Next Article in Journal
Phase-Resolved Wave Simulation over Isolated Seamount
Next Article in Special Issue
The Biotoxic Effects of Ag Nanoparticles (AgNPs) on Skeletonema costatum, a Typical Bloom Alga Species in Coastal Areas
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Solutions for Small/Medium Ports a Guide to Efficient and Effective Planning
Previous Article in Special Issue
Provenance of the Lower Jurassic Badaowan and Sangonghe Formations in Dongdaohaizi Depression, Junggar Basin, and Its Constraint on the Karamaili Ocean
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JMSE
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/jmse11091764
jmse-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ordovician Tsunamis: Summary of Hypotheses and Implications for Geoheritage Resources

by
Dmitry A. Ruban
1,* and
Natalia N. Yashalova
2
1
Department of Organization and Technologies of Service Activities, Institute of Tourism, Service and Creative Industries, Southern Federal University, 23-ja Linija Street 43, Rostov-on-Don 344019, Rostov Oblast, Russia
2
Department of Economics and Management, Business School, Cherepovets State University, Sovetskiy Avenue 10, Cherepovets 162600, Vologda Region, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11(9), 1764; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11091764
Submission received: 27 August 2023 / Revised: 7 September 2023 / Accepted: 8 September 2023 / Published: 9 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Geological Oceanography II)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ordovician tsunamis have been hypothesized for more than 25 years, but the related knowledge is yet to be systematized. The published sources bearing the pieces of this knowledge were collected in the course of the specialized bibliographical survey, and these pieces of evidence were summarized and interpreted with special attention to the spatiotemporal distribution of Ordovician tsunamis. It is found that the latter were reported from many places of the world (24 localities are established), which represent the Gondwana periphery, some isolated continental blocks, and terranes. Tsunamis were hypothesized for all epochs of the considered period, but the evidence is especially numerous for the Middle Ordovician. The degree of certainty of the interpretations of these tsunamis is chiefly moderate. It appears that only a tiny portion of Ordovician tsunamis is known, but the amount of available information is expected, taking into account the possibility of finding very ancient tsunamis. The outcomes of this study contribute to a better awareness of the world’s geoheritage resources. The established localities representing Ordovician tsunamis can be considered potential geosites, two of which are promising start points for further, field-based research.

1. Introduction

The Ordovician, which was the second Paleozoic period with three epochs and seven stages, started at 485.4 Ma and ended at 443.8 Ma [1,2,3]. It was marked by outstanding biotic changes such as the long-term biodiversification event [4,5,6] and the strong mass extinction [7,8,9] and the notable abiotic phenomena such as the very high global sea level [10,11,12], the coexistence of the single supercontinent (Gondwana) with several smaller continents and terranes [13,14,15], the outstanding palaeotemperature shifts [16,17,18,19,20], and the extraterrestrial impacts [21,22]. However, many aspects of the Ordovician world are yet to be fully realized, and the related information needs regular systematization and reinterpretation.
In the modern world, tsunamis are rather common events with different triggers [23]. Apparently, they were similarly common and diverse in geological history, including the Ordovician. They can be interpreted on the basis of the careful analysis of sedimentary structures or the modeling of tsunami-triggering processes. Nonetheless, the evidence of pre-Quaternary tsunamis is very limited due to their poor preservation, the methodological difficulties, and, probably, the unawareness of geologists about their indicators in the sedimentary successions [24,25,26,27,28]. In particular, Pratt [29] stated that the tsunami horizons could occur more widely in the stratigraphical successions than expected. If so, the question is how to “catch” them. Ordovician tsunamis have been hypothesized time and time again (see the literature review below), but the related information remains scattered in the huge volume of literature sources. This is why it appears very important to gather it together and systematize it. Moreover, Ruban [27] explained that it is really important to pay attention to the quality (better put, certainty) of the evidence of ancient tsunamis. In some cases, they were proposed too briefly and without detailed argumentation, or the researchers were unable to choose between tsunamis and severe storms. In some other cases, clear arguments for the existence of tsunamis were presented. Indeed, all judgments of pre-Quaternary tsunamis are hypothetic, but some are more hypothetic than others due to the lack of strong evidence.
The scarcity of the knowledge on very ancient tsunamis makes the localities, critical to their studies, unique and important to research, education, and tourism, i.e., geoheritage sites (geosites sensu [30,31]). Tsunamis impress the public, and this kind of natural hazard is well popularized and related to tourist activities [32,33,34]. As a result, the idea of tsunamis from the Deep Past should be both interesting and clear to even non-specialists. In other words, their localities are potential geosites and geotourist attractions. A better understanding of pre-Quaternary tsunamis contributes to the exploration of geoheritage resources. Taking into account the demand for the latter in contemporary society, the need for these resources makes the ancient tsunami studies even more urgent.
The objective of this present paper is to characterize Ordovician tsunamis in light of the evidence collected from the literature. Their spatiotemporal distribution is emphasized. The outcomes of such a study seem to be important not only theoretically but also in regard to finding new, world-class geosites. This study focuses on a single period of the Paleozoic Era for reasons such as the representativeness and the heterogeneity of the literature and the potential for event correlation, which differ between the periods. Moreover, the Ordovician was the really specific (see above) time interval of the Earth’s evolution, and thus, it deserves special attention. It also appears reasonable to synthesize the knowledge step by step (period by period) to avoid delays and the related outdating of the information.

2. Materials and Methods

This present work is based on the existing literature and its systematic review. The main procedures were as follows. First, the “Scopus” bibliographical database, which boasts significant completeness and historical “depth” [35,36,37], was employed. The published sources mentioning Ordovician (and its subdivisions) and tsunamis (also tsunamites) in their titles, abstracts, and keywords were collected. Second, the opportunities of full-text search of such articles with the major publishers’ databases (e.g., “ScienceDirect” by “Elsevier” and “Springer Link” by “Springer”) were used. A direct search on Internet was also undertaken. Third, the lists of references in the collected sources were analyzed carefully to find some additional sources. In all cases, the content of the found sources was checked briefly to exclude the irrelevant ones. As the outcome of these efforts, a representative (if not comprehensive) sample was formed. It includes the sources mentioning Ordovician tsunamis and/or their deposits (tsunamites), even if very briefly. Indeed, the topic is highly specific, and thus, it is not surprising that the total number of sources is small.
The information from the collected sources was analyzed in two steps. First, the lines of evidence were summarized. For this purpose, the localities of the Ordovician tsunamis (one locality represents one relatively small area and one relatively “thin” time slice) were established. For each of them, the location, the age, the character of evidence, and the sources were indicated. The location and the age were considered generally as they are mentioned in the analyzed sources (if even the chronostratigraphic units are outdated). The character of evidence reflects the consideration of tsunamis in the sources. It was established as follows. Ancient tsunamis cannot be observed or evidenced with some historical documents, and thus, they can only be interpreted, i.e., hypothesized. If so, the character of evidence depends on the “quality” of the mentioned hypotheses. The latter can be well developed (formulated extensively and chiefly without alternative explanations), preferred (chosen among two or more possible explanations), alternative (considered as a possible alternative to any other explanations), simply stated, and debatable (with some criticism). They can also be presented in previous publications extensively or briefly. The related peculiarities of the information in the analyzed sources were established for the purposes of this present study. The triggers of the hypothesized tsunamis, as proposed in the original sources, were also indicated.
Second, the summarized lines of evidence collected from the existing literature were interpreted. The major palaeotectonic domain (affinity to supercontinents, large continental blocks, and terranes) was established for all localities. For this purpose, the information from the analyzed sources was used together with the consideration of the “fresh” plate tectonic reconstructions [13,14,15]. Indeed, some generalizations and assumptions were unavoidable due to the differences in these reconstructions. The age of the localities was justified against the present version of the international geological time scale of the Ordovician [1,2]. In several cases, the original information did not permit to attribute the localities to the particular stages of this period, and, therefore, the interpreted age was limited to the level of epochs (this should not be too large a generalization taking into account how old are Ordovician deposits). The degree of certainty of the interpretations of tsunamis offered in the original sources was established. The summarized information of the character of evidence allows scoring the localities, where one score signifies the lowest degree of certainty (when the hypothesis is debatable), and five scores signify the highest degree of certainty (when the hypothesis is well-developed and argued extensively). Importantly, the authors of this present work do not express their own opinions on the quality of the previous research and hypotheses and do not evaluate them critically (this task is left for future studies, which will require additional field-based information and methods that are yet to be developed). All these interpretations allow judgments of the spatiotemporal distribution of Ordovician tsunamis and the quality of the related information.

3. Results

3.1. Summary of the Evidence Collected from the Literature

First of all, it is reasonable to summarize the information collected from the existing literature. The published evidence of Ordovician tsunamis is rather heterogeneous (Table 1). Nonetheless, it allows for establishing two dozen localities where these natural hazards took place (several times in some localities). It appears that significant research attention was paid previously to eastern Laurentia and northwestern Baltica, which are the focus of several publications.
There is no ready “receipt” to hypothesize ancient tsunamis, and the related research employs state-of-the-art techniques. Tsunamis were hypothesized by the previous researchers with two approaches, which can be defined provisionally as direct identification and indirect assumption. The direct identification means that some peculiarities of sedimentary successions (rock sequences, specific lithologies, and structures) allowed judgments about the possibility of a tsunami. For instance, Pratt et al. [49] interpreted tsunamis for the La Silla Formation of the Western Precordillera (Argentina) on the basis of the very accurate analysis of the sedimentary signatures of unusual erosive events and also argued why the alternative explanations (tidal channels and severe storms) should be excluded. The indirect assumption means that tsunamis were noted as the expected consequence of some other, also interpreted geological processes. This means that tsunamis are assumed possible because their triggers are interpreted. For instance, Põldsaar et al. [47] proposed a tsunami after the analysis of the Volkhov Oil Collector in the Baltoscandian Basin when they discussed the possible trigger of the registered turbidite formation; importantly, these authors based their proposal on the comparison of what is known about tsunamis (also present) in similar settings. Additionally, some sources considered possible tsunamis but only referred to the previous studies. Principally, this may mean that the authors of the following source found the precedent hypothesis reasonable to a certain degree. For instance, Lam et al. [40] noted tsunamis interpreted previously in the Late Ordovician sedimentary successions of the Cincinnati Basin. It is also reasonable to note the work by Meinhold et al. [50], who discussed the earlier proposal by Parnell [51] of the possible impact-triggered, global-scale episode of mass wasting in the Middle Ordovician. This is an example of when the initial proposal was challenged later.
Although the published information on Ordovician tsunamis seems to be limited, one should note that it is rather diverse (Table 1). Previous researchers focused on different places of the world and different time slices. The ages of the deposits with tsunami-related signatures were often established accurately. The character of the evidence differs, but even more important is that the really different triggers of tsunamis were discussed (Table 1).

