Next Article in Journal
Petrogenesis and Provenance of the Triassic Metasedimentary Succession in the Sakar Unit, Bulgaria: Constraints from Petrology, Geochemistry, and U-Pb Detrital Geochronology
Previous Article in Journal
Cultural Heritage and Geology: The Example of the Mascheroni Fountain and Its Qanat in the Rupestrian Town of Laterza (MurGEopark UGGp and “Terra delle Gravine” Regional Park, Puglia, Southern Italy)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Geosciences
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/geosciences15090342
geosciences-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

When Big Rivers Started to Drain to the Arctic Basin: A View from the Kara Sea

by
Victoria Ershova
1,2,*,
Daniel Stockli
3,
Carmen Gaina
4,
Andrey Khudoley
1 and
Sergey Shimanskiy
1
1
St. Petersburg State University, Institute of Earth Sciences, University Nab. 7/9, 199034 St. Petersburg, Russia
2
Geological Institute of RAS, Pyzhevski Lane 7, 119017 Moscow, Russia
3
Jackson School of Geoscience, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
4
Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, 0371 Oslo, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Geosciences 2025, 15(9), 342; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences15090342
Submission received: 7 July 2025 / Revised: 29 July 2025 / Accepted: 13 August 2025 / Published: 2 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sedimentology, Stratigraphy and Palaeontology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study provides new constraints on the paleogeographic evolution of the Arctic during the Mesozoic. U–Pb geochronology of detrital zircon and rutile grains, together with (U–Th)/He zircon thermochronological data from the uppermost Middle Jurassic to Cretaceous strata of the Sverdrup well in the Kara Sea, reveals a major shift in sediment provenance. Two distinct age populations of detrital zircon define this transition: Group 1 (Middle Jurassic–Hauterivian) shows dominant Neoproterozoic–Cambrian (ca. 700–500 Ma) and Paleozoic (ca. 350–290 Ma) peaks, whereas Group 2 (Aptian–Albian) is characterized by prominent Paleoproterozoic (ca. 1980–1720 Ma), Paleozoic (ca. 350–255 Ma), and Early Mesozoic (ca. 240–115 Ma) ages. Corresponding variations in (U–Th)/He zircon ages—from a Triassic peak (~225 Ma) in Group 1 to a dominant Early Cretaceous peak (~140 Ma) in Group 2—support a switch from a proximal to more distal sediment source. We propose that the emergence of large continent-scale river systems transported clastic material from the southern margin of the Siberian Craton to the Arctic Ocean starting in the late Early Cretaceous. The development of a significant freshwater supply potentially initiated a thick low-salinity layer within the surface waters of the central Arctic Ocean, possibly leading to the onset of a strong salinity stratification of near-surface water masses as in the modern Arctic Ocean.

1. Introduction

Many factors influence global climate evolution, with topography and hydrography playing a central role. Sedimentary records are valuable archives for reconstructing Earth’s past climate, although access to continuous records may be challenging. The Mesozoic paleoclimatic and paleoceanographic history of the Arctic Ocean is still poorly understood in comparison with other ocean basins of the world [1]. Interpretation of the Mesozoic Arctic is mainly based on information from circum-Arctic onshore outcrops, along with wells drilled in hydrocarbon prospective shelf areas, while data are very limited from the central part of the Arctic Ocean. Only four wells have been drilled within the offshore Russian part of the Arctic Ocean to the east of the Barents Sea, hampering an accurate paleogeographic and sediment provenance reconstruction across a significant part of the Arctic. Furthermore, no provenance studies have been carried out to date on the available cores.
Here we present a fresh insight into the Late Mesozoic paleogeography of the Kara Sea and wider Arctic based on an analysis of the Mesozoic sedimentary rocks recovered by the only well drilled in the Kara Sea to the northwest of the Taimyr Peninsula: the Sverdrup well (Figure 1). We used a multiproxy approach including U/Pb and (U-Th)/He-dating of detrital zircons and U-Pb-dating and trace element analysis of detrital rutiles, combining them to provide insights into the timing of crystallization and cooling, p–T conditions, and the composition of their provenance region. Detrital zircon and rutile grains are among the key indicators for sedimentary provenance analyses and are widely used for the determination of source rock age, metamorphic grade, and cooling ages of the provenance region [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. Combined U/Pb and (U-Th)/He-dating on the same zircon grain provides both high- and low-temperature ages, corresponding to crystallization or subsequent high-grade metamorphism, and cooling/exhumation events in the provenance area, respectively.
The Sverdrup well is located on a small island in the eastern Kara Sea (Figure 1) [12]. It was drilled above the North Siberian Arch (NSA), which is assumed to be a continuation of the Novaya Zemlya–Taimyr fold-and-thrust belt beneath the Kara Sea [13] (and references therein) and covered by a relatively thin veneer of Mesozoic–Cenozoic strata. NSA divides two sedimentary basins, which are different in age and geological structure: the Mesozoic South Kara and mainly Paleozoic North Kara [13].
The Sverdrup well penetrated around 1500 m of Cretaceous and uppermost Middle–Upper Jurassic clastics, above basement of the NSA, comprising interbedded sandstones, siltstones, and shales (Figure 2a) deposited in shallow marine to deltaic environments. Jurassic and Berriasian–Hauterivian sandstones comprise very immature poorly sorted lithic arkoses and sublitharenites (Figure 2b), while Barremian–Albian sandstones comprise more mature fine- to medium-grained subarkoses and quartz arenites.

