Advanced Search
Volume 40 Issue 6
Dec.  2022
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents

ZHANG ZhiBo, XU Ying, MIAO YanJu, WANG WenFeng, ZHAO DiFei, CHEN DanLing. Provenance and Sedimentary Environment of Paleogene Gongjue Formation in Qamdo Basin[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2022, 40(6): 1561-1581. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2022.094
Citation: ZHANG ZhiBo, XU Ying, MIAO YanJu, WANG WenFeng, ZHAO DiFei, CHEN DanLing. Provenance and Sedimentary Environment of Paleogene Gongjue Formation in Qamdo Basin[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2022, 40(6): 1561-1581. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2022.094

Provenance and Sedimentary Environment of Paleogene Gongjue Formation in Qamdo Basin

doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2022.094
Funds:

Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province BK20210521

Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing City cstc2021jcyj-msxmX0624

Science and Technology Research Project of Chongqing Education Commission KJZD-K202103201

The Graduate Innovation Program of China University of Mining and Technology 2022WLKXJ002

The Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province KYCX22_2600

  • Received Date: 2022-05-30
  • Rev Recd Date: 2022-07-29
  • Publish Date: 2022-12-10
  • To reveal the Paleogene tectonic setting, sedimentary environment evolution, and resource response of Qamdo Basin. twelve grain-fine clastic rock samples of the Gongjue Formation in the Qamdo Basin were collected and systematically studied by means of electron microscopy, XRF, plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and field observation of sedimentary characteristics. The research results show that Gongjue Formation in the basin is mainly composed of red mudstone and sandstone, containing fibrous gypsum, developing cross bedding, visible ripple structure and spherical weathering, which reveals that its climate is mainly arid and oxidative environment; Microscopic observation shows that the quartz grains are poorly rounded and sorted, indicating that the near source deposits are dominant; The lithological and structural diagrams of major and trace elements show that the samples mainly fall into feldspathic sandstone and quartzolithic sandstone areas and island arc environments; The trace element characteristics indicate that the first and second members of the Gongjue Formation are dominated by the oxidation environment of brackish water - saline water, with a humid climate, while the third member is dominated by the strong oxidation environment of saline water, with a hot and dry climate. The above characteristics indicate that the fine clastic rocks of the Gongjue Formation are mainly the products of weathering of the Jiangda Azhong island arc granite body. The environmental evolution can be divided into two environmental evolution model stages. The first stage is dominated by the changes in the sedimentary environment of the first and second members of the Gongjue Formation, and the second stage is dominated by the changes in the sedimentary environment of the third member of the Gongjue Formation; It further shows that after the closure of the New Tethys, the Indian plate subducted to the Eurasian plate, resulting in more intense deformation and uplift in the Jiangda Azhong region, and relatively weak deformation and uplift in the Leiwuqi region, which played a destructive role in the preservation of oil and gas resources.
  • [1] Kroon D, Norris R D, Wilson P. Exceptional Global warmth and climatic transients recorded in Oceanic Sediments[J]. JOIDES Journal, 2002, 28(1): 11-15.
    [2] Bralower T J, Kelly D C, Leckie R M. Biotic effects of abrupt Paleocene and Cretaceous climate events[J]. JOIDES Journal, 2002, 28(1): 29-34.
    [3] 刘志飞,胡修棉. 白垩纪至早第三纪的极端气候事件[J]. 地球科学进展,2003,18(5):681-690.

    Liu Zhifei, Hu Xiumian. Extreme climates events in the Cretaceous and Paleogene[J]. Advance in Earth Sciences, 2003, 18(5): 681-690.
    [4] Zachos J C, Lohmann K C, Walker J C G, et al. Abrupt climate change and transient climates during the Paleogene: A marine perspective[J]. Journal of Geology, 1993, 101(2): 191-213.
    [5] Kennett J P, Stott L D. Abrupt deep-sea warming, palaeoceanographic changes and benthic extinctions at the end of the Palaeocene[J]. Nature, 1991, 353(6341): 225-229.
    [6] Thomas E, Shackleton N J. The Paleocene-Eocene benthic foraminiferal extinction and stable isotope anomalies[M]//Knox R W O, Corfield R M, Dunay R E. Correlation of the Early Paleogene in northwest Europe. London: Geological Society of London, 1996: 401-411.
    [7] Zachos J, Pagani M, Sloan L, et al. Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present[J]. Science, 2001, 292(5517): 686-693.
    [8] 胡修棉. 东特提斯洋晚中生代:古近纪重大事件研究进展[J]. 自然杂志,2015,37(2):93-102.

    Hu Xiumian. Overview of the Late Mesozoic Paleogene major paleoceanographic and geological events in eastern Tethyan Ocean[J]. Chinese Journal of Nature, 2015, 37(2): 93-102.
    [9] 杨开辉,莫宣学. 滇西南晚古生代火山岩与裂谷作用及区域构造演化[J]. 岩石矿物学杂志,1993,12(4):297-311.

    Yang Kaihui, Mo Xuanxue. Late Paleozoic rifting-related volcanic rocks and tectonic evolution in southwestern Yunnan[J]. Acta Petrologica et Mineralogica, 1993, 12(4): 297-311.
    [10] 侯增谦,郑远川,卢占武,等. 青藏高原巨厚地壳:生长、加厚与演化[J]. 地质学报,2020,94(10):2797-2815.

    Hou Zengqian, Zheng Yuanchuan, Lu Zhanwu, et al. Growth, thickening and evolution of the thickened crust of the Tibet Plateau[J]. Acta Geologica Sinica, 2020, 94(10): 2797-2815.
    [11] 陶琰,毕献武,李金高,等. 西藏吉塘花岗岩地球化学特征及成因[J]. 岩石学报,2011,27(9):2763-2774.

    Tao Yan, Bi Xianwu, Li Jingao, et al. Geochemistry and petrogenesis of the Jitang granitoids in Tibet, SW China[J]. Acta Petrologica Sinica, 2011, 27(9): 2763-2774.
    [12] 王安建,曹殿华,管烨,等. 西南三江成矿带中南段金属矿床成矿规律与若干问题探讨[J]. 地质学报,2009,83(10):1365-1375.

    Wang Anjian, Cao Dianhua, Guan Ye, et al. Metallogenic belts of southern three rivers region, southwest China: Distribution, characteristics and discussion[J]. Acta Geologica Sinica, 2009, 83(10): 1365-1375.
    [13] 田世洪,杨竹森,侯增谦,等. 玉树地区东莫扎抓和莫海拉亨铅锌矿床Rb-Sr和Sm-Nd等时线年龄及其地质意义[J]. 矿床地质,2009,28(6):747-758.

