Palynostratigraphy and sedimentary facies of Middle Miocene fluvial deposits of the Amazonas Basin, Brazil

Dino, Rodolfo; Soares, Emílio Alberto Amaral; Antonioli, Luzia; Riccomini, Cláudio; Nogueira, Afonso César Rodrigues

doi:10.1016/j.jsames.2011.11.008

Cited by 32 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These authors did not discuss the absence of younger guide forms, specific markers of Late Miocene and early Pliocene, such as Cyatheacidites annulatus, Echitricolporites mcneillyi etc. Therefore, the present study only accepts the earliest Late Miocene age, excluding the Late Miocene-Pliocene, corroborating the studies by Dino et al (2012) and Soares et al (2015) for the top of the Miocene unit (Alter do Chão Formation) in the regions of Manacapuru and Presidente…”

Section: Cenozoic Formations Age Environment and Unconformitiessupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The name Alter do Chão Formation, proposed by (Kistler 1954), has priority and is well established in the geological literature to define the Cenozoic Amazon Basin's sedimentary cover. As a complement, palynostratigraphic studies on outcrops of Central Amazonia, regions of Manaus, Manacapuru, Presidente Figueiredo municipalities and Uatumã River, show the extensive Middle Miocene sedimentary cover which makes up the relief of this portion of the basin (Dino et al 2012.…”

Section: Purus Arch and Amazon Basinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the lack of Andean-sourced palinomorphs and minerals in the Middle Miocene Alter do Chão Formation led to concluding incorrectly the Purus Arch would have functioned as a geographical barrier, preventing deposition of any material coming from the Andes, up to the Pliocene , Dino et al 2012, Nogueira et al 2013. In Solimões Basin, Repouso Formation sandstone zircons, from the well 31MT-0003-AM, located in the town of Tefé (Amazonas State), dated by Russel W. Mapes, indicated U-Pb Archean ages.…”

Section: Amazon Rivermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6), not far from Manaus, which had already been dated and set in the Middle Miocene by Dino et al (2012). They proposed a very broad age, Middle Miocene-Pliocene, based on the presence of Grimsdalea magnaclavata defined by Lourens et al (2004), as indicative of Middle Miocene up to the Pliocene and of other species bearing wide stratigraphic amplitude.…”

Section: Cenozoic Formations Age Environment and Unconformitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many authors have interpreted plain or tenuous marine influence on outcrops and wells in the Solimões Formation (Hoorn 1993, Räsänen et al 1995, Webb 1996, Hovikoski et al 2003, 2005, Monsch 1998, among others), but some discard this possibility (Latrubesse et al 1997, 2007, 2010, Marshall & Lundberg 1996, Praxton et al 1996, Dino et al 2012, Riff et al 2010). The problem is that Repouso and Solimões Formations identification is misunderstood, and the sedimentary environments also depend on the stratigraphic level analyzed in environmental interpretation.…”

Section: Cenozoic Formations Age Environment and Unconformitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Eustatic and tectonic change effects in the reversion of the transcontinental Amazon River drainage system

Caputo

Soares

2016

Braz. J. Geol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of the transcontinental Amazon River System involved geological events in the Andes Chain; Vaupés, Purus and Gurupá arches; sedimentary basins of the region and sea level changes. The origin and age of this river have been discussed for decades, and many ideas have been proposed, including those pertaining to it having originated in the Holocene, Pleistocene, Pliocene, Late Miocene, or even earlier times. Under this context, the geology of the sedimentary basins of northern Brazil has been analyzed from the Mesozoic time on, and some clarifications are placed on its stratigraphy. Vaupés Arch, in Colombia, was uplifted together with the Andean Mountains in the Middle Miocene time. In the Cenozoic Era, the Purus Arch has not blocked this drainage system westward to marine basins of Western South America or eastward to the Atlantic Ocean. Also the Gurupá Arch remained high up to the end of Middle Miocene, directing this drainage system westward. With the late subsidence and breaching of the Gurupá Arch and a major fall in sea level, at the beginning of the Late Miocene, the Amazon River quickly opened its pathway to the west, from the Marajó Basin, through deep headward erosion, capturing a vast drainage network from cratonic and Andean areas, which had previously been diverted towards the Caribbean Sea. During this time, the large siliciclastic influx to the Amazon Mouth (Foz do Amazonas) Basin and its fan increased, due to erosion of large tracts of South America, linking the Amazon drainage network to that of the Marajó Basin. This extensive exposure originated the Late Miocene (Tortonian) unconformity, which marks the onset of the transcontinental Amazon River flowing into the Atlantic Ocean.

show abstract

Section: Cenozoic Formations Age Environment and Unconformitiessupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Purus Arch and Amazon Basinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Amazon Rivermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cenozoic Formations Age Environment and Unconformitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cenozoic Formations Age Environment and Unconformitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Eustatic and tectonic change effects in the reversion of the transcontinental Amazon River drainage system

Caputo

Soares

2016

Braz. J. Geol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Combined dating of goethites and kaolinites from ferruginous duricrusts. Deciphering the Late Neogene erosion history of Central Amazonia

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focuses on the dating of millimetric pisoliths from ferruginous duricrusts located in central Amazonia (Brazil), by coupling detailed mineralogy and two relevant dating methods: (i) (U-Th)/He analysis of goethites by mass spectrometry; (ii) analysis of radiation-induced defects of kaolinites embedded in duricrusts by electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy (EPR). Three samples collected at different elevations in the landscape were selected. The goethite corrected ages range from 1.1-15.2 Ma and consistently increase with elevation. EPR was performed on kaolinites after several cycles of a deferration procedure. Considering extreme geochemical scenarii, the ages of kaolinites are 1.7-7.1 Ma for a closed system and 4.0-16.7 Ma for an open system with 100% Rn loss. Ages of goethites and kaolinites are close, in the limit of the uncertainty of the methods. They show important periods of duricrust formation at Middle Miocene and at Late Miocene/Pliocene. Data allow the estimation of lowering rates between 3 and 8 m/Ma, in agreement with independent data available in the literature for the central Amazonia region or even for erosion of other cratons in the world. The two dating methods can be compared on common duricrust samples. By revealing single or multi-step weathering/erosion episodes related to relictual paleosurfaces, they also bring promising contributions to an advanced knowledge of ancient and complex lateritic geosystems.

show abstract

Incision and aggradation phases of the Amazon River in central-eastern Amazonia during the late Neogene and Quaternary

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Palynostratigraphy and sedimentary facies of Middle Miocene fluvial deposits of the Amazonas Basin, Brazil

Cited by 32 publications

References 33 publications

Eustatic and tectonic change effects in the reversion of the transcontinental Amazon River drainage system

Eustatic and tectonic change effects in the reversion of the transcontinental Amazon River drainage system

Combined dating of goethites and kaolinites from ferruginous duricrusts. Deciphering the Late Neogene erosion history of Central Amazonia

Incision and aggradation phases of the Amazon River in central-eastern Amazonia during the late Neogene and Quaternary

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About