EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 196 (2025) BSGF - Earth Sci. Bull., 196 (2025) 22 Full HTML
Issue
BSGF - Earth Sci. Bull.
Volume 196, 2025
Recent evolution of the Mediterranean realm: Exploring the links between deep and shallow processes in a plate convergent setting
Article Number 22
Number of page(s) 27
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/bsgf/2024020
Published online 25 November 2025

© L. Mocochain et al., Published by EDP Sciences 2025

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1 Introduction

In the Eastern Mediterranean the Levant Basin at large is, from south to north, a passive margin in the Tertiary. It evolved into an active margin with complex subduction, collision, and finally obduction of ophiolite which occurred during the Pliocene and Pleistocene. The island of Cyprus occupies the centre of the Levant Basin (Fig. 1), a unique geological land link between Africa and the Anatolide and Tauride terranes. The outcropping Tertiary series overlying the ophiolite offers the opportunity to identify, study, and date the discontinuities that may reflect tectonic and/or eustatic processes.

Offshore seismic surveys performed in the Eastern Mediterranean during the last 10 yr and confirmed the presence of a very thick sedimentary series, more than 10 km, but only speculative ages were hypothesized both for the series and the identified unconformities. Although numerous industrial wells have been drilled in the area, only a few may have reached series older than the Paleogene, and overall precise biostratigraphy remains confidential.

Subbasins occur in the west and south of Cyprus, each one having well developed extensive outcrops of a part of the geological column, and as such were the focus of precise studies. Anti-clockwise: the Polis basin where Plio-Quaternary to Miocene series dominate (Nicosia to Pakhna formations, Pliocene studies focused on Pliocene), the Polemi basin with Upper Miocene to (Kalavassos formation to, studies focused on messinian evaporites), the Pissouri basin with Mio-Pliocene series (studies focused on messinian evaporites and Pliocene), the Khalassa basin with extensive Miocene Pakhna outcrops (studies focused on Pakhna).

To the east of this series of basins, the Psematismenos-Maroni Basin (PMB) offers the possibility to review all the formations, in a geographically constrained area. This basin was chosen as part of a first reconnaissance study to propose a schematic lithostratigraphic cross-section from the ophiolite of the Troodos to the Plio-Quaternary series based on selected outcrops and utilizing biostratigraphy locally associated with Strontium Isotope Stratigraphy. This was aimed at identifying and dating possible unconformities on the one hand, and another target was to focus on the Neogene Period that is characterized in the Mediterranean by one of the most extensive geological events, the Messinian Salinity Crisis (MSC).

The results presented in this paper are part of a set of detailed studies conducted in the Eastern Mediterranean focusing on the Cenozoic Era, and initiated in 2010 to study and precise the ages of unconformities identified onshore Cyprus. This leads to propose for the PMB an ideal composite lithostratigraphy and an NNW-SSE regional schematic architecture of the Tertiary post ophiolitic formations from “proximal”, i.e., from the northern contact of the Tertiary series with the Cretaceous ophiolite to “distal”, i.e., to the Pleistocene in the south. Otherwise, this paper aims to contribute to the understanding of the stratigraphy of the PMB including alternative interpretations of the pre-Messinian and Messinian series based on new biostratigraphic data.

Since then, others researchers sometimes focused on detailed parts of the series outcropping in the Psematismenos Basin but for more specific studies (i.e., Lower Messinian period studied by Manzi et al., 2016; Gennari et al., 2018; Hernandez-Molina et al., 2022) and their results are taken into consideration in this paper.

thumbnail Fig. 1

Simplified geological map of Cyprus with the main structural units. The carton marks the Psematismenos-Maroni basin study area.From 1:250 000-scale geological map of the Geological Survey Department Cyprus 1995, and modified from Bagnall, 1960b and Kinnaird, 2008.

2 Geological setting

2.1 Late Cretaceous to Cenozoic

The sedimentary succession discussed here deposited in the later stages of the closure of the residual easternmost Mediterranean Basin, involving progressive and continuous continental collision. If the sedimentation in the Levantine Region is thus partly conditioned by this tectonic evolution, Cyprus being located on the forefront of this collision/obduction area, tectonic pulses are a constant driver of sedimentation.

The basement of the Cenozoic series in Southwestern Cyprus is constituted by the ophiolitic and volcanic complex Cenomanian in age. Late Cretaceous to Early Paleocene successions overlying this complex are generally composed of umbers (Perapedhi Formation), bentonitic clays or radiolarites and reworked sediments (Kannaviou Formation), and Mélange series at the contact with reactivated tectonic flanks of the ophiolites (Moni Formation) (Fig. 2; see Lord et al., 2000 for a review).

These Upper Mesozoic successions as well as the volcanic and ophiolitic series of the Troodos Massif are, in turn, covered by the pelagic Lefkara Formation running from the Maastrichtian to Eocene-Oligocene (Henson et al., 1949; Mantis, 1972). Peybernes et al. (2005) re-assessed the biostratigraphy of the first transgressive units covering the ophiolites around the Troodos Massif, in order to demonstrate a diachronism by using the data coming from the Pano Lefkara composite section of Pantazis (1967), the aforementioned authors believed that the Lefkara Formation is younger than was previously supposed.

Pantazis (1967) subdivided the Lefkara formation into three lithostratigraphic units: a marly lower unit dated as Maastrichtian, a chalk and chert unit of Late Cretaceous to Eocene age, and an upper chalk unit of Late Eocene to Early Miocene age. In the PMB, a biostratigraphically dated section located along the road from Choirokoitia to Pano Lefkara was published by Mantis (1970, 1972) who called this series Pano Lefkara. Estimated to be thinner than 300 m (1200 ft), the section was dated from Upper Paleocene to Lower Eocene based on foraminifera. Robertson (1975) interpreted the Lefkara formation as calciturbidite, showing several Bouma sequences with paleocurrent directions preferentially toward the south and the southwest (Roberston and Hudson, 1974; Robertson, 1976).

Kahler (1994) subdivided the Lefkara Formation into four lithological units themselves subdivided into lower and upper subunits: lower marl unit, chalk and chert unit, chalk unit, and upper marl unit. Based on foraminifera and radiolarians, Kahler (1994) dated the lower marl to an Early Eocene (P6), the base of the chalk and chert units are from the early Middle Eocene with extension up to the biozone P12. The top of the overlying chalk unit varies from the Early Oligocene (biozones P18-P19) at Kalavasos to the Early Miocene at Pano Lefkara (biozones N4-N6). The top of the upper marl unit, that is considered as the base of the Pakhna Formation based on lithological grounds, is ascribed to the middle Early Miocene (biozones N4-N6 to the base of N7).

The transition between the Lakhna Formation and the Pakhna Formation is marked by a dramatic shift from hemipelagic sedimentation to a very variable suite of carbonates and subordinated siliciclastic material derived from ophiolites erosion (Bagnall, 1960a; Eaton, 1987; Eaton and Robertson, 1993). On the scale of Cyprus, this transition is diachronous, probably even on the scale of the PMB. During the Early to Late Miocene, two episodes included in the Pakhna formation marked the sedimentation of shallow areas on the periphery of the Troodos massif by the formation of coral reefs: the Terra and Koronia members (Fig. 2) (Henson et al., 1949; Follows et al., 1996).

The Kalavasos Formation marks a new break in sedimentation with the deposition of Messinian gypsum. It occurs all around the Troodos massif and has been extensively studied in most of the peripheral basins of Troodos Island (Bagnall, 1960a; Pantazis, 1978; Orszag et al., 1980; Rouchy 1981; Elion, 1983; Eaton, 1987; Robertson et al., 1975; Manzi et al., 2013, 2016).

A particularly coarse formation called the “Block Formation” (BF) composed of pebbles to boulder-size blocks of various lithologies including evaporites has been defined in almost all the Mediterranean peripheral basins (Bache et al., 2012). In peripheral basins the Block Formation often results from the dismembering of the Messinian Primary Gypsum by subaerial erosion and remobilization as blocks of varying size overlying the MES. The formation of Block has been shown to be synchronous throughout the Mediterranean and has been precisely dated to between 5.6 and 5.46 Ma, the date at which marine re-flooding stopped the sub-aerial erosion process that marked the second stage of the Messinian Salinity Crisis (Bache et al., 2012). The identification of the Block Formation helps to precisely locate the underlying MES in peripheral Mediterranean basins. This Block Formation in Cyprus will be illustrated in the Psematismenos sections.

Then, Pliocene sedimentation reflects the continued sea-level rise after the sharp return to marine conditions in the latest Messinian (5.46 Ma; Popescu et al., 2021). The deposits are grouped into the Nicosia and Pissouri formations. Finally, the ongoing rise of Cyprus is marked by the presence of several Quaternary marine terraces (Zomenia, 2012) and the development of several fanglomerates (Waters, 2010; Kinnaird et al., 2011).

thumbnail Fig. 2

The post-ophiolite stratigraphic units of Cyprus Island (from Follows 1992, modified).

2.2 Chronostratigraphic uncertainties

One of the problems identified during the very early course of the study concerns the stratigraphic nomenclature used for the Cenozoic units in the sub-basins of Cyprus (Fig. 2). At least nine different stratigraphic subdivisions have been proposed for the Circum Troodos sedimentary successions (Henson et al., 1949; Gass, 1960; Bagnall, 1960a; Allen, 1967; Pantazis, 1967; Lilljequist, 1969; Turner, 1971; Mantis, 1970, 1977; Robertson, 1975; Morse, 1996; Lord et al., 2000; BouDagher-Fadel and Lord, 2006). The main reasons that led these authors to propose so many formation names were first commented by Baroz and Bizon (1977). Aside from purely biostratigraphic problems, i.e., recrystallizations and intense reworking, leading to the erroneously interpretation of various bioevents, the various formations are obviously diachronic.

Moreover, the use of a local “stratotype”, which is often difficult to locate, and fixing the ages of similar lithofacies in other basins is unsatisfactory in the absence of a clearly established local biostratigraphy.

During the achievement of the project, the transition between the chalky Lefkara Formation and the marly and clastic Pakhna Formation was refined in the PMB with the help of biostratigraphy.

However, dealing with the Lefkara Formation in the area of Pano Lefkara and the “type locality” after the first definition by Bagnall (1960a), none of the published sections shows an almost similar thickness ranging from less than 70 m (Khaler, 1994) to about 650 m (Peybernes et al., 2005). This lack in homogeneity may be caused by observations bias (presence of faults ?) and unprecise locations.

