ORIGINAL PAPER

Neotectonics and recent uplift at Kamchatka and Aleutianarc junction, Kamchatka Cape area, NE Russia

Dorthe Pflanz • Christoph Gaedicke •

Ralf Freitag • Matthias Krbetschek •

Nikolay Tsukanov • Boris Baranov

Received: 7 February 2012 / Accepted: 1 October 2012 / Published online: 6 November 2012

� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Abstract The tectonic position of the Kamchatka Cape

Peninsula at the junction of the active Kuril–Kamchatka

and Aleutian arcs exposes the coastline of the peninsula to

strong neotectonic activities. Fracture zones have variable

influence on uplift of the Kamchatka Cape Peninsula.

Relevant morphologic indicators of neotectonic activity are

multilevel, highly uplifted marine terraces and terraces

displaced along active faults. Recent uplift rates of coastal

sediments are determined by remote sensing via ASTER

and SRTM DEM combined with optically stimulated

luminescence dating (OSL). On the Kamchatka Cape

Peninsula, terraces from the same generation are mapped at

different elevations by remote sensing methods. After

defining different areas of uplifted terraces, four neotec-

tonic blocks are identified. According to apatite fission track

data, the mean differential exhumation rates range from 0.2

to 1.2 mm year-1 across the blocks since Late Miocene.

The OSL data presented point to significant higher uplift rates

of up to 3 ± 0.5 and 4.3 ± 1 mm year-1, which indicates

an acceleration of the vertical movement along the coast

of Kamchatka Cape Peninsula in Upper Pleistocene and

Holocene times.

Keywords Kamchatka � Neotectonics � Marine terraces �OSL dating � Remote sensing � Uplift

Introduction

The Kurile–Kamchatka and the Aleutian arcs meet at a

nearly right angle in the vicinity of Kamchatka Cape

Peninsula (Fig. 1; Geist and Scholl 1994; Gaedicke et al.

2000). The Kuril–Kamchatka arc comprises the most active

volcanoes of the world (Fedotov et al. 1991; Bindeman

et al. 2010). The convergence of the Pacific Plate against

the Eurasia leads to subduction and collision of the pre-

deformed Pacific Plate and related features like seamounts

and ancient transform faults under the Kamchatka margin.

This process is expressed in intense deformation and strong

neotectonic activity in the Kamchatka fore-arc.

In tectonically active areas, marine and fluvial terraces

are used as marker horizons for tectonic events. Dating of

horizons gives the reference frame to calculate uplift rates

(e.g., Lajoie 1986; Burbank and Anderson 2001). Con-

trolled by relative sea-level changes, marine terraces doc-

ument the uplift history of a coastline (Lajoie 1986; Ota

and Yamaguchi 2004; Siddall et al. 2006); therefore, dating

of terraces is a key to reveal uplift velocity of coastal areas.

The most common method to date marine terraces is

radiocarbon dating of organic material (e.g., Lajoie 1986;

D. Pflanz (&)

Institute of Geosciences (IGW), University Jena, Jena, Germany

e-mail: dorthe.pflanz@gmail.com

Present Address:D. Pflanz

Institute of Applied Sciences, Schnittspanstrasse 9,

64287 Darmstadt, Germany

C. Gaedicke � R. Freitag

Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources,

Stilleweg 2, 30655 Hannover, Germany

M. Krbetschek

Quaternary Geochronology Section c/o Institute of Applied

Physics, Saxonian Academy of Sciences, TU Bergakademie

Freiberg, Leipziger-Str. 23, 09596 Freiberg, Saxony, Germany

N. Tsukanov � B. Baranov

Laboratory of Geodynamics, P.P. Shirshov Institute

of Oceanology (IO RAS), 36 Nahimovski prospect,

117997 Moscow, Russia

123

Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916

DOI 10.1007/s00531-012-0830-z

Ota and Yamaguchi 2004). The absence of organic material

makes the task of radiocarbon dating impossible for marine

sediments on the coastline of Kamchatka. Some studies

(e.g., Pinegina et al. 2010) date marine terraces on the

Kamchatka Cape Peninsula by analysis of volcanic ashes.

The age of the ashes is reflecting a minimum age of the

terrace but it does not date the construction of a terrace

itself. In this work, optically stimulated luminescence

(OSL) dating is used as a new approach to determine the

age of coastal deposits. Dating with OSL gives the possi-

bility to date the timing of sedimentation of common

minerals, such as quartz and feldspar—this makes OSL a

useful and accurate method to constrain time frames. This

study is the first geochronological research of marine ter-

races using OSL dating on the Kamchatka Cape Peninsula.

Identification of marine and fluvial terraces was done

using remote sensing techniques. We perform different

analyses of digital elevation models (DEM), mainly SRTM

and ASTER data in ArcGIS. We used slope and curvature

analyses to identify, locate and describe marine terraces

defined as nearly flat surfaces formed by marine processes

(Chappell 1974; Lajoie 1986; Anderson 1999; Ota and

Yamaguchi 2004). The results are combined with mor-

phological interpretation of LandsatTM images. Based on

these data, three generations of marine terraces above the

early Holocene terraces were mapped in four areas.

During two field expeditions in 2007 and 2008, several

marine terraces were sampled. Samples were taken on

well-preserved profiles on the shoreline ankle as described

by Lajoie (1986). The calculated uplift velocity of the

shoreline is compared with results from fluvial sediments

of the Kamchatka River, which crosses the coastal ridges in

the south of the Kamchatka Cape Peninsula.

Tectonic settings

Kamchatka Cape Peninsula is located at the junction

between the Aleutian margin and the Kamchatka margin

(Fig. 1). Structures and tectonics are strongly controlled by

convergence along the Kuril–Kamchatka margin and the

dextral strike-slip movements at the western portion of the

Aleutian margin (Geist and Scholl 1994; Gaedicke et al.

