Content uploaded by Kakhaber Koiava
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kakhaber Koiava on Nov 01, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
sa qa rT ve lo s mecn ierebaT a er ov nu li a ka demiis mo am be, t. 6, #2, 2012
BU LLE TIN OF TH E GE OR GI AN NATI ONAL A CA DE M Y OF SCI ENC ES , vol. 6,
no. 2, 2012
© 2012 Bul l. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci.
Palaeobiology
The Comparison of the Results of Palynological and
Microfaunistical Investigations of the Sarmatian
Deposits of Eastern Georgia
Irina Shatilova*, Lamara Maissuradze*, Irma Kokolashvili**,
Kakhaber Koiava†
* Georgian National Museum. L. Davitashvili Institute of Paleobiology, Tbilisi
** Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi
† A. Janelidze Institute of Geology, I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
(Presented by Academy Member Abesalom Vekua)
ABSTRACT. The results of palynological and microfaunistical investigations of the Sarmatian deposits
of Eastern Georgia are given. The similarity in dynamics of terrestrial and marine biocenosis is
established. © 2012 Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci.
Key words: Eastern Georgia, Sarmatian, flora, microfauna, stages of development.
Sarmatian deposits are widely distributed on the
territory of Eastern Georgia. By faunistical data they
ar e divided in to thr ee substages: Volhinian,
Bessarabian and Khersonian (Fig.1). In most cases
the Lower Sarmatian is conformably bedded on the
Konkian deposits and is represented by coastal-shal-
low and deep-sea sediments. The thickness of Lower
Sarmatian is 50-90 m in coastal regions and 250-350
m in the central part of the basin. The sections are
dated by micro-macr ofauna (Quenqueloculina,
Nonion, Elphidium, Porosononion, Donax, Mactra,
Ervilia) [1-3].
By data of Koiava [3], the thickness of Lower
Sarmatian deposits, poorness of fauna indicate the
existence of a large, shallow, brackish basin. North-
southward of this basin mountain ranges of latitudi-
nal direction were situated.
At the beginning of the Middle Sarmatian the
paleogeographical situation was unchanged. Only
the retreat of the sea northwards had taken place,
that found reflection in the transgressive bedding of
Middle Sarmatian deposits of the south wing of the
Kakhetian range. The deposits of Middle Sarmatian
mainly are represented by blue-grayish clays with
rich fauna. The thickness of the Middle Sarmatian is
changed from 100 to 1000 m [1,3].
In Kartli to the Upper Sarmatian belongs the thick
series of continental deposits of th e so-called
Natskhorian suite, whose thickness changes from
300 to 2500 m. This suite is widely distributed on
The Comparison of th e Results of Palynological and Microfaunistical Investigations of ... 139
Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 6, no. 2, 2012
slopes of Kartli depression, where it takes part in the
building of most anticline and syncline folds. In some
sections it is divided into two parts: lower - clayey -
sandstone and the upper built by the sandy clay
deposits [1].
In Kakheti the Upper Sarmatian is somewhat dif-
ferent. Here in north-eastern part of the region it is
represented by continental sediments of Eldarian
suite with tests of freshwater and terrestrial gastro-
pods. To the south-eastwards the character of de-
posits is changed and clays of the lower part of
Eldarian suite are replaced by marine deposits with
fauna of Mactra. The presence of the “marine se-
ries” in the area of the Iori river is confirmed by micro-
paleontological investigations of core material from
boreholes of Taribani and Eldari [4].
Until recently the knowledge about the Sarmatian
flora and vegetation was based on macrobotanical
remains from deposits of Lower and Middle substages
[5,6]. Palynologically Sarmatian deposits were not
studied. There was only one work devoted to study
of core material from boreholes of the central part of
Kartli depression [7]. In spite of poorness of paly-
noflora (28 forms) the assemblages of three stages of
Sarmatian were distinguished. Now we possess rich
palynological material [8-10] from outcrops on the
territory of Kartli (Aragvi, Nadarbazevi) and Kakheti
(Davidgareji, Gombori). In the composition of flora
about 200 forms belonging to 130 genera and 88 fami-
lies are determined. Besides, palynomorphs were
seen in deposits of the entire Sarmatian. So, the use
of palynological method broadens the outlook both
about the composition of flora and dynamics of the
vegetation cover. On the basis of this material a
palynological diagram was built, which reflects the
changes of percentage contents of separate groups
of plants, joined according to their ecological - cli-
matic requirements.
