Loess-Palaeosol-Sequences from the loess area of Saxony ... · In addition to former studies of...

47E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 47–65 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.03 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License

E&G Quaternary Science Journal Volume 60 / Number 1 / 2011 / 47–65 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.03

www.quaternary-science.net

GEOZON SCIENCE MEDIA

ISSN 0424-7116

Loess-Palaeosol-Sequences from the loess area of Saxony (Germany)

Sascha Meszner, Markus Fuchs, Dominik Faust

Abstract: Basedonnewdescriptionsofloess-palaeosolprofiles,wepresentanewcompositeprofilefortheloessregionofSaxony,Germany.InadditiontoformerstudiesofLieberoth&Haasenewstratigraphicmarkerhorizonsandpalaeosolswereadded.ConcerningthesofarpoorlydifferentiatedWeichselianpleniglacialweidentifiedthreepalaeosols.Apalaeoclimaticinterpretationforthelastglacial(Weichselian)ispresentedanddiscussed.

[Löss-Paläobodenprofile aus dem Sächsischen Lösshügelland (Deutschland)]

Kurzfassung: AufderGrundlagevonneuaufgenommenenLössprofilenimsächsischenLösshügellandwirdeinStandardprofilfürdieRegionvorgestellt. Den früheren Arbeiten von Lieberoth & Haase konnten neue stratigraphische Markerhorizonte und Paläobödenhinzugefügt werden. Besonders im bisher kaum differenzierten Hochweichsel konnten 3 Paläobodenhorizonte detektiert wer-den. Aus den neuen Befunden zu den Löss-Paläobodensequenzen Sachsens wird eine Klimarekonstruktion abgeleitet und zurDiskussiongestellt.

Keywords: loess, palaeosol, palaeoclimate, Weichselian, Saxony, Germany

Addresses of authors: S. Meszner*,D. Faust,InstituteofGeography,DresdenUniversityofTechnology,01062Dresden,Germany.E-Mail:[email protected];M. Fuchs,GeographicalInstitute,UniversityofBayreuth,95440Bayreuth,Germany.

*corresponding author

1 Introduction

TheSaxonianLoessRegionissituatedinthecenterofSaxo-ny,EastGermany(Fig.1)andrepresentsthetransitionzonebetweentheNorthEuropeanPlainandtheCentralUpland(Erzgebirge).Inthisareaofgentlyrollinghills,aloesscoverofup to20mwasaccumulatedduring the lastglacialcy-cle (Weichselian), intercalated by a number of palaeosols.Theseloess-palaeosolsequencesrepresentanexcellentsedi-mentarchiveforreconstructingenvironmentalandclimatechangeofthelastglacialcycle.

ThefirststudyofloesssedimentsinSaxonywascarriedoutbyPietzsch(1922),dividingthesedimentaryrecordintotwomainparts;onelowerpartwithreworkedsandyloesssedimentsandanupperonecomposedofmoreorlesspureloess.Inthefollowingyears,studieswerefocusedonloessdistribution and on the general composition of loess andloess-likesediments(Grahmann,1925).InafirstapproachGallwitz(1937)describedasectionclosetotheElberiver,wherehewasable todistinguishseveral loess layerswithintercalatedlevelsoficewedgesandreworkedloess.Grah-mann(1932)publishedthefirstmapofloessdistributioninEurope.

Since 1950 the loess in Saxony was subject of intensepalaeopedologic and stratigraphic investigation. Based onseveral sections Lieberoth built up a stratigraphy, whichisaccepteduntilnow(Lieberoth1959,1962a,1963,1964a,1964b).LateronHaase(1963,1968)andNeumeister(1966)workedongeomorphicfeaturesofthenorthernloessbound-ary(Lössrandstufe).Atthistime,theloessresearchofEast-ernGermanywassummarizedbyGellert(1965)andRich-

teretal. (1970).Sincethen,onlyafewarticleswerepub-lished (Altermann et al. 1978; Biering & Frühauf 1999;Meng2003;Zoelleretal.2004;Koch&Neumeister2005).Asystematicapproachwithfurtherresultsisstilllacking.

InthepresentstudytheexistingresultsaresummarizedinrespecttotheSaxonianloessstratigraphyandimprovedbynewfindings tobroadenourknowledgeof loess-palae-osolsequences inSaxony.Asmostsectionsmentionedbe-foreareinaccessibletoday,newsectionshadtobeeopenedforthisstudy.Duetothefactthatloess-palaeosolsequencesofSaxonyrepresentanimportantlinkbetweentheWesternEuropeanloessrecordsformedundermoisterconditionsandthe Bohemian loess records formed under more continen-talconditions,theSaxonianLoessRegionprovidesvaluableinformationabout thepalaeoclimatechange in this transi-tionalzone.

1.2 Geographical setting

TheSaxonianLoessRegionissituatedinEastGermany,westof the city of Dresden and characterizedby gently rollinghills,coveredbyupto20mthickloessaccumulations(Fig1).Thelandscapeisdissectedbysmallriversincisedintotheloesscoverdowntothebedrock(GraniteofMeissen).TheloesswasdepositedintheforelandoftheErzgebirge,form-ing a plateau-like topography, representing the so-called“SaxonianLoessPlateau”.Surroundedbydeepincisedval-leysof theElbeand theMuldeRiver the landscape isandwas endangered by soil erosion processes even in formertimes.

http://www.quaternary-science.net

mailto:[email protected]

48 E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 47–65 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.03 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License

Fig. 1: Map showing study area and distribution of loess (>3 m thickness).

Abb. 1: Die Karte zeigt die untersuchten Profile und Lössverbreitung (mächtiger als 3 m) im Arbeitsgebiet.

IntheEarlytoMiddlePleistocenethestudyareawascov-eredbytheiceshieldofthe“ElsterGlaciation”.FromtheFirst Saalian Glaciation glacial deposits are described byEissmann (1994). These deposits were reworked and en-riched by loess deposits of the Late Saalian Glaciation(Warthe),whichevidencethattheLateSaalianiceadvancestoppedsomekilometresfurthernorth.ThelastperiodofloessaccumulationtookplaceduringtheWeichselianGla-ciation.

Thefertilesoils,formedduringlatePleistoceneandHo-locene,werecultivatedbyearlyfarmersaround7500 BP(cf.Oexle2000).Todaythelandscapeischaracterizedbyvary-ingsoilpatternsshowingamosaicoftruncatedluvisolsofdifferentstagesowingtoextendedagriculturalactivity.Thevalley bottoms are filled by colluvial material up to 4 mthick.Somestronglyerodedhillslopesshowthattheunder-lyingcalcareousloessisalreadyatthesurfaceandismixedintothesoilbymodernploughing.Inpositionsoflittleero-sionweassumeadeepnessofdecalcified loessdue to soilformationofabout1.8 m.Weconcludethatatsomeplacesmorethan2 mofsoilwaseroded.

Today the mean annual temperature is about 8.8°C, asdetermined inanearbyclimate station (Döbeln).Themeanannualprecipitationisabout600 mmwithit’smaximuminsummer.

2 Methods

Field WorkInorder toselect the locations fordetailedfieldworkandprofile description, the study area was investigated usingaerial and satellite images. After deciding to open sevennew sections, fieldwork included cleaning, drawings, andsamplingofeachprofile.Thesamplesweretakeninrespecttothelayeringofthesection.Somesectionsweresampledequidistantwitha2 cmresolution.Standardsedimentologi-cal and pedological analyses like granulometry, pH value,carbonatecontent,soilorganicmatter,andcontentofsev-eral iron compounds were conducted in the laboratory oftheInstituteofGeography(DresdenUniversityofTechnolo-gy).Duringfieldworkwealreadyestablishedapreliminarylitho-andpedostratigraphywithfocusontheidentificationof loess-palaeosol complexes. Magnetic susceptibility wasmeasuredinSIunitsinthefieldwithaportableBartingtonMS2susceptibilitymeter.Forthispurposewechoseaninter-valoflessthan5 cm.Commonly,threemeasurementswereaveraged(cf.Dearing,1999).

SedimentologyAttheInstituteofGeography(Dresden),soiltextureswereanalysed.Bulksample(10 g)wasmixedwith25 mldispers-ingsolution(sodiumhexametaphosphate:(NaPO3)6–39 g/lH2O)and200 mlH2O.Afterrotatingthesuspensionforat

Colditz

Leisnig

Mügeln

Mutzschen

Hartha

Döbeln

Riesa

Meissen

Oschatz

Freiberg

Altenburg

CHEMNITZ

Grimma

Rochlitz

LEIPZIG

DRESDEN

ELBE

MU

LD

E

PL

EIß

E

Gl.Z.

S.

L.

Kl.

Zsch.12.8km

11.4km

7.5

km

4.6km5.4

km

15.5km

O.

A14

A4A

72

A17

A4

0 10 20km

SAXONY

BRANDENBURG

R.

L.S.Z.O.Zsch.Kl.Gl.R.