2000; Lallemant and Oldow 2000). The Kamchatka Cape

Peninsula is described as a part of an exotic allochthonous

terrain of Cretaceous to Eocene age called the Kronotsky

island arc (Fig. 2; Zonenshain et al. 1990; Bazhenov et al.

1992; Zinkevich and Tsukanov 1993). The time of collision

between the Kronotsky arc and the Kamchatka margin is

still a matter for debate. According to Bakhteiev et al.

(1997), Levashova et al. (2000), Konstantinovskaya (2000)

and Soloviev et al. (2004), the collision started in Late

Miocene based on paleomagnetic data and global recon-

structions. Structural investigations by Zinkevich et al.

(1993) and Alexeiev et al. (2006) give the age of initial

collision of Late Eocene with Early Miocene.

The Kamchatka Cape Peninsula is composed of two

main lithology types which are separated by a major east–

west-trending normal fault. (1) The northern part is com-

prised of weakly deformed volcanoclastic and terrigenous

sediments and rare volcanic rocks. The sediments are well

stratified and reach a thickness of about 4 km. Biostratig-

raphy (Beniyamovsky et al. 1992; Shapiro et al. 1997;

Shcherbinina 1997; Boyarinova et al. 1999) constrains the

ages of the sediments from Late Maastrichtian to Eocene.

(2) The southern part consists mainly of Cretaceous gabbro

and ultramafic rocks. Well known are also intensively

sheared ophiolitic basalts, jaspers, radiolarites and thin-

bedded limestones which contain Albian and Senomanian

fossils and tuff–siliceous and tuff–terrigenous rocks with

basalt interlayers which are related to Upper Cretaceous

(Fedorchuk et al. 1989; Zinkevich et al. 1993). By some

authors, the south part of Kamchatka Cape Peninsula was

interpreted as an accretionary wedge of Kronotsky arc

which evolved from Late Cretaceous to Eocene and was

linked with a northward-dipping subduction zone, while

northern part represents a fore-arc basin which evolved

sub-synchronously with that accretionary wedge, as arc-

related rocks can also be found in the very north of

Kamchatka Cape Peninsula (Shapiro 1995; Alexeiev et al.

2006).

The younger deformation history on Kamchatka Cape

Peninsula is documented by several hundred meters of

Fig. 1 Tectonic position of Kamchatka Cape Peninsula at the

junction between the Kuril–Kamchatka and Aleutian arcs. Tectonic

structures are controlled by the Kuril–Kamchatka Trench and the

dextral strike-slip movements along the Aleutian Trench. In addition,

the Emperor seamount chain (EMP) subducts under Kamchatka

904 Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916

123

uplifted river valleys filled with Pleistocene(?) sediments

and numerous inclined terraces.

Methods

Remote sensing, fieldwork and dating methods were

applied to analyze neotectonic activity on the Kamchatka

Cape Peninsula.

Remote sensing

Using the sea level as a reference frame for neotectonic

interpretations, remote sensing was used to map marine

terraces in different areas. The terraces show relatively flat

surfaces (Lajoie 1986) inclined within Kamchatka Cape

Peninsula at the angles of 0�–5� (example in Fig. 3), which

were derived from ASTER or SRTM DEMs in ArcGIS.

The different generations of marine terraces are separated

by slopes with angles between 5� and 20�.

To derive the slope map, the slope tool from ArcGIS

was used. The tool calculates the maximum rate of change

in value from each cell to its eight neighbors. The maxi-

mum change in elevation identifies the steepest downhill

descent from each cell.

Fig. 2 Geological sketch of Kamchatka Cape Peninsula (after Freitag

et al. 2001)

Fig. 3 Upper panel slope analysis of the easternmost part of

Kamchatka Cape Peninsula based on ASTER DEM. The nearly plain

surfaces separated by slope gaps are clearly visible. Three to five

terrace steps are interpreted in the area. Lower panel Terraces

generation interpreted on a LandsatTM image

Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916 905

123

Every cell in a newly created output raster has a slope

value—only areas \10� have been used for interpretation.

Results of slope analyses are compared with geomorphologic

interpretations of LandsatTM and QuickBird images (Fig. 3).

The lower three steps from slope analyses are clearly visible

in the LandsatTM picture. Some terraces were classified as

fluvial terraces because their slopes dip toward rivers.

Sampling strategy

In total, 22 marine terraces were sampled during field

expeditions (Fig. 4). Samples were taken from well-pre-

served profiles on the shoreline angle following the meth-

ods described by Lajoie (1986). The shoreline angle is

accepted (Lajoie 1986) as the most representative part of

the coastline, of maximum sea level during interglacial

times. To avoid exposure to the daylight, light-proof plastic

cylinders were pushed into soft coastal sediment. In eroded

sediments, the minimum uplift was calculated.

As observed in the field, highly uplifted marine terraces

are eroded; marine material is reworked by rivulets and

small streams. In these locations, sampling was skipped

because no in situ material is preserved in reworked ter-

races. Most samples were taken on well-preserved lower

terraces. Thirty-seven OSL samples were taken along the

coastline of the Kamchatka Cape Peninsula (Fig. 4). For

comparison, an additional seven samples were collected

along the Kamchatka River.

OSL dating

Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) makes it possible

to date the last exposure to sunlight of ubiquitous minerals

like quartz and feldspars. Last exposure is contemporane-

ous to time of deposition. When minerals are covered after

sedimentation, the ionizing radiation (from U, Th, K and

cosmic rays) is absorbed and stored in the crystal lattice by

charge transfer and electron trapping, leading to OSL

capability. The stored radiation dose—the so-called

equivalent dose (De)—can be evicted by stimulation with

light and is released as luminescence which is proportional

to the amount of dose. The luminescence age is the time

since the last exposure to sunlight. The sunlight bleaches

the luminescence signal and resets the time ‘‘clock’’ to

zero. During coverage, the luminescence signal increases

through time due to exposure to ionizing radiation. OSL

dating is based on quantifying both the radiation dose

received by a sample since its zeroing event and the dose

rate which it has experienced during the accumulation

period (Aitkin 1998; Lepper 2002; Duller 2008).