Fig. 1. Map of di stribu tion of Sarma tian deposit s of Eastern Georgia together with outcrops location (according to
Gudjabidze, 2003) .
140 Irina Shatilova, Lamara M aissuradze, ...
Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 6, no. 2, 2012
The analysis of the diagram allows to trace the
dynamics of vegetation directed mainly to the reduc-
tion of forests and the expansion of woodless areas.
These changes were connected with the decrease of
humidity. This process acquired the most distinct
character in Late Sarmatian, especially in Kartli. In
Kakheti (area of Gombori) it was not so drastic.
The changes in composition of pollen assem-
blages allow to distinguish 5 phases in dynamics of
vegetation, which are represented completely in
Aragvi section [9].
Phase I corresponds to the upper part of the Early
Sarmatian. It is represented in Aragvi and Nadarbazevi
sections and probably in Gombori. In this time on the
territory of Eastern Georgia the polydominant forest
predominated. In its composition were pine, ther-
mophilic conifers and leaf-bearing trees, among which
the subtropical plants and plants of warm-temperate
climate had an equal part. In comparison with the
following stretch of time the humidity was somewhat
lower, being indicated by high percentage contents
of pollen grains of pine and grasses.
Phase II corresponds to the lower part of the Mid-
dle Sarmatian and is represented in all outcrops stud-
ied. Most completely it is reflected by pollen assem-
blages of the Nadarbazevi section. In the II phase the
area of subtropical ferns and trees expanded notice-
ably, whose systematical composition was very rich.
The role of pine and xerophytes was decreased. The
II phase can be considered as climatic optimum, with
comparable high humidity.
Phase III, which in the sections of Aragvi and
Davidgareji corresponds to the middle part of the
Middle Sarmatian significantly differed from the pre-
vious one. The composition of thermophilic coni-
fers, leaf-bearing trees and ferns was impoverished;
the territory of their distribution was also reduced.
The role of pine and the area of xerophytic vegeta-
tion were increased. These changes were probably
connected with the process of xerophytisation, which
had oscillating character. This is confirmed by the
composition of the vegetation of the next phase.
Phase IV of development of flora and vegetation
was disting uished in the sect ions of Aragvi,
Nadarbazevi and Davidgareji, where it corresponds
to the uppermost part of the Middle Sarmatian. Dur-
ing this time the role of thermophilic trees rose again
but on the whole the flora was impoverished.
Phase V corresponds to the lower part of the Late
Sarmatian when, by the data of Buleishvili [1], on the
territory of Eastern Georgia continued to preserve
water basins. The sea divided into separate small
lakes, poorly connected with each other. Such sup-
position is confirmed by data of palynology. The
Upper Sarmatian deposits of the sections studied
contain a great enough number of palynomorphs,
whose accumulation was possible only in water con-
ditions. Phase V is characterized: by a sharp increase
of the role of xerophytes in the composition of veg-
etation; by reduction of leaf-bearing plants and coni-
fers, among which the pine predominated. We sup-
pose that the subtropical plants whose pollen grains
occur in palynological assembl ages of Upper
Sarmatian deposits were represented by shrub forms.
Disanthus cercidifolius Maxim. var. minor Shat. et
Mched. [11] can be cited as an example. The pollen
grains of this form are of much smaller sizes than
those of the species Disanthus cercidifolius Maxim.
Probably, it was a shrub that developed under the
influence of dry climate, unfavorable for this plant.
The Sarmatian deposits of Eastern Georgia were
studied by the micropaleontological method [2,3, 12,13].
In the lower part of Early Sarmatian the foraminiferal
assemblages are characterized by Quingueloculina,
Sinuloculina, Varidentella, Affinetrina, Nonion,
Elphidium, Porosononion and Ammonia. Bolivina,
Discorbis, Bulimina, Cibicides and Fissurina are rela-
tively rare. Their morphology does not differ notice-
ably from that displayed by their Middle Miocene an-
cestors. These forms are also characterized by small
sizes, and sometimes, transparent walls. The lower part
of Early Sarmatian is distinguished as the layers with
Varidentella reussi. They reflect the first phase of
development of foraminifera.
