1 A new method for calculating the locality mean direction of

2 a paleomagnetic fold test

3 Dedi SETIABUDIDAYA1,*
1
4 Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences ,

5 Sriwijaya University, Indralaya, Indonesia

6 *Correspondence: dsetiabudidaya@mipa.unsri.ac.id

7Abstract: This paper proposes a new method to calculate a locality mean by using

8Fisher statistic in paleomagnetic research. The new method uses α95 in defining a

9weight for each site mean. Previously, a unit weight is given to all site means which

10may lead to wrong a locality mean due to some site means having large α95s. The

11interpretation of this erroneously calculated paleomagnetic direction will locate the area

12being investigated in the incorrect paleolatitude. Besides giving more accurate

13paleomagnetic directions, the locality mean directions derived from this new method

14give more consistent paleomagnetic fold test results, especially in deformed areas.

15

16Key words: paleomagnetism, fold test, Fisher statistics, weight

17

181. Introduction

19 A fold test is a very important field test in paleomagnetic research because it

20dates the age of the paleomagnetic directions relative to the age of a geological event.

21These paleomagnetic directions, which is called site means, come from averaging

22specimen paleomagnetic directions. There are shown several methods in calculating

23specimen paleomagnetic directions (Calderone, 1988). The method of this averaging

24process is known as Fisher statistics. Applying Fisher statistics to site means, as in a

1
25fold test, for example, give a locality mean. In the usual practice, it is assumed that the

26same unit weights are given to all the site means. This paper discusses a new method of

27locality mean calculation by giving different weights to the site means. This effort

28provides a more accurate method in getting the locality mean from its site means. The

29accurate locality mean is necessary for applying the paleomagnetic technique, especially

30in deformed areas.

31 Besides giving the values of the site mean, in terms of mean declination and

32mean inclination, Fisher statistics also give information on how well this calculated site

33mean close to the true mean. This parameter is named α95 stating that there is 95%

34confidence level that the true mean is within the cone of α95º of the calculated mean.

35Each site mean has its own α95 because it depends on the quality of its specimen

36paleomagnetic directions. The more scatter the specimen paleomagnetic directions, the

37larger α95 of the site mean has. When using Fisher statistics for calculating a locality

38mean, most paleomagnetists do not consider this parameter in their calculation. Even

39some rejected site means with α95 greater than 15º from further calculation (see e.g.

40Enkin et al (2003), Huang et al (2004), Richards, et al (2004), and Konstatinov et al

41(2014)). In this paper, the values of α95 determine the contribution of each site mean

42into the value of the locality mean in term of its weight. By applying this method, the

43paleomagnetists do not need to set a criteria for rejecting the site means with large α95

44during analysis because this action is a waste and sacrifices their efforts invested in the

45field and laboratory works.

46

47

482. Methods

2
49 A set of paleomagnetic data from a published article in a reputable journal is

50used as an example. The article discussed the paleomagnetism of the area in southern

51Turkey (Meijers et al, 2011). The Seydişehir paleomagnetic data of 16 site means were

52chosen as an example. The site mean data are grouped into first and second limbs

53according to their azimuth values (Table 1a and Table 1b). The data were analyzed

54using the two dimensional fold test python software (Setiabudidaya and Piper, 2016). In

55this fold test, the site mean directions in each limb are tilt-corrected in a stepwise

56manner. Then by applying Fisher statistics, the locality declination means, the locality

57inclination means, and the k-parameter are obtained. These results are displayed in the

58form of two dimensional contours. k-parameter is another parameter from Fisher

59statistics which defines the dispersion of the data being analyzed. As for a comparison,

60the result of 1D fold test is also shown.

61

Table 1a. First limb data Table 1b. Second limb data
(Meijers et al, 2011) (Meijers et al, 2011)

SiteID Dec Inc Azm Dip SiteID Dec Inc Azm Dip

TT1 157.9 -33.3 106 21 TT0 230.6 -31.7 253 23

TT2 190.0 -35.1 112 14 TT3 204.8 -28.0 156 14
TT4 136.2 -18.1 117 58 TT31* 178.4 -33.6 184 19
TT5 151.0 -34.6 93 26 TT32* 159.1 -36.1 178 25
TT20 168.1 -37.9 124 19 TT36 186.9 -24.5 212 24
TT21 177.5 -44.4 86 19 *reversed directions
TT22 151.0 -36.0 80 20
TT23 171.2 -42.5 105 21 Notes: SiteID = site identity, is labeled as
TT24 175.7 -34.2 110 30 in text
TT25 160.6 -29.3 119 12 Dec = declination in degrees
TT35 175.4 -41.2 128 24 Inc = inclination in degrees
Azm = azimuth of dipping layer (degrees)
Dip = amount of dip (degrees)
62

63

3
64

653. Results

66 The results show that there is no significant difference between the 1D fold test

67and the 2D fold test (Figure 1). The 1D fold test is a subset of the 2D fold test that forms

68a cross section through a cutting line from point (0,0) to (1,1). The 1D fold test is very

69common conducted by paleomagnetists although having less information. The numbers

70of the 2D fold test result were taken from averaging 381 locality mean data whose k of

7195% k_maximum (larger than 27.26), declination values ranging from 179.62º –

72185.94º and inclination values ranging from (-48.32º ) – (-45.04º ). This information

73can be retrieved easily when using the 2D fold test python software (cf Setiabudidaya

74and Piper, 2016). This 2D fold test software makes use of the Pmagpy software (Tauxe

75et al, 2014).

76

4
 1D Fold Test: 2D Fold Test:
Unfolding = 90% Unfolding first limb = 84%
Dec = 183.69º Inc = -47.35º k = 28.67 Unfolding second limb = 79%
Paleolatitude = -28.49o Dec = 182.96º Inc = -46.44º k = 28.10
Paleolatitude = -27.74º

Figure 1. Two dimensional fold test on Seydişehir paleomagnetic data.

77

78 The histogram of these data are shown in Figure 2a, Figure 2b and Figure 2c.

79The k values distribution is a monotonically increasing function (Figure 2a). The

80declination and the inclination distributions are unimodal distributions (Figures 2b and

812c) . Table 2 shows the paleomagnetic direction of each site which corresponds to the

82locality mean direction of the 1D fold test (Dec = 183.69 o , Inc =-47.35o ). Whereas

83Table 3a and Table 3b show the paleomagnetic direction of each site which corresponds

5
84to the locality mean direction of the 2D fold test (Dec = 182.96o , Inc = -46.44o ). This

85locality mean was obtained using the usual method, that is without weights.

86

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2. Histogram of targeted k values (a), mean declination (b) and
mean inclination (c)
87

Table 2. 1D fold test results

Insitu 90% unfolded
SiteID α95 Azm Dip
Dec Inc TDec TInc
First Limb
TT1 157.9 -33.3 4.5 106 21 170.76 -36.74
TT2 190.0 -35.1 6.5 112 14 199.10 -36.74
TT4 136.2 -18.1 12.6 117 58 162.73 -64.12
TT5 151.0 -34.6 19.2 93 26 168.94 -43.98
TT20 168.1 -37.9 5.3 124 19 180.68 -48.92
TT21 177.5 -44.4 2.7 86 19 193.38 -41.55
TT22 151.0 -36.0 7.8 80 20 164.86 -39.82
TT23 171.2 -42.5 3.8 105 21 189.69 -47.35
TT24 175.7 -34.2 54.4 110 30 196.35 -40.94
TT25 160.6 -29.3 14.4 119 12 165.53 -37.08
TT35 175.4 -41.2 11.6 128 24 195.36 -53.12
Second Limb
TT0 230.6 -31.7 4.2 253 23 222.48 -50.32
TT3 204.8 -28.0 2.4 156 14 211.00 -35.80
TT31* 178.4 -33.6 7.0 184 19 176.64 -50.59
TT32* 159.1 -36.1 14.8 178 25 149.44 -56.81
TT36 186.9 -24.5 23.2 212 24 179.82 -43.54
88 α95 = radius of confidence circle in degrees
89 TDec = tilt-corrected declination in degrees
90 TInc = tilt-corrected inclination in degrees
91 Other notations are in as Table 1.

92

6
 93 First six columns in Table 2 were obtained from the laboratory and the field

94works. The last two columns (90% unfolded) are calculated from the in situ

95paleomagnetic directions (the second and the third columns) by making corrections for

9690% unfolding the dipping layer (the fifth and sixth columns). The same procedure was

97applied to Table 3a and Table 3b except that different percentages were given to each

98limb (84% to the first limb and 79% to the second limb).

