Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Contrasting Recording Efficiency of Chemical Versus Depositional Remanent Magnetization in Sediments
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Contrasting Recording Efficiency of Chemical Versus Depositional Remanent Magnetization in Sediments
Do you wish to request the book?
Contrasting Recording Efficiency of Chemical Versus Depositional Remanent Magnetization in Sediments
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Contrasting Recording Efficiency of Chemical Versus Depositional Remanent Magnetization in Sediments
2024
Overview
How and when sedimentary rocks record Earth's magnetic field is complex. Most studies assume a time‐progressive lock‐in mechanism during sediment deposition called depositional remanent magnetization (DRM). However, magnetic minerals can also form in situ, recording a chemical remanent magnetization (CRM) that is discontinuous in time. Disentangling the two mechanisms represents a major hurdle, and differences in their recording efficiencies remain unexplored. Here, our theoretical solutions demonstrate that CRM intensities exceed DRM by a factor of six when acquired in the same magnetic field. Novel experiments growing greigite (Fe3S4) in sediments and subsequent redeposition under identical magnetic field conditions confirm the predicted difference in recording efficiency. Thus, if left unrecognized, CRM leads to overestimated paleointensity and deserves more attention when interpreting Earth's magnetic history from sedimentary records. Recognition of fundamental differences between CRM and DRM characteristics provide a way forward to distinguish the recording mechanisms through routine laboratory protocols. Plain Language Summary Remanent magnetizations preserved in sedimentary rocks serve as a continuous record of Earth’s magnetic field history and play a fundamental role in understanding the Earth system. It is commonly assumed that magnetic minerals align with the magnetic field as a particle settles through the water column, known as a depositional remanent magnetization (DRM). However, diagenesis can lead to chemical growth of magnetic minerals, known as a chemical remanent magnetization (CRM). CRM lacks stratigraphic continuity and can obscure or completely overprint the original magnetization any time after sediment deposition, leading to a magnetic record that is uncorrelated with the age of the rock. Yet, CRMs go largely unrecognized. Theory and experiments in our paper document that CRMs record the magnetic field six times more efficiently than DRMs. Our work provides a way to distinguish the two through routine laboratory protocols. Key Points Recording efficiency of chemical remanent magnetization (CRM) is six times higher than depositional remanent magnetization (DRM) Undetected chemical remanences lead to overestimated relative paleointensity estimates Comparison of natural and laboratory magnetization and demagnetization behavior help identify chemical remanent magnetizations in sediments
