4.3 Review

K-Ar ages of early Miocene arc-type volcanoes in northern New Zealand

期刊

出版社

SIR PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1080/00288306.2001.9514939

关键词

K-Ar ages; volcanic arc; geochronology; New Zealand; Northland; Auckland; Waitakere Group; Coromandel Group; Parahaki Dacite; North Cape; Karikari; Whangaroa; Waipoua; Kaipara; Tokatoka; Hukatere; Whangarei Heads; Hen and Chickens Islands; Waitakere Ranges; Miocene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the temporal and spatial development of the early Miocene Northland Volcanic Arc is critical to interpreting the patterns of volcanic activity in northern New Zealand through the late Cenozoic. The northwesterly trending are is considered to have developed above a southwest-dipping subduction system. The distribution of its constituent eruptive centres is described in terms of an eastern belt that extends along the eastern side of Northland and a complementary broad western belt which includes subaerial and submarine volcanic edi ices. Critical examination of all 216 K-Ar ages available, including 180 previously unpublished ages, and their assessment against tectonic, lithostratigraphic, seismic stratigraphic, and biostratigraphic constraints, leads us to deduce a detailed chronology of periods of activity for the various early (and middle) Miocene are-type volcanic complexes and centres of northern New Zealand: Waipoua Shield Volcano Complex (19-18 Ma, Altonian); Kaipara Volcanic Complex (23-16 Ma, Waitakian-Altonian); Manukau Volcanic Complex (c. 23-15.5 Ma, Waitakian-Clifdenian); North Cape Volcanic Centre (23-18 Ma, Waitakian-Altonian); Whangaroa Volcanic Complex (22.5-17.5 Ma, Waitakian-Altonian); Taurikura Volcanic Complex (22-15.5 Ma, Otaian-Clifdenian); Parahaki Dacites (22.5-18 Ma, Waitakian-Altonian); Kuaotunu Volcanic Complex (18.5-11 Ma, Altonian-Waiauan). In general, volcanic activity does not show geographic migration with time, and the western (25-15.5 Ma) and eastern (23-11 Ma) belts appear to have developed concurrently.

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

4.3
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