Cited by 26

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Laser probe argon‐40/argon‐39 dating of pseudotachylyte from the Sudbury Structure: Evidence for postimpact thermal overprinting in the North Range

THOMPSON, Lucy M., SPRAY, John G., KELLEY, Simon P.·1998·Meteoritics & Planetary Science

Abstract

Abstract— Ten pseudotachylyte samples from the North Range of the 1850 Ma Sudbury impact structure have been analyzed by the 40 Ar/39 Ar laser spot fusion method. Field and petrological evidence indicate that the pseudotachylytes were formed at 1850 Ma by comminution and frictional melting due to impact‐induced faulting. The cryptocrystalline to microcrystalline grain size (<30 μm) of the pseudotachylyte matrices and the predominance of orthoclase as the main K‐bearing phase, have rendered the rocks particularly susceptible to Ar loss. The age determinations range from ∼1850 to ∼1000 Ma, with some samples yielding multiple ages that cannot be correlated with known geological events in the area. However, if the finite‐difference algorithm of Wheeler (1996) is used to calculate combined Ar loss and the accumulation of radiogenic Ar for the K‐bearing phases, it is possible to reproduce the range of observed ages. The model infers that the long‐term volume diffusion of Ar has occurred and that, as a result, the Ar system cannot be treated with a conventional closure temperature approach. The algorithm requires burial of the impact structure to 5–6 km depth and 160–180 °C at 1850 Ma, followed by exhumation at ∼1000 Ma. These ages may be equated with two events: Penokean thin‐skinned overthrusting in the North Range, immediately following impact, and exhumation ∼850 Ma later, coincident with the Grenville orogeny to the southeast. The results suggest that, contrary to previously accepted paradigms, the North Range has been affected by a protracted period of postimpact, low‐grade thermal metamorphism. If these events also involved tectonic shortening within the North Range (as has been documented for the South Range), then the original size of the Sudbury impact structure has been underestimated.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1945-5100.1998.tb01310.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The apparent crater diameter (~260 km) approximates the final rim diameter, given that erosion in the North Range is <6 km and the ring faults are steeply dipping.

    “This approximates the final rim diameter, given that erosion in the North Range is <6 km and the ring faults are steeply dipping.”
  • The apparent crater diameter is approximately coincident with the final rim diameter Dfr, because erosion in the North Range since impact is relatively minor (<6 km) and the concentric fault systems appear to dip steeply.