LeippenSeilitzZehrenOstrauZschaitzKlipphausenGleinaRottewitzLoess (> 3 m)

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

Germany

Hamburg

Berlin

Dresden

Munich

Frankfurt

Erfurt

Elbe

Danube

Rh

ine

Main

Moselle

N

0 10050 200 300km

Area of investigation


least2 hitwasstoredfor12hforcompletedispersion.Thegrain-sizemeasurementsof the sand fractionwerecarriedoutbymeansofthewetsievetechnique(2.0–0.63 mm:coarsesand;0.63–0.2 mm:mediumsand;0.2–0.125mm:finesand;0.125–0.063 mm: finest sand).Coarse silt (0.063–0.02 mm),medium silt (0.02–0.0063 mm), fine silt (0.0063–0.002 mm)and clay (<0.002 mm) were measured by pipette analyses(Schlichtingetal.,1995).ThecarbonatecontentwasdeterminedbyCO2gasvolume.Soilsampleswereaddedwithhydrochloricacidinaclosedsystem,andtheresultingCO2gasvolumewasmeasuredbyaScheiblerapparatus(cf.Schlichtingetal.,1995).Thesoilorganic matter (SOM) was determined by oxidation withK2Cr2O7inaconcentratedH2SO4mediumandmeasurementofabsorbanceat590 nm(cf.Schlichtingetal.,1995).ThepHvaluewasdeterminedina1:2.5soil/solutionratioin25 ml0.01 MCaCl2(cf.Schlichtingetal.).After30 minstirringthesuspension,thepHvaluewasmeasured.

Forextractingthepedogenicironcompound(Fed),soilsam-plesweredeferratedbythebicarbonate-buffereddithionite–citrateprocedure(cf.Schlichtinget al.,1995).Todeterminethetotalironcontent(Fet),100 mgsoilmaterialwasdigestedwith2 mlconcentratednitricacid(HNO3)and2 mlconcen-trated hydrofluoric acid (HF) using steam autoclaves. Theamountsofpedogenic(Fed)andtotal(Fet)ironweremeasuredusinganatomicabsorptionspectrometer.

Mollusk analysesThemolluskanalyseswerecarriedoutbyHamann(2010un-pub.).Samplesofabout10to15kgweretaken,sieved(200or

400µmmeshsize)andwashedtoextractthemolluskshells,whichwerecountedandidentified.Thespecieswereclassi-fiedaccordingtoLožek(1964).

IRSL DatingSamples for IRSL dating were taken using steel cylinders,hammeredintothecleanedloesssectiontoavoidanycon-taminationofthesampleswithlight-exposedmaterial.Sam-plepreparationwasperformedundersubduedredlight(640±20nm),usingthepolymineralfine-grainfraction(4–11µm)forluminescencemeasurements.Theequivalentdose(De)wasdeterminedapplyingamulti-plealiquotadditivedoseprotocol.ToconstructasaturatingexponentialgrowthcurveforDedetermination,10naturalaliquotsandsixgroupsofartificiallyirradiatedaliquots(fiveeach)wereused.Artificialirradiationwascarriedoutwitha90S/90Yb-source(9.9Gy/min).DuringIRstimulation(880nm±80nm),theshine-downcurvesweremeasuredfor60satroomtemperatureafterapreheatat220°Cfor300sandusingadetectionfiltercombinationofBG39,2xBG3andGG400(390–450nm).BeforeIRSLmeasurements,thesampleswerestored(roomtemperature)foraminimumofonemonthaf-terartificialirradiation.Finally,theDewascalculatedfromthe0–40ssignalintegralaftersubtractingthe‘latelight’sig-nalofthe55–60sintegral(Aitken&Xie1992).Inaddition,anextrasetofaliquotswasusedtotestforanomalousfadingandtodeterminetheα-efficiency(a-value)ofthemeasuredmaterial. No anomalous fading was detected. Dose rateswereobtainedusing low-levelγ-spectrometryandconver-sionfactorsgivenbyAdamiec&Aitken(1998).

Fig. 2: Profile Leippen with geochemical results.

Abb. 2: Profil Leippen mit den dazugehörigen geochemichen Analyseergebnissen.

fG

fBv

0 20 40 60 80 100 6 7 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,5 0 110 550440330LeippenCaCO [%]3 Fe(d)/Fe(t)

LFZ

Bv

fAh

NB

fAh/fBv

NB

fBv

NB/fG

fBv

fBv

fG

fG

fG

Ap

Bt

Bt+Cv

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

205m NN

CaCO3

220

MnMnMn

1

26

10

21

20

17

18

14

12

8

4

2

3

13

19

11

9

5

7

15

16

6

27

25

2423

22

Sm07

0,3

fBv/fAh?

granulometry[%] pH-value organic matter [%] susceptibility [10 si]-6

clay mediumsilt

coarsesilt

finesand

mediumsand

coarsesand

finesilt

fAh/fBv

I

II

III

V

IRSL-samples(University of Bayreuth)

21.6 +/-2.5 ka

139 +/-14 ka

26.3 +/-3.0 ka


Fig. 3: Big ice wedges at the section Leippen (photo is upside down).

Abb. 3: Mächtige Eiskeilpseudomorphose im Profil Leippen (Foto steht auf dem Kopf).

3 Results

3.1 Section Leippen (Tab. 1; Fig. 2)

DuetoroadcutsclosetothevillageofLeippen(GKR459345H566726)thissectionwasopeninsummer2005.AdetaileddescriptionisgiveninTab.1.Ingeneralthesectioncouldbesubdividedintofourunits,beginningatthetopwithadark-ishdecalcifiedpartinwhichtheHolocenesoilisdeveloped.Thedecalcificationboundaryatabout2 misthelowermostlimit of this unit. The underlying calcareous loess is char-acterized by a light yellowish colour and a typical porousfabric.Thisunitiscomposedofpureloessandresortedloessderivates wherein some darkish or reddish parts could bedetected and are seen as interstadial soil features. Duringthe deposition of this unit huge ice wedges were formedreachingevenintothesubjacentunit(Fig.3).

Theunitbeneath isdominatedbysolifluctionprocesseswhich generated different smaller layers. The whole unitshowsmarkedly stronger colouring.Thebase is composedofmaterialwhichseemstohaveundergonestrongsoilre-deposition. The lowest unit is subdivided into two parts.Theupperpartshowsastronglaminationwithplatyfabricincluding sandy bands indicating abluation processes; thelowerpartislesslaminatedandhasaweakerstructure.WeassumethatthelowestunitisalreadycomposedofSaaliandeposits.A sample from the lower part of layer 18 showsanIRSL-ageof139+/-14ka.CombiningthisIRSL-agewiththe increase of clay and sand in layer 16 and 17 and theincrease of Fe-ratio we suspect a significant hiatus in this

section.ThishiatusisresultofanerosionphasewhichhitstheEemiansoilandtheEarlyWeicheliandeposits.

The geochemical analyses (Fig. 2) support the divisionintotheseunits.

3.2 Section Seilitz (Tab. 2; Fig. 4)

The section is located close to the village of Seilitz (GKR 5388260, H 5673750) in a kaolin pit 1.5 km southwest ofthe recent course of the river Elbe. A detailed descriptionis given in Tab. 2. The loess record covers a thick kaolinhorizon derived from strong alteration processes of themonzodiorite.Inbetween,asmallsandygravellayerisde-veloped which is interpreted as remnants of moraine ma-terial of Saalian age. This stratigraphical situation makesa Weichselian loess deposition most likely. Following thedifferent features within the whole loess section we pro-pose to subdivide theWeichselian loess deposits into threeunits.AccordingtotheLeippensectiontheuppermostunit,a decalcified loess, correlates to the lateWeichselian withthe recent soil at the top. The following unit is about 5 mthickand contains several interstadial soilswith theuppersoil showing strong hydromorphic features (Fig. 4; layer 5and6).Adarkgreyhorizon(layer10)isseenasthestrong-est palaeosol-(sediment) in this section. The lower brown-ishpalaeosolformslayer12.ThelowerunitIIIischaracter-izedby layers indicatingstrongsolifluction,whicharealsorecognizable at the section of Leippen (Fig. 5). Geochemi-calanalysessuchastheincreasedcontentofsandandclay(Fig.4) showcongruent results.Forexample thedarkgreyhorizon (layer 10) shows enrichment of carbonate and ofSOM. The pH-value marks the carbonate free parts of theHolocene soil development and fits well with the analysesofthecarbonatecontent.

3.3 Section Zehren (Tab. 3; Fig. 6)

The Zehren section (GK R 4597625 H 5675325) is situatedabout1.5kmtothenorthofSeilitzsection.Tab.3containsasummarizeddescription.Atthetopofthesectionaweakhumic calcareous horizon is developed which indicatesstrong erosion processes in former times.We assume thatat least2mofsoilandloessmaterial is lacking.ThereforethedescribedunitfromthetopofsectionSeilitzandLeip-penisnotpreservedinsectionZehren.Atabout3mdepthwedetectedanotablehumichorizonwithremarkabledarkgrayish colouring (layer 9) which has not been describedin former studies. The main features of this horizon arethestrongcolourandthedistinct lowerandupperbound-ary. The base of this unit (layer 20) marks the boundarybetweenloessandloesssediment(Fig.6).Fromadepthof7m(layer21)thesectioniscomposedofstronglyreworkedloessderivatesuptoadepthof11m.Consideringthefactthatat the topof this section2mof loessaremissingwebelieve that this sections represents the thickest loess ac-cumulationofthestudyarea.