The preparation and OSL dating were carried out in the

Institute of Applied Physics at the Technical University of

Freiberg, Germany. First, the in situ and saturation water

content was determined. From all samples, a sand-size

quartz fraction (90–315 lm) was extracted which was

finally sieved (100–160 lm) after HF etching the outer rim,

influenced by the natural alpha radiation. A single-aliquot

regenerative-dose (SAR) protocol (Murray and Wintle

2000, 2003) was used for paleodose determination. OSL

measurements were taken using a Risø TL/OSL Reader

DA-20 with a photomultiplier EMI 9235QA (optical filter

U340). For OSL stimulation, blue LEDs with a wavelength

of 470 nm ± 30 nm are used in the instrument. For dose

rate (DR) calculation, furthermore, the radioisotope con-

centration (U, Th, K-40) was determined by gamma

spectrometry using an HPGe spectrometer.

Fig. 4 Sample location of OSL

samples taken for this study.

Only dated samples are shown:

3 of 7 samples along the

Kamchatka River which crosses

the coastal cordillera (Kumroch

Range) and 22 of 37 form

coastal sediments from

Kamchatka Cape Peninsula.

Other samples were not used

because of insufficient quartz

content

906 Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916

123

The measured equivalent dose (De) values from the

different aliquots (4 mm diameter, i.e., a few hundred

quartz grains) of the sample are just a small extract of the

whole sample. The dose representative for the depositional

age (paleodose Dp) is calculated by applying statistical

methods. An important factor influencing the distribution

of the De values is the degree of natural bleaching of the

OSL signal at the time of deposition. In homogeneously

bleached sediments, the distribution of equivalent doses

(De) of different aliquots of a sample should range around

the arithmetic mean. In heterogeneously bleached sedi-

ments, like fluvial deposits, the distribution shows a larger

variability (e.g., Murray et al. 1995; Olley et al. 1999;

Lepper and McKeever 2002).

Several authors (e.g., Murray et. al. 1995; Olley et. al.

1999) used different techniques to exclude insufficiently

bleached signal components from the ‘‘paleodose’’ (Dp)

estimation. Most of the age models are based on large sets

of aliquots which are not available in this study, so two

different statistical approaches based on small sets of ali-

quots have been compared with each other: (a) leading

edge model (Lepper and McKeever 2002) and (b) a method

developed by Fuchs and Lang (2001).

Height determination

Barometric altimeters of two mobile GPS devices were

used to eliminate change in air pressure on height deter-

mination for the samples. One stayed stable on a known

height to measure changes over the day, and the other was

used to measure the height of the samples. Data of both

devices were compared, and the height of the device used

for sampling was corrected. The estimated error is about

5 m. The determined sea-level curves are including errors

between 2 and 10 m, and the calculated OSL age has a

range from at least 10 % but do not exceed 25 %. The

sample heights are correlated with Pacific sea-level curves

for Pleistocene (Bard and Hamelin 1990) and for Holocene

terraces (Gibb 1986; Wilson 2006) and interpreted with age

data obtained from OSL dating. The uplift is given by the

difference between heights of sedimentation, respective

beach level and recent sampling height, respective to recent

height of marine terrace.

Results

Remote sensing

Marine terraces on Kamchatka Cape Peninsula determined

from remote sensing and height profiles are presented in

Fig. 5. Height profiles along the coastline (yellow lines in

Fig. 5) are similar in terms of shape, distribution, slope

angles and distance to the recent coast, but the absolute

heights of terraces differ significantly. It is clearly visible

that the height of the first terrace increases from Block A in

the north (180 m asl) to Block B in the south (600 m asl).

In the two northernmost profiles, a valley of unknown

origin is distinctive seaward of the slope scarp of the next

terrace step. Within all profiles, the highest step is sepa-

rated from the lower step by a clear, steep trench.

Similar morphology but different elevations of terraces

lead us to conclude that terraces with similar geometry

were formed by the same processes at the same time, but

uplift rates are different.

Therefore, we divide areas with different uplift into

morphotectonic blocks. We distinguish four morphotec-

tonic blocks: the northern Block A, a central Block B,

southeast Block C and the southwestern Block D based on

results of slope plus curvature analyses and height profiles.

Each block comprises three generations of marine terraces

above a lower Holocene terrace. Blocks A, B and C

(Fig. 5) are separated by major fault zones. A fourth

morphotectonic Block D is defined in the southwest of the

peninsula. Distinctive Holocene terraces are only given in

profiles B and D; the first step is in profile D slightly higher

than in profile B.

OSL dating

Table 1 shows analytical data (U, Th and K measured by

HPGe gamma spectrometer), water content and cosmic

dose rate (calculated with the program ADELE, Kulig

2005).

Different results of paleodoses (Dp) are revealed by the

arithmetic mean, and two different statistical methods

(chapter 3.3) of samples are summarized in Table 2. Sta-

tistical methods clearly demonstrate a consistent range of

error, but the statistical mean is not consistent. For three

samples (KU07-LU12, KU07-LU13 and KU07-LU14), the

arithmetic mean was used to calculate a maximum age,

because of a very low number (less than 10) of measured

aliquots due to the low quartz content. The general lack of

quartz (and ‘‘pure’’ feldspar) in the sediments on the

coastline of eastern Kamchatka (marine and fluvial) is

caused in their sources. According to Tsukanov (1991) and

Zinkevich and Tsukanov (1993), the dominant rocks of this

part of the coastline are mainly foid-bearing alkaline vol-

canic rocks and sediments.

The agreement of both statistical methods within their

error limits indicates that both methods can be applied for

poorly bleached fluvial or marine sediments. For 4 sam-

ples, no dose recovery test (needed for the method after

Fuchs and Lang 2001) was made to save material. For this

reason, the uplift calculation of the age resulting from Dp

after the leading edge model has been used.

Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916 907

123

The OSL ages of the Kamchatka Cape Peninsula are

given in Table 3 together with calculated uplift velocity

after Lajoie (1986). OSL ages have been calculated using

the program ADELE (Kulig 2005) which includes error

estimation described in Aitken (1985). The given error of

the uplift rate includes the errors of OSL age calculation,

assumed error of the height measured by GPS (±5 m) and

error of sea-level curve after Bard and Hamelin (1990),

Gibb (1986) and Wilson (2006).

Comparison between results

Kamchatka Cape Peninsula

Block A: In the northernmost part (Block A, Fig. 4;

Table 2), samples were taken on a young fault. Figure 6

shows the position of the samples (ages: K08-LU11

12.1 ± 0.8 ka and 40 cm underneath K08-LU12 26.7 ±

5.8 ka). The uplift rate is 3.4 ± 0.5 mm year-1 (K08-

LU11) for the lower sample and 7.5 ± 0.7 mm year-1 for

the upper sample (K08-LU12). Compared with the uplift

velocity, which we calculated for Blocks B and D (Fig. 5;

Table 3), the calculated uplift rate of 3.4 ± 0.5 mm year-1

K08-LU11 is similar. The upper sample has a much higher

rate. The horizons are displaced about 8 m along a reverse

fault. In this outcrop, the problem of unknown sedimenta-

tion history becomes visible: only a part of the marine ter-

race is cropping out, and it is possible that upper parts of the

terrace are already eroded and samples were taken in a

deeper (older) part of the terrace, while other samples from

the same terrace were taken in younger horizons. Therefore,

we are only able to give minimum uplift rates, while the true

uplift rate might be higher than calculated. No younger

terraces are developed along this part of the Kamchatka

Fig. 5 Comparison of interpreted morphotectonic Blocks A, B, C and D with morphological profiles (yellow lines show profile location)

908 Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916

123

Cape Peninsula coastline. The sampled cliff is directly

located on the backshore which is about 10 m wide.

Block B: Along Cape Africa (Fig. 4), the Holocene

coastline is about 500 m wide, and several terraces and

dunes are developed. Different samples were taken to

determine the migration and uplift rates of the coastline

(Fig. 7). Here, a major step of a Holocene terrace is clearly

visible. It continues through 2.5 km along Cape Africa.

The terrace is surrounded by less clear and smaller steps.

Raster electron microscope analysis reveals that grains of

the smaller steps are better sorted and show more blasting

marks than the sediment from the ‘‘major’’ step which is

typical for dunes (Mahaney 2002). Additionally, the

slightly steeper angle of the surface of the marine terrace

leads us to interpret the surfaces as dunes. A cross section

of Cape Africa shows a flat marine terrace and bordered

dunes of different generations.

The marine terrace (b in Fig. 7) is dated at 163 cm depth

under the recent surface to 5.5 ± 1.1 ka. Marine terraces of

this age are found all around the Pacific Ocean and are

linked to a sea-level high stand (e.g. Gibb 1986; Wilson

et al. 2006). Another sample taken from this profile at a

depth of 95 cm revealed an OSL age of 2.6 ± 0.3 ka.

Between both samples, a storm deposit is preserved

between 100 cm and 130 cm below the surface.

The bordering landward dune was sampled at 80 cm

depth (K08-LU19). It is much younger (1.7 ± 0.4 ka) and

can be correlated with the upper layer of the marine terrace.

The youngest-dated dune has an age of 0.7 ± 0.2 ka

(KU08-LU18). Six samples from marine terraces could be

dated from Block B (Tab. 2). The calculated uplift rates for

this block range from 1.8 mm-1 to 3.8 mm year-1 (mean

uplift rate is 3 ± 0.5 mm year-1). The higher-level terrace

visible in Fig. 7 (*200 m height) could not be sampled,

due to the lack of in situ marine sediments.

Block C: This area could not be sampled due to logis-

tical issues.

Block D: The Holocene coastline in Block D is highly

influenced by rivers and their deposits (Fig. 8). Huge flu-

vial terraces containing large gravels overlay the marine

sediments. Eighteen samples were taken on Block D, of

which nine hold sufficient quartz for OSL dating.

Marine sediments on this part of the peninsula are often

eroded and re-deposited. The most prominent Holocene

Table 1 Analytical data (U, Th and K measured by HPGe gamma spectrometer), cosmic dose rate, water content

Sample names 238U (Bq/kg) ± 232Th (Bq/kg) ± 40K (Bq/kg) ± Cosmic dose rate

(mGy/ka) ±10 %

Water content

(%) ±0.2

Block A

K08-LU11 5 0.1 2.3 0.1 253.1 2.8 39 6.4

K08-LU12 4.2 0.3 3.1 0.2 194 11 48 4.4

Block B

K07-LU24 2.9 0.7 3.2 0.2 216.2 1.6 155 6.6

K07-LU25 3.5 0.7 3 0.2 191.2 1.7 163 5.3

K08-LU9 6.1 0.4 4.5 0.3 234 14 183 8.2

K08-LU13 4.7 0.4 2.9 0.2 293 17 54 19.4

K08-LU14 4.1 0.3 2.6 0.2 203 12 39 14.6

K08-LU15 3.9 0.8 2.9 0.2 276 1.9 61 10.2

K08-LU16 4.8 0.4 3.3 0.3 285 17 187 5.9

K08-LU17 4.2 0.3 2.6 0.2 253 15 159 6.4

K08-LU18 6.7 0.9 3.5 0.3 306 2.1 180 5.4

K08-LU19 5.2 0.4 4.5 0.3 295 17 180 5.8

K08-LU20 5.8 0.4 4.4 0.4 295 17 187 8.4

Block D

K07-LU19 7.3 0.5 4.1 0.2 197.7 2.1 181 14.4

K07-LU20 2.3 0.3 1.4 0.2 361 21 123 6.6

K07-LU21 9.1 0.9 4.3 0.3 215.4 1.3 224 19.8

K07-LU22 7.4 0.6 4.3 0.2 202.6 1 155 4.2

K08-LU24 3.4 0.1 2.1 0.1 302 3 144 4.3

K08-LU25 5.1 0.1 2.8 0.1 258.5 2.6 168 4.9

K08-LU26 3.7 0.6 2.3 0.1 204.6 2.4 178 3.3

K08-LU28 4 0.1 2.1 0.1 204.8 2.4 132 1.5

K08-LU31 2.7 0.3 1.6 0.1 111 0.7 180 6.7

Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916 909

123

terrace step is located 3–5 m above the recent beach. Dated

samples from this major step are K08-LU24, K08-LU25,

K08-LU26 and K08-LU32. The mean age for the terrace is

7.75 ± 0.9 ka. The mean calculated uplift rate of block D

is 4.0 ± 0.3 mm year-1. Sample K07-LU20 is located at

the western edge of the Kamchatka Cape Peninsula at the

transition to the lowland west of Krutoberegovo (Fig. 4).

