An integrated geophysical study of the western part of the Rochechouart‐Chassenon impact structure, Charente, France

References

1. AbbottD. and MazumderR.2007. Using magnetic susceptibility to find Precambrian impact ejecta: A proposal. Gondwana Research12, 571–575.
   [Google Scholar]
2. AukenE., PellerinL. and SørensenK.2001b. Mutually constrained inversion (MCI) of electrical and electromagnetic data. 71st SEG meeting, San Antonio, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1455–1458.
   [Google Scholar]
3. AukenE., SørensenK.I., DanielsenJ.E. and PellerinL.2001a. Mutually constrained inversion (MCI) of electrical and electromagnetic data from Skaro, Denmark. EEGS‐ES meeting, 2–7 September, Birmingham, UK, Expanded Abstracts, 94–95.
   [Google Scholar]
4. B.M.Middlehurst
   BealsC.S., InnesM.J.S. and RottenbergJ.A.1963. Fossil meteorite craters. In: The Solar System IV (eds B.M.Middlehurst and G.P.Kuiper), pp. 235–284. University of Chicago Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. BenderitterY. and MartinetJ.1995. Test géophysique dans la carrière de Champagnac (87600 Rochechouart). Rapport du Centre de Recherches Géophysiques n°95‐012, Garchy (in French).
   [Google Scholar]
6. J.Pohl
   BischoffL. and OskierskiW.1987. Fractures, pseudotachylite veins and breccia dikes in the crater floor of the Rochechouart impact structure, SW‐France, as indicators of crater forming processes. In: Research in Terrestrial Impact Structures (ed. J.Pohl ), pp. 5–29. Vieweg, Germany.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Campos‐EnríquezJ.O., Morales‐RodríguezH.F., Domínguez‐MéndezF. and BirchF.S.1998. Gauss’s theorem, mass deficiency at Chicxulub crater (Yucatan, Mexico) and the extinction of the dinosaurs. Geophysics63, 1585–1594.
   [Google Scholar]
8. ChèvremontP., Floc’hJ.P., MénilletF., StussiJ.M., DelbosR., SauretB.et al. 1996. Carte géologique de la France à 1:50000, feuille 687 Rochechouart. BRGM, Orléans (in French).
   [Google Scholar]
9. ChristensenN.B.2000. Difficulties in determining electrical anisotropy in subsurface investigations. Geophysical Prospecting48, 1–19.
   [Google Scholar]
10. ChristiansenA.V., AukenE., FogedN. and SørensenK.I.2007. Mutually and laterally constrained inversion of CVES and TEM data: A case study. Near Surface Geophysics5, 115–123.
    [Google Scholar]
11. M.N.Nabighian
    FrischknechtF.C., LabsonV.F., SpiesB.R. and AndersonW.L.1991. Profiling methods using small sources. In: Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, Vol. 2 (ed. M.N.Nabighian ), pp. 105–170. SEG.
    [Google Scholar]
12. HenkelH.1992. Geophysical aspects of meteorite impact craters in eroded shield environments, with special emphasis on electric resistivity. Tectonophysics216, 63–89.
    [Google Scholar]
13. HenkelH. and GuzmánM.1977. Magnetic features of fracture zones. Geoexploration15, 173–181.
    [Google Scholar]
14. HenkelH., ReimoldW.U. and KoeberlC.2002. Magnetic and gravity model of the Morokweng impact structure. Journal of Applied Geophysics49, 129–147.
    [Google Scholar]
15. HornW. and El GoresyA.1980. The Rochechouart crater in France: Stony and not an iron meteorite?Lunar and Planetary Science11, 468–470.
    [Google Scholar]
16. KelleyS.P. and SprayJ.G.1997. A late Triassic age for the Rochechouart impact structure, France. Meteoritics and Planetary Science32, 629–636.
    [Google Scholar]
17. KentD.V., CramerB.S., LanciL., WangD., WrightJ.D. and Van der VooR.2003. A case for a comet impact trigger for the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum and carbon isotropic excursion. Earth and Planetary Science Letters211, 13–26.
    [Google Scholar]
18. KoeberlC., ShukolyukovA. and LugmairG.L.2007. Chromium isotopic studies of terrestrial impact craters: Identification of meteoritic components at Bosumtwi, Clearwater East, Lappajärvi, and Rochechouart. Earth and Planetary Science Letters256, 534–546.
    [Google Scholar]
19. KrautF. and FrenchB.M.1971. The Rochechouart meteorite impact structure, France: Preliminary geological results. Journal of Geophysical Research76, 5407–5413.
    [Google Scholar]
20. KrautF., ShortN.M. and FrenchB.M.1969. Preliminary report on a probable meteorite impact structure near Chassenon, France. Meteoritics4, 490.
    [Google Scholar]
21. LambertP.1974. La structure d’impact de météorite géante de Rochechouart.PhD thesis, University of Orsay.
    [Google Scholar]
22. LambertP.1975. Nickel enrichment of impact melt rocks from Rochechouart. Preliminary results and possibility of meteoritic contamination. Meteoritics10, 433–436.
    [Google Scholar]
23. LambertP.1977. The Rochechouart crater: shock zoning study. Earth and Planetary Science Letters35, 258–268.
    [Google Scholar]
24. LambolezB.1971. Compte rendu de reconnaissance de la structure d’impactites de Rochechouart. Rapport BRGM, 71 GHP 006, Orléans, France (in French).
    [Google Scholar]
25. MarmetE.2002. Reconnaissance de l’occupation ancienne des sols sur le site de Chassenon (Charente) par mesures de susceptibilité magnétique à large maille. Rapport de prospection, Conseil Général de la Charente, France (in French)
    [Google Scholar]
26. McNeillJ.D.1980. Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurement at low induction numbers. Technical Note TN‐6, Geonics Ltd, Ontario, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
27. OrmöJ. and BlomqvistG.1996. Magnetic modelling as a tool in the evaluation of impact structures, with special reference to the Tvären Bay impact crater, SE Sweden. Tectonophysics262, 291–300.
    [Google Scholar]
28. OrmöJ., SturkellE., BlomqvistG. and TörnbergR.1999. Mutually constrained geophysical data for the evaluation of a proposed impact structure: Lake Hummeln, Sweden. Tectonophysics311, 155–177.
    [Google Scholar]
29. OskierskiW. and BischoffL.1983. Petrographic, geochemical and structural studies on impact breccia dikes of the Rochechouart impact structure, SW France. Lunar and Planetary Science14, 584–585.
    [Google Scholar]
30. C.Koeberl
    PlesciaJ.B.1996. Gravity investigation of the Manson impact structure, Iowa. In: The Manson Impact Structure, Iowa: Anatomy of an Impact Crater, Vol. 302 (eds C.Koeberl and R.R.Anderson ), pp. 89–104. Geological Society America.
    [Google Scholar]
31. PohlJ. and AngenheisterG.1969. Anomalien des Erdmagnetfeldes und Magnetisierung der Gesteine im Nördlinger Ries. Geologica Bavarica61, 327–336 (in German).
    [Google Scholar]
32. PohlJ., ErnstsonK. and LambertP.1978. Gravity measurements in the Rochechouart impact structure (France). Meteoritics13, 601–604.
    [Google Scholar]
33. PohlJ. and SoffelH.1971. Paleomagnetic age determination of the Rochechouart impact structure (France). Zeitschrift für Geophysik37, 857–866.
    [Google Scholar]
34. ReimoldW.U., BischoffL., OskierskiW. and SchaferH.1984. Genesis of pseudotachylite veins in the basement of the Rochechouart impact crater, France. I. Geological and petrographical evidence. Lunar and Planetary Science15, 683–684.
    [Google Scholar]
35. J.Pohl
    ReimoldW.U. and OskierskiW.1987. The Rb‐Sr‐age of the Rochechouart impact structure, France, and geochemical constraints on impact melt‐target rock‐meteorite compositions. In: Research in Terrestrial Impact Structures (ed. J.Pohl ), pp. 94–114. Vieweg, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
36. TagleR., StöfflerD., ClaeysP. and ErzingerJ.2003. A non‐magnetic iron meteorite as impactor for the Rochechouart crater. 34th Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, League City, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1835.
    [Google Scholar]
37. WagnerG.A. and StorzerD.1975. The age of the Rochechouart structure. Meteoritics10, 503–504.
    [Google Scholar]
38. ZemanekJ.R., GlennE.E., NortonL.J. and CaldwellR.L.1970. Formation evaluation by inspection with the borehole televiewer. Geophysics35, 254–269.
    [Google Scholar]