3.4 Section Ostrau (Tab. 4; Fig. 7)

This section is situated close to the town of Ostrau (GKR 4582462 H 5675008) in a limestone pit of the Ostrauer


Layer Label Description

1 Ap humic dark horizon with a clear lower boundary

2 Btreddish brown clay enriched compact loam, weak pinprick structure and sporadically hydromorphic features (rust stains)

3 Bt+Cv less clay than layer 2, oval bleached patches (diameter 5mm), pinpricks

4 LFZ lamellar line-like structure between brownish clay-enriched (10Y5/6) and yellowish coarse silt (10Y6/4)

5 Bvhomogeneous light brownish grey, non calcareous silt, typical loosely packed loess structure with sporadic fine Manganese concretions, old backfilled earthworm burrows

6 NBbedded light greyish calcareous loess with iron hydroxide lines, undulated lower boundary, old backfilled earthworm burrows (current term in work: bio-traces)

7 fAh pale slightly dark loess

8 fAh/fBv brown greyish homogeneous loess with pseudomycelia and sporadic big Mn-stains,

9 slight lamellar structure, light brown, big Mn-stains

10 fAh/fBv brown greyish homogeneous loess with pseudomycelia, undulating lower limit

laminated loess with big Manganese stains

11 fAh/fBv? pale dark homogeneous loamy loess

12 NB grey brownish loam with a typical iron-oxide grid

13 loamy, brown greyish loess derivate, numerous Mn-concretions (solifluction layer)

14 loam, grey, brown with some little stones

15 fBv (soil sediment) stony (pebbles) layer, dark grey brown, numerous Mn-concretions, dense layering

16 fG bleached grey layer with rosty tubes, hydromorphic features

17 fBv reddish sandy material with cryoturbation features, parts with microstructure

18 clearly laminated material with sandy, loamy and silty layers (10YR5/6, 5/4, 6/8, 5/6), platy microstructure

19 fG grey-(light purple)-bleached loam

20 NB/fG grey-(light purple)-bleached loam, iron-oxides

21 Manganese enriched loam

22 thin layer of sand


24 fBv (soil sediment) clay enriched, reddish brown soil sediment

25 yellowish loess


27 fBv (soil sediment) stained silt, grey brown yellowish

KalkwerkeGmbH and contains the most completeWeich-selian loess sequence including the last interglacial palae-osol(Eemian).Tab.4showsadetaileddescriptionofsectionOstrau.AccordingtothesectionsofLeippenandSeilitzweareabletosubdividethesequencefromsectionOstrauintothree upper units as well. As the section reaches into thelast interglacial palaeosol, we added a fourth unit at thebottomof this section. From the topweobserve the typi-calsequencestartingwithdecalcified loesswhichincludesthefirstthreelayers(Fig.7).UnitIIstartswithlayer4andendsatabout5mdepthwithlayer8.Inlayer5,aslightlyreworked but strong soil is developed which we correlate

Tab. 1: Description of section Leippen.

Tab. 1: Profilbeschreibung Leippen.

withthestrongsoilatsectionZehren(Fig.6,layer9).Thissoil formedafterastrongerphaseof reorganizationof thesurface as evidenced by deep gullies which are filled up(layer5).Adetaileddraft (Fig. 8)of theupperpartof thesectionshowstheincisionintolayer6.

Thelowermostunitbeginswithlayer9inwhichbigicewedges could be observed. Stratigraphically they belongto layer 8 (unit II).The lowermostunit III is composedofseveral derived loess layers and soil sediments indicatingseveral environmental changes during this time. The greysolifluctionlayer(11)andthereddishloam(layer12)marktheboundarybetweenunitIIIandunitIV.


9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0m

0 20 40 60 80 100 84,5 6 7 0 124 8 0 21 0,1 0,3 0,5 0 100 200 350Seilitz

...[

MnMn

Fe

1

10

21

20

17

18

12

8

4

2

3

19

11

9

5

7

15

16

6

22

SM06

14

13

2216

184m NN5

I

II

IV

III

Fe Mn

0,2 0,4

granulometry [%]

clay

fine +medium silt

coarse silt

sand

pH-value CaCO [%]3organic matter [%] Fe /Fe(d) (t)

susceptibility [10 Si]-6

rubbish

see fig. 5]

Mn

Mn

Mn

Cc

NB

Bvt

LFZ

Bv

Cc

Btv

fCcv

fS

Soilsed

NB

NB

fG

NB

[

fBv

CaCO3

FeMn

Fig. 4: Profile Seilitz with geochemical results.

Abb. 4: Profil Seilitz mit den dazugehörigen geochemichen Analyseergebnissen.

16

5 10 15 20 25m0

1

2

3

4

5

6m

Kaolin

21

20

17

18

12

19

9

16

22

22

21

21

22

2020

20

20

12

9

9

19

Mn

Seilitz

16

17

17

18

17

17

18

grey stone enriched layer with coatings ofiron oxides, charcoal

reddish brown, clayey layer, in several partswith microstructure (soil sediment)

grayish; macro poroes; stone enrichedlayer, enriched CaCO -content; bottle-like

iron oxides concretions; locally patches ofturquoise clay

3

grey, lightly purple, clayic layer; nearly freeof coarse material

clayic loam with several small stones (2cm),lightly brownish

silty loess derivate (fCc?)

reworked loess with many bands of iron oxides

dark soil with clear boundaries

filled ice wedges with calcareous nodules

band of iron oxides

bottle-like iron oxides concretion

calcareous nodules

step (1

,5m

)

step (1

,5m

)

slip

Meszner & Faust 2009

charcoal

Fig. 5: Lower part of the section Seilitz (Nr.9: filled ice wedge).

Abb. 5: Der untere Wandabschnitt im Profil Seilitz (Nr. 9: Eiskeilpseudomorphose).



1 Bvt brown illuvial horizon with weak hydromorphic features, in the lower part prismatic structure

2 LFZa very typical expression of lenticular horizon!; lamellar line-like structure between brownish clay-enriched and yellowish coarse silt, pores increasing with depth

3 Bv light brown homogeneous horizon, decalcified, some fine pores

4 Cc light yellow calcareous loess; bio-traces, small Mn-concretions,

5 NB Concentric iron oxide rings around root channels, pseudomycelia, bleached grey stains, scattered fine pores

6 NB light brown loess, diffuse iron oxide patches, pseudomycelia, small Mn-concretions, stained,

7 loess

8 reddish loess (fine dispersed iron oxides)

9 weak linear iron oxides on a pale matrix, calcareous nodules, lower limit marked by a strong line of iron oxides

10 NBcalcareous nodules, dark grey, many fine pores, loamy, 10% calcium carbonate, molluscs, soil structure, iron oxide stains, clearly limited, undulating lower boundary

11 bedded loess derivate with calcareous nodules and small Mn-concretions

12 fBvno stratified loess, homogenous material, small globules of iron oxides, greyish brown colour, many pseudomycelia, undulating lower boundary

13 stratified material, hydromorphic features

14 NB iron oxides diagonally ruled, big Mn-stains in the lower part

15 stratified loess derivates, strong reworked material

16 fCcv some calcareous nodules, sporadically little stones

17 massive slight pale yellow calcareous loess with fine iron oxide bands

18 loess derivate with many Mn- and iron oxide concretions

19 grey brownish loam, bands of iron oxides and small calcareous concretions

20 fGgrey, bleached material, locally patches of turquoise clay, bottle-like iron oxide concretions (often formed like a sugar loaf)

21 (fBv) (soil sediment) reddish brown loam, compact bedding, sometimes with weak platy microstructure

22 very massive layer, many stones, grey matrix with interfacial skins of iron oxides

Tab. 2: Description of section Seilitz.

Tab. 2: Profilbeschreibung Seilitz. NB = Naßboden

Tab. 3: Description of section Zehren.

Tab. 3: Profilbeschreibung Zehren.


1 Ap calcareous humic dark grey plough horizon

2 calcareous light yellow loess

3 NB carbonate enrichment, some light grey bleached stains, patches and bands of iron oxides, biotraces

4 loess with calcareous nodules

5 fBvc light brown yellowish loess, the upper boundary is marked by clearly visible and shredded layer of yellow material,

6 band of iron oxides on a grey yellowish bleached matrix

7 light brown yellowish loess, lower boundary is also marked by a shredded layer, pseudomycelia

8 loess with a fine layer of bleached patches, some pseudomycelia and iron oxides stains in the lower part

9 NB dark grey loamy material, clear lower and upper boundary, some iron oxides and a very fine angular structure,

10 stains of iron oxide, bleached root channels


11 laminated loess with biotraces, in the lower part Mn-concretions

12 fBvc light brown greyish material (not laminated!), small nodules of iron oxides

13 laminated loess with microcryoturbation

14 fBvcbrown greyish homogeneous material, iron and Mn-concretions, pseudomycelia, biotraces, clear iron oxide bands on the lower boundary

15 loess

16 NB lightly grey bleached loess with iron oxide stains, clearly band of iron oxide

17 material showing weak lamination

18 light brown colouring

19 weakly laminated loess derivates

20 loess with distinct lamination and some iron oxides stains in the lower part, cryoturbation features

21 fS/Bv brownish grey loam with iron oxide grid, big Mn-patches,

Tab. 4: Description of section Ostrau.

Tab. 4: Profilbeschreibung Ostrau.


1 Bt lower part of truncated Bt-horizon of the Holocene Luvisol, spare hydromorphic features (iron oxide stains)

2 LFZ short brown bands of loamy clayish material alternating with pale yellow loessic stains (lenticular horizon)

3 Bv homogeneous pale brown material, some diffuse cloud-like Mn-stains

4NB (Nassboden [germ] ~ Gelic Gleysol)

typical microstructure of loess, slightly brown colour, some parts show pale dark discolouration when the surface is drying; these discolourated parts look like filled earthworm burrows (current work determination: bio-traps), sporadic Mn-concretions

5 NBdark grey bleached loamy material with rust stains and a clear microstructure (rough section surface after preparation), CaCO3-concretions make crunching noise when cleaning the section, calcareous nodules horizontally bedded

6 laminated loess derivate, sparely iron oxides stains

7 fBvlight dark, pale brown (slightly purplish) colour; calcareous nodules, very distinct lower and upper boundary (undulating),rust stains, pseudomycelia, Mn-concretions; cryoturbation features

8 laminated loess derivate, in the lower part big Mn-stains

stronger reworked material - clear changes in texture

9 fS/Bvthick layer; brown, slightly reddish (10YR6/4); in the upper part stains of iron oxides (leopard skin-like), in the lower part increase of bleaching and iron oxides, fissures are lined with iron oxides skins, sporadically pseudomycelia; loamy, mixed with coarse fragments

10 bright yellow silt, without any features of pedogenesis, filled ice wedge

11clear boundary, grey matrix (10YR5/4) with fragments of reddish brown clayic material, relative high content of coarse material and calcareous concretions, solifluction features

12 reworked Btdark yellowish (reddish) brown (10YR4/4) loam, sporadically angular structure, in the lower part strong hydromorphic features (grey bleached)

13 HZ dark pale grey brown silt (mottles), least compacted

14 fS(e)w conspicuous bright grey material; loose structure; charcoal; big fibril Mn-concretions

15 fSw/Btmottled yellow reddish orange horizon, bleached grey root channels subangular structure, in-situ Bt-horizon of a Luvisol with hydromorphic features

buried stone layer

17 sand with clay coatings and a prismatic structure, intense reddish colour

HZ – Humuszone (humic horizon)


0m

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

Mn

Mn

Mn

Fe

Fe

Fe

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2 4 6 8 106,0 6,5 7,0 7,5 8,0

CaCO [%]3

40 80 120 160 200187m NN

Ostrau

MnMn Mn

1

10

17

14

12

8

4

2

3

13

11

9

5

7

15

16

6

9a

0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4 0,45

Fe(p)/Fe(t)

Bt

LFZ

Bv

NB

fBcv

fS(e)w

fSd/Bt

fS/Bv

HZ

NB

fSw/Bt

Btrework

I

IV

II

III

V

granulometry [%] pH-value susceptibily [10 Si]-6

Fe

SM07

2

0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8

organic matter [%]

Meszner & Faust

Fig. 7: Profile Ostrau with geochemical results.

Abb. 7: Profil Ostrau mit den dazugehörigen geochemichen Analyseergebnissen.

Helles Band

11m

8,25m

10,50m

10,05m

9,40m

8,60m

9,00m

0m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

MnMn

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 124 8

CaCO [%]3

0,3 0,4 0,5 0 100 2007 7,3 7,6 7,9 16 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 0,1 300Zehren

4

2

6

6

6

1

1000

MnFe

1

10

21

20

17

18

14

12

8

4

2

3

13

19

11

9

5

7

15

16

6

Ap

Cv

fBvc

fBvc

?fBv/fAh

fBcv

NB(h)

fS/Bv

NB

NB

NB

0,2

species

drill-h

ole

granulometry [%] pH-value organic matter [%] Fe /Fe(d) (t) susceptibility [10 si]-6

clay

sand

fine +mediumsilt

coarse silt

malacofauna

individuals142,5m NN

Sm08

Meszner & Faust 07

II

III

?

Fig. 6: Profile Zehren with geochemical results.

Abb. 6: Profil Zehren mit den dazugehörigen geochemichen Analyseergebnissen.


Tab. 5: Description of section Zschaitz.

Tab. 5: Profilbeschreibung Zschaitz.


1 Btreddish brown clay enriched compact loam, weak pinprick structure and sporadically hydromorphic features (rust stains)

2 LFZlamellar lined structure between brownish clay-enriched and yellowish coarse silt; in the upper part large and in the lower part narrow bedding, lenticular horizon

3 Bvhomogeneous light brownish grey, non calcareous silt, loose loess structure; several dark greyish curved structures (banana-like) crossing the boundary into the calcareous loess; boundary between non-calcareous and calcareous loess

4 NB grey material, hydromorphic features, undulated lower limit

5 laminated material with small frost cracks

6 fBv platy structure, Mn-concretions, pale grey-brown

7 loess

8 fBv Mn-concretions, pale grey-brown

8a slightly reworked loess, laminated

9 NB fBv/fG? homogeneous greyish material; increase content of fine to medium silt and clay; deoxidation in the lowest part of this layer

10 fBv brown loessic material with fine dispersed iron-oxides

11 light yellow greenish layer with fibered Mn- (2-5mm) and iron-oxide concretions

12 fG grey, bleached material, locally patches of turquoise clay, bottle-like iron oxide concretions

13Bt reworked

reddish layer with high content of clay; constant thickness; microstructure; the lower limit is marked by a crusted band of iron oxide; nearly no Mn-concretions; thin horizontal patches of bleached material

14 fBt-Sdbrown reddish, slightly purple material; well developed microstructure; bleached root channel, ice wedges are filled with fBt-Sd-material

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16m

2

3

4m

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

Mn

Mn

Mn

Mn

Ostrau

Bt

lenticular horizon(Lamellenfleckenzone)

fBv

0

44

55

66

11

22

33

11

22

33

44

556666

I

II

anthropogenic debris

band of iron hydroxide

ca

lca

reo

us

de

ca

lcif

ied

loess with bio-traps (net of filled earthwormburrows) and a weak Gleysol pedogenesis

strong Gelic Gleysol (maybe split?),lower boundary marks an important unconformity

laminated loess derivate,in parts stressed due to cryoturbation Mn-stains

Mn-concretion

pseudomycelia bio-traps

calcareous nodules

Meszner & Faust

Fig. 8: Detailed draft of the upper part of section Ostrau.

Abb. 8: Detailzeichung des oberen Teils der Abbauwand im Profil Ostrau.


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

LFZ

Bt

Bv

NB

Bt reworked

fG

NB-fBv/fG?

fBt-Sd

IIfBtSd

fBv

Zschaitz

9

I

IV

II

III

V

1

10

4

2

3

5

67

rubbish

217m NN

SM07

fBv

fBv

Mn

MnMn

17

14

12

13

11

15

16

8

8a

pH-value CaCO3 Fe /Fe(d) (t)granulometry [%]

clay

mediumsilt

coarse silt

coarsesand

mediumsand

125-200µm

63-125µm

fine silt

4 5 6 7 8 0 4 8 12 16 0 10,40,2 0,6 0,8 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,620 40 60 800 100organic matter [%]

Fig. 9: Profile Zschaitz with geochemical results.

Abb. 9: Profil Zschaitz mit den dazugehörigen geochemichen Analyseergebnissen.

15 IIfBtSd variocoloured horizon, orange reddish and grey parts, many stones, grey bleached channels

16 very coarse material, many stones

17 gravel from a palaeochannel of the Freiberger Mulde river

Tab.6: Description of section Klipphausen.

Tab. 6: Profilbeschreibung Klipphausen.


1 Bt/Sd checkered loam with clay filled root channels; bleached clay

2 yellowish loam with numerous Mn-concretions

3 deoxidized greyish loam with bottle-like iron-oxide structures

4 reddish, grey-brown clayish loam

5 loessic laminated silty loam, platy microstructure

6 homogeneous brown clayish loam, compacted

7 light grey loam; in the upper part some patches of iron-oxide; the lower limit is marked by crusted band of iron oxides

8 silty loam, yellow matrix with rusty coatings

9 sandy loam with grey bleached patches in a reddisch oxidized matrix

10 bedded sand, upper limit is marked by a distinctive Mn-band


Tab. 7: Description of section Gleina.

Tab. 7: Profilbeschreibung Gleina.


1 Bt lower part of the truncated Bt-horizon

2 LFZ lenticular horizon

3 Bv homogeneous pale brown decalcified horizon

4 bleached stains (root channels), biotraps, at the lower part slightly brown with Mn-stains

5 NB high porosity, many bleached stains, bright orange iron oxide rings around filled root channels

loess with many iron hydroxide stains

6 NB many small calcic nodules (Loesskindl); bleached, the lower part shows many Mn-dots

loess, scattered small Mn-concretions, scarcely iron hydroxide stains

7 NB calcareous nodules, strong bleaching; scattered rust stains, platy structure, clear boundaries

8 laminated loess derivate, loose density

9 NB weak bleaching; homogeneous (not laminated), iron hydroxide stains, pseudomycelia

10 laminated material with small frost cracks, loess derivates

11 fBv homogeneuos, diffuse distributed iron hydroxide stains, pseudomycelia; loamy, weak structure, many pores

12 weak laminated material with features of cryoturbation stress

13 fBv pseudomycelia; no lamination, gathering of Mn-stains, small iron hydroxide concretions

14upper boundary is marked by some slightly yellow undulating and thin layers of loess material, distort layers, big Mn-stains, small frost cracks

III

Mn

Fe

Fe

Bt/Sw

0

10

20 60 100 140

susceptibility [10 Si]-6

260m NN Klipphausen

Sm07

1

10

8

4

2

3

9

5

7

6

0 10080604020 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,80 1

CaCO -content [%]3

0 0,3 0,6

Fe(p)/Fe(t)granulometry [%]

I

IV

III

V

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

organic matter [%]pH-value

clay

mediumsilt

finesilt

coarsesilt

mediumsand

125-200µm coarsesand63-125µm

Fig. 10: Section Klipphausen (contrary hachures to fig. 16 in layer 6–10!: 6 - clayic loam; 7 - light grey loam; 8 - silty loam; 9 - sandy loam; 10 - bedded sand).

