Neotectonic evolution of Grand Canyon : interaction between volcanism, river incision, epeirogenic uplift, and faulting
1
Citation
0
Reference
20
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Cite
Cite
Citations (17)
Neotectonics
Absolute dating
Cite
Citations (0)
Escarpment
Cite
Citations (0)
Cite
Citations (0)
Cite
Citations (0)
Bedrock
Cite
Citations (0)
Neotectonics
Cite
Citations (0)
Culmination
Sinkhole
Tectonic uplift
Cite
Citations (1)
Cite
Citations (0)
A stratigraphic and structural record of synchronous extension and detachment faulting is preserved in predominantly Miocene deposits of the Whipple detachment system, Colorado River extensional corridor. In the Mohave Mountains and Aubrey Hills of Arizona and the eastern Whipple Mountains of California near Parker Dam, these deposits comprise four unconformity‐bounded sequences composed of locally derived epiclastic and volcanic rocks and the Peach Springs Tuff. The three older sequences represent syntectonic units that were deposited coeval with detachment faulting, and the fourth is interpreted to be postextensional. The sequences are correlated between four fault‐bounded regions, which are the remnants of four different depositional basins. Similar sequences can be correlated over broad areas of the extensional corridor despite the general lack of widespread units. The basins developed in about the same positions, relative to each other and to volcanic sources, as they occupy at present. This is shown by gradational changes of pre‐Tertiary rock types between regions, systematic variations in the abundance of magmatic units, and correlative volcanic units that occur in two adjacent regions. The basins formed in the early Miocene from segmentation of the upper crust into blocks bounded by high‐angle faults that trended both parallel and perpendicular to the direction of extension and which were terminated at middle crustal depths by a low‐angle detachment fault. Extreme rotation of one large crustal block, which constitutes the central Mohave Mountains, is recorded by a major unconformity in the lower Miocene section of one basin. Because coeval sections that formed in adjoining basins do not record this rotation, the underlying crustal blocks must have been separated by transfer faults that allowed them to rotate independently. These proposed transfer faults are represented at present by major faults with trends that parallel the direction of extension on the Whipple detachment system.
Detachment fault
Metamorphic core complex
Echelon formation
Fault block
Extensional tectonics
Denudation
Cite
Citations (50)