EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 197 (2026) BSGF - Earth Sci. Bull., 197 (2026) 2 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
BSGF - Earth Sci. Bull.
Volume 197, 2026
Article Number 2
Number of page(s) 24
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/bsgf/2025021
Published online 26 January 2026

© J.-P. Suc et al., Published by EDP Sciences 2026

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

The Messinian Crisis (MC) was a huge and brief event in the latest Miocene, which impacted the entire Mediterranean Basin and its paleo-appendices such as the Eastern Paratehys (Black Sea and Dacic Basin), the Aegean Basin and the Apennine Foredeep, caused by severe restriction of connection between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean (Fig. 1; Hsüw et al., 1973; Hsü and Giovanoli, 1979-1980; Clauzon et al., 2005; Jolivet et al., 2006; Ryan, 2023; Krijgsman et al., 2024; Roveri et al., 2025). The main characteristics of this outstanding event were the deposition of a salt giant and intense erosion from the margins to the deep basins. Immediate and postponed consequences of this event affected the regional paleogeography, the sedimentary filling of basins, and biogeography at a large scale. Aiming to close more than forty years of debate about the diverse scenarios of the MC, the CIESM meeting held in Almería in 2007 validated the recognition of the Clauzon et al. (1996) two-step scenario and the paper that resulted from the discussions presented agreement on main points and discussed various controversial items (CIESM, 2008). Then, Roveri et al. (2014a) published a scenario presented as being inspired by Clauzon et al.’s (1996) scenario. However, this new scenario shows many critical divergences with the Clauzon et al.’s scenario.

Being challenged by the extensive reference made to the Roveri et al.’s (2014a) scenario, often presented as the scenario agreed in general (e.g.: Roveri et al., 2019, 2025; Andreetto et al., 2021; van Dijk et al., 2023; Krijgsman et al., 2024), we aim at clarifying how much the two-step scenario (Clauzon et al., 1996), successively further developed by Bache et al. (2012, 2015), Popescu et al. 2015,2021) and Suc et al. (2023), differs from the Roveri et al.’s (2014a) scenario. As detailed below (Fig. 2), the two scenarios (Roveri vs. Clauzon) mainly differ (1) in the environmental context (marginal to deep vs. marginal) of the Sicilian Basin and the resulting estimated chronology of its Messinian units, (2) in the nature (subaerial to submarine vs. only subaerial) erosion caused by the sea-level drop and its resulting estimated chronology, and (3) in the chronology of the Lago Mare (only one event vs. three distinct episodes) and the significance of this biofacies (Paratethys overflow during the sea-level lowstand vs. two Mediterranean-Paratethys crossed exchanges during higstands of sea level with an intercalated Paratethys overflow during the sea-level lowstand).

In addition, here we report on new data, discuss how the data are consistent with the two-step scenario, and illustrate the great differences between responses of the various types of basins to the MC (Fig. 1).

thumbnail Fig. 1

Map of the Mediterranean Basin s.l. with a sketch of the paleogeographic context during the second (paroxysmal) step of the Messinian Crisis, with a focus on the evaporites in the central basins (Haq et al., 2020), the isolated (perched) basins (West Alboran: Booth-Rea et al., 2018; Apennine Foredeep: Pellen et al., 2017, 2021; Eastern Paratethys including the Aegean Basin: Popescu et al., 2015; Suc et al., 2015a), the fluvial canyons (Bache et al., 2012; Pellen et al., 2019; addition references in the Supplementary material), and the submarine canyons in the Southeastern Levantine Basin (Buchbinder and Zilberman, 1997; Moneron and Gvirtzman, 2022). The map is elaborated using GeoMapApp (Ryan et al., 2009).

Carte de la Méditerranée s.l. dans le contexte paléogéographique du second stade (paroxysmal) de la Crise messinienne.
thumbnail Fig. 2

Compared scenarios with their own chronology. MES: Messinian Erosional Surface. LM 1, LM 2, LM 3: successive Lago Mare episodes. LE: Sicilian Lower Evaporites. UE: Sicilian Upper Evaporites. The central basin units refer to Lofi et al. (2011).

Comparaison entre les scénarios avec leur propre chronologie.

2 The scenarios

2.1 The Clauzon et al. (1996) scenario

The two-step scenario (Clauzon et al., 1996; Bache et al., 2012, 2015; Popescu et al., 2015, 2021; Suc et al., 2023) clearly differentiates in space and time the peripheral (shallow to relatively deep) basins from the central (deep) basins (Fig. 2). The central basins benefit from a refined terminology of the seismic units (Lofi et al., 2011). The Sicilian Caltanissetta Basin, although relatively deep in its southern part, was assigned to the peripheral basins (Fig. 2) as supported by chronological data (Gautier et al., 1994), paleoenvironmental considerations (Grasso and Pedley, 1988), geomorphological-sedimentological observations (Butler et al., 1995; Bache et al., 2012), seismic stratigraphy and regional correlations (Haq et al., 2020; El Euch-El Koundi et al., 2009; Popescu et al., 2021), and palinspastic reconstructions (Pellen et al., 2021). Chronology of this scenario has progressively been updated thanks to successive new data (Fig. 2; Bache et al., 2012; Do Couto et al., 2014; Clauzon et al., 2015a; Popescu et al., 2015, 2021; Suc et al., 2023). In addition to the thoroughness in separating peripheral from central basins, the specific attributes of the scenario are:

2.2 The Roveri et al. (2014a) scenario

This scenario arises from the consideration of the Sicilian Caltanissetta Basin within both reference basin types, the marginal (= our peripheral) basins and the deep (= our central) basins (Fig. 2). This concept is based on (1) the interpretation of the Sicilian Eraclea Minoa section (Roveri et al., 2008a) as a continuous marginal Messinian-Zanclean succession that is discussed hereafter, and (2) the fact to consider the Apennine Foredeep representative of the whole Mediterranean (Roveri et al., 2001). As consequences of these assumptions, the Sicilian Upper Evaporites has become the equivalent to the Upper Unit (UU: Lofi et al., 2011) of the central basins, the Salt Member of Sicily has been correlated with the Mobile Unit of the central basins, and only one Lago Mare event has been considered, which is identified by dreissenids and limnocardiids, and usually by ostracods (Roveri et al., 2019). The meaning of the Messinian Erosional Surface (MES) in the Roveri et al.’s (2014a) scenario is a serious concern because (1) it is indicated in both marginal basins and deep basins, where it is overlain by the evaporites, and (2) the presence of erosion at the same time at different depths implies a bivalent or even unclear nature, being subaerial in marginal areas and submarine in deeper areas (Roveri et al., 2014b-c, 2019).

2.3 Elements of agreement and disagreement between the two scenarios

To summarize, agreement between the two scenarios exists on two points (Fig. 2):

The major subjects of disagreement are the estimated amplitude of the Mediteranean Sea-level fall at the peak of the MC and the duration of the peak (Fig. 2):

The divergence is also great about only one Lago Mare event claimed by Roveri et al. (2014) versus three Lago Mare episodes corresponding to two different contexts proposed by Clauzon et al. (2005). In addition to the above points of disagreements, the Gilbert-type fan deltas, developed in many peri-Mediterranean Messinian fluvial valleys, which illustrate the suddenness and amplitude of the marine reflooding (Bache et al., 2012; Clauzon et al., 2015a-b; Suc et al., 2015a) have not been considered in the Roveri et al. (2014a) scenario.

3 Material and methods

Our work first results from field stratigraphic investigations with a chief task: the recognition of the MES, most often beneath Zanclean deposits. Such contacts are usually neglected or unidentified, often interpreted as faults even if they show a meander morphology (e.g.: Clauzon et al., 2015b). Two examples are shown in Figure 3 (Onifai, near Orosei, East Sardinia: Giresse et al., 2015; Suc et al., 2019; Maillard et al., 2020; Trilophos near Thessalonica, North Greece: Suc et al., 2015a; Fig. 1) where the MES is similarly overlain by foreset beds of a nested Gilbert-type fan delta, the bottomset beds of which are dated from 5.35 to 5.28 Ma based on our record in both locations of the calcareous nannofossils Ceratolithus acutus and Orthorabdus (ex. Triquetrorhabdulus) rugosus (see the biochronostratigraphy of calcareous nannoplankton in Fig. S2).

Our second important task is (1) to date deposits using planktonic foraminifera and/or calcareous nannofossils, and (2) to reconstruct paleoenvironments using dinoflagellate cysts. Several new results are presented in this paper, which used the classical methods for preparing samples (see Supplementary material). Biostratigraphic events of planktonic foraminifera are based on Lirer et al. (2019), and those of calcareous nannofossils refer to Martini (1971), Perch-Nielsen (1985), Young (1998), and Raffi et al. (2006) (Fig. S2). Dinoflagellate cyst taxa are grouped according to their surface-water tolerance, nutritional strategy, and geographical provenance based on Warny and Wrenn (2002), Londeix et al. (2007), and Popescu et al. (2009) with modifications.

The observation of Gilbert-type fan deltas similarly overlying the MES is a strong argument for a sudden, large-scale marine flooding, and some authors have questioned the identification of Ceratolithus acutus, claiming to have been confused for destructed fragments of ascidian spicules (Golovina et al., 2019; Krijgsman et al., 2020b). Nevertheless, only very few specimens of spicules fragments illustrated by Golovina et al. (2019: see Fig. 8 in that paper) might resemble C. acutus. Strangely, Ceratolithus acutus-shaped ascidian spicules would have proliferated exactly when C. acutus appeared! The probability is very low that all the fragmented spicules of ascidians may have an indisputable shape of C. acutus and the confusion is easy to avoid when mastered by specialists, particularly with the plethora of C. acutus records in the Mediterranean (Popescu et al., 2017 and references herein).

thumbnail Fig. 3

Exposed Messinian Erosional Surface and nested Zanclean deposits. a, Onifai (Orosei), East Sardinia. b, Trilophos (Thessalonica), North Greece. Vertical scale bar = 1 m. Photographs by J.-P. Suc.

Examples de la Surface d’érosion messinienne à l’affleurement et de dépôts zancléens emboîtés

4 Major matters of debate

Four major points concentrate the debate between the two scenarios. They concern (1) the Sicilian Eraclea Minoa section whose the chronostratigraphic interpretation significantly differs, (2) the nature of erosion, subaerial and/or submarine, (3) the Lago Mare as a single episode or multiple episodes in different paleoenvironmental contexts, and (4) the age of the marine reflooding at 5.46 Ma or 5.33 Ma.

4.1 Continuity vs. discontinuity at the Messinian-Zanclean contact in Sicily

Eraclea Minoa is a key-section from southern Sicily (Fig. 1) showing a well-exposed succession of the Sicilian Upper Evaporites overlain by the Lago Mare Formation, the Arenazzolo Unit, and the Zanclean Trubi (Fig. 4a, b, d). The Zanclean GSSP (Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point) at 5.33 Ma is placed at the base of the latter formation that is supposed to be in a continuous chronological succession with the underlying Messinian deposits (Fig. 4e; Van Couvering et al., 2000). There, the Sicilian Upper Evaporites overlie the Lower Evaporitic Unit (rich in halite), the contact between the two successions being assigned to a fault and to an erosional surface (Roveri et al., 2009). This discontinuity is assigned to the MES because it separates the Primary Lower Gypsum from overlying reworked gypsarenites (Roveri et al., 2008). The latter unit is greatly deformed hence its chaotic aspect (Fig. 4c), which makes it very difficult to appreciate if the inferred erosional surface is relevant. Its ascription to the MES only depends on the correlation with the Apennine Foredeep succession (Roveri et al., 2008b). We disagree with the inclusion of the chaotic Primary Gypsum, dislocated by a submarine collapse, to the MES. This interpretation results in placing the Sicilian halite in the second step of the MC (Manzi et al., 2021a). The northern part of the Caltanissetta Basin exhibits at thick deltaic construction following a fluvial erosion by the Salso River (Butler et al., 1995; Maniscalco et al., 2019). These deltaic conglomerates are rich in pebbles of reworked gypsum that has been assigned to the Sicilian Lower Evaporites (Butler et al., 1995; Maniscalco et al., 2019). However, these reworked gypsum pebbles could otherwise be assigned to the Sicilian Upper Evaporites, which are abundantly exposed in the area (Tzevahirtzian et al., 2023).

On the other side of the present Sicily-Tunisia Strait, offshore Tunisia, provided evidence of two peripheral evaporitic sequences of similar composition and thickness to the Sicilian Messinian series (El Euch-El Koundi et al., 2009). This Tunisian succession is cut by a deep fluvial canyon filled by Zanclean clays (El Euch-El Koundi et al., 2009). Our investigations along the Eraclea Minoa section established a gap in sedimentation and some erosion at the top of the Lago Mare Formation, showing moreover the transgressive status of the overlying Arenazzolo Unit (Fig. 3f; Bache et al., 2012). This discontinuity is considered to illustrate the marine reflooding of the Mediterranean that is, in addition, supported by dinoflagellate cyst records (Popescu et al., 2009, 2021; Bache et al., 2012). Collectively these data are supportive of the peripheral status that we propose for the Sicilian Caltanissetta Basin (Fig. 2), the Messinian-Zanclean history of which might have been symmetric to that of Northern Tunisia (El Euch-El Koundi et al., 2009; Popescu et al., 2021). This interpretation is consistent with the subaerial erosion evidenced along the Malta Escarpment (Micallef et al., 2019).

thumbnail Fig. 4

The controversial Eraclea Minoa section. a, Google Earth 3D overview of the area with location of the photographs. b, Upper part of the Messinian succession overlain by Zanclean Trubi  (location of photographs is indicated by rectangles). c, Chaotic Lower Gypsum. d, Detailed stratigraphic succession from the last gypsum to Trubi. e, Zanclean GSSP. f, Section showing the transgressive ravinement surface. LM 1, LM 3: Lago Mare episodes. Photographs: b, c, d, e by T. Rigaudier; f by J.-P. Suc.

