Morphotectonic development of surface karst in

Western Taurus (Türkiye)

Mehmet Furkan Şener (  furkan.sener@bakircay.edu.tr )
İzmir Bakırçay University
Mesut Şimşek
Hatay Mustafa Kemal University
Mustafa Utlu
Bingöl University
Muhammed Zeynel Öztürk
Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University
Hasan Sözbilir
Dokuz Eylül University

Research Article

Keywords: Karst, Doline, Polje, Morphotectonic, Western Taurus

Posted Date: May 8th, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2885724/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License

Additional Declarations: No competing interests reported.

Version of Record: A version of this preprint was published at Carbonates and Evaporites on October 21st,
2023. See the published version at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13146-023-00900-x.

Page 1/23
Abstract
The Taurus Mountains include the most important karstic terrain of Turkey and are divided into three
parts the Western, Central, and Eastern Taurus. These mountains include many surface and subsurface
karst landforms and the morphometric features of these landforms provide important data on the
geomorphological and morphotectonic development of karst areas in the Taurus Mountains. Karstic
depressions (poljes and dolines) constitute the most important surface landforms in the Western Taurus
Mountains. In this study, a total of 7093 micro depressions (doline) and 74 macro depressions (polje)
were detected and morphometric properties were calculated located in the Western Taurus Mountains.
The poljes developed within the Beydağları Autochthon and Lycian nappes, while the dolines developed
especially in the high plateaus within the Beydağları Autochthon. The morphotectonic development of
both landforms is as below shortly. As a result of the northward movement of the African plate from the
Early Cretaceous to the Late Miocene, the limestones accumulated in the shallow marine environment
were compressed in the north direction and made a counterclockwise movement. Depending on this
tectonic activity, the Lycian Nappes from the northwest and the Antalya Nappes from the east thrust over
the Baydağları autochthon, and thus nappes, reverse faults and fold systems developed in the study area.
The Western Taurus began to continentalization from the Oligocene and began to erode from the
Miocene, and also with the erosion, the valley systems began to develop in the Western Taurus. The NE-
SW and NW-SE directional normal faults have developed under the influence of extensional tectonics
since the Miocene, and this extensional tectonism has caused widespread development of the poljes in
the study area. In addition, dolines and paleovalley began to develop in limestone areas at higher
elevations with the lowering of the karst base level. All morphometric and morphotectonic processes
reveal that the extension of both doline and polje areas in the study area are parallel to the elongation of
tectonic structures in the study area.

Introduction
The Taurus Mountains are the largest and most important karst terrain of Turkey and is forming a
continuous karst belt across the southern part of the Anatolian Plateau. The Taurus Mountains range is
highly karstified due to lithological, tectonic, and climatic features (Atalay, 2003; Nazik et al., 2019), and
include many surface karst landforms such as poljes, paleo valleys, dolines, uvalas, ponors, and springs
(Doğan et al., 2019; Öztürk et al., 2018b; Şimşek et al., 2021). Karst depressions (dolines and poljes) are
of great importance in the search for tectonic and geomorphological development (Closson and Karaki,
2009; Doğan et al., 2019; Ekmekci and Nazik, 2004; Gracia et al., 2003; Mihljevic, 1994; Öztürk, 2020).The
tectonic structure has a strong effect on development, density, orientation, and distribution of macro and
micro karst depressions on the Taurus Mountains (Öztürk et al., 2018a, 2017). The most of the karst
depressions follow structural and orographic lineaments (Elhatip, 1997; Gunn and Günay, 2004; Öztürk et
al., 2018a; Şener and Öztürk, 2019; Şimşek et al., 2019) and thus, orientations and alignment of
depressions provide data about the faults and joint systems (Öztürk et al., 2018a; Theilen-Willige et al.,

Page 2/23
2014). This study aims to determine the distribution and morphometric properties of the dolines and
poljes via the morphotectonic development of the Western Taurus.

Study Area
The Taurus Mountains are divided into three groups as Eastern, Central, and Western Taurus in terms of
their structural and geological features. The study area comprises of the Western Taurus which have a
very complex stratigraphy, lithology, and tectonic structure. The Taurus Mountains began to form with
north-south compression of a carbonate platform in the Neo-Tethys Ocean between the African-Arabian
and European plates in the Early Cretaceous (Biju-Duval et al., 1977; Livermore and Smith, 1984; Yazgan
and Chessex, 1991; Fig. 1a and Fiure 1b). After the Early Cretaceous, the African Plate was subducted to
the north, and the Taurus Mountains were exposed to compression, thickening, and uplift (Akay and
Uysal, 1988; Karaoğlan, 2016; Schildgen et al., 2014). Then, the carbonate rocks became exposed to
atmospheric conditions after the Late Miocene (Ekmekci, 2003). All tectonic activities and uplift have
lowered the karst base levels and have affected the development of karst landforms. Especially, highly
faulted and jointed the Jurassic-Cretaceous and the Miocene neritic limestones played an important role
on development of the karst landforms.

The Western Taurus is located in the western part of the Isparta Angle (IA) (Fig. 1a). The formation of IA
played a key role on the structural and tectonic evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean (Robertson et al.,
2003). The IA has shaped by the result of compression, strike-slip faulting, and extensional tectonic
events developed from the Late Cretaceous to the present (Kissel et al., 1993; Koçyiğit and Özacar, 2003;
Robertson et al., 2003; Fig. 1b). The IA is bounded by NE- SW trending Fethiye-Burdur Fault Zone to the
west and NW-SE trending Akşehir (or Sultandağı) Fault Zone to the east (Fig. 1c). The geometry of the IA
is partially shaped by opposite rotations of both sides of the angle, i.e 30° counterclockwise rotation of
the western limb during the Miocene and a 40° clockwise rotation of the eastern limb since the Eocene
(Kissel et al., 1993).