Six successive exposed sections (50 up to 250 m in thickness) were identified after several extensive field-trips (Fig. 3), each being accurately located by GPS (see coordinates in Tab. 1), that significantly contrasts with the previous works. They are constrained by calcareous nannoplankton datings covering the time-interval from the Paleocene to the Pleistocene following Martini’s Zonation (1971), and three ages comes from Strontium Isotope Stratigraphy (Tab. 2) (McArthur et al., 2012).

thumbnail Fig. 3

Simplified geological map of the PMB with location of sections (yellow stars) and location of paleontologically dating (yellow square) where the contact between the Lefkara fm and the basement was identified).
Table 1

Biostratigraphic results from outcrop samples of the PMB.

Table 2

Results of Sr analysis.

3 Description of the sections

The Pano Lefkara area provides a good exposure of the Cenozoic deep marine sediments that are widespread along the southern border of the Troodos Massif (Fig. 3). The studied section of Pano Lefkara is of about 170 m in thickness (Fig. 4). The basal part of the section immediately overlies the ophiolites, and the uppermost deposits located on a hilltop belong to the Middle Eocene (Fig. 4). Twelve locations were sampled on the periphery of the PMB to refine the age of the first units of the Lefkara Formation overlying the various older lithologies, i.e., ophiolites, volcano-clastics, and radiolarites (Fig. 3). The studied samples cover both the Limassol Forest Block and the Troodos Massif indicating a Late Paleocene (NP9 Biozone − latest Thanetian) to Early Eocene (NP16 Biozone − uppermost Lutetian), based on calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy (detailed results in Tab. 1). These data supplement the ones of Mantis (1972), being consistently in line with the regional data of Lord et al., (2000). The distribution of ages is apparently random as the resulting large time-span of about 15 Ma, accountable for an extensive mixing due to turbiditic and contouritic facies, and maybe to a complex and rugged deep-sea paleotopography. Beneath the Lefkara Formation, a basal undated unit interpreted as a debris flow (ca. 30 m thick) reworks blocks of chalk of varying sizes spread in a marly matrix (lower photograph in Fig. 4). This unit is extensively developed and overlays the Kannaviou and Moni formations. The overlying Lefkara sediments onlapping the debris flow are made of massive or vaguely laminated often silicified white chalks passing upward into laminated white or grey marls. The surface separating these deep-water successions from the basal debris flow was termed the U1 unconformity (Fig. 4).

The two following sections illustrate the transition from the Lefkara Formation to the Pakhna Formation.

The Kalavasos section, 220 m thick (Fig. 5), is located 10 km south of the previous one. The oldest 170 m corresponds to the Lefkara Formation, enclosing successions that start with marls, and upward passing into chalk interbedded with bands of cherts. The calcareous nannofossils of this lower part of the succession indicates a Priabonian age (Late Eocene, from NP18 to NP20 biozone).

There is a fairly constant planar stratification, with no apparent erosional unconformity, indicating quiet sediment deposition. In the upper 10 m of Kalavasos section (i.e., from 160 to 170 m), the massive chert layer upward passes into alternating metric chalk and thin-dm chert layers.

The following uppermost 50 meters (i.e., from 170 to 220 m) are characterized by the disappearance of the cherts layers and incoming of clastic grains within the calciturbiditic series. The change is more pronounced at 180 m with the presence of (i) an erosive surface (U2), (ii) appearance of medium to fine grained sandstones and (iii) a change in the colour of the sediments from grayish white to red, pale orange marlstones (Fig. 6).

To refine the age of this transition, samples were taken at each 50 cm. We identified very rapid biostratigraphic changes just five meters above the uppermost chert level (170-175 m in thickness): from a Late Eocene (NP18-20 nannofossil zones) to the Early Oligocene (NP23 biozone-middle Rupelian), then to the Early Miocene, Aquitanian-Burdigalian (NN1 to NN2), and finally up to the Serravallian (NN6 to NN7, Fig. 6).

The base of the Kalavasos crosssection corresponds to the middle part of the Lefkara Formation according to the former biostratigraphy established by Lord et al., (2000). Near 170 m, the dated Upper Eocene to Lower Oligocene passage is conformable and corresponds to the disappearance of the massive chert levels. Above the Lower Oligocene thin deposits (ca. 50 cm to 1.5 m in thickness), the Upper Oligocene significant biostratigraphic nannofossils are lacking, although the overlying conformable sediments are well-dated from Aquitanian to Burdigalian (NN1-NN2 biozones). As there is no obvious erosional surface in this section, hypothesized gap of the Upper Oligocene is termed BH1 (biostratigraphic hiatus − BH) (between NP 24 and NP 25 biozones, about 6 Ma). The overlying hemipelagic sediments present a new biostratigraphic hiatus (called BH2) that spans the interval between the Upper Burdigalian and the Middle Serravallian for a duration of about 5 Ma (biozones NN3 to NN6). In addition, abundant Burdigalien and Langhien reworked limestone nannofossils are observed in the Serravallian deposits above the BH2 horizon.

The lowermost Miocene condensed condition contrasts with its thicknesses in the more distal part of the other basins. Slumps resulting from instabilities during the Early Miocene (Burdigalian) are identified and to the north of the Troodos Massif (Lord et al., 2009). These instabilities may be related to a tectonic pulse that occurred during the Late Oligocene interval. In the PMB a possible local uplift may be considered, leading to the erosion of the Oligocene deposits. A by-pass process could also be hypothesized as an alternative explanation.

A few meters higher an erosional surface, termed U2, has been observed in the lower part of the lower Serravallian deposits, marked by the arrival in the basin of coarser clastics and a change in the colour of sediments. A slight angular unconformity noticed in between samples 667 and 668 accompany this U2 unconformity (Fig. 6). Further up a late Serravallian interval (biozone NN7), 5 m thick, is identified below a scree unsuitable for sampling. This scree could conceal the possible unconformity U3 because the section continues above the scree with ca. 15 m of marly calcarenites ascribed to late Tortonian − early Messinian interval, which in turn is unconformably overlain by a Pleistocene conglomerate (biozone NN20). This U8 unconformity surface is considered to be the place of stacking the undetectable unconformities U4 to U7. Our results are in agreement with previous descriptions of section and ages published by Kahler (1994); Morse (1996) and Hernández-Molina et al., (2022) although neither they did provide the exact location of the studied section nor identify the same hiatuses. According to Lord et al. (2000), the lower part of the section (i.e., up to the U2 unconformity) belongs to the upper Lefkara Formation while the upper part of the section belongs to the Pakhna Formation (Fig. 5).

(iii) The Tochni section.

Located just northward of the Tochni Village, the studied succession (ca. 35 m in thickness; Fig. 7) is a composite section with a lateral shifting of only a few hundred meters due to the presence of a scree. This section allows to examine the passage from the Tortonian to the early Messinian. Only the base of this section has already been described by (1960a and 1960b) and Eaton (1987). A composite column made of unspecified sites from the area was published by Orszag et al., (2009) following an earlier study by Rouchy (1981). Recently, Manzi et al., (2014) published a Messinian succession similar to that presented by Orszag et al., (2009) and located it about 1.5 km southwest of our section.

The Tochni section shown in Figure 7 stars with:

  • (i)

    greyish marlstones of the Pakhna Formation dated as late Tortonian (sample 771, biozone NN11a; Tab. 1);

  • (ii)

    this series is eroded by a 10 m thick massive calcarenite including of various thicknesses compact layers (20 cm to 2 m thick), with thin interbedded silty marls, ripple laminations, and possible escape structure and dewatering. Conglomerates made of decimetric chalky pebbles (originating from the Lefkara Formation) are interbedded in the lower beds of the calcarenite. The base of this succession is erosive and was termed U3 as unconformity. The facies of this massive calcarenite suggests a shallow sedimentary context with coarse bioclastic sediments and a few fragments of ophiolites as also described by Bagnall (1960a).

  • (iii)

    it is capped by a 10 m thick succession composed of alternating silty marls accompanied by continuous thinning of the calcarenitic beds.

  • (iv)

    the next 7 m are predominately composed of marls (dated NN11a − late Tortonian) followed by a multi-metric thickening upward clearly indicating a shallowing trend upward. Several samples collected in this upper layer are characterized by strong reworking including Serravallian and Eocene nannofossil taxa indicating an erosion of the upstream parts of the PMB, suggesting imminent emersion of the Troodos.

  • (v)

    sedimentation is then interrupted by an angular unconformity termed U4 covered by a stratified diatomite. Elsewhere in Cyprus, Krijgsman et al. (2002) and Orzag et al. (2009) identified Discospirina italica in this diatomite unit. The incoming diatomite corresponds to the Tripoli Formation defined in Sicily by Ogniben (1957) and accurately studied in detail and dated by Suc et al., (1995) and Hilgen and Krijgsman (1999) as characteristic of the pre-evaporitic stage of the MSC. Here, this diatomite fossilizes a normal fault (Fig. 8).

  • (vi)

    150m laterally, and for circa 7 m, the section continues with alternating carbonate and marls with interbedded diatomite. Scattered blocks of reworked limestone with coral fauna, bryozoans, pelecypods, worm traces in a marly matrix about 2 m to 3 m thick ends this section. In some carbonated blocks, gypsum flowers filling cavities have been identified and represent the first signal of the Messinian evaporitic sedimentation. The base of these reworked blocks forms the surface of the U6 unconformity.

Three carbonated samples were collected to obtain 87/86Strontium measurements, for bringing supplementary dating of the section. Interpretation of the data follows the Strontium isotope stratigraphy (McArthur et al., 2012) (Tab. 2). Two of these samples (769 & 823) come from the topmost part of the section. Sample 769 was sampled in a fossiliferous limestone that marks the end of the Tochni section (Fig. 7). The derived ages come from a bulk shell fraction and a selected shell fraction respectively. Both Sr derived ages indicate a middle Messinian age (i.e., 6.2 to 6.4 Ma). Sample 823 is a bioclastic wackestone made of reworked blocks with biolithic fragments. Numerous foraminifera are present within a micritic cement as shown in the thin section (Fig. 9 microphotograph 1). Vacuoles are filled with secondary minerals which were determined by XRD to be a mixture of calcite and aragonite. Sr-derived age for the 823 sample is 7.6 Ma (7.4 to 7.83 Ma, i.e., late Tortonian to early Messinian). The gypsum flowers observed in some reworked calcareous blocks show that this carbonate was “fossilized” by gypsum prior to be eroded. Thus, such a carbonate may have an early Messinian age and has been reworked and re-deposited after the intra-Messinian extensive tectonic event described above. The dates obtained for these two samples clearly show the presence of reef building carbonate during the late Tortonian and early-middle Messinian.

