共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 137 毫秒
1.
晚前寒武纪,在我国指约19亿至6亿年前,长达十多亿年的一段时间。它是地质历史上的一个重要转变阶段。在此期间,地球的气圈、水圈发生了显著的变化;生物界出现了真核生物;沉积作用、构造运动和成矿作用也都表现出与太古宙全然不同的巨大差别。例如,自晚前寒武纪起,在地球上不再产生绿岩带(除个别地区可能的“绿岩带” 相似文献
2.
3.
4.
《矿物岩石地球化学通报》2016,(5)
正以往对地球历史过程中氧气浓度的推测,都来自各种间接的地球化学数据。而形成在卤水表面的原生石盐流体包裹体,可以捕获古代的卤水和大气,且由于石盐是无机矿物,捕获的古代大气不会与之发生反应,从而记录了原始的古代海水/湖水的成分和古代大气的成分。之前认为前寒武纪的大气氧气浓度在新元古代到寒武纪早期(5.5亿年左右)开始 相似文献
5.
6.
前寒武纪 (4.6 Ga~541 Ma) 占据约90%的地球发展历史。该时期大气成分、海洋氧化还原条件、全球气候和生命演化历程等均发生极大程度的改变,为现在的地球系统奠定了基础。地球轨道参数是描述地球系统演化过程的重要指标,对于研究日地系统、地月系统及地球本身演化具有重要意义。近年来一些学者在全球范围内2650~550 Ma地层中成功识别出大量可靠的地球轨道参数。本文通过总结前寒武纪地球轨道参数,分析了地球外动力系统和地球深部动力系统对于地球轨道参数的影响;并以前寒武纪重大地质事件为基础,进一步阐述了地球轨道参数对于地球表生环境的影响。 相似文献
7.
8.
《地层学杂志》2016,(2)
前寒武系,虽然不是一个正式的地层单位,但是,却简单明了地代表了形成于寒武纪开始(显生宙起始时)之前的所有岩石,因而就囊括了可以追索到地球形成的所有时间阶段的物质记录。遵循现代地层学的概念体系,要建立一个更加精确的前寒武纪地质年代表将面临着很多挑战。与寒武纪以来的显生宙相对应,前寒武纪曾经被称为"隐生宙"。随着研究的深入,尤其是地质学家在前寒武纪地层中发现了许多生命活动的痕迹,被称为"隐生宙"的前寒武纪就进一步划分为冥古宙、太古宙和元古宙,这代表了前寒武纪地层学研究的第一次概念进步。现行的前寒武纪年代地层划分,主要基于不同克拉通上的可对比的地质事件,而且基于合适的计时性(大致为整数的)时间界限来划分前寒武系,这个划分方案已经服务地球科学界三十余年,尤其是基于大范围的构造活动与沉积特征尝试性地建立了元古宙的纪(埃迪卡拉纪除外),代表了前寒武纪年代地层划分的第二次概念进步。随着对地球前寒武纪演变历史的深入研究而识别出许多不同时代的重要事件,以及更为重要的是从岩石记录的背景变化中识别出造成这些事件的成因,这不但导致了对前寒武纪地球的更加深入的了解,而且为今天重新修订一个新的前寒武纪地质年代表提供了一个难得的机会,从而产生了前寒武纪年代地层划分的第三次概念进步。在新修订的前寒武纪地质年代表中,表现出以下重要的进展:1)运用现代地层学的理念,重新定义了冥古宙、太古宙和元古宙;2)明确了具有特殊地质学涵义的太古宙的底界;3)明确并修订了太古宙-元古宙界线;4)尝试性地进行太古宇的建系。一个修订了的太古宙,可以定义为前寒武纪历史进程中具有以下特征的时间段,即地表上保存的最古老岩石的首次出现(4030 Ma的Acasta片麻岩)、大致在2420 Ma广泛的冰川沉积、变冷的地球条件和大气圈氧气上升的首次出现,据此太古宙还可以进一步划分成三个代和六个纪。太古宙的这个修订和进一步划分,强调了一个基本的科学理念,即太古宙代表了地壳形成与生物圈确立的早期主要阶段,以高度还原性的大气圈为特征。因此,太古宇的建系,是前寒武纪地层学研究一个大胆的尝试,也是一个重要的进展。本文通过详述这一重要进展,为深入理解地球早期复杂的演变历史提供重要的思考途径和研究线索,同时也希望能够为激发研究热情而起到抛砖引玉的作用。 相似文献
9.
