高级搜索

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

川西北地区上三叠统须家河组初始成煤期古气候重建与成煤机制

王琴 金鑫 陈俞超 张云望 邹灏 李滨兵 杜怡星 芦刚 时志强

王琴, 金鑫, 陈俞超, 张云望, 邹灏, 李滨兵, 杜怡星, 芦刚, 时志强. 川西北地区上三叠统须家河组初始成煤期古气候重建与成煤机制[J]. 沉积学报, 2026, 44(2): 522-541. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2024.064
引用本文: 王琴, 金鑫, 陈俞超, 张云望, 邹灏, 李滨兵, 杜怡星, 芦刚, 时志强. 川西北地区上三叠统须家河组初始成煤期古气候重建与成煤机制[J]. 沉积学报, 2026, 44(2): 522-541. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2024.064
WANG Qin, JIN Xin, CHEN YuChao, ZHANG YunWang, ZOU Hao, LI BinBing, DU YiXing, LU Gang, SHI ZhiQiang. Coal-Forming Paleoclimate and Mechanism During the Initial Coal-Forming Period of the Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation, Northwestern Sichuan Basin[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2026, 44(2): 522-541. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2024.064
Citation: WANG Qin, JIN Xin, CHEN YuChao, ZHANG YunWang, ZOU Hao, LI BinBing, DU YiXing, LU Gang, SHI ZhiQiang. Coal-Forming Paleoclimate and Mechanism During the Initial Coal-Forming Period of the Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation, Northwestern Sichuan Basin[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2026, 44(2): 522-541. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2024.064

川西北地区上三叠统须家河组初始成煤期古气候重建与成煤机制

doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2024.064
基金项目: 

成都理工大学珠峰科学研究计划 2020ZF11414

详细信息
    作者简介:

    王琴,女,1999年出生,硕士研究生,沉积学,E-mail: wq981205@163.com

    通讯作者:

    金鑫,男,教授,E-mail: jinxin2012cdut@163.com

  • 中图分类号: P618.11

Coal-Forming Paleoclimate and Mechanism During the Initial Coal-Forming Period of the Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation, Northwestern Sichuan Basin

More Information
  • 摘要: 目的 早、中三叠世时期存在很长一段时间的煤沉积空缺,四川盆地煤沉积在上三叠统须家河组沉积早期(须一段)重新出现,目前对须一段初始成煤期的古气候与成煤机制还缺乏清晰的认识。 方法 基于野外露头观察、岩石学镜下分析以及主微量元素分析,对川西北地区须家河组一段含煤地层(工农镇剖面和王家梁剖面)的古气候与成煤机制开展研究。 结果 工农镇剖面须家河组一段的沉积相以三角洲前缘亚相为主,而王家梁剖面须家河组一段的沉积相以三角洲平原亚相为主。此外,须一段初始成煤期的古气候指标(Sr/Cu和C值)和风化指标(CIAcorr和Rb/Sr)呈现同步变化。 结论 川西北地区须家河组一段初始成煤期的古气候特征表现为炎热潮湿与温暖半干旱—半潮湿交替出现。煤层在潮湿气候条件下形成,而这种湿润的古气候可能与超级季风活动有关。进一步研究发现,煤的沉积还需要适宜的保存环境,如在高位体系域的沼泽中,煤层可以良好发育和保存。
  • 图  1  四川盆地构造简图、诺利期全球古地理图及采样剖面具体位置

    Figure  1.  (a) Schematic diagram of the tectonics of the Sichuan Basin (modified from Scotese, 2014); (b) global paleogeographic map of the Norian period (modified from Xiang et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2024); (c) sampling profile locations

    图  2  王家梁剖面须一段露头特征

    Figure  2.  Outcrop photographs of the First member of the Xujiahe Formation in the Wangjialiang section

    图  3  须一段岩性柱状图及采样点位

    Figure  3.  Lithology columns and sampling positions of the First member of the Xujiahe Formation

    图  4  工农镇剖面须一段露头特征

    Figure  4.  Outcrop photographs of the First member of the Xujiahe Formation in the Gongnongzhen section

    图  5  须一段化学风化指标和古气候指标垂向变化

    Figure  5.  Chemical weathering and paleoclimatic proxies vertical changes in the First member of the Xujiahe Formation, northwestern Sichuan Basin

    图  6  王家梁剖面须一段砂岩镜下照片

    Figure  6.  Photomicrographs of sandstone from the First member of the Xujiahe Formation, Wangjialiang section

    图  7  王家梁剖面砂岩概率累积曲线

    Figure  7.  Cumulative probability curves for sandstone in the Wangjialiang section

    图  8  (a)A⁃CN⁃K图,显示了南秦岭上地壳(SQ)的风化趋势(Gao et al.,1998);(b)K校正之后CIAcorr和CIW相关性图;(c)K校正之后CIAcorr与PIA相关性图;(d)CIAcorr与Al/Si的相关性

    Figure  8.  (a) Plots of A⁃CN⁃K; (b) correlation diagram between CIAcorr and CIW after K correction; (c) Correlation diagram between CIAcorr and PIA after K correction; (c) correlation between CIAcorr and Al/Si

    图  9  川西北地区须家河组一段初始成煤期的成煤模式图

    Figure  9.  Coal deposition model in the initial coal⁃forming period of the First member of the Xujiahe Formation, northwestern Sichuan Basin

    表  1  须一段样品主量元素含量表

    Table  1.   Major element contents in bulk rocks from the First member of the Xujiahe Formation

    样品号深度/mSiO2K2ONa2OCaOMgOAl2O3TFe2O3MnOTiO2P2O5
    GNZ-0414.5089.561.370.120.280.235.270.950.040.350.02
    GNZ-0719.1073.252.170.130.450.519.457.850.070.820.05
    GNZ-1021.3563.424.260.170.841.9016.725.540.071.010.24
    GNZ-1122.6070.103.290.160.701.6013.024.980.060.800.18
    GNZ-1325.8054.015.060.200.581.8820.708.570.031.280.11
    GNZ-1731.3069.703.120.160.530.9315.014.040.040.660.07
    GNZ-2038.9554.583.920.162.072.0419.027.810.091.140.20
    GNZ-2139.3060.984.070.181.172.4116.945.630.040.960.16
    GNZ-2843.0249.673.010.1610.843.4312.174.560.070.670.17
    WJLA-013.4055.872.860.667.493.7811.475.110.070.660.14
    WJLA-046.0553.903.280.496.543.9113.735.260.080.750.15
    WJLA-067.2852.742.770.439.033.8811.284.550.070.670.15
    WJLA-089.5553.362.950.337.953.8012.345.020.100.710.15
    WJLA-1413.9453.333.810.183.953.4916.617.170.170.770.22
    WJLA-1815.7958.793.660.192.173.0617.184.800.040.880.18
    WJLA-2218.7968.002.980.160.571.5415.724.030.050.880.16
    WJLA-3026.2967.862.440.160.340.9816.783.260.010.930.05
    WJLB-033.7366.203.030.160.641.2318.422.990.021.120.25
    WJLB-045.4068.272.450.142.861.6812.333.770.090.760.15
    WJLB-067.4068.052.050.144.851.539.344.870.120.600.13
    WJLB-1011.8057.412.700.327.223.5911.224.270.080.690.15
    WJLB-1113.0066.212.410.154.392.3811.333.030.040.710.15
    WJLC-061.4063.983.130.190.811.8017.894.020.061.010.10
    WJLC-153.4562.213.010.190.681.7518.863.600.031.250.08
    WJLC-224.8564.923.490.190.251.8116.715.250.050.940.05
    WJLC-277.3057.502.800.166.652.9213.353.700.050.790.16
    WJLC-318.3257.702.920.182.022.8116.104.150.030.970.14
    WJLC-4012.3558.483.370.182.192.8917.194.500.030.980.17
    注:TFe2O3为全铁;主量元素单位为%。
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2  须一段样品微量元素含量表

    Table  2.   Trace element contents in bulk rocks from the First member of the Xujiahe Formation

    样品号深度/mVCrNiZnGaRbSrYZrNbBaPb
    GNZ-0414.5022.2920.0011.5614.135.3037.0135.217.37158.616.37183.158.95
    GNZ-0719.1065.7366.3646.8338.2314.2575.7464.4723.33315.3916.56308.8189.21
    GNZ-1021.35154.06129.8339.93119.1526.85157.4175.6733.14308.7622.68622.999.15
    GNZ-1122.60102.7096.6840.70133.2419.85133.3861.6529.76270.2118.07543.1812.46
    GNZ-1325.80187.04145.8355.7398.5734.89221.0987.1142.96524.9030.97576.2541.18
    GNZ-1731.3082.6151.4826.9444.3718.13108.5256.6922.42281.8815.27410.2348.27
    GNZ-2038.95133.39148.6147.4279.6130.70158.4579.5733.66403.6226.39690.7926.67
    GNZ-2139.30147.26125.9641.9084.2227.56172.6878.5827.93323.5722.25724.6413.18
    GNZ-2843.02106.94100.4732.0373.3018.36127.74163.2625.38217.6616.08589.1913.56
    WJLA-013.40107.5287.6346.23113.6917.00116.83132.8625.10221.0915.36611.6430.88
    WJLA-046.05123.4993.4946.4890.9320.29145.02121.3926.27253.6318.15609.9124.47
    WJLA-067.28110.01181.8745.0988.2416.83117.30147.6428.57231.0816.29679.1824.14
    WJLA-089.55113.77121.9345.7098.0817.68127.69138.0825.19240.1116.78535.3124.51
    WJLA-1413.94141.52100.2763.33116.6423.04167.3494.8432.44238.3817.55632.4136.47
    WJLA-1815.79141.49111.4054.04107.5824.54155.6080.7325.44282.3120.18622.0922.66
    WJLA-2218.79109.58104.0334.65120.8921.21136.6775.5225.88322.2619.56471.1941.06
    WJLA-3026.29108.5691.3314.4348.6127.03126.0077.6126.66309.6425.74376.4022.73
    WJLB-033.73132.14111.2029.4358.2127.80122.93106.1033.84432.8425.12427.4818.63
    WJLB-045.4092.6871.1347.6193.3518.86103.86102.9824.07274.3617.00368.2023.44
    WJLB-067.4072.3561.2835.9790.3914.0783.01116.1924.40237.2612.93342.7119.21
    WJLB-1011.80100.0965.3443.6485.3117.77114.43122.3223.16223.2618.14491.2122.22
    WJLB-1113.0086.9158.4235.7474.0617.01103.97109.4224.03250.8216.35378.4620.61
    WJLC-061.40141.6093.6951.50101.4028.15158.69129.30138.23281.5821.72483.5730.82
    WJLC-153.45163.4991.5550.78121.6735.27171.49130.34253.79331.0927.49445.3125.24
    WJLC-224.85144.12118.6876.9487.7229.19179.6587.23166.63285.0321.39634.1037.35
    WJLC-277.30111.6878.7330.9992.3519.41123.64136.2325.50247.5222.21398.5021.87
    WJLC-318.32139.9982.5661.92114.7023.24141.5095.4025.24319.7925.07416.4540.46
    WJLC-4012.35143.97155.2255.09113.4825.01164.59146.2828.68264.0020.31481.7821.63
    注:微量元素单位为ug/g。
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  3  各风化指标计算公式

    Table  3.   Calculation formulas of chemical weathering indices

    指标名称公式参考文献
    化学蚀变指数(CIA)CIA=Al2O3/(Al2O3+Na2O+K2O+CaO*)×100Nesbitt and Young,1982
    化学风化指数(CIW)CIW=Al2O3/(Al2O3+Na2O+CaO*)×100Harnois,1988
    斜长石蚀变指数(PIA)PIA=(Al2O3-K2O)/(Al2O3-K2O+Na2O+CaO*)×100Fedo et al.,1995
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  4  研究区须一段样品风化指标值

    Table  4.   Chemical weathering indices in bulk rocks of the First member of the Xujiahe Formation

    样品号深度/m剖面CIACIAcorrCIWPIA
    GNZ-0414.50GNZ73.9083.7093.3090.90
    GNZ-0719.10GNZ77.2085.8095.6094.30
    GNZ-1021.35GNZ76.3086.7096.7095.60
    GNZ-1122.60GNZ76.1086.2096.1094.80
    GNZ-1325.80GNZ77.1087.0097.0096.00
    GNZ-1731.30GNZ79.4086.7096.7095.80
    GNZ-2038.95GNZ79.9087.2097.3096.50
    GNZ-2139.30GNZ77.2086.7096.7095.50
    GNZ-2843.02GNZ76.2085.9095.8094.40
    WJLA-013.40WJLA68.5075.4084.0079.30
    WJLA-046.05WJLA72.6080.2089.5086.30
    WJLA-067.28WJLA71.9079.8088.9085.50
    WJLA-089.55WJLA74.2082.3091.8089.30
    WJLA-1413.94WJLA77.9086.7096.6095.60
    WJLA-1815.79WJLA79.0086.6096.6095.60
    WJLA-2218.79WJLA80.7086.8096.8096.00
    WJLA-3026.29WJLA84.1087.0097.0096.40
    WJLB-033.73WJLB82.9087.2097.3096.70
    WJLB-045.40WJLB79.8086.4096.4095.40
    WJLB-067.40WJLB77.7085.5095.4094.00
    WJLB-1011.80WJLB73.7081.9091.3088.60
    WJLB-1113.00WJLB78.4085.9095.8094.60
    WJLC-061.40WJLC81.7086.7096.7095.90
    WJLC-153.45WJLC82.9086.8096.8096.10
    WJLC-224.85WJLC79.1086.4096.4095.40
    WJLC-277.30WJLC78.9086.2096.2095.10
    WJLC-318.32WJLC81.1086.5096.5095.60
    WJLC-4012.35WJLC80.2086.7096.7095.90
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] 白通. 2011. 鲁西北石炭—二叠纪含煤地层与控制因素研究[D]. 青岛:山东科技大学:9-63.

