Mediterranean Geoscience Reviews (2020) 2:341–358

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42990-020-00043-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Morphotectonic development of the Adana plain and the surrounding

mountains, South Turkey
Yücel Yılmaz1

Received: 5 May 2020 / Revised: 30 October 2020 / Accepted: 3 November 2020 / Published online: 18 November 2020
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Abstract
This paper describes, compares, and enumerates spatial and temporal morphotectonic elements exposed in and around The
Adana plain and the surrounding marine basins and the mountains, the Taurus, Amanos, and Misis–Andırın ranges. The
Adana-Iskenderun basin complex, South Turkey, is a post-Miocene, composite tectonic entity that experienced several
tectonic restructuring phases. Because of this, its borders and characters have changed continuously. The tectonic forces,
sourced from the Arabian Plate’s collision with the Anatolian continents along The Southeastern Anatolian suture, pervaded
the entire Anatolia and its surroundings a chain of events from the late Miocene onward. They have caused the uplifting of
the Taurus and Amanos Mountains. The rise delimited the northeastward extension of the Mediterranean Sea and left the sea
basin as a structural depression in the South of the elevated terrains. This event corresponds to the initial stage of develop-
ment of the Adana plain and the adjacent sea basins. After the Miocene, westerly escape tectonics replaced the north–south
orthogonal shortening deformation along the Southeast Anatolian Orogenic Belt. Consequently, transpressional strike-slip
faults were generated. The faults collectively began to transfer the compression to SW starting from the Pleistocene. Later,
toward the South, where the Eastern Mediterranean is, the faults’ character gradually changed from the transpressional to
the transtensional. The associated faults caused the enlargement of the Adana depression. Partly coevally with these tectonic
events in the northern regions, the slab steepening occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean oceanic lithosphere in the South.
The consequent trench retreat caused a regionwide extension on the upper plate, where the faults ruptured the sea basins and
caused their enlargement to cover large areas in the sea and the land.

Keywords  The Adana plain · Morphotectonics · The Northeast Mediterranean · The Southeast Anatolian Orogenic Belt

1 Introduction Over the last decades, several studies have focused on

The Adana plain and the surroundings are in the southern
Anatolia, located on the southeast margin of the Anatolian
Peninsula (Fig. 1). It covers a vast land extending from the
northeastern tip of the Mediterranean Sea to the mountain-
ous terrain in the North. The Adana plain’s marine, the
Adana-İskenderun basin complex (AİBC in Fig. 1), is a
composite basin consisting of the Adana basin, commonly
referred to in the literature as the Adana-Cilicia basin, and
the Iskenderun basin. A subsea ridge, the Misis–Kyrenia
Ridge, separates the two basins, which extends to the land
as the Misis–Andırın mountains (Mis in Fig. 2).
* Yücel Yılmaz
yyilmaz@khas.edu.tr
1
Istanbul Technical University, Sarıyer, 34469 Istanbul,
Turkey
various general or specific geological aspects of The Adana
plain, the AİBC, and the surroundings (Bilgin et al. 1981;
Gökçen et al. 1991; Gürbüz and Kelling 1993; Westaway
1994; Yılmaz and Gürer 1996; Kozlu 1997; Boyraz 2002;
Gürsoy et  al. 2003; Nazik 2004; Cosentino et  al. 2012;
Cipollari et al. 2013; Ünlügenç and Akıncı 2017). Alter-
native models were proposed on the tectonic development
of the basins and the Eastern Mediterranean (Yalçın and
Görür 1984; Şengör et al. 1985; Kelling et al. 1987; Kempler
1994; Karig and Kozlu 1990; Dilek et al. 1990. Kempler
1994; Williams et al. 1995; Pirazzoli et al. 1991; Jolivet
and Faccenna 2000; Robertson 2000; Aksu et al. 2005a, b,
c; Calon et al. 2005; Hall et al. 2005; Dilek 2006; Harrison
et al. 2012; Schildgen et al. 2012a, b; Bilim et al 2017; Dilek
and Furnes 2019). They are based mostly on the data derived
from the sediment fill and the ophiolitic associations, on
which various analytical techniques were applied. There is

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Y. Yılmaz
342
Fig. 1  Morphotectonic map of Anatolia showing the morphology and
major faults. Two transform faults, the North Anatolian Transform
Fault (NATF) and the East Anatolian Transform Fault (EATF), define
the Anatolian Plate. The red lines are major faults. The red arrows
indicate N–S compression deforming the Eastern Anatolia. The white
arrows show motion directions. The broken  yellow lines are trend
lines of the mountain ranges. In the East of Anatolia, the trend lines
hardly any previous study focusing primarily on major mor-
photectonic features of the region. This paper aims to fill this
gap and proposes a new model explicitly based on the mor-
photectonic parameters. Other relevant data, i.e., the rate and
time of the elevations, and fault kinematics, were also used
where necessary. We believe that the data and the model
presented here may form a platform for future studies to test
this model and compare it with the other alternative models.
The AİBC and the Adana plain are surrounded by the
Amanos, Andırın, and Taurus Mountains (Fig. 2), which
are young, formed during the Neotectonic period when Ana-
tolia’s present morphotectonic character began to develop
(Şengör 1979; Yılmaz 2017, and the references therein).
The ongoing tectonic activity of Anatolia started during
this period and is continuing at a high rate as manifested by
GPS vectors (about 20 mm/year; Kahle et al. 2000; Reilinger
et al. 2010; Masson et al. 2010; Mahmoud et al. 2013). Two
major geological parameters control this motion: (1) the
northward movement of the Arabian Plate, bulldozing the
Eastern Anatolia (Fig. 1), and (2) the northward subduction
of the Mediterranean oceanic lithosphere.
The continuing northward advance of the Arabian Plate
after the continental collision along the Southeastern
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
curve and converge, defining an area of maximum indentation (the
small ellipse). The big ellipse shows the location of the study area.
SAOB the Southeast Anatolian Orogenic Belt, EAHP the East Anato-
lian High Plateau, EF the Ecemiş Fault, DSF The Dead Sea Fault, AP
the Adana Plain, AİBC the Adana-İskenderun basin complex, AB the
Adana Basin, İB the İskenderun Basin, AN The Andırın Mountains,
Amn M The Amanos Mountains
Anatolian Orogenic Belt (SAOB) has generated a severe
compressional deformation, which thickened the Eastern
Anatolian crust. The geophysical observations underneath
the Eastern Anatolia show that the lithospheric mantle is
thin (Şengör et al. 2008). Consequently, the asthenospheric
mantle reached shallow levels (Şengör et al. 2008; Biryol
et al. 2011; Mutlu and Karabulut 2011; Salah 2017), which
caused elevation of the region to form the present East
Anatolian High Plateau (EAHP) (Fig. 1). This event began
during the Late Miocene and is still active.
Further shortening generated two transform faults,
namely the North Anatolian Transform Fault (NATF) and
the East Anatolian Transform Fault (EATF) (Fig. 1). They
define an independent tectonic entity known as the Anato-
lian Plate, protruding from the point of convergence to the
West (Şengör and Kidd 1979) (Fig. 1). This event began
possibly during the late Pliocene–Pleistocene, which is
the beginning of the NeoTectonic period (Yılmaz 2017).
From this time onward, the morphotectonic nature of the
Northeastern Mediterranean and the Anatolia began to
change drastically.
In the following sections, I summarize major morpho-
tectonic features of the mountains surrounding the Adana
Morphotectonic development of the Adana plain and the surrounding mountains, South Turkey 343

Fig. 2  Morphotectonic map
of the Adana Plain and the
surrounding mountain ranges
showing; locations of the
Adana Basin, the İskenderun
Basin, the Adana-İskenderun
basin complex (AİBC), and
the major structural elements;
the faults and trend lines of the
mountain ranges (the broken
yellow lines) The rectangles
show locations of the figures
(A; Fig. 5, B; Fig. 3, C; Fig. 6,
D; Fig. 10). EATF the East
Anatolian transform fault, SSF
the Sarız-Saimbeyli-Mega
Shear Zone, SAF the Sarız
fault. SF the Sürgü fault. EF the
Ecemiş fault. M; BM the Berit
mountains, EM the Engizek
mountains, Ala M and Bolkar M
are the Aladağ and the Bolkar
mountains of the Eastern Tau-
rus, Erc V the Erciyes Volcano

plain and then discuss their roles in developing the Adana
structural depression and the adjacent sea basins.
2 The southeast Anatolian orogenic belt
The SAOB lies along with the northwestern boundary of
the Arabian platform (Figs. 1, 3), which resulted from the
collision between the Arabian Plate and the Anatolian Plate
(for details of the orogenic evolution; Yılmaz 2019). The
SAOB consists of three east–west trending zones. From the
South to the North, these are the Arabian platform, the zone
of imbrication, and the nappes, separated by major thrusts
(Fig. 4).
The northern periphery of the Arabian Plate makes a curve
around the SAOB (Fig. 1), where the Arabian platform turns
to a foreland fold and thrust belt (FFTB in Fig. 1). Toward
the Mediterranean, the folds and the closely associated faults
began to display an en échelon pattern (Fig. 3) (Yılmaz 2017),
where the left‐stepping oblique faults truncate the southerly
overturned folds (major strike-slip, coupled with reverse-slip
components) (Yılmaz et al. 1987; Yılmaz 2017) (Fig. 3). The
fold plane solutions of the frequently generated earthquakes
support the oblique-slip motion (Fig. 5) (Yılmaz 2017). Fur-
ther West, the strike-slip faults increase in number (Figs. 2, 3)
and divide the region into tectonic blocks and wedges.
The eastern Anatolian N–S compressional regime’s major
role in this region is the southwesterly advance of the EATF
(Fig. 3). Several faults, developed along the EATF (Figs. 2,
3), transfer the stress generated by the N–S convergence to
the Southwest (Yılmaz 2017). In the South, the transpres-
sional regime gradually gives way to a transtensional regime
with a prominent WNW–ESE extensional component. Seis-
mic activity along these fault zones is frequent and severe
(Fig. 5a).
3 The Amanos mountains
The Amanos mountains extend along the northwestern edge
of the Arabian Peninsula (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4). Two post‐Mio-
cene, structural depressions, the Karasu Graben in the East