3.2. Interpretation of the Collected Lines of Evidence

The treatment of the collected lines of the evidence (Table 2) allows several inferences. These are original interpretations offered in this present work, with some examples. First, it appears that Ordovician tsunamis struck the periphery of Gondwana, isolated landmasses, and islands (or microcontinents) related to terranes and their groups or chains, such as Avalonia or Precordillera. Second, possible tsunamis took place in all epochs of the Ordovician, especially the Middle Ordovician. Third, the degree of certainty of the tsunami proposals is chiefly moderate, and the very certain and very uncertain lines of evidence are equally rare (Table 2).
The distribution of the hypothesized Ordovician tsunamis in time is uneven (Figure 1). A few events with the seismic trigger were reported from the Early Ordovician but with significant certainty. With regard to the Middle Ordovician tsunamis, they seem to be numerous (among those reported), had different triggers, and were established with different but chiefly moderate certainty. Importantly, the majority of the localities of this age are taken from the works by Meinhold et al. [50] and Parnell [51]. Their exclusion would make the situation in the Middle Ordovician similar to that of the Late Ordovician. As for the latter, four localities represent the related tsunamis with different triggers (half of them could be caused by extraterrestrial impacts); the degree of certainty also differs, and it is relatively low in half of the cases. Generally, one can note that the higher number of localities and, thus, the concentration of the research do not enlarge the degree of certainty of the available information. On average, the Early Ordovician tsunamis seem better argued than the Middle–Late Ordovician tsunamis.
The distribution of the hypothesized Ordovician tsunamis in the paleospace is notable. Although the localities are found in many parts of the world (both present and past—see Table 1 and Table 2), such a situation is typical to only Middle Ordovician (Figure 2). The Early Ordovician localities are found in the American domains, and the Late Ordovician localities concentrate in Laurentia, Baltica, and the “nearby” terranes (Figure 2). Even if the Middle Ordovician tsunamis were hypothesized with a moderate degree of certainty (Figure 1), they appear to be the most widely reported (indeed, this is reasonable only if consider the information from the works by Meinhold et al. [50] and Parnell [51]).

4. Discussion

4.1. Representativeness of the Literature-Based Evidence

The present synthesis of the knowledge of Ordovician tsunamis raises the question of its completeness. The number of established localities is very limited (Table 1). Even if we suppose that some of them bear the evidence of two or more tsunami events, the total number of the presently known events is measured in the dozens. During the past 120 years, more than 1300 tsunamis were recorded [23]. Taking into account the length of the Ordovician Period [1,2], it is possible to calculate that the actual number of Ordovician tsunamis could exceed the number of the presently known events many millions of times (this may appear to be too much if even the geological records are always incomplete). In other words, we know no more than 0.00001% of them. The significant incompleteness of the knowledge of ancient tsunamis is established for the much younger periods [27]. As noted above, the sources of this incompleteness can be both objective and subjective [24,25,26,27,28]. Tsunami deposits are not necessarily preserved, and even when so, it is very difficult to identify and interpret them correctly (for instance, they can easily be misinterpreted as storm deposits or anything else). Moreover, the work by Parnell [51] gives a bold example of how massive the findings of the possible tsunami-related geological objects can be in the case of the special interest of any researcher(s). However, such interests appear only occasionally.
In regard to what is known about the common scarcity of information about pre-Quaternary tsunamis [24,25,26,27,28], one can conclude that Ordovician tsunamis are known more or less appropriately (at least, in regard to the present level of the development of geology). They were reported from all epochs of the period (Figure 1) and from many major palaeotectonic domains (Figure 2). The degree of certainty of the available information differs; although it is relatively high in a few cases, it is not too low in many other cases (Table 2). Moreover, the diversity of the hypothesized triggers (Table 1) seems to be even larger than found for the younger periods [27]. Taken together, these inferences mean that the knowledge of Ordovician tsunamis remains hypothetical and very incomplete, but its amount is expected in regard to the chances of documentation of pre-Quaternary tsunamis.
The present analysis indicates several biases. First, the stratigraphical bias reflects the insufficient (even absent) attention of the previous researchers to some geological time slices, especially the entire Early Ordovician Epoch and the Hirnantian Stage of the Late Ordovician Epoch (Figure 1). The latter was marked by the major glaciation [52,53,54,55,56], and it is known that glacial conditions and the related paleoenvironmental shifts may be favorable for tsunamis (in regard to icebergs and submarine landslides) [57,58,59]. The same bias is also determined using the unequal number of localities considered in the sources. For instance, Meinhold et al. [50] and Parnell [51] undertook a global-scale analysis, as a result of which many Middle Ordovician localities are known. In contrast, the other specialists focused on single localities. The situation is similar to that in paleontology when some time slice “deserved” monographic descriptions of fossils, and others do not. Second, the (paleo)geographical bias reflects the attention of the previous researchers on only selected regions and paleotectonic domains, especially in the Early and Late Ordovician (Figure 2). The distribution of the earthquake-generating subduction zones [14,15], which could source multiple tsunamis and other possible triggers, was wider. Therefore, one can expect tsunamis in many other places of the Ordovician world. Third, the causal bias reflects the unequal attention to the different triggers of tsunamis. Apparently, this bias is relatively weak in our case because the really different triggers of Ordovician tsunamis were discussed (Table 1). Many principal triggers of tsunamis [23,25] were considered by the previous researchers (it is necessary to stress that landslides were also taken into account for complex mechanisms). Apparently, meteorological tsunamis [60,61,62] were not reported from the Ordovician. The present-day sedimentological observations [63] can enhance deciphering such natural hazards in the Deep Past.
It is interesting to note that the collected sources were published since the end of the 1990s, and many of them appeared in the 2010s. However, the sources dated in the 2020s were not found. Indeed, such interruptions in the development of even so highly specific research directions limit the accumulation of knowledge. But the same interruptions may also be helpful to reconsider the previous experience critically and with “fresh eyes” in the course of the subsequent research developments.

4.2. Geoheritage Implications

Geoheritage comprises various unique (rare, peculiar) geological features, and its common manifestations are geosites. The latter is not only important to conserve the “fragile” elements of the global geological environment but also useful for scientific developments, educational activities, and tourism. In other words, geoheritage can be described in the words of valuable resources [64,65,66]. To facilitate its effective exploitation in a given area, these resources should be identified properly. Although this can be carried out in the course of territorial geological mapping and specialized research, a more systematic approach can be employed. Tsunami-related geoheritage has already been established [32,33,34,67,68], and it is reasonable to search for geosites representing tsunamis for all periods of the Phanerozoic, including the Ordovician. The bibliographical surveys may provide important lines for evidence for choosing the proper localities.
Contemporary geoheritage research pays much attention to the scientific value of geosites and their measurement [30,65,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77]. Indeed, the scientific importance seems to be a fundamental quality of geosites, which stimulates their inventories and conservation efforts. In particular, these localities can provide matter for new discoveries, interpretations, and hypotheses, fix some standards, ideas, and theoretical concepts (e.g., stratigraphical boundaries or typical facies), and serve to show the extraordinary peculiarities of the geological environment. Therefore, the scientific reasons for the geosite selection are really important (nonetheless, there may be other reasons, including those educational and touristic), and the localities, which have already become important in the ancient tsunami studies, are promising for establishing geosites.
The information collected for the purposes of the present study indicates two dozen localities hypothetically representing Ordovician tsunamis. Principally, all of them can be linked to geoheritage. Nonetheless, the most valuable, world-class localities can be selected among them. It appears logical to prefer those that are distinguished with a high degree of certainty of the interpretations (scores 4 or 5), the clear trigger, and the undisputable age with full correspondence to the study time interval. From these requirements, the first one is of special importance because it determines the relatively higher probability of the ancient tsunami. More generally, the approach starts with the treatment of the evidence, continues with the selection of the proper localities, and culminates with the careful analysis of the published information when any stratigraphical section can be recommended as a potential geosite (Figure 3). Such an analysis permits judgments about the only availability of the highly valuable geoheritage resources in the particular area, i.e., the potential for the subsequent geosite establishment. This is so because the original publications do not necessarily bear the information about the potential geosites, and many technical details (for instance, accessibility, vulnerability, and aesthetic properties) were not reported in the “pure” geological works that dealt with tsunamis (or the published information needs updates). Some specialized geoheritage-focused field investigations are required to justify the information about the potential geosites and to formulate their official proposals. In other words, we can establish the presence of the previous geoheritage resources in particular areas and indicate the targets for future specialized studies, which can lead to the formal proposal of geosites.
From the localities of Ordovician tsunamis (Table 1 and Table 2), two seem to be especially promising in regard to the geoheritage resources identified with the proposed approach (Figure 3). It should be stressed that the latter indicates where geosites can be found, but only the literature information does not allow formal geosite proposals and descriptions. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that the localities and their settings changed significantly since the time of the initial publication (e.g., due to human activities, slope collapses, etc.).
The first locality is the Western Precordillera, where Pratt et al. [49] hypothesized Early Ordovician tsunamis. In western Argentina, near San Juan City, the La Silla Formation was studied in eight sections. It appears that the tsunami-related horizons of the Rio Blanco Member may exist in all of them. Although additional field investigations are necessary to propose one of these sections as a geosite, the Quebrada de la Flecha section can be preferred provisionally because it was used in the original source to demonstrate the tsunami-related facial features. This or any other neighboring section can be regarded as a world-class geosite representing the Ordovician tsunami (at least, bearing the evidence of hypothesizing the latter). As far as it is possible to deduce from the photographs available in the original source [49], the noted section may be relatively well-accessible and have a good scenic view. The rising interest in geoheritage and geotourism in Argentina and the related scientific debates [78,79,80,81,82] form sufficient premises for further field-based study in the noted locality, the formal geosite proposal, and its possible use in tourism.
The second promising locality is North Wales, where Kokelaar and Königer [43] hypothesized Late Ordovician tsunamis. In western Great Britain, the Pitts Head Tuff crops out. The relatively lengthy section examined at eight logs was described. The authors argued that the entry of the pyroclastic flow into the sea and the subsequent submarine sliding of the ignimbrite could trigger a tsunami. The entire section can be a world-class geosite representing the geological features, which allow for hypothesizing tsunamis. The original source does not contain any information, permitting us to judge its technical properties. The United Kingdom and, particularly, Wales are known for their traditions of geoconservation and geotourism and the availability of related, well-established institutions [83,84,85,86,87]. If so, the noted geosite (if established after additional, field-based examination) can be managed very effectively.
It is very important that the two potential geosites differ in age and tsunami mechanisms. Indeed, both already played a notable role in the studies of Ordovician tsunamis. This means that they are equally important as constituents of global geoheritage resources. Therefore, exploitation and sustainable management of the latter are reasonable tasks. Their solution will mark the shift from the realization of the geoheritage potential of the localities to full-scale geoconservation and geotouristic activities.

5. Conclusions

The present synthesis of the information about Ordovician tsunamis hypothesized in the geological literature allows for some general conclusions. First, evidence of tsunamis was found in different parts of the world and in all epochs of the Ordovician Period. Second, the triggers of the hypothesized Ordovician tsunamis were rather diverse, and they were not restricted to only earthquakes. Third, the degree of certainty of the interpretations of Ordovician tsunamis varies from very low to very high, but it is commonly moderate, which means that these tsunamis are chiefly neither too realistic nor too hypothetical. Fourth, despite the significant incompleteness and the stratigraphical and (paleo)geographical biases, the available knowledge of Ordovician tsunamis is not worse than one would expect. Fifth, this study contributes to the understanding of the geoheritage resources and indicates two potential world-class geosites with significant scientific value.
Such a bibliography-based study cannot avoid limitations. First, it is always possible to miss some lines of evidence (e.g., published in any local edition and/or in a language other than English). Second, the collected information is heterogeneous: when it is summarized, some generalizations and simplifications are necessary. Both limitations are principally unavoidable, and, supposedly, they cannot affect the outcomes of this paper strongly. The choice of the literature sources was careful, and the generalizations/simplifications were not so frequent and strong to question the analysis. The large incompleteness and the various biases leave the impression that the knowledge of Ordovician tsunamis is still too scarce to be reviewed. However, the present synthesis demonstrates that this knowledge is not so limited, and it is already found in many sources. If so, it deserves to be summarized and interpreted with certain cautions. Moreover, ancient tsunamis (not only Ordovician) are very difficult to document, and, most probably, the situation will not change in the near future. Therefore, scientists have nothing to do other than to try to understand these events on the basis of what is already known.
Two perspectives for future research can be outlined. First, this present study records several biases in the information of Ordovician tsunamis. Filling the related knowledge gaps is urgent. For instance, the researchers should pay attention to the sedimentary successions of the regions, which could be affected by major earthquakes, volcanism, landslides, and extraterrestrial impacts in Ordovician, but where tsunamis were not yet hypothesized. The present state of the palaeogeographical knowledge allows us to indicate such regions promising for tsunami searches. Second, this work demonstrates the importance of synthetic studies. Ancient tsunamis were reported from the different time slices, and it is very reasonable to summarize and interpret the information for each principal time slice. Subsequent comparisons of the outcomes of these studies may reveal some interesting long-term trends of the changes in tsunamis throughout the Phanerozoic (or, alternatively, this may indicate the absence of such changes). We expect that scientists can learn more about the appearance of tsunamis in geological history after the proper systematization of the multiple pieces of evidence.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.A.R.; investigation, D.A.R. and N.N.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, D.A.R. and N.N.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully thank the academic editor and all anonymous reviewers for their thorough examination of our work and helpful suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G.; Schmitz, M.D.; Ogg, G.M. Geologic Time Scale 2020; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. International Commission on Stratigraphy. Available online: Stratigraphy.org (accessed on 24 August 2023).
  3. Sadler, P.M.; Cooper, R.A.; Melchin, M. High-resolution, early Paleozoic (Ordovician-Silurian) time scales. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 2009, 121, 887–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Droser, M.L.; Finnegan, S. The Ordovician radiation: A follow-up to the Cambrian explosion? Integr. Comp. Biol. 2003, 43, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ruban, D.A. Palaeoenvironmental setting (glaciations, sea level, and plate tectonics) of Palaeozoic major radiations in the marine realm. Ann. De Paleontol. 2010, 96, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Servais, T.; Cascales-Minana, B.; Harper, D.A.T.; Lefebvre, D.; Munnecke, A.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Y. No (Cambrian) explosion and no (Ordovician) event: A single long-term radiation in the early Paleozoic. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2023, 623, 11592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rasmussen, C.M.Ø.; Vandenbroucke, T.R.A.; Nogues-Bravo, D.; Finnegan, S. Was the Late Ordovician mass extinction truly exceptional? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2023, 38, 812–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Sheehan, P.M. The late Ordovician mass-extinction. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2001, 29, 331–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, G.; Zhan, R.; Percival, I.G. The end-Ordovician mass extinction: A single-pulse event? Earth-Sci. Rev. 2019, 192, 15–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hallam, A. Pre-Quaternary sea-level changes (Phanerozoic eustasy). Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 1984, 12, 205–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Haq, B.U.; Schutter, S.R. A chronology of Paleozoic sea-level changes. Science 2008, 322, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Marcilly, C.M.; Torsvik, T.H.; Conrad, C.P. Global Phanerozoic sea levels from paleogeographic flooding maps. Gondwana Res. 2022, 110, 128–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Scotese, C.R. An atlas of Phanerozoic paleogeographic maps: The seas come in and the seas go out. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2021, 49, 679–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Torsvik, T.H.; Cocks, L.R.M. Gondwana from top to base in space and time. Gondwana Res. 2013, 24, 999–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. von Raumer, J.F.; Stampfli, G.M. The birth of the Rheic Ocean-Early Palaeozoic subsidence patterns and subsequent tectonic plate scenarios. Tectonophysics 2008, 461, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fortey, R.A.; Cocks, L.R.M. Late Ordovician global warming-The Boda event. Geology 2005, 33, 405–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ghienne, J.-F.; Desrochers, A.; Vandenbroucke, T.R.A.; Achab, A.; Asselin, E.; Dabard, M.-P.; Farley, C.; Loi, A.; Paris, F.; Wickson, S.; et al. A Cenozoic-style scenario for the end-Ordovician glaciation. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 4485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Grossman, E.L.; Joachimski, M.M. Ocean temperatures through the Phanerozoic reassessed. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 8938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Munnecke, A.; Calner, M.; Harper, D.A.T.; Servais, T. Ordovician and Silurian sea-water chemistry, sea level, and climate: A synopsis. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2010, 296, 389–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Scotese, C.R.; Song, H.; Mills, B.J.W.; van der Meer, D.G. Phanerozoic paleotemperatures: The Earth’s changing climate during the last 540 million years. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2021, 215, 103503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Glikson, A.Y. An asteroid impact origin of the Hirnantian (end-Ordovician) glaciation and mass extinction. Gondwana Res. 2023, 118, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Schmitz, B.; Harper, D.A.T.; Peucker-Ehrenbrink, B.; Stouge, S.; Alwmark, C.; Cronholm, A.; Bergstrom, S.M.; Tassinari, M.; Xiaofeng, W. Asteroid breakup linked to the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event. Nat. Geosci. 2008, 1, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gusiakov, V.K. Global Occurrence of Large Tsunamis and Tsunami-Like Waves within the Last 120 Years (1900–2019). Pure Appl. Geophys. 2020, 177, 1261–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bourgeois, J. Geologic effects and records of tsunamis. In The Sea; Robinson, A.R., Bernard, E.N., Eds.; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009; Volume 15, pp. 53–91. [Google Scholar]
  25. Dawson, A.G.; Stewart, I. Tsunami deposits in the geological record. Sediment. Geol. 2007, 200, 166–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Luczyński, P. The tsunamites problem. Why are fossil tsunamites so rare? Prz. Geol. 2012, 60, 598–604. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ruban, D.A. Tsunamis Struck Coasts of Triassic Oceans and Seas: Brief Summary of the Literary Evidence. Water 2023, 15, 1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shanmugam, G. Process-sedimentological challenges in distinguishing paleo-tsunami deposits. Nat. Hazards 2012, 63, 5–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pratt, B.R. Storms versus tsunamis: Dynamic interplay of sedimentary, diagenetic, and tectonic processes in the Cambrian of Montana. Geology 2002, 30, 423–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Brilha, J. Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: A Review. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Prosser, C.; Murphy, M.; Larwood, J. Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice; English Nature: Peterborough, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  32. Henriques, M.H. Broadening Frontiers in Geoconservation: The Concept of Intangible Geoheritage Represented by the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake. Geoheritage 2023, 15, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Roig-Munar, F.X.; Martín-Prieto, J.Á.; Rodríguez-Perea, A.; Gelabert, B.; Vilaplana, J.M. Proposed geosites for tsunamitic blocks in the rocky coasts of Formentera (Balearic Islands). Rev. De La Soc. Geol. De Esp. 2018, 31, 35–48. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rusyana, A.; Nurhasanah; Astuti, S. Forecasting the number of visitors of Aceh state museum using decomposition method. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 1116, 022041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pranckutė, R. Web of science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications 2021, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 5113–5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Takahashi, R.; Kaibe, K.; Suzuki, K.; Takahashi, S.; Takeda, K.; Hansen, M.; Yumoto, M. New concept of the affinity between research fields using academic journal data in Scopus. Scientometrics 2023, 128, 3507–3534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Aucoin, C.D.; Brett, C.E. Refined stratigraphy of the Late Ordovician (Katian; Richmondian) Waynesville Formation across the northeastern and northwestern margin of the Cincinnati Arch. Stratigraphy 2015, 12, 307–317. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pope, M.C.; Read, J.F.; Bambach, R.; Hofmann, H.J. Late Middle to Late Ordovician seismites of Kentucky, southwest Ohio and Virginia: Sedimentary recorders of earthquakes in the Appalachian basin. GSA Bull. 1997, 109, 489–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dattilo, B.J.; Freeman, R.L.; Zubovic, Y.M.; Brett, C.E.; Straw, A.M.; Frauhiger, M.J.; Hartstein, A.R.; Shoemaker, L.M. Time-richness and phosphatic microsteinkern accumulation in the Cincinnatian (Katian) Ordovician, USA: An example of polycyclic phosphogenic condensation. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2019, 535, 109362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Emig, C.C.; Gutiérrez-Marco, J.C. Lingulid beds at the upper limit of the Armorican Quartzite (Ordovician, Arenig, SW Europe). Geobios 1997, 30, 481–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kokelaar, P.; Königer, S. Marine emplacement of welded ignimbrite: The Ordovician Pitts Head Tuff, North Wales. J. Geol. Soc. 2000, 157, 517–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lam, A.R.; Stigall, A.R.; Matzke, N.J. Dispersal in the Ordovician: Speciation patterns and paleobiogeographic analyses of brachiopods and trilobites. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2018, 489, 147–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Monson, C.C.; Sweet, D.; Segvic, B.; Zanoni, G.; Balling, K.; Wittmer, J.M.; Ganis, G.R.; Cheng, G. The Late Ordovician (Sandbian) Glasford structure: A marine-target impact crater with a possible connection to the Ordovician meteorite event. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 2019, 54, 2927–2950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Põldsaar, K.; Ainsaar, L. Extensive soft-sediment deformation structures in the early Darriwilian (Middle Ordovician) shallow marine siliciclastic sediments formed on the Baltoscandian carbonate ramp, northwestern Estonia. Mar. Geol. 2014, 256, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Suuroja, K.; Kirsimae, K.; Ainsaar, L.; Kohv, M.; Mahaney, V.C.; Suuroja, S. The Osmusaar Breccia in Northwestern Estonia–evidence of a 475 Ma earthquake of an impact? In Impact Markers in the Stratigraphic Record; Koeberl, C., Martinez-Ruiz, F.C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2003; pp. 333–347. [Google Scholar]