2. Materials and Methods

Samples were crushed and the heavy minerals were concentrated using standard techniques at the Institute of Precambrian Geology and Geochronology, Russian Academy of Sciences. All analyses were carried out at the UTChron geochronology facility in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Texas, Austin. Detrital zircon U-Pb analyses were performed on seven samples collected from the Sverdrup well (Figure 2). Additional detrital zircon double dating (U-Pb and (U-Th)/He) ages were performed on five of the samples to provide additional geochronological constraints. All U-Pb LA-ICPMS detrital zircon analyses were performed on whole grain mounts (instead of polished mounts) to preserve the grains for (U-Th)/He analyses. 206Pb/238U ages are reported for grains which are younger than 1000 Ma, and 207Pb/206Pb ages are reported for grains which are older than 1000 Ma. The U-Pb and trace element analyses on rutile grains were conducted on two samples. The histogram was constructed using the detzrcr software [14]. Detailed analytical methodology and results are provided in Attachments S1, S2, and S3, respectively [2,11,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].
Geosciences 15 00342 g001
Figure 1. (a) Bathymetry and topography of the Arctic region [22] discussed in this study; (b) simplified geological map of Kara Terrane [23,24] with location of studied well; (c) regional seismic profile showing the geological structure of study region.
Figure 1. (a) Bathymetry and topography of the Arctic region [22] discussed in this study; (b) simplified geological map of Kara Terrane [23,24] with location of studied well; (c) regional seismic profile showing the geological structure of study region.
Geosciences 15 00342 g001
Geosciences 15 00342 g002
Figure 2. (a) Simplified stratigraphic column of Sverdrup well [12]; (b) microphotograph of sandstones: Barremian–Albian quartz arenites (sv 840, sv 953); upper Jurassic poorly sorted lithic arkoses (sv1475, sv1621). Qu—quartz, L—lithic fragments, Fsp—feldspar.
Figure 2. (a) Simplified stratigraphic column of Sverdrup well [12]; (b) microphotograph of sandstones: Barremian–Albian quartz arenites (sv 840, sv 953); upper Jurassic poorly sorted lithic arkoses (sv1475, sv1621). Qu—quartz, L—lithic fragments, Fsp—feldspar.
Geosciences 15 00342 g002

3. Results

3.1. U-Pb Dating of Detrital Zircons

Based on their detrital zircon signatures, the seven dated samples can be divided into two distinct groups (Figure 3). Group 1 comprises uppermost Middle Jurassic–lowermost Hauterivian (ca. 175-133 Ma) samples (sv1621, sv1475, sv1303) (Figure 3). Only a few Archean grains were found in two samples (sv1475, sv1303) (Figure 3), while Paleoproterozoic grains comprise 11–13% of the population with peaks at ca. 1950, 1840, and 1785 Ma. Mesoproterozoic grains typically comprise 4–20% of the total population and fall mainly in the interval between 1500 and 1200 Ma. Neoproterozoic grains comprise 17–35% of the grains and form numerous peaks between 700 and 560 Ma. Paleozoic grains comprise 30–55% of the dated zircons, with Cambrian and Early Permian ages predominating. The youngest cluster of detrital zircons from Group 1 are of Late Triassic age (220–225 Ma).
Group 2 comprises samples sv707, sv840, sv953, and sv1078 from the Aptian–Albian succession (Cretaceous, ca. 120–100 Ma) (Figure 3). Archean grains comprise 5–20% of the dated population and form two peaks at 2700 and 2530 Ma. Paleoproterozoic zircons dominate the population (20–42%), with dominant peaks at ca. 1980–2000, 1880–1900, and 1750–1720 Ma. Mesoproterozoic grains are very rare (<1% of the population) and do not form significant peaks. Most Neoproterozoic zircons (3–13% of the population) range in age between 650 and 550 Ma and do not form prominent peaks. Paleozoic grains are numerous (16–40%), with the majority ranging in age between 350 and 255 Ma but with subordinate peaks at ca. 500, 480, 450, and 370 Ma. Early Mesozoic zircons show a wide range of ages and group mainly in small subordinate peaks at ca. 240–210 Ma. Jurassic detrital zircons form peaks at ca. 195, 165, and 150 Ma, while Early Cretaceous grains group at 140, 130, 125, and 115 Ma, with the ages of the youngest detrital zircon clusters being close to the depositional age.

