| 中吉天山隆升时代对比——裂变径迹年代学证据 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 楚泽松,余心起,王宗秀,肖伟峰,陈正乐,韩淑琴,杨鑫朋.中吉天山隆升时代对比——裂变径迹年代学证据[J].中国地质,2016(4):1248-1257. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 楚泽松 余心起 王宗秀 肖伟峰 陈正乐 韩淑琴 杨鑫朋 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 中国地质大学地球科学与资源学院, 北京 100083,中国地质大学地球科学与资源学院, 北京 100083,中国地质科学院地质力学研究所, 北京 100081,中国地质科学院地质力学研究所, 北京 100081,中国地质科学院地质力学研究所, 北京 100081,中国地质科学院地质力学研究所, 北京 100081,中国地质大学地球科学与资源学院, 北京 100083 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 中国地质调查局工作项目（1212011120335，12120114006201）资助。 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 中吉天山成矿带境内外天山在成矿时代、矿产种类、矿床规模等多方面存在重大差异。它们的成矿条件基本类似,是否因为保存条件的不同而产生这种差异值得关注。文章对采自吉尔吉斯斯坦北天山(境外西天山)的磷灰石样品进行了裂变径迹测试分析和温度-时间反演模拟研究,表明吉尔吉斯斯坦北天山在中新生代发生了四期抬升剥露作用,分别为晚侏罗世、晚白垩世、始新世和渐新世,且不同区域其抬升剥露史也不相同:晚侏罗世的抬升局限于伊塞克湖南岸的泰尔斯山脉,始新世的抬升主要发生在伊塞克湖南北两侧的泰尔斯山脉和昆格山脉,晚白垩世和渐新世的抬升为吉尔吉斯斯坦北天山整体抬升。与东部境内西天山对比表明,境内西天山整体隆升时间较早,历时较长,有可能隆升剥蚀程度超过境外西天山,从而造成了成矿方面的重大差异。
|
| 关 键 词： | 裂变径迹 隆升对比 成矿差异 吉尔吉斯斯坦北天山 境内西天山 |
| 收稿时间： | 2015/11/16 0:00:00 |
| 修稿时间： | 2016/3/28 0:00:00 |
A comparison of uplifting history between Tianshan Mountains in China and Kyrgyz: Insights from fission track chronology |
| |
| CHU Ze-song,YU Xin-qi,WANG Zong-xiu,XIAO Wei-feng,CHEN Zheng-le,HAN Shu-qin and YANG Xin-peng.A comparison of uplifting history between Tianshan Mountains in China and Kyrgyz: Insights from fission track chronology[J].Chinese Geology,2016(4):1248-1257. |
| |
| Authors: | CHU Ze-song YU Xin-qi WANG Zong-xiu XIAO Wei-feng CHEN Zheng-le HAN Shu-qin and YANG Xin-peng |
| |
| Institution: | School of Earth Sciences and Resources, China University of Geosciences(Beijing), Beijing 100083, China,School of Earth Sciences and Resources, China University of Geosciences(Beijing), Beijing 100083, China,Institute of Geomechanics, Chinese Academy of Geological Science, Beijing 100081, China,Institute of Geomechanics, Chinese Academy of Geological Science, Beijing 100081, China,Institute of Geomechanics, Chinese Academy of Geological Science, Beijing 100081, China,Institute of Geomechanics, Chinese Academy of Geological Science, Beijing 100081, China and School of Earth Sciences and Resources, China University of Geosciences(Beijing), Beijing 100083, China |
| |
| Abstract: | There are considerable differences of the Tianshan metallogenic belt between China and Kyrgyz in such aspects as metallogenic epoch, mineral type and deposit size. As their metallogenic conditions are similar, due attention should be paid to the problem whether the differences are caused by preservation conditions or not. Apatite fission track analysis of Kyrgyz Northern Tianshan and thermal history modeling were performed, and the result shows that there existed four uplifting events from the Mesozoic to Cenozoic, from late Jurassic to late Cretaceous, Eocene and Oligocene, respectively. The late Jurassic uplifting happened in Terskey Range located in the south of Issyk-Kul Lake; the Eocene uplifting happened in Terskey Range and Kungey Range located in the north of Issyk-Kul Lake; the late Cretaceous Issyk-Kul Lake and Oligocene uplifting happened in Kyrgyz Northern Tianshan. By comparing uplifting history of Kyrgyz Northern Tianshan with that of China''s Western Tianshan, it is shown that China''s Western Tianshan uplifted earlier and lasted for a long time; the extent of exhumation exceeded that of Kyrgyz Northern Tianshan. Maybe it is the reason of the significant differences of mineralization between China and Kyrgyz Tianshan. |
| |
| Keywords: | fission track uplifting comparison mineralization difference Kyrgyz Northern Tianshan China''s Western Tianshan |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《中国地质》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《中国地质》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
