Late Permian palaeomagnetic data east and west of the Urals

Abstract

We studied Upper Permian redbeds from two areas, one between the Urals and the Volga River in the southeastern part of Baltica and the other in north Kazakhstan within the Ural-Mongol belt, which are about 900 km apart; a limited collection of Lower-Middle Triassic volcanics from north Kazakhstan was also studied. A high-temperature component that shows rectilinear decay to the origin was isolated from most samples of all three collections. For the Late Permian of north Kazakhstan, the area-mean direction of this component is D = 224.3°, I =−56.8°, k = 161, Α 95 = 2.7°, N = 18 sites, palaeopole at 53.4°N, 161.3°E; the fold test is positive. The Triassic result ( D = 55.9°, I =+69.1°, k = 208, Α 95 = 4.2°, N = 7 sites, pole at 57.0°N, 134.1°E) is confirmed by a positive reversal test. The corresponding palaeomagnetic poles from north Kazakhstan show good agreement with the APWP for Baltica, thus indicating no substantial motion between the two areas that are separated by the Urals. Our new mean Late Permian direction for SE Baltica ( D = 42.2°, I = 39.2°, k = 94, Α 95 = 3.5°, N = 17 sites; palaeopole at 45.6°N, 170.2°E) is confirmed as near-primary by a positive tilt test and the presence of dual-polarity directions. The corresponding pole also falls on the APWP of Baltica, but is far-sided with respect to the coeval reference poles, as the observed mean inclination is shallower than expected by 13°± 4°. In principle, lower-than-expected inclinations may be attributed to one or more of the following causes: relative tectonic displacements, quadrupole and octupole terms in the geomagnetic field, higher-order harmonics (incl. secular variation) of the same field, random scatter, non-removed overprints, or inclination error during remanence acquisition and/or diagenetic compaction. Our analysis shows that most mechanisms from the above list cannot explain the observed pattern, leaving as the most likely option that it must be accounted for by inclination shallowing. Comparison with selected coeval results from eastern Baltica (all within Russia) shows that all of them are biased in the same way. This implies that they cannot be used for analysis of geomagnetic field characteristics, such as non-dipole contributions, without a more adequate knowledge of the required correction for inclination shallowing.