Abb. 10: Profil Klipphausen (von der Legende (Abb. 16) abweichende Schraffuren in Schicht 6–10!: 6 - toniger Lehm; 7 - hellgrauer Lehm; 8 - schluffiger Lehm; 9 - sandiger Lehm; 10 - geschichteter Sand).


15transition zone between weakly modified and strongly reworked loess,above: many oval Mn-stainsbeneath: bigger Mn-stains, compact structure, loamy, typical iron oxide grid (leopard skin-like)

increasing of medium and fine silt with depth, big Mn-stains with diffuse boundaries

16 Mn-stains and calcareous nodules, location of big (15cm) horizontal bedded calcareous nodules

17increasing clay content with depth, scattered iron hydroxide stains, in the depth of 10.30 m gradual increase of carbonate, small admixture of coarse fragments; the lowest part is represented by a brown greyish clayish layer

18 fGnon calcareous, intense bleached, grey horizon (10BG 6/1); the lower boundary is marked by intense lines of iron hydroxides

19 fBv reddish brown horizon, platy structure, bands of iron hydroxide that end abruptly at the upper boundary

20 gradually decrease of carbonate, bedded structure with embedded sandy lenses

21 HZ dark pale grey brown silt, least compacted

22 fS(e)w reworkedbright grey bleached material, weak coherence, big Mn-concretions (0.5-1 cm) often with fibril structure; charcoal!

23 IIfS(e)w intense mottles of reddish brown iron hydroxides, most parts are bleached, subangular structure;

24 fBtSdintense bleached root channels, clearly subangular structure, decrease of colouring, in the lower part more reddish, more darkish at the top

25IIfBt(Sand)

IIIfG(silt)mixed layer with reddish clay and light gray silt

26 light ochre sand

Ofparticular interest is thehumichorizonin layer13andthe bleached lower part rich in charcoal remnants (layer14).InOstrauthisstratigraphicallylowestunitiscomposedof Saalian deposits in which two in situ horizons wereformed(Eemiansoil;layer15/16).

3.5 Section Zschaitz (Tab. 5; Fig. 9)

AttheZschaitzsectiondepositsofanancientriverbranchoftheMulderiver(Eissmann,1964)areexposedinagrav-elpit(GKR4580416H5669191).Thesefluvialdepositsarecoveredbyloesssedimentsoftwoglacials.Fourunitscouldbeidentifiedinthissection.DetailsaregiveninTab.5.UnitI is composed of decalcified sediment layers which couldbe correlated with almost all the other sections describedin the present study. The lower boundary of this unit ismarked by the boundary of the decalcified layer into thecalcareous loess. Unit II is not as distinct as in the othersections and composedof the layers 4 to 8a.Unit III con-tains several soil sediments and solifluction layers. ItsboundarytounitIVisdistinctandclear.UnitIVhasonitstop remnants of the last interglacial soil. The deeper partshows big ice wedges and strongly reworked loess deri-vates with little gravel content.Within this deepest layer(16) close to the contact to the gravel deposits (layer 17)someartifacts(smallbifaces)werefoundbuthavenotbeeninvestigatedyet.

3.6 Section Klipphausen (Tab. 6; Fig. 10)

ThissectionissituatedclosetothevillageofKlipphausen(GKR4605947H5660667).Itisnotaccessibleanymorebe-causeitexistedonlyforashortperiodoftimeduringhouseconstruction. The section Klipphausen is characterized byanadditionalpattern,notidentifiedintheabovedescribed

sections.Thematerial of theupper threemeters is loamy(20%–60%clay;fineandmediumsilt)andshowalowpH-value.Thisisduetothefactthatthissectionislocatedinthe southern part of the study area close to the connect-ingslopeintothesouthernmountainrange(Erzgebirge).Itisa typicalpositionfor thetransitionzonefromthe loessplateauwitheoliandominatedprocessesintothemountainlandscapewhichwasdominatedby solifluctionprocesses.Thesectioniscomposedofdifferentlayersincludingloessderivatesandsolifluctionlayers.Weonlyseesimilaritiesac-cording to theother sections in theupperpartof this se-quence.There,gleyicfeaturesarefoundinaloessderivate(layer3)whichwecorrelatewith layer16of theLeippensection(Fig.2)andlayer20oftheSeilitzsection(Fig.4).

3.7. Section Gleina (Tab. 7; Fig. 11)

TheGleinasectionislocatedatthenorthernloessboundary(Lössrandstufe)atthewesternedgeofthevillageGleina(GKR4586889H5678057).Thisformerbrickyardisthetypelo-calityforthesocalled“GleinaerBodenkomplex”whichisaninterstadialsoilcomplex(Lieberoth&Haase,1964).

TheGleina sectionwas reopenedbyus in 2009. Fig. 11shows the main stratigraphical units. The thick loess se-quence of Gleina has comparable units which correlatewellwiththepreviouslydescribedprofiles.Thefourimpor-tantunitsalreadydescribedarepresentinthissection.Thesectionalso shows the“GleinaerBodenkomplex”,which iseasytoidentifybecauseofitsintensecolourchangesfromgray to reddish. In addition, this soil complex is charac-terized by its decalcified horizon between the top of thecomplex and the following interglacial soil below. How-ever, inalltheothersections,thereisnoclearevidenceofthiscomplex.AccordingtoNeumeister(1966)whoreportedthethickest


Mn

Fe

Fe Fe

FeFe

Gleina

MnMn

167m NN

8

StagnicGleysol

rew

ork

ed

fG

fBv

unconformity

8

11

10

9

16

15

fG

fBv

fBt Sd

Meszner & Faust 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

10

14

12

8

4

2

3

13

11

9

5

7

15

6

20

17

18

19

16

24

MnMn Mn

HZ

fS(e)w[rew.]

IIfS(e)w

IIfBt+

IIIfG

SAND

SILT17

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 10 ,2 ,4 ,6 ,8 0,1 0,5,2 ,3 ,4 3002001000-100-2005 86 7

I

IV

II

III

V

IV

26

25

23

21

22

24

Ap

Btv

LFZ

Bv

Cc

NB/fBvc

NB

NB

NB

fBvc

fBvc

organic matter [%]CaCO [%]3 Fe(d)/Fe(t)granulometry[%] pH-value susceptibility [10 si]-6

Fig. 11: Profile Gleina with geochemical results.

Abb. 11: Profil Gleina mit den dazugehörigen geochemichen Analyseergebnissen.

Weichselian loess layers in the northern boundary (Löss-randstufe)ourfindings showa similarpattern.Thenorth-ernmost sections (Gleina and Zehren) show the thickest,and in thecaseofGleinamostcompleteWeichselian loessdeposits. In contrast, the section Klipphausen, situated atthe southern boundary of the loess plateau, shows onlyWeichselianloessdepositsof3mthickness.

4 Interpretation and discussion

Themain lithologicalandpedogenical featuresofall stud-ied sections are used to establish a standard loess-palaeo-sol profile for the Saxonian loess region. In five sections(Leippen, Seilitz, Ostrau, Zschaitz, Gleina) the uppermost2mlookalmostsimilar.Thematerial isdecalcifiedand inthe uppermost part a luvisol was formed during the Ho-locene. Below a well-developed Btv-horizon a lenticularhorizon(“Lamellenfleckenzone”afterLieberoth,1959)canbeobservedinallsequences.Insomecasesicewedgesjust

below the recent surfacewere formedand whose infillingshowlenticularstructureeveniftheyreachintotheunder-lying horizon.We assume that this widespread lenticularhorizonwasformedafterastrongcoolingwhichgeneratedthese icewedges.Thefeaturesof lenticularstructurepointto a pedogenesis which can be explained by alternationsbetweenfrozenandunfrozenconditions,resulting inclearbandshapedstructuresofdifferentgrainsizes.Theunder-lyinghorizonisnotaffectedbythisprocessandshowsnobanded features (Fig. 12).We suggesta taiga likeenviron-ment to form such features. Below the lenticular horizonof the former permafrost horizon a brownish palaeosolis preserved. At the lower boundary of the brownish pal-aeosol there isachangefromdecalcifiedtocalcified loess.This distinct change in the carbonate content represents aclearhorizontalboundary,whichishardtoidentifyinthesections. All these findings belong to unit I (Fig. 14) andare in consistencywith former studies (Haase et al. 1970;Lieberoth1959,1962a,1962b,1963).


2

3

Fig. 12: Close up view of the lenticular (2) and underlying Bv-horizon (3) from Seilitz section (Photo: S. Meszner).

Abb. 12: Detailaufnahme des unteren Teils der Lamellenfleckenzone (2) und des Bv-Horizontes (3) oberhalb der holozänen Entkalkungsgrenze aus dem Profil Seilitz.

Fig. 13: Bottle-like iron oxide concretion in the section Seilitz.

Abb. 13: Flaschenähnliche Eisenkonkretionen im Profil Seilitz.

