GeolCarp_Vol70_No5_418

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, OCTOBER 2019, 70, 5, 418–431

doi: 10.2478/geoca-2019-0024

www.geologicacarpathica.com

Geophysical and geological interpretation

of the Vienna Basin pre-Neogene basement

(Slovak part of the Vienna Basin)

LENKA ŠAMAJOVÁ



, JOZEF HÓK

, TAMÁS CSIBRI

, MIROSLAV BIELIK

2,3

FRANTIŠEK TEŤÁK

, BIBIANA BRIXOVÁ

, ĽUBOMÍR SLIVA

and BRANISLAV ŠÁLY

Department of Geology and Paleontology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynská dolina, Ilkovičova 6,

842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia;



samajova7@uniba.sk

Department of Applied and Environmental Geophysics, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynská dolina,

Ilkovičova 6, 842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia

Earth Science Institute of the SAS, the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dúbravská cesta 9, 840 05 Bratislava, Slovakia

State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr, Mlynská dolina 1, 817 04 Bratislava 1, Slovakia

NAFTA a.s., Plavecký Štvrtok 900, 900 68 Plavecký Štvrtok, Slovakia

(Manuscript received March 14, 2019; accepted in revised form July 26, 2019)

Abstract: The Vienna Basin is situated at the contact of the Bohemian Massif, Western Carpathians, and Eastern Alps.

Deep borehole data and an existing magnetotelluric profile were used in density modelling of the pre-Neogene basement

in the Slovak part of the Vienna Basin. Density modelling was carried out along a profile oriented in a NW–SE direction,

across the expected contacts of the main geological structures. From bottom to top, four structural floors have been

defined. Bohemian Massif crystalline basement with the autochthonous Mesozoic sedimentary cover sequence.

The accretionary sedimentary wedge of the Flysch Belt above the Bohemian Massif rocks sequences. The Mesozoic

sediments considered to be part of the Carpathian Klippen Belt together with Mesozoic cover nappes of Alpine and

Carpathian provenance are thrust over the Flysch Belt creating the third structural floor. The Neogene sediments form

the highest structural floor overlying tectonic contacts of the Flysch sediments and Klippen Belt as well as the Klippen

Belt and the Alpine/Carpathians nappe structures.

Key words: Applied geophysics, gravimetry, magnetotelluric, tectonics, Western Carpathians.

Introduction

The Vienna Basin represents a Neogene structure superim-

posed on the rock sequences of the Bohemian Massif, Eastern

Alps, External and Internal Western Carpathians (Fig. 1; e.g.

Arzmüller et al. 2006). The paper presents the results of geo-

logical and tectonic interpretation of gravimetric and magne-

totelluric data from the Slovak part of the Vienna Basin and

provides discussion regarding tectonic affiliation of different

Mesozoic complexes.

The Vienna Basin represents one of the areas where the first

gravimetric measurements were performed. These measure-

ments have been carried out by the Eötvös torsion balance in

the Gbely (Egbell) oil field back in 1915‒1916 (Pekár 1928;

de Böckh 1934). The result of these measurements was

a Torsion-balance map (horizontal gravity map) of the Gbely

high. Since then, the Vienna Basin has been in the centre of

interest of both geologists and geophysicists.

The Vienna Basin is considered one of the most explored

basins. Among the numerous geophysical works, we mention

only those, which we have drawn the most information (e.g.,

Tomek & Budík 1981; Šefara et al. 1987; Speváková 2011 and

references herein). The results of Speváková (2011) provided

important data on the densities of the Tertiary Basin rocks

on the basis of seismic logging data (Novák 1997). These

data were first converted into velocities and using a shifted

Cornwell polynomial of the fourth degree were transformed to

densities.

The geological/geophysical model was constructed along

the profile oriented in a NW‒SE direction passing the tectonic

mega units, in order to clarify their mutual configuration.

The profile crosses the boreholes Cunín-10 (Cu-10), Gbely-105

(G-105), Smolinské-26 (Sm-26), Šaštín-9 (Š-9), Šaštín-12

(Š-12), and Lakšárska Nová Ves-7 (LNV-7) within the Vienna

Basin, passes through the Malé Karpaty Mts. and borehole

Vištuk-2 (V-2) situated in the Danube Basin (Fig. 2). Data

from boreholes were published by Němec & Kocák (1976);

Biela (1978); Kysela & Kullmanová (1988) and Jiříček (1988)

(Fig. 3). The depth of the pre-Neogene basement is displayed

on maps (Němec & Kocák 1976; Fusán et al. 1987; Jiříček

1988; Kilényi & Šefara 1989; Wessely 1990, 1992).

The aim of the contribution is to bring new insight on

the pre-Neogene basement of the Vienna Basin inferred from

the interpretation of geological, gravimetric and magneto-

telluric data. Particular attention has been paid to the long-

discussed issue of the Alpine or Carpathian tectonic affiliation

of the Mesozoic cover nappes in the pre-Neogene basement of

the Slovak part of the Vienna Basin (Němec & Kocák 1976;

419

GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE VIENNA BASIN PRE-NEOGENE BASEMENT

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2019, 70, 5, 418–431

Fusán et al. 1987; Jiříček 1988; Kysela & Kullmanová 1988;

Wessely 1992; Wessely et al. 1993).

Geological background

The geological structure of the investigated area (Fig. 1)

includes from NW to SE the accretionary prism (Flysch Belt)

of the External Western Carpathians thrust onto the Bohemian

Massif during the Miocene. The Flysch Belt consists mainly

of Upper Cretaceous to Paleogene sediments separated into

numerous rootless thrust sheets of the Magura and Krosno

(Waschberg–Ždánice–Pouzdřany Unit) nappe systems (Biely

et al. 1996). The Bohemian Massif rock complexes are repre-

sented mainly by crystalline rocks (Picha et al. 2006).

Sediments of the autochthonous Mesozoic cover of the Bohe-

mian Massif crystalline basement were drilled by several deep

wells in the area of the Vienna Basin and its marginal parts.

Due to the location of the area in question, the nearest deep

borehole in the Austrian part of the Vienna Basin is Zistersdorf

Üt 2A (Wessely 1988; Eliáš & Wessely 1990). In the southern

part of the south-eastern slopes of the Bohemian Massif (NW

marginal part of the Vienna Basin) the boreholes Sedlec-1,

Bulhary-1, Kobylí-1 or Nové Mlýny-1,2,3 were drilled

(Špička et al. 1977; Adámek 1986, 2005). All these boreholes

have proved the presence of autochthonous Mesozoic sedi-

ments (mainly represented by the Upper Jurassic Mikulov

marls) in max. 1500 m layer thickness. The Klippen Belt

forms the frontal part of the Internal Western Carpathians

composed mainly of Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments which

underwent several phases of folding and faulting during

the Late Cretaceous to Miocene (Plašienka & Soták 2015;

Hók et al. 2016; Plašienka 2018).

The Tatricum, Fatricum and Hronicum tectonic units

(Fig. 2) are situated internally (south-eastward) of the Klippen

Belt. The Tatricum is a thick-skinned structure and contains

the crystalline basement and the Mesozoic cover (autochtho-

nous) sediments with a minor portion of Permian sediments.

The Fatricum and Hronicum are cover nappe structures con-

taining mostly Mesozoic sedimentary sequences thrust over

the Tatricum. The Hronicum comprises also the late Paleozoic

volcano-sedimentary sequence of the Ipoltica Group (Vozárová

Fig. 1. Simplified tectonic map of the Western Carpathians and adjacent areas (modified after Lexa et al. 2000). BM — Bohemian Massif;

EA — Eastern Alps; EWC — External Western Carpathians; IWC — Internal Western Carpathians.

