4.7 Article

Paleobotanical and palynological analysis of Faxinal Coalfield (Lower Permian, Rio Bonito Formation, Parana Basin), Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COAL GEOLOGY
卷 102, 期 -, 页码 12-25

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.coal.2012.07.007

关键词

Faxinal Coalfield; Phytostratigraphy; Palynostratigraphy; Lower Permian; Rio Bonito Formation; Southern Parana Basin

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [401769/2010-0, 480385/2010-6, 483463/2007-8]
  2. DRB [140631-2006/2]
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS) [PqG1015846]
  4. CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sedimentary section exposed at the Faxinal Coalfield bears abundant plant fossil remains distributed within a tonstein level, interlayered in a section mainly comprised by siltstones and coal deposits of the Rio Bonito Formation, Lower Permian, Parana Basin, Brazil. This contribution presents a paleobotanical taxonomic updating of this coalfield based on an in-depth revision of available data as well as the direct analysis from material deposited in paleontological collections (published and unpublished). According to this reevaluation, the Faxinal Coalfield bears 15 paleobotanical taxa, comprised mainly by leaves of Glossopteridales, composing a typical coal-forming flora. New palynological results from this section are derived from five associated levels, which revealed distinct assemblages comprising 30 taxa of spores, 21 of pollen grains and 3 related to algae elements. The associations are compatible with the Glossopteris/Rhodeopteridium Zone and with the Protohaploxypinus goraiensis Subzone (base of the Vittatina costabilis Zone), related to the Cisuralian, Lower Permian (late Sakmarian/early Artinskian). Stratigraphical considerations are given based on comparison with other neighboring sections, as well as with a regional erosion surface recognized in this outcrop. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据