前寒武纪(pre-Cambrian,Precambrian)是一个非正式的地质年代单位,泛指寒武纪之前的地质时代,在地质科学研究和实践中被广泛使用。约占地球历史88%时长的前寒武纪岩石和地层经过长时间各种地质作用改造,不仅记录不完整、保存差,而且原始地层层序复杂不清。同时,前寒武纪没有像显生宙那样可以用于地层划分和对比的标准生物化石,因而前寒武纪地层研究和地质年代划分与对比非常困难。 相似文献
10.
前寒武纪地球动力学(Ⅲ):前寒武纪地质基本特征 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
《地学前缘》2015,(6)
地球45.6~5.43亿年处于前寒武纪,具有很多独特的古气候、沉积、岩浆、变质、变形等地质特征,地幔和岩石圈的动力学机制也非常不同。本文通过总结前寒武纪地球动力学进展,系统介绍了前寒武纪地壳和岩石圈物质组成与性质、地壳生长的幕式增生特征、太古宙地幔温度和黏度变化、地壳和岩石圈厚度变化、地壳和岩石圈强度与流变结构演变。地球38~25亿年期间的热流值是现今热流值的2.5~4倍,在热的早期地球期间,下地幔热的积累比上地幔热损失快,导致周期性循环翻转,即上升的下地幔穿过干的橄榄岩固相线,并在大于150km深处经历大规模熔融。这就是太古宙大陆岩石圈地幔形成的机制和能量背景,但在太古宙以后,因地球的长期冷却,这种机制终结了。太古宙高热流值也说明太古宙热地幔难以支撑较大的地形高差,太古宙岩石圈强度也不大,在重力作用下会发生快速地形响应。但是,随着巨型基性岩墙群(大约2.75和2.45Ga)首次出现以及表壳岩系的出现,又意味着太古宙晚期地壳逐步足够刚性,允许熔体上升穿过地壳并冷却固化。前寒武纪重大地质事件的根本原因都是因为地球热振荡衰减的结果,前寒武纪地壳生长(增生)、超大陆形成、岩浆作用、成矿作用等都是不等周期、非线性的幕式演化,从TTG大规模短时间集中式形成,表明早期大陆生长模式可能以垂向增生为主。最后,探讨了冥古宙特征,大陆起源、生长和保存机制,前寒武纪超大陆重建与机制和早期地球环境-生命协同演化等前寒武纪关键科学问题和前沿。 相似文献
11.
回顾了我所近十多年来对西北区前寒武纪地质研究工作所取得的重要进展。首次制定了《西北区前寒武系划分对比方案》,为进一步开展前寒武纪地质研究工作奠定了基础;相继发现(或肯定)了西北区晚前寒武纪冰碛层,建立了全区震旦系;分别在北山、龙首山、贺兰山、全吉及碧口等地区建立(或厘定)了前寒武系标准(或代表性)剖面,解决了一些长期没有解决的疑难问题;对西北区晚前寒武纪古生物取得了一些新的资料;并解决了一些地区重要矿产含矿层位的时代问题。 相似文献
12.
13.
解读国际地层委员会2004年前寒武纪地层表及2004-2008年参考方案 总被引：17，自引：5，他引：12
国际地层委员会前不久公布了2 0 0 4年“国际地层表”,并专门提出了“2 0 0 4—2 0 0 8年前寒武纪年表参考方案”。在2 0 0 4年版“国际地层表”中,新建了埃迪卡拉系,其时限从6 30 Ma至5 4 2 Ma。“2 0 0 4—2 0 0 8年前寒武系划分参考方案”指出应该根据唯一客观的物理标准——现存的岩石记录,对前寒武纪地质年表重新进行界定。前寒武纪的地层界线应标定于地层记录中的关键事件或转变点上,以突出反映地球系统演化的巨变。在介绍有关埃迪卡拉系的背景、地质特征和时限的同时,对“参考方案”中有关前寒武系划分原则和具体划分方案的新思路进行了介绍和评述,对“参考方案”中值得商榷的问题进行了初步分析,并对我国前寒武纪年代表制定中有关重点提出了建议 相似文献
14.
