Mesozoic extension in the Basque–Cantabrian basin (N Spain): Contributions from AMS and brittle mesostructures

In this work we analyse and check the results of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) by means of a comparison with palaeostress orientations obtained from the analysis of brittle mesostructures in the Cabuérniga Cretaceous basin, located in the western end of the Basque–Cantabrian basin, North Spain. The AMS data refer to 23 sites including Triassic red beds, Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous limestones, sandstones and shales. These deposits are weakly deformed, and represent the syn-rift sequence linked to basins formed during the Mesozoic and later inverted during the Pyrenean compression. The observed magnetic fabrics are typical of early stages of deformation, and show oblate, triaxial and prolate magnetic ellipsoids. The magnetic fabric seems to be related to a tectonic overprint of an original, compaction, sedimentary fabric. Most sites display a NE–SW magnetic lineation that is interpreted to represent the stretching direction of the Early Cretaceous extensional stage of the basin, without recording of the Tertiary compressional events, except for sites with compression-related cleavage.Brittle mesostructures include normal faults, calcite and quartz tension gashes and joints, related to the extensional stage. The results obtained from joints and tension gashes show a dominant N–S to NE–SW, and secondary NW–SE, extension direction. Paleostresses obtained from fault analysis (Right Dihedra and stress inversion methods) indicate NW–SE to E–W, and N–S extension direction. The results obtained from brittle mesostructures show a complex pattern resulting from the superposition of several tectonic processes during the Mesozoic, linked to the tectonic activity related to the opening of the Bay of Biscay during the Early Cretaceous. This work shows the potential in using AMS analysis in inverted basins to unravel its previous extensional history when the magnetic fabric is not expected to be modified by subsequent deformational events. Brittle mesostructure analysis seems to be more sensitive to far-field stress conditions and record longer time spans, whereas AMS records deformation on the near distance, during shorter intervals of time.