La coupe d’Eraclea Minoa sujette à controverse.

4.2 Nature of the Messinian erosion

Roveri et al. (2014c) have questioned the Zanclean age and the marine character of the sedimentary infil of the Nile canyon south of the Aswan Dam (Egypt), i.e. more than 1,000 km upstream of the modern seashore, which, contrarily to Chumakov (1967, 1973), has been considered to have not been cut during the peak of the MC. This discredit of the Nile canyon being transformed into a funnel-shaped marine ria, has induced as a corollary some uncertainty about the Rhône canyon cutting and its sedimentary fill, which were not really well-constrained at that time (Clauzon, 1982). Finally, Roveri et al. (2014c) have concluded that the Messinian erosion cannot be exclusively attributable to subaerial process instead of submarine cascading (Roveri et al., 2014c).

Recently, intensive researches concerned the Rhône Valley (Dromart et al., 2024; Do Couto et al., 2024). In addition, we obtained new data upstream Lyon, in the area of Ambérieu-en-Bugey, at more than 400 km from the shoreline along the modern Rhône course (Fig. 5a). The hereafter detailed results validate the marine context of the early Zanclean sediments and demonstrate the long-distance invasion by the Zanclean Sea. There, thick marly-sandy sediments were deposited at the outlet of the Cluse des Hôpitaux (Fig. 5b-c), a 49 km long valley today occupied by two small opposite rivers, the Albarine R. (western part) and the Furans R. (eastern part), unscaled with the cutting of such a wide valley (Fig. 5a-c). Near Ambérieu-en-Bugey, three main locations informed on the Zanclean age of the marine sediments (Fig. 5a, 5c):

  • the well Cormoz 1(45∘ 57′ 48′ ′ N, 5∘ 18′ 00′ ′ E, z=235 m. asl), document 06757X0043/CMZ-1 from the infoterre website;

  • the borehole Z1 in the Air Base 278 (45∘ 58′ 33′ ′ N, 5∘ 20′ 30′ ′ E, z=254 m asl), document 06758X0004/MB1/Z1 from the infoterre website;

  • the Château-Gaillard Quarry (45∘ 59′ 7.42′ ′ N, 5∘ 19′ 7.38′ ′ E).

Marine dinoflagellate cysts including Impagidinium patulum were found in marls from the Château-Gaillard Quarry. Well Cormoz 1 also yielded marine dinoflagellate cysts between 90 m and 35 m depth, including two Paratethyan specimens (one assigned to Spiniferites cruciformis). At 35 m depth, this well provided a calcareous nannoplankton assemblage including, among other taxa, Helicosphaera sellii, Reticulofenestra minutula (3.92-1.93 Ma) and Amaurolithus delicatus (7.42-3.9 Ma). The marine context of these deposits is thus unquestionable. According to the occurrence of Paratethyan taxa (LM 3: Fig. 2), the sediment at 90 m depth in the Cormoz 1 well dates from the marine reflooding of the Mediterranean that is estimated at 5.1 Ma in the Lyon area (Dromart et al., 2024). The sample at 35 m depth from the same borehole is dated ca. 3.9 Ma (Young, 1998). We must add that the Château-Gaillard and Cormoz 1 samples contain a typical pollen flora from the Zanclean in Southeastern France. Méon-Vilain (1970) indicated marine conditions from 20 m to 138.50 m depth in the borehole Z1 from the Air Base 278. This well is located along the seismic profile 14 of the 16-0184 campaign (Fig. 5a), which reveals a well-marked erosional surface interpreted as the MES, exactly in the deepest part of the Zanclean sediments (Fig. 5e-f). Westward, the banks of the Ain River (Fig. 5a) are rich in exposed deposits that we also ascribe to the early Zanclean because they contain marine dinoflagellate cysts consistently with the record of a shark tooth (Combémorel et al., 1970). These results demonstrate the validity of the interpretation of Clauzon (1999) who described the Cluse des Hôpitaux as the Messinian valley of the Rhône River, constituting an unquestionable argument supporting a powerful fluvial erosion in agreement with the desiccated deep-basin model of the MC (Hsü et al., 1973). We consider that this valley was first cut during the MC peak, then uplifted during the Pliocene-Pleistocene orogenic phase (Dromart et al., 2024) and finally shaped by the Pleistocene glaciers (Buoncristiani and Campy, 2011). The intense karstification within the Cluse des Hôpitaux (Chirol, 2005) and upstream in the area of the Génissiat Dam (the famous “Pertes du Rhône”: Le Strat, 2005; Chirol, 2022) is another feature probably linked to the Messinian erosion (Fig. 5a).

These new data and the revisited previous studies fully validate the long-distance fluvial erosion caused by the MC peak and the following marine incursion more than 400 km within the hinterland.

thumbnail Fig. 5

New data from the Rhône Messinian Erosional Surface far in the hinterland. a, Google Earth view in the southern Jura Mountains area (see Fig. 1). The Messinian paleovalley is tagged by blue arrows. 1, Borehole Z1 in the Air Base 278; 2, Château-Gaillard Quarry; 3, Cormoz 1 borehole; 4, Location of the seismic profile 14 from the 16-0184 survey. b, Transverse view of the Cluse des Hôpitaux. The Messinian erosion should correspond to the uppermost 30-40 metres of the uplifted Jurassic cliffs. c, Aerial view of the outlet of the Cluse des Hôpitaux. Legend: see Fig. a. d, Section of the Château-Gaillard Quarry. e, Uninterpreted seismic profile 14. f, Interpreted seismic profile 14. Red line: Messinian Erosional Surface (MES). Photographs: b by J.-P. Suc; c by B. Chirol; d by P. Sorrel.

Données nouvelles sur la Surface d’érosion messinienne du Rhône loin à l’intérieur des terres.

4.3 Significance of Lago Mare: one or several events

Two contrasted concepts have been developed about the Lago Mare, the definition of which is based on the intrusion within the Mediterranean Basin of brackish species from the Paratethys (Fig. 1; Ruggieri, 1962; Cita and Colombo, 1979). Based on the occurrence of benthic faunas (mollusks, ostracods), only one Lago Mare event has been described as an unidirectional overflow of Paratethyan waters into the desiccated or not Mediterranean Basin (Cita et al., 1978; Krijgsman et al., 2010; Andreetto et al., 2021). The discovery of Paratethyan dinoflagellate cysts within Messinian to Zanclean deposits (Corradini and Biffi, 1988; Bertini et al., 1995) contributed to change our view by differentiating deep water Lago Mare biofacies (marked by dinoflagellates, living in surface waters) from shallow water Lago Mare biofacies (marked by mollusks and/or ostracods) (Popescu et al., 2009, 2015; Do Couto et al., 2014). Accordingly, we considered that Paratethyan dinoflagellate cysts are the actual markers of invading Paratethyan waters. Critical observations were revealed: (1) the marine context of most of the Lago Mare deposits (co-occurrence of marine dinoflagellate cysts and calcareous nannofossils: Popescu et al., 2009, 2015; Do Couto et al., 2014; co-occurrence of marine fishes: Carnevale et al., 2006, 2008, 2018, 2019); (2) evidence of Lago Mare biofacies with dinoflagellate cysts below and above the MES or its discontinuity equivalent (see for details: Popescu et al., 2009, 2015; Do Couto et al., 2014).

The arrival into the Eastern Paratethys of marine calcareous nannofossils and/or planktonic foraminifers and/or dinoflegallate cysts coming from the Mediterranean Basin before and after the peak of the MC were convincing proofs of crossed water exchanges during episodes of high sea-level (LM 1 and LM 3: Fig. 2; Clauzon et al., 2005; Suc et al., 2011; Atik et al., 2024). These water exchange events have recently been endorsed by Marzocchi et al. (2016), Stoica et al. (2016), and Krijgsman et al. (2020a), closing previous contrasted conclusions (Krijgsman et al., 2020a, 2024; Andreetto et al., 2021).

With the Paratethyan waters pooled in the Aegean Basin flowing over the Hellenic Arc (see Section 5.3), the LM 2 episode was tracked in boreholes from the central basins (Popescu et al., 2015). New results from ODP (Ocean Drilling Program) Hole 654A (Tyrrhenian Sea; Fig. 1) are provided hereafter. Figure 6 shows the key species of planktonic foraminifera and calcareous nannofossils used for the biostratigraphic subdivision of this cored succession. These new data allow to specify the boundary between Messinian and Zanclean sediments (Fig. 6) almost at the same place where it has been previously identified by Müller (1990) and Cita et al. (1990). The new information on this hole, revealed by dinoflagellate cysts, is the record of two separated Lago Mare episodes, in the latest Messinian and earliest Zanclean, respectively (Fig. 6). These episodes occurred in a marine environment: the first one is obviously the LM 2 event (i.e., intercalated between gypsum of the UU) while the second one is the LM 3 (Fig. 6). Figure 7 gathers some sites published by Popescu et al. (2015) and Hole 654A and shows several discontinuous Lago Mare episodes recorded in central basins of the Western Mediterranean Sea: LM 1 or LM 3 were potentially recorded at Hole 976B (West Alboran Basin), LM 2 at Hole 978A (East Alboran Basin), LM 2 and LM 3 at holes 134B (West Sardinia) and 654A (Tyrrhenian Basin). At Hole 976B, the LM 2 episode is believed to have been unabled by the volcanic barrier that separated the Eastern from the Western Alboran basins (Booth-Rea et al., 2018), where holes 978A and 976B were respectively drilled (Fig. 1).

thumbnail Fig. 6

New results on biostratigraphy (planktonic foraminifera and calcareous nannofossils) and environment (dinoflagellate cysts) of the latest Messinian and earliest Zanclean deposits of ODP Hole 654A. Evidence of two distinct Lago Mare episodes.

Nouveaux résultats sur la biostratigraphie et l’environnement messiniens à zancléens du forage 654A, épisodes Lago Mare successifs.

4.4 End of the Messinian Crisis

The debate about the understanding of the Arenazzolo Unit as a marginal marine deposit was started by Brolsma (1975, 1976). Then, a marine transgressive interval has been evidenced below the Trubi Formation in Calabria by Cavazza and DeCelles (1998). Micropaleontological studies both in Sicily and Calabria led us to the conclusion that the post-crisis marine reflooding occurred significantly before the beginning of the Zanclean Stage (Londeix et al., 2007; Popescu et al., 2009, 2021; Bache et al., 2012). Using cyclostratigraphy, the age of 5.46 Ma was proposed by Bache et al. (2012) (Fig. 2). This conclusion has been revived by van Dijk et al. (2023), then typified by the Krijgsman’s (2024) reconstructed global sea-level curve with significant high values between 5.45 and 5.40 Ma in agreement with the conclusions of Suc et al. (2023). However, if placing the latest evaporites from the Mediterranean central basins (UU) before 5.46 Ma (Fig. 7; Popescu et al., 2015), it is clear that the global sea-level rise contributed to end the MC. The Zanclean GSSP cannot be considered as marking the end of the MC.

thumbnail Fig. 7

Compared chronostratigraphy of four holes from the Western Mediterranean with respect to the Messinian and Zanclean boundary (5.33 Ma) and location of the Lago Mare episodes revealed by dinoflagellate cysts (LM 1 to LM 3), from Popescu et al. (2015) modified. The location of the Zanclean–Messinian boundary in Hole 976B takes into account the new data from Bulian et al. (2021). The Upper Evaporites (UU) topping the second step of the Messinian Crisis are indicated. ZAN = Zanclean; MES = Messinian. 5.35 Ma: first record of Ceratolithus acutus. 5.46 Ma: estimated location of the marine reflooding.

Comparaison entre quatre forages de Méditerranée occidentale où les épisodes Lago Mare sont situés par rapport à la limite Messinien-Zancléen.

5 Divergences in paleogeography

In addition to the chronology of the successive events that occurred during the MC, another critical aspect is our knowledge of paleogeography, which is the focus of the following regional reconstructions.

5.1 Alboran Sea

Booth-Rea et al. (2018) proposed the uplift of a volcanic arc in the Eastern Alboran Sea, giving rise to an archipelago that helped to almost completely isolate the Western Alboran Basin from the rest of the Mediterranean (Fig. 1). Such a barrier is an explanation for the survival of Mediterranean marine benthic fauna during the desiccation phase (Néraudeau et al., 1999, 2001; Néraudeau, 2007). In addition, this paleogeographical context may have provided a passageway for land mammals (Agustí et al., 2006; Gibert et al., 2013), illustrating once again the extent to which land bridges provide opportunities for mammal migrations (Aslanian et al., 2023).

Indeed, the western part of the Alboran Basin was probably affected by the sea-level drop that occurred at the beginning of the second step of the MC with a weakly marked MES on both sides of its shorelines (Suc et al., 2023), as it was relatively isolated by the volcanic arc in relation to the isostatic readjustment due to almost complete evaporation in the Mediterranean (Sternai et al., 2017; Booth-Rea et al., 2018). Although not entirely conclusive, the modelling carried out by Heida et al. (2024) suggested the occurrence of several volcanic islands, reducing the entry of Atlantic waters into the almost completely dried-up Mediterranean Basin. Anyway, a sudden and briefly emersion of volcanic island(s) cannot be discarded (e.g., the present-day process in the Comores Archipelago: Masquelet et al., 2022; Gargani, 2024). Contrarily to Zanclean samples, the Messinian samples at Hole 978A (Fig. 1) were rich in pollen grains among which bisaccate pollen grains (Pinus mostly), advantaged in air and water transport (Beaudouin et al., 2007), were not the most abundant (Popescu et al., 2015). This unusual weakness of pine pollen in a marine environment can be due to proximity of islands.

