4.7 Article

Geochemical and Nd isotopic variations in sediments of the South China Sea: a response to Cenozoic tectonism in SE Asia

Journal

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
Volume 211, Issue 3-4, Pages 207-220

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00229-2

Keywords

South China Sea; geochemistry; Nd isotope; sediments; tectonism; weathering; Ocean Drilling Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Secular variations in geochemistry and Nd isotopic data have been documented in sediment samples at ODP Site 1148 in the South China Sea. Major and trace elements show significant changes at ca. 29.5 Ma and 26-23 Ma, whereas epsilon(Nd) values show a single change at ca. 26-23 Ma. Increases in Al/Ti, Al/K, Rb/Sr, and La/Lu ratios and a decrease in the Th/La ratio of the sediments beginning at 29.5 Ma are consistent with more intense chemical weathering in the source region. The abrupt change in Nd isotopes and geochemistry at ca. 26-23 Ma coincides with a major discontinuity in the sedimentology and physical properties of the sediments, implying a drastic change in sedimentary provenance and environment at the drill site. Comparison of the Nd isotopes of sediments from major rivers flowing into the South China Sea suggests that pre-27 Ma sediments were dominantly derived from a southwestem provenance (Indochina-Sunda Shelf and possibly northwestern Borneo), whereas post-23 Ma sediments were derived from a northern provenance (South China). This change in provenance from southwest to north was largely caused by ridge jumping during seafloor spreading of the South China Sea, associated with a southwestward expansion of the ocean basin crust and a global rise in sea level. Thus, the geochemical and Nd isotopic changes in the sediments at ODP Site 1148 are interpreted as a response to a major plate reorganization in SE Asia at ca. 25 Ma. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available