Fluid–Rock Interaction and Strain Localization in the Picacho Mountains Detachment Shear Zone, Arizona, USA

Gottardi, Raphaël; Schaper, Maxwell C.; Barnes, Jaime D.; Heizler, Matthew T.

doi:10.1029/2017tc004835

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The onset of early Miocene mylonitization associated with detachment shear zones in the "Colorado River extensional corridor" is well determined by thermochronometric studies of synkinematic minerals and is coeval across multiple MCCs (see Figure 2):~24-22 Ma Sacramento-Chemehuevi (Foster et al, 1990),~20-18 Ma in the Whipple (Hacker et al, 1992, and references therein),~24-21 Ma in the Buckskin-Harcuvar (Scott et al, 1998;Singleton & Wong, 2016), and~22-20 Ma in the Harquahala (Richard et al, 1990) Mountains. Similar mylonitization ages recording exhumation are reported in the South Mountains (21-20 Ma; Fitzgerald et al, 1993) and Picacho Mountains (22-18 Ma;Gottardi et al, 2018) ( Figure 2). In contrast, the onset of detachment faulting in both the Catalina-Rincon and Pinaleño MCCs in southeastern Arizona occurred earlier, and the cooling history is more protracted (29.5-23.5 Ma, Davy et al, 1989;Fayon et al, 2000;and 32.8-18.5 Ma, Long et al, 1995, respectively) (Figure 2).…”

Section: Mccssupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Given the uncertainties in closure temperature, we plot a closure temperature of 750 ± 50°C for zircon U‐Pb, 500 ± 25°C for hornblende 40 Ar/ 39 Ar, 425 ± 25°C for muscovite Rb‐Sr, 400 ± 50°C for muscovite 40 Ar/ 39 Ar and K‐Ar, 300 ± 50°C for biotite 40 Ar/ 39 Ar and K‐Ar, 275 ± 40°C for biotite K‐Ar, 240 ± 10°C for zircon fission track, 180 ± 10°C for zircon U‐Th/He, 100 ± 10°C for apatite fission track, and 60 ± 10°C for apatite U‐Th/He. Data extracted from John and Foster (1993) and Foster and John (1999) (Chemehuevi); Foster and Spencer (1992) (Plomosa); Hacker et al (1992, and reference therein) (Whipple); Scott et al (1998) and Singleton et al (2014) (Buckskin); Fitzgerald et al (1993) (South Mountain); Gottardi et al (2018) (Picacho); Davy et al (1989), Fayon et al (2000), Fornash et al (2013), and Jepson and Carrapa (2019) for the Catalina; and Wong and Gans (2008) for the Sierra Mazatan. The cooling curves suggest that eastern MCCs were denuded/exhumed earlier (during the Oligocene, between ~29 and 23 Ma) than the western MCCs of the Colorado River Extensional Corridor (Miocene, between ~22 and 15 Ma).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Direction of displacement of the hanging wall indicated by green arrows; ages of mylonitization, estimated from argon 40 Ar/ 39 Ar (green boxes) or potassium argon (K/Ar) (brown boxes), on hornblende (Hb), biotite (Bt), or muscovite (Ms) reported next to the metamorphic core complexes. Source for the geochronological data include the following: (1) Foster et al (1990); (2) Hacker et al (1992); (3) Scott et al (1998) and Singleton and Wong (2016); (4) Richard et al (1990); (5) Rehrig and Reynolds (1980); (6) Fitzgerald et al (1993); (7) Gottardi et al (2018); (8) Long et al (1995); (9) Fayon et al (2000); (10) Wong et al (2010); and (11) Wong and Gans (2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Exhumation of the Coyote Mountains Metamorphic Core Complex (Arizona): Implications for Orogenic Collapse of the Southern North American Cordillera

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A microstructural and thermochronometric analysis of the Coyote Mountains detachment shear zone provides new insight into the collapse of the southern North American Cordillera. The Coyote Mountains is a metamorphic core complex that makes up the northern end of the Baboquivari Mountains in southern Arizona. The Baboquivari Mountains records several episodes of crustal shortening and thickening and regional metamorphism, including the Late Cretaceous‐early Paleogene Laramide orogeny which is locally expressed by the Baboquivari thrust fault. Thrusting and shortening were accompanied by magmatic activity recorded by intrusion of Paleocene muscovite‐biotite‐garnet peraluminous granites such as the ~58 Ma Pan Tak Granite, interpreted as anatectic melts representing the culmination of the Laramide orogeny. Following Laramide crustal shortening, the northern end of the Baboquivari Mountains was exhumed along a top‐to‐the‐north detachment shear zone, which resulted in the formation of the Coyote Mountains metamorphic core complex. Structural and microstructural analysis show that the detachment shear zone evolved under a strong component of noncoaxial (simple shear) deformation, at deformation conditions of ~450 ± 50°C, under a differential stress of ~60 MPa, and a strain rate of 1.5 × 10−11 to 5.0 × 10−13 s−1 at depth of ~11–14 km. Detailed 40Ar/39Ar geochronology of biotite and muscovite, in the context of the deformation conditions determined by quartz microstructures, suggests that the mylonitization associated with the formation of the Coyote Mountains metamorphic core complex started at ~29 Ma (early Oligocene). Apatite fission track ages indicate that the footwall of the Coyote Mountains metamorphic core complex experienced rapid exhumation to the upper crust by ~24 Ma. The fact that mylonitization and rapid extensional exhumation postdates Laramide thickening by ~30 Myr indicates that crustal thickness alone was insufficient to initiate extensional tectonic and required an additional driving force. The timing of mylonitization and rapid exhumation documented here and in other MCCs are consistent with the hypothesis that slab rollback and the effect of a slab window trailing the Mendocino Triple Junction have been critical in driving the development of the MCCs of the southwest.