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Y. Yılmaz
344
Fig. 3  The physiographic map of western regions of the Southeast-
ern Anatolian Orogenic Belt (SAOB) and the adjacent areas. The
broken yellow curvilinear lines show the trend lines of the mountain
ranges, which correspond to the axes of the regional folds. The white
lines are strike-slip faults. The red arrows indicate the motion direc-
tions of the Arabian and Anatolian Plates. The fault bundle, which
forms the Sarız-Saimbeyli Mega Shear zone (SSF), comprises sev-
eral fault-bound blocks or tectonic wedges transferring the compres-
sional stress to the Adana Plain. The Sürgü Fault (SF) connects the
(Figs. 1, 2, 3) and the Iskenderun Basin in the West (Figs. 2,
3, 4) bound the Amanos Mountains. A broadly north‐south
striking fault zone consisting of several subparallel faults
forms the western boundary of the Karasu Graben (Fig. 6)
(Yılmaz 1984, 2017; Boulton and Robertson 2008; Boulton
2013). They trend along with the northern extension of the
Dead Sea Fault (DSF) (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) (Karabacak and
Altunel 2013; Garfunkel 2014). The Dead Sea Fault’s slip
rate decreases significantly in the North of Palmira Fold Belt
from 3–10 mm/year down to 1–2 (Mahmoud et al. 2013).
Although exhibiting subsidiary strike-slip displacement, the
boundary faults were defined previously as normal faults
(Arpat and Şaroğlu 1975; Boulton and Robertson 2008),
which have elevated the Amanos Mountains to the present
height reaching above 2000 m (Figs. 6). Seyrek et al. (2007)
calculated the uplift rate ranging between 0.25 and 0.4 mm
a-1. Accordingly, the rise of the Amanos Mountains to its
present elevation occurred after the Pliocene (Duman et al.
2017).
The Amanos Mountains and the surrounding regions
have undergone an approximately SSE–NNW extensional
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
East Anatolian Transform Fault zone (EATF) to the Misis–Andırın
Region. The double-headed arrows are prominent foreland folds of
the study area. EF the Ecemiş fault, Sr F the Sarız fault, ÇSF the
Çiçekli-Savrun fault, SF the Sürgü fault, SSF the Sarız-Saimbeyli
Mega Shear Zone, Amn M the Amanos mountains, Misis M the Misis
mountains, AND the Andırın mountains, AD the Ahırdağ mountains,
Eng M the Engizek Mountains, NM the Nurhak Mountains, BM the
Berit mountains
deformation (Yılmaz 1984; Over et al. 2002, 2004; Duman
et al. 2017) during the last 4my (Duman et al. 2017), which
formed the present horst-graben morphology (Figs. 6, 7,
8) (Erol 1963; Tüysüz et al. 2013; Boulton and Robertson
2008; Boulton 2013; Yılmaz 2017). The extension was the
essential component of the transtensional regime. As a result
of the extension, the tectonic erosion along a probably major
detachment fault underlying the Kızıldağ and Keldağ Moun-
tains (Fig. 8b) has removed a more than 3.5 km thick sedi-
mentary sequence from the Keldağ region since the Pliocene
(for details, see Yılmaz 2017).
4 The Eastern Anatolia
The Eastern Anatolia is a high Plateau. The region started to
rise as a giant dome when the convergence along the SAOB
reached an advanced stage during the late Miocene (Şengör
et al. 2008; Yılmaz 2017, and the references therein). The
long axis of the dome extends from the Iranian border to
Central Anatolia (Fig. 1). The geological record of the initial
Morphotectonic development of the Adana plain and the surrounding mountains, South Turkey 345
Fig. 4  Geology map of the western part of the Southeast Anatolian
Orogenic Belt (SAOB) and the Taurus, showing major tectonic sub-
divisions of the region, the Nappes, the Zone of İmbrication (IBR),
and the Arabian Platform (modified after Yılmaz 2017, Figs.  2, 3,
4, 5, 6). The imbricated zone enlarges westward toward the Andırın
mountains. Further west, the Taurus units are exposed: the metamor-
phic units; (Met Taurus) and non-metamorphic units (TAURUS). The
contact zone between the Taurus and SAOB was severely deformed
stage of this elevation is the gradual transition from marine
sediments to continental deposits, which occurred during
the middle to the late Miocene (Şaroğlu and Yılmaz 1987,
2008; Yılmaz 2017; Şengör et al. 2003; Kuzucuoğlu et al.
2019a, b, c). After the disappearance of the marine and the
following lacustrine environment, which occurred to the
end of late Miocene–early Pliocene (Şaroğlu and Yılmaz
1987; Şengör et al. 2003; Yılmaz 2017), the region suffered
a severe phase of denudation, which formed a regionwide
flat-lying erosional surface during the later periods of the
late Miocene (Yılmaz 2017). The young faults displaced the
laterally continuous erosional surface. Therefore, its rem-
nants may be observed at different heights in several places,
i.e., the Karst Plateau (KP in Fig. 1) (Yılmaz 2017). Various
sedimentary successions were deposited in local depressions
after the Pliocene (Şaroğlu and Yılmaz 1987).
Eastern Anatolia displays most of the structures devel-
oped in a collisional orogenic belt (Şengör and Kidd 1979;
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
(see also Fig. 2). The Misis mountains (Misis) rise steeply like a wall
in the Adana Plain. It extends as a subsea ridge to the Kyrenia Range
in the Northern Cyprus (MKF in Fig.  9). The Karasu depression
delimiting the Amanos Range in the East lies with the northern exten-
sion of the Dead Sea fault (DSF). EATF the East Anatolian Trans-
form Fault. A-the black  line shows the direction of the cross-section
in Fig. 7
Şaroğlu and Yılmaz 1987; Şengör et al. 2003). The conti-
nental crust is thick (> 38 km), reaching up to 50 km (Şengör
et al. 2008; Biryol et al. 2011; Mutlu and Karabulut 2011;
Salah 2017). Following the collision, the continuation of
the north‐south compression generated a complex pattern
of structures. Major fault groups are (1) a conjugated pair
of strike‐slip faults striking northeast and northwest, (2)
approximately east‐west trending reverse faults. Accord-
ingly, most of the present continental basins of eastern Ana-
tolia are ramp basins (Yılmaz 2017). The eastern Anatolian
Plateau itself may also be regarded as a giant ramp basin
that has been squeezed between the peripheral mountains
(Fig. 1). Therefore, the post-Miocene successions are com-
monly folded and faulted (Şaroğlu and Yılmaz 1987; Şengör
et al. 2003, 2008; Yılmaz 2017).
In an advanced stage, the N–S compression generated
two transform faults, The North Anatolian Transform Fault
(EATF) and the East Anatolian Transform Fault (EATF)
13
 Y. Yılmaz
346

Fig. 5  a Epicenters and fault plane solutions of the earthquakes
recorded along the North Anatolian Transform Fault and the East
Anatolian Transform Fault (after Eyidoğan et  al. 1991). The red
arrow indicates the Location of the Kahta town (Adıyaman), where
the fault plane of oblique-slip fault is seen. KAFK the North Anato-
lian Transform Fault, DAFK the east Anatolian Transform fault, KFK
the Karasu fault zone, ÖDFK the Dead Sea Fault, b a closer view
of the fault plane of the Kahta Fault exposed under the Kahta Cas-
tle. The white arrows represent the strike and dip of the fault plane.
The red lines are the slickenlines. The lines with white glow indicate
strike-slip and the reverse slip components

Fig. 6  a An oblique aerial

photo showing a 3D view of
the Amanos Mountains and
two groups of faults that define
its horst character; 1—a set
of listric normal faults facing
the Gulf of İskenderun (white
lines border the fault planes),
and 2—a steeply-dipping (the
straight red lines) oblique-slip
fault with prominent dip-slip
component separating the
Amanos Horst from the Karasu
Graben. The white line cutting
across the Amanos Mountains
is the mountain’s morphological
profile along which the accom-
panying cross-section was
constructed. b A cross-section
across the Amanos Horst show-
ing the two groups of faults that
define the Amanos Horst. The
arrows indicate motion direction
of the down-trown blocks

