Pleistocene tectonics inferred from fluvial terraces of the northern Upper Rhine Graben, Germany

(2007) 41–65www.elsevier.com/locate/tecto

Tectonophysics 430

Pleistocene tectonics inferred from fluvial terraces of the northernUpper Rhine Graben, Germany

Gwendolyn Peters a,b,⁎, Ronald T. van Balen b

a Geophysical Institute, University of Karlsruhe, Hertzstrasse 16, D-76187 Karlsruhe, Germanyb Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1085, NL-1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Received 9 December 2005; received in revised form 11 October 2006; accepted 30 October 2006Available online 15 December 2006

Abstract

This study of fluvial terraces of the River Rhine and tributaries aims to search for indications of Pleistocene tectonic activity. Thestudy area includes the northern Upper Rhine Graben (URG), theMainz Basin and the adjacent RhenishMassif with theMiddle RhineValley. High rates of Quaternary surface processes, large amount of human modifications, relatively slow tectonic deformation andpresently low intra-plate seismic activity characterize this area. Therefore, the records of relatively slow tectonic deformation are lesswell preserved and thus difficult to detect. This study uses the relative position of fluvial terraces to determine the more local effects offault movements on the terraces and to evaluate their displacement rates and patterns. The research is based on a review of previousterrace studies and new terrace mapping from the eastern Mainz Basin and the bordering URG using topographic map interpretationsand field observations. This newly mapped sequence of terrace surfaces can be correlated to other terraces in the vicinity on the basisof relative height levels. Terrace correlation between the western Mainz Basin and Middle Rhine Valley relies on a singlechronostratigraphic unit (Mosbach sands) and additional relative height correlations. This is the first study to present a continuouscorrelation of terraces from the western margin of the URG to the Rhenish Massif and enables the study of the transition from thesubsiding graben to the uplifted Rhenish Massif. By means of a longitudinal profile, which ranges from the URG to the RhenishMassif, the influence of individual fault movements on the terrace levels and the large-scale regional uplift is demonstrated. It isevident from the profile that the uplift of Early to Middle Pleistocene terraces increases northwards, towards the Rhenish Massif. Theuplift was diachronic, with a significant pulse occurring first in the northern URG (Lower Pleistocene) and later in the RhenishMassif(Middle Pleistocene). The largest vertical displacements are recorded for the boundary fault separating the Mainz Basin and theRhenish Massif (Hunsrück–Taunus Boundary Fault) and for faults bounding the northeastern Mainz Basin. The motions anddisplacement rates calculated for individual faults indicate deformation rates in the order of 0.01–0.08 mm/year. At this stage, thecalculation of displacement rates depends mostly on a single dated stratigraphic unit. Additional dating of terrace deposits is urgentlyneeded to better constrain the temporal development of the terrace sequence and the impact of tectonic movements.© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fluvial terraces; Quaternary; Fault displacement; Longitudinal profile; River Rhine; Upper Rhine Graben; Mainz Basin

⁎ Corresponding author. Geophysical Institute, University ofKarlsruhe, Hertzstrasse 16, D-76187 Karlsruhe, Germany. Tel.: +49721 608 4596; fax: +49 721 71173.

E-mail address: [email protected](G. Peters).

0040-1951/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2006.10.008

1. Introduction

This study uses records of fluvial terraces in order toinfer Pleistocene faulting activity of the northern UpperRhine Graben (URG) and adjacent areas including the

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2006.10.008

Fig. 1. A: European Cenozoic Rift system with the centrally located Upper Rhine Graben (URG). LRG = Lower Rhine Graben, HG = HessianGrabens, BG = Bresse Graben, LG = Limagne Graben, RG = Rhône Graben. B: Geological map of the study area including the northern URG, theMainz Basin and the Rhenish Massif with the Middle Rhine Valley. BF = Black Forest, KT = Kraichgau Trough, MB= Mainz Basin, O = Odenwald,PW = Pfälzer Wald, VM = Vosges Mountains, ZT = Zabern Trough. C: Distribution of Quaternary sediments in the northern URG and the MainzBasin (after Bartz, 1974). In the so-called Heidelberger Loch, these sediments are 350 m or more thick. The bold dashed line indicates the course ofthe Paleo-Rhine in the southern Mainz Basin between Upper Miocene and Early Pliocene. Major faults and tectonic structures in the area are: DH =Dexheimer Horst, EBF = Eastern Border Fault, GOF = Grünstadt–Oppenheim Fault, HTBF = Hunsrück–Taunus Boundary Fault, NH = NiersteinerHorst, WBF = Western Border Fault.

42 G. Peters, R.T. van Balen / Tectonophysics 430 (2007) 41–65

Mainz Basin and the southern part of the Rhenish Massifwith the Upper Middle Rhine Valley (Figs. 1 and 2). TheRiver Rhine flows across these structural units and themajor faults separating them: the Western Border Fault(WBF) of the URG and the Hunsrück–Taunus BoundaryFault (HTBF). At the regional scale, the URG serves as adepocenter for the sediment load of the River Rhine andits tributaries. The dominance of the northern part of theURG as a depocenter during Quaternary times is illus-trated by the accumulation of 350 m and possibly moreQuaternary sediments in the so-called Heidelberger Loch(Bartz, 1974). This accumulation is concentrated on theeastern graben border and results in an asymmetric grabenfill (Fig. 1C). Whilst the eastern side of the graben wassubsiding, the western side experienced uplift, which isdocumented by the remnants of several Pleistocene fluvial

terraces in the area named Vorderpfalz (Stäblein, 1968;Fig. 2). In theMainzBasin, situated to the northwest of theURG, regional uplift led to the formation of a sequence ofterraces (Kandler, 1970). Further to the northwest in theRhenishMassif, Quaternary uplift was largest and yieldedthe narrow Middle Rhine Valley with a well-developedstaircase of Rhine terraces (Bibus and Semmel, 1977;Meyer and Stets, 1998, 2002).

To date, the characteristics of the neotectonic activityin the northern URG and surroundings are not well con-strained because little emphasis has been placed onmapping young faults. This lack of data can partly beexplained by the setting. The study area is characterizedby intensive modifications of the landscape due to highrates of Quaternary surface processes and high amount ofhuman modifications. Therefore, the records of relatively

Fig. 2. Geographical map of the study area. Previous terrace studies focused on small regions within the study area, namely the Vorderpfalz, the RiverPfrimm Valley, the Lower Main Valley, the Mainz Bingen Graben and the Upper Middle Rhine Valley. Main faults are indicated with dashed lines.The location of several ridges is shown: the ridge north of the River Pfrimm Valley and the Weingarten and Herxheim ridges. R = Riederbach, S =Seebach. The shaded relief maps in Figs. 2 and 3 were created with SRTM data available at http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/cbanddataproducts.html.Coordinates of all maps (except Fig. 1) are in the German Gauss–Krüger coordinate system.

43G. Peters, R.T. van Balen / Tectonophysics 430 (2007) 41–65

slow tectonic deformation are less well preserved and thusdifficult to detect. The seismicity of the study areadocumented for the last 1200 years is low with fewdamaging earthquakes of intensity VII (Leydecker, 2005).This means that the potential for large, damagingearthquakes, with typical recurrence intervals of tens ofthousands of years for intra-plate settings, and the seismicpotential of individual faults cannot be established using

the relatively short historic seismic catalogue alone.Given this seismo-tectonic setting, the investigation ofgeomorphological records of fault movements can beused to derive data on the long-term tectonic deformationof an area and the behavior of individual faults.

This study uses the relative position of Pleistocenefluvial terraces to determine the more local effects of faultmovements on the terraces. The term “fluvial terrace”

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/cbanddataproducts.html


used in this study encompasses both landform and sedi-ments. Where a distinction is needed, the landform isreferred to as terrace surface and the sediments as terracedeposits. Terrace surfaces are interpreted to document theposition of former valley floors. By correlating thesesurfaces, which belong to the same age, a longitudinalprofile of the former valley floor can be reconstructed.Based on this profile the effects of fault movements on theterraces can be determined and displacement rates andpatterns can be evaluated. For the reconstruction of a

profile ranging from the western margin of the northernURG to the Upper Middle Rhine Valley, data from pre-vious studies is included. It is supplemented with newterrace mapping based on field observations and topo-graphic map interpretations. The newly mapped terracesurfaces are situated along the WBF at the border of theMainz Basin and are correlated based on their morphol-ogy to previously mapped terraces in the vicinity. Thiscorrelation will allow us to discuss the transition from thesubsiding northern URG to the uplifted Rhenish Massif.

Fig. 3. A: Map of fluvial terraces in the northern URG, the Mainz Basin and Rhine–Main area. New terrace mapping of this study covers the regionfrom the Rheinhessische Hügelland to the WBF scarp. The distribution of terraces in the other areas is after the mapping of the authors listed in thecaption of Table 1. The general classification and correlation of terraces are based on the scheme shown in Table 1. F1 = Klingbach Valley Fault, F2 =PfrimmValley Fault, F3 = Riederbach Valley Fault, F4 = Niersteiner Horst, F5 = HTBF, F6 = splay fault of HTBF, and F7 =WBF and related faults ofSemmel (1978). R = Riederbach, S = Seebach. Inset: detailed terrace and fault map of the WBF scarp and the northeastern Mainz Basin with theNiersteiner Horst. Three horst structures in this region expose Rotliegend deposits. The numbers indicate heights of the higher main and main terracesof the River Selz. Fault mapping after Sonne (1972), Illies (1974), Stapf (1988) and Franke (2001). DH = Dexheimer Horst, GOF = Grünstadt–Oppenheim Fault, HH = Hillesheimer Horst, M = Mosbach sands, WBF = Western Border Fault. B: Map of fluvial terraces in the Mainz BingenGraben (Kandler, 1970), Nahe Valley (Andres and Preuss, 1983) and Upper Middle Rhine Valley (Bibus and Semmel, 1977). After morphologicalcorrelation the 200 m contour corresponds to heights of the main terrace surface (T7, tR5 and younger main terrace of River Nahe). The 300 m contourcorresponds to the height of the Pliocene surface. Profile A–A′ across the Mainz Bingen Graben (modified after Fig. 20 in Rothausen and Sonne,1984) shows that significant displacements of the Hunsrück–Taunus Boundary Fault (HTBF, F5) are not noticeable in the morphology.Paleomagnetic measurements of Mosbach sands were undertaken near Werlau (WE) in the Upper Middle Rhine Valley and in the Dykerhoff quarry(DQ) near Wiesbaden. Faults after Franke and Anderle (2001). AH = Assmannshausen, H = Hallgarten, RB = Rochusberg, WI = Wiesbaden.