420

ŠAMAJOVÁ, HÓK, CSIBRI, BIELIK, TEŤÁK, BRIXOVÁ, SLIVA and ŠÁLY

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2019, 70, 5, 418–431

& Vozár 1988). Alpine provenance cover nappes are repre-

sented by the Bajuvaric, Tirolic and Juvavic nappe systems of

the Northern Calcareous Alps (e.g., Janoschek & Matura

1980; Fuchs & Grill 1984; Sauer et al. 1992). The Upper

Cretaceous to Paleogene sediments (Gosau Group) overlie

the Alpine cover nappes as well as the Hronicum tectonic unit.

Besides these, the Paleogene sediments are tectonically incor-

porated between the Hronic imbricated thrust slices in the

Malé Karpaty Mts. (Polák et al. 2011). The Neogene sedi-

ments overlie the crystalline, Mesozoic and Paleogene rock

sequences with significant angular unconformity.

Borehole data and their interpretations

The most important information was yielded by boreholes

(Fig. 3) Lakšárska Nová Ves-7 (LNV-7), Šaštín-12 (Š-12) and

Studienka-83 (St-83).

The borehole LNV-7 (Fig. 3) drilled Upper Cretaceous grey,

dark grey organodetritic limestone below the Miocene sedi-

ments in depth 1564 m. Downwards dolomite (Hauptdolomite),

Opponitz limestone and subvertical dipping strata of the

Lunz Fm. continue. There is a tectonically disturbed zone

below the Lunz Fm., and below this zone up to the final depth

(6400 m) the dolomite (?Hauptdolomite) and Opponitz lime-

stone occur, both with abundant intercalations of anhydrite

(Němec & Kocák 1976; Biela 1978; Kysela & Kullmanová

1988).

In the borehole Š-12 the pre-Neogene basement occurs at

depth 2200 m. From this depth to 4142 m the Upper Triassic

(Norian) Hauptdolomite is presented with inclination of bed-

ding between 40° to 80°. Below the Hauptdolomite a lime-

stone/dolomite sequence with abundant anhydrite was drilled

(Carnian; most probably the Opponitz Fm.). This sequence is

followed by the Lunz Fm., Opponitz limestone and again

Lunz Fm., according to graded bedding in overturned position

and finally again dolomite (Kysela & Kullmanová 1988).

Borehole St-83 (Studienka-83) is located out of the profile

(Fig. 2) south-west of borehole LNV-7. Pre-Neogene base-

ment was reached in the interval 3087‒ 4117 m. From the top

to the bottom, the Upper Cretaceous (“Senonian”) carbo nate

breccia is composed of clasts of the Triassic carbonate with

Upper Cretaceous limestone and sandstone also occurring.

The clasts indicate a deeper erosion of the nappe or its

frontal part with synsedimentary displacements during the

Upper Cretaceous (late Cretaceous clasts in the late Cretaceous

sediments, Bujnovský et al. 1992). Similar late Cretaceous

sediments in the same position were drilled on the frontal part

Fig. 2. Simplified tectonic map of the investigated area with position of the gravity and magnetotelluric profiles and boreholes.

422

ŠAMAJOVÁ, HÓK, CSIBRI, BIELIK, TEŤÁK, BRIXOVÁ, SLIVA and ŠÁLY

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2019, 70, 5, 418–431

to be a part of the Carpathian Klippen Belt (Němec & Kocák

1976; Biela 1978; Jiříček 1988 and Kysela & Kullmanová

1988). Boreholes Gbely-105 (G-105) and Cunín-10 (Cu-10)

penetrated the sandy clays, and carbonatic sandstones of the

Magura nappe system (Biele Karpaty Unit) below the Neogene

sediments.

Geophysical methods

The 2D density model was created in GM-SYS software

(GM-SYS User’s Guide for version 4.9, 2004). It is an interac-

tive software for calculating the gravity and magnetic field

from the geological models. 2D model is composed of closed

polygons with representative density. The calculations of

the gravitational effects of the geological bodies are based on

the formulae of Talwani et al. (1959), with Won & Bevis’s

algorithm (GM-SYS User’s Guide 4.9, 2004).

For elimination of the edge-effect, the GM-SYS software

allows us to extend the profile up to the distance of ±30,000 km.

The input model was based on the boreholes (Table 1) and

surface geological data. The densities used in final models are

shown in Fig. 4. The final model was modified by the trial and

error method until a reasonable fit was obtained between

the measured and calculated gravity data. In this study, the

maximum deviation between gravitational effect and observed

gravity reaches only ±0.85 mGal.

The magnetotelluric method (Szalaiová et al. 2011) is a pas-

sive electromagnetic technique for which the electric and

magnetic fields are measured in orthogonal directions on

the earth’s surface. The field sources are: equivalent current

systems in the ionosphere (frequency range — below 1 Hz)

and lightning discharges in the earth-ionosphere cavity in the

equatorial zone (Audio-frequency Magnetotelluric frequency

range from 1 Hz to 10 kHz). The periodicity of the source as

well as the resistivity distribution of the subsurface has

influence on the depth of information retrieval. The depth of

investigation is from a few tens of metres to hundreds of

kilometres.

In 2D space the equations for resolving apparent resistivity

and phase decouple into two different models of propagation

(Szalaiová et al. 2011). In one mode, electric currents are

flowing parallel to the strike of structures, and are termed the

transverse–electric mode. The other mode describes currents

crossing the structure and is called the transverse magnetic

mode. For 2D models one can invert two pairs of apparent

resistivity and phase curves. When the complexity of the Earth

is fully taken into account, 3D special modelling inversion

algorithms should be used. At present this approach is time

consuming and does not give satisfactory results. In some

cases restricted 2D interpretation of 3D data may be valid.

Gravity data

The gravity data were obtained from the Bouguer anomaly

map with the grid of 200×200 m (Pašteka et al. 2014, 2017).

The topography data were taken from the Topographic Institute

(2012). The 2D quantitative interpretation depends on geo-

metry of the modelled polygons that approximate geological

bodies and the knowledge of the rock densities.

The surface and subsurface structures of the individual

tectonic units was constrained using the geological map,

structural data and deep boreholes (lithology, tectonic affilia-

tion and sediment thickness).

The Moho depth (crustal thickness) along the profile is con-

sistent with the Moho depth imaged in the papers of Alasonati

Tašárová et al. (2016) and Bielik et al. (2018). The Moho

depth varies between 32 km (Vienna Basin) to 29.7 km

(Danube Basin).

The lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary (lithospheric

thickness) has been taken from Dérerová et al. (2006) and

Alasonati Tašárová et al. (2016). The lithosphere–astheno-

sphere boundary in the study area is more or less horizontal

and has a depth of about 105 km.

The sediment densities were constrained using data summa-

rized in the paper of Šamajová & Hók (2018). The natural

densities of the tectonic units which form the upper part of

the upper crust (Fig. 4) were taken from the map of the tec-

tonic units of the Western Carpathians (Šamajová & Hók

2018). Input average densities of the lower part of the upper

crust, lower crust, mantle lithosphere and asthenosphere were

determined by analysis of the results of Lillie et al. (1994);

Bielik (1995, 1998); Hrubcová et al. (2005, 2010); Alasonati

Tašárová et al. (2008, 2009, 2016); Šimonová & Bielik (2016)

and Šimonová et al. (2019).

To present final model of the deep and subsurface structures

in relevant resolution, the lithosphere–asthenosphere boun-

dary and Moho discontinuity are not shown

in the final model. However, their gravita-

tional effects were calculated.

Magnetotelluric data

The magnetotelluric profile (Fig. 2) was

located near Šaštín-Stráže, crossing the deep

boreholes (Sm-26, Š-12, LNV-7; Table 1)

and it was ended by the high-density hou sing

(Lakšáre elevation, Němec & Kocák 1976).

