Comparison of Detrital Zircon U-Pb and Muscovite 40Ar/39Ar Ages in the Yangtze Sediment: Implications for Provenance Studies

Abstract

Detrital zircon U-Pb and muscovite 40Ar/39Ar dating are useful tools for investigating sediment provenance and regional tectonic histories. However, the two types of data from same sample do not necessarily give consistent results. Here, we compare published detrital muscovite 40Ar/39Ar and zircon U-Pb ages of modern sands from the Yangtze River to reveal potential factors controlling differences in their provenance age signals. Detrital muscovite 40Ar/39Ar ages of the major tributaries and main trunk suggest that the Dadu River is a dominant sediment contributor to the lower Yangtze. However, detrital zircon data suggest that the Yalong, Dadu, and Min rivers are the most important sediment suppliers. This difference could be caused by combined effects of lower reaches dilution, laser spot location on zircons and difference in closure temperature and durability between muscovite and zircon. The bias caused by sediment laser spot targeting a core or rim of zircon and zircon reworking should be considered in provenance studies.

A Critical Appraisal of the Sensitivity of Detrital Zircon U–Pb Provenance Data to Constrain Drainage Network Evolution in Southeast Tibet

“…Therefore, based on the limited available data, we tentatively concur and extend the interpretation of Sun et al. (2020c) that a local provenance is likely for the Jianchuan Basin, at least since the time of deposition of the Jinsichang Formation. However, we stress that more samples are required from the Jianchuan Basin to validate this interpretation in future studies.…”

“…(2010), and Sun et al. (2020c); Figure 17v) and Yalong River (Figure 17r) show a paucity of these Cenozoic grains. Therefore, since these Cenozoic micas are only found in the Min River, but not in the trunk stream of the upper Yangtze or the Yalong Rivers from eastern Tibet, the appearance of these grains in the lower Yangtze therefore constrains only when the Min River joined the Yangtze system.…”

“…Two main strands of research have been undertaken on this topic using detrital mica 40 Ar/ 39 Ar analyses; one strand has looked at using mica 40 Ar/ 39 Ar analyses to determine if and when the paleo-upper Yangtze used to drain into the paleo-Red River using the Greater paleo-Red River sediments (Hoang et al, 2010;Sun et al, 2020c), whereas the second strand of research looked at the time when the Yangtze established its current drainage pattern, using paleo-lower Yangtze sediments (Sun et al, 2017(Sun et al, , 2021. Given the proposal by Hoang et al (2010) that mica 40 Ar/ 39 Ar ages could be a good tool for detecting river capture using contrasting Triassic and Cenozoic ages from the upper Yangtze and Red River, respectively (see above), we undertook additional analyses at the First Bend of the Yangtze and the Red River head (see Figure 16 for location) to further test this approach (the methods and results of the 40 Ar/ 39 Ar mica analyses are provided in Text S2 in Supporting Information S1 and Table S5 in Supporting Information S2, respectively).…”

“…Zhang et al, 2017;P. Zhang et al, 2019 and references therein;Cao et al, 2023;Fan et al, 2005;Feng et al, 2021;He et al, 2021;Jiao et al, 2022;Sun et al, 2020aSun et al, , 2020bSun et al, , 2020cSun et al, , 2021Yang et al, 2020;Z. Zhang et al, , 2023Zhao et al, 2021).…”

Formation of the Yangtze Three Gorges: Insights from detrital apatite fission‐track dating of sediments from the Jianghan Basin

“…Our AFT data do not reflect a major contribution from the Tibetan Plateau which should be well recognized by a Cenozoic exhumation signal (Cao et al, 2019;Gourbet et al, 2020;Wang et al, 2011). This can be related to dilution along the Yangtze drainage (Sun et al, 2020) because the eastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau is thousands of kilometres away from the Jianghan Basin.…”