Sample 833 was collected southward of Tochni, on the top of a hill, and at about the same stratigraphic level as the reworked Messinian uppermost units of the latter section. A cavity of this limestone is filled with large crystals (Fig. 9 microphotographs 2 and 3), and microcrystalline zones with associated veins being filled with micritic material (Fig. 9 microphotograph 4). The largest minerals were identified by XRD as Celestite which is a Sr sulphate. Its age was derived both from the celestite mineral and from the bulk of the limestone. Both analyses (Tab. 2) indicate the same age: 9.35 Ma (9 to 9.95 Ma, i.e., early to middle Tortonian). Celestite was also described by Rouchy (1981) in pre-Messinian series in the PMB (his figs. 49B, 1981). In this log, the celestite is located just below the first diatomite layers marking the passage to the Messinian, 40 m below the first gypsum levels. Based on the assumption that celestine deposition may be synchronous at 9 Ma throughout the PMB, which is consistent with observed stratigraphic relationships, a stratigraphic gap of about 2 Ma may be present. Then, as this example illustrates, numbers of biostratigraphic hiatuses are probably to be expected during the Tortonian and the Messinian stages.

Laterally and south of the Tochni section, the thick calcarenite deposit is eroded by a 20 to 30 m thick deltaic conglomerate filling an incised valley. The conglomerate is made of beds whose thickness ranges from a few decimetres to 2 metres. This conglomerate was already described by Bagnall (1960a and 1960b) and, in agreement with this author, we interpret it as a lateral equivalent or a tributary of the Choirokoitia Conglomerate that is later described (Figs. 1 and 7).

(iv) The Pendaskinos section.

The 130 m thick Pendaskinos section is located in the southern part of the PMB, on the left side of the Pendaskinos River (Figs. 3 and 10), and should enable a review of the transition from the Lefkara to the Pakhna formations.

The section starts with a 30 m thick unit with sedimentary facies similar to that described in the uppermost Pano Lefkara section. It is composed of calciturbiditic layers containing silt-size grains. The base of this formation is Middle Eocene in age, and its facies is equivalent to the Pano Lefkara section. In the same facies and only 15 m above, our analyses gave a Serravalian age, indicating a very reduced condensed series spanning the Upper Eocene, all the Oligocene and the transgressive Neogene lasting ca. 25 Ma.

This homogenous facies and lack of obvious unconformity surfaces clearly illustrate the difficulty in differentiating the various formations. There was thus a need for a careful sampling to identify the precise age of the passage from the Lefkara to Pakhna formations.

A few metres above the base of the section, an erosive unconformity surface was observed. Here, the homogeneous marl unit is interrupted by an erosive unconformity (called U4) because it is dated between the Serravalian and Upper Tortonian and is therefore younger than the U3 unconformity. This U4 surface corresponds to the base of a 20 m thick unit composed of massive calcarenitic metric beds intercalated with occasional diatomite layers. This unit is also marked by well sorted globigerinid sands with small amounts of silt quartz grains passing upward to benthonic foraminifera and neritic bioclastic material, as already noted by Bagnall (1960a) and Eaton (1987).

The first occurrence of diatomite deposits 8 m above the U4 unconformity and the occurrence of typical Messinian nannofossils (NN11b) 30 m above the U4 enable us to propose an early Messinian age for parts of the basal calcarenitic beds.

The succession continues with an upward thickening of the calcarenitic beds truncated by another unconformity surface termed U5. The log continues with a very coarse 2 m thick polymict conglomerate containing rounded decimetric blocks of chalks, varied clasts of ophiolite, and radiolarites, and resting on U5. It is followed by the deposition of a 40 m thick series made up of marls and thin calcarenite beds alternating with diatomitic beds. Samples collected directly above this conglomerate show a reworking of several Cretaceous, Paleocene as well as Miocene (Langhian) nannofossils. This 40 m thick section is then eroded by another 3 m thick coarse conglomerate resting on an unconformity surface termed U6. A few metric preserved diatomitic beds cap this youngest conglomerate.

(v) − The Psematismenos section is 65 m thick, it is located between the village of Tochni and the main highway, 3 km southward of the Tochni section.

This section presents several variations in the composition of sediments, evidence for the extreme variability of facies over very short distances. It is the most appropriate location in the PMB to illustrate the transition from the pre-gypsum Messinian deposits to the Pliocene series, i.e., to help in accurately locating the Messinian Erosional Surface (MES in Fig. 11).

This section starts with greyish marls alternating with thin calcarenites that we interpret as turbidites of the Pakhna Formation. The evaporite sedimentation starts with the deposition of centimetric gypsum beds with prismatic crystals deposited in pluricentimetric discontinuous beds intercalated within the detritic sediments (Fig. 12). Gypsum crystals are blunt and the irregular thickness of the beds clearly show that they were not deposited “in place” but they were most probably slightly reworked by turbidity currents, as suggested by Eaton (1987). This evaporitic unit is termed the Kalavasos Formation.

Higher up, the first massive 50 to 70 cm thick gypsum and anhydrite beds are intercalated with marls, and resting on a last massive bed of white carbonate which may correspond to diatomite. In contrast to the other evaporitic basins, i.e., Pissouri, Polemi, Mesaoria, the evaporitic unit are thin, possibly less than 10 m thick. This section only shows a cumulative 2 m thick layer of preserved primary gypsum (Fig. 13). Above this gypsum bed, heterogeneous blocks composed of large crystals of selenite are exposed within a white marly succession. Such a gypsum block level disappears laterally.

The facies of gypsum selenite has never been observed in place thus proving that it originates from a deposit that was eroded then transported. This formation of reworked gypsum blocks is found in many other places in the PMB, but occupies different stratigraphic positions: the blocks rest on various older formations by means of a ravinement surface, and in some sites they rest directly on the Lefkara Formation.

In the PMB, the great eustatic fall linked to the MSC must have caused the erosion of a large part of the gypsum layers, as witnessed directly by the BF. The Block Formation is then capped by silty marls and gypsarenite beds alternating with decimetric-thick beds of white chalky carbonate and white silty marls. The first beds of this formation have been described as the Lago Mare facies (Orszag et al., 2009), interpreted as immediately following the end of the MSC and representing the first post-crisis high sea level of the Mediterranean Sea (Clauzon et al., 2005; Popescu et al., 2015).

Above the Lago Mare facies, white chalky carbonate alternating with marls and coarse grained calcarenitic beds represent a turbiditic deposition filling the space created by the transgressive Pliocene Sea. Within this new sedimentary unit Early Pliocene in age, and 15 m above the Block Formation, a 50 cm-thick coarser pebble bed can be seen. This peculiar level is a conglomerate composed of reworked cemented carbonate pebbles, suggesting the reworking of a beach deposit.

The upper part of the log is made up of massive calcarenitic beds overlain by a coarse carbonate grainstone containing reef debris and worm traces. This ends the Pliocene succession in this section characterizing an overall shallowing upward trend and filling the accommodation space created by the transgressive sea after the MSC.

This log illustrates the great similarity of facies between the Miocene and the Pliocene. The bases of the sequences are slightly erosive turbidites while the upper part is rich in calcarenite and the sequences terminate with carbonate grainstone with reef affinities.

(vi) − Another point of interest is a channel near the Choirokoitia village. It is well described in many papers (Bagnall (1960a and 1960b); Rouchy, 1981; Xenophontos et al., 1987; Houghton et al., 1990; Eaton and Robertson, 1993; Robertson 1998; Schirmer 2000; Davies 2001; Janssen and Little, 2010; Kinnaird and Robertson, 2013). The channel is filled with polymictic conglomerates composed of several layers of calcarenite, siltstone, mudstone, coral debris, ophiolite and chalk clasts. The thickness of the discrete layers ranges from 0.6 up to 3 m or more. Clasts range in size from small pebbles up to a maximum diameter of 2 m (Fig. 14).

The age of this channel was primarily discussed by Houghton et al. (1990), who proposed a Late Pliocene age based on the presence of coccolith assemblages similar to another channel deposit dated Pleistocene (in the Amathus village near Limassol).

Then, Schirmer (2000) questioned this interpretation and suggested that the channelized system occurred at the same time as the Pakhna Formation. His argument is firstly based on the pre-channel deposits attributed to the Pakhna Formation, and secondly on the apparent continuation of marlstone layers encasing the conglomerate in the axis of the channel (Fig. 14).

A recent study based on holoplanktonic molluscs collected in the sediments located just below the channel deposits (Janssen and Little, 2010) suggests a Tortonian age, although it agrees with the interpretation of Schirmer.

Finally, our sampling of the deposits directly underlying the base of the channel points out a Tortonian (NN10) to early Messinian (NN11) age. Unfortunately, our samples collected above the channel deposits have failed to give any age.

Nonetheless, regional-scale observations help to decipher this problem: the updip position of this conglomerate is clearly visible in the landscape, because it unconformably overlays the whitish carbonate sediments of the Lefkara Formation. In this updip position, the Pakhna Formation has been totally eroded by the channel. There is another location in the basin where the conglomeratic channel is observed, in the southward near Maroni: there, the conglomerate overlays clastics of the Pakhna Formation.

In this downstream location, between the highway and the village of Maroni, the stratigraphic relationship of the conglomerate with the overlying formation is clear: the Messinian evaporitic series covers the channel (Fig. 3).

These observations allow to solve the problem of dating the channel: it is post lower Messinian (NN11b) and pre-gypsum. Furthermore, the path of the channel, from updip of Choirokoitia to Maroni, follows the present day Agios Minas River (Fig. 3) and forms a superimposed imbricated valley system.

Elsewhere, the Tochni channel is also covered by gypsum deposits and then is contemporaneous of this intra-Messinian stage. The Tochni channel may be a tributary of the Choirokoitia channel or may belong to another parallel valley, of which only the upstream part remains in the landscape.