99

100

Table 3a. 2D fold test results for the first limb

Insitu 84% unfolded
SiteID α95 Azm Dip
Dec Inc TDec TInc
TT1 157.9 -33.3 4.5 106 21 169.78 -42.85
TT2 190.0 -35.1 6.5 112 14 198.52 -36.70
TT4 136.2 -18.1 12.6 117 58 158.40 -61.79
TT5 151.0 -34.6 19.2 93 26 167.61 -43.61
TT20 168.1 -37.9 5.3 124 19 179.69 -48.33
TT21 177.5 -44.4 2.7 86 19 192.49 -41.85
TT22 151.0 -36.0 7.8 80 20 163.94 -39.71
TT23 171.2 -42.5 3.8 105 21 188.44 -47.23
TT24 175.7 -34.2 54.4 110 30 194.92 -40.82
TT25 160.6 -29.3 14.4 119 12 165.17 -36.62
TT35 175.4 -41.2 11.6 128 24 193.75 -52.59
101

102

Table 3b. 2D fold test results for the second limb

Insitu 79%
SiteID α95 Azm Dip
Dec Inc TDec TInc
TT0 230.6 -31.7 4.2 253 23 223.94 -48.13
TT3 204.8 -28.0 2.4 156 14 210.11 -34.92
TT31* 178.4 -33.6 7.0 184 19 176.95 -48.53
TT32* 159.1 -36.1 14.8 178 25 151.29 -54.39
TT36 186.9 -24.5 23.2 212 24 181.08 -41.30
103

104

105

7
1064. Discussion

107 As in usual method (Tauxe, et al (2014)), directional cosines for each site mean

108are calculated using equations 1a, 1b, and 1c.

109

110 x 1 i=cos ( Inc i ) cos( Dec¿¿ i)¿ ................................................................... (1a)

111 x 2 i=cos ( Inc i ) sin(Dec¿ ¿i)¿ ................................................................... (1b)

112 x 3 i=sin( Inc ¿¿ i)¿ ..................................................................................... (1c)

113 The ith pair paleomagnetic direction in the polar coordinate (Dec i, Inci) was

114transformed into the cartesian coordinate (x1i, x2i, and x3i). Then, by making use of α95

115values, the ith weight (wi) is defined using equation 2. The mean paleomagnetic

116directions in the cartesian coordinate ( x́ 1 , x́ 2 and x́ 3 ) were calculated using equations

1174a, 4b and 4c where the parameter R was determined using equation 3. The pair of the

´ , Inc
118mean paleomagnetic direction in the polar coordinate ( Dec ´ ) was caculated using

119equations 5a and 5b. The numerical results of these calculations are summarized in

120Table 4 and Table 5.

121

1
α 95 i
122 w i=¿ ..............................................................................................(2)
1
∑ α 95
i i

2 2 2
123 R 2=
(∑ w i x 1 i ) + ( ∑ w i x 2 i ) + ( ∑ w i x 3 i )
i i i
............................. (3)

∑ wi x 1i
124 x́ 1= i ..................................................................................... (4a)
R
8
 ∑ wi x 2i
125 x́ 2= i ........................................................................................(4b)
R

∑ w i x3 i
126 x́ 3= i ........................................................................................(4c)
R

x´
127 ´
Dec=arc tan(¿ 2 )¿ ............................................................................(5a)
x´1

128 ´
Inc=arc sin( x´3)................................................................................(5b)

129

130

131Table 4. Calculating means paleomagnetic directions using weights of α95 (for the 2D
132fold test results, Tables 3a and 3b).
133

SiteID Dec Inc α95 1/ α95 w w.x1 w.x2 w.x3

TT0 223.94-48.13 4.2 0.238095 0.093729 -0.04505 -0.04341 -0.0698

TT1 169.78-42.85 4.5 0.222222 0.08748 -0.06312 0.011379 -0.05949
TT2 198.52-36.70 6.5 0.153846 0.060563 -0.04604 -0.01542 -0.03619
TT3 210.11-34.92 2.4 0.416667 0.164026 -0.11635 -0.06747 -0.09389
TT4 158.40-61.79 12.6 0.079365 0.031243 -0.01373 0.005437 -0.02753
TT5 167.61-43.61 19.2 0.052083 0.020503 -0.01450 0.003185 -0.01414
TT20 179.69-48.33 5.3 0.188679 0.074276 -0.04938 0.000267 -0.05548
TT21 192.49-41.85 2.7 0.37037 0.145801 -0.10604 -0.02349 -0.09728
TT22 163.94-39.71 7.8 0.128205 0.050469 -0.03731 0.010741 -0.03225
TT23 188.44-47.23 3.8 0.263158 0.103595 -0.06959 -0.01033 -0.07605
TT24 194.92-40.82 54.4 0.018382 0.007236 -0.00529 -0.00141 -0.00473
TT25 165.17-36.62 14.4 0.069444 0.027338 -0.02121 0.005616 -0.01631
TT31* 176.95-48.53 7.0 0.142857 0.056237 -0.03719 0.001982 -0.04214
TT32* 151.29-54.39 14.8 0.067568 0.026599 -0.01358 0.00744 -0.02162
TT35 193.75-52.59 11.6 0.086207 0.033936 -0.02003 -0.0049 -0.02696
TT36 181.08-41.30 23.2 0.043103 0.016968 -0.01275 -0.00024 -0.0112
Sum = 2.540253 1 -0.67114 -0.12062 -0.68506
R=¿ 0.966584, x́ 1 = -0.69434, x́ 2= -0.12479 and x́ 3=-0.70874
134

9
135 From this new method (see Table 5, numerical results for the 1D fold test results

136is not shown), it can be seen that the results are different between the ordinary method

137and the new method. In this case, the new method shows more consistent results

138between the 1D fold test and the 2D fold test. This agrees well with Figure 1 where the

139maximum of k-parameter is located near point (1,1) or 100% unfolding.

