Winn, C; Karlstrom, KE; Shuster, DL; Kelley, S; Fox, M; (2017) 6 Ma age of carving Westernmost Grand Canyon: Reconciling geologic data with combined AFT, (U-Th)/He, and He-4/He-3 thermochronologic data. Earth and Planetary Science Letters , 474 pp. 257-271. 10.1016/j.epsl.2017.06.051.

Preview

Text Fox_winn_et_al_2017.pdf - Accepted Version Download (10MB) | Preview

Abstract

Conflicting hypotheses about the timing of carving of the Grand Canyon involve either a 70 Ma (“old”) or <6 Ma (“young”) Grand Canyon. This paper evaluates the controversial westernmost segment of the Grand Canyon where the following lines of published evidence firmly favor a “young” Canyon. 1) North-derived Paleocene Hindu Fanglomerate was deposited across the present track of the westernmost Grand Canyon, which therefore was not present at ∼55 Ma. 2) The 19 Ma Separation Point basalt is stranded between high relief side canyons feeding the main stem of the Colorado River and was emplaced before these tributaries and the main canyon were incised. 3) Geomorphic constraints indicate that relief generation in tributaries and on plateaus adjacent to the westernmost Grand Canyon took place after 17 Ma. 4) The late Miocene–Pliocene Muddy Creek Formation constraint shows that no river carrying far-traveled materials exited at the mouth of the Grand Canyon until after 6 Ma. Interpretations of previously-published low-temperature thermochronologic data conflict with these lines of evidence, but are reconciled in this paper via the integration of three methods of analyses on the same sample: apatite (U–Th)/He ages (AHe), 4He/3He thermochronometry (4He/3He), and apatite fission-track ages and lengths (AFT). HeFTy software was used to generate time–temperature (t–T) paths that predict all new and published 4He/3He, AHe, and AFT data to within assumed uncertainties. These t–T paths show cooling from ∼100 °C to 40–60 °C in the Laramide (70–50 Ma), long-term residence at 40–60 °C in the mid-Tertiary (50–10 Ma), and cooling to near-surface temperatures after 10 Ma, and thus support young incision of the westernmost Grand Canyon. A subset of AHe data, when interpreted alone (i.e. without 4He/3He or AFT data), are better predicted by t–T paths that cool to surface temperatures during the Laramide, consistent with an “old” Grand Canyon. However, the combined AFT, AHe, and 4He/3He analysis of a key sample from Separation Canyon can only be reconciled by a “young” Canyon. Additional new AFT (5 samples) and AHe data (3 samples) in several locations along the canyon corridor also support a “young” Canyon. This inconsistency, which mimics the overall controversy of the age of the Grand Canyon, is reconciled here by optimizing cooling paths so they are most consistent with multiple thermochronometers from the same rocks. To do this, we adjusted model parameters and uncertainties to account for uncertainty in the rate of radiation damage annealing in these apatites during sedimentary burial and the resulting variations in He retentivity. In westernmost Grand Canyon, peak burial conditions (temperature and duration) during the Laramide were likely insufficient to fully anneal radiation damage that accumulated during prolonged, near-surface residence since the Proterozoic. We conclude that application of multiple thermochronometers from common rocks reconciles conflicting thermochronologic interpretations and the data presented here are best explained by a “young” westernmost Grand Canyon. Samples spread along the river corridor also suggest the possibility of variable mid-Tertiary thermal histories beneath north-retreating cliffs.

Download activity - last month

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as CSVJSONXML

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Archive Staff Only

View Item