The Comparison of th e Results of Palynological and Microfaunistical Investigations of ... 141
Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 6, no. 2, 2012
Assemblages from the upper part of Early Sarma-
tian are characterized by reduced diversity because
of the disappear ance of Bolivina, Discorbis,
Cibicides. Nevertheless, a large number of genera
survived and adapted to the new environment. They
are characterized by strong intraspecific variability
and a potential for a speciation. The upper part of
Early Sarmatian is distinguished as the layers with
Elphidium aculeatum. They reflect the second phase
of development of Early Sarmatian foraminifera.
By the data on microfauna the Middle Sarmatian
is divided into three parts. The first is characterized
by foraminiferal assemblages very different from
those observed in the Early Sarmatian. The new gen-
er a, such a s Do gie l ina , Mea n dr oloculi na,
Sarmatiella, contributed a considerable number of
species. Foraminifers of these assemblages are char-
acterized by comparatively large sizes.
The richest assemblages of endemic foraminifera
characterize the second part of the Middle Sarmatian,
with the number of individuals and new species and
their size reaching the maximum.
The third part of the Middle Sarmatian is distin-
gu ished for a decr ea se in th e a bun da n ce of
foraminiferal genera, species and individuals. Be-
cause of the worsening of bionomic conditions only
very few representatives of most euryhaline families
survived: Elphidium, Porosononion, Ammonia and
very seldom Affinetrina and Varidentella. Among
them Porosononion is characterized by large size and
additional ornamentations on very coarse walls of
tests. The lower part of the Middle Sarmatian is iden-
tified as layers with Affinetrina voloshinovae; the
middle part - as layers with Porosononion aragvi-
ensis and the upper - as layers with Porosononion
hyalinum.
Some species of genera (Elphidium, Nonion,
Porosononion, Ammonia) of Middle Sarmatian as-
semblages also occur in Upper Sarmatian. These
forms show deformation, irregular cameras or imma-
ture shell development and are presented only in some
parts of the Late Sarmatian basin. The above-men-
tioned anomalies of shells point to the existence of
nonoptimal conditions for foraminifera.
The phase of development of flora and vegeta-
tion of Eastern Georgia during the Sarmatian were
Fig. 2. Compar ison of flora and microfauna development phases during the Sarmatian on the territory of East ern
Georgia.
142 Irina Shatilova, Lamara M aissuradze, ...
Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 6, no. 2, 2012
compared with those of foraminifera (Fig.2). In sec-
tions Nadarbazevi and Aragvi the I - floristic phase
corresponds to the deposits directly underlying the
Middle Sarmatian. On the basis of this we correlate it
with th e secon d phase of development of Early
Sarmatian foraminifera. The conditions of this time
were not optimal, either for flora, or for foraminifera.
In the development of flora and foraminifera dur-
ing the Middle Sarmatian three phases are distin-
guished but in terms of time they do not coincide
completely. The appearance of new taxa and increase
of test sizes served as the common sign of the first
and second phases of development of foraminifera.
In the second phase these phenomena were more
distinct, indicating the existence of optimal condi-
tions. We correlated both microfaunistic phases with
phase II of development of flora and vegetation,
which reflects the conditions of climatic optimum.
Phases III-IV, when the impoverishment of Mid-
dle Sarmatian flora took place, can be correlated with
the third phase of development of Middle Sarmatian
foraminifera. It was characterized by a decrease of
the number of genera, species and individuals.
The V - floristic phase, in our opinion, corresponds
to the lower part of the Upper Sarmatian. It was char-
acterized by sharp changes in the composition of
marine and terrstrial biocenoses and in the condi-
tions of their existence. Similar phenomena happened
also in other regions of Eastern Paratethys. The sec-
tions of Azerbaijan, South Ukraine, the Crimea and
some other regions of the Pre-Caucasus are charac-
teri zed only by eur yhal ine for ms: Ammonia,
Elphidium, Nonion indicate the brackish conditions
of Late Sarmatian basins [2].
