
Natural remanent magnetization acquisition in bioturbated sediment: General theory and implications for relative paleointensity reconstructions
Author(s) -
Egli R.,
Zhao X.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
geochemistry, geophysics, geosystems
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.928
H-Index - 136
ISSN - 1525-2027
DOI - 10.1002/2014gc005672
Subject(s) - bioturbation , remanence , geology , paleomagnetism , natural remanent magnetization , sedimentation , mixing (physics) , magnetization , magnetostratigraphy , geophysics , soil science , sediment , geomorphology , magnetic field , physics , quantum mechanics
We present a general theory for the acquisition of natural remanent magnetizations (NRM) in sediment under the influence of (a) magnetic torques, (b) randomizing torques, and (c) torques resulting from interaction forces. Dynamic equilibrium between (a) and (b) in the water column and at the sediment‐water interface generates a detrital remanent magnetization (DRM), while much stronger randomizing torques may be provided by bioturbation inside the mixed layer. These generate a so‐called mixed remanent magnetization (MRM), which is stabilized by mechanical interaction forces. During the time required to cross the surface mixed layer, DRM is lost and MRM is acquired at a rate that depends on bioturbation intensity. Both processes are governed by a MRM lock‐in function. The final NRM intensity is controlled mainly by a single parameter γ that is defined as the product of rotational diffusion and mixed‐layer thickness, divided by sedimentation rate. This parameter defines three regimes: (1) slow mixing ( γ < 0.2) leading to DRM preservation and insignificant MRM acquisition, (2) fast mixing ( γ > 10) with MRM acquisition and full DRM randomization, and (3) intermediate mixing. Because the acquisition efficiency of DRM is larger than that of MRM, NRM intensity is particularly sensitive to γ in case of mixed regimes, generating variable NRM acquisition efficiencies. This model explains (1) lock‐in delays that can be matched with empirical reconstructions from paleomagnetic records, (2) the existence of small lock‐in depths that lead to DRM preservation, (3) specific NRM acquisition efficiencies of magnetofossil‐rich sediments, and (4) some relative paleointensity artifacts.