Tectonophysics 473 (2009) 457–465

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tectonophysics

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate / tecto

The syn- and post-collisional evolution of the Romanian Carpathian foredeep: Newconstraints from anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility and paleostress analyses

Iuliana Vasiliev a,b,⁎, Liviu Maţenco b,c, Wout Krijgsman a

a Paleomagnetic Laboratory ‘Fort Hoofddijk’, Utrecht University, Budapestlaan 17, 3584 CD Utrecht, The Netherlandsb Netherlands Research Centre for Integrated Solid Earth Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlandsc Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

⁎ Corresponding author. Paleomagnetic Laboratoryversity, Budapestlaan 17, 3584 CD Utrecht, The Netherfax: +31 30 253 1677.

E-mail address: vasiliev@geo.uu.nl (I. Vasiliev).

0040-1951/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. Adoi:10.1016/j.tecto.2009.04.002

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 11 November 2007Received in revised form 27 March 2009Accepted 6 April 2009Available online 16 April 2009

Keywords:CarpathiansRomaniaAnisotropy of magnetic susceptibilityMiocenePliocene

The first results of anisotropy of the magnetic susceptibility (AMS) data from the Romanian Carpathianforedeep reveal compression directions generally perpendicular to the highly bended Carpathian orogenicarc. The distribution of the present-day stress field in the Pannonian–Carpathian region reflects pre-imposedplate boundaries that were established during late Miocene collision. Analysis of the AMS along the easternand southern Carpathian foredeep, at the contacts of the orogenic nappe pile, the lower plate, and theoverlying sedimentary rocks, indicates that two factors are critical for the distribution of the stress fieldduring and after collision, i.e. 1) the inherited highly bended plate geometry and 2) the Quaternarydeformation that lead to differential vertical and horizontal movements in the SE Carpathians. The AMSanalysis was successfully used in the (weakly) deformed Mio–Pliocene sedimentary rocks from theCarpathian foredeep, revealing information about the deformation history of the soft, non-competent rockswhere the poor preservation of traditional kinematic indicators (e.g., faults and folds) is difficult.

© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Subduction and continental collision involving highly arcuateorogens is a process where deformation is expressed through a com-plex interplay between compression and strike–slip, atypical foredeepgeometries, climatic forcing and contrasting patterns of verticalmovements (Bertotti et al., 2001; Faccenna et al., 2002; Foekenet al., 2003). After collision, the plate boundaries become locked andon-going deformation changes the strain patterns which rather reflectintra-plate type of deformation (Horváth, 1993), resulting in sig-nificant crustal and/or lithospheric folding (Cloetingh and Burov,1999). During and after collision, because of characteristics inheritedfrom the oceanic subduction stage, significant deformation such asslab detachment (Wortel and Spakman, 2000), delamination (Sacksand Secor, 1990), or thermal re-equilibration (Toussaint et al., 2004)can occur. The interaction between the deep and shallow processes inhighly arcuate settings creates unusual deformation patterns at theregional scale, but is generally the overall result of the same stressfield acting at the orogenic scale (e.g., Pigler, 2007).

The identification of various coeval tectonic movements acting atthe plate boundary can be ideally studied in “soft” collisional orogensdominated by subduction (e.g., Royden, 1993), where the generally

‘Fort Hoofddijk’, Utrecht Uni-lands. Tel.: +31 30 253 1361;

ll rights reserved.

low topography generated during shortening is buried as a result ofsignificant subsidence in post-collisional times. The low amount oferosion leads to preservations of post-tectonic covers and indicate anideal place for high-resolution studies of orogenic development. Oneof the orogens that still has these post-tectonic covers preserved is theCarpathian arc (e.g., Sandulescu and Visarion, 1988).

A critical questions concerning the highly arcuate shape of theCarpathians is the distribution of the crustal stressfield during the latestMiocene–Quaternary times, i.e. after nappe stacking. This distributionwas initially related to active subduction of the distal parts of the lowerMoesian/Scythian/Eastern European plate and had ended in the early–late Miocene (~11 Ma) (Matenco and Bertotti, 2000) (Fig. 1).

Recent studies on the geometry of the southeastern Carpathianforeland (Tarapoanca et al., 2003, 2004), its post-collisional evolutionsince the late Miocene and the impact on present-day movements(Leever et al., 2006; Matenco et al., 2007; Schmid et al., 2008), haverevealed a consistent ESE-ward movement of the block comprisedbetween the Intramoesian and Trotuş faults (Fig. 2). Quaternaryshortening is approximately 5 km (Leever et al., 2006) and generateddifferential vertical movements. Uplift of the area juxtaposed roughlyon the present-day mountain chain (Merten et al., 2005) is significantand comparable to the amount of subsidence in the foreland. Theinferred shortening direction is WNW–ESE, which has induced pulsesof differential vertical movements migrating in space and time duringthe Quaternary (Necea et al., 2005).

These studies have revealed strain partitioning along and across theCarpathian arc, particularly in the SE, where the type of deformation

Fig. 1. (a) Tectonic map of the Eastern Alps–Carpathians–Dinarides–Balkans region simplified after Schmid et al. (2008). (b) Transect across the Focşani basin illustrating thegeological contacts within the study area, taken along the dashed line in panel a.

458 I. Vasiliev et al. / Tectonophysics 473 (2009) 457–465

changes due to local re-distributions near major strike–slip faults(Matenco et al., 2007). Several paleostress studies infer that during thePliocene–Quaternary N–S oriented shortening was active for the SouthCarpathians (Matenco et al., 1997a; Hyppolite et al., 1999), NW–SE toNNW–SSE compression for the junctions with the eastern Carpathians(Hyppolite and Sandulescu, 1996; Morley, 1996) and N–S to NNW–SSEshortening for the central–northern part of the eastern Carpathians(Matenco and Bertotti, 2000). As regularly in the case of paleostressmethods, the timing is loosely constrained and the bulk of thedeformation was measured in pre-Miocene sedimentary rocks, with apoor preservation of kinematic indicators and/or on reduced exposure ofpoorlyconsolidatedMiocene–Quaternary rocks. Therefore, the isolationofthe stressfields during the Carpathian collision from those that postdate itis difficult.

The anisotropy ofmagnetic susceptibility (AMS)has proven as a veryuseful tool to establish the sedimentary and tectonic history in weaklydeformed sedimentary rocks, because of its relationship with theregional stress field (Tarling and Hrouda, 1993). Upon deformation, thelineation given by the maximum axes of AMS quickly aligns along thedirection of extension or, equivalently, perpendicular to compression. Inyoung, weakly deformed sedimentary rocks, paleostress indicators areusually missing and therefore, the AMS analysis can represent the toolfor extracting the deformation history, especially when combined withother kinematic observations from structural studies. In the Mediterra-nean region extended work has been done (e.g., Kissel et al., 1986;Scheepers and Langereis, 1994; Mattei et al., 1999; Duermeijer et al.,2000; Faccenna et al., 2002). Nevertheless, so far, no AMS work wascarried out in the Romanian Carpathians.

In this paper, we present the first AMS results from late Miocene–Pliocene sedimentary successions of the Carpathian foredeep of

Romania. We attempt to distinguish between the late Miocenekinematics caused by the last thrust nappe emplacement of theCarpathians and the Quaternary folding episode focused in the SE-most corner. In addition, theAMSanalyses canbeused as time indicatorsfor the recent tectonic evolution, because all results have been derivedfromwell-dated sedimentary rocks (Vasiliev et al., 2004, 2005).

2. Syn- and post-collisional evolution of the eastern andsouthern Carpathians

The Romanian Carpathians represent an arcuate orogenic belt formedin response to the Triassic toTertiaryevolutionof three continental blocks(Fig. 1). The two blocks found in the west and south are ‘Tisza’ (theInternal Dacides) and ‘Dacia’ (theMedian Dacides), respectively (Fig.1a)(Sandulescu, 1984; Balla, 1986; Csontos and Vörös, 2004; Schmid et al.,2008). The third block, found to the east, north and south, is representedby the Eastern European, Scythian and Moesian platforms (Sandulescu,1984; Sandulescu and Visarion, 1988; Visarion et al., 1988) (Fig. 1a). Thementioned blocks were separated by two oceanic domains, theTransylvanides (Fig. 1a) and the Outer Dacides (or Ceahlau–Severin,Fig. 2), these units being deformedduring Cretaceous events (see Schmidet al., 2008 fordetails). Subsequent thin-skinneddeformation throughoutthe Miocene gradually involved demients deposited over the easternpassive continental Ceahlau–Severin ocean.

2.1. Collision in the eastern and southern Carpathians

Early and Middle Miocene nappe stacking events led to emplace-ment of the Internal Moldavides, followed by thrusting culminating inthe early–Late Miocene (late Sarmatian s.l., ~11 Ma), when the

Fig. 2. Simplified tectono-structural map of the Carpathians modified after the geological maps of Romania (1:200,000). Compilation of the paleostress measurements performed inthe eastern and southern Carpathians (Hyppolite and Sandulescu, 1996; Morley,1996; Matenco et al., 1997a; Zweigel et al., 1998; Matenco and Schmid,1999). Divergent (convergent)arrows indicate extension (compression). In the eastern Carpathian foredeep, the depth contours indicate the thickness of Quaternary deposits in the Focşani basin.

459I. Vasiliev et al. / Tectonophysics 473 (2009) 457–465

Subcarpathian nappe (Fig. 2) was thrust on top of the sedimentary coverof the foreland platforms (Sandulescu, 1988; Roure et al., 1993; Matencoet al., 1997b; Matenco and Bertotti, 2000). The geometry and kinematicsof thrusting change along strike as a consequence of the pre-existingstructural grain (Ellouz and Roca, 1994). The total shortening across theeastern Carpathian outer units (Moldavides) during the LateOligocene toLateMiocene sums up to ~160 km (Roure et al., 1993; Ellouz et al., 1994).

The Tertiary tectonic evolution of the south Carpathians system isdominated by the large scale rotation of the Tisza–Dacia unit aroundMoesia during the Paleogene–Early Miocene (Csontos and Vörös, 2004;Fugenschuh and Schmid, 2005) and its subsequent Middle–LateMiocene indentation against the European margin, presumably drivenby the roll-back, subduction and detachment of the distal parts of theEuropean/Scythian/Moesianmargins (Royden,1988;Wortel and Spak-man, 2000, Sperner et al., 2002). This orogenic evolution is observed inthe south Carpathians mainly by more than 100 km dextral translationsand rotations alongcurved fault system(FugenschuhandSchmid, 2005)during Paleogene–Lower Miocene, subsequent Middle–Late Miocenethrusting over the Moesian foreland being rather minor in comparison(Fig. 2). Note that the late Miocene deformation is organised in anoverall transfer of significant dextral strike–slip deformation in thewestern part toward a gradually increasing amount of thrusting in theeast (Matenco and Schmid, 1999), reaching a ~40 km offset near theIntramoesian fault (Fig. 2). Paleomagnetic results indicate that systema-tic ~30° clockwise rotations occurred in the southern Carpathians after~13 Ma, and that tectonic rotation had generally ceased after ~9 Ma(Dupont-Nivet et al., 2005).

During the middle–late Miocene evolution, contrasting styles ofdeformation are recorded in the Carpathians–Pannonian system. ThePannonian backarc basin (e.g., Fodor et al., 1999) opened because of the

E-ward movement of the Carpathian upper plate (e.g., Schmid et al.,2008) driven by the subduction and roll-back of the lower plate (e.g.,Royden,1993), accompanied by large scale slabdetachment (Wortel andSpakman, 2000). The situation changed after collision,when thebackarcbasins were inverted and subsequently exhumed (e.g., Horváth, 1993;Krézsek and Bally, 2006) due to the arrival of the thick, cold and buoyantEast-European platform at the subduction zone (e.g., Horváth andCloetingh, 1996). In the East and South Carpathians, this is the time ofthe main collision phase, taking place during late Miocene (lateSarmatian, 11 Ma). The orogenic system over-thickened and subductionstopped (e.g., Cloetingh et al., 2004).

2.2. Post-collisional evolution

Large-scale deformation is also recorded during the latestMiocene–Quaternary post-collisional evolution, in particular in theSE Carpathians and the adjacent Focşani basin. The very deep (13 km)Miocene Focşani basin (Fig. 1b) (Tarapoanca et al., 2003) contains athick syn- and post-orogenic infill on top of the late Miocene syn-tectonic sediments. Moreover, surface data combined with seismicinterpretation indicate that the strata dip, toward the foreland at thewestern flank of this basin (Fig. 1b), contradictory to the standardforedeep geometry (Necea et al., 2005; Leever et al., 2006).

