Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 459-479 |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| Journal | International Journal of Earth Sciences |
| Volume | 107 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Early online date | 20 Jun 2017 |
| Publication status | Published - Mar 2018 |
Abstract
Here we present detrital apatite fission track (AFT), zircon fission track (ZFT) and a few apatite (U–Th)/He (AHe) data of Middle Pleistocene to modern Rhine, Meuse and Elbe river sediments in order to resolve processes that control detrital age distributions (provenance, erosion and mineral fertility). We used a modelling approach to compare observed with theoretically predicted age distributions from an interpolated in situ AFT and ZFT age map. In situ cooling ages do show large differences in the Rhine drainage basin, facilitating the differentiation between different source regions. Inconsistencies between observed and theoretical age distributions of the Meuse and Elbe samples can be explained by mixing and reworking of sediments with different provenances (Meuse Middle Pleistocene terrace sediment) and a yet unexplored source region with old AFT ages (Elbe samples). Overall, the results show that detrital thermochronology is capable of identifying the provenance of Middle Pleistocene to modern sediments. The AFT age distributions of Rhine sediments are dominated (~70%) by AFT ages representing the Alps. A possible explanation is higher erosion rates in the Alps as compared to areas outside the Alps. A Late Pleistocene sample from the Upper Rhine Graben contains apatite grains from the Molasse and Hegau volcanics, which we explain with a shift of the headwaters of the Rhine to the north as a result of intense Middle Pleistocene Riss glaciation. Contrary to the observed dominance of Alpine-derived AFT ages in Rhine sediments, the relative contribution of zircon ages with sources in the Alps is lower and significantly decreases downstream, suggesting a major source of zircons outside the Alps. This can be explained by increased zircon fertility of sediments derived from the Rhenish massif. Therefore, we conclude that erosion and mineral fertility are the main processes controlling detrital AFT and ZFT age distributions of the sampled river sediment. In case of the Rhine samples, AFT age distributions are mainly controlled by differences in erosion rates, whereas this impact is completely balanced by differences in mineral fertility for the ZFT data.
Keywords
- Fission track dating, Interpolating in situ ages, Observed vs. theoretical age distributions
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)
- General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: International Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 107, No. 2, 03.2018, p. 459-479.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Detrital thermochronology of Rhine, Elbe and Meuse river sediment (Central Europe)
T2 - implications for provenance, erosion and mineral fertility
AU - Glotzbach, Christoph
AU - Busschers, F. S.
AU - Winsemann, Jutta
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2017, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany. Copyright: Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2018/3
Y1 - 2018/3
N2 - Here we present detrital apatite fission track (AFT), zircon fission track (ZFT) and a few apatite (U–Th)/He (AHe) data of Middle Pleistocene to modern Rhine, Meuse and Elbe river sediments in order to resolve processes that control detrital age distributions (provenance, erosion and mineral fertility). We used a modelling approach to compare observed with theoretically predicted age distributions from an interpolated in situ AFT and ZFT age map. In situ cooling ages do show large differences in the Rhine drainage basin, facilitating the differentiation between different source regions. Inconsistencies between observed and theoretical age distributions of the Meuse and Elbe samples can be explained by mixing and reworking of sediments with different provenances (Meuse Middle Pleistocene terrace sediment) and a yet unexplored source region with old AFT ages (Elbe samples). Overall, the results show that detrital thermochronology is capable of identifying the provenance of Middle Pleistocene to modern sediments. The AFT age distributions of Rhine sediments are dominated (~70%) by AFT ages representing the Alps. A possible explanation is higher erosion rates in the Alps as compared to areas outside the Alps. A Late Pleistocene sample from the Upper Rhine Graben contains apatite grains from the Molasse and Hegau volcanics, which we explain with a shift of the headwaters of the Rhine to the north as a result of intense Middle Pleistocene Riss glaciation. Contrary to the observed dominance of Alpine-derived AFT ages in Rhine sediments, the relative contribution of zircon ages with sources in the Alps is lower and significantly decreases downstream, suggesting a major source of zircons outside the Alps. This can be explained by increased zircon fertility of sediments derived from the Rhenish massif. Therefore, we conclude that erosion and mineral fertility are the main processes controlling detrital AFT and ZFT age distributions of the sampled river sediment. In case of the Rhine samples, AFT age distributions are mainly controlled by differences in erosion rates, whereas this impact is completely balanced by differences in mineral fertility for the ZFT data.
AB - Here we present detrital apatite fission track (AFT), zircon fission track (ZFT) and a few apatite (U–Th)/He (AHe) data of Middle Pleistocene to modern Rhine, Meuse and Elbe river sediments in order to resolve processes that control detrital age distributions (provenance, erosion and mineral fertility). We used a modelling approach to compare observed with theoretically predicted age distributions from an interpolated in situ AFT and ZFT age map. In situ cooling ages do show large differences in the Rhine drainage basin, facilitating the differentiation between different source regions. Inconsistencies between observed and theoretical age distributions of the Meuse and Elbe samples can be explained by mixing and reworking of sediments with different provenances (Meuse Middle Pleistocene terrace sediment) and a yet unexplored source region with old AFT ages (Elbe samples). Overall, the results show that detrital thermochronology is capable of identifying the provenance of Middle Pleistocene to modern sediments. The AFT age distributions of Rhine sediments are dominated (~70%) by AFT ages representing the Alps. A possible explanation is higher erosion rates in the Alps as compared to areas outside the Alps. A Late Pleistocene sample from the Upper Rhine Graben contains apatite grains from the Molasse and Hegau volcanics, which we explain with a shift of the headwaters of the Rhine to the north as a result of intense Middle Pleistocene Riss glaciation. Contrary to the observed dominance of Alpine-derived AFT ages in Rhine sediments, the relative contribution of zircon ages with sources in the Alps is lower and significantly decreases downstream, suggesting a major source of zircons outside the Alps. This can be explained by increased zircon fertility of sediments derived from the Rhenish massif. Therefore, we conclude that erosion and mineral fertility are the main processes controlling detrital AFT and ZFT age distributions of the sampled river sediment. In case of the Rhine samples, AFT age distributions are mainly controlled by differences in erosion rates, whereas this impact is completely balanced by differences in mineral fertility for the ZFT data.
KW - Fission track dating
KW - Interpolating in situ ages
KW - Observed vs. theoretical age distributions
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021116806&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00531-017-1502-9
DO - 10.1007/s00531-017-1502-9
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85021116806
VL - 107
SP - 459
EP - 479
JO - International Journal of Earth Sciences
JF - International Journal of Earth Sciences
SN - 1437-3254
IS - 2
ER -