    Tian Shihong, Yang Zhusen, Hou Zengqian, et al. Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd Isochron ages of Dongmozhazhua and Mohailaheng Pb-Zn ore deposits in Yushu area, southern Qinghai and their geological implications[J]. Mineral Deposits, 2009, 28(6): 747-758.
    [14] Li L, Garzione C N, Pullen A, et al. Late Cretaceous-Cenozoic basin evolution and topographic growth of the Hoh Xil Basin, central Tibetan Plateau[J]. GSA Bulletin, 2018, 130(3/4): 499-521.
    [15] Spurlin M S, An Y, Harrison T M, et al. Two phases of Cenozoic deformation in northeastern Tibet: Thrusting followed by strike-slip faulting[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2000, 7(Suppl.1): 294.
    [16] Staisch L M, Niemi N A, Hong C, et al. A Cretaceous-Eocene depositional age for the Fenghuoshan Group, Hoh Xil Basin: Implications for the tectonic evolution of the northern Tibet Plateau[J]. Tectonics, 2014, 33(3): 281-301.
    [17] Dai J E, Wang C S, Hourigan J, et al. Insights into the early Tibetan Plateau from (U-Th)/He thermochronology[J]. Journal of the Geological Society, 2013, 170(6): 917-927.
    [18] Spurlin M S, Yin A, Horton B K, et al. Structural evolution of the Yushu-Nangqian region and its relationship to syncollisional igneous activity, east-central Tibet[J]. GSA Bulletin, 2005, 117(9/10): 1293-1317.
    [19] Niu Y L. What drives the continued India-Asia convergence since the collision at 55 Ma? [J]. Science Bulletin, 2020, 65(3): 169-172.
    [20] 王世锋,伊海生,王成善. 青海囊谦第三纪盆地沉积学特征[J]. 成都理工学院学报,2001,28(1):13-16.

    Wang Shifeng, Yi Haisheng, Wang Chengshan. Sedimentary features of the Nangqian Tertiary basin in Qinghai province[J]. Journal of Chengdu University of Technology, 2001, 28(1): 13-16.
    [21] 周江羽,王江海, Yin An,等. 青藏高原东缘古近纪粗碎屑岩沉积学及其构造意义[J]. 地质学报,2003,77(2):262-271.

    Zhou Jiangyu, Wang Jianghai, Yin An, et al. Sedimentology and tectonic significance of Paleogene coarse clastic rocks in eastern Tibet[J]. Acta Geologica Sinica, 2003, 77(2): 262-271.
    [22] 周江羽,王江海,尹安,等. 青藏东北缘早第三纪盆地充填的沉积型式及构造背景:以囊谦和下拉秀盆地为例[J]. 沉积学报,2002,20(1):85-91.

    Zhou Jiangyu, Wang Jianghai, Yin An, et al. Depositional patterns and tectonic setting of Early Tertiary basins in the NE margin of the Tibetan Plateau: A case study of the Nangqian and Xialaxiu basins[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2002, 20(1): 85-91.
    [23] 吴悠,陈红汉,肖秋苟,等. 青藏高原昌都盆地上三叠统流体活动特征[J]. 地质科技情报,2010,29(2):82-86.

    Wu You, Chen Honghan, Xiao Qiugou, et al. Characteristics of fluid flow of the Upper Triassic in Changdu Basin, Tibet, China[J]. Geological Science and Technology Information, 2010, 29(2): 82-86.
    [24] 曹代勇,宋时雨,马志凯,等. 晚三叠世昌都盆地构造背景及对成煤作用的控制[J]. 地学前缘,2019,26(2):169-178.

    Cao Daiyong, Song Shiyu, Ma Zhikai, et al. Tectonic background of the Qamdo Basin and its structural control on coal forming in the Late Triassic[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2019, 26(2): 169-178.
    [25] 赵嘉峰,王剑,付修根,等. 西藏羌塘盆地古近纪康托组沉积物源及构造背景分析[J]. 地质论评,2022,68(1):93-110.

    Zhao Jiafeng, Wang Jian, Fu Xiugen, et al. Provenance and tectonic setting analysis of the Paleogene Kangtuo Formation in the Qiangtang Basin, Xizang (Tibet)[J]. Geological Review, 2022, 68(1): 93-110.
    [26] Zhang Z B, Zhu Z J, Li H, et al. Provenance and salt structures of gypsum formations in Pb-Zn ore-bearing Lanping Basin, Southwest China[J]. Journal of Central South University, 2020, 27(6): 1828-1845.
    [27] 刘小康,张治波,朱志军,等. 兰坪盆地古近系云龙组元素地球化学特征及其古环境的恢复[J]. 煤田地质与勘探,2020,48(4):109-117,125.

    Liu Xiaokang, Zhang Zhibo, Zhu Zhijun, et al. Geochemical characteristics of elements in the Paleogene Yunlong Formation and the restoration of paleoenvironment in Lanping Basin[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration, 2020, 48(4): 109-117, 125.
    [28] 西藏地质调查院. 囊谦县幅,昌都县幅,江达县幅,1:25万区域地质调查报告[R]. 2007.

    Xizang Institute of Geological Survey. Nangqian county, Changdu county, Jiangda county, 1: 250,000 regional geological survey report[R]. 2007.
    [29] 祁昭林. 青藏高原东部囊谦—昌都地区烃源岩特征及非常规油气资源前景[D]. 北京:中国地质大学(北京),2017.

    Qi Zhaolin. Characteristics of the source rocks in Nangqian-Qamdo area, eastern Tibet: Implications for unconventional oil and gas resources[D]. Beijing: China University of Geosciences (Beijing), 2017.
    [30] 左鹏. 昌都盆地上二叠统—上三叠统烃源岩特征与页岩气资源潜力[D]. 北京:中国地质大学(北京),2016.

    Zuo Peng. Hydrocarbon source rock characteristics and shale gas resource potential in Changdu Basin during the Upper Permian Series-Upper Triassic series[D]. Beijing: China University of Geosciences (Beijing), 2016.
    [31] 何书元,田有华,陈开国,等. 西藏东部早第三纪贡觉红层[C]//青藏高原地质文集(3):地层·古生物:青藏高原地质科学讨论会论文集(二). 拉萨:中国地质学会,1983.

    He Shuyuan, Tian Youhua, Chen Kaiguo, et al. Paleogene Gonjo red beds in east Xizang (Tibet)[C]// Geological collections of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (3) : Strata · Paleontology: Proceedings of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau geological science symposium ( 2). Lhasa: Geological Society of China, 1983.
    [32] 胡俊杰,马寅生,吴祎,等. 柴达木盆地侏罗纪古气候演变过程:来自化学风化特征的证据[J]. 高校地质学报,2019,25(4):548-557.

    Hu Junjie, Ma Yinsheng, Wu Yi, et al. Jurassic palaeoclimate evolution of the Qaidam Basin: Evidence from chemical weathering analyses[J]. Geological Journal of China Universities, 2019, 25(4): 548-557.
    [33] 徐小涛,邵龙义. 利用泥质岩化学蚀变指数分析物源区风化程度时的限制因素[J]. 古地理学报,2018,20(3):515-522.