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Morphotectonic development of the Adana plain and the surrounding mountains, South Turkey 347
Fig. 7  Geology map of the southern Amanos Mountains covering
the regions of the Baër-Bassit (BB), Kızıldağ and Keldağ mountains
(KD) and the Asi Graben (AG). The lines of A1, A2, A3 show direc-
(Fig. 1), to accommodate further shortening, possibly during
the late Pliocene–Pleistocene (Şaroğlu and Yılmaz 1987).
This event may be the result of either stress permutations
between σ2 and σ3 or to tri-axial strain conditions (Şengör
and Kidd 1979; Şengör et al. 2003).
The central part of eastern Anatolia is the location of the
maximum indentation (marked as a small ellipse in Fig. 1).
Therefore, its morphotectonic pattern resembles the sheaves
of wheat tied at the center. To the East and the West, escape
tectonics replaces the orthogonal shortening. Thus, the faults
have major strike‐slip components (Şengör and Kidd 1979;
Şaroğlu and Yılmaz 1987; Yılmaz 2017). The significant
tectonic influence of the N–S directed compression to the
study area is the EATF and the associated faults developed
along the fault zone.
The EATF is a 700 km long, 1–20 km wide, northeast-
striking, left‐lateral strike‐slip fault (Figs. 1, 2) (Herece
2008; Duman and Emre 2013). It defines the Anatolian
Plate’s southeastern boundary and represents a broad shear
zone. The EATF extends between the Karlıova depression
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
tions of the composite cross-section displayed in Fig.  8a. Line B
shows the direction of the cross-section in Fig. 8b. DSF the Dead Sea
Fault. (Simplified and modified after Yılmaz 1984)
in the North (Karaoğlu et al. 2020) and the Maraş region
in the South (Fig. 3) (for the morphology along the EATF
zone, see Duman and Emre 2013 and Yılmaz 2017). There
are many strike-slip faults in and around the southern part
of the EATF. They are closely connected (Figs. 3, 9) and
collectively form a strike-slip fault bundle transferring the
stress to the southwestern regions.
5 The Taurus mountains
The geological, morphological, and isotope data collectively
reveal that the Taurus are young mountains (Yılmaz 2017
and the references therein). They began to rise during the
late Miocene and have reached the present elevation during
the Quaternary. The geological evidence for this is; (1) the
reefal limestones of lower‐middle Miocene ages crop out at
various heights up to 1500 m. on the southern flanks of the
Taurus mountains, (2) on the northern slope of the Babadağ
mountain near the Denizli city of the northwestern Taurus,
13
 Y. Yılmaz
348
Fig. 8  a A Composite geological cross from the Baër-Bassit (Syria)
to the Kyrenia-Misis Subsea Ridge (MKSR) along with A1, A2, and
A3 in Fig.  7. The sections are complementary, showing progressive
enlargement of the region under the ESE-WNW extension; toward the
East, the older units were elevated on the upthrown blocks, Triassic
rocks (Tr) in the Baër-Bassit, Jurassic units (Jr) in the Keldağ Moun-
tains, and Upper Cretaceous rocks (Crt) in the Kızıldağ Mountains.
beach sediments of the upper Miocene age crop out up to the
height of about 500 m. They pass laterally to the lacustrine
limestones, traceable to the heights above 1500 (Yılmaz
et al. 2002). The data indicate that the Taurus region was
not high land during this period (Jaffey and Robertson
2005). Cosentino et al. (2012) support this view with the
biostratigraphic data from the highest marine sediments in
southern Turkey, which reveal an uppermost Tortonian age
(8.35–7.81 Ma), and they refined this view by paleomagnetic
analysis (8.35–8.108 Ma-chron 4r.1r or 4r.2r). According
to Cosentino et al. (2012), the uplifted marine sediments
reveal average uplift rates of 0.25–0.37 mm/year since the
late Miocene. The uplift was slow during the late Miocene
(0.24–0.25 mm/year). It was followed by rapid uplift after
the early middle Pleistocene, which was possibly related
to the slab break-off of the subducting plate beneath the
Anatolian Plate. The recent data indicate further that it has
increased to over 1 km/year in the last 0.6 ma (Öğretmen
et al. 2018). During the previous 450,000 years the region
underwent a high uplift phase with mean rates between 3.21
and 3.42 mm/year (Racano et al. 2019).
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The cross-sections A1 and A2 are based on geology maps (Yılmaz
1984). The cross-section across the Gulf of İskenderun is based on
the unpublished Turkish Petroleum Co. seismic data. B Sketch geo-
logical cross-section across the Kızıldağ Mountains based on the
geology map, showing a set of listric normal faults and back-tilted
sea terraces on the downthrown blocks (modified after Yılmaz 1984).
The inset shows the location of the cross-section
The Central Anatolian Plateau (CAP in Fig. 1) is located
between the two peripheral mountain ranges, the Pontides
and the Taurides. It is a relatively large plateau (300–400 km
wide) with moderate average elevations of ~ 1  km. The
youngest marine sediments recorded in the Central Ana-
tolia are of middle Eocene age (Şengör and Yılmaz 1981;
Okay et al. 2020). Therefore, the Plateau has been a highland
since the late Eocene and was standing at a higher elevation
than the Taurus Range during the entire Miocene period
(McNab et al. 2018; Meijers et al. 2018). According to Çiner
et al. (2015), the mean rock uplift rate for the Cappadocia
region of the Central Anatolia is 0.051 ± 0.01 mm/year since
Eocene.
The relief between Taurus and the Central Anatolia was
estimated a few hundred meters during the late Eocene–early
Miocene period. Analyses of the Oligocene–early Miocene
stable isotopes reveal no orographic barrier from the Cen-
tral Anatolia to the Taurus during this period (Lüdecke
et al. 2013). The Central Anatolia started to rise together
with eastern Anatolia during the late Miocene. The iso-
tope data show that the uplift rate was slow until the end
Morphotectonic development of the Adana plain and the surrounding mountains, South Turkey 349
Fig. 9  Morphotectonic map showing the western part of the South-
eastern Anatolian Orogenic Belt and the Taurus Mountains. The
Ahırdağ Mountains, the Engizek Mountains, the Nurhak Mountains,
the Berit Mountains belong to the SAOB, and the Binboğa Moun-
tains, the Tahtalı Mountains, the Aladağ Mountains belong to the
Taurus. The yellow curvilinear broken lines indicate the trend lines of
the mountain ranges that correspond to axes of the regional folds. The
of the Pliocene. The region rose with an average rate of
0.2–0.4 km/year (Cosentino et al. 2012; Schildgen et al.
2012a, b). Huvaz (2009) calculated less than 500 m burial
and erosion since 41 Ma. The uplift rate of the Taurus, on the
other hand, increased significantly during the last 1.6 m year
period (Cosentino et al. 2012; Schildgen et al. 2014).
In the northern regions, the Taurus morphology displays
an east‐west zigzagging map pattern (Fig. 1). This may be
interpreted that the mountain range underwent a westerly-
directed compression, which folded the Taurus around the
vertical axis. An escape tectonic regime followed it. This
is observed particularly around the apex regions of the
mega folds (Figs. 1, 9). Away from the closure of the folds,
strike-slip faults become dominant (Fig. 9). They have torn
the entire width of the Taurus, down to the Mediterranean
(Yılmaz 2017) (Fig. 1). The E–W compressional deforma-
tion has deformed the whole sequence, including the Neo-
gene sediments in the intramontain basins (Koçyiğit et al.
2000; Koç et  al. 2017). The faults’ dip-slip component
significantly increases near the Mediterranean shore and
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
white lines are left-lateral strike-slip faults. The black arrows display
the sense of displacement. The fault bundle, which forms the Sarız-
Saimbeyli Mega Shear Zone (SSF), comprises several fault-bound
tectonic blocks or wedges transferring the compressional stress to the
Adana plain. Abbreviations: SAF; the Sarız Fault, SMF; the Saim-
beyli Fault; DSF; the Dead Sea Fault
offshore regions (Figs. 10, 11, 12), where the northeast-
trending oblique-slip faults play an active role on the present
landscape of the South-Central Taurus (Figs. 10, 11, 12).
The transtensional regime has also contributed significantly
to the enlargement of the Adana basin (Figs. 11, 12) (Yılmaz
2017).
The present morphology of the Central Anatolia began
to develop when the NATF entered the region and forced it
to an anti-clockwise rotation (Koçyiğit et al. 2000; Çinku
et al. 2016) (Fig. 1). Many major strike-slip faults splay-
ing off from the NATF were generated during this period.
They divided the region into fault-bounded blocks (Fig. 1)
(Dirik and Göncüoğlu 1996; Koçyiğit et al. 1996; Dirik et al.
2001). The discreet sub-blocks have rotated semi‐indepen-
dently and have accommodated the bulk strain (Özsayın
and Dirik 2011; Gürsoy et al. 2011; Lucifora et al. 2013;
Yılmaz 2017). The Ecemiş Fault, one of the major faults
(EF in Figs. 1, 3, 10) of the Central Anatolia (Yetiş and
Demirkol 1984; Koçyiğit et al. 1996; Dirik and Göncüoğlu
1996; Dirik et al. 2001), together with the associated faults
13
 Y. Yılmaz
350
Fig. 10  Physiographic map of the Eastern Taurus showing its main
morphotectonic character in the northwestern border of The Adana
plain. The map reveals the close connection between the structural
lineaments (the red lines) and the drainage pattern (the green lines).
Despite the steep slopes, the streams display zigzagging patterns due
lying along its extension cut the Central Anatolia obliquely
(Fig. 1) stretching from NATF to the Taurus (Figs. 1, 10).
In the Eastern Taurus Mountains, the stress regime under
the tectonic influence of the sinistral displacement of the
Ecemiş Fault generated many secondary faults. The fault-
bounded blocks have behaved semi-independently and have
rotated to the Southwest (Figs. 10, 11). Their swings played
an active role in the present steeply-dipping coastal mor-
phology (Figs. 1, 11, 12).
6 The Adana plain and the Adana
İskenderun basin complex
The Adana plain is a roughly U-shaped depression enlarg-
ing to the South (Figs. 1, 2, 3). Together with the AİBC,
they represent a fault-bound basin complex filled with
Neogene sediments. The seismic and drilling data reveal
more than 3000 m thick Neogene sediments in the basin
(Schmidt 1961 and unpublished Turkish Petroleum Co.
drilling data). Their sedimentary features were inter-
preted to have formed in a rapidly subsiding basin (Cipol-
lari et al. 2013). Cippolari et al. (2013) determined the
Zanclean flooding event in the Adana Basin and, based
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
mainly to the left-lateral offsets. The Ecemiş Fault (EF), a promi-
nent left-lateral strike-slip fault, cuts the entire width of the northern
Taurus (see also Fig.  2). The black rectangle shows the Location of
Fig. 11
on the paleo-depositional depth of the underlying marine
sediments, estimated 350–650  m surface uplift since
5.2–5.3 Ma.
The basement rocks of The Adana plain are exposed in
the Misis–Andırın and the Taurus mountains. The base-
ment sequences of these two regions are different. In the
Misis–Andırın Mountains, an ophiolitic mélange of the
upper Cretaceous age crops out at the base. It is overlain by
a deep-sea volcano-sedimentary sequence of upper Creta-
ceous–middle Eocene age. The Mesozoic limestone thrust
sheets, transported from the Taurus during the late Eocene,
rest tectonically on the ophiolitic and the overlying deep-sea
assemblages (Yılmaz and Gürer 1996, Yılmaz 2020).
In the eastern part of the Misis–Andırın Mountains, two
flysch belts of Miocene age are observed above the upper
Eocene–Oligocene terrestrial clastics which, in turn, rest
stratigraphically on the Taurus nappes (Yılmaz and Gürer
1996; Kozlu 1997; Ünlügenç and Akıncı 2017; Yılmaz
2020). The flysch consists of proximal and distal sections of
a turbiditic sequence (Gökçen et al. 1988; Yilmaz and Gürer
1996; Ulvigenç and Akıncı 2017). The proximal flysch is
lower to middle Miocene in age (Kozlu 1997). The distal
flysch possibly extends to upper Miocene (Yılmaz and Gürer
1996). Upward in sequence, the flysch passes to shallow
Morphotectonic development of the Adana plain and the surrounding mountains, South Turkey 351
Fig. 11  The detailed morphotectonic map of the region that is marked
in Fig. 10. The trend lines (the broken yellow lines) of the mountains
fan out from the Ecemiş Fault. The left lateral offset of the stream
valleys is evident. The morphology also reveals that the faults’ dip-
marine sediments of the upper Miocene age (Yılmaz and
Gürer 1996).
The sequence exposed in the Misis–Andırın Mountains
displays several structures of an approximately southeast
vergent thrust tectonics (Yılmaz and Gürer 1996; Yılmaz
2020). The thrusting episode is possibly late Miocene,
because terrigenous sediments of Pliocene age rest uncon-
formably on both flysch units and the separating thrust
planes as a first common cover (Yilmaz and Güner 1996).
The succession of the Misis–Andırın range, from the bot-
tom to the top, correlates closely with the Kyrenia range in
Cyprus (Yılmaz 2020). These partly coeval sequences from
the Maraş region of SE Anatolia to Cyprus indicate that the
sea retreated from Anatolia to the Mediterranean during the
Miocene period (Yılmaz 2020).
In the northwestern part of The Adana plain adjacent
to the Southern Taurus, a different succession is observed,
where Oligocene–lower Miocene sediments are red flu-
vial clastics and lacustrine white limestone and sandstones
(Ünlügenç et al. 1991, Ünlügenç and Akıncı 2017). The
overlying units are shallow marine coarse–fine grained clas-
tics and reef limestones, which transit to flysch sequence of
the same age range.
The Andırın Mountains represent a structurally complex
region, where tectonic belts of the Taurus (TM and BnM
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
slip components increase significantly to the West; the fault-con-
trolled valleys enlarge in the N-S direction, and their northern flanks
become steeper. As a result of this, the fault pattern resembles the
pattern of step faults. The blue  arrow shows the extension direction
in Fig. 9) and the SAOB (BM and EM in Fig. 9) are tec-
tonically juxtaposed (Fig. 9). Therefore, as morphotectonic
maps (Figs. 2, 3, 9) display, the region was tightly folded
and severely faulted. The faults divide the area into southerly
protruding, NNE-SSW trending tectonic blocks, and wedges.
Around the Sarız–Feke–Saimbeyli corridor, closely-spaced,
commonly sinistral, strike-slip faults (the Sarız–Saimbeyli
Mega Shear Zone; SSF in Figs. 3, 9) are dominant and col-
lectively transfer the compression to the South.
The folding occurred when the westerly escape regime
began in the SAOB after the late Miocene. The strike-slip
faulting followed it, possibly during the Pliocene–Pleisto-
cene. (Yılmaz 2017, 2019). The southerly transported fault
blocks began to supply clastic materials into the Adana
depression (Yılmaz 1984; Gürsoy et al. 2003). A significant
increase in the supply of debris and fanglomerates began
during the Pleistocene (Yılmaz 1984; Yılmaz et al. 1988;
Kozlu 1997; Gürsoy et al. 2003; Ünlügenç and Akıncı 2017).
Consequently, fluvial conglomerates, sourced from the adja-
cent highs filled the basin (Bilgin et al. 1981; Gökçen et al.
1988, 1991; Yılmaz and Gürer 1996; Kozlu 1997; Boyraz
2002; Ünlügenç and Akıncı 2017).
From the North to the South, the height of the Andırın
Mountains decreases steadily from above 2000 m to a hun-
dred meters. In the Adana plain, the NNE trending narrow
13
 Y. Yılmaz
352

Fig. 12  Topographic-bathymet-
ric map of the Eastern Mediter-
ranean region showing the main
faults and the major morpho-
tectonic belts extending from
Anatolia to Cyprus. The white
lines with the red glove are
strike-slip faults. The red curves
with the black glove represent
normal faults. The arrows indi-
cate motion directions. White
tick arrows show the extension
direction. Eratos SM the Eratos
Seamount, Mam the Mammonia
Region, LAR Lathacia Ridge,
CB the Cyprus Basin, OvF the
Ovgos fault, LR the Larnaca
Ridge, MB Mesoria Basin,
Kyrenia R the Kyrenia Range,
KMR the Kyrenia-Misis Ridge,
LB the Lathacia basin, MKF
the Misis–Kyrenia fault, AIBC
the Adana-İskenderun basin
complex, SAOB the Southeast
Anatolian Orogenic Belt, KZM
the Kızıldağ Mountain, EF the
Ecemiş fault, DSF the Dead Sea
Fault, SFS the Sarız-Saimbeyli
Mega Shear Zone, AND the
Andırın mountains, MM the
Misis mountains, Antk and
Latac; cities of Antakya and
Lathacia

and discontinuous hills form the Misis Mountains (Figs. 2, 3,
4). The low relief of this range disappears toward the Medi-
terranean Sea. Beyond the coast, they elongate as a subsea
ridge (KMR in Fig. 12) to the Kyrenia range in Cyprus.
The gradual decrease of the height is possibly due to the
increasing extensional component of the regional transten-
sional regime (Figs. 8, 11).
Major tectonic belts of Cyprus are traceable under the
sea to the Southern Anatolia and the surrounding lands.
Figure 12 displays their connections. The Cyprus Trench
extends eastward to the Latakia Subsea Ridge’s southeastern
boundary fault (Lt R in Fig. 12) and further East as a strike-
slip fault zone to the Antakya Region (Antk in Fig. 12). The
Troodos Mountains (the Troodos Ophiolite) extends through
the Larnaca subsea ridge (Dilek et al. 1990; Dilek and Eddy
1992; Hall et al. 2005) to the Kızıldağ Ophiolite (KZM in
Fig. 12) in the Amanos Mountains. The Mesoria Basin (MB.
in Fig. 12) extends toward the Gulf of Iskenderun (Fig. 12).
The height of the Kyrenia-Beşparmak Range in Northern
Cyprus decreases to the East, where a submerged ridge
links it with the Misis Mountains. A major NNE trending
transpressional strike-slip fault, the Misis–Kyrenia Fault
(MKF in Fig.  12), cuts and displaces them. The KMR
divides the eastern Mediterranean into the Iskenderun Basin
and the Adana Basin (Fig. 12).
7 Discussion on the tectonic development
of The Adana Plain, the Adana‑İskenderun
basin complex, and the surrounding
mountains
Various tectonic models were proposed to explain the devel-
opment of The Adana plain and the adjacent sea basins.
According to Şengör et al. (1985), the Adana depression
was generated as a pull-apart basin associated with the
EATF. Kelling et al. (1987) evaluated the AİBC as a back-
arc basin located in the North of the Kyrenia Arc, where
the Oligo–Miocene extensional tectonics led to its opening.
Karig and Kozlu (1990) associated its development with the
activities of the Misis–Kyrenia Fault Zone. According to
Williams et al. (1995) and Aksu et al. (2005a, b, c), it is
a Miocene foreland basin that subsided under the load of
Taurides. Aksu et al. (2005a, b, c) also stated that the com-
pressional forces ended in the Adana–Cilicia Basin in early
Messinian, followed by NE–SW striking extensional faults

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Morphotectonic development of the Adana plain and the surrounding mountains, South Turkey 353
in the Plio–Pleistocene. According to Robertson (2000), the
regional extension, generated due to the southerly retreat of
the northerly subducting oceanic slab, formed the Adana
basin.
The delamination of the Eastern Mediterranean ocean
floor followed by slab break off and asthenospheric elevation
is seen responsible for the uplift of the East and the Central
Anatolia (Lei and Zhao 2007; Govers and Fichtner 2016;
Feld et al. 2017; Çemen and Yılmaz 2017; Kaviani et al.
2018; Wei et al. 2019; Confal et al. 2020), which occurred
after the Miocene (Keskin 2003; Cosentino, et al. 2012;
Schildgen et al. 2014). Bartol and Govers (2014) also sug-
gested that the Central Anatolian elevation was related to
the westward progression of the East Anatolian lithospheric
delamination.
Data discussed in the preceding paragraphs lead to infer
that the development of the Adana plain, the AİBC, and the
surrounding mountains are genetically associated with the
two groups of tectonic events; (1) the evolution of the SAOB
(Yılmaz 1993, 2019; McKay and Robertson 2013) and (2)
the tectonic activities in the Eastern Mediterranean (Le
Pichon and Kramer 2010; Özeren and Holt 2010; Robertson
et al. 2012; Harrison et al. 2012; Schildgen et al. 2012a, b;
Kinnaird and Robertson 2013; Yılmaz 2019).
Before these events, during the early–middle Miocene,
the region was a shallow sea environment, which extended
far beyond the limits of the present Adana Plain. In the same
period, the tectonic development of the SAOB was continu-
ing in the eastern region. The initial phases of the collision
began when the separating ocean floor of the southern Neo-
tethyan Ocean disappeared. However, the westerly exten-
sion of the ocean has survived to the present in the Eastern
Mediterranean.
The northward advance of the Arabian Plate contin-
ued after the collision. The remnant seas that followed the
ocean’s demise survived until the late Miocene (Yılmaz
1993, 2019). The evidence for this is the development of
the E–W trending flysch belts accumulated in front of the
nappes during the Miocene (Yilmaz 1993,2019; Siyako
et al. 2013). Along the SAOB, the remnant seas disappeared
before the end of Miocene, as revealed by the gradual transi-
tion from the linear flysch to shallow marine and terrestrial
sediments (Yılmaz 1984, 1993,2019; Yılmaz et al. 1988).
When evaluated on a regional scale, the regressive succes-
sions indicate that the sea retreated from the SAOB to the
Eastern Mediterranean, where it remained probably to the
Pleistocene (Yilmaz 1993; Özdoğan et al. 2011; Siyako et al.
2013) and then was ruptured and partly destroyed.
Following the marine environment’s disappearance,
the units, squeezed between the nappe pile and the Ara-
bian platform, formed an imbricated zone (Yılmaz 1993)
(IBR Z in Fig. 4). As the N–S convergence continued, the
SAOB began to rise. It started during the late Miocene and
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
is still active (Yılmaz 2017). The northward advance of the
Arabian Plate and the resulting compression was initially
accommodated along the SAOB by orthogonal shortening.
Consequently, a wide fold and thrust belt was developed
in the northern part of the Arabian plate (FFTB in Fig. 1).
When the compressional deformation reached an excessive
stage that could no longer be accommodated, an escape tec-
tonic regime replaced the N–S compressional deformation
(Yilmaz 2017,2019). As a result, several, approximately
E–W trending left-lateral strike-slip faults with reverse-slip
components were formed (Figs. 3, 5). During this stage, left
stepping en-echelon strike-slip faults sliced the folds’ over-
turned flanks (Yılmaz 2017). To this, the Ahır Dağı Moun-
tains (Figs. 3, 4) is a good example (Yılmaz 2017).
The escape tectonics has played a significant role in
restructuring the Adana plain, the adjacent sea basins,
and the regions further West (i.e., the Taurus Mountains)
(McKay and Robertson 2013; Yılmaz 2017). The northern
areas (the Andırın Mountains and the surroundings) have
suffered from the escape generated compressional and
transpressional tectonics from the Pliocene onward. Dur-
ing the initial phase of the transpressional regime, the con-
tact regions between the SAOB and the Taurus Range were
severely deformed, squeezed, and sheared. The approxi-
mately westerly-directed compressional stress folded the
mountain ranges and generated a broad belt of strike-slip
faults. Several tectonic wedges were formed, escaping south-
wardly away from the region of convergence into the North-
eastern Mediterranean region (Figs. 3, 9). Within the Adana
depression, the transpressional regime initially caused the
development of the fault-bounded structural elevation (the
Misis Mountains). It extended as a subsea ridge (KMR in
Fig. 12) to Cyprus. In the southern regions (i.e., the Adana
depression), the surrounding mountainous terrains, and the
sea basins, a transtensional-extensional regime gradually
replaced the transpressional tectonics, possibly from Pleisto-
cene onward. The transtensional-tensional faults have domi-
nated the surrounding mountains. Consequently, the Adana
depression and the surroundings have enlarged (Harrison
et al. 2004; Seyrek et al. 2014; Duman et al. 2017) like a fan
(Yılmaz 2017). The height of the Misis Mountains subsided
steadily during this period.
The Kızıldağ and Keldağ horsts are asymmetrical struc-
tures (Figs. 6, 7, 8) (Yılmaz 1984, 2017; Boulton and Rob-
ertson 2008). Their western sides are bounded dominantly
by listric-normal faults (Figs. 6, 8). The field (Yılmaz 1984)
and seismic data (unpublished seismic sections of the Turk-
ish Petroleum Co.) reveal that the fault planes are flattened
downward (Fig. 8a, b). Consequently, the deeper and older
rock units of the successions were progressively elevated on
the upthrown blocks; the Triassic rocks in the Baër-Bassit,
the Jurassic rocks in the Keldağ, and the upper Cretaceous
rocks in the Kızıldağ (Fig. 8a). The data collectively suggest
13
 Y. Yılmaz
354
that the listric normal faults possibly converge toward a
major listric fault (a detachment fault) (Fig. 8b), accommo-
dating the bulk of the extension. The horsts were formed
under the ongoing extensional-transtensional regime during
the Quaternary (Boulton and Robertson 2008; Yılmaz 2017;
Duman, et al. 2017).
Several strike-slip faults with significant dip-slip com-
ponents also define the Taurus Mountain’s southern slopes
(Figs. 10, 11, 12).
Partly coevally with the tectonic events of the northern
regions, the slab steepening occurred in the Eastern Mediter-
ranean oceanic lithosphere in the South (Dilek and Flower
2003; Lei and Zhao 2007; Faccenna et al. 2013; Govers and
Fichtner 2016; Taylor et al. 2018; Wei et al. 2019; Kou-
noudis et al. 2020; Confal et al. 2018). The consequent
trench retreat caused a regionwide extension on the upper
plate (Robertson 2000). The extensionally-induced faults
ruptured the remnant basin that remained after the disap-
pearance of the Tethyan Ocean and caused its enlargement
(Fig. 12). As the Adana Basin has enlarged, Cyprus began to
move away from the Taurus Mountains (Fig. 12).
8 Conclusions
The Adana plain and the AİBC are composite tectonic enti-
ties, which experienced several phases of tectonic restruc-
turing. Therefore, their borders and characters changed
continuously.
In the development of the study region, two partly coeval
events appear to have played significant roles, 1-a transpres-
sional and later transtensional regimes generated in associa-
tion with the escape tectonics of the SAOB, 2-the rollback
and retreat of the Eastern Mediterranean subducting slab
(Fig. 12).
During the Southeast Anatolian orogenic development,
a broad foreland fold and thrust belt were formed in the
Arabian platform. After this, the N–S compression began
to be partitioned by westerly escape tectonics, which gen-
erated several left-lateral, strike-slip faults. They began to
transfer the stress to the West and Southwest toward the
Mediterranean. In conjunction with the EATF, the escape
tectonics formed a strike-slip fault bundle in the north-
west part of the SAOB. During this period, fault-bound
blocks wedged into the low land. The transpressional
faults extended to the South, where they elevated a ridge
in the onshore and offshore regions and divided the broad
sea basin into two sub-basins, the Adana and İskenderun
basins, possibly during the Pleistocene. Later a tran-
stensional regime gradually replaced the transpressional
regime in the Adana Plane and the surrounding regions. It
caused progressive enlargement of the structural depres-
sions. Partly coevally, the sea that remained after the Neo
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Tethyan Ocean between Cyprus and Anatolia was ruptured
by extensional faults. This was possibly due to the rollback
and slab steepening of the northerly subducting Eastern
Mediterranean Oceanic lithosphere. The trench’s retreat
caused an extension on the upper plate, which enlarged the
AİBC to cover the present onshore and offshore regions.
Acknowledgements  I am grateful to Dr. Y. Erbay (Nik Sistem) for pro-
viding the base maps. I thank S. Aydoğan, who helped to improve the