    Bai Tong. 2011.Carboniferous-Permian coal-bearing strata and control factors research in area of Luxibei[D]. Qingdao: Shandong University of Science and Technology: 9-63.
    [2] 陈逵. 2014. 元坝地区须家河组储层岩石学特征和图像法粒度分析研究[D]. 成都:成都理工大学:8-52.

    Chen Kui. 2014. Reservoir petrology characteristics study and image method grain-size analysis of Xujiahe Formation in Yuanba area[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology: 8-52.
    [3] 陈俞超,金鑫,杜怡星,等. 2024. 四川盆地须家河组诺利—瑞替期之交气候变迁及其驱动机制[J]. 沉积学报,42(4): 1212-1228.

    Chen Yuchao, Jin Xin, Du Yixing, et al. 2024. Paleoclimate perturbation and its driving mechanism across Norian-Rhaetian transition(Late Triassic)in the Xujiahe Formation, Sichuan Basin[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 42(4): 1212-1228.
    [4] 程立雪. 2011. 广元地区上三叠统须家河组沉积体系与层序地层学研究[D]. 成都:成都理工大学:11-72.

    Cheng Lixue. 2011. The research of depositional system and sequence stratigraphy of Xujiahe Formation of Upper Triassic in Guangyuan area[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology: 11-72.
    [5] 戴贤铎. 2023. 中扬子北缘秭归及当阳盆地中三叠世—晚侏罗世古气候演化[D]. 武汉:中国地质大学:24-184.

    Dai Xianduo. 2023. Middle Triassic to Late Jurassic climate change in the Zigui and Dangyang Basins on the northern margin of the Middle Yangtze[D]. Wuhan: China University of Geosciences, 2023: 24-184.
    [6] 丁婷. 2017. 四川盆地早中三叠世古气候、古环境重建:来自同位素及元素地球化学的约束[D]. 北京:中国地质大学(北京):25-107.

    Ding Ting. 2017. The Eary-Middle Triassic paloclimate and paloenvironment rebulite in Sichuan Basin:From isotope and element geochemistry[D]. Beijing: China University of Geosciences (Beijing): 25-107.
    [7] 段金宝,张升磊,李平平,等. 2016. 四川盆地北部须家河组裂缝发育特征与控制因素:以广元和旺苍地区地表露头为例[J]. 长江大学学报(自科版),13(23):7-14,44.

    Duan Jinbao, Zhang Shenglei, Li Pingping, et al. 2016. Characteristics of fracture development and its controlling factors of Xujiahe Formation in the north of Sichuan Basin: A case study of outcrops in Guangyuan and Wangcang areas[J]. Journal of Yangtze University (Natural Science Edition), 13(23): 7-14, 44.
    [8] 高彩霞,邵龙义,李长林,等. 2009. 四川盆地东部上三叠统须家河组层序地层及聚煤特征研究[J]. 古地理学报,11(6):689-696.

    Gao Caixia, Shao Longyi, Li Changlin, et al. 2009. Sequence stratigraphy and coal accumulation of the Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation in eastern Sichuan Basin[J]. Journal of Palaeogeography, 11(6): 689-696.
    [9] 黄其胜. 1995. 川北晚三叠世须家河期古气候及成煤特征[J]. 地质论评,41(1): 92-99.

    Huang Qisheng. 1995. Paleoclimate and coal-forming characteristics of the Late Triassic Xujiahe stage in northern Sichuan[J]. Geological Review, 41(1): 92-99.
    [10] 黄其胜,鲁胜梅. 1992. 川东地区晚三叠世须家河植物群古生态初探[J]. 地球科学: 中国地质大学学报,17(3):329-335.

    Huang Qisheng, Lu Shengmei. 1992. The primary studies on the palaeoecology of the Late Triassic Xujiahe flora in eastern Sichuan[J]. Earth Science: Journal of China University of Geosciences, 1992, 17(3): 329-335.
    [11] 贾承造,李本亮,张兴阳,等. 2007. 中国海相盆地的形成与演化[J]. 科学通报, 52(增刊1):1-8.

    Jia Chengzao, Li Benliang, Zhang Xingyang, et al. 2007. Formation and evolution of the Chinese marine basins[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2007, 52(Suppl.1): 1-8.
    [12] 贾子策,林志成,瞿雪姣,等. 2024. 真蕨植物化石Cladophlebis kwangyuanensis在重庆云阳上三叠统的发现及其古气候意义[J]. 古生物学报,63(3):372-385.

    Jia Zice, Lin Zhicheng, Qu Xuejiao, et al. 2024. Discovery of fossil fern Cladophlebis kwangyuanensis in the Upper Triassic of Yunyang, Chongqing and its paleoclimatic significance[J]. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, 63(3): 372-385.
    [13] 姜在兴,田继军,陈桂菊,等. 2007. 川西前陆盆地上三叠统沉积特征[J]. 古地理学报,9(2):143-154.

    Jiang Zaixing, Tian Jijun, Chen Guiju, et al. 2007. Sedimentary characteristics of the Upper Triassic in western Sichuan foreland basin[J]. Journal of Palaeogeography, 9(2): 143-154.
    [14] 李朝辉. 2016. 四川盆地侏罗纪岩相古地理研究[D]. 成都:成都理工大学:8-76.

    Li Chaohui. 2016. Study on the Jurassic Lithofacies and paleogeography of Sichuan Basin[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Techenology: 8-76.
    [15] 李宸,周游,郎兴海,等. 2023. 四川盆地西北缘早—中三叠世界线附近沉积岩地球化学特征及古环境意义[J]. 岩石矿物学杂志,42(2):220-236.

    Li Chen, Zhou You, Lang Xinghai, et al. 2023. Geochemical characteristics and paleoenvironmental significance of sedimentary rocks near the Early-Middle Triassic boundary on the northwest margin of the Sichuan Basin[J]. Acta Petrologica et Mineralogica, 42(2): 220-236.
    [16] 李英娇,梁万林,邵龙义,等. 2011. 四川省晚三叠世含煤地层层序地层及聚煤特征[J]. 中国煤炭地质,23(8):32-37.

    Li Yingjiao, Liang Wanlin, Shao Longyi, et al. 2011. Late Triassic coal-bearing strata sequence stratigraphy and coal accumulation characteristics in Sichuan province[J]. Coal Geology of China, 23(8): 32-37.
    [17] 林良彪. 2005. 川西前陆盆地上三叠统须家河组沉积相及岩相古地理演化[D]. 成都:成都理工大学:6-81.

    Lin Liangbiao. 2005. Sedimentary facies and paleogeographic evolution of the Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation in west Sichuan foreland basin[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology, 2005: 6-81.
    [18] 刘宝珺,许效松,潘杏南,等. 1993. 中国南方古大陆沉积地壳演化与成矿[M]. 北京:科学出版社:65- 72.

    Liu Baojun, Xu Xiaosong, Pan Xingnan, et al. 1993. Evolution and miner-alization of earth crust of paleocontinent in the southern China[M]. Beijing: Science Press: 65-72.
    [19] 刘兆生,李丽琴,王永栋. 2015. 四川宣汉晚三叠世孢粉组合及其古植被与古气候意义[J]. 微体古生物学报,32(1):43-62.

    Liu Zhaosheng, Li Liqin, Wang Yongdong. 2015. Late Triassic spore-pollen assemblage from Xuanhan of Sichuan, China[J]. Acta Micropalaeontologica Sinica, 32(1): 43-62.
    [20] 孟昱璋. 2011. 四川盆地嘉陵江组岩相古地理与天然气成藏研究[D]. 成都:成都理工大学:9-59.

    Meng Yuzhang. 2011. The Lithofacies-paleogeographic and the natural gas accumulation of Jialingjiang Formation in Sichuan Basin[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology: 9-59.
    [21] 木红旭. 2020. 川西晚三叠世前陆盆地的形成与演化[D]. 北京:中国地质大学(北京):14-119.

    Mu Hongxu. 2020. Formation and evolution of the Late Triassic foreland basin in western Sichuan[D]. Beijing: China University of Geosciences (Beijing): 14-119.
    [22] 钱利军,时志强,李智武,等. 2010. 四川盆地西缘地区上三叠统须家河组化石木年轮的古气候意义[J]. 沉积学报,28(2):324-330.

    Qian Lijun, Shi Zhiqiang, Li Zhiwu, et al. 2010. Fossil wood of the Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation on the western margin of Sichuan Basin: Implication for palaeoclimate[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 28(2): 324-330.
    [23] 邵龙义,李英娇,靳凤仙,等. 2014. 华南地区晚三叠世含煤岩系层序—古地理[J]. 古地理学报,16(5):613-630.

    Shao Longyi, Li Yingjiao, Jin Fengxian, et al. 2014. Sequence stratigraphy and lithofacies palaeogeography of the Late Triassic coal measures in South China[J]. Journal of Palaeogeography, 16(5): 613-630.
    [24] 石彦强,邢立杰. 2009. 动态聚煤模式:兼论成煤植物在聚煤环境中的主导作用[J]. 中国煤炭地质,21(增刊1): 6-8,39.

    Shi Yan-qiang, Xing Lijie. 2009. Dynamic coal-accumulation model: On leading role of coal-forming plants in coal-accumulating environment[J]. Coal Geology of China, 21(Suppl.1): 6-8, 39.
    [25] 四川盆地陆相中生代地层古生物编写组. 1982. 四川盆地陆相中生代地层古生物[M]. 成都:四川人民出版社.

    Paleontological Compilation Group of Mesozoic Strata in the Sichuan Basin. 1982. Continental Mesozoic stratigraphy and palaeontology in the Sichuan Basin[M]. Chengdu: Sichuan People's Publishing House.
    [26] 四川油气区石油地质志编写组. 1989. 中国石油地质志卷十(四川油气区)[M]. 北京:石油工业出版社:1-516.

    Compilation Group of Petroleum Geological Records of Sichuan Oil and Gas Region. 1989. Petroleum geology of China vol. 10[M]. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press: 1-516.
    [27] 孙勇,李振江,宋伟,等. 2023. 宜宾刘家镇上三叠统须家河组植物化石特征与古环境意义[J]. 资源环境与工程,37(1):1-8.

    Sun Yong, Li Zhenjiang, Song Wei, et al. 2023. Plant fossils characteristics and palaeoenvironment significances of the Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation in Liujia town of Yibin city[J]. Resources Environment & Engineering, 37(1): 1-8.
    [28] 汪明泉. 2016. 四川盆地东部早中三叠世古水温及其成钾效应[D]. 北京:中国地质大学(北京):7-42.

    Wang Mingquan. 2016. Paleotemperature and its potash-forming effect in Early and Middle Triassic in eastern Sichuan Basin[D]. Beijing: China University of Geosciences (Beijing): 7-42.
    [29] 王全伟,阚泽忠,刘啸虎,等. 2008. 四川中生代陆相盆地孢粉组合所反映的古植被与古气候特征[J]. 四川地质学报,28(2):89-95.

    Wang Quanwei, Kan Zezhong, Liu Xiaohu, et al. 2008. The Mesozoic sporopollen assemblage in the Sichuan Basin and its significance to paleovegetation and paleoclimate[J]. Acta Geologica Sichuan, 28(2): 89-95.
    [30] 王永栋,付碧宏,谢小平,等. 2010. 四川盆地陆相三叠系与侏罗系[M]. 合肥:中国科学技术大学出版社:1- 178.

    Wang Yongdong, Fu Bihong, Xie Xiaoping, et al. 2010. The terrestrial Triassic and Jurassic systems in the Sichuan Basin, China[M]. Hefei: University of Science and Technology of China Press: 1-178.
    [31] 吴颖,杜贵超,马明. 2023. 鄂尔多斯盆地南部旬邑地区延长组砂岩地球化学特征[J]. 天然气地球科学,34(2):194-209.

    Wu Ying, Du Guichao, Ma Ming. 2023. Geochemical characteristics of the sandstones of the Yanchang Formation in the Xunyi area, southern Ordos Basin[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 34(2): 194-209.
    [32] 向芳,肖倩,喻显涛,等. 2022. 四川盆地元坝地区上二叠统海相凝灰沉积储层特征[J]. 石油与天然气地质,43(4):889-901.

    Xiang Fang, Xiao Qian, Yu Xiantao, et al. 2022. Reservoir characteristics of the Upper Permian marine tuffaceous deposits in Yuanba area, Sichuan Basin[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 43(4): 889-901.
    [33] 谢小平,李姝臻,鲁宁,等. 2021. 川北广元须家河组一段沉积相与沉积环境演化分析[J]. 沉积学报,39(2):493-505.

    Xie Xiaoping, Li Shuzhen, Lu Ning, et al. 2021. Sedimentary facies and sedimentary environment evolution of First member of the Xujiahe Formation in Guangyuan area, northern Sichuan province[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 39(2): 493-505.
    [34] 熊小辉,肖加飞. 2011. 沉积环境的地球化学示踪[J]. 地球与环境,39(3):405-414.

    Xiong Xiaohui, Xiao Jiafei. 2011. Geochemical indicators of sedimentary environments: A summary[J]. Earth and Environment, 39(3): 405-414.
    [35] 徐兆辉,胡素云,汪泽成,等. 2011. 古气候恢复及其对沉积的控制作用:以四川盆地上三叠统须家河组为例[J]. 沉积学报,29(2):235-244.

    Xu Zhaohui, Hu Suyun, Wang Zecheng, et al. 2011. Restoration of paleoclimate and its geological significance: As an example from Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation in Sichuan Basin[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 29(2): 235-244.
    [36] 徐兆辉,汪泽成,胡素云,等. 2010. 四川盆地上三叠统须家河组沉积时期古气候[J]. 古地理学报,12(4):415-424.

    Xu Zhaohui, Wang Zecheng, Hu Suyun, et al. 2010. Paleoclimate during depositional period of the Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation in Sichuan Basin[J]. Journal of Palaeogeography, 12(4): 415-424.
    [37] 徐珍. 2023. 晚二叠世—中三叠世植物演化及其环境效应[D]. 武汉:中国地质大学:17-140.

    Xu Zhen. 2023. End Permian to Middle Triassic plant evolution pattern and the environmental impact[D]. Wuhan: China University of Geosciences: 17-140.
    [38] 阳伟. 2019. 盐源地区晚三叠世含煤地层沉积、层序及聚煤规律研究[D]. 成都:成都理工大学:14-112.

    Yang Wei. 2019. The researches on sedimentary, sequence and coal-accumulating patterns of coal-bearing strata of the Late Triassic in Yanyuan area[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology: 14-112.
    [39] 张峰. 2011. 川东北地区上三叠统须家河组层序岩相古地理研究[D]. 成都:成都理工大学:11-132.

    Zhang Feng. 2011. Study on sequence-lithofacies paleogeography of the Xujiahe Formation of Upper Triassic in northeast of Sichuan Basin[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology: 11-132.
    [40] 张泓,何宗莲,沈光隆. 1997. 成煤古气候研究进展:替代参数、方法与问题[J]. 煤田地质与勘探,25(6):1-5.

    Zhang Hong, He Zonglian, Shen Guanglong. 1997. Advances in studies of coal-forming palaeoclimate: Substitute parameters, methods and problems[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration, 25(6): 1-5.
    [41] 张建勇,刘文汇,腾格尔,等. 2010. 建南气田长兴组—飞仙关组天然气特征及气源分析[J]. 天然气地球科学, 21(6): 1004-1013.

    Zhang Jianyong, Liu Wenhui, Teng Ge’er, et al. 2010. Characteristics of natural gas in P2 ch—T1 f layers in Jiannan gas field and gas source correlation[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 21(6): 1004-1013.
    [42] 赵增义,赵建华,王海静,等. 2007. 准噶尔盆地微量元素的分布特征及其应用[J]. 天然气勘探与开发,30(2):30-32, 40.

    Zhao Zengyi, Zhao Jianhua, Wang Haijing, et al. 2007. Distribution characteristics and applications of trace elements in Junggar Basin[J]. Natural Gas Exploration and Development, 30(2): 30-32, 40.
    [43] 赵宗举,周慧,陈轩,等. 2012. 四川盆地及邻区二叠纪层序岩相古地理及有利勘探区带[J]. 石油学报, 33(增刊2):35-51.

    Zhao Zongju, Zhou Hui, Chen Xuan, et al. 2012. Sequence lithofacies paleogeography and favorable exploration zones of the Permian in Sichuan Basin and adjacent areas, China[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 33(Suppl.2): 35-51.
    [44] 朱如凯,赵霞,刘柳红,等. 2009. 四川盆地须家河组沉积体系与有利储集层分布[J]. 石油勘探与开发,36(1):46-55.

    Zhu Rukai, Zhao Xia, Liu Liuhong, et al. 2009. Depositional system and favorable reservoir distribution of Xujiahe Formation in Sichuan Basin[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 36(1): 46-55.
    [45] 朱筱敏. 2008. 沉积岩石学[M]. 4版. 北京:石油工业出版社:1-484.

    Zhu Xiaomin. 2008. Sedimentary petrology[M]. 4th ed. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press: 1-484.
    [46] 邹光富,夏彤,楼雄英. 2003. 四川广元地区上三叠统小塘子组、须家河组层序地层研究[J]. 沉积与特提斯地质,23(3):73-80.

    Zou Guangfu, Xia Tong, Lou Xiongying. 2003. Sequence stratigraphy of the Late Triassic strata in the Guangyuan region, Sichuan[J]. Sedimentary Geology and Tethyan Geology, 23(3): 73-80.
    [47] Asiedu D K, Agoe M, Amponsah P O, et al. 2019. Geochemical constraints on provenance and source area weathering of metasedimentary rocks from the Paleoproterozoic (~ 2.1 Ga) Wa-Lawra Belt, southeastern margin of the West African Craton[J]. Geodinamica Acta, 31(1): 27-39.
    [48] Bai Y Y, Liu Z J, Sun P C, et al. 2015. Rare earth and major element geochemistry of Eocene fine-grained sediments in oil shale-and coal-bearing layers of the Meihe Basin, Northeast China[J]. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 97: 89-101.
    [49] Bao X J, Hu Y Y, Scotese C R, et al. 2023. Quantifying climate conditions for the formation of coals and evaporites[J]. National Science Review, 10(6): nwad051.
    [50] Bohacs K, Suter J. 1997. Sequence stratigraphic distribution of coaly rocks: Fundamental controls and paralic examples[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 81(10): 1612-1639.
    [51] Cao J, Wu M, Chen Y, et al. 2012. Trace and rare earth element geochemistry of Jurassic mudstones in the northern Qaidam Basin, Northwest China[J]. Geochemistry, 72(3): 245-252.
    [52] Cesar J, Grice K. 2019. Molecular fingerprint from plant biomarkers in Triassic-Jurassic petroleum source rocks from the Dampier sub-Basin, Northwest Shelf of Australia[J]. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 110: 189-197.
    [53] Colombi C E, Parrish J T. 2008. Late Triassic environmental evolution in southwestern Pangea: Plant taphonomy of the Ischigualasto Formation[J]. Palaios, 23(12): 778-795.
    [54] Dai X D, Du Y S, Ziegler M, et al. 2022. Middle Triassic to Late Jurassic climate change on the northern margin of the South China Plate: Insights from chemical weathering indices and clay mineralogy[J]. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 585: 110744.
    [55] Dal Corso J, Song H J, Callegaro S, et al. 2022. Environmental crises at the Permian–Triassic mass extinction[J]. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 3(3): 197-214.
    [56] Diessel C, Boyd R, Wadsworth J, et al. 2000. On balanced and un-balanced accommodation/peat accumulation ratios in the Cretaceous coals from Gates Formation, western Canada, and their sequence-stratigraphic significance[J]. International Journal of Coal Geology, 43(1/2/3/4): 143-186.
    [57] Erwin D H. 1993. The great Paleozoic crisis: Life and death in the Permian[M]. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [58] Fedo C M, Wayne H, Young G M. 1995. Unraveling the effects of potassium metasomatism in sedimentary rocks and paleosols, with implications for paleoweathering conditions and provenance[J]. Geo-logy, 23(10): 921-924.
    [59] Fu X G, Jian W, Chen W B, et al. 2015. Organic accumulation in lacustrine rift basin: Constraints from mineralogical and multiple geochemical proxies[J]. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 104(2): 495-511.
    [60] Gao S, Luo T C, Zhang B R, et al. 1998. Chemical composition of the continental crust as revealed by studies in East China[J]. Geo-chimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 62(11): 1959-1975.
    [61] Glaister R P, Nelson H W. 1974. Grain-size distributions, an aid in facies identification[J]. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, 22(3): 203-240.
    [62] Harnois L. 1988. The CIW index: A new chemical index of weathering[J]. Sedimentary Geology, 55(3/4): 319-322.
    [63] Hilton J, Cleal C J. 2007. The relationship between Euramerican and Cathaysian tropical floras in the Late Palaeozoic: Palaeobiogeographical and palaeogeographical implications[J]. Earth-Science Reviews, 85(3/4): 85-116.
    [64] Jin Y G, Wang Y, Wang W, et al. 2000. Pattern of marine mass extinction near the Permian-Triassic boundary in South China[J]. Science, 289(5478): 432-436.
    [65] Lai J, Wang G W, Fan Z Y, et al. 2017. Sedimentary characterization of a braided delta using well logs: The Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation in central Sichuan Basin, China[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 154: 172-193.
    [66] Lerman A, Imboden D M, Gat J R, et al. 1995. Physics and chemistry of lakes[M]. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
    [67] Li L Q, Wang Y D, Kürschner W M, et al. 2020.Palaeovegetation and palaeoclimate changes across the Triassic–Jurassic transition in the Sichuan Basin, China[J]. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 556: 109891.
    [68] Li L Q, Wang Y D, Liu Z S, et al. 2016. Late Triassic palaeoclimate and palaeoecosystem variations inferred by palynological record in the northeastern Sichuan Basin, China[J]. PalZ, 90(2): 327-348.
    [69] Li M S, Zhang Y, Huang C J, et al. 2017. Astronomical tuning and magnetostratigraphy of the Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation of South China and Newark Supergroup of North America: Implications for the Late Triassic time scale[J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 475: 207-223.
    [70] Long X P, Sun M, Yuan C, et al. 2008. Early Paleozoic sedimentary record of the Chinese Altai: Implications for its tectonic evolution[J]. Sedimentary Geology, 208(3/4): 88-100.
    [71] Luo L, Qi J F, Zhang M Z, et al. 2014. Detrital zircon U-Pb ages of Late Triassic-Late Jurassic deposits in the western and northern Sichuan Basin margin: Constraints on the foreland basin provenance and tectonic implications[J]. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 103(6): 1553-1568.
    [72] Lupker M, France-Lanord C, Galy V, et al. 2013. Increasing chemical weathering in the Himalayan system since the Last Glacial Maximum[J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 365: 243-252.
    [73] Mao J, Xu H. 1999. China's coal resource distribution and perspective prediction[J]. Meitiandizhi yu Kantan, 27(3): 1-4.
    [74] McLennan S M. 1993. Weathering and global denudation[J]. The Journal of Geology, 101(2): 295-303.
    [75] Mutti M, Weissert H. 1995. Triassic monsoonal climate and its signature in Ladinian-Carnian carbonate platforms (southern Alps, Italy)[J]. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 65(3b): 357-367.
    [76] Nesbitt H W, Young G M. 1982. Early Proterozoic climates and plate motions inferred from major element chemistry of lutites[J]. Nature, 299(5885): 715-717.
    [77] Panahi A, Young G M, Rainbird R H. 2000. Behavior of major and trace elements (including REE) during Paleoproterozoic pedogenesis and diagenetic alteration of an Archean granite near Ville Marie, Québec, Canada[J]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 64(13): 2199-2220.
    [78] Pang H L, Pan B T, Garzanti E, et al. 2018. Mineralogy and geochemistry of modern Yellow River sediments: Implications for weathering and provenance[J]. Chemical Geology, 488: 76-86.
    [79] Payne J L, Lehrmann D J, Wei J Y, et al. 2004. Large perturbations of the carbon cycle during recovery from the end-Permian extinction[J]. Science, 305(5683): 506-509.
    [80] Preto N, Kustatscher E, Wignall P B. 2010. Triassic climates—State of the art and perspectives[J]. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 290(1/2/3/4): 1-10.
    [81] Prochnow S J, Nordt L C, Atchley S C, et al. 2006. Multi-proxy paleosol evidence for Middle and Late Triassic climate trends in eastern Utah[J]. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 232(1): 53-72.
    [82] Retallack G J. 1995. Permian–Triassic life crisis on land[J]. Science, 267(5194): 77-80.
    [83] Retallack G J, Veevers J J, Morante R. 1996. Global coal gap between Permian–Triassic extinction and Middle Triassic recovery of peat-forming plants[J]. GSA Bulletin, 108(2): 195-207.
    [84] Scotese C R. 2014. Atlas of Permo-Triassic paleogeographic maps (mollweide projection), maps 43-52, volumes 3 & 4 of the paleomap atlas for ArcGIS[M]. Evanston: Paleomap Project.
    [85] Shao L Y, Wang X T, Wang D D, et al. 2020. Sequence stratigraphy, paleogeography, and coal accumulation regularity of major coal-accumulating periods in China[J]. International Journal of Coal Science & Technology, 7(2): 240-262.
    [86] Shao T B, Cheng N F, Song M S. 2016. Provenance and tectonic-paleogeographic evolution: Constraints from detrital zircon U-Pb ages of Late Triassic-Early Jurassic deposits in the northern Sichuan Basin, central China[J]. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 127: 12-31.
    [87] Sun S, Chen A Q, Chen H D, et al. 2022. Early Permian chemical weathering indices and paleoclimate transition linked to the end of the coal-forming episode, Ordos Basin, North China Craton[J]. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 585: 110743.
    [88] Sun Y D, Joachimski M M, Wignall P B, et al. 2012. Lethally hot temperatures during the Early Triassic greenhouse[J]. Science, 338(6105): 366-370.
    [89] Taheri A, Jafarzadeh M, Armstrong-Altrin J S, et al. 2018. Geochemistry of siliciclastic rocks from the Shemshak Group (Upper Triassic–Middle Jurassic), northeastern Alborz, northern Iran: Implications for palaeoweathering, provenance, and tectonic setting[J]. Geological Quarterly, 62(3): 522-535.
    [90] Tanner L H. 2018. Climates of the Late Triassic: Perspectives, proxies and problems[M]//Tanner L H. The Late Triassic world: Earth in a time of transition. Cham: Springer: 59-90.
    [91] Therrien F, Fastovsky D E. 2000. Paleoenvironments of early theropods, Chinle Formation (Late Triassic), petrified forest national park, Arizona[J]. Palaios, 15(3): 194-211.
    [92] Tian N, Wang Y D, Philippe M, et al. 2016. New record of fossil wood Xenoxylon from the Late Triassic in the Sichuan Basin, southern China and its paleoclimatic implications[J]. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 464: 65-75.
    [93] Veevers J J, Conaghan P J, Shaw S E. 1994. Turning point in Pangean environmental history at the Permian/Triassic (P/Tr) boundary[J].
    [94] Wang L J, Lv D W, Hower J C, et al. 2022. Geochemical characteristics and paleoclimate implication of Middle Jurassic coal in the Ordos Basin, China[J]. Ore Geology Reviews, 144: 104848.
    [95] Xu Z, Hilton J, Yu J X, et al. 2022. End Permian to Middle Triassic plant species richness and abundance patterns in South China: Coevolution of plants and the environment through the Permian–Triassic transition[J]. Earth-Science Reviews, 232: 104136.
    [96] Yu J X, Broutin J, Huang Q S, et al. 2010. Annalepis, a pioneering lycopsid genus in the recovery of the Triassic land flora in South China[J]. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 9(8): 479-486.
    [97] Yu J X. 2008. Flores et dynamique évolutive au passage de la limite Permien - Trias dans la zone de contact entre le Guizhou et le Yunnan, Chine du Sud[D]. Wuhan: China University of Geosciences.
    [98] Zhao J, Dong Y, Huang B. 2020. Paleomagnetic constraints of the Lower Triassic strata in South Qinling Belt: Evidence for a discrete terrane between the North and South China Blocks[J]. Tectonics, 39(3): e2019TC005698.
  • [1] 宋金民, 刘树根, 郭嘉欣, 罗冰, 李智武, 张本健, 金鑫, 陈骁, 叶玥豪, 王佳蕊, 张玺华, 杨迪, 陈延贵, 李柯然, 王斌, 罗平.  四川盆地中二叠统茅口组一段凉水沉积特征与沉积模式 . 沉积学报, 2025, 43(5): 1728-1742. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2025.014
    [2] 刘卓洋, 芦刚, 唐若宸, 王长城, 邓宾, 刘重江, 杨荣军, 金鑫.  川西地区上三叠统须家河组凝灰岩测年对同期岩浆活动的约束 . 沉积学报, 2025, (): -. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2025.031
    [3] 林良彪, 余瑜, 朱宏权, 翟常博, 王威, 杨映涛, 刘君龙, 黄彦庆, 曾韬, 刘明, 邱玉超, 金值民.  致密砂岩孔隙形成机制与差异成岩演化——以四川盆地上三叠统须家河组为例 . 沉积学报, 2025, 43(5): 1697-1715. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2025.034
    [4] 古恒, 王剑, 韦恒叶, 付修根.  四川盆地城口地区下寒武统水井沱组有机质富集控制因素 . 沉积学报, 2024, 42(3): 1073-1091. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2022.091
    [5] 周敏, 李祥辉, 王旌羽.  四川盆地东北部中—晚侏罗世沉积环境与古气候 . 沉积学报, 2024, 42(3): 1003-1015. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2022.079
    [6] 陈俞超, 金鑫, 杜怡星, 张云望, 李滨兵, 时志强.  四川盆地须家河组诺利—瑞替期之交气候变迁及其驱动机制 . 沉积学报, 2024, 42(4): 1212-1228. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2022.147
    [7] 余瑜, 林良彪, 李真, 孟万斌, 童馗, 梁庆韶.  致密砂岩碳酸盐矿物SEM⁃CL和EPMA矿物学表征及其成岩意义 . 沉积学报, 2023, 41(5): 1468-1477. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2022.112
    [8] 苏加亮, 林良彪, 余瑜, 王志康, 李晔寒.  川西新场地区上三叠统须家河组二、四段物源及储层特征差异对比研究 . 沉积学报, 2023, 41(5): 1451-1467. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2022.142
    [9] 杨帅, 陈安清, 张玺华, 李乾, 徐胜林, 陈聪, 孙诗, 李富祥, 罗倩, 文龙, 陈洪德.  四川盆地二叠纪栖霞—茅口期古地理格局转换及勘探启示 . 沉积学报, 2021, 39(6): 1466-1477. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2021.072
    [10] 孙海涛, 钟大康, 王威, 王爱, 杨烁, 杜红权, 唐自成, 周志恒.  四川盆地马路背地区上三叠统须家河组致密砂岩储层成因分析 . 沉积学报, 2021, 39(5): 1057-1067. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2020.121
    [11] 杜怡星, 时志强.  川西北地区上三叠统卡尼阶古喀斯特的发现及研究意义 . 沉积学报, 2017, 35(3): 460-469. doi: 10.14027/j.cnki.cjxb.2017.03.004
    [12] 谭梦琪, 刘自亮, 沈芳, 谢润成, 刘成川, 邓昆, 徐浩.  四川盆地回龙地区下侏罗统自流井组大安寨段混积岩特征及模式 . 沉积学报, 2016, 34(3): 571-581. doi: 10.14027/j.cnki.cjxb.2016.03.015
    [13] 钟原, 刘宏, 谭秀成, 连承波, 廖纪佳, 刘明洁, 胡广, 曹剑.  富砂地层格架高分辨率层序地层学研究及储层甜点预测——以四川盆地合川地区须家河组为例 . 沉积学报, 2016, 34(4): 758-774. doi: 10.14027/j.cnki.cjxb.2016.04.016
    [14]  四川盆地蜀南地区上三叠统须家河组低孔低渗储层特征及形成机理 . 沉积学报, 2013, 31(1): 167-175.
    [15] 徐兆辉.  古气候恢复及其对沉积的控制作用——以四川盆地上三叠统须家河组为例 . 沉积学报, 2011, 29(2): 235-244.
    [16] 施振生.  川中—川南地区上三叠统沉积相研究 . 沉积学报, 2008, 26(2): 211-220.
    [17] 孙治雷.  四川盆地须家河组砂岩储层中自生绿泥石的来源与成岩演化 . 沉积学报, 2008, 26(3): 459-468.
    [18] 夏青松.  鄂尔多斯盆地南部上三叠统延长组震积岩的发现及地质意义 . 沉积学报, 2007, 25(2): 246-252.
    [19] 王一刚.  四川盆地三叠系飞仙关组气藏储层成岩作用研究拾零 . 沉积学报, 2007, 25(6): 831-839.
    [20] 黄继祥, 曾伟, 张高信, 冉宏.  四川盆地川东地区三叠系嘉陵江组第二段滩微相的发育分布及对气藏形成的控制 . 沉积学报, 1995, 13(S1): 109-117.
  • 附表1 手持XRF分析测试数据.xlsx
  • 加载中
图(9) / 表 (4)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  792
  • HTML全文浏览量:  62
  • PDF下载量:  112
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2024-01-29
  • 修回日期:  2024-05-07
  • 录用日期:  2024-07-11
  • 网络出版日期:  2024-07-11
  • 刊出日期:  2026-04-10

目录

    川西北地区上三叠统须家河组初始成煤期古气候重建与成煤机制

    doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2024.064
      基金项目:

      成都理工大学珠峰科学研究计划 2020ZF11414

      作者简介:

