2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.aeolia.2019.05.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Provenance studies of aeolian sand in Mu Us Desert based on heavy-mineral analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is important to stress that some authors have proposed that Yellow River fluvial sediments (e.g., Stevens et al, 2013; Nie et al, 2015; Fenn et al, 2017) as well as eolian reworking of preexisting sediments (Kapp et al, 2015; Wang et al, 2019) might contribute significantly to the source materials of the CLP. However, the eolian loess accumulated on the CLP can be dated back to 22 Ma (Guo et al, 2002), but the Yellow River is much younger, mostly with an early Pleistocene age (Yang et al, 2001) or even the late Pleistocene (Zhang et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…It is important to stress that some authors have proposed that Yellow River fluvial sediments (e.g., Stevens et al, 2013; Nie et al, 2015; Fenn et al, 2017) as well as eolian reworking of preexisting sediments (Kapp et al, 2015; Wang et al, 2019) might contribute significantly to the source materials of the CLP. However, the eolian loess accumulated on the CLP can be dated back to 22 Ma (Guo et al, 2002), but the Yellow River is much younger, mostly with an early Pleistocene age (Yang et al, 2001) or even the late Pleistocene (Zhang et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, the CLP has an area of 640,000 km 2 and loess thicknesses of up to 100–200 m; however, the Mu Us Desert has an area of only 42,000 km 2 that occupies less than 7% of the CLP. Therefore, the eolian reworking of preexisting sediments of the Mu Us Desert might also contribute to the CLP (Kapp et al, 2015; Wang et al, 2019), but such a contribution must be very limited.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This contrasts with the evidence from geochemical and mineralogical provenance studies that indicate that at least some of the loess was derived by deflation of Yellow River fluvial sediments (Stevens et al, 2013). It is likely that this source contributed to the sands of the Mu Us dune field (Licht et al, 2016; Wang et al, 2019) and, via their abrasion, to the loess (Xu et al, 2018). Reworking of preexisting loess deposits (Kapp et al, 2015; Licht et al, 2016) and intercalation of dune sand and loess deposits on the northern margin of the Chinese Loess Plateau (Xu et al, 2018) indicate that loess accumulation and sources likely varied over time (Bird et al, 2015).…”
Section: Sedimentary and Geomorphic Evidence For Desert Loess Provenancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…is region is above 1100-1300 m in elevation, the annual average temperature is between 6.0°C and 8.5°C, and the annual precipitation is between 250 mm and 440 mm [20]. Wang [21] found that the aeolian sand-heavy mineral assemblage in the central and northern parts of the Mu Us Desert is different from that in the southwest part, indicating that the sources of aeolian sand-heavy mineral assemblage are obviously different.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%