Typically, along the entire sector of the eastern and southernCarpathians where the Moesian platform represents the foreland(Dicea, 1996; Rabagia and Matenco, 1999), the frontal part of the thin-skinned nappe pile is covered by post-collisional uppermost Miocene toQuaternary deposits with up to 5 km thickness. The particularly largesubsidence in the Focşani basin, associated with large scale tilting on itswestern flank (e.g., Necea et al., 2005), results from a Quaternary crustal

460 I. Vasiliev et al. / Tectonophysics 473 (2009) 457–465

folding acting only in a restricted sector of the chain, between theIntramoesian and Trotuş faults (Fig. 2)(Matenco et al., 2007). Conse-quently, during the post-collisional evolution of the Carpathians, twoindividual deformation episodes are observed: the latest Miocene–Pliocene subsidence and the Quaternary folding. These two episodesrepresent an effect of the interplay between two mechanisms, the pull-down effect of a slab, inherited and locked during the late MioceneCarpathian collision and the Quaternary inversion of the entireCarpathian–Pannonian system (Bada et al., 1999; Pinter et al., 2005;Cloetingh et al., 2005).

A large number of earthquakes cluster in the SE Carpathians, mostlyfocused in the so-called Vrancea area. A volume of 80×40×210 km isexhibiting active intermediate-mantle seismicity and has been thesubject of numerous studies (Oncescu and Bonjer, 1997; Wenzel et al.,1998). The intermediate-mantle seismicity is related to slab-pull exertedby subducted oceanic lithosphere forming high-velocity body(ies)identified by regional seismic tomography (Wortel and Spakman,2000; Martin et al., 2006). In contrast, the mechanisms of (significant)crustal-seismicity are different, underlying the large scale Pliocene–Quaternary folding observed in the upper crust (Matenco et al., 2007).Present-day horizontal movements derived from GPS measurementsrecords a large scatter both in the movement direction and modeledstrain (van der Hoeven et al., 2005; Schmitt et al., 2007), although theirresolutionwill be improvedby longer time series. However, theMoesianblock apparently moves towards the ESE, with displacements of ~3–4 mm/year being laterally bounded by the Intramoesian and TrotuşFaults (van der Hoeven et al., 2005).

2.3. The syn- and post-collisional evolution of the (paleo)stress field andinferred kinematic directions

Kinematic studies performed in the eastern Carpathians (Fig. 2)(Hyppolite and Sandulescu, 1996; Morley, 1996; Zweigel et al., 1998;Matenco and Bertotti, 2000) indicated two main deformation stages:one in the Upper Miocene and one in the Plio–Pleistocene. Thedirection of compression changed gradually during the Miocene fromWSW–ENE in the central eastern Carpathians (Matenco and Bertotti,2000), to WNW–ESE in the bending area and further southward toNW–SE (Hyppolite and Sandulescu, 1996; Morley, 1996; Zweigel et al.,1998) (Fig. 2), and is thus parallel to the transport direction. Towardthe end of the Sarmatian collision, a change in the stress field lead towidespread strike–slip deformation in all areas of the easternCarpathians, ~E–W sinistral motion north of the Trotuş fault (Matencoand Bertotti, 2000) and NW–SE dextral motion in the vicinity of the

Table 1AMS results from different parts of the Romanian Carpathian foredeep.

AMS analyses (kmax directions)

Section/site Stage Latitude Longitude

Putna OLD sm3 + me1 45°23′05″ 26°49′40″Putna YOUNG me2 + p 45°23′18″ 26°50′42″Milcov sm3 + me1 45°47′32″ 26°51′24″Rimnicu Sarat OLD sm3 + me1 45°34′06″ 26°46′33″Rimnicu Sarat YOUNG me2 + p + dc + rm 45°33′36″ 26°49′43″Slanicul de Buzau dc2 + rm1 45°22′00″ 26°46′00″Valea Vacii me2 + po1 + 2 45°08′00″ 26°21′00″Bizdidel me2 + po1 + 2 45°04′00″ 25°27′00″Topolog po2 + 3 + dc1 + rm1 45°08′20″ 24°33′25″Badislava po2 + 3 + dc1 45°08′51″ 24°31′41″Mudulari me1 + 2 45°04′42″ 23°59′32″Cerna sm1 + 2 45°04′34″ 23°54′45″Vaideeni sm1 45°11′35″ 23°54′45″Bengesti dc1 45°03′02″ 23°36′83″Lupoaia dc2 + rm1 44°49′40″ 22°56′53″llovat p1 + 2 44°48′41″ 22°46′20″

All the sections are late Miocene–Pliocene in age with the name of stages according to the eand Romanian (rm). n=number of specimens; Az, Dip=mean azimuth and dip of principF=magnetic foliation (kint/kmin).

Intramoesian fault (e.g., Zweigel et al., 1998), accommodating a shortlate collisional ESE-ward movement of intervening sectors.

Most of the deformation linked with the “Wallachian” (Sandu-lescu, 1988) Pliocene–Pleistocene phase of deformation is focused inthe SE bending area where N–S to NNE–SSW oriented compression isobserved in all paleostress studies (Hyppolite and Sandulescu, 1996;Morley, 1996; Zweigel et al., 1998) interpreted by these authors to bethe results of a ~N–S oriented contractional event. However, nomesoscale to regional size structures can be directly correlated to thisevent of deformation, in all cases high-angle reverse faults orientedWNW–ESE characterize the rather limited area where this structureshave been reported, such as the Breaza anticline or high-angle salt-diapiric structures (e.g., Zweigel et al., 1998; Stefanescu et al., 2000)The features obvious at regional scale are the N–S oriented FocşaniQuaternary syncline (Lazarescu and Popescu, 1986; Matenco et al.,2007) and the high-angle, basement-involved reverse faultingbeneath the thin-skinned belt (Landes et al., 2004; Bocin et al., 2005).

3. Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS)

Analysis of the AMS can be used to establish the sedimentary andtectonic history in deformed sediments, because it may reflect theregional stress field (Tarling and Hrouda, 1993). The AMS wasmeasured on a KLY-3S AC susceptometer (AGICO, Brno, CzechRepublic). It operates at a frequency of 875 Hz and has a sensitivitylevel of 3×10−8 SI for a standard size specimen. The anisotropy wasdeterminedby rotating the sample in threeperpendicular planeswhilethemagneticmoment in the applied fieldwasmonitored, allowing thecalculation of the principal axes of the susceptibility tensor. This tensorcan be visualized by an ellipsoid having three principal axes; these arethe axes of maximum, intermediate and minimum magnetic suscept-ibility, indicated by kmax, kint and kmin. When the kmin is much smallerthan kmax and kint, the ellipsoid is oblate and there is a magneticfoliation. When in addition, kmax is considerably larger than kint, thereis a clear magnetic lineation. In general, in undeformed sedimentaryrocks, the magnetic susceptibility is characterized by oblate ellipsoids,with a foliation coinciding with the bedding plane (i.e. the minimumaxes of AMS, kmin, are perpendicular to the bedding plane) and arandom orientation of the lineation (i.e. direction of the maximumaxes of AMS, kmax). Sometimes, in sedimentary rocks deposited indynamic conditions, the kmax is related to paleocurrents directions.Upon deformation, the lineation quickly aligns along the direction ofmaximum extension or, equivalently, perpendicular to maximumcompression, causing clustering of kmax in the direction of maximum

n Az Dip ΔAz ΔDip L F P

151 352.0 6.3 3.4 2.5 1.0218 1.0438 1.066632 326.8 7.3 7.9 5.5 1.0253 1.0249 1.050817 8.3 1.7 8.9 4.0 1.0226 1.0499 1.073716 37.6 9.8 8.0 4.4 1.0168 1.0642 1.082162 23.2 3.9 6.5 2.7 1.0085 1.0339 1.042622 34.0 1.3 9.1 7.1 1.0077 1.0358 1.043827 289.7 3.7 9.5 3.6 1.0052 1.0355 1.040946 292.1 2.7 6.1 1.6 1.0071 1.0484 1.055920 72.3 2.4 25.7 3.5 1.0019 1.0337 1.035785 274.2 1.6 17.9 1.9 1.0019 1.0548 1.056811 111.1 3.1 56.0 4.8 1.0007 1.0452 1.045935 132.3 2.1 22.0 2.8 1.0040 1.0591 1.055520 78.8 0.1 20.5 2.0 1.0065 1.0590 1.065916 290.6 0.5 29.2 4.0 1.0031 1.0450 1.048244 265.9 3.3 38.0 2.7 1.0006 1.0398 1.040524 222.8 3.8 36.1 3.2 1.0016 1.0691 1.0708

astern Paratethys stratigraphy: Sarmatian (sm), Meotian (me), Pontian (p), Dacian (dc)al AMS axes; ΔAz, Δdip=errors on the mean kmax; L=magnetic lineation (kmax/kint);

461I. Vasiliev et al. / Tectonophysics 473 (2009) 457–465

extension or, equivalently, perpendicular to maximum compression.The kmin is still perpendicular to the bedding plane, only uponincreasing and strong deformation; kmin and kint start to interchange

Fig. 3. Equal area projections on the lower hemisphere (bedding-tilt corrected) of kmax (squashow individual directions, open symbols are mean directions, with 95% confidence zone indkint mean values (squares) are also shown. The divergent arrows indicate themean lineation (SCF indicate sections from the eastern, southeastern and southern Carpathian foredeep, respthe eastern Paratethys) and are represented with: sm=Sarmatian (sm1=lower, sm2=Meotian), p=Pontian (p1=lower, p2=middle and p3=upper Pontian), dc=Dacian (dRomanian). The ages of the stages are according to Vasiliev et al. (2004, 2005).

(finally kmin can be positioned horizontal and kint vertical). In thisstudy, we measured the AMS from 630 samples from 16 differentsections. The AMS tensor for every sample is calculated according to

res) and kmin (circles) of the ellipsoid of the AMS for individual samples. Solid symbolsicated. The mean ellipsoid for each section is calculated according to Jelinek (1978). Thekmax) direction per section. The convergent arrows indicate kint. Acronyms ECF, SECF andectively. The stages are according to the nomenclature used for Dacian basin (as part ofmiddle and sm3=upper Sarmatian), me=Meotian (me1=lower and me2=upperc1=lower and dc2=upper Dacian), rm=Romanian (rm1=lower and rm2=upper

Fig. 4. Flinn-type plot of the lineation versus foliation, showing a general prolate tooblate fabrics for the AMS measurements in the eastern Carpathians (solid dots) whilein the southern Carpathians the presence of strongly oblate fabrics is observed (opendots).

462 I. Vasiliev et al. / Tectonophysics 473 (2009) 457–465

Jelinek (1978). Error ellipses of the susceptibility axes are calculatedaccording to (Jelinek, 1978) and are given for kmax in Table 1.

4. Materials and sections

Cylindrical standard cores of 25 mm diameter were taken using anelectric drill and a portable generator. The samples were further cut inseveral specimens. We used the same paleomagnetic samples as thoseused for studies by Vasiliev et al. (2004, 2005), which provided areliable chronostratigraphy for the Mio–Pliocene interval. Therefore,good dating of the sedimentary successionwas available. Additionally,we used extra sites (Snel et al., 2006) to increase the precision of ourstudy.

The Miocene to Pliocene sedimentary sequences sampled in theCarpathian foredeep consists of alternations of coarse-grained rocks(sandstones and microconglomerates) and fine-grained rocks (silt-stones and shales). They were deposited in a lacustrine to deltaicenvironment. The majority of the samples were taken from riverbedswhere the rock surfaces were freshly cleaned by the streams. Thesequences sampled in the eastern Carpathian foredeep are coarser-grained than those from the southern Carpathians foredeep. Theeastern Carpathians sequences are several kilometers thick, wellcemented and display a cyclic pattern that can be observed in thevarious river incisions that cut through the tilted strata. In thesouthern Carpathians, the cyclic pattern is not visible at the outcropscale, which shows clear repetitive changes in lithology, from silt/sandstone (rarely microconglomerates) to finer-grained rocks. Insome sections (e.g. Lupoaia), and mostly in the Dacian deposits, 5 m-thick lignite layers were observed (Van Vugt et al., 2001), which arereduced to tens of centimeters in the other valleys like Rîmnicu Sarat,Bădislava, Topolog, etc.

The magnetostratigraphic studies of the eastern Carpathianforedeep span more than 5 Myr, starting in the Upper Sarmatian(~8Ma) and ending in the Upper Romanian (~2.5Ma). Thewell-datedpolarity pattern served as a tool for calculation of accumulation rates.They indicate high accumulation rates (0.6 m/kyr) with a suddenincrease to 1.55 m/kyr during chron C3r, at approximately 6 Ma(Vasiliev et al., 2004). The increase in accumulation rate closelycoincides with a change in magnetic carriers from iron oxides towardsiron sulphides reflecting a distinct change in environment. Themagnetostratigraphic record of the southern Carpathian foredeepcovers a 2.5 Myr time span, from the upper Meotian (7 Ma) to lowerRomanian (~4 Ma) stages (Vasiliev et al., 2005). In these sequences, asimilar change in magnetic carrier was observed at the same timeduring chron C3r.

In addition, we used samples from Sarmatian–Meotian deposits,which are still under investigation for magnetostratigraphic results(Milcov, Mădulari, Cerna and Vaideeni river sections). The sections ofSlănicul de Buzău, Valea Vacii, Bizdidel, Lupoaia and Ilovaţ were alsocollected along the valleys, covering each much shorter stratigraphicinterval and ranging from Upper Meotian to Lower Romanian (Snelet al., 2006).

5. AMS results

The AMS results from the Carpathian foredeep generally showmainly oblate ellipsoids. The kmin axes are in all cases close to the poleof the bedding plane (Figs. 3, 4 and Table 1) thus retaining much oftheir original sedimentary fabric. The sections from the easternCarpathian foredeep (Putna Old, Milcov, Rîmnicu Sărat Old andRîmnicu Sărat Young) (Fig. 3a–e) and southeastern Carpathianforedeep (Bizdidel, Slănicul de Buzău, Valea Vacii) (Fig. 3f–h), showsignificant clustering of the kmax axes. This indicates that deformationhas caused the kmax to align along the direction of maximumextension or perpendicular to the maximum compression. Theexception is the site Putna Young where the mean AMS shape is

slightly prolate and the kmin axes are not all perpendicular to thebedding plane. Thismay suggest a possible transitional fabric betweenweak (only kmax affected) and stronger deformation (kmax and kmin

affected) for some of the samples. The Late Miocene–Pliocenesedimentary rocks of the eastern Carpathian foredeep reveal a roughlyN–S alignment of the kmax axes, implying N–S extension or E–Wcompression (Figs. 3 and 5). To the south and east, in the bend area,the kmax directions are roughly WNW–ESE oriented being parallel tothe main Miocene thrusting direction.

The majority of the sections from the southern Carpathianforedeep (Fig. 3i–o) are characterized by strongly oblate ellipsoids(Fig. 4), with the foliation coinciding with the bedding plane. In thesecases, the magnetic fabric is mainly depositional and related to thecompactional loading; the kmin is perpendicular to the bedding planeand the kmax and kint are scattered in the foliation or bedding planeitself. Most Late Miocene–Pliocene sedimentary rocks indicate anapproximately E–W clustering of the kmax axes. The exception is Ilovaţ(Fig. 3p) where the direction is oriented NNE–SSWwhich is consistentwith the generally parallel trend with respect to the Miocene thrustdirection of kmax axes observed in the southern Carpathian foredeep.

6. Discussion

The distribution of the AMS patterns largely reflects the present-day overall contact between the upper Carpathian plate and the lowerplatforms situated in the foreland (Fig. 5). Themean orientation of theAMS lineation directions are oriented NNW–SSE in the easternCarpathians (Putna site) and NNE–SSW to the south in Milcov.Rîmnicu Sărat and Slănicul de Buzău have NE–SW oriented meanlineation directions (kmax). The Valea Vacii and Bizdidel sites has akmax oriented ESE–WWN. In the southern Carpathians the sites recorda kmax E–Wwith the exception of Ilovaţwhere the lineation is parallelto the orogen and oriented NNE–SSW. The kmax from the easternCarpathians is generally aligned along the curvature of the south-eastern Carpathians and parallel to the Quaternary structure of theFocşani basin. In the southern Carpathians, kmax is oriented E–Wparallel to the Breaza anticline (Fig. 5).

Our AMS data are generally consistent with kinematic observationsand provide independent support for previously published patterns ofdeformation (Fig. 5). The paleostress tensors calculated from faultsobserved in the field (e.g., Hyppolite and Sandulescu, 1996; Morley,1996; Zweigel et al., 1998; Matenco and Schmid,1999) (Fig. 2) suggestthat the compression direction generally accommodated an E to ESE-

Fig. 5.Distribution of AMS lineation directions plotted on the tectono-structural map of the Carpathians. Shaded segments in the AMS equal area plots indicate the errors on themeankmax, with the solid line indicating the mean lineation orientation. Darker grey indicates Sarmatian–lower Meotian sites; light grey indicates the upper Meotian to Romanian sites.The black arrows indicate the measured GPS vectors from the eastern Carpathians after (van der Hoeven et al., 2005; see also Schmitt et al., 2007 for alternative GPS interpretation).The arrow from the legend represents a movement of 5 mm/year (±1.5 mm/year). See also captions of Figs. 2 and 3.

463I. Vasiliev et al. / Tectonophysics 473 (2009) 457–465

ward translation and docking of the East and South Carpathiansagainst the foreland platform during the Middle–early Miocene (seeFugenschuh and Schmid, 2005 for details). The reconstructedcompression directions are E–W to NW–SE to NNE–SSW for allareas of the chain which have an E–W to ENE–WSW structural trend.

The distribution and geometry of surface faults in map viewindicate arc-perpendicular shortening directions in the SE Carpathiansaccompanied by large number of small offset transfer/strike–slipfaults generally oriented NW–SE to WNW–ESE (Lazarescu andPopescu, 1986).

Local strain distribution observed in different sites relate with theobserved AMS fabrics. From west to east, in the center of the SouthCarpathians foreland, site Vaideeni (Fig. 5) indicates south vergingthrusting during Early Sarmatian as recorded by the orientation of themain principal strain direction in the AMS site. The neighboringVaideeni site indicate subsequent NW–SE dextral movements duringlate Sarmatian which truncated earlier thrusts (see Rabagia et al.,submitted for publication for detailed map and kinematics). TheBizdidel site (Fig. 5), recorded in the AMS the NW–SE oriented dextraloffsets related to splays connected to the Intramoesian fault (Fig. 5)during Quaternary deformations (e.g., Tarapoanca et al., 2003).Regionally, these faults oriented NW–SE to WNW–ESE are recordedin the entire area where the structural grain of the orogenic chainchanges from W–E to SW–NE and these faults are also responsible forthe AMS orientation in the Valea Vacii site (Fig. 5).

In the studied area of the eastern Carpathians, the AMS resultsmimic the Quaternary folding axis of the Focşani basin and its changein strike (Fig. 5). In places where this is parallel to the overall nappestructure AMS measurements in the pre- and syn-collisional sedi-

ments have the same orientation as thosemeasured in post-collisionalsedimentary rocks, i.e. the Rîmnicu Sarat section. This means that thecompression associated with late Sarmatian thrusting of the Sub-carpathian nappe had a similar direction as the one recorded byQuaternary folding. The Focsani folding orientation axis changes fromaround Putna Valley northwards and this is compatible with changesrecorded in the AMS sites. This indicate a NNW–SSE direction for lateSarmatian–lower Meotian sediments, parallel with the nappe struc-ture, and a NW–SE direction of the subsequent (upper Meotian–Pontian) deposits, parallel with the Quaternary folding event in the SECarpathians was recorded in the AMS sites.

7. Conclusions

Analysis of the AMS along the eastern and southern Carpathianforeland indicates that the observed axes of maximum anisotropy aregenerally aligned parallel to the Carpathian orogenic arc. Shortening inthe eastern Carpathians and mainly dextral movements which tookplace in the southern Carpathians during the Middle–Late Miocenehave imposed a highly bent plate contact. This geometry stronglycontrols the distribution of the stress field in the South Carpathians.

Quaternary folding in the eastern Carpathians generated coevaluplift of the mountain chain and subsidence in its foreland (Neceaet al., 2005; Leever et al., 2006) which had significant geomorpho-logical impact on the drainage network (Radoane et al., 2003; Fielitzand Seghedi, 2005). Contrasting styles of deformation and associatedvertical movements took place in a relatively restricted area of the SECarpathians bounded by the Trotus and Intramoesian faults (Fig. 5,Matenco et al., 2007). Vertical movements involve b5 km uplift of the

Fig. 6. Topography of the Pannonian–Carpathian system and present-day maximum horizontal stress trajectories (white lines) after Bada et al. (2001b). The + and − signs markareas of Quaternary uplift and subsidence, respectively. The dashed line represents the detailed stress trajectory inferred from the AMS data.

464 I. Vasiliev et al. / Tectonophysics 473 (2009) 457–465

external nappes and b2 km subsidence in the foreland (Sanders et al.,1999; Tarapoanca et al., 2003, Necea et al., 2005), being the result ofb5 km WNW–ESE oriented shortening (Leever et al., 2006).

In particular, the Wallachian deformation, which is peculiarlyrestricted to a narrow dextral shearing corridor between theIntramoesian fault and the high angle, oblique thrusts of the Breazaanticline (Fig. 5), represent a local reorientation of the measuredpaleostress field in this corridor and does not reflect a regionaldeformation event. This is rather reflected by the regional orientationof major structures, such as Focsani syncline. However, when a detailstrain state is desired, the AMS can be a very useful tool indicating thesmaller scale features, which are after all the expression of theregional structures.

Despite their preliminary status, GPS measurements in the SECarpathians indicate an ESE-ward movement trend (van der Hoevenet al., 2005), which is compatible with the compression directionobserved in our AMS sites (Fig. 5). Much clearer is the distribution ofthe present-day regional stress field in the Pannonian–Carpathianregion based mostly, among many types of data, on earthquake focalmechanism solution (Bada et al., 1999; Bada et al., 2001a; Jarosinskiet al., 2006). This reflects in the study area the pre-imposed plateboundary contact established during the late Miocene collision(Fig. 6). Whether this local geometry, including the differentialvertical movements, is the result of Quaternary far-field stressestransmitted by the Adriatic push into the already collision-lockedCarpathian system (Fig. 6) (Pinter et al., 2005) requires further study(see Matenco et al., 2007). However, the increased amplitudes in theSE Carpathians corner is determined by the memory inherited by thesystem from collision times, particularly in terms of deep mantleprocesses related to inherited slab geometries (Wortel and Spakman,2000; Cloetingh et al., 2004.

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out in the frame of activities sponsored bythe Netherlands Research Centre for Integrated Solid Earth Sciences(ISES). We thank Erik Snel and Mirte Cofino for measuring part of theAMS data.We acknowledge the pre-review of Andrew Roberts and CorLangereis. We thank Werner Fielitz and Bernard Henry for theirmeticulous reviews that significantly improved the manuscript.

References

Bada, G., Horváth, F., Gerner, P., Fejes, I., 1999. Review of the present-day geodynamics ofthe Pannonian Basin; progress and problems. J. Geodyn. 27, 501–527.

Bada, G., Cloetingh, S., Gerner, P., Horvath, F., 2001a. Sources of recent tectonic stress in thePannonian region: inferences from finite elementmodelling. Geophys. J. Int.134, 87–101.

Bada, G., Horváth, F., Cloetingh, S., Coblentz, D.D., Toth, T., 2001b. Role of topography-induced gravitational stresses in basin inversion: the case study of the Pannonianbasin. Tectonics 20 (3), 343–363.

Balla, Z., 1986. Paleotectonic reconstruction of the central Alpine–Mediterranean beltfor the Neogene. Tectonophysics 127, 213–243.

Bertotti, G., Picotti, V., Chilovi, C., Fantoni, R., Merlini, S., Mosconi, A., 2001. Neogene toQuaternary sedimentary basins in the south Adriatic (Central Mediterranean):foredeeps and lithospheric buckling. Tectonics 20, 771–787.

Bocin, A., Stephenson, R., Tryggvason, A., Panea, I., Mocanu, V., Hauser, F., Matenco, L.,2005. 2.5D seismic velocity modelling in the southeastern Romanian Carpathiansorogen and its foreland. Tectonophysics 410, 273–291.

Cloetingh, S., Burov, E., 1999. Lithosphere folding: primary response to compression?(from central Asia to Paris basin). Tectonics 18, 1064–1083.

Cloetingh, S., Burov, E., Matenco, L., Toussaint, G., Bertotti, G., Andriessen, P., Wortel, M.J.R.,Spakman,W., 2004. Thermo-mechanical controls on themode of continental collisionin the SE Carpathians (Romania). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 218, 57–76.

Cloetingh, S., Matenco, L., Bada, G., Dinu, C., Mocanu, V., 2005. The evolution of theCarpathians–Pannonian system: interaction between neotectonics, deep structure,polyphase orogeny and sedimentary basins in a source to sink natural laboratory.Tectonophysics 410, 1–14.

Csontos, L., Vörös, A., 2004. Mesozoic plate tectonic reconstruction of the Carpathianregion. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 210, 1–56.

Dicea, O., 1996. In: Ziegler, P.A., Horvath, F. (Eds.), Tectonic Setting and HydrocarbonHabitat of the Romanian External Carpathians, pp. 403–425.

Duermeijer, C.E., Nyst, M., Meijer, P.T., Langereis, C.G., Spakman, W., 2000. Neogeneevolution of the Aegean arc: paleomagnetic and geodetic evidence for a rapid andyoung rotation phase. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 176, 509–525.

Dupont-Nivet, G., Vasiliev, I., Langereis, C.G., Krijgsman, W., Panaiotu, C., 2005. Neogenetectonic evolution of the southern and eastern Carpathians constrained bypaleomagnetism. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 236, 234–387.

Ellouz, N., Roca, E.,1994. Palinspastic reconstructions of theCarpathians and adjacent areassince the Cretaceous: a quantitative approach. In: Roure, F. (Ed.), Peri-TethyanPlatforms. Technip, Paris, pp. 51–78.