3.2. U-Pb-Dating and Trace Element Analysis of Detrital Rutile

U-Pb-dating of detrital rutile grains from sample sv1621 (uppermost Middle Jurassic age) yielded ages between 256 and 1440 Ma, with the majority of ages ranging from Late Carboniferous to Permian in age (Figure 4a). Zr concentration ranges between 123 and 1260 ppm, with temperature estimates between 586 and 779 °C, suggesting prevailing amphibolite metamorphism within the provenance area [4] (Figure 4b). Cr-Nb ratios of detrital rutile grains suggest that the analyzed grains were mainly derived from metapelitic source rocks [8] (Figure 4c), with a total range in Cr-Nb ratios between 0.03 and 9.75.
The U-Pb analyses of detrital rutile grains from sample sv840 (Albian age) yielded ages between 2153 Ma and 123 Ma, with dominant peaks at ca. 465 and 315 Ma, and smaller peaks at 1280 and 1850 Ma. (Figure 4a). Cr-Nb ratios of detrital rutile grains show that most of the analyzed rutile grains were also derived from metapelitic source rocks [8] (Figure 4c). However, the Zr concentration suggests that the majority of the analyzed rutile grains were metamorphosed to upper amphibolite–granulite facies (Figure 4b).

3.3. (U-Th)/He-Dating of Zircons (ZHe)

ZHe ages are older than the depositional ages of the sedimentary succession and are considered as detrital in origin, recording the exhumation and cooling history in the sedimentary source region.
Based on their detrital zircon signatures, dated samples can be divided into two distinct groups based on trends in their ZHe ages (Figure 4d).
Uppermost Middle–Upper Jurassic strata (Group 1; samples sv1621, sv1475) yielded 30 ZHe ages, ranging from 172.8 ± 14 to 821.2 ± 65.7 Ma. A total of 18 of the 35 ZHe ages are within the 205–260 Ma age range, and the probability plot of these ages group at a significant peak at ca. 225 Ma (Figure 4d). Combined (U-Th)/He and U-Pb-dating of zircons indicate that most zircons were reset in the Triassic, corresponding to the main exhumation and cooling event in the provenance area (Figure 4e).
Aptian–Albian strata (Group 2; samples sv840, sv953, sv1078) yielded 33 ZHe ages, ranging from 114.8 ± 9 to 617.8 ± 49 Ma. A total of 28 of the 33 ZHe ages are within the 180–114 Ma age range, and the probability plot of these ages depicts a significant age peak at approximately 140 Ma (Figure 4d). Combined U-Pb and (U-Th)/He-dating, depicted in Figure 4e, suggest that both Phanerozoic and Precambrian detrital zircons (based on their U-Pb ages) were mainly exhumed in the Late Mesozoic ((U-Th)/He ages.

4. Discussion

4.1. Provenance Interpretation

Our integrated provenance study reveals a major shift in the provenance of clastic sediment within the Jurassic–Cretaceous succession of the Kara Sea. Furthermore, all studied samples can be divided into two distinct groups, sourced from significantly different crustal domains. Group 1 comprises uppermost Middle Jurassic–lowermost Hauterivian samples (sv1621, sv1475, sv1303), while Group 2 is represented by the Aptian–Albian strata (sv707, sv840, sv953, sv1078) (Figure 3).
The sandstones of Group 1 are quite immature in composition, suggestive of a proximal provenance. Precambrian grains comprise similar ages to those known from the Neoproterozoic–Cambrian sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks of the Taimyr Peninsula [25,26,27,28], while Mesoproterozoic and Neoproterozoic magmatic events are unknown from the eastern part of the Siberian Craton [29] (Figure 5). The two prominent Late Paleozoic and Early Triassic zircon age groups correlate with the ages of magmatic rocks within neighboring Taimyr (Figure 1), while the Late Carboniferous–Permian rutile ages correlate with metamorphic events in northern Taimyr [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
ZHe ages reveal that uplift and exhumation of the provenance region occurred in the Late Triassic–earliest Triassic (Figure 4d). This assumption is supported by recent low-temperature studies across Taimyr and northern part of the Siberian Craton [35,40], suggesting a complex exhumation history comprising several uplift episodes spanning the Middle–Late Triassic and earliest Jurassic. Therefore, our multiproxy provenance study strongly suggests that the uppermost Middle Jurassic–lowermost Hauterivian strata (Group 1) were sourced from a proximal provenance region located within the Taimyr Fold Belt.
Samples from Group 2 (Albian–Aptian) (Figure 2b) comprise significantly more mature subarkosic and quartz arenites with a minor component of unstable lithic grains, suggesting a much more significant sedimentary transport and/or multiple reworking of grains. U-Pb ages of detrital zircons are characteristic of the assembly age of the Siberian Craton (defined as 1870–1950 Ma) and the age of its constituent Archean basement blocks [41,42] (and references therein).
Geosciences 15 00342 g005
Figure 5. Comparison of detrital zircon age spectra (KDE plots) of Upper Jurassic-Cretaceous strata of Sverdrup Well and modern river sands of Ob’ and Yenisey Rivers [43]. Light rose shaded area is marked the timing of the “Siberian magmatic gap”.
Figure 5. Comparison of detrital zircon age spectra (KDE plots) of Upper Jurassic-Cretaceous strata of Sverdrup Well and modern river sands of Ob’ and Yenisey Rivers [43]. Light rose shaded area is marked the timing of the “Siberian magmatic gap”.
Geosciences 15 00342 g005
The significant gap in the distribution of our detrital zircon ages (900–1800 Ma) spans a similar period of time to the so called “Siberian magmatic gap” within the basement of the Siberian Craton, which reflects an absence of felsic intrusions [29]. The second prominent population of latest Paleozoic detrital zircon ages (350–255 Ma) are comparable to episodes of magmatism reported from both Taimyr and the southern part of the Siberian Craton [44]. The significant population of Jurassic–Cretaceous zircons suggests that the sediment source was located far from neighboring Taimyr and northern Siberia, which had no magmatic and metamorphic events of that age. Moreover, U-Pb ages of detrital rutile grains suggests the very complicated tectonic history of the source region, with multiple high-temperature metamorphic events spanning the Precambrian to Mesozoic. Jurassic–Early Cretaceous magmatism and the comparable tectonic history and metamorphic facies have been widely reported from the southern margin of Siberia [45,46,47,48,49,50] (and references therein). Furthermore, available apatite fission track data from south-eastern Siberia indicate that exhumation of that region commenced in the Middle Jurassic and ended during the late Early Cretaceous, around 120–110 Ma [51,52,53]. Therefore, our data strongly suggest that Aptian–Albian clastics in the Kara Sea were sourced from the distal southern margin of the Siberian Craton.
A comparison of the detrital zircon age distributions of Aptian–Albian succession of the Sverdrup well and modern sands of the Yenisey and Ob’ rivers [43] reveals a strong similarity between the two populations (Figure 5). The documented variation in U-Pb, (U-Th)/He, and trace element characteristics of detrital zircon and rutile grains are interpreted to reflect the switch from a proximal to a distal provenance region. Similar provenance variation in Jurassic—Lower Cretaceous successions were reported from the northern Taimyr and lower Lena River areas [54,55]. Therefore, we propose that large continent-scale rivers started to evolve and carry clastic grains from the distal southern Siberian margin to the Arctic Ocean already from the late Early Cretaceous times (Figure 6).

