(Un)certainties in tectonic stylolite stress inversion

Over the last two decades application of stylolite roughness inversion has become a common tool to reconstruct paleostress-fields, stress magnitudes and burial depth. While the orientation of the highest principal stress is free of any doubt, there are uncertainties coming along with tectonic stylolite inversion that require a differentiated debate. This includes data quality, rock physical parameters, timing of stylolite growth and burial depth.

We present results of statistical data analysis, showing that data quality depends on the number of samples as well as on the sample size. Thus, the dataset can be of very high quality and stable in outcrop scale. This is faced by field and microscopic observations and results of the stress inversion itself, that demonstrate that some common assumptions, i.e. that modelled paleodepth can be used for tectonic stylolite inversion, are not generally valid. We want to open the discussion towards the question of how we can refine such assumptions and parameters for our paleo stress models and better prediction of recent deformations.