  47. Põldsaar, K.; Ainsaar, L.; Nemliher, R.; Tinn, O.; Stinkulis, G. A siliciclastic shallow-marine turbidite on the carbonate shelf of the Ordovician Baltoscandian palaeobasin. Est. J. Earth Sci. 2019, 68, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  48. Suuroja, K.; Suuroja, S.; All, T.; Floden, T. Kärdla (Hiiumaa Island, Estonia)—The buried and well-preserved Ordovician marine impact structure. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 2002, 49, 1121–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pratt, B.R.; Raviolo, M.M.; Bordonaro, O.L. Carbonate platform dominated by peloidal sands: Lower Ordovician La Silla Formation of the eastern Precordillera, San Juan, Argentina. Sedimentology 2012, 59, 843–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Meinhold, G.; Arslan, A.; Lehnert, O.; Stampfli, G. Global mass wasting during the Middle Ordovician: Meteoritic trigger or plate-tectonic environment? Gondwana Res. 2011, 19, 535–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Parnell, J. Global mass wasting at continental margins during Ordovician high meteorite influx. Nat. Geosci. 2009, 2, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Delabroye, A.; Vecoli, M. The end-Ordovician glaciation and the Hirnantian Stage: A global review and questions about Late Ordovician event stratigraphy. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2010, 98, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Finlay, A.J.; Selby, D.; Gröcke, D.R. Tracking the Hirnantian glaciation using Os isotopes. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2010, 293, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Villas, E.; Vennin, E.; Álvaro, J.J.; Hammann, V.; Herrera, Z.A.; Piovano, E.L. The late Ordovician carbonate sedimentation as a major triggering factor of the Hirnantian glaciation. Bull. Soc. Geol. Fr. 2002, 173, 569–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yin, L.-M.; Borjigin, T.; Ou, Z.-J.; Bian, L.-Z. Late Ordovician microphytoplankton in Southwest China: Recording paleogeographic variations across the Hirnantian glaciation. Palaeoworld 2023, 32, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhou, L.; Algeo, T.J.; Shen, J.; Hu, Z.F.; Gong, H.; Xie, S.; Huang, J.H.; Gao, S. Changes in marine productivity and redox conditions during the Late Ordovician Hirnantian glaciation. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2015, 420, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ke, H.; Ai, S.; Yan, B.; Zhou, C.; Wang, Z.; Yang, Y.; Liu, T.; An, J.; Chen, Y. Iceberg-Induced Tsunamis near Dålk Glacier, Antarctica. J. Surv. Eng. 2022, 148, 04021027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lee, H.J. Timing of occurrence of large submarine landslides on the Atlantic Ocean margin. Mar. Geol. 2009, 264, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lüthi, M.P.; Vieli, A. Multi-method observation and analysis of a tsunami caused by glacier calving. Cryosphere 2016, 10, 995–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pattiaratchi, C.; Wijeratne, E.M.S. Observations of meteorological tsunamis along the south-west Australian coast. Nat. Hazards 2014, 74, 281–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rabinovich, A.B.; Vilibić, I.; Tinti, S. Meteorological tsunamis: Atmospherically induced destructive ocean waves in the tsunami frequency band. Phys. Chem. Earth 2009, 34, 891–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Saito, T.; Kubota, T.; Chikasada, N.Y.; Tanaka, Y.; Sandanbata, O. Meteorological Tsunami Generation Due to Sea-Surface Pressure Change: Three-Dimensional Theory and Synthetics of Ocean-Bottom Pressure Change. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 2021, 126, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Alonso, G.; Dragani, W.; Péreza, I. The role of meteorological tsunamis on beach erosion in the buenos aires coast: Some numerical experiments. Coast. Eng. J. 2018, 60, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bétard, F.; Hobléa, F.; Portal, C. Geoheritage as new territorial resource for local development. Ann. Geogr. 2017, 717, 523–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sallam, E.S.; Ruban, D.A.; Ermolaev, V.A. Geoheritage resources and new direction of infrastructural growth in Egypt: From geosite assessment to policy development. Resour. Policy 2022, 79, 103127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Santangelo, N.; Valente, E. Geoheritage and Geotourism resources. Resources 2020, 9, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Németh, K. Geoheritage and geodiversity aspects of catastrophic volcanic eruptions: Lessons from the 15th of January 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption, SW Pacific. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks 2022, 10, 546–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sansò, P.; Margiotta, S.; Mastronuzzi, G.; Vitale, A. The geological heritage of Salento Leccese area (Apulia, southern Italy). Geoheritage 2015, 7, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bruschi, V.M.; Cendrero, A. Geosite evaluation; can we measure intangible values? Alp. Mediterr. Quat. 2005, 18, 293–306. [Google Scholar]
  70. Çetiner, Z.S.; Ertekin, C.; Yiğitbaş, E. Evaluating Scientific Value of Geodiversity for Natural Protected Sites: The Biga Peninsula, Northwestern Turkey. Geoheritage 2018, 10, 49–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Corbí, H.; Fierro, I.; Aberasturi, A.; Sánchez Ferris, E.J. Potential Use of a Significant Scientific Geosite: The Messinian Coral Reef of Santa Pola (SE Spain). Geoheritage 2018, 10, 427–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dincă, I.; Keshavarz, S.R.; Almodaresi, S.A. Landscapes of the Yazd-Ardakan Plain (Iran) and the Assessment of Geotourism—Contribution to the Promotion and Practice of Geotourism and Ecotourism. Land 2023, 12, 858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mucivuna, V.C.; Motta Garcia, M.D.G.; Reynard, E. Comparing quantitative methods on the evaluation of scientific value in geosites: Analysis from the Itatiaia National Park, Brazil. Geomorphology 2022, 396, 107988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nazaruddin, D.A. Systematic Studies of Geoheritage in Jeli District, Kelantan, Malaysia. Geoheritage 2017, 9, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Reynard, E.; Perret, A.; Bussard, J.; Grangier, L.; Martin, S. Integrated Approach for the Inventory and Management of Geomorphological Heritage at the Regional Scale. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 43–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Suzuki, D.A.; Takagi, H. Evaluation of Geosite for Sustainable Planning and Management in Geotourism. Geoheritage 2018, 10, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Tamang, L.; Mandal, U.K.; Karmakar, M.; Banerjee, M.; Ghosh, D. Geomorphosite evaluation for geotourism development using geosite assessment model (GAM): A study from a Proterozoic terrain in eastern India. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks 2023, 11, 82–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Coronato, A.; Schwarz, S. Approaching geodiversity and geoconservation in Argentina. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks 2022, 10, 597–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lech, R.R.; Marcus, A.; Reinoso, J.R. Science and tourism together in the management for the preservation of the geological heritage. Ser. Correl. Geol. 2018, 34, 35–41. [Google Scholar]
