4.7 Article

Searching for giant, ancient impact structures on Earth: The Mesoarchaean Maniitsoq structure, West Greenland

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 337, 期 -, 页码 197-210

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2012.04.026

关键词

Archaean; impacting; planar elements; direct feldspar melting; hydrothermal alteration

资金

  1. Carlsberg Foundation
  2. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A 100 km-scale, circular region in the Archaean North Atlantic Craton centred at 65 degrees 15'N, 51 degrees 50'W near Maniitsoq town in West Greenland comprises a set of highly unusual geological features that were created during a single event involving intense crushing and heating and are incompatible with crustal orogenic processes. The presently exposed features of the Maniitsoq structure were buried 20-25 km below the surface when this event occurred at c. 3 Ga, during waning convergent orogeny. These features include: a large aeromagnetic anomaly; a central 35 x 50 km(2) large area of comminuted quartzo-feldspathic material; regional-scale circular deformation; widespread random fractures with featherlike textures; intense fracture cleavage; amphibolite-granite-matrix breccias unrelated to faulting or intrusions; formation and common fluidisation of microbreccias; abundant evidence of direct K-feldspar and plagioclase melting superimposed on already migmatised rocks; deformation of quartz by < c > slip; formation of planar elements in quartz and plagioclase: and, emplacement of crustally contaminated ultramafic intrusions and regional scale hydrothermal alteration under amphibolite-facies conditions. The diagnostic tools employed to identify impacting in the upper crust are inadequate for structures preserved deep within the continental crust. Nevertheless, the inferred scale, strain rates and temperatures necessary to create the Maniitsoq structure rule out a terrestrial origin of the structure. (C) 2012 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