See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319674030

Estimation of the long-term slip, surface uplift and block rotation along the
northern strand of the North Anatolian Fault Zone: Inferences from
geomorphology of the Almacık Block

Article  in  Geomorphology · September 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.08.038

CITATIONS READS

7 829

2 authors:

Cengiz Yıldırım Okan Tuysuz

Istanbul Technical University Eurasia Institute of Earth Sciences
153 PUBLICATIONS   1,227 CITATIONS    209 PUBLICATIONS   6,120 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Petrological evolution and tectonic implications of the Late Cretaceous leucite-bearing basalts and lamprophyres of the Ankara-Erzincan suture belt, TUBITAK Project:
110Y088, 2010-2013 View project

Geology of Istanbul Zone View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Okan Tuysuz on 23 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geomorphology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph

Estimation of the long-term slip, surface uplift and block rotation along
the northern strand of the North Anatolian Fault Zone: Inferences from
geomorphology of the Almacık Block
Cengiz Yıldırım ⁎, Okan Tüysüz
İstanbul Technical University, Eurasia Institute of Earth Sciences, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Almacık Block is one of the key morphotectonic units in the eastern Marmara Region associated with the
Received 20 May 2016 long-term slip partitioning within the North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ). In this study, we provide new geomor-
Received in revised form 12 June 2017 phic reconstructions of offset drainage basins, morphometric analysis of topography, and longitudinal profiles of
Accepted 12 August 2017
the rivers crossing different flanks of the Almacık Block. Our geomorphic reconstructions of offset drainage basins
Available online 13 September 2017
along the Hendek and Karadere faults imply mean offsets of 2.3 ± 0.4 km and 8.4 ± 0.7 km, respectively, during
the Quaternary. Our dataset also imply that slip partitioning occurs in a broader zone than previously proposed,
and that the total 10.7 ± 0.6 km offset along the Hendek and Karadere faults of the northern strand must be taken
into account for long-term slip partitioning in the Eastern Marmara Region. Together with previously suggested
10 km offset along the southern strand (Yaltırak, 2002), 16 ± 1.0 km offset along the middle strand (Özalp et al.,
2013) and the 52 ± 1.0 km offset along the Mudurnu Segment of the northern strand (Akbayram et al., 2016) our
newly proposed geomorphic markers raise the cumulative offset in the eastern Marmara region associated with
the NAF to 89 ± 1.0 km since the Latest Pliocene – Quaternary. In addition to these lateral displacements, our
morphometric analysis and longitudinal profiles of the rivers imply up to 1130 ± 130 m surface uplift of the
Almacık Block as a combined result of vertical displacement within the deformation zone of the northern strand
of the NAFZ. Finally, by assuming that river basins act as passive deformation markers, our basin azimuth analyses
imply 20° ± 2° clockwise rotation of the Almacık Block associated with the NAFZ.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Tectonically active strike-slip fault systems including the
San Andreas, the Dead Sea, the Alpine, the Altyn Tagh and the North
Anatolian Fault Zones might be characterized by not only by lateral
but also vertical slip, which induces subsidence, uplift and/or rotation
of crustal blocks (Ketin, 1948; Ambraseys, 1969; Şengör, 1979, 1995;
Şengör et al., 1985, 2005; Bilham and King, 1989; Taymaz et al., 1991;
Barka, 1992; Barka and Kadinsky-Cade, 1988; Armijo et al., 1999,
2002; Cunningham et al., 2003, 2007; Cunningham, 2005; Cowgill
et al., 2004; Castelltort et al., 2012; Goren et al., 2015; Guerit et al.,
2016). These fault systems may create continental-scale tectonic
troughs juxtaposing different rock units, pronounced relief contrasts,
and deflected drainage systems. Positive push-up structures are intrigu-
ing geomorphic features in areas of undergoing active strike-slip
tectonics (Crowell, 1974; Dewey et al., 1998; Cunningham, 2007). Due
to their position between major strike-slip fault strands, these features
are often elongated or lens-shaped in plan view, and have pronounced
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cyildirim@itu.edu.tr (C. Yıldırım).
topographic relief with respect to adjacent areas. They may be con-
currently displaced, uplifted, and rotated to different degrees by on-
going activity of the different fault segments (Ron et al., 1984; Tatar
et al., 1995; Piper et al., 1997; Lamb, 2011; Rood et al., 2011; Fazzito
et al., 2013). Therefore they provide a unique environment to ex-
plore complex tectonic deformation at a local scale.
The Almacık Block is one of the most pronounced push-up structures
located between the major segments of northern strand of the North
Anatolian Fault (NAF) where it bifurcates in the eastern Marmara
Region. These strands delimit boundaries of the block that has been
right-laterally displaced, uplifted, and rotated as a consequence of
fault movement in the area since the latest Pliocene-Quaternary
(Emre et al., 1998; Ünay et al., 2001; Yaltırak, 2002).
Geologic affinities between the Almacık and Armutlu blocks allow
estimating long-term cumulative displacement along the northern
strand of the NAF. Nevertheless, the presence of beheaded and deflected
river channels upon the Hendek, Karadere and Almacık blocks help to
reconstruct offset drainage networks and allow estimating Pleistocene
displacements along the Hendek and Karadere segments of the
northern strand. The major geomorphic feature of this region is concor-
dant summit surfaces that are characterized by well preserved, perched
remnants of a low relief landscape and a well-developed drainage

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.08.038
0169-555X/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
56 C. Yıldırım, O. Tüysüz / Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68

network. Longitudinal profiles of drainage networks, allow estimating
surface uplift on the Almacık Block between to major strands of the NAF.
Here we present geomorphic reconstructions of offset drainage
basins, re-evaluation of geologic reconstructions, and morphometric
analyses of topography and stream channels on the Almacık Block.
Our data suggest that each fault within the northern strand must
be taken into account for long-term slip partitioning, and that the
bifurcation of the NAF caused differential surface uplift and vertical
axis rotation in the eastern Marmara Region.
2. Regional setting
The NAF is a c. 1200-km long strike-slip fault that accommodates
right-lateral motion of the Anatolian plate relative to the Eurasian
plate between eastern Anatolia and the northern Aegean Sea (Fig. 1A)
(Ketin, 1948, 1957; Şengör, 1979; Barka and Kadinsky-Cade, 1988;
Taymaz et al., 1991; Barka, 1992). The NAF is a relatively simple and
narrow structure along its eastern and central sections, however, it
bifurcates into several strands in the eastern Marmara region (Fig. 1B)
(McKenzie, 1972; Koçyiğit, 1988; Taymaz et al., 1991; Taymaz, 2001;
Barka, 1992; Bozkurt, 2001; Alpar and Yaltırak, 2002; Yaltırak, 2002;
Şengör et al., 2005, 2014; Hergert and Heidbach, 2010). These fault
strands are prominent and easily distinguishable based on the distinct
topography along the fault strands, seismic activity, and GPS-derived
slip rates (McClusky et al., 2000; Ayhan et al., 2001; Meade et al.,
2002; Reilinger et al., 2006; Kozacı et al., 2009) (Fig. 1B). The onset of
the deformation in the eastern Marmara Region associated with the
northern strand of the NAF is dated to the latest Pliocene-Quaternary
(between 3 and 2.5 Ma) (Emre et al., 1998; Ünay et al., 2001), based
on rodent fauna obtained from the oldest fault-related deposits in the
Adapazarı Basin, near west of the Almacık Block (Fig. 2).
The northern strand takes up the majority of the displacement and
forms the main trough of the NAF. It comprises a number of large-
scale segments and actively developing basins, including the Düzce,
Adapazarı, and İzmit basins and the Marmara Sea, and push-up struc-
tures including the Armutlu Block and the Almacık Block (Fig. 1B). The
middle strand bifurcates from the Mudurnu Valley southwest of the
Almacık Block (Fig. 1B) and includes a number of splay faults distributed
in a wedge-like geometry extending to the west along the southern
coast of the Marmara Sea (Fig. 1B). Nonetheless, the southern strand
is described as a splay that bifurcates from the middle strand in the
southern part of the Pamukova Basin toward Yenişehir Basin and farther
west. Recent right-lateral strike slip rates from block models of the geo-
detic velocity field associated with northern, middle, and southern
strands are 25.2 ± 2.0 mm/yr, 4.9 ± 2.0 mm/yr and 3.6 ± 2.0 mm/yr,
respectively (Meade et al., 2002).
The boundaries of the Almacık Block are delimited by active faults,
nearly all of which have ruptured over the past century, including
during the 1944 Bolu-Gerede, 1957 Abant, 1967 Mudurnu Valley,
1999 İzmit, and 1999 Düzce earthquakes (Fig. 2) (Barka, 1992; Kondo
et al., 2005, 2010; Duman et al., 2005; Pucci et al., 2007; Emre et al.,
2011; Seyitoğlu et al., 2015). The southern boundary of the block is
controlled by segments of the 1944 Bolu-Gerede, 1957 Abant, and
1967 Mudurnu Valley earthquake ruptures. The epicenters of the 1957
Abant and 1967 Mudurnu Valley earthquakes are located in the study
area, and focal mechanism solutions of the earthquakes reveal vertical
fault planes dipping slightly to the south with dextral fault kinematics
(Fig. 1B) (Canıtez and Üçer, 1967; Taymaz et al., 1991; Barka, 1992;
Bohnhoff et al., 2006), which are compatible with surface deformation
of the faults. The easternmost segment of the 1999 İzmit earthquake
rupture, the Karadere Fault, delimits the NW boundary of the block.
The focal mechanism solutions of the earthquakes related to the

