De Trital Zircon U-Pb Geochronology of Paleozoic Strata in the Grand Canyon, Arizona

Home , Bright Angel Shale, Chuar Group, Coconino Sandstone, Esplanade Sandstone, Hermit Formation, Kaibab Limestone

RESEARCH

De trital zircon U-Pb geochronology of Paleozoic strata in the Grand Canyon, Arizona

George E. Gehrels1*, Ron Blakey2, Karl E. Karlstrom3, J. Michael Timmons4, Bill Dickinson1, and Mark Pecha1 1DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, TUCSON, ARIZONA 85721, USA 2DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY, NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86011, USA 3DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87131, USA 4NEW MEXICO BUREAU OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES, NEW MEXICO TECH, SOCORRO, NEW MEXICO 87801, USA

ABSTRACT

We determined U-Pb ages for detrital zircons from 26 samples of Paleozoic sandstone from the Grand Canyon. Cambrian strata yield mainly ca. 1.44 and 1.7–1.8 Ga ages that indicate derivation from nearby basement rocks of the Yavapai Province. Devonian strata contain zircons of 1.6–1.8 Ga, 1.34–1.40 Ga, and ca. 520 Ma, suggesting derivation from the Mazatzal and Yavapai Provinces, midcontinent region, and the Amarillo-Wichita uplift, respectively. Mississippian strata record a major change in provenance, with predominantly 415–475 Ma and 1030– 1190 Ma grains interpreted to have been shed from the central Appalachian orogen. Pennsylvanian strata contain subequal proportions of 1.4–1.8 Ga grains derived from basement rocks exposed in the Ancestral Rocky Mountains and 409–464 and ca. 1070 Ma grains derived from the Appalachians. Permian strata contain abundant Appalachian zircons, including 270–380 Ma grains, and a lesser proportion of grains derived from the Ancestral Rocky Mountains. Transcontinental transport during Mississippian through Permian time is interpreted to have occurred in large river systems, facilitated by northeasterly trade winds during low sea level and by coastal currents. A compilation of young ages from all Upper Paleozoic strata yields age peaks of 270–365 Ma, 395–475 Ma, and 515–640 Ma, an excellent match for Alleghanian, Acadian, Taconic, and Neoproterozoic (peri-Gondwanan) episodes of magmatism along the Appalachian margin. Lag times of the youngest grains in these Upper Paleozoic strata average ~25 m.y., suggesting relatively rapid exhumation and erosion of Appalachian source regions.

LITHOSPHERE; v. 3; no. 3; p. 183–200, Data Repository 2011103. doi: 10.1130/L121.1

INTRODUCTION Pennsylvanian and Permian sandstones gener- of sediment transport. The results of these ally supported the conclusion that most sand analyses in some cases confi rm the conclusions The spectacular exposures of Paleozoic was derived from the Ancestral Rocky Moun- of previous workers, and in other cases provide strata in the Grand Canyon (Fig. 1) provide an tains of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and new provenance interpretations. excellent opportunity to determine the prove- Arizona and/or from basement uplifts farther nance of Cambrian through Permian sandstones north (Peterson, 1988; Blakey, 1988; Blakey METHODS of the southwestern United States. These strata et al., 1988; Marzolf, 1988; Johansen, 1988). have been studied by many geologists during Johansen (1988) considered the Appalachian Sandstone samples ranging from 2 to 10 kg the past 140 yr, including the pioneering work orogen as a possible source but preferred deri- in weight were collected from ~50-cm-thick of J.W. Powell, G.K. Gilbert, C.E. Dutton, C.D. vation from northern cratonic sources based on horizons that are representative in terms of grain Walcott, and E.D. McKee, which has set the paleogeographic considerations. In contrast, size and composition. The samples were then stage for many more detailed studies that are Dickinson and Gehrels (2003) presented detrital processed and analyzed using procedures out- reviewed in a comprehensive fashion by Beus zircon analyses from the Coconino Sandstone lined by Gehrels (2000, 2011) and Gehrels et and Morales (2003). and concluded that the Appalachian orogen was al. (2006, 2008), which are designed to produce Although there have been many thorough a likely source for this unit. This conclusion has a fi nal age distribution that accurately refl ects and detailed analyses of Grand Canyon strata, been supported by regional stratigraphic analy- the true distribution of detrital zircon ages in there are few constraints on the provenance of ses presented by Blakey (2008, 2009a). each sample. Initial steps included using a jaw sandstones that make up much of the ~1300 m This study uses detrital zircon geochro- crusher and roller mill for sample crushing and of Paleozoic stratigraphy (Fig. 2). For Cam- nology to place additional constraints on the pulverizing, a Wilfl ey table for density sepa- brian strata, regional studies of paleogeography, origin and transport history of Cambrian, ration, and diiodomethane and a barrier-fi eld facies patterns, and paleotransport indicators Devonian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, and (Frantz LB-1) magnetic separator for concentra- (e.g., cross-beds) have suggested that most of Permian sandstones in the Grand Canyon. tion of zircons. Each separation procedure was the sand was derived from Precambrian base- Our approach involves determining the ages conducted so as to retain as many zircons from ment within and east of the Grand Canyon (e.g., of zircon crystals from each unit, comparing the original sample as possible. For medium- McKee and Resser, 1945; and as summarized these age distributions with the ages of rocks and coarse-grained sandstones, standard sepa- by Middleton et al., 2003). Similar criteria from in possible source terranes, and using avail- ration procedures were used, and zircons down able facies, paleocurrent, and paleogeographic to ~50 µm in diameter were retained and ana- *E-mail: [email protected]. information to reconstruct possible pathways lyzed. For fi ner-grained sandstones, modifi ed

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/3/3/183/3049780/183.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 GEHRELS ET AL.

Fortunately, the number of analyses conducted ′ A North 112°30 W 112°W Kaibab 2 on multiple domains was small, and all analyses Coconino 2 conducted on multiple domains were rejected Upper Hermit using the criteria outlined below. Lower Hermit Approximately 100 analyses were con- Esplanade 1 ducted from each sample. Grains were selected Wescogame for analysis at random, and crystals were omit- Manacacha ted only if they were too small for analysis with Surprise Canyon 3 this beam diameter, or if they did not contain a portion that was free of fractures or inclusions. Grand Surprise Canyon 2 Canyon Analyses were conducted by laser-ablation– 36°30′N 36°30′N multicollector–inductively coupled plasma– Esplanade 2 mass spectrometry (LA-MC-ICP-MS) utilizing either a New Wave DUV193 laser connected to Esplanade 3 Temple Butte 1 a GVI Isoprobe or a New Wave UP193HE laser Bright Angel Watahomigi connected to a Nu HR ICP-MS (following the Temple Butte 2 and 3 Upper Bright Angel methods described by Gehrels et al. [2008] and Johnston et al. [2009]). Both instruments utilize Lower Bright Angel Faraday collectors for measurement of 238U, 232 208–206 Tapeats 2 Th, and Pb, and ion counters for measurement of 204(Pb + Hg) and 202Hg. The acquisition routine consisted of 15 s of blank measurement (laser off), 15 s of peak acquisition (laser on), and a delay of ~30 s between analyses to purge the previous sample and return to back- Tapeats 1 Coconino 1 Kaibab 1 ground signal intensities. The rate of ablation 36°N 20 km Toroweap 1 36°N was ~0.7 µm per second, with a laser beam 112°30′W Toroweap 2 Hermit 112°W Surprise Canyon 1 diameter and pit depth of 30 and 15 µm, respectively, for grains down to ~50 µm in diameter, B and a diameter and depth of 10–18 and 5–8 µm, Kaibab respectively, for smaller zircon grains. Toroweap Ages were calculated from the measured Coconino 206Pb/238U, 206Pb/207Pb, 206Pb/204(Pb + Hg), and Hermit 206Pb/202Hg via three corrections: (1) calibra- Supai tion relative to the SL standard (one standard Surprise Canyon between every fi ve unknowns) to correct for Redwall isotopic and elemental fractionation, (2) sub- Temple Butte traction of 204Hg from 204(Pb + Hg) based on Muav measurement of 202Hg and the 202Hg/204Hg Bright Angel value of our gas blank (which is indistinguish- Tapeats able from natural Hg), and (3) subtraction of initial (208–206)Pb in the zircon crystal based on the measured 204Pb and an interpreted initial Pb composition (from Stacey and Kramers, 1975). Down-hole fractionation of Pb/U was accounted for by regression of the measured ratios to the Figure 1. (A) Location of samples in the Grand Canyon (shaded area). (B) Exposure of ~1310 m of fi fth value (out of 15). The fi rst 4 s of data were Paleozoic strata along the north rim of the central Grand Canyon, with formation names indicated. rejected to remove initial signal instability and any effects of surfi cial common Pb. These procedures generate average 1σ uncertainties for procedures (mainly slower processing across Prior to analysis, cathodoluminescence (CL) this data set of 2.1% for 206Pb*/238U ages and Wilfl ey table) were used, and zircons down to images were generated for most samples in an 2.3% for 206Pb*/207Pb* ages older than 1.0 Ga ~20 µm in diameter were retained and analyzed. effort to locate laser pits in homogeneous por- (* indicates that initial Pb has been subtracted). Impurities in the fi nal mineral separates were tions of crystals. Where multiple age zones were Analytical complexities were evaluated for removed by Wig-L-Bug shaking to break apart identifi ed, ablation pits were located in the old- all samples during data acquisition by compari- softer grains and by handpicking. A representa- est domain of suffi cient size for analysis. For son of the time-resolved 206Pb/238U of standards tive split of the fi nal zircon yield was mounted in several samples that were analyzed without the versus unknowns, and examples of different a 1″ (2.54 cm) diameter epoxy plug along with benefi t of CL images, images were acquired types of complexities are shown on Figure 3. crystals of our SL (Sri Lanka) zircon standard after acquisition, and the isotopic analyses were Given that the standard zircons are homoge- (563.5 ± 3.2 Ma; Gehrels et al., 2008). evaluated in light of this spatial information. neous, their pattern of changing 206Pb/238U

184 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 3 | Number 3 | LITHOSPHERE

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/3/3/183/3049780/183.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 Detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology of Paleozoic strata in the Grand Canyon | RESEARCH

Kaibab 1 cutoff would tend to eliminate younger analy- Kaibab Kaibab 2 ses due to low Pb signal intensities, whereas Limestone Toroweap 1 a tighter discordance cutoff would tend to 1000 Toroweap Fm. Toroweap 2 eliminate older analyses due to enhanced prob- Coconino 2 ability/degree of Pb loss with increasing age Coconino (Gehrels, 2011). Coconino 1 Sandstone The ages were also fi ltered during interpreta- Permian Upper Hermit tion in that the greatest signifi cance is placed on Hermit Hermit Lower Hermit 800 Formation analyses that belong to clusters (e.g., Gehrels, Esplanade 3 2011). This strategy tends to reduce the impact Esplanade 2 Esplanade of compromised analyses, because all sources of Esplanade 1 Sandstone complexity (e.g., Pb loss, inheritance, analysis Wescogame of multiple domains) will tend to scatter anal- 600 Formation Wescogame yses from their true age. The ranges and peak Pennsyl- Manacacha ages of the main clusters in each sample were Supai Group vanian Formation Manacacha determined with an in-house routine that deter- Watahomigi mines (1) the age ranges containing continu- Formation Watahomigi Surprise Canyon Fm. Surprise Canyon 1, 2, 3 ous age probability from at least three analyses 400 Mississippian Redwall (uncertainty represented at the 2σ level), and (2) Limestone the ages of all peaks in age-probability domain that include at least three constituent analyses. Devonian Temple Butte Temple Butte 1, 2, 3 Formation The output from this routine is included for Muav each sample, and for each set of samples, in 200 Limestone Table DR1 (see footnote 1). The uncertainties shown on Table DR1 Cambrian Bright Angel Upper Bright Angel Shale Bright Angel (see footnote 1) and all accompanying fi gures

Tonto Group Lower Bright Angel include only the internal (random or measure- Tapeats Tapeats 2 ment) errors. External (systematic) errors are Sandstone Tapeats 1 0 reported in Table DR1 (see footnote 1) for each Precambrian metaigneous sample, and these include contributions from (meters) and metasedimentary rocks uncertainties in standard analyses, age of the Figure 2. Schematic column of the Paleozoic strata present in the central Grand Canyon (adapted standard, composition of common Pb, and U from R. Blakey, http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/Kaibab_Trail.jpg). Sample names are indicated. decay constants. For these samples, the external uncertainties average 1.4% for 206Pb*/238U ages and 1.1% for 206Pb*/207Pb* ages (standard devia- values during an analysis was used to defi ne the are removed from consideration during data tions at 2σ level). pattern of fractionation with increasing laser reduction because of excessive discordance, All analyses are shown graphically on Pb*/U pit depth. Unknown zircon crystals that are or are discounted during data interpretation concordia plots (Fig. 4) and on both relative homogeneous (or are analyzed from a homo- because they do not belong to clusters of ages probability density plots (age-distribution dia- geneous domain) generate a similar pattern (described later herein). grams) and cumulative probability density plots of 206Pb/238U fractionation (e.g., Figs. 3A and The essential isotopic information and (Fig. 5). The relative probability density plots 3B). In contrast, analysis of multiple domains ages for acceptable analyses are reported in were constructed by simply summing all ages from complex crystal yields a 206Pb/238U pat- Table DR1 (see GSA Data Repository1). Anal- and their uncertainties and normalizing plots tern with a different slope (ablation along yses that are not included are those rejected such that all curves contain the same area. an inclined age boundary; Fig. 3C) or with a during data acquisition or reduction (as Age distributions were also compared using jump in value (ablation across a subhorizon- described already) or analyses with high error the K-S statistic (Press et al., 1986), which com- tal age boundary; Fig. 3D). Analysis along/ (>10% uncertainty in either 206Pb*/238U age or pares the observed difference between two age across a fracture or mineral/fl uid inclusion older than 1.0 Ga 206Pb*/207Pb* age) or exces- distributions against the difference predicted (e.g., Fig. 3E), or through a domain with vary- sive discordance (>20% discordant or >5% from the number of analyses. The measure of ing degrees of Pb loss, also yields a 206Pb/238U reverse discordant). These rather generous difference is the P value, which is 1.0 if the pattern that is commonly different from the cutoffs were selected in an effort to not bias age distributions are identical and 0.0 if there standard zircon. Approximately 10% of the the fi nal set of ages—a more rigid uncertainty are few elements in common. The critical P analyses conducted displayed such complexi- value for distinguishing two age distributions at ties (even in cases where CL images revealed 1GSA Data Repository Item 2011103, Table DR1, the 95% confi dence level is 0.05—higher val- no zonation or inclusions) and were therefore U-Pb geochronologic analyses by laser-ablation– ues indicate that the two age distributions are rejected during data acquisition. Although this multicollector–inductively coupled plasma–mass spec- increasingly similar, and lower values indicate method is effective for identifying most com- trometry, and Table DR2, K-S analysis P values for com- decreasing similarity. For these comparisons, parison of Grand Canyon combined units, is available plications, ablation along a vertical age bound- at www.geosociety.org/pubs/ft2011.htm, or on request analytical uncertainties of each analysis are 206 238 ary might yield the expected Pb/ U pattern from [email protected], Documents Secretary, included, which results in higher P values and but result in a mixed age. Such ages generally GSA, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, CO 80301-9140, USA. therefore a more conservative comparison.

LITHOSPHERE | Volume 3 | Number 3 | www.gsapubs.org 185

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/3/3/183/3049780/183.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021

GEHRELS ET AL.

Kaibab 2 Kaibab

Kaibab 1 Kaibab Toroweap 2 Toroweap

U E 1 Toroweap 235 2200 U for a U for Pb*/

238 Coconino 2 Coconino 207 2200

Pb/ 206 1 Coconino

2200

1800 Upper Hermit Upper 2200 iagrams show changes changes show iagrams 1800

1400 Middle Hermit Middle 2200 1800 1000

1400 Lower Hermit Lower 2200 600 D 1800

1000 1400 Esplanade 3 Esplanade 2200 600 1800

1000 1400 Esplanade 2 Esplanade 2200 600 1800

1000 1400 Esplanade 1 Esplanade 2200 600 level. Diagram was constructed with the use of Isoplot (Ludwig, 2008). with the use of Isoplot (Ludwig, constructed was Diagram level. 1800

1000 1400 Wescogame 2200 600 1800

1400 1000 Manacacha U shows that entire analysis was conducted within a single conducted analysis was that entire U shows 2200 600 1800 238 U shows that a younger domain was intersected at depth. (E) at depth. intersected domain was that a younger U shows C 1000 1400

238 Watahomigi Pb/ 2200 600 1800 206 Pb/

1000 1400 206 3 Canyon Surprise U shows an increasing proportion of older zircon with increasing pit with increasing of older zircon proportion an increasing U shows 2200 600 1800 238

1000 1400 Surprise Canyon 2 Canyon Surprise Pb/ U as a function of types of complexities in zircon grains. Upper images are are Upper images grains. U as a function of types complexities in zircon 2200 600 1800 U likely represents the intersection of a fracture or inclusion. Zircon grains and grains Zircon or inclusion. of a fracture the intersection represents U likely 206 238

238 1000 1400 Surprise Canyon Conglomerate Canyon Surprise Pb/ 2200 600 1800 Pb/ 206

1000 206 1400 Temple Butte 3 Butte Temple 2200 600 1800 1000

1400 Temple Butte 2 Butte Temple B 2200 600 1800

1000 1400 Temple Butte 1 Butte Temple 2200 600 1800

1000 1400 Upper Bright Angel Bright Upper 2200 600 1800

1000 1400 Middle Bright Angel Bright Middle 2200 600 1800

1000 1400 Lower Bright Angel Bright Lower 2200 600 1800

1000 1400 Tapeats 2 Tapeats 2200 600 1800 A

1000 1400 Tapeats 1 Tapeats 2200 600 1800 1000 1400 2200 600 1800 1000 1400 2200 600 1800 U during the 15 s of data acquisition, with lower value of zero and variable upper values. (A) Ablation pit and measured Ablation pit and measured (A) upper values. and variable of zero value with lower the 15 s of data acquisition, U during 1400 1000 15 acquisitions 238 600 1800

Pb/

1000 1400

Pb/ 206 238 206 600 1800 domain. (C) Zircon grain with ablation pit overlapping two domains. domains. two with ablation pit overlapping grain (C) Zircon domain. a dip in whereas in CL, that appears homogeneous grain Zircon Figure 3. Cathodoluminescence (CL) images showing measured measured showing Cathodoluminescence (CL) images 3. Figure grain with a single CL domain. (B) Zircon grain with multiple domains. Measured Measured with multiple domains. grain (B) Zircon with a single CL domain. grain in change whereas in CL, crystal that appears homogeneous (D) Zircon depth. color CL images that have been adjusted only for brightness and contrast. Scale bars in lower left are 20 µm in length. Lower d Lower 20 µm in length. are left Scale bars in lower and contrast. brightness only for been adjusted that have color CL images sample 3. Formation Canyon Surprise from analyses are in 1000 1400 600 1000 1400 600

1000 U Pb*/

238 206 600 Figure 4. Pb*/U concordia diagram of ages (Ma) of zircon grains from each sample. Uncertainties are shown at the 1 at the shown are Uncertainties sample. each from grains (Ma) of zircon of ages diagram Pb*/U concordia 4. Figure

186 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 3 | Number 3 | LITHOSPHERE

(n = 104) Kaibab 1 (n = 103) Kaibab 2 (n = 101) Toroweap 2 (n = 97) Toroweap 1 (n = 105) Coconino 2 (n = 102) Coconino 1 (n = 93) Upper Hermit

(n = 100) Hermit (n = 98) Lower Hermit (n = 100) Esplanade 3 (n = 100) Esplanade 2 Figure 5. Age-distribution plots of detrital zircon ages (n = 103) Esplanade 1 from each sample. Each curve (n = 100) Wescogame is constructed by summing (n = 100) Manacacha all of the individual ages and Watahomigi (n = 93) uncertainties and then nor- (n = 85) Surprise Canyon 3 malizing by the number of (n = 101) Surprise Canyon 2 analyses (shown on the left) (n = 195) Surprise Canyon Conglomerate such that each curve contains the same area. Diagram was (n = 100) Temple Butte 3 constructed with program from the Arizona LaserChron (n = 102) Temple Butte 2 Center Web site (http://www

(n = 100) Temple Butte 1 .laserchron.org).

(n = 86) Upper Bright Angel

(n = 105) Bright Angel

(n = 91) Lower Bright Angel

(n = 109) Tapeats 2

(n = 96) Tapeats 1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 Detrital zircon age (Ma)

All concordia diagrams were generated basement of the 1.75–1.73 Ga Granite Gorge Bright Angel Formation with Isoplot (Ludwig, 2008), whereas the nor- metamorphic suite (Karlstrom et al., 2003), (Lower and Middle Cambrian) malized and cumulative age-probability plots, various Paleoproterozoic and Mesoprotero- peak/range values, and K-S analyses were zoic plutons, and Middle–Upper Proterozoic The Bright Angel Formation consists of generated with routines available from the Ari- strata of the Grand Canyon Supergroup (Hen- greenish to brown siltstone and shale interlay- zona LaserChron Center Web site (http://www dricks and Stevenson, 2003; Ford and Dehler, ered with brownish sandstone (mainly in lower .laserchron.org). 2003). Thickness of the Tapeats Sandstone in part of unit) and minor gray dolomite (mainly the Grand Canyon area generally ranges from in upper part of unit) (Middleton et al., 2003; PALEOZOIC STRATA OF THE GRAND 0 m to 122 m (Middleton et al., 2003; Billing- Billingsley, 2000). These strata are interpreted CANYON sley, 2000). It grades from thick beds of cross- to have accumulated in an open-shelf environ- bedded and horizontally stratiﬁ ed sandstone, ment during eastward marine transgression, The following descriptions are based pri- locally pebbly in the lower few meters, upward with overall sediment derivation from the cra- marily on information summarized in Beus into thinly layered sandstones interbedded with tonal platform (McKee and Resser, 1945; Wan- and Morales (2003) and are keyed to the strati- shales. These strata become younger eastward less, 1973; Martin et al., 1986; Elliott and Mar- graphic column shown in Figure 2 (adapted from late Early to early Middle Cambrian age tin, 1987; Rose et al., 1998; Middleton et al., from R. Blakey, http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/ (Middleton et al., 2003). Facies patterns sug- 2003). Thickness of the Bright Angel ranges Kaibab_Trail.jpg). gest deposition in intertidal to subtidal shal- from 80 m to 150 m. low-marine environments, with local beach Tapeats Sandstone and ﬂ uvial deposits (McKee and Resser, 1945; Muav Limestone (Middle Cambrian) (Lower and Middle Cambrian) Hereford, 1977; Middleton and Hereford, 1981; Middleton et al., 2003). As summarized by these The Muav consists of cliff-forming lime- The Tapeats Sandstone is the lower unit researchers, paleocurrent indicators and channel stone, dolomite, and calcareous mudstone that of the Tonto Group, a classic transgressive patterns indicate overall westward (offshore) range in thickness from 42 m to 252 m (Mid- sequence of Cambrian age (Fig. 2). These strata transport of detritus, with local derivation from dleton et al., 2003; Billingsley, 2000). The rest unconformably on Precambrian crystalline isolated basement highs. Middle Cambrian Muav is interpreted to have

LITHOSPHERE | Volume 3 | Number 3 | www.gsapubs.org 187

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/3/3/183/3049780/183.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 GEHRELS ET AL.

accumulated in subtidal to peritidal environ- marine, and coastal eolian dune settings that of the Grand Canyon (Fig. 1). These strata ments with deeper-water basins surrounding were highly migratory due to changing sea level range from 20 m to 180 m in thickness and local offshore shoals (Middleton et al., 2003). and uplift of the Ancestral Rocky Mountains consist largely of quartz-rich fi ne- to medium- (Blakey, 2003, 2008, 2009a, 2009b). grained sandstone (Middleton et al., 2003). As Temple Butte Formation The Supai Group is divided into the follow- noted by these authors, the orientation of cross- (Middle and Upper Devonian) ing four formations. beds records paleotransport from the north. Dickinson and Gehrels (2003) reported detrital The Temple Butte Formation consists of Watahomigi Formation zircon results from one sample (reanalyzed as limestone, dolomite, mudstone, sandstone, and (Lower Pennsylvanian) Coconino 1 of Table DR1 [see footnote 1]) and conglomerate that crop out in a discontinuous concluded that much of the sand was shed from layer between the Muav and Redwall limestones The Watahomigi Formation consists mainly the Appalachian orogen. (Beus, 2003a). These strata are commonly pre- of reddish siltstone and mudstone interlayered served in channels developed in the underlying with gray limestone and dolomite that rest uncon- Toroweap Formation (Lower Permian) Muav Limestone. The Temple Butte Formation formably on the underlying Redwall Limestone is generally interpreted to have formed in nar- (Blakey, 2003). The unit thickens westward The Toroweap Formation crops out as a row tidal channels carved into a shallow, west- across the Grand Canyon area from 30 m to 90 m. thin but laterally continuous slope-forming facing continental shelf (Beus, 2003a). Thick- unit between cliffs of the underlying Coconino ness ranges from 0 to as much as 140 m. Manacacha Formation Sandstone and overlying Kaibab Limestone (Middle Pennsylvanian) (Fig. 2). Dominant lithologies include grayish Redwall Limestone (Mississippian) The Manacacha Formation consists mainly siltstone and sandstone commonly interlayered of quartz-rich sandstone that reaches a maxi- with gypsiferous horizons and a prominent The Redwall Limestone is a conspicuous, mum thickness of 90 m in the central Grand layer of gray limestone in the middle of the unit reddish-weathering cliff-forming unit about Canyon (Blakey, 2003). Cross-beds throughout (Turner, 2003; Billingsley, 2000). Depositional midlevel in the Grand Canyon stratigraphy the eolian sandstones consistently record trans- environments were transitional shallow marine (Fig. 1; Beus, 2003b). It ranges from 120 m to port from the north. and evaporitic, with infl ux of eolian sands from 245 m in thickness and rests unconformably on the northeast (Turner, 2003). Average thickness Cambrian (Muav) or, locally, Devonian (Temple Wescogame Formation is ~100 m (Billingsley, 2000). Butte) strata. The Redwall formed in a shallow (Upper Pennsylvanian) and broad epeiric sea on the western shelf of Kaibab Limestone (Lower Permian) North America (Beus, 2003b). In contrast to the underlying sandstones of the Manacacha Formation, the Wescogame The Kaibab Limestone forms the promi- Surprise Canyon Formation Formation consists largely of slope-forming nent upper ledge of the Grand Canyon (Fig. 1). (Upper Mississippian) siltstone and mudstone with minor sandstone It consists of a lower unit (Fossil Mountain and limestone layers (Blakey, 2003; Billingsley, Member) of cliff-forming thin- to medium- The Surprise Canyon Formation consists 2000). These strata are 30–60 m in thickness. bedded limestone overlain by a highly variable, of reddish-brown siltstone, sandstone, and slope-forming sequence (Harrisburg Member) minor conglomerate that are interlayered with Esplanade Sandstone (Lower Permian) of limestone, siltstone, sandstone, and gypsum gray limestone (Billingsley and McKee, 1982; (Hopkins and Thomson, 2003). Hopkins and Beus, 2003b; Billingsley, 2000). These strata The Esplanade is a dominant cliff-former Thomson interpreted the Kaibab as having occur as lens-shaped troughs carved into the in the Grand Canyon, with a thickness that accumulated in shallow-marine environments upper Redwall Limestone, with a maximum increases westward from 75 to 240 m (Blakey, on a broad westward-facing shelf. Average thickness of 122 m (Billingsley and Beus, 2003). Most strata are quartz-rich sandstones thickness is ~150 m (Billingsley, 2000). 1985). Most of the paleochannels are oriented with abundant cross-bedding that refl ects deri- east-west with paleofl ow toward the west (Gro- vation of sediment from the north. GEOCHRONOLOGIC SAMPLES AND ver, 1987; Beus, 2003b). RESULTS Hermit Formation (Lower Permian) Supai Group (Lower Pennsylvanian Tapeats Sandstone through Lower Permian) The Hermit Formation is a slope-forming (Lower and Middle Cambrian) unit consisting mainly of reddish siltstone, The Supai Group consists of a highly vari- mudstone, and fi ne-grained sandstone (Billing- Two samples were analyzed from the able assemblage of clastic and carbonate rocks sley, 2000; Blakey, 2003). Thickness is highly Tapeats Sandstone, one from near the base of that accumulated on a broad coastal plain during variable, ranging from 30 m to over 270 m. the formation (Tapeats 1) and one from near early Pennsylvanian (or possibly latest Missis- Depositional environments were mainly fl uvial the top (Tapeats 2) (Fig. 2). The lower sand- sippian) through Early Permian time (McKee, in a broad fl oodplain, with minor eolian input stone is coarse grained and feldspathic, with 1982; Blakey, 2003). The primary characteris- (Blakey, 2003). pebbles of schist and granite, whereas the tic of the unit is interlayering of cliff-forming upper sample consists of well-sorted, medium- sandstones and limestones with slope-forming Coconino Sandstone (Lower Permian) grained, quartz-rich sandstone. Zircons in both siltstones and mudstones. Bedding thickness samples are mainly colorless to light pinkish, is highly variable. These strata are interpreted The tall white cliffs of cross-bedded with low degrees of rounding and spheric- to have formed in a range of fl uvial, shallow- Coconino Sandstone are one of the hallmarks ity. Grain size is variable, with zircons up to

188 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 3 | Number 3 | LITHOSPHERE

~250 µm in length in the lower unit but only up Bright Angel Formation at 1029 Ma (n = 12), 1457 Ma (n = 63), and to ~150 µm in length in the upper unit. (Lower and Middle Cambrian) 1712 Ma (n = 113) (Fig. 6; Table DR1 [see foot- The two samples yield very similar age dis- note 1]). K-S analysis P values for comparison tributions (Figs. 4 and 5), with two main age Three samples of ﬁ ne-grained sandstone of the three samples range from 0.23 and 0.74 groups of ca. 1.45 Ga and ca. 170–1.75 Ga were collected from ~1 m above the Tapeats (Table DR1 [see footnote 1]). (age peaks of 1455 and 1711 Ma for sample 1 Sandstone (lower Bright Angel) and from ~5 m and 1450 and 1736 Ma for sample 2). A K-S (Bright Angel) and ~3 m (upper Bright Angel) Temple Butte Formation comparison of the two samples (Table DR1 below the top of the unit (Fig. 2). Zircons in the (Middle and Upper Devonian) [see footnote 1]) yields a P value of 0.99, samples are very small (<100 µm in length), which demonstrates that the two samples have euhedral to only slightly rounded, and gener- Three samples were collected from the Tem- very similar age distributions. This is some- ally colorless to light pinkish. Analyses were ple Butte Formation (Fig. 2). Two of the sam- what surprising given that the lower sample is conducted with a laser beam diameter that ples are medium-grained sandstones (Temple part of the basal conglomerate, resting directly ranged from 10 to 18 µm. The three samples Butte 1 and 3), whereas sample Temple Butte on Precambrian basement, whereas the upper yield very similar ages, with main age groups 2 is a pebbly, coarse-grained sandstone. Zircons unit likely formed in a more integrated drain- of ca. 1.03, 1.45, and 1.71 Ga (Fig. 5). With all from the three samples are generally larger in age system. three samples combined, primary age peaks are the conglomeratic sample (up to ~150 µm in

Figure 6. Diagram showing the distribution of detrital zir- Kaibab (Lower Permian) (n = 207) con ages from each unit. Each Toroweap (Lower Permian) curve contains all analyses from (n = 198) a single unit, normalized such that all curves contain the same Coconino (Lower Permian) (n = 207) area. The number of constituent analyses for each curve is shown Hermit (Lower Permian) (n = 291) on the left. The youngest age of Esplanade (Lower Permian) deposition of each unit (vertical (n = 303) lines) is based on the depositional ages reported in Beus and (n = 293) Lower Supai (Pennsylvanian) Morales (2003) and the Ogg et al. (2008) time scale. Also shown (n = 381) Surprise Canyon (Upper Mississippian) are age distributions for strata of the underlying Unkar and Chuar Groups in the Grand Canyon (from Timmons et al., 2005; Bloch et al., (n = 302) Temple Butte (Middle-Upper Devonian) 2006; K. Karlstrom, 2010 written commun.). Vertical shaded bars show the main ages of zircons that would have been shed from (n = 282) Bright Angel (Lower-Middle Cambrian) various potential source regions. These age ranges have been compiled primarily from Hoffman (1989) and Dickinson and Gehrels (n = 205) Tapeats (Lower-Middle Cambrian) (2009a). The cumulative probability plots provide an additional (n = 1151) Chuar (Neoproterozoic) graphical distinction among Cam- brian–Devonian, Mississippian– (n = 1151) Unkar (Mesoproterozoic) Pennsylvanian–lowest Permian, Appalachian orogen and lower Permian units. Amarillo-Wichita uplift Suwanee terrane Grenville orogen 1.34–1.40 and 1.40–1.48 provinces Yavapai Mazatzal Taconic Acadian 1.6–1.8 terrane 1.8–2.0 terrane Alleghanian Archean craton 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 Detrital zircon age (Ma)

LITHOSPHERE | Volume 3 | Number 3 | www.gsapubs.org 189

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/3/3/183/3049780/183.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 GEHRELS ET AL.

length in samples 1 and 3, up to ~250 µm in Redwall Limestone. Zircons from the sample As shown on Figure 6, the detrital zircon length in sample 2), colorless to light pink, and are small to medium in size (up to ~150 µm ages in the Supai Group are very similar to those poorly rounded. in length), variable in color (from colorless to in the Surprise Canyon Formation. The propor- All three samples yield similar age distribu- medium pinkish in color), and slightly rounded. tions of ages are somewhat different, however, tions, with primary age peaks of ca. 1.44 Ga The main ages of zircons are 1.6–1.8 Ga (n = in that there is a higher proportion of Early Pro- and ca. 1.65–1.75 Ga and subordinate ages of 31), with signifi cant age groups of 1.8–3.0 Ga terozoic ages in the younger strata. This results ca. 400–600 Ma (Fig. 5). K-S analysis P val- (n = 25), 1.0–1.2 Ga (n = 18), and 390–620 Ma in signifi cantly different cumulative probability ues indicate that samples 2 and 3 are indistin- (n = 10) (Figs. 4 and 5). curves for the Surprise Canyon versus Supai guishable (P value = 1.0), whereas sample 1 is sample sets (Fig. 6, upper inset), and a P value somewhat less similar due to a lower proportion Manacacha Formation (Middle of 0.0 (Table DR2 [see footnote 1]). of ca. 1.44 Ga grains (P values = 0.20/0.09 with Pennsylvanian) TB2/TB3). With all three samples combined A sample of medium-grained sandstone Hermit Formation (Lower Permian) (302 analyses; Fig. 6), peak ages are 518 Ma was collected from one of the thicker and more (n = 8), 1122 Ma (n = 6), 1442 Ma (n = 75), resistant sandstone layers in the lower part of the We collected three samples of fi ne-grained 1740 Ma (n = 150), 1900 Ma (n = 29), and Manacacha Formation. Zircons from the sample sandstone, one sample from near the base of the 2069 Ma (n = 5). are generally colorless to medium pink, large formation and two from near the top (Fig. 2). Zir- Detrital zircon ages in the Temple Butte For- (up to ~250 µm in length), moderately to well cons in all three samples are generally <80 µm in mation are quite similar to ages in the underly- rounded, and moderately spherical. The resulting size, well rounded, and colorless to light pinkish ing Bright Angel and Tapeats sandstones, with ages are mostly Precambrian, with only two ages in color. Because of the small grain size, analy- K-S analysis P values of 0.39 (with Tapeats) and between 400 and 450 Ma, 24 ages between 1.0 ses were conducted with a laser beam diameter 0.41 (with Bright Angel). and 1.2 Ga, 32 ages between 1.6 and 1.8 Ga, and that ranged from 10 to 18 µm. Dominant age 22 ages between 1.8 and 3.0 Ga (Figs. 4 and 5). groups are generally similar in the three samples, Surprise Canyon Formation with dominant groups of mid- and Early Protero- (Mississippian) Wescogame Formation (Upper zoic and an extended range of Late Proterozoic– Pennsylvanian) early Paleozoic ages (Fig. 5). The proportion Two samples of sandstone and one sample One sample of Wescogame Formation was of these youngest ages also tends to increase of conglomeratic sandstone were analyzed from collected from a medium-grained sandstone. up section, with younger than 720 Ma grains this unit. Zircons in the samples are mainly col- Zircons in the unit are mainly colorless to light making up 10% of the population in the lower orless to light pink, less than ~100 µm in length, pink, up to ~200 µm in length, and euhedral sample, 21% in the middle sample, and 37% in and not well rounded. to slightly rounded. Main age groups are 450– the upper sample. This change in proportions is Ages from two of the samples (1 and 2) 470 Ma (n = 2), 650–670 Ma (n = 2), 1.0–1.2 Ga consistent with K-S P values of 0.51 and 0.09 for are quite similar, with a K-S analysis P value (n = 19), and 1.6–1.8 Ga (n = 24). There are also comparisons of the middle with upper and lower of 0.65. The third sample contains similar age 27 ages in the 1.8–3.0 Ga range (Figs. 4 and 5). samples, but only 0.003 for comparison of the groups, but in very different proportions, and upper and lower samples. The combined curve accordingly has a P value of 0.0 in compari- Esplanade Sandstone (Lower Permian) shows a profound change in the distribution of son with the other two samples. A composite Three samples were collected from medium- young ages compared to the underlying Espla- age distribution of the three samples reveals grained sandstones in the middle, upper, and nade Sandstone (Fig. 6), specifi cally because of dominant age peaks of 416 Ma (n = 14), 473 Ma uppermost Esplanade Formation (Fig. 2). Zir- the occurrence of a signifi cant number of grains (n = 9), 1030 Ma (n = 59), 1066 Ma (n = 62), cons in all three samples are colorless to medium having ages between 500 and 720 Ma (age peaks 1191 Ma (n = 40), 1366 Ma (n = 20), 1442 Ma pink, of moderate size (up to ~200 µm in length), at 527, 580, and 630 Ma). (n = 23), 1679 Ma (n = 15), and 1755 Ma (n = and are moderately rounded/spherical. These 12) (Fig. 6; Table DR1 [see footnote 1]). samples yield age spectra with main age groups Coconino Sandstone (Lower Permian) The ages from these samples are quite dif- of 330–480 Ma (n = 15), 660–700 Ma (n = 3), ferent from ages in underlying units, with sig- 1.0–1.2 Ga (n = 70), 1.6–1.8 Ga (n = 92), and Two samples were collected from medium- nifi cant age groups in the early Paleozoic (400– 1.8–3.0 Ga (n = 57) (Figs. 4 and 5). grained sandstones in the lower and upper por- 500 Ma) and mid-Proterozoic (1.0–1.2 Ga), and tions of the Coconino Sandstone (Fig. 2). Zir- reduced proportions of 1.40–1.46 Ga and 1.6– Summary of Supai Ages cons in both samples are generally colorless to 1.8 Ga ages (Figs. 5 and 6). The proportions of Detrital zircon ages from six samples of dark pink in color, large (grains up to 250 µm 1.62–1.70 Ga and 1.70–1.80 Ga ages are also Supai strata are quite similar (Fig. 5), with K-S in length), and generally well rounded and mod- different, with 57% younger grains (age peak at analysis P values that are all ≥0.05 (Table DR1 erately spherical. Zircons from sample 1 were 1677 Ma), and 43% older grains (age peak at [see footnote 1]). The six sets of ages are initially analyzed and reported by Dickinson and 1732 Ma) (Fig. 6; Table DR1 [see footnote 1]). accordingly combined on Figure 6 into two age Gehrels (2003), but they were reanalyzed herein distributions of Pennsylvanian age and earliest to take advantage of improvements in analyti- Supai Group Permian (Wolfcampian) age. These two age cal precision. The age distributions in the two distributions are similar (K-S P value of 0.41; samples contain similar proportions of similar Watahomigi Formation (Lower Table DR2 [see footnote 1]), with main group- ages (Fig. 5), resulting in a high P value (0.99; Pennsylvanian) ings of early Paleozoic, mid-Proterozoic, and Table DR1 [see footnote 1]). With the two age Our sample of Watahomigi Formation was Early Proterozoic ages (Fig. 6). There are also distributions combined, the dominant ages are collected from a reddish, fi ne-grained sandstone several grains in each sample set between 600 320–700 Ma (n = 26), 1.0–1.2 Ga (n = 63), 1.6– in the lowest sandstone layer, ~5 m above the and 720 Ma. 1.8 Ga (n = 39), and 1.8–3.7 Ga (n = 32) (Fig. 6).