4.2. Implication for Mesozoic Paleogeography of the Arctic

The Mesozoic paleoclimatic and paleoceanographic history of the Arctic Ocean is still poorly understood in comparison to other ocean basins of the world due to the scarcity of offshore wells and onshore geological outcrops [1]. One of the main features of the modern Arctic Ocean is its huge river discharge of about 3300 km3. The modern Arctic Ocean discharge is controlled by several large continent-scale river systems, including the Yenisei, Ob’, Lena, and MacKenzie rivers [1,56,57]. This high river discharge results in a low sea surface salinity (SSS) in the modern Arctic Ocean, as well as its marginal seas [1]. The modern Beaufort, East Siberian, Laptev, and Kara seas are characterized by mean SSS of <29 psu during the summer, decreasing significantly towards the river mouths, while the central Arctic Ocean mean SSS is below 32 psu [57]. Quantifying and characterizing sediment fluxes from rivers is important for understanding land–ocean linkages in the Arctic throughout the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. The Arctic Ocean was more isolated from the world ocean in the Late Jurassic–Cretaceous compared with today [58]. Since our data suggest that a large river started to drain into the Arctic Ocean from the late Early Cretaceous, we can speculate that a significant increase in freshwater discharge resulted in an SSS decrease within the Arctic Ocean during this time. The appearance of a thick low-salinity layer within the central Arctic Ocean may have resulted in the formation of a strong salinity stratification of near-surface water masses, comparable to the modern Arctic Ocean. Furthermore, this stratification may have promoted anoxia within the deep waters of the central Arctic Ocean from the late Early Cretaceous, initiating the remarkable episode of black shale accumulation during the Aptian in a number of marginal Arctic basins [59,60,61]. This scenario could be tested by modeling and a future deep ocean drilling in this remote region.

5. Conclusions

The integrated provenance study of Middle Jurassic–Cretaceous strata of Sverdrup well drilled in the eastern part of Kara Sea provides new constraints on the paleogeographic evolution of the Arctic during the Mesozoic. U-Pb data from detrital zircon and rutile grains, along with (U–Th)/He zircon thermochronological data reveal a major shift in the source of clastic sediment within the Jurassic–Cretaceous succession of the Sverdrup from proximal to distal source area. It led to assumption that large continent-scale rivers evolved and carried clastic grains from the distal southern Siberian Craton margin to the Arctic Ocean from the late Early Cretaceous. Furthermore, we speculate that a significant freshwater supply potentially initiated a thick low-salinity layer, possibly leading to the onset of a strong salinity stratification of near-surface water masses as in the modern Arctic Ocean.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/geosciences15090342/s1, Attachment S1: Results of U-Pb dating of detrital zircons. Attachment S2: Results of (U-Th)/He-dating of detrital zircons. Attachment S3: Results of U-Pb-dating and trace elements of detrital rutiles.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.E. and C.G.; Methodology, V.E. and C.G.; Software, V.E., D.S. and S.S.; Investigation, V.E., C.G. and A.K.; Resources, V.E. and C.G.; Data curation, V.E., D.S., C.G., A.K. and S.S.; Writing—original draft, V.E. and C.G.; Writing—review & editing, V. E. and C.G.; Visualization, V.E. and C.G.; Project administration, V.E. and C.G.; Funding acquisition, V.E. and C.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