With an age of 111.8 ± 10.5 ka, it is the oldest terrace

dated by OSL. The calculated uplift is only 0.8 mm year-1

which is much lower than Block D. It is assumed that this

area is less affected by neotectonic activity than the east of

the peninsula.

Kamchatka River

The Kamchatka River is the largest river in Kamchatka.

It cuts deeply from west to east through the Kumroch

Range that forms the coastal ridge (Fig. 4, 8). West of the

Kumroch Range, the river level is only about 2 m above sea

level. It only drops two meters on its way to the ocean, a

distance of nearly 80 km. We assume that the incision rate of

the river has the same rate as the uplift of the coastal cordillera.

We sampled a profile along the river to verify our hypothesis.

Six samples from along the river have been taken. Three

samples K07-LU12, K07-LU13 and K07-LU14 from a

well-preserved profile (in Fig. 9) hold enough quartz for

OSL dating. The profile is located on the erosion bank of

the river. The profile wall is about 6 m in height and

contains a typical sequence of river sediments for this area.

Sandy layers with a thickness of about 20 cm are inter-

bedded with thin clay layers; the sequence is covered by

80-cm floodplain sediments. Sample K07-LU12 was taken

at 150 cm, K07-LU13 at 180 cm and K07-LU14 at 330 cm

under the recent surface. The procedure of OSL dating and

Table 2 Statistical methods used for calculation of Dp

Sample names Av Dp (Gy) ± N (aliquots) Dp (Gy) (Fuchs and Lang) ± Leading edge Dp(Gy) ±

Block A

K08-LU11 18.2 7.4 17 12.7 0.1 12.6 0.1

K08-LU12 35 10.4 21 23.8 4.9 23 1.3

Block B

K07-LU24 18.9 8 14 15.3 6.8 16.3 4

K07-LU25 17.6 6.9 9

K08-LU9 4.5 2.4 14 1.4 0.6 1.5 0.4

K08-LU13 41.2 11.1 5

K08-LU14 3 0.8 18 1.8 0.2 1.8 0.2

K08-LU15 22.7 7.6 17 17.7 5.7 15.4 1.6

K08-LU16 9.9 3.9 10 6 1.2 5.8 0.9

K08-LU17 4.6 1.6 16 3.1 0.2 3.1 0.3

K08-LU18 2 0.6 20 0.9 0.3

K08-LU19 3.5 2.6 20 1.5 0.4 1.6 0.3

K08-LU20 8.8 5.4 12 4.6 0.7 4.9 0.9

Block D

K07-LU19 18.6 10.6 10 14.2 7.4 12.6 3.1

K07-LU20 132.5 48 11 108.9 8.7 116.2 22.4

K07-LU21 11.2 3.5 11 9.1 1.8

K07-LU22 30.3 5.5 14 25.3 1.8 25.2 0.9

K08-LU24 15.2 7.3 12 10 2.7

K08-LU25 7.5 2.2 13 6 1.6

K08-LU26 15.2 2.5 12 11.7 0.3 12.4 0.9

K08-LU28 1.7 0.6 2

K08-LU31 10.8 5.7 12 7 2.8 6 0.4

Kamchatka River

K07-LU12 2.9 0.8 21 1.8 0.2 1.8 0.2

K07-LU13 3.6 0.5 21 3.2 0.4 3 0.1

K07-LU14 4.1 1.8 24 2.8 0.3 2.8 0.2

For three samples (KU07-Lu12, KU07-LU13, KU07-LU14), the arithmetic mean (Av) was used to calculate a maximum age

Bold-faced are the used paleodoses (Dp) for age determination

910 Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916

123

age calculation proceeded in the same way as in the case of

the Kamchatka Cape Peninsula. For the uppermost sample

(K07-LU12), the age of 3 ± 0.4 ka, for the middle sample

(K07-LU13) the age of 4.5 ± 0.6 ka and for the lower-

most sample (K07-LU14) the age of 5.5 ± 0.8 ka were

calculated.

Fig. 6 Outcrop of marine sediments. Horizons are displaced about 8 m along a reverse fault. Terrace sediments are deposited on a strongly

deformed Paleogene schist (Smaginskaya Formation) and are overlaid by younger fluvial sediments (Location in Fig. 4)

Table 3 Sample ages and

calculated uplift

(bold = maximum age,

calculated with arithmetic

mean)

Sample names Age (ka) ± Recent height

±0.5 m

Height at

sedimentation

(m. asl) ±2/±10 m

Uplift (mm year-1)

Block A

K08-LU11 12.1 0.8 31 -60 7.5 0.7

K08-LU12 26.7 5.8 31 -60 3.4 0.5

Block B

K07-LU25 7.8 2.1 25 28 4.2 0.8

K08-LU9 1.8 0.2 6 0 3.3 0.8

K08-LU13 34.2 9.5 24 280 3 0.4

K08-LU16 5.5 1.1 10 0 1.8 0.5

K08-LU17 2.6 0.3 10 0 3.9 1.7

K08-LU20 4.1 0.9 12 4 2 1.4

Block C

K07-LU20 111.8 10.5 66 -20 0.8 0.1

K07-LU21 27.4 2.3 40 -60 3.7 0.5

K08-LU22 24.7 2 40 -80 4.9 0.6

K08-LU24 7.8 2.1 25 -8 4.1 0.8

K08-LU25 4 0.3 20 4 4 1.5

K08-LU26 9.7 0.7 20 -35 5.7 1.6

K08-LU28 1.4 0.5 6 0 4.3 1.5

K08-LU31 11.8 4.7 18 -40 4.8 1.4

K08-LU32 9.5 0.5 18 -30 6.1 1.6

Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916 911

123

The ages led to the conclusion that the Kamchatka River

incised its river deposits for at least 3 ka. This observation

may point to the following:

1. The river was impounded by the slightly higher

sea level during the Holocene. After a subsequent

sea-level fall, the river started to incise into the river

deposits.