    Xu Xiaotao, Shao Longyi. Limiting factors in utilization of chemical index of alteration of mudstones to quantify the degree of weathering in provenance[J]. Journal of Palaeogeography (Chinese Edition), 2018, 20(3): 515-522.
    [34] Yan D T, Chen D Z, Wang Q C, et al. Large-scale climatic fluctuations in the latest Ordovician on the Yangtze Block, South China[J]. Geology, 2010, 38(7): 599-602.
    [35] 黎彤. 化学元素的地球丰度[J]. 地球化学,1976(3):167-174.

    Li Tong. Chemical element abundances in the earth and it’s major shells[J]. Geochimica, 1999(3): 167-174.
    [36] Taylor S R, McLennan S M. The geochemical evolution of the continental crust[J]. Reviews of Geophysics, 1995, 33(2): 241-265.
    [37] Taylor S R, McLennan S M. The continental crust: Its composition and evolution[M]. London: Blackwell Scientific, 1985: 312.
    [38] Haskin L A, Paster T P. Geochemistry and mineralogy of the rare earths[J]. Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths, 1979, 3: 1-80.
    [39] Roser B P, Korsch R J. Provenance signatures of sandstone-mudstone suites determined using discriminant function analysis of major-element data[J]. Chemical Geology, 1988, 67(1/2): 119-139.
    [40] Pettijohn F J, Potter P E, Siever R. Sand and sandstone[M]. New York: Springer, 1972: 618.
    [41] Bhatia M R. Plate tectonics and geochemical composition of sandstones[J]. The Journal of Geology, 1983, 91(6): 611-627.
    [42] 和政军,李锦轶,莫申国,等. 漠河前陆盆地砂岩岩石地球化学的构造背景和物源区分析[J]. 中国科学(D辑):地球科学,2003,33(12):1219-1226.

    He Zhengjun, Li Jinyi, Mo Shenguo, et al. Geochemical discriminations of sandstones from the Mohe Foreland Basin, northeastern China: Tectonic setting and provenance[J]. Science China (Seri. D): Earth Sciences, 2003, 33(12): 1219-1226.
    [43] 陈留勤. 江西永崇盆地晚白垩世沉积演化[M]. 北京:地质出版社,2018:1-118.

    Chen Liuqin. Depositional evolution of the Yongchong Basin during Late Cretaceous in Jiangxi province, SE China[M]. Beijing: Geological Publishing House, 2018: 1-118.
    [44] 李双应,孟庆任,李任伟,等. 山东胶莱盆地下白垩统莱阳组物质组分特征及其对源区的制约[J]. 岩石学报,2008,24(10):2395-2406.

    Li Shuangying, Meng Qingren, Li Renwei, et al. Characteristics of material components from the Lower Cretaceous Laiyang Formation in Jiaolai Basin, Shangdong province, eastern China and constraints to the provenance[J]. Acta Petrologica Sinica, 2008, 24(10): 2395- 2406.
    [45] Horton B K, Yin A, Spurlin M S, et al. Paleocene-Eocene syncontractional sedimentation in narrow, lacustrine-dominated basins of east-central Tibet[J]. GSA Bulletin, 2002, 114(7): 771-786.
    [46] Sun S S, McDonough W F. Chemical and isotopic systematics of oceanic basalts: Implications for mantle composition and processes[J]. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 1989, 42(1): 313-345.
    [47] Chen L Q, Steel R J, Guo F S, et al. Alluvial fan facies of the Yongchong Basin: Implications for tectonic and paleoclimatic changes during Late Cretaceous in SE China[J]. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 2017, 134: 37-54.
    [48] Chen L Q, Guo F S, Steel R J, et al. Petrography and geochemistry of the Late Cretaceous redbeds in the Gan-Hang Belt, Southeast China: Implications for provenance, source weathering, and tectonic setting[J]. International Geology Review, 2016, 58(10): 1196-1214.
    [49] 田景春,张翔. 沉积地球化学[M]. 北京:地质出版社,2016.

    Tian Jingchun, Zhang Xiang. Sedimentary geochemistry[M]. Beijing: Geological Publishing House, 2016.
    [50] 张治波,朱志军,王文锋,等. 滇西兰坪盆地中—新生代蒸发岩元素地球化学特征及其形成环境[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版),2019,49(2):356-379.

    Zhang Zhibo, Zhu Zhijun, Wang Wenfeng, et al. Geochemical characteristics and formation environment of Mesozoic and Cenozoic evaporative rocks in Lanping Basin, western Yunnan[J]. Journal of Jilin University (Earth Science Edition), 2019, 49(2): 356-379.
    [51] 赵振华. 微量元素地球化学原理[M]. 北京:科学出版社,1997.

    Zhao Zhenhua. Geochemical principle of trace elements[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 1997.
    [52] Calvert S E, Pedersen T F. Geochemistry of recent oxic and anoxic marine sediments: Implications for the geological record[J]. Marine Geology, 1993, 113(1/2): 67-88.
    [53] Algeo T J, Maynard J B. Trace-element behavior and redox facies in core shales of Upper Pennsylvanian Kansas-type cyclothems[J]. Chemical Geology, 2004, 206(3/4): 289-318.
    [54] 韦恒叶. 古海洋生产力与氧化还原指标:元素地球化学综述[J]. 沉积与特提斯地质,2012,32(2):76-88.

    Wei Hengye. Productivity and redox proxies of palaeo-oceans: An overview of elementary geochemistry[J]. Sedimentary Geology and Tethyan Geology, 2012, 32(2): 76-88.
    [55] Hastings D W, Emerson S R, Mix A C. Vanadium in foraminiferal calcite as a tracer for changes in the areal extent of reducing sediments[J]. Paleoceanography, 1996, 11(6): 665-678.
    [56] Wehrli B, Stumm W. Vanadyl in natural waters: Adsorption and hydrolysis promote oxygenation[J]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 1989, 53(1): 69-77.
    [57] 王淑芳,董大忠,王玉满,等. 四川盆地南部志留系龙马溪组富有机质页岩沉积环境的元素地球化学判别指标[J]. 海相油气地质,2014,19(3):27-34.

    Wang Shufang, Dong Dazhong, Wang Yuman, et al. Geochemistry evaluation index of redox-sensitive elements for depositional environments of Silurian Longmaxi organic-rich shale in the south of Sichuan Basin[J]. Marine Origin Petroleum Geology, 2014, 19(3): 27-34.
    [58] Wignall P B. Black shales[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994: 46.
    [59] Huerta-Diaz M A, Morse J W. A quantitative method for determination of trace metal concentrations in sedimentary pyrite[J]. Marine Chemistry, 1990, 29: 119-144.
    [60] Luther III G W, Morse J W. Chemical influences on trace Metal-sulphide interactions in anoxic sediments[J]. Mineralogical Magazine, 1998, 62A(2): 925-926.
    [61] Johnson T M, DePaolo D J. Interpretation of isotopic data in groundwater-rock systems: Model development and application to Sr isotope data from yucca mountain[J]. Water Resources Research, 1994, 30(5): 1571-1587.
    [62] 王敏芳,焦养泉,王正海,等. 沉积环境中古盐度的恢复:以吐哈盆地西南缘水西沟群泥岩为例[J]. 新疆石油地质,2005,26(6):719-722.