Fig. 1. (A) Topography and geometry of the North Anatolian Fault (NAF). Inset box indicate limits of the lower panel, (B) Main strands of the NAF in the Eastern Marmara Region (adapted
from Barka, 1992; Armijo et al., 1999, 2002; Emre et al., 2011) and epicenter locations and focal mechanism solutions of the major earthquakes from Canıtez and Üçer (1967), Taymaz et al.
(1991), Barka (1992) and Harvard CMT. Numbers indicate slip rate and their one-sigma uncertainty estimates. The upper values with negative sign indicate right-lateral motion; the lower
values indicate fault-normal motion and negative values indicate opening (Meade et al., 2002).
 C. Yıldırım, O. Tüysüz / Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68
Fig. 2. Regional topography. Red lines indicate active faults after Emre et al. (2011). Black outlined white triangles indicate limits of the surface ruptures. Labels with capital letters indicate
major tectonic blocks. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Karadere Segment indicate moderately north-dipping (67°), oblique,
reverse fault kinematics (Bulut et al., 2007). The rest of the northern
flank of the block is defined by the Düzce Fault, which recently ruptured
during the 1999 Düzce earthquake. The epicenter of the 1999 Düzce
earthquake is located 8 km north of the fault, and the focal mechanism
solution of the earthquake (Harward CMT) indicates moderately north-
dipping (55°–66°), dextral fault kinematics with a small normal compo-
nent (Fig. 1B) (Bürgman et al., 2002). Data associated with the internal
deformation within the Almacık Block are very limited. Focal mecha-
nism solutions of microseismic events indicate mainly right lateral
internal deformation within block in contrary to the normal faulting in
the Düzce and Adapazarı basins (Bulut et al., 2007; Görgün et al.,
2010; Poyraz et al., 2015).
The eastern Marmara region is characterized by alluvial depressions
and steep mountain fronts (Fig. 1B). Depressions are east-west oriented
pull-apart basins developed between segments of the NAF. The moun-
tains are capped by flat-lying, low relief, perched erosional surfaces
that are deeply incised and dissected, unlike the Kocaeli Peneplain just
west of the Almacık Block. A river network that flows from south to
north toward the Black Sea drains the region. The Sakarya and Melen
rivers are major rivers traversing the east-west oriented mountains
and basins along the NAF (Fig. 1B).
Within this tectonic setting, the Almacık Block covers an area of
80 × 21 km, with a mean altitude of 981 m and maximum altitude
of 1830 m (Fig. 2). The main drainage divide is very close to the
southern boundary of the block. The four major rivers draining the
block are Aksu and Uğursuyu rivers in the north, the Abant River in
the east, and the Mudurnu River in the south (Fig. 2). These rivers
flow over complicated geological units within the Intra-Pontide
suture zone (Okay and Tüysüz, 1999). The block is mainly made up
of Precambrian ophiolites (Yigitbaş et al., 2008; Bozkurt et al.,
2008, 2013), metamorphic units of unknown age, and Late Cretaceous
flysch-type chaotic units imbricated with each other and unconform-
ably overlying Eocene volcanic and clastic rocks (Şenel, 2002). Şengör
et al. (1985) proposed 110° clockwise rotation of the block based on
modified strike of the ophiolitic mélange units located southeastern
flank of the Almacık Block. Paleomagnetic investigations were mostly
implemented on Eocene volcanic rocks within the Almacık Block.
Based on their paleomagnetic measurements Sarıbudak et al. (1990)
proposed 212° clockwise rotation of the block while İşseven et al.
(2009) proposed 26.7° ± 9.5° clockwise rotation of the block.
57
Because of strike-slip character of the NAF the Almacık Block has also
been right laterally displaced. Geological units on the Almacık Block are
correlated with the same geological units within the Armutlu Block in
the 50 km west. Herece and Akay (2003) suggested right lateral offset
between 33 and 66 km based on rock units having different age
and lithological properties. Recently, Akbayram et al. (2016) proposed
52 ± 1 km right lateral offset by using Cretaceous faults and Eocene
volcanic units. There are no younger units of Neogene or Quaternary
age on the block and they are generally distributed along the margins
of the block (Fig. 3).
3. Data and methods
3.1. Topography and geological maps
A 25 m resolution digital elevation map (DEM) of the Almacık Block
was generated from digitized 1:25,000 scale topographic maps. The
synthetic drainage network was extracted from these data using
standard hydrology tools in ESRI's ArcGIS to fill sinks and to calculate
flow directions and flow accumulations. The local topographic relief
map is produced by focal statistics in the neighborhood analyses
also in ESRI's ArcGIS. Using the stream profiler tool (available from
www.geomorphtools.org), we extracted longitudinal profiles, steepness
values, and concavity values of rivers within the synthetic network.
To assess the impacts of variable bedrock features on the longitudinal
profiles of rivers we examined geological contacts and formations from
the 1:100,000 scale geological atlas of the NAF published by Herece
and Akay (2003).
3.2. Lateral offset measurements
The cumulative offset of stream channels has already been
documented along the NAF (Erinç et al., 1961; Koçyiğit, 1988;
Barka, 1992; Hubert-Ferrari et al., 2002; Yaltırak, 2002; Şengör
et al., 2005). In this study, we propose new drainage offsets that
have not formerly been considered along the northern strand of the
fault zone. The right-lateral activity of the northern strand has offset sev-
eral rivers, resulting in beheaded drainage basins with upstream parts
located on the Hendek, Karadere, and Almacık blocks (Fig. 4A, B). To
measure lateral offsets we use drainage networks as linear geomorphic
markers. We identify pairs based on their channel size that are
58 C. Yıldırım, O. Tüysüz / Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68

Fig. 3. Geological map of the Almacık block and its nearby (compiled from Şenel, 2002 and Herece and Akay, 2003). Red lines indicate active faults after Emre et al. (2011). Labels with
capital letters indicate major tectonic blocks. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

comparable with the size of theirs contributing drainage areas. We
matched larger channels with basins having larger contributing
drainage areas. We painted pairs with same colors and illustrated
this reconstruction as a scaled cartoon (Fig. 4B). Until to have best-
fit geometry that may represent original position of the drainage
networks we moved them laterally. Hence we measured amount of
right lateral displacements along the Hendek and Karadere faults of
the northern strand. For the regional slip partitioning calculations
we used Akbayram et al. (2016) for the Mudurnu Segment of
the northern strand, Özalp et al. (2013) for the middle strand and
Yaltırak (2002) for the southern strand.
3.3. Local topographical relief and surface uplift estimations
In tectonically active areas, higher topographic relief tends to
correspond with active stream incision in response to higher surface
uplift rates (e.g., Bürgmann et al., 1994; Blythe et al., 2000; Molin
et al., 2004; Gomez et al., 2006; Wobus et al., 2006). Local topographic
relief analysis subtracts minimum elevations (valley bottoms) from
maximum elevations (ridge tops) and averages it over a given sampling
window to illustrate relief variations across the landscape (Stearns,
1967). We created a local topographical relief map by subtracting
minimum from maximum elevations averaged over a sampling window
of 2 km by using focal statistics tool in ArcGIS toolbox. The 2-km
sampling window was chosen because it is large enough to include at
least two major ridges and/or valleys along the major ranges within
the study area, and therefore shows the characteristic valley-to-ridge
relief pattern (Fig. 5). These analyses together with other topographic
derivatives such as elevation, slope and channel gradients allow us to
define limits high and low incision regions and hence limits of the
perched low relief landscapes. Perched low relief landscapes are rem-
nant surfaces that are characterized by high elevation, low relief, gentle
channel gradients and knickpoints separating upstream (Clark et al.,
2006). They are important because their reconstruction provides a ref-
erence datum to measure spatial distribution of vertical displacement
(surface uplift) among different crustal blocks (Yang et al., 2015). We
used low relief landscape on the Kocaeli Peneplain as a reference geo-
morphic datum since it is accepted as the most preserved pre-NAF
paleotopography (Yılmaz et al., 2009). It was much larger than today
and was covering whole eastern Marmara Region including the Almacık
Block during the Pliocene (Emre et al., 1998). The NAF fragmented the
Kocaeli Peneplain, remnants of which are situated as low relief perched
landscapes on different blocks in the Eastern Marmara Region.
3.4. Channel steepness and longitudinal profile of rivers
Typical graded longitudinal profiles of bedrock channels are
concave-up and smooth under steady tectonic and climatic conditions
 C. Yıldırım, O. Tüysüz / Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68 59