5.2 Apennine Foredeep

Thanks to an extensive stratigraphic and micropaleontological work, it has been shown by Pellen et al. (2017, 2022) that the Apennine Foredeep cannot henceforth be regarded as representative of the entire Mediterranean Basin contrarily to the Roveri et al.’s (2001) assumption. This shallow to deep basin experienced the first step of the MC with the deposition of evaporites, during its connection with the Mediterranean. It became isolated at the beginning of the second step of the MC (with an obvious MES of subaerial nature), and evolved as a perched basin, separated by the uplifted Gargano–Pelgosa Sill from the almost completely desiccated Mediterranean. However, the basin was filled by fresh waters from the Po River and the other Alpine rivers at that time (Fig. 1). The Apennine Foredeep then received several surface marine inflows over the sill from 5.36 Ma up to its complete renewal as a marine basin at 5.33 Ma . During the interval 5.36−5.33 Ma, the basin was a very propitious area for the development of Paratethyan species, repeatedly supplied by marine incursions (for details, see: Popescu et al., 2007; Pellen et al., 2017, 2022). Our scenario for the Apennine Foredeep has been validated by the modelled reconstruction performed by Amadori et al. (2018).

5.3 Aegean Basin and Marmara region

Two topics associate these nearby regions: the Messinian subaerial erosion and the relationships with the Paratethys.

5.3.1 Aegean Basin

In the Northern Aegean Basin, the Akropotamos location (Fig. 1) deserves attention because the Messinian evaporites are there exposed and overlain by a Zanclean Gilbert-type fan delta (Fig. 8; Suc et al., 2015a). Ages of these formations have been established by Snel et al. (2006a) and Suc et al. (2015a). Ostracods found by Karakitsios et al. (2017) have identified a Lago Mare biofacies above the evaporites. Consistently with the Roveri et al. (2014) scenario (Fig. 2), Karakitsios et al. (2017) have conceived an erosional surface attributed to the MES between the evaporites and the Lago Mare Unit. This is a minor discontinuity signing the onlap of the Lago Mare strata (see Fig. 7J of Karakitsios et al., 2017). In fact, the MES is above the travertine layer emphasized by the Zanclean Akropotamos Gilbert-type fan delta, channeled of about 100 m within the Messinian deposits (Fig. 8a, c-e; Suc et al., 2015a). The Karakitsios et al.’s (2017) interpretation has resulted in minimizing the impact of the Messinian subaerial erosion in the Aegean Basin, which was established both onland (Suc et al., 2015a) and offshore (Proedrou and Papaconstantinou, 2004; Anastasakis et al., 2006; Varesis and Anastasakis, 2021; Rodriguez et al., 2023).

We consider that the Aegean Basin was connected to the Mediterranean during the first step of the MC (peripheral evaporites) and connected to the Dacic Basin at its termination (LM 1 episode). It was then affected by the subaerial erosion at the beginning of the second step of the MC before the beginning of the isolation, and it was supplied by Paratethyan brackish waters through the Balkans Corridor, which were probably at the origin of the LM 2 episode (Suc et al., 2011, 2015a; Popescu et al., 2015). The uplift of the Hellenic Arc may have formed a barrier isolating the Aegean as response to the Mediterranean drying up (Fig. 1). The second Lago Mare episode is considered to have resulted from the rush of the Paratethyan waters from the Aegean pool into the almost completely desiccated Mediterranean Basin resulting from the erosion of the previously uplifted sill (Fig. 1). A transverse seismic profile from the Southeastern Aegean to the south of the islands Ikaria–Petrokaravo–Samos documents this cataclysmic erosion and the spilling of the Aegean waters into the Mediterranean (Figs. 1). The profile SE32 from the SEISA Cruise (Fig. 9; Schuster et al., 1978) displays a huge canyon (1225 m deep with ca. 2000 m/s mean seismic velocity) filled by chaotic seismic facies (yellow) interpreted as chaotic Messinian deposits (thick of about 400 m with the same mean seismic velocity) and overlain by a thick deformed unit interpreted as Zanclean marine marls (green). Two high amplitude and continuous reflectors (pink) underlie the chaotic unit just below the MES and could be interpreted as Messinian peripheral evaporites (first step of the MC) (Fig. 9). This interpretation is supported by two nearby cored boreholes, which show evaporitic deposits beneath the Early Pliocene sediments (Fig. 1: Site 378: Hsü et al., 1978; Site U1591: Druitt et al., 2024).

thumbnail Fig. 8

Updated stratigraphy interpretation of the Akropotamos succession (Suc et al., 2015a; Karakitsios et al., 2017). a, Completed cross-section from Suc et al. (2015a) with location of the cartoons b–e; b, The gypsum quarry northward of Akropotamos; c, The MES separating the travertine layers from the foreset beds of the Gilbert-type fan delta along the road to Kariani; d, The MES separating the travertine layers from the foreset beds of the Gilbert-type fan delta southward of Akropotamos; e, Distal part of the Akropotamos Gilbert-type fan delta. Photographs: b–e by J.-P. Suc.

Mise au point sur la stratigraphie de la série d’Akropotamos et sur son interprétation.
thumbnail Fig. 9

Transverse seismic profile SE32 across the Southeastern Aegean Basin (SEISA Cruise; Schuster et al., 1978). a, Non interpreted profile; b, Interpreted line-drawing of the profile.

Profil sismique à travers le sud-est de la Mer Egée.

5.3.2 Marmara region (Fig. 10)

Two contradicted views of the Dardanelles Strait remain in the recent literature: Melinte-Dobrinescu et al. (2009) argued in favour of Messinian erosion in this area while Krijgsman et al. (2020) promoted a scenario concluding that there was no effect of the MC in the Marmara Sea (Fig. 1). Krijgsman et al. (2020) used a biostratigraphic scheme based on Paratethyan ostracods and molluscs, despite their low value in terms of global marine correlations. Melinte-Dobrinescu et al. (2009) used marine microfossils, which have a greater potential for correlations at large geographical scale.

Krijgsman et al. (2020) studied a section, called Intepe-2, different from the Intepe section studied by Melinte-Dobrinescu et al. (2009) (Figs. 10, 11e), which was destroyed in early 2013 for building a new motorway (Fig. 11f). Krijgsman et al. (2020) based their interpretation by considering the Intepe-2 section equivalent to the “original” section, although distant from about 1,000 m (Fig. 11d). The Intepe-2 section shows critical insufficiencies to be elected as a suitable substitutive section because: (1) the original Intepe section is rich in marine microfossils (calcareous nannofossils and dinoflagellate cysts) that is not the case for the Intepe-2 section, and (2) the Intepe-2 section includes a lignite which is not immediately overlain by fired red clays (Krijgsman et al., 2020: Fig. 5c), which is representative of an emersion event that we correlated with the paroxysmic phase of the MC (Fig. 11j; Melinte-Dobrinescu et al., 2009). This area is heavily faulted making impossible to exactly duplicate the original Intepe section. The Intepe section topped a thick succession (Fig. 11e), which includes several lignite beds as those shown by Krijgsman et al. (2020) but none of these beds is topped by a fired clay. Our conclusion is that the Intepe-2 section does not constitute a stratigraphic equivalent to the original Intepe section. We believe that Krijgsman et al. (2020) may have studied an offset part of the lower Intepe succession. To conclude about this area, Krijgsman et al. (2020) wrote that they did not observe any Gilberttype fan delta. This is because the Intepe Gilbert delta is not observable in the Intepe area but in the north, back to Güzelyalı (Fig. 11d; Melinte-Dobrinescu et al., 2009). There, all the different components of the post-MC Gilbert-type fan deltas were recorded in several places (Fig. 11g−i), spotlighting the Messinian erosion and the following reflooding as sedimentary terrestrial key-systems (Clauzon, 1990; Bache et al., 2012). Krijgsman et al. (2020) probably explored a high topographic location older than the original Intepe section (Fig. 11d).

At Seddülbahir, another key section, Krijgsman et al. (2020) assumed to have not identified a Gilbert-type fan delta. Here, a transverse section through the bottomset beds of the Dardanelles Gilbert-type fan delta, does not allow to identify such a sedimentary system without observing a longitudinal section showing sandy to gravelly foreset beds (see: Melinte-Dobrinescu et al., 2009: Fig. 15). The analysis of calcareous nannofossils performed on this section by Krijgsman et al. (2020) appears to be preliminary, showing rare markers. Indeed, as already indicated by Popescu et al. (2017), biostratigraphic markers were recorded after a long analysis in association with abundant of long-range taxa (e.g., Amaurolithus primus, Calcidiscus leptoporus, Calcidiscus macintyrei, Coccolithus pelagicus, Helicosphaera carteri, Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilicus, Sphenolithus abies). We recall how doubtful is the potential confusion of Ceratolithus acutus with a fragment of ascidian spicule when mastered by accepted specialists (de Leeuw et al., 2018). In addition, questioning our results should consider the occurrence of the morphologically unquestionable nannofossil Triquetrothabdulus rugosus (now: Orthorhabdus rugosus) usually recorded simultaneously with C. acutus in the Intepe and West Seddülbahir sections, the disappearance of which is dated at 5.28 Ma (Fig. S2), i.e. shortly after the first appearance of C. acutus, as observed in the Intepe succession (Melinte-Dobrinescu et al., 2009: Fig. 12). Finally, Krijgsman et al. (2020) assumed that these rare species cannot be recorded in coastal shallow sediments. On the contrary, we think that the very exceptional context of the almost instantaneous reflooding of the Mediterranean Basin by marine waters closing the MC offered outstanding conditions for recolonizing a very large space including the (often deep) marine rias that replaced the fluvial canyons (as the Dardanelles area). In fact, these rare species were recorded in the lowermost marine sediments overlying the MES (Popescu et al., 2017 and references herein; see also the recent papers by: Osman et al., 2021; Atik et al., 2024). The MES often shows a jagged outline (Fig. 11a; see also Fig. 12c) and there is the possibility that the lowermost part of the Krijgsman et al.’s section (2020: their samples SB1-SB5: Fig. 4b) was in fact below a jag of the MES (Fig. 11a). This would give an explanation to the land fauna (mammals, snails) reported by Krijgsman et al. (2020) from sample SB5. In the Dardanelles area, the MES often tops red beds that makes easier its recognition and we must concede that the calcareous nannoplankton is a very efficient guide (Fig. 11b-c).

We extended new investigations along the Southern Marmara shoreline where outstanding complete Gilbert-type fan deltas were identified, overlying the MES (Fig. 12a). These include the ones at Mudanya (Fig. 12c–d, f, j) and Yalova (Fig. 12c–d, f, j), and partly recognized near Umurbey, Gönen (Fig. 12b) and Aksakal (Figs. 10 and S1). Most of their bottomset beds provided calcareous nannofossils that resulted in a robust bio-chronostratigraphy (Fig. S2; Tab. S1).

Because of its morphology, the region of İstanbul has usually been considered as a passageway for exchanges between the Eastern Paratethys and the Mediterranean Sea (e.g.: Krijgsman et al., 2020, 2024). This is established for the Paleogene (Okay et al., 2019) but this connection was interrupted during the Middle-Late Miocene while some uncertainty is expressed for the Messinian time (Görür et al., 1997; Çağatay et al., 2006). Despite the strong tectonics due to the propagation of the North Anatolian Fault, which considerably impacted the regional landscapes and strata arrangement, the obvious conclusion of our work is the development of two opposed fluvial networks during the peak of the MC (Suc et al., 2015b; Fig. 10). This paleogeographic configuration, supported by strong fluvial erosion both in the Southwestern Black Sea (northeastward oriented) and in the Marmara area (westward to southwestward oriented), prevents any connection through the İstanbul Sill (Fig. 10).

thumbnail Fig. 10

Google Earth map of the Marmara region with the outline of the MES filled by Gilbert-type fan deltas and sketch of the fluvial network at the peak of the MC. The studied locations with calcareous nannoplankton age for most of them are shown in Figure S1. Sketch of the MES comes from Melinte-Dobrinescu et al. (2009) and Suc et al. (2015b). This figure includes the new data presented in this paper.

Carte Google Earth de la région de Marmara avec dessin de la Surface d’érosion messinienne, des Gilbert deltas qui remplissent les vallées messiniennes et du réseau fluviatile lors du paroxysme de la Crise messinienne.
thumbnail Fig. 11

Selection of locations in the Dardanelles Strait (Fig. S1). a, Seddülbahir: white lines, sections studied by Melinte-Dobrinescu et al. (2009): ES, East Seddülbahir; WS, West Seddülbahir. Yelllow lines: sections A–B studied by Krijgsman et al. (2020b). b–c, The Karanfil T. section (Table S1): a, showing the MES and chronological calibration by calcareous nannoplankton; c, Karanfil T. section: lithological detail around the MES. d–j, The Intepe area. d, Google Earth relief map with the key-locations: 1–2, the Intepe section of Melinte-Dobrinescu et al. (2009) (Table S1): 1, the studied section; 2, place of the lignite overlain by fired clays; 3–8, representative sections of the Güzelyalı nested Gilbert-type fan delta: 3, deposits prior to the Messinian erosion northward of the MES; 4, block debris flow in contact with the MES; 5, foreset beds; 6, foreset-beds; 7, foreset beds in contact with the MES; 8, bottomset beds; 9, the Intepe-2 section studied by Krijgsman et al. (2020b). e, The Intepe section studied (black lines) by Melinte-Dobrinescu et al. (2009) as available in 2007. f, The same section destroyed in 2013 for building a motorway. g, Messinian sediments (to the right) cut by the MES, overlain by nested block debris flow (location 4 in Figure 11d). h, Foreset beds of the Gilbert-type fan delta (location 5 in Figure 11d). i, Zoom on the foreset beds of the Gilbert-type fan delta (location 7 in Figure 11d). j, The Intepe lignite overlain by fired clays (location 2 in Figure 11d). Photographs: a–c and e–i by J.-P. Suc, j by Ç. Karakaş.

