4.2 Article

Identification of a late Quaternary alluvial-aeolian sedimentary sequence in the Sichuan Basin, China

期刊

QUATERNARY RESEARCH
卷 85, 期 2, 页码 279-289

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.yqres.2016.01.006

关键词

Sichuan Basin; Tibetan Plateau; Alluvial sediment; Aeolian deposit; Compositional maturity; Isotopic tracing; Dust provenance; Pedogenic concretions; Sedimentary hiatus; Strata age

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [41171008, 40771028]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The late Quaternary sedimentary sequence in the northwestern part of the Sichuan Basin consists of five lithological units and with increasing depth include the: Chengdu Clay; Brown Clay; Red Clay; Sandy Silt; and basal Muddy Gravel. The genesis, provenance and age of the sediments, as well as the possible presence of hiatuses within this sequence are debated. Measurements of grain-size, magnetic susceptibility, quartz content, quartz 8180 values, element composition, and Sr-Nd isotopic concentrations of samples from a typical sedimentary sequence in the area provides new insights into the genesis and history of the sequence. The new data confirm that the sediments in study site are alluvial-aeolian in origin, with basal alluvial deposits overlain by aeolian deposits. Like the uppermost Chengdu Clay, the underlying Brown Clay and Red Clay are aeolian in origin. In contrast, the Silty Sand, like the basal Muddy Gravel, is an alluvial deposit and not an aeolian deposit as previously thought. Moreover, the succession of the aeolian deposits very likely contains two significant sedimentary hiatuses. Sedimentological analysis demonstrates that the source materials for the aeolian deposits in the northwestern part of the Sichuan Basin and those on the eastern Tibetan Plateau are different. Furthermore, the loess deposits on the eastern Tibetan Plateau are derived from heterogeneous local sources. (C) 2016 University of Washington. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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

4.2
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