    Wang Minfang, Jiao Yangquan, Wang Zhenghai, et al. Recovery paleosalinity in sedimentary environment: An example of mudstone in Shuixigou Group, southwestern margin of Turpan-Hami Basin[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2005, 26(6): 719-722.
    [63] 许璟,蒲仁海,杨林,等. 塔里木盆地石炭系泥岩沉积时的古盐度分析[J]. 沉积学报,2010,28(3):509-517.

    Xu Jing, Pu Renhai, Yang Lin, et al. The palaeosalinity analysis of Carboniferous mudstone, Tarim Basin[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2010, 28(3): 509-517.
    [64] 钱利军,陈洪德,林良彪,等. 四川盆地西缘地区中侏罗统沙溪庙组地球化学特征及其环境意义[J]. 沉积学报,2012,30(6):1061-1071.

    Qian Lijun, Chen Hongde, Lin Liangbiao, et al. Geochemical characteristics and environmental implications of Middle Jurassic Shaximiao Formation, western margin of Sichuan Basin[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2012, 30(6): 1061-1071.
    [65] Wedepohl K H. Handbook of geochemistry[M]. Berlin: Springer, 1969: 248.
    [66] Fedo C M, Nesbitt H W, Young G M. Unraveling the effects of potassium metasomatism in sedimentary rocks and paleosols, with implications for paleoweathering conditions and provenance[J]. Geology, 1995, 23(10): 921-924.
    [67] Cox R, Lowe D R, Cullers R L. The influence of sediment recycling and basement composition on evolution of mudrock chemistry in the southwestern United States[J]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 1995, 59(14): 2919-2940.
    [68] Nesbitt H W, Young G M. Formation and diagenesis of weathering profiles[J]. The Journal of Geology, 1989, 97(2): 129-147.
    [69] Fu X G, Wang J, Wen H G, et al. A Toarcian Ocean Anoxic Event record from an open-ocean setting in the eastern Tethys: Implications for global climatic change and regional environmental perturbation[J]. Science China Earth Sciences, 2021, 64(11): 1860-1872.
    [70] Wang J, Fu X G, Wei H Y, et al. Late Triassic basin inversion of the Qiangtang Basin in northern Tibet: Implications for the closure of the Paleo-Tethys and expansion of the Neo-Tethys[J]. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 2022, 227: 105119.
    [71] 刘增乾,沈敢富,李兴振. 三江地区金矿床成矿系列与找矿前景[J]. 四川地质学报,1992,12(增刊1):61-62.

    Liu Zeng qian, Shen Ganfu, Li Xingzhen. Metallogenic series and prospecting prospect of gold deposits in Sanjiang area[J]. Acta Geologica Sichuan, 1992, 12(Suppl.1): 61-62.
  • 加载中
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Figures(12)  / Tables(4)

Article Metrics

Article views(123) PDF downloads(79) Cited by()

Proportional views
Related
Publishing history
  • Received:  2022-05-30
  • Revised:  2022-07-29
  • Published:  2022-12-10

Provenance and Sedimentary Environment of Paleogene Gongjue Formation in Qamdo Basin

doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2022.094
Funds:

Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province BK20210521

Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing City cstc2021jcyj-msxmX0624

Science and Technology Research Project of Chongqing Education Commission KJZD-K202103201

The Graduate Innovation Program of China University of Mining and Technology 2022WLKXJ002

The Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province KYCX22_2600

Abstract: To reveal the Paleogene tectonic setting, sedimentary environment evolution, and resource response of Qamdo Basin. twelve grain-fine clastic rock samples of the Gongjue Formation in the Qamdo Basin were collected and systematically studied by means of electron microscopy, XRF, plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and field observation of sedimentary characteristics. The research results show that Gongjue Formation in the basin is mainly composed of red mudstone and sandstone, containing fibrous gypsum, developing cross bedding, visible ripple structure and spherical weathering, which reveals that its climate is mainly arid and oxidative environment; Microscopic observation shows that the quartz grains are poorly rounded and sorted, indicating that the near source deposits are dominant; The lithological and structural diagrams of major and trace elements show that the samples mainly fall into feldspathic sandstone and quartzolithic sandstone areas and island arc environments; The trace element characteristics indicate that the first and second members of the Gongjue Formation are dominated by the oxidation environment of brackish water - saline water, with a humid climate, while the third member is dominated by the strong oxidation environment of saline water, with a hot and dry climate. The above characteristics indicate that the fine clastic rocks of the Gongjue Formation are mainly the products of weathering of the Jiangda Azhong island arc granite body. The environmental evolution can be divided into two environmental evolution model stages. The first stage is dominated by the changes in the sedimentary environment of the first and second members of the Gongjue Formation, and the second stage is dominated by the changes in the sedimentary environment of the third member of the Gongjue Formation; It further shows that after the closure of the New Tethys, the Indian plate subducted to the Eurasian plate, resulting in more intense deformation and uplift in the Jiangda Azhong region, and relatively weak deformation and uplift in the Leiwuqi region, which played a destructive role in the preservation of oil and gas resources.

ZHANG ZhiBo, XU Ying, MIAO YanJu, WANG WenFeng, ZHAO DiFei, CHEN DanLing. Provenance and Sedimentary Environment of Paleogene Gongjue Formation in Qamdo Basin[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2022, 40(6): 1561-1581. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2022.094
Citation: ZHANG ZhiBo, XU Ying, MIAO YanJu, WANG WenFeng, ZHAO DiFei, CHEN DanLing. Provenance and Sedimentary Environment of Paleogene Gongjue Formation in Qamdo Basin[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2022, 40(6): 1561-1581. doi: 10.14027/j.issn.1000-0550.2022.094
  • 在地质历史演过程中,气候的变化对地球上生物的演化至关重要。中白垩世和古近纪是显生宙以来温室效应演化最接近现今气候变化的时期[1]。这段地质历史时期发生了多期气候突变事件,导致全球海洋生物发生大灭绝更替以及全球地球化学发生强烈的扰动[23]。古新世—始新世界限附近(约55 Ma)的极短时间间隔内,升高4 ℃~8 ℃[45]称之为古新世—始新世最热事件(PETM)或者晚古新世最热事件(LPTM)[4]。最热事件的主要特征是出现碳同位素(δ13C)至少3.0‰的负偏移,并且具有全球性[3]。始新世—渐新世,即34~33.5 Ma[3,6],是全球温室—冰室气候转化的重要时期,标志早古近纪温室开始,冰期结束[78],作为重大气候变化的响应,具有全球统一性。青藏高原作为世界屋脊,是世界上最高的高原,其构造运动复杂,气候多变,是研究全球该时期气候变化的理想场所。白垩纪以来,青藏高原受到印度板块与欧亚板块的碰撞造山[813],一直持续到现在,未曾停止,并持续抬升与剥蚀,使得地貌发生变化[1419],而地貌的变化又控制了气候变化。前人对青藏高原古近纪的古气候和古环境做了大量的研究[3,8],也取得了丰硕的成果,但是古近系贡觉组红层物源仍然存在争议,主要是青藏高原东部的昌都盆地贡觉组物源为东缘提供物源和东西缘共同提供物源之争[2022]。解决物源之争有助于揭示新特提斯洋的闭合过程,进而影响青藏高原的隆升,对气候和资源产生重要影响。因此,本文系统地开展青藏高原东部昌都盆地古近纪贡觉组物源、沉积环境和构造背景的研究,以期揭示昌都盆地贡觉组细碎屑岩物质来源、构造背景和古气候演化关系,进而为油气与金属矿产勘探提供依据。

  • 昌都盆地北延至囊谦,南延至芒康,主要分布在贡觉县、江达县、察雅县、芒康县等地。属于字呷—德钦断裂与澜沧江断裂带之间形成的断陷盆地,大体为北高南低,北宽南窄的楔形构造(图1[2330]。新生代以来,盆地受到欧亚板块与印度板块的碰撞和造山作用的影响,使其区内构造复杂[2427],从被动边缘盆地发展成为岛弧与弧后盆地,同时伴随大规模的逆冲—推覆和走滑—拉分作用,导致形成了古近纪的裂谷盆地[1419]。区内构造演化复杂,盆地大致经历了陆壳基底形成阶段、原特提斯演化阶段、古特提斯演化阶段、新特提斯演化阶段和陆内汇聚阶段五个阶段[23]。陆壳基地以吉塘岩群和宁多岩群变质结晶基底岩系为主,吉塘岩群的角闪片岩和花岗片麻岩年龄分别为1 800~2 300 Ma和1 900 Ma[28]。在新元古代—志留纪时期,超大陆裂解形成了南部的冈瓦纳大陆群、中部的泛华夏大陆群、北部的劳亚大陆群,研究区位于冈瓦纳大陆群北缘和泛华夏大陆群南缘之间的怒江特提斯构造域[28]。古特提斯演化阶段指泥盆纪—中三叠世时期,怒江特提斯经历了完整的威尔逊旋回,西侧形成洋内岛弧以及弧后盆地沉积的沟—弧—盆系统,东侧发育深海—浅海沉积,金沙江洋盆在早石炭世继续扩张,从泛华夏大陆群南缘裂离出昌都陆块,研究区为边缘台地沉积[910]。新特提斯演化阶段指晚三叠世—白垩纪时期,怒江特提斯洋进入衰退晚期,继续向昌都陆块俯冲、消减完成它的生命历程,形成罗冬岩群、海沟混杂堆积以及小定西组岛弧火山岩,并伴有强烈的岩浆侵入活动,金沙江一带开始碰撞造山,直至冈—念陆块与昌都陆块合拢,发育以陆壳为海底的陆间海沉积,形成了多尼组(K1d)海陆交互相含煤碎屑岩沉积,并伴有火山活动[28]。前陆盆地逐渐萎缩,发育景星组(K1 j)红色碎屑岩沉积,晚白垩世时期,怒江特提斯闭合,怒江一带碰撞强烈,形成同碰撞仰冲带,前陆盆地接近萎缩,局部地区的南新组和虎头寺组陆相红色碎屑岩沉积,金沙江一带逆冲推覆作用强烈,形成金沙江逆冲带[2829]。陆内汇聚阶段指古近纪—第四纪,新生代是研究区形成高原的主要时期。印度板块向欧亚板块俯冲,区内造山作用强烈,形成大规模的冲断推覆、走滑拉分作用,使得岩石圈的分层折离和滑脱。一方面使研究区产生一系列的走滑拉分断裂,从而形成了走滑拉分盆地,如囊谦盆地、宗白盆地、贡觉盆地等[1419]。另一方面研究区早期形成的山系改造、叠加,使研究区地壳增厚,出现一系列的逆冲带、断褶带、剥离带等,如昌都褶皱带、他念他翁剥离带、金沙江褶冲带、怒江逆冲带、甘孜褶冲带等。古近系贡觉组主要形成于该阶段,以红色细碎屑岩沉积为主,发育河流—三角洲—湖泊相沉积。

    Figure 1.  Regional geological sketch of Qamdo Basin[2930]

  • 昌都盆地古近系贡觉组以陆相红色碎屑岩为主,夹泥灰岩、灰岩,并且含盐及石膏等,其沉积厚度变化明显,动植物化石以孢粉、介形虫、植物、藻类等为主,主要赋存石膏、石盐、钾盐、油页岩、含铜砂岩等矿产。按照沉积充填序列可以将盆地古近系贡觉组划分为4个充填序列(图2)。

    Figure 2.  Lithologic histogram and sampling strata of Qamdo Basin

    贡觉组一段(Eg1):主要分布在昌都盆地西部地区,岩性特征:上部杂色泥岩夹少量泥质粉砂岩和含砾石灰岩;中部岩屑砂岩、紫红色含砾砂岩、粉砂岩韵律层(图3a,c);下部:紫红色泥质粉砂岩。索加地段北缘发育泥岩,夹杂孔雀石,并出现球状风化(图3b,d)。蹦白地区南部发育岩屑砂岩、泥质粉砂岩韵律层,可见波痕构造(图3e)。底部主要发育紫红色岩屑砂岩夹薄层粉砂岩及杂色砾岩,局部地段可见底砾岩,反映以冲积扇—辫状三角洲—湖相沉积为主。

    Figure 3.  Field and microscope photos of red beds of the Paleogene Gongjue Formation in Qamdo Basin

    贡觉组二段(Eg2):主要分布在昌都盆地东部及西部。盆地东部,不整合接触于三叠系地层之上;盆地内部,平行不整合于第一段(Eg1)之上。岩性特征:细砂岩、含砾细砂岩、砾质粗砂岩、岩屑砂岩以及泥质砂岩韵律层(图3f),厚度由南向北依次变薄,主要为冲积扇—河流相沉积。

    贡觉组三段(Eg3):油扎地区西部岩性变化较大,主要位于昌都盆地的复式向斜槽部。岩性特征:上部发育石膏、杂色泥页岩及泥砾岩(图3h);然宗地区附近,中部发育紫红色岩屑砂岩和泥质粉砂岩韵律层,夹杂凝灰岩。俄德地段以北,发育泥质白云岩,夹泥灰岩及杂色泥页岩;油扎地区的南部和北部地区岩性为紫红色含砾砂岩、泥质粉砂岩及岩屑砂岩韵律层,可见交错层理(图3i)。地层厚度变化为西薄东厚[31],以河流相—湖相为主。