Quelques localités remarquables du Détroit des Dardanelles.
thumbnail Fig. 12

New elements of post-MC Gilbert-type fan deltas in the southern Marmara Sea region (the number into brackets refers to Figure S1 for location, and to Table S1 for calcareous nannoplankton ages). a, Concept of post-MC Gilbert-type fan deltas with constituent bodies and reference surfaces (Clauzon, 1990; Bache et al., 2012). b, Salzıdere (19): cemented breccia (debris flow) with iron crust overlying the MES. c, Mudanya (20): sandy to gravelly foreset beds overlying the MES cutting granitic weathered clays. d, Detail of the previous view. e, Yalakdere (27): abandonment surface. f, Mudanya (20): sandy to gravelly topset beds. g, Soğuçak (24): clayey and lignitic topset beds. h, Soğuçak (24): marine-continental transition. i, Detail of the previous view. j, Mudanya (20): marine-continental transition. k, Soğuçak (24): sigmoid passage from sandy foreset beds to clayey bottomset beds. l, Koruköy (26): clayey bottomset beds. m, Koruköy (26): sandy to gravelly foreset beds.

Nouveaux éléments constitutifs des Gilbert deltas du sud de la Mer de Marmara.

5.4 Relationship with the Paratethys

Among the data from the Dacic Basin (Eastern Paratethys) (Fig. 1), the occurrence of Zanclean Mediterranean marine plankton in sediments nested within the basement or the Miocene and even older sediments is of the highest importance. Mărunțeanu and Papaianopol (1995,1998) attracted attention in showing the occurrence of calcareous nannofossils in many places that illustrated the marine connection between the Mediterranean and the Dacic Basin. Based on magnetostratigraphy, Snel et al. (2006b) has provided evidence that two of these marine connections occurred during the Late Miocene and the Early Pliocene, i.e. before and after the MC, respectively. The nested Gilbert-type fan deltas of Turnu Severin with bottomset beds ascribed to the calcareous nannofossil Zone NN12 and to Chron C3r (for chronostratigraphy, see Fig. S2) and including planktonic foraminifera, have started to show the impact of the MC in the Eastern Paratethys (Clauzon et al., 2005; Popescu et al., 2006; Suc et al., 2011). It is encouraging that the MC sea-level fall, surrounded by two phases of marine connection with the Mediterranean, was admitted in the Dacic Basin (Krijgsman et al., 2010; Leever et al., 2010) without considering the subaerial erosion and the nesting of the post-MC deposits (ter Borgh et al., 2014).

An illustrative example exists near Beceni (Fig. 1: 45∘ 22′30′′N, 26∘47′45′′E) where cyclic marls that yielded calcareous plankton taxa including, among others, Ceratolithus acutus, Orthrhabdus rugosus (calcareous nannofossils) and Sphaeroidinellopsis seminulina (planktonic foraminifer), unconformably overlie marls with Orthorhabdus rugosus, Reticulofenestra rotaria, and Amaurolithus tricorniculatus, among others (Clauzon et al., 2008; Fig. 13). According to the record of R. rotaria (6.91–5.94 Ma), the lower marls were assigned to the Messinian. The upper marls were assigned to the early Zanclean (ca. 5.30 Ma), based on co-occurrence of C. acutus and O. rugosus (see Fig. S2 for the calcareous nannoplankton biochronology). The discontinuity separating those two marl units shows an angle of 29∘ southward oriented while the dip of the overlying marls is 18∘ E: such a feature is characteristic of an erosion that, considering the datings, was attributed to the MES (Fig. 13a; Clauzon et al., 2008).

thumbnail Fig. 13

Beceni (SE Romania). a, The MES between Miocene marine marls and Zanclean marine marls. b, The overlying marls which recorded the Zanclean marine microplankton.

Surface d’érosion messinienne à Beceni (SE Roumanie) surmontée par des dépôts à microplancton marin zancléen.

5.5 Levantine Basin

The Easternmost part of the Mediterranean Basin (Fig. 1) is imperfectly known but has benefited of extensive research during the two last decades thanks to important hydrocarbon discoveries. Unfortunately, both the discovery of hydrocarbons and the political context of the area have made the investigations very difficult, even sometimes not possible.

Two major problems still concern the erosional features and the chronostratigraphy of this basin. The fluvial erosion during the sea-level drop has been clearly established, forced by three orthogonal systems (Nile River, Levantine shoreline, Southern Turkey: Gorini et al., 2015; Madof et al., 2019; Ben Moshe et al., 2020). The onshore Messinian fluvial valleys have been shown for long for the Nile drainage area (Chumakov, 1967, 1973; Barber, 1980, 1981; Palmieri et al., 1996; Dalla et al., 1997; Dolson et al., 2005) and were shown by recent studies in Cyprus (Psematismenos: Mocochain et al., 2015, 2024), Syria (Lattakia: Mocochain et al., 2015) and Southeastern Turkey (Hatay: Mocochain et al., 2015; Adana: Hippolyte et al., in progress). The only available chronostratigraphy proposed by Meilijson et al. (2019) is still fragile since it relies on cyclostratigraphy, based on a supposed correlation with the Apennine Foredeep, Eraclea Minoa and Sorbas successions, the interpretations of which being themselves questionable as explained above. A biostratigraphy has been established for the onshore and offshore Nile Delta wells but it is only partly published (Farouk et al., 2014) and the drilled materials remain unattainable for international investigations. Paleocanyons also exist perpendicular to the Israel coastline, such as the Afiq Canyon (Fig. 1), extensively documented between Beer Sheva and Gaza (Druckman et al., 1995; Buchbinder and Zilberman, 1997). This paleocanyon resulted from submarine cutting mainly made during the Mid-Miocene and was mostly filled by Upper Miocene sediments including Messinian peripheral evaporites but would have possibly been submitted to subaerial erosion during the MC peak (Druckman et al., 1995). However, the Messinian fluvial erosion offshore was challenged by Moneron and Gvirtzman (2022) who conceived a submarine channel system in a Mediterranean Basin filled by marine waters during the central evaporite deposition.

In order to contribute to document this crucial matter by new data, we searched for calcareous nannoplankton and dinoflagellate cysts from two sections already studied for planktonic foraminifera (Martinotti et al., 1978; Zilberman et al., 2010): the BH 13 hole drilled at Beer Sheva within the proximal part of the Afiq Canyon and the Nesher Quarry located near Haifa at the foot of the Carmel Mount (Fig. 1). In both locations, foraminifera indicated an undefined Upper Miocene to Lower Pliocene succession (Fig. 14) based on the occurrence of Globoturborotalita nepenthes (first occurrence at 11.6 Ma) and Sphaeroidinellopsis spp. (first occurrence at about 8 Ma). Calcareous nannofossils indicate that the lower part of the section has deposited during the Messinian (occurrence of Reticulofenestra rotaria and Orthorhabdus rugosus in both sections, of Discoaster quinqueramus in the Nesher Quarry only) (Fig. 14). The occurrence of Ceratolithus acutus indicates that the upper part of both sections have deposited during the early Zanclean (Fig. 14). The four samples from the Nesher Quarry were barren in dinoflagellate cysts while the upper part of the SH 13 borehole (167-213 m asl) was rich in dinoflagellate cysts indicating an open marine environment (Spiniferites membranaceus, S. hyperacanthus, S. mirabilis, Impagidinium patulum, etc.; Fig. 14). In the Nesher Quarry, a debris flow below the first record of C. acutus may indicate some erosion (Zilberman et al., 2010). In the SH 13 borehole, there is no clear lithological change below the first record of C. acutus (Buchbinder and Zilberman, 1997). It is surprising that the subaerial erosion during the MC peak was so weak along the Israel shoreline (Buchbinder and Zilberman, 1997), compared with the other coastal regions of the Levantine Basin (Nile Delta: Barber, 1980, 1981; Palmieri et al., 1996; Dalla et al., 1997; Dolson et al., 2005; Southern Turkey: Poisson et al., 2011; Mocochain et al., 2015; Hippolyte et al., in progress; Cyprus: Mocochain et al., 2024; Syria: Mocochain et al., 2015). Such a striking contrast has been attributed to the absence of fluvial stream only from the Israelian coastal range because of arid climatic conditions limiting water transport (Buchbibnder and Zilberman, 1997). On the contrary, pollen records showed that arid climatic conditions existed around the entire Eastern Mediterranean before and after the MC (Fauquette et al., 2006; Jiménez-Moreno et al., 2007), but this context did not avoid strong fluvial erosion during the MC peak in areas other than Israel, considering also that a East-West drainage network was developed there at the end of Zanclean (Ginat et al., 2000). If it is possible that these first layers of the lower Zanclean illustrate the marine reflooding of the Mediterranean Basin after a weak phase of local erosion, then the possibility that they express some momentary water inflow from the Red Sea preceding the Zanclean must be taken into account (Fig. 15; Pensa et al., 2025). Such a marine gateway through the Gulf of Suez (Gargani et al., 2008) or the southern Dead Sea would lighten the following contrasted contexts (Fig. 1):

In addition, this assumption would provide a reliable explanation to the occurrence of tropical fishes (sharks and rays) originating from the Indian Ocean in lowermost Zanclean deposits from Lybia rather than their survival within the almost completely desiccated Mediterranean as hypothesized by Pawellek et al. (2012).

thumbnail Fig. 14

Biostratigraphic (planktonic foraminifera and our new results on calcareous nannoplankton) and paleoenvironmental (dinoflagellate cysts) information from two sections from Israel. a, Nesher Quarry (Zilberman et al., 2010); b, Borehole SH 13 (foraminifera from: Martinotti et al., 1978).

Biostratigraphie de deux coupes en Israël incluant les résultats nouveaux sur le nannoplancton calcaire.

6 Conclusive remarks

In its initial sense, the two-step MC scenario, inherited from Clauzon et al. (1996), was mainly based on a high amplitude of the sea-level drop (ca. 1,500 m) and the resulting widespread fluvial erosion in the entire Mediterranean region (e.g., and references herein: Alboran Sea: Do Couto et al., 2016; Gulf of Lions: Lofi et al., 2005; Bache et al., 2009, 2012; Leroux et al., 2017; offshore Algeria: Capron et al., 2011; Tyrrhenian Sea: Thinon et al., 2016; Levantine Basin: Gorini et al., 2015; Madof et al., 2019). Our studies onland, offshore seismic profiles and land-sea relationship allow to conclude that (1) the peripheral evaporites, and (2) the onset of fluvial cutting and the deposition of central evaporites were succeeding in time (Bache et al., 2015; Clauzon et al., 2015a; Gorini et al., 2015; evaluation: 5.97–5.65 Ma for the peripheral evaporites, 5.63−5.48 Ma for the erosion progression and the central evaporites deposition; Fig. 2).

We recognize three distinct Lago Mare episodes of different origin and age, based on the record of Paratethyan dinoflagellate cysts (Clauzon et al., 2005; Popescu et al., 2015):

  • high sea-level in Mediterranean-Dacic basins with two-way exchanges at ca. 5.65–5.63 Ma and ca. 5.46–5.33 Ma, respectively LM 1 and LM 3, both recorded in peripheral and central Mediterranean sections;

  • discharge of Paratethyan brackish waters via the perched Aegean Basin into the almost completely desiccated Mediterranean at ca. 5.48−5.46 Ma (LM 2), only recorded in the central Mediterranean wells.

At last, we claim a marine reflooding of the Mediterranean Basin at 5.46 Ma, significantly before the beginning of the Zanclean Stage (5.33 Ma) (Bache et al., 2012; Popescu et al., 2021).

In complement to the chronological scheme shown in Figure 2, the two-step scenario of the MC is illustrated in one longitudinal and three latitudinal Mediterranean transects (Fig. 15) which, in addition to sea-level changes and isostatic readjustments resulting in water exchanges or overflows, take into account the paleogeographic disparities between basins, particularly the water storage in isolated (perched) basins (Western Alboran: marine waters; Apennine Foredeep: fresh waters; Aegean Basin: brackish waters; Fig. 1). The possibly isolated southeastern part of the Levantine Basin is not delineated in Figure 15 because it is not really on the A−B transect and it overall needs to be confirmed by future research.

Is it necessary to recall that our scenario results from both onshore and offshore intensive investigations supported by outstanding micropaleontology-based chronostratigraphy. Our behaviour in deciphering the MC puzzle was to consider all the data, whatever their relevance with the hypotheses, which guided our interpretation independently from any preconceived concept.