To conclude, the Choirokoitia conglomerate is a typical 30 m deep or more incised valley, initiated between the diatomite episode and the first deposits of gypsum, i.e., during the Lower Messinian and prior to the MSC.

thumbnail Fig. 4

The Pano-Lefkara section near the Pano-Lefkara Village (log coordinates: N 34°51’29.89" E 33°19’1.34” & Top: N 34°51’27.09" E 33°18’32.27").
thumbnail Fig. 5

The Kalavasos section in the Kalavasos Village (log coordinates: Base N 34°46’16.98” E 33°17’59.22” Top N 34°45’58.63 E 33°18’12.97").
thumbnail Fig. 6

Location of several samples in the Kalavasos section. The U2 unconformity is indicated at the base of the orange deposits.
thumbnail Fig. 7

The Tochni composite section in the vicinity of the Tochni Village (coordinates: Base N 34°46’59.12” E 33°19’20.37“ Top N 34°47’1.88“ E 33°19’22.83").
thumbnail Fig. 8

Angular unconformity between calcarenite and diatomites deposits (coordinates: N34°47’6.21” E33°19’20.56”).
thumbnail Fig. 9

Microphotograph 1 shows abundant foraminifera within a micritic cement.’ Microphotographs 2–3 show large crystals. Microphotographs 2–4 show microcrystalline zones with veins filled with micritic material.
thumbnail Fig. 10

The Pendaskinos composite section (coordinates: Base N 34°46’37.81” E 33°24’7.06” Top N 34°46’34.70” E 33°24’19.35").
thumbnail Fig. 11

The Psematismenos section (coordinates: Base N 34°46’27.46” E 33°20’41.78” Top N 34°46’24.60” E 33°20’26.97").
thumbnail Fig. 12

Focus on the first occurrence of reworked gypsum within turbidites just above the base of the Psematismenos section (coordinates: N 34°46’26.33” E 33°20’39.06”).
thumbnail Fig. 13

The stratigraphic relationship between the Block Formation and the Messinian Erosional Surface in the Psematismenos section (coordinates: N 34°46’29.38” E 33°20’33.87”).
thumbnail Fig. 14

Two interpretations of the Choirokoitia Conglomerate. Left, lateral shift of channelled conglomerates in a synchronous sedimentary context (Schirmer, 2000) Right, our interpretation as a typical incised valley witch in a diachronous sedimentary context (coordinates: N 34°48’0.91” E 33°20’9.12“).

4 Synthetic composite lithocolumn of the PMB.

The combination of the five sections presented above leads us to propose a synthetic composite lithostratigraphic column for the PMB (Fig. 15). From left to right, this figure illustrates the successions used in the composite lithocolumn, the various unconformities (U0 to U9) and local biostratigraphic hiatuses (BH), the international chart and the nannoplankton biozones, the Cyprus formation terminology, and the most relevant biostratigraphic samples that make it possible to separate the different units.

The column starts with the pre-Lefkara series composed of the Moni, Perapedhi, and Kannaviou formations representing various lithologic units and reworked polymictic blocks resting on the Troodos ophiolites.

The Lefkara Formation is mainly composed of chalky to marly lithologies fossilizes the ophiolite. The middle and upper members of the Lefkara Formation as lithologically defined by Robertson (1977a and 1977b) have been biostratigraphically constrained and the present dating corroborates with that of Lord et al. (2000) as well as of Peybernes et al. (2005).

The transition from the upper Lefkara to the Pakhna formations probably corresponds to a tectonic event marked by an unconformity and the arrival of coarsening upward calcarenitic succession. The age of this transition deduced from nannoplankton suggests an intra Serravallian age (NN6 zone).

The transition from the Pakhna to the Kalavasos formations corresponds to the first occurrences of gypsum deposits.

The passage from the Kalavasos to the Nicosia formations (Pliocene) is marked by the Messinian Erosional Surface (MES) and by the occurrence of the Block Formation. We also identified this “Block Formation” as a complement to its wide Mediterranean distribution (Bache et al., 2012) in northern Syria (Lattakie Basin), in southern Turkey (Hatay Basin) (Mocochain et al., 2015) where it is also covered by marine Pliocene sediments (systematically dated by the presence of Ceratolithus acutus).

The vertical succession of these five biostratigraphically constrained sections enable to build a schematic cross-section illustrating, from northwest to southeast, the sedimentary evolution in the PMB (Fig. 16). The presence of faults and repetitive incised valleys help to understand the extreme and rapid lateral variations in the facies, but also the ages and the vertical repetition of sedimentary facies in an environment intensely affected by tectonics.

thumbnail Fig. 15

Composite lithocloumn synthetizing the field observations and validated by biostratigraphic and SIS results.
thumbnail Fig. 16

Schematic composite cross section across the PMB illustrating the influence of local and regional tectonic on the sedimentation.

5 Discussion

5.1 Transition from the Lefkara to the Pakhna formations

The transition from the upper Lefkara Formation to the Pakhna Formation has been discussed by several researchers based on biostratigraphic and lithological proxies (Fig. 6). For instance, according to Henson et al., (1949), it corresponds to the post-Nummulitic unit according to Gass (1960) and Bagnall (1960a), to a change in the colour of the sedimentation, according to Cockbain (1960), to the end of the Burdigalian, and according to other researchers (Allen, 1967; Mantis, 1970), to the incoming of Orbulina universa and Globorotaria foshi. Baroz and Bizon (1977) later demonstrated that these early micropaleontologic works are difficult to use. To circumvent this pitfall, these authors attempted to use differences in the petrographic composition of the rocks. Finally, they concluded that, unfortunately, petrography was not a valid proxy to differentiate these formations.

Later, in a detailed study of the Pakhna Formation, Eaton (1987) used the lithological contrast between the chalky series of the Lefkara Formation and the marls and clastics of the Pakhna Formation to place the limit. In Eaton’s opinion (1987) this limit is gradational, consequently making it difficult to recognize. Based on new dating, the limit was placed between upper Burdigalian and lower Serravallian (NN4 to NN5) after Lord et al. (2000) (Figs. 5 and 6).

As is the case for the diachronous Lefkara Formation, the complex tectonic setting plays a role in the transition of these formations and this feature is discussed below.

Even if no major sedimentary unconformity was observed in the Kalavasos section, the end of the Nummulitic interval, as proposed by Henson et al. (1949), corresponds to a lacuna in the Upper Oligocene that we recognized in the present study and termed BH 1. This lacuna is covered by thin and reduced deep water series, with no noticeable reworked species. The second biostratigraphic hiatus, BH2, occurs just a few meters above and corresponds to a biostratigraphic gap covering the NN3 to NN5 biozones (upper Burdigalian to Langhian). Above the BH2, we identified Burdigalian and Langhian reworked species in Serravallian deposits.

In the present study, we interpret the transition from the Lefkara Formation to the Pakhna Formation in this section as being marked by an erosional surface separating calciturbidite and marl successions from an overlying clastic dominated unit. This unconformity surface is marked by a change in the colour of sediments across it. We termed this unconformity surface U2 and dated it intra upper Serravallian (NN6), in accordance with the age proposed for the same transition in other Cyprian basins by Baroz and Bizon (1977).

5.2 Tectonic and eustatic Messinian events

In the PMB the Messinian is characterised by tectonic and eustatic events chronologically constrained and recorded in the sedimentation.

The first event is tectonic and is characterized by the formation and the filling of an incised valley with conglomerate (i.e., Choirokitia conglomerate). This incised valley is nested in the Lefkara and Pakhna units over several km long (Fig. 3). The conglomerate petrographic composition shows the dismantling of the ophiolites of the Troodos Massif in the upstream drainage areas with rounded pebble morphologies and, in the proximal zones of the basin, brecciated reefal blocks. By comparing our results and the work of Manzi et al. (2016) and Gennari et al. (2018), it is possible to frame the formation of this incised valley around 6.1 Ma. This device illustrates a first phase of Troodos emersion in accordance with the ages proposed by Morag et al. (2016) Ring and Pantazides (2019). This incised valley system shows that about 100,000 yr before the outbreak of the MSC, land appeared to emerge just north of the PMB.

The Messinian Salinity Crisis (MSC) is characterized by two successive drops in sea level (Clauzon et al., 1996; CIESM, 2008). The first drop, with a maximum amplitude of about 200 m, is responsible for the deposition of gypsum series in the peripheral Messinian basins, of which the PMB is a part, in both the Eastern and Western Mediterranean (CIESM, 2008; Lugli et al., 2010). The second drop has an amplitude of 600 m for the Eastern Mediterranean (Gvirtzman et al., 2022). Many of its modalities and sedimentary consequences are still debated today (Andreetto et al., 2021; Haq et al., 2020), but what cannot be debated is the existence of the SEM, which has been identified throughout the Mediterranean, in both the western and eastern basins (Hsü et al., 1973; Ryan and Cita, 1978, Genesseaux and Lefèvre, 1980, Barber, 1981, Guennoc et al., 2000), with the existence of huge canyons that incised the continents over hundreds of km − evidence qualified as decisive by Georges Clauzon (Clauzon, 1982; CIESM, 2008). The Messinian Erosional Surface (MES) corresponds to the dismantling of basin margins by a process of subaerial erosion (Chumakov, 1973; Clauzon, 1973, 1982; Rizzini et al., 1978; Barber, 1981; Bache et al., 2009; Urgeles et al., 2011; Bertoni and Cartwright, 2007; see also a recent synthesis in Ryan, 2008). If there is a hinterland with a developed watershed, then this erosion surface extends onshore in the form of deep, V-shaped valleys cut into the bedrock on continental areas sometimes far from the Messinian coastline, such as beneath the lakes of the Southern Alps (Bini et al., 1978; Finckh, 1978; Rizzini & Dondi, 1978), the Var Canyon (Clauzon, 1978) and the Rhône canyon (Clauzon, 1973, 1982; Do Couto et al., 2024) in Southern France, the Afiq Canyon in Israel (Druckman et al., 1995) and the Nile Delta (Chumakov, 1973; Rizzini et al., 1978; Barber, 1981). During the reflooding of the Mediterranean, all these canyons were submerged and then infilled by deltaic sedimentation during the Pliocene. The absence of this canyon/deltaic filling diptic cannot be interpreted as the absence of the great eustatic fall, contrary to Roveri et al., (2014b), but as the absence of significant hydrographic drainage, as is the case for the PMB and several other Cypriot basins (Mesaoria, Polemi and Pissouri to name the most important). On the contrary, this surface is manifested by the presence of the Block Formation (BF), which is the result of massive erosion of the gypsum series subjected to basin exondation. This BF has been interpreted as debris flows discharging onto the SEM (Bache et al., 2012). The development of these debris flows was stopped during the Mediterranean reflooding before being buried under Pliocene sediments (Fig. 13). In the Cypriot basins, of which the PMB is a good example, Pliocene sedimentation is not strictly deltaic, which is an argument in favor of the absence of a significant hydrographic network unlike the current landscape. We can therefore assume that Cyprus, during the MSC and part of the Pliocene was very low-lying and in a period of tectonic quiescence, which is in line with the idea proposed by Harrison et al., 2013, Ring and Pantazides, 2019 & Aksu et al., 2021.

