4.7 Article

E/I corrected paleolatitudes for the sedimentary rocks of the Baja British Columbia hypothesis

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 242, 期 1-2, 页码 205-216

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2005.11.052

关键词

paleolatitude; terranes; paleomagnetism; sediments; inclination error; British Columbia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Paleomagnetic inclinations from sediments of the western terranes of Canada are consistently too shallow for their reconstructed paleogeographic positions. Two contradicting explanations for these discrepancies are: (1) terranes have been displaced northward with respect to the stable American craton by several thousands of kilometres between the Late Cretaceous (similar to 75 Ma) and the Eocene (similar to 50 Ma) and (2) sedimentary inclination error has caused a shallow bias in the paleomagnetic directions. Here, we apply the elongation/inclination (E/I) method to paleomagnetie data sets from sedimentary rocks of supposedly allochtonous terranes of Nvestem North America to correct for inclination flattening. Our results indicate that the paleomagnetic directions from the continental Silverquick sediments (95-92 Ma) of southern British Colombia are not seriously affected by inclination error, because the magnetic signal most likely concerns a chemical remanent magnetisation (CRM). In contrast, the marine sediments of the Nanaimo Group (84-72 Ma) of Vancouver Island region appear seriously affected by inclination flattening (f=0.7) and the EA corrected mean inclinations are about 9 degrees steeper than the original data. We arrive at corrected inclinations/paleolatitudes of I** = 57 degrees/lambda = 38 degrees N for the Silverquick and I** = 55 degrees/lambda = 36 degrees N for the Nanaimo sediments. Our corrected paleolatitudes indicate that the Canadian terranes were indeed located adjacent to the Baja Californian margin during the Late Cretaceous, thus supporting the Baja BC hypothesis. (c) 2005 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