The reader must understand that the Clauzon et al. (1996) two-step scenario significantly differs from the scenario of Roveri et al. (2014a). The two prevalent scenarios discussed in this paper perpetuate several reciprocal crucial discrepancies, including the synchroneity or not of peripheral vs. central evaporites, the chronology and nature of erosion (subaerial? submarine?) (for comparison, see Manzi et al., 2021b and Krijgsman et al., 2024).

thumbnail Fig. 15

Reconstructed paleogeography of the Mediterranean region through some transects in agreement with the two-step scenario of the MC (Clauzon et al., 1996, 2005; Bache et al., 2012, 2015; Gorini et al., 2015; Popescu et al., 2015, 2021; Haq et al., 2020). a, Location of the transects. b, Present-day bathymetry along a longitudinal transect and three transverse transects. c–i, Environmental changes in the Mediterranean (bathymetry, deposition, erosion) from 6.00 to 5.45 Ma through four similar transects: c, 6.00 Ma: before the MC onset; d, 5.85 Ma: first step of the MC (peripheral evaporites); e, 5.64 Ma: high sea level closing the first step of the MC (LM 1); f, 5.60 Ma: beginning of the second step of the MC (subaerial erosion, deposition of detritic cones); g, 5.55 Ma: ongoing second step of the MC (central evaporites); h, 5.50 Ma: end of the second step of the MC (slow sea-level rise, marine abrasion surface, transfer of Aegean waters into the Mediterranean: LM 2); i, 5.45 Ma: after the catastrophic marine reflooding (edification of Gilbert-type fan deltas, LM 3).

Paléogéographie méditerranéenne reconstituée à travers quelques transects conformément au scénario en deux temps de la Crise messinienne.

Acknowledgements

This paper is a tribute to G. Clauzon, who initiated most of us to the recognition of fluvial erosion with a special effort in dating the top of the eroded sediments and the base of the nested sediments. In addition, he led most of the research recalled here plus most of those resulting in the new data presented in this paper. We want to honour the memory of M.B. Cita, recently deceased, who promoted the ‘deep desiccated basin’ model of the Messinian Crisis and continuously defended it. R. Armijo is particularly acknowledged for his leadership in the investigations in the Marmara region. The ANR EGEO, the Actions Marges CNRS-INSU-BRGM-IFREMER Program, the Sorbonne University (ISTeP)–TOTAL South Tethys and Mediterranean GRI Programs, and the CNRS-INSU TerMex Program provided the financial support to our investigations. We thank the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) and the Curator of the Bremen Core Repository and its staff for facilities in providing the requested samples. A. Sandler and E. Zilberman guided our field trips in Israel. P. Sorrel discovered the marine blue clays in the Château-Gaillard Quarry thanks to the authorisation done by R. Kretz, Director. P. Sorrel and F. Quillévéré made a friendly review of an earlier version of the manuscript. We greatly appreciated the positive advise on our manuscript by an anonymous referee and the comments expressed by A. Maillard. We particularly thank O. Vanderhaeghe, Editor-in-Chief of the Earth Sciences Bulletin.

Supplementary Material

Fig. S1. Google Earth map with the studied locations in the Marmara region.

Fig. S2. Chronostratigraphy of the studied locations in the Marmara region with respect to thecalcareous nannoplankton events and to late Messinian events.

Table S1. Information on the studied locations in the Marmara region.