5.3 Biostratigraphic hiatuses

Two biostratigraphic hiatuses have been identified in the PMB. Chronologically, a first, unnamed, biostratigraphic lacuna spanning the Middle Eocene (Bartonian) is possibly only due to the absence of sampling between the Pano Lefkara and Kalavasos sections. This absence may also be due to scree, although the potential thickness of the gap is thin. Nevertheless, eastward of this area, near the village of Kofinou, about 50 m of Bartonian to Priabonian have been dated by Peybernes et al. (2005).

The two named hiatuses BH 1 and BH 2 are biostratigraphic and do not correspond to observed erosional unconformity in the outcrop while dating is abruptly interrupted.

  • (i)

    - BH 1 corresponds to a hiatus spanning part of the upper Rupelian, and Chattian (NP 23 to NP 25), which could suggest a deepening of the PMB.

  • (ii)

    - BH 2 corresponds to a hiatus spanning the Middle Miocene, NN3 to the lower part of NN6, which is a lacuna of the Burdigalian and Langhian.

BH2 corresponds to a biostratigraphic hiatus covering the Burdigalian and Langhian (NN3 to the lower part of NN6). However, there is significant reworking of Burdigalian and Langhian species in the Serravailen deposits. The Burdigalian and Langhian faunas were probably sedimented in the upstream parts of the PMB before being reworked in the Serravalian but before the U2 unconformity. In this way, BH2 could correspond to the beginnings of a tectonic impulse that would later mark local sedimentation by 1/ an erosive unconformity (U2) and 2/ a change in sedimentation with a gradual increase in coarser clastics.

5.4 Unconformity surfaces

Age and duration of each unconformity are summarized in Table 3. These surfaces can be split into two categories: those very possibly tectonically induced, with a clear angular geometry at the outcrop, and the others. Because the subduction/obduction is a continuous process since the Early Cretaceous times, one can argue that all the identified unconformities are tectonically controlled.

  • The U1 surface is a diachronous tectonic and morphologic surface: in the PMB, it corresponds to the diachronous (Paleocene to Lower Eocene) fossilization of ophiolites. Beneath U1 a conglomeratic monogenic series, which has been interpreted as a mass transport deposit, is present all around the PMB and is mainly composed of chalky chunks of the Lefkara Formation. This conglomerate may either be related to local tectonic or testify to lower Lefkara syn-tectonic activity. This tectonic instability was moreover identified by Peybernes et al. (2005), who determined a Maastrichtian to Lower to Middle Paleocene age. The Lefkara Chalks passively fossilize the induced submarine reliefs, event also observable in many other places in Cyprus (Fig. 4). If distinctive markers could be traced inside the Lefkara Formation, it would be as well possible to propose a paleotopography of the seafloor at that time.

  • The U2 surface separates the Lefkara from the Pakhna formations and, in a few places, is a low angular discontinuity.

  • The U3 surface occurs within the Pakhna Formation and it is dated intra upper Tortonian (NN11a). It marks the erosional base of the coarse calcarenite units containing the first conglomerate in the Tochni section (Fig. 7).

  • The U4 surface is a tectonically controlled angular unconformity, fossilized by diatomite levels. It is not precisely dated but occurs in the uppermost Tortonian, just prior to the Messinian. It also marks the top of the last non-gypsiferous series.

  • The U5 surface constitutes the floor and sides of the incised valley filled by the Choirokoitia conglomeratic Complex.

  • From U2 up to U5, the discrete calcarenitic layers coarsen and thicken, possibly indicating an overall shallowing upward trend which is probably more pronounced in the upstream areas of the PMB.

  • The onset of the Messinian Salinity Crisis, characterized elsewhere with the first identification of gypsum deposits, is found a few meters below the inferred U6 unconformity surface which, in the Tochni Section, marks the base of metric reworked blocks of carbonate. Since the blocks unconformably rest on planar layers of interbedded gypsum and marly beds, this U6 cryptic surface is the second intra-Messinian surface very possibly tectonically induced.

  • The U7 corresponds to the Messinian Erosional Surface (MES) and not the base of the gypsum layers, since gypsarenites also exist in the Lago Mare deposits. The key morphological point is that, when identified, the ‘Block Formation’ fossilizes the MES (Fig. 13). The deposits underlying U7 have very low to nil dip angles, suggesting that tectonics did not play a significant role in its genesis.

  • In contrast to the MES and the BF, the Pliocene sedimentation is characterized by a marine environment and bioclastic deltaic deposits. The U8 unconformity surface is slightly erosive and marks the base of the Pleistocene deltas discussed elsewhere by McCallum and Robertson (1995), Kinnaird (2008) and Waters (2010).

  • This Pleistocene deltaic formation is eroded by the highest alluvial Quaternary terrace (U9 unconformity) which marks the beginning of distinctly continental sedimentation (Fig. 15).

Table 3

Context, age and duration of unconformities in the Psematisménos-Maroni Basin.

6 Conclusions

Our study proposes a reference chrono-stratigraphic calendar to help us understand this part of Cyprus. We consider that these results are not directly transposable to the sub-basins of Northern Cyprus. These results do, however, make it possible to identify and characterize stratigraphic and sedimentological differences as markers of events that may be diachronic from one basin to another. The same approach could use known events on a regional scale, such as the MSC, to study the causes of these differences. One example is the occurrence or non-occurrence of the BF in basins that have all been exposed to the MSC.

The chrono-stratigraphic results obtained from the PMB study allow us to discuss some of the chronological limits used in the current Cyprus sedimentary charte. Our results show significant biostratigraphic gaps within the Lefkara formation, which are not necessarily associated with unconformities while significant species reworking is observed. These gaps could represent the beginnings of the tectonic influence on sedimentation, which will become increasingly marked later on. Subsequent to these gaps, we were able to identify and assign an age to seven discontinuities that we attributed to the influence of tectonics on sedimentation.

We demonstrate, for example, that the transition from the Lefkara Formation to the Pakhna Formation is marked by lithological changes and a locally erosional unconformity. We consider that this significant transition on the Cyprus scale marks an acceleration of obduction, manifested by a progressive increase in coarse clastic sedimentation.

In the PMB, the thickness of the Messinian evaporitic series is low (less than 20 m), in contrast to other sub-basins such as Pissouri and Mesaoria. This basin must have been at shallow water depth during the first stage of the MSC. This situation could be related to earlier tectonic uplift, reflected in the sedimentation of the basin by the arrival of very coarse conglomeratic fmt gullying over all the previous formations (i.e., Choirikitia channel).

This study also shows that the MES is well expressed in the PMB with the systematic identifiacation of the BF in the vicinity of the gypsum layers. This basin was therefore subjected to strong erosion during the major sea level fall. This BF characterizes the lightning marine re-flooding at the end of the MSC, and makes it possible to identify and map the surface of the MES (Fig. 3).

Finally, the uplift of the Troodos ophiolitic massif intensified in the Pleistocene, with the highest alluvial terrace rising to over 160 metres above the bed of the Pendaskinos Potamos River, which is parallel to the Choirokoitia channel.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to TotalEnergies for allowing the results of this study to be published. This work was part of the GRI “Tethys Sud” program sponsored by TotalEnergies. Georges Clauzon actively contributed to the first field trip in Cyprus. We are also grateful Miss Eva Braichel for here contribution in editing the English text.

Project No. 23/2021 − Research of Excellence for evidencing environmental and biotical changes in ancient and recent aquatic systems - AMBIACVA, financed by the Romanian Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization.