The rock units of the IA are mainly composed of autochthon (Beydağları) and allochthon units (Lycian
and Antalya; Fig. 1b) which include nappe structures cut by Neotectonicfaults (Aksu, 2011, Fig. 2a). The
Beydağları autochthon consists of the central part of the Western Taurus and contains shallow-water
platform limestones ranging from the Triassic to the Miocene (Alçiçek, 2010; Sarı and Özer, 2002). This
autochthon can be divided into two parts, which are neritic limestones at the base and hemipelagic
limestones at the top. The basement neritic limestones are approximately 600m thick and are generally
consist of cream-colored, massive, mainly medium- to thick but locally thin (Sarı and Özer, 2002). The
autochthonous forms a broad north-south trending anticlinorium of 300 km long and 50 km wide which
was overlied by the nappes (Alçiçek, 2010). The Beydağları autochthon unit was thrust over to the east by
the Antalya nappes and to the northwest by the Lycian nappes (McPhee et al., 2018; Fig. 2b).

The Lycian nappes correspond to a segment of the orogenic belt extending between Menderes Massif to
the north and Beydağları autochthonous to the south, and were originated in a northerly Neotethys Ocean
Page 3/23
and comprise composite series of allochthonous sheets that were transported from NW to SE in distinct
stages during the Late Cretaceous and Early Cenozoic periods (Collins and Robertson, 1998; Robertson et
al., 2003; Fig. 3). The nappes comprise an allochthonous sheet series consisting of a shallow-water
platform and pelagic carbonates, ophiolitic mélange, and ophiolitic and evaporitic units, and are
unconformably covered by the sedimentary units of marine origin (Alçiçek, 2010). A 1-km-thick sequence
of clastic sedimentary rocks was deposited onto the Beydağları platform in Miocene times, in response to
the emplacement of the east-verging Lycian Nappes (Hayward, 1982). The final emplacement of these
nappes onto the Beydağları platform occurred in the Langhian (Middle Miocene) (Poisson et al., 2003).

The Antalya nappes or complex were emplaced dominantly in westward directions. The unit consisted of
an allochthonous assemblage of the Mesozoic sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks including
carbonate platform, basinal series, and ophiolites which were thrust onto the autochthon from the east
through the Late Cretaceous–Palaeocene times (Poisson et al., 2003). As a result, the ophiolites, the
carbonate platforms, and the deep basinal units were tectonically imbricated during the Late Miocene–
Middle Pliocene (Vrielynck et al., 2003; Fig. 2b).

Material and methods

Morphometric analysis and morphometric maps of karst depressions are commonly used as a
quantitative tool in karst areas (Bondesan et al., 1992; Day, 1983; Jennings, 1975; Öztürk et al., 2017), and
are help to finding links between karst landform properties and geologic structure (Faivre and Reiffsteck,
2002; Florea, 2005; Öztürk et al., 2018a; Telbisz et al., 2009) and enable the generation of hypotheses on
the morpho-tectonic evolution of karst systems (Jeanpert et al., 2016; Öztürk, 2020; Péntek et al., 2007;
Şimşek et al., 2021).

In this study, 1/25000 scale topographic maps produced by The General Directorate of Mapping (Türkiye)
were used to determine the spatial distribution of density and morphometric properties of depressions.
For this purpose, floors of the poljes and the uppermost closed contour lines of dolines were delineated
as polygons in GIS (Geographic Information System) (Benac et al., 2013; Bočić et al., 2015; Day, 1983;
Denizman, 2003; Faivre and Pahernik, 2007; Öztürk et al., 2018b; Şener and Öztürk, 2019; Şimşek et al.,
2021; Telbisz et al., 2009). After obtaining depression polygons, morphometric parameters such as area,
perimeter, circularity index, long axis, short axis, elongation ratio, and orientation of the elongation axis
were calculated for each depression. The long and short axes were drawn, and elongation ratios (RE) were
calculated with the aid of polygons (Öztürk, 2018a). RE is the ratio between the long and the short axes
(Bondesan et al., 1992) and was used as an index of planimetric shape (Day, 1976; Williams, 1972). The
orientation angles were calculated as an azimuth of the line connecting the two farthest points (long
axis) within the depressions (Kobal et al., 2015). The circularity index (Ic) is a measure of the circularity of
depression and it is the ratio between the depression area and the area of a circle with the same perimeter
(Denizman, 2003). In this study, the circularity index (Formula 1) was calculated as follows:

Page 4/23
 A
Ic =
2
A
π ∙ (2 ∙ )
P

where, A is the measured area and P is the perimeter of a doline, (Kobal et al., 2015).

Definitions
In this section, the definitions of karstic structures used in the article are summarized. Solution dolines
used in this study is accepted as a circular or semicircular karst landforms and diameters vary from a few
meters to one km. Solution dolines are the characteristic surface forms of bare karst regions on young
folded mountains (Ford and Williams, 2007; Veress, 2017), especially in mid-latitude zones such as the
Taurus Mountains (Öztürk et al., 2018a). Poljes are the large flat-floored and enclosed depressions with
underground drainage through karst rocks and commonly elongated in the direction of the structural
grain (Bonacci, 2013; Ford and Williams, 2007). Poljes are of great social and economic importance since
they usually host extensive agricultural areas, concentrate human settlements and infrastructure (De
Waele and Gutiérrez, 2022). They are commonly occur as large-scale landforms in tectonically active
karst areas, especially in the Mediterranean region such as the Dinaric and Taurus regions (Bonacci,
2013; Doğan et al., 2019; Şimşek et al., 2021).

Results
Polygonal karst features, Dolines
Western Taurus contains 10 polygonal karst plateaus. The areas of karst plateaus change between 48
km2 and 441 km2 and total area is 2169 km2 according to doline distribution maps (Table 1). The largest
doline plateaus are located at the Beydağları and Karlık mountains both cover 441 km2 and Akdaglar,
Susuz, Dumanlı, Alacadag, and Boncuk mountains cover more than 100 km2 (Fig. 4a).

A total of 7093 dolines detected in the 10 polygonal karst plateaus. In the plateaus, number of dolines
change between 165 (Barla Mts.) and 1308 (Dumanlı Mts). Dumanlı, Karlık ve Beydağları Mountains
contain more than 1000 dolines (Table 1, Fig. 4b). The total number of dolines in each plateau increases
with the size of the plateaus, and there is a strong positive correlation between the area of the plateaus
and the total number of dolines (r: 0.83).

The average doline density in the Western Taurus is 3.3 doline/km2 and average doline densities on
plateaus change between 1.9 and 6.4 doline/km2 (Fig. 4c). Maximum doline density reaches 32
doline/km2 in Boncuk and Dumanlı mountains. Besides, doline density is ≥ 20 doline/km2 on the Karlık,
Akdağlar and Beydağları Mountains (Table 1, Fig. 4d).

Page 5/23
Average area of doline is reach to 17,342 m2 in Beydağları Mountains, while it decreases to 3,254 m2 in
Alacadağ Mountains (Fig. 4e). Although, the average length of doline is 89 m, Barla and Susuz
Mountains is more than 100 m (Fig. 4f).

The average circularity and elongation ratio index of dolines are 1.3 and 1.7, respectively. Maximum
values in both indexes are seen on the Barla, Davraz, and Karlık mountains in the north of the study area
(Fig. 4g and Fig. 4h). Barla Mountain is the area where the maximum elongation ratio and the most
obvious unidirectional linearity are seen (Fig. 4h).

The dolines in the study area began at a height of 10 meters and continue up to a height of 2870 meters.
The 90% of the dolines are distributed between 985 meters (Karlık Mountain) and 2450 meters (Akdağlar
Mountain) (Fig. 4i).

Table 1
Doline statistics of localities
Localities AIL TND ADD MxDD AArD ALD ACD AER AEl

Barla 48 165 3.4 14 7,495 101 1.39 1.87 1971

Davraz 86 220 2.5 8 6,569 96 1.44 1.73 1840

Karlık 441 1,118 2.5 29 8,815 95 1.35 1.79 976

Gölgeli 73 215 2.9 14 3,937 74 1.23 1.56 1973

Boncuk 174 725 4.1 32 3,361 61 1.26 1.66 1751

Dumanlı 204 1,308 6.4 32 6,760 88 1.28 1.69 1310

Akdağlar 295 940 3.1 30 8,377 84 1.25 1.63 2077

Alacadağ 126 248 1.9 12 3,254 64 1.21 1.53 1439

Susuz 281 995 3.5 16 10,254 100 1.27 1.61 1806

Beydağları 441 1,159 2.6 20 17,342 135 1.30 1.77 2065

(AIL: Area of investigated localities (km2), TND: Total number of dolines, ADD: Average doline density,
(doline/km2) MxDD: Maximum doline density (doline/km2), AArD: Average area of dolines (m2), ALD:
Average length of dolines (m), ACD: Average circularity of dolines: AER: Average elongation ratio of
dolines, AEl: Average elevation of dolines (m)).

According to the correlation values between doline parameters, as the areas of the masses (AIL) increase,
the total doline number (TND) and average doline areas in that mass are strong increase. The increase in
the total number of dolines in the plateau causes the maximum doline density to increase strongly (r:
0.75). However, although there is a weak correlation, the average height of the dolines decreases as the
total number of dolines increases (r: -0.32).

Page 6/23
The decrease in the total number of dolines due to the increase in height can be explained by two
reasons. First, as the area increases, the total area above that height decreases. Secondly, as the altitude
increases in the Taurus Mountains, glacial topography, especially cirques and moraines, are seen. In other
words, glaciations were dominant during the glacial periods in the Quaternary and karstification was
interrupted at the high parts of the Western Taurus. (Evans et al., 2021). In addition, according to
correlation matrix between doline parameters (Table 2), there is a strong positive correlation between the
mean circularity index values of the dolines and the elongation ratio values (r: 0.81).

Table 2
Correlation matrix between doline parameters
AIL TND ADD MxDD AArD ALD ACD AER

TND 0.83

ADD -0.09 0.47

MxDD 0.51 0.75 0.58

AArD 0.73 0.57 -0.12 0.05

ALD 0.53 0.38 -0.10 -0.15 0.94

ACD -0.06 -0.16 -0.10 -0.27 0.24 0.49

AER 0.20 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.47 0.63 0.81

AEle -0.26 -0.32 -0.17 -0.34 0.24 0.24 -0.02 -0.04

(AIL: Area of investigated localities (km2), TND: Total number of dolines, ADD: Average doline density,
(doline/km2) MxDD: Maximum doline density (doline/km2), AArD: Average area of dolines (m2), ALD:
Average length of dolines (m), ACD: Average circularity of dolines: AER: Average elongation ratio of
dolines, AEl: Average elevation of dolines (m)).

Poljes
A total of 74 poljes are located in the Isparta Angle, and mostly developed within the Beydağları
Autochthon and Lycian Nappes (Şimşek et al., 2021). The heights of the polje floors vary between 120
meters and 1730 meters. According to geologic characteristics, 25 of the poljes are structural polje, 14 of
the poljes are border, and 35 of the poljes are structural-border polje. The areas of the poljes vary between
0.45 km2 and 446 km2 (Fig. 5a), and the lengths of the poljes vary between 1.25 km and 47 km. The
circularity index values of the poljes vary between 1.5 and 19. The circularity index values show that
paleo drainage conditions are effective on the development of the polje (Doğan et al., 2019) and shows
that as the number of valleys connected with the polje increases, the poljes have higher circularity index
values.(Şimşek et al., 2021). The circularity index reaches high values in the northern part of the
Beydağları autochthon and in the Lycian nappes (Fig. 5b). According to the elongation ratio of the poljes

Page 7/23
in the study area vary between 1 and 9 (Fig. 5c) and increase especially in areas where tectonism is
effective on polje development.

Tectonics
Tectonism has an important effect on the development of karst depressions, and therefore doline and
poljes are commonly elongated depressions oriented in the direction of the geologic structures (De Waele
and Gutiérrez, 2022). The poljes in the Western Taurus are aligned in the NE-SW direction parallel to the
elongation of the main tectonic units. The E-W, NW-SE and NE-SW orientations are dominant with the
orientation of the long axes of both poljes and dolines. The orientations of the polje and dolines coincide
with the tectonic structure of the area. For example, Acıpayam polje (4425 km2), the largest polje in the
area, is corresponded mainly to NE-SW striking normal faults. The area around Burdur Lake in the
northern part and the area around Elmalı polje located in the south of the study area corresponded mainly
to NE-SW striking normal faults and NE-SW striking thrust faults (Özkaptan et al., 2021). The area around
Fethiye in the southwest of the study area is delimited by NE-SW and NW-SE striking normal faults
(Tosun et al., 2021).

Discussion and Conclusion

Morphometric comparisons
The total number and density of dolines in the Western Taurus have very low values compared to the
Central and Eastern Taurus. In the Central Taurus, 127,000 dolines have been detected in an area of
10,900 km2 and the average doline density is 11.7 dolines/km2 and the maximum doline density is up to
187 dolines/km2 (Öztürk, 2018b). In the Eastern Taurus, 36,000 dolines have been detected in an area of
8,500 km2, the average doline density is 4.5 dolines/km2, and the maximum doline density is up to 128
dolines/km2 (Çetinkaya et al., 2023). In the Western Taurus, 7093 dolines have been detected in an area
of 2169 km2, the average density is 3.3 dolines/km2 and the maximum doline density is up to 32
dolines/km2. According to the measurements, a total of 170,692 dolines were detected in the whole
Taurus system, and 74.7%, 21.2% and 4.1% of these dolines are in the Central, Eastern and Western
Taurus, respectively (Fig. 7). The low number of dolines in the Western Taurus can be explained by the
tectonic activity in the region. Extensional tectonics that started in the neotectonic period caused
widespread graben and polje formation in the Western Taurus (Doğan et al., 2019). This situation caused
the disintegration of the karst plateaus and the polygonal karst plateaus occupying a small area. 175
poljes in the whole Taurus system cover an area of 4581 km2. 74 out of 175 poljes are in the Western
Taurus with 2805 km2. In addition, according to Köppen-Geiger climate classification, mountainous
continental climate conditions are in small pieces in the Western Taurus (Beck et al., 2018).

Morphotectonic/Geologic evolution of karst depressions

Page 8/23
The morphotectonic evolution of the Western Taurus is directly related to its geologic evolution. in this
context. The paleo-geographies in SW Turkey, from the Triassic to end of the Cretaceous, were controlled
by the geodynamical evolution of the southern Neo-Tethys (eastern Mediterranean area) (Poisson et al.,
2011; Tosun et al., 2021). In the Late Cretaceous- Paleocene, the closure of the northern Neo-Tethys
Ocean occurred with the onset of N–S convergence of the Eurasian and African-Arabian plates. This
event marked the beginning of drastic N–S shortening which was responsible for the formation of the
Alpine belt in Turkey (Dercourt et al., 2000; Monod O., 1977; Robertson, 2000). During the Triassic to
present tectonic process, development of western Taurus is subdivided into different periods and paleo-
geographies as described below.

The first stage, Beydağları autochthon which consists of the central part of the Western Taurides, formed
a shallow-marine carbonate platform from the Early Triassic to the Miocene (Alçiçek, 2010; Poisson et al.,
2003; Sarı and Özer, 2002). After that, the Lycian Nappes in the west and the Antalya Nappes in the east
were thrusted over the Beydağları autochthonous carbonate platform during the Late Cretaceous, Eocene,
and Oligo-Miocene (Collins and Robertson, 2003, 1998; Fig. 8). As a result of the tectonic compression,
the geometry of the Western Taurus is partially shaped by the counterclockwise rotation of the west limb
of the Isparta Angle during the Miocene (Kissel et al., 1993).

The second stage, the Western Taurids, which are western part of the Isparta Angle, were emergent at the
end of the Oligocene (Poisson et al., 2011) and was actively eroded during the Mio-Pliocene (McPhee et
al., 2022; Fig. 9).

The third stage, the continuing closure between the Afro-Arabian and Eurasian Plate has resulted on an
ongoing uplift of the mountain belt (Bayari et al., 2011), and the final closure has occurred the Isparta
Angle during the Late Miocene (Poisson et al., 2011; Fig. 10).

