4.5 Article

Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous Northern Qaidam Basin, NW China: Implications for the earliest Cretaceous intracontinental tectonism

期刊

CRETACEOUS RESEARCH
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 552-564

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cretres.2011.04.002

关键词

Northern Qaidam Basin; South Qilian Shan; The earliest Cretaceous; Orogen reactivation; Intracontinental tectonism

资金

  1. Qinghai Oilfield Company, PetroChina [2007-tecnology-exploration-14]
  2. National key scientific and technological projects [2008ZX05009-001-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Formation of Mesozoic western China, which was dominated by tectonic amalgamation along its southern margin and associated intracontinental tectonisms, holds a key for interpreting the succedent Cenozoic evolution. This paper presents new data including lithology, sedimentary facies, stratigraphic contact, seismic interpretation and paleo-structures within the Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous strata in the northern Qaidam Basin, NW China. These data all account for a contractional tectonic deformation in the earliest Cretaceous. The South Qilian Shan, according to the sedimentary features and provenance analysis, reactivated and exhumated during the deformation, controlling the deposition of the Lower Cretaceous sequences. A simplified model for the Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous paleogeography and tectonics of the northern Qaidam Basin is accordingly proposed. The results also support a similar to 25 degrees clockwise rotation of the Qaidam Basin since the Early Cretaceous and a more accurate Mesozoic evolution process for the basin. This earliest Cretaceous deformation, associated with the reactivation of the South Qilian Shan at the time, are part of the intracontinental tectonisms in central Asia during the Mesozoic, and probably driven by both the closure of the Mongol-Okhostk Ocean to the north and the collision of the Lhasa and the Qiangtang blocks to the south. (C) 2011 Elsevier 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

4.5
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