4.4 Article

Detrital zircon geochronology of the Carboniferous Baixo Alentejo Flysch Group (South Portugal); constraints on the provenance and geodynamic evolution of the South Portuguese Zone

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
卷 172, 期 3, 页码 294-308

出版社

GEOLOGICAL SOC PUBL HOUSE
DOI: 10.1144/jgs2013-084

关键词

-

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [SFRH/BD/62213/2009]
  2. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia
  3. FCT) [POCTI/CTA/48375/2002, POCI/CTE-GEX/60278/2004]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/62213/2009, POCTI/CTA/48375/2002, POCI/CTE-GEX/60278/2004] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

U-Pb detrital zircon data from the Baixo Alentejo Flysch Group in the South Portuguese Zone show significant age differences between formations. The Visean Mertola Formation and Serpukhovian to early Bashkirian Mira Formation are dominated by zircons in the 316-388 Ma age range, whereas the late Bashkirian to late Moscovian Brejeira Formation is dominated by zircons with an age range of 498-687 Ma. Detrital zircons spanning an age range of 0.9-1.1 Ga are present in the Brejeira Formation but are absent in the Mertola and Mira formations. Detrital zircon ages of the Mertola and Mira formations indicate provenance from an extra-basinal source (Ossa-Morena Zone) with a minor intra-basinal contribution (South Portuguese Zone). The abundant presence of detrital zircon with age ranges of 500-750 and 0.9-1.1 Ga in the Brejeira Formation suggests a sediment source from the Avalon-Meguma terranes with limited recycling from the SW Portugal Domain. The different inferred source areas for the Baixo Alentejo Flysch Group formations are attributed to the presence of a forebulge that was formed in Mid-Visean times during the foreland phase of the South Portuguese Zone. The forebulge acted as a physical barrier separating sub-basins that accumulated the Mertola-Mira and Brejeira sediments respectively.

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

4.4
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