Access here

References

  • Agustí J, Garcés M, Krijgsman W. 2006. Evidence for African-Iberian exchanges during the Messinian in the Spanish mammalian record. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 238: 5–14. [Google Scholar]
  • Amadori C, Garcia-Castellanos D, Toscani G, et al. 2018. Restored topography of the Po Plain-Northern Adriatic region during the Messinian base-level drop-Implications for the physiography and compartmentalization of the palaeo-Mediterranean basin. Bas Res 30: 1247–1263. [Google Scholar]
  • Anastasakis G, Piper DJW, Dermitzakis MD, Karakitsios V. 2006. Upper Cenozoic stratigraphy and paleogeographic evolution of Myrtoon and adjacent basins, Aegean Sea, Greece. Mar Pet Geol 23: 353–369. [Google Scholar]
  • Andreetto F, Aloisi G, Raad F, 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. [Google Scholar]
  • Aslanian D, Pellen R, Rabineau M, et al., 2023. The postulation of intermittent land bridges as an explanation for reiterated colonization events of Madagascar by African vertebrates: an in-depth review and novel insights in honour of the late Judith Masters and Fabien Génin. Earth-Sci Rev 246:104585. [Google Scholar]
  • Atik A, Mansouri MEH, Bessedik M, Osman MK, et al. 2024. New insights on the latest Messinian-to-Piacenzian stratigraphic series from the Dahra Massif (Lower Chelif Basin, Algeria): Lago Mare, reflooding and bio-events. BSGF - Earth Sci Bull 195:2. [Google Scholar]
  • Bache F, Gargani J, Suc J-P, et al. 2015. Messinian evaporite deposition during sea level rise in the Gulf of Lions (Western Mediterranean). Mar Pet Geol 66: 262–277. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bache F, Olivet J-L, Gorini C, et al. 2009. Messinian erosional and salinity crises: view from the Provence basin (Gulf of Lions, Western Mediterranean). Earth Planet Sci Lett 286: 139–157. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bache F, Popescu S-M, Rabineau M, et al. 2012. A two step process for the reflooding of the Mediterranean after the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Basin Res 24: 125–153. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Barber PM. 1980. Palaeogeographic evolution of the Proto-Nile delta during the Messinian salinity crisis. Géol Méd 7(1): 13–18. [Google Scholar]
  • Barber PM. 1981. Messinian subaerial erosion of the proto-Nile Delta. Mar Geol 44:253–272. [Google Scholar]
  • Beaudouin C, Suc J-P, Escarguel G, Arnaud M, Charmasson S. 2007. The significance of pollen signal in present-day marine terrigenous sediments: the example of the Gulf of Lions (western Mediterranean sea). Geobios 40: 159–172. [Google Scholar]
  • Bellucci M, Leroux E, Aslanian D, Moulin M, Pellen R, Rabineau M. 2024. Salt tectonics evolution in the Provençal Basin, Western Mediterranean Sea. Earth Sci Bull 195:16. [Google Scholar]
  • Ben Moshe L, Ben-Avraham Z, Enzel Y, Schattner U. 2020. Estimating drawdown magnitudes of the Mediterranean Sea in the Levant basin during the Lago Mare stage of the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Mar Geol 427:106215. [Google Scholar]
  • Bertini A, Corradini D, Suc J-P. 1995. On Galeacysta etrusca and the connection between the Mediterranean and the Paratethys. Romanian J Stratigr 76(7): 141–142. [Google Scholar]
  • Booth-Rea G, Ranero CR, Grevemeyer I. 2018. The Alboran volcanic-arc modulated the Messinian faunal exchange and salinity crisis. Sci Rep 8:13015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Brolsma MJ. 1975. Lithostratigraphy and foraminiferal assemblages of the Miocene–Pliocene transitional strata of Capo Rossello and Eraclea Minoa (Sicily, Italy). Proc Konink Neder Akad Van Wetensch 78 (B): 341–380. [Google Scholar]
  • Brolsma MJ. 1976. Discussion on the arguments concerning the palaeoenvironmental interpretation of the Arenazzolo in Capo Rossello and Eraclea Minoa (S. Sicily, Italy). Mem Soc Geol Ital 16: 153–157. [Google Scholar]
  • Buchbibnder B, Zilberman E. 1997. Sequence stratigraphy of Miocene–Pliocene carbonate–siliclastic shelf deposits in the eastern Mediterranean margin (Israel): effects of eustasy and tectonics. Sedim Geol 112: 7–32. [Google Scholar]
  • Bulian F, Sierro FJ, Ledesma S, Jiménez-Espejo F, Bassetti M-A. 2021. Messinian West Alboran Sea record in the proximity of Gibraltar: early signs of Atlantic-Mediterranean gateway restriction. Mar Geol 434:106430. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Buoncristiani J-F, Campy M., 2011, Quaternary glaciations in the French Alps and Jura. In: Ehlers J, Gibbard PL, Hughes PD, eds. Developments in quaternary science 15, Amsterdam, pp. 117126. [Google Scholar]
  • Butler RWH, Lickorish WH, Grasso M, Pedley HM, Ramberti L. 1995. Tectonics and sequence stratigraphy in Messinian basins, Sicily: constraints on the initiation and termination of the Mediterranean “Salinity crisis”. Geol Soc Amer Bull 107: 425–439. [Google Scholar]
  • Çağatay MN, Görur N, Flecker R, et al. 2006. Paratethyan-Mediterraneran connectivity in the Sea of Marmara region (NW Turkey) during the Messinian. Sedim Geol 188–189: 171–187. [Google Scholar]
  • Capron A, Déverchère J, Gaullier V, Le Roy P, Mercier de Lépinay B, Yelles K. 2011. Algerian margin. In: Lofi J, Déverchère J, eds. Seismic atlas of the Messinian salinity crisis markers in the offshore Mediterranean domain. Paris: Mémoire de la Société géologique de France and Commission for the Geological Map of the World, 179,p. 72. [Google Scholar]
  • Carnevale G, Dela Pierre F, Natalicchio M, Landini W. 2018. Fossil marine fishes and the ‘Lago Mare’ event: has the Mediterranean ever transformed into a brackish lake? Newslett Stratigr 51(1): 57–72. [Google Scholar]
  • Carnevale G, Gennari R, Lozar F, Natalicchio M, Pellegrino L, Dela Pierre F. 2019. Living in a deep desiccated Mediterraneran Sea: an overview of the Italian fossil record of the Messinian salinity crisis. Boll Soc Paleontol Ital 58(1): 109–140. [Google Scholar]
  • Carnevale G, Landini W, Sarti G. 2006. Mare versus Lago-mare: marine fishes and the Mediterranean environment at the end of the Messinian salinity Crisis. J Geol Soc London 163: 75–80. [Google Scholar]
  • Carnevale G, Longinelli A, Caputo D, Barbieri M, Landini W. 2008. Did the Mediterranean marine reflooding precede the Mio-Pliocene boundary? Paleontological and geochemical evidence from upper Messinian sequences of Tuscany, Italy. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 257: 81–105. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cavazza W, DeCelles PG. 1998. Upper Messinian siliciclastic rocks in southeastern Calabria (southern Italy): paleotectonic and eustatic implications for the evolution of the central Mediterranean region. Tectonophysics 298: 223–241 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chirol B. 2005. Genèse et evolution de la Cluse des Hôpitaux (Bugey de l’Ain). Apport des formes et formations karstiques. Master 1 thesis, Université de Savoie. [Google Scholar]
  • Chirol B. 2022. La perte du Rhône. Librairie de la Bibliothèque de la Société Suisse de Spéléologie, Granges, Switzerland. [Google Scholar]
  • Chumakov IS. 1967. Pliocene and Pleistocene deposits of the Nile Valley: Nubia and Upper Egypt. Academy of Science of the U.S.S.R, Geological Institute transactions 170, 113 pp. (in Russian). [Google Scholar]
  • Chumakov IS., 1973, Pliocene and Pleistocene deposits of the Nile Valley in Nubia and Upper Egypt. In: Ryan WBF, Hsü KJ, Cita MB, et al. eds. Leg 13. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project 13(1), U.S. Government Printing office, pp. 1242–1243. [Google Scholar]
  • CIESM 2008. The Messinian Salinity Crisis from mega-deposits to microbiology – A consensus report. CIESM Workshop Monographs 33: 7–28. [Google Scholar]
  • Cita MB, Colombo L. 1979. Sedimentation in the latest Messinian at Capo Rossello. Sedimentology 26: 497–522. [Google Scholar]
  • Cita MB, Santambrogio S, Melillo B, Rogate F. 1990. Messinian paleoencironments: new evidence from the Tyrrhenian Sea (ODP Leg 107). In: Kastens KA, Mascle J, et al. eds. Proceedings of the ocean drilling program, scientific results, TX: College Station, 107, pp. 211–227. [Google Scholar]
  • Cita MB, Wright RC, Ryan WBF. 1978. Messinian paleoenvironments. In: Ryan WBF, Hsü KJ, Montadert L, eds. Leg 42A. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project 42(1), U.S. Government Printing office, pp. 1003–1035. [Google Scholar]
  • Clauzon G. 1982. Le canyon messinien du Rhône: une prevue decisive du “desiccated deep–basin model” [Hsü, Cita et Ryan, 1973]. Bull Soc Géol France 24(3)(S7): 597–610. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Clauzon G. 1990. Restitution de l’évolution géodynamique néogène du basin du Roussillon et de l’unité adjacente des Corbières d’après les données écostratigraphiques et paléogéographiques. Paléobiol Cont 17: 125–155. [Google Scholar]
  • Clauzon G. 1999. L’impact des variations eustatiques du basin de Méditerranée occidentale sur l’orogène alpin depuis 20 Ma. Ét Géogr Phys 28: 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • Clauzon G, Le Strat P, Duvail C, et al. 2015b. The Roussillon Basin (S. France): a case-study to distinguish local and regional events between 6 and 3 Ma. Mar Pet Geol 66: 18–40. [Google Scholar]
  • Clauzon G, Suc J-P, Do Couto D, et al. 2015a. New insights on the Sorbas Basin (SE Spain): the onshore reference of the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Mar Pet Geol 66: 71–100. [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. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Clauzon G, Suc J-P, Popescu S-M, et al. 2005. Influence of Mediterranean sea-level changes on the Dacic Basin (Eastern Paratethys) during the late Neogene: the Mediterranean Lago Mare facies deciphered. Basin Res 17: 437–462. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Clauzon G, Suc J-P, Popescu S-M, et al. 2008. Chronology of the Messinian events and paleogeography of the Mediterranean region s.l. CIESM Workshop Monographs 33:31–37. [Google Scholar]
  • Combémorel R, Guérin C, Méon-Vilain H. 1970. Un nouveau gisement de Vertébrés mio-pliocènes à Priay (Ain). Bull Bur Rec Géol Min 4(S2): 33–47. [Google Scholar]
  • Corradini D, Biffi U. 1988. Etude des dinokystes à la limite Messinien-Pliocène dans la coupe Cava Serredi, Toscane, Italie. Bull Centres Rech Explor-Prod Elf-Aquitaine 12(1): 221–236. [Google Scholar]
  • Dalla S, Harby H, Serazzi M. 1997. Hydrocarbon exploration in a complex incised valley fill: an example from the late Messinian Abu Madi Formation (Nile Delta Basin, Egypt). The Leading Edge 16: 1819–1824. [Google Scholar]
  • De Leeuw A, Tulbure M, Kuiper KF, Melinte-Dobrinescu MC, Stoica M, Krijgsman W. 2018. New 40Ar/39Ar magnetostratigraphic and biostratigraphic constraints on the termination of the Badenian Salinity Crisis: indications for tectonic improvement of basin interconnectivity in Southern Europe. Global Planet Change 169: 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • Do Couto D, Cushing EM, Mocochain L, et al. 2024. Messinian canyons morphology of the Rhône and Ardèche rivers (south-east France): new insights from seismic profiles. BSGF–Earth Sci Bull. 195: 19. [Google Scholar]
  • Do Couto D, Gorini C, Jolivet L, et al. 2016. Tectonic and stratigraphic evolution of the Western Alboran Sea Basin in the last 25 Myrs. Tectonophysics 677: 280–311. [Google Scholar]
  • Do Couto D, Gumiaux C, Jolivet L, et al. 2015. 3D modelling of the Sorbas Basin (Spain): new constraints on the Messinian Erosional Surface morphology. Mar Pet Geol 66:101–116. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Do Couto D, Popescu S-M, Suc J-P, et al. 2014. Lago Mare and the Messinian Salinity Crisis: evidence from the Alboran Sea (S. Spain). Mar Pet Geol 52: 57–76. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Dolson JC, Boucher PJ, Siok J, Heppard PD. 2005. Key challenges to realizing full potential in an emerging giant gas province: Nile Delta/Mediterranean offshore, deep water, Egypt. In: Doré AG, Vining BA, eds. Petroleum Geology: North-West Europe and global perspectives. Proceedings of the 6th Petroleum Geology Conference. Geological Society of London, 2005, pp. 607–624. [Google Scholar]
  • Dromart G, Suc J-P, Popescu S-M, Rubino J-L. 2024. The Pliocene succession of Lyon Metropolis (SE France): an overfill of a Messinian incised-valley. BSGF – Earth Sci Bull 19:6. [Google Scholar]
  • Druckman Y, Buchbinder B, Martinotti GM, Siman Tov R, Aharon P. 1995. The buried Afiq Canyon (eastern Mediterranean, Israel): a case study of a tertiary submarine canyon exposed in Late Messinian times. Mar Geol 123: 167–185. [Google Scholar]
  • Druitt TH, Kutterolf S, Ronge TA, et al. 2024. Site U1591. In: Druitt TH, Kutteroflf S, Ronge TA,, et al. eds. Proceedings of the international ocean discovery program, 398, College Station, 105. [Google Scholar]
  • El Euch-El Koundi N, Ferry S, Suc J-P, et al. 2009. Messinian deposits and erosion in northern Tunisia: inferences on Strait of Sicily during the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Terra Nova 21: 41–48. [Google Scholar]
  • Farouk S, Ziko A, Eweda SA, Said AE. 2014. Subsurface Miocene sequence stratigraphic framework in the Nile Delta, Egypt. J Afr Earth Sci 91: 89–109. [Google Scholar]
  • Fauquette S, Suc J-P, Bertini A, et al. 2006. How much did climate force the Messinian salinity crisis? Quantified climatic conditions from pollen records in the Mediterranean region. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 238: 281–301. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gargani J. 2004. Modelling of the erosion in the Rhone valley during the Messinian crisis (France). Quat Intern 121: 13–22. [Google Scholar]
  • Gargani J. 2024. Relative sea level and coastal vertical movements in relation to volcanic-tectonic processes at Mayotte Island, Indian Ocean. GeoHazards 5: 329–349. [Google Scholar]
  • Gargani J, Moretti I, Letouzey J. Evaporite accumulation during the Messinian Salinity Crisis: the Suez Rift case. Geophys Res Lett 35: LO2401. [Google Scholar]
  • Gargani J, Rigollet C. 2007. Mediterranean Sea-level variations during the messinian salinity crisis. Geophys Res Lett 34:110–405. [Google Scholar]
  • Gargani J, Rigollet C, Scarcelli S. 2010. Isostatic response and geomorphological evolution of the Nile Valley during the Messinian salinity crisis. BSGF 181: 19–26. [Google Scholar]
  • Gautier F, Clauzon G, Suc J-P, Cravatte J, Violanti D. 1994. Age et durée de la crise de salinité messinienne. CR Acad Sci Paris 318 (S2): 1103–1109. [Google Scholar]
  • Gibert L, Scott GR, Montoya P, et al. 2013. Evidence for an African-Iberian mammal dispersal during the pre-evaporitic Messinian. Geology 41: 691–694. [Google Scholar]
  • Ginat H, Zilberman E, Avni Y. 2000. Tectonic and paleogeographic significance of the Edom River, a Pliocene stream that crossed the dead sea Rift Valley. Isr J Earth Sci 49: 159–177. [Google Scholar]
  • Giresse P, Bassetti M-A, Chanier F, et al. 2015. Depositional environment and age of some key Late Pliocene to Early Quaternary deposits on the underfilled Cedrino paleovalley (Orosei): insight into the Neogene geodynamic evolution of Sardinia. Quat Intern 357: 220–236. [Google Scholar]
  • Golovina LA, Radionova EP, van Baak CGC, Krijgsman W, Palcu DV. 2019. A Late Maeotian age (6.7-6.3 Ma) for the enigmatic “Pebbly Breccia” unit in DSDP Hole 380A of the Black Sea. Palaeogeogr Paleoclimatol Palaeoecol 533:109269. [Google Scholar]
  • Gorini C, Montadert L, Rabineau M. 2015. New imaging of the salinity crisis: dual messinian lowstand megasequences recorded in the deep basin of both the eastern and western Mediterranean. Mar Pet Geol 66: 278–294. [Google Scholar]
  • Görür N, Çağatay MN, Sakinc M, et al. 1997. Origin of the Sea of Marmara deduced from Neogene to Quaternary paleogeographic evolution of its frame.Int Geol Rev 39: 342–352. [Google Scholar]
  • Grasso M, Pedley HM. 1988. The sedimentology and development of Terravecchia Formation carbonates (Upper Miocene) of north central Sicily: possible eustatic influence on facies development. Sedim Geol 57: 131–149. [Google Scholar]
  • Haq B, Gorini C, Baur J, Moneron J, Rubino J-L. 2020. Deep Mediterranean’s Messinian evaporite giant: how much salt? Global Planet Change 184:103052. [Google Scholar]
  • Heida H, García-Castellanos D, Jiménez-Munt I, et al. 2024. Seaway restriction, sea level drop and erosion in the Alboran Basin from a paleotopographic reconstruction for the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Mar Geol 474:107300. [Google Scholar]
  • Hilgen FJ, Lourens LJ, Van Dam JA. 2012. The Neogene Period. In: Gradstein FM, Ogg JG, Schmitz M, Ogg G, eds. The geologic time scale 2012, Elsevier, pp. 923–978. [Google Scholar]
  • Hsü KJ, Montadert L, Bernoulli D, et al. 1978. Site 378: Cretan Basin. In: Ryan WBF, Hsü KJ, Montadert L, eds. Leg 42A. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project 42(1), U.S. Government Printing office, pp. 321–357. [Google Scholar]
  • Hsü KJ, Ryan WBF, Cita MB. 1973. Late Miocene desiccation of the Mediterranean. Nature 242: 240–244. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hsü KJ, Giovanoli F. 1979-1980. Messinian event in the Black Sea. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 29: 75–93. [Google Scholar]
  • Infoterre (BRGM) available from http://www.infoterre.brgm.fr. [Google Scholar]
  • Jiménez-Moreno G, Popescu S-M, Ivanov I, Suc J-P. 2007. Neogene flora, vegetation and climate dynamics in southeastern Europe and the northeastern Mediterranean. In: Williams M, Haywood AM, Gregory FJ, Schmidt DN, eds. Deep-time perspectives on climate change: marrying the signal from computer models and biological proxies. London: The Micropalaeontological Society, Special Publications, The Geological Society, pp. 503–516. [Google Scholar]
  • Jolivet L, Augier R, Robin C, Suc J-P, Rouchy JM. 2006. Lithospheric-scale geodynamic context of the Messinian salinity crisis. Sedim Geol 188-189: 9–33. [Google Scholar]
  • Karakitsios V, Cornée J-J, Tsourou T, et al. 2017. Messinian salinity crisis record under strong freshwater input in marginal, intermediate, and deep environments: the case of the North Aegean. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 485: 316–335. [Google Scholar]
  • Krijgsman W, Hilgen FJ, Raffi I, Sierro FJ, Wilson DS. 1999. Chronology, causes and progression of the Messinian salinity crisis. Nature 400: 652–655. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Krijgsman W, Palcu DV, Andreetto F, Stoica M, Mandic O. 2020a. Changing seas in the late Miocene Northern Aegean: a Paratethyan approach to Mediterranean basin evolution. Earth-Sci Rev 210:103386. [Google Scholar]
  • Krijgsman W, Rohling EJ, Palcu DV, et al. 2024. Causes and consequences of the Messinian salinity crisis. Nature Rev Earth Environ 5: 335–350. [Google Scholar]
  • Krijgsman W, Stoica M, Hoyle TM, et al. 2020b. The myth of the Messinian Dardanelles: Late Miocene stratigraphy and palaeogeography of the ancient Aegean-Black Sea gateway. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 560:110033. [Google Scholar]