Fig. 4. (A) Offset pairs of channels along the Hendek and Karadere faults. See Fig. 2 for location of the figure. Red lines indicate active faults after Emre et al. (2011). (B) Retrodeformed
offset along the Hendek and Karadere faults. Note the match of the same colored drainage networks when slip is restored along the faults. (For interpretation of the references to color
in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

(Mackin, 1948; Hack, 1973; Whipple, 2001). Lithology, climate, sediment
flux, transient profile evolution, or non-uniform rock uplift across active
structures may give rise deviations from this equilibrium (Kirby and
Whipple, 2001; Wobus et al., 2006; Cyr et al., 2010). Transition from an
original (relict) to recent profile of the rivers marked by knickpoints im-
plies transient changing of the steady state character of the landscape as
a result of local and/or regional tectonic/climatic perturbations. When
erosion rates are relatively low (such as in areas where perched, relict
landscapes are preserved), and drainage basin area were not changed,
the elevation difference between the modern river at the outlet and the
projected level of the relict part of the river at the outlet reveals the
amount of surface uplift since faster uplift began (e.g., Kirby and
Whipple, 2012; Schildgen et al., 2012). In this framework, we calculated
steepness indexes along the drainage basins on the Almacık Block
60 C. Yıldırım, O. Tüysüz / Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68

Fig. 5. Local topographical relief map of the study area calculated over a circular 2-km radius-sampling window. Polygons with dashed line pattern indicate perched low relief landscape at
the top of the block. Bold blue lines indicate representative rivers in Fig. 6. Red lines indicate active faults after Emre et al. (2011). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

(Fig. 6). We generated a synthetic drainage network from digital elevation
model of the block and used standard hydrology tools in ESRI's ArcGIS to
calculate flow directions and flow accumulations. We extracted longitudi-
nal river profiles, concavity and steepness values of rivers by using stream
profiler tool (available from http://www.geomorphtools.org). Essentially,
steepness index is the slope of a channel that is normalized to its contri-
bution drainage area. The index provides a simple metric to compare
slopes in rivers of different size and to detect slope-breaks in longitudinal
channel profiles from a graded form. Under steady state conditions, the
slope of a channel decreases as a power-law function of contributing
drainage area (e.g. Hack, 1973; Flint, 1974; Howard and Kerby, 1983).
The local channel slope can be expressed as:
S ¼ ks A−θ
where S = local channel slope, or channel gradient, A = upstream drain-
age area, ks = channel steepness index and θ = channel concavity index.
The steepness index has been shown to correlate with rock uplift rate (U),
lithology, and climate (e.g. Merritts and Vincent, 1989; Whipple and
Tucker, 1999; Snyder et al., 2000; Kirby and Whipple, 2001; Wobus
et al., 2003; Kirby et al., 2003; Duvall et al., 2004; Wobus et al., 2006).
The steepness index is typically calculated using a reference concavity
(θref), because concavity tends to vary little across different landscapes
(Snyder et al., 2000; Wobus et al., 2003, 2006). In this study we used
θref = 0.45, a value used in many other active tectonic settings (Wobus
et al., 2003, 2006). The steepness index and concavity are measured
directly by linear regression analysis of channels from log-log plots of
drainage area (A) and slope (S) (Montgomery, 1994; Snyder et al.,
2000; Kirby et al., 2003; Wobus et al., 2006). To project paleo-
ð1Þ longitudinal profiles of the four representative rivers we found best-fit

Fig. 6. Active faults and channel steepness index values for major rivers and their tributaries larger than 5 km2 overlain on shaded relief. Brown polygons indicate outline of low steepness
area and perched low relief top surfaces. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
 C. Yıldırım, O. Tüysüz / Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68 61

Fig. 7. Longitudinal profiles of the representative rivers discharged from perched low relief landscape at the top of the Almacık Block. Concepts are from Kirby and Whipple (2012).
See Fig. 5 for locations of the rivers. Please note that horizontal scale of the River 1 is different than other rivers.
62 C. Yıldırım, O. Tüysüz / Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68

concavity (θ) and steepness index value of the each channel from
Eq. (1) to define slope-area relationship for the projections, then deter-
mined paleo-longitudinal river profiles (Fig. 7). We focused on the up-
stream reaches that are located on the highest elevated knickpoints
and projected their channel gradients toward downstream along their
longitudinal profiles. This projected profile correspond former steady
state longitudinal profile, and elevation difference between former
and current longitudinal profiles of the river represents amount of
surface uplift (Kirby and Whipple, 2012). We calculated amount of
surface uplift by applying this method to four major bedrock rivers
that are representative of different parts of the block to assess the
pattern of the incision as a proxy of the surface uplift.
3.5. Basin azimuth (BA)
Drainage basins' azimuths were used to define basin orientation and
hence the amount of block rotation (Ramsey et al., 2007; Castelltort
et al., 2012; Goren et al., 2015, Guerit et al., 2016). Basin azimuth (BA)
is a measure in clockwise degree of a projected midline between
the top and outlet along the main channel of a basin. Examples
from Taiwan (Ramsey et al., 2007), and numerical modeling from
New Zealand (Castelltort et al., 2012) and Lebanon (Goren et al.,
2015), and analog modeling (Guerit et al., 2016) reveal that drainage
basins are rotating when they are located within strike-slip deformation
zones. They initially develop perpendicular to orientation of the defor-
mation zone and progressively rotate along with ongoing deformation
(Castelltort et al., 2012; Goren et al., 2015). In this case clockwise rota-
tions with respect to initial perpendicular orientation indicate dextral
and counterclockwise rotations due to sinisterly deformation. Based
on this concepts we use general orientation of the deformation zone
(which is east to west) as reference frame and basin midlines as objects.
Since basins have simpler geometry indicating no stream piracy and/or
structural control that may change basin geometry and orientation, we
focused on the southern slopes of the Almacık Block drained by the
Mudurnu Valley. We measured azimuths of the drainage basins along
the northern (Fig. 8B) and the southern slopes (Fig. 8C) of the Mudurnu
Valley. The northern slopes are on the Almacık Block but the southern
slopes are not. Hence we can compare orientation of basin midlines
from outside of the Almacık Block to control if rotation of basins only
occur on the Almacık Block or it is a regional phenomenon. Firstly, we
drew perpendicular lines between the southern strand and drainage
divides (Fig. 7). We employed same method also along the southern
slopes of the Mudurnu Valley. We accepted that these perpendicular
lines to the deformation zone represent initial geometry of the basins
as it is observed in New Zealand (Castelltort et al., 2012) and Lebanon
(Goren et al., 2015). If basins rotate orientation of midlines must deviate
from to perpendicular lines between the southern strand and drainage
divide. We use rose diagrams of the basin azimuths to display the

Fig. 8. (A) Drainage basins for which we employed basin azimuth analysis. Dashed black line indicate drainage divide and red lines indicate active faults after Emre et al. (2011).(B) Rose
diagram of the basin azimuth analysis including only drainage basins on the northern slopes (Almacık Block) of the Mudurnu Valley (C) Rose diagram of the basin azimuth analysis
including only drainage basins on the southern slopes of the Mudurnu Valley. (D) Geometrical calculation (tangent) when we consider width of the Almacık Block and offset along the
northern flank of the block. It agrees well with the basin azimuth analysis of the Mudurnu Valley north. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
 C. Yıldırım, O. Tüysüz / Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68
frequency of drainage basin orientations either northern slope or
southern slope of the Mudurnu Valley to compare response of drainage
basins inside and outside of the Almacık Block (Fig. 8D) and accept that
basins are rotated if their orientation deviate from perpendicular lines.
4. Results
The geomorphic reconstructions and morphometric analyses
that we performed on the Almacık Block provide insights into long-
term right - lateral slip, surface uplift, and rotation along the NAF in
the Eastern Marmara Region.
4.1. Lateral offset estimations
Our lateral offset estimations rely on reconstruction of the offset
drainage network pairs along the Hendek and Karadere faults.
Accordingly, it yields 2.3 ± 0.4 km right lateral offset along the
Hendek Fault (Fig. 4B) and 8.4 ± 0.7 km right lateral offset along the
Karadere Fault (Fig. 4B). These values imply additional 10.7 ± 0.6 km
slip partitioning in the Eastern Marmara Region.
4.2. Local topographic relief and depth of erosion
The local topographical relief map demonstrates distinct low- and
high-relief areas on the Almacık Block (Fig. 5). The low relief areas are
mainly located at the top of the block. They are distributed between
1200 and 1400 m. Their surface areas are very narrow in the west
compared with those in the east. They are fragmented and dissected
by the upstream reaches of streams, especially along the southern
flank of the block. Nonetheless, high relief areas shown by reddish
colors are distributed along the down- and midstream-reaches of the
streams, particularly along the northern and southern flanks, indicating
up to 969 ± 186 m of relief and/or depth of erosion between the valley
bottom and ridge tops across the block (Fig. 5).
4.3. Channel steepness and longitudinal river profiles and surface uplift
Our channel steepness analysis displays low steepness (blue colored
lines) that refers low channel gradients at the upstream part of the
major drainage basins especially within the northern catchment of the
block (Fig. 6). Their spatial distribution is closely related to fragments
of the low-relief top surfaces that are representative of perched paleo-
erosional surfaces (Figs. 5, 6). Perched paleo-erosional surfaces are
defined as high-elevated, low relief erosional surfaces with low
channel steepness indices separated from high channel steepness
with knickpoints at the summits of the highs or mountain ranges
(Clark et al., 2006). In general, channel steepness is very high
(N120, red colored lines) at the mid- and downstream reaches of the
rivers that drain to the northern, western and southern catchments on
the block (Fig. 6). We selected four representative rivers sourced from
low relief, perched surfaces along the western, northern, and southern
sectors of the Almacık Block (Fig. 5). We estimated surface uplift by
using elevation difference between their projected former steady state
and current longitudinal profiles (Fig. 7). Accordingly, we calculated
surface uplift as 1020 ± 70 m from River 1, 900 ± 67 m from River 2,
980 ± 66 m from River 3 and 1130 ± 130 m from River 4 (Fig. 7). Errors
are given at the 1-sigma level (e.g. standard deviation). Although
surface uplift values are slightly different when we consider errors at
2-sigma level the results would largely overlap each other. We believe
that these results indicate a 1008 ± 83 m mean surface uplift of
the Almacık Block, which is compatible with the 969 ± 186 m local
topographic analysis indicating fluvial incision.
63
4.4. Basin azimuth (BA) and degree of block rotation
To define the degree of block rotation, we delineated midlines be-
tween the outlet and top of the drainage basins (Fig. 8A), and measured
azimuths of the drainage basins along the northern (the Almacık Block)
(Fig. 8B) and the southern slopes (Fig. 8C) of the Mudurnu Valley. The
rose diagram of the northern slope basins (within the Almacık Block)
reveal a predominant direction of 20° ± 2° (NE-SW orientation)
(Fig. 8C), albeit that the southern slope basins reveal a prominent direc-
tion of 325°–360° (NNW-SSE orientation) (Fig. 8D). As the Almacık
Block is delimited by both the northern and southern strands of
the NAF it represents deformation zone, we believe that the 20° ± 2°
NE-SW orientation of the drainage basins on the Almacık Block indicate
the degree of the block rotation since the initiation of the NAF in
the region.
5. Discussion
5.1. Long-term slip-partitioning between major strands of the NAF
The long-term, cumulative offset of the NAF and partitioning of slip
among its major strands have long been debated based on different geo-
logic, structural, and geomorphic markers. Realistic estimates of the
total amount of offset vary between 25 km (Barka and Hancock, 1984)
and 85 km (Tokay, 1973; Seymen, 1975; Şengör, 1979; Şengör et al.,
1985; Dewey et al., 1989; Yaltırak, 2002; Hubert-Ferrari et al., 2002;
Herece and Akay, 2003) since Pliocene (3 Ma) to Tortonian (11 Ma)
times, but the generally accepted value is around 85 ± 10 km. Never-
theless, in the eastern Marmara region (where the Almacık Block is lo-
cated), offset values vary widely due to bifurcation and partitioning of
strain among different strands of the NAF. None of the previous estima-
tions considered contribution of the Hendek and Karadere faults despite
the fact that theirs evident tectonic geomorphology and intense
earthquake activity.
Our dataset implies that slip partitioning occurs in a broader zone
(32 km) that previously proposed (20 km, Herece and Akay, 2003).
These faults contribute additional 2.3 ± 0.4 km and 8.4 ± 0.7 km of
offsets, respectively (Fig. 9). Since offset estimations from the Mudurnu
Segment of the northern strand and middle and southern strands
have already been proposed we grab those estimations to calculate
cumulative slip along the fault zone. Accordingly, Yaltırak (2002)
proposed 10 km right lateral offset for the southern strand, Özalp et al.
(2013) proposed 16 ± 1 km for the middle strand and Akbayram
et al. (2016) proposed minimum 52 ± 1 km for the northern strand.
In fact geomorphic reconstructions usually underestimate this kind of
long term offset calculations. Therefore it is probable that they might
be a bit longer. When we consider all these estimations together with
our results, we propose 89 ± 1.0 km slip of the NAFZ in the Eastern
Marmara Region. As segments of the most seismically active northern
strand of the NAFZ it is interesting to see relatively less long-term
slip along these faults. We believe that this situation might indicate
that Hendek and Karadere faults are younger structures within the
deformation zone with respect to Mudurnu Segment.
5.2. Differential surface uplift
Our surface uplift estimates are based on elevation difference
between low relief landscapes atop the Almacık Block and the Kocaeli
Peneplain besides elevation difference between former steady state
and current transient longitudinal profiles of the major rivers on the
Almacık Block. The most preserved part of low relief landscape in the
Marmara Region is the Kocaeli Peneplain (Fig. 9) (Pamir, 1938). This
peneplain is a key regional geomorphic marker because of its cross-
cutting relationship with the NAF. The peneplain truncates any rocks
older than Pliocene (Pamir, 1938), which defines pre-NAF topography
in the eastern Marmara region (Pamir, 1938; Emre et al., 1998; Sakınç
64 C. Yıldırım, O. Tüysüz / Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68

Fig. 9. Main strands of the NAF in the Eastern Marmara Region (compiled from Barka, 1992; Armijo et al., 1999, 2002; Yaltırak, 2002; Emre et al., 2011) and right-lateral geomorphic and
geologic offsets along the major strands of the NAF between A and E from this study, F and F′ from Akbayram et al., 2016, G-G′ is from Özalp et al. (2013) but also Koçyiğit (1988), Yaltırak
(2002), Şengör et al. (2005) proposed different estimations and, H-H′ is from Yaltırak (2002). Colored polygons and stars denote displaced geological units from Herece and Akay (2003)
and Akbayram et al. (2016) (see Fig. 3 for color codes of geological units).

et al., 1999; Yılmaz et al., 2009). We used this surface as paleo-
topographic datum to estimate surface uplift on the Almacık Block.
The mean elevation of the surface is 100–150 m (Yılmaz et al., 2009),
which is about 1000–1300 m lower than its fragments on the Almacık
Block. The local topographic relief map illustrates remnants of this relict
landscape between 1200 and 1500 m at the top of the block (Fig. 5) with
up to 969 ± 186 m of local relief produced through fluvial incision as
response to uplift. Although we cannot constrain directly age of this
perched landscape on the Almacık Block, its geological affinity with
Armutlu Block help us to constrain age of this surface. From Figs. 1b
and 9 it is evident that there is a topographical discordance between
the Kocaeli Peneplain and the Armutlu Block. The Armutlu Block is
much higher than the Kocaeli Peneplain, despite the fact that short
distance between them. Nevertheless, the age of gently inclined top
surface of the Armutlu Block is also Late Pliocene. It truncates Upper
Miocene – Lower Pliocene limestone sequences (Yılmaz et al., 2009).
Therefore it is very reasonable to imagine these two same aged surfaces
were parts of a single peneplain surface when you retrodeform the İzmit
Bay, which is directly result of the NAF deformation. In accordance with
Emre et al. (1998) and Yılmaz et al. (2009) we suggest that the Armutlu
Block is an uplifted part of the Kocaeli Peneplain. Since the Almacık
Block was a part of the Armutlu Block (when we consider 52 ± 1 km
geological offset) the top surface on the Almacık Block had also been
part of that peneplain. The presence of dissected fragments of an
erosional surface atop the Almacık Block must be fragments of the
Kocaeli Peneplain too. Additionally, projections of the longitudinal pro-
files of the streams draining from this perched landscape on the Almacık
Block reveal 1008 ± 80 m incision as a result of total uplift of the block
(Fig. 7). This result corroborates with our surface uplift estimation
derived from elevation difference (1100 − 1300) between perched
landscapes on the Almacık Block and the Kocaeli Peneplain. On the
other hand, the presence of several knickpoints along the longitudinal
profiles of the representative rivers (Fig. 7) reveal an episodic surface
uplift history for the Almacık Block. Unfortunately there are no datable
geomorphic or sedimentological markers to quantify timing of these
multiple uplift phases.
5.3. Differential block rotation
Rotation of crustal blocks along their vertical axes is a common
phenomenon in strike-slip fault systems (McKenzie and Jackson,
1983; Şengör et al., 1985; Nicholson and Seeber, 1989). This type of
deformation is commonly determined by using structural and paleo-
magnetic properties of rocks (Ron et al., 1984; Garfunkel, 1989;
Schreurs, 1994; Piper et al., 1997; Armijo et al., 1999; İşseven and
Tüysüz, 2006). In this study, unlike previous methods, we applied a
geomorphic approach to define degree of the rotation based on the
response of river basins to the block rotation.
The geomorphically revealed clockwise rotation is also compatible
with structural, geodetical and paleomagnetic studies in the Almacık
Block (Şengör et al., 1985; Sarıbudak et al., 1990; Armijo et al., 1999;
Ayhan et al., 2002; İşseven et al., 2009; Hisarlı et al., 2011). The available
paleomagnetic data indicate clockwise block rotations throughout the
NAFZ (Piper et al., 1997; Tatar et al., 1995; Piper et al., 2010; Avşar
and İşseven, 2009). Structural (Şengör et al., 1985), paleomagnetic
(Sarıbudak et al., 1990 and İşseven et al., 2009) geodetical data
(Ayhan et al., 2002) also indicate vertical axis clockwise rotation of
the Almacık Block. Şengör et al. (1985) proposed 110° clockwise
 C. Yıldırım, O. Tüysüz / Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68
rotation of the block based on rotation of ophiolites located at
the southern flank of the Almacık Block. Sarıbudak et al. (1990) proposed
212° however İşseven et al. (2009) proposed 26.7° ± 9.5° clockwise
rotation based on paleomagnetic measurements from Eocene volcanic
rocks. Apart from structural and paleomagnetic estimations Ayhan
et al. (2002) proposed 10° clockwise rotation for the last 1 Ma based
on geodetic data. On the other hand Armijo et al. (1999) proposed 10°
counterclockwise rotation based on reconstructed contacts between off-
set geological units on the Almacık and Armutlu blocks and Hisarlı et al.
(2011) also proposed 22.3° ± 7.8° counterclockwise tectonic rotations
based on paleomagnetic measurements from the same Eocene volcanic
rocks as those studied by İşseven et al. (2009) within the Almacık
Block. The possible explanations associated with different paleomagnetic
measurements could be local tectonic effects, chemical magnetizations
due to hydrothermal activities, or impacts of stress on magnetization
and rotation of small blocks within the Almacık Block (Hisarlı et al.,
2011). Since paleomagnetic samples were taken only from the Eocene
volcanic units in the western part of the block, their results may not
be representative for the entire block. In addition, the presence of a
very large time span between Eocene and onset of the NAF in the region
(3–2.5 Ma) may indicate effects of pre-NAF deformations in the block
rotation estimations.
Nevertheless, our dataset is based on drainage basins. As we ex-
plained in section 3.5 drainage networks initially develop perpendicular
to orientation of the deformation zone and progressively rotate along
Fig. 10. A conceptual model for the Almacık Block, which demonstrates fragmentation of the Kocaeli Peneplain and development of the Almacık Block and Düzce Basin between middle and
northern strands of the NAF.
65
with ongoing deformation (Castelltort et al., 2012; Goren et al., 2015).
Orientation of the deformation zone is east-west along the Almacık
Block and initial development of the drainage network is north-south.
For the Mudurnu Valley, where we applied basin azimuth analysis,
it is evident that drainage networks are roughly perpendicular to
east-west orientation of the deformation zone. Based on deviation of
drainage networks from their initial perpendicular geometry our basin
azimuth results indicate that the drainage networks has undergone
about 20° ± 2° of clockwise rotation (Fig. 8). We assume that rotation
commenced when Karadere and Düzce faults started their activity
along the northern flank of the block and the Düzce Fault has same
amount of right lateral displacement (8.4 ± 0.7-km) as the Karadere
Fault. When we consider the width of the Almacık Block (21 km) and
offset of the northern flank (8.4 ± 0.4 km) their tangent angle yields
22° clockwise rotation of the Almacık Block (Fig. 8D). This geometrical
calculation fits pretty well with the basin azimuth results we obtained
from the orientation of the basins located northern slopes of the
Mudurnu Valley. This amount of rotation is within the bounds of the
26.7° ± 9.5° clockwise rotation that was obtained by paleomagnetic
measurements by İşseven et al. (2009). In fact, estimation of 20° ± 2°
clockwise rotation indicates 7–9° clockwise rotation of the block per
1 Ma that is consisted with 10° clockwise rotation estimation per 1 Ma
of the Ayhan et al. (2002) that means 25° to 30° clockwise rotation
when we consider onset of the NAF deformation in the Eastern
Marmara between 3 and 2.5 Ma.
66 C. Yıldırım, O. Tüysüz / Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68
5.4. A conceptual morphotectonic model of the Almacık Block
Our geomorphic reconstructions and analyses, together with provid-
ed geological reconstructions (Akbayram et al., 2016), allow us to
propose a conceptual morphotectonic model associated with the evolu-
tion of the Almacık Block (Fig. 10). Because the block is located in to the
deformation zone of the northern strand, its evolution should be direct-
ly related to deformation along the NAFZ. We believe that the Kocaeli
Peneplain was broader than today and its low relief characterized the
pre-NAF topography across the entire eastern Marmara region
(Yılmaz et al., 2009). The presence of Upper Miocene to Lower Pliocene
lacustrine units beneath the denudation surface indicates the end of
Early Pliocene and/or Late Pliocene as the age of the Kocaeli Peneplain
(Pamir, 1938; Yılmaz et al., 2009). Rivers that flowed to the Black Sea
were draining this surface during the Late Miocene-Early Pliocene
(Fig. 10a) time. Onset of deformation of the NAF primarily started dur-
ing the Late Pliocene in the Mudurnu Valley, south of the Almacık
Block (Fig. 10b). The Almacık Block itself, however, has taken its current
form starting from development of the Karadere and Düzce faults along
its northern flank during the Late Pliocene-Early Pleistocene (Fig. 10c).
Movement along the Mudurnu Valley decoupled the Almacık Block
from Armutlu Block and juxtaposed different rock units along the
southern flank (Mudurnu Valley). In the northern part of the Almacık
Block the releasing step-over between Düzce and Hendek faults formed
the Düzce pull-apart basin during the Early-Middle Pleistocene within
the Kocaeli Peneplain (Fig. 10d). Nonetheless, the Karadere Fault juts
into the Düzce Basin from the west between Düzce and Hendek
faults and change the plan view of the basin starting from Middle-Late
Pleistocene (Fig. 10e). Hence, the Kocaeli Peneplain was fragmented,
with its perched fragments preserved atop the faulted blocks. Neverthe-
less, the elevation of the various fragments defines the differential surface
uplift across Eastern Marmara Region. While lateral displacements occur,
the 1008 ± 83 m mean surface uplift and 20° ± 2° vertical rotation of the
block appears to be the combined result of movements along the
northern strand. These gave rise to incision and clockwise rotations of
the drainage basins across the Almacık Block.
6. Conclusions
Our dataset implies that slip partitioning in the Marmara region
occurs in a zone broader than previously proposed, and that offsets
along the Hendek and Karadere faults of the northern strand must
be taken into account in calculations of cumulative movement.
These two faults contribute mean additional offsets of 2.3 ± 0.4 km
and 8.4 ± 0.7 km, respectively. Together with previously suggested
10 km offset along the southern strand (Yaltırak, 2002), 16 ± 1.0 km
offset along the middle strand (Özalp et al., 2013) and the 52 ± 1.0 km
offset along the Mudurnu Segment of the northern strand (Akbayram
et al., 2016) our newly proposed geomorphic markers raise the
cumulative offset in the eastern Marmara region associated with the
NAF to 89 ± 1.0 km since the Latest Pliocene - Quaternary. Our surface
uplift estimations are based on incision of low relief, perched landscape,
and reveal 1008 ± 83 m of mean incision because of total uplift of the
block. Our basin azimuth results reveal that fluvial systems are also sen-
sitive to block rotation, and that Almacık Block has rotated 20° ± 2°
clockwise since the Karadere and Düzce segments of the northern strand
initiated in the latest Pliocene to Quaternary.
Acknowledgments
This study is partly supported by the General Directorate of Mineral
Research and Exploration of Turkey (MTA Project No: 2008-30-14.02-
a). Authors would like to thank Ali Kemal Işıker and Necati Tarhan, for
their support, to Nurettin Kaymakçı, Ömer Emre and Tamer Duman
for discussions on the regional tectonics and to Taylor F. Schildgen for
revising text of the manuscript. Andy Plater, David Cornwell and an
anonymous reviewer provided constructive comments that significant-
ly improved the manuscript.
References
Akbayram, K., Sorlien, C.C., Okay, A.I., 2016. Evidence for a minimum 52 ± 1 km of total
offset along the northern branch of the North Anatolian Fault in northwest Turkey.
Tectonophysics 668–669, 35–41.
Alpar, B., Yaltırak, C., 2002. Characteristic features of the North Anatolian Fault in the
eastern Marmara region and its tectonic evolution. Mar. Geol. 190, 329–350.
Ambraseys, N.N., 1969. Some characteristic features of the North Anatolian Fault Zone.
Tectonophysics 9, 143–165.
Armijo, R., Meyer, B., Hubert-Ferrari, A., Barka, A., 1999. Westward propagation of North
Anatolian Fault into the Northern Aegean: timing and kinematics. Geology 27,
267–270.
Armijo, R., Meyer, B., Navarro, S., King, G., 2002. Slip partitioning in the Sea of Marmara
pullapart: a clue to propagation processes of the North Anatolian Fault. Terra Nova
14, 80–86.
Avşar, U., İşseven, T., 2009. Regional clockwise rotation of the Armutlu Peninsula, Western
Turkey, resolved from palaeomagnetic study of Eocene volcanics. Tectonophysics 475
(3–4), 415–422.
Ayhan, M.E., Bürgmann, R., McClusky, S., Lenk, O., Aktug, B., Herece, E., Reilinger, R.E.,
2001. Kinematics of the Mw = 7.2, 12 November 1999, Düzce, Turkey earthquake.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 28 (2), 367–370.
Ayhan, M.E., Demir, C., Lenk, O., Kılıçoğlu, A., Altıner, Y., Barka, A.A., Ergintav, S., Özener, H.,
2002. Inter-seismic strain accumulation in the Marmara Sea region. Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 92 (1), 216–229.
Barka, A., 1992. The North Anatolian Fault zone. Ann. Tecton. 6, 164–195.
Barka, A.A., Hancock, P.L., 1984. Neotectonic deformation patterns in the convex-
northwards arc of the North Anatolian Fault. In: Dixon, J.G., Robertson, A.H.F. (Eds.),
The Geological Evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean. Spec. Publ. Geol. Soc.,
London, pp. 763–773.
Barka, A., Kadinsky-Cade, K., 1988. Strike-slip fault geometry in Turkey and its influence
on earthquake activity. Tectonics 7, 663–684.
Bilham, R., King, G., 1989. The morphology of strike-slip faults: examples from the San
Andreas fault, California. J. Geophys. Res. 94, 10204–10216.
Blythe, A.E., Burbank, D.W., Farley, K.A., Fielding, E.J., 2000. Structural and topographic
evolution of the central Transverse Ranges, California from apatite fission-track,
(UTH)/He and digital elevation model analysis. Basin Res. 12, 97–114.
Bohnhoff, M., Grosser, H., Dresen, G., 2006. Strain partitioning and stress rotation at the
North Anatolian fault zone from aftershock focal mechanisms of the 1999 İzmit
Mw = 7.4 earthquake. Geophys. J. Int. 166, 12.
Bozkurt, E., 2001. Special issue neotectonics of Turkey. Geodin. Acta 14 (1–3) (212 pp.,
Guest Ed.).
Bozkurt, E., Winchester, J.A., Yigitbas, E.E., Ottley, C.J., 2008. Proterozoic ophiolites and
mafic-ultramafic complexes marginal to the Istanbul Block: an exotic terrane of
Avalonian affinity in NW Turkey. Tectonophysics 461 (1–4), 240–251.
Bozkurt, E., Winchester, J.A., Satir, M., Crowley, Q.G., Ottley, C.J., 2013. The Almacık
mafic-ultramafic complex: exhumed Sakarya subcrustal mantle adjacent to the
Istanbul Zone, NW Turkey. Geol. Mag. 150 (2), 254–282.
Bulut, F., Bohnhoff, M., Aktar, M., Dresen, G., 2007. Characterization of aftershock-fault
plane orientations of 1999 İzmit (Turkey) earthquake using high-resolution
aftershock locations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L20306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2007GL031154.
Bürgman, R., Ayhan, M.A., Fielding, E., Wright, T.S., Mc Clusky, S., Aktuğ, B., Demir, C., Lenk,
O., Türkezer, A., 2002. Deformation during the 12 November 1999, Düzce, Turkey
Earthquake, from GPS and InSAR Data. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 161–171.
Bürgmann, R., Arrowsmith, R., Dumitru, T., McLaughlin, R., 1994. Rise and fall of the
southern Santa Cruz Mountains, California, from fission tracks, geomorphology, and
geodesy. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 20181–20202.
Canıtez, N., Üçer, S.B., 1967. A Catalogue of Focal Mechanism Diagrams for Turkey and
Adjoining Areas. İTÜ Maden Fak., Arz Fiziği Enst. Yayın (No. 25. 111 pp.).
Castelltort, S., Goren, L., Willett, S.D., Champagnac, J.D., Herman, F., Braun, J., 2012. River
drainage patterns in the New Zealand Alps primarily controlled by plate tectonic
strain. Nat. Geosci. 5 (10), 744–748.
Clark, M.K., Royden, L.H., Whipple, K.X., Burchfiel, B.C., Zhang, X., Tang, W., 2006.
Use of a regional, relict landscape to measure vertical deformation of the
eastern Tibetan Plateau. J. Geophys. Res. 111, F03002. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/2005JF000294.
Cowgill, E., Arrowsmith, J.R., Yin, A., Xiaofeng, W., Zhengle, C., 2004. The Akato Tagh bend
along the Altyn Tagh fault, northwest Tibet 2: active deformation and the importance
of transpression and strain hardening within the Altyn Tagh system. GSA Bull. 116,
1443–1464.
Crowell, J.C., 1974. Origin of Late Cenozoic basins in southern California. In: Dickinsion,
W.R. (Ed.), Tectonics and Sedimentation. SEPM Special Publications vol. 22,
pp. 190–204.
Cunningham, D., 2005. Active intracontinental transpressional mountain building in the
Mongolian Altai: defining a new class of orogen. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 240, 436–444.
Cunningham, D., 2007. Structural and topographic characteristics of restraining bend
mountain ranges of the Altai, Gobi Altai and eastern most Tien Shan. Geol. Soc.
Lond., Spec. Publ. 290, 219–237.
Cunningham, D., Dijkstra, A., Howard, J., Quarles, A., Badarch, G., 2003. Active intraplate
strike-slip faulting and transpressional uplift in the Mongolian Altai. In: Storti,