The movements and displacement rates presentedherein in a new longitudinal profile strongly depend onthe correlation scheme used. The mapping of terraces isrelatively well established at the northwestern end of theURG and in the Middle Rhine Valley (e.g. Kandler,

1970; Bibus and Semmel, 1977). However, due to thelack of absolute ages of terrace deposit determination ofa common terrace stratigraphy is problematic, whichleads to uncertainties in the correlation of terraces be-tween individual regions. The need to improve the dating


of terraces is obvious. The problems in regional terracecorrelation and the need for dating have been frequentlydiscussed in the past (e.g. Birkenhauer, 1973; Quitzow,1974; Bibus and Semmel, 1977; Semmel, 1983;Hoselmann, 1996; Meyer and Stets, 1996). The focusof this study lies on the determination of Pleistocenefaulting activity. In this context, the correlation betweenterraces of the URG and the Rhenish Massif proposedherein and the fault movements inferred from thiscorrelation scheme can, despite the existing uncertain-ties, provide additional constraint on the characteristicsof the Pleistocene fault activity.

1.1. Geology of the northern Upper Rhine Graben andthe Mainz Basin

The URG and the Mainz Basin are located in thecentral part of the European Cenozoic Rift system(Fig. 1A). The Mainz Basin, situated at the northwesternend of the URG, was part of the graben in the early stagesof rifting from Eocene to Oligocene times. A distinctMainz Basin existed by Late Oligocene, since when ithas evolved independently from the URG. Episodicuplift of the Rhenish Massif involved also the MainzBasin, which brought this region in a marginal locationof the URG (Fig. 1B). The Cenozoic graben fill in thenorthern URG and the Mainz Basin consists of asequence of fluvial and lacustrine sediments, interruptedby marine sediments. The total thickness of the sed-iments varies significantly in the area. The maximumthickness of 3200 m is located in the central part of thenorthern URG, whereas towards the margins of thegraben and the Mainz Basin thicknesses reduce to a fewhundred meters (Doebl and Olbrecht, 1974). Since EarlyMiocene, the depositional environment in the study areais fluvial and lacustrine. A northward oriented drainageof the River Rhine from the URG towards the North Seawas established since Tortonian (Bartz, 1936; Weiler,1952). At this time, the River Rhine was flowing acrossthe southern parts of the Mainz Basin and entered theRhenish Massif at Bingen, which is documented by theso-called Dinotherium sands (Fig. 1C). Between Torto-nian and Early Pleistocene, the relative uplift of theMainz Basin forced the River Rhine to migratenortheastward to its present course between Mainz andBingen (Wagner, 1930; Kandler, 1970; Abele, 1977,Fig. 2) along the so-called Mainz Bingen Graben (afterWagner, 1930). This small graben structure is locatedbetween the Rhenish Massif in the north and the MainzBasin in the south. It is associated with the HTBF and hasthe same strike (Figs. 2 and 3B). This latter fault is aVariscan terrane boundary that has been reactivated

during formation of Late Variscan Saar Nahe Basin aswell as during URG formation (Anderle, 1987). TheHTBF is a folded fault dipping northwards at shallowdepths and southwards at greater depths (profile inFig. 3B). Presently, seismicity concentrates along theHTBF although at a relatively low level (maximumintensity I0 reached was V). The earthquake focalmechanisms indicate extensional movements of thefault at greater depths (Ahorner and Murawski, 1975).

A distinct tectonic feature in the Mainz Basin is theNiersteiner Horst (Figs. 1C and 2). This structureevolved by reactivation of the Permian Pfälzer anticlineduring the Tertiary, contemporaneous with subsidencein the URG. The Tertiary sediments that were depositedon the horst have been eroded during uplift of thestructure. It is estimated that an uplift of 160 m hasoccurred since Early Pliocene (Sonne, 1972). Pleisto-cene uplift of the horst exposed Permian sediments andincreased the NW tilting of these sediments (Sonne,1969). The Pliocene–Pleistocene uplift of the Nierstei-ner Horst is considered rapid. It caused a morphologicaldivision of the Mainz Basin into eastern and westernplateaus (Brüning, 1977) and migration of the RiverSelz northwestwards (Klaer, 1977). Sonne (1969, 1972)suggested that recent tectonic activity concentrated onthe southern boundary fault of the Niersteiner Horst,which joins the WBF north of the River Rhine, and theadjacent small structure of the so-called DexheimerHorst (Figs. 1C and 2). Since Quaternary, landformingprocesses dominate in theMainz Basin. The rivers beganto incise and a tableland landscape evolved (Brüning,1977). This landscape was draped with a cover ofPleistocene loess. In the URG, the Quaternary was char-acterized by continuous fluvial deposition. In contrast,elevated areas west of the graben (Vorderpfalz) experi-enced fluvial erosion, which resulted in a landscape ofridges and valleys (Fig. 2). The ridges are mainly builtup of Pliocene fluvial sands and Pleistocene terracedeposits, and they are covered with Upper Pleistoceneloess.

2. Review of terrace studies

2.1. Overview

The following sections present a review of previousterrace studies, which focused on specific regions withinthe larger study area:

• the Vorderpfalz (Stäblein, 1968),• the southeastern Mainz Basin along the RiverPfrimm (Leser, 1967),


• the Mainz Basin along the rivers Wiesbach and Selz(Wagner, 1931b, 1935; Matthess, 1956; Sonne, 1956,1972; Wagner, 1972; Franke, 1999, 2001),

• the Mainz Bingen Graben (Kandler, 1970),• the Lower Main Valley (Semmel, 1969) and• the Upper Middle Rhine Valley (Bibus and Semmel,1977).

The current classification of terraces in these studiesis not consistent. In order to compare terraces of theindividual regions and to synthesize the previous work, anew correlation is proposed in Table 1. Due to largeuncertainties in the correlation of individual terraces (seeSection 4), a simplified terrace group hierarchy is used.This grouping is originally based on the classicalsubdivision of terraces in the Middle Rhine and LowerRhine area (Kaiser, 1903) and is generally acceptedamong workers of the Rhine terraces. The simple hier-archy allows a first order correlation of terrace groupsbetween different regions.

All authors cited in the following descriptionsmapped the top of the terrace deposits. For most terracesin the study area, the top forms a planar surface that canbe clearly identified in the morphology. The frequentcovering of terrace deposits in the study area with ameteror more of loess or slope wash is mostly neglected, whichmeans that the cover is added to the height of the terracesurfaces. In the existing studies, terrace ages are mainlyrelative and based on height positions of terrace surfaces.In some studies (Leser, 1967; Stäblein, 1968; Kandler,1970), age determination is based on correlations withQuaternary glacial periods following the concept thatglacial periods coincide with fluvial accumulation andbuild up of a terrace body (e.g. Penck, 1910; Büdel,1977). Absolute dating of the lower terraces in the areahas been performed using C14 and thermoluminescenceand documents theWürm age of the terraces (e.g. Scheer,1978; Peters et al., 2005). For a unique middle terraceelement, additional paleomagnetic measurements andpaleontological records exist (Mosbach sands; Kandler,1970; Bibus and Semmel, 1977). Investigations ofsedimentology and petrography are included in most ofthe previous studies, enabling correlation of terraceswithin individual regions (Table 1).

2.2. Vorderpfalz

Stäblein (1968) mapped terraces in the Vorderpfalz(Fig. 3A). Here, terraces are sloping to the east and arecharacterized by wide surfaces with small height changes.A simple classification scheme was used based on relativeheight position of terrace surfaces and on the content of

bleached Buntsandstein gravel, which is assumed todecrease with decreasing age, i.e. lower terrace elevation,and with increasing distance to the Pfälzer Wald. In total,four terrace generations are proposed as, from oldest toyoungest, Hauptterrasse, Hochterrasse, Talwegterrasse,Niederterrasse. These correspond to the higher main,main, middle and lower terraces in the regional classifi-cation (Table 1). Additionally, a Pliocene surface has beenmapped, whose remnants occur in the westernmost part ofthe Vorderpfalz along the foothills of the Pfälzer Wald.Immediately to the east lie the subsequent Pleistoceneterraces (Fig. 3A). All terraces older than the lower terracewere affected by erosion of rivers draining from thePfälzer Wald so that several wide valleys have dissectedtheir surfaces. The terraces are at present preserved onseveral ridges (Figs. 2 and 3A). Due to the erosion,remnants of the middle terrace (Talwegterrasse) arenarrow and are present as elongated surfaces at the rimof the main terraces. A loess cover of a few meters ofthickness smooths most terrace scarps in the Vorderpfalz(Stäblein, 1968).Only themiddle terrace is separated fromthe older and younger terraces by a distinct scarp. Thelower terrace covers the wide valleys of the Vorderpfalz.Stäblein (1968) interprets from the distribution of terracesthat the River Rhine has formed the higher main and mainterraces, whereas tributaries draining from the PfälzerWald have formed the middle and lower terraces.

2.3. River Pfrimm

A sequence of several small terraces along the courseof the River Pfrimm has been mapped first by Weiler(1931) and subsequently by Leser (1967) using relativetopographic positions. The course of the River Pfrimmextends over three tectonic units: the northern PfälzerWald, the southeastern part of the Mainz Basin and thewestern margin of the URG (Fig. 3A). At the junction ofthe Pfrimm Valley and the URG, the valley widens andthe terrace surfaces increase in size. Leser (1967)showed that during the period of the higher mainterraces (Hauptterrassen), the course of the Pfrimm wastowards the NE. With the onset of main terraces(Hochterrassen) formation, the Pfrimm built a largefan at the entrance of the URG, a remnant of whichis thought to be the ridge north of the Pfrimm Valley(Figs. 2 and 3A). Subsequently, the Pfrimm changed itslower course to an E–Worientation and incised into thefan. This change in course is interpreted as a result ofuplift of the southeastern Mainz Basin and subsidence inthe URG accompanied by activity of an E–W orientedfault parallel to the valley of the lower Pfrimm course(Leser, 1967).

Table 1Chronostratigraphic interpretation and correlation of terraces in the Upper, Middle and Lower Rhine Graben

Correlation between Mainz Bingen Graben and Upper Middle Rhine Valley after Bibus and Semmel (1977); between Upper and Lower Middle Rhineand Lower Rhine Graben after Boenigk and Frechen (2006). For the other areas a morphological correlation, which is established in this study, is used.Note that the main and middle terraces in the northern URG and Mainz Basin (left part of Table 1) do not coincide in age with the main and middleterraces in the Middle and Lower Rhine (right part of Table 1). This is discussed in detail in Section 5.2. Terrace stratigraphy uses German or Englishterms from the authors cited as follows. Vorderpfalz: Stäblein (1968); Pfrimm Valley: Leser (1967); Selz and Wiesbach terraces: Wagner (1931b,1935), Matthess (1956), Sonne (1956, 1972), Wagner (1972), Franke (1999, 2001) and this study; Lower Main Valley: Semmel (1969); Mainz BingenGraben: Kandler (1970); Upper Middle Rhine Valley: Bibus and Semmel (1977); Lower Middle Rhine Valley and Lower Rhine Graben: Boenigk andFrechen (2006). Correlation with glacial periods and estimated ages after Kandler (1970), Scheer (1978) and Boenigk and Frechen (2006).

48G.Peters,

R.T.

vanBalen

/Tectonophysics

430(2007)

41–65


2.4. Rivers Selz and Wiesbach in the Mainz Basin

The two largest rivers draining the Mainz Basin are theSelz and Wiesbach (Figs. 2 and 3A). Since terraces olderthan the higher main terraces (Hauptterrassen) have large-ly been eroded in the Mainz Basin (Brüning, 1977), onlyremnants of younger terraces are mapped (Fig. 3A). Theterrace deposits are generally covered by loess and slopewash and do not form planar surfaces. In addition, alongthe River Selz sliding of the slopes is a common phe-nomenon (Rogall and Schmitt, 2005), which could havereworked or covered terrace deposits. Therefore, terracemapping along the Selz and Wiesbach rivers is mainlybased on coring (Wagner, 1931b, 1935; Matthess, 1956;Sonne, 1956, 1972; Wagner, 1972; Franke, 1999, 2001).

Along the River Selz, four terrace levels at differentheight positions can be distinguished. A uniform terraceclassification for the entire River Selz course does not existsince previous studies focused on parts of the river courseonly.Wagner (1931b, 1972) proposes a classification in thelower and middle course of the Selz. Here, four terracelevels are distinguished: Talwegterrasse (120–147m a.s.l.),jüngere Hauptterrasse (160–180 m), ältere Hauptterrasse(180–200m) and ältere Pleistozäne Terrassen (220–260m;Wagner, 1931b, 1972). Based onWagner (1931b, 1972) thefollowing classification according to the general scheme ofthis study is proposed (Table 1):

120 – 147 m Middle terraces160 – 180 m Main terraces180 – 200 m Higher main terraces (lower and middle

course of Selz)220 – 260 m Highermain terraces (upper course of Selz)

In the middle reaches of the Selz, no terraces have yetbeen identified. Instead, frequent remnants of so-called‘local gravels of unclear origin’ occur at heights between140–170 m. They have been interpreted either asproducts of weathering transported locally by sliding(Sonne, 1972) or as local deposits of small tributariestransported short distances (Wagner, 1972). Alterna-tively, these gravels could also be remnants of mainterraces due to their topographic position.

Along the River Wiesbach, few terrace remnantshave been mapped in the upper and middle course(Wagner, 1935; Sonne, 1956; Franke, 1999). Based oncurrent mapping and the classification of Wagner (1935)the following reclassification is proposed:

140 – 170 m Middle terraces (Talwegterrasse)170 – 180 m Main terrace (Hochterrasse)180 – 265 m Higher main terraces (Hauptterrasse)

2.5. Lower main valley

At the northeastern end of the URG, the River Mainhas formed a sequence of terraces in its lower course, theLower Main Valley (Fig. 3A). Semmel (1969) distin-guishes seven terraces (T1 to T7 from oldest toyoungest; Table 1). North of its mouth, middle terracesof the River Main can be correlated with middle terracesof the Rhine. The T3 of the River Rhine after Kandler(1970) equals the T4 and T5 of Semmel (1969) of theRiver Main (Table 1, Bibus and Semmel, 1977). The T1and T2 formed due to aggradation of sediments, whereasT1 lies below T2. The younger terraces (T3 to T7) arerelated to down-cutting and aggradation phases andform a terrace staircase with the higher terraces beingolder than the lower ones. A morphological scarp ismost distinct between the T2 and T3 terraces. This isinterpreted as indication for increased fluvial incisionbefore the T3 accumulation (Semmel, 1969).

2.6. Mainz Bingen Graben

A sequence of terraces exists on the northern andsouthern side of the Mainz Bingen Graben with theirages generally determined by relative height positions(first mapping Oestreich, 1909; Wagner, 1931b; detailedand revised mapping by Kandler, 1970; Fig. 3A and B).Kandler (1970) distinguishes a total of nine terraces,which can be grouped into one higher main terrace, twomain terraces (T7, T7a), four middle terraces (T6–T3)and two lower terraces (T2, T1; Table 1), almost all ofwhich reduce in width downstream. Remnants of thehigher main terrace exist on both sides of the Rhine. Onthe northern side, they can be traced for almost the entirelength of the Mainz Bingen Graben, whereas on thesouthern side only isolated remnants exist. The mainterrace (T7) builds wide and nearly continuous surfaceson the northern side and few surfaces on the rim of theplateau on the southern side. An additional terrace level(T7a) below the main terrace (T7) exists partly on thenorthern side of the graben. Kandler (1970) interpretsthis additional terrace to be the result of local faultmovements along a NE–SW trending fault betweenBingen and Hallgarten (Fig. 3B). Except for T6, themiddle terraces (T6–T3) are smaller than the olderterraces. A major morphological scarp, 25–30 m high,separates the middle and main terraces. This scarp is theresult of a down-cutting phase after the main terraceformation, which led to 50 m of incision and wasfollowed by the accumulation of maximum 18 m of T6deposits, also referred to as Mosbach sands (Kandler,1970). Both middle terraces T5 and T4 cut into and

Fig. 4. Schematic profile of Pleistocene terrace staircase in the URG and Middle Rhine Valley. The largest morphological step occurs between themain and uppermost middle terraces. The heights of the profile correspond to height levels of the Middle Rhine Valley. The vertical axis is 10×exaggerated. In the URG, the topography is approx. 100 m lower and the slope is less steep.


deposited onto the Mosbach sands. Remnants of the T5to T3 middle terraces are rare on the southern side of theMainz Bingen Graben and more frequent on the northernside. The lower terrace forms wide surfaces on both sidesof the River Rhine. Due to an erosional discontinuity,this terrace consists of two levels (T1, T2), onlydetectable with coring (Kandler, 1970; Sonne, 1977).The older level T2 is of Early Würm age. It is partlycovered with Würm loess (Sonne, 1977). The youngerterrace level T1 formed during Middle Würm. Thebottom of T1 deposits lies up to 7 m below the present-day riverbed of the River Rhine (profile in Fig. 3B). Thisshows that the river has not yet reached the erosionalbase of Middle Würm times (Kandler, 1970). A rise ofthe bottom of T1 from the eastern to the western MainzBingen Graben by 4 m has been detected in cores andrelated to young fault movements (Kandler, 1970).

2.6.1. Mosbach sands/T6 terraceThe Mosbach sands are of special interest since they

are dated with paleomagnetic measurements and arethus used as a chronostratigraphical unit for regionalcorrelation (e.g. Bibus and Semmel, 1977). Sands withthe characteristic Mosbach facies have been describedfrom numerous locations in the study area (Fig. 3A,inset):

• the northern URG (north of Pfrimm Valley nearAbenheim; Semmel and Fromm, 1976; at Oppen-heim; Schraft, 1979),

• the area of Wiesbaden at the eastern end of the MainzBingen Graben (Dyckerhoff quarry, e.g. Brüning,1978),

• the Lower Main Valley (t2 terrace; Bibus andSemmel, 1977),

• the Upper Middle Rhine Valley (Bibus and Semmel,1977) and

• the Lower Middle Rhine Valley (Hönninger sands ofBoenigk and Hoselmann, 1991).

In the Mainz Bingen Graben the Mosbach sands havebeen strongly modified by later erosion and depositionof younger middle terraces, and therefore do not form aseparate morphological terrace (Kandler, 1970). Thesands contain a rich vertebrate fauna of both warm andcold periods (including 4 interglacials, Abele, 1977).Despite the wealth of data, the stratigraphic position ofthe sands remains unclear. This is because no interpre-tation is consistently supported by all available evidence(paleontological, pedological and climatological evi-dence; see Kandler, 1970). Paleomagnetic measure-ments revealed that the Mosbach sands are older thanthe Matuyama/Brunhes boundary (780 ka), see below.Younger deposits in the upper part of the sands showednormal polarization of the Brunhes phase (Bibus andSemmel, 1977). Accepting the remaining uncertainties,the Mosbach sands may still be used as a chronostrati-graphical marker, particularly for the correlation ofterraces in the Lower Main Valley with terraces in theUpper Middle Rhine Valley (Bibus and Semmel, 1977).

2.7. Upper Middle Rhine Valley

In the narrow Upper Middle Rhine Valley, the numberof Rhine terraces increases. Bibus and Semmel (1977)distinguished eleven terraces (Table 1), which can begrouped into two higher main terraces (tR1–tR2), threemain terraces (tR3–tR5), four middle terraces (tR6–tR9) andtwo lower terraces (tR10–tR11). The higher main and mainterraces form wide surfaces above the narrow valley(Figs. 3B and 4). The middle terraces are located on thesteep valley slope and form small surfaces (strath terraces)that are only partly preserved. The lower terraces arelocated on the valley floor on both sides of the present-dayRhine course. The height differences between the tR1 totR6 terraces are relatively small with 5 to 15 m. Asignificantly large height difference lies between the tR6and tR7 terraces with 45 m, while for the younger terracesthe differences are again relatively uniformwith 20m (tR7


to tR9, see also Fig. 8). This situation leads to theinterpretation that the tR6 terrace forms the transitionbetween the main terraces with dominantly lateral erosionand the middle terraces with increased incision. Duringthe tR6 period, incision was still minor while it reached amaximum before accumulation of tR7 (Meyer and Stets,1996). Bibus and Semmel (1977) state that the tR4 terracecontains sands of the Mosbach facies. In addition,paleomagnetic measurements at an outcrop in the UpperMiddle Rhine Valley (Werlau, see Fig. 3B) revealed theMatuyama/Brunhes boundary within the tR4 deposits (inBibus and Semmel, 1977 based on unpublished report ofFromm, 1978). This data allows correlation with terracesin the Lower Main Valley and the Mainz Bingen Grabenarea (see Fig. 3B for location of Mosbach sands). Detailsof this correlation are discussed in Sections 4 and 5.2.

3. New terrace mapping

3.1. Field mapping

The new terrace mapping of this study uses twomethodologies: field surveys and topographic mapanalyses. The field surveys concentrate on the southernpart of a 20 km long segment of the WBF that is situatedin the northwest of the study area near the city of Worms(Figs. 3A and 5). For 20 km, theWBF follows the base ofa linear 50–100 m high morphological scarp, referred toas WBF scarp. Peters et al. (2005) identified in severaltrenches surface displacements in the order of 0.5 m ofthe WBF, which indicated a partly tectonic origin for thescarp. Tectonic deformation prior to the deposition of theexposed sediments in the trenches could not beconfirmed through trenching or geophysical measure-ments for this site (Peters et al., 2005). However, the50 m scarp height cannot be fully explained by 0.5 m ofsurface displacement. Würm terrace deposits of thelower terrace are mapped at the bottom of the scarp(Franke, 2001). This age could be verified in the trenchesby thermoluminescence dating of the deposits (Peterset al., 2005). Trenches situated on the slope of the scarpabout 10 m above the lower terrace exposed terracedeposits of possible Riss age (Peters et al., 2005). Thesefindings led to the hypothesis that also the slope ofthe scarp and the plateau was formed by a sequenceof fluvial terraces, comparable to the profile shown inFig. 4.

The slope has been intensively modified forviniculture for several centuries. Thus, the present-daysequence of vineyard terraces on the slope does notnecessarily correspond to fluvial terraces. In thissituation, intensive coring and/or trenching would be

required to map fluvial terraces on the slope, whichcould not be performed in the framework of this study.For this reason, the mapping of new terraces in thevicinity of the trench site was limited to morphologicalfield mapping (without coring) on the plateau (Fig. 5).The plateau bounding the southern part of the scarp tothe west is mainly covered by Würm loess (eolian andalluvial) and partly by sands of Pliocene or Quaternaryage (Franke, 2001). Field surveys of this study revealedfrequent gravels and few cobbles (up to 10 cm indiameter) on the plateau. The gravels are well roundedand consist of sandstone (Buntsandstein), limestone,milky quartz and porphyry. These findings clearlyindicate a fluvial transport from the western grabenshoulder (Pfälzer Wald rock assemblage) and from theMainz Basin (Tertiary assemblage) and suggest theexistence of fluvial terraces on the plateau.

Between Osthofen and Alsheim the plateau is incisedby several streams, which separate it into three ridges(Fig. 5B). The morphology of the three ridges wasmapped in the field. Each ridge was mapped from aviewpoint situated on the opposite ridge. From theseviewpoints, stepped surfaces on the ridges were visibleand documented in sketches (Fig. 5A). The sizes of thesurfaces were determined relatively. The sketches inFig. 5A display these surfaces not to scale. Using a large-scale topographic map (1:5000), positions of theindividual surfaces were identified and their heightswere estimated (heights in Fig. 5A). The sketches show afine division of surfaces, which are interpreted as steppedfluvial terrace surfaces based on their morphology andthe findings of fluvial gravels. The three profiles aregenerally very similar, with wide surfaces at the crest andseveral intermediate-sized surfaces below the crest andtowards the front of the plateau. All surfaces from thecrest to the front of the plateau are 20–30 m lower on thesouthern ridge in comparison to the northern ridges. Themost significant break in slope on the two northern ridgesis located at ∼170 m. On the southern ridge it is located∼28m lower at∼142 m (arrows in Fig. 5A). This heightdifference is assumed to result from the activity of a faultparallel to the Riederbach Valley.

3.2. Mapping using topographic data

Field mapping of the ridges served as a starting pointfor regional terrace mapping using topographic maps(Figs. 5B and 6). Initially, the surfaces identified in thefield have been located on a 1:5000 topographic map andon profiles. Fine division of individual surfaces is notpossible at this scale but the general division in wide,intermediate and small surfaces can bemade. This courser

Fig. 5. A: Cross-sections mapped in the field of three ridges of the plateau bounding theWestern Border Fault (WBF). TheWBF is situated at the baseof the plateau (see also grey stippled line in Fig. 5B). A sequence of surfaces, interpreted as terrace surfaces T, has been mapped. The most remarkablebreaks in slopes are indicated with arrows. The surfaces vary in size (w = wide, i = intermediate, s = small) and lower in height from west to east.Height levels are taken from topographic maps of 1:5000 scale. B: Outline of terrace surfaces on the plateau. Individual surfaces are groupedaccording to the legend in Fig. 6. To the north of the Riederbach Valley, terraces are 20–30 m higher than to the south of the valley. Source fortopographic map: orohydrographic map 1:50,000, sheet L6314 O Alzey.



division is also detectable on a 1:50,000 map (Fig. 5B).The comparison of the field sketches and the surfacesidentified on the 1:50,000 map shows that the wide tointermediate size surfaces can be identified on the mapshown in Fig. 5B. Due to the poorer resolution of themap,individual small-scale surfaces cannot be detected. Forthis reason, Fig. 5B contains less individual surfaces thanFig. 5A and the estimated heights deviate slightly.

Using 1:50,000 topographic maps, terrace surfaces ofwide to intermediate size have been mapped in the areasouth of the WBF scarp towards the RheinhessischeHügelland and the Vorderpfalz (Fig. 6A and B), andalong the WBF scarp towards Oppenheim in the north(Fig. 6C). The individual surfaces identified have beengrouped and classified into lower, middle, main andhigher main terraces (see legend Fig. 6). Each group ischaracterized by a comparable number of individualsurfaces per group, and by the relative size and height ofthe surfaces. The distribution of these groups in the entireregion shows a narrow band of higher main terraces, awide zone of main terraces and a narrow band of middleterraces (Figs. 3A and 6). From south to north, eachterrace group decreases in width.

4. Correlation of terraces

The terrace groups identified on 1:50,000 maps arecorrelated with the groups of previous terrace studies tothe south and north (Vorderpfalz, Mainz Bingen Graben)with the goal of providing the first correlation of terracesfor the western margin of the URG northwards to theUpper Middle Rhine Valley. Since the terrace mappingof this study does not provide stratigraphic constraintsfor the terraces, the correlation of these with terraces ofprevious studies in the vicinity is limited to the use ofmorphological criteria. These criteria include compari-son of topographic heights and relative sizes of theterraces. In order to avoid uncertainties in the mapping ofindividual terrace levels, the large-scale terrace groupsare used for correlation.

4.1. Correlation of new terraces

The terrace mapping of this study extends southwardsto the Vorderpfalz investigated by Stäblein (1968). At theoverlap of the two study areas, a good correlation ofheight levels and relative sizes exists between the terracegroups. The higher main, main and middle terraces of thenew mapping correspond to the Hauptterrasse, Hochter-rasse and Talwegterrasse of Stäblein (1968) respectively(Fig. 6B). Furthermore, a correlation between the newlymapped terraces and terraces of the Pfrimm Valley is also

possible: The main terraces and the jüngere Hauptterrasseof the Pfrimm are at equal heights and build the ridgenorth of the present-day Pfrimm. It is thus suggested thatboth terrace units have the same age (Fig. 6A, Table 1).Likewise, the higher main terraces and the Hauptterrasseof the Pfrimm are most likely of the same age. Themiddleterraces of the Pfrimm are considered older than themiddle terraces of this study due to their relative eleva-tions (120–160 m a.s.l. of Pfrimm versus b120 m a.s.l.).

Between the WBF scarp and the Mainz BingenGraben lies the Niersteiner Horst, which experiencedsignificant uplift during Pliocene and Quaternary times(Sonne, 1969, 1972; Fig. 3A inset). Only terrace rem-nants have been preserved on the horst structure andflanks (higher main terrace on the horst, Wagner, 1962;main terrace east of the horst at Oppenheim, 155–165 ma.s.l., Steuer, 1911, Kandler 1970; Mosbach sands atOppenheim at c. 160 m a.s.l. after Schraft, 1979,indicated with M in Fig. 3A, inset). Given this tectonicsetting and the scarce data, the correlation of terracesbetween theWBF scarp and the Mainz Bingen Graben islimited to the use of morphological criteria. Both theWBF scarp and the terraced margins of the MainzBingen Graben exhibit wide terrace surfaces on the pla-teau and several small terraces on the slopes. It is there-fore suggested that the higher main and main terracesform the plateau (higher main and T7 of Kandler) and themiddle terraces form the slopes (T6–T3 of Kandler). Thecorrelation adopted implies that incision occurred simul-taneously along the WBF scarp and the Mainz BingenGraben (see discussion in Section 5.2 and Fig. 9).

4.2. Correlation between Mainz Bingen Graben andUpper Middle Rhine Valley

Downstream, the correlation between fluvial terracesof the Mainz Bingen Graben and the Upper MiddleRhine Valley across the Hunsrück–Taunus BoundaryFault (HTBF) leads to several uncertainties even thoughthere is a wealth of data for each region. Two scenarioshave been proposed to date based on stratigraphic ormorphological correlation of terraces. The implicationsof these scenarios on the reconstruction of fault move-ments of the HTBF are discussed later (Section 5.2).Based on these implications we conclude that thestratigraphic correlation gives plausible results, whereasthe morphologic correlation does not.