  • Krijgsman W, Stoica M, Vasiliev I, Popov VV. 2010. Rise and fall of the Paratethys Sea during the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Earth Planet Sci Lett 290: 183–191. [Google Scholar]
  • Leever KA, Matenco L, Rabagia T, Cloetingh S, Krijgsman W, Stoica M. 2010. Messinian sea level fall in the Dacic Basin (Eastern Paratethys): palaeogeographical implications from seismic sequence stratigraphy. Terra Nova 22: 12–17. [Google Scholar]
  • Leroux E, Rabineau M, Aslanian D, et al. 2017. High-resolution evolution of terrigenous sediment yields in the Provence basin during the last 6 Ma: relation with climate and tectonics. Bas Res 29: 305–339. [Google Scholar]
  • Le Strat P. 2005. Expertise géologique Gaz de France NACAP. Rapport final – BRGM/RC-53834-FR: 20 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Lirer F, Foresi L, Iaccarino SM, et al. 2019. Mediterranean Neogene planktonic foraminifer biozonation and biochronology. Earth-Sci Rev 196:102869. [Google Scholar]
  • Lofi J, Gorini C, Berné S, et al. 2005. Erosional processes and paleo-environmental changes in the Western Gulf of Lions (SW France) during the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Mar Geol 217: 1–30. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lofi J, Sage F, Déverchère J, et al. 2011. Refining our knowledge of the Messinian salinity crisis records in the offshore domain through multi-site seismic analysis. Bull Soc géol France 182(2): 163–180. [Google Scholar]
  • Londeix L, Benzakour M, Suc J-P, Turon J-L. 2007. Messinian paleoenvironments and hydrology in Sicily (Italy): The dinoflagellate cyst record. Geobios 40(3): 233–250. [CrossRef] [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: 171–174. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Maillard A, Gaullier V, Lézin C, Chanier F, Odonne F, Lofi J. 2020. New onshore/offshore evidence of the Messinian Erosion Surface from key areas: the Ibiza-Balearic Promontory and the Orosei-Eastern Sardinian margin. Earth Sci Bull 191:9. [Google Scholar]
  • Maniscalco R, Casciano CI, Distefano S, Grossi F, Di Stefano A. 2019. Facies analysis in the Second Cycle Messinian evaporites predating the early Pliocene reflooding: the Balza Soletta section (Corvillo Basin, central sicily). Ital J Geosci 138: 301–316. [Google Scholar]
  • Manzi V, Gennari R, Hilgen FJ, et al. 2013. Age refinement of the Messinian salinity crisis onset in the Mediterranean. Terra Nova 25: 315–322. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Manzi V, Gennari R, Lugli S, et al. 2021b. Synchronous onset of the Messinian salinity crisis and diachronous evaporite deposition: new evidences from the deep eastern Mediterranean basin. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 584:110685. [Google Scholar]
  • Manzi V, Roveri M, Argnani A, Cowan D, Lugli S. 2021a. Large-scale mass-transport deposits recording the collapse of an evaporitic platform during the Messinian salinity crisis (Caltanissetta basin, Sicily). Sedim Geol 424:106003. [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, vol. 2. Editura Tecnoscienza, Rome, pp. 739–785. [Google Scholar]
  • Martinotti GM, Gvirtzman G, Buchbinder B. 1978. The Late Miocene marine transgression in the Be’er Sheva area. Isr Journ Earth Sci 27: 72–82. [Google Scholar]
  • Mărunțeanu M, Papaianopol I. 1995. The connection between the Dacic and Mediterranean basins based on calcareous nannoplankton assemblages. Rom J Stratigr 76(7): 169–170. [Google Scholar]
  • Mărunţeanu M, Papaianopol I. 1998. Mediterranean calcareous nannoplankton in the Dacic Basin. Rom J Stratigr 78: 115–121. [Google Scholar]
  • Marzocchi A, Flecker R, van Baak CGC, Lunt DJ, Krijgsman W. 2016. Mediterranean outflow pump: an alternative mechanism for the lago-mare and the end of the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Geology 44: 523–526. [Google Scholar]
  • Masquelet C, Leroy S, Delescluse M, et al. 2022. The East-Mayotte new volcano in the Comoros Archipelago: structure and timing of magmatic phases inferred from seismic reflection data. CR Géoscience, Science de la Planète 35(S2): A13. [Google Scholar]
  • Meilijson A, Hilgen F, Sepúlveda J, et al. 2019. Chronology with a pinch of salt: integrated stratigraphy of Messinian evaporites in the deep eastern Mediterranean reveals long-lasting halite deposition during the Atlantic connectivity. Earth-Sci Rev 194: 374–398. [Google Scholar]
  • Melinte-Dobrinescu MC, Suc J-P, Clauzon G, et al. 2009. The Messinian Salinity Crisis in the Dardanelles region: chronostratigraphic constraints. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 278: 24–39. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Méon-Vilain H. 1970. Palynologie des formations miocènes supérieures et pliocènes du basin du Rhône. Documents du Laboratoire de Géologie de la Faculté des Sciences de Lyon 38, 167 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Micallef A, Camerlenghi A, Georgiopoulou A, et al. 2019. Geomorphic evolution of the Malta Escarpment and implications for the Messinian evaporative drawdown in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Geomorphology 327: 264–283. [Google Scholar]
  • Mocochain L, Blanpied C, Revillon S, Suc J-P, Müller C, Melinte-Dobrinescu MC. 2024. The Psematismenos-Maroni Basin (South Cyprus): Cenozoic tectonic and sedimentary evolution. BSGF – Earth Sci Bull, 220020. https://doi.org/10.1051/bsgf/2024020. [Google Scholar]
  • Mocochain L, Blanpied C, Suc J-P, 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]
  • Moneron J, Gvirtzman Z. 2022. Late Messinian submarine channel system in the Levant Basin: challenging the desiccation scenario. Geology 50: 1366–1371. [Google Scholar]
  • Müller C. 1990. Nannoplankton biostratigraphy and paleoenvironmental interpretations from the Tyrrhenian Sea, ODP Leg 107 (Western Mediterranean). In: Kastens KA, Mascle J,, et al. eds. Proceedings of the ocean drilling program, scientific results, TX: College Station, 107, pp. 495–511. [Google Scholar]
  • Néraudeau D. 2007. Les bioaccumulations néogènes (calcaires à algues, faluns) d’Europe occidentale et leurs relations avec la crise messinienne. CR Palevol 6: 59–71. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Néraudeau D, Goubert E, Lacour D, Rouchy JM. 2001. Changing biodiversity of Mediterranean irregular echinoids from the Messinian to Present-Day. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 175: 43–60. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Néraudeau D, Roman J, Borghi E. 1999. Impact of the Messinian crisis on the Mediterranean echinoid fauna. In: Candia Carnevali M, Bonasoro F, eds. Echinoderm research. Rotterdam (The Netherlands): Balkema AA, pp. 355–360. [Google Scholar]
  • Okay AI, Özcan E, Hakyemez A, et al. 2019. The Thrace Basin and the Black Sea: the Eocene-Oligocene marine connection. Geol Mag 156: 39–61. [Google Scholar]
  • Osman MK, Bessedik M, Belkebir L, et al. 2021. Messinian to Piacenzian deposits, erosion, and subsequent marine bioevents in the Dahra Massif (Lower Chelif Basin, Algeria). Arab Journ Geosci 14:684. [Google Scholar]
  • Palmieri G, Harby H, Marini JA, Hashem F, Dalla S, Shash M. 1996. Baltim fields complex: an outstanding example of hydrocarbon accumulations in a fluvial Messinian incised valley. In: Youssef M, ed. Proceedings of the 13th petroleum conference, Cairo, Egypt. The Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation, pp. 256–269. [Google Scholar]
  • Pawellek T, Adnet S, Cappetta H, et al. 2012. Discovery of an earliest Pliocene relic tropical fish fauna in a newly detected cliff section (Sabratah Basin, NW Lybia). N Jb Geol Paläont Abh 266(2): 93–114. [Google Scholar]
  • Pellen R, Aslanian D, Rabineau M, et al. 2019. The Messinian Ebro River incision. Global Planet Change 181:102988. [Google Scholar]
  • Pellen R, Aslanian D, Rabineau M, et al. 2022. Structural and sedimentary origin of the Gargano - Pelagosa gateway and impact on sedimentary evolution during the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Earth-Sci Rev 232:104114. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pellen R, Gorini C, Aslanian D, et al. 2021. Implication des reconstructions palinspastiques dans l’évolution des seuils centraux méditerranéens durant la crise de salinité messinienne. 27th RST Lyon, T11.10, p. 646. [Google Scholar]
  • Pellen R, Popescu S-M, Suc J-P, et al. 2017. The Apennine foredeep (Italy) during the latest Messinian: Lago Mare reflects competing brackish and marine conditions based on calcareous nannofossils and dinoflagellate cysts. Geobios 50: 237–257. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pensa T, Huertas AD, Afifi AM. 2025. Desiccation of the Red Sea basin at the start of the Messinian salinity crisis was followed by major erosion and reflooding from the Idian Ocean. Comm Earth Environ 6:649. [Google Scholar]
  • Perch-Nielsen K, 1985. Cenozoic calcareous nannofossils. In: Bolli HM, Saunders JB, Perch-Nielsen K, eds. Plankton stratigraphy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 1, pp. 427–554. [Google Scholar]
  • Poisson A, Orszag-Sperber F, Kosun E, et al. 2011. The Late Cenozoic evolution of the Aksu basin (Isparta Angle; SW Turkey). New insights. Bull Soc géol Fr 182(2): 133–148. [Google Scholar]
  • Popescu S-M, Cavazza W, Suc J-P, Melinte-Dobrinescu MC, Barhoun N, Gorini C. 2021. Pre-Zanclean end of the Messinian Salinity Crisis: new evidence from central Mediterranean reference sections. J Geol Soc 178: jgs2020–183. [Google Scholar]
  • Popescu S-M, Dalesme F, Jouannic G, et al. 2009. Galeacysta etrusca complex: dinoflagellate cyst marker of Paratethyan influxes to the Mediterranean Sea before and after the peak of the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Palynology 33: 105–134. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Popescu S-M, Dalibard M, Suc J-P, et al. 2015. Lago Mare episodes around the Messinian–Zanclean boundary in the deep southwestern Mediterranean. Mar Pet Geol 66: 55–70. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Popescu S-M, Krijgsman W, Suc J-P, Clauzon G, Mărunțeanu M, Nica T. 2006. Pollen record and integrated high-resolution chronology of the early Pliocene Dacic Basin (southwestern Romania). Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 238: 78–90. [Google Scholar]
  • Popescu S-M, Melinte M-C, Suc J-P, Clauzon G, Quillévéré F, Süto-Szentai M. 2007. Earliest Zanclean age for the “latest Messinian” northern Apennines: new palaeoenvironmental data from the Maccarone section (Marche province, Italy). Geobios 40: 359–373. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Popescu S-M, Melinte-Dobrinescu MC, Suc J-P, Do Couto D. 2017. Ceratolithus acutus Gartner and Bukry 1974 (= C. armatus Müller 1974), calcareous nannofossil marker of the marine reflooding that terminated the Messinian Salinity Crisis: Comment on “Paratethyan ostracods in the Spanish Lago-Mare: More evidence for interbasinal exchange at high Mediterranean sea level” by Stoica, et al. 2016. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 441: 854–870. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 485: 986–989. [Google Scholar]
  • Proedrou P, Papaconstantinou CM. 2004. Prinos Basin - a model for oil exploration. Bull Geol Soc Greece 36: 327–333. [Google Scholar]
  • Raffi I, Backman J, Fornaciari E, et al. 2006. A review of calcareous nannofossil astrobiochronology encompassing the past 25 million years. Quat Sci Rev 25: 3113–3137. [Google Scholar]
  • Rodriguez M, Sakellariou D, Gorini C, et al. 2023. Evolution of the North Anatolian Fault from a diffuse to a localized shear zone in the North Aegean Sea during the Plio–Pleistocene. Geophys J Intern 235: 2614–2639. [Google Scholar]
  • Roveri M, Bassetti MA, Ricci Lucchi F. 2001. The Mediterranean Messinian salinity crisis: an Apennine foredeep perspective. Sedim Geol 140: 201–214. [Google Scholar]
  • Roveri M, Flecker R, Krijgsman W, et al. 2014a. The Messinian Salinity Crisis: past and future of a great challenge for marine sciences. Mar Geol 352: 25–58. [Google Scholar]
  • Roveri M, Gennari R, Ligi M, Lugli S, Manzi V, Reghizzi M. 2019. The synthetic seismic expression of the Messinian salinity crisis from onshore records: implications for shallow-to deep-water correlations. Basin Res 41:12361. [Google Scholar]
  • Roveri M, Lugli S, Manzi V. 2025. The desiccation and catastrophic refilling of the Mediterranean: 50 years of facts, hypotheses, and myths around the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Ann Rev Mar Sci 17: 485–509. [Google Scholar]
  • Roveri M, Lugli S, Manzi V, Gennari R, Schreiber BC. 2014b. High-resolution strontium isotope stratigraphy of the Messinian deep Mediterranean basins: implications for marginal to central basins correlation. Mar Geol 349: 113–125. [Google Scholar]
  • Roveri M, Lugli S, Manzi V, Schreiber BC. 2008a. The Messinian Sicilian stratigraphy revisited: new insights for the Messinian salinity crisis. Terra Nova 20: 483–488. [Google Scholar]
  • Roveri M, Manzi V, Bergamasco A, et al. 2014c. Dense shelf water cascading and Messinian canyons: a new scenario for the Mediterranean salinity crisis. Am J Sci 314: 751–784. [Google Scholar]
  • Roveri L, Manzi V, Gennari R, Iaccarino SM, Lugli S. 2008b. Recent advancements in the Messinian stratigraphy of Italy and their Mediterranean-scale implications. Boll Soc Paleontol Ital 47(2): 71–85. [Google Scholar]
  • Roveri M, Manzi V, Lugli S, et al. 2006. Clastic vs. primary precipitated evaporites in the Messinian Sicilian basins. Acta Naturalia de L’Ateneo Parmense 42(4): 125–199. [Google Scholar]
  • Rubino J-L, Haddadi N, Camy-Peyret J, et al. 2010. Messinian Salinity Crisis expression along North African Margin. SPE Conf., Le Caire, SPE 129526-PP, 4 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Ruggieri G. 1962. La serie marine pliocenica e quaternaria della Val Marecchia. Atti Acad Sci Lett Arti Palermo 19: 1–169. [Google Scholar]
  • Ryan WBF. 2023. 50th anniversary review of the Mediterranean desiccation hypothesis. La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento 42:9. [Google Scholar]
  • Ryan WBF, Carbotte SM, Coplan JO, et al. 2009. Global multi-resolution topography synthesis. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 10: Q03014. [Google Scholar]
  • Schuster JM, Auxietre J-L, Biju-Duval B, Letouzey J. 1978. CIDOG Mer Egée/Mer de Crète. Rapport interne IFP-SNEA. [Google Scholar]
  • Snel E, Mărunţeanu M, Meulenkamp JE. 2006a. Calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy and magnetostratigraphy of the Upper Miocene and Lower Pliocene of the Northern Aegean (Orphanic Gulf-Strimon Basin areas), Greece. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 238: 125–150. [Google Scholar]
  • Snel E, Mărunţeanu M, Macaleţ R, Meulenkamp JE, van Vugt N. 2006b. Late Miocene to Early Pliocene chronostratigraphic framework for the Dacic Basin, Romania. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 238: 107–124. [Google Scholar]
  • Sternai P, Caricchi L, Garcia-Castellanos D, Jolivet L, Sheldrake TE, Castelltort S. 2017. Magmatic pulse driven by sea-level changes associated with the Messinian salinity crisis. Nat Geosci 10: 783–787. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Stoica M, Krijgsman W, Fortuin A, Gliozzi E. 2016. Paratethyan ostracods in the Spanish Lago-Mare: more evidence for basinal exchange at high Mediterranean sea level. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 441: 854–870. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Suc J-P, Do Couto D, Melinte-Dobrinescu MC, et al. 2011. The Messinian Salinity Crisis in the Dacic Basin (SW Romania) and early Zanclean Mediterranean-Eastern Paratethys high sea-level connection. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 310: 256–272. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Suc J-P, Fauquette S, Warny S, Jiménez-Moreno G, Do Couto D. 2023. Climate and Atlantic sea-level recorded in Southwestern Spain from 6.3 to 5.2 Ma. Inferences on the Messinian Crisis in the Mediterranean. BSGF – Earth Sci Bull 194:15. [Google Scholar]
  • Suc J-P, Gillet H, Çağatay MN, et al. 2015b. The region of the Strandja Sill (North Turkey) and the Messinian events. Mar Pet Geol 66: 149–164. [Google Scholar]
  • Suc JP, Gorini C, Rabineau M, et al. 2019. La Crise de salinité messinienne. Géochronique 151: 24–30. [Google Scholar]
  • Suc J-P, Popescu S-M, Do Couto D, et al. 2015a. Marine gateway vs. fluvial stream within the Balkans from 6 to 5 Ma. Mar Pet Geol 66: 231–245. [Google Scholar]
  • Ter Borgh M, Stoica M, Donselaar ME, Matenco L, Krijgsman W. 2014. Miocene connectivity between the Central and Eastern Paratethys: constraints from the western Dacian Basin. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 412: 45–67. [Google Scholar]
  • Thinon I, Guennoc P, Serrano O, Maillard A, Lasseur E, Réhault JP. 2016. Seismic markers of the Messinian Salinity Crisis in an intermediate-depth basin: data for understanding the Neogene evolution of the Corsica Basin (northern Tyrrhenian Sea). Mar Pet Geol 77: 1274–1296. [Google Scholar]
  • Tzevahirtzian A, Caruso A, Andreetto F, Bonomo S, Krijgsman W. 2023. A bio-chronostratigraphic study of the upper Miocene from the northern Caltanissetta Basin, Sicily (core 3AGN2S04). Implications for dating the Messinian Salinity Crisis onset. Sedim Geol 445:106330. [Google Scholar]
  • Van Couvering JA, Castradori D, Cita MB, Hilgen FJ, Rio D. 2000. The base of the Zanclean Stage and of the Pliocene Series. Episodes 23: 179–187. [Google Scholar]
  • Van Dijk G, Maars J, Andreetto F, Hernández-Molina FJ, Rodríguez-Tovar FJ, Krijgsman W. 2023. A terminal Messinian flooding of the Mediterranean evidenced by contouritic deposits on Sicily. Sedimentology 70: 1195–1223. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Varesis A, Anastasakis G. 2021. Cenozoic marine basin evolution in the Western North Aegean through margin: seismic stratigraphic evidence. Water 13:2267. [Google Scholar]
  • Warny SA, Wrenn JH. 2002. Upper Neogene dinoflagellate cysts of the Atlantic coast of Morocco. Micropaleontol 48(3): 257–272. [Google Scholar]
  • Young JR. 1998. Chapter 8: Neogene. In: Bown PR, ed. Calcareous nannofossils biostratigraphy.Kluwer, Dordrecht: British Micropaleontological Society Publications Series, pp. 225–265. [Google Scholar]
  • Zilberman E, Siman-Tov R, Almogi-Labin A, et al. 2010. Late Miocene (Messinian) to earliest Pliocene submarine density flow sediments in the Nesher Quarry, and their implications on the timing of the Carmel Mountain uplift. Rep Geol Surv Isr 31: 44 pp. [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Suc J-P, Rubino J-L, Popescu S-M, Melinte-Dobrinescu MC, Barhoun N, Dromart G, Couto DD, Leroux E, Pellen R, Gorini C, Bache F, Namik Çağatay M, Jolivet L, Mocochain L, Hippolyte J-C, Rabineau M, Loget N, Meyer B, Gargani J, Karakaş Ç, Aslanian D, Chirol B. 2026. The two-step scenario of the Messinian Crisis (Clauzon et al., 1996): a specification supported by new data, BSGF - Earth Sciences Bulletin 197: 2. https://doi.org/10.1051/bsgf/2025021

