2019
DOI: 10.1130/ges02072.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Laramide fluvial evolution of the San Juan Basin, New Mexico and Colorado: Paleocurrent and detrital-sanidine age constraints from the Paleocene Nacimiento and Animas formations

Abstract: Understanding the tectonic and landscape evolution of the Colorado Plateau−southern Rocky Mountains area requires knowledge of the Laramide stratigraphic development of the San Juan Basin. Laramide sediment-transport vectors within the San Juan Basin are relatively well understood, except for those of the Nacimiento and Animas formations. Throughout most of the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico and adjacent Colorado, these Paleocene units are mudstone-dominated fluvial successions intercalated between … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

3
25
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
3
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Differences in stratigraphic terminology related to the Ojo Alamo Sandstone and underlying Naashoibito Member have created confusion about the relationship between these two units (for example see discussions in Powell, 1973;Williamson andWeil, 2008a, 2008b). Previous authors recognizing the Naashoibito Member and Ojo Alamo Sandstone as unique stratigraphic units representing different formations (e.g., Baltz et al, 1966;Williamson, 1996;Williamson and Weil, 2008a;Williamson et al, 2008) or as different members of the same formation (Powell, 1973;Sullivan et al, 2005;Fassett, 2009;Cather et al, 2019). Herein we recognize the Ojo Alamo Sandstone as a separate stratigraphic formation (sensu Baltz et al (1966).…”
Section: Geologic Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 52%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Differences in stratigraphic terminology related to the Ojo Alamo Sandstone and underlying Naashoibito Member have created confusion about the relationship between these two units (for example see discussions in Powell, 1973;Williamson andWeil, 2008a, 2008b). Previous authors recognizing the Naashoibito Member and Ojo Alamo Sandstone as unique stratigraphic units representing different formations (e.g., Baltz et al, 1966;Williamson, 1996;Williamson and Weil, 2008a;Williamson et al, 2008) or as different members of the same formation (Powell, 1973;Sullivan et al, 2005;Fassett, 2009;Cather et al, 2019). Herein we recognize the Ojo Alamo Sandstone as a separate stratigraphic formation (sensu Baltz et al (1966).…”
Section: Geologic Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…These data, coupled with previous sedimentological analyses, demonstrate that the Naashoibito Member is late Maastrichtian in age and the Ojo Alamo Sandstone is early Paleocene in age with an erosive unconformity, that cuts out the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, separating the two units The Nacimiento Formation conformably overlies the Ojo Alamo Sandstone and unconformably underlies the Eocene San Jose Formation. The Nacimiento Formation is subdivided into six members: (1) The Kutz , (2) Tsosie, (3) Angel Peak, (4) Arroyo Chijuillita, (5) Ojo Encino, and (6) Escavada Members (Williamson and Lucas, 1992;Williamson, 1996;Cather et al, 2019). This study focuses on the Kutz, Tsosie, Arroyo Chijuillita and Ojo Encino Members.…”
Section: Geologic Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations