Critical evaluation of six tectonic setting discrimination diagrams using geochemical data of Neogene sediments from known tectonic settings

An attempt is made to evaluate 6 tectonic setting discrimination diagrams (1 discriminant function and 5 bivariate diagrams) frequently used by many researchers. For this purpose, an extensive database was established for major element geochemistry derived from Miocene to Recent sand and sandstone (...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inSedimentary geology Vol. 177; no. 1; pp. 115 - 129
Main Authors Armstrong-Altrin, J.S., Verma, Surendra P.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Elsevier B.V 01.06.2005
Subjects
DSDP
Japan
Marine
Mexico
ODP
Papua New Guinea
Sand geochemistry
U.S.A
Papua New Guinea
Japan
Mexico
ODP
DSDP
Sand geochemistry
U.S.A
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:An attempt is made to evaluate 6 tectonic setting discrimination diagrams (1 discriminant function and 5 bivariate diagrams) frequently used by many researchers. For this purpose, an extensive database was established for major element geochemistry derived from Miocene to Recent sand and sandstone (medium to fine-grained) samples collected from a variety of tectonic settings including (1) passive margin (PM) setting, (2) active continental margin (ACM) setting, and (3) oceanic island arc (OIA) setting. Our results suggest that the discrimination fields proposed to infer tectonic settings for six commonly used discrimination diagrams do not work properly for the analyzed Miocene to Recent sediments. The % success for these diagrams varies from 0% to about 62%. We therefore recommend that these diagrams be used with prudence.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0037-0738
1879-0968
DOI:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2005.02.004