    贡觉组四段(Eg4),主要分布在盆地南部的宗布向斜和油扎向斜的槽部,断续残存于察拉托至拉妥一带。岩性特征:上部为含砾粗砂岩及长石石英砂岩;中部为杂色泥页岩(分布于仁达至曲登一带);下部为紫红色长石石英砂岩、泥质粉砂岩、粉砂岩韵律层,加日中巴一带底部夹石英钠长斑岩和流纹质凝灰岩(图3j~l),且磨圆性差,揭示近源搬运堆积沉积特征[31],以冲积扇和辫状三角洲沉积为主。

  • 本次所采集的样品均来自西藏昌都盆地古近系贡觉组,采样地点分别在昌都的贡觉、江达、油扎村等地区,从这些剖面上选取具有代表性的新鲜的砂岩样品12件(图2),岩性主要为粉砂质泥岩、粉砂岩、泥灰岩。室内处理,将野外采集的砂岩块状样品,敲成碎块,然后放入玛瑙钵内研磨至200目,将准备好的干净样品打开,装入样品50 g,贴好标签,密封完整后,送至核工业北京地质研究院分析测试中心进行测试。主量元素,通过X射线荧光光谱法(XRF)测定,其步骤为:将200目样品在105 ℃烘箱中烘干12 h,通过1 000 ℃马弗炉中灼烧计算烧失量;然后在铂金坩埚放置助熔剂,样品及氧化剂,在1 150 ℃熔样炉中熔融14 min,冷却后进入ZSX Primus Ⅱ型全自动X射线荧光光谱仪(XRF)(Rigaku,Japan)测试,其相当偏差值小于10 %(表1)。微量元素在北京核工业测试分析中心采用ICP-MS进行分析,精度优于5%(表2,3),步骤为:1)将200目样品置于105 ℃烘箱中烘干12 h;2)准确称取粉末样品50 mg置于Teflon溶样弹中;3)先后依次缓慢加入1 mL高纯HNO3和1 mL高纯HF;4)将Teflon溶样弹放入钢套,拧紧后置于190 ℃烘箱中加热24 h以上;5)待溶样弹冷却,开盖后置于140 ℃电热板上蒸干,然后加入1 mL HNO3并再次蒸干;6)加入1 mL高纯HNO3、1 mL MQ水和1 mL内标In(浓度为1×10-6),再次将Teflon溶样弹放入钢套,拧紧后置于190 ℃烘箱中加热12 h以上;7)将溶液转入聚乙烯料瓶中,并用2% HNO3稀释至100 g以备ICP-MS测试。

