Detrital Zircon U-Pb Geochronology of Mesozoic Sandstones from the Lower Yana River, Northern Russia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology of Mesozoic sandstones from the Lower Yana River, northern Russia D.B. Harris1,*, J. Toro1,*, and A.V. Prokopiev2,* 1DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA 26506-6300, USA 2DIAMOND AND PRECIOUS METAL GEOLOGY INSTITUTE, SIBERIAN BRANCH OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, YAKUTSK, RUSSIAN FEDERATION ABSTRACT The formation of the Amerasian Basin of the modern Arctic remains enigmatic in terms of both timing and method of formation. Most mod- els used to describe its formation involve movement of the Arctic Alaska-Chukotka microplate across the basin’s current location. Detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology has been shown to be an inexpensive yet powerful method by which the tectonic correlation and proximity between multiple terranes over geologic time can be approximated. Five detrital zircon samples were collected from Late Jurassic sand- stones from the Lower Yana River area and compared to previous results from detrital zircons collected from nearby Triassic strata. Jurassic samples had detrital zircon age populations of 147–210 Ma, 223–396 Ma, 1639–2183 Ma, and 2281–3116 Ma. Comparison of all detrital zircon ages from the Lower Yana River to those dated from Triassic and Jurassic sandstones of Chukotka, the Verkhoyansk fold-and-thrust belt, and the In’yali-Debin synclinorium supports the interpretation that Chukotka was separated from the Kular area during the Triassic. Jurassic detrital zircon age populations suggest that the Anyui Ocean had closed by the Tithonian, bringing Chukotka to a location where it could be fed by similar depositional systems as the Verkhoyansk fold-and-thrust belt and the Lower Yana River area. Sedimentological and detrital data presented here also suggest that the Yana fault does not represent a regional suture between the Kolyma-Omolon superterrane and the Siberian craton. LITHOSPHERE; v. 5; no. 1; p. 98–108; GSA Data Repository Item 2012336 | Published online 26 October 2012 doi: 10.1130/L250.1 INTRODUCTION sedimentary provenance and for tectonic recon- vidual zircon grain dating has gone down, along structions when source regions can be identifi ed with a concomitant rise in accuracy, speed, and The tectonic history responsible for forma- (Andersen, 2005; Carrapa, 2010). Studies of ease of analysis. tion of the major basins of the Arctic has long modern river systems have shown that along a The Lower Yana River area, describing the been a topic of debate despite an increasing body river transect, input of zircons from downstream general area east of the Kular Dome surrounding of research. These efforts typically focus on the sources can overprint upstream sources, despite the Yana fault and lower Yana River, was selected Amerasian Basin and its internal Canada Basin higher erosive rates in the headwaters (Cawood for this study because it is located between the (see review in Lawver and Scotese, 1990) since et al., 2003). Though headwater zircon preser- Verkhoyansk fold-and-thrust belt and the Arctic the Eurasian Basin, located more proximal to the vation may diminish downstream compared Alaska-Chukotka microplate, two areas that are Barents Shelf, is younger and has a more easily to more proximal sources, these signatures are well studied and have abundant detrital zircon interpreted tectonic history (Fig. 1A). Seafl oor present nonetheless and require long-distance U-Pb data for the Mesozoic. Several studies by spreading models utilize multiple interpretations transport. Results from a study of detrital zir- Miller et al. (2006, 2008, 2010) have already of the movement and function of prominent fea- cons from sedimentary rocks in the Verkhoyansk compared detrital zircon geochronologic results tures in and around the Amerasian Basin, includ- Range of Siberia require transport of zircons for from several areas surrounding the Amerasian ing the Lomonosov Ridge, the Alpha and Men- thousands of kilometers as well as persistence of Basin. Our data will serve as a supplement to the deleev Ridges, the Chukchi Cap, the Northwind the river responsible for deposition for up to 200 ongoing formation of a comprehensive Meso- Ridge, and the Arctic Alaska-Chukotka micro- m.y. (Prokopiev et al., 2008). A similar study of zoic detrital zircon data set (i.e., Miller et al., plate (Fig. 1A). The Arctic Alaska-Chukotka marine and fl uvial sandstones collected in the 2012), and will add insight from Jurassic sam- microplate includes the North Slope and Seward Colorado Plateau of the U.S. Cordillera sug- ples to the Mesozoic tectonic setting of northern Peninsula of Alaska, as well as Chukotka, the gests transport of detrital zircons from source Siberia and the Arctic. For brevity, the Lower New Siberian Islands, Wrangel Island, and the regions in eastern and central Laurentia at times Yana River area will be referred to as the Kular East Siberian Shelf of northeast Russia. Because as far away as the Appalachian orogen along a area, as it only includes data collected along the of access diffi culties to the Arctic basins, most transcontinental river system with headwaters Yana River east of the Kular Dome. studies are limited to research of the landmasses in the southern Appalachian Mountains (Dick- surrounding the Amerasian Basin. More spe- inson and Gehrels, 2009). These studies provide GEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK cifi cally, detrital zircon geochronology has been strong support that long-distance transport of shown to be a powerful tool for determining detrital zircons is possible under the right cir- Arctic Tectonics cumstances. With the advent of laser-ablation– *E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]; multicollector inductively coupled plasma–mass Similarities of stratigraphic records, mag- [email protected]. spectroscopy (LA-MC-ICP-MS), the cost of indi- netic anomalies, basin correlations, and seismic 98 For permission to copy, contact [email protected] | |Volume © 2012 5 Geological| Number Society1 | LITHOSPHERE of America Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/5/1/98/3723797/98.pdf by guest on 01 October 2021 Detrital zircon geochronology of Mesozoic sandstones from northern Russia | RESEARCH Urals Urals 40°E AB12 0°E 70°N 40°W Greenland Greenland 80°E 80°E Barents 11 80°W Taimyrs Shelf Eurasian Siberian Taimyrs Traps Basin 10 Siberian AR 70°N 120°W Traps 13 LR 80°N Laptev Gakkel Ridge 70°N Amerasian Sea 120°W Basin 120°E MR V 80°N NR e r AAC k 4 60°N h Kolyma- Canada o S 120°E NSI y Omolon o East Siberian Shelf a u North Slope n Basin Chukotka t s h k 2 CC A 160° 1 n V yu SP e NE Russia i Z Alaska r o 60°N k Kolyma- 60°E ne W h 9 1 o Omolon 7 y a 3 S n Figure 1. (A) Location map for detrital zircon studies compared o 6 North Slope s Chukotka k u 8 in this study with the Kular fi eld area marked as location 2. Fig- th 5 Alaska A 160° ure modifi ed from Miller et al. (2006). (B) Simplifi ed version of ny NE Russia ui Z SP the rotational model for opening of the Canada Basin (Embry, on W 60°E e 1 1990; Embry and Dixon, 1994; Grantz and May, 1983; Grantz et 1: Verkhoyansk 8: Lisburne Hills al., 1979; Lawver et al., 2002). In both fi gures, the dashed outline 1000 km 2: Kular Dome 9: Sadlerochit Mts. represents the approximate boundary of the Arctic Alaska-Chu- kotka microplate, and background bathymetry image is from 3: In’Yali Debin 10: Sverdrup Basin AE1 the International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean (IBCAO) 4: Stobovoi Island 11: Sverdrup Basin AE2 (Jakobsson et al., 2008). Abbreviations are: AAC—Arctic Alaska- 5: South Anyui Zone 12: Novaya Zemlya Chukotka microplate; AR—Alpha Ridge; CC—Chukchi Cap; LR— 6: Chukotka 13: Taimyr Lomonosov Ridge; MR—Mendeleev Ridge; NR—Northwind 7: Wrangel Island Ridge; NSI—New Siberian Islands; SP—Seward Peninsula. profi les comparing northern Alaska to the Cana- it is not possible to restore the Arctic Alaska- the Taimyr Peninsula and Ural Mountains, were dian Arctic Islands all support an opening of the Chukotka microplate back to this prerift posi- deposited and severed Baltican sedimentation Canada Basin involving counterclockwise rota- tion if it is treated as a rigid, coherent block, from the rest of the Arctic Alaska-Chukotka tion of the Alaskan portion of the Arctic Alaska- due to large overlap of prerift landmasses and microplate. Miller et al. (2006) also used linear Chukotka microplate away from an original signifi cant space problems during continental arrays of normal faults from bathymetric data to position along the Canadian Arctic Islands, with drift (Miller et al., 2006). Using detrital zircon support later formation of the Makarov Basin proposed rifting ages from the Early Jurassic to geochronologic data, Miller et al. (2006, 2008, involving rift formation parallel to the Lomono- the Early Cretaceous (Embry, 1990; Embry and 2010) suggested that the Arctic Alaska-Chu- sov Ridge and orthogonal to the Canadian Arc- Dixon, 1994; Grantz and May, 1983; Grantz kotka microplate must have been a unifi ed frag- tic Islands, consistent with previous studies et al., 1979; Lawver et al., 2002) (Fig. 1B). ment in the late Paleozoic and that Chukotka (i.e., Sweeney et al., 1982; Taylor et al., 1981; While there is an abundance of support for the was instead located closer to the Barents Shelf Vogt et al., 1982). Under this reconstruction, pre–Canada Basin location of northern Alaska and Ural Mountains prior to formation of the Pacifi c-directed move-out of subduction zones adjacent to the Canadian Arctic Islands, there is Amerasian Basin, according to similarities in found along northern Eurasia was associated less well-documented evidence for the original detrital zircon ages from Upper Paleozoic strata with rifting parallel to the Barents Shelf, result- location of Chukotka.