Name

Locality

TD [m]

Latitude

Longitude

Z [m a.s.l.]

Cu-10

Cunin

950

48°45’44.219’’ N

17°3’35.836’’ E

158.53

Gb-105

Gbely

1300

48°43’14.424’’ N

17°4’59.832’’ E

168.80

Sm-22

Smolinské

2100

48°40’51.401’’ N

17°7’29.972’’ E

198.88

Sm-26

Smolinské

6405

48°40’26.178’’ N

17°7’30.387’’ E

184.24

Š-9

Šaštín

2200

48°38’58.376’’ N

17°8’37.326’’ E

178.91

Š-12

Šaštín

6505

48°38’44.909’’ N

17°8’47.136’’ E

168.02

LNV-7

Lakšárska Nová Ves

6405

48°33’55.698’’ N

17°11’39.21’’ E

245.80

St-83

Studienka

4186

48°31’31.372’’ N

17°5’54.717’’ E

201.29

V-2

Vištuk

2335

48°18’53.478’’ N

17°22’19.054’’ E

192.53

Table 1: Boreholes maximum depth and coordinates.

424

ŠAMAJOVÁ, HÓK, CSIBRI, BIELIK, TEŤÁK, BRIXOVÁ, SLIVA and ŠÁLY

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2019, 70, 5, 418–431

Data acquisition was made with the use of system 2000.net

manufactured by Phoenix Geophysics, Canada. Recording of

the electromagnetic field components was carried out in the

frequency range 0.0005–10,000 Hz. Electric dipoles E

were

oriented at azimuth 0°. Electric dipoles E

were perpendicular

to E

. For recording magnetic field components two horizontal

and one vertical magnetic coils were used. To eliminate or

reduce the effects of artificial electromagnetic noise, magnetic

remote reference point was applied and reference processing

was made. A remote reference station was located in Poland

(Chyrowa remote site), close to Dukla town. Results of the

geophysical and geological interpretation with description

were made by PBG Ltd. Krakow Branch for NAFTA a.s.

Based on analysis of the distribution of the skew of the

impedance tensor (Szalaiová et al. 2011) it was found that for

the whole frequency band, the survey area is characterized by

the geological structure equivalent to the 1D or 2D geoelectri-

cal model (skew values for the whole area are less than 0.3).

Only in the case of the MT site (S1_57), the 1D or 2D hypo-

thesis was not perfectly valid and for the whole range of fre-

quency. As it is the last point of the profile, the measurement

does not have much impact on the quality of magnetotelluric

interpretation. Higher values of Skew (for noise free data)

indicate 3D effect, which was also confirmed by looking at

polar diagrams. Therefore, an analysis of polar diagrams was

also done to produce more precise information about the

dimensionality. The analysis of polar diagrams indicated that

the geoelectric environments are almost 1D for frequencies

from 10 kHz to about 0.1 kHz. For lower frequencies, a 2D

model should generally be taken into account. Tipper values

vary between 0.05 and 0.4 remaining within an acceptable

range for main range frequency. It is well known that tipper

parameter values occurring above 1.0 are incorrect and it is the

result of larger noise of the vertical component of the magnetic

field, therefore they should not be interpreted in any way.

In the presented magnetotelluric measurements higher values

for tipper occurred mainly in the interval 1.0–0.1 Hz. It means

that the measured curves obtained by processing are very good

quality. From this point of view the easiest approach how to

show the results in cross-section was the using the Bostick

transformation (Szalaiová et al. 2011).

Interpretation of the gravity profile

The resultant lithospheric density model along the interpre-

tative profile is shown in Fig. 4. It is important to note, that

the density model was calculated up to the lithosphere–asthe-

nosphere boundary, since our goal is to interpret the structure

of the pre-Neogene basement. Since the gravity effects of the

Moho discontinuity, and the lithosphere-asthenosphere boun-

dary are almost constant the resultant model displays density

inhomogeneities only up to a depth of ~25 km.

The calculated gravity of the resultant model consists of

several local anomalies. The Vienna Basin is represented by

a gravity low (values vary between −52 mGal and −15 mGal),

which is due to the superposition of the gravity effects of

the Neogene and Paleogene sediments with low densities. This

interpretation is also supported by the field of the stripped

gravity map (Tomek & Budík 1981). The Vienna Basin gravity

low, which is a part of the westernmost Western Carpathian

low (Tomek et al. 1979) is divided by the system of faults into

the partial depressions. The faults in the Vienna Basin are

interpreted according to Němec & Kocák (1976); Jiříček

(1988); Kysela & Kullmanová (1988); Wessely et al. (1993).

The density model suggests that the Magura and Krosno

nappe systems, mostly formed by the Upper Cretaceous and

Paleogene sediments, are overthrust onto the Bohemian

Massif. They emerge on the surface from beneath the Neogene

sediments NE of the Vienna Basin. Both nappe systems are

formed by “flysch” character deposits in which sandstone and

claystone (marl) layers alternate. The density characteristic is

different depending on the prevailing grain size. The Krosno

nappe system, represented by the Waschberg–Ždánice–

Pouzdřany Unit, is mostly composed of fine-grained sedi-

ments (clays, marls, marlstones), while the Magura nappe

system contains primarily sandstones (Siary and Rača units)

with fine-grained sediments occurring only to a lesser extent

(Biele Karpaty and Bystrica units). The total thickness of

the Flysch Belt wedge sediments in the Vienna Basin reaches

about 9‒11 km. The thickness of the Magura nappe system on

the contact with the Klippen Belt (7‒8 km) was estimated on

the basis of the results of Picha et al. (2006).

The Carpathian Klippen Belt is interpreted as a shallow

structure thrust together with Mesozoic cover nappes over

the Flysch Belt sediments. In gravity field all these tectonic

units are characterized by small local gravity anomalies with

a maximum amplitude of 5 mGal.

Two local anomalies were observed consisting of one local

gravity high and low on the profile section from 16 km to 33 km

(Fig. 4). The first one is a result of the larger thickness of

the Mesozoic sediments of Alpine and Carpathian provenance

(see borehole LNV-7). The second one (gravity low with

maxi mum amplitude of −20 mGal) is due to the Zohor–

Plavecká depression. Careful investigation of the borehole/

subsurface data and correlation of Mesozoic/Triassic lithostra-

tigraphy of Alpine and Carpathian nappes allows us to propose

criteria for their discrimination. The key feature is the presence

or absence of anhydrite-rich strata (Opponitz Fm. the Reichen-

hall Fm., Haselgebirge Fm.). Furthermore, the occurrence of

an anhydrite-rich Mesozoic sequence affects the density value.

The sediments of the Gosau Group are infolded or overthrust

by the Triassic carbonate.

The density model clearly indicates fault contacts of the

Malé Karpaty Mts. with the Vienna and Danube basins.

The contact between the Vienna Basin and Malé Karpaty Mts.

is characterized by a large horizontal gradient of about

5.3 mGal/km, while the contact between the Malé Karpaty and

Danube Basin is represented by a smaller one (~3.5 mGal/

km). The horst structure of the Malé Karpaty Mts. is repre-

sented by a significant gravity high with amplitude of

~20 mGal.

425

GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE VIENNA BASIN PRE-NEOGENE BASEMENT

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2019, 70, 5, 418–431

The westernmost part of the Danube Basin is accompanied

by a gravity low. The Tatricum crystalline basement below

the Neogene sediments was penetrated by in borehole Vištuk-2

(V-2). Therefore, this tectonic unit was modelled by granitoids

(2.70 g.cm

-3

) and crystalline schist (2.78 g.cm

-3

). The deep

contact of the Tatricum tectonic unit outcropping in the Malé

Karpaty Mts. is slightly shifted over the Bohemian Massif.