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1

Map of the Mediterranean Basin s.l. with a sketch of the paleogeographic context during the second (paroxysmal) step of the Messinian Crisis, with a focus on the evaporites in the central basins (Haq et al., 2020), the isolated (perched) basins (West Alboran: Booth-Rea et al., 2018; Apennine Foredeep: Pellen et al., 2017, 2021; Eastern Paratethys including the Aegean Basin: Popescu et al., 2015; Suc et al., 2015a), the fluvial canyons (Bache et al., 2012; Pellen et al., 2019; addition references in the Supplementary material), and the submarine canyons in the Southeastern Levantine Basin (Buchbinder and Zilberman, 1997; Moneron and Gvirtzman, 2022). The map is elaborated using GeoMapApp (Ryan et al., 2009).

Carte de la Méditerranée s.l. dans le contexte paléogéographique du second stade (paroxysmal) de la Crise messinienne.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 2

Compared scenarios with their own chronology. MES: Messinian Erosional Surface. LM 1, LM 2, LM 3: successive Lago Mare episodes. LE: Sicilian Lower Evaporites. UE: Sicilian Upper Evaporites. The central basin units refer to Lofi et al. (2011).

Comparaison entre les scénarios avec leur propre chronologie.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 3

Exposed Messinian Erosional Surface and nested Zanclean deposits. a, Onifai (Orosei), East Sardinia. b, Trilophos (Thessalonica), North Greece. Vertical scale bar = 1 m. Photographs by J.-P. Suc.

Examples de la Surface d’érosion messinienne à l’affleurement et de dépôts zancléens emboîtés
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 4

The controversial Eraclea Minoa section. a, Google Earth 3D overview of the area with location of the photographs. b, Upper part of the Messinian succession overlain by Zanclean Trubi  (location of photographs is indicated by rectangles). c, Chaotic Lower Gypsum. d, Detailed stratigraphic succession from the last gypsum to Trubi. e, Zanclean GSSP. f, Section showing the transgressive ravinement surface. LM 1, LM 3: Lago Mare episodes. Photographs: b, c, d, e by T. Rigaudier; f by J.-P. Suc.

La coupe d’Eraclea Minoa sujette à controverse.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 5

New data from the Rhône Messinian Erosional Surface far in the hinterland. a, Google Earth view in the southern Jura Mountains area (see Fig. 1). The Messinian paleovalley is tagged by blue arrows. 1, Borehole Z1 in the Air Base 278; 2, Château-Gaillard Quarry; 3, Cormoz 1 borehole; 4, Location of the seismic profile 14 from the 16-0184 survey. b, Transverse view of the Cluse des Hôpitaux. The Messinian erosion should correspond to the uppermost 30-40 metres of the uplifted Jurassic cliffs. c, Aerial view of the outlet of the Cluse des Hôpitaux. Legend: see Fig. a. d, Section of the Château-Gaillard Quarry. e, Uninterpreted seismic profile 14. f, Interpreted seismic profile 14. Red line: Messinian Erosional Surface (MES). Photographs: b by J.-P. Suc; c by B. Chirol; d by P. Sorrel.

Données nouvelles sur la Surface d’érosion messinienne du Rhône loin à l’intérieur des terres.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 6

New results on biostratigraphy (planktonic foraminifera and calcareous nannofossils) and environment (dinoflagellate cysts) of the latest Messinian and earliest Zanclean deposits of ODP Hole 654A. Evidence of two distinct Lago Mare episodes.

Nouveaux résultats sur la biostratigraphie et l’environnement messiniens à zancléens du forage 654A, épisodes Lago Mare successifs.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 7

Compared chronostratigraphy of four holes from the Western Mediterranean with respect to the Messinian and Zanclean boundary (5.33 Ma) and location of the Lago Mare episodes revealed by dinoflagellate cysts (LM 1 to LM 3), from Popescu et al. (2015) modified. The location of the Zanclean–Messinian boundary in Hole 976B takes into account the new data from Bulian et al. (2021). The Upper Evaporites (UU) topping the second step of the Messinian Crisis are indicated. ZAN = Zanclean; MES = Messinian. 5.35 Ma: first record of Ceratolithus acutus. 5.46 Ma: estimated location of the marine reflooding.

Comparaison entre quatre forages de Méditerranée occidentale où les épisodes Lago Mare sont situés par rapport à la limite Messinien-Zancléen.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 8

Updated stratigraphy interpretation of the Akropotamos succession (Suc et al., 2015a; Karakitsios et al., 2017). a, Completed cross-section from Suc et al. (2015a) with location of the cartoons b–e; b, The gypsum quarry northward of Akropotamos; c, The MES separating the travertine layers from the foreset beds of the Gilbert-type fan delta along the road to Kariani; d, The MES separating the travertine layers from the foreset beds of the Gilbert-type fan delta southward of Akropotamos; e, Distal part of the Akropotamos Gilbert-type fan delta. Photographs: b–e by J.-P. Suc.

Mise au point sur la stratigraphie de la série d’Akropotamos et sur son interprétation.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 9

Transverse seismic profile SE32 across the Southeastern Aegean Basin (SEISA Cruise; Schuster et al., 1978). a, Non interpreted profile; b, Interpreted line-drawing of the profile.

Profil sismique à travers le sud-est de la Mer Egée.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 10

Google Earth map of the Marmara region with the outline of the MES filled by Gilbert-type fan deltas and sketch of the fluvial network at the peak of the MC. The studied locations with calcareous nannoplankton age for most of them are shown in Figure S1. Sketch of the MES comes from Melinte-Dobrinescu et al. (2009) and Suc et al. (2015b). This figure includes the new data presented in this paper.

Carte Google Earth de la région de Marmara avec dessin de la Surface d’érosion messinienne, des Gilbert deltas qui remplissent les vallées messiniennes et du réseau fluviatile lors du paroxysme de la Crise messinienne.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 11

Selection of locations in the Dardanelles Strait (Fig. S1). a, Seddülbahir: white lines, sections studied by Melinte-Dobrinescu et al. (2009): ES, East Seddülbahir; WS, West Seddülbahir. Yelllow lines: sections A–B studied by Krijgsman et al. (2020b). b–c, The Karanfil T. section (Table S1): a, showing the MES and chronological calibration by calcareous nannoplankton; c, Karanfil T. section: lithological detail around the MES. d–j, The Intepe area. d, Google Earth relief map with the key-locations: 1–2, the Intepe section of Melinte-Dobrinescu et al. (2009) (Table S1): 1, the studied section; 2, place of the lignite overlain by fired clays; 3–8, representative sections of the Güzelyalı nested Gilbert-type fan delta: 3, deposits prior to the Messinian erosion northward of the MES; 4, block debris flow in contact with the MES; 5, foreset beds; 6, foreset-beds; 7, foreset beds in contact with the MES; 8, bottomset beds; 9, the Intepe-2 section studied by Krijgsman et al. (2020b). e, The Intepe section studied (black lines) by Melinte-Dobrinescu et al. (2009) as available in 2007. f, The same section destroyed in 2013 for building a motorway. g, Messinian sediments (to the right) cut by the MES, overlain by nested block debris flow (location 4 in Figure 11d). h, Foreset beds of the Gilbert-type fan delta (location 5 in Figure 11d). i, Zoom on the foreset beds of the Gilbert-type fan delta (location 7 in Figure 11d). j, The Intepe lignite overlain by fired clays (location 2 in Figure 11d). Photographs: a–c and e–i by J.-P. Suc, j by Ç. Karakaş.

Quelques localités remarquables du Détroit des Dardanelles.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 12

New elements of post-MC Gilbert-type fan deltas in the southern Marmara Sea region (the number into brackets refers to Figure S1 for location, and to Table S1 for calcareous nannoplankton ages). a, Concept of post-MC Gilbert-type fan deltas with constituent bodies and reference surfaces (Clauzon, 1990; Bache et al., 2012). b, Salzıdere (19): cemented breccia (debris flow) with iron crust overlying the MES. c, Mudanya (20): sandy to gravelly foreset beds overlying the MES cutting granitic weathered clays. d, Detail of the previous view. e, Yalakdere (27): abandonment surface. f, Mudanya (20): sandy to gravelly topset beds. g, Soğuçak (24): clayey and lignitic topset beds. h, Soğuçak (24): marine-continental transition. i, Detail of the previous view. j, Mudanya (20): marine-continental transition. k, Soğuçak (24): sigmoid passage from sandy foreset beds to clayey bottomset beds. l, Koruköy (26): clayey bottomset beds. m, Koruköy (26): sandy to gravelly foreset beds.

Nouveaux éléments constitutifs des Gilbert deltas du sud de la Mer de Marmara.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 13

Beceni (SE Romania). a, The MES between Miocene marine marls and Zanclean marine marls. b, The overlying marls which recorded the Zanclean marine microplankton.

Surface d’érosion messinienne à Beceni (SE Roumanie) surmontée par des dépôts à microplancton marin zancléen.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 14

Biostratigraphic (planktonic foraminifera and our new results on calcareous nannoplankton) and paleoenvironmental (dinoflagellate cysts) information from two sections from Israel. a, Nesher Quarry (Zilberman et al., 2010); b, Borehole SH 13 (foraminifera from: Martinotti et al., 1978).

Biostratigraphie de deux coupes en Israël incluant les résultats nouveaux sur le nannoplancton calcaire.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 15

Reconstructed paleogeography of the Mediterranean region through some transects in agreement with the two-step scenario of the MC (Clauzon et al., 1996, 2005; Bache et al., 2012, 2015; Gorini et al., 2015; Popescu et al., 2015, 2021; Haq et al., 2020). a, Location of the transects. b, Present-day bathymetry along a longitudinal transect and three transverse transects. c–i, Environmental changes in the Mediterranean (bathymetry, deposition, erosion) from 6.00 to 5.45 Ma through four similar transects: c, 6.00 Ma: before the MC onset; d, 5.85 Ma: first step of the MC (peripheral evaporites); e, 5.64 Ma: high sea level closing the first step of the MC (LM 1); f, 5.60 Ma: beginning of the second step of the MC (subaerial erosion, deposition of detritic cones); g, 5.55 Ma: ongoing second step of the MC (central evaporites); h, 5.50 Ma: end of the second step of the MC (slow sea-level rise, marine abrasion surface, transfer of Aegean waters into the Mediterranean: LM 2); i, 5.45 Ma: after the catastrophic marine reflooding (edification of Gilbert-type fan deltas, LM 3).

Paléogéographie méditerranéenne reconstituée à travers quelques transects conformément au scénario en deux temps de la Crise messinienne.
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.