  80. Medina, W.M. Geo-environmental Evolutionary Interpretation of Geosites Analysed in La Quebrada de Humahuaca, Northwestern Argentina. Geoheritage 2023, 15, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Medina, W.; Vejsbjerg, L.; Aceñolaza, G. Legal framework for geoconservation. Presence of geology in protected areas of the Argentine Republic. Rev. Del Mus. Argent. De Cienc. Nat. Nueva Ser. 2016, 18, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Miranda, F.; Lema, H. Current situation of geologiacal heritage in Argentina. Bol. Parana. Geosci. 2013, 70, 87–102. [Google Scholar]
  83. Brown, E.J.; Evans, D.H.; Larwood, J.G.; Prosser, C.D.; Townley, H.C. Geoconservation and geoscience in England: A mutually beneficial relationship. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2018, 129, 492–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Burek, C. The Role of LGAPs (Local Geodiversity Action Plans) and Welsh RIGS as Local Drivers for Geoconservation within Geotourism in Wales. Geoheritage 2012, 4, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hose, T.A.; Vasiljević, D.A. Defining the Nature and Purpose of Modern Geotourism with Particular Reference to the United Kingdom and South-East Europe. Geoheritage 2012, 4, 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Price, W.R.; Ronck, C.L. Quarrying for World Heritage Designation: Slate Tourism in North Wales. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1839–1854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Prosser, C.D. The history of geoconservation in England: Legislative and policy milestones. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2008, 300, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jmse 11 01764 g001
Figure 1. The distribution of the hypothesized Ordovician tsunamis in geological time. See Table 1 for an explanation of the locality numbers. The geological time scale follows [2].
Figure 1. The distribution of the hypothesized Ordovician tsunamis in geological time. See Table 1 for an explanation of the locality numbers. The geological time scale follows [2].
Jmse 11 01764 g001
Jmse 11 01764 g002
Figure 2. The distribution of the hypothesized Ordovician tsunamis in the global paleospace. See Table 1 for an explanation of the locality numbers. The paleogeographical contours are strongly generalized from [13].
Figure 2. The distribution of the hypothesized Ordovician tsunamis in the global paleospace. See Table 1 for an explanation of the locality numbers. The paleogeographical contours are strongly generalized from [13].
Jmse 11 01764 g002
Jmse 11 01764 g003
Figure 3. The proposed approach for the identification of the paleotsunami-related geoheritage resources.
Figure 3. The proposed approach for the identification of the paleotsunami-related geoheritage resources.
Jmse 11 01764 g003
Table 1. Summarized evidence of Ordovician tsunamis.
Table 1. Summarized evidence of Ordovician tsunamis.
ID *LocationAgeCharacter of EvidenceSource(s)
(How Indicated in the Original Sources)
1Cincinnati Arch/BasinKatian, Mohawkian–CincinnatianAlternative hypothesis, proposed briefly; seismicity-triggered tsunami[24,38,39,40,41]
2Armorican MassifArenig–LlanvirnPreferred hypothesis, argued briefly; volcanism-triggered tsunami[42]
3Hesperian Massif
4North WalesCaradocWell-developed hypothesis, moderate argumentation; combined volcanism and landslide-triggered tsunami[43]
5Illinois BasinSandbianAlternative hypothesis, proposed briefly; impact-triggered tsunami[44]
6 (11)Baltoscandian BasinDarriwilianDebatable hypothesis, rather extensive evidence; seismicity-triggered tsunami[45,46]
7Baltoscandian BasinDapingianWell-developed hypothesis; extensive argumentation; seismicity- or impact-triggered tsunami[47]
8Baltoscandian Basin455 MaSimply stated hypothesis, argued briefly; impact-triggered tsunami[48]
9MontanaEarliest Ordovician **Preferred hypothesis, argued extensively; seismicity-triggered tsunami[29]
10Western PrecordilleraEarly OrdovicianPreferred hypothesis, argued extensively; seismicity-triggered tsunami[49]
11 (6)EstoniaDarriwilianWell developed but critically reconsidered, moderate argumentation; complex mechanism that remains debatable[50,51]
12South Wales
13North England
14Yukon
15Western Newfoundland
16Western Ireland
17Central Newfoundland
18Western Norway
19Korea
20Western Precordillera
21Central Precordillera
22New South Wales
23Northwestern Argentina
24Western Yunnan
Notes: * It cannot be excluded that some localities with the same age coincide: both numbers are indicated in such cases; ** the sedimentary succession, for which tsunamis were interpreted, embraces the middle Cambrian–earliest Ordovician, and the attention was paid to its Cambrian part in the original source.
Table 2. Interpreted evidence of Ordovician tsunamis (based on Table 1).
Table 2. Interpreted evidence of Ordovician tsunamis (based on Table 1).
ID *Domain **EpochDegree of Certainty ***Trigger
1LaurentiaLate Ordovician2Seismicity
2GondwanaMiddle Ordovician3Volcanism
3Gondwana
4terranes 1Late Ordovician4Complex
5LaurentiaLate Ordovician2Impact
6 (11)BalticaMiddle Ordovician1Seismicity
7BalticaMiddle Ordovician5Questionable
8BalticaLate Ordovician3Impact
9LaurentiaEarly Ordovician4Seismicity
10terranes 2Early Ordovician4Seismicity
11 (6)BalticaMiddle Ordovician3Questionable
12terranes 1
13terranes 1
14Laurentia
15Laurentia
16terranes 1
17terranes 1
18Baltica
19North China
20terranes 2
21terranes 2
22Gondwana
23terranes 2
24South China
Notes: * It cannot be excluded that some localities with the same age coincide: both numbers are indicated in such cases; ** some localities represent terranes and their chains: as their composition and configuration remain debatable, two groups of terranes are distinguished provisionally, namely terranes 1 (first of all, Avalonia) between Baltica, Gondwana, and Laurentia and terranes 2 (first of all Precordillera) along the American periphery of the Panthalassa; *** 1 marks the lowest degree of certainty, and 5 marks the highest degree of certainty (see methodological explanations above).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ruban, D.A.; Yashalova, N.N. Ordovician Tsunamis: Summary of Hypotheses and Implications for Geoheritage Resources. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1764. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11091764

AMA Style

Ruban DA, Yashalova NN. Ordovician Tsunamis: Summary of Hypotheses and Implications for Geoheritage Resources. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2023; 11(9):1764. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11091764

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ruban, Dmitry A., and Natalia N. Yashalova. 2023. "Ordovician Tsunamis: Summary of Hypotheses and Implications for Geoheritage Resources" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 11, no. 9: 1764. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11091764

APA Style

Ruban, D. A., & Yashalova, N. N. (2023). Ordovician Tsunamis: Summary of Hypotheses and Implications for Geoheritage Resources. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(9), 1764. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11091764

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop