Contrasting Recording Efficiency of Chemical Versus Depositional Remanent Magnetization in Sediments

Abstract

Abstract How and when sedimentary rocks record Earth's magnetic field is complex. Most studies assume a time‐progressive lock‐in mechanism during sediment deposition called depositional remanent magnetization (DRM). However, magnetic minerals can also form in situ, recording a chemical remanent magnetization (CRM) that is discontinuous in time. Disentangling the two mechanisms represents a major hurdle, and differences in their recording efficiencies remain unexplored. Here, our theoretical solutions demonstrate that CRM intensities exceed DRM by a factor of six when acquired in the same magnetic field. Novel experiments growing greigite (Fe3S4) in sediments and subsequent redeposition under identical magnetic field conditions confirm the predicted difference in recording efficiency. Thus, if left unrecognized, CRM leads to overestimated paleointensity and deserves more attention when interpreting Earth's magnetic history from sedimentary records. Recognition of fundamental differences between CRM and DRM characteristics provide a way forward to distinguish the recording mechanisms through routine laboratory protocols.

Keywords

• paleointensity
• chemical remanent magnetization
• CRM
• remagnetization
• redeposition
• greigite