative interpretations were given for some localities. On the other hand, one should note arguments against palaeotsunamis, which are especially strong in the case of the Ordos Basin [80,81]. Generally, Olenekian–Norian tsunamis were reported rarely, and the entire literary evidence of these events seems to be rather uncertain (Figure 3b). Although a few possible events corresponded to the Ladinian and Carnian crises, this correspondence may be only occasional. Moreover, the triggers of the proposed palaeotsunamis were not indicated in the literature, except for the Anisian events in the Germanic Basin, where they were attributed to seismicity (Table 1).
End-Triassic tsunamis were reported in rather numerous works, although from a limited number of regions; the best studied are the localities of the British Isles (Table 1). In the French localities, the evidence seems to be very certain, but apparently, the same palaeotsunamis are disputed in the localities of Northern Ireland and Southern and Southwestern England (Table 1). The number of works arguing for palaeotsunami and disproving it seems to be comparable, which decreases the certainty of the evidence. In the other localities, either alternative (storm) interpretations were offered, or it was argued against palaeotsunami. Principally, the available literary evidence seems to be less certain and less geographically representative (Figure 3c) than in the case of the Permian–Triassic transition (Figure 3a). Indeed, it appears to be intriguing to relate the hypothesized end-Triassic tsunamis to the T/J catastrophe or its prelude that started yet in the Norian (Figure 1). Some works argued bolide impact as a possible trigger of palaeotsunamis [72,75,76,77,84], although seismicity, either related to this impact or not, cannot be excluded. Such a bolide impact could be linked to the end-Triassic sequence of catastrophic events. However, the arguments against palaeotsunamis make the related scenarios questionable, if possible. Much depends on the interpretations of soft-sediment deformations [76,87], and some scenarios can be only highly-hypothetic and based on the more or less logically organized sets of assumptions.

4. Discussion

Taking into account the state of the literary evidence summarized above (see also Table 1 and Figure 3), it appears that the quantity and the certainty of the available knowledge of Triassic tsunamis remain restricted. Nonetheless, it has been established that tsunamis could be linked to planetary-scale catastrophes (such as those marked the Permian–Triassic transition and the end-Triassic) and local/regional events (such as major earthquakes). The literary evidence of the hypothetic tsunamis associated with (but not necessarily linked to) the P/T catastrophe demonstrates rather high certainty. The biggest problem is that, in many cases, it is impossible to be sure that tsunami took place or that this was a tsunami and not a storm (Table 1). This appears to be a general methodological problem that cannot be avoided presently. First, it is evident that sedimentary records of palaeotsunamis can often be challenged and interpreted differently [73,74,80,91,93], whereas arguing for palaeotsunami requires difficult, state-of-the-art approaches [98,99,100], which do not necessarily work in the “Deep Past”. Second, making clear distinctions between storm (also hurricane) and tsunami deposits on the basis of simple criteria is very difficult (if possible), at least in contemporary geology [101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109]. The very high certainty of the interpretations is established chiefly for those localities, which were addressed in only one to two works. When a given locality attracted the attention of several research teams, arguments pro et contra were commonly expressed. For some localities, which have been studied for a long time, it is also possible to observe interesting shifts: for instance, storm versus tsunami was initially interpreted, but the tsunami was further emphasized (apparently, this might have occurred even without the accumulation of more convincing evidence).
To realize the incompleteness of the literary evidence of Triassic tsunamis, it is necessary to hypothesize the true frequency of these events. In historical times, numerous tsunamis were recorded, and there were several major events of this kind even during the past century [1,5,8,21,24,109,110,111,112,113]. The Holocene records of tsunamis, including those archaeological, are known to be very rich [114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121]. Taking into account the longevity of the Triassic Period of ~50.5 Ma [32], one can hypothesize a huge amount of tsunami events, many times larger than those few possible events discussed in the literature (Table 1).
To prove the assumption of the outstanding incompleteness of the knowledge, it is necessary to check the presence of the principal triggers of tsunamis in the Triassic. The global plate tectonic reconstruction [50] shows a significant extension of active tectonic zones in this period; particularly, subduction zones stretched along the Panthalassic margins of Pangaea and the northern Tethyan (northwestern Neo-Tethyan and northeastern Palaeo-Tethyan) margin was also active, with well-shaped subduction zones. If so, seismicity could be significant on the global scale, as well as the probability of earthquake-triggered tsunamis. Moreover, such tectonic events as the emplacement of large igneous provinces contributed to global seismicity [122]. Triassic volcanism of different natures was reported from different regions and time slices [123,124,125,126,127,128], and thus, it could be responsible for some (if not many) tsunamis. Considering the extension of shelfal versus deep-marine palaeoenvironments [48], wide distribution of submarine slides and other mass wasting processes can be supposed for the Triassic, and such events have been reported from different localities [78,129,130,131]. Therefore, many palaeotsunamis of this origin are expected. Finally, several bolide impacts have been argued for the Triassic [46,132,133,134,135]. Apparently, such extraordinary events were able to cause tsunamis, and not only at the time of the P/T and T/J catastrophes, for which such a trigger has already been considered (Table 1).
Taking into account the above-mentioned information, it appears that our knowledge (at least, the literary evidence) of Triassic tsunamis (Table 1) is too insufficient (one can even proclaim it as close to zero). This can be explained by the very low preservation potential of tsunamis [136,137,138,139,140], unclear criteria for their identification (see above), and concentration of the researchers’ attention on the P/T and J/T catastrophes (Table 1), whereas many “ordinary” palaeotsunamis with regional/local triggers are not looked for. The Germanic Basin (Table 1) example demonstrates how information regarding palaeotsunamis not linked to planetary-scale catastrophes can be studied. Three biases in the knowledge of Triassic tsunamis can be outlined as follows. First, too few events from too few localities were reported. Second, the Olenekian–Norian (especially Ladinian–Norian) tsunamis are known less than those from the Permian–Triassic transition and the end-Triassic. Third, palaeotsunamis with different triggers were not recorded adequately, and their causal relationships to the Triassic events other than the P/T and T/J catastrophes are unclear. One can hypothesize that these may be biases of not only the previous research but also of this study; in other words, they can be caused by the limited literature availability and/or reporting of some research in languages other than English. Although missing sources cannot be excluded, it appears that hypotheses of Triassic tsunamis are internationally important by definition, and, thus, the majority of the related research was published in the journals covered by the bibliographical database “Scopus”, which is employed for the purposes of this study. Importantly, this database also offers extensive coverage of numerous national and even local journals, including those published in languages other than English.