    “Because the amount of erosion in the North Range since impact is relatively minor (<6 km; Thompson et al. 1998), and because the concentric fault systems appear to dip steeply, we suggest that the apparent crater diameter is approximately coincident with the final rim diameter D fr .”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Bennett G., 1991, Geology of Ontario, 549
  2. 10.1130/0091-7613(1986)14<492:PHOTMR>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/0012-821X(93)90149-4 · DOI
  4. CardK. D.(1992)Circa 1.75 Ga ages for plutonic rocks from the Southern Province and adjacent Grenville Province: What is the expression of the Penokean Orogeny?:Discussion. InRadiogenic Age and Isotopic Studies pp.227–228. Report 6 Geol. Surv. Can. Paper 92–2.. · DOI
  5. Card K. D., 1994, Geology of the Levack gneiss complex, the northern footwall of the Sudbury structure, Ontario, Current Research, 269
  6. Card K. D., 1981, Geology of the Benny area, District of Sudbury, Ontario Geol. Survey, Report, 206, 117
  7. Cowan E. J., 1994, Ontario Geological Survey, 45
  8. 10.1139/e86-011 · DOI
  9. Davidson A., 1992, Radiogenic Age and hotopic Studies, 107
  10. Dence M. R., 1972, New Developments in Sudbury Geology, 7
  11. Deutsch A., 1994, Large Meteorite Impacts and Planetary Evolution, 289
  12. 10.1007/s005310050034 · DOI
  13. 10.1086/626999 · DOI
  14. 10.1007/BF00373790 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Dressler B. O., 1984, The Geology and Ore Deposits of the Sudbury Structure, 97
  16. Easton R. M., 1992, Geology of Ontario, 715
  17. 10.1139/e69-045 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/0016-7037(74)90200-2 · DOI
  19. 10.1126/science.156.3778.1094 · DOI
  20. 10.1130/0016-7606(1997)109<0268:DOAMCO>2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  21. 10.1029/91JE02513 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Guy‐Bray J. and Geological Staff, 1966, Shatter cones at Sudbury, J. Geol., 74, 243, 10.1086/627158 · DOI
  23. HaggartM. J. JamiesonR. A. ReynoldsP. H. CulshawN. G. KroghT. E.andBeaumontC.(1992)The Grenville's last gasp‐Thermochronology of the Grenville Front Tectonic Zone near Killarney Ontario (abstract).1992 Grenville Workshop 17.
  24. 10.1016/0016-7037(85)90246-7 · DOI
  25. Heaman L. M., 1989, U‐Pb dating of mafic dyke swarms: What are the options? (abstract), Int. Assoc. Volcan. Chem. Earth's Interior, Congress Abstracts, New Mexico Bureau Mines Min. Res. Bull., 131, 125
  26. 10.1016/0016-7037(77)90212-5 · DOI
  27. Jackson S. L., 1991, Geology of Ontario, 405
  28. 10.1111/j.1525-1314.1992.tb00087.x · DOI · Paper page
  29. Kellett R. L., 1996, Characterization of the Benny deformation zone, Sudbury, Ontario, Can. J. Earth Sci., 33, 1256, 10.1139/e96-095 · DOI
  30. 10.1007/978-1-4615-2053-5_8 · DOI
  31. 10.1130/0091-7613(1994)022<0443:LPAAIO>2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  32. Krogh T. E., 1989, Terrane identification in the Grenville Province from detrital and metamorphic zircon ages, 63
  33. Krogh T. E., 1984, The Geology and Ore Deposits of the Sudbury Structure, 431
  34. Krogh T. E., 1987, Mafic Dyke Swarms, 147
  35. 10.1111/j.1945-5100.1990.tb00997.x · DOI · Paper page
  36. Medaris L. G., 1983, Geology of the Great Lakes Region, 1
  37. 10.1016/S0301-9268(96)00055-1 · DOI
  38. 10.1130/0091-7613(1992)020<0807:DGOTSS>2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  39. Peredery W. V., 1984, The Geology and Ore Deposits of the Sudbury Structure, 491
  40. 10.1016/S0016-7037(97)00289-5 · DOI
  41. Rex D. C., 1995, Phanerozoic Time Scale, 21
  42. 10.1130/0016-7606(1997)109<0841:MCDATS>2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  43. 10.1029/93GL02044 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/0168-9622(87)90025-X · DOI
  45. Schandl E. S., 1994, Albitization at 1700 ± 2 Ma in the Sudbury‐Wanapitei Lake area, Ontario: Implications for deep‐seated alkalic magmatism in the Southern Province, Can. J. Earth Sci., 31, 597, 10.1139/e94-052 · DOI
  46. 10.1139/e91-037 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1130/0091-7613(1995)023<1119:PCFOF>2.3.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
  48. 10.1130/0091-7613(1997)025<0579:S>2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  49. 10.1038/373130a0 · DOI · Paper page
  50. StockwellC. H.(1982)Proposals for time classification and correlation of Precambrian rocks and events in Canada and adjacent areas of the Canadian Shield. InA Time Classification of Precambrian Rocks and Events pp.49–78. Geol. Surv. Can. Paper 80–19 Part 1. · DOI
  51. ThompsonL. M.(1996)A study of pseudotachylyte associated with the Sudbury Structure Ontario Canada.Unpublished Ph.D. thesis University of New Brunswick Canada.202pp.
  52. Thompson L. M., 1994, Large Meteorite Impacts and Planetary Evolution, 275
  53. 10.1007/s004100050228 · DOI
  54. 10.1130/0016-7606(1988)100<0630:NEOPTO>2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  55. Schmus W. R., 1976, Early and middle Proterozoic history of the Great Lakes area, North America, Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London, 280, 606
  56. 10.1016/S0098-3004(96)00061-1 · DOI
  57. 10.1111/j.1945-5100.1993.tb00760.x · DOI
  58. 10.1139/e94-147 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
THOMPSON, L. M., SPRAY, J. G., & KELLEY, S. P.
Venue
Meteoritics & Planetary Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-11
Volume
33
Issue
6
Pages
1259-1269
ISSN
  • 1086-9379
  • 1945-5100
Cited by
26
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review