1992
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-444-89198-3.50024-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Underclays and related paleosols associated with coals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is how the underclay profiles were interpreted by many previous workers including Huddle and Paterson (1961), Rimmer and Eberl (1982) and Hughes et al (1992). In the investigated case, the reaction cannot be regarded as a soil process, because the potential starting material--that is, the illitic fraction of the limestone--is identified as a product of burial diagenesis.…”
Section: Timing and Mechanism Of The Alterationssupporting
confidence: 51%
“…This is how the underclay profiles were interpreted by many previous workers including Huddle and Paterson (1961), Rimmer and Eberl (1982) and Hughes et al (1992). In the investigated case, the reaction cannot be regarded as a soil process, because the potential starting material--that is, the illitic fraction of the limestone--is identified as a product of burial diagenesis.…”
Section: Timing and Mechanism Of The Alterationssupporting
confidence: 51%
“…This is perhaps to be expected in that the very name ''underclay'' was initially defined as a consequence of superjacent coal. Moreover, while there has been some debate concerning the origins of underclays and other ''seat rocks'' (e.g., Huddle and Patterson, 1961), many favor an interpretation that underclay units generally record biogenic and diagenetic alteration of subjacent clayey sediment prior to and during plant growth and peat formation (e.g., Elsass et al, 1997;Hughes et al, 1992;Alonso and Brime, 1990). To the degree that underclays (as opposed to shale, clay, and other mudrocks) owe their existence primarily to the postdepositional alteration (of some argillaceous precursor) by acidic pore fluids, excess underclay-to-coal transitions may have little to do with deposi- WILKINSON et al tional order.…”
Section: Underclay-to-coal Transitionsmentioning
confidence: 99%