4.7 Review

Quaternary marine terraces, sea-level changes and uplift history of Patagonia, Argentina: comparisons with predictions of the ICE-4G (VM2) model of the global process of glacial isostatic adjustment

期刊

QUATERNARY SCIENCE REVIEWS
卷 19, 期 14-15, 页码 1495-1525

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0277-3791(00)00075-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quaternary marine terraces have been investigated along a 1000 km stretch of the coast of Argentinian Patagonia. Fossil mollusc shells, most in living position and collected from raised beaches, were dated using the U-series, ESR and C-14 methods. Our analyses show that Holocene sea-level in this region culminated 7000 to 8000 BP at 6-7 m amsl. This beach slightly increases in altitude southward. The last interglacial stage (5e) was identified at 16-17 m amsl whereas the highest and morphologically most distinctive radiometrically dated terrace at 250,000 to 330,000 BP exists at an elevation of 33-35 m amsl. We estimate a constant rate of tectonic uplift of 0.09 m/1000 yr since the middle Pleistocene. Using this estimate of the local rate of tectonic uplift we correct relative sea-level (r.s.l) observations for the Holocene epoch. In turn, the inferred Holocene sea-level histories are compared with those predicted using the ICE-4G (VM2) model of the global process of glacial isostatic adjustment. This model accurately predicts r.s.l history from all sites along the northern part of the east coast of the South American continent (Venezuela, Brazil). However, along the southern part of the coast of Argentinian Patagonia there is evidence of an influence that is not accurately represented in this version of the model of the global process of glacial isostatic adjustment. We suggest that this influence could be connected to the presence of the broad continental shelf that is located offshore of this region, but the influence of significant neotectonic uplift cannot be dismissed. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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