Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Tests Early Triassic timescales in South China, suggesting a shorter duration for the Smithian substage.
The distribution of time among the stages and substages of the ∼5-m.y.-long Early Triassic Epoch remains debated, with two competing chronological models: the short-Smithian timescale (∼0.5−1.2 m.y.), based mainly on radiometric dating of zircons, and the long-Smithian timescale (∼1.7−2.1 m.y.), based mainly on time-series analysis of various proxy records. Here, we evaluate these competing models based on a synthesis of biostratigraphy, chemostratigraphy, and cyclostratigraphy from three marine sections in South China: Qiyueshan, Jianshi, and Daxiakou. These sections yield similar records of carbonate carbon-isotopic (δ13Ccarb) excursions and high-frequency variability in both δ13Ccarb and carbonate-associated sulfate sulfur-isotope (δ34SCAS) profiles, which together record five discrete cycles in the Dienerian Substage and six cycles in the Smithian Substage of the Lower Triassic. Cyclostratigraphic analysis of δ34SCAS, informed by a biostratigraphically and radiometrically constrained geochronological framework, links high-frequency variation in the δ34SCAS and δ13Ccarb records to short-eccentricity (∼100-k.y.) orbital forcing, yielding duration estimates for the Dienerian and Smithian substages of ∼500 ± 100 k.y. and ∼600 ± 100 k.y., respectively, which is more consistent with the short-Smithian timescale. This finding illustrates the value of integrated studies that combine zircon U-Pb dating and astrochronology within a unified biostratigraphic and carbon-isotopic chemostratigraphic framework to establish a robust temporal framework for the Early Triassic.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: