4.6 Article

Volcanism in South China during the Late Permian and its relationship to marine ecosystem and environmental changes

期刊

GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE
卷 105, 期 -, 页码 121-134

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.02.011

关键词

Permian-Triassic; mass extinction; primary productivity; anoxia; rare earth elements; chemical index of alteration

资金

  1. NSFC [40839903, 40921062, 40972002, 41073007]
  2. 973 program [2011CB808800]
  3. Ministry of Education of China [IRT0441, B07039]
  4. 111 program [B08030]
  5. U.S. National Science Foundation [EAR-0618003, EAR-0745574, EAR-1053449]
  6. Division Of Earth Sciences
  7. Directorate For Geosciences [0745574] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A deep-shelf section at Xinmin (Guizhou Province, South China) records numerous volcanic ashfall events both preceding and following the latest Permian mass extinction. Each ash layer was associated with ecosystem and environmental changes, including significant declines in biogenic silica and carbonate production and shifts toward somewhat more reducing conditions within a generally suboxic facies. The extinction horizon itself, which coincided with an ashfall event, shows evidence of much larger changes, including a sharp and sustained reduction in radiolarian productivity, a shift from suboxic to mostly oxic conditions (although punctuated by episodic euxinic events), and an increase in weathering intensity due to increased climatic humidity. Ash layers of Late Permian-Early Triassic age at Xinmin and elsewhere in South China are thought to have had a regional volcanic source, perhaps in subduction-zone magmatic arcs along the margins of the South China Craton. The Xinmin section provides evidence that volcanically generated stresses were repeatedly imposed on marine systems of the South China Craton during the Late Permian, possibly weakening their resilience in advance of the Permian-Triassic boundary crisis. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.6
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