Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70035478

Rapid middle Miocene collapse of the Mesozoic orogenic plateau in north-central Nevada

Abstract

The modern Sierra Nevada and Great Basin were likely the site of a high-elevation orogenic plateau well into Cenozoic time, supported by crust thickened during Mesozoic shortening. Although crustal thickening at this scale can lead to extension, the relationship between Mesozoic shortening and subsequent formation of the Basin and Range is difficult to unravel because it is unclear which of the many documented or interpreted extensional episodes was the most significant for net widening and crustal thinning. To address this problem, we integrate geologic and geochronologic data that bear on the timing and magnitude of Cenozoic extension along an ???200km east-west transect south of Winnemucca, Battle Mountain, and Elko, Nevada. Pre-Cenozoic rocks in this region record east-west Palaeozoic and Mesozoic compression that continued into the Cretaceous. Little to no tectonism and no deposition followed until intense magmatism began in the Eocene. Eocene and Oligocene ash-flow tuffs flowed as much as 200km down palaeovalleys cut as deeply as 1.5km into underlying Palaeozoic and Mesozoic rocks in a low-relief landscape. Eocene sedimentation was otherwise limited to shallow lacustrine basins in the Elko area; extensive, thick clastic deposits are absent. Minor surface extension related to magmatism locally accompanied intense Eocene magmatism, but external drainage and little or no surface deformation apparently persisted regionally until about 16-17Ma. Major upper crustal extension began across the region ca. 16-17Ma, as determined by cross-cutting relationships, low-temperature thermochronology, and widespread deposition of clastic basin fill. Middle Miocene extension was partitioned into high-strain (50-100%) domains separated by largely unextended crustal blocks, and ended by 10-12Ma. Bimodal volcanic rocks that erupted during middle Miocene extension are present across most of the study area, but are volumetrically minor outside the northern Nevada rift. The modern physiographic basins and ranges formed during a distinctly different episode of extension that began after about 10Ma and has continued to the present. Late Miocene and younger faulting is characterized by widely spaced, high-angle normal faults that cut both older extended and unextended domains. Major widening of the Basin and Range at this latitude thus took place during a relatively brief interval in the middle Miocene, and the lack of major shortening west of the Sierra Nevada at this time suggests that the change in the plate margin from microplate subduction to lengthy transtensional strike-slip played an important role in allowing extension to occur when it did, as rapidly as it did. The onset of extension ca. 16-17Ma was coeval with both Columbia River flood-basalt volcanism and the hypothesized final delamination of the shallow Farallon slab that lay beneath the western USA in the early Tertiary. However, it is unclear if these events were necessary prerequisites for extension, simply coincidental, or themselves consequences of rapid extension and/or reorganization of the plate boundary.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Joseph P. Colgan, Christopher D. Henry. 2009-08-12. Rapid middle Miocene collapse of the Mesozoic orogenic plateau in north-central Nevada. https://doi.org/10.1080/00206810903056731

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Did the Aleutian Basin form by plate capture or backarc basin opening?

The origin of the Aleutian Basin is unresolved because its crust is deeply buried beneath sediments. It has been interpreted as forming in the Eocene when the Beringian convergent margin jumped seaward to south of the Aleutian arc, thereby capturing a large sector of Cretaceous Pacific crust. Alternatively, it may have formed by backarc spreading. We present new magnetic and seismic reflection data compilations and review other pertinent data to evaluate these two possibilities. Arguments for entrapment are: 1) Palaeomagnetic and geologic data document that the Aleutian arc formed approximately in place and as a seaward, on-strike continuation of the Alaska Peninsula; 2) basin-central spreading anomalies trend N-S, normal to the Aleutian arc and exhibit amplitudes and lengths typically formed at mid-ocean ridges; 3) seismic reflection profiles document that cross-basin depositional sequences are like those expected of filling a fixed-width basin. Arguments for a backarc spreading origin include: 1) The perpendicular orientation of magnetic anomalies in the Aleutian Basin and the northern Pacific Plate suggest different origins; 2) the sub-parallel orientation of Aleutian Basin spreading magnetic fabric and Palaeogene rift basins on the Bering Shelf suggest a common extensional regime; 3) thinner continental crust beneath outer-shelf basins is consistent with extension; 4) lineated magnetic fabrics on the margins of the basin are similar to early rifting magnetic fabrics found in other backarc basins; 5) basin heat flow is consistent with Palaeogene seafloor spreading; 6) its marginal basin setting is analogous to marginal basins elsewhere that formed by extension and seafloor spreading, not entrapment; and 7) entrapment requires formation of the Aleutian subduction zone by transference, a mode of subduction initiation that has not yet been documented. We present evidence for both interpretations and underscore the need for continued data collection (e.g. scientific drilling) to test competing hypotheses. Similar approaches may be useful for understanding thickly sedimented marginal basins elsewhere.

Alaska↗

U-Pb zircon ages and Lu-Hf isotope systematics across northwestern Mexico: Implications for Cretaceous to Paleocene tectonomagmatic evolution during Farallon subduction

This study presents U-Pb zircon ages and Lu-Hf zircon isotope data for Cretaceous-Paleocene plutonic rocks along a W-E transect in northwestern Mexico. These data are combined with tectonic reconstruction that restores Late Cenozoic extensional deformation and shows the position of magmatism at 36 Ma. Zircon U-Pb ages results span from 142 to 58 Ma and demonstrate that the continental arc migrated northeastward at 1–2.5 km/Myr. These rates are slower than previously interpreted, but consistent with landward arc migration rates observed in the Andes. Weighted mean initial epsilon hafnium εHf( t ) values of plutonic rocks along the transect range from + 8.8 to −9.1. The heterogeneity in the zircon εHf( t ) is spatially related to the pre-Cretaceous basement provinces that the intrusive rocks were emplaced into. Zircon εHf( t ) values of western Baja California display positive values ranging from + 8.8 to + 2.6 suggesting they were formed from a moderately depleted mantle and were emplaced into the Guerrero-Alisitos-Vizcaino terrane. Zircon εHf( t ) values in the eastern part of Baja California and most of Sonora are heterogeneous ranging between −0.7 and −9.1 and may be formed from a relatively slightly more evolved mantle source and end up more evolved after crustal assimilation of metasediments. Zircon εHf( t ) values ranging from + 8.7 to + 2.9 in Chihuahua are consistent with a depleted-mantle derived melt and assimilation of Grenville lithospheric province. Our results highlight how Hf isotopic signatures help to constrain the pre-Cretaceous basement configuration in northwestern Mexico despite the few exposed outcrops along the transect.

northwestern Mexico↗

Comment on ‘New insights on Franciscan Complex geology, architecture, depositional age, and provenance for the western Mt. Tamalpais area, Marin County, California’ by Bero et al. (2020)

Serious errors and inconsistencies in the article undermine many of its interpretations to the point that principal conclusions are not valid. Much dependence is placed on the maximum depositional age (Dmax) of sandstone units based on zircon analysis of 10 samples, but calculation of those Dmax values is flawed, and their use confuses maximum with actual depositional ages and makes age distinctions finer than the resolution of the data. Conclusions that are compromised include the concept of a westward/downward-younging tectonostratigraphic stack of accretionary units, comparison of mapped sandstones with other California Coast Ranges sandstones, comparison of timing of events recorded in the map area with regional events, identification of mélange only in a narrow band in the study area, and detrital provenance of some of the sandstone units.

California↗