140

Table 5. Comparison of the two methods

Ordinary Method*) New Method
Type of Fold Test
Dec(o) Inc(o) Dec(o) Inc(o)
1D Fold Test 183.69 -47.35 190.68 -45.23
2D Fold Test 182.96 -46.44 190.19 -45.13
*) see Figure 1
141

142 Applying this new method to a more recent set of paleomagnetic data before

143bedding correction from Lucifora et al (2013), the new method also gives different

144numerical results when using the ordinary method (Table 6). This, of course, will give

145a different interpretation of the area being investigated concerning its implications to

146the tectonic history of the area.

147

Table 6. On recent data (see Lucifora et al, 2013)

Ordinary Method New Method
Tilt Correction
Dec(o) Inc(o) Dec(o) Inc(o)
Before 6.5 56.8 8.9 55.6
After 3.4 52.4 7.0 51.3
148

1495. Conclusion

150 This new method in paleomagnetism gives wider opportunities to researchers to

151study quantitatively more deformed areas. More accurate locality means will make the

152interpretation of the area being investigated becomes more reliable. And with other
10
153proofs from other disciplines, the area in the past could be reconstructed within the error

154of less than hundred kilometers.

155

156References

157Calderone GJ (1988). Paleomagnetism of Miocene volcanic rocks in the Mojave-Sonora

158desert region, Arizona and California. Ph.D. Thesis, the University of Arizona, USA.

159Enkin RJ, Mahoney JB, Baker J, Riesterer J, and Haskin ML (2003). Deciphering

160shallow paleomagnetic inclinations: 2. Implications from Late Cretaceous strata

161overlapping the Insular/ Intermontane Superterrane boundary in the southern Canadian

162Cordillera. J. Geophys. Res. 108 (B4), 2186, doi:10.1029/2002JB001983.

163Huang B, Wang Y, & Zhu R (2004). New paleomagnetic and magnetic fabric results for

164Early Cretaceous rock from the Turpan intramontane basin east Tianshan, northwest

165China. Science in China Ser. D Earth Sciences, vol 47, No. 6, 540 – 550.

166Konstantinov KM, Bazhenov ML, Fetisova AM (2014). Paleomagnetism of trap

167intrusion, East Siberia: Implications to flood basalt emplacement and the Permo-

168Triassic crisis of biosphere. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 394, 242 -253.

169Lucifora S, Cifelli F, Rojay FB, Mattei M (2013). Paleomagnetic rotations in the Late

170Miocene sequence from the ḈḈankiri Basin (Central Anatolia, Turkey): the role of strike-

171slip tectonics. Turkish J Earth Sci 22: 778 – 792.

172Meijers MJM, van Hinsbergen DJJ, Dekker MJ, Altiner D, Kaymakci N, Langereis CG

173(2011). Pervasive Palaeogene remagnetization of the central Taurides fold-and-thrust

174belt (southern Turkey) and implication for rotations in the Isparta Angle. Geophys. J.

175Int. 184 1090-1112.

11
176Richards DR, Butler RF, and Sempere T (2004). Vertical-axis rotations determined

177from paleomagnetism of Mesozoic and Cenozoic strata within the Bolivian Andes.

178Environmental Studies Faculty Publications and Presentations Paper 21.

179http://pilotscholars.up.edu/env_facpubs/21.

180Setiabudidaya D (1991). Magnetostratigraphy and tectonic rotation in South Wales.

181Ph.D. Thesis, the University of Liverpool, UK.

182Setiabudidaya D, Piper JDA, Shaw J (1994). Palaeomagnetism of the (early Devonian)

183Lower Old Red Sandstones of South Wales: implication to Variscan overprinting and

184differential regional rotations. Tectonophysics 231 257-280.

185Setiabudidaya D, Piper JDA (2016). The two dimensional fold test in paleomagnetism

186using ipython notebook. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 29 012007.

187Tauxe L, Banerjee SK, Butler RF, van der Voo (2014). Essential of Paleomagnetism.

1883rd Web Edition. https://earthref.org/MagIC/books/Tauxe/Essentials/

189

190

12