The fouth stage, the block-faulting was developed under the control of the extensional tectonic regime in
the Neotectonic period (Koçyiğit, 1984). This Neotectonic extensional period lead to the formation of
grabens and half-grabens throughout the Aegean-West Anatolian region (Glover and Robertson, 1998; ten
Veen et al., 2004), and formed three families of structures, which are E-W, NE-SW and NW-SE directions
during the Late Pliocene and Quaternary in the Western Taurus (Alçiçek, 2010; Glover and Robertson,
1998; Özkaptan et al., 2021; Poisson et al., 2003; Sözbilir, 2005). NW–SE and NE–SW directional
extensional tectonics in the area continues today (Barka and Reilinger, 1997). Depending on these
tectonic processes, most of the extensional grabens, poljes and dolines oriented NW–SE and NE–SW
direction in southwestern Anatolia.

As a result of the development process of the Western Taurus, summarized above, karstification took
place in two different areas within the Beydağları autochthon with terrestrialization since the Miocene.
The terrestrialization of the area has led to the development of drainage conditions on the limestones.
With the continuation of compression and uplift, the limestones begin to rise and the karst floor level
begins to decrease. Thus, dense crack systems developed on the limestones, allowing the surface waters
to pass underground and dolines to develop in the paleovalleys, especially in the limestones at higher
Page 9/23
elevations. In addition, the extensional tectonics cultivated in the Western Taurus with the Neotectonic
period led to the development of poljes. Polygonal karst areas are observed in the high areas in the
eastern part of the Beydağları autochthon, while widespread polje formations are observed in the western
part of the Beydağları autochthon. On the other hand, doline and polje formations are observed in the
areas where karstic units outcrop, in the Lycian nappes. The karstification in the Western Taurus begins.

Declarations
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TUBITAK)
(Project No: 115Y580). We express our sincere thanks for their financial support.

References
1. Akay, E., Uysal, Ş., 1988. Post-Eocene tectonics of the Central Taurus Mountains. Bull. Miner. Res.
Explor. 108, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.19111/BMRE.86066
2. Aksu, H.H., 2011. Tectonic Interpretation of Egirdir and Beysehir Lake Basins by Geophysical Studies.
Süleyman Demirel University.
3. Alçiçek, H., 2010. Stratigraphic correlation of the Neogene basins in southwestern Anatolia: Regional
palaeogeographical, palaeoclimatic and tectonic implications. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol.
Palaeoecol. 291, 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2010.03.002
4. Atalay, İ., 2003. The effects of tectonic movements on the karstification in Anatolia. Acta Carsologica
32, 195–203.
5. Barka, A., Reilinger, R., 1997. Active tectonics of the Eastern Mediterranean region: deduced from
GPS, neotectonic and seismicity data. Ann. Geophys. 40, 587–610. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3892
6. Bayari, C.S., Ozyurt, N.N., Oztan, M., Bastanlar, Y., Varinlioglu, G., Koyuncu, H., Ulkenli, H., Hamarat, S.,
2011. Submarine and coastal karstic groundwater discharges along the southwestern Mediterranean
coast of Turkey. Hydrogeol. J. 19, 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-010-0677-y
7. Beck, H.E., Zimmermann, N.E., McVicar, T.R., Vergopolan, N., Berg, A., Wood, E.F., 2018. Present and
future köppen-geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Sci. Data 5, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.214
8. Benac, Č., Juračić, M., Matičec, D., Ružić, I., Pikelj, K., 2013. Fluviokarst and classical karst: Examples
from the Dinarics (Krk Island, Northern Adriatic, Croatia). Geomorphology 184, 64–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.11.016
9. Biju-Duval, B., Dercourt, J., Le Pichon, X., 1977. From the tethys ocean to the mediterranean seas: a
plate tectonic model of the evolution of the western alpine system, in: Symposium on the Structural
History of the Mediterranean Basins. Editions Technip, pp. 143–164.

Page 10/23
10. Bočić, N., Pahernik, M., Mihevc, A., 2015. Geomorphological significance of the palaeodrainage
network on a karst plateau: The Una–Korana plateau, Dinaric karst, Croatia. Geomorphology 247,
55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2015.01.028
11. Bonacci, O., 2013. Poljes, Ponors and Their Catchments, in: Shroder, J. (Ed.), Treatise on
Geomorphology. Elsevier, pp. 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374739-6.00103-2
12. Bondesan, A., Meneghel, M., Sauro, U., 1992. Morphometric analysis of dolines. Int. J. Speleol. 21, 1–
55.
13. Bozkurt, E., 2001. Neotectonics of Turkey – a synthesis. Geodin. Acta 14, 3–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0985-3111(01)01066-X
14. Çetinkaya, G., Şimşek, M., Öztürk, M.Z., 2023. Morphometric properties of solution dolines in the
Eastern Taurus. J. Geomorphol. Reseaches 10, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.46453/jader.1201290
15. Closson, D., Karaki, N.A., 2009. Salt karst and tectonics: sinkholes development along tension cracks
between parallel strike-slip faults, Dead Sea, Jordan. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 34, 1408–1421.
https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1829
16. Collins, A.S., Robertson, A.H.F., 2003. Kinematic evidence for Late Mesozoic-Miocene emplacement
of the Lycian Allochthon over the Western Anatolide Belt, SW Turkey. Geol. J. 38, 295–310.
https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.957
17. Collins, A.S., Robertson, A.H.F., 1998. Processes of Late Cretaceous to Late Miocene episodic thrust-
sheet translation in the Lycian Taurides, SW Turkey. J. Geol. Soc. London. 155, 759–772.
https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.155.5.0759
18. Day, M., 1983. Doline morphology and development in Barbados. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 73, 206–
219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1983.tb01408.x
19. Day, M., 1976. The morphology and hydrology of some Jamaican karst depressions. Earth Surf.
Process. 1, 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3290010203
20. De Waele, J., Gutiérrez, F., 2022. Karst Hydrogeology, Geomorphology and Caves. Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119605379
21. Denizman, C., 2003. Morphometric and spatial distribution parameters of karstic depressions, Lower
Suwannee River Basin, Florida. J. Cave Karst Stud. 65, 29–35.
22. Dercourt, J., Gaetani, M., Vrielynck, B., Barrier, E., Biju-Duval, B., Brunet, M.F., Cadet, J.P., Crasquin, S.,
Sandulescu, M., 2000. Peri-Tethys Palaeogeographical Maps Atlas. Commission Carte Ge´ologique
du Monde-Commission Geological Map of the World: Paris.
23. Doğan, U., Koçyiğit, A., Gökkaya, E., 2017. Development of the Kembos and Eynif structural poljes:
Morphotectonic evolution of the Upper Manavgat River basin, central Taurides, Turkey.
Geomorphology 278, 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2016.10.030
24. Doğan, U., Koçyiğit, A., Yeşilyurt, S., 2019. The relationship between Kestel Polje system and the
Antalya Tufa Plateau: Their morphotectonic evolution in Isparta Angle, Antalya-Turkey.
Geomorphology 334, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.03.003

Page 11/23
25. Ekmekci, M., 2003. Review of Turkish karst with emphasis on tectonic and paleogeographic controls.
Acta Carsologica 32, 205–218. https://doi.org/10.3986/AC.V32I2.349
26. Ekmekci, M., Nazik, L., 2004. Evolution of Golpazari-Huyuk karst system (Bilecik-Turkey): indications
of morpho-tectonic controls. Int. J. Speleol. 33. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1827-
806X.33.1.5
27. Elhatip, H., 1997. The influence of karst features on environmental studies in Turkey. Environ. Geol.
31, 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540050160
28. Evans, I.S., Çılğın, Z., Bayrakdar, C., Canpolat, E., 2021. The form, distribution and palaeoclimatic
implications of cirques in southwest Turkey (Western Taurus). Geomorphology 391, 107885.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2021.107885
29. Faivre, S., Pahernik, M., 2007. Structural influences on the spatial distribution of dolines, Island of
Brač, Croatia. Zeitschrift für Geomorphol. 51, 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1127/0372-
8854/2007/0051-0487
30. Faivre, S., Reiffsteck, P., 2002. From Doline Distribution to Tectonics Movements Example of the
Velebit Mountain Range, Croatia. Acta Carsologica 31, 139–154.
https://doi.org/10.3986/AC.V31I3.384
31. Florea, L., 2005. Using state-wide GIS data to identify the coincidence between sinkholes and
geologic structure. J. Cave Karst Stud. 67, 120–124.
32. Ford, D., Williams, P., 2007. Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology. John Wiley & Sons Ltd,., West
Sussex, England. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118684986
33. Glover, C., Robertson, A., 1998. Neotectonic intersection of the Aegean and Cyprus tectonic arcs:
extensional and strike-slip faulting in the Isparta Angle, SW Turkey. Tectonophysics 298, 103–132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(98)00180-2
34. Görür, N., 1998. Triassic to Miocene palaeogeographic Atlas of Turkey. Mineral Research and
Exploration General Directorate.
35. Gracia, F.J., Gutiérrez, F., Gutiérrez, M., 2003. The Jiloca karst polje-tectonic graben (Iberian Range, NE
Spain). Geomorphology 52, 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(02)00257-X
36. Gunn, J., Günay, G., 2004. Turkey, in: Gunn, J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Caves and Karst Science. Taylor
and Francis Group, pp. 1583–1589.
37. Hayward, A.B., 1982. Tertiary ophiolite-related sedimentation in S.W. Turkey. PhD Thesis: University
of Edinburgh.
38. Jeanpert, J., Genthon, P., Maurizot, P., Folio, J.-L., Vendé-Leclerc, M., Sérino, J., Join, J.-L., Iseppi, M.,
2016. Morphology and distribution of dolines on ultramafic rocks from airborne LiDAR data: the case
of southern Grande Terre in New Caledonia (SW Pacific). Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 41, 1854–
1868. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3952
39. Jennings, J.N., 1975. Doline morphometry as a morphogenetic tool: New Zealand examples. N. Z.
Geog. 31, 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7939.1975.tb00793.x

Page 12/23
40. Karaoğlan, F., 2016. Tracking the uplift of the Bolkar Mountains (south-central Turkey): evidence from
apatite fission track thermochronology. Turkish J. Earth Sci. 25, 64–80. https://doi.org/10.3906/yer-
1504-17
41. Kissel, C., Averbuch, O., de Lamotte, D.F., Monod, O., Allertson, S., 1993. First paleomagnetic evidence
for a post-Eocene clockwise rotation of the Western Taurides thrust belt east of the Isparta reentrant
(southwestern Turkey). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 117, 1–14.
42. Kobal, M., Bertoncelj, I., Pirotti, F., Dakskobler, I., Kutnar, L., 2015. Using lidar data to analyse sinkhole
characteristics relevant for understory vegetation under forest cover—Case study of a high karst area
in the Dinaric Mountains. PLoS One 10, e0122070. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122070
43. Koçyiğit, A., 1984. Güneybatı Türkiye ve yakın dolayında levha içi yeni tektonik gelişim. Türkiye Jeol.
Kurumu Bülteni 27, 1–16.
44. Koçyiğit, A., Deveci, Ş., 2007. A N–S-trending Active Extensional Structure, the fiuhut (Afyon) Graben:
Commencement Age of the Extensional Neotectonic Period in the Isparta Angle, SW Turkey. Turkish
J. Earth Sci. 16, 391–416.
45. Koçyiğit, A., Özacar, A.A., 2003. Extensional neotectonic regime through the NE Edge of the Outer
Isparta Angle, SW Turkey: New fieldand seismic data. Turkish J. Earth Sci. 12, 67–90.
46. Livermore, R., Smith, A., 1984. Some boundary conditions for the evolution of the Mediterranean
region, in: Stanley, D.., Wezel, C.. (Eds.), Geological Evolution of the Mediterranean Basin. pp. 83–110.
47. McPhee, P.J., Altıner, D., van Hinsbergen, D.J.J., 2018. First Balanced Cross Section Across the
Taurides Fold-Thrust Belt: Geological Constraints on the Subduction History of the Antalya Slab in
Southern Anatolia. Tectonics 37, 3738–3759. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017TC004893
48. McPhee, P.J., Koç, A., van Hinsbergen, D.J.J., 2022. Preparing the ground for plateau growth: Late
Neogene Central Anatolian uplift in the context of orogenic and geodynamic evolution since the
Cretaceous. Tectonophysics 822, 229131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2021.229131
49. Mihljevic, D., 1994. Analysis of spatial characteristics in distribution of sink-holes, as a
geomorphological indicator of recent deformation of geological structure. Acta Geogr. Croat. 29, 29–
36.
50. Monod O., 1977. Recherches Geologiques dans le Taurus Occidental au Sud de Beyşehir (Turquie).
Universite’de Paris- Sud, Orsay, France.
51. Nazik, L., Poyraz, M., Karabıyıkoğlu, M., 2019. Karstic Landscapes and Landforms in Turkey, in:
Kuzucuoğlu, C., Çiner, A., Kazancı, N. (Eds.), Landscapes and Landforms of Turkey. Springer, Cham,
pp. 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03515-0_5
52. Özkaptan, M., Gülyüz, E., Uzel, B., Langereis, C.G., Özacar, A.A., Kaymakcı, N., 2021. Deformation in
SW Anatolia (Turkey) Documented by Anisotropy of Magnetic Susceptibility Data. Tectonics 40.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021TC006882
53. Öztürk, M.Z., 2020. Fluvio-karstic evolution of the Taşeli Plateau (Central Taurus, Turkey). Turkish J.
Earth Sci. 29, 733–746. https://doi.org/10.3906/yer-1908-1

Page 13/23
54. Öztürk, M.Z., 2018a. Karstik Kapalı Depresyonların (Dolinlerin) Morfometrik Analizleri. COĞRAFYA
DERGİSİ J. Geogr. Cograf. Derg. Coğrafya Derg. – J. Geogr. 36, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG371149
55. Öztürk, M.Z., 2018b. Orta Toroslar’da Dolinlerin Dağılışı ve Morfometrik Özellikleri. Kriter Yayınevi.
56. Öztürk, M.Z., Şener, M.F., Şener, M., Şimşek, M., 2018a. Structural controls on distribution of dolines
on Mount Anamas (Taurus Mountains, Turkey). Geomorphology 317, 107–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2018.05.023
57. Öztürk, M.Z., Şimşek, M., Şener, M.F., Utlu, M., 2018b. GIS based analysis of doline density on Taurus
Mountains, Turkey. Environ. Earth Sci. 77, 536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7717-7
58. Öztürk, M.Z., Şımşek, M., Utlu, M., Şener, M.F., 2017. Karstic depressions on Bolkar Mountain plateau,
Central Taurus (Turkey): Distribution characteristics and tectonic effect on orientation. Turkish J.
Earth Sci. 26, 302–313. https://doi.org/10.3906/yer-1702-3
59. Péntek, K., Veress, M., Lóczy, D., 2007. A morphometric classification of solution dolines. Zeitschrift
für Geomorphol. 51, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1127/0372-8854/2007/0051-0019
60. Poisson, A., Akay, E., Dumont, J., Uysal, S., 1984. The Isparta angle: a Mesozoic paleorift in the
Western Taurides, in: Geology of the Taurus Belt: Proceedings. Ankara-Turkey, pp. 11–26.
61. Poisson, A., Orszag-Sperber, F., Kosun, E., Bassetti, M.-A., Müller, C., Wernli, R., Rouchy, J.-M., 2011.
The Late Cenozoic evolution of the Aksu basin (Isparta Angle; SW Turkey). New insights. Bull. la
Société Géologique Fr. 182, 133–148. https://doi.org/10.2113/gssgfbull.182.2.133
62. Poisson, A., Yağmurlu, F., Bozcu, M., Şentürk, M., 2003. New insights on the tectonic setting and
evolution around the apex of the Isparta Angle (SW Turkey). Geol. J. 38, 257–282.
https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.955
63. Robertson, A., Mountrakis, D., 2006. Tectonic development of the Eastern Mediterranean region: an
introduction. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ. 260, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2006.260.01.01
64. Robertson, A., Poisson, A., Akinci, Ö., 2003. Developments in research concerning Mesozoic-Tertiary
Tethys and neotectonics in the Isparta Angle, SW Turkey. Geol. J. 38, 195–234.
https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.953
65. Robertson, A.H.F., 2000. Mesozoic-Tertiary Tectonic-Sedimentary Evolution of a South Tethyan
Oceanic Basin and its Margins in Southern Turkey. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ. 173, 97–138.
https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2000.173.01.05
66. Sarı, B., Özer, S., 2002. Upper Cretaceous Stratigraphy of the Bey Dağları Carbonate Platform,
Korkuteli Area (Western Taurides, Turkey). Turkish J. Earth Sci. 11, 39–59.
67. Schildgen, T., Yıldırım, C., Cosentino, D., Strecker, M., 2014. Linking slab break-off, Hellenic trench
retreat, and uplift of the Central and Eastern Anatolian plateaus. Earth-Science Rev. 128, 147–168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.11.006
68. Schildgen, T.F., Cosentino, D., Caruso, A., Buchwaldt, R., Yıldırım, C., Bowring, S.A., Rojay, B., Echtler, H.,
Strecker, M.R., 2012. Surface expression of eastern Mediterranean slab dynamics: Neogene
Page 14/23
 topographic and structural evolution of the southwest margin of the Central Anatolian Plateau,
Turkey. Tectonics 31, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011TC003021
69. Şenel, M., 2002. 1/500000 scaled geology map of Turkey, Konya sheet. Mineral Research and
Exploration Institute, Ankara.
70. Şener, M.F., Öztürk, M.Z., 2019. Relict drainage effects on distribution and morphometry of karst
depressions: A case study from Central Taurus (Turkey). J. Cave Karst Stud. 81, 23–35.
71. Şengör, A.M.C., Görür, N., Şaroğlu, F., 1985. Strike-slip faulting and related basin formation in zones of
tectonic escape: Turkey as a case study, in: Biddle, K.D., Christie-Blick, N. (Eds.), Strike-Slip
Seformation, Basin Formation and Sedimentation. pp. 227–264.
72. Şimşek, M., Öztürk, M.Z., Doğan, U., Utlu, M., 2021. Toros Polyelerinin Morfometrik Özellikleri. J. Geog.
101–119. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2020-834461
73. Şimşek, M., Öztürk, M.Z., Turoğlu, H., 2019. Geyik Dağı üzerindeki dolin ve uvalaların morfotektonik
önemi. Türk Coğrafya Derg. 13–20. https://doi.org/10.17211/tcd.501724
74. Sözbilir, H., 2005. Oligo-Miocene extension in the Lycian orogen: evidence from the Lycian molasse
basin, SW Turkey. Geodin. Acta 18, 255–282. https://doi.org/10.3166/ga.18.255-282
75. Telbisz, T., Dragušica, D., Nagy, B., 2009. Doline morphometric analysis and karst morphology of
Biokovo Mt (Croatia) based on field observations and digital terrain analysis. Hrvat. Geogr. Glas. 71,
5–22.
76. ten Veen, J.H., Woodside, J.M., Zitter, T.A.C., Dumont, J.F., Mascle, J., Volkonskaia, A., 2004.
Neotectonic evolution of the Anaximander Mountains at the junction of the Hellenic and Cyprus arcs.
Tectonophysics 391, 35–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2004.07.007
77. Theilen-Willige, B., Malek, H., Charif, A., El Bchari, F., Chaïbi, M., 2014. Remote sensing and GIS
contribution to the investigation of karst landscapes in NW-Morocco. Geosciences 4, 50–72.
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences4020050
78. Tosun, L., Avşar, U., Avşar, Ö., Dondurur, D., Kaymakcı, N., 2021. Active tectonics and kinematics of
Fethiye-Göcek Bay, SW Turkey: Insight about the eastern edge of Pliny-Strabo Trenches. J. Struct.
Geol. 145, 104287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2021.104287
79. Ulu, Ü., Konak, N., Şenel, M., 2002. Denizli Sheet of the Geological Map of Turkey, 1:500,000 scale.
Mineral Research and Exploration Institute, Ankara.
80. Veress, M., 2017. Solution DOLINE development on GLACIOKARST in alpine and Dinaric areas. Earth-
Science Rev. 173, 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.08.006
81. Vrielynck, B., Bonneau, M., Danelian, T., Cadet, J.-P., Poisson, A., 2003. New insights on the Antalya
Nappes in the apex of the Isparta Angle: the Isparta Çay unit revisited. Geol. J. 38, 283–293.
https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.956
82. Williams, P., 1972. Morphometric analysis of polygonal karst in New Guinea. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 83,
761–796. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1972)83[761:MAOPKI]2.0.CO;2

Page 15/23
83. Yazgan, E., Chessex, R., 1991. Geology and Tectonic Evolution of the Southeastern Taurides in the
Region of Malatya. Turk Assoc Petrol Geol., Ankara.

Figures

Figure 1

(a) Main tectonic structures of Anatolian Plate (Barka and Reilinger, 1997; Bozkurt, 2001; Koçyiğit and
Deveci, 2007; Robertson and Mountrakis, 2006; Şengör et al., 1985), (b) DEM map showing paleotectonic
units of SW Turkey (Görür, 1998) and location of the study area, (c) topographic relief map of the study
area

Page 16/23
Figure 2

(a) Tectonic map showing polje and doline fields and (b) simplified geologic map of the study area
(Şenel, 2002; Ulu et al., 2002).

Page 17/23
Figure 3

Simplified structural cross-sections (Cross-section lines shown in Fig 2a; arragend from Poisson et al.,
1984).

Page 18/23
Figure 4

Spatial distribution of doline statistics.

Page 19/23
Figure 5

Spatial distribution of polje areas, circularity index and elongation ratios.

Figure 6

(a) Spatial distribution of poljes and doline densities (paleotectonic units from (Görür, 1998), orientation
of (b) faults, (c) poljes, and (d) dolines, (e) dolines over each plateaus and types of the poljes.

Page 20/23
Figure 7

Comparison of doline characteristics in Western, Central and Eastern Taurus

Figure 8

First phase of morphotectonic development of the Western Taurus, Late Cretaceous-Early Miocene thrust
phase.

Page 21/23
Figure 9

Second phase of morphotectonic evolution of the Western Taurus, Uplift and terrestrialization phase,
Miocene

Figure 10

Third phase of morphotectonic development of the Western Taurus, Uplift and development of drainage
network, Late Miocene-Pliocene

Page 22/23
Figure 11

The fourth stage of the morphotectonic development of the Western Taurus, karstification, Plio-
Quaternary

Page 23/23