quality of the illustrations. I am grateful to Ö. Kamacı and T. Yılmaz
for their contribution during the preparation of the manuscript
References
Aksu AE, Hall J, Yaltırak C (2005a) Miocene to recent tectonic
evolution of the eastern Mediterranean: new pieces of the
old Mediterranean puzzle. Mar Geol 221:1–13. https​: //doi.
org/10.1016/j.marge​o.2005.03.014
Aksu AE, Calon T, Hall J, Mansfield S, Yaşar D (2005b) The Cilicia-
Adana basin complex, Eastern Mediterranean: Neogene evo-
lution of an active forearc basin in an obliquely convergent
margin. Mar Geol 221:121–159. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.
Marge​o.2005.03.011
Aksu AE, Calon TJ, Hall J, Yaşar D (2005c) Origin and evolution
of the Neogene İskenderun basin, Northeastern Mediterranean
Sea. Mar Geol 221(1):161–187
Arpat E, Şaroğlu F (1975) Türkiyede önemli bazı tektonik olaylar.
Türkiye Jeoloji Kurumu Bült 18:91–101
Bartol J, Govers R (2014) A single cause for the uplift of the Central
and Eastern Anatolian Plateau? Tectonophysics 637:116–136
Bilgin AZ, Elibol E, Bilgin ZR, Beğenilmiş S, (1981) Ceyhan-
Karataş Yumurtalık–Osmaniye–Haruniye–Kadirli Dolayının
Jeolojik Raporu General Directorate of Mineral Research and
Exploration, Rept 7215 (Unpublished)
Bilim A, Aydemir A, Ateş A (2017) Tectonics and thermal structure
in the Gulf of Iskenderun (southern Turkey) from the aeromag-
netic, borehole, and seismic data. Geothermics 70:206–221
Biryol CB, Beck SL, Zandt G, Özaçar AA (2011) Segmented Afri-
can lithosphere beneath the Anatolian region inferred from
teleseismic P-wave tomography. Geophys J Int 184:1037–1057.
https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04910​
Boulton SJ (2013) Tectonic development of the southern Karasu
Valley, Turkey: successive structural events during basin for-
mation. In: Robertson AHF, Parlak O, Ünlügenç UC (eds) Geo-
logical development of Anatolia and the Easternmost Medi-
terranean Region. Special publications, vol 372. Geological
Society, London, pp 531–546
Boulton SJ, Robertson AHF (2008) The Neogene-Recent Hatay Gra-
ben, South Central Turkey: graben formation in a setting of
oblique extension (transtension) related to the post-collisional
tectonic escape. Geol Mag 145:800–821
Boyraz O (2002) Demirtaşlı-Sarımazı (Adana-Yumurtalık) Arasının
Tektonostratigrafisi (tectono-stratigraphycal study of the
region between Demirtaşlı-and Sarımazı, Adana province),
Jeoloji Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı, Çukurova Üniversitesi,
Yüksek Lisans Tezi (unpublished dissertation of the Çukurova
Univ), p 46
Calon TJ, Aksu AE, Hall J (2005) The Oligocene-recent evolution of
the Mesoria Basin (Cyprus) and its western marine extension,
Eastern Mediterranean. Mar Geol 221(1–4):95–120
Morphotectonic development of the Adana plain and the surrounding mountains, South Turkey 355
Çemen I, Yılmaz Y (2017) Active global seismology. Neotectonic
and earthquake potential of the Eastern Mediterranean Region.
Geophysical Monograph, vol 225. AGU Wiley Press, New
York
Çiner A, Doğan U, Go G, Yıldırım C, Akçar N, Ivy Ochs S (2015)
Quaternary uplift rates of the Central Anatolian Plateau, Tur-
key: insights from cosmogenic isochron-burial nuclide dating
of the Kızılırmak River terraces. Quat Sci Rev. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.quasc​irev.2014.10.007
Çinku M, Ülker B, Kaya N, Öksüm E, Yılmaz Y, Özbey AU, Orbay
N (2016) The tectonic history of the Niğde-Kırşehir Massif and
the Tauride since the Late Mesozoic: Paleomagnetic evidence for
two-phase orogenic curvature in the central Anatolia. Tectonics
35:772–811
Cipollari P, Cosentino D, Radeff G, Schildgen TF, Faranda C, Grossi
F, Gliozzi E, Smedile A, Gennari R, Darbaş G, Dudaş FÖ, Gür-
büz K, Nazik A, Heckler H (2013) Easternmost Mediterranean
evidence of the Zanclean flooding event and subsequent surface
uplift: Adana Basin, southern Turkey. In: Robertson AHF, Parlak
O, Ünlügenç UC (eds) Geological development of Anatolia and
the Easternmost Mediterranean Region. Special publications,
vol 372. Geological Society, London, pp 473–494. https​://doi.
org/10.1144/SP.3725
Confal JM, Faccenna M, Eken T, Taymaz T (2018) Numerical simu-
lation of 3-D mantle flow evolution in subduction zone envi-
ronments in relation to seismic anisotropy beneath the eastern
Mediterranean region. Earth Planet Sci Lett 497:50–61. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2018.06.005
Cosentino D, Schildgen TF, Cipollari P, Faranda C, Gliozzi E,
Hudáčková N, Lucifora S, Strecker MR (2012) Late Miocene
surface uplift of the southern margin of the Central Anatolian
Plateau, Central Taurids, Turkey. Geol Soc Am Bull 124:133–
145. https​://doi.org/10.1130/B3046​6
Dilek Y (2006) Collision tectonics of the Mediterranean region: causes
and consequences. In: Dilek Y, Pavlides S (eds) Postcollisional
tectonics and Magmatism in the Mediterranean Region and Asia.
Geological Society of America, Special Papers, vol 409. pp 1–13.
https​://doi.org/10.1130/2006.2409(01)
Dilek Y, Eddy CA (1992) The Troodos (Cyprus) and Kizildag (S.
Turkey) ophiolites as structural models for slow-spreading ridge
segments. J Geol 100:305–322. https​://doi.org/10.1086/62963​4
Dilek Y, Flower MFJ (2003) Arc–trench rollback and forearc accretion:
2. Model template for Albania, Cyprus, and Oman. In: Dilek Y,
Robinson PT (eds) Ophiolites in Earth History. Special publica-
tions, vol 218. Geological Society, London, pp 43–68. https​://
doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2003.218.01.04
Dilek Y, Furnes H (2019) Tethyan ophiolites and Tethyan seaways. J
Geol Soc. https​://doi.org/10.1144/jags2​019-129
Dilek Y, Thy P, Moores EM, Ramsden TW (1990) Tectonic evolution
of the Troodos ophiolite within the Tethyan framework. Tecton-
ics 9(4):811–823
Dirik K, Göncüoğlu M (1996) Neotectonic characteristics of central
Anatolia. Int Geol Rev 38:807–817
Dirik K, Göncüoğlu MC, Kozlu H (2001), Ecemiş Fay Zonu orta kesi-
minin (Sultansazlığı‐Tuzlagölü arası) stratigrafisi ve tektoniği,
Niğde Üniv. Müh. Fakültesi
Duman TY, Emre Ö (2013) The East Anatolian Fault: geometry, seg-
mentation, and jog characteristics. In: Robertson AHF, Parlak
O, Ünlügenç UC (eds) Geological development of Anatolia and
the Easternmost Mediterranean Region. Special Publications, vol
372. Geological Society, London, pp 495–529
Duman DY, Robertson AHF, Elmacı KM (2017) Paleozoic-Recent
geological development and uplift of the Amanos Mountains
(S Turkey) in the critically located northwesternmost corner
of the Arabian continent. Geodin Acta 29:103–138. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09853​111.2017.13234​28
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Erol O (1963) Asi Nehri Deltasının Jeomorfolojisi ve Dördüncü Zaman
Deniz-Akarsu Şekilleri (Die Geomorphologie des Orontes-Del-
tas und der anschließenden Pleistozänen Strand-und Flussteras-
sen, Provinz Hatay, Türkei), vol 148. Ankara Üniversitesi, Dil ve
Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Yayınları, Ankara
Eyidoğan H, Güçlü U, Utku Z, Değirmenci E (1991) Türkiye Büyük
Depremleri Makro-Sismik Rehberi (1990–1988), İTÜ Maden
Fak Jeofizik Müh Böl, Istanbul (In Turkish)
Faccenna C, Becker TW, Jolivet L, Keskin M (2013) Mantle convection
in the middle East: reconciling Afar upwelling, Arabia indenta-
tion, and Aegean trench rollback. Earth Planet Sci Lett 375:254–
269. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2013.05.043
Feld C, Mechie J, Huebscher C, Hall J, Nicolaides S, Gürbüz C, Bauer
K, Louden K, Weber M (2017) Crustal structure of the Erato-
sthenes Seamount, Cyprus, and S. Turkey from an amphibian
wide-angle seismic profile. Tectonophysics 700:32–59
Floyd PA, Kelling G, Gökçen SL, Gökçen N (1992) Arc-related ori-
gin of volcaniclastic sequences in the Misis Complex, southern
Turkey. J Geol 100(2):221–230
Garfunkel Z (2014) Lateral motion and deformation along the Dead
Sea transform. In: Garfunkel Z, Ben-Avraham Z, Kagan E
(eds) The Dead Sea transform fault system: reviews. Modern
approaches in solid earth sciences, vol 6. pp 109–250. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8872-4_5
Gökçen SL, Kelling G, Gökçen N, Floyd PA (1988) Sedimentology of
a Late Cenozoic collisional sequence: the Misis complex, Adana,
Southern Turkey. Sediment Geol 59:205–235
Gökçen N, Gökçen SL, Kelling G (1991) macrofaunal biostratigraphy
of Cenozoic sequences from the Misis–Andırın area, Southern
Turkey (C). Gebrüder Bornisraeger, Berlin, pp 111–135
Govers R, Fichtner A (2016) Signature of slab fragmentation beneath
Anatolia from full-waveform tomography. Earth Planet Sci Lett
450:10–19. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.06.014
Gürbüz K, Kelling G (1993) The provenance of Miocene submarine
fans in the northern Adana Basin, southern Turkey: a test of
discriminant function analysis. Geol J 28:277–293
Gürsoy H, Tatar O, Piper DA, Heimann A, Mesci L (2003) Neo-
tectonic deformation linking the east Anatolian and Karataş-
Osmaniye intracontinental transform fault zones in the Gulf of
İskenderun, southern Turkey, deduced from paleomagnetic study
of the Ceyhan-Osmaniye volcanic. Tectonics 22:6. https​://doi.
org/10.1029/2003T​C0015​24
Gürsoy H, Tatar O, Piper JDA, Bulut F, Akpinar Z, Huang B, Roberts
AP, Mesci BL (2011) Paleomagnetic study of the Kepezdağ and
Yamadağ volcanic provinces, central Turkey: neogene tectonic
escape and block definition in the east-central Anatolides. J Geod
51:308–326
Hall J, Aksu AE, Calon TJ, Yaşar D (2005) Varying tectonic control on
basin development at an active microplate margin: Latakia basin,
eastern Mediterranean. Mar Geol 221:15–60
Harrison RW, Newell WL, Batıhanlı H, Panayides I, McGeehin JP,
Mahan SA et al (2004) Tectonic framework and late Cenozoic
tectonic history of the northern part of Cyprus: implications for
earthquake hazards and regional tectonics. J Asian Earth Sci
23(2):191–210
Harrison RW, Tsiolakis E, Stone BD, Lord A, McGeehin JP, Mahan
SA, Chirico P (2012) Late Pleistocene and Holocene uplift
history of Cyprus: implications for active tectonics along the
southern margin of the Anatolian microplate. In: Robertson AHF,
Parlak O, Ünlügenç Ü (eds) Geological development of Anatolia
and the Easternmost Mediterranean region. Spec Publ, London,
pp 561–584
Herece E (2008) Doğu Anadolu Fayı (DAF) Atlası [East Anatolian
Fault (EAF) Atlas]. Special publications general directorate of
mineral research and exploration, Ankara. Serial Number: 13,
359
13
 Y. Yılmaz
356
Huvaz O (2009) Comparative petroleum systems analysis of the inte-
rior basins of Turkey: implications for petroleum potential. Mar
Pet Geol 26:1656–1676
Jaffey N, Robertson AHF (2005) Non–marine sedimentation associ-
ated with Oligocene-recent exhumation and uplift of the Central
Taurus Mountains, S Turkey. Sed Geol 173:53–89. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sedge​o.2003.11.025
Jolivet L, Faccenna C (2000) Mediterranean extension and the Africa–
Eurasia collision. Tectonics 19:1095–1106
Kahle HG, Cocard Y, Peter A, Geiger R, Reilinger AA, Barka A, Veis
G (2000) GPS-derived strain rate field within the boundary zones
of the Eurasian, African, and Arabian Plates. J Geophys Res
105:23353–23370. https​://doi.org/10.1029/2000J​B9002​38
Karabacak V, Altunel E (2013) Evolution of the northern Dead Sea
Fault Zone in southern Turkey. J Geodyn 65:282–291
Karaoğlu O, Gülmez F, Göçmengil G, Lustrino M, Di Giuseppe P,
Manetti P, Savaşçın MY, Agostini S (2020) Petrological evo-
lution of Karlıova-Varto volcanism (Eastern Turkey): Magma
genesis in a transtensional triple-junction tectonic setting. Lithos
364–365:105524
Karig DE, Kozlu H (1990) Late Paleogene–Neogene evolution of
the triple junction region near Maras, south-central Turkey. J
Geol Soc Lond 147:1023–1034. https​://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs​
.147.6.1023
Kaviani A, Sandvol E, Moradi A, Rümpker G, Tang Z, Mai PM (2018)
Mantle transition zone thickness beneath the middle East: evi-
dence for segmented Tethyan slabs, delaminated lithosphere, and
lower mantle upwelling. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 123:4886–
4905. https​://doi.org/10.1029/2018J​B0156​27
Kelling G, Gökçen SL, Floyd PA, Gökçen N (1987) Neogene tectonics
and Plate convergence in the eastern Mediterranean: new data
from southern Turkey. Geology 15:425–429
Kempler D (1994) An outline of northeastern Mediterranean tec-
tonics in view of Cruise 5 of the Akademik Nikolaj Strakhov.
In: Krasheninnikov VA, Hall JK (eds) Geological structure of
the Northeastern Mediterranean (Cruise 5 of the research ves-
sel ’Akademik Nikolaj Strakhov’). Historical Production Hall,
Jerusalem, p 396
Keskin M (2003) Magma generation by slab steepening and break-off
beneath a subduction accretion complex: an alternative model for
collision-related volcanism in Eastern Anatolia, Turkey. Geophys
Res Lett 30:8046
Kinnaird TA, Robertson AFH (2013) Tectonic and sedimentary
response to subduction and incipient continental collision in
southern Cyprus, easternmost Mediterranean region. In: Robert-
son AHF, Parlak O, Ünlügenç Ü (eds) Geological development of
Anatolia and the Eastern. Special publication no 372. Geological
Society, London, pp 585–614
Koç A, Nuretdin K, Van Hinsbergen DJJ, Klaudia F, Kuiper KF (2017)
Miocene tectonic history of the Central Tauride intermontane
basins, and the paleogeographic evolution of the Central Anato-
lian Plateau. Earth Planet Sci Lett 434:75–90
Koçyiğit A, Beyhan A, Dirik K, Göncüoğlu MC (1996) Neotectonic
characteristics of the Central Anatolia. Int Geol Rev 38:807–817
Koçyiğit A, Ünay E, Saraç G (2000) Episodic graben formation and
extensional NeoTectonic regime in west Central Anatolia and the
Isparta angle: a case study in the Akşehir-Afyon graben, Turkey.
In: Bozkurt E, Winchester JA, Piper JDA (eds) Tectonics and
Magmatism in Turkey and the surrounding area. Special publica-
tions, vol 173. Geological Society, London, pp 405–421
Kounoudis R, Bastow ID, Ogden CS, Goes S, Jenkins J, Braham
CB, Grant C (2020) Seismic tomographic imaging of the
Eastern Mediterranean mantle: implications for terminal-
stage subduction, the uplift of Anatolia, and the Development
of the North Anatolian Fault. Geochem Geophys Geosyst
21(7):e2020GC009009
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Kozlu H (1997) Doğu Akdeniz Bölgesinde Yer Alan Neojen Basen-
lerinin (İskenderun, Misis–Andırın) Tektono-stratigrafi Birimleri
ve Bunların Tektonik Gelişimi. (Tectono-stratigraphic units of
the İskenderun, Misis–Andırın Neogene basins. Doktora Tezi.
Çukurova Üniv. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis)
Kuzucuoğlu C, Çiner A, Kazancı N (2019a) Introduction to landscape
and landforms of Turkey. In: Kuzucuoğlu C, Çiner A, Kazancı
N (eds) Landscape and landforms of Turkey. World geomorpho-
logical landscapes book series. Springer, pp 3–5. ISBN 978-3-
030 03515 0
Kuzucuoğlu C, Çiner A, Kazancı N (2019b) Geomorphological regions
of Turkey. ibid pp 41–78
Kuzucuoğlu C, Çiner A, Kazancı N (2019c) The tectonic control on
the geomorphological landscapes of Turkey. In: Kuzucuoğlu
C, Çiner A, Kazancıoğlu C (eds) Landscape and landforms of
Turkey. World Geomorphological Landscapes Book Series.
Springer, pp 17–40. https​://link.sprin​ger.com/books​eries​/10852​
Le Pichon X, Kreemer C (2010) The Miocene-to-Present kinematic
evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean and the middle East
and its implications for dynamics. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci
38:323–351
Lei J, Zhao D (2007) Teleseismic evidence for a break-off subducting
slab under Eastern Turkey. Earth Planet Sci Lett 257(1–2):14–28.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2007.02.011
Lucifora S, Cifelli F, Rojay FB, Mattei M (2013) Paleomagnetic rota-
tions in the Late Miocene sequence from the Çankırı Basin (Cen-
tral Anatolia, Turkey): the role of strike-slip tectonics. Turk J
Earth Sci 22:778–792
Lüdecke T, Mikes T, Rojay FB, Cosca MA, Mulch A (2013) Stable iso-
tope-based reconstruction of Oligo–Miocene Paleoenvironmental
and paleohydrology of Central Anatolian lake basins (Turkey).
Turk J Earth Sci 22:793–819
Mahmoud YF, Masson M, Meghraoui Z, Çakır A, Alchalbi H, Yavaso-
glu H, Yönlü O, Daoud M, Ergintav S, Inan S (2013) Kinematic
study at the junction of the East Anatolian Fault and the Dead
Sea Fault from GPS measurements. J Geodyn 67:30–39. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2012.05.006
Masson F, Mahmoud Y, Çakır Z, Yavaşoğlu H, Meghraoui M, Alchalbi
A, Ergintav S (2010) GPS characterization of the triple junction
between Arabia, Africa, and Anatolia: new measurements in SE
Turkey and NW. Syria, Wegener 2010, 15th general assembly
of Geodinamica Acta, 53, Wegener, Programme, and book of
abstracts, 14–17 September 2010, Geodesy Department of Kan-
dilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute of Boğaziçi
University, Istanbul, Turkey
McKay GA, Robertson AHF (2013) Upper Miocene-Pleistocene defor-
mation of the Girne (Kyrenia) Range and Dar Dere (Ovgos) line-
aments, northern Cyprus: role in collision and tectonic escape in
the easternmost Mediterranean region. In: Robertson AHF, Par-
lak O, Ünlügenç UC (eds) Geological development of Anatolia
and the Easternmost Mediterranean Region. Special publications,
vol 372. Geological Society, London, pp 421–445
McNab F, Ball PW, Hoggard MJ, White NJ (2018) Neogene uplift
and magmatism of Anatolia: insights from drainage analysis and
basaltic geochemistry. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 19:175–213.
https​://doi.org/10.1002/2017G​C0072​51
Meijers MJM, Brocard GY, Cosca MA, Ludecke T, Teyssier C, Whit-
ney DL, Mulch A (2018) Rapid late Miocene surface uplift of
the Central Anatolian Plateau margin. Earth Planet Sci Lett
497:29–41. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2018.05.040
Mutlu AK, Karabulut H (2011) Anisotropic Pn tomography of Turkey
and adjacent regions. Geophys J Int 187:1743–1758. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05235​.x
Nazik A (2004) Planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy of the Neo-
gene sequence in the Adana Basin, Turkey, and its correlation
with standard biozones. Geol Mag 141:379–387
Morphotectonic development of the Adana plain and the surrounding mountains, South Turkey 357
Öğretmen N, Cipollari P, Frezza V, Faranda C, Karanika K et al (2018)
Evidence for 1.5 km of uplift of the Central Anatolian Plateau’s
southern margin in the last 450 kyr and implications for its mul-
tiphased uplift history. Tectonics 37:359–390
Okay AI, Zattin M, Özcan E, Sunal G (2020) Uplift of Anatolia. Turk J
Earth Sci 29:696–713. https​://doi.org/10.3906/yer-2003-10
Over S, Ünlügenç UC, Bellier O (2002) Quaternary stress regime
changes in the Hatay region (SE Turkey). Geophys J Int
148(1–14):2002
Over S, Özden S, Yilmaz H (2004) Late Cenozoic stress evolution
along the Karasu Valley, SE Turkey. Tectonophysics 380:43–68
Özdoğan TO, Kaya II, Açıkbaş D, Bahtiyar I, Siyako M (2011) The
Miocene Lice basin of southeastern, Turkey: an example of a
shallow to non-marine foreland basin. Achaean to Anthropocene.
Geol. Soc. Amer. Ann. Meeting and Expos. Abs. pp 146–148
Özeren MS, Holt WE (2010) The dynamics of the eastern Mediterra-
nean and eastern Turkey. Geophys J Int 183(3):1165–1184
Özsayin E, Dirik K (2011) The role of oroclinal bending in the struc-
tural evolution of the Central Anatolian Plateau: evidence of a
regional changeover from shortening to extension. Geol Carpath
62(4):345–359
Pirazzoli PA, Laborel J, Saliège JF, Erol O, Kayan I, Person A (1991)
Holocene raised shorelines on the Hatay coasts (Turkey): palaeo-
ecological and tectonic implications. Mar Geol 96(3–4):295–311
Racano SW, Jara-Mufioz J, Cosentino D (2019) Defining the Quater-
nary uplift trend at the southern margin of the Central Anatolian
Plateau by marine terraces evolution modeling. Geophysical
Research Abstracts vol. 21, EGU2019-536
Radeff G, Cosentino D, Cipollari P, Schildgen TF, Iadanza A, Strecker
MR, Darbaş G, Gürbüz K (2016) Stratigraphic architecture of the
upper Messinian deposits of the Adana Basin (southern Turkey):
implications for the Messinian Salinity Crisis and the Taurus
petroleum system. Ital J Geosci 135(3):408–424
Reilinger R, McClusky S, Paradises D, Ergintav S, Vernant P (2010)
Geodetic constraints on the tectonic evolution of the Aegean
region and strain accumulation along the Hellenic subduction
zone. Tectonophysics 488:22–30. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto​
.2009.05.027
Robertson AHF (2000) Mesozoic—Tertiary tectonic-sedimentary
evolution of a South Tethyan oceanic basin and its margins in
Southern Turkey. Special publications, vol 173. Geological Soci-
ety, London, pp 97–138
Robertson AHF, Parlak OPO, Ustaömer T (2012) Overview of the
Paleozoic-Neogene evolution of NeoTethys in the Eastern Medi-
terranean region (southern Turkey, Cyprus, Syria). Pet Geosci
18(2004):381–404
Robertson AHF, McCay GA, Taşlı K, Yıldız A (2013) Eocene develop-
ment of the northerly active continental margin of the Southern
NeoTethys in the Kyrenia Range, the North Cyprus. Geol Mag
151:692–731
Salah MK (2017) Lithospheric structure of Southeast Anatolia from
joint inversion of local and teleseismic data. Stud Geophys Geod
61:703–727. https​://doi.org/10.1007/11200​-016-1240-7
Şaroglu F, Yılmaz Y (1987) Geological evolution and basin models
during the neotectonic episode in eastern Anatolia. Bull Mineral
Res Explor 107:61–83
Schildgen TF, Cosentino D, Bookhagen B, Niedermann S, Yildirim
C, Echtler HA, Wittmann H, Strecker MR (2012a) 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 317–318:85–95
Schildgen TF, Cosentino D, Caruso A, Buchwaldt R, Yildirim C,
Rojay B, Browning SA, Echtler H, Strecker MR (2012b) Surface
expression of eastern Mediterranean slab dynamics: Neogene
topographic and structural evolution of the southwest margin
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
of the Central Anatolian Plateau, Turkey. Tectonics. https​://doi.
org/10.1029/2011T​C0030​21
Schildgen TF, Cosentino D, Caruso A, Buchwaldt R, Yıldırım C, Bow-
ring SA et al (2014) Surface expression of eastern Mediterranean
slab dynamics: Neogene topographic and structural evolution of
the southwest margin of the Central Anatolian Plateau, Turkey.
Tectonics 31(2):2012B. https​://doi.org/10.1029/2011T​C0030​21
Schmidt GC (1961) Stratigraphic nomenclature for the Adana Region
Petroleum District VII. Pet Adm Bull 6(47):63
Şengör AMC (1979) Türkiye’nin Neotektonik Esasları (Principles of
the NeoTectonics of Turkey). Türkiye Jeoloji Kurumu Yayınları
Serisi (Turkish geological Society Publication), Ankara
Şengör AMC, Kidd WSF (1979) The post-collisional tectonics of the
Turkish–Iranian Plateau and a comparison with Tibet. Tectono-
physics 55:361–376
Şengör AMC, Yılmaz Y (1981) Tethyan evolution of Turkey: a plate
tectonic approach. Tectonophysics 75:181–241
Şengör AMC, Görür N, Şaroğlu F (1985) Strike-slip faulting and
related basin formation in zones of tectonic escape: Turkey as a
case study. Soc Econ Paleontol Mineral Spec Publ 37:227–264
Şengör AMC, Özeren S, Genç T, Zor E (2003) East Anatolian high
Plateau as a mantle supported, north-south shortened domal
structure. Geophys Res Lett 30(24):8045
Şengör AMC, Özeren S, Keskin M, Sakınç M, Özbakır AD, Kayan I
(2008) Eastern Turkish high Plateau as a small Turkic-type oro-
gen: implications for post-collisional crust-forming processes in
Turkic-type orogens. Earth Sci Rev 90(1–2):1–48
Seyrek A, Demir T, Pringle MS, Yurtmen S, Westaway R, Beck A,
Rowbotham G (2007) Kinematics of the Amanos fault, south-
ern Turkey, from Ar/Ar dating of offset Pleistocene basalt flows.
Transpression between the African and Arabian Plates. Special
publications, vol 290. Geological Society, London, pp 255–284
Seyrek A, Demir T, Westaway R, Guillou H, Scaillet S, White TS,
Bridgland DR (2014) The kinematics of central-southern Turkey
and northwest Syria revisited. Tectonophysics 618:35–66
Siyako M, Bahtiyar I, Özdoğan İ, Açıkbaş D, Kaya O (2013) Batman
çevresinde mostra veren birimlerin stratigrafisi. TPAO. Arama
Grubu Arşivi Teknik Rapor no; 5463. pp 131
Taylor G, Thompson DA, Cornwell D, Rost S (2018) Interaction of
the Cyprus/Tethys slab with the mantle transition zone beneath
Anatolia. Geophys J Int. https​://doi.org/10.1093/goji/ggy51​4
Tüysüz O, Tarı U, Genç ŞC, İmren C, Blackwell BAB, Wehmiller J,
Kaufman D, Altıok S, Beyhan M, Fleitmann D, Lom N, Üsküplü
S, Tekeşin Ö, Florentin A (2013) Geology and morphology of
the Antakya Graben between the Amik Triple Junction and the
Cyprus Arc. In: Abstract Volume, European Geosciences Union
General Assembly 2013, Vienna, Austria, 7–13. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09853​111.2013.85896​2
Ünlügenç ÜC (1993) Controls on Cenozoic sedimentation in the Adana
Basin, Southern Turkey. Unpub. Ph.D. Thesis, Keele University,
p 229
Ünlügenç ÜC, Akinci AC (2017) Kızıldere-Güveloğlu (Ceyhan-
Adana) Civarının Tektono-Stratigrafisi. Çukurova Üniversitesi
Mühendisliği Mimarlik Fakültesi Dergisi. Çukurova Univ J Fac
Eng Archit 32(2):85–99
Ünlügenç UC, Kelling G, Demirkol C (1991) Aspects of basin evolu-
tion in the Neogene Adana Basin EE Turkey. In: Proceedings
of international scientific congress on Aegean regions, vol 1.
pp 357–370
Wei W, Zhao D, Wei F, Bai X, Xu J (2019) Mantle dynamics of the
Eastern Mediterranean and the middle East: constraints from
P-wave anisotropic tomography. Geochem Geophys Geosyst
20:4505–4530
Westaway R (1994) Present-day kinematics of the middle East and
eastern Mediterranean. J Geophys Res 99(1994):12071–12090
13
 Y. Yılmaz
358
Williams GD, Ünlügenç UC, Kelling G, Demirkol C (1995) Tectonic
controls of the stratigraphic evolution of the Adana Basin, Tur-
key. J Geol Soc Lond 152:873–882
Yalçın NM, Görür N (1984) Sedimentological evolution of the Adana
Basin. In: Tekeli O, Göncüoğlu MC (eds) Proceedings of the
international symposium on the geology of the Taurus Belt,
Ankara, pp 165–172
Yetiş C, Demirkol C (1984) Geotectonic evolution of the Ecemiş fault
zone, Hacettepe Univ. Earth Sci 11:1–12
Yılmaz Y (2020) Geological correlations between Northern Cyprus
and Southern central Anatolia. Can J Earth Sci (In press)
Yılmaz Y (1993) New evidence and model on the evolution of the
southeast Anatolian orogen. Geol Soc Am Bull 105:251–271
Yılmaz Y (2017) Morphotectonic development of Anatolia and the
surrounding regions. In: Çemen İ, Yılmaz Y (eds) Active global
seismology: neotectonics and earthquake potential of the East-
ern Mediterranean Region, Geophysical Monograph, vol 225,
American Geophysical Union. Wiley, New York, pp 11–91
Yılmaz Y (2019) The Southeast Anatolian Orogenic Belt Revis-
ited (Geology and Evolution). Can J Earth Sci. https​://doi.
org/10.1139/cjes-2018-10170​
Yılmaz Y, Gürpınar O, Kozlu H, GüI MA, Yiğitbaş E, Genç C, Kes-
kin M (1987) Maraş kuzeyinin jeolojisi (Andırın-Berit­Engizek-
Nurhak-Binboğa Dağları): Geology of the region to the north of
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Kahraman Maraş (the Andırın‐Berit‐Engizek‐Nurhak‐Binboğa
Mountains), 3, Unpublished report of TPAO, C.1-2-3. TPAO
rap. No. 2028
Yılmaz H, Över S, Özden S (2006) Kinematics of the East Anatolian
Fault Zone between Türkoğlu (KahramanMaraş) and Çelikhan
(Adıyaman). Earth Planets Space 58:1473–2006
Yılmaz (1984) Amanos Dağlarının Jeolojisi (Geology of the Amanos
Mountains) vol 1–4. TPAO Report no 1920
Yılmaz Y, Gürer F (1996) Andırın (K. Maraş) dolayında Misis–Andırın
kuşağının jeolojisi ve evrimi. Turk J Earth Sci 5:39–55
Yılmaz Y, Gürpınar O, Yiğitbaş E (1988) Tectonic evolution of the
Miocene basins at the Amanos Mountains and the Maraş region.
Turk Assoc Pet Geol Bull 1(1):52–72
Yılmaz Y, Altunkaynak Ş, Genç ŞC, Gürer ÖF, Bozcu M, Yılmaz K
(2002) Güllük Körfezi ve dolayının jeolojik-tektonik gelişimi
ve bu bölgenin Kale-Tavas havzası ile ilişkilerinin araştırılması.
TUBİTAK (YDABÇAG) Project No; 199Y063
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com