    样品编号岩性采样位置(层段)SiO2Al2O3Fe2O3MgOCaONa2OK2OMnOTiO2P2O5烧失量FeOCIAcorrCIACIWICV
    L-18-2粉砂质泥岩贡觉—油扎村(Eg352.2615.946.93.556.210.683.650.10.720.129.461.7579.4476.0992.141.37
    L-19-1泥灰岩贡觉—油扎村(Eg322.14.571.742.5119.760.620.70.190.180.0619.160.776.5170.278.665.62
    L-20-1泥灰岩贡觉—油扎村(Eg354.9210.063.182.4112.871.331.740.130.580.1111.631.7573.869.5779.092.21
    L-22-2泥质粉砂岩贡觉—油扎村(Eg360.7910.293.351.669.921.911.650.180.570.118.550.3567.8665.2972.931.87
    L-76-3粉砂岩江达—雪集拉山(Eg354.4211.694.692.3311.060.882.270.10.640.1111.121.2579.374.3686.911.88
    L-79-2泥质粉砂岩江达—雪集拉山(Eg356.2312.84.432.179.760.822.530.080.650.129.871.2579.9975.4388.641.6
    平均值51.9911.934.052.4411.61.042.090.130.560.111.631.1878.4874.185.151.84
    L-07-2粉砂质泥岩贡觉—油扎—阿中(Eg255.7613.044.380.6111.620.282.270.050.710.0810.650.287.8882.1795.881.53
    L-12-4泥灰岩贡觉—油扎—阿中(Eg252.9818.925.323.394.440.474.720.050.740.128.843.7579.5276.9795.271.01
    L-64-3粉砂质泥岩江达—昌都(Eg255.5212.954.961.8510.10.712.560.070.670.119.880.8581.3576.4990.121.62
    L-09-1粉砂岩贡觉—油扎—阿中(Eg253.039.934.231.6914.40.91.650.130.80.1212.110.9579.4674.2284.652.4
    平均值54.3213.714.721.8910.140.592.80.070.730.1110.371.4482.6177.592.081.53
    L-33-2粉砂岩江达—昌都(Eg155.2210.073.351.4814.241.451.80.130.560.1210.430.772.5768.1877.642.29
    L-46-1泥质粉砂岩江达—昌都(Eg150.6112.915.762.5211.291.012.590.110.710.1511.790.9578.4173.6986.471.86
    平均值52.9211.494.56212.771.232.20.120.640.1411.110.8375.8271.1582.372.05
    注:ICV计算公式为:ICV=(Fe2O3+K2O+Na2O+CaO+MgO+MnO+TiO2)/Al2O3;CIA计算公式为:CIA=[Al2O3/(Al2O3+CaO*+Na2O+K2O)]×100%; CIW计算公式为:CIW=[Al2O3/(Al2O3+CaO*+Na2O)]×100%若n(CaO)<n(Na2O),n(CaO)=n(CaO*),若n(CaO)>n(Na2O),则n(CaO*)=n(Na2O)[3234]
    样品编号BScVCrCoNiCuZnGaRbSrYMoCdInSbCsBaWPbThUZrHf
    L-18-21271712281.316.141.946.590.421.415973724.51.130.20.081.3213.16441.9429.7144.091714.86
    L-19-136.94.0127.919.74.6112.922.11004.7330.56868.884.272.690.030.572.311000.55316.93.591.4753.81.5
    L-20-11199.371.851.58.9323.242.245.612.172.653324.50.40.10.050.635.624001.4419.79.472.411524.1
    L-22-262.59.5169.447.79.0823.329.951.311.971.915725.170.20.050.775.7210731.5817.710.82.711454.17
    L-76-385.411.788.161.313.63119.969.614.810614824.50.420.190.050.988.733311.7624.710.72.761664.8
    L-79-21411183.358.513.229.631.273.815.510713125.10.50.20.060.779.554861.6823.311.72.781875.3
    平均值(Eg395.310.4277.0853.3310.9226.9831.9771.7813.4191.17398.6722.12.290.60.050.847.51505.671.492210.042.7145.84.12
    L-07-210311.280.654.54.4219185212.886.610623.90.310.130.051.398.961881.6120.810.32.392206.16
    L-09-188.89.5369.958.610.225.420.552.910.56616327.30.280.280.051.376.092641.5316.810.22.882486.87
    L-12-415422.214710417.648.726.278.227.221412228.80.720.140.011.6119.64992.2517.316.842015.58
    L-64-371.412.588.369.112.230.923.975.915.511314226.80.370.160.061.088.12791.7925.5123.162236.26
    平均值(Eg2104.313.8696.4571.5511.113122.1564.7516.5119.9133.2526.70.420.180.061.3610.69307.511.820.112.333.112236.23
    L-33-289.47.7569.544.18.9922.425.64810.57113920.80.340.130.030.634.782851.316.88.232.321734.69
    L-46-117614.397.469.114.23534.486.916.610713225.50.80.190.061.458.443551.7825.111.42.431764.98
    平均值(Eg1132.71183.556.611.628.73067.513.689135.523.20.60.20.0116.63201.5219.82.4174.54.8
    地壳值7.618140110258963941878480241.30.20.10.61.43901.10.015.81.71301.5
    注:样品由核工业北京测试分析中心完成,地壳值自文献[35]。
    编号(时代)岩性LaCePrNdSmEuGdTbDyHoErTmYbLuYΣREELREEHREELREE/HREELaN/YbNδEuδCeLa/Yb
    L-18-2(Eg3粉砂质泥岩35.467.57.8429.85.651.234.770.834.580.872.660.442.870.4224.5206.36147.4258.942.58.320.710.9467.5
    L-19-1(Eg3泥灰岩11.1222.439.311.980.361.840.321.70.310.8360.160.8170.138.8866.1847.18192.489.160.570.9822
    L-20-1(Eg3泥灰岩27.452.86.3925.25.261.234.650.864.610.842.520.42.40.3824.5168.75118.2850.472.347.70.740.9352.8
    L-22-2(Eg3泥质粉砂岩29.657.36.96275.321.194.670.864.580.892.480.422.550.425.1178.83127.3751.462.487.830.710.9357.3
    L-76-3(Eg3粉砂岩31.259.67.2127.85.561.24.930.864.560.872.680.422.740.4224.5186.25132.5753.682.477.680.690.9259.6
    L-79-2(Eg3泥质粉砂岩31.361.27.2728.35.751.184.910.864.720.852.630.422.620.4125.1188.5213553.522.528.050.660.9461.2
    平均值(Eg327.6753.46.3524.574.921.074.30.764.130.772.30.382.330.3622.1165.81117.9747.842.478.120.680.9412.05
    L-07-2(Eg2粉砂质泥岩27.752.36.36244.531.024.170.814.440.892.570.392.480.4123.9167.17115.9151.262.267.530.710.9152.3
    L-12-4(Eg2泥灰岩43.479.59.1733.55.391.134.860.895.131.053.10.513.350.5228.8242.5172.0970.412.448.730.660.9179.5
    L-64-3(Eg2粉砂质泥岩34.263.57.6428.85.511.215.030.895.050.942.850.4730.4626.8198.85140.8657.992.437.690.690.9163.5
    L-09-1(Eg2粉砂岩3159.57.2229.15.651.35.080.954.770.952.750.432.630.4627.3188.61133.7754.842.447.950.730.9359.5
    平均值(Eg234.0863.77.628.855.271.174.790.894.850.962.820.452.870.4626.7199.28140.6658.632.397.970.70.9211.83
    L-33-2(Eg1粉砂岩24.448.45.922.94.360.994.050.73.940.712.190.332.030.3420.8149.78106.9542.842.58.10.710.9448.4
    L-46-1(Eg1泥质粉砂岩30.658.47.0626.45.361.134.610.824.610.882.660.42.620.4125.5185.76128.9556.812.277.870.680.9258.4
    平均值(Eg127.553.46.4824.654.861.064.330.764.280.792.430.372.330.3723.15167.7117.9549.822.387.9930.690.9311.85
    CL-1(P3英云闪长岩15.829.023.8613.43.020.772.60.432.380.491.380.211.350.1912.8687.7665.121.892.977.890.820.8711.7
    CL-2(P3英云闪长岩1529.883.9514.453.030.752.70.4430.581.770.261.860.2815.1293.0766.3126.012.55.440.790.928.06
    CL-3(P3英云闪长岩8.6520.282.911.843.220.983.450.593.630.82.360.362.270.3220.7482.3946.8934.521.922.570.890.973.81
    CL-4(P3英云闪长岩15.829.023.8614.33.020.772.60.432.380.491.380.211.350.1912.8688.666621.892.147.890.820.8711.7
    CL-5(P3英云闪长岩23.9846.485.719.513.840.8230.452.410.491.380.21.330.1912.72122.599.5122.172.9812.160.710.9318.03
    CL-6(P3二长花岗岩14.0528.723.8813.684.060.534.320.895.31.012.850.432.80.4130.19113.1264.3948.22.063.380.380.925.02
    CL-7(P3黑云母花岗岩18.2138.665.0417.994.540.454.350.724.560.912.630.42.480.3324.07125.3484.4440.451.594.950.310.967.34
    CL-8(P3黑云母花岗岩18.2138.665.0417.994.540.454.350.724.560.912.630.42.480.3324.07125.3484.4440.452.094.950.310.967.34
    CL-9(P3石英闪长岩16.1431.934.1514.883.360.863.020.492.810.591.710.261.650.2314.696.6870.4625.363.336.590.810.929.78
    CL-10(P3黑云母花岗16.1333.664.4615.844.30.494.340.814.930.962.740.422.640.3727.13119.2274.3944.341.594.120.340.946.11
    上地壳30647.1264.5.000.83.80.643.50.82.30.332.20.322
    中地壳17155.8244.4.001.540.583.80.82.302.30.422
    下地壳8202.6112.8.001.13.10.483.10.71.90.321.50.316
    注:样品CL⁃1~CL⁃10数据来自文献[28];上中下地壳来自文献[36⁃37]。
  • 整体上,昌都盆地细碎屑岩样品的Al2O3和K2O含量,具有明显的正相关性(r=0.948 1,n=12),说明K元素主要来源于黏土矿物[3839]。Fe2O3和Al2O3+K2O含量,显示出相关性极差(r=0.000 1,n=12),说明Fe元素来源与黏土矿物无关[25]。SiO2与Al2O3+K2O之间,相关性极差(r=0.066 7,n=12),说明Si不以黏土矿物形式存在,而是以碎屑石英颗粒的形式存在。SiO2/Al2O3值(2.8~5.9),说明石英含量相对较低,长石含量较高。K2O/Na2O值为0.099~1.157,均值0.495,表现出受风化作用的影响较低,且淋滤作用较弱,造成了Na元素的流失量较小[25]。样品烧失量为11.12%~19.16%,均值8.55%,与CaO含量成正相关(r=0.70,n=12),考虑青藏高原在古近纪时期气候干旱[8],较高的烧失量可能与碳酸盐矿物的存在有关,与岩相学特征相吻合。

