4.7 Article

More than ten million years of hyper-aridity recorded in the Atacama Gravels

期刊

GEOCHIMICA ET COSMOCHIMICA ACTA
卷 227, 期 -, 页码 123-132

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2018.02.021

关键词

Atacama; Hyperaridity; Sulfate; Triple oxygen isotopes

资金

  1. NASA Postdoctoral Fellowship Program
  2. Petroleum Research Fund [48343-AC2]
  3. NSF [EAR-1251824]
  4. MSI Initiative [NC130065]
  5. FONDECYT [1070736, 1100014]
  6. FONDAP project FONDAP project [15090013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Atacama Desert's hyper-aridity is closely linked to the development of world-class copper and nitrate/iodine ores and to regional tectonics and global paleoclimate changes in the Cenozoic era. The timing when the hyper-aridity commenced remains controversial, with proposed ages ranging from Late Oligocene to Pleistocene. In this study, we provide an independent constraint on the initiation of Atacama hyper-aridity utilizing a 100-m deep profile within the Atacama Gravels and underneath porphyry copper deposit in Spence, northern Chile. The overall high concentration of sulfate (up to 10 wt%) and a multimodal distribution of water soluble salt (sulfates, chlorides and nitrates) indicate multiple generations of sedimentation and salt accumulation events under semi-arid to hyper-arid climate conditions. The multiple sulfate isotope compositions (Delta O-17, delta O-18, delta S-34) of the upper section (-15.0 to -34.5 m) are close to those of modern hyperarid surface sulfates, while the lower section (-34.5 to -65 m) displays a depth dependent isotope trend that is best interpreted as marking a period of climate change from semi-arid to hyper-arid. When these data are combined with new chronological 40Ar/39Ar dates obtained from a volcanic ash layer at depth of -28.0 m, our results show that hyper-arid condition in the Atacama Desert was prevailing at least prior to 9.47 Ma and may go back as old as the middle Miocene. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. 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