The boundary between the upper and lower crust was

modelled at depths of about 17.5 and 19 km. The deep contact

between the Flysch Belt nappes and the Bohemian Massif is

characterized by a small inclination. It is frequently visible

in evolutionary models of continental collision maintained in

isostatic equilibrium (e.g., Karner & Watts 1983; Stockmal &

Beaumont 1987; Lillie 1991; Lillie et al. 1994).

Interpretation of the magnetotelluric profile

Four floors of different resistivity are interpreted on the mag-

netotelluric profile. The first two floor are controlled by bore-

hole data. The first of these floors belongs to the Neogene

sediments.

The second floor with significantly higher resistivity is rep-

resented by the Mesozoic sediments (boreholes Sm-26, Š-9,

Š-12, LNV-7). The Magura nappe system of the Flysch Belt

with a significant portion of the sandstones occupied the NW

part of profile (boreholes Cu-10 and G-105).

The third floor is characterized by low resistivity (0.0–

0.2 Ohm.m) and density (2.58–2.60 g.cm

-3

). These resistivity

and density values are representative for the Krosno nappe

system sediments as well as the autochthonous Mesozoic

sediments of the Bohemian Massif (Figs. 4, 5). However,

the position and thickness of this floor better correspond to

the lithological character of the Krosno nappe system (e.g.,

Chlupáč et al. 2002). On the other hand, autochthonous

Mesozoic sediments were identified beneath the Flysch belt

and Neogene sediments as known from wells (Eliáš & Wessely

1990; Adámek 2005), thus their presence cannot be com-

pletely excluded. Therefore, the presence of an autochthonous

Mesozoic layer on the top of the Bohemian Massif crystalline

basement is assumed in a limited thickness below the Krosno

nappe system (Fig. 5).

Based on the former magnetotelluric results published by

Jankowski et al. (1985, 2008) in the structures below 6 km

it could be also considered the presence of the Carpathian

Conductivity Anomaly (CCA). On the closest Profile P-78a

to our study area, the CCA was estimated in the depth

interval 10–20 km (Jankowski et al. 1985). It is characterized

by the same low resistivity values (1–4 Ohm.m) we attributed

to the ?Paleozoic rocks in our interpretation. This general

well known anomaly and its origin is topic for debate for

decades (Hvoždara & Vozár 2004; Jankowski et al. 2008).

Its presence could also cover the more resistive structures

below.

The deepest high resistivity floor is attributed to the crystal-

line complexes of the Bohemian Massif (Picha et al. 2006).

The interpretation is also supported by the seismic interpreta-

tion along the Profile 8HR (Tomek & Hall 1993).

Discussion

Gravimetric and magnetotelluric surveys were done to cla-

rify the geological structure of the Slovak part of the Vienna

Basin pre-Neogene basement. The thickness of the Neogene

sediments was obtained from borehole data. The Neogene

sedi mentary fill is represented by a low-resistivity anomaly on

the magnetotelluric profile. Similar resistivity values for the

sedimentary layers were observed in older magnetotelluric

and geomagnetic deep sounding works, along the international

Deep Seismic Sounding profile No. VI (Červ et al. 2001).

The newest and closest geoelectrical study situated just a few

kilometres to the west from our analysed profile (Klanica et al.

2018) and the borehole logs confirms these resistivity values.

The course of this anomaly is observable in detail in the gra-

vimetric interpretation. The density ranges from 2.20 to

2.50 g.cm

-3

, depending on the lithification rate of the Neogene

sediments. The applied densities have been compared, in

detail, with the densities calculated on the basis of seismic log-

ging data converted to velocities and their subsequent trans-

formation to densities. The densities thus determined directly

on the wells Šaštín-9 (Š-9), Šaštín-12 (Š-12), and Lakšárska

Nová Ves-7 (LNV-7) are in good accordance with our deter-

mined densities (e.g., Eliáš & Uhmann 1968; Stránska et al.

1986; Ibrmajer et al. 1989; Šamajová & Hók 2018).

The pre-Neogene basement is reliably visible on the both

geophysical interpretations. The pre-Neogene floor of the

Vienna Basin consists of Mesozoic and Paleogene sediments.

Based on the magnetotelluric interpretation, it is possible to

differentiate the position of the Paleogene (low resistivity) and

Mesozoic sequences (high resistivity). The gravimetric inter-

pretations allow variation in the density value of these

sequences. Tectonic affiliations of the Mesozoic nappe sys-

tems mainly in the south-west (Austrian) part is indisputable.

A problematic and long-discussed question is the tectonic

classification of the Mesozoic sediments in the north-eastern

(Slovak) part of the Vienna Basin. The main problem is the

lithofacial similarity of the individual lithostratigraphic mem-

bers of the Bajuvaricum, Tirolicum and Hronicum tectonic

units (c.f., Wessely 1992 and Havrila 2011).

According to Fusán et al. (1987), Kysela & Kullmanová

(1988) and partially also Němec & Kocák (1976) the Mesozoic

sediments of the Slovak part of the Vienna Basin belong to

the Hronicum tectonic unit. Continuation of the Northern

Calcareous Alps nappes below the Neogene sediments of

the Slovak part of Vienna Basin is reported by Jiříček (1988);

Hamilton et al. (1990); Wessely (1992) and Wessely et al.

(1993).

The Hronicum tectonically overlies the Fatricum and rep-

resents the highest nappe system of the Middle group of

nappes of the Internal Western Carpathians (sensu Hók et al.

2014). The Triassic lithostratigraphy of the Fatricum and

427

GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE VIENNA BASIN PRE-NEOGENE BASEMENT

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2019, 70, 5, 418–431

Hronicum is considerably different (e.g., Biely et al. 1996).

However, the Triassic lithostratigraphy of the Hronicum and

the Tirolicum and/or Bajuvaricum is in many aspects similar

(Table 1). Correlation of the Bajuvaricum (especially Fran-

kenfels–Lunz nappe system) and Fatricum (Wessely 1992)

can be excluded due to different Triassic lithostratigraphy of

these tectonic units. The Fatric nappe system does not contain

lithostratigraphic members typical for the Bajuvaricum (e.g.,

Reichenhall Fm., Reifling Fm., Opponitz Fm.). This lithostra-

tigraphy is closer to the Biely Váh and/or Dobrá Voda basinal

sequences of the Hronic nappe system in the Internal Western

Carpathians (Kováč et al. 2002; Havrila 2011). Moreover,

the Carpathian Keuper sequence systematically presented

within the Fatricum has only limited occurrences in the

Bajuvaric (Frankenfels-Lunz) and/or Hronic nappe systems

(e.g., Mandl 2000; Polák et al. 2003; Havrila 2011).

The Tirolic nappes in the pre-Neogene basement of the

Vienna Basin were linked to the Malé Karpaty Mts. and cor-

related with the Veterlín, Havranica and Jablonica nappes of

the Hronic nappe system (Jiříček 1988; Hamilton et al. 1990;

Wessely 1992; Wessely et al. 1993). The original paleogeo-

graphic position of the Tirolicum and western parts of Hro-

nicum was probably in proximity as seen from the lithofacial

similarity of Triassic lithostratigraphic members (Table 2).

The decisive argument how to distinguish between the

Tirolicum and Hronicum or Alpine versus Carpathian tectonic

provenance is the presence or absence of the anhydrite-rich

strata of the Opponitz Fm. and Reichenhall Fm. as well as

the Reingraben Fm. The Opponitz Fm. is the integral member

of the Havranica and Jablonica partial nappes of the Hronicum,

but does not contain anhydrite (Began et al. 1984; Salaj et al.

1987; Havrila 2011). In the boreholes of the Závod series (e.g.,

Jiříček 1988) the Haselgebirge Fm., which probably indicates

the presence of Juvavicum, has also been documented. None

of these formations occur in the Hronicum even in the whole

Western Carpathians (Table 2). Therefore, the anhydrite-rich

sediments in the lower sections of boreholes LNV-7 and Š-12

(Fig. 3) are interpreted as part of the Alpine provenance nappe

system, while the upper sections belong to the Hronicum

(Fig. 6). Similarly, the Triassic interval with the Reingraben

shales, Steinalm Limestone, Gutenstein Fm. and evaporitic

Reichenhall Fm. in borehole Studienka-83 (Fig. 3) belongs

to the Tirolicum (Unterberg nappe in borehole Berndorf-1

section, Wachtel & Wessely 1981). The Upper Cretaceous‒

Paleocene sediments below the Triassic sequence in borehole

Studienka-83 can be correlated with the Gießhübel basin

(Bujnovský et al. 1992; Stern & Wagreich 2013) and Bajuvaric

nappe system can be expected below.

The upper boundary (12 km; Fig. 5) crystalline basement of

the Bohemian Massif is visible on the magnetotelluric inter-

pretation as a high resistivity anomaly (5–19 Ohm.m). On the

gravimetric profile, the high density Bohemian Massif was

interpreted (in depth 11 km; Fig. 4).

The Bohemian Massif is overlain by autochthonous Meso-

zoic cover. This structure is undetectable in the magneto-

telluric profile. The gravimetric interpretation is supported by

well log analyses and by study of the borehole lithology

Zistersdorf Üt 2A, Sedlec-1; Bulhary-1; Kobylí-1 or Nové

Mlýny-1,2,3 (Špička et al. 1977; Adámek 1986, 2005; Wessely

1988; Eliáš & Wessely 1990) even though the sediments

were not reached in the borehole Berndorf-1

(Wachtel & Wessely 1981).

The Flysch Belt, located directly below

the Neogene sediments, outcrops only in the

northern part of the Vienna Basin. However,

we assume that it extends deeper, even below

the Northern Calcareous Alps as well as below

the Internal Western Carpathians units almost

to the NW margin of the Malé Karpaty Mts.

(compare Arzmüller et al. 2006).

The mentioned assumptions are based on the

know ledge of the surface structure of the Flysch

Belt (Potfaj et al. 2014), the borehole data

from the Vienna Basin (Adámek 2005; Picha

et al. 2006) and surroundings (Lubina-1, see

Leško et al. 1982; Klanečnica-1, Teťák 2016)

as well as the magnetotelluric data (Fig. 5).

We assume a 3–6 km thick complex formed

by “flysch“ deposits above the crystalline

basement and autochthonous Mesozoic sedi-

ments of the Bohemian Massif.

It is represented (upward) by the autochtho-

nous Paleogene sediments and overlaying

Krosno and Magura nappe systems. Krosno

nappe system represents in particular

Waschberg–Ždánice–Pouzdřany Unit. They are

Table 2: Lithostratigraphic columns of the Hronicum and Tirolicum nappe systems

(Piller et al. 2004; Buček in Polák et al. 2012). The Opponitz Formation does not con-

tain anhydrite intercalations in the Hronicum. *Göstling Fm., ** Reingraben Fm.

428

ŠAMAJOVÁ, HÓK, CSIBRI, BIELIK, TEŤÁK, BRIXOVÁ, SLIVA and ŠÁLY

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2019, 70, 5, 418–431

partly autochthonous deposits of the margin of the Bohemian

Massif, and partly thrust-sheets or duplexes of the Waschberg–

Ždánice–Pouzdřany Unit and other external units. We do not

expect that the Silesian Unit or the Fore-Magura Unit reach so

far west. The Waschberg–Ždánice–Pouzdřany Unit is formed

predominantly by Upper Cretaceous (Campanian–Maas-

trichtian) to Lower Miocene (Egerian to Karpatian) marls

and mudstones. The organic-rich rocks of the Menilitic Fm. of

the Waschberg–Ždánice–Pouzdřany Unit or the autochtho-

nous Paleogene sedi ments are an important source rocks of

hydrocarbons in the Vienna Basin (Picha et al. 2006). Based

on the mentioned pre vailing lithology, the density of this

complex is 2.58 g.cm

-3

The sediments of the Magura nappe system are thrust over

the Krosno nappe system. Prevailing Upper Cretaceous to

Paleogene flysch deposits analogous to underlying units are

found here, although their stratigraphy and lithology are fun-

damentally different. The lowest and most external Siary Unit

(northern Rača Unit) is formed by typical thick sandstone

complexes of the Soláň and Zlín Fms. Sandstone rich litho-

logy is overlying the Rača Unit with sandstones of the

Luhačovice and Zlín Fms. (Picha et al. 2006). Based on

the predominant sandstone lithology, we determine the density

of the Siary and Rača units at 2.70 g.cm

-3

The marls are typical for the Bystrica Unit of the Magura

nappe system. The Bystrica Unit does not outcrop on the sur-

face. If this unit occurs in the Vienna Basin, it will most likely

occupy deeper parts close to the Klippen Belt.

The Biele Karpaty Unit reaches much larger dimensions

(Potfaj 1993). The Biele Karpaty Unit is represented by the

Bošáca Nappe predominantly containing marls and mud-

stones. The stratigraphically and tectonically higher sandstone-

rich Javorina Nappe either does not occur here or only in

a limited extent with a reduced proportion of sandstone due to

the distal position of Javorina type sandstones. The density of

the Siary and Rača units is 2.58 g.cm

-3

We do not expect the occurrence of Magura nappe system

sediments internally from the Klippen Belt. If they were to

be present, then only to a limited extent and represented by

the Biele Karpaty Unit with lower density.

Conclusion

Geophysical and geological modelling and interpretations

along the gravimetric and magnetotelluric profiles brought

new results on the structures of the pre-Neogene basement of

the Slovak part of the Vienna Basin (Fig. 1). The gravimetric

Fig. 6. Simplified geological map with the position of the Alpine and Carpathians nappe systems. FB — Flysch Belt; KB — Klippen Belt;

NCA — North Calcareous Alps; Bj — Bajuvaric nappe system; Ti — Tirolic nappe system; IWC — Internal Western Carpathians; Hr — Hronic

nappe system.

429

GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE VIENNA BASIN PRE-NEOGENE BASEMENT

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2019, 70, 5, 418–431

profile was constructed in the NW‒SE direction along the

expected tectonic contacts and deep boreholes. Part of

the gravimetric profile is parallel to the magnetotelluric profile

(Fig. 2). The data from deep boreholes, especially from

Lakšárska Nová Ves-7 (LNV-7) and Šaštín-12 (Š-12), have

been reviewed from the point of view of the current lithostrati-

graphic knowledge of the Mesozoic rock sequences (Fig. 3).

The obtained results can be summarized as follows:

• Four floors with different geological structure can be

defined (Figs. 4, 5)

• The deepest floor is formed by the crystalline basement of

the Bohemian Massif and its autochthonous Mesozoic cover

(Figs. 4, 5).

• The floor above the Bohemian Massif is represented by

the accretionary prism of the Flysch Belt formed by

(upward) the Krosno (Waschberg–Ždánice–Pouzdřany

Unit) and Magura nappe systems thrust over the rock

sequences of the Bohemian Massif (Figs. 4, 5).

• The third floor is controlled by borehole data. It contains

the Mesozoic sequences of the Klippen Belt and cover

nappes of the Alpine and Carpathian tectonic provenance.

• The decisive argument for determining the tectonic identity

of the cover nappes is the presence or absence of anhyd rite-

rich strata documented in boreholes (Opponitz Fm., Rein-

graben Fm., Reichenhal Fm.) that do not occur in the

Hro nicum tectonic unit (Fig. 3).

• The Hronicum tectonic unit is thrust over the Tirolic and

Bajuvaric nappe systems (Fig. 6).

• The Neogene sediments of the Vienna Basin infill represent

the highest floor of geological structure in the interpreted/

modelled profiles (Figs. 4, 5).

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Slovak

Research and Development Agency under the contracts nos.

APVV-0212-12, APVV-16-0146, APVV-16-0121, APVV-

16-0482, APVV-17-0170 and APVV SK-AT-2017-0010 by

the VEGA Slovak Grant Agency under projects nos. 2/0006/19

and 1/0115/18 and by the grants of Comenius University

No. UK/268/2017. Thanks also to the comments of the revie-

wers which helped to clarify some aspects of the original

manuscript.

References

Adámek J. 1986: Geological knowledge about Mesozoic structure of

southeastern slope of the Bohemian Massif section. Zemní Plyn

a nafta 31, 4, 453–484 (in Czech).

Adámek J. 2005: The Jurassic floor of the Bohemian Massif in

Moravia — geology and paleogeography. Bulletin of Geosciences

80, 4, 91–305.

Alasonati Tašárová Z., Bielik M. & Götze H.J. 2008: Stripped image

of the gravity field of the Carpathian–Pannonian region based on

the combined interpretation of the CELEBRATION 2000 data.

Geol. Carpath. 59, 3, 199–209.

Alasonati Tašárová Z., Afonso J.C., Bielik M., Götze H.J. & Hók J.

2009: The lithospheric structure of the Western Carpathian–

Pannonian region based on the CELEBRATION 2000 seismic

experiment and gravity modeling. Tectonophysics 475, 454–469.

Alasonati Tašárová Z., Fullea J., Bielik M. & Środa P. 2016: Litho-

spheric structure of Central Europe: Puzzle pieces from Panno-

nian Basin to Trans-European Suture Zone resolved by geo-

physical–petrological modelling. Tectonics 35, 1–32.

Arzmüller G., Buchta Š., Ralbovský E. & Wessely G. 2006:

The Vienna Basin. In: Golonka J. & Picha F.J. (Eds.): The Carpa-

thians and their foreland: Geology and hydrocarbon resources.

AAPG Memoir 84, 191–204.

Began A., Hanáček J., Mello J. & Salaj J. 1984: Geological map of

Myjavská pahorkatina Hills, Brezovské and Čachtické Karpaty

Mts. State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr, Bratislava.

Biela A. 1978: Deep drilling in the covered areas of the Inner Western

Carpathians. Regionálna Geológia Záp. Karpát 10, State Geo

logical Institute of Dionýz Štúr, Bratislava, 1‒224 (in Slovak).

Bielik M. 1995: Continental convergence in the Carpathian region by

density modelling. Geol. Carpath. 46, 3‒12.

Bielik M. 1998: Analysis of the gravity field in the Western and Eas-

tern Carpathian junction area: density modelling. Geol. Carpath.

49, 75–83.

Bielik M., Makarenko I., Csicsay K., Legostaeva O., Starostenko V.,

Savchenko A., Šimonová B., Dérerová J., Fojtíková L., Pašteka

R. & Vozár, J. 2018: The refined Moho depth map in the Car-

pathian–Pannonian region. Contributions to Geophysics and

Geodesy 48, 2, 179–190.

Biely A., Bezák V., Elečko M., Gross P., Kaličiak M., Konečný V.,

Lexa J., Mello J., Nemčok J., Potfaj M., Rakús M., Vass D.,

Vozár J. & Vozárová A. 1996: Explanations to Geological map of

Slovakia 1:500,000. State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr,

Bratislava, 1–76 (in Slovak with English summary).

Bujnovský A., Samuel O. & Snopková P. 1992: Geological evaluation

of pre-Neogene basement in the well Studienka-83 and Kuklov-4

(Vienna Basin). Geol. Práce Správy 94, 35‒43 (in Slovak).

Červ V., S. Kovačiková J. Pek, J. Pěčová & Praus P. 2001: Geoelectri-

cal structure across the Bohemian Massif and the transition zone

to the West Carpathians. Tectonophysics 332, 1–2, 201–210.

Chlupáč I., Brzobohatý R., Kovanda J. & Stráník Z. 2002: Geolo gic His-

tory of the Czech Republic. Academia, Praha, 1–436 (in Czech).

de Böckh H. 1934: Gravity Measurements in the Great Hungarian

Plain. Journal of the Institution of Petroleum Technologists 20,

884–890.

Dérerová J., Zeyen H., Bielik M. & Salman K. 2006: Application of

integrated geophysical modelling for determination of the conti-

nental lithospheric thermal structure in the eastern Carpathians.

Tectonics 25, 3, 1–12, TC3009.

Eliáš M. & Uhmann J. 1968: Densities of the rocks in Czechoslo-

vakia. Geological Survey, Prague, 1–84.

Eliáš M. & Wessely G. 1990: The autochthonous Mesozoic on the

eastern flank of the Bohemian Massif - an object of mutual geo-

logical efforts between Austria and CSSR. In: Minaříková D. &

Lobitzer H. (Eds.): Thirty years of geological cooperation be-

tween Austria and Czechoslovakia. Fed. Geol. Survey Vienna,

Geol. Survey Prague, 23‒32.

Fuchs W. & Grill R. (Eds.) 1984: Geologische Karte von Wien und

Umgebung 1:200,000. Geologische Bundesanstalt, Wien.

Fusán O., Biely A., Ibrmajer J., Plančár J. & Rozložník L. 1987:

Pre-Tertiary basemnet of the Inner Western Carpathians [Pod-

ložie terciéru vnútorných Západných Karpát]. State Geological

Institute of Dionýz Štúr, Bratislava, 1–103 (in Slovak with

English summary).

GM-SYS

User’s Guide for version 4.9. 2004: Northwest Geophy

sical Associates Inc Corvallis.

Hamilton W., Jiříček R. & Wessely G. 1990: The Alpine–Carpathian

floor of the Vienna Basin in Austria and ČSSR. In: Minalikov B. D.

& Lobitzer H. (Eds.): Thirty years of geological cooperation

between Austria and Czechoslovakia. Fed. Geol. Survey Vienna,

Geol. Survey Prague, 46‒55.

430

ŠAMAJOVÁ, HÓK, CSIBRI, BIELIK, TEŤÁK, BRIXOVÁ, SLIVA and ŠÁLY

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2019, 70, 5, 418–431

Havrila M. 2011: Hronicum: paleogeography and stratigraphy (Upper

Pelson–Tuvalian), tectonic individualization and structure. Geol.

Práce 117, 7–103 (in Slovak).

Hók J., Šujan M. & Šipka F. 2014: Tectonic division of the Western

Carpathians: an overview and a new approach. Acta Geologica

Slovaca 6, 135–143 (in Slovak with English summary).

Hók J., Kováč M., Pelech O., Pešková I., Vojtko R. & Králiková S.

2016: The Alpine tectonic evolution of the Danube Basin and its

northern periphery (southwestern Slovakia). Geol. Carpath. 67,

495‒505.

Hrubcová P., Środa P., Špičák A., Guterch A., Grad M., Keller G. R.,

Brückl E. & Thybo H. 2005: Crustal and uppermost mantle

structure of the Bohemian Massif based on CELEBRATION

2000 data. J. Geophys. Res. 110, 1–21, B11305.

Hrubcová P., Środa P., Grad M., Geissler W.H., Guterch A., Vozár J.,

Hegedüs E. & SUDETES 2003 Working Group 2010: From

the Variscan to the Alpine Orogeny: crustal structure of

the Bohemian Massif and the Western Carpathians in the light of

the SUDETES 2003 seismic data. Geophys. J. Int. 183, 611–633.

Hvoždara M. & Vozár J. 2004: Laboratory and geophysical implica-

tions for explanation of the nature of the Carpathian conductivity

anomaly. Acta Geophys. Pol. 52, 4, 497–508.

Ibrmajer J., Suk M., Bližkovský M., Buday T., Cidlinský K., Čekan

V., Čermák V., Daňko J., Filo M., Fusán O., Hrouda F., Kocák

A., Král M., Krs M., Kubeš P., Lizoň I., Manová M., Marušiak I.,

Matolín I., Mořkovský M., Muška P., Novotný A., Obernauer D.,

Orlický O., Oujezdská V., Píchová E., Pokorný L., Stránska M.,

Šalanský K., Tkáč J., Uhmann J., Venhodová D. & Weiss J.

1989: Geophysical picture of the ČSSR. 1

. edition. ÚÚG,

Praha, 1–354 (in Czech with English summary).

Jankowski J., Jóźwiak W. & Vozár J. 2008: Arguments for ionic na-

ture of the Carpathian electric conductivity anomaly. Acta Geo

phys. 56, 2, 455–465.

Jankowski J., Tarlowski Z. Praus O. Pěčová J. & Petr V. 1985:

The results of deep geomagnetic soundings in the West Carpa-

thians. Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc. 80, 561–574.

Janoschek W.R & Matura A. 1980: Outline of the Geology of Austria.

Abh. Geol. Bundesanst. 34, 7‒98.

Jiříček R. 1988: Geologická stavba mezozoika na ložisku Závod.

Zemní Plyn a nafta 33, 2, 191‒260 (in Czech).

Karner G.D. & Watts A.B. 1983: Gravity anomalies and flexure

of the lithosphere at mountain ranges. J. Geophys. Res. 88,

10449–10477.

Kilényi E. & Šefara J. (Eds.) 1989: Pre-Tertiary Basement Countour

Map of the Carpathian Basin Beneath Austria, Czechoslovakia

and Hungary. ELGI, Budapest.

Klanica R., Červ V. & Pek J. 2018: Magnetotelluric study of the eas-

tern margin of the Bohemian Massif: relations between the

Cadomian, Variscan, and Alpine orogeny. Int. J. Earth Sci. 107,

8, 2843–2857.

Kováč M. & Plašienka D. (Eds.), Aubrecht R., Halouzka R., Krejčí

O., Kronome B., Nagymarosy A., Přichystal A. & Wagreich M.

2002: Geological structure of the Alpine–Carpathian–Pannonian

junction and neighbouring slopes of the Bohemian Massif.

Comenius University, Bratislava, 1–84.

Kröll A. & Wessely G. 1973: Neue Ergebnise beim Tiefenaufschluss

im Wiener Becken. Erdöl Erdgas Z. 83, Wien, 342‒353.

Kysela J. & Kullmanová A. (Eds.) 1988: Reinterpretation of the geo-

logical structure of the pre-Neogene basement of the Slovak part

of the Vienna Basin [Reinterpretácia geologickej stavby pred-

neogénneho podložia slovenskej časti viedenskej panvy].

Západné Karpaty sér. Geológia 11, 7–51 (in Slovak).

Leško B. (Ed.), Babák B., Borovcová D., Boučková B., Dubecký K.,

Ďurkovič T., Faber P., Gašpariková V., Harča V., Köhler E.,

Kuděra L., Kullmanová A., Okénko J., Planderová E., Potfaj M.,

Samuel O., Slámková M., Slanina V., Summer J., Sůrová E.,

Štěrba L. & Uhman J. 1982: Structural borehole Lubina-1

[Oporný vrt Lubina-1]. Regionálna geológia Západných Karpát

17, 7–116 (in Slovak).

Lexa J., Bezák V., Elečko M., Eliáš M., Konečný V., Less G., Mandl

G.W., Mello J., Pálenský P., Pelikán P., Polák M., Radócz Gy.,

Rylko W., Schnabel G.W., Straník Z., Vass D., Vozár J. &

Zelenka T. 2000: Geological map of Western Carpathians and

adjacent areas. Ministry of Env. of Slovak Rep. and Geological

Survey of Slovak Rep., Bratislava.

Lillie R. J. 1991: Evolution of gravity anomalies across collisional

mountain belts: Clues to the amount of continental convergence

and underthrusting. Tectonics, 10, 672–687.

Lillie R.J., Bielik M., Babuška V. & Plomerová J. 1994: Gravity

model ling of the lithosphere in the Eastern Alpine–Western Car-

pathian–Pannonian Basin region. Tectonophysics 231, 215–235.

Mandl G. 2000: The Alpine sector of the Tethyan shelf — Examples

of Triassic to Jurassic sedimentation and deformation from the

Northern Calcareous Alps. Mitt. Öster. Geol. Ges. 92, 61‒77.

Němec F. & Kocák A. 1976: Pre-Neogene basement of the Slovak

part of the Vienna Basin [Předneogenní podloží slovenské části

vídeňské pánve]. Mineralia slovaca 8, 481–555 (in Czech).

Novák J. 1997: Elastic vaves velocities in the Slovakian part of the

Vienna basin and its basement. Zemní Plyn a nafta 42, 2, 59–81

(in Czech with English summary).

Pašteka R., Zahorec P., Mikuška J., Szalaiová V., Papčo J., Krajňák

M., Kušnirák D., Pánisová J., Vajda P. & Bielik M. 2014: Recal-

culation of regional and detailed gravity database from Slovak

Republic and qualitative interpretation of new generation Bou-

guer anomaly map. Geophys. Res. Abstracts 16, EGU2014-

9439.

Pašteka R., Záhorec P., Kušnirák D., Bošanský M., Papčo J., Marušiak

I., Mikuška J. & Bielik M. 2017: High resolution Slovak Bou-

guer gravity anomaly map and its enhanced derivative transfor-

mations: new possibilities for interpretation of anomalous

gravity fields. Contributions to Geophysics and Geodesy 47, 2,

81–94.

Pekár D. 1928: Die Entwicklung der Eötvösschen Originaldreh-

wagen. Naturwissenschaften 16, 1079–1088.

Picha F.J., Stráník Z. & Krejčí O. 2006: Geology and hydrocarbon

resources of the Outer Western Carpathians and their foreland,

Czech Republic. In: Golonka J. & Picha F.J. (Eds.): The Car-

pathians and their foreland: Geology and hydrocarbon resources.

AAPG Memoir 84, 49–175.

Piller W.E., Egger H., Erhart C.W., Gross M., Harzhauser M.,

Hubmann B., Van Husen D., Krenmayr H.-G., Krystyn L.,

Lein R., Lukeneder A., Mandl G., Rögl F., Roetzel R., Rupp C.,

Schnabel W., Schönlaub H.P., Summesberger H., Wagreich M.

& Wessely G. 2004: Die stratigraphische Tabelle von Österreich

(sedimentäre Schichtfolgen).

Plašienka D. 2018: Continuity and episodicity in the early Alpine tec-

tonic evolution of the Western Carpathians: How large-scale

processes are expressed by the orogenic architecture and rock

record data. Tectonics 37, 1–51.

Plašienka D. & Soták J. 2015: Evolution of Late Cretaceous‒Paleo-

gene synorogenic basins in the Pieniny Klippen Belt and adja-

cent zones (Western Carpathians, Slovakia): tectonic controls

over a growing orogenic wedge. Annales Societatis Geologorum

Poloniae 85, 43–76.

Polák M. (Ed.), Filo I., Havrila M., Bezák V., Kohút M., Kováč P.,

Vozár J., Mello J., Maglay, J., Elečko M., Vozárová A., Olšavský

M., Siman P., Buček S., Siráňová Z., Hók J., Rakús M., Lexa J.,

Šimon L., Pristaš J., Kubeš P., Zakovič M., Liščák P., Žáková E.,

Boorová D. & Vaněková H. 2003: Explanatory notes to the Geo-

logical map of the the Staré Hory Mts, ČierťažMts and northern

part of the Zvolenská kotlina Depression 1: 50,000 [Vysvetlivky

ku geologickej mape Starohorských vrchov, Čierťaže a severnej

431

GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE VIENNA BASIN PRE-NEOGENE BASEMENT

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, 2019, 70, 5, 418–431

časti Zvolenskej kotliny 1:50 000]. Ministerstvo Životného

Prostredia Slovenskej Republiky, Štátny Geologický ústav

Dio nýza Štúra, Bratislava, 1–218.

Polák M. (Ed.), Plašienka D., Kohút M., Putiš M., Bezák V., Filo I.,

Olšavský M., Havrila M., Buček S., Maglay J., Elečko M.,

Fordinál K., Nagy A., Hraško L., Németh Z., Ivanička J. &

Broska I. 2011: Geological map of the Malé Karpaty Mts

1:50,000. State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr, Bratislava.

Polák M., Plašienka D., Kohút M., Putiš M., Bezák V., Maglay J.,

Olšavský M., Havrila M., Buček S., Elečko M., Fordinál K.,

Nagy A., Hraško Ľ., Németh Z., Malík P., Liščák P., Madarás J.,

Slavkay M, Kubeš P., Kucharič Ľ., Boorová D., Zlínska A.,

Siráňová Z. † & Žecová K. 2012: Explanation to the geological

map of the Malé Karpaty Mts (scale 1:50,000).State Geological

Institute of Dionýz Štúr, Bratislava, 1–287.

Potfaj M. 1993: Position and role of the Biele Karpaty Unit in the

Flysch Zone of the West Carpathians. Geol. Práce, Spr. 98,

55–78 (in Slovak with English summary).

Potfaj M., Teťák F. (Eds.), Havrila, M., Filo, I., Pešková, I., Olšavský,

M. & Vlačiky M. 2014: Geological map of the Biele Karpaty

Mts (southern part) and Myjavská pahorkatina Upland 1:50,000.

State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr, Bratislava.

Salaj J., Began A., Hanáček J., Mello J., Kullman E., Čechová A. &

Šucha P. 1987: Explanation to the geological map (scale

1:50,000) of the Myjavská pahorkatina, Brezovské and Čachtické

Karpaty Mts. Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr, Bratislava,

1–181 (in Slovak).

Sauer R., Seifert P. & Wessely G. 1992: Guidebook to excursions in

the Vienna basin and the adjacent Alpine-Carpathian Thrustbelt

in Austria. Mitt. Österr. Geol. Gesell. 85, 1–264.

Speváková E. 2011: Application of modern geophysical methods

during the survey of the central part of the Vienna Basin (3D

gravity field modeling using the conversion of seismic logging

measurements to density). Ph.D. Thesis, Comenius University in

Bratislava, Faculty of Natural Sciences. Department of Applied

and Environmental Geophysics, 1–108 (in Slovak with English

summary).

Stern G. & Wagreich M. 2013: Provenance of the Upper Cretaceous

to Eocene Gosau Group around and beneath the Vienna Basin

(Austria and Slovakia). Swiss J. Geosci. 106, 3, 505–527.

Stockmal G.S. & Beaumont C. 1987: Geodynamic models of conver-

gent margin tectonics: The southern Canadian Cordillera and the

Swiss Alps. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geology Special

Publications 12, 393–411.

Stránska M., Ondra P., Husák Ľ. & Hanák J. 1986: Gravimetric map

of the Western Carpathians on the ČSSR territory [Hustotná

mapa hornín Západných Karpát na území ČSSR]. Open file

report, Geofyzika Brno, 1–261 (in Slovak and Czech).

Szalaiová V., Wojdyła M. & Sito Ł. 2011: Interpretation of magneto-

telluric profiles from Vienna Basin (Záhorská Lowlands). Open

file report, Geofond, Bratislava, 467/2011 (NAFTA a.s.).

Šamajová L. & Hók J. 2018: Density of rock formations of the Wes-

tern Carpathians on the territory of Slovakia. Geol. Práce Spr.

132, 31–52 (in Slovak).

Šefara J., Bielik M., Bodnár J., Čížek P., Filo M., Gnojek I., Grecula

P., Halmešová S., Husák Ľ., Janoštík M., Král M., Kubeš P.,

Kurkin M., Leško B., Mikuška J., Muška P., Obernauer D.,

Pospíšil L., Putiš M., Šutora A. & Velich R. 1987: Structure–

tectonic map of the Inner Western Carpathians for the prognoses

of the ore deposits — geophysical interpretations. Explanation to

the collection of the maps. Open file report, Geophysics Brno,

Enterprise Bratislava, 1–267 (in Slovak).

Šimonová B. & Bielik M. 2016: Determination of rock densities in

the Carpathian–Pannonian Basin lithosphere: based on the

CELEBRATION 2000 experiment. Contributions to Geophysics

and Geodesy 46, 269–87.

Šimonová B., Zeyen H. & Bielik M. 2019: Continental lithospheric

structure from the East European Craton to the Pannonian Basin

based on integrated geophysical modelling. Tectonophysics 750,

289–300.

Špička V., Adam Z. & Ciprys V. 1977: The Contribution of reflection

seismics for the solution of the geological construction of the

autochton between Nikolčice and Kobylí. Sbor. Geol. Věd 14,

53–72 (in Czech).

Talwani M., Worzel J.L. & Landisman M. 1959: Rapid gravity com-

putations for two dimensional bodies with application to the

Mendocino submarine fracture zone. Journal of Geophysical

Research 64, 49–59.

Teťák F. 2016: Biele Karpaty Unit western of the Veľká Javorina —

geological structure and evolution.. Štúdio F — Ing. František

Teťák, Námestovo, 1–31. ISBN 978-80-89070-67-1 (in Slovak

with English summary)

Tomek Č. & Budík L. 1981: Construction and interpretation of the

uncovered gravity map of the Vienna Basin. Journal of Geolo

gical Sciences, Applied Geophysics 2, 173–186.

Tomek Č. & Hall J. 1993: Subducted continental margin imaged in

the Carpafthian of Czechoslovakia. Geology 21, 535‒538.

Tomek Č., Švancara J. & Budík L. 1979: The depth and the origin of

the West Carpathian gravity low. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 44,

39‒42.

Topographic Institute 2012: Digital terrain model version 3 (online).

http://www.topu.mil.sk/14971/digitalny-model-reliefu-

urovne-3-%28dmr-3%29.php.

Vozárová A. & Vozár J. 1988: Late Paleozoic in the West Carpatians.

Geol. Úst. D. Štúra, Bratislava, 1‒314.

Wachtel G. & Wessely G. 1981: Die Tiefbohrung Berndorf-1 in den

östlichen Kalkalpen und ihr geologischer Rahmen. Mitt. Österr.

Geol. Ges. 74/75, 137‒165.

Wessely G. 1975: Rand und Untergrund des Wiener BeckensVerbin-

dungen und Vergleiche. Mitt. Geol. Gesell. 66/67, 265‒287.

Wessely G. 1988: Structure and Development of the Vienna Basin in

Austria. In Royden L.H. & Horvath F. (Eds.): The Pannonian

System. A study in basin evolution. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol.

Mem. 45, 333‒346.

Wessely G. 1990: Geological results of deep exploration in the Vienna

Basin. Geol. Rundsch. 79, 2, 513‒520.

Wessely G. 1992: The calcareous Alps below the Vienna Basin in

Austria and their structural and facial development in the

Alpine–Carpathian border zone. Geol. Carpath. 43, 6, 347‒353.

Wessely G., Kröll A., Jiříček R. & Němec F. 1993: Wiener Becken

und angrenzende Gebiete: Geologische Einheiten des präneoge-

nen Beckenuntergrundes 1:200,000. Geol. Bundes anstalt, Wien.