References

  • Allen CG. 1967. Micropalaeontology of Cyprus, report of activities, discussions, conclusions and recommendations. In: 1965 and 1966, unpublished report. Cyprus Geological Survey. [Google Scholar]
  • Andreetto F, Aloisi G, Raad F, Heida H, Flecker R, Agiadi K, et al. 2021. Freshening of the Mediterranean Salt Giant: controversies and certainties around the terminal (Upper Gypsum and Lago-Mare) phases of the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Earth-Sci Rev 216: 103577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103577. [Google Scholar]
  • Aksu AE, Hall J, Yaltırak C. 2021. Miocene-Quaternary tectonic, kinematic and sedimentary evolution of the eastern Mediterranean Sea: A regional synthesis. Earth-Sci Rev 220: 103719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2021.228953. [Google Scholar]
  • Bache F, Olivet JL, Gorini C, Rabineau M, Baztan J, Aslanian D, et al. 2009. Messinian erosional and salinity crises: view from the Provence Basin (Gulf of Lions, Western Mediterranean). Earth Planet Sci Lett 286 (1-2): 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2009.06.021. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bache F, Popescu S-M., Rabinau M, Gorini Ch, Suc J-P, Clauzon G, et al. 2012. A two-step process for the reflooding of the Mediterranean after the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Basin Res 24-2: 125–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2011.00521.x. [Google Scholar]
  • Bagnall PS. 1960a. The geology and mineral resources of the Pano Lefkara-Larnaca area, Cyprus. Geological Survey Department Memoir n°5. Cyprus Geological Survey. [Google Scholar]
  • Bagnall PS. 1960b. Pano Lefkara − Larnaca area Geological map. Published by: Cyprus Geological Survey. [Google Scholar]
  • Banner F, Lord A, Fadel M. 1999. The Terra limestone member (Miocene) of western Cyprus. Greifswalder Geowissenschaftliche Beitrage 6: 489–501. [Google Scholar]
  • Barber PM. 1981. Messinian subaerial erosion of the proto-Nile Delta. Marine Geol 44 (3-4): 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(81)90053-0. [Google Scholar]
  • Baroz F, Bizon G. 1977. La couverture tertiaire du flanc nord du massif du Troodos et de la partie mériDOInale de la Mesaoria; étude stratigraphique et micropaléontologique. Revue de l’Institut Français du Pétrole et Annales des Combustibles Liquides 32-5: 719–760. [Google Scholar]
  • Biju-Duval B, Letouzay J, Montadert L. 1978. Structure and evolution of the Mediterranean Basins. In Hsu J., Montadert L. et al. eds. Initial Reports of the Deep-Sea Drilling Project. Washington D. C. : Government Printing Office, 42(Part 1) pp. 951–981. [Google Scholar]
  • Bishopp DW. 1952. The Troödos massif, Cyprus. Nature 169: 489–490. https://doi.org/10.1038/169489a0. [Google Scholar]
  • Bini A, Cita MB, Gaetani M. 1978. Southern Alpine lakes: hypothesis of an erosional origin related to the Messinian entrenchment. Marine Geol 27 (3-4): 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(78)90035-X. [Google Scholar]
  • Bertoni C, Cartwright JA. 2007. Major erosion at the end of the Messinian Salinity Crisis: evidence from the Levant Basin, Eastern Mediterranean. Basin Res 19 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2006.00309.x. [Google Scholar]
  • BouDagher-Fadel M, Lord A. 2006. Illusory stratigraphy decoded by Oligocene-Miocene autochthonous and allochthonous forams in the Terra Member, Pakhna formation (Cyprus). Stratigraphy 3-3: 217–226. [Google Scholar]
  • CIESM. 2008. The Messinian salinity crisis from Mega-deposits to Microbiology. A consensus report. CIESM Workshop Monographs 33: 168p. https://ciesm.org/online/monographs/33/WM_33_39_44.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • Chumakov IS. 1973. Geological history of the Mediterranean at the end of the Miocene − the beginning of the Pliocene according to new data. In Ryan WBF, Hsü KJ, Nesterof W, Pautot G, Wezel WC, Lort J, Cita MB, Mayne W, Stradner H, Dumitrica P, eds. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. Washington, D. C. 13, pp. 1241–1242. [Google Scholar]
  • Clauzon G. 1973. The eustatic hypothesis and the pre-Pliocene cutting of the Rhone Valley. In Ryan WBF, Hsü KJ, Nesterof W, Pautot G, Wezel WC, Lort J, Cita MB, Mayne W, Stradner H, Dumitrica P, eds. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. Washington, D. C. 13, pp. 1241–1242. [Google Scholar]
  • Clauzon G. 1978. The Messinian Var Canyon (Provence, Southern France) − Paleogeographic implications. Marine Geol 27 (3-4): 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(78)90033-6. [Google Scholar]
  • Clauzon G. 1982. Le canyon messinien du Rhône; une preuve décisive du“ desiccated deep-basin model” (Hsü, Cita and Ryan, 1973). Bulletin de la Société géologique de France 7 (3): 597–610. https://doi.org/10.2113/gssgfbull.S7-XXIV.3.597. [Google Scholar]
  • Clauzon G, Suc J-P., Gautier F, Berger A, Loutre M-F. 1996. Alternate interpretation of the Messinian salinity crisis: Controversy resolved? Geology 24: 363–366. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1996)024:2.3.CO;2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Clauzon G, Suc J-P., Popescu S-M., Marunteanu M, Rubino J-L., Marinescu F, et al. 2005. Influence of the Mediterranean sea-level changes over the Dacic Basin (Eastern Paratethys) in the Late Neogene. The Mediterranean Lago Mare facies deciphered. Basin Res 17: 437–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2005.00269.x. [Google Scholar]
  • Cockbain AE. 1960. The stratigraphic distribution of foraminifera in Cyprus. In: Annual Report of the Geological Survey Department for the year 1959. Cyprus Geological Survey. [Google Scholar]
  • Davies QJ. 2001. Climatic and Tectonic Controls on Deep Water Sedimentary Cyclicity − Evidence from the Miocene to Pleistocene of Cyprus. PhD thesis (unpublished). Open University. [Google Scholar]
  • Do Couto D., Cushing E. M., Mocochain L., Rubino J. L., Miquelis F., Hanot F., ... & Bellier, O. (2024). Messinian canyons morphology of the Rhône and Ardèche rivers (south-east France): new insights from seismic profiles. BSGF-Earth Sciences Bulletin, 195(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1051/bsgf/2024015 [Google Scholar]
  • Druckman Y, Buchbinder B, Martinotti GM, Tov RS, Aharon P. 1995. The buried Afiq Canyon (eastern Mediterranean, Israël): a case study of a Tertiary submarine canyon exposed in Late Messinian times. Marine Geol 123 (3-4): 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(94)00127-7. [Google Scholar]
  • Eaton S. 1987. The sedimentology of middle to late Miocene carbonates and evaporates in southern Cyprus. PhD thesis (unpublished), University of Edinburgh. [Google Scholar]
  • Eaton S, Robertson AHF. 1993. The Miocene Pakhna Formation, southern Cyprus and its relation to the Neogene tectonic evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean. Sediment Geol 86: 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/0037-0738(93)90026-2. [Google Scholar]
  • Elion P. 1983. Etude structurale et sédimentologique du bassin néogène de Pissouri (Chypre). PhD thesis, University Paris Sud-Orsay. [Google Scholar]
  • Evans AD, Teagle DA, Craw D, Henstock TJ, Falcon‐Suarez IH. 2021. Uplift and exposure of serpentinized massifs: modeling differential serpentinite diapirism and exhumation of the troodos mantle sequence, cyprus. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB021079. [Google Scholar]
  • Finckh PG. 1978. Are southern Alpine lakes former Messinian Canyons? Geophysical evidence for preglacial erosion in the southern Alpine lakes. Marine Geol 27 (3-4): 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(78)90036-1. [Google Scholar]
  • Follows EJ. 1992. Patterns of reef sedimentation and diagenesis in the miocene of cyprus. Sediment Geol 79: 225–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/0037-0738(92)90013-H. [Google Scholar]
  • Follows EJ, Robertson AHF, Scoffin TP. 1996. Tectonic controls of Miocene reefs and related carbonate facies in Cyprus. In: Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology 5: 295–315. [Google Scholar]
  • Gass IG. 1960. The geology and mineral resources of the Dhali area. Cyprus Geological Survey Department Memoir no.4, Cyprus Geological Survey. [Google Scholar]
  • Gass IG. 1968. Is the Troodos massif of Cyprus a fragment of Mesozoic Ocean floor? Nature 220: 39–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/220039a0. [Google Scholar]
  • Gass G, Masson-Smith D. 1963. The geology and gravity anomalies of the troodos massif, cyprus. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 255: 417–467. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1963.0009. [Google Scholar]
  • Gennari R, Lozar F, Turco E, Dela Pierre F, Lugli S S, Manzi V, et al. 2018. Integrated stratigraphy and paleoceanographic evolution of the pre-evaporitic phase of the Messinian Salinity Crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean as recorded in the Tokhni section (Cyprus island). Newsl Stratigr (in press) https://doi.org/10.1127/nos/2017/0350. [Google Scholar]
  • Gennesseaux M, Lefebvre D. 1980. Le Golfe du Lion et le paleo-Rhone messinien. Géol Méditerr 7 (1): 71–80. [Google Scholar]
  • Guennoc P, Gorini C, Mauffret A. 2000. Histoire géologique du Golfe du Lion et cartographie du rift oligo-aquitanien et de la surface messinienne. Géol Fr (3): 67–97. [Google Scholar]
  • Güneş P, Aksu AE, Hall J. 2018. Structural framework and deformation history of the western Cyprus Arc. Tectonophysics 744 : 438–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2018.07.023. [Google Scholar]
  • Gvirtzman Z, Heida H, Garcia-Castellanos D, Bar O, Zucker E, Enzel Y. 2022. Limited mediterranean sea-level drop during the Messinian salinity crisis inferred from the buried Nile canyon. Commun Earth Environ 3 (1): 216. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00540-4. [Google Scholar]
  • Haq B, Gorini C, Baur J, Moneron J, Rubino JL. 2020. Deep mediterranean’s messinian evaporite giant: how much salt? Glob Planet Change 184: 103052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2019.103052. [Google Scholar]
  • Harrison WE, Tsiolakis BD, Stone A, Lord JP, McGeehin JP, Mahan SA, et al. 2013. Late Pleistocene and Holocene uplift history of Cyprus: implications for active tectonics along the southern margin of the Anatolian microplate. Geol Soc London, Spec Publ 372: 561–584. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP372.3. [Google Scholar]
  • Henson FRS, Vernon BR, McGinty J. 1949. A synopsis of the stratigraphy and geological history of Cyprus (with discussion). Q J Geol Soc London 105 (1-4): 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.JGS1949.105.01-04.03. [Google Scholar]
  • Hernández-Molina FJ, Hüneke H, Rodríguez-Tovar FJ, Ng ZL, Llave E, Mena A, Gibb A., Chiarella D., Sammartino S., de la Vara, A. et al. 2022. Eocene to middle Miocene contourite deposits in Cyprus: A record of Indian Gateway evolution. Glob Planet Change 219: 103983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2022.103983. [Google Scholar]
  • Hilgen FJ, Krijgsman W. 1999. Cyclostratigraphy and astrochronology of the Tripoli diatomite Formation (pre-evaporite Messinian, Sicily, Italy). Terra Nova 11: 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3121. 1999.00221.x. [Google Scholar]
  • Houghton SD, Jenkins DG, Xenophontos C, Gass IG. 1990. Microfossil evidence for a latest Pliocene age for the Amathus and Khirokitia channel deposits, southern Cyprus and thereby unroofing of the Troodos Massif. In: Ophiolites: oceanic crustal analogues. Proceedings of the symposium Troodos 1987. Cyprus Geological Survey Department, pp. 231-234. [Google Scholar]
  • Hsü KJ, Ryan WB, Cita MB. 1973. Late Miocene desiccation of the Mediterranean. Nature 242: 240–244. https://doi.org/10.1038/242240a0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Janssen AW, Little CTS. 2010. Holoplanktonic gastropoda (Mollusca) from the Miocene of Cyprus: systematics and biostratigraphy. Palaeontology 53: 1111–1145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2010.00993.x. [Google Scholar]
  • Kahler G. 1994. Stratigraphy and sedimentology of the Lefkara formation, Cyprus (Paleogene to Early Neogene). PhD Thesis, University of Southampton. [Google Scholar]
  • Kempler D, Mart Y, Herut B, McCoy FW. 1996. Diapiric features in the southeastern Mediterranean Sea: possible indication of extension in a zone of incipient continental collision. Marine Geol 134 (3-4): 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(96)00032-1. [Google Scholar]
  • Kinnaird TC. 2008. Tectonic and sedimentary response to oblique and incipient continental − continental collision the easternmost Mediterranean (Cyprus). Ph. D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. [Google Scholar]
  • Kinnaird TC, Robertson AHF, Morris A. 2011. Timing of uplift of the Troodos Massif (Cyprus) constrained by sedimentary and magnetic polarity evidence. J Geol Soc 168: 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1144/0016-76492009-150. [Google Scholar]
  • Kinnaird T, Robertson AHF. 2013. Tectonic and sedimentary response to subduction and incipient continental collision in southern Cyprus, easternmost Mediterranean region. In: Geological Development of Anatolia and the Easternmost Mediterranean Region. Geol Soc London Spec Publ 372: 585–614. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP372.10. [Google Scholar]
  • Krijgsman W, Hilgen FJ, Raffi I, Sierro FJ, Wilson DS. 1999. Chronology, causes and progression of the Messinian salinity crisis. Nature 400 (6745): 652–655. https://doi.org/10.1038/23231. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Krijgsman W, Blanc-Valleron MM, Flecker R, Hilgen FJ, Kouwenhovent TJ, Merle D, et al. 2002. The onset of the Messinian salinity crisis in the eastern Mediterranean (Pissouri Basin, Cyprus). Earth Planet Sci Lett 194: 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(01)00574-X. [Google Scholar]
  • Lilljequist R. 1969. The geology and mineralisation of the Troulli Inlier. Cyprus Geol Surv Bull 4: 45–87. [Google Scholar]
  • Lofi J, Sage F, Déverchère J, Loncke L, Maillard A, Gaullier V, et al. 2011. Refining our knowledge of the Messinian salinity crisis records in the offshore domain through multi-site seismic analysis. Bull Soc Géol Fr 182 (2): 163–180. https://doi.org/10.2113/gssgfbull.182.2.163. [Google Scholar]
  • Lord AR, Panayides I, Urquhart E, Xenophontos C. 2000. A biochronostratigraphical framework for the Late Cretaceous-Recent circum-Troodos sedimentary sequence, Cyprus. In: Proceedings, Third International Conference on the geology of the Eastern Mediterranean. Cyprus Geological Survey. pp. 289–297. [Google Scholar]
  • Lord AR, Harrison RW, Boudagher-Fadel M, Byron D, Stoe BD, Osman Varol F O. 2009. Miocene mass-transport sediments, Troodos Massif, Cyprus. Proc Geol Assoc 120: 133–138. [Google Scholar]
  • Lugli S, Manzi V, Roveri M. and Schreiber BC, The Primary Lower Gypsum in the Mediterranean: a new facies interpretation for the first stage of the Messinian salinity crisis, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 297, 2010, 83–99. [Google Scholar]