C.G. acknowledges funding from the Research Council of Norway for the NOR-R-AM project (309477): Changes at the Top of the World through Volcanism and Plate Tectonics: Arctic Norwegian-Russian-North American collaboration that enabled international studies on the Arctic paleogeography.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Stein, R. The Late Mesozoic-Cenozoic Arctic Ocean Climate and Sea Ice History: A Challenge for Past and Future Scientific Ocean Drilling. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 2019, 34, 1851–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Farley, K.A. (U-Th)/He Dating: Techniques, Calibrations, and Applications. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2002, 47, 819–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Reiners, P.W. Zircon (U-Th)/He Thermochronometry. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2005, 58, 151–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zack, T.; Moraes, R.; Kronz, A. Temperature dependence of Zr in rutile: Empirical calibration of a rutile thermometer. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2004, 148, 471–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zack, T.; von Eynatten, H.; Kronz, A. Rutile geochemistry and its potential use in quantitative provenance studies. Sediment. Geol. 2004, 171, 37–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zack, T.; Kronz, A.; Foley, S.F.; Rivers, T. Trace element abundances in rutiles from eclogites and associated garnet mica schists. Chem. Geol. 2002, 184, 97–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zack, T.; Stockli, D.F.; Luvizotto, G.L.; Barth, M.G.; Belousova, E.; Wolfe, M.R.; Hinton, R.W. In situ U–Pb rutile dating by LA-ICP-MS: 208Pb correction and prospects for geological applications. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2011, 162, 515–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Triebold, S.; von Eynatten, H.; Zack, T. A recipe for the use of rutile in sedimentary provenance analysis. Sediment. Geol. 2012, 282, 268–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cawood, P.A.; Hawkesworth, C.J.; Dhuime, B. Detrital zircon record and tectonic setting. Geology 2012, 40, 875–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gehrels, G. Detrital Zircon U-Pb Geochronology: Current Methods and New Opportunities. In Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins; Busby, C., Azor, A., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2012; pp. 45–62. [Google Scholar]
  11. Wolfe, M.R.; Stockli, D.F. Zircon (U–Th)/He thermochronometry in the KTB drill hole, Germany, and its implications for bulk He diffusion kinetics in zircon. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2010, 295, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gramberg, I.S.; Shkola, I.V.; Bro, E.G.; Shekhodanov, V.A.; Armishev, A.M. Parametric Wells on the Islands of the Barents and Kara Seas. Sov. Geol. 1985, 1, 95–98. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  13. Drachev, S.S.; Malyshev, N.A.; Nikishin, A.M. Tectonic history and petroleum geology of the Russian Arctic Shelves: An overview. Geol. Soc. Lond. Pet. Geol. Conf. Ser. 2010, 7, 591–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Andersen, T.; Kristoffersen, M.; Elburg, M.A. Visualizing, interpreting and comparing detrital zircon age and Hf isotope data in basin analysis—A graphical approach. Basin Res. 2018, 30, 132–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sláma, J.; Košler, J.; Condon, D.J.; Crowley, J.L.; Gerdes, A.; Hanchar, J.M.; Horstwood, M.S.A.; Morris, G.A.; Nasdala, L.; Norberg, N.; et al. Plešovice Zircon—A New Natural Reference Material for U–Pb and Hf Isotopic Microanalysis. Chem. Geol. 2008, 249, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Paton, C.; Hellstrom, J.; Paul, B.; Woodhead, J.; Hergt, J. Iolite: Freeware for the Visualisation and Processing of Mass Spectrometric Data. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 2011, 26, 2508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Petrus, J.A.; Kamber, B.S. VizualAge: A Novel Approach to Laser Ablation ICP-MS U-Pb Geochronology Data Reduction. Geostand. Geoanalytic Res. 2012, 36, 247–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stacey, J.S.; Kramers, J.D. Approximation of Terrestrial Lead Isotope Evolution by a Two-Stage Model. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1975, 26, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ludwig, T. Isoplot 3.00: A Geochronological Toolkit for Microsoft Excel; Berkeley Geochronology Center 70: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  20. Tomkins, H.S.; Powell, R.; Ellis, D.J. The Pressure Dependence of the Zirconium-in-rutile Thermometer. J. Metamorph. Geol. 2007, 25, 703–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Luvizotto, G.L.; Zack, T.; Meyer, H.P.; Ludwig, T.; Triebold, S.; Kronz, A.; Münker, C.; Stockli, D.F.; Prowatke, S.; Klemme, S.; et al. Rutile Crystals as Potential Trace Element and Isotope Mineral Standards for Microanalysis. Chem. Geol. 2009, 261, 346–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jakobsson, M.; Mayer, L.A.; Bringensparr, C.; Castro, C.F.; Mohammad, R.; Johnson, P.; Ketter, T.; Accettella, D.; Amblas, D.; An, L.; et al. The International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean Version 4.0. Sci Data 2020, 7, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Morozov, A.F.; Petrov, O.V. State Geological Map of the Russian Federation. Scale 1:2,500,000; VSEGEI Publishing House: St. Petersburg, Russia, 2004. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  24. Makariev, A.A. Geological Map of Russian Federation, Scale 1:1,000,000; T-45–48 (Cape Chelyuskin), Explanatory Notes; VSEGEI: St. Petersburg, Russia, 2013. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  25. Ershova, V.B.; Prokopiev, A.V.; Khudoley, A.K.; Andersen, T.; Kullerud, K.; Kolchanov, D.A. U–Pb Age and Hf Isotope Geochemistry of Detrital Zircons from Cambrian Sandstones of the Severnaya Zemlya Archipelago and Northern Taimyr (Russian High Arctic). Minerals 2019, 10, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ershova, V.B.; Prokopiev, A.V.; Khudoley, A.K.; Proskurnin, V.F.; Andersen, T.; Kullerud, K.; Stepunina, M.A.; Kolchanov, D.A. New U–Pb isotopic data for detrital zircons from metasedimentary sequences of northwestern Taimyr. Dokl. Earth Sci. 2017, 474, 613–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ershova, V.B.; Prokopiev, A.V.; Khudoley, A.K.; Shneider, G.V.; Andersen, T.; Kullerud, K.; Makar’ev, A.A.; Maslov, A.V.; Kolchanov, D.A. Results of U–Pb (LA–ICPMS) dating of detrital zircons from metaterrigenous rocks of the basement of the North Kara basin. Dokl. Earth Sci. 2015, 464, 997–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pease, V.; Scott, R.A. Crustal affinities in the Arctic Uralides, northern Russia: Significance of detrital zircon ages from Neoproterozoic and Palaeozoic sediments in Novaya Zemlya and Taimyr. J. Geol. Soc. 2009, 166, 517–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gladkochub, D.P.; Donskaya, T.V.; Wingate, M.T.D.; Mazukabzov, A.M.; Pisarevsky, S.A.; Sklyarov, E.V.; Stanevich, A.M. A one-billion-year gap in the Precambrian history of the southern Siberian Craton and the problem of the Transproterozoic supercontinent. Am. J. Sci. 2010, 310, 812–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kurapov, M.; Ershova, V.; Khudoley, A.; Luchitskaya, M.; Makariev, A.; Makarieva, E.; Vishnevskaya, I. Late Palaeozoic magmatism of Northern Taimyr: New insights into the tectonic evolution of the Russian High Arctic. Int. Geol. Rev. 2021, 63, 1990–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kurapov, M.; Ershova, V.; Khudoley, A.; Luchitskaya, M.; Stockli, D.; Makariev, A.; Makarieva, E.; Vishnevskaya, I. Latest Permian–Triassic magmatism of the Taimyr Peninsula: New evidence for a connection to the Siberian Traps large igneous province. Geosphere 2021, 17, 2062–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kurapov, M.Y.; Ershova, V.B.; Makariev, A.A.; Makarieva, E.V.; Khudoley, A.K.; Luchitskaya, M.V.; Prokopiev, A.V. Carboniferous Granitoid Magmatism of Northern Taimyr: Results of Isotopic-Geochemical Study and Geodynamic Interpretation. Geotectonics 2018, 52, 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kurapov, M.Y.; Konopelko, D.L.; Biske, Y.S.; Proskurnin, V.F.; Petrov, S.V.; Proskurnina, M.A.; Berzon, Y.Y.; Ershova, V.B.; Berzin, S.V.; Stepanov, S.Y. Geodynamic Settings of Late Paleozoic–Early Mesozoic Granitoid Magmatism at the Arctic Continental Margins: Insights from New Geochronological and Geochemical Data from the Taimyr Peninsula. Minerals 2024, 14, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pogrebitsky, Y.E. Geological Map S-47-49 of Russian Federation (Lake Taimyr); VSEGEI: St. Petersburg, Russia, 1998. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  35. Khudoley, A.K.; Verzhbitsky, V.E.; Zastrozhnov, D.A.; O’Sullivan, P.; Ershova, V.B.; Proskurnin, V.F.; Tuchkova, M.I.; Rogov, M.A.; Kyser, T.K.; Malyshev, S.V.; et al. Late Paleozoic—Mesozoic tectonic evolution of the Eastern Taimyr-Severnaya Zemlya Fold and Thrust Belt and adjoining Yenisey-Khatanga Depression. J. Geodyn. 2018, 119, 221–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vernikovsky, V.; Vernikovskaya, A.; Proskurnin, V.; Matushkin, N.; Proskurnina, M.; Kadilnikov, P.; Larionov, A.; Travin, A. Late Paleozoic–Early Mesozoic Granite Magmatism on the Arctic Margin of the Siberian Craton during the Kara-Siberia Oblique Collision and Plume Events. Minerals 2020, 10, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vernikovsky, V.A. Geodynamic Evolution of Taimyr Fold Area; SB RAS: Novosibirsk, Russia, 1996. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  38. Vernikovsky, V.A.; Pease, V.L.; Vernikovskaya, A.E.; Romanov, A.P.; Gee, D.G.; Travin, A.V. First report of early Triassic A-type granite and syenite intrusions from Taimyr: Product of the northern Eurasian superplume? Lithos 2003, 66, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vernikovsky, V.A.; Sal’nikova, E.B.; Kotov, A.B.; Ponomarchuk, V.A.; Kovach, V.P.; Travin, A.V.; Yakovleva, S.Z.; Berezhnaya, N.G. Age of postcollision granitoids, northern taimyr: U–Pb, Sm–Nd, Rb–Sr and Ar–Ar data. Dokl. Earth Sci. 1998, 363, 375–378. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhang, X.; Pease, V.; Carter, A.; Kostuychenko, S.; Suleymanov, A.; Scott, R. Timing of exhumation and deformation across the Taimyr fold–thrust belt: Insights from apatite fission track dating and balanced cross-sections. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2018, 460, 315–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Donskaya, T.V. Assembly of the Siberian Craton: Constraints from Paleoproterozoic granitoids. Precambrian Res. 2020, 348, 105869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Priyatkina, N.; Ernst, R.E.; Khudoley, A.K. A preliminary reassessment of the Siberian cratonic basement with new U-Pb-Hf detrital zircon data. Precambrian Res. 2020, 340, 105645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Safonova, I.; Maruyama, S.; Hirata, T.; Kon, Y.; Rino, S. LA ICP MS U–Pb ages of detrital zircons from Russia largest rivers: Implications for major granitoid events in Eurasia and global episodes of supercontinent formation. J. Geodyn. 2010, 50, 134–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tsygankov, A.A.; Burmakina, G.N.; Khubanov, V.B.; Buyantuev, M.D. Geodynamics of Late Paleozoic batholith-forming processes in western Transbaikalia. Petrology 2017, 25, 396–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yarmolyuk, V.V.; Kuzmin, M.I.; Ernst, R.E. Intraplate geodynamics and magmatism in the evolution of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2014, 93, 158–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yarmolyuk, V.V.; Nikiforov, A.V.; Kozlovsky, A.M.; Kudryashova, E.A. Late Mesozoic East Asian magmatic province: Structure, magmatic signature, formation conditions. Geotectonics 2019, 53, 500–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mazukabzov, A.M.; Sklyarov, E.V.; Donskaya, T.V.; Gladkochub, D.P.; Fedorovsky, V.S. Metamorphic core complexes of the Transbaikalia: Review. Geodyn. Tectonophys. 2011, 2, 95–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Donskaya, T.V.; Gladkochub, D.P.; Mazukabzov, A.M.; Wang, T. Late Mesozoic granitoids of the western Transbaikalia (Russia) and their relation to formation of metamorphic core complexes. Geodyn. Tectonophys. 2017, 8, 451–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Donskaya, T.V.; Gladkochub, D.P.; Mazukabzov, A.M.; Wang, T.; Guo, L.; Rodionov, N.V.; Demonterova, E.I. Mesozoic granitoids in the structure of the Bezymyannyi metamorphic-core complex (western Transbaikalia). Russ. Geol. Geophys. 2016, 57, 1591–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ripp, G.S.; Izbrodin, I.A.; Doroshkevich, A.G.; Lastochkin, E.I.; Rampilov, M.O.; Sergeev, S.A.; Travin, A.V.; Posokhov, V.F. Chronology of the formation of the gabbro-syenite-granite series of the Oshurkovo pluton, western Transbaikalia. Petrology 2013, 21, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jolivet, M.; De Boisgrollier, T.; Petit, C.; Fournier, M.; Sankov, V.A.; Ringenbach, J.-C.; Byzov, L.; Miroshnichenko, A.I.; Kovalenko, S.N.; Anisimova, S.V. How old is the Baikal Rift Zone? Insight from apatite fission track thermochronology. Tectonics 2009, 28, TC3008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Van Der Beek, P.A.; Delvaux, D.; Andriessen, P.A.M.; Levi, K.G. Early Cretaceous denudation related to convergent tectonics in the Baikal region, SE Siberia. J. Geol. Soc. 1996, 153, 515–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bagdasaryan, T.E.; Thomson, S.N.; Latyshev, A.V.; Veselovskiy, R.V.; Zaitsev, V.A.; Marfin, A.E.; Zakharov, V.S.; Yudin, D.S. Thermal history of the Siberian Traps Large Igneous Province revealed by new thermochronology data from intrusions. Tectonophysics 2022, 836, 229385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Malyshev, S.V.; Khudoley, A.K.; Prokopiev, A.V.; Ershova, V.B.; Kazakova, G.G.; Terentyeva, L.B. Source rocks of Carboniferous–Lower Cretaceous terrigenous sediments of the northeastern Siberian Platform: Results of Sm–Nd isotope–geochemical studies. Russ. Geol. Geophys. 2016, 57, 421–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Vereshchagin, O.S.; Khudoley, A.K.; Ershova, V.B.; Prokopiev, A.V.; Schneider, G.V. Provenance of Jurassic-Cretaceous siliciclastic rocks from the northern Siberian Craton: An integrated heavy mineral study. J. Geosci. 2018, 63, 199–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Holmes, R.M.; McClelland, J.W.; Peterson, B.J.; Shiklomanov, I.A.; Shiklomanov, A.I.; Zhulidov, A.V.; Gordeev, V.V.; Bobrovitskaya, N.N. A circumpolar perspective on fluvial sediment flux to the Arctic ocean: FLUVIAL SEDIMENT FLUX TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2002, 16, 45-1–45-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Holmes, R.M.; Shiklomanov, A.I.; Suslova, A.; Tretiakov, M.; McClelland, J.W.; Spencer, R.G.M.; Tank, S.E. River Discharge. 2018. Available online: https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2018/ArtMID/7878/ArticleID/786/River-Discharge (accessed on 15 May 2021).