Stratigraphic correlation is based on the correlation ofMosbach sands/T6 such that the tR4 terrace of the UpperMiddle Rhine Valley and the t1 in the LowerMain Valleycorrespond to the Mosbach sands / T6 in the MainzBingen Graben, assuming they all were synchronously


deposited (Table 1). Bibus and Semmel (1977) establishthis correlation using the following criteria:

• tR4 contains so-called Mosbach facies,• tR4 contains same invertebrate fauna as T6,• normal magnetic polarization of humic clay in upperpart of tR4 and T1 (measurements from outcrop nearWerlau for tR4 and from T1 in Lower Main Valley,Bibus and Semmel, 1977; see Fig. 3B),

• pollen spectra of soils in the upper parts of tR4 and T6are characteristic for younger Cromer interglacial,

• tR5 and T2 of the Lower Main Valley show an onsetof carbonate-free gravel,

Fig. 6. Topographic terrace mapping from A) the trench site southwards to th(1967), B) the Rheinhessische Hügelland southwards to the Vorderpfalz andnorthern extends of the WBF scarp (Osthofen to Oppenheim). The legend snumber of individual surfaces at equal heights. Thick grey solid lines mark thLeser (1967) are indicated with stippled lines. Mosbach sands occur north ofterraces of the Vorderpfalz by Stäblein (1968) are outlined with thin black lineA) orohydrographic map 1:50,000, sheet L6314 O Alzey, B) orohydrograph1:100,000, sheet C6314 Mainz.

• tR3 and T7 of the Mainz Bingen Graben exhibit asimilar gravel content.

This correlation is also favored in recent studies(Fetzer et al., 1995, Hoselmann, 1996), new data has notbeen provided since the study of Bibus and Semmel(1977).

Several authors have proposed a morphologicalcorrelation:

• T7 equals tR5 (Wagner, 1931a; Kandler, 1970),• Mosbach sands/T6 equal the uppermost middleterrace tR6 (Kandler, 1970) and

e Rheinhessische Hügelland and the Pfrimm Valley mapped by Leserthe area mapped by Stäblein (1968), and C) the trench site towards thehows the groups of terraces, which are characterized by a comparablee extents of terrace groups. In Fig. 6A terraces of the River Pfrimm bythe Pfrimm Valley according to Semmel and Fromm (1976). In Fig. 6Bs. The heights are in m above sea level. Sources for topographic maps:ic map 1:50,000, sheet L6514 O Bad Dürkheim, C) topographic map

Fig. 6 (continued ).


• the 195 m terrace of the lower River Nahe valley(younger main terrace) corresponds to tR5 and T7(Andres and Preuss, 1983).

These correlations are based on the observation thatT7, tR5 and the younger main terrace of the River Nahe

are all at equal elevation of ∼200 m (Fig. 3B). Boenigk(1978, 1987) also supports this correlation, stating thatMosbach sands/T6 correlate with tR5 or tR6 in the UpperMiddle Rhine Valley and with the upper terraces UT3 orUT4 in the Lower Rhine Embayment because reworkedmaterial is frequent in all of these terraces.


5. Fault movements

5.1. Longitudinal profile

In order to study relative height differences ofterraces and a relation to fault movements, a longitudi-nal profile covering the entire study area from thenorthern URG to the Upper Middle Rhine Valley hasbeen constructed (Fig. 7). The profile includes the fourgroups of terraces and the Pliocene surfaces. Theterraces are projected orthogonally onto the present-day longitudinal profile of the Rhine and the lowest andhighest morphological position of each terrace group isplotted. The morphological correlation is used for thesouthern areas (Vorderpfalz to WBF scarp) since it givesplausible results for tectonic movements and there is nostratigraphic constraint available. For the area across theHTBF (Mainz Bingen Graben to Upper Middle RhineValley) stratigraphic data does exist. In Figure 7, thestratigraphic correlation has been adopted because themorphologic correlation does not give plausible resultsfor the reconstruction of tectonic movements. Theimplications of stratigraphic or morphologic correlationacross the HTBF are presented and discussed in detailin Section 5.2 using Fig. 8.

5.1.1. General trendsIrrespective of the correlation method adopted across

the HTBF, the general trends of terrace heights in thelongitudinal profile are as follows (Fig. 7). Relativeheight changes of terrace surfaces are most significantfor the older terraces of the profile (uppermost level ofmiddle to higher main terraces), whereas they are minorfor the lower and the lowermost middle terraces. Thisimplies that large-scale recent faulting or tilting has notaffected these younger terraces. Considering the olderterraces the general trend shows a decrease in heights inthe southern regions (Vorderpfalz to the southernRheinhessische Hügelland) and a successive increasefrom the Rheinhessische Hügelland northwards. Thehighest position exists in the Upper Middle RhineValley. This observation suggests uplift of the northernregions prior to the middle terrace period. Faultmovements inferred from the profile are in the followingsections discussed for each region individually. Thedescription is supplemented with observations fromareas situated outside the profile (Mainz Basin andLower Main Valley).

5.1.2. VorderpfalzThe terraces of the Vorderpfalz are successively

lowering in height downstream. For all terraces older

than the lower terrace, the downstream lowering occurswith a slightly steeper gradient than for the youngestterrace level (Fig. 7). This implies that the terraces olderthan the lower terraces have been slightly uplifted aftertheir formation. The area of highest uplift is situated inthe central part of the Vorderpfalz. The longitudinalprofile contains information on the eastward sloping ofthe higher main and main terraces. This is visible by thelarge height differences between the upper and lowerparts of these terraces. Monninger (1985) demonstrates,in W–E profiles along the ridges of the Vorderpfalz, aneastward sloping of the terrace deposits. The sloping isinterpreted as tectonic tilting of the Vorderpfalz. Anadditional observation is the zigzag pattern of heightlevels in the southernmost Vorderpfalz. This pattern isrelated to the morphology of the large ridges (Fig. 2).

5.1.3. Rheinhessische HügellandThe uplift of older terraces (older than uppermost

middle terrace) in the Rheinhessische Hügelland andalong the WBF scarp increases stepwise at the Pfrimmand the Riederbach Valleys (Fig. 7). The vertical dis-placements of 10 m across the Pfrimm and 20 m acrossthe Riederbach Valley (equal offset for all terraces) isattributed to activity on ∼E–W faults parallel to thevalleys (Fig. 3A, inset). Fault mapping in the Rheinhes-sische Hügelland, in particular of E–Woriented faults, isnot well constrained and rarely documented (mainlyunpublished reports; Stahmer pers. comm., 2005). Leser(1967) proposed a fault parallel to the Pfrimm Valleybecause of the pronounced E–W course of the river.Activity on a south-dipping extensional fault along theSeebach Valley influenced deposition of Pliocenesediments (Wagner, 1941; Heitele, 1971; summary inFranke, 2001), but Pleistocene terraces are apparentlyunaffected (Fig. 7). Rather, this study reveals evidencefor offsets across the Riederbach Valley and proposessignificant activity on a previously unknown RiederbachValley Fault.

5.1.4. WBF scarpIt is evident from the profile of Fig. 7 that all terraces,

except the lower terraces, increase in height by amaximum of 30 m from south to north along the WBFscarp. Land sliding has been recognized in the northernpart of the scarp (Rogall and Schmitt, 2005), which haspresumably affected the slopes of the middle and youngermain terrace surfaces. For this northern part of the plateau,young tectonic activity has been suggested for the WBFand the faults of theDexheimerHorst (Sonne, 1969, 1972;see inset of Fig. 3A). In this context, the northern part ofthe plateau forms a tectonic horst structure. It is therefore

Fig. 7. Longitudinal profile of terrace groups in the northern URG,Mainz Bingen Graben andMiddle Rhine Valley. The lowest and highest morphological position of each terrace group is plotted. Theerosional base of the lower terrace, which is partly situated below the present-day riverbed of the River Rhine, is not mapped. Heights of the lowermost middle terrace in the Upper Middle RhineValley are taken from topographic maps. From the low morphological positions of the higher main and main terraces on the Rochusberg it is inferred that tilting due to local tectonics of F5 may haveaffected the terraces. M = Mosbach sands, F5 = HTBF, F6 = splay fault of HTBF.

57G.Peters,

R.T.

vanBalen

/Tectonophysics

430(2007)

41–65

Fig. 8. A: The concept of the morphological correlation is based on the continuous distribution of main terraces from the southern margin of theMainzBingen Graben to the Upper Middle Rhine Valley. The same terraces are displaced by 40 m from the northern margin to the Middle Rhine. Numbersin bold refer to relative uplift of Middle Rhine Terraces at F6, a splay fault of the HTBF. B: The height differences of stratigraphically correlatedterraces between the southern margin of the Mainz Bingen Graben and the Upper Middle Rhine have been estimated between the east of F5 and thefirst outcrop in the Middle Rhine (Assmannshausen of Bibus and Semmel, 1977) in order to avoid the local tectonics of the Rochusberg (see alsoFig. 3B). Between the northern margin and the Middle Rhine, the two outcrops closest to F6 have been used. Numbers in bold refer to relative uplift ofMiddle Rhine Terraces at F6. Both profiles show offsets between 35–80 m.



likely that young uplift of this horst has caused increaseduplift of the terraces to the north of the scarp and lead tothe observed instability of the slope.

5.1.5. Niersteiner HorstA major change occurs at the Niersteiner Horst. To

the north of the horst, the main and higher main terracesare at a height level 30 m lower than to the south of thehorst (Fig. 7). Additionally, the higher main terrace is40 m lower on the horst itself than on the WBF scarp tothe south. Assuming that mapping of Mosbach sands inthe south of the horst is correct (outcrop at Oppenheimafter Schraft, 1979, marked M in the inset of Figs. 3Aand 7), a height difference of 40 m exists between thislocality and the outcrops of Mosbach sands north of thehorst (mapping of Kandler, 1970). Furthermore, out-crops of Oligocene Lower Cerithium beds south ofOppenheim and along the N–S oriented scarp south ofMainz (Laubenheimer Berg) also indicate a 30 m lowerposition in the north (maps of Steuer, 1911, Sonne,1989). In summary, all deposits older than the Mosbachsands are at a 30–40 m higher topographic position tothe south of the horst than to the north of the horst.These observations support the suggestions of Sonne(1969, 1972) that recent tectonic activity was larger onthe Dexheimer Horst and the southern shoulder of theNiersteiner Horst than on its northern shoulder. Theterrace profile implies further that since the time of thehigher main terraces the Niersteiner Horst does notbehave as a horst anymore.

5.1.6. Selz and Wiesbach terraces in the Mainz BasinSince the longitudinal profile shows only terraces of

the River Rhine, the terraces of the rivers Selz andWiesbach are not included. However, for completenessthe Selz and Wiesbach terraces as well as terraces of theRiver Main are now discussed. The available mapping ofSelz and Wiesbach terraces does not cover the entireriver courses. The higher main terraces of the Selz are theonly terraces that can be traced over longer distances.They show successive lowering in height from the upperto the middle course of the river, which implies that theyare unaffected by fault movements (Fig. 3A, inset withheights of terraces). However, in this area, the rivercourses follow and cross faults bounding the NiersteinerHorst. The linear course of the Selz along the southernfault of the Niersteiner Horst could indicate a faultcontrol on the fluvial incision. This would also supportthe higher tectonic activity for this fault proposed bySonne (1969, 1972). However, in order to deduce fullythe effects of tectonic movements on the terraces thepresent-day mapping of Selz terraces is still insufficient.

5.1.7. Lower River Main ValleyThe terraces of the Lower River Main Valley do

provide information on the vertical component of faultmovements (Semmel, 1969, 1978). The main and oldestmiddle terraces (T1–T3) are frequently offset byextensional faults with vertical offsets of up to 6 m(Semmel, 1969). Displacements of deposits of youngerterraces are less frequent and only in the order of fewcentimeters. On the basis of present-day height differ-ences of terraces, Semmel (1978) proposes relativedisplacements of 40 m of Cromer age T2 on a segment ofthe WBF and 20 m of T2 on a splay fault (displacementsat Eppstein Horst; Semmel, 1978; F7 in Fig. 3A).

5.1.8. Mainz Bingen GrabenThe profiles in Fig. 8 display the height levels of

terraces on both the northern and southern margins of theMainz Bingen Graben (heights indicated with numbers inFig. 8A, see left part of profiles). The profiles show thatthe terraces younger than T5 are, ignoring smalldeviations, at equal heights along the profile and oneach side of the graben. The rise of the base level of thelower terrace from east to west by 4 m (after Kandler,1970) has not been included in Figs. 7 and 8 due to theresolution. Significant height changes with increasingheights downstream do occur for the higher main andmain terraces and for the Mosbach sands along thenorthern side of the graben. On this side, the terraces risefrom east to west with approximately equal amounts(Fig. 8A, profile on left-hand side). The height differencesbetween the terraces are in the order of 40 to 50 m. On thesouthern side, the higher main andmain terraces are muchcloser to each other (20 m difference) and the heightdifference to the younger terraces is much larger than onthe northern side (60 m between main terrace andMosbach sands; Fig. 8A, profile on right hand side).These observations indicate that uplift differed on thesides of the graben. Two uplift phases could explain theuplift pattern observed. 1) The rise of the higher mainterraces from 170 to 230 m on the southern side and from170 to 215 m on the northern side show a difference of15 m. This indicates that the northern side experienced15 m more uplift than the southern side after formation ofthese terraces. Consequently, incision was larger on thenorthern side and lead to the increased height differencebetween the higher main and main terraces. 2) Afterformation of the main terraces, the southern sideexperienced higher uplift. While the rise of the mainterraces is about 10m on the northern side (150–160m), itreaches 50m on the southern side (150–200m). The N–Sdifferential motion of this second phase would be in theorder of 40 m. Numerous faults exist both along strike of


the Mainz Bingen Graben as well as across the graben.Various authors have mentioned that these have causedterrace height changes, but precise mapping of the faultsdoes not exist (Kandler, 1970; Abele, 1977; Sonne, 1977).In this setting, it is therefore likely that the differentialuplift of terraces included the contribution of a number offaults. In detail, the uplift was probably much morecomplex and not as simple as explained here with twophases.

5.1.9. Upper Middle Rhine ValleyBased on terrace mapping in the Upper Middle Rhine

no considerable tectonic displacements affected the ter-races. In particular, the heights of the tR4 and tR5 terracesare parallel and nearly horizontal between Bingen andthe Neuwied Basin (Fig. 7; Bibus and Semmel, 1977;Semmel, 1983). For this reason, Bibus and Semmel(1977) suggested an en-bloc uplift of the entire UpperMiddle Rhine area (Rhenish Massif).

5.2. Fault movements of the HTBF

The most significant fault movements along thelongitudinal profile can be inferred at the boundarybetween the Mainz Bingen Graben and the Upper MiddleRhine Valley, which is the HTBF. However, the largestmovements do not occur along the HTBF itself (Figs. 7and 8; F5) but on a fault zone parallel and presumablyrelated to the HTBF (F6). This fault zone is located at theentrance of the River Rhine to the Upper Middle RhineValley (Fig. 3B). The use of either themorphological or thestratigraphic correlation of terraces across the fault zonehas implications on the amount of displacement. In orderto demonstrate the differences, fault displacements foreach correlation scenario have been reconstructed usingthe terrace data (Fig. 8). The following section describesthis reconstruction. The implications of the displacementscenarios are discussed thereafter in Section 6.

Using the morphological correlation between themain terraces of the southern margin of the MainzBingen Graben (east of F5) and those of the UpperMiddle Rhine Valley (west of F6), these terraces are atequal heights (Fig. 8A, profile to the right; after Wagner,1931a; Kandler, 1970; Boenigk, 1978; Andres andPreuss, 1983 and Boenigk, 1987). However, using thesame correlation, there is a 40 m offset for these terracesand the younger ones (T6 and tR6) between the northernmargin and the Upper Middle Rhine Valley (Fig. 8A,profile to the left). However, a number of uncertaintieswith this correlation scheme remain. The correlation ofthe T6 and tR6 terraces between the southern margin andthe Middle Rhine cannot be constrained since outcrops

of T6 are missing to the west of F5. Additionally, as forthe correlation of older terraces, it remains unclearwhich of the multiple higher main terraces of the UpperMiddle Rhine correlates with the single higher mainterrace in the Mainz Bingen Graben.

The stratigraphic correlation is based on studies byBibus and Semmel (1977) and is supported by recentreviews of Fetzer et al. (1995) and Hoselmann (1996).From the northern margin of the Mainz Bingen Graben totheUpperMiddleRhineValley, offsets vary from35–80m(Fig. 8B, profile to the left). The youngest terraces affectedby F6 are the T5 and tR5 terraces with 60 m displacement.From the southern margin to the Upper Middle RhineValley, offsets decrease from 70 to 40 m until the mainterraces (Fig. 8B, profile to the right). However, the nextyounger terraces (T5 and tR5) show an increased offset(60 m). In summary, the latest vertical offset across theHTBF for both sides is in the order of 60 m.

The displacement scenario based on a morphologicalcorrelation demonstrates that this correlation schemecontains a number of inconsistencies, especially whencomparing individual terraces. However, at a largemorphological scale, this correlation provides a good fit.Based on the schematic morphological profile of theterrace staircase shown in Fig. 4, the middle terracesform a sequence of small surfaces on the slope of theprofile while the main terraces build the wide surfaceson the plateau. This morphology exists both in theMainz Bingen Graben and the Middle Rhine Valley,with the only difference being that in the Middle Rhine,the slope is steeper and the valley is narrower. Inparticular, the youngest of the plateau terraces in theMiddle Rhine Valley, the younger main terrace (tR5 ofBibus and Semmel, 1977), is well expressed with largesurfaces along the entire course of the valley. It can alsobe traced along the tributaries of the River Rhine in thearea of the Rhenish Massif (rivers Lahn and Mosel). Forthis reason, Meyer and Stets (1998) used this terrace forgeomorphological mapping and inferred uplift ratesfrom its elevation to the recent river bottom. Applyingthis method to terraces across the HTBF involves usingthe morphological correlation scheme. Here, the con-sistent morphology and the equal height of terracesurfaces across the HTBF between the southern MainzBingen Graben margin and the Middle Rhine suggestthat this fault was inactive since terrace formation andthat the entire region experienced equal amount offluvial incision. In the Middle Rhine area, incision isthought to be primarily a response to tectonic uplift. Inparticular, the increased incision during the middleterrace period, which caused formation of the narrow,terraced valley in the Middle Rhine, indicated a major

Fig. 9. The morphology of the terrace staircases in the Mainz Basin and northern URG (A) and the Upper Middle Rhine Valley (B) is the same.However, paleomagnetic dating of the Mosbach sands/T6 and the tR4 main terrace suggest that the main incision phase, which lead to the formation ofthe steep, terraced slopes, occurred first in the Mainz Basin and northern URG and later in the Middle Rhine.


increase in uplift rate during that period (Meyer andStets, 1998; Van Balen et al., 2000). According to themorphological terrace correlation across the HTBF, theamount of uplift would have been equal in the MiddleRhine and the Mainz Basin, i.e. an en-bloc uplift of theentire region without activity on the HTBF.

Following the stratigraphic correlation, the evolutionof uplift and incision in this region would have beendifferent. Data from petrographics and paleomagneticdating strengthens the case for a stratigraphic correlationof terraces across the HTBF. According to this concept,theMatuyama/Brunhes boundary at 780 ka lies within themiddle terrace period in the Mainz Basin and the northernURG and within the main terrace period in the UpperMiddle Rhine Valley (Fig. 9). This means that the mainand middle terraces in the Mainz Basin and northernURG do not coincide in age with the main and middleterraces in the Upper Middle Rhine Valley (see Table 1).Futhermore, this implies for the landscape evolution of theregion that increased fluvial incision in response totectonic uplift occurred first in the Mainz Bingen Graben,leading to formation of the sequence of middle terraces(slightly before 780 ka; Fig. 9A). In contrast, the middleterraces of the Upper Middle Rhine were formed later, i.e.after the Matuyama/Brunhes boundary (Fig. 9B). Severalterrace studies along the Middle Rhine and the RiverMeuse document a phase of accelerated uplift of theRhenish Massif just after the Matuyama/Brunhes bound-ary (Meyer and Stets, 1998; Van Balen et al., 2000). The

uplift of the last 780 ka took place as doming with thelargest vertical motions of 250 m located in the center ofthe Rhenish Massif (Meyer and Stets, 1998). Towards therim of the dome, the uplift reduces to 50 m. In the studyarea, 100m are documented for theMainz BingenGrabenand 50m for the LowerMainValley and the central part ofthe Mainz Basin (Meyer and Stets, 1998). For the relativeuplift between the central Rhenish Massif and the MainzBasin various values are given in literature: 170 m(Wagner, 1931a), 200 m (Meyer and Stets, 1998) and240 m or more (Sonne and Weiler, 1984). According toMeyer and Stets (1998), the uplift of the Rhenish Massiftakes place as uplift and tilt of individual blocks at dif-ferent rates. This is not in accordance with en-bloc upliftacross the HTBF as suggested frommorphological terracecorrelation. Given the large values of relative uplift thatare documented for the study area (170 to 240 m), it ishowever more likely that the HTBF was active during theuplift. This is in accordance with the stratigraphical ter-race correlation across the HTBF. At this stage, the strati-graphic correlation scenario across the HTBF is preferredand presented in Table 1, also because of the additionalconstraints from lithological and paleomagnetic data.

The 60 m of Mid-Pleistocene displacement implied hasnot left a signature in the morphology. Moreover, thesurface traces of theHTBFand related faults (F5 andF6) donot form a fault scarp (see profile in Fig. 3B). At a largescale however, amorphological separation between the lowlevel of theMainz Bingen Graben and the uplifted Rhenish

Table 2Overview of displacement rates calculated from terraces in Fig. 7 with supplemented data from the Lower Main Valley, the eastern border of thenorthern URG and the Rhenish Massif

Sources: 1Semmel (1978), 2Bartz (1974), 3Meyer and Stets (1998), Van Balen et al. (2000).


Massif does exist. This separation cannot be attributed to asingle fault structure. Thus, the boundary between bothregions is a zone of distributed fault displacements. In fact,separate faults can also explain the difference between thenorthern and southern terrace stratigraphies of the MainzBingen Graben, as discussed above.

6. Conclusions

The main motivation of this study is to determine theeffects of fault movements on Pleistocene terraces withthe aim of better constraining the characteristics ofPleistocene tectonic activity in the northern URG and theadjacent areas. In order to infer displacement rates from alongitudinal profile it is obvious that absolute ages ofterraces are vital. Lack of such data leads to the numberof uncertainties in terrace correlation. Keeping these

uncertainties in mind, this study uses the data available toprovide a first order quantification of tectonic move-ments. The rates calculated herein rely on absolute datingof the Mosbach sands and can only give an estimate ofthe range. Table 2 shows that for the past 800 kadisplacements along single faults vary between 10 and60 m, yielding vertical displacement rates of 0.01 –0.08 mm/year. The trend is for displacements to increasefrom the south to the north. For comparison, thesubsidence and uplift rates of the Heidelberger Lochand the Rhenish Massif values are given respectively.The study area, situated in between these highs insubsidence and uplift, exhibits displacement rates up toan order of magnitude lower.

Based on the longitudinal profile it can be demon-strated that tectonic activity had the greatest impact onthe terrace levels during Early to Middle Pleistocene


times (Fig. 7). Assuming constant tectonic activity at thelowest rate calculated (0.01 mm/year) displacementsaccumulated over the last 400 ka would be in the orderof 4 m. This is undetectable in a longitudinal profile atthe resolution used. Thus, no constraint on lowdisplacement rates can be provided with the methodused in this study. Since youngest terraces (lowermostmiddle and lower terraces) are for the most part of thelongitudinal profile unaffected by faulting, it can beexcluded that a significant increase in tectonic activityoccurred since Late Pleistocene. Several field studies inthe northern URG and the Middle Rhine area confirm alow level of Late Pleistocene tectonic activity. In theLower Main and Upper Middle Rhine Valleys, dis-placements of Middle to Late Pleistocene terraces areinfrequent and of few centimeters only (Semmel, 1969;Semmel in Illies et al., 1979). Studies in the northernURG show Late Pleistocene rates in the order of0.03 mm/year, which is about the mean of the range forthe Early to Middle Pleistocene (Vorderpfalz, Monnin-ger, 1985; WBF scarp, Peters et al., 2005).

Two locations along the longitudinal profile with upto 10 m of displacements of young terraces needinvestigation in more detail, in particular coring. In theMainz Bingen Graben, the base level rise of 4 m of thelower terrace has been interpreted as tectonic in originthough the fault related to the motion is unknown(Kandler, 1970; base level rise not included in Fig. 7).The second interesting location is the Niersteiner Horst,where the lowermost middle and lower terraces arerising about 10 m (Fig. 7). Mapping of these terraceswas based on morphological criteria, whereas the heightof the lowermost middle terrace was mapped at the footof the slope (compare Fig. 3A inset and Fig. 6). In thisarea of the Niersteiner Horst and theWBF scarp, the eastfacing slopes with the sequence of middle terraces arerelatively steep and slope wash covers the foot of theslope. Thus, it is difficult to distinguish the morphologyof the terrace surfaces in this area and overestimatingtheir heights by a few meters is likely. If recent tectonicactivity caused the large displacements observed at thesetwo sites this would imply a significant increase intectonic activity at order of magnitude higher rates forthe Late Pleistocene (0.1–0.2 mm/year).

In summary, this study uses interpretations oftopographic maps and local field observations to mapterraces in the northwest of the northern URG. Thecorrelation of these terraces with previously mappedterraces to the north and south enables a first orderquantification of tectonic movements. The largest upliftof terraces is observed for the terraces bounding theMainz Basin. The fault structures that contribute to this

uplift are the WBF, the Niersteiner Horst and the HTBF.Additionally, the displacements of terrace surfaces pointto activity of two E–Woriented extensional faults in theRheinhessische Hügelland to the south of the MainzBasin. One of the faults, the Riederbach Valley Fault,was previously unknown and its existence is proposedherein for the first time. The motions and displacementrates calculated for the active faults in the study areaindicate deformation rates of 0.01–0.08 mm/year. It issuggested that during the Late Pleistocene, deformationwas at this low level. The terrace study demonstratesthat regional, discontinuous uplift occurred on thewestern border of the northern URG during theQuaternary, with a significant pulse of uplift in thenorthern URG during the Early Pleistocene andsubsequent during the Middle Pleistocene in the MiddleRhine area (Fig. 9).

Acknowledgements

Wewould like to thank T. Buchmann, P. Connolly andJ. Reinecker for useful discussions and valuable com-ments on the manuscript. Eulalia Masana, an anonymousreviewer and Alain Demoulin are thanked for their criticaland constructive reviews that helped to improve themanuscript significantly. The project developed in thecontext of the EUCOR-URGENT project and the EUproject of Environmental Tectonics (ENTEC). Fundingfor G. Peters was provided by ISES (NetherlandsResearch Centre for Integrated Solid Earth Science),DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, PhDgrant) and Landesstiftung Baden–Württemberg.

References

Abele, G., 1977. Morphologie und Entwicklung des Rheinsystems ausder Sicht des Mainzer Raumes. Mainz. Geogr. Stud. 11, 245–258.

Ahorner, L., Murawski, H., 1975. Erbebentätigkeit und geologischerWerdegang der Hunsrück-Südrand-Störung. Z. Dtsch. Geol. Ges.126, 63–82.

Anderle, H.J., 1987. The evolution of the South Hunsrück and TaunusBorderzone. Tectonophysics 137, 101–114.

Andres, W., Preuss, J., 1983. Erläuterungen zur GeomorphologischenKarte 1: 25 000 der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, GMK 25, Blatt11, 6013 Bingen. Geo Center, Berlin. (69 pp).

Bartz, J., 1936. Das Unterpliocän in Rheinhessen. Jber. Mitt.oberrhein. geol. Ver., N.F., vol. 25, pp. 121–228.

Bartz, J., 1974. Die Mächtigkeit des Quartärs im Oberrheingraben. In:Illies, H., Fuchs, K. (Eds.), Approaches to Taphrogenesis. E.Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart, pp. 78–87.

Bibus, E., Semmel, A., 1977. Über die Auswirkung quartärer Tektonikauf die altpleistozänen Mittelrhein-Terrassen. Catena 4, 385–408.

Birkenhauer, J., 1973. Zur Chronologie, Genese und Tektonik der plio-pleistozänen Terrassen amMittelrhein und seinen Nebenflüssen. Z.Geomorph. N.F. 17 (4), 489–496.


Boenigk, W., 1978. Gliederung der altquartären Ablagerungen in derNiederrheinischen Bucht. Fortschr. Geol. Rheinl. Westfal. 28,135–212.

Boenigk, W., 1987. Petrographische Untersuchungen jungtertiärer undquartärer Sedimente am linken Oberrhein. Jber. Mitt. oberrhein.geol. Ver., N.F., vol. 69, pp. 357–394.

Boenigk, W., Frechen, M., 2006. The Pliocene and Quaternary fluvialarchives of the Rhine system. Quat. Sci. Rev. 25 (5–6), 550–574.

Boenigk, W., Hoselmann, C., 1991. Zur Genese der Hönninger Sande(unterer Mittelrhein). Eiszeitalt. Ggw. 41, 1–15.

Brüning, H., 1977. Zur Oberflächengenese im zentralen MainzerBecken. Mainz. Geogr. Stud. 11, 227–243.

Brüning, H., 1978. Zur Untergliederung der Mosbacher-Terrassenab-folge und zum klimatischen Stellenwert der Mosbacher Tierweltim Rahmen des Cromer-Komplexes. Mz. Naturw. Arch. 16,143–190.

Büdel, J., 1977. Klima-Geomorphologie. Gebrüder Bornträger, Berlin.304 pp.

Doebl, F., Olbrecht, W., 1974. An Isobath of the Tertiary Base in theRhinegraben. In: Illies, H., Fuchs, K. (Eds.), Approaches toTaphrogenesis. E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung,Stuttgart, pp. 71–72.

Fetzer, K.D., Larres, K., Sabel, K.-J., Spies, E., Weidenfeller, M.,1995. Hessen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Saarland. In: Benda, L. (Ed.), DasQuartär Deutschlands. Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin, pp. 220–254.

Franke, W.R., 1999. Geologische Karte von Rheinland-Pfalz 1:25.000,Erläuterungen, Blatt 6214 Alzey. Geologisches Landesamt Rhein-land-Pfalz, Mainz.

Franke, W.R., 2001. Geologische Karte von Rheinland-Pfalz 1:25.000,Erläuterungen, Blatt 6215 Gau-Odernheim. Geologisches Land-esamt Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz.

Franke, W.R., Anderle, H.J., 2001. Geologische Übersichtskarte1:200.000, CC 6310 Frankfurt a. M.- West. Bundesanstalt fürGeowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hannover.