OneofthestrongsoilscanbecharacterizedasaCambisol,theotheronesarereworkedgreyishgelicGleysolswithel-evatedhumiccontent(Fig.4and6).AttheZehrensectionmollusk analyseswere conducted showingahighnumberofindividualsofseveralspeciesinthereworkedhumicgel-icGleysol. Incontrast to thepedological features showinggleyicconditionsthemolluskanalysespointtoasteppicpa-laeoenvironment.TheoccurrenceofCecilioides aciculaindi-catesdrierclimaticconditionsduringtheformationofthishorizon(Hamann,2010unpub.).Thishorizonismostlikelyofpolygeneticorigin,assuminghumidconditions,whichledtotheformationofagelicGleysol.LaterthisgelicGleysolwasreworked,alsodocumentedintheOstrausectionwithfeaturesofdeepgullying.Schirmer(2000)describedasimi-larsituationfromthelowerRhineloessregionandtermedthislayer“Eben-Zone”.Itispossiblethaterosionandredis-tributionofsedimentswerewidespreadduringthisperiod.AIRSL-samplefromthetopofthisgelicGleysolinLeippensectionisdatedtoanageof21.6+/-2,5ka(Fig.2).

In a next stage subsequent soil formation under drierconditions tookplace.Ahumichorizonwas formedwith-inthematerialof thereworkedgelicGleysol inwhichthemollusk assemblage developed. Antoine et al. (2009) de-scribecomparableprocesses.Thehumicsoilformationcor-relates to a short interstadial with slightly drier climaticconditions. At section Zehren and Seilitz these soil hori-zons have higher magnetic susceptibility values. Thesetwostrongpalaeosolscanbeidentifiedinfiveoutofsevenprofiles and interpreted as characteristic marker soils. Themoreweaklydevelopedpalaeosolscanbeobservedinthreesections (Seilitz,Zehren,Gleina). In contrast, former stud-iesbyHaaseetal.(1970)andLieberoth(1959,1962a,1963)describe only one weak soil within this unit II instead oftwo strongandoneweakpalaeosolwhichwecould iden-tify for Unit II of the composite Saxonian loess sequence.NumericaldatingatthebasisofUnitIIintheLeippensec-tionshowsanIRSL-age26.4+/-3ka(Fig.2).

The structure of unit III is complex but differs signifi-cantly from theoverlyingunit becauseof a shift in termsof granulometric composition from silt dominated mate-rialintheoverlyingunitIItomoreloamymaterialinunitIII. This unit shows clear evidences of reworking process-es. Coarse silt decreases whereas clay, fine silt, and me-diumsiltaswellas thesandfraction increase.Somepartsof unit III are also characterized by a certain content ofsmall pebbles of 1 cm in diameter as seen in the sectionsofLeippen,Seilitz,ZehrenandOstrau(Fig.2,4,6&7).Intheupperpartofthetransitionzonelargedarkmanganesespots(lowestpartofunitII)couldbeobserved.Ironoxidepatterns are abundant in the lower part (uppermost partof unit III). In terms of climatic conditions it is assumedthatthetransitionshowsaclimaticchangefrommorearidconditions (unit II) to more humid conditions (upper partof unit III). Unit III shows in the part beneath very clearfeatures of solifluction with incorporated small pebbles inanunsortedmaterial.AccordingtoHaaseetal.(1970)andKoch&Neumeister (2005) thematerial showspropertiesofloessderivatesthatisvaricoloured.

Beneath the varicoloured loess derivate we ob-serve a grey hydromorphic solifluction layer that showsclear features of cryoturbation with bottle shaped struc-

Unit IIisaloesslayerupto7mthick.Exceptforsomepalaeosolswithinthisunit,theloessshowsonlyminorevi-dencesofreworking.UnitIIcontainsatleastfourpalaeosols,including two weak soils showing gelic Gleysol features.


ture (Fig. 13). These features named“Roströhrengley” byLieberoth (1963) can be seen in every section. The for-mation of this“Roströhrengley” is supposed to have beentakenplaceduringa coldandmoist climate.This soil-likematerial (Roströhrengley) is integrated in the“Gleina SoilComplex”(Lieberoth,1963).TheGleinaSoilComplexcon-tains furthermoreanarcticbrownsoilbelow thegley soilthatindicatesslightlybetterclimaticconditions.Thiscom-plex iseasy to identifybystudying thegraphof the iron-oxides ratio. The gley soil is mark by a profil-wide mini-mumoftheFe(d)/Fe(t)-ratioascanbeseeninthesectionsSeilitz,Gleina,andLeippen.Incontrasttheunderlyingarc-tic brown soil ischaracterizedbyan increaseof this ratio(Seilitz 21, Zschaitz 13, Ostrau 12, Gleina 19, Leippen 17).In thesectionsGleinaandOstrau thevaluesof iron-oxideratios exceed in the reddishbrownsoil (arcticbrownsoil)the values of the Holocene and Eemian interglacial soils.Comparing these data we suppose a high activity of ironoxides caused by high oxidation-reduction potential dur-ingtheformationofthisinterstadialcomplex.

In all sections, the arctic brown soil shows a reworked

structure, whereas at the Gleina section this brown arc-tic soilwas formed“in situ”however superimposing a re-worked brown arctic soil sediment. This is proved by thefactthatadistinctplatysoilstructureisdeveloped.

Lieberoth (1962a) assumed that the“Gleina Soil Com-plex”wasformedatthesametimeasthe“LohneSoil”(Sem-mel,1968)respectivelythe“PaudorfSoil”(Fink,1964).Wedonotsupportthisinterpretationbecauseourfindingspointtoamucholderformationofthelowerpartofthe“GleinaSoilComplex”.Thisissupportedbytheobservationthatthelow-erpartofunitIIIandtheupperpartofunitIVshowschang-esintermsofgranulometriccompositionevenbetweenthe“Roströhrengley” and the reworked arctic brown soil. Un-conformitiesbetweenunitIIIandIVinsomesectionsindi-catethatpriortotheformationofthe“Roströhrengley”ero-sionandsedimentationtookplace.Finallyitsuggestsacor-relationofthissoilcomplex(“Roströhrengley”andreworkedarcticbrownsoilbeneath)withthe“NiedereschbacherZone”describedbySemmel(1968).Itseemsthatprocessesofland-scape disturbances and redistribution of soil material aretypicalfortheMiddleWeichselianinSaxony.

?

?

1

2

fG

fBv

LFZ

Bv

fAh

NB

fBv

NB

fBv

fS/fG

fBv

fBv

fG

fG

fG

Ap

Bt

Bt+Cv

MnMnMn

SM09

MnMn

Fe

SM09

Mn

Mn

Mn

MnMn

MnFe

rubbish

Mn

MnMn

Fe

Fe

Fe

MnMn Mn

Fe

SM09

rubbish

Cc

NB

Bvt

LFZ

Bv

Cc

Btv

fCcv

fS

Ap

Cv

fBvc

fBvc

?fBv/fAh

fBcv

NB(h)

fS/Bv

NB

NB

NB

fBv

fBv

Mn

Mn

Mn

NB

NB

fG

NB

fBv

Un

it V

Un

it I

Un

it I

IU

nit

III

Un

it I

VSeilitz ZschaitzLeippen

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

fBv

Helles Band

Zehren

drill-h

ole

SM09

LFZ

Bt

Bv

NB

Bt reworked

fG

NB-fBv/fG?

fBt-Sd

IIfBtSd

fBv

SM09

Btrework

III

Mn

Fe

Fe

Bt/Sw

Klipphausen

SM09

Ostrau

Bt

LFZ

Bv

NB

fBcv

fAl/Sw

fSd/Bt

fS/Bv

HZ

NB

fSw/Bt

Btrework

Mn

Fe

Fe Fe

FeFe

Gleina

MnMn

StagnicGleysol

unconformity

fG

fBv

fBt Sd

MnMn Mn

HZ

fS(e)w[rew.]

IIfBt+

IIIfG

SAND

SILT

Ap

Btv

LFZ

Bv

Cc

NB/fBvc

NB

NB

NB

fBvc

fBvc

Fig. 14: Local correlation of all studied sections (the collored bars accent similar stratigraphic positions in different sections).

Abb. 14: Korrelation aller untersuchten Profile (die farbigen Balken verbinden stratigraphisch gleiche Positionen in den verschiedenen Profilen).


Mn

Fe

Mn

laminated loess

brown horizon

strong laminar iron-concretion

loess with Mn-patches

gleyic colour patternpredominantly reduced

gleyic colour patternpredominantly oxidized

loess dolls

secondary carbonate, pore-filling

hillwash sand and loam

small stones; crunching layerice-wedges

laminated loessunder interglacial pedogenesis(in Saxony called: “Lamellenfleckenzone”)

argillic horizon

eluvial horizon

strongly reworked

iron and Mn-concretions

stone pavement

loess

no malacofauna

fossil humic horizon

secondary carbonate enrichment anthropedogenic horizon

OSL-samples

bottle-like iron-oxid concretionscircular iron-oxides

stagnic horizon

charcoal

loess with organic featureslike earthworm burrow system

the collored bars mark individual layers for assisting eyes when reading

Fig. 16: Legend for all profile drawings presented in this study.

Abb. 16: Legende, für alle in dieser Arbeit verwendeten Profilskizzen.

Fe

FeFe Fe

MnMn Mn

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

this study

stableactive

landscape evolutionice-wedges

Bt

LFZ

Bv

NB

NB

NB

fBv

fG

HZ

fSdBt

Gle

ina

So

il C

om

ple

xL

om

ma

tzs

ch

So

il C

om

ple

x

SCHIRMER 2000

E4

E3

E2

E1

ET

RT

Lo

Grä

N.Eschb. Z.

