Planktonic foraminifera distribution during the mid-Piacenzian warm period in the North Atlantic

The mid-Piacenzian (MP) warm period (3.264-3.025 Ma) has been identified as the most recent time in geologic history during which mean global surface temperatures were considerably warmer than today for a sustained period. This interval has therefore been proposed as a potential (albeit imperfect) analog for future climate change and as such, has received much scientific attention over the past two decades. Central to this research effort is the Pliocene Research, Interpretation, and Synoptic Mapping (PRISM) project, an iterative paleoenvironmental reconstruction of the MP focused on increasing our understanding of warm-period climate forcings, dynamics, and feedbacks by providing three-dimensional data sets for general circulation models. A mainstay of the PRISM project has been the development of a global sea surface temperature (SST) data set based primarily upon quantitative analyses of planktic foraminifer assemblages, supplemented with geochemical SST estimates wherever possible. In order to improve spatial coverage of the PRISM faunal data set in the low and mid-latitude North Atlantic, this study provides a description of the MP planktic foraminifer assemblage from five Ocean Drilling Program sites (951, 958, 1006, 1062, and 1063) in the subtropical gyre, a region critical to Atlantic Ocean circulation and tropical heat advection. Assemblages from each core provide evidence for a temperature- and circulation-driven 5-10° northward displacement of MP faunal provinces, as well as regional shifts in planktic foraminifer populations linked to species ecology and interactions. General biogeographic trends also indicate that, relative to modern conditions, gyre circulation was stronger (particularly the Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Current, and North Equatorial Current) and meridionally broader. A comparison of mid-Piacenzian and modern North Atlantic planktic foraminifer assemblages suggests that low latitude western boundary currents were less than 1 °C warmer while eastern boundary currents were ~1-2 °C warmer, supporting the hypothesis of enhanced northward heat advection along western boundary currents and warming of high latitude Northeast Atlantic source regions for the Canary Current. These findings are consistent with a model of reduced meridional SST gradients, with little-to-no low latitude warming, and more vigorous ocean circulation. Results therefore support the theory that enhanced meridional overturn circulation and associated northward heat advection made an important contribution, in conjunction with elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations, to the 2-3 °C global surface temperature increase (relative to today) and strong polar amplification of SST warmth during the MP warm period.

Table 1 : AMS-14C data used for the reconstruction of the Wismar Bay shoreline displacement curve

The Baltic coast of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is located in the transition Zone between the region of Fennoscandian Uplift and the Central European Depression. In relation to the eustatic sea-level rise, the northeast coast shows a slower inundation, while for the southwestern area a faster transgression is indicated, which can be attributed to crustal movements. To determine the spatial and temporal differences since the onset of the Littorina Transgression, three relative sea-level curves have been established along a transect parallel to the gradient of upliftlsubsidence. The Wismar Bay area is one endpoint of the transect demonstrating today 10 Abb., 2 Tab. a relative sea-level rise of 1.4 mm/a. To determine the relative sea-level curve for the Wismar Bay, two sites were investigated on Rustwerder Spit (Poel) and Redentin. They provided reliable depth-age data, while the stratigraphy was additionally supported by lithological/geochemical, pollen, diatom and macrofossil data. Additional evidence was provided by archaeological submarine surveys and excavations. Comparing the new relative sea-level curve with a curve from the Vorpommern coast, it can be shown that for the period from 4000 cal BC until present, the differences between the two curves are caused by a constant neotectonic movement, while for the older periods an increasing isostatic component must be taken into account.