An interesting perspective in the studies of Triassic tsunamis is their relation to geological heritage (geoheritage). Indeed, their rarity in the geological records and the impressions of ancient natural catastrophes make their localities ideal candidates to geoheritage sites (geosites). At least two geosites of this kind have already been proposed (Table 2). They both represent the hypothetic tsunamis corresponding to the P/T catastrophe. It is known that geoheritage recognition itself facilitates research activities and promotes unique geological objects among the international scientific community [141,142,143,144,145]. If so, establishing geosites on the basis of the localities representing Triassic tsunamis may be very helpful in decreasing the above-mentioned uncertainties and filling various gaps in the knowledge.

5. Conclusions

The present brief summary of the literary evidence of Triassic tsunamis emphasizes the urgency of research intensification on this promising theme. The main findings are as follows.
(1)
Triassic tsunamis were reported from different regions of the world and different time slices, and some of them corresponded hypothetically to the P/T and T/J catastrophes.
(2)
The amount of literary evidence remains very little, and its quality (certainty) is often restricted: particularly, some palaeotsunamis were disputed, or the related geological features can be interpreted alternatively (for instance, as signatures of severe storms).
(3)
The incompleteness of the knowledge of Triassic tsunamis is significant, especially taking into account the activity of their possible triggers in this period.
Generally, the present study indicates various gaps and biases in the knowledge of Triassic tsunamis. Although some of them have objective sources (for instance, difficulties in making distinctions between tsunami and storm deposits or low preservation potential of tsunamis), many others can be explained by the state and the imperatives of contemporary geosciences research. For instance, overemphasis on the P/T and T/J catastrophes can be linked to better funding of the related research, as well as better opportunities to publish its outcomes. Presumably, geologists deal with potential tsunamis in some (if not many) cases, but they are unable to recognize them because of low awareness and the absence of related skills. Some researchers would be disinterested in launching projects aimed at palaeotsunamis to avoid involvement in “too hypothetic” and “too unserious” studies. Apparently, the very “atmosphere” of the geosciences research should be changed to make Triassic and other pre-Quaternary tsunamis studied really adequately. A limitation of this work is that it deals with the only published information. Checking the opinions of researchers and evaluating the readiness of the international research community to increase attention to highly-hypothetic subjects need further analyses.
Revealing gaps and biases in this knowledge allows for highlighting perspectives for further research. Particularly, special investigations are necessary to identify palaeotsunamis related to different triggers, with special attention to the Olenekian–Norian interval. Studies of the possible relations of palaeotsunamis to the mechanisms of biotic crises other than the P/T and T/J catastrophes seem to be very promising. The present work does not offer a critical re-examination of the published lines of evidence, but future studies can try to achieve this—at least for some major regions. It also appears that reconsidering the already available literary evidence, even considering the degree of its completeness and certainty, can facilitate the development of advanced methodology for identifying tsunamis in the pre-Quaternary sedimentary records.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully thanks the reviewers for their constructive suggestions, and MDPI is acknowledged for the permission to re-publish the image used for Figure 2.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Borrero, J.C.; Cronin, S.J.; Latu’ila, F.H.; Tukuafu, P.; Heni, N.; Tupou, A.M.; Kula, T.; Fa’anunu, O.; Bosserelle, C.; Lane, E.; et al. Tsunami Runup and Inundation in Tonga from the January 2022 Eruption of Hunga Volcano. Pure Appl. Geophys. 2023, 180, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Chiu, W.-T.; Ho, Y.-S. Bibliometric analysis of tsunami research. Scientometrics 2007, 73, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dawson, A.G.; Shi, S. Tsunami deposits. Pure Appl. Geophys. 2000, 157, 875–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dunbar, P.; McCullough, H. Global tsunami deposits database. Nat. Hazards 2012, 63, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gusiakov, V.K. Global Occurrence of Large Tsunamis and Tsunami-like Waves within the Last 120 years (1900–2019). Pure Appl. Geophys. 2020, 177, 1261–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Harbitz, C.B.; Løvholt, F.; Pedersen, G.; Masson, D.G. Mechanisms of tsunami generation by submarine landslides: A short review. Nor. Geol. Tidsskr. 2006, 86, 255–264. [Google Scholar]
  7. Heidarzadeh, M.; Harada, T.; Satake, K.; Ishibe, T.; Takagawa, T. Tsunamis from strike-slip earthquakes in the Wharton Basin, northeast Indian Ocean: March 2016 M w7. 8 event and its relationship with the April 2012 M w 8.6 event. Geophys. J. Int. 2017, 211, 1601–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Heidarzadeh, M.; Gusman, A.R.; Ishibe, T.; Sabeti, R.; Šepić, J. Estimating the eruption-induced water displacement source of the 15 January 2022 Tonga volcanic tsunami from tsunami spectra and numerical modelling. Ocean Eng. 2022, 261, 112165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hu, G.; Li, L.; Ren, Z.; Zhang, K. The characteristics of the 2022 Tonga volcanic tsunami in the Pacific Ocean. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2023, 23, 675–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kanamori, H. Mechanism of tsunami earthquakes. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 1972, 6, 346–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Monserrat, S.; Vilibić, I.; Rabinovich, A.B. Meteotsunamis: Atmospherically induced destructive ocean waves in the tsunami frequency band. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2006, 6, 1035–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nosov, M.A.; Bolshakova, A.V.; Sementsov, K.A. Energy Characteristics of Tsunami Sources and the Mechanism of Wave Generation by Seismic Movements of the Ocean Floor. Mosc. Univ. Phys. Bull. 2021, 76, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Paris, R. Source mechanisms of volcanic tsunamis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2015, 373, 20140380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Scheffers, A.; Kelletat, D. Sedimentologic and geomorphologic tsunami imprints worldwide—A review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2003, 63, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sheehan, A.F.; Gusman, A.R.; Heidarzadeh, M.; Satake, K. Array observations of the 2012 Haida Gwaii tsunami using Cascadia Initiative absolute and differential seafloor pressure gauges. Seismol. Res. Lett. 2015, 86, 1278–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tanioka, Y.; Satake, K. Tsunami generation by horizontal displacement of ocean bottom. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1996, 23, 861–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ward, S.N. Landslide tsunami. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2001, 106, 11201–11215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, Y.; Su, H.-Y.; Ren, Z.; Ma, Y. Source Properties and Resonance Characteristics of the Tsunami Generated by the 2021 M 8.2 Alaska Earthquake. JGR Ocean. 2022, 127, e2021JC018308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, Y.; Wang, P.; Kong, H.; Wong, C.-S. Tsunamis in Lingding Bay, China, caused by the 2022 Tonga volcanic eruption. Geophys. J. Int. 2023, 232, 2175–2185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jain, N.; Virmani, D.; Abraham, A. Tsunami in the last 15 years: A bibliometric analysis with a detailed overview and future directions. Nat. Hazards 2021, 106, 139–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mori, N.; Takahashi, T.; Yasuda, T.; Yanagisawa, H. Survey of 2011 Tohoku earthquake tsunami inundation and run-up. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2011, 38, L00G14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ruban, D.A. Research in tsunami-related sedimentology during 2001–2010: Can a single natural disaster re-shape the science? GeoActa 2011, 10, 79–85. [Google Scholar]
  23. Synolakis, C.E.; Bernard, E.N. Tsunami science before and beyond Boxing Day 2004. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2006, 364, 2231–2265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Titov, V.; Rabinovich, A.B.; Mofjeld, H.O.; Thomson, R.E.; González, F.I. Ocean science: The global reach of the 26 December 2004 Sumatra tsunami. Science 2005, 309, 2045–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dawson, A.G.; Stewart, I. Tsunami deposits in the geological record. Sediment. Geol. 2007, 200, 166–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. DePaolis, J.M.; Dura, T.; MacInnes, B.; Ely, L.L.; Cisternas, M.; Carvajal, M.; Tang, H.; Fritz, H.M.; Mizobe, C.; Wesson, R.L.; et al. Stratigraphic evidence of two historical tsunamis on the semi-arid coast of north-central Chile. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2021, 266, 107052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Goto, K.; Goff, J.; Paris, R. Ten years since the 2011 Tohoku-oki tsunami—Progress in paleotsunami research. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2021, 216, 103598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pilarczyk, J.E.; Dura, T.; Horton, B.P.; Engelhart, S.E.; Kemp, A.C.; Sawai, Y. Microfossils from coastal environments as indicators of paleo-earthquakes, tsunamis and storms. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2014, 413, 144–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Putra, P.S.; Yulianto, E.; Nugroho, S.H. Distribution patterns of foraminifera in paletsunami layers: A review. Nat. Hazards Res. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rajendran, C.P.; Heidarzadeh, M.; Sanwal, J.; Karthikeyan, A.; Rajendran, K. The orphan tsunami of 1524 on the Konkan Coast, Western India, and its implications. Pure Appl. Geophys. 2021, 178, 4697–4716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Runge, E.A.; Duda, J.-P.; Van Kranendonk, M.J.; Reitner, J. Earth’s oldest tsunami deposit? Early Archaean high-energy sediments in the ca 3.48 Ga Dresser Formation (Pilbara, Western Australia). Depos. Rec. 2022, 8, 590–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G.; Schmitz, M.; Ogg, G. (Eds.) Geologic Time Scale 2020; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; 1390p. [Google Scholar]
  33. Grossman, E.L.; Joachimski, M.M. Ocean temperatures through the Phanerozoic reassessed. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 8938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Scotese, C.R.; Song, H.; Mills, B.J.W.; van der Meer, D.G. Phanerozoic paleotemperatures: The Earth’s changing climate during the last 540 million years. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2021, 215, 103503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Haq, B.U. Triassic eustatic variations reexamined. GSA Today 2018, 28, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. van der Meer, D.G.; Scotese, C.R.; Mills, B.J.W.; Sluijs, A.; van den Berg van Saparoea, A.-P.; van de Weg, R.M.B. Long-term Phanerozoic global mean sea level: Insights from strontium isotope variations and estimates of continental glaciations. Gondwana Res. 2022, 111, 103–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dal Corso, J.; Song, H.; Callegaro, S.; Chu, D.; Sun, Y.; Hilton, J.; Grasby, S.E.; Joachimski, M.M.; Wignall, P.B. Environmental crises at the Permian–Triassic mass extinction. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2022, 3, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Knoll, A.H.; Bambach, R.K.; Payne, J.L.; Pruss, S.; Fischer, W.W. Paleophysiology and end-Permian mass extinction. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2007, 256, 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shen, S.-Z.; Bowring, S.A. The end-Permian mass extinction: A still unexplained catastrophe. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2014, 1, 492–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pálfy, J.; Mortensen, J.K.; Carter, E.S.; Smith, P.L.; Friedman, R.M.; Tipper, H.W. Timing the end-Triassic mass extinction: First on land, then in the sea? Geology 2000, 28, 39–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schoene, B.; Guex, J.; Bartolini, A.; Schaltegger, U.; Blackburn, T.J. Correlating the end-Triassic mass extinction and flood basalt volcanism at the 100 ka level. Geology 2010, 38, 387–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wignall, P.B.; Atkinson, J.W. A two-phase end-Triassic mass extinction. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2020, 208, 103282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dal Corso, J.; Bernardi, M.; Sun, Y.; Song, H.; Seyfullah, L.J.; Preto, N.; Gianolla, P.; Ruffell, A.; Kustatscher, E.; Roghi, G.; et al. Extinction and dawn of the modern world in the Carnian (Late Triassic). Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eaba0099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Ruban, D.A. Examining the Ladinian crisis in light of the current knowledge of the Triassic biodiversity changes. Gondwana Res. 2017, 48, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ruban, D.A. A review of the Late Triassic conodont conundrum: Survival beyond biotic perturbations. Palaeobiodivers. Palaeoenviron. 2022, 102, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sato, H.; Takaya, Y.; Yasukawa, K.; Fujinaga, K.; Onoue, T.; Kato, Y. Biotic and environmental changes in the Panthalassa Ocean across the Norian (Late Triassic) impact event. Prog. Earth Planet. Sci. 2020, 7, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zeng, W.; Jiang, H.; Chen, Y.; Ogg, J.; Zhang, M.; Dong, H. Upper Norian conodonts from the Baoshan block, western Yunnan, southwestern China, and implications for conodont turnover. PeerJ 2023, 11, e14517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kocsis, A.T.; Scotese, C.R. Mapping paleocoastlines and continental flooding during the Phanerozoic. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2021, 213, 103–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Riel, N.; Jaillard, E.; Martelat, J.-E.; Guillot, S.; Braun, J. Permian-Triassic Tethyan realm reorganization: Implications for the outward Pangea margin. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 2018, 81, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Williams, S.; Wright, N.M.; Cannon, J.; Flament, N.; Muller, R.D. Reconstructing seafloor age distributions in lost ocean basins. Geosci. Front. 2021, 12, 769–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lindström, S.; Bjerager, M.; Alsen, P.; Sanei, H.; Bojesen-Koefoed, J. The Smithian-Spathian boundary in North Greenland: Implications for extreme global climate changes. Geol. Mag. 2020, 157, 1547–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sun, Y.; Joachimski, M.M.; Wignall, P.B.; Yan, C.; Chen, Y.; Jiang, H.; Wang, L.; Lai, X. Lethally hot temperatures during the Early Triassic greenhouse. Science 2012, 338, 366–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Winguth, A.M.E.; Shields, C.A.; Winguth, C. Transition into a Hothouse World at the Permian-Triassic boundary—A model study. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2015, 440, 316–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Adriaanse, L.S.; Rensleigh, C. Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar a content comprehensiveness comparison. Electron. Libr. 2013, 31, 727–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pranckutė, R. Web of science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications 2021, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 5113–5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ruban, D.A. Islands in the Caucasian Sea in Three Mesozoic Time Slices: Novel Dimension of Geoheritage and Geotourism. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Brookfield, M.E.; Wolbach, W.S.; Stebbins, A.G.; Gilmour, I.; Roegge, D.R. Organic carbon content and carbon isotope variations across the Permo-Triassic boundary in the Gartnerkofel-1 borehole, Carnic Alps, Austria. Acta Geochim. 2018, 37, 422–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Diedrich, C.G. Palaeogeographic evolution of the marine Middle Triassic marine Germanic Basin changements—With emphasis on the carbonate tidal flat and shallow marine habitats of reptiles in Central Pangaea. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2009, 65, 27–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Diedrich, C.G. Middle Triassic horseshoe crab reproduction areas on intertidal flats of Europe with evidence of predation by archosaurs. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2011, 103, 76–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Diedrich, C.G. Middle Triassic chirotherid trackways on earthquake influenced intertidal limulid reproduction flats of the European Germanic basin coasts. Cent. Eur. J. Geosci. 2012, 4, 495–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Diedrich, C. Isochirotherium trackways, their possible trackmakers (?Arizonasaurus): Intercontinental giant archosaur migrations in the Middle Triassic tsunami-influenced carbonate intertidal mud flats of the European Germanic Basin. Carbonates Evaporites 2015, 30, 229–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Diedrich, C. Tsunami killed and backwashed accumulated crinoids in Middle Triassic (Anisian) intraccratonic Germanic Basin carbonates of central Europe. Carbonates Evaporites 2017, 32, 435–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Knaust, D. Pinch-and-swell structures at the Middle/Upper Muschelkalk boundary (Triassic): Evidence of earthquake effects (seismites) in the Germanic Basin. Int. J. Earth Sci. 2002, 91, 291–303. [Google Scholar]
  65. Matysik, M. High-frequency depositional cycles in the Muschelkalk (Middle Triassic) of southern Poland: Origin and implications for Germanic Basin astrochronological scales. Sediment. Geol. 2019, 383, 159–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Matysik, M.; Szulc, J. Shallow-marine carbonate sedimentation in a tectonically mobile basin, the Muschelkalk (Middle Triassic) of Upper Silesia (Southern Poland). Mar. Pet. Geol. 2019, 107, 99–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Warnecke, M.; Aigner, T. Influence of subtle paleo-tectonics on facies and reservoir distribution in epeiric carbonates: Integrating stratigraphic analysis and modelling (U. Muschelkalk, SW Germany). Sediment. Geol. 2019, 383, 82–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Brookfield, M.E.; Shellnutt, J.G.; Qi, L.; Hannigan, R.; Bhat, G.M.; Wignall, P.B. Platinum element group variations at the Permo-Triassic boundary in Kashmir and British Columbia and their significance. Chem. Geol. 2010, 272, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Brookfield, M.E.; Algeo, T.J.; Hannigan, R.; Williams, J.; Bhat, G.M. Shaken and Stirred: Seismites and Tsunamites at the Permian-Triassic boundary, Guryul ravine, Kashmir, India. Palaios 2013, 28, 568–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mandal, A.; Tripathy, G.R.; Goswami, V.; Ackerman, L.; Parcha, S.K.; Chandra, R. Re–Os and Sr isotopic study of Permian–Triassic sedimentary rocks from the Himalaya: Shale chronology and carbonate diagenesis. Minerals 2021, 11, 417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mir, J.A.; Bhat, I.M.; Murtaza, K.O.; Qader, W.; Dar, R.A. Geological Heritage of the Kashmir Valley, North-Western Himalaya, India. Geoheritage 2023, 15, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sato, H.; Ishikawa, A.; Onoue, T.; Tomimatsu, Y.; Rigo, M. Sedimentary record of Upper Triassic impact in the Lagonegro Basin, southern Italy: Insights from highly siderophile elements and Re-Os isotope stratigraphy across the Norian/Rhaetian boundary. Chem. Geol. 2021, 586, 120506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jeram, A.J.; Simms, M.J.; Hesselbo, S.P.; Raine, R. Carbon isotopes, ammonites and earthquakes: Key Triassic-Jurassic boundary events in the coastal sections of south-east County Antrim, Northern Ireland, UK. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2021, 132, 702–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Laborde-Casadaban, M.; Homberg, C.; Schnyder, J.; Borderie, S.; Raine, R. Do soft sediment deformations in the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic of the UK record seismic activity during the break-up of Pangea? Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2021, 132, 688–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Simms, M.J. Uniquely extensive seismite from the latest Triassic of the United Kingdom: Evidence for bolide impact? Geology 2003, 31, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Simms, M.J. Uniquely extensive soft-sediment deformation in the Rhaetian of the UK: Evidence for earthquake or impact? Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2007, 244, 407–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Schmieder, M.; Buchner, E.; Schwarz, W.H.; Trieloff, M.; Lambert, P. A Rhaetian 40Ar/39Ar age for the Rochechouart impact structure (France) and implications for the latest Triassic sedimentary record. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 2010, 45, 1225–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kojima, S.; Sano, H. Permian and Triassic Submarine Landslide Deposits in a Jurassic Accretionary Complex in Central Japan. In Submarine Mass Movements and Their Consequences; Yamada, Y., Kawamura, K., Ikehara, K., Ogawa, Y., Urgeles, R., Mosher, D., Chaytor, J., Strasser, M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 639–648. [Google Scholar]
  79. Sajid, Z.; Ismail, M.S.; Tsegab, H.; Hanif, T.; Ahmed, N. Sedimentary geology and geochemical approach to determine depositional environment of the Triassic turbidites bearing Semanggol Formation, NW Peninsular Malaysia. J. Nat. Gas Geosci. 2020, 5, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chen, A.; Zhong, Y.; Ogg, J.G.; van Loon, A.J.; Chen, H.; Yang, S.; Liu, L.; Xu, S. Traces of the Triassic collision between the North and South China blocks in the form of seismites and other event layers. J. Geodyn. 2020, 136, 101720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Yang, R.; Fan, A.; Han, Z.; van Loon, A.J.T. Lithofacies and origin of the Late Triassic muddy gravity-flow deposits in the Ordos Basin, central China. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2017, 85, 194–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tohver, E.; Cawood, P.A.; Riccomini, C.; Lana, C.; Trindade, R.I.F. Shaking a methane fizz: Seismicity from the Araguainha impact event and the Permian-Triassic global carbon isotope record. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2013, 387, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tohver, E.; Schmieder, M.; Lana, C.; Mendes, P.S.T.; Jourdan, F.; Warren, L.; Riccomini, C. End-Permian impactogenic earthquake and tsunami deposits in the intracratonic Paraná Basin of Brazil. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 2018, 130, 1099–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. van de Schootbrugge, B.; van der Weijst, C.M.H.; Hollaar, T.P.; Vecoli, M.; Strother, P.K.; Kuhlmann, N.; Thein, J.; Vissher, H.; van Konijenburg-vanCittert, H.; Schobben, M.A.N.; et al. Catastrophic soil loss associated with end-Triassic deforestation. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2020, 210, 103332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Pole, M.; Wang, Y.; Dong, C.; Xie, X.; Tian, N.; Li, L.; Zhou, N.; Lu, N.; Xie, A.; Zhang, X. Fires and storms—A Triassic–Jurassic transition section in the Sichuan Basin, China. Palaeobiodivers. Palaeoenviron. 2018, 98, 29–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Reolid, M.; Pérez-Valera, F.; Benton, M.J.; Reolid, J. Marine flooding event in continental Triassic facies identified by a nothosaur and placodont bonebed (South Iberian Paleomargin). Facies 2014, 60, 277–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gallois, R.; Thompson, S. Seismically induced dewatering structures in the oldest (Rhaetian, Triassic) part of the Blue Lias formation at Lyme Regis, UK. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2020, 131, 595–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ghosh, N.; Basu, A.R.; Bhargava, O.N.; Shukla, O.K.; Ghatak, A.; Garzione, C.N.; Ahluwalia, A.D. Catastrophic environmental transition at the Permian-Triassic Neo-Tethyan margin of Gondwanaland: Geochemical, isotopic and sedimentological evidence in the Spiti Valley, India. Gondwana Res. 2016, 34, 324–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zuchuat, V.; Sleveland, A.R.N.; Twitchett, R.J.; Svensen, H.H.; Turner, H.; Augland, L.E.; Jones, M.T.; Hammer, O.; Hauksson, B.T.; Haflidason, H.; et al. A new high-resolution stratigraphic and palaeoenvironmental record spanning the End-Permian Mass Extinction and its aftermath in central Spitsbergen, Svalbard. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2020, 554, 109732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mabrouk, K.; Fouad, Z.; Mouhamed, O. Soft-sediment deformation structures (slumps) triggered by tectonic activity in the Upper Triassic carbonate succession of Tataouin Basin (south-eastern Tunisia). J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2021, 184, 104347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Rychliński, T.; Jaglarz, P. An evidence of tectonic activity in the Triassic of the Western Tethys: A case study from the carbonate succession in the Tatra Mountains (S Poland). Carbonates Evaporites 2017, 32, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Nützel, A.; Schulbert, C. Facies of two important Early Triassic gastropod lagerstätten: Implications for diversity patterns in the aftermath of the end-Permian mass extinction. Facies 2005, 51, 480–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chatalov, A. Anachronistic and unusual carbonate facies in uppermost Lower Triassic rocks of the western Balkanides, Bulgaria. Facies 2017, 63, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Georgiev, S.S.; Stein, H.J.; Hannah, J.L.; Henderson, C.M.; Algeo, T.J. Enhanced recycling of organic matter and Os-isotopic evidence for multiple magmatic or meteoritic inputs to the Late Permian Panthalassic Ocean, Opal Creek, Canada. Geochem. Cosmochem. Acta 2015, 150, 192–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Michalik, J.; Masaryk, P.; Lintnerova, O.; Papsova, J.; Jendrejakova, O.; Rehakova, D. Sedimentology and facies of a storm-dominated Middle Triassic carbonate ramp (Vysoka Formation, Male Karpaty Mts.; Western Carpathians). Geol. Carpathica 1992, 43, 213–230. [Google Scholar]