2. The incision of the river is caused by uplift of the

coastal cordillera of 210 cm within the last 3 ka

(0.7 mm year-1 uplift rate).

3. A combination of both processes may also have lead to

the incision.

Discussion and conclusion

In this paper, OSL dating was used to calculate uplift rates

from different, mainly Holocene, sediments. The major

challenge using this method was a very low amount of

quartz in the sediment. Twenty-two of 37 samples from

Kamchatka Cape Peninsula and three out of seven samples

from the Kamchatka River could be dated. To determine

the true depositional age dose, the paleodose (Dp), two

statistical methods were compared with each other. They

show an overlap within the range of their errors. Samples

from distinct locations could be used for uplift calculation;

it was not possible to measure complete cross sections or

complete profiles. Therefore, our results give a first idea on

uplift rates in the Aleutian–Kamchatka junction area that

are summarized in Fig. 10.

At least three morphotectonic blocks, interpreted also

within the remote sensing work, are shown to have dif-

ferent uplift rates calculated with the OSL data.

The northernmost Block A shows uplift rates between

3.4 ± 0.5 mm year-1 and 7.5 ± 0.7 mm year-1. The

higher uplift rate of 7.5 ± 0.7 mm year-1 might be the

result of a single and fast (coseismic?) event which caused

a displacement of the terrace of 8 m. The uplift rate on

Fig. 7 Profile ‘‘Cape Africa’’ gives a cross section through Holocene beach sediments, showing on major marine terrace step (b), bordered by

dunes from different generations (view to the north)

Fig. 8 Major Holocene marine and fluvial terraces on Block D, close

to Krutoberegovo (Position in Fig. 4). One major Holocene terrace

step is preserved. The area close to the recent beach is strongly

influenced by rivers and fluvial terraces (view to the southeast)

912 Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916

123

Block B is in between 1.8 ± 0.5 mm year-1 and 3.9 ± 1.7

mm year-1, so the mean is 3 ± 0.5 mm year-1. The

southernmost Block D shows slightly higher uplift rate

(3.7 ± 0.5–6.1 ± 1.6 mm year-1) than Block B—the mean

velocity is 4.3 ± 1 mm year-1.

The result from the ankle of the Kamchatka Cape Pen-

insula, near Krutoberegovo (0.8 ± 0.1 mm year-1), is

comparable with the results of the Kamchatka River.

Our remote sensing analysis although confirms former

studies (Freitag 2002; Kozhurin 2007; Baranov et al. 2011).

A complex system of active faults separates areas with

different morphotectonic activities. Freitag (2002) used

apatite fission track ages to calculate exhumation rates of

different morphotectonic blocks (Fig. 11). The highest rate

is assumed along the Pikezh fault. Whether this fault is

dextral or sinistral, as recently discussed by Kozhurin

(2007) and Baranov et al. (2011), is not answered by our

study. But we confirm that a strike-slip fault divides two

blocks with different rates of tectonic movement. South of

the Pikezh fault, a very high exhumation velocity

([1 mm year-1) was found. In the north portion of the

fault, the exhumation velocity is only 0.5 mm year-1, and

Fig. 9 SRTM 90 DEM map with sample locations along the Kamchatka River. The river crosses the Kumroch Range from west to east. The

river level is max 2 m above sea level. Small insert: sampling profile at the river bank

Fig. 10 Calculated uplift rates

(with errors) of interpreted

morphotectonic blocks. Small

graph shows single uplift per

sample. Results overlap in the

range of their error

Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916 913

123

further north, the velocity diminishes (0.2 mm year-1). It

seems that the central mountains of the peninsula have not

been affected by any vertical movement since Eocene time.

The comparison with the model after Freitag et al.

(2001) showed that the movement changed over the time.

The calculated exhumation in Freitag et al. (2001) is

between 0.2 mm year-1 (Block A) and 0.5 mm year-1.

The calculated uplift by OSL for Blocks B and D is

3 ± 0.5 and 4.3 ± 1 mm year-1, respectively. We con-

clude that during the Holocene, uplift increased along the

Kamchatka Cape Peninsula coastline. Freitag et al. (2001)

presents exhumation rates calculated with fission track

data, while our study presents uplift rate. After England

et al. (1990), exhumation rates are described as the dis-

placement of rock in reference to the earth surface and,

accordingly, the rate of erosion during tectonic processes—

averaged over several million years. In contrast, OSL

dating reveals surface uplift (England et al. 1990) where

the geoid is the reference. Therefore, in comparison of both

models, the sensitivity of both methods has to be respected.

The sensitivity in time is important—as tectonic movement

is not equal over the time—stress is built up over longer

time periods and released in short moments. Fission track

data mirror long-lasting tectonic processes, while OSL data

are more sensitive for short time.

Comparing our OSL study with fission track analysis

yields three results:

• The idea on morphotectonic blocks on Kamchatka

Cape Peninsula is consistent and revealed by different

methods.

• Uplift rate increases since mid-Holocene in comparison

with the former mean uplift rate since Cretaceous

times.

• Exhumation rates based on fission track dating show

that the Block A is moving slower than Block C. After

interpretation of the OSL data, the ratio is changing

since Late Pleistocene. This result is caused by a

probably coseismic event—leading to a high uplift rate

on one point (7.5 ± 0.7 mm year-1). This shows the

sensitivity of the method for single events.