The paleofloristic data also indicate changes of
environmental complex in Upper Sarmatian on the
territory of South-western Ukraine. Here began the
formation of steppes, which periodically gave way to
forest landscape [14]. The flora of South-eastern
Ukraine and of the south part of the Russian plain
was also impoverished. In the opinion of Ananova
[15] here in Late Sarmatian and Meotian began the
phase of “borealization~ of Miocene flora but the
main time of disappearance of most of thermophilous
and hygrophilous plants was the Middle Sarmatian.
Thus, the use of the palynological method allows
to trace the history of the flora, vegetation and cli-
mate of Eastern Georgia during the Sarmatian and
distinguish the phases of their development. The main
signs, used by us as the basis were: the reduction of
forest areas; the decrease of the part of hygrophilous
subtropical plants in the composition of the flora;
the expansion of woodless areas. The climate was
the main factor influencing the development of flora
and vegetation. Xerophytisation, which began in the
Middle Sarmatian, acquired a more drastic character
in the Late Sarmatian, when the predominance of
xerophytic vegetation began in the larger part of East-
ern Georgia.
The comparison of floristic phases with phases
of development of foraminifera revealed a definite
similarity in the dynamics of terrestrial and marine
biocenoses, connected, mainly with the deteriora-
tion of habitation conditions both for thermophilous
and hygrophilous plants and foraminifera. Probably,
the main reason was the changes in the paleogeogra-
phical situation. As a result of tectonical movements
on the boundary of the Middle and Late Sarmatian
the Transcaucasus depression transformed into dry
land with two great regions, divided by the Dzirulian
Block. On the West, in the Colchis refugium, the hu-
mid and warm climate, favorable for development of
subtropical flora was preserved. In the East began
the process of xerophytisation, connected with com-
mon phenomenon that took place beyond the bounda-
ries of the Caucasus. The decrease of sea and the
appear an ce of freshwater basins was fatal for
foraminifera, the main part of which became extinct
on the boundary of the Middle and Upper Sarmatian
nearly in the whole Eastern Paratethys.
The identified phases of development of flora and
foraminifera can be used for division of the Sarmatian
deposits of Eastern Georgia into small stratigraphic
units.
The Comparison of th e Results of Palynological and Microfaunistical Investigations of ... 143
Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 6, no. 2, 2012
paleobiologia
aRmosavleT saqarTvelos sarmatuli naleqebis
palinologiuri da mikrofaunisturi kvlevis
Sedegebis Sepirispireba
i. Satilova*, l. maisuraZe*, i. kokolaSvili**, k. qoiava†
* saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumi, l. daviTaSvilis paleobiologiis instituti, Tbilisi
** saqarTvelos teqnikuri universiteti, Tbilisi
†
i. javaxiSvilis sax. Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti, a. janeliZis geologiis instituti,
Tbilisi
(warmodgenilia akademiis wevris a. vekuas mier)
aRmosavleT saqarTvelos sarmatuli naleqebis palinologiuri meTodiT Seswavlam
SesaZlebeli gaxada Tvali gavadevnoT floris mcenareulobisa da klimatis cvalebado-
bis istorias da gamovyoT maTi ganviTarebis etapebi sarmatuli saukunis ganmavlobaSi.
etapebis dasadgenad ZiriTad kriteriumad gamoyenebulia mcenareulobis Semadgenloba-
Si tyis formaciebis da tenianobis moyvaruli saxeobebis raodenobis Semcireba, rac
utyeo sivrcis arealis gafarToebas iwvevda.
florisa da mcenareulobis ganviTarebaze gavlenis ZiriTad faqtorad iTvleba kli-
maturi pirobebi. dadginda, rom Suasarmatulis bolos iwyeba qserofitizaciis proce-
si, romelmac SedarebiT mkveTri xasiaTi miiRo gviansarmatulSi. am periodSi aRmosavleT
saqarTvelos teritoriis did farTobze qserofituli mcenareuloba gabatonda.