  96. Heydari, E.; Hassanzadeh, J. Deev Jahi Model of the Permian-Triassic boundary mass extinction: A case for gas hydrates as the main cause of biological crisis on Earth. Sediment. Geol. 2003, 163, 147–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Heydari, E.; Arzani, N.; Hassanzadeh, J. Mantle plume: The invisible serial killer—Application to the Permian-Triassic boundary mass extinction. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2008, 264, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Goff, J.; Borrero, J.; Easton, G. In search of Holocene trans-Pacific palaeotsunamis. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2022, 233, 104194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Goff, J.; Chagué-Goff, C.; Nichol, S.; Jaffe, B.; Dominey-Howes, D. Progress in palaeotsunami research. Sediment. Geol. 2012, 243–244, 70–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Shanmugam, G. The tsunamite problem. J. Sediment. Res. 2006, 76, 718–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Barbano, M.S.; Pirrotta, C.; Gerardi, F. Large boulders along the south-eastern Ionian coast of Sicily: Storm or tsunami deposits? Mar. Geol. 2010, 275, 140–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Dewey, J.F.; Ryan, P.D. Storm, rogue wave, or tsunami origin for megaclast deposits in western Ireland and North Island, New Zealand? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E10639–E10647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Goff, J.; McFadgen, B.G.; Chagué-Goff, C. Sedimentary differences between the 2002 Easter storm and the 15th-century Okoropunga tsunami, southeastern North Island, New Zealand. Mar. Geol. 2004, 204, 235–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Goto, T.; Satake, K.; Sugai, T.; Ishibe, T.; Harada, T.; Murotani, S. Historical tsunami and storm deposits during the last five centuries on the Sanriku coast, Japan. Mar. Geol. 2015, 367, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kennedy, A.B.; Cox, R.; Dias, F. Storm Waves May Be the Source of Some “Tsunami” Coastal Boulder Deposits. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2021, 48, e2020GL090775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Kortekaas, S.; Dawson, A.G. Distinguishing tsunami and storm deposits: An example from Martinhal, SW Portugal. Sediment. Geol. 2007, 200, 208–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Morton, R.A.; Gelfenbaum, G.; Jaffe, B.E. Physical criteria for distinguishing sandy tsunami and storm deposits using modern examples. Sediment. Geol. 2007, 200, 184–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Phantuwongraj, S.; Choowong, M. Tsunamis versus storm deposits from Thailand. Nat. Hazards 2012, 63, 31–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Costa, P.J.M.; Dawson, S.; Ramalho, R.S.; Engel, M.; Dourado, F.; Bosnic, I.; Andrade, C. A review on onshore tsunami deposits along the Atlantic coasts. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2021, 212, 103441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Gusiakov, V.K. Tsunamis on the Russian Pacific coast: History and current situation. Russ. Geol. Geophys. 2016, 57, 1259–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Rabinovich, A.B.; Miranda, P.; Baptista, M.A. Analysis of the 1969 and 1975 tsunamis at the Atlantic Coast of Portugal and Spain. Oceanology 1998, 38, 463–469. [Google Scholar]
  112. Satake, K.; Heidarzadeh, M.; Quiroz, M.; Cienfuegos, R. History and features of trans-oceanic tsunamis and implications for paleo-tsunami studies. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2020, 202, 103112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Scardino, G.; Piscitelli, A.; Milella, M.; Sansò, P.; Mastronuzzi, G. Tsunami fingerprints along the Mediterranean coasts. Rend. Lincei 2020, 31, 319–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Dura, T.; Cisternas, M.; Horton, B.P.; Ely, L.L.; Nelson, A.R.; Wesson, R.L.; Pilarczyk, J.E. Coastal evidence for Holocene subduction-zone earthquakes and tsunamis in central Chile. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2015, 113, 93–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Feist, L.; Costa, P.J.M.; Bellanova, P.; Bosnic, I.; Santisteban, J.I.; Andrade, C.; Brückner, H.; Duarte, J.F.; Kuhlmann, J.; Schwarzbauer, J.; et al. Holocene offshore tsunami archive—Tsunami deposits on the Algarve shelf (Portugal). Sediment. Geol. 2023, 448, 106369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Garrett, E.; Fujiwara, O.; Garrett, P.; Heyvaert, V.M.A.; Shishikura, M.; Yokoyama, Y.; Hubert-Ferrari, A.; Bruckner, H.; Nakamura, A.; De Batist, M. A systematic review of geological evidence for Holocene earthquakes and tsunamis along the Nankai-Suruga Trough, Japan. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2016, 159, 337–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Hoffmann, G.; Grützner, C.; Schneider, B.; Preusser, F.; Reicherter, K. Large Holocene tsunamis in the northern Arabian Sea. Mar. Geol. 2020, 419, 106068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Jackson, K.L.; Eberli, G.P.; Amelung, F.; McFadden, M.A.; Moore, A.L.; Rankey, E.C.; Jayasena, H.A.H. Holocene Indian Ocean tsunami history in Sri Lanka. Geology 2014, 42, 859–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Morhange, C.; Marriner, N.; Pirazzoli, P.A. Evidence of Late-Holocene tsunami events in Lebanon. Z. Geomorphol. Suppl. 2006, 146, 81–95. [Google Scholar]
  120. Pareschi, M.T.; Boschi, E.; Favalli, M. Holocene tsunamis from Mount Etna and the fate of Israeli Neolithic communities. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2007, 34, L16317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Scheffers, S.R.; Scheffers, A.; Kelletat, D.; Bryant, E.A. The Holocene paleo-tsunami history of West Australia. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2008, 270, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Lindström, S.; Pedersen, G.K.; Van De Schootbrugge, B.; Hansen, K.H.; Kuhlmann, N.; Thein, J.; Johansson, L.; Petersen, H.I.; Alwmark, C.; Dybjaer, K.; et al. Intense and widespread seismicity during the end-Triassic mass extinction due to emplacement of a large igneous province. Geology 2015, 43, 387–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Basile, C.; Chauvet, F. Hydromagmatic eruption during the buildup of a Triassic carbonate platform (Oman Exotics): Eruptive style and associated deformations. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 2009, 183, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Li, Y.; Xu, W.-L.; Wang, F.; Pei, F.-P.; Tang, J.; Zhao, S. Triassic volcanism along the eastern margin of the Xing’an Massif, NE China: Constraints on the spatial–temporal extent of the Mongol–Okhotsk tectonic regime. Gondwana Res. 2017, 48, 205–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Monjoie, P.; Lapierre, H.; Tashko, A.; Mascle, G.H.; Dechamp, A.; Muceku, B.; Brunet, P. Nature and origin of the Triassic volcanism in Albania and Othrys: A key to understanding the Neotethys opening? Bull. De La Soc. Geol. De Fr. 2008, 179, 411–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Pálfy, J. Volcanism of the Central Atlantic magmatic province as a potential driving force in the end-Triassic mass extinction. Geophys. Monogr. Ser. 2003, 136, 255–267. [Google Scholar]
  127. Payne, J.L.; Kump, L.R. Evidence for recurrent Early Triassic massive volcanism from quantitative interpretation of carbon isotope fluctuations. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2007, 256, 264–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Percival, L.M.E.; Ruhl, M.; Hesselbo, S.P.; Jenkyns, H.C.; Mather, T.A.; Whiteside, J.H. Mercury evidence for pulsed volcanism during the end-Triassic mass extinction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 7929–7934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Haig, D.W.; Rigaud, S.; McCartain, E.; Martini, R.; Barros, I.S.; Brisbout, L.; Soares, J.; Nano, J. Upper Triassic carbonate-platform facies, Timor-Leste: Foraminiferal indices and regional tectonostratigraphic association. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2021, 570, 110362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Madon, M. Submarine mass-transport deposits in the Semantan Formation (Middle-Upper Triassic), central Peninsular Malaysia. Bull. Geol. Soc. Malays. 2010, 56, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Török, Á. Controls on development of Mid-Triassic ramps: Examples from southern Hungary. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 1998, 149, 339–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Kaiho, K.; Kajiwara, Y.; Nakano, T.; Miura, Y.; Kawahata, H.; Tazaki, K.; Ueshima, M.M.; Chen, Z.; Shi, G.R. End-Permian catastrophe by a bolide impact: Evidence of a gigantic release of sulfur from the mantle. Geology 2001, 29, 815–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Rigo, M.; Onoue, T.; Tanner, L.H.; Lucas, S.G.; Godfrey, L.; Katz, M.E.; Zaffani, M.; Grice, K.; Cesar, J.; Yamashita, D.; et al. The Late Triassic Extinction at the Norian/Rhaetian boundary: Biotic evidence and geochemical signature. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2020, 204, 103180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Schmieder, M.; Schwarz, W.H.; Buchner, E.; Trieloff, M.; Moilanen, J.; Öhman, T. A Middle-Late Triassic 40Ar/39Ar age for the Paasselkä impact structure (SE Finland). Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 2010, 45, 572–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Spray, J.G.; Kelley, S.P.; Rowley, D.B. Evidence for a late Triassic multiple impact event on Earth. Nature 1998, 392, 171–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Bahlburg, H.; Spiske, M. Styles of early diagenesis and the preservation potential of onshore tsunami deposits—A re-survey of Isla Mocha, Central Chile, 2 years after the February 27, 2010, Maule tsunami. Sediment. Geol. 2015, 326, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. León, T.; Lau, A.Y.A.; Easton, G.; Goff, J. A comprehensive review of tsunami and palaeotsunami research in Chile. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2023, 236, 104273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Luczyński, P. The tsunamites problem. Why are fossil tsunamites so rare? Prz. Geol. 2012, 60, 598–604. [Google Scholar]
  139. Spiske, M.; Piepenbreier, J.; Benavente, C.; Bahlburg, H. Preservation potential of tsunami deposits on arid siliciclastic coasts. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2013, 126, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Weiss, R.; Bahlburg, H. A note on the preservation of offshore tsunami deposits. J. Sediment. Res. 2006, 76, 1267–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. De Wever, P.; Rouget, I. Historical Overview of Geoheritage in France. Geosciences 2023, 13, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Fernandes, A.E.; Mateus, O.; Bauluz, B.; Coimbra, R.; Ezquerro, L.; Nunez-Lahuerta, C.; Suteu, C.; Moreno-Azanza, M. The Paimogo Dinosaur Egg Clutch Revisited: Using One of Portugal’s Most Notable Fossils to Exhibit the Scientific Method. Geoheritage 2021, 13, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Long, C.; Lu, S.; Zhu, Y. Research on Popular Science Tourism Based on SWOT-AHP Model: A Case Study of Koktokay World Geopark in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Mucivuna, V.C.; Motta Garcia, M.D.G.; Reynard, E. Comparing quantitative methods on the evaluation of scientific value in geosites: Analysis from the Itatiaia National Park, Brazil. Geomorphology 2022, 396, 107988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Yaseen, M.; Ghani, M.; Anjum, M.N.; Sajid, M.; Jan, I.U.; Mehmood, M.; Ullah, E.; Muzaffir, W. A Novel Approach to Evaluate, Highlight, and Conserve the Geologically Significant Geoheritage Sites from the Peshawar Basin, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan: Insights into Their Geoscientific, Educational, and Social Importance. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1461–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 15 01590 g001 550
Figure 1. Selected patterns of the Triassic history of the Earth (geologic time scale follows [32], events according to Ruban [45], global average temperature is modified from [34], and global long-term sea-level changes are modified from [35]). One should note the well-developed but disproportional geologic time scale, which may reflect the changed tempos of the planetary evolution. Biotic perturbations were very frequent, with two major catastrophes and several smaller crises. The Earth was warm, but the palaeotemperatures fluctuated significantly. The global sea level remained generally low, although it peaked in the first half of the Late Triassic.
Figure 1. Selected patterns of the Triassic history of the Earth (geologic time scale follows [32], events according to Ruban [45], global average temperature is modified from [34], and global long-term sea-level changes are modified from [35]). One should note the well-developed but disproportional geologic time scale, which may reflect the changed tempos of the planetary evolution. Biotic perturbations were very frequent, with two major catastrophes and several smaller crises. The Earth was warm, but the palaeotemperatures fluctuated significantly. The global sea level remained generally low, although it peaked in the first half of the Late Triassic.