  • Madof AS, Bertoni C, Lofi J. 2019. Discovery of vast fluvial deposits provides evidence for drawdown during the late Miocene Messinian salinity crisis. Geology 47-2: 171–174. https://doi.org/10.1130/G45873.1. [Google Scholar]
  • Mantis M. 1970. Upper Cretaceous − Tertiary foraminiferal zones in Cyprus. Cyprus Research Center, Nicosia 3: 227–241. [Google Scholar]
  • Mantis M. 1972. Some planktonic Foraminifera from the Paleogene of South Cyprus. Geol Surv Dept 5: 91–125. [Google Scholar]
  • Mantis M. 1977. Neogene biostratigraphy of Cyprus based on Planktonic foraminifera. Geographical Chronicles 7-12: 55–59. [Google Scholar]
  • Manzi V, Lugli S, Roveri M, Dela Pierre F F, S Gennari R, Lozar F, et al. 2014. The Messinian Salinity Crisis in Cyprus: a further step towards a new stratigraphic framework for Eastern Mediterranean. Basin Res 28: 207–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/bre.12107. [Google Scholar]
  • Manzi V, Gennari R, Hilgen F, Krijgsman W, Lugli S, Roveri M, et al. 2013. Age refinement of the Messinian salinity crisis onset in the Mediterranean. Terra Nova 25: 315–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12038. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Manzi V, Lugli S, Roveri M, Pierre FD, Gennari R, Lozar F, et al. 2016. The Messinian salinity crisis in Cyprus: a further step towards a new stratigraphic framework for Eastern Mediterranean. Basin Res 28-2: 207–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/bre.12107. [Google Scholar]
  • Martini E. 1971. Standard Tertiary and Quaternary calcareous nannoplankton zonation. In: Farinacci A, ed. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Planktonic Microfossils, Roma 1970. Rome: Editura Tecnoscienza Vol. 2, pp. 739–785. [Google Scholar]
  • McArthur JM, Howarth RJ, Shields GA. 2012. Strontium isotope stratigraphy. In Gradstein FM, Ogg JG, Schmitz MD, Ogg GM, eds. The Geologic Time Scale 2012. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1, 7, pp. 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824360–2.00007–3. [Google Scholar]
  • McCallum JE, Robertson AHF. 1995. Sedimentology of two fan-delta systems in the Pliocene-Pleistocene of the Mesaoria Basin, Cyprus. Sediment Geol 98: 215–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/0037-0738(95)00034-6. [Google Scholar]
  • Miguez-Salas O, Rodrıguez-Tovar FJ. 2019a. Stable deep-sea macrobenthic trace maker associations in disturbed environments from the Eocene Lefkara Formation, Cyprus. Geobios 52: 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geobios.2018.11.002. [Google Scholar]
  • Miguez-Salas O, Rodrıguez-Tovar FJ. 2019b. Ichnofacies distribution in the Eocene-Early Miocene Petra Tou Romiou outcrop, Cyprus: sea level dynamics and palaeoenvironmental implications in a contourite environment. Int J Earth Sci 108: 2531–2544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-019-01775-x. [Google Scholar]
  • Miguez-Salas O, Rodrıguez-Tovar FJ, Uchman A. 2019a. A new teichichnoid trace fossil Syringomorpha cyprensis from the Miocene of Cyprus. Palaios 34: 506–514. https://doi.org/10.2110/palo.2019.051. [Google Scholar]
  • Miguez-Salas O, Dorador J, Rodrıguez-Tovar FJ. 2019b. Introducing Fiji and ICY image processing techniques in ichnological research as a tool for sedimentary basin analysis. Mar Geol 413: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2019.03.013. [Google Scholar]
  • Mocochain L, Clauzon G, Suc J-P., Robinet J, Blanpied Ch, Rubino JL, et al. 2015. Some examples of peripheral basins affected by the Messinian salinity crisis in the eastern Mediterranean: Paper 11387 presented at European Geophysical Union General Assembly, Vienna, Austria, 12–17 April. [Google Scholar]
  • Moores EM, Vine FJ. 1971.The troodos massif, cyprus and other ophiolites as oceanic crust: evaluation and implications. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 268: 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1971.0006. [Google Scholar]
  • Morag N, Haviv I, Katzir Y. 2016. From ocean depths to mountain tops: uplift of the Troodos ophiolite (Cyprus) constrained by low‐temperature thermochronology and geomorphic analysis. Tectonics 35-3: 622–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015TC004069. [Google Scholar]
  • Morse TJ. 1996. Biostratigraphical constraints (calcareous nannofossils) on the Late Cretaceous to Late Miocene evolution of S.W. Cyprus. PhD thesis, Durham University. [Google Scholar]
  • Ogniben L. 1957. Petrografia della Serie Solfifera siciliana e considerazioni geologiche relative. Memorie Descrittive della Carta Geologica d’Italia 33: 275. [Google Scholar]
  • Orzag-Sperber F, Rouchy JM, Bizon G, Bizon JJ, Cravatte J, Müller C. 1980. La sédimentation messinienne dans le bassin de Polemi (Chypre). Géol Méditerr 7-1: 93–102. [Google Scholar]
  • Orzag-Sperber F, Caruso A, Blanc-Valleron MM, Merle D, Rouchy JM. 2009. The onset of the messinian salinity crisis. Insights from Cyprus sections. Sediment Geol 217: 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2009.03.006. [Google Scholar]
  • Pantazis TM. 1967. The geology and mineral resources of the Pharmakas-Kalavasos area. Cyprus Geological Survey Department Memoir no.8, Cyprus Geological Survey, 190 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Pantazis TM. 1978. Cyprus evaporites. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 42-2: 1185–1194. [Google Scholar]
  • Papadimitriou N, Gorini G, Nader FH, Deschamps R, Symeou V, Lecomte JG. 2018. Tectono −stratigraphic evolution of the western margin of the Levant Basin (offshore Cyprus). Mar Pet Geol 91: 683–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2018.02.006. [Google Scholar]
  • Peybernes B, Foncave-Wallez MJ, Cugny P. 2005. Diachronism in the sedimentary cover around the Troodos ophiolitic massif (Cyprus). Bull Soc Géol Fr 176: 161–169. https://doi.org/10.2113/176.2.161. [Google Scholar]
  • Popescu S-M., Cawazza W, Suc J-P., Melinte-Dobrinescu MC, Barhoun N, Gorini C. 2021. Pre-Zanclean end of the Messinian Salinity Crisis: new evidence from Central Mediterraneran reference sections. J Geol Soc 178: 3, jgs 2020–183. https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2020-183. [Google Scholar]
  • Popescu S-M., Dalibard M, Suc J-P., Barhoun N, Melinte-Dobrinescu MC, Bassetti MA, et al. 2015. Lago Mare episodes around the Messinian-Zanclean boundary in the deep southwestern Mediterranean. Mar Pet Geol 66: 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2015.04.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rizzini A, Vezzani F, Cococcetta V, Milad G. 1978. Stratigraphy and sedimentation of a Neogene-Quaternary section in the Nile Delta area (ARE). Mar Geol 27 (3-4): 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(78)90038-5. [Google Scholar]
  • Rizzini A, Dondi L. 1978. Erosional surface of Messinian age in the subsurface of the Lombardian Plain (Italy). Mar Geol 27 (3-4): 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(78)90037-3. [Google Scholar]
  • Ring U, Pantazides H. 2019. The Uplift of the Troodos Massif, Cyprus. Tectonics 38-8: 3124–3139. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019TC005514. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF. 1975. Studies of the pre-Miocene sedimentary cover of the Troodos Massif, Cyprus. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leicester. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF. 1976. Pelagic chalks and calciturbidites from the lower Tertiary of the Troodos Massif, Cyprus. J Sediment Pet 46-4: 1007–1016. https://doi.org/10.1306/212F70BD-2B24-11D7-8648000102C1865D. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF. 1977a. Tertiary uplift history of the Troodos Massif, Cyprus. Geol Soc Am Bull 88: 1763–1772. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1977)882.0.CO;2. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF. 1977b. The origin and diagenesis of cherts from Cyprus. Sedimentology 24: 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.1977.tb00117.x. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF. 1990. Tectonic evolution of Cyprus, in Ophiolites. Oceanic crustal analogues. Proceedings of the symposium “Troodos 1987”. Cyprus Geological Survey, pp 235–249. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF. 1998. Mesozoic-Tertiary tectonic evolution of the easternmost Mediterranean area: integration of marine and land evidence. In: Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program − Scientific Results 160: 723–782. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF. 2000. Tectonic evolution of Cyprus in its easternmost Mediterranean setting. In: Proceedings of Third International Conference on the Geology of the Eastern Mediterranean. Nicosia: Geological Survey Department, pp. 11-44. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF, Hudson JD. 1974. Pelagic sediments in the Cretaceous and Tertiary history of the Troodos Massif, Cyprus. In: Pelagic sediments on land and under the sea. International Association Sedimentology Special Publication 1: 403–436. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF, Woodcock NH. 1979. Mamonia complex, southwest Cyprus: the evolution and emplacement of a Mesozoic continental margin. Geol Soc Am Bull 90-7: 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1979)902.0.CO;2. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF, Dixon JE. 1984. Introduction: aspects of the geological evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean. In: the geological evolution of the eastern Mediterranean. Geol Soc Spec Publ 17: 1–74. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP1984.017.01.02. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF, Clift PD, Degnan PJ, Jones G. 1991a. Palaeooceanographic and palaeotectonic evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean Neotethys. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 87: 289–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-0182(91)90140-M. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF, Eaton SE, Follows EJ, McCullum JE. 1991b. The role of local tectonics versus global sea-level change in the Neogene evolution of the Cyprus active margin, in Sedimentation, tectonics and Eustasy, sea level changes at active margins. Special Publication Int Assoc Sedimentol 12: 331–369. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF, Eaton SE, Follows EJ, Payne AS. 1995a. Depositional processes and basin analysis of Messinian evaporites in Cyprus. Terra Nova 7: 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1995.tb00692.x. [Google Scholar]
  • Robertson AHF, Kidd RB, Ivanov MK, Limonov AF, Woodside JM, Galindo-Zaldivar J, et al. 1995b. Eratosthenes Seamount: collisional processes in the easternmost Mediterranean in relation to the Plio-Quaternary uplift of southern Cyprus. Terra Nova 7: 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1995.tb00693.x. [Google Scholar]
  • Rouchy JM. 1981. La genèse des évaporites messiniennes de Méditerranée. Ph. D. thesis, Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle et Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris VI. [Google Scholar]
  • Roveri M, Flecker R, Krijgsman W, Lofi J, Lugli S, Manzi V, et al. 2014. The Messinian Salinity Crisis: past and future of a great challenge for marine sciences. Mar Geol 352: 25–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2014.02.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Roveri M, Manzi V, Bergamasco A, Falcieri FM, Gennari R, Lugli S, et al. 2014b. Dense shelf water cascading and Messinian canyons: a new scenario for the Mediterranean salinity crisis. Am J Sci 314 (3): 751–784. https://doi.org/10.2475/05.2014.03. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ryan WB, Cita MB. 1978. The nature and distribution of Messinian erosional surfaces—Indicators of a several-kilometer-deep Mediterranean in the Miocene. Mar Geol 27 (3-4): 193–230. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ryan WB. 2008. Modeling the magnitude and timing of evaporative drawdown during the Messinian salinity crisis. Stratigraphy 5 (1): 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(78)90032-4. [Google Scholar]
  • Schirmer W. 2000. Neogene submarine relief and Troodos uplift in southeastern Cyprus. In: Proceedings of Third International Conference on the Geology of the Eastern Mediterranean, Geological Survey Department, Nicosia, pp. 125–134. [Google Scholar]
  • Suc JP, Gorini C, Rabineau M, Popescu SM, Leroux E, Bache F, et al. 2019. La Crise de salinité messinienne. Géochronique 151: 24–30. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02324527. [Google Scholar]
  • Suc J-P., Violanti D, Londeix L, Poumot C, Robert C, Clauzon G, et al. 1995. Evolution of the Messinian Mediterranean environments: the Tripoli Formation at Capodarso (Sicily, Italy). Rev Palaeobot Palynol 87: 51–79. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Swarbrick RE. 1993. Sinistral strike-slip and transpressional tectonics in an ancient oceanic setting: the Mamonia Complex, Southwest Cyprus. J Geol Soc London 150: 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.150.2.0381. [Google Scholar]
  • Turner WM. 1971. Geology of the Polis-Kathikas area, Cyprus. PhD thesis, University of New Mexico, United States. [Google Scholar]
  • Urgeles R, Camerlenghi A, Garcia‐Castellanos D, De Mol B, Garcés M, Vergés J, et al. 2011. New constraints on the Messinian sealevel drawdown from 3D seismic data of the Ebro Margin, western Mediterranean. Basin Res 23 (2): 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2010.00477.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Van Hinsbergen DJ, Torsvik TH, Schmid SM, Maţenco LC, Maffione M, Vissers RL, et al. 2020. Orogenic architecture of the Mediterranean region and kinematic reconstruction of its tectonic evolution since the Triassic. Gondwana Res 81: 79–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2019.07.009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Waters JV. 2010. Deciphering climatic controls on sedimentation in a tectonically active area, Cyprus. PhD thesis, Durham University. [Google Scholar]
  • Weisgerber F. 1978. Stratigraphie et Sédimentologie du Miocène terminal et du Pliocène inférieur au Sud de Chypre : la bordure méridionale du massif du Troodos. Rapport interne IFP, ref: 26194; 192p. [Google Scholar]
  • Xenophontos C, Zomenis S, Afrodisis S. 1987. The circum-Troodos sediments. In: Field Excursion Guidebook of the Symposium “Troodos 87 − Ophiolites and Oceanic Lithosphere”, Nicosia, Cyprus, pp. 109–124. [Google Scholar]
  • Zomenia Z. 2012. Quaternary Marine Terraces on Cyprus: Constraints on Uplift and Pedogenesis, and the Geoarchaeology of Palaipafos. PhD Thesis, Nicosia. [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Mocochain L, Blanpied C, Revillon S, Suc JP, Müller C, Melinte-Dobrinescu MC. 2025. The Psematismenos-Maroni Basin (South Cyprus): Cenozoic tectonic and sedimentary evolution. BSGF - Earth Sciences Bulletin 196: 22. https://www.bsgf.fr/10.1051/bsgf/2024020