This work presents the first geochronological research

on marine terraces using OSL dating on Kamchatka. We

used remote sensing to map marine terraces with digital

elevation models (DEM), mainly SRTM and ASTER data

in ArcGIS. With slope and curvature analyses, three to four

generations of marine terraces have been mapped. It is

evident that on the east coast of the Kamchatka Cape

Peninsula, marine terraces from the same generation are

uplifted on different levels resulting from different uplift

rates in four distinct morphotectonic blocks. The location

and borders of the northeastern blocks are congruent with

former interpretations (Freitag 2001, 2002).

Dating of sediments from the Kamchatka River shows

that the river has eroded its own deposits since 3.0 ± 0.4

ka. This might be the result of both regional uplift and

global sea-level change. If we assume the incision of the

river is caused in the uplift of the coastal cordillera what

would be 0.7 mm year-1 uplift rate, it would be compa-

rable with the result of uplift velocity of the angle of

Kamchatka Cape.

OSL analysis provides short-time uplift rates. Compared

with long-time uplift rates derived from fission track data,

the sensitivity of OSL method is much higher. Both

methods must be employed to understand and quantify

tectonic and neotectonic processes. It is clearly evident that

during the Holocene, a shift in tectonic activity influenced

the coastline in a much higher rate than the mean rate since

the Cretaceous.

Acknowledgments This work was generously funded by the Ger-

man Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Project KALMAR,

Grant No. 03G0640C). We thank especially Christian Dullo and his

Fig. 11 Comparison between uplift rates calculated by OSL dating

and exhumation rates from fission track analysis. Fission track data

show differential mean comprising 0.2 mm year-1 in the north up to

1.2 mm year-1 (Freitag et al. 2001). No apatite fission track data are

available for Block D

914 Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916

123

team from Geomar, Kiel, for supporting fieldwork and discussion,

Nikolay Seliverstov and Dmitry Savelyev from Institute of Volca-

nology and Seismology Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky for field work and

logistics, Jonas Kley from Institut fur Geowissenschaften, Friedrich-

Schiller University Jena, for discussion and support. Comments of

Matt Vaughan on refining the English and the constructive review of

Dmitriy Alexeiev improved the paper significantly.

References

Aitken MJ (1985) Thermoluminescence dating. Oxford University

Press, Oxford

Aitken MJ (1998) An introduction to optical dating. Oxford

University Press, Oxford

Alexeiev DV, Gaedicke CHR, Tsukanov NV, Freitag R (2006)

Collision of the Kronotskiy arc at the NE Eurasia margin and

structural evolution of the Kamchatka–Aleutian junction. Int J

Earth Sci 95:977–993

Anderson RS, Densmore AL, Ellis MA (1999) The generation and

degradation of marine terraces. Basin Res 11:7–19

Bakhteev MK, Morozov OA, Tikhomirova SR (1997) Structure of the

Eastern Kamchatka ophiolite-free collisional Suture-Grechishkin

thrust. Geotectonics 31:236–246

Baranov B, Gaedicke C, Freitag R, Dozorova KA (2011) Active fault

of the southeastern Kamchatka Peninsula and commander shear

zone. J Kraunts Earth Sci 15:100–117

Bard E, Hamelin B (1990) U–Th ages obtained by mass spectrometry

in corals from Barbados: sea level during the past 130,000 years.

Nature 346(6283):456–458

Bazhenov ML, Burtman VS, Krezhovskikh OA, Shapiro MN (1992)

Paleomagnetism of Paleogene rocks of the Central-East Kam-

chatka and Komandorsky Islands: tectonic implications. Tec-

tonophysics 201:157–173

Beniyamovsky VN, Fregatova NA, Spirina LV, Boyarinova ME,

Volobuieva VI, Gladenkov YuB, Tariverdieva TN (1992)

Zonation of the planctonic and benthonic foraminiferas in the

Paleogene of the Eastern Kamchatka. News USSR Acad Sci

Geol Ser 1:100–113 (in Russian)

Bindeman IN, Leonov VL, Izbekov PE, Ponomareva VV, Watts KE,

Shipley NK, Perepelov AB, Bazanova L, Jicha BR, Singere BS,

Schmitt AK, Portnyagin MV, Chen CH (2010) Large-volume

silicic volcanism in Kamchatka: Ar–Ar and U–Pb ages, isotopic,

and geochemical characteristics of major pre-Holocene caldera-

forming eruptions. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 189:57–80

Boyarinova ME, Vishnyakov NA, Korkin AG, Saveliev DP,

Markovskiy BA (ed.) (1999) State geological map of the russian

federation, scale 1:200,000. East Kamchatka series. Sheets O-58-

XXVI, XXXI, XXXII. Map and Explanatory note, Saint Petersburg

(in Russian)

Burbank D, Anderson R (2001) Tectonic Geomorphology. John

Wiley & Sons

Chappell J (1974) Geology of coral terraces Huon Peninsula, New

Guinea: a study of quaternary tectonic movements and sea-level

changes. GSAMB 85:553–570

Duller GAT (2008) Luminescence dating- guidelines on using

luminescence dating in archaeology. English Heritage, Swindon

England P, Molnar P (1990) Surface uplift, uplift of rocks, and

exhumation of rocks. Geology 19:1173–1177

Fedorchuk AV, Peive AA, Gul’ko NI, Savichev AT (1989) Petrochem-

ical types of basalts in ophiolites at the Kamchatka Mys peninsula

(Eastern Kamchatka). Geochemistry 12:1710–1717 (in Russian)