Ellouz,N., Roure, F., Sandulescu,M., Badescu,D.,1994.Balancedcross sections in theeasternCarpathians (Romania): a tool to quantify Neogene dynamics. In: Roure, N.E.F., Shein,V.S., Skvortsov, I. (Eds.), Geodynamic Evolution of Sedimentary Basins. InternationalSymposium 1992 Proceedings. Technip, Paris, Moskow, pp. 305–325.

Faccenna, C., Speranza, F., D'Ajello Caraciolo, F., Mateei, M., Oggiano, G., 2002.Extensional tectonic on Sardinia (Italy): insights into the arc-back-arc transitionalregime. Tectonophysics 356, 213–232.

Fielitz, W., Seghedi, I., 2005. Late Miocene–Quaternary volcanism, tectonics and drainagesystem evolution in the East Carpathians, Romania. Tectonophysics 410, 111–136.

Fodor, L., Csontos, L., Bada, G., Györfi, I., Benkovics, L. (Eds.), 1999. Tertiary TectonicEvolution of the PannonianBasin SystemandNeighbouringOrogens: aNewSynthesisof Paleostress Data. The Mediterranean Basins: Tertiary Extension Within the AlpineOrogen, vol. 156. The Geological Society, London, 295–334 pp.

Foeken, J.P.T., Dunai, T.J., Bertotti, G., Andriessen, P.A.M., 2003. Late Miocene to presentexhumation in the Ligurian Alps (southwest Alps) with evidence for accelerateddenudation during Messinian salinity crisis. Geology 30, 797–800.

Fugenschuh, B., Schmid, S.M., 2005. Age and significance of core complex formation in avery curved orogen: evidence from fission track studies in the South Carpathians(Romania). Tectonophysics 404, 33–53.

Horváth, F., 1993. Towards a mechanical model for the formation of the Pannonianbasin. Tectonophysics 225, 333–357.

Horváth, F., Cloetingh, S., 1996. Stress-induced late stage subsidence anomalies in thePannonian Basin. Tectonophysics 266, 287–300.

Hyppolite, J.C., Sandulescu, M., 1996. Paleostress characterization of the ‘Wallachian’phase in its type area, southeastern Carpathians. Tectonophysics 263, (235–249).

465I. Vasiliev et al. / Tectonophysics 473 (2009) 457–465

Hyppolite, J.C., Badescu, D., Constantin, P., 1999. Evolution of the Transport Directions inthe Carpathian Belt During its Collision with the East European Platform.

Jarosinski, M., Beekman, F., Bada, G., Cloetingh, S., 2006. Redistribution of recentcollision push and ridge push in Central Europe: insights from FEM modelling.Geophys. J. Int. 167 (2), 860–880.

Jelinek, V., 1978. Statistical processing of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility ongroups of specimens. Stud. Geophys. Geod. 22, 50–62.

Kissel, C., Laj, C., Lee, T.-Q., 1986. Magnetic fabric in “undeformed” marine clays fromcompressional zones. Tectonics 5, 769–781.

Krézsek, C., Bally, A.W., 2006. The Transylvanian Basin (Romania) and its relation to theCarpathian fold and thrust belt: insights in gravitational salt tectonics. Mar. Petrol.Geol. 23 (4), 405–442.

Landes, M., Fielitz, W., Hauser, F., Popa, M., Group, C.W., 2004. 3-D upper crustaltomographic structure across theVrancea Seismic Zone, Romania. Tectonophysics 382,85–102.

Lazarescu, V., Popescu, M.N., 1986. Shallow vs. deep, old vs. recent tectonic movementsat the East Carpathians arc bend. Tectonophysics 131, 287–299.

Leever, K.A., Matenco, L., Bertotti, G., Cloetingh, S., Drijkoningen, K.G., 2006. Lateorogenic vertical movements in the Carpathian Bend Zone— seismic constraints onthe transition zone from orogen to foredeep. Basin Res. 18 (4), 521–545.

Martin, M., Wenzel, F., Calixto Working Group, 2006. High-resolution teleseismic bodywave tomography beneath SE-Romania— II. Imaging of a slab detachment scenario.Geophys. J. Int. 164, 579–595.

Matenco, L., Schmid, S., 1999. Exhumation of the Danubian nappes system (SouthCarpathians) during the Early Tertiary: inferences from kinematic and paleostressanalysis at the Getic/Danubian nappes contact. Tectonophysics 314 (4), 401–422.

Matenco, L., Bertotti, G., 2000. Tertiary tectonic evolution of the external Carpathians(Romania). Tectonophysics 316, 255–286.

Matenco, L., Bertotti, G., Dinu, C., Cloetingh, S., 1997a. Tertiary tectonic evolution of theexternal Southern Carpathians and adjacent Moesian platform (Romania).Tectonics 16 (6), 896–911.

Matenco, L., Zoetemeijer, R., Cloetingh, S., Dinu, C., 1997b. Lateral variations in mech-anical properties of the Romanian external Carpathians: inferences of the flexureand gravity modelling. Tectonophysics 282, 147–166.

Matenco, L., Bertotti, G., Leever, K., Cloetingh, S., Schmid, S.M., Tarapoanca, M., Dinu, C.,2007. Large-scale deformation in a locked collisional boundary: interplay betweensubsidence and uplift, intraplate stress, and inherited lithospheric structure in thelate stage of the SE Carpathians evolution. Tectonics 26 (4), TC4011. doi:10.1029/2006TC001951.

Mattei, M., Speranza, F., Argentieri, A., Rosseti, F., Sagnotti, L., Funicello, R., 1999.Extensional tectonics in the Amantea basin (Calabria, Italy): a comparison betweenstructural and magnetic anisotropy data. Tectonophysics 307, 33–49.

Merten, S., Andriessen, P.A.M., Juez-Larré, J., Bertotti, G., Dunai, T.J., 2005. Dating theExhumation of the Romanian Carpathians: first results from apatite (U–Th)/Hethermochronology. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 7, 08138.

Morley, C.K., 1996. Models for relative motion of crustal blocks within the Carpathiansregion, based on restorations of the outer Carpathians thrusts sheets. Tectonics 15,(885–904).

Necea, D., Fielitz, W., Matenco, L., 2005. Late Pliocene–Quaternary tectonics in thefrontal part of the SE Carpathians: insights from tectonic geomorphology.Tectonophysics 410, 137–156.

Oncescu, M.C., Bonjer, K.P., 1997. A note on the depth recurrence and strain release oflarge Vrancea earthquakes. Tectonophysics 272, 291–302.

