Guidelines for assessing the provenance of Mesozoic and Cenozoic clastic successions sourced by pre-Jurassic basement complexes in southernmost North America

Abstract

Mexico is an attractive place for provenance studies focused on reconstructing the tectonic evolution of North America. This is because Mexico hosts a well-preserved clastic record associated with some of the major Mesozoic and Cenozoic tectonic processes that shaped the face of this continent. However, the available information on Mexican pre-Mesozoic source terranes is presently insufficient for provenance analysis. With the aim of drawing the guidelines for provenance determination, we present here detrital modes, geochemical data, and zircon U-Pb ages for detritus derived from pre-Jurassic basement complexes of Mexico. Our data show that the various basement complexes produce distinctive detrital modes and supply diagnostic and compositionally different detrital heavy minerals that represent powerful provenance tracers. The Oaxacan Complex, Ayú Complex, and East Mexico Arc are the main sources of quartzo-feldspathic and feldspatho-quartzose detritus. Quartz with rutile needles, mesoperthitic K-feldspar, orthopyroxene, augitic to diopsidic clinopyroxene, and Mg- to Ca-rich almandine (Alm71–52Grs7–3Prp43–23Sps3–1Alm74–56Grs21–19Prp23–2Sps5–2) are common minerals in detritus from the Oaxacan Complex. The Ayú Complex supplies detritus marked by the occurrence of sagenitic biotite and white mica, as well as Mn-rich almandine (Alm69–66Grs4–3Prp18–11Sps19–10). Detritus from the East Mexico Arc contains any of these mineral phases ubiquitous in the Oaxacan and Ayú complexes. The Acatlán Complex is the main source of detritus dominated by metamorphic lithic grains and quartz, with minor amounts of feldspar. Lithic grains are rank 2–4 metabasitic, metapelitic, and metapsammitic–metafelsitic fragments. Diagnostic mineral phases are schorl–dravitic tourmaline, Na-amphibole, and helycitic garnet varying from a Ca- to Mn-rich almandine (Alm74–55Grs34–15Prp16–3Sps12–1-Alm70–46Grs20–15Prp3–1Sps32–12). Zircon U-Pb geochronology proves to have some virtues but also major limitations because: 1) the zircon U-Pb age signature of many different sources in Mexico is similar and 2) zircon documents a limited number of sources because of variations in zircon fertility.

Reconstructing the tectono-sedimentary evolution of the Early–Middle Jurassic Tlaxiaco Basin in southern Mexico: New insights into the crustal attenuation history of southern North America during Pangea breakup

“…10K). The MDS map shows that the Cualac formation samples have first-order distances with greenschist-facies metasedimentary samples from the Acatlán Complex, whereas they do not share any similarity with granulite-facies rocks of the Oaxacan Complex (Galaz et al, 2013;Zepeda-Martínez et al, 2018;Martini et al, 2020;Fig. 11).…”

“…1370-870 and ca. 800-340 Ma (Galaz et al, 2013;Zepeda-Martínez et al, 2018;Martini et al, 2020;Figs. 10H-10J), which match well with the two U-Pb zircon groups of ca.…”

Provenance and tectonic setting of the Paleozoic Tamatán Group, NE Mexico: Implications for the closure of the Rheic Ocean

“…13a). Conversely, the Acatlán complex from the Mixteco Terrane is also reported to be an Ordovician-Silurian bimodal magmatic suite derived from a rifting-drifting tectonic setting (e.g., Piaxtla Suite; Esperanza granitoids; Miller et al, 2007;Keppie et al, 2008, Martini et al, 2020. The paleogeographic positions for the Tamatán Basin during the Ordovician-Early Silurian, might be similar to those proposed for the Mixteco Terrane (e.g., Nance et al, 2007;Keppie et al, 2008;Fig.…”

Arquitectura estratigráfica, ambientes de depósito y geocronología de la Formación Olinalá (Pérmico tardío), noreste de Guerrero, México

“…Las edades U-Pb obtenidas de granos de circón detrítico de la Formación Olinalá resultan en este momento una herramienta limitada para proponer sólidas hipótesis de procedencia debido a que estas firmas de edad son similares a las de muchas fuentes diferentes en México, como es discutido por Martini et al (2020). Particularmente, el 70 % de las edades U-Pb obtenidas para esta formación corresponden al Mesoproterozoico medio-Neoproterozoico temprano (Figura 9), mismas que son comunes en rocas de los basamentos cristalinos paleozoicos y precámbricos del sur de México (e.g., el complejo Ayú, Talavera-Mendoza et al, 2005;el complejo Oaxaqueño, Solari et al, 2014;).…”

“…Particularmente, el 70 % de las edades U-Pb obtenidas para esta formación corresponden al Mesoproterozoico medio-Neoproterozoico temprano (Figura 9), mismas que son comunes en rocas de los basamentos cristalinos paleozoicos y precámbricos del sur de México (e.g., el complejo Ayú, Talavera-Mendoza et al, 2005;el complejo Oaxaqueño, Solari et al, 2014;). Como es ilustrado por Martini et al, (2020), la discriminación de los distintos basamentos como áreas fuente puede hacerse si, aunado a edades U-Pb en circón, se analizan modas detríticas y se determina la química de minerales pesados diagnósticos. Por lo anterior, elucidar la procedencia e historia de dispersión de sedimentos para la Formación Olinalá es un tema importante que puede ser abordado en futuras investigaciones.…”