4.6 Article

Geochemical discrimination of siliciclastic sediments from active and passive margin settings

Journal

SEDIMENTARY GEOLOGY
Volume 332, Issue -, Pages 1-12

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2015.11.011

Keywords

Sedimentary rocks; Isometric log-ratio transformation; Provenance; Tectonic setting; Discriminant function

Categories

Funding

  1. DGAPA-PAPIIT [RN104813]
  2. Instituto de Ciencias del Mary Limnologia Institutional project [616]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Discrimination of active and passive margins is important from both academic and economic aspects. This can only be successfully achieved, however, if there are major compositional differences among sediments derived from different continental margins. A worldwide database of active and passive margin settings was established from published major and trace element geochemical data of Neogene to Quaternary siliciclastic sediments. These data were used to evaluate the performance of existing discrimination diagrams, which were shown to work unsatisfactorily with success values of mostly between 0% and 30%. Because these diagrams were not based on a statistically coherent methodology, we proposed two new discriminant functions from linear discriminant analysis of multinormally distributed isometric log-transformed ratios of major and combined major and trace elements. These new diagrams showed very high percent success values of about 87%-97% and 84%-86% for the active and passive margins, respectively, for the original database. Excellent performance of the multidimensional diagrams and related discriminant functions was confirmed from 11 test studies involving Quaternary to Holocene siliciclastic sediments from known tectonic margins. The expected result of an active or passive margin was obtained, with most samples plotting correctly in the respective field. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available