4.7 Article

Mesozoic-Cenozoic exhumation history of the Qimen Tagh Range, northeastern margins of the Tibetan Plateau: Evidence from apatite fission track analysis

期刊

GONDWANA RESEARCH
卷 58, 期 -, 页码 16-26

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gr.2018.01.014

关键词

Apatite fission track; Qimen Tagh Range; Northeastern Tibetan Plateau; Mesozoic; Rapid uplift

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41601007, 41772200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Tibetan Plateau (TP) is the highest plateau in the world. It is composed of a series of E-W stretched blocks/terranes originating from the Gondwana super-continent. As such, the TP has become one of the world's critical foci of Cenozoic geological studies. The Paleozoic and Mesozoic tectonic histories of the Proto-Tibetan region played an important role in the Cenozoic evolution of the TP. Understanding the pre-Cenozoic building of the Qimen Tagh Range located along the northeastern margins of the TP will help to constrain the development of the northern boundaries of the Proto-Tibetan region. Here, we present apatite fission track data for six granite samples along two vertical transects in the North Qimen Tagh Range. These thermochronometric data indicate that the North Qimen Tagh Range experienced a four-stage cooling history, i.e., during the periods similar to 262-240 Ma, similar to 165-160 Ma, 105-80 Ma and similar to 14/10-0 Ma. They reveal that the initial uplift of the northern margins of the TP (i.e., the Qimen Tagh and East Kunlun mountain ranges) during the Late Permian-Middle Triassic separated the paleo-Qaidam Basin from the paleo-Hoh Xil Basin. We therefore suggest that these North Qimen Tagh Range cooling events most probably correspond with the diachronous collisions of the Qiangtang and Lhasa terranes during the Mesozoic, as well as the Endo-Eurasian continental collision which occurred during the Cenozoic. (C) 2018 International Association for Gondwana Research. Published by 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