Fedotov SA, Masurenko YP Svyatlovsky AE (1991) On quaternary

and modern volcanism of Kamchatka. In: Active volcanoes of

Kamchatka. Vanyukova OM (publisher), Nauka, pp 12–15

Freitag R (2002) Inselbogenentwicklung im Kamchatka-Aleuten

Kreuzungsbereich. Dissertation, scientific technical report

STR02/09, GFZ Potsdam, p 138

Freitag R, Gaedicke C, Baranov B, Tsukanov N (2001) Collisional

processes at the junction of the Aleutian–Kamchatka arcs: new

evidence from fission track analysis and field observations. Terra

Nova 13:433–442

Fuchs M, Lang A (2001) OSL dating of coarse-grain fluvial quartz

using single-aliquot protocols on sediments from NE Pelopon-

nese, Greece. Quat Sci Rev 20:783–787

Gaedicke C, Baranov B, Seliverstov N, Alexeiev D, Tsukanov N, Freitag

R (2000) Structure of an active arc-continent collision area: the

Aleutian–Kamchatka junction. Tectonophysics 325:63–85

Geist EL, Scholl DW (1994) Large-scale deformation related to

the collision of the Aleutian Arc with Kamchatka. Tectonics

13(2):538–560

Gibb JG (1986) A New Zealand regional Holocene eustatic sealevel

curve and its application to determination of vertical tectonic

movements. A contribution to IGCP-Project 200. In: Harford BE

(ed) Recent crustal movements of the Pacific region. Royal

Society of New Zealand Bulletin 24:377–395

Konstantinovskaya E (2000) Geodynamics of the early eocene arc-

continent collision reconstructed from the Kamchatka orogenic

belt (NE Russia). Tectonophysics 325(1–2):87–105

Kozhurin A (2007) Activ Faulting in the Kamchatsky Peninsula,

Kamchatka–Aleutian Junktion. In: Eichelberger J, Gordeev E,

Izbekov P, Lees J (eds) Volcanism and subduction. The Kamchatka

region. American Geophys Union, Washington, pp 37–57

Kulig G (2005) ADELE—Auswertesoftware zur Altersbestimmung

mittels Lumineszenzverfahren unter spezieller Berucksichtigung

des Einflusses radioaktiver Ungleichgewichte in der 238U-

Zerfallsreihe. Unpublished Bachelor Thesis, Bergakademie

Freiberg, p 45

Lajoie K (1986) Coastal tectonics, active tectonics. National Acad-

emy Press, Washington, pp 95–124

Lallemant HGA, Oldow JS (2000) Active displacement partitioning

and arc-parallel extension of the Aleutian volcanic arc based on

global positioning system geodesy and kinematic analysis.

Geology 28:739–742

Lepper K, McKeever SWS (2002) An objective methodology for dose

distribution analysis. Radiat Prot Dosim 101:349–352

Levashova NM, Shapiro MN, Ben’yamovskii VN, Bazhenov M

(2000) Kinematics of the Kronotskii island arc (Kamchatka) from

paleomagnetic and geological data. Geotectonics 34:141–159 (in

Russian)

Mahaney WC (2002) Atlas of sand grain surface textures and

applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 273

Murray AS, Wintle AG (2000) Luminescence dating of quartz using

an improved single-aliquot regenerative-dose protocol. Radiat

Meas 32:57–73

Murray AS, Wintle AG (2003) The single aliquot regeneration dose

protocol: potential for improvements in reliability. Radiat Meas

32:377–381

Murray AS, Olley JM, Caitcheon GG (1995) Measurement of

equivalent doses in quartz from contemporary water-lain sedi-

ments using optically stimulated luminescence. Quat Sci Rev

14(4):365–371

Olley J, Caitcheon G, Roberts RG (1999) The origin of dose

distribution in fluvial sediments, and the prospect of dating

single grains from fluvial deposits using optically stimulated

luminescence. Radiat Meas 30:207–217

Ota Y, Yamaguchi M (2004) Holocene coastal uplift in the western

Pacific Rim in the context of late Quaternary uplift. Quat Int

120:105–117

Pinegina TK, Kravchunovskaya E, Lander EA, Kozhurin AI, Burzhua

J, Martin EM (2010) Holocene vertical motions coast of the

Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916 915

123

peninsula Kamchatsky (Kamchatka). J Kraunts Earth sci

15:101–118 (in Russian)

Siddall M, Chappell J, Potter EK (2006) Eustatic sea level during past

Interglacials. In: Sirocko F, Litt T, Claussen M, Sanchez-Goni

M-F (eds) The climate of past interglacials. Elsevier, Amsterdam

Shapiro MN (1995) The upper cretaceous Achaivayam-Valaginskiy

volcanic arc and kinematics of the North Pacific plates.

Geotectonics 29(1):52–64

Shapiro MN, Grechin VI, Rostovtseva YV (1997) Composition and

genesis of the psammitic rocks in the Paleocene and Eocene

Stolbovskaya group on the Kamchatka Cape Peninsula (Eastern

Kamchatka). Lithol Miner Deposits 5:518–529 (in Russian)

Shcherbinina EA (1997) Nannoplancton from the Paleogene rocks in

the eastern Kamchatka region. Stratigraphy Geol Correlation

5(2):60–70 (in Russian)

Soloviev AV, Shapiro MN, Garver DI, Lander AV (2004) Forming of

the East-Kamchatka accretionary wedge according to detrital

zircon fission-track data from terrigenous rocks. Geol Geophys

5(2):60–70 (in Russian)

Tsukanov NV (1991) Tectonic evolution of Kamchatka perioceanic

area in the late Mesocoic to early Cenocoic. Acad Sci USSR

Trans 462:104. (Russian)

Wilson K, Berryman K, Litchfild N, Little T (2006) A revision of

mid–late Holocene marine terrace distribution and chronology at

the Pakarae River mouth, North Island, New Zealand. New

Zealand J Geol Geophys 49:477–489

Zinkevich VP, Tsukanov NV (1993) Accretionary tectonics of

Kamchatka. Int Geol Rev 35:953–973

Zonenshain LP, Kuzmin MI, Naptov LM (1990) Geology of the

USSR: a plate-tectonic synthesis. AGU Geodyn Ser 21:109–120

916 Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2013) 102:903–916

123