show abstract

Section: Mccssupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exhumation of the Coyote Mountains Metamorphic Core Complex (Arizona): Implications for Orogenic Collapse of the Southern North American Cordillera

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These developments mirror innovation in moderate (i.e., 40 Ar; e.g., Lovera et al, 1991) and high temperature (i.e., U-Pb; e.g., Blackburn et al, 2011;Cochrane et al, 2014;Schoene & Bowring, 2007) thermochronometry systems, as well as the development of noble gas paleothermometry (e.g., Tremblay et al, 2014;Tremblay et al, 2017), which are not the focus of this contribution. Ongoing work in 40 Ar and U-Pb thermochronometry and noble gas paleothermometry enable researchers to tackle a range of Earth science problems from crustal deformation to surface processes and mountain building (e.g., Gottardi et al, 2018;Hodges et al, 2005;Resor et al, 1996;Schneider et al, 2013;Tremblay et al, 2019;van der Pluijm et al, 2001; and many others).…”

Section: Thermochronometry and Earth Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovations in (U–Th)/He, Fission Track, and Trapped Charge Thermochronometry with Applications to Earthquakes, Weathering, Surface‐Mantle Connections, and the Growth and Decay of Mountains

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A transformative advance in Earth science is the development of low‐temperature thermochronometry to date Earth surface processes or quantify the thermal evolution of rocks through time. Grand challenges and new directions in low‐temperature thermochronometry involve pushing the boundaries of these techniques to decipher thermal histories operative over seconds to hundreds of millions of years, in recent or deep geologic time and from the perspective of atoms to mountain belts. Here we highlight innovation in bedrock and detrital fission track, (U–Th)/He, and trapped charge thermochronometry, as well as thermal history modeling that enable fresh perspectives on Earth science problems. These developments connect low‐temperature thermochronometry tools with new users across Earth science disciplines to enable transdisciplinary research. Method advances include radiation damage and crystal chemistry influences on fission track and (U–Th)/He systematics, atomistic calculations of He diffusion, measurement protocols and numerical modeling routines in trapped charge systematics, development of 4He/3He and new (U–Th)/He thermochronometers, and multimethod approaches. New applications leverage method developments and include quantifying landscape evolution at variable temporal scales, changes to Earth's surface in deep geologic time and connections to mantle processes, the spectrum of fault processes from paleoearthquakes to slow slip and fluid flow, and paleoclimate and past critical zone evolution. These research avenues have societal implications for modern climate change, groundwater flow paths, mineral resource and petroleum systems science, and earthquake hazards.

show abstract

“…Data from several MCCs in northern Mexico (e.g., Sierra Mazatan, Aconchi) are not included in our compilation because they exist south of the area that experienced the ignimbrite flare-up. That said, recent studies from this region confirm a younger-to-the-northwest trend for the onset of MCC exhumation (Gottardi et al, 2018(Gottardi et al, , 2020Wong & Gans, 2008;Wong et al, 2010).…”

Section: Ignimbrite Flareup Volcanism and MCC Formation In The Western United Statesmentioning

confidence: 75%

Magmatism and Extension in the Anaconda Metamorphic Core Complex of Western Montana and Relation to Regional Tectonics

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metamorphic core complexes (MCCs) are domal geological structures that result from the exhumation of the mid-to-lower crust (e.g., Crittenden et al., 1980). These structures are significant because they represent locations of extreme crustal extension and provide illuminating windows into the thermomechanical properties of Earth's lithosphere (e.g., Platt et al., 2015;Whitney et al., 2013). First described in the western United States, MCCs consist of a ductilely deformed metamorphic-plutonic footwall separated from a brittlely deformed hanging wall by a low-angle normal fault (detachment fault) (Armstrong, 1982;Coney, 1980;Wernicke, 1981). Despite their widespread occurrence and tectonic significance, the origin of core complexes-specifically the regional tectonic processes that facilitate footwall exhumation from mid-crustal depths-remains controversial (e.g., Konstantinou et al., 2013). Several orogen-scale dynamic models have been proposed for MCC formation in the North American Cordillera, including: (a) a change in plate motions, (b) dynamic processes of the downgoing slab (e.g., slab rollback), and (c) late or post-orogenic collapse due to overthickened continental crust (e.g., Whitney et al., 2013). In the North American Cordillera, MCCs form an N-S trending belt that traces a pre-extensional lithospheric welt, where crustal thicknesses and

show abstract

Fluid–Rock Interaction and Strain Localization in the Picacho Mountains Detachment Shear Zone, Arizona, USA

Cited by 11 publications

References 63 publications

Exhumation of the Coyote Mountains Metamorphic Core Complex (Arizona): Implications for Orogenic Collapse of the Southern North American Cordillera

Exhumation of the Coyote Mountains Metamorphic Core Complex (Arizona): Implications for Orogenic Collapse of the Southern North American Cordillera

Innovations in (U–Th)/He, Fission Track, and Trapped Charge Thermochronometry with Applications to Earthquakes, Weathering, Surface‐Mantle Connections, and the Growth and Decay of Mountains

Magmatism and Extension in the Anaconda Metamorphic Core Complex of Western Montana and Relation to Regional Tectonics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About