Pilger, R.H., 2007. The bend: origin and significance. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 119, 302–313.Pinter, N., Grenerczy, G., Weber, J., Medak, D., Stein, S., 2005. The Adria Microplate. In:

Series, N.A. (Ed.), GPS Geodesy, Tectonics, and Hazards.Rabagia, T., Matenco, L., 1999. Tertiary tectonic and sedimentological evolution of the

South Carpathians foredeep: tectonic vs. eustatic control. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 16,719–740.

Rabagia, T., Matenco, L., Cloetingh, S., submitted for publication. The balance betweentectonics and sedimentation in highly oblique collisional settings: a case study fromthe South Carpathians and their foreland. Tectonophysics.

Radoane, F., Radoane, N., Dumitriu, D., 2003. Geomorphological evolution of long-itudinal river profiles in the Carpathians. Geomorphology 50, 293–306.

Roure, F., Roca, E., Sassi, W., 1993. The Neogene evolution of the outer Carpathian flyschunits (Poland, Ukraine and Romania); kinematics of a foreland/fold-and-thrust beltsystem. Sediment. Geol. 86, 177–201.

Royden, L.H., 1988. Late Cenozoic tectonics of the Pannonian Basin System. ThePannonian Basin. A study in the basin evolution. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Mem. 45,27–48.

Royden, L.H., 1993. The tectonic expression of slab pull at continental convergentboundaries. Tectonics 12, 303–325.

Sacks, P.E., Secor, D.T., 1990. Delamination in collisional orogens. Geology 18, 999–1002.Sanders, C., Andriessen, P.A.M., Cloetingh, S.A.P.L., 1999. Life cycle of the East Carpathian

orogen: erosion history of a doubly vergent critical wedge assessed by fission trackthermochronology. J. Geophys. Res. 104 (B12), 29095–29112.

Sandulescu, M., 1984. Geotectonica Romaniei. Editura Tehnica, Bucharest. 450 pp.Sandulescu, M., 1988. Cenozoic tectonic history of the Carpathians. The Pannonian

Basin, a study in basin evolution. AAPG Mem. 28, 17–25.Sandulescu, M., Visarion, M. (Eds.), 1988. La structure des plate-formes situées dans

l'avant-pays et au-dessous des nappes du flysch des Carpathes orientales, 15. St. tehn.econ., Geofiz. 62–67 pp.

Scheepers, P.J.J., Langereis, C.G., 1994. Magnetic fabric of Pleistocene clays from theTyrrhenian arc: a magnetic lineation induced in the final stage of the middlePleistocene compressive event. Tectonics 13, (1190–1200).

Schmid, S.M., Bernoulli, D., Fuegenschuh, B., Matenco, L., Schefer, S., Schuster, R.,Tischler, M., Ustaszewski, K., 2008. The Alpine-Carpathian-Dinaridic orogenicsystem: correlation and evolution of tectonic units. Swiss J. Geosci. 101 (1),139–183.

Schmitt, G., Nuckelt, A., Knöpfler, A., Marcu, C., 2007. Three dimensional platekinematics in Romania. Proceeding of International Symposium on Strong VranceaEarthquakes and Risk Mitigation, Bucharest, Romania, pp. 34–45.

Snel, E., Marunteanu, M., Macalet, R., Meulenkamp, J.E., van Vugt, N., 2006. LateMioceneto Early Pliocene chronostratigraphic framework for the Dacic Basin, Romania.Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol 238 (1–4), 107–124.

Sperner, B., Lorenz, F., Bonjer, K.P., Hettel, S., Muller, B., Wenzel, F., 2002. Slab break-off—abrupt cut or gradual detachment? New insights from the Vrancea Region (SECarpathians, Romania). Terra Nova 13 (3), 172–179.

Stefanescu, M., Dicea, O., Tari, G., 2000. Influence of extension and compression on saltdiapirism in its type area, East Carpathians Bend area, Romania. In: Vendeville, B.C.,Mart, Y., Vigneresse, J.L. (Eds.), Salt, Shale and Igneous Diapirs in and AroundEurope. Geological Society Special Publication, London, pp. 131–147.

Tarapoanca, M., Bertotti, G., Matenco, L., Dinu, C., Cloetingh, S.A.P.L., 2003. Architectureof the Focsani Depression: a 13 km deep basin in the Carpathians bend zone(Romania). Tectonics 22, 13–1–13-17.

Tarling, D.H., Hrouda, F., 1993. The Magnetic Anisotropy of Rocks. Chapman and Hall,London. 217 pp.

Toussaint, G., Burov, E., Jolivet, L., 2004. Continental plate collision: unstable vs. stabledynamics. Geology 32, 33–36.

van der Hoeven, A.G.A., Mocanu, V., Spakman, W., Nutto, M., Nuckelt, L., Matenco, L.,Munteanu, L., Marcu, C., Ambrosius, B.A.C., 2005. Observation of present-daytectonic motions in the south-eastern Carpathians: geodetic results of the ISES/CRC-461 GPS measurements. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 239, 177–184.

Van Vugt, N., Langereis, C.G., Hilgen, F.J., 2001. Orbital forcing in Pliocene–PleistoceneMediterranean lacustrine deposits: dominant expression of eccentricity versusprecession. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol 172, 193–205.

Vasiliev, I., Krijgsman, W., Langereis, C.G., Panaiotu, C.E., Matenco, L., Bertotti, G., 2004.Towards an astrochronological framework for the eastern Paratethys Mio–Pliocenesedimentary sequences of the Focsani basin (Romania). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 227,231–247.

Vasiliev, I., Krijgsman, W., Stoica, M., Langereis, C.G., 2005. Mio–Pliocene magnetos-tratigraphy in the southern Carpathian foredeep and Mediterranean–Paratethyscorrelation. Terra Nova 17, 374–387.

Visarion, M., Sandulescu, M., Stanica, D., Veliciu, S., 1988. Contributions á laconnaissance de la structure profonde de la plate-forme Moésienne en Roumanie.St. tehn. econ., Geofiz. 15, 68–92.

Wenzel, F., Achauer, U., Enescu, D., Kissling, E., Russo, R., Mocanu, V., Musacchio, G.,1998. Detailed look at final stage of plate break-off is target of study in Romania.EOS 79, 589–594.

Wortel,M.J.R., Spakman,W., 2000. Subductionand slabdetachment in theMediterranean–Carpathian region. Science 290, 1910–1917.

Zweigel, P., Ratschbaxher, L., Frisch, W., 1998. Kinematics of an arcuate fold–thrust belt:the southern Eastern Carpathians (Romania). Tectonophysics 297, 177–207.