A New Progress of the Proterozoic Chronostratigraphical Division 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
The Precambrian, an informal chronostratigraphical unit, represents the period of Earth history from the start of the Cambrian at ca. 541 Ma back to the formation of the planet at 4567 Ma. It was originally conceptualized as a "Cryptozoic Eon" that was contrasted with the Phanerozoic Eon from the Cambrian to the Quaternary, which is now known as the Precambrian and can be subdivided into three eons, i.e., the Hadean, the Archean and the Proterozoic. The Precambrian is currently divided chronometrically into convenient boundaries, including for the establishment of the Proterozoic periods that were chosen to reflect large-scale tectonic or sedimentary features(except for the Ediacaran Period). This chronometric arrangement might represent the second progress on the study of chronostratigraphy of the Precambrian after its separation from the Phanerozoic. Upon further study of the evolutionary history of the Precambrian Earth, applying new geodynamic and geobiological knowledge and information, a revised division of Precambrian time has led to the third conceptual progress on the study of Precambrian chronostratigraphy. In the current scheme, the Proterozoic Eon began at 2500 Ma, which is the approximate time by which most granite-greenstone crust had formed, and can be subdivided into ten periods of typically 200 Ma duration grouped into three eras(except for the Ediacaran Period). Within this current scheme, the Ediacaran Period was ratified in 2004, the first period-level addition to the geologic time scale in more than a century, an important advancement in stratigraphy. There are two main problems in the current scheme of Proterozoic chronostratigraphical division:(1) the definition of the Archean–Proterozoic boundary at 2500 Ma, which does not reflect a unique time of synchronous global change in tectonic style and does not correspond with a major change in lithology;(2) the round number subdivision of the Proterozoic into several periods based on broad orogenic characteristics, which has not met with requests on the concept of modern stratigraphy, except for the Ediacaran Period. In the revised chronostratigraphic scheme for the Proterozoic, the Archean–Proterozoic boundary is placed at the major change from a reducing early Earth to a cooler, more modern Earth characterized by the supercontinent cycle, a major change that occurred at ca. 2420 Ma. Thus, a revised Proterozoic Eon(2420–542 Ma) is envisaged to extend from the Archean–Proterozoic boundary at ca. 2420 Ma to the end of the Ediacaran Period, i.e., a period marked by the progressive rise in atmospheric oxygen, supercontinent cyclicity, and the evolution of more complex(eukaryotic) life. As with the current Proterozoic Eon, a revised Proterozoic Eon based on chronostratigraphy is envisaged to consist of three eras(Paleoproterozoic, Mesoproterozoic, and Neoproterozoic), but the boundary ages for these divisions differ from their current ages and their subdivisions into periods would also differ from current practice. A scheme is proposed for the chronostratigraphic division of the Proterozoic, based principally on geodynamic and geobiological events and their expressions in the stratigraphic record. Importantly, this revision of the Proterozoic time scale will be of significant benefit to the community as a whole and will help to drive new research that will unveil new information about the history of our planet, since the Proterozoic is a significant connecting link between the preceding Precambrian and the following Phanerozoic. 相似文献
15.
1975年全国震旦系讨论会,根据近年来地层、古生物和同位素年龄的研究成果,认为南方震旦系和北方震旦系是上、下关系;并暂定南方震旦系(三峡层型剖面)称震旦系,北方震旦系(蓟县层型剖面)另建长城系、蓟县系、青白口系,与上述震旦系合称震旦亚界,归入上元古界。1976年出版的中华人民共和国地质图和亚洲地质图的元古代地层图例,即根据此方案编制的。这个方案虽是过渡性的,它对确定我国震旦亚界的地层层序,推动前寒武纪地层的深入研究,还是起了一定的积极作用。 不容讳言,对上述方案,有许多地质工作者曾表示不便反对,也不敢赞同。希望多做些工作,以求在实践中逐步统一认识,解决存在的问题。 相似文献
16.
<正> 1974年在我国上前寒武系蓟县层型剖面蓟县系雾迷山组下部首次报道了一个新的叠层石群Pseudogymnosolen Liang et Tsao,近数年来在我国许多地区陆续发现该群分子。与此同时,又发现大量的形态上与Pseudogymnosolen具有一定相似性但又有明显区别的新的叠层石群。作者认为原假裸枝叠层石群(相当属)资料十分丰富,已有足够条件提升为超群Pseudogymnosolenidae(相当科)。此超群的叠层石具有固定的柱体形态(表1图2),局部柱体本身是由一系列紧密相连的假柱组成,故它们的分类位置应归于柱-层叠层石大类。但因叠层体微小(柱体直径一般小于1厘米),具较频繁的平行和微散开分叉,它们可以与柱-层叠层石大类的其他叠层石明显区分。 相似文献
17.
九十年代以来,随着生物地层学研究的深入发展,我国在元古宙生物演化的研究中,取得了一个接一个的重大进展。其中除了在南方扬子地区约600Ma晚震旦世地层中的许多发现（如庙河生物群、瓮安生物群和高家山生物群等）外,还在北方元古宙的地层中,特别是在约18亿年前的常州沟组中,不仅早已发现了迄今最古老的单细胞浮游真核生物,而且新发现了具细胞组织的宏观多细胞生物及有性生殖结构。所有这些不仅为进一步深入研究元古宙生命演化规律奠定了全新的基础,而且还表明对这一领域的研究我国具有十分优越的地质条件,因此,如果能进一步加大支持力度的话,在我国关于元古宙生物演化的研究和理论完全有可能在短期内取得全面突破,我国的科学家将可能在该研究领域取得更加重大的成果,为人类的科学事业做出更加重要的贡献。 相似文献
18.
19.
A. F. Trendall 《Australian Journal of Earth Sciences》2013,60(2):517-526
There is no generally accepted time or time‐rock Precambrian stratigraphy, as there is for the Phanerozoic. Many authors suggest that a time‐rock nomenclature based on similar principles should be used. But no explicit general principles for the erection of major time or time‐rock stratigraphic divisions exist, or have even been used, while the confusion caused by the evolutionary and unsystematic growth of the Phanerozoic systems is admitted. Consequently, geologists dealing with the Precambrian may feel free to choose whatever methods of time subdivision and nomenclature seem most effective, unprejudiced by Phanerozoic precedent. The familiar ones used by historians seem to be more useful for Precambrian rocks and time, if megacenturies (of 108 years, or 106 centuries) are used instead of centuries, than those used in Phanerozoic stratigraphy. The conclusions that: (1) stratigraphic rock units, plus isotopic age determinations to inter‐relate major sequences and events within a numerical time‐scale of years, are together adequate for handling Precambrian stratigraphic problems, and conversely (2) traditional time and time‐rock stratigraphy is superfluous, represent the main thesis of this paper. Although there is no rock unit of system rank the local restriction of systems would overcome this deficiency; the Adelaide System is an example. Three common fallacies are: (1) rocks are the primary standard of reference for time, (2) geological maps cannot be published without time‐rock stratigraphy, and (3) the same type of nomenclature must be used for both Phanerozoic and Precambrian. International cooperation in the adoption of standard rocks for isotopic dating is advisable to promote accurate correlations in the Precambrian. 相似文献
20.
A subdivision of the Precambrian of China 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
Precambrian rocks are widely distributed in China. The Precambrian is divided into two time units, i.e., the Archaean and Proterozoic Eon, each of these is separated into three chronological intervals, also with the status of eras, with the prefixes early, middle or late. The time boundary between the Archaean and Proterozoic Eon is placed at ～ 2500 Ma.According to the present isotopic data, the proposed subdivision for the Archaean of China is two-fold. The age of the Fuping Group is younger than 2800–2900 Ma, and that of the Qianxi Group and the corresponding stratigraphic units of eastern Liaoning are older than 2800 Ma, so that 2800+ Ma is selected as the boundary between the early—middle and late Archaean.Based on the representative stratigraphic units, the Wutai and Huto Groups, and an intervening major unconformity formed by the Wutaiian orogeny at 2200–2300 Ma, the early Proterozoic is further divided into two periods, with a time demarcation at 2200+ Ma. A major episode of orogeny known as the “Luliangian Movement” occurred at the end of the early Proterozoic at ～ 1900 Ma. This disturbance was very extensive and is, in a way, responsible for the difference in geological conditions between the lower and middle—upper Proterozoic in China. The boundary (1900 Ma) that relates to the Luliangian Movement is more important than the boundary corresponding to the age of 1600 Ma, which is recommended as the time boundary between Proterozoic I and II, so we propose to use 1900 Ma as the boundary between the early and middle Proterozoic in China.The time boundary between the middle Proterozoic, including the Changcheng System and the Jixian System, and the late Proterozoic, which is composed of the Qingbaikou and Sinian Systems, is ～ 1000 Ma. The age for the boundary between Cambrian and Precambrian, based upon the recent isochron data, is inferred to be 610 Ma. 相似文献