4.5 Article

The geochemistry of glacial deposits in Taylor Valley, Antarctica: Comparison to upper continental crustal abundances

Journal

APPLIED GEOCHEMISTRY
Volume 107, Issue -, Pages 91-104

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2019.05.006

Keywords

polar dry-based glaciers; Geochemistry; Glacial deposits; Taylor valley; Antarctica

Funding

  1. NSF [OPP-9813061, ANT-0423595]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Wet-based glacial deposits have been used traditionally as an analog for upper continental crust (UCC) abundances. To provide more information on the validity of using glacial deposits from wet-based glaciers, samples deposited by the dry-based polar glaciers located in Taylor Valley, Antarctica, were collected. Stream channel sediments, comprised of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks initially deposited as glacial tills by polar glaciers, were analyzed by XRF, ICP-MS, and SEM. Based on the Chemical Index of Alteration values and A-CN-K ternary diagram, there are low levels of chemical weathering in these tills. Additionally, major and trace element geochemical data are compared to the average UCC values. The observed discrepancies between the mean UCC and Antarctic samples develop from the existence of mafic components, most likely the McMurdo Volcanic Group and Ferrar Dolerite, being present in the Taylor Valley tills. Even though the mafic material typically comprises 3-7% of the till, the volcanic rocks have a significant influence on the till's bulk geochemistry. The existence of this mafic fraction in the dry-based glacial tills results from the reduced rate of weathering, as compared to wet-based glaciers. Geochemical analyses of the dry-based glacial tills in polar deserts, such as those found in Taylor Valley, may provide a better representative composition of the original material than wet-based glaciers and need to be incorporated into upper continental crust calculations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available