F., Holdsworth, R.E., Salvini, F. (Eds.), Intraplate Strike-slip Deformation Belts.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications vol. 210, pp. 65–87.
 C. Yıldırım, O. Tüysüz / Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68
Cyr, A.J., Granger, D.E., Olivetti, V., Molin, P., 2010. Quantifying rock uplift rates using
channel steepness and cosmogenic nuclide-determined erosion rates: examples
from northern and southern Italy. Lithosphere 2:188–198. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1130/L96.1.
Dewey, J.F., Holdsworth, R.E., Strachan, R.A., 1998. Transpression and transtension zones.
In: Holdsworth, R.E. Strachan R.A., Dewey, J.F. (Eds.), Continental Transpressional and
Transtensional Tectonics. Geological Society, London, Special Publications vol. 135,
pp. 1–14.
Dewey, J.F., Helman, M.L., Turco, E., Hutton, D.H.W., Knott, S.D., 1989. Kinematics of the
western Mediterranean. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ. 45, 265–283.
Duman, T., Emre, Ö., Doğan, A., Özalp, S., 2005. Step-over and bend structures along the
1999 Düzce earthquake surface rupture, North Anatolian Fault, Turkey. Bull. Seismol.
95 (4), 1250–1262.
Duvall, A., Kirby, E., Burbank, D., 2004. Tectonic and lithologic controls on bedrockchannel
profiles and processes in coastal California. J. Geophys. Res. 109, F03002.
Emre, Ö., Erkal, T., Tchepalyga, A., Kazancı, N., Keçer, M., Ünay, E., 1998.
Neogene-quaternary evolution of the eastern Marmara Region (in Turkish).
Bull. Miner. Resour. Explor. Turkey 120, 223–258.
Emre, Ö., Duman, T.Y., Özalp, S., 2011. 1:250,000 scale active fault map series of Turkey,
Adapazarı (NK36-13) Quandrangle. Serial Number: 14, General Directiorate of
Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara-Turkey.
Erinç, S., Bilgin, T., Bener, M., 1961. Gerede civarında akarsu şebekesi. İstanbul Üniv.
Coğraf. Enst. Derg. 6 pp. 90–99.
Fazzito, S.Y., Cortés, J.M., Rapalini, A.E., Terrizzano, C.M., 2013. The geometry of the active
strike-slip El Tigre Fault, Precordillera of San Juan, Central–Western Argentina: inte-
grating resistivity surveys with structural and geomorphological data. Int. J. Earth
Sci. 102, 1447–1466.
Flint, J.J., 1974. Stream gradient as a function of order, magnitude, and discharge. Water
Resour. Res. 10, 969e973.
Garfunkel, Z., 1989. Regional deformation by block translation and rotation. In: Kissel, C.,
Laj, C. (Eds.), Paleomagnetic Rotations and Continental Deformation. vol. 254. Kluwer
Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp. 181–204.
Gomez, F., Khawlie, M., Tabet, C., Darkal, A., Khair, K., Barazangi, M., 2006. Late Cenozoic
uplift along the northern Dead Sea transform in Lebanon and Syria. Earth Planet.
Sci. Lett. 241, 913–931.
Goren, L., Castelltort, S., Klinger, Y., 2015. Modes and rates of horizontal deformation from
rotated river basins: application to the Dead Sea fault system in Lebanon. Geology 43
(9):843–846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36841.1.
Görgün, E., Bohnhoff, M., Bulut, F., Dresen, G., 2010. Seismotectonic setting of the
Karadere-Düzce branch of the North Anatolian Fault Zone between the 1999
Izmit and Ducze rupturesfrom analysis of Izmit aftershock focal mechanism.
Tectonophysics 482 (1–4):170–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2009.07.012.
Guerit, L., Dominguez, S., Malavieille, J., Castelltort, S., 2016. Deformation of an
experimental drainage network in oblique collision. Tectonophysics 693:210–222.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2016.04.016.
Hack, J.T., 1973. Stream-profile analysis and stream-gradient index. J. Res. U. S. Geol. Surv.
1, 421e429.
Herece, E., Akay, E., 2003. Kuzey Anadolu Fayı (KAF) Atlası/Atlas of North Anatolian Fault
(NAF). Maden Tetk. Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, Ö zel Yayın. Ser. 2, Ankara,(IV)+61
pp.+13 Appendices as Separate Maps.
Hergert, T., Heidbach, O., 2010. Slip-rate variability and distributed deformation in the
Marmara Sea fault system. Nat. Geosci. 3 (2), 132–135.
Hisarlı, Z.M., Çinku, M.C., Orbay, N., 2011. Paleomagnetic evidence of complex tectonic ro-
tation pattern in the NW Anatolian region: Implications for the tectonic history since
the Middle Eocene. Tectonophysics 505, 86–99.
Howard, A.D., Kerby, G., 1983. Channel changes in badlands. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 94, 739e752.
Hubert-Ferrari, A., Armijo, R., King, G.C.P., Meyer, B., Barka, A., 2002. Morphology,
displacement, and slip rates along the North Anatolian Fault, Turkey. J. Geophys.
Res. 107, 2235.
İşseven, T., Tüysüz, O., 2006. Paleomagnetically defined rotations of fault bounded
continental blocks in the North Anatolian Shear Zone, Central Anatolia. J. Asian
Earth Sci. 1–11 (XX).
İşseven, T., Demir, T., Genç, Ş.C., Gülmez, F., 2009. How has strike slip motion on the North
Anatolian Fault rotated the Almacık block? 62. Geological Congress, 13–17 April,
General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration Ankara, pp. 936–937
Ketin, İ., 1948. Über die tektonisch-mechanischen Folgerungen aus den grossen
anatolischen Erdbeben des letzten Dezenniums. Geol. Rundsch. 36, 77–83.
Ketin, İ., 1957. Kuzey Anadolu Deprem Fayı. İTÜ Derg. vol. 15 pp. 49–52.
Kirby, E., Whipple, K.X., 2001. Quantifying differential rock-uplift rates via stream profile
analysis. Geology 29, 415–418.
Kirby, E., Whipple, K.X., 2012. Expression of active tectonics in erosional landscapes.
J. Struct. Geol. 44, 54–75.
Kirby, E., Whipple, K.X., Tang, W., Chen, Z., 2003. Distribution of active rock uplift along
the eastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau: inferences from bedrock channel
longitudinal profiles. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 2217.
Koçyiğit, A., 1988. Tectonic setting of the Geyve Basin: age and total displacement of the
Geyve Fault Zone. METU J. Pure Appl. Sci. 21, 81–104.
Kondo, H., Awata, Y., Emre, Ö., Doğan, A., Özalp, S., Tokay, F., Yıldırım, C., Yoshioka, T.,
Okumura, K., 2005. Slip distribution, fault geometry, and fault segmentation of the
1944 Bolu-Gerede earthquake rupture, North Anatolian fault, Turkey. Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am. 95 (4), 1234–1249.
Kondo, H., Özaksoy, V., Yıldırım, C., 2010. Slip history of the 1944 Bolu-Gerede earthquake
rupture along the North Anatolian fault system: Implications for recurrence behavior
of multisegment earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B0431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2009JB006413.
67
Kozacı, Ö., Dolan, J.F., Finkel, R.C., 2009. A late Holocene slip rate for the central North
Anatolian fault, at Tahtakopru, Turkey, from cosmogenic Be-10 geochronology:
implications for fault loading and strain release rates. J. Geophys. Res. 114.
Lamb, S., 2011. Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the New Zealand plate-boundary zone: A
paleomagnetic perspective. Tectonocphysics. 500, 135–164.
Mackin, J.H., 1948. Concept of the graded river. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 101, 1373e1388.
McClusky, S., Balassanian, S., Barka, A., Demir, C., Ergintav, S., et al., 2000. Global
Positioning System constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the eastern
Mediterranean and Caucasus. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 5695–5719.
McKenzie, D.P., 1972. Active tectonics of the Mediterranean region. Geophys. J. R. Astron.
Soc. 30, 109–185.
McKenzie, D., Jackson, J., 1983. The relationship between strain rates, crustal thickening,
palaeomagnetism, finite strain and fault moments within a deforming zone. Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett. 65, 182–202.
Meade, B.J., Hager, B.H., McClusky, S.C., Reilinger, R.E., Ergintav, S., et al., 2002. Estimates of
seismic potential in the Marmara Sea region from block models of secular deforma-
tion constrained by Global Positioning System measurements. Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 92, 208–215.
Merritts, D., Vincent, K.R., 1989. Geomorphic response of coastal streams to low,
intermediate, and high rates of uplift, Mendocino junction region, northern California.
Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 101, 1373e1388.
Molin, P., Pazzaglia, F.J., Dramis, F., 2004. Geomorphic expression of active tectonics in a
rapidly-deforming forearc, sila massif, calabria, southern Italy. Am. J. Sci. 304 (7),
559–589.
Montgomery, D.R., 1994. Valley incision and the uplift of mountain peaks. J. Geophys. Res.
99, 13,913–13,921.
Nicholson, C., Seeber, L., 1989. In: Kissel, C., Laj, C. (Eds.), Evidence for Contemporary Block
Rotation in Strikeslip Environments: Examples From the San Andreas Fault System,
Southern California. 254. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp. 247–280.
Okay, A., Tüysüz, O., 1999. Tethyan sutures of northern Turkey. In: Durand, B., Jolivet, L.,
Horv'ath, F., S'eranne, M. (Eds.), The Mediterranean Basins: Tertiary Extension within
the Alpine Orogen. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ. vol. 156, pp. 475–515.
Özalp, S., Emre, Ö., Doğan, A., 2013. The segment structure of southern branch of the
North Anatolian fault and paleoseismological behaviour of the Gemlik Fault. Bulletin
of MTA 147, 1–17.
Pamir, H.N., 1938. On the problem about the formation of the Strait of İstanbul
(In Turkish). MTA Bull. 3–4, 61–69.
Piper, J.D.A., Tatar, O., Gürsoy, H., 1997. Deformational behaviour of continental
lithosphere deduced from block rotations across the north Anatolian fault zone in
Turkey. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 150, 191–203.
Piper, J.D.A., Gürsoy, H., Tatar, O., Beck, M.E., Rao, A., Koçbulut, F., Mesci, B.L., 2010.
Distributed neotectonic deformation in the Anatolides of Turkey: a palaeomagnetic
analysis. Tectonophysics 488 (1–4), 31–50.
Poyraz, S.A., Teoman, U., Türkelli, N., Kahraman, M., Cambaz, D., Mutlu, A., Rost, S.,
Houseman, G.A., Thompson, D.A., Cornwell, D., Utkucu, M., Gülen, L., 2015. New
constraints on micro-seismicity and stress state in the western part of the North
Anatolian Fault Zone: observations from a dense seismic array. Tectonophysics
656 (12 August 2015):190–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2015.06.022
(ISSN 0040-1951).
Pucci, S., Pantosti, D., Barchi, M.R., Palyvos, N., 2007. A complex seismogenic shear zone:
the Duzce segment of north anatolian fault (Turkey). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 262
(1–2), 185–203.
Ramsey, L.A., Walker, R.T., Jackson, J., 2007. Geomorphic constraints on the active
tectonics of southern Taiwan. Geophys. J. Int. 170:1357–1372. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03444.x.
Reilinger, R., McClusky, S., Vernant, P., Lawrence, S., Ergintav, S., Cakmak, R., Özener, H.,
Kadirov, F., Guliev, I., Stepanyan, R., Nadariya, M., Hahubia, G., Mahmoud, S., Sakr,
K., ArRajehi, A., Paradissis, D., Aydrus, A. Al, Prilepin, M., Guseva, T., Evren, E.,
Dmitrotsa, A., Filikov, S.V., Gomez, F., Al-Ghazzi, R., Karam, G., 2006. GPS constraints
on continental deformation in the Africa-Arabia-Eurasia continental collision zone
and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. J. Geophys. Res. 111:1–26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004051.
Ron, H., Freund, R., Garfunkel, Z., Nur, A., 1984. Block rotation by strike-slip faulting -
structural and paleomagnetic evidence. J. Geophys. Res. 89 (Nb7), 6256–6270.
Rood, D.H., Burbank, D.W., Herman, S.W., Bogue, S., 2011. Rates and timing of vertical-axis
block rotations across the central Sierra Nevade-Walker Lane transition in the Bodie
Hilss, California/Nevada. Tectonics 30 TC5013.
Sakınç, M., Yaltırak, C., Oktay, F.Y., 1999. Palaeogeographical evolution of the Thrace
Neogene Basin and the Tethian-Paratethian relations at northwest Turkey (Thrace).
Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 153, 17–40.
Sarıbudak, M., Sanver, M., Şengör, A.M.C., Görür, N., 1990. Palaeomagnetic evidence for
substantial rotation of the Almacık Flake within the North Anatolian Fault Zone,
northwest Turkey. Geophys. J. Int. 102, 563–568.
Schildgen, T.F., Cosentino, D., Bookhagen, B., Niedermann, S., Yıldırım, C., Echtler, H.,
Wittmann, H., Strecker, M.R., 2012. Multi-phased uplift of the southern margin of
the Central Anatolian plateau, Turkey: a record of tectonic and upper mantle
processes. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 317, 85–95.
Schreurs, G., 1994. Experiments on strike-slip faulting and block rotation. Geology 22,
567–570.
Şenel, M. (Ed.), 2002. Türkiye Jeoloji Haritası/Geological Map of Turkey, scale 1:500,000.
Maden Tetk. Arama Genel Müdürlüğü Ankara. 19 Sheets.
Şengör, A.M.C., 1979. The North Anatolian Transform Fault: its age, offset and tectonic
significance. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 136, 269–282.
Şengör, A.M.C., 1995. Sedimentation and tectonics of fossil rifts. In: Busby, C.J., Ingersoll,
R.V. (Eds.), Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 53–117.
68 C. Yıldırım, O. Tüysüz / Geomorphology 297 (2017) 55–68
Şengör, A.M.C., Görür, N., Şaroğlu, F., 1985. Strikeslip faulting and related basin formation
inzones of tectonic escape: Turkey as a case study. In: Biddle, K.T., Christie-Blick, N.
(Eds.), Strike-slip Deformation, Basin Formation, and Sedimentation. Soc. Econ.
Paleontol. Miner. Spec. Publ. 37 (in honor of J.C. Crowell), pp. 227–264.
Şengör, A.M.C., Tüysüz, O., İmren, C., Sakınç, M., Eyidoğan, H., Görür, N., Le Pichon, X.,
Rangin, C., 2005. The North Anatolian Fault: a new look. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet.
Sci. 33 (1), 37–112.
Şengör, A.M.C., Grall, C., İmren, C., Le Pichon, X., Görür, N., Henry, P., Karabulut, H., Siyako,
M., 2014. The geometry of the North Anatolian transform fault in the sea of Marmara
and its temporal evolution: implications for the development of intracontinental
transform faults. Can. J. Earth Sci. 51:222–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjes-
2013-0160.
Seyitoğlu, G., Ecevitoğlu, B., Kaypak, B., Esat, K., Çağlayan, A., Gündoğdu, O., Güney, Y., Işık,
V., Pekkan, E.T.M., Avdan, U., 2015. A missing-link in the tectonic configuration of the
Almacık Block along the North Anatolian Fault Zone (NW Turkey): active faulting in
the Bolu plain based on seismic reflection studies. Geophys. J. Int. 201 (3):1814–1833.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv065.
Seymen, İ., 1975. Kelkit Vadisi Kesiminde Kuzey Anadolu Fay Zonunun Tektonik Özelliği:
Dr. Eng., İstanbul Tek. Üniv., Maden Fak., XIX+192 pp.+2 Foldout Maps.
Snyder, N., Whipple, K.X., Tucker, G., Merritts, D., 2000. Landscape response to tectonic
forcing: digital elevation model analysis of stream profiles in the Mendocino triple
junction region, northern California. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 112, 1250e1263.
Stearns, R.G., 1967. Warping on the Western Highland Rim Peneplain in Tennesse by
groundwater sapping. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 78, 1111–1124.
Tatar, O., Piper, J.D.A., Park, R.G., Gürsoy, H., 1995. Paleomagnetic study of block rotations
in the Niksar overlap region of the north Anatolian fault zone, central Turkey.
Tectonophysics 244, 251–266.
Taymaz, T. (Ed.), 2001. Symposia on Seismotectonics of the North–Western
Anatolia—Aegean and Recent Turkish Earthquakes: Scientific Activities 2001.
İTÜ -Fac. Mines, İstanbulTech. Univ., İstanbul (XXIII+ 113 pp.).
View publication stats
Taymaz, T., Jackson, J., McKenzie, D., 1991. Active tectonics of the north and central
Aegean Sea. Geophys. J. Int. 106, 433–490.
Tokay, M., 1973. Kuzey Anadolu Fay Zonunun Gerede ile Ilgaz arasındaki kısmında
jeolojik gözlemler. Kuzey Anadolu Fayı ve Deprem Kuşağı Simp., 29–31 Mart 1972,
Ankara, pp. 12–29 (Tebliğler: M. T. A. Enst., Ankara).
Ünay, E., Emre, Ö., Erkal, T., Keçer, M., 2001. The Rodent fauna from the Adapazarı
pull-apart basin (NW Anatolia): its bearing on the age of the North Anatolian Fault.
Geodin. Acta 14, 169–175.
Whipple, K., 2001. Fluvial landscape response time: how plausible is steady state
denudation? Am. J. Sci. 301, 313e325.
Whipple, K.X., Tucker, G.E., 1999. Dynamics of the stream-power river incision model:
implications for height limits of mountain ranges, landscape response timescales,
and research needs. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 17661e17674.
Wobus, C.W., Hodges, K.V., Whipple, K.X., 2003. Has focused denudation sustained active
thrusting at the Himalayan topographic front? Geology 31 (10), 861–864.
Wobus, C.W., Whipple, K.X., Hodges, K.V., 2006. Neotectonics of the central Nepalese
Himalaya: constraints from geomorphology, detrital Ar-40/Ar-39 thermochronology,
and thermal modeling. Tectonics 25 (4).
Yaltırak, C., 2002. Tectonic evolution of the Marmara Sea and its surroundings. Mar. Geol.
190, 493–529.
Yang, R., Willett, S.D., Goren, L., 2015. In situ low-relief landscape formation as a result
of river network disruption. Nature 520:526–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature14354.
Yigitbaş, E., Winchester, J.A., Ottley, C.J., 2008. The geochemistry and setting of the
Demirci paragneisses of the Sünnice Massif, NW Turkey. Turk. J. Earth Sci. 17 (3),
421–431.
Yılmaz, Y., Gökaşan, E., Erbay, Y.A., 2009. Morphotectonic development of the Marmara
Region. Tectonophysics http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.