  58. Shephard, G.E.; Müller, R.D.; Seton, M. The tectonic evolution of the Arctic since Pangea breakup: Integrating constraints from surface geology and geophysics with mantle structure. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2013, 124, 148–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Herrle, J.O.; Schröder-Adams, C.J.; Davis, W.; Pugh, A.T.; Galloway, J.M.; Fath, J. Mid-Cretaceous High Arctic stratigraphy, climate, and Oceanic Anoxic Events. Geology 2015, 43, 403–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Midtkandal, I.; Svensen, H.H.; Planke, S.; Corfu, F.; Polteau, S.; Torsvik, T.H.; Faleide, J.I.; Grundvåg, S.-A.; Selnes, H.; Kürschner, W.; et al. The Aptian (Early Cretaceous) oceanic anoxic event (OAE1a) in Svalbard, Barents Sea, and the absolute age of the Barremian-Aptian boundary. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2016, 463, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mutterlose, J.; Pauly, S.; Steuber, T. Temperature controlled deposition of early Cretaceous (Barremian–early Aptian) black shales in an epicontinental sea. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2009, 273, 330–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Geosciences 15 00342 g003
Figure 3. Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) plots depicting the U–Pb detrital zircon data from the Upper Jurassic–Cretaceous samples analyzed in this paper (n is the number of U-Pb ages).
Figure 3. Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) plots depicting the U–Pb detrital zircon data from the Upper Jurassic–Cretaceous samples analyzed in this paper (n is the number of U-Pb ages).
Geosciences 15 00342 g003
Geosciences 15 00342 g004
Figure 4. (a) Kernel density estimation plots of detrital rutile U–Pb data; (b) pie charts showing the percentage of different metamorphic facies for the source rocks of metapelitic rutile according to calculated formation temperatures; (c) Cr–Nb source rock classification of rutile (metamafic and metapilitic rutile are discriminated following [8]; (d) kernel density probability plots of ZHe ages from studied samples (n is the number of ZHe ages); (e) double-dated (U/Pb and (U–Th)/He) zircons. Error bars represent 1σ analytical uncertainties for ZHe ages and 2σ errors for U–Pb ages.
Figure 4. (a) Kernel density estimation plots of detrital rutile U–Pb data; (b) pie charts showing the percentage of different metamorphic facies for the source rocks of metapelitic rutile according to calculated formation temperatures; (c) Cr–Nb source rock classification of rutile (metamafic and metapilitic rutile are discriminated following [8]; (d) kernel density probability plots of ZHe ages from studied samples (n is the number of ZHe ages); (e) double-dated (U/Pb and (U–Th)/He) zircons. Error bars represent 1σ analytical uncertainties for ZHe ages and 2σ errors for U–Pb ages.
Geosciences 15 00342 g004
Geosciences 15 00342 g006
Figure 6. The proposed Arctic model for Late Jurassic (a) and Aptian (b).
Figure 6. The proposed Arctic model for Late Jurassic (a) and Aptian (b).
Geosciences 15 00342 g006
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

Ershova, V.; Stockli, D.; Gaina, C.; Khudoley, A.; Shimanskiy, S. When Big Rivers Started to Drain to the Arctic Basin: A View from the Kara Sea. Geosciences 2025, 15, 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences15090342

AMA Style

Ershova V, Stockli D, Gaina C, Khudoley A, Shimanskiy S. When Big Rivers Started to Drain to the Arctic Basin: A View from the Kara Sea. Geosciences. 2025; 15(9):342. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences15090342

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ershova, Victoria, Daniel Stockli, Carmen Gaina, Andrey Khudoley, and Sergey Shimanskiy. 2025. "When Big Rivers Started to Drain to the Arctic Basin: A View from the Kara Sea" Geosciences 15, no. 9: 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences15090342

APA Style

Ershova, V., Stockli, D., Gaina, C., Khudoley, A., & Shimanskiy, S. (2025). When Big Rivers Started to Drain to the Arctic Basin: A View from the Kara Sea. Geosciences, 15(9), 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences15090342

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