floristuli etapebis Sepirispirebam foraminiferebis ganviTarebis etapebTan gamo-
avlina garkveuli msgavseba xmeleTisa da zRvis biocenozebis dinamikaSi, gansakuTrebiT
garemos gauaresebis pirobebSi. cnobilia, rom Sua da zedasarmatulis sazRvarze ganvi-
Tarebulma orogeneturma procesebma Secvala paleogeografiuli garemo amierkavkasia-
Si. saqarTvelos teritoria Zirulis masiviT or did regionad gaiyo. dasavleTiT (kol-
xeTis refugiumi) SenarCunda Tbili da teniani hava, ramac ganapiroba subtropikuli
mcenareulobis gadarCena. aRmosavleTiT ki daiwyo qserofitizaciis procesi (romelmac
moicva kavkasiis CrdiloeTiT mdebare teritoriebi). zRvis farTobis Semcirebam da
calkeuli ganmarilianebuli daxSuli auzebis gaCenam damRupveli pirobebi Seuqmna fo-
raminiferebs, ramac Sua da zedasarmatulis sazRvarze foraminiferebis didi umravle-
sobis amowydoma gamoiwvia.
xmeleTisa da zRvis biocenozebis dadgenili etapebi SeiZleba gamoyenebuli iyos
aRmosavleT saqarTvelos sarmatuli naleqebis ufro detalur stratigrafiul erTe-
ulebad danawilebisaTvis.
144 Irina Shatilova, Lamara M aissuradze, ...
Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 6, no. 2, 2012
REFERENCES
1. Buleishvili, D. A. (1960). Geology and oil and gas content of the intermontane depression of Eastern Georgia.
"Gostoptekhizdat” Publ. H., Leningrad, 1-238 (in Russian).
2. Maissuradze, L., & Koiava, K. (2011). Biodiversity of Sarmatian Foraminifera of the Eastern Paratethys. Bulletin of
the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, 5(1), 143-151.
3. Koiava, K. (2006). The biostratigraphy of Sarmatian deposits of Eastern Georgia based on Foraminifera (Doctoral
dissertation, PhD Thesis, Alexandre Djanelidze Institute of Geology).
4. Maissuradze, L., & Koiava, K. (2006). New Data on Distribution of Sarmatian Foraminifera in the Sediments of
Kakheti. Georgian Oil and Gas, 19, 50-62 (in Georgian).
5. Uznadze, M. D. (1965). The Neogene Flora of Georgia. "Metsniereba” Publ. House, 1-193 (in Russian).
6. Chelidze, L.T. (1987). The Late Miocene flora and vegetation of Transcaucasus. ”Metsniereba” Publ.H., Tbilisi,
1-112. (in Russian).
7. Mchedlishvili, P.A., Mcheldishvili, N.D. (1953). The stages of development of Sarmatian flora in Eastern Georgia
by data of palynological analysis. Reports of Acad.Sci.USSR, Vol. XCI, 3, 621-623. (in Russian).
8. Kokolashvili, I., & Shatilova, I. (2009). The preliminary results of palynological investigations of lower Sarmatian
deposits of Kakheti. Proceedings of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, Biological series B, 7, 85-89.
9. Shatilova, I., Mchedlishvili, N., & Kokolashvili, I. (2010). Palynological investigations of Sarmatian deposits of
Mtskheta District (Kartli, Eastern Georgia). Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, 4(2), 165-171.
10. Shatilova, I., & Kokolashvili, I. (2011). The flora and vegetation of eastern Georgia in the Sarmatian. Proceedings
of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, Biological Series B, 9(1-4), 65-70.
11. Shatilova, I., & Mchedlishvili, N. (2011). The Genus Disanthus (Hamamelidaceae) from Sarmatian and Meotian
Deposits of Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, 5(1), 139-142.
12. Koiava, K. (2006). Biostratigraphy of Sarmatian Sediments of Mtskheta area according to Foraminifera. Georgian
Oil and Gas, 17, 38-43 (in Georgian).
13. Shatilova, I., Maissuradze, L., Koiava, K., Mchedlishvili, N., Rukhadze, L., Spezzaferri, S., & Strasser, A. (2009).
Bioevents on the territory of Georgia during the late Cenozoic as evidenced by foraminifers and palynomorphs.
Proceedings of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, Biological series B, (1-2), 90-109.
14. Shchekina, N. A. (1979). The history of flora and vegetation of south of European part of USSR. “Naukova
Dumka” Pub. H., Kiev, 1-197 (in Russian).
15. Ananova, E. N. (1974). The pollen in Neogene deposits of Southern Part of Russian Plain. Pub. H. of Leningrad
University, 1-196 (in Russian).
Received February, 2012