190 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 3 | Number 3 | LITHOSPHERE

Toroweap Formation (Lower Permian) groups are 270–360 Ma (n = 12), 380–500 Ma age peak at 1064 Ma (n = 8). These grains were (n = 15), 530–740 Ma (n = 17), 1.0–1.3 Ga (n presumably shed from the Grenville orogen to Two samples were collected from ﬁ ne- to = 55), 1.40–1.52 Ga (n = 23), and 1.6–1.8 Ga the south and/or east (Fig. 7). medium-grained sandstone layers in the upper (n = 38). Comparison of these ages with ages in Pro- portion of the Toroweap Formation (Fig. 2). Zir- terozoic strata of the locally underlying Grand cons in the samples are highly variable in size PROVENANCE INTERPRETATIONS Canyon Supergroup (Unkar and Chuar Groups; (up to 200 µm in length), color (ranging from Fig. 6) suggests that little detritus was recycled colorless to dark pink), and degree of rounding Provenance of the detrital zircons is dis- from underlying units. (ranging from euhedral crystals to well-rounded cussed primarily in relation to the age provinces and highly spherical grains). The samples yield of southern North America, as summarized in Bright Angel Formation (Lower and similar age groups, but in somewhat different terms of geography on Figure 7 and in terms of Middle Cambrian) proportions, as indicated by a K-S P value of age with vertical color bands on Figure 6. The 0.04 (Table DR2 [see footnote 1]). Based on provenance of each set of units is discussed Ages from the Bright Angel Formation are a combined age distribution, primary ages are separately next. very similar to those in the underlying Tapeats 300–700 Ma (n = 45), 1.0–1.2 Ga (n = 34), 1.6– Sandstone (Fig. 6), with a K-S P value of 1.8 Ga (n = 48), and 1.8–3.0 Ga (n = 29) (Fig. 6). Tapeats Sandstone (Lower and Middle 0.37 in comparison of the two sets of samples Cambrian) (Table DR2 [see footnote 1]). Provenance inter- Kaibab Formation (Lower Permian) pretations are accordingly similar; most detritus The grains in these samples are very similar was shed from southwestern United States crys- We analyzed samples from the lowest and to ages of crystalline basement rocks through- talline basement and from the Grenville orogen to highest sandstones observed in the Kaibab For- out the southwestern United States, with domi- the south or east. The slightly greater proportion mation (Fig. 2). Both are thin sandstone layers nantly Early Proterozoic grains (peak age = of 1.62–1.70 Ga grains (35%) over 1.70–1.80 Ga interbedded with gray limestone beds in the 1728 Ma; n = 102) and a lower proportion of grains (65%) may reﬂ ect cratonward migration upper part of the formation (Fig. 2). Zircons 1.4–1.5 Ga grains (peak age = 1452 Ma; n = of source regions during Cambrian transgression. in the samples are small (<100 µm), variably 65). In fact, 69% of the Early Proterozoic grains rounded, and mainly colorless to light pink in are interpreted to have been shed from the 1.70– Temple Butte color. The resulting ages are similar in the two 1.80 Ga (Yavapai) province, with 31% derived units, but occur in different proportions, result- from the 1.62–1.70 Ga (Mazatzal) province The Temple Butte Formation yields Paleo- ing in a K-S P value of 0.03 (Table DR1 [see (Fig. 7; Karlstrom et al., 2003). There are also a proterozoic and Mesoproterozoic ages that are footnote 1]). With combined ages, the main age few Grenville-age (1.0–1.2 Ga) grains, with an similar to those in the Tapeats and Bright Angel

Hearne Superior Canada Cordilleran USA terranes and arcs Wyoming Trans-Hudson 40°N

40° ? Antler Ancestral ? Rocky Figure 7. Location of the main age orogen 1.70–1.80? Ga Mountains ? –1.70 Ga provinces in central and south- miogeocline 1.62 ? Grand Grenville ern North America that may have Canyon ? provided sediment for Paleozoic strata of the Grand Canyon. Fig- Amarillo-Wichita Yavapai ure is adapted from Anderson Mazatzal Appalachian and Morrison (1992), Bickford et USA North al. (1986), Hoffman (1989), Burch- Me Ouachita Suwanee ﬁ el et al. (1992), Bickford and xico Anderson (1993), Van Schmus et al. (1993), Dickinson and Lawton Yucatan- (2001), and Dickinson and Gehrels Campeche (2009a).

1.40–1.48 Ga granites 1.34–1.40 Ga granites 20°N 1.42–1.48 Ga granite-rhyolite province 20°N 1.34–1.40 Ga granite-rhyolite province

1000 km 120°W Oaxaca East Mexico arc 80°W

LITHOSPHERE | Volume 3 | Number 3 | www.gsapubs.org 191

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/3/3/183/3049780/183.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 GEHRELS ET AL.

Formations, even with similar proportions of lack of mid-Proterozoic ages (1.0–1.2 Ga) in younger units contain abundant Paleozoic and 1.62–1.70 Ga (30%) versus 1.70–1.80 Ga (70%) these samples, which would be expected from mid-Proterozoic zircons. grains (Fig. 6). Most of the detritus is accord- a source in the Texas-Oklahoma region. There ingly interpreted to also have been shed from is also no evidence that the Cambrian igneous Surprise Canyon Formation Precambrian basement rocks of the southwest- rocks were exposed during Devonian time; the (Mississippian) ern United States. main phase of uplift of the Amarillo-Wichita Additional sources are recorded by grains uplift was during Pennsylvanian time as part of The occurrence of signifi cant proportions of of 1.34–1.40 Ga (age peak at 1376 Ma) and the Ancestral Rocky Mountains (Johnson et al., younger than 1.3 Ga zircons in the Surprise Can- 502–521 Ma (age peak of 518 Ma; n = 8) in all 1988; Gilbert and Denison, 1993). yon Formation and younger strata (Fig. 6) sig- three samples, and grains of 403 and 426 Ma An alternative interpretation is that the nals a major change in the provenance of sand- in sample 1. The grains with an age peak at ca. 518 Ma grains, as well as the single 403 Ma stones in the Grand Canyon. Possible sources for ca. 1376 Ma were most likely derived from the and 426 Ma grains, were shed from circum– these grains include the Cordilleran orogen to 1.34–1.40 Ga midcontinent granite-rhyolite North American orogenic belts. Specifi cally, the west, Franklinian (Innuitian-Ellesmere) oro- province of the south-central United States Park et al. (2010) reported similar ages from gen to the north, Ouachita orogen to the south, (Anderson and Morrison, 1992; Van Schmus Devonian foreland basin strata of the Appa- and Appalachian orogen to the east. Fortunately, et al., 1993; Bickford and Anderson, 1993) lachians. This interpretation is also problem- all of these options can be evaluated in at least a (Fig. 7). The ca. 518 Ma grains may have been atic in that early Paleozoic detrital zircons preliminary fashion with existing detrital zircon shed from the Amarillo-Wichita uplift of Texas shed from circum–North American orogenic data. Figure 8 presents these comparisons with and Oklahoma (Fig. 7), which contains gra- belts are always accompanied by a signifi cant age-distribution curves that are upward facing nitic bodies of Cambrian age (Ham et al., 1964; (generally greater) proportion of Grenville- for Mississippian–Permian strata of the Grand Gilbert and Denison, 1993; Riggs et al., 1996; age grains. The possibility of derivation from Canyon and downward-facing for Upper Paleo- Hogan and Gilbert, 1998). However, this inter- circum–North American orogenic systems is zoic strata of other regions. All curves are nor- pretation is somewhat problematic given the described in more detail later herein because malized for the number of constituent analyses Taconic Acadian D Alleghanian Grand Canyon n = 1880 n = 1829 Appalachian Figure 8. Comparison of detrital zircon ages from Mississippian through Permian strata of the Grand Canyon (upward-facing C Grand Canyon curves) with detrital zircon age n = 1880 distributions from: (A) Mississip- pian strata that rest on or were n = 152 derived from the Antler orogen in Ouachita Nevada (Gehrels and Dickinson, 2000); (B) Devonian through Cre- taceous strata that accumulated along the Arctic margin (McNicoll B Grand Canyon et al., 1995; Gehrels et al., 1999; Rohr et al., 2010; Beranek et al., n = 1880 2010); (C) Pennsylvanian strata n = 1420 from the Ouachita orogen (Glea- son et al., 2007); and (D) Devo- Franklinian nian through Permian strata of the Appalachian orogen (Gray and Zeitler, 1997; McLennan et A Grand Canyon al., 2001; Eriksson et al., 2004; n = 1880 Thomas et al., 2004; Becker et al., 2005, 2006; Park et al., 2010). n = 52 Antler

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 Detrital zircon age (Ma)

192 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 3 | Number 3 | LITHOSPHERE

(e.g., each curve contains the same area). Each Canadian Shield during mid- and late Paleozoic Jackfork Formation in the Ouachita Mountains of the four options is evaluated next. time (Patchett et al., 2004). Detrital zircon infor- (Arkansas) and the Haymond Formation of the Derivation from the Antler orogen in the mation is available from Devonian strata belong- Marathon basin (Texas) (Gleason et al., 2007) western United States is a possibility given that ing to this clastic wedge (McNicoll et al., 1995), (Fig. 8C). These units yield Mesoproterozoic to clastic detritus was shed eastward from the Ant- from Devonian–Mississippian strata of eastern Paleoproterozoic ages and 350–500 Ma ages that ler Highlands (Fig. 7), onto the North American Alaska (Nation River Formation; Gehrels et al., match with the Grand Canyon strata, but they craton, during Mississippian and Pennsylvanian 1999) and northwestern Canada (Beranek et al., also reveal a signiﬁ cant population of ca. 520 Ma time (Burchﬁ el et al., 1992). Detrital zircons in 2010) that are known or interpreted to have been grains. The scarcity of these ca. 520 Ma ages in Mississippian strata that accumulated within and part of this clastic wedge, and from Cretaceous Mississippian Grand Canyon strata suggests that east of the highlands yield only Precambrian ages strata that rest on, and were at least in part recy- the Ouachita orogen is not a likely source ter- (Gehrels and Dickinson, 2000) and are a good cled from, Franklinian clastic strata (Røhr et al., rane, although this conclusion needs to be reeval- match for rocks exposed in the Antler Highlands 2010). As reported by previous workers, most uated when additional detrital zircon data from (Gehrels et al., 2000). However, because there is of this detritus is interpreted to have been shed the Ouachita system become available. little overlap of these ages with the detrital zircon from the northern continuation of the Appala- Derivation from the Appalachian orogen ages in Upper Paleozoic strata of the Grand Can- chian-Caledonian orogenic system. The simi- can be evaluated by comparison with abundant yon, the Antler orogen is not a likely source for larity of the Franklinian curve with the Grand detrital zircon data from Appalachian foreland the Grand Canyon strata (Fig. 8). Canyon age distribution (Fig. 8B) suggests that basin strata reported by Gray and Zeitler (1997), Derivation from the north is also pos- detrital zircons in the Grand Canyon strata could McLennan et al. (2001), Eriksson et al. (2004), sible given that tectonism, referred to as the have been shed from the Franklinian orogen, Thomas et al. (2004), Becker et al. (2005, 2006), Franklinian, Innuitian, and Ellesmere orogenic although ultimately, they would have originated and Park et al. (2010). As shown on Figure 8D, events, occurred along the Arctic margin dur- in the northern continuation of the Appalachian- the composite age distribution from these Devo- ing mid- and late Paleozoic time (Trettin, 1989). Caledonian orogen. nian through Permian strata provides an excel- A regionally extensive clastic wedge was shed Evaluation of the Ouachita orogen is enabled lent match for the younger than 1.4 Ga Grand southward, and probably covered much of the by comparison with Pennsylvanian strata of the Canyon ages. Figure 9 provides a more detailed

Figure 9. Comparison of detrital zir- 44% Permian strata E n = 903 con age distributions from strata n = 152 of the Grand Canyon (upward- facing curves) and Appalachian Pennsylvanian and orogen (downward-facing curves). 39% lowest Permian strata D n = 596 All curves are normalized, such that they contain the same area. n = 598 Dashed lines represent the residual age distribution for ages that Mississippian strata could not have been shed from the C 25% n = 381 Appalachian orogen (calculated n = 566 by subtracting the Appalachian age distribution from the Grand Canyon age distribution). The area 68% Devonian strata beneath the dashed line compared B n = 302 to the area beneath the full Grand n = 474 Canyon curve is indicated as a percent for each age range. Verti- cal shaded bars show the main Cambrian– ages of zircons that would have Silurian strata been shed from various potential A Grand Canyon strata 68% n = 488 source regions. These age ranges n = 635 Appalachian strata have been compiled primarily from Hoffman (1989) and Dickinson and Gehrels (2009a). Comparisons are Appalachian magmatism provided for (A) Cambrian through Silurian strata (residual age peaks Amarillo-Wichita uplift of 1451 and 1721 Ma), (B) Devo- Suwanee terrane nian strata (residual age peaks Grenville orogen at 1433 and 1737 Ma), (C) Missis- Taconic Acadian 1.34–1.40 and 1.40–1.48 provinces sippian strata (residual age peaks Yavapai Mazatzal at 1435, 1678, and 1740 Ma), (D) 1.6–1.8 terrane Pennsylvanian and lowest Perm- Alleghanian 1.8–2.0 terrane ian strata (residual age peaks at Archean craton 1539, 1657, and 1781 Ma), (E) Perm- ian strata (residual age peaks at 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 426, 526, 520, 617, 1426, 1510, 1653, Detrital zircon age (Ma) and 1765 Ma).

LITHOSPHERE | Volume 3 | Number 3 | www.gsapubs.org 193

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/3/3/183/3049780/183.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 GEHRELS ET AL.

analysis by sequentially comparing ages of orogen is a viable source region for much of the are a reasonably good match for Permian fore- generally coeval strata from the Grand Canyon detritus in the Supai Group. land basin strata of the Appalachian orogen, and the Appalachian orogen. As with Figure 8, The difference between the Supai and Appa- which have been reported by Becker et al. (2006) Grand Canyon age distributions are shown with lachian curves (Fig. 9D) leaves a residual age (Fig. 9E). Comparison of the two age distribu- upward-facing curves, while Appalachian ages distribution (dashed line) with dominant age tions leaves a residual age probability of 44% are shown with downward-facing probability peaks of 1539 Ma, 1657 Ma, and 1781 Ma, of the full Grand Canyon curve, with signifi cant curves. All curves are normalized for the num- and an area of 39% of the full Grand Canyon numbers of grains between 420 and 720 Ma ber of constituent analyses. age-distribution curve. The older grains (e.g., (age peaks at 426, 526, 578, and 617 Ma), and at Mismatches between coupled curves are 1657 Ma and 1781 Ma) most likely record 1426, 1510, 1653, and 1765 Ma. As with under- shown with dashed lines for each time period derivation from crystalline rocks exposed in lying units, the ca. 1.4 and 1.6–1.8 Ga grains (Fig. 9), and these can be interpreted as the the Ancestral Rocky Mountains, which were could well have been shed from basement rocks age distribution of zircons in each set of Grand certainly high and generating sediment dur- of the central or southwestern United States. The Canyon samples that could not have been ing Pennsylvanian–earliest Permian time (e.g., proportions of Mazatzal versus Yavapai ages are derived from the Appalachian orogen. These Kluth and Coney, 1981; Blakey et al., 1988; 59% and 41%, which are very similar to propor- dashed lines may also serve as an indica- Johansen, 1988; Marzolf, 1988; Peterson, 1988; tions for the Supai Group and Surprise Canyon tion of the proportion of zircon derived from Burchfi el et al., 1992; Blakey, 2009a). It is inter- Formation. The chronology of a major change non-Appalachian sources, given that the age- esting to note that the proportion of Mazatzal- in provenance during accumulation of the Her- probability curves are normalized. Following Yavapai zircons in Supai strata, 57%–43%, mit Formation (early Leonardian according to this interpretation, values representing the area is similar to the underlying Surprise Canyon Blakey [2003], or ca. 275 Ma according to Ogg beneath each dashed line divided by the area Formation, suggesting that the earliest Ancestral et al. [2008]) is an excellent match for the tim- beneath the full Grand Canyon age-distribution Rockies may also have been a sediment source ing of fi nal emplacement of outboard terranes curve are shown for each set of units (Fig. 9). during late Mississippian time. and fi nal collision with western Africa along the In evaluating this analysis of proportions of An additional mismatch is represented by southern Appalachian margin (Dallmeyer, 1989; detrital zircon grains, it is important to realize the age peak at 1539 Ma (Fig. 9D), which over- Hatcher et al., 1989). that variations in zircon fertility complicate a laps with age peaks in many of the individual The main mismatch is in ages of 420– simple conversion from abundance of detrital (Fig. 5) and composite (Fig. 6) age distributions 720 Ma, which are present but in low abundance zircons to relative volumes of rock material for Upper Paleozoic samples. These ages are in the Appalachian Permian reference curve (Dickinson, 2008). of uncertain origin because they do not appear (Fig. 9). We consider three possible reasons for Based on this analysis, we suggest that clas- in the Appalachian reference curve and do not this mismatch in ages. First, there is the possibil- tic strata of the Surprise Canyon Formation match ages of igneous rocks on the North Amer- ity that the Permian strata analyzed by Becker et consist primarily (~75%) of zircons derived ican craton. Possible sources for these grains are al. (2006), the Dunkard Group, predate the Her- from the Appalachian orogen, with subordi- discussed later herein. mit and younger strata and accordingly accu- nate (~25%) zircons derived from Precambrian mulated prior to the early Leonardian change in basement rocks. The abundance of Mazatzal Hermit, Coconino, Toroweap, and Kaibab provenance. Unfortunately, the biostratigraphic over Yavapai grains (Fig. 6) and the scarcity of Formations control on the Dunkard Group is not adequate detritus older than 1.8 Ga suggest that the river to evaluate this possibility. A second possibil- systems responsible for carrying this material As shown on Figure 6, the age distributions ity is that the 420–720 Ma grains were shed across the craton did not fl ow across the Cana- from the Hermit, Coconino, Toroweap, and mainly from the southern Appalachians, and dian Shield to the north (Fig. 7), or that the Kaibab Formations are all quite similar to each are accordingly under-represented in Becker et craton in northern and perhaps central North other and, taken together, different from under- al.’s (2006) samples from Ohio and Pennsyl- America remained covered during this time lying units. These similarities are indicated by vania. This is unlikely, however, because igne- (Patchett et al., 2004). Exposure of older than K-S P values of 0.10–0.91 for all interunit com- ous rocks of the appropriate ages are also pres- 1.4 Ga source rocks may have occurred during parisons (Table DR2 [see footnote 1]), and the ent in the central Appalachians. These igneous early phases of uplift of the Ancestral Rocky differences with underlying strata are indicated rocks include rift assemblages emplaced along Mountains (Burchfi el et al., 1992). by low P values (0.002 or lower) in comparisons the North American margin (Tollo et al., 2004) with all underlying units except for the Surprise and igneous rocks in the Avalon, Carolina, and Supai Group Canyon Formation (P values up to 0.18). Suwanee terranes, which were involved in the Although a major change in age distribution fi nal collision of Africa and North America The Supai Group contains similar age is noted between the composite curves for the during Alleghanian tectonism (Heatherington groups as the Surprise Canyon Formation, with Hermit Formation and Supai Group, the increas- et al., 1996; Wortman et al., 2000; Hibbard et older grains that are an excellent match for base- ing proportion of young zircons and the appear- al., 2002; Dickinson and Gehrels, 2009a; Park ment rocks of the southwestern United States ance of 270–380 Ma and 480–720 Ma popula- et al., 2010). A third possibility is that the 420– and younger grains that are an excellent match tions within the Hermit Formation suggest that 720 Ma grains were shed from the Ouachita with the Appalachian orogen (Fig. 6). Fig- the change occurs within the Hermit unit rather orogen, rather than the Appalachians. This pos- ure 9D provides a specifi c comparison of ages than along its base. We accordingly infer that a sibility cannot be tested directly with the avail- in Pennsylvanian–lowest Permian strata of the dramatic change in provenance occurred dur- able detrital zircon data from the Ouachita oro- Supai Group with ages in Pennsylvanian fore- ing early Leonardian time (age of the Hermit; gen (only strata of Pennsylvanian age have been land basin strata of the Appalachians. As with Blakey, 2003). studied), but it is consistent with the occurrence the Mississippian comparison, the similarities In terms of provenance, the detrital zircon of Neoproterozoic igneous rocks of appropri- are impressive, suggesting that the Appalachian ages in the Hermit through Kaibab Formations ate ages in the Yucatan-Campeche blocks (as

194 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 3 | Number 3 | LITHOSPHERE

compiled by Dickinson and Gehrels, 2009a), tional age of ca. 375 Ma (early Late and possi- These relations support the facies and paleo- which are thought to have been accreted during bly late Middle Devonian; Beus, 2003a). current patterns reported by McKee and Resser the Ouachita orogeny (Viele and Thomas, 1989; 4. The Surprise Canyon Formation has ages (1945) and summarized by Middleton et al. Dickinson and Lawton, 2001). of 309 Ma and 416 Ma, compared with the dep- (2003), which indicate derivation from crystal- An additional mismatch is the occurrence of ositional age of ca. 318 Ma (late Mississippian line basement exposed along the western fl ank 1500–1540 Ma detrital zircons in some of the [Chesterian]; Beus, 2003b). of the Transcontinental Arch, within and to the Permian samples (Figs. 5 and 6). As noted pre- 5. The Supai Group has ages of 333 Ma and east of the Grand Canyon region. We accord- viously, detrital zircons of this age are not com- 407 Ma, compared with the depositional age ingly envision a paleogeographic setting for mon in any of the peri–North American source range of ca. 313 Ma to ca. 275 Ma (early Penn- Middle Cambrian time in which sediment was terranes (Fig. 8) or within the North American sylvanian [Morrowan] to Early Permian [Leon- accumulating in a transgressional setting on a craton. One possibility is that these grains were ardian]; Blakey, 2003). west-facing shelf, with deposition grading east- recycled from older stratigraphic successions in 6. The Hermit through Kaibab Formations ward from subtidal to intertidal to beach and western North America, e.g., Proterozoic strata collectively yield youngest ages of 273–329 Ma eventually fl uvial environments (Fig. 10A). of the Belt Basin of Montana, which are known and multigrain peak ages of 295–433 Ma to contain detrital zircons of these ages (Link et (Table DR1 [see footnote 1]), compared with a Devonian al., 2007). It is also possible that these zircons depositional age of ca. 275 to ca. 268 Ma (no were shed from portions of the West African younger than latest Early Permian [latest Leon- An important change in sediment prove- craton that were juxtaposed against the Appa- ardian]; Hopkins and Thomson, 2003). nance is recorded by the infl ux of detrital zircon lachian margin during the Alleghanian orogeny, The average time lags for the Devonian and grains with ages of ca. 1375 Ma, ca. 518 Ma, although such ages have not been reported from younger samples, based on the youngest sin- and 403–426 Ma in the Middle–Upper Devo- West Africa (Goodwin, 1996; S. Samson, 2010, gle-grain ages, range from −9 m.y. to 58 m.y., nian Temple Butte Formation. A reasonable written commun.). with an average of 25 m.y. The youngest multi- source for most of this detritus is the midcon- grain peak ages, which are more robust indica- tinent region, where 1.34–1.40 Ga granites and MAXIMUM DEPOSITIONAL AGES AND tors of maximum depositional age (Dickinson rhyolites as well as ca. 520 Ma granitic rocks SEDIMENTARY LAG TIMES and Gehrels, 2009b), average 95 m.y. Both of (Amarillo-Wichita uplift) are exposed (Fig. 7). these apparent lag times suggest that Devo- These grains are subordinate, however, to 1.4– The ages of the youngest detrital zircons in nian through Permian sandstones of the Grand 1.5 Ga and 1.6–1.8 Ga grains that occur in rela- each sample or set of samples can be compared Canyon consist at least in part of detritus that tive proportions similar to the underlying Cam- with the depositional age of the host strata to records relatively rapid erosion, transport, and brian strata. The proportion of Mazatzal-Yavapai constrain the duration between crystallization fi nal accumulation. Most of the zircons in these ages is also similar, with 30% derived from the of zircons in source terranes and accumulation samples signifi cantly predate deposition, how- younger (1.62–1.70 Ga) province. An additional of the host sediment. This comparison is shown ever, which raises the possibility of recycling constraint on provenance is based on the lack of on Figure 6, where the age-distribution curves prior to fi nal accumulation. Grenville-age (1.0–1.2 Ga) grains in these sam- record the youngest ages in each set of samples, ples, which precludes sediment derivation from and thick vertical lines represent interpreted ages PALEOGEOGRAPHY RECORDED BY far to the south or east (Fig. 7). Accordingly, we of deposition. The latter are based on the deposi- PALEOZOIC STRATA OF THE GRAND envision a paleogeography during Middle–Late tional ages reported in Beus and Morales (2003), CANYON Devonian time in which rivers transported sedi- which have been converted to absolute age using ment from highlands along the Transcontinental the Ogg et al. (2008) time scale. The youngest Paleogeographic implications of the fi ve Arch (in the Texas-Oklahoma–New Mexico– grains are reported as the youngest single grain, main phases of sediment provenance recorded Colorado region) that exposed Paleoproterozoic which is to be used with caution because of pos- by sandstones of the Grand Canyon are outlined crystalline basement, 1.34–1.48 Ga granitoids sible Pb loss, and also the youngest peak in age next and shown on Figure 10. and volcanic rocks, and ca. 520 Ma granitoids probability with at least three constituent ages, (Fig. 10B). The occurrence of two grains of which is a more robust indicator of maximum Cambrian 403–426 Ma suggests that some detritus may depositional age (from Table DR1 [see footnote have come from the Appalachian orogen or per- 1]; methodology from Dickinson and Gehrels, The fi rst phase of sediment provenance haps the Franklinian orogen during this time. 2009b). The patterns are as follows: is recorded by the Tapeats and Bright Angel 1. The Tapeats Formation yields ages of Formations, which yield ages that are similar Mississippian 1006 Ma (youngest grain) and 1064 Ma (young- to each other but different from ages in most est multigrain peak), which are considerably overlying strata. The age peaks of these sam- The third phase of sediment derivation is older than the ca. 499 Ma (late Middle Cam- ples are most consistent with derivation from recorded by the Mississippian Surprise Can- brian or older; Middleton et al., 2003) age of the underlying Yavapai and Mazatzal Provinces yon Formation. This unit yields ages older than deposition. (Karlstrom and Bowring, 1993; Van Schmus 1.4 Ga that are generally similar to underlying 2. The Bright Angel Formation reveals et al., 1993) and from 1.4 to 1.5 Ga granitic units, with age peaks of 1442 Ma, 1679 Ma, youngest ages of 757 and 1029 Ma, which are rocks of the central and western United States and 1755 Ma. Important differences with older also signifi cantly older than the depositional age (Fig. 7; Anderson and Morrison, 1992). A slight units are that Mazatzal ages are dominant (57%) of ca. 499 Ma (late Middle Cambrian or older; increase in the proportion of 1.62–1.70 Ga ages over Yavapai ages (43%), and that there are Middleton et al., 2003). (31% in the Tapeats, 35% in the Bright Angel) few 1.34–1.40 Ga ages in the Surprise Canyon 3. The Temple Butte Formation yields ages may refl ect eastward migration of source Formation. This suggests that the older grains of 403 and 517 Ma, compared with a deposi- regions during Cambrian transgression. in the Surprise Canyon were not recycled from

LITHOSPHERE | Volume 3 | Number 3 | www.gsapubs.org 195

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/3/3/183/3049780/183.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 GEHRELS ET AL.

A. Middle Cambrian B. Late Devonian

C. Early Mississippian D. Early Pennsylvanian

E. Late Pennsylvanian F. Early Permian

Figure 10. Schematic depiction of interpreted paleogeography and sediment provenance during accumulation of Cam- brian through Permian sandstones of the Grand Canyon. See text for explanation.

196 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 3 | Number 3 | LITHOSPHERE

underlying strata but instead may have been by Peterson (1988), Blakey (1988), Blakey et large part from Precambrian basement rocks in shed directly from Precambrian basement of the al. (1988), Marzolf (1988), Johansen (1988), the southwestern United States. In lower strata, southwestern or midcontinent United States. and many others. Given the predominance of as described by McKee and Resser (1945), The main difference with older strata is the Mazatzal-age over Yavapai-age grains, the most nearly all of the sediment appears to have been dominance of younger than 1.4 Ga ages in the likely course of these rivers was across the shed from basement rocks exposed in the Grand Surprise Canyon Formation (Fig. 6). The Gren- south-central United States, where Ancestral Canyon area and in cratonal rocks to the east. In ville orogen was presumably the main contribu- Rocky Mountain uplifts would have exposed younger strata, as described by Peterson (1988), tor of zircons, although the proportion of sand of mainly Mazatzal Province basement and per- Blakey (1988), Blakey et al. (1988), Marzolf this age was considerably less because of the high haps a smaller proportion of 1.4–1.5 Ga granitic (1988), Johansen (1988), and many others, an zircon fertility of Grenville-age rocks (Moecher material (Fig. 7). abundance of sand was derived from Precam- and Samson, 2006; Dickinson, 2008). There are brian basement exposed in the Ancestral Rocky also numerous ages between 380 and 480 Ma Early Permian Mountains to the east. (Fig. 6). The most likely source for grains of Our detrital zircon data also demonstrate that these ages is the Appalachian orogen (Fig. 10C), The fi nal phase recorded in Grand Canyon much of the sandstone in the upper part of the which contains widespread Ordovician–Devo- stratigraphy is Early Permian (post-Wolfcam- Grand Canyon section was shed from distant nian igneous rocks that were generated during pian) in age, as recorded by detrital zircon ages sources, including mid-Proterozoic rocks of the Taconic and Acadian tectonism (Hatcher, 1989; from the Hermit, Coconino, Toroweap, and Kai- Grenville orogen and Neoproterozoic–Paleo- Hatcher et al., 1989; Osberg et al., 1989; Park bab Formations. These strata yield similar detri- zoic rocks in circum–North American orogenic et al., 2010). Uplift recorded by the Surprise tal zircon age populations that are quite distinct belts. This result was fi rst presented by Dick- Canyon Formation would have occurred during from underlying units. As with the Supai Group inson and Gehrels (2003) based on analysis of onset of the Alleghanian orogeny, which affected and Surprise Canyon Formation, most detritus one sample of Coconino Sandstone, with the primarily the southern Appalachians (Hatcher, was shed from Paleoproterozoic (mainly Mazat- conclusion that much of the detritus was derived 1989; Hatcher et al., 1989). zal) and Grenville-age provinces (Fig. 10F). In from the Appalachian orogen. Our more com- We accordingly envision a paleogeography contrast to the Supai Group, 1.4–1.5 Ga zircons prehensive data set presented here indicates that for Mississippian time in which major river sys- are abundant, perhaps refl ecting a slightly dif- all of the sandstones above the Mississippian tems were carrying sediment westward across ferent source within the Ancestral Rocky Moun- Redwall Limestone probably originated in large the North American continent from the Southern tains (Fig. 8). The main difference with older part from the Appalachian orogen. and possibly central Appalachians (Fig. 10C). strata is the larger proportion and greater age The conclusion that sediment was trans- These rivers also incorporated detritus from range of Neoproterozoic–Paleozoic zircons. ported from the Appalachian orogen to the rocks of 1.6–1.8 Ga age (mainly the Mazatzal These ages are an excellent match for igneous Grand Canyon region from Mississippian Province) and from ca. 1435 Ma granitic bodies rocks that are exposed in the southern to central through Permian time has important implica- that were exposed in the central to southwestern Appalachian Mountains, which suggests that a tions for the paleogeography of North America Unites States. major uplift/erosional event occurred in this por- during late Paleozoic time. The Appalachian tion of the Appalachians during Leonardian time region was the continental divide during much Pennsylvanian–Earliest Permian (age of the Hermit Formation). As described by of late Paleozoic time and spawned major riv- Hatcher (1989) and Hatcher et al. (1989), this ers that fl owed westward. The northern Appala- Strata of the Supai Group record a fourth may have coincided with the fi nal phases of col- chian and Caledonian mountains may have fed phase in sediment provenance during Pennsyl- lision of Africa with the North American margin rivers that drained across central Canada into the vanian–earliest Permian time. In comparison during later stages of the Alleghanian orogeny. west coast of North America (Figs. 10B–10F). with older time periods, Supai strata record Although similarities with the Appalachians Such rivers would have tapped sources that derivation from the Mazatzal-Yavapai Provinces are compelling (Fig. 9E), it is also possible that could have supplied the zircon age populations in identical relative proportions (57% Mazatzal much of the detritus in the Lower Permian strata in Grand Canyon sedimentary rocks at 625 Ma, and 43% Yavapai) but greater overall propor- was derived from Ouachita orogen. 570 Ma, 424 Ma, and 412 Ma. However, other tion than the Surprise Canyon Formation, few We accordingly offer a paleogeographic paleogeographic elements complicated the paths zircons of 1.4–1.5 Ga, and a lesser proportion of scenario for Permian time (Fig. 10F) that is of fl uvial systems that drained the central and Grenville-age zircons. The younger (<1.4 Ga) similar to Pennsylvanian time (Figs. 10D– southern Appalachians systems. The Grand Can- zircons yield ages that are very similar to the 10E), with large rivers bringing detritus across yon age peaks at 384 Ma, 352 Ma, 338 Ma, and Surprise Canyon Formation, with probable the continent and northeasterly trade winds 310 Ma were likely derived from farther south sources in the Appalachian orogen. (e.g., Parrish and Peterson, 1988) reworking in the Appalachian orogen. Throughout Paleo- We envision a paleogeography for this time this material into widespread eolian units (e.g., zoic time, at least until the middle Pennsylva- period in which large river systems were car- Coconino Sandstone). nian, the Transcontinental Arch prevented direct rying sediment westward across the continent fl owage of southern Appalachian–derived rivers from the Appalachian orogen, with northeast- SUMMARY into the Western Interior (Figs. 10A–10D; see erly trade winds (e.g., Parrish and Peterson, also Blakey, 2009a). The late Paleozoic Ances- 1988) transporting and reworking the sediment U-Pb analyses of detrital zircons from Paleo- tral Rocky Mountains would have further com- into local eolian units (e.g., Esplanade Forma- zoic strata of the Grand Canyon demonstrate plicated the courses of transcontinental river tion) (Fig. 10D). These rivers were also incor- that the provenance of sandstones varied signifi - systems (Figs. 10E and 10F). During Paleozoic porating sediment (~39% of the total zircon cantly from Cambrian through Permian time. marine highstands, southern Appalachian riv- grains) from Precambrian basement exposed in As has been recognized by all previous workers, ers would have drained into midcontinent sedi- the Ancestral Rocky Mountains, as suggested sandstones of the Grand Canyon were derived in mentary basins and would not have reached the

LITHOSPHERE | Volume 3 | Number 3 | www.gsapubs.org 197

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/3/3/183/3049780/183.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 GEHRELS ET AL.

Western Interior (Figs. 10B–10F). However, dur- and Gayland Simpson in conducting the geo- Blakey, R.C., 2003, Supai Group and Hermit Formation, in Beus, S.S., and Morales, M., eds., Grand Canyon Geol- ing the late Pennsylvanian and Permian, south- chronologic analyses of these samples. Clayton ogy: New York, Oxford University Press, p. 136–162. ern Appalachian rivers may have fl owed directly Loehn, Chen Li, and Mihai Ducea assisted with Blakey, R.C., 2008, Paleogeography and geologic history into the northern Western Interior during marine the cathodoluminescence imaging. Undergradu- of the western Ancestral Rocky Mountains, Penn- sylvanian–Permian, Southern Rocky Mountains and lowstands. On Figures 10E and 10F, the areas ate students Chelsi White, Violet Kasser, Taiya Colorado Plateau, in Houston, W.S., Wray, L.L., and across the midcontinent shown as epicontinental Gehrels, Monique Vasquez, and Rachel Koons Moreland, P.G., eds., The Paradox Basin Revisited— seas were likely exposed during lowstands from helped collect and analyze several of the samples New Developments in Petroleum Systems and Basin Analysis: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists southern Canada to central Texas; this condition as part of an undergraduate research experience 2008 Special Publication—The Paradox Basin, p. 2–20. would have permitted direct fl uvial or eolian at the University of Arizona. National Science Blakey, R.C., 2009a, Pennsylvanian–Jurassic sedimentary transport from the southern Appalachians into basins of the Colorado Plateau and Southern Rocky Foundation (NSF) grants EAR-0732436 and Mountains, in Miall, A.D., ed., Sedimentary Basins the Dakotas, Wyoming, and possibly Montana. EAR-0929777 (to Gehrels) provided support of United States and Canada: Amsterdam, Elsevier, These complications in Paleozoic paleo- for analyses at the Arizona LaserChron Center. p. 245–296. Blakey, R.C., 2009b, Paleogeography and geologic history geography suggest that few, if any, Appala- NSF grant EAR-0610393 (to Karlstrom) pro- of the western Ancestral Rocky Mountains, Pennsylva- chian rivers directly reached the Grand Canyon vided support for sample collection. Very help- nian–Permian, Southern Rocky Mountains and Colo- region, and that wind systems may have played ful reviews were provided by Dr. Scott Samson rado Plateau, in Houston, B., Moreland, P., and Wray, L., eds., The Paradox Basin: Recent Advancements in a signifi cant role. During the middle and late and an anonymous reviewer. Hydrocarbon Exploration: 2009 Rocky Mountain Asso- Paleozoic, northeasterly trade winds (northerly ciation of Geologists Guidebook: Denver, Rocky Moun- in present coordinate systems) likely defl ated REFERENCES CITED tain Association of Geologists, CD-ROM. Blakey, R.C., Peterson, F., and Kocurek, G., 1988, Synthesis Appalachian river systems that reached the of late Paleozoic and Mesozoic eolian deposits of the northern United States and southern and cen- Anderson, J.L., and Morrison, J., 1992, The role of anoro- western interior of the United States: Sedimentary genic granites in the Proterozoic crustal development Geology, v. 56, p. 3–125, doi:10.1016/0037-0738(88) tral Canada, as described previously, and trans- of North America, in Condie, K.C., ed., Proterozoic 90050-4. ported sand and loess southward. The trail of Crustal Evolution: New York, Elsevier, p. 263–299. Bloch, J., Timmons, M., Crossey, L.J., Gehrels, G.E., and late Paleozoic eolian sandstones ranges from Becker, T.P., Thomas, W.A., Samson, S.D., and Gehrels, G.E., Karlstrom, K.E., 2006, Mudstone petrology of the 2005, Detrital zircon evidence of Laurentian crustal Mesoproterozoic Unkar Group, Grand Canyon, U.S.A.: Lower Pennsylvanian (Atokan) in the Grand dominance in the lower Pennsylvanian deposits of the Provenance, weathering, and sediment transport Canyon (Manacacha Formation) through Mid- Alleghanian clastic wedge in eastern North America: on intracratonic Rodinia: Journal of Sedimentary dle and Upper Pennsylvanian across much of Sedimentary Geology, v. 182, p. 59–86, doi:10.1016/j Research, v. 76, p. 1106–1119, doi:10.2110/jsr.2006.107. .sedgeo.2005.07.014. Burchfi el, B.C., Cowan, D.S., and Davis, G.A., 1992, Tectonic the Western Interior (Hermosa, Weber, Casper, Becker, T.P., Thomas, W.A., and Gehrels, G.E., 2006, Linking overview of the Cordilleran orogen in the western United Wescogame, etc., Formations), through Perm- late Paleozoic sedimentary provenance in the Appa- States, in Burchfi el, B.C., Lipman, P.W., and Zoback, M.L., lachian basin to the history of Alleghanian deforma- eds., The Cordilleran Orogen: Conterminous U.S.: Boul- ian (Weber, Cedar Mesa, Esplanade, etc., For- tion: American Journal of Science, v. 306, p. 777–798, der, Colorado, Geological Society of America, The Geol- mations). Consistent northeasterly winds trans- doi:10.2475/10.2006.01. ogy of North America, v. G-3, p. 407–480. ported sand southwestward throughout the late Beranek, L.P., Mortensen, J.K., Lane, L.S., Allen, T.L., Fraser, Dallmeyer, R.D., 1989, Late Paleozoic thermal evolution of T.A., Hadlari, T., and Zantvoort, W.G., 2010, Detrital zir- the crystalline terranes within portions of the U.S. Paleozoic (Peterson, 1988). con geochronology of the western Ellesmerian clastic Appalachian orogen, in Hatcher, R.D., Jr., Thomas, Given that Grand Canyon strata contain abun- wedge, northwestern Canada: Insights into Arctic tec- W.A., and Viele, G.W., eds., The Appalachian-Ouachita dant detrital zircons that are interpreted to have tonics and the evolution of the northern Cordilleran orogen in the United States: Boulder, Colorado, Geo- miogeocline: Geological Society of America Bulletin, logical Society of America, The Geology of North been shed from the southern and central Appala- v. 122, p. 1899–1911, doi:10.1130/B30120.1. America, v. F-2, p. 417–444. chian orogen, it is tempting to interpret the age Beus, S.S., 2003a, Temple Butte Formation, in Beus, S.S., Dickinson, W.R., 2008, Impact of differential zircon fertility of distributions of these units as a possible record and Morales, M., eds., Grand Canyon Geology: New granitoid source rocks in North America on age popu- York, Oxford University Press, p. 107–114. lations of detrital zircons and implications for granite of magmatism in the Appalachian orogen. As Beus, S.S., 2003b, Redwall Limestone and Surprise Canyon petrogenesis: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, shown in Figure 8D, periods of high magmatic Formation, in Beus, S.S., and Morales, M., eds., Grand v. 275, p. 80–92, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.08.003. Canyon Geology: New York, Oxford University Press, Dickinson, W.R., and Gehrels, G.E., 2003, U-Pb ages of detri- fl ux appear to have occurred during 520–750 Ma p. 115–135. tal zircons from Permian and Jurassic eolian sand- (with peaks at 570 and 625 Ma), 380–490 Ma Beus, S.S., and Morales, M., eds., 2003, Grand Canyon stones of the Colorado Plateau, USA: Paleogeographic (with peaks at 424 Ma and possibly 384 and Geology: New York, Oxford University Press, 432 p. implications: Sedimentary Geology, v. 163, p. 29–66, Bickford, M.E., and Anderson, J.L., 1993, Middle Protero- doi:10.1016/S0037-0738(03)00158-1. 412 Ma), and 268–365 Ma (with peaks at 310, zoic magmatism, in Reed, J.C., Bickford, M.E., Hous- Dickinson, W.R., and Gehrels, G.E., 2009a, U-Pb ages of 338, and 352 Ma). In comparison with the age ton, R.S., Link, P.K., Rankin, D.W., Sims, P.K., and Van detrital zircons in Jurassic eolian and associated sand- distribution from Appalachian strata (Fig. 8D), Schmus, W.R., eds., Precambrian Conterminous U.S.: stones of the Colorado Plateau: Evidence for transcon- Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, The tinental dispersal and intraregional recycling of sedi- high magmatic fl ux during Ordovician–Silu- Geology of North America, v. C-2, p. 281–292. ment: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 121, rian (Taconic–early Acadian) time is apparent in Bickford, M.E., Van Schmus, R., and Zietz, I., 1986, Protero- p. 408–433, doi:10.1130/B26406.1. zoic history of the midcontinent region of North Amer- Dickinson, W.R., and Gehrels, G.E., 2009b, Use of U-Pb ages both data sets, and Neoproterozoic magmatism ica: Geology, v. 14, no. 6, p. 492–496, doi:10.1130/0091 of detrital zircons to infer maximum depositional ages is present in both but in lower proportion in the -7613(1986)14<492:PHOTMR>2.0.CO;2. of strata: A test against a Colorado Plateau Mesozoic Appalachian data. The biggest difference is the Billingsley, G.H., 2000, Geologic Map of the Grand Canyon database: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 288, 30′ × 60′ Quadrangle, Coconino and Mohave Counties, p. 115–125, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.09.013. low abundance of Alleghanian ages in the Appa- Northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Geo- Dickinson, W.R., and Lawton, T.F., 2001, Carboniferous to lachian data set, which has recently been high- logic Investigations Series I-2688, scale 1:100,000. Cretaceous assembly and fragmentation of Mexico: lighted by Hietpas et al. (2010) as unexpected Billingsley, G.H., and Beus, S.S., 1985, The Surprise Canyon Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 113, p. 1142– Formation, an Upper Mississippian and Lower Penn- 1160, doi:10.1130/0016-7606(2001)113<1142:CTCAAF>2 given the abundance of this young magmatism sylvanian(?) rock unit in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: .0.CO;2. in the southern Appalachians. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1605A, p. A27–A33. Elliott, D.K., and Martin, D.L., 1987, A new trace fossil from Billingsley, H.H., and McKee, E.D., 1982, Pre-Supai buried the Cambrian Bright Angel Shale, Grand Canyon, Ari- valleys, in McKee, E.D., ed., The Supai Group of Grand zona: Journal of Paleontology, v. 61, p. 641–648. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper Eriksson, K., Campbell, I., Palin, J., Allen, C., and Bock, B., 1173, p. 137–154. 2004, Evidence for multiple recycling in Neoprotero- Blakey, R.C., 1988, Basin tectonics and erg response: Sedi- zoic through Pennsylvanian sedimentary rocks of the We would like to acknowledge the assistance mentary Geology, v. 56, p. 127–151, doi:10.1016/0037 central Appalachian basin: The Journal of Geology, of Alex Pullen, Martin Pepper, Roswell Juan, -0738(88)90051-6. v. 112, p. 261–276, doi:10.1086/382758.

198 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 3 | Number 3 | LITHOSPHERE

Ford, T.D., and Dehler, C.M., 2003, Grand Canyon Super- orogen, in Hatcher, R.D., Jr., Thomas, W.A., and Viele, Martin, D.L., Middleton, L.T., and Elliott, D.K., 1986, Deposi- group: Nankoweap Formation, Chuar Group, and Sixty G.W., eds., The Appalachian-Ouachita orogen in the tional systems of the Middle Cambrian Bright Angel Mile Formation, in Beus, S.S., and Morales, M., eds., United States: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Soci- Shale, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Geological Society of Grand Canyon Geology: New York, Oxford University ety of America, The Geology of North America, v. F-2, America Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, no. 2, p. 394. Press, p. 53–75. p. 233–318. Marzolf, J.E., 1988, Controls on late Paleozoic and early Gehrels, G.E., 2000, Introduction to detrital zircon studies Heatherington, A.L., Mueller, P.A., and Nutman, A.P., 1996, Mesozoic eolian deposition of the western United of Paleozoic and Triassic strata in western Nevada and Neoproterozoic magmatism in the Suwannee terrane: States: Sedimentary Geology, v. 56, p. 167–191, northern California, in Soreghan, M.J., and Gehrels, Implications for terrane correlation, in Nance, R.D., doi:10.1016/0037-0738(88)90053-X. G.E., eds., Paleozoic and Triassic Paleogeography and and Thompson, M.D., eds., Avalonian and Related McKee, E.D., 1982, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon: U.S. Tectonics of Western Nevada and Northern California: Peri-Gondwanan Terranes of the Circum–North Atlan- Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173, 504 p. Geological Society of America Special Paper 347, p. 1–17. tic: Geological Society of America Special Paper 304, McKee, E.D., and Resser, C.E., 1945, Cambrian History of the Gehrels, G.E., 2011, Detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology: p. 257–268. Grand Canyon Region: Carnegie Institute Publication Current methods and new opportunities, in Busby, Hendricks, J.D., and Stevenson, G.M., 2003, Grand Canyon 563, 232 p. C., and Azor, A., eds., Recent Advances in Tectonics of Supergroup: Unkar Group, in Beus, S.S., and Morales, McLennan, S.N., Bock, B., Compston, W., Hemming, S.R., and Sedimentary Basins: Hoboken, New Jersey, Blackwell M., eds., Grand Canyon Geology: New York, Oxford McDaniel, D.K., 2001, Detrital zircon geochronology of Publishing (in press). University Press, p. 39–52. Taconian and Acadian foreland basin sedimentary rocks Gehrels, G.E., and Dickinson, W.R., 2000, Detrital zircon geo- Hereford, R., 1977, Deposition of the Tapeats Sandstone in New England: Journal of Sedimentary Research, chronology of the Antler overlap and foreland basin (Cambrian) in central Arizona: Geological Society of v. 71, no. 2, p. 305–317, doi:10.1306/072600710305. assemblages, Nevada, in Soreghan, M.J., and Gehrels, America Bulletin, v. 88, p. 199–211, doi:10.1130/0016 McNicoll, V.J., Harrison, J.C., Trettin, H.P., and Thorsteins- G.E., eds., Paleozoic and Triassic Paleogeography and -7606(1977)88<199:DOTTSC>2.0.CO;2. son, R., 1995, Provenance of the Devonian clastic Tectonics of Western Nevada and Northern Califor- Hibbard, J.P., Stoddard, E.F., Secor, D.T., and Dennis, A.J., wedge of Arctic Canada: Evidence provided by detri- nia: Geological Society of America Special Paper 347, 2002, The Carolina zone: Overview of Neoproterozoic tal zircon ages, in Dorobek, S.L., and Ross, G.M., eds., p. 57–64. to early Paleozoic peri-Gondwanan terranes along Stratigraphic Evolution of Foreland Basins: Society of Gehrels, G.E., Johnsson, M.J., and Howell, D.G., 1999, Detri- the eastern fl ank of the southern Appalachians: Earth- Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special tal zircon geochronology of the Adams Argillite and Science Reviews, v. 57, p. 299–339, doi:10.1016/S0012 Publication 52, p. 77–93. Nation River Formation, east-central Alaska: Journal -8252(01)00079-4. Middleton, L.T., and Hereford, R., 1981, Nature and controls of Sedimentary Research, v. 69, p. 147–156. Hietpas, J., Samson, S., Moecher, D., and Schmitt, A.K., on early Paleozoic fl uvial sedimentation along a pas- Gehrels, G.E., Dickinson, W.R., Riley, B.C.D., Finney, S.C., 2010, Recovering tectonic events from the sedimen- sive margin: Examples from the Middle Cambrian Flat- and Smith, M.T., 2000, Detrital zircon geochronol- tary record: Detrital monazite plays in high fi delity: head Sandstone (Wyoming) and Tapeats Sandstone ogy of the Roberts Mountains allochthon, Nevada, Geology, v. 38, no. 2, p. 167–170, doi:10.1130/G30265.1. (Arizona), in International Association of Sedimentolo- in Soreghan, M.J., and Gehrels, G.E., eds., Paleozoic Hoffman, P.F., 1989, Precambrian geology and tectonic his- gists Special Congress, Modern and Ancient Fluvial and Triassic Paleogeography and Tectonics of Western tory of North America, in Bally, A.W., and Palmer, A.R., Systems: Sedimentology and Process: Keele, UK, Nevada and Northern California: Geological Society of eds., The Geology of North America—An Overview: International Association of Sedimentologists, p. 83. America Special Paper 347, p. 19–42. Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, The Middleton, L.T., Elliott, D.K., and Morales, M., 2003, Tonto Gehrels, G.E., Valencia, V., and Pullen, A., 2006, Detrital zir- Geology of North America, v. A, p. 447–512. Group, in Beus, S.S., and Morales, M., eds., Grand con geochronology by laser-ablation multicollector Hogan, J.P., and Gilbert, M.C., 1998, The southern Oklahoma Canyon Geology: New York, Oxford University Press, ICPMS at the Arizona LaserChron Center, in Loszew- aulacogen: A Cambrian analog for mid-Proterozoic p. 163–179. ski, T., and Huff, W., eds., Geochronology: Emerging AMCG (anorthosite-mangerite-charnockite-granite) Moecher, D.P., and Samson, S.D., 2006, Differential zircon Opportunities, Paleontology Society Short Course: complexes?, in Hogan, J.P., and Gilbert, M.C., eds., fertility of source terranes and natural bias in the detri- Paleontology Society Paper 11, 10 p. Central North America and Other Regions: Dordrecht, tal zircon record: Implications for sedimentary prov- Gehrels, G.E., Valencia, V., and Ruiz, J., 2008, Enhanced pre- Kluwer Academic, Basement Tectonics 12, p. 39–78. enance analysis: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, cision, accuracy, effi ciency, and spatial resolution of Hopkins, R.L., and Thomson, K.L., 2003, Kaibab Formation, in v. 247, p. 252–266, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2006.04.035. U-Pb ages by laser ablation–multicollector–inductively Beus, S.S., and Morales, M., eds., Grand Canyon Geol- Ogg, J.G., Ogg, G., and Gradstein, F.M., 2008, The Concise coupled plasma–mass spectrometry: Geochemistry ogy: New York, Oxford University Press, p. 196–211. Geologic Time Scale: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge Uni- Geophysics Geosystems, v. 9, Q03017, doi:10.1029/ Johansen, S.J., 1988, Origins of Upper Paleozoic quartzose versity Press, 184 p. 2007GC001805. sandstones, American Southwest: Sedimentary Geol- Osberg, P.H., Tull, J.F., Robinson, P., Hon, R., and Butler, Gilbert, M.C., and Denison, R.E., 1993, Late Proterozoic to ogy, v. 56, p. 153–166, doi:10.1016/0037-0738(88)90052-8. J.R., 1989, The Acadian orogen, in Hatcher, R.D., Jr., Early Cambrian basement of Oklahoma, in Reed, J.C., Johnson, K.S., Amsden, T.W., Denison, R.E., Dutton, S.P., Thomas, W.A., and Viele, G.W., eds., The Appalachian- Bickford, M.E., Houston, R.S., Link, P.K., Rankin, D.W., Goldstein, A.G., Rascoe, R., Sutherland, P.K., and Ouachita orogen in the United States: Boulder, Colo- Sims, P.K., and Van Schmus, W.R., eds., Precambrian Thomson, D.M., 1988, Southern Midcontinent region, rado, Geological Society of America, The Geology of Conterminous U.S.: Boulder, Colorado, Geological in Sloss, L.L., ed., Sedimentary Cover—North Ameri- North America, v. F-2, p. 179–232. Society of America, The Geology of North America, can Craton, US: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Soci- Park, H., Barbeau, D.L., Rickenbaker, A., Bachman-Krug, D., v. C-2, p. 303–314. ety of America, The Geology of North America, v. D-2, and Gehrels, G., 2010, Application of foreland basin Gleason, J.G., Gehrels, G.E., Dickinson, W.R., Patchett, P.J., p. 307–359. detrital-zircon geochronology to the reconstruction of and Kring, D.A., 2007, Laurentian sources for detrital Johnston, S., Gehrels, G., Valencia, V., and Ruiz, J., 2009, the southern and central Appalachian orogen: Journal zircon grains in turbidite and deltaic sandstones of Small-volume U-Pb geochronology by laser abla- of Geology, v. 118, p. 23–44. the Pennsylvanian Haymond Formation, Marathon tion-multicollector-ICP mass spectrometry: Chemical Parrish, J.T., and Peterson, F., 1988, Wind directions predicted Assemblage, West Texas, U.S.A.: Journal of Sedimen- Geology, v. 259, p. 218–229, doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo from global circulation models and wind directions tary Research, v. 77, no. 11, p. 888–900, doi:10.2110/ .2008.11.004. determined from eolian sandstones of the western jsr.2007.084. Karlstrom, K.E., and Bowring, S.A., 1993, Proterozoic oro- United States—A comparison: Sedimentary Geology, Goodwin, A.M., 1996, Principles of Precambrian Geology: genic history in Arizona, in Van Schmus, W.R., and v. 56, p. 261–282, doi:10.1016/0037-0738(88)90056-5. New York, Academic Press, 327 p. Bickford, M.E., eds., Transcontinental Proterozoic Prov- Patchett, P.J., Embry, A.F., Ross, G.M., Beauchamp, B., Har- Gray, M., and Zeitler, P., 1997, Comparison of clastic wedge inces: Precambrian of the Conterminous U.S.: Boulder, rison, J.C., Mayr, U., Isachsen, C.E., Rosenberg, E.J., provenance in the Appalachian foreland using U/Pb Colorado, Geological Society of America, The Geology and Spence, G.O., 2004, Sedimentary cover of the ages of detrital zircons: Tectonics, v. 16, p. 151–160, of North America, v. C-2, p. 188–228. Canadian Shield through Mesozoic time refl ected by doi:10.1029/96TC02911. Karlstrom, K.E., Ilg, B.R., Williams, M.L., Hawkins, D.P., Nd isotopic and geochemical results for the Sverdrup Grover, P.W., 1987, Stratigraphy and Depositional Environ- Bowring, S.A., and Seaman, S.J., 2003, Paleoprotero- Basin, Arctic Canada: The Journal of Geology, v. 112, ment of the Surprise Canyon Formation, an Upper zoic rocks of the Granite Gorges, in Beus, S.S., and p. 39–57, doi:10.1086/379691. Mississippian Carbonate-Clastic Estuarine Deposit, Morales, M., eds., Grand Canyon Geology: New York, Peterson, F., 1988, Pennsylvanian to Jurassic eolian trans- Grand Canyon, Arizona [M.S. thesis]: Flagstaff, Ari- Oxford University Press, p. 9–38. portation systems in the western United States: Sedi- zona, Northern Arizona University, 166 p. Kluth, C.F., and Coney, P.J., 1981, Plate tectonics of the mentary Geology, v. 56, p. 207–260, doi:10.1016/0037 Ham, W.E., Denison, R.E., and Merritt, C.A., 1964, Basement Ancestral Rocky Mountains: Geology, v. 9, p. 10–15, -0738(88)90055-3. Rocks and Structural Evolution of Southern Oklahoma: doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1981)9<10:PTOTAR>2.0.CO;2. Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Tenkolsky, S.A., and Vetterling, Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin 95, 302 p. Link, P.K., Fanning, C.M., Lund, K.I., and Aleinikoff, J.N., 2007, W.T., 1986, Numerical Recipes: Cambridge, UK, Cam- Hatcher, R.D., Jr., 1989, Tectonic synthesis of the U.S. Appa- Detrital-zircon populations and provenance of Meso- bridge University Press, 818 p. lachians, in Hatcher, R.D., Jr., Thomas, W.A., and Viele, proterozoic strata of east-central Idaho, U.S.A.: Corre- Riggs, N.R., Lehman, T.M., Gehrels, G.E., and Dickinson, W.R., G.W., eds., The Appalachian-Ouachita orogen in the lation with Belt Supergroup of southwest Montana, in 1996, Detrital zircon link between headwaters and ter- United States: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Soci- Link, P.K., and Lewis, R.S., eds., Proterozoic Geology of minus of the Upper Triassic Chinle-Dockum paleoriver ety of America, The Geology of North America, v. F-2, Western North America and Siberia: Society for Sedi- system: Science, v. 273, p. 97–100, doi:10.1126/science p. 511–535. mentary Geology Special Paper 86, p. 101–128. .273.5271.97. Hatcher, R.D., Jr., Thomas, W.A., Geiser, P.A., Snoke, A.W., Ludwig, K.R., 2008, Isoplot 3.6: Berkeley Geochronology Røhr, T.S., Andersen, T., Dypvik, H., and Embry, A.F., 2010, Mosher, S., and Wiltschko, D.V., 1989, Alleghanian Center Special Publication 4, 77 p. Detrital zircon characteristics of the Lower Cretaceous

LITHOSPHERE | Volume 3 | Number 3 | www.gsapubs.org 199

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/3/3/183/3049780/183.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 GEHRELS ET AL.

Isachsen Formation, Sverdrup Basin: Source con- mation and basin formation during protracted Grenville Society of America, The Geology of North America, straints from age and Hf isotope data: Canadian Journal orogenesis: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. C-2, p. 239–259. of Earth Sciences, v. 47, p. 255–271, doi:10.1139/E10-006. v. 117, no. 11, p. 1573–1595, doi:10.1130/B25538.1. Viele, G.W., and Thomas, W.A., 1989, Tectonic synthesis Rose, E.L., Middleton, L.T., and Elliott, D., 1998, Storm and Tollo, R.P., Aleinikoff, J.N., Bartholomew, M.J., and Rankin, of the Ouachita orogenic belt, in Hatcher, R.D., Jr., fair-weather controls of deposition of the Middle Cam- D.W., 2004, Neoproterozoic A-type granitoids of the Thomas, W.W., and Viele, G.W., eds., the Appalachian- brian Bright Angel Shale, Grand Canyon, Arizona: central and southern Appalachians: Intraplate magma- Ouachita orogen in the United States: Boulder, Colo- Sedimentologic and ichthonologic evidence: Geologi- tism associated with episodic rifting of the Rodinian rado, Geological Society of America, The Geology of cal Society of America Program with Abstracts, v. 30, supercontinent: Precambrian Research, v. 128, p. 3–38, North America, v. F-2, p. 695–728. no. 6, p. 35. doi:10.1016/j.precamres.2003.08.007. Wanless, H.R., 1973, Cambrian of the Grand Canyon: A Stacey, J.S., and Kramers, J.D., 1975, Approximation of ter- Trettin, H.P., 1989, The Arctic Islands, in Bally, A.W., and Palmer, Reevaluation of the Depositional Environment [Ph.D. restrial lead isotope evolution by a two stage model: A.R., eds., The Geology of North America—An Over- thesis]: Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University, 128 p. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 26, p. 207–221, view: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Wortman, G.L., Samson, S.D., and Hibbard, M.J., 2000, Pre- doi:10.1016/0012-821X(75)90088-6. The Geology of North America, v. A, p. 349–370. cise U-Pb zircon constraints on the earliest magmatic Thomas, W., Becker, T., Samson, S., and Hamilton, M., Turner, C.E., 2003, Toroweap Formation, in Beus, S.S., and history of the Carolina terrane: The Journal of Geology, 2004, Detrital zircon evidence of a recycled orogenic Morales, M., eds., Grand Canyon Geology: New York, v. 108, p. 321–338, doi:10.1086/314401. foreland provenance for Alleghanian clastic wedge Oxford University Press, p. 180–195. sandstones: The Journal of Geology, v. 112, p. 23–37, Van Schmus, W.R., Bickford, M.E., Sims, P.K., Anderson, J.L., doi:10.1086/379690. Shearer, C.K., and Treves, S.B., 1993, Proterozoic geol- MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED 16 AUGUST 2010 Timmons, J.M., Karlstrom, K.E., Heizler, M.T., Bowring, S.A., ogy of the western midcontinent region, in Reed, J.C., REVISED MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED 31 DECEMBER 2010 Gehrels, G.E., and Crossey, L.J., 2005, Tectonic infer- Bickford, M.E., Houston, R.S., Link, P.K., Rankin, D.W., MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED 3 JANUARY 2011 ences from the ca. 1255–1100 Ma Unkar Group and Nan- Sims, P.K., and Van Schmus, W.R., eds., Precambrian koweap Formation, Grand Canyon: Intracratonic defor- Conterminous U.S.: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Printed in the USA

200 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 3 | Number 3 | LITHOSPHERE

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/3/3/183/3049780/183.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021