      王琴,女,1999年出生,硕士研究生,沉积学,E-mail: wq981205@163.com

      通讯作者: 金鑫,男,教授,E-mail: jinxin2012cdut@163.com
    • 中图分类号: P618.11

    摘要: 目的 早、中三叠世时期存在很长一段时间的煤沉积空缺,四川盆地煤沉积在上三叠统须家河组沉积早期(须一段)重新出现,目前对须一段初始成煤期的古气候与成煤机制还缺乏清晰的认识。 方法 基于野外露头观察、岩石学镜下分析以及主微量元素分析,对川西北地区须家河组一段含煤地层(工农镇剖面和王家梁剖面)的古气候与成煤机制开展研究。 结果 工农镇剖面须家河组一段的沉积相以三角洲前缘亚相为主,而王家梁剖面须家河组一段的沉积相以三角洲平原亚相为主。此外,须一段初始成煤期的古气候指标(Sr/Cu和C值)和风化指标(CIAcorr和Rb/Sr)呈现同步变化。 结论 川西北地区须家河组一段初始成煤期的古气候特征表现为炎热潮湿与温暖半干旱—半潮湿交替出现。煤层在潮湿气候条件下形成,而这种湿润的古气候可能与超级季风活动有关。进一步研究发现,煤的沉积还需要适宜的保存环境,如在高位体系域的沼泽中,煤层可以良好发育和保存。

    English Abstract

    王琴, 金鑫, 陈俞超, 张云望, 邹灏, 李滨兵, 杜怡星, 芦刚, 时志强. 川西北地区上三叠统须家河组初始成煤期古气候重建与成煤机制[J]. 沉积学报, 2026, 44(2): 522-541. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2024.064
    引用本文: 王琴, 金鑫, 陈俞超, 张云望, 邹灏, 李滨兵, 杜怡星, 芦刚, 时志强. 川西北地区上三叠统须家河组初始成煤期古气候重建与成煤机制[J]. 沉积学报, 2026, 44(2): 522-541. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2024.064
    WANG Qin, JIN Xin, CHEN YuChao, ZHANG YunWang, ZOU Hao, LI BinBing, DU YiXing, LU Gang, SHI ZhiQiang. Coal-Forming Paleoclimate and Mechanism During the Initial Coal-Forming Period of the Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation, Northwestern Sichuan Basin[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2026, 44(2): 522-541. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2024.064
    Citation: WANG Qin, JIN Xin, CHEN YuChao, ZHANG YunWang, ZOU Hao, LI BinBing, DU YiXing, LU Gang, SHI ZhiQiang. Coal-Forming Paleoclimate and Mechanism During the Initial Coal-Forming Period of the Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation, Northwestern Sichuan Basin[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2026, 44(2): 522-541. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2024.064
      • 二叠纪—三叠纪之交(Permian-Triassic Boundary)的生物大灭绝事件是地质历史时期最严重的生物危机,其导致了全球范围内大规模的动、植物消失(Erwin,1993Jin et al.,2000)。研究表明,曾在二叠纪广泛分布的厚层煤在大灭绝事件之后的早三叠世突然消失,造成了三叠纪内很长一段时间的煤炭空缺,Veevers et al.(1994)将这段时期称为“煤隙(coal gap)”。到了中三叠世时期,全球仅有少部分地区存在薄层的煤线(Retallack et al.,1996),直至晚三叠世煤层才重新开始大规模发育,并逐渐恢复到与二叠纪相当水平(Retallack,1995Retallack et al.,1996)。

        早—中三叠世近7 Ma的陆地“煤隙”反映了早三叠世陆地植物埋藏环境消失,“煤隙”形成的原因,目前存在多种推测。如与中—低纬度森林生态系统消失,陆地植被生产力降低有关(Retallack,1995Yu,2008Yu et al.,2010),或与早三叠世异常动荡的气候环境抑制了成煤植物生长发育有关(Payne et al.,2004Preto et al.,2010)。此外,有学者提出在二叠纪—三叠纪界线附近季节性干旱气候增强,诱发广泛的野火事件,低地沼泽类型成煤植物如大羽羊齿、鳞木等植被消失,致使煤沉积的空缺(Dal Corso et al.,2022Xu et al.,2022)。

        四川盆地位于上扬子板块的西北部,沉积地层完整、构造演化清晰,是中国重要的含煤盆地之一(Mao and Xu,1999徐兆辉等,2010)。在二叠系龙潭组与吴家坪组沉积时期,华夏植物群分布十分广泛,煤层在川中—川南地区大面积分布(张建勇等,2010赵宗举等,2012),到长兴期开始衰退。P-T事件之后,低地成煤的孢子植物全部消失,下三叠统飞仙关组沉积时期,植物种属才开始增加,但地层中植物化石稀少,且缺乏煤层发育的相关记录,指示陆地植被仍未完全复苏(徐珍,2023)。来自碳酸盐岩碳氧同位素、石盐岩中的原生包裹体、牙形石氧同位素以及碳酸盐岩的δ13C等数据(Sun et al.,2012汪明泉,2016丁婷,2017李宸等,2023),表明四川盆地在早、中三叠世时期,古气候炎热、沉积环境动荡,不适宜煤层的发育和保存。直到上三叠统须家河组一段沉积时期,煤层才重新出现,但该时期的煤层不稳定,煤层薄且含硫高,无可采性(黄其胜,1995)。在须家河组三段沉积时期,苏铁类及蕨类开始大量发育,使得较厚的煤层出现(0.30~1.40 m),但可采煤层依旧较少。须家河组五段时期,裸子植物开始大量出现,银杏类和松柏类等植物生长繁盛,致使该时期发育的煤层厚0.50~2.50 m(黄其胜,1995李英娇等,2011),且煤质以较好的烟煤为主,具有较高的开采价值。侏罗纪时期,四川盆地沉积了厚达千米级且具频繁韵律结构的含煤地层(李朝辉,2016)。

        前人对四川盆地上三叠统须家河组沉积时期的古气候研究较多(徐兆辉等,20102011孙勇等,2023贾子策等,2024),但多数研究成果集中在须家河组沉积中—晚期,而对于须家河组一段初始成煤期的古气候与成煤机制的研究较少。此外,气候变化是影响成煤作用的重要因素(Hilton and Cleal,2007石彦强和邢立杰,2009),重建成煤期的古气候能够为聚煤作用、成煤模式及古地理重建等提供有用的信息(张泓等,1997)。本文以川西北广元地区须家河一段含煤地层为研究对象,对研究区工农镇剖面和王家梁剖面进行了系统描述与采样,利用岩石学和元素地球化学分析,恢复了川西北地区上三叠统须家河组初始成煤期的沉积环境与古气候演化序列,并进一步探讨了该时期的古气候驱动因素及其对煤形成的贡献,从而为其他地质时期的成煤作用研究提供借鉴。

      • 四川盆地在晚三叠世处于特提斯东岸(Scotese,2014),现位于我国的西南部(28°~32° N,103°~108° E),北部为米仓山隆起和大巴山褶皱带,西北方向为龙门山褶皱带,东部和南部为滇黔川鄂台褶带(图1a)(向芳等,2022陈俞超等,2024)。四川盆地是由深断裂活动形成的菱形构造沉积盆地(四川油气区石油地质志编写组,1989孟昱璋,2011)。在构造上,四川盆地是上扬子稳定台地的一级构造单元。在中、晚三叠世之交,受印支运动的影响,四川盆地地势变为东高西低,海水向西退出,自此再无海相沉积(刘宝珺等,1993林良彪,2005)。

        图  1  四川盆地构造简图、诺利期全球古地理图及采样剖面具体位置

        Figure 1.  (a) Schematic diagram of the tectonics of the Sichuan Basin (modified from Scotese, 2014); (b) global paleogeographic map of the Norian period (modified from Xiang et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2024); (c) sampling profile locations

        四川盆地上三叠统包括马鞍塘组、小塘子组和须家河组(王永栋等,2010)。须家河组的沉积时代为晚三叠世诺利期至瑞替期,主要以砂岩和泥岩互层,局部夹不等厚煤层为典型的岩性特征(张峰,2011),须家河组与下伏中三叠统与上覆下侏罗统均为不整合接触(段金宝等,2016戴贤铎,2023)。本文使用四川盆地陆相中生代地层古生物编写组(1982)的地层划分方案,自下而上将须家河组分为须一段至须六段。其中,须一段以薄层砂泥互层为主,须二段以厚层河道砂岩为主,须三段以泥页岩为主,须四段以砾岩、含砾砂岩为主,须五段为砂泥不等厚互层,须六段以粗粒砂岩为主,须家河组整体呈现泥岩与砂岩间互的“三明治”式结构(姜在兴等,2007徐兆辉等,2010)。须家河组除须一段发育海陆过渡相沉积外,其余均为陆相沉积,沉积相主要为陆相冲积扇、河流、扇三角洲、辫状河三角洲及湖泊等(邹光富等,2003高彩霞等,2009朱如凯等,2009)。前人根据岩石学分析,认为研究区须一段为三角洲相沉积(高彩霞等,2009朱如凯等,2009程立雪,2011Lai et al.,2017谢小平等,2021)。

      • 本次研究采样剖面有2条(工农镇剖面和王家梁剖面)。工农镇剖面位于广元市利州区嘉陵江的东侧,在工农小学旁边的公路一侧(图1b);王家梁剖面位于嘉陵江西侧郑家沟村的西北方向5.70 km处(图1b,c)。

      • 王家梁剖面A段(WJLA)底部为巨厚层青灰色的中细砂岩,厚度大于20 m(图2a),该套地层并未实际测量,仅野外观察研究。0~2.80 m为粉砂岩,在1.60 m处为中细砂岩,局部见植物化石,见板状交错层理(图2b)。2.80~9.40 m为粉砂质泥岩夹泥质粉砂岩和泥岩,其中2.80~5.90 m发育槽状交错层理。9.40~15.10 m为灰色泥岩夹薄层粉砂岩,局部见菱铁矿。15.10~16.40 m为泥质粉砂岩夹泥岩,局部见菱铁矿结核,发育小型槽状交错层理与板状交错层理(图2c)。16.40~18.60 m为粉砂岩。18.60~20.45 m为泥岩夹粉砂质泥岩和煤。20.45~25.95 m被覆盖。25.95~26.20 m为黄色泥岩。26.20~26.80 m为煤。WJLA段之上植被覆盖严重,地层缺失约40 m(图2d)。

        图  2  王家梁剖面须一段露头特征

        Figure 2.  Outcrop photographs of the First member of the Xujiahe Formation in the Wangjialiang section

        王家梁剖面B段(WJLB)开始于距WJLA段顶部约40 m处,WJLB段0~2.20 m为泥岩夹砂岩沉积,其中0.40~0.60 m为泥岩夹薄层煤线(图2e),在1.10 m处见白色细粉砂岩夹煤线,泥质成分含量高。2.20~10.80 m为薄层粉砂岩夹少量泥质粉砂岩和粉砂质泥岩,其中2.30~2.50 m发育板状交错层理,在8.30 m处见大量植物化石。10.80~15.40 m为粉砂质泥岩夹泥岩和粉砂岩,在10.80~11.20 m处发育槽状交错层理,11.20~13.20 m为土黄色细砂岩夹薄层粉砂泥质岩,13.20~15.20 m以薄层的土黄色粉砂质泥岩为主,局部可见透镜状的菱铁矿。15.20~15.40 m为土黄色泥岩,顶部15.40 ~16.20 m为深灰色泥岩与煤层混杂。

        王家梁剖面C段(WJLC)开始于距WJLB段顶部约70 m处。剖面0~0.40 m为深灰色泥岩,见大量植物化石,0.40~0.95 m为土黄色泥岩。0.95~1.85 m为浅灰色泥岩,在1.05 m处见薄层煤线,厚度约1 cm。在1.85~4.45 m处见深黑色泥岩夹大量煤线,其中1.85~2.05 m处有植物化石。4~4.26 m为薄层煤沉积。4.45~8.70 m为浅灰色泥岩夹浅黄色泥岩,局部见菱铁矿(图2f),菱铁矿结核内部见溶蚀孔,溶蚀孔充填大量泥砾(图2g)。8.70~10.50 m为粉砂岩。10.50~12.90 m主要发育煤沉积(图2h),夹土黄色泥岩与薄层氧化色黏土层。13.40~13.70 m处为土黄色泥岩,局部见透镜状砂体。13.70~14.90 m为深灰色泥岩夹煤层,其中14.20~14.90 m为煤层沉积,厚达0.70 m。剖面顶部见厚层砂岩(未测量),按照四川盆地陆相中生代地层古生物编写组(1982)对须家河组的描述,该岩性为须家河组二段的典型岩性特征(图3a)。

        图  3  须一段岩性柱状图及采样点位

        Figure 3.  Lithology columns and sampling positions of the First member of the Xujiahe Formation

        王家梁剖面的A、B、C三段沿路分布,整体露头较为连续。根据地势走向,三段地层上下接触关系清晰(图1c)。因此,将王家梁剖面A、B、C段合并一起研究(图3a)。

      • 工农镇剖面主要由砂岩、泥质粉砂岩和粉砂质泥岩组成,自下至上依次出露须家河组一段至四段(孟昱璋,2011),剖面底部地层不整合于雷口坡组之上(图4a)。Li et al.(2017)对该剖面须家河组进行了磁性地层学和旋回地层学研究,将诺利—瑞替阶地层界线厘定在须二段下部(剖面约135 m处)。据此,推测剖面须一段的沉积时代应为诺利期。本文只实测了须一段0~44.20 m段地层,剖面自下至上描述如下。

        图  4  工农镇剖面须一段露头特征

        Figure 4.  Outcrop photographs of the First member of the Xujiahe Formation in the Gongnongzhen section

        底部0~3.80 m为灰白色与土黄色杂色泥岩夹厚层菱铁矿,其中0~0.80 m为风化壳,见岩溶角砾(图4b)。3.80~8.80 m被植物覆盖。8.80~10.30 m为粉砂质泥岩。10.30~15.00 m为粉砂质泥岩与泥质粉砂岩互层,夹两套薄层砂岩。15.00~22.30 m发育粉砂岩,局部夹薄层土黄色泥岩、泥质粉砂岩与粉砂泥质岩。22.30~26.00 m为粉砂质泥岩、泥质粉砂岩以及砂岩互层(图4c)。26.00~29.10 m为粉砂岩夹极薄层泥质粉砂岩,发育中小型的楔状交错层理。29.10~33.80 m发育砂岩。38.80~43.80 m为泥岩,中间夹薄层砂岩(图4d)。42.00~43.90 m为杂色泥岩夹薄层砂岩。43.90~44.40 m为深灰色和土黄色泥岩。之上为厚度达几十米的土黄色泥岩,未测量(图4e)。

        工农镇剖面与王家梁剖面(A、B、C段)仅相距5.70 km,属于同一研究区。王家梁剖面A段底部为厚度大于20 m的砂岩和剖面2.80 m之上出现的粉砂质泥岩和泥岩,该岩性组合可以与工农镇剖面0~38.80 m处的砂岩和上覆大套泥岩对比,两者应为等时异相沉积。综上所述,将工农镇剖面0~38.80 m置于王家梁剖面A段2.80 m之下形成综合剖面(图5),以此分析四川盆地上三叠统须一段初始成煤期的古气候。

        图  5  须一段化学风化指标和古气候指标垂向变化

        Figure 5.  Chemical weathering and paleoclimatic proxies vertical changes in the First member of the Xujiahe Formation, northwestern Sichuan Basin

      • 对工农镇剖面和王家梁剖面的泥岩和砂岩进行采样,其中6件砂岩样品用于镜下观察和粒度分析,对28件泥岩样品进行ICP-OES主量元素测试和ICP-MS微量元素测试,对92件细粒碎屑岩进行手持XRF分析。

      • 岩石薄片的镜下观察、拍照在成都理工大学沉积地质研究院完成,显微镜型号为BM2100 POL;粒度分析在油气藏地质及开发工程全国重点实验室完成,显微镜型号为尼康LV100/DS-FI1-U2。

      • 样品制备在成都理工大学完成。将样品用锉刀处理,去除表面灰尘和风化部分,再用去离子水冲洗,洗后将样品放入60 ℃烤箱中烘干,最后用钨钢材质碎样机磨至粒径200目以下。

        28件样品的主微量元素采用电感耦合等离子体发射光谱仪(Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry,ICP-OES;仪器型号为美国PE 8300V)和电感耦合等离子质谱(Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry,ICP-MS;仪器型号为美国Aglient Technologies 7700 Series)测试分析,详细的实验方法参考国家标准GB/T 3286(1~9)—2014。具体步骤如下:首先称取0.1 g试样,放入50 mL聚四氟乙烯烧杯中,用少量水使样品湿润,再加入10 mL硝酸,10 mL氢氟酸,2 mL高氯酸,于电热板上加热10 min后关闭电源,放置隔夜后,加热直至高氯酸烟冒尽,趁热加入8 mL王水,再次加热至溶液体积只剩2~3 mL,用去离子水冲洗杯壁,微热5~10 min至溶液清亮,冷却后将溶液转入10 mL的聚乙烯试管中,用去离子水稀释,摇匀,静置澄清后移取清液1 mL于聚乙烯试管中,用硝酸(3+97)稀释至10 mL,摇匀,待测。最后将处理好的试样放入仪器中进行测试。实验误差都在限定值内,主量元素误差不超过3%,微量元素误差不超过5%。以上分析均在成都谱谱检测技术有限公司完成。

      • 手持XRF(奥林巴斯Vanta Cseries手持式X射线荧光分析仪)进行测试的操作如下:首先打开电源开关,再打开软件程序,保证样品表面干燥、洁净和光滑,将仪器对准检测样品的新鲜面,按下测量键,等待55秒直至显示测试结果。总共测试92件样品,其中有效点为87个。

      • WJLA段砂岩粒度偏细,泥岩所占比例较高,镜下特征显示岩石主体泥质含量较高,碎屑颗粒磨圆及分选较差(图6a)。WJLB段镜下岩石结构为棱角—次棱角状,磨圆度较差(图6b)。WJLC段镜下岩石颗粒磨圆度和分选性都相对较好,以次圆状为主。碎屑颗粒可见石英及岩屑,泥质含量相对较少(图6c)。

        图  6  王家梁剖面须一段砂岩镜下照片

        Figure 6.  Photomicrographs of sandstone from the First member of the Xujiahe Formation, Wangjialiang section

        对王家梁剖面6件砂岩样品进行粒度分析,累积概率曲线结果如图7所示,主要为一跳一悬式和一跳一悬夹过渡式两种类型。其中WJLA-12、WJLB-7和WJLC-32的粒度累积曲线为一跳一悬式;WJLA-16、WJLA-25和WJLB-5的粒度累积曲线为一跳一悬夹过渡式(图7)。

        图  7  王家梁剖面砂岩概率累积曲线

        Figure 7.  Cumulative probability curves for sandstone in the Wangjialiang section

      • 须家河组样品主、微量元素含量见表12。工农镇剖面样品的主量元素中SiO2含量最高(平均值为65.03%);其次为Al2O3(平均值为14.26%)、K2O(平均值为3.36%)和CaO(平均值为1.94%)。王家梁剖面样品的主量元素中SiO2含量最高(平均值为60.78%);其次为Al2O3(平均值为14.62%)、CaO(平均值为3.71%)和K2O(平均值为2.95%)。工农镇剖面样品的微量元素中Ba含量最高(平均值为516.58 μg/g),其次为Rb(平均值为132.45 μg/g)、Sr(平均值为78.02 μg/g)和Cu(平均值为25.07 μg/g);王家梁剖面样品的微量元素中Ba的含量最高(平均值为495.04 μg/g),其次为Rb(平均值为134.75 μg/g)、Sr(平均值为113.18 μg/g),Cu(平均值为28.46 μg/g)。手持XRF分析测试数据见附表1

        表 1  须一段样品主量元素含量表

        Table 1.  Major element contents in bulk rocks from the First member of the Xujiahe Formation

        样品号深度/mSiO2K2ONa2OCaOMgOAl2O3TFe2O3MnOTiO2P2O5
        GNZ-0414.5089.561.370.120.280.235.270.950.040.350.02
        GNZ-0719.1073.252.170.130.450.519.457.850.070.820.05
        GNZ-1021.3563.424.260.170.841.9016.725.540.071.010.24
        GNZ-1122.6070.103.290.160.701.6013.024.980.060.800.18
        GNZ-1325.8054.015.060.200.581.8820.708.570.031.280.11
        GNZ-1731.3069.703.120.160.530.9315.014.040.040.660.07
        GNZ-2038.9554.583.920.162.072.0419.027.810.091.140.20
        GNZ-2139.3060.984.070.181.172.4116.945.630.040.960.16
        GNZ-2843.0249.673.010.1610.843.4312.174.560.070.670.17
        WJLA-013.4055.872.860.667.493.7811.475.110.070.660.14
        WJLA-046.0553.903.280.496.543.9113.735.260.080.750.15
        WJLA-067.2852.742.770.439.033.8811.284.550.070.670.15
        WJLA-089.5553.362.950.337.953.8012.345.020.100.710.15
        WJLA-1413.9453.333.810.183.953.4916.617.170.170.770.22
        WJLA-1815.7958.793.660.192.173.0617.184.800.040.880.18
        WJLA-2218.7968.002.980.160.571.5415.724.030.050.880.16
        WJLA-3026.2967.862.440.160.340.9816.783.260.010.930.05
        WJLB-033.7366.203.030.160.641.2318.422.990.021.120.25
        WJLB-045.4068.272.450.142.861.6812.333.770.090.760.15
        WJLB-067.4068.052.050.144.851.539.344.870.120.600.13
        WJLB-1011.8057.412.700.327.223.5911.224.270.080.690.15
        WJLB-1113.0066.212.410.154.392.3811.333.030.040.710.15
        WJLC-061.4063.983.130.190.811.8017.894.020.061.010.10
        WJLC-153.4562.213.010.190.681.7518.863.600.031.250.08
        WJLC-224.8564.923.490.190.251.8116.715.250.050.940.05
        WJLC-277.3057.502.800.166.652.9213.353.700.050.790.16
        WJLC-318.3257.702.920.182.022.8116.104.150.030.970.14
        WJLC-4012.3558.483.370.182.192.8917.194.500.030.980.17
        注:TFe2O3为全铁;主量元素单位为%。

        表 2  须一段样品微量元素含量表

        Table 2.  Trace element contents in bulk rocks from the First member of the Xujiahe Formation

        样品号深度/mVCrNiZnGaRbSrYZrNbBaPb
        GNZ-0414.5022.2920.0011.5614.135.3037.0135.217.37158.616.37183.158.95
        GNZ-0719.1065.7366.3646.8338.2314.2575.7464.4723.33315.3916.56308.8189.21
        GNZ-1021.35154.06129.8339.93119.1526.85157.4175.6733.14308.7622.68622.999.15
        GNZ-1122.60102.7096.6840.70133.2419.85133.3861.6529.76270.2118.07543.1812.46
        GNZ-1325.80187.04145.8355.7398.5734.89221.0987.1142.96524.9030.97576.2541.18
        GNZ-1731.3082.6151.4826.9444.3718.13108.5256.6922.42281.8815.27410.2348.27
        GNZ-2038.95133.39148.6147.4279.6130.70158.4579.5733.66403.6226.39690.7926.67
        GNZ-2139.30147.26125.9641.9084.2227.56172.6878.5827.93323.5722.25724.6413.18
        GNZ-2843.02106.94100.4732.0373.3018.36127.74163.2625.38217.6616.08589.1913.56
        WJLA-013.40107.5287.6346.23113.6917.00116.83132.8625.10221.0915.36611.6430.88
        WJLA-046.05123.4993.4946.4890.9320.29145.02121.3926.27253.6318.15609.9124.47
        WJLA-067.28110.01181.8745.0988.2416.83117.30147.6428.57231.0816.29679.1824.14
        WJLA-089.55113.77121.9345.7098.0817.68127.69138.0825.19240.1116.78535.3124.51
        WJLA-1413.94141.52100.2763.33116.6423.04167.3494.8432.44238.3817.55632.4136.47
        WJLA-1815.79141.49111.4054.04107.5824.54155.6080.7325.44282.3120.18622.0922.66
        WJLA-2218.79109.58104.0334.65120.8921.21136.6775.5225.88322.2619.56471.1941.06
        WJLA-3026.29108.5691.3314.4348.6127.03126.0077.6126.66309.6425.74376.4022.73
        WJLB-033.73132.14111.2029.4358.2127.80122.93106.1033.84432.8425.12427.4818.63
        WJLB-045.4092.6871.1347.6193.3518.86103.86102.9824.07274.3617.00368.2023.44
        WJLB-067.4072.3561.2835.9790.3914.0783.01116.1924.40237.2612.93342.7119.21
        WJLB-1011.80100.0965.3443.6485.3117.77114.43122.3223.16223.2618.14491.2122.22
        WJLB-1113.0086.9158.4235.7474.0617.01103.97109.4224.03250.8216.35378.4620.61
        WJLC-061.40141.6093.6951.50101.4028.15158.69129.30138.23281.5821.72483.5730.82
        WJLC-153.45163.4991.5550.78121.6735.27171.49130.34253.79331.0927.49445.3125.24
        WJLC-224.85144.12118.6876.9487.7229.19179.6587.23166.63285.0321.39634.1037.35
        WJLC-277.30111.6878.7330.9992.3519.41123.64136.2325.50247.5222.21398.5021.87
        WJLC-318.32139.9982.5661.92114.7023.24141.5095.4025.24319.7925.07416.4540.46
        WJLC-4012.35143.97155.2255.09113.4825.01164.59146.2828.68264.0020.31481.7821.63
        注:微量元素单位为ug/g。
      • 碎屑岩的颗粒分选性和磨圆度、颗粒的组合方式、胶结物特点以及碎屑与胶结物之间的接触关系可以反映水动力条件及搬运距离。搬运距离越远,碎屑颗粒平均直径越小,分选性增加,磨圆度也会相应变好(Glaister and Nelson,1974陈逵,2014)。此外,粒度也是岩石结构的特征之一,粒度概率累积曲线特征可以反映当时的沉积环境。一跳一悬式概率曲线由悬浮组分和跳跃组分组成,缺少滚动组分,反映了三角洲平原分流河道的特征(朱筱敏,2008木红旭,2020)。一跳一悬夹过渡式概率曲线是由跳跃组分、悬浮组分及过渡组分组成的三段式,反映一种特殊的水动力条件,即当河流注入湖初期,流速降低致使较粗的颗粒沉淀,水介质中较细的颗粒增加,导致悬浮组分的粗端斜率逐渐提高,Glaister and Nelson(1974)认为这是河口砂坝最明显的特征。

        ①附加数据存储地址:http://www.cjxb.ac.cn/cn/article/doi/10.14027/.issn.1000-0550.2024.064

        GNZ剖面整体发育大套砂岩,且内部楔状交错层理发育(图3b),前人已经明确了GNZ剖面须一段沉积相组合特征,认为其主要为三角洲前缘的河口沙坝沉积(程立雪,2011Lai et al.,2017谢小平等,2021)。WJL剖面的沉积相划分主要依据野外露头岩性观察、岩石薄片观察和粒度概率曲线分析。

        WJLA段岩石类型多样,砂岩粒度偏细,泥岩所占比例较高。泥岩颜色以深灰色为主,岩性不纯,含较多粉砂。镜下特征显示岩石主体泥质含量较高,碎屑颗粒磨圆及分选较差(图6a,b),反映较弱水动力以及较近搬运距离的沉积环境。WJLA段底部0~2.80 m见板状、槽状交错层理(图3a),为三角洲前缘河口砂坝沉积。2.80~13.72 m在局部见植物化石,发育板状、槽状交错层理,粒度曲线为一跳一悬式(图7a),为三角洲平原分流河道微相沉积。13.72~15.69 m主要为粉砂岩沉积,概率累积曲线为一跳一悬夹过渡式(图7b),为三角洲前缘水下分流河道微相沉积。15.69~19.59 m为粉砂质泥岩和泥岩沉积,粒度曲线为一跳一悬式(图7c),为三角洲平原分流河道微相沉积。19.59~26.79 m发育煤层,为沼泽微相沉积。

        WJLB段泥岩含量较少,底部发育大套砂岩,粒度较细,并且交错层理发育(图3a)。岩石结构为棱角—次棱角状,磨圆度较差(图6c,d)。WJLB段0~6.80 m以粉砂岩为主,见槽状交错层理,概率累积曲线为一跳一悬夹过渡式(图7d),为三角洲前缘水下分流河道微相沉积。6.80~13.20 m以粉砂岩和泥质粉砂岩为主,发育槽状交错层理,见大量植物化石,粒度曲线为一跳一悬式(图7e),为三角洲平原分流河道微相沉积。13.20~16.20 m为泥质粉砂岩、泥岩和煤,为沼泽微相沉积。

        WJLC段以暗色泥岩为主,出现大量植物化石、煤,局部见菱铁矿结核(图3a),为三角洲平原沼泽。薄片镜下特征显示颗粒磨圆度和分选性均相对较好,以次圆状粉晶结构为主(图6e,f)。8.70~10.50 m的粉砂岩,概率累积曲线为一跳一悬式(图7f),反映此处的沉积环境为三角洲平原分流河道。

      • 在湿润的气候条件下,喜湿型微量元素Fe、Mn、Cr、V、Ni、Co、Br和Cu等含量较高;而在干燥条件下,水分容易蒸发,喜干型微量元素Ca、Mg、K、Na、Sr、Ba、Mo、Zn、U和B等大量析出,形成各种盐类沉积而导致含量升高(吴颖等,2023)。喜干型元素Sr和喜湿型元素Cu的比值容易受到气候变化影响(熊小辉和肖加飞,2011Wang et al.,2022),因此Sr/Cu比值能够较好反映沉积时期古气候的演化特征。Lerman et al.(1995)提出Sr/Cu比值介于1.3~5.0表明气候温暖湿润,大于5.0则表明气候干燥炎热。此外,在湿润条件下,Fe、Mn、Cr、Ni、V和Co在沉积物中以胶体形式沉淀,导致气候指数C值(Climate index values)升高,而较大离子半径的碱金属(Ca、Mg、K、Na、Sr和Ba)在干旱气候下以盐类形式沉淀,导致C值降低(赵增义等,2007Cao et al.,2012)。C值与气候的对应关系为:0~0.2指示干旱气候,0.2~0.4指示半干旱气候,0.4~0.6指示半干旱—半潮湿气候,0.6~0.8指示半潮湿气候,0.8~1.0指示潮湿气候。C值的计算公式为:

        C=(Fe+Mn+Cr+Ni+V+Co)/(Ca+Mg+Sr+Ba+K+Na) (1)

        基于Sr/Cu比值和C值的共变关系,将研究区须家河组一段古气候演化过程划分为五个阶段(Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ和Ⅴ阶段)(图5)。研究区Ⅰ、Ⅲ、Ⅴ阶段Sr/Cu比值均小于5,同时C值大于0.6,两个指标共同指示潮湿气候。然而在Ⅱ阶段和Ⅳ阶段,Sr/Cu比值接近于5甚至大于5,C值均小于0.6,说明气候由潮湿转变为半干旱—半湿润(图5)。整体而言,须家河组一段沉积时期古气候仍以炎热潮湿为主(图5)。须家河一段的植物群落和植物类别、孢粉组合、松科与罗汉松科孢粉的升降变化和自然伽马曲线等数据,也表明该时期古气候为炎热湿润,与我国热带、亚热带温暖潮湿气候相对应(黄其胜,1995徐兆辉等,2011)。

      • Rb+在风化过程中的稳定性大于Sr2+,Rb+相较于Sr2+能够在风化条件中保存更长时间,因此Rb/Sr比值可以用于判断化学风化的强度(Long et al.,2008)。在温暖的强降水气候条件下,强烈的风化作用会导致Sr含量降低,因此Rb/Sr比值与化学风化强度成正比(Long et al.,2008Asiedu et al.,2019)。Rb/Sr>1指示化学风化强度较强,Rb/Sr<1指示弱至中等的化学风化强度。研究区Ⅰ阶段中ICP-MS的Rb/Sr比值为0.78~2.53(平均值为1.77),手持XRF为0.38~2.27(平均值为1.50),指示较强的风化强度;Ⅱ阶段中ICP-MS的Rb/Sr比值为0.79~1.19(平均值0.94),手持XRF为0.42~2.32(平均值为1.25),表明阶段Ⅱ为中等风化强度;阶段Ⅲ中ICP-MS的Rb/Sr比值为1.01~1.93(平均值1.55),手持XRF为0.96~2.72(平均值为1.76),表明化学风化强度再次增加;Ⅳ阶段中ICP-MS的Rb/Sr比值为0.71~1.22(平均值0.95),手持XRF为0.56~1.11(平均值为0.82),指示风化强度减弱;Ⅴ阶段中ICP-MS的Rb/Sr比值为0.91~2.05(平均值1.38),手持XRF为0.07~2.29(平均值为1.40),显示较强的风化强度。综上所述,ICP-MS和手持XRF的Rb/Sr比值呈现出较好的对应关系,且整体风化强度呈现强—中等—强—中等—强的趋势(图5)。

        化学蚀变指数(Chemical Index of Alteration,CIA)是由Nesbittand Young(1982)提出的,可以评定源区的风化强度,现已被广泛应用于古气候重建(Bai et al.,2015Fu et al.,2015Sun et al.,2022陈俞超等,2024),计算公式为:

        CIAcorr=Al2O3/(Al2O3+Na2O+K2O*+CaO*)×100 (2)

        式中:CaO*代表硅酸盐矿物中CaO的比例,CaO*的计算方法如下(摩尔):CaO=CaO-(10/3)×P2O5。若CaO≤Na2O,令CaO*=CaO;若CaO>Na2O,令CaO*=Na2O(McLennan,1993Fedo et al.,1995)。

        一般来说CIA值为50~65指示寒冷干燥的弱化学风化,65~85指示温暖湿润的中等风化,85~100指示炎热潮湿的强化学风化(Nesbittand Young,1982)。

      • 沉积岩中的地球化学成分会因为受到沉积蚀变而发生改变,从而导致化学风化指数出现偏差。通过A-CN-K三角投图中发现,研究区样品略微偏向K点(钾长石)(图8a)(Gao et al.,1998),表明样品受到K交代作用的影响,沉积物中富含K的孔隙水和黏土矿物在沉积后的成岩作用下会使样品富集K2O(Fedo et al.,1995),因此需要对CIA值进行K校正(CIAcorr)。样品使用Panahi et al.(2000)所描述的方法来进行K校正。

        K2O*=[m×Al2O3+m×(CaO*+Na2O)]/(1-m) (3)
        m=K2O/(Al2O3+CaO*+Na2O+K2O) (4)

        式中:K2O*是指发生K交代作用前沉积物中K2O的含量,m代表母岩中K2O的比例。前人研究认为晚三叠世四川盆地物源为南秦岭造山带(Luo et al.,2014Shao et al.,2016),因此母岩中各元素含量取自南秦岭上地壳岩石中各元素的平均含量(Gao et al.,1998)。校正后的CIA值(CIAcorr)见表3图5。由于化学风化指数(Chemical Index of Weathering,CIW)和斜长石蚀变指数(Plagiodase Index of Alteration,PIA)不受K2O含量和K交代的影响,因此CIW和PIA可以用于验证K校正结果的准确性(计算公式及结果见表34)。结果显示,CIAcorr与CIW和PIA均具有较好的相关性,R2分别为1和0.998 3(图8b,c),说明K校正消除了K的交代作用。

        表 3  各风化指标计算公式

        Table 3.  Calculation formulas of chemical weathering indices

        指标名称公式参考文献
        化学蚀变指数(CIA)CIA=Al2O3/(Al2O3+Na2O+K2O+CaO*)×100Nesbitt and Young,1982
        化学风化指数(CIW)CIW=Al2O3/(Al2O3+Na2O+CaO*)×100Harnois,1988
        斜长石蚀变指数(PIA)PIA=(Al2O3-K2O)/(Al2O3-K2O+Na2O+CaO*)×100Fedo et al.,1995

        表 4  研究区须一段样品风化指标值

        Table 4.  Chemical weathering indices in bulk rocks of the First member of the Xujiahe Formation

        样品号深度/m剖面CIACIAcorrCIWPIA
        GNZ-0414.50GNZ73.9083.7093.3090.90
        GNZ-0719.10GNZ77.2085.8095.6094.30
        GNZ-1021.35GNZ76.3086.7096.7095.60
        GNZ-1122.60GNZ76.1086.2096.1094.80
        GNZ-1325.80GNZ77.1087.0097.0096.00
        GNZ-1731.30GNZ79.4086.7096.7095.80
        GNZ-2038.95GNZ79.9087.2097.3096.50
        GNZ-2139.30GNZ77.2086.7096.7095.50
        GNZ-2843.02GNZ76.2085.9095.8094.40
        WJLA-013.40WJLA68.5075.4084.0079.30
        WJLA-046.05WJLA72.6080.2089.5086.30
        WJLA-067.28WJLA71.9079.8088.9085.50
        WJLA-089.55WJLA74.2082.3091.8089.30
        WJLA-1413.94WJLA77.9086.7096.6095.60
        WJLA-1815.79WJLA79.0086.6096.6095.60
        WJLA-2218.79WJLA80.7086.8096.8096.00
        WJLA-3026.29WJLA84.1087.0097.0096.40
        WJLB-033.73WJLB82.9087.2097.3096.70
        WJLB-045.40WJLB79.8086.4096.4095.40
        WJLB-067.40WJLB77.7085.5095.4094.00
        WJLB-1011.80WJLB73.7081.9091.3088.60
        WJLB-1113.00WJLB78.4085.9095.8094.60
        WJLC-061.40WJLC81.7086.7096.7095.90
        WJLC-153.45WJLC82.9086.8096.8096.10
        WJLC-224.85WJLC79.1086.4096.4095.40
        WJLC-277.30WJLC78.9086.2096.2095.10
        WJLC-318.32WJLC81.1086.5096.5095.60
        WJLC-4012.35WJLC80.2086.7096.7095.90

        图  8  (a)A⁃CN⁃K图,显示了南秦岭上地壳(SQ)的风化趋势(Gao et al.,1998);(b)K校正之后CIAcorr和CIW相关性图;(c)K校正之后CIAcorr与PIA相关性图;(d)CIAcorr与Al/Si的相关性

        Figure 8.  (a) Plots of A⁃CN⁃K; (b) correlation diagram between CIAcorr and CIW after K correction; (c) Correlation diagram between CIAcorr and PIA after K correction; (c) correlation between CIAcorr and Al/Si

        此外,矿物在沉积和分选过程中,会导致硅元素(Si)和高场强元素(U、Th、Zr、Hf)趋于富集在石英和重矿物中,而大部分主微量元素则趋于富集在细粒沉积物中(Pang et al.,2018),从而影响风化指数。因此,在相同的风化条件下,细粒沉积物的CIA值会大于粗粒沉积物的CIA值。Al元素含量可代表沉积岩中细粒沉积物的占比,Si元素含量则代表沉积岩中粗粒沉积物的占比。据此,Al/Si的元素含量比值可以作为水动力分选的指标(Lupker et al.,2013)。CIAcorr与Al/Si比值低相关性(图8d),表明这些风化指标值的变化不受沉积分选过程控制。

        综上所述,CIAcorr值可真实反映物源区的化学风化作用强度和古气候特征。综合剖面中Ⅰ、Ⅲ、Ⅴ等三个阶段的CIAcorr值均大于85,指示炎热潮湿的强化学风化;Ⅱ、Ⅳ阶段的CIAcorr值只有一个大于85,其他均小于85,指示温暖湿润的中等化学风化。综合分析古气候指数(Sr/Cu比值和C值)与风化指数(Rb/Sr比值和CIAcorr),Ⅰ、Ⅲ和Ⅴ阶段古气候为炎热潮湿,化学风化作用强;Ⅱ和Ⅳ阶段为温暖半干旱—半潮湿气候,化学风化作用中等(图5)。

      • 运用风化指数(CIA、CIW、PIA和Rb/Sr)和气候指数(C值和Sr/Cu)重建了须家河组须一段初始煤沉积期的古气候。该时期炎热潮湿的古气候是煤沉积的关键,而潮湿的古气候可能与超级季风活动有关。硅化木、风暴沉积以及植物化石等证据表明了四川盆地在晚三叠世受到超级季风的影响(钱利军等,2010Tian et al.,2016)。此外,欧洲南阿尔卑斯山脉(Mutti and Weissert,1995)、亚利桑那州Chinle组(Therrien and Fastovsky,2000)等地区上三叠统也记录了超级季风活动的证据。晚三叠世时期,美国西南部地区(Prochnow et al.,2006)和南美洲(Colombi and Parrish,2008Cesar and Grice,2019)的古气候湿润也可能与超级季风活动有关。季风活动会导致气候呈现干湿交替变化,当季风增强时,会带来华南板块东侧的泛大洋和南侧的特提斯洋的水分,造成潮湿的古气候,而季风减弱时带来的水分减少,导致气候逐渐变为干旱(Tanner,2018Dai et al.,2022)。前人对须家河组各段植物群落组合与丰度统计的研究,表明在须家河组沉积时期存在炎热潮湿与温暖干旱(或半干旱)气候交替出现的现象(徐兆辉等,2011)。四川盆地须家河组中高岭石(K)和伊利石(I)含量的垂直变化,也反映了该时期古气候为冷热交替、干湿更迭的特征,这种气候特征进一步导致了须家河组砂—泥互层的叠置模式(徐兆辉等,2010)。综合前人的研究成果,认为川西北地区上三叠统须家河组一段沉积时期干—湿交替的古气候与超级季风活动密切相关。Zhao et al.(2020)Dai et al.(2022)对华南板块的古纬度重建结果表明,在中三叠世之后,华南板块持续向北移动,逐渐靠近中纬度湿润气候带;与此同时,晚三叠世时期大气二氧化碳浓度较高(平均值大于1 500×10-6)(戴贤铎,2023),高pCO2也可能是温暖湿润气候形成的驱动因素之一(Taheri et al.,2018戴贤铎,2023),叠加该时期超级季风的影响,它们共同促进了研究区潮湿的古气候形成与强烈的化学风化作用。

      • 古气候、古水深以及造煤植物均是影响煤系发育的重要因素(黄其胜,1995高彩霞等,2009邵龙义等,2014Shao et al.,2020),其中古气候是前提条件(阳伟,2019)。前人研究表明,煤的沉积需要在潮湿的环境中进行。在P-T事件以后,煤形成的年平均降水约为900 mm(Bao et al.,2023),并且成煤古植物群以喜湿植物为主,因此煤的沉积通常指示湿润的古气候特征(Sun et al.,2022)。在炎热潮湿的气候环境下,陆地木质植物大量繁盛而聚集为泥炭,经变质作用后从而形成煤。同时,植物的种类、分布以及适应环境的能力受到古气候的控制。

        研究剖面中的煤线主要出现在Ⅲ、Ⅴ阶段,气候指标表明这些阶段的古气候湿润(图5),为煤的形成提供了必要的气候条件。反之,半干旱—干旱的古气候条件不利于煤层的形成。研究剖面中的Ⅱ、Ⅳ阶段没有出现煤沉积,可能与半干旱—干旱的气候条件有关系。Sun et al.(2022)认为华北克拉通下二叠统山西组上部煤层的消失就与该地区的气候干旱化以及喜湿植物的大规模灭绝有关。干旱条件会导致泥炭氧化,难以保存煤层(白通,2011)。

        此外,煤层的发育通常受喜湿植物生长状况的制约(Hilton and Cleal,2007石彦强和邢立杰,2009)。四川盆地上三叠统须家河组中蕨类和裸子植物发育繁盛(黄其胜和鲁胜梅,1992黄其胜,1995王全伟等,2008刘兆生等,2015),其中蕨类植物孢子占有明显优势,以异常繁盛的苏铁和双扇蕨科植物为主,称为Dictyophyllum⁃Clathropteris植物群(DC植物群)(徐珍,2023)。它们的出现预示着须家河组沉积时期的整体为湿热的古气候,同时为须家河组中煤层发育提供了物质基础。在须一段时期,植物类型以木贼类(Neocalamites)和蕨类(Leptopteris, Dictyophyllum, Phlebopteris)为主,其次为裸子植物和少数的针叶植被(Li et al.,20162020),它们可能是该时期主要的成煤古植物。

      • 自埃迪卡拉纪至中三叠世拉丁期,四川盆地以海相碳酸盐沉积为主(贾承造等,2007)。直至中三叠世晚期,受到印支运动影响,龙门山岛链抬升成陆并遭受剥蚀,四川盆地受到挤压形成东高西低的地貌,沉积环境由海相转为陆相,加之炎热潮湿的气候,丰富的雨水与北部山区河流的陆源补给,使沉积物快速堆积,使该区域发育三角洲沉积。

        根据前人所建立的聚煤模式(高彩霞等,2009邵龙义等,2014阳伟,2019),煤形成的最根本因素为泥炭,而泥炭的堆积和保存对水位有一定的要求。一方面,水位需要足够高,使其能够覆盖正在腐烂的植被,防止其被氧化;另一方面,水位又不能过高,以免植被被淹没而导致死亡(Diessel et al.,2000);当可容空间的增加速率与泥炭堆积速率的比值介于1~1.18时,煤层厚度最大(Bohacs and Suter,1997)。在高彩霞等(2009)对须家河组层序地层的研究基础上,本文认为研究区受到北部物源区的影响较大,沉积一套以砂岩和泥岩为主的碎屑岩沉积,而工农镇剖面为低位体系域,没有适合泥炭发育的环境,也不能提供泥炭堆积的可容空间,导致煤不沉积。王家梁剖面地势相对低洼,发育沼泽环境,为高位体系域沉积,有利于泥炭(煤)层的形成,但由于该剖面靠近南秦岭物源区,陆源碎屑的供给充足,破坏煤形成所需的还原环境,因此煤层较薄且不连续。此外,王家梁剖面C段上部出现大量薄层菱铁矿,菱铁矿为煤系常见的共生矿物,菱铁矿的富集也会导致煤层较薄(黄其胜,1995)。

      • 在古气候和沉积相研究的基础上,提出了川西北须家河组一段沉积时期煤的形成模式(图9)。在Ⅰ阶段时期,古气候炎热潮湿,化学风化较强,在该古环境下沉积了一套代表河口砂坝微相的粉砂岩、粉砂质泥岩和泥质粉砂岩组合。虽然该阶段气候适宜、植被发育,但沉积环境为低位体系域,不适合泥炭的堆积和煤的形成,因此没有煤的沉积。在Ⅱ、Ⅳ阶段时期,古气候由炎热潮湿转为温暖半干旱—半潮湿气候,化学风化作用随之减弱,沉积环境由河口砂坝微相转为三角洲沼泽微相沉积,岩性主要为粉砂岩和粉砂质泥岩,整体沉积环境处于有利于成煤的高位体系域。然而,相对干旱的古气候条件抑制了喜湿植物的发育,导致该时期缺乏充足的成煤物质,因此Ⅱ、Ⅳ阶段也未见煤层沉积。在Ⅲ、Ⅴ阶段,古气候呈现炎热潮湿的特征,湿润的气候条件进一步增强了化学风化作用。在这一气候背景下,真蕨类、裸子植物等成煤植被繁盛,为煤层形成提供了充足的物质来源;同时,高位体系域下的沼泽微相提供了适宜泥炭堆积的沉积环境,二者共同促成了Ⅲ、Ⅴ阶段煤层的发育。

        图  9  川西北地区须家河组一段初始成煤期的成煤模式图

        Figure 9.  Coal deposition model in the initial coal⁃forming period of the First member of the Xujiahe Formation, northwestern Sichuan Basin

      • (1) 川西北地区上三叠统须家河组一段初始成煤期以炎热潮湿与温暖半干旱—半潮湿的古气候交替出现为特征,且化学风化强度与古气候变化呈现同步变化。

        (2) 川西北须家河组一段沉积时期干—湿交替的古气候与超级季风活动密切相关。高pCO2浓度叠加超级季风活动的影响,共同促进了研究区潮湿的古气候形成与强烈的化学风化作用。

        (3) 研究区煤层主要发育于Ⅲ和Ⅴ阶段,这两个阶段古气候炎热潮湿,满足适宜煤层发育的气候条件。同时,煤层沉积需要适宜的沉积环境,高位体系域的沼泽环境更利于煤层的发育和保存。

    参考文献 (98)
    补充材料:
    附表1 手持XRF分析测试数据.xlsx

    目录

      /

      返回文章
      返回