All Tables

Table 1

Biostratigraphic results from outcrop samples of the PMB.

In the text
Table 2

Results of Sr analysis.

In the text
Table 3

Context, age and duration of unconformities in the Psematisménos-Maroni Basin.

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1

Simplified geological map of Cyprus with the main structural units. The carton marks the Psematismenos-Maroni basin study area.From 1:250 000-scale geological map of the Geological Survey Department Cyprus 1995, and modified from Bagnall, 1960b and Kinnaird, 2008.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 2

The post-ophiolite stratigraphic units of Cyprus Island (from Follows 1992, modified).
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 3

Simplified geological map of the PMB with location of sections (yellow stars) and location of paleontologically dating (yellow square) where the contact between the Lefkara fm and the basement was identified).
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 4

The Pano-Lefkara section near the Pano-Lefkara Village (log coordinates: N 34°51’29.89" E 33°19’1.34” & Top: N 34°51’27.09" E 33°18’32.27").
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 5

The Kalavasos section in the Kalavasos Village (log coordinates: Base N 34°46’16.98” E 33°17’59.22” Top N 34°45’58.63 E 33°18’12.97").
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 6

Location of several samples in the Kalavasos section. The U2 unconformity is indicated at the base of the orange deposits.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 7

The Tochni composite section in the vicinity of the Tochni Village (coordinates: Base N 34°46’59.12” E 33°19’20.37“ Top N 34°47’1.88“ E 33°19’22.83").
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 8

Angular unconformity between calcarenite and diatomites deposits (coordinates: N34°47’6.21” E33°19’20.56”).
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 9

Microphotograph 1 shows abundant foraminifera within a micritic cement.’ Microphotographs 2–3 show large crystals. Microphotographs 2–4 show microcrystalline zones with veins filled with micritic material.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 10

The Pendaskinos composite section (coordinates: Base N 34°46’37.81” E 33°24’7.06” Top N 34°46’34.70” E 33°24’19.35").
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 11

The Psematismenos section (coordinates: Base N 34°46’27.46” E 33°20’41.78” Top N 34°46’24.60” E 33°20’26.97").
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 12

Focus on the first occurrence of reworked gypsum within turbidites just above the base of the Psematismenos section (coordinates: N 34°46’26.33” E 33°20’39.06”).
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 13

The stratigraphic relationship between the Block Formation and the Messinian Erosional Surface in the Psematismenos section (coordinates: N 34°46’29.38” E 33°20’33.87”).
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 14

Two interpretations of the Choirokoitia Conglomerate. Left, lateral shift of channelled conglomerates in a synchronous sedimentary context (Schirmer, 2000) Right, our interpretation as a typical incised valley witch in a diachronous sedimentary context (coordinates: N 34°48’0.91” E 33°20’9.12“).
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 15

Composite lithocloumn synthetizing the field observations and validated by biostratigraphic and SIS results.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 16

Schematic composite cross section across the PMB illustrating the influence of local and regional tectonic on the sedimentation.
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.