Formation of the Grand Canyon 5 to 6 million years ago through integration of older palaeocanyons

Karlstrom, Karl E.; Lee, John P.; Kelley, Shari A.; Crow, Ryan S.; Crossey, L. J.; Young, R. A.; Lazear, Greg; Beard, Les P.; Ricketts, Jason W.; Fox, Matthew; Shuster, David L.

doi:10.1038/ngeo2065

Cited by 107 publications

(134 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the two end segments, the Marble Canyon and the Westernmost Grand Canyon, are young and were carved in the past 5-6 million years [26]. They conclude that formation of the Grand Canyon since 5-6 Ma was down through linkages of older palaeocanyons [26]. Specifically, we suggest that the river's current course is a consequence of the propagation and integration of upliftinduced paleocanyons.…”

Section: Fracture Linkage From Multiple Fracture Clustersmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…They reconstruct the thermal histories of samples taken from the modern canyon base and the adjacent canyon rim 1,500 m above, to constrain when the rocks cooled as a result of canyon incision. They find that two of the three middle segments, the Hurricane segment and the eastern Grand Canyon, formed between 70 and 50 million years ago and between 25 and 15 million years ago, respectively [26]. However, the two end segments, the Marble Canyon and the Westernmost Grand Canyon, are young and were carved in the past 5-6 million years [26].…”

Section: Fracture Linkage From Multiple Fracture Clustersmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This suggests that the eastern and western segments of the Colorado River evolved independently, and later merged into the modern configuration [25,26]. Karlstrom et al [26] investigate the time of formation of four out of five segments of the Grand Canyon, using apatite fission-track dating, track-length measurement and apatite helium dating (as shown in Fig.…”

Section: Fracture Linkage From Multiple Fracture Clustersmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…They find that two of the three middle segments, the Hurricane segment and the eastern Grand Canyon, formed between 70 and 50 million years ago and between 25 and 15 million years ago, respectively [26]. However, the two end segments, the Marble Canyon and the Westernmost Grand Canyon, are young and were carved in the past 5-6 million years [26]. They conclude that formation of the Grand Canyon since 5-6 Ma was down through linkages of older palaeocanyons [26].…”

Section: Fracture Linkage From Multiple Fracture Clustersmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A stress-rifting origin of Grand Canyon

Tang

Bao

et al. 2016

Science Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Fracture Linkage From Multiple Fracture Clustersmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Fracture Linkage From Multiple Fracture Clustersmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Fracture Linkage From Multiple Fracture Clustersmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Fracture Linkage From Multiple Fracture Clustersmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A stress-rifting origin of Grand Canyon

Tang

Bao

et al. 2016

Science Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thermal history modelling is an integral part of dozens of tectonic studies published each year [e.g., Tian et al (2014); Karlstrom et al (2014); Cochrane et al (2014)]. Over the years, a number of increasingly sophisticated software packages have been developed to extract timetemperature paths from fission track, U-Th-He, 4 He/ 3 He and vitrinite reflectance data [e.g., Corrigan (1991); Gallagher (1995); Willett (1997); Ketcham et al (2000)].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thermal history modelling: HeFTy vs. QTQt

Vermeesch

Tian

2014

Earth-Science Reviews

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tHeFTy is a popular thermal history modelling program which is named after a brand of trash bags as a reminder of the 'garbage in, garbage out' principle. QTQt is an alternative program whose name refers to its ability to extract visually appealing ('cute') time-temperature paths from complex thermochronological datasets. This paper compares and contrasts the two programs and aims to explain the algorithmic underpinnings of these 'black boxes' with some simple examples. Both codes consist of 'forward' and 'inverse' modelling functionalities. The 'forward model' allows the user to predict the expected data distribution for any given thermal history. The 'inverse model' finds the thermal history that best matches some input data. HeFTy and QTQt are based on the same physical principles and their forward modelling functionalities are therefore nearly identical. In contrast, their inverse modelling algorithms are fundamentally different, with important consequences. HeFTy uses a 'Frequentist' approach, in which formalised statistical hypothesis tests assess the goodness-of-fit between the input data and the thermal model predictions. QTQt uses a Bayesian 'Markov Chain Monte Carlo' (MCMC) algorithm, in which a random walk through model space results in an assemblage of 'most likely' thermal histories. In principle, the main advantage of the Frequentist approach is that it contains a built-in quality control mechanism which detects bad data ('garbage') and protects the novice user against applying inappropriate models. In practice, however, this quality-control mechanism does not work for small or imprecise datasets due to an undesirable sensitivity of the Frequentist algorithm to sample size, which causes HeFTy to 'break' when datasets are sufficiently large or precise. QTQt does not suffer from this problem, as its performance improves with increasing sample size in the form of tighter credibility intervals. However, the robustness of the MCMC approach also carries a risk, as QTQt will accept physically impossible datasets and come up with 'best fitting' thermal histories for them. This can be dangerous in the hands of novice users. In conclusion, the name 'HeFTy' would have been more appropriate for QTQt, and vice versa.

show abstract

A Cenozoic uplift history of Mexico and its surroundings from longitudinal river profiles

Stephenson

Roberts

Hoggard

et al. 2014

Geochem Geophys Geosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geodynamic models of mantle convection predict that Mexico and western North America share a history of dynamic support. We calculate admittance between gravity and topography, which indicates that the elastic thickness of the plate in Mexico is 11 km and in western North America it is 12 km. Admittance at wavelengths > 500 km in these regions suggests that topography is partly supported by subcrustal processes. These results corroborate estimates of residual topography from isostatic calculations and suggest that the amount of North American topography supported by the mantle may exceed 1 km. The Cenozoic history of magmatism, sedimentary flux, thermochronometric denudation estimates, and uplifted marine terraces imply that North American lithosphere was uplifted and eroded during the last 30 Ma. We jointly invert 533 Mexican and North American longitudinal river profiles to reconstruct a continent-scale rock uplift rate history. Uplift rate is permitted to vary in space and time. Erosional parameters are calibrated using incision rate data in southwest Mexico and the Colorado Plateau. Calculated rock uplift rates were 0.15-0.2 mm/yr between 25 and10 Ma. Central Mexico experienced the highest uplift rates. Central and southern Mexico continued to uplift at 0.1 mm/yr until recent times. This uplift history is corroborated by independent constraints. We predict clastic flux to the Gulf of Mexico and compare it to independent estimates. We tentatively suggest that the loop between uplift, erosion, and deposition can be closed here. Mexico's staged uplift history suggests that its dynamic support has changed during the last 30 Ma.

show abstract

Formation of the Grand Canyon 5 to 6 million years ago through integration of older palaeocanyons

Cited by 107 publications

References 25 publications

A stress-rifting origin of Grand Canyon

A stress-rifting origin of Grand Canyon

Thermal history modelling: HeFTy vs. QTQt

A Cenozoic uplift history of Mexico and its surroundings from longitudinal river profiles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About