Water 15 01590 g001
Water 15 01590 g002 550
Figure 2. Lowermost Induan strata (Bambak Formation) of the Western Caucasus: simplified cross-section (above) and image of characteristic megaclast in sandstone bed (below) (the image is a part of the larger photograph from [57], and it is re-published with permission of MDPI).
Figure 2. Lowermost Induan strata (Bambak Formation) of the Western Caucasus: simplified cross-section (above) and image of characteristic megaclast in sandstone bed (below) (the image is a part of the larger photograph from [57], and it is re-published with permission of MDPI).
Water 15 01590 g002
Water 15 01590 g003 550
Figure 3. Global distribution and certainty of evidence of palaeotsunamis from the three time slices of the Triassic Period (configurations of continental blocks are strongly simplified from [48]).
Figure 3. Global distribution and certainty of evidence of palaeotsunamis from the three time slices of the Triassic Period (configurations of continental blocks are strongly simplified from [48]).
Water 15 01590 g003
Table
Table 1. The literary evidence for judgments of Triassic tsunamis.
Table 1. The literary evidence for judgments of Triassic tsunamis.
LocalitySource and EvidenceCertainty of EvidenceAgePossible TriggerEvents
Carnic Alps
(Austria)		[58]: tsunami (storm not excluded) HighPermian–Triassic transition-P/T catastrophe
Germanic Basin
(Germany and Poland)		[59]: tsunami (storm not excluded)HighAnisianEarthquake-
[60]: tsunami (storm not excluded)
[61]: tsunami
[62]: tsunami
[63]: tsunami
[64]: tsunami
[65]: tsunami
[66]: tsunami (mass movements not excluded)
[67]: tsunamiVery highAnisian–LadinianLadinian crisis
Kashmir
(India)		[68]: storm/tsunamiHighPermian–Triassic transition-P/T catastrophe
[69]: tsunamiRemote massive volcanism
[70]: tsunami/seismicity-
[71]: tsunami-
Lagonegro Basin
(Italy)		[72]: tsunami in adjacent areaUnclearNorian–RhaetianBolide impactLate Triassic perturbations
Northern Ireland
(UK)		[73]: not tsunamiMediumRhaetian-Late Triassic perturbations
[74]: not tsunami-
[75]: tsunamiEarthquake, bolide impact?
[76]: tsunami
Massif Central
(France)		[77]: tsunamiVery highTriassic–Jurassic transitionBolide impactT/J catastrophe
Mino Terrane
(Japan)		[78]: tsunami among other possible processesLowAnisian–Carnian-Ladinian and Carnian crises
Northwestern Peninsular Malaysia
(Malaysia)		[79]: tsunami/seismicityMediumMiddle Triassic-Ladinian crisis
Ordos Basin
(China)		[80]: not tsunamiAbsenceLadinian–Carnian-Ladinian and Carnian crises
[81]: not tsunami-
Parana Basin
(Brazil)		[82]: tsunamiVery highPermian–Triassic transitionBolide impact, earthquakeP/T catastrophe
[83]: tsunami
Paris Basin
(France)		[84]: tsunamiVery highRhaetianBolide impactLate Triassic perturbations
Sichuan Basin
(China)		[85]: storm/tsunamiMediumTriassic–Jurassic transition-T/J catastrophe
South Iberia
(Spain)		[86]: storm/tsunamiMediumMiddle–Late Triassic
(Ladinian–Carnian?)		-Ladinian and Carnian crises
Southern and Southwestern England
(UK)		[87]: not tsunamiMedium Rhaetian-Late Triassic perturbations
[74]: not tsunami-
[75]: tsunamiEarthquake, bolide impact?
[76]: tsunami
Spiti
(India)		[88]: tsunami in adjacent areaUnclearPermian–Triassic transitionEarthquake, bolide impactP/T catastrophe
Spitsbergen
(Norway)		[89]: storm/tsunamiMediumPermian–Triassic transitionEarthquakeP/T catastrophe
Tataouin Basin
(Tunisia)		[90]: not tsunamiAbsenceLate Triassic (Rhaetian?)-Late Triassic perturbations
Tatra Mountains
(Poland)		[91]: not
tsunami		AbsenceOlenekian–Anisian--
Utah
(USA)		[92]: tsunamiVery highOlenekian--
Western Balkanides
(Bulgaria)		[93]: not tsunamiAbsenceOlenekian--
Western Canada
(Canada)		[94]: tsunami cannot be excludedLowPermian–Triassic transition-P/T catastrophe
Western Carpathians
(Slovakia)		[95]: tsunamiVery highAnisian--
Western Caucasus
(Russia)		[57]: storm/tsunamiMediumPermian–Triassic transition-P/T catastrophe
Table
Table 2. Examples of geoheritage related to possible Triassic tsunamis.
Table 2. Examples of geoheritage related to possible Triassic tsunamis.
GeositeLocationLithologyAgeSource
Guryul RavineVicinity of Srinagar city, Kashmir, northwestern IndiaBioclastic limestones from the transition between the Zewan and Khunamuh formationsPermian–Triassic transition[69]: description
[71]: description and formal geosite proposition
Sakhray CanyonGosh river valley, Mountainous Adygeya, southwestern RussiaCoarse siliciclastics of the Bambak Formation, with large boulders and megaclastsPermian–Triassic transition[57]: description and formal geosite proposition
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ruban, D.A. Tsunamis Struck Coasts of Triassic Oceans and Seas: Brief Summary of the Literary Evidence. Water 2023, 15, 1590. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15081590

AMA Style

Ruban DA. Tsunamis Struck Coasts of Triassic Oceans and Seas: Brief Summary of the Literary Evidence. Water. 2023; 15(8):1590. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15081590

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ruban, Dmitry A. 2023. "Tsunamis Struck Coasts of Triassic Oceans and Seas: Brief Summary of the Literary Evidence" Water 15, no. 8: 1590. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15081590

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop