4.7 Article

Magnetostratigraphy of Paleogene sediments from northern Qaidam Basin, China: Implications for tectonic uplift and block rotation in northern Tibetan plateau

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 237, 期 3-4, 页码 635-646

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2005.07.007

关键词

magnetostratigraphy; Qaidam Basin; Eocene; Oligocene; rotation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have carried out a detailed magnetostratigraphic study of Tertiary sediments in the northern margin of the Qaidam Basin, northern Tibetan plateau. A total of 400 paleomagnetic samples (with an interval of about 2 m) were collected from the Shanggancaigou and Xiagancaigou Formations in the Hongsanhan section. Stepwise thermal demagnetization was used to isolate the magnetic components in these samples. A higher temperature component (HTC) was separated between 300 and 680 degrees C from most of samples. Positive fold and reversal tests suggest a primary origin for the HTC. A magnetic polarity sequence is established and then compared with the geomagnetic polarity time scale. Ostracoda assemblages and also a fission track age from an adjacent section suggest a Tertiary age of the Shanggancaigou and Xiagancaigou Formations in the Hongsanhan area. The magnetozones in the Xiagancaigou Formation may correspond to subchrons C16n-CI8 ranging from > 40 to 35.5 Ma (Mid-Eocene), and the Shanggancaikou Formation to subchrons C8.2n-C15 (age from 35.5 to 26.5 Ma Late Eocene to Late-Mid Oligocene). The accumulation of sandy conglomerate and conglomerate layers on top of the Shanggancaikou Formation, and an abrupt increase in sedimentation rates are probably resulted from the main uplift of the north Qaidam at about 30 Ma. When compared with coeval directions expected from Eurasia, the mean declinations indicate a slight vertical-axis rotation of the northern Qaidam Basin since the Mid-Eocene. Sinistral shear strain may be concentrated on the Altyn Tagh Fault (ATF). (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