4.6 Article

Provenance of detrital zircons in the Late Triassic Sichuan foreland basin: constraints on the evolution of the Qinling Orogen and Longmen Shan thrust-fold belt in central China

期刊

INTERNATIONAL GEOLOGY REVIEW
卷 57, 期 14, 页码 1806-1824

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00206814.2015.1027967

关键词

detrital zircon; Late Triassic Sichuan foreland basin; provenance study; North and South China blocks; South Qinling-Dabie Orogen

类别

资金

  1. 973 Programme of China [2012CB214703]
  2. National S&T Major Project of China [2011ZX05009-001, 2011ZX05003-002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this article, we present in situ U-Pb and Lu-Hf isotope data for Upper Triassic detritus in the Sichuan region of northwestern South China, which was a foreland basin during the Late Triassic. The aim is to determine the provenance of sediments in the foreland basin and to constrain the evolution of the surrounding mountain belts. U-Pb age data for the Late Triassic detrital zircons generally show populations at 2.4-2.6Ga, 1.7-1.9Ga, 710-860Ma, 410-460Ma, and 210-300Ma. By fitting the zircon data into the tectonic, sedimentologic, and palaeographic framework, we propose that the north Yangtze Block and South Qinling-Dabie Orogen were the important source areas of sediments in the northern part of the foreland basin, whereas the Longmen Shan thrust-fold belt was the main source region for detritus in other parts of the foreland basin. The South Qinling-Dabie Orogen could also have served as a physical barrier to block most detritus shed from the southern North China Block into the foreland basin during the sedimentation of the Xujiahe Formation. Our results also reveal that part of the flysch from the eastern margin of the Songpan-Ganzi region had been displaced into the Longmen Shan thrust-fold belt before the deposition of the foreland basin sediments. In addition, the Lu-Hf data indicate that Phanerozoic igneous rocks in central China show insignificant formation of the juvenile crust.

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

4.6
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