首页> 外文期刊>Geosphere >Evaluating the Shinumo-Sespe drainage connection: Arguments against the “old” (70–17 Ma) Grand Canyon models for Colorado Plateau drainage evolution
【24h】

Evaluating the Shinumo-Sespe drainage connection: Arguments against the “old” (70–17 Ma) Grand Canyon models for Colorado Plateau drainage evolution

机译:评估Shinumo-SESPE排水连接:针对“旧”(70-17 MA)的争论大峡谷模型,用于科罗拉多高原排水进化

获取原文
           

摘要

The provocative hypothesis that the Shinumo Sandstone in the depths of Grand Canyon was the source for clasts of orthoquartzite in conglomerate of the Sespe Formation of coastal California, if verified, would indicate that a major river system flowed southwest from the Colorado Plateau to the Pacific Ocean prior to opening of the Gulf of California, and would imply that Grand Canyon had been carved to within a few hundred meters of its modern depth at the time of this drainage connection. The proposed Eocene Shinumo-Sespe connection, however, is not supported by detrital zircon nor paleomagnetic-inclination data and is refuted by thermochronology that shows that the Shinumo Sandstone of eastern Grand Canyon was 60 °C (~1.8 km deep) and hence not incised at this time. A proposed 20 Ma (Miocene) Shinumo-Sespe drainage connection based on clasts in the Sespe Formation is also refuted. We point out numerous caveats and non-unique interpretations of paleomagnetic data from clasts. Further, our detrital zircon analysis requires diverse sources for Sespe clasts, with better statistical matches for the four “most-Shinumo-like” Sespe clasts with quartzites of the Big Bear Group and Ontario Ridge metasedimentary succession of the Transverse Ranges, Horse Thief Springs Formation from Death Valley, and Troy Quartzite of central Arizona. Diverse thermochronologic and geologic data also refute a Miocene river pathway through western Grand Canyon and Grand Wash trough. Thus, Sespe clasts do not require a drainage connection from Grand Canyon or the Colorado Plateau and provide no constraints for the history of carving of Grand Canyon. Instead, abundant evidence refutes the “old” (70–17 Ma) Grand Canyon models and supports a 6 Ma Grand Canyon.
机译:Shinumo砂岩在大峡谷深处的挑衅性假设是在苏州沿海加利福尼亚州的苏州苏格兰州的植物泥土的钢管来源,如果经过验证,则表明,一个主要的河流系统从科罗拉多高原到太平洋的西南部流动在加利福尼亚州湾开设之前,暗示大峡谷在这种排水连接时雕刻到其现代深度的几百米。然而,拟议的Zircon和古磁倾斜数据不支持拟议的eocene shinumo-sespe连接,并且由热量倾倒,表明东部大峡谷的Shinumo砂岩是& 60°C(深度〜1.8公里)此时没有切割。还驳斥了基于SESPE地层中的含水液的提出的20 mA(中肾上腺)Shinumo-SEPE排水连接。我们指出了许多警告和来自碎屑的古磁性数据的非独特解释。此外,我们的Detrital Zircon分析需要多种审查泥浆的来源,具有更好的统计匹配,为四个“大多数寿佛的”SESPE CLAST,具有大熊集团的石英,Ontario Ride的横向范围的连续,马贼春天形成从死亡谷和亚利桑那州中部的特洛伊石石。多样化的热量和地质数据也通过西方大峡谷和宏伟的洗涤槽反驳了内蒙古河道。因此,苏比海泥浆不需要从大峡谷或科罗拉多高原的排水连接,为大峡谷的雕刻提供没有限制。相反,丰富的证据反驳了“旧”(70-17 mA)的大峡谷模型,并支持一个< 6 Ma Grand Canyon。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号