OM

MM

UM

21

25

28

50-55

TL*

SEMMEL 1989

+ + +

+ + + + +

LSTMe

Gu

Le

BeKe

ET

E3

Eben unconformity

E2

+ + + + + + + +

30-34

E1

S3

S2

S1

R5

R4

R3

R2

R1

??

El

Eb

en

zo

ne

15-16

?

Ro

co

urt

-S

ol-

Co

mp

lex

Ho

Pe

RoH

Ro

THTi

HH

?Rb

65-70

110

90-95

?

9(Eemian)

*TL-ages according to Z 2004ÖLLER ET AL.

units

I

II

III

IV

V

21.6 +/-2.5 ka

139 +/-14 ka

26.3 +/-3.0 ka

Fig. 15: Composite profile of Saxony and regional correlation with other loess areas in central Europe.

Abb. 15: Standardprofil der mittelsächsischen Lösse und mögliche Korrelation mit anderen Lössgebieten Mitteleuropas.


Unit IVisonlyexposedatthesectionsofOstrau,GleinaandwithsomemodificationsatthesettingofZschaitz.Com-paredtotheunitaboveweobserveonlyintheupperpartreworkingof soils in thisunit.Thereworkedarcticbrownsoilistheresultofaperiodofsoilformation,followedbyaperiodofsolifluction.Theincreaseofclaycontentandpedo-geneticironcontent(Fed/Fet)denotethissoilformation.Ob-viously thearcticbrownsoil formedwithinmaterialmostprobably eroded from theEemian soil (OIS-5e). In sectionGleina(Fig.11)weobserveagraduallyincreaseofcolourtothetopofthearcticbrownsoil(layer19)andaclearuncon-formitytotheoverlayingredeposited“Roströhrengley”.MostofthesoilsofunitIVareformedinsitu.However,somesoil-(sediments)showweakfeaturesofashortrelocation.Af-terdepositionthismaterialunderwentsoilformation.AttheOstrausection,theupperpartofunitIVcontainsahumicsoilthatispreservedaswellasatthesectionofZschaitz,howeverslightlyreworked.Lieberoth(1963)didnotmentionhum-ic soils in this stratigraphic position althoughhedescribedmanyprofilesinSaxony.Theoccuranceofsuchhumicsoilswasreportedfromdrierregions (e.g.ThuringianBasinandHarz foreland) by Ruske et al. (1962), Ruske &Wünsche(1964a,1964b),Semmel(1968),andSchönhalsetal.(1964).Inaccordancetothesefindingswepostulatedrierconditionsduringtheformationofthishumicsoilinourstudyarea.

Belowthehumicsoilapalesoilsedimentispresentwhichcanbeobserved inall sections, even if therehasnohumichorizonbeenfound.ThislayerissupposedtobetheearliestWeichseliandeposit.Themostobviousfeatureofthislayeristhe abundance of large manganese concretions. At sectionsSeilitz,Ostrau andGleina this lowest part of unit IV is in-termingledby theseconcretionsandcharcoalpieces.Macroremnantanalysesof25piecesindicate,thatonlyLarix decid-ua Mill.wasfound.ItseemsthatattheendoftheEemianInterglacialandduringthetransitiontimetowardstheEarlyWeichselianalarchforestcoveredthelandscape.

In the study area an Eemian soil (Pseudogley) is pre-served below theWeichselian loess deposit at the sectionsofOstrau,ZschaitzandGleina.Atallotherprofilesthelow-erboundaryoftheWeichselianloesscanbehardlydefined.ThedifferencesbetweenanearlyWeichselianrebeddingora lateSaalianrebeddingisalmost impossiblebecausebothlayers show similar colouring and grain size distribution.Especially thegrainsizedistributionvaries in these layersinshortinterval(e.g.profileLeippen).

5 Conclusions

Inordertodevelopareliablestratigraphy,sevenloess-pal-aeosol profiles were studied in detail and further profileswere discussed for comparison. Based on these investiga-tionsahigh-resolutioncompositeprofilewascompiled.

5.1 Local correlation

Fig.14showsanoverviewofallstudiedsections.Thecol-our-barsrepresentcorrelationsbetweentheindividualsec-tions,basedonlithologicalandpalaeopedologicalanalyses.ThreeIRSL-agesareprovidedforafirstchronostratigraphicinterpretation.Mostofthesectionstothenorthofthestud-iedSaxonianloessplateau(Gleina,Zehren,Seilitz)arechar-

acterizedbythickaccumulationsof loesswithintercalatedpalaeosols.ThesectionsLeippenandZschaitzsituatedinthesouthoftheSaxonianloessplateaushowmuchlessaccumu-lationsofloess,representingthegeneralnorth-southtrendofloessthickness.

5.2 Composite profile (Fig. 15)

Accordingtoourresultsadetailedcompositeprofile(Fig.15)fortheSaxonianLoessAreaisproposed.MaincontributionstothefindingsofHaaseetal.(1970)andLieberoth(1963)aretwostrongsoilsandtwoweaksoilsformedwithinunitII.WeconsidertheGleinaSoilComplexnottobecorrelat-edwiththeLohneSoilComplexasproposedbyLieberoth(1962a,1963)andRicken(1983).

Another important feature that was not described informer studies is the humic horizon just above the Eemi-ansoilcomplex.Wecorrelatethishumichorizonwithoneof the“Mosbacher Humuszonen” as described by Semmel(1997a,1997b)andwiththehumicpartsoftheRocourt-Sol-ComplexbySchirmer(2000),respectively.

Ice wedges point to strong cold events without thicksnowcover. Someof the icewedges are even incised intolowerunits. InunitIIthebigicewedgesshowamarginalbulgethatindicatealongerphaseofverycoldwinters.Toform a marginal bulge of the ice wedge frequent changesofmeltingandstrongfreezingarenecessary.Thesequenceis characterized by changes of soil formation, loess depo-sition and solifluction. These features are interpreted (leftgraph of Fig. 15) in terms of geomorphic conditions andlandscape evolution. Stable conditions coincide with pe-riods of soil formation, whereas geomorphic activity canbe attributed to loess deposition or solifluction. The lattertakesplaceintransitionphasesintermsofclimaticcondi-tions.Icewedgesindicatestrongdrycoolingevents.

TwocompositeprofilesofthewesternpartofGermany(Semmel1989;Zölleretal.2004;Schirmer2000,2004)areaddedtotheSaxoniancompositeprofile inorder tocorre-late similar findings into a chronostratigraphic approach.The very detailed analyses of the Nussloch section (Bibuset al. 2007; Antoine et al. 2001) are considered as well,howeverbecauseofitshighresolutionitdoesnotserveforoverviewcomparison.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemein-schaft(DFG)forsupportingthisproject(FA239/13-1).ThankstoCarolinHamannformolluskanalysesandtoAndreaSeimformacroremnantanalysesoncharcoalpieces.Forhelpfulcomments,wearemostthankfultoLudwigZöllerandAr-noSemmel.TheauthorswishtothanktheircolleagueFritzHauboldforeffectivediscussionsinthefieldandtheproof-reading of the manuscript. Also thanks to Sieglinde Ger-stenhauerandBeateWinklerforlabwork.Specialthanksto“SeilitzerKaolin-undTonwerkGmbH”,to“ZschaitzerSand-undKiesgrubenGmbH”andto“OstrauerKalkwerkGmbH”forgivingalwaysaccesstothestudiedsections.Mr.Düraschfrom“OstrauerKalkwerkGmbH”supportedallouractivitiesinhispitandwasalwaysinterestedinourprogress.Finally,theauthorswanttothankallanonymousreviewers


forthehelpfulcomments.SpecialthankstoManfredFrechenwhogaveusfruitfuladvicesandwasalwaysinterestedintheimprovementofthispaper.

References

Adamiec,G. & Aitken, M. (1998): Dose-rate conversion factors: update.–AncientTL,16:37–50.

Aitken,M.&Xie,J. (1992):Opticaldating:Recuperationafterbleaching.–QuaternaryScienceReviews,11:147–152.

Altermann,M.,Haase,G.,Lieberoth,I.&Ruske,R.(1978):Lithologie,Genese und Verbreitung der Löß- und Schuttsedimente im Vorlandder skandinavischenVereisungen. – Schriftenreihe der GeologischenWissenschaften,9:231–255.

Antoine,P.,Rousseau,D.D.,Zöller,L.,Lang,A.,Munaut,A.V.,Hatte,C. & Fontugne, M. (2001): High-resolution record of the last Inter-glacial-glacialcycleintheNusslochloess-palaeosolsequences,UpperRhineArea,Germany.–QuaternaryInternational,76/77:211–229.

Antoine,P.,Rousseau,D.D.,Moine,O.,Kunesch,S.,Hatté,C.,Lang,A.,Tissoux, H. & Zöller, L. (2009): Rapid and cyclic aeolian depo-sition during the Last Glacial in European loess: a high-resolutionrecord from Nussloch, Germany. – Quaternary Science Reviews, 28(25-26):1–19.

Bibus, E., Frechen, M., Kösel, M. & Rähle, W. (2007): Das jungpleis-tozäneLößprofilvonNußloch(SW-Wand) imAufschlussderHeidel-bergerZementAG.–EiszeitalterundGegenwart,56(4):227–255.

Biering, K. & Frühauf, M. (1999): Untersuchung zu den natürlichenSchwermetallgehalten von Lößen im mitteldeutschen Raum. – Hal-leschesJahrbuchfürGeowissenschaften,ReiheA,21:83–96.

Dearing, J. (1999): EnviromentalMagnetic Susceptibility. Using theBar-tingtonMS2System.–BartingtonInstruments,2.ed.,54S.;Oxford.

Eissmann, L. (1964): Ausbildung und Gliederung des Pleistozäns in Mit-telsachsen(RaumDöbeln-Riesa).–Geologie,13:942–969.

Eissmann, L. (1994): Grundzüge der Quartärgeologie Mitteldeutsch-lands (Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt, Südbrandenburg, Thüringen). – In:L. Eissmann &T. Litt (Hg.) Das Quartär Mitteldeutschlands – EinLeitfaden und Exkursionsführer mit einer Übersicht über das Prä-quartär des Saale-Elbe-Gebietes, Altenburger NaturwissenschafticheForschungen,Bd.7:55-136,Mauritianum,Altenburg.

Fink, J. (1964): Die Subkommision für Lößstratigraphie der Internation-alenQuartärvereinigung.–EiszeitalterundGegenwart,15:229–235.

Gallwitz, H. (1937): Fließerde und Frostspalten als Zeitmarken im LößbeiDresden.–GeologischeRundschau,28:612–623.

Gellert, J.F. (Hg.) (1965):DieWeichselvereisungaufdemTerritoriumderDeutschenDemokratischenRepublik.–261S.;Berlin (Akademie-Ver-lag).

Grahmann,R.(1925):DiluviumundPliozäninNordwestsachsen:–Abhan-dlungen der Mathematisch-Physischen Klasse der Sächsischen Akad-emiederWissenschaften,Bd.39,82S.;Leipzig(Hirzel).

Grahmann,R.(1932):DerLössinEuropa.–MitteilungenderGesellschaftfürErkunde51:5–24,Leipzig.

Haase,G.(1963):StandundProblemederLößforschunginEuropa.–Ge-ographischeBerichte,8(2):97–129.

Haase, G. (1968): Die Lössrandstufe in Nordsachsen. In: Periglazial-Löß-Paläolithikum: – Exkursionsführer der VII. Hauptversammlung derGeographischenGesellschaftderDDR,Leipzig.

Haase,G.,Lieberoth, I.&Ruske,R. (1970): SedimenteundPaläobödenimLößgebiet.– In:H.Richter,G.Haase, I.Lieberoth&R.Ruske(Hg.)Periglazial-Löß-PaläolithikumimJungpleistozänderDeutschenDemokratischen Republik. – Ergänzungsheft zu Pertermanns Geog-raphischen Mitteilungen, Bd. 274: 99–212, Quartärkomitee der DDRbei der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Gotha,Leipzig.

Hamann, C. (2010): Quartäre Molluskenfunde im mittelsächsischenLösshügelland. – Biostratigraphische Untersuchungen der ProfileZehren, Ostrau und Gleina. – Diplomarbeit, Technische UniversitätDresden,LehrstuhlderPhysischeGeographie,unpublished.

Koch,R.&Neumeister,H.(2005):ZurKlassifikationvonLößsedimentennach genetischen Kriterien. – Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, 49(2):183–203.

Lieberoth, I. (1959): Beobachtungen im nordsächsischen Lößgebiet. –Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung Düngung Bodenkunde, 86 (131)(2):141–155.

Lieberoth, I. (1962a): Die jungpleistozänen Lösse Sachsens imVergleichzu denen anderer Gebiete. Ein Beitrag zurWürmchronologie. – Pe-termannsGeographischenMitteilungen,106(2):188–198.

Lieberoth, I. (1962b): Die mittel- und jungpleistozänen Lösse Nordsach-sens.– In:G.Vient (Hg.)DasPleistozän im sächsisch-thüringischenRaum – Exkursionsführer, 51–61, Geologische Gesellschaft in derDeutschenDemokratischenRepublik,Leipzig.

Lieberoth, I. (1963): Lößsedimentation und Bodenbildung während desPleistozänsinSachsen.–Geologie,12(2):149–187.

Lieberoth, I. (1964a): Einige Bemerkungen zu paläopedologischen Pro-blemen bei der Gliederung der Löße. – Berichte der GeologischenGesellschaftderDDR,9(Sonderheft2):689–695.

Lieberoth,I.(1964b):BodenbildungausLößwährenddesPleistozänsundHolozänsinSachsen.–Habilitation,289S.;UniversitätLeipzig.

Lieberoth, I. & Haase, G. (1964): Lößexkursion Nordsachsen. – In: G.Haase & R. Ruske (Hg.) 3. Arbeitstagung der Subkommission fürLößstratigraphiederINQUA-Exkursionsführer,27–37,Leipzig.

Ložek,V. (1964): Quartärmollusken derTschechoslowakei. Rozpravy Ús-tredníhoústavugeologického,31,375S.;Praha(VerlagderTschecho-slowakischenAkademiederWissenschaften).

Meng,S.(2003):KartierungdesQuartärsundderTriasinderUmgebungvonFreyburg/U.–Diplomarbeit,UniversitätHalle,unveröffentlicht.

Neumeister, H. (1966): Die Bedeutung äolischer Sedimente und andererPeriglazialerscheinungen für die Bodenentwicklung in der Umge-bungvonLeipzig.–Dissertation,Math.-Nat.Reihe15,244 (+160)S.;Math.-Nat.Fak.Karl-Marx-UniversitätLeipzig.

Oexle,J.(Hg.)(2000):Sachsen:archäologisch–12000v.Chr.–2000n.Chr. KatalogzurAusstellung„DieSächsischeNacht“.–Landesamt für Ar-

chäologie mit Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Dresden, 88S.;Dresden.Pietzsch, K. (1922): Erläuterungen zur geologischen Spezialkarte von

Sachsen. Blätter Wilsdruff und Tanneberg-Deutschenbora. Leipzig,2.Aufl.

Richter,H.,Haase,G., Lieberoth, I.&Ruske,R. (Hg.) (1970): Perigla-zial-Löß-Paläolithikum im Jungpleistozän der Deutschen Demokrati-schen Republik, Petermanns Geogrophischen Mitteilungen, Bd. Er-gänzungsheft274,422S.;Berlin(VEBHermannHaack).

Ricken,W. (1983): Mittel- und jungpleistozäne Lößdecken im südwestli-chen Harzvorland. – In: H.R. Bork &W. Ricken (Hg.) Bodenerosion,Holozäne und Pleistozäne Bodenentwicklung,Catena Supplement, 3:95–138.

Ruske,R., Schulz,W.&Wünsche,M. (1962):PleistozäneAblagerungenimGebiet südlichvonLeipzigundderunterenUnstrutunterbeson-derer Berücksichtigung der Lösse und fossilen Böden. – In:G.Vient(Hg.)DasPleistozän imsächsisch-thüringischenRaum–Exkursions-führer, 99–112, Geologische Gesellschaft in der Deutschen Demokra-tischenRepublik,Leipzig.

Ruske,R.&Wünsche,M.(1964a):LößexkursionUnteresUnstruttal.–In:G. Haase & R. Ruske (Hg.) 3. Arbeitstagung der Subkommission fürLößstratigraphiederINQUA-Exkursionsführer:17–26,Leipzig.

Ruske, R. & Wünsche, M. (1964b): Zur Gliederung des Pleistozäns imRaumderunterenUnstrut.–Geologie,13:211–222.

Schirmer,W.(2000):EineKlimakurvedesOberpleistozänsausdemrhei-nischenLöss.–EiszeitalterundGegenwart,50:25–49.

Schirmer,W.(2004):TerrestrischerKlimagangdesMIS3.–In:DEUQUAMeetingAbstractVolume,74,DEUQUA,Amsterdam.

Schlichting,E.,Blume,H.P.&Stahr,K.(1995):BodenkundlichesPrak-tikum.EineEinführunginpedologischesArbeitenfürÖkologen, ins-besondereLand-undForstwirteundfürGeowissenschaftler.–PareysStudientexte,Bd.81.2.,neubearbeiteteAufl.,259S.;Berlin(BlackwellWissenschafts-Verlag).

Schönhals,E.,Rohdenburg,H.&Semmel,A.(1964):ErgebnisseneuererUntersuchungen zur Würmlöß-Gliederung in Hessen. – EiszeitalterundGegenwart,15:199–206.

Semmel, A. (1968): Studien über den Verlauf jungpleistozäner Formungin Hessen. – Frankfurter Geographische Hefte 45.VerlagWaldemarKramer,FrankfurtamMain.

Semmel, A. (1997a): Referenzprofile desWürmlösses im Rhein-Main-Ge-biet.–JahresberichtederWetterauischenGesellschaftfürdieGesam-teNaturkundezuHanau,148:37–47.

Semmel,A.(1997b):Stop3:LoesssectionofMainzWeisenau.–In:Excur-sion Guide, Internat.Working Meeting Palaeopedology of ISSS andINQUA:60–72.

Semmel, A. (1989): The importance of loess in the interpretation of geo-morphological processes and for dating in the Federal Republic ofGermany.–CatenaSupplement,15:179–188.

Zöller, L., Rousseau, D.D., Jäger, K.D. & Kukla,G. (2004): Last inter-glacial,LowerandMiddleWeichselian–acomparativestudyfromtheUpperRhineandThuringianloessareas.–ZeitschriftfürGeomorpho-logie,48(1):1–24.

Loess-Palaeosol-Sequences from the loess area of Saxony ... · In addition to former studies of...

Documents

Transcript of Loess-Palaeosol-Sequences from the loess area of Saxony ... · In addition to former studies of...