Fromm, K., 1978. Magnetostratigraphische Bestimmungen im Rhein-Main-Gebiet. Unpublished report, Archiv-Nr. 79921. Niedersäch-sisches Landesamt für Bodenforschung, Hannover, 13 pp.

Heitele, H., 1971. Gutachten über die geologischen und bodenmecha-nischen Verhältnisse im Bereich der HochwasserrückhaltebeckenWesthofen und Osthofen. Geologisches Landesamt Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz. Archive GLA 6215, 32 (Westhofen), 8 pp.

Hoselmann, C., 1996. Der Hauptterassen-Komplex am unterenMittelrhein. Z. Dtsch. Geol. Ges. 147 (4), 481–497.

Illies, J.H., 1974. Taphrogenesis and Plate Tectonics. In: Illies, H.,Fuchs, K. (Eds.), Approaches to Taphrogenesis. E. Schweizer-bart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart, pp. 433–460.

Illies, J.H., Prodehl, C., Schmincke, H.-U., Semmel, A., 1979. TheQuaternary uplift of the Rhenish Shield in Germany. Tectonophy-sics 61, 197–225.

Kaiser, E., 1903. Die Ausbildung des Rhein-Tales zwischenNeuwieder Becken und Bonn-Cölner Bucht. Verhandlungen des14. Deutschen Geographentages zu Cöln, pp. 206–215.

Kandler, O., 1970. Untersuchungen zur quartären Entwicklung desRheintales zwischen Mainz/Wiesbaden und Bingen/Rüdesheim.Mainz. Geogr. Stud. 3, 9–90.

Klaer, W., 1977. Grundzüge der Naturlandschaftsentwicklung vonRheinhessen. Mainz. Geogr. Stud. 11, 211–225.

Leser, H., 1967. Beobachtungen und Studien zur quartären Land-schaftsentwicklung des Pfrimmgebietes (Südrheinhessen). PhDthesis. Geographisches Institut, University of Bonn, 442 pp.

Leydecker, G., 2005. Erdbebenkatalog für die BundesrepublikDeutschland mit Randgebieten für die Jahre 800 – 2004.

Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe BGR Hann-over, www.bgr.de/quakecat.

Matthess, G., 1956. Beiträge zur geologischen Spezialkartierung desBlattes Alzey. Diploma thesis. Geology Department. TechnischeHochschule Darmstadt, 100 pp.

Meyer, W., Stets, J., 1996. Das Rheintal zwischen Bingen und Bonn.Sammlung geologischer Führer, Bd. 89. Gebrüder Borntraeger,Stuttgart. 386 pp.

Meyer, W., Stets, J., 1998. Junge Tektonik im RheinischenSchiefergebirge und ihre Quantifizierung. Z. Dtsch. geol. Ges.149, 359–379.

Meyer, W., Stets, J., 2002. Pleistocene to Recent tectonics in theRhenish Massif (Germany). Neth. J. Geosci. 81, 217–221.

Monninger, R., 1985. Neotektonische Bewegungsmechanismen immittleren Oberrheingraben. PhD thesis. Geological Institute,University of Karlsruhe, 219 pp.

Oestreich, K., 1909. Studien zur Oberflächengestaltung des Rhei-nischen Schiefergebirges. PM 3, 57–63.

Penck, A., 1910. Versuch einer Klimaklassifikation auf physiogra-phischer Grundlage. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften,Sitz der Phys.-Math., vol. 12, pp. 236–246.

Peters, G., Buchmann, T.J., Connolly, P., Van Balen, R., Wenzel, F.,Cloetingh, S.A.P.L., 2005. Interplay between tectonic, fluvial anderosional processes along the Western Border Fault of thenorthern Upper Rhine Graben, Germany. Tectonophysics 406,39–66.

Quitzow, H.W., 1974. Das Rheintal und seine Entstehung. Bestand-saufnahme und Versuch einer Synthese. Centenaire de la SociétéGéologique de Belgique: L'évolution quaternaire des bassinsfluviaux de la mer du nord méridionale. Liège 53–104.

Rogall, M., Schmitt, S.-O., 2005. Hangstabilitätskarte des linksrhei-nischen Mainzer Beckens 1:50.000. Landesamt für Geologie undBergbau, Mainz.

Rothausen, K., Sonne, V., 1984. Mainzer Becken. SammlungGeologischer Führer, Band 89. Gebrüder Borntraeger. Berlin —Stuttgart, 386 pp.

Scheer, H.D., 1978. Gliederung und Aufbau der Niederterrassen vonRhein und Main im nördlichen Oberrheingraben. Geol. Jb. Hessen106, 273–289.

Schraft, A., 1979. Das Neogen amWestrand des Oberrheingrabens beiOppenheim. Oberrhein. Geol. Abh. 28, 29–39.

Semmel, A., 1969. Das Quartär. In: Kümmerle, E., Semmel, A. (1969).Geologische Karte von Hessen 1:25.000, Erläuterungen, Blatt Nr.5916 Hochheim a. Main. Hessisches Landsamt für Boden-forschung, Wiesbaden, pp. 51–99.

Semmel, A., 1978. Untersuchungen zur quartären Tektonik amTaunus-Südrand. Geol. Jb. Hessen 106, 291–302.

Semmel, A., 1983. The Early Pleistocene Terraces of the UpperMiddle Rhine and Its Southern Foreland – Questions ConcerningTheir Tectonic Interpretation. In: Illies, J.H., Fuchs, K., vonGehlen, K., Mälzer, H., Murawski, H., Semmel, A. (Eds.), PlateauUplift: The Rhenish Massif— A Case History. Springer Verlag,Heidelberg, pp. 49–54.

Semmel, A., Fromm, K., 1976. Ergebnisse paläomagnetischerUntersuchungen an quartären Sedimenten des Rhein-Main-Gebiets. Eiszeitalt. Ggw. 27, 18–25.

Sonne, V., 1956. Ein Beitrag zur geologischen Spezialkarierung desBlattes Alzey. Diploma thesis. Geology Department, TechnischeHochschule Darmstadt, 65 pp.

Sonne, V., 1969. Die Entwicklung des Alzey-Niersteiner Horstes seitBeginn des Tertiärs. Jber. Mitt. oberrhein. geol. Ver., N.F., vol. 51,pp. 81–86.

http://www.bgr.de/quakecat


Sonne, V., 1972. Geologische Karte von Rheinland-Pfalz 1:25.000,Erläuterungen zu Blatt 6115 Undenheim. Geologisches LandesamtRheinland-Pfalz, Mainz.

Sonne, V., 1977. Tiefenlinienplan des Talbodens der Rhein-Nieder-terrasse zwischen Budenheim bei Mainz und Bingen-Kempten.Mainzer Naturwiss. Arch. 16, 83–90.

Sonne, V., 1989. Geologische Karte von Rheinland-Pfalz 1:25.000,Erläuterungen. Blatt 6015 Mainz. Geologisches Landesamt Rhein-land-Pfalz, Mainz.

Sonne, V., Weiler, H., 1984. Die detrtischen altertiären (oligozänen)Faunen-und Florenelemente in den Sedimenten des MeerfelderMaares. Cour. Forsch.-Inst. Senckenberg, vol. 65, pp. 87–95.

Stäblein, G., 1968. Reliefgenerationen der Vorderpfalz - Geomorpho-logische Untersuchungen im Oberrheingraben zwischen Rheinund Pfälzer Wald. PhD thesis. Würzburger geographische Arbeiten23, 183 pp.

Stapf, K.R.G., 1988. Zur Tektonik des westlichen Rheingrabenszwischen Nierstein am Rhein und Wissembourg (Elsaβ). Jber.Mitt. oberrhein. geol. Ver., N.F., vol. 70, pp. 399–410.

Steuer, A., 1911. Geologische Karte des Groβherzogtums Hessen imMaβstabe 1 : 25.000, Erläuterungen. Blatt Oppenheim. HessischesLandesamt für Bodenforschung, Wiesbaden.

Van Balen, R.T., Houtgast, R.F., Van der Wateren, F.M., Vanden-berghe, J., Bogaart, P.W., 2000. Sediment budget and tectonicevolution of the Meuse catchment in the Ardennes and the RoerValley Rift System. Glob. Planet. Change 27, 113–129.

Wagner, W., 1930. Bemerkungen zur Tektonischen Skizze deswestlichen Mainzer Beckens. Notizbl. Ver. Erdkde. und hess.geol. Landesamt, vol. 12, pp. 185–188.

Wagner, W., 1931a. Die ältesten linksrheinischen Diluvialterrassenzwischen Oppenheim, Mainz und Bingen. Notizbl. d. Ver. f. Erdk.u. hess. geol. Landesamt, vol. 14, pp. 31–45.

Wagner, W., 1931. Geologischen Karte von Hessen im Maβstabe 1 :25 000. Erläuterungen, Blatt Ober-Ingelheim. Darmstadt, Hes-sischer Staatsverlag.

Wagner, W.,1935. Geologische Karte von Hessen. Blatt Wörrstadt 1 :25,000. Darmstadt.

Wagner, W., 1941. Geologisch-hydrologisches Gutachten im Gebietvon Westhofen - Gundersheim. Mainz, Geologisches LandesamtRheinland-Pfalz Archive GLA 6215, 34, 16 pp.

Wagner, W., 1962. Der Rhein im Rheintalgraben und im MainzerBecken-Eine Schiffsreise von Karlsruhe nach Bingen. DieEntstehung des Rheintales vom Austritt des Flusses aus demBodensee bis zur Mündung. Beitr. Rheinkd. 14, 22–34.

Wagner, W., 1972. Über Pleistozän und Holozän in Rheinhessen(Mainzer Becken). Mainzer Geowiss. Mitt. 1, 192–197.

Weiler, W., 1931. Die diluvialen Terrassen der Pfrimm mit einemAnhang über altdiluviale Säuger aus der Umgebung von Worms.Notizbl. d. Ver. f. Erdk. V. (13), pp. 124–145.

Weiler, W., 1952. Pliozän und Diluvium im südlichen Rheinhessen I.Teil: Das Pliozän und seine organischen Einschlüsse. Notizbl. hess.L.-Amt Bodenforsch., vol. 6 (3), pp. 147–170.

Pleistocene tectonics inferred from fluvial terraces of the northern Upper Rhine Graben, Germany

Documents

Transcript of Pleistocene tectonics inferred from fluvial terraces of the northern Upper Rhine Graben, Germany