    通过对盆地12件细碎屑岩样品的常量元素进行分析(表1),盆地古近系贡觉组一段细碎屑岩SiO2的平均值为52.92%,二段增加到54.32%,三段减少到51.99%;贡觉组一段细碎屑岩Al2O3的平均为11.49%,二段增加到13.71%,三段降低到11.93%;贡觉组一段细碎屑岩Fe2O3的平均值为4.56%,二段增加到4.72%,三段减少到4.05%;贡觉组一段细碎屑岩MgO的平均值为2.00%,二段减少到1.89%,三段增加到2.44%;贡觉组一段细碎屑岩CaO的平均值为12.77%,二段减少到10.14%,三段增加到11.60%;贡觉组一段细碎屑岩Na2O的平均值为1.23%,而二段减少到0.59%,三段增加到1.04%;贡觉组一段细碎屑岩K2O的平均值为2.20%,而二段增加到2.80%,三段减少到2.09%;贡觉组一段细碎屑岩MnO的平均值为0.12%,二段减少到0.07%,三段增加到0.13%;贡觉组一段细碎屑岩TiO2的平均值为0.64%,二段增加到0.73%,三段减少到0.56%;贡觉组一段细碎屑岩P2O5的平均值为0.14%,二段和三段的平均值接近(0.11%和0.10%);贡觉组一段细碎屑岩FeO的平均值为0.83%,二段增加到1.44%,三段减少到1.18%;贡觉组一段细碎屑ICV(成分变异指数)和CIA(化学蚀变指数)的平均值分别为2.05和71.75,贡觉组二段细碎屑岩化学风化程度指数ICV和CIA的平均值分别为1.53和77.50,贡觉组三段细碎屑岩ICV(成分变异指数)和CIA(化学蚀变指数)的平均值分别为2.01和74.10。整体上来讲,贡觉组三段细碎屑岩的主量元素SiO2、Al2O3、Fe2O3、K2O、TiO2、FeO和化学蚀变指数CIA具有增加—降低的趋势,而MgO、Na2O、MnO、P2O5、CaO和ICV具有降低—增加的趋势,两者出现了相反的趋势,表明贡觉组细碎屑岩的SiO2、Al2O3、Fe2O3、K2O、TiO2、FeO与化学蚀变指数CIA相关性较高,MgO、Na2O、MnO、P2O5、CaO和成分变异指数ICV相关性较高。

  • 贡觉组细碎屑岩的微量元素测试分析结果显示(表2),贡觉组一段(绿色圆圈符号)、二段(红色三角形符号)和三段(黑色方框符号)的微量元素地壳标准化模式曲线一致(图4),均有富集Sr、Ba、Pb、Zr元素的特征,亏损Sc、Ga、In、W、U和Hf元素的特征,同时发现贡觉组一段碎屑岩Pb元素含量的平均值约为地壳Pb元素含量的2 100倍;二段含量约为地壳含量的2 970倍,三段含量约为地壳含量的2 200倍,高含量的Pb元素可能与昌都盆地铅锌多金属矿的富集有关,也发现化学风化指示一段弱,二段强,三段弱的特征。

    Figure 4.  Spider web pattern of trace elements in the grain⁃fine clastic rocks from the Paleogene Gongjue Formation in Qamdo Basin

  • 北羌塘地区昌都盆地古近系贡觉组细碎屑岩稀土元素特征如下(表3),一段细碎屑岩的稀土元素总量(ΣREE)为149.78×10-6~185.76×10-6,平均值为167.70×10-6;二段碎屑岩的稀土元素总量(ΣREE)为167.17×10-6~242.50×10-6,平均值为199.28×10-6;三段细碎屑岩的稀土元素总量(ΣREE)为66.18×10-6~206.36×10-6,平均值为165.81×10-6。贡觉组一段细碎屑岩的LREE/HREE为2.27~2.50,平均值为2.38;贡觉组二段细碎屑岩的LREE/HREE为2.26~2.44,平均值为2.39;贡觉组三段细碎屑岩的LREE/HREE为2.34~2.52,平均值为2.47。贡觉组一段细碎屑岩的δEu为0.68~0.71,平均值为0.69;贡觉组二段细碎屑岩的δEu为0.66~0.73,平均值为0.70;贡觉组三段细碎屑岩的δEu为0.57~0.71,平均值为0.68。贡觉组一段细碎屑岩的δCe为0.92~0.94,平均值为0.93;贡觉组二段细碎屑岩的δCe为0.91~0.93,平均值为0.93;贡觉组三段细碎屑岩的δCe为0.92~0.98,平均值为0.94(表3)。通过稀土元素球粒陨石标准化后,呈现为轻稀土元素富集,重稀土元素亏损,轻重稀土分馏明显(图5a),在北美页岩标准化曲线上,呈近水平展布(图5b),指示贡觉组细碎屑岩的源岩均来自大陆上地壳。

    Figure 5.  Standardized spider web diagram of rare earth elements in grain⁃fine clastic rocks of Paleogene Gongjue Formation, Qamdo Basin

  • 利用砂岩—泥岩的常量元素可以判断物源源岩类型。Roser et al.[39]以248个化学分析数据为基础,认为Al2O3/SiO2、K2O/Na2O和Fe2O3总+MgO被证明是最为有效的判断依据,再依据Ti,Al、Fe、Mg、Ca、Na和K的氧化物含量,对于CaCO中生物成因CaO和SiO2,可以采用TiO2,Fe2O3+MgO,Na2O和K2O对Al2O3的比值进行排除,进而认为该图解可以有效地判断砂岩—泥岩的源岩类型为铁镁质的、中性的或长英质火成岩还是石英沉积岩的来源,最终总结函数F1和F2的计算公式如下。

    砂岩—泥岩常量元素判别物源区特征的判别图解(图6a):

    Figure 6.  Provenance lithology judgment diagram of the grain⁃fine clastic rocks from the Paleogene Gongjue Formation in Qamdo Basin[3940]

    判别函数F1=30.638TiO2/Al2O3-12.541Fe2O3总/Al2O3+7.329MgO/Al2O3+12.031Na2O/Al2O3+35.402K2O/Al2O3-6.382

    判别函数F2=36.500TiO2/Al2O3-10.879Fe2O3总/Al2O3+30.875MgO/Al2O3-5.404Na2/Al2O3+11.112K2O/Al2O3-3.89

    砂岩—泥岩常量元素判别函数限定物源区特征的图解(图6c):

    判别函数F1=-1.773TiO2+0.607Al2O3+0.76Fe2O3-1.5MgO+0.616CaO+0509Na2O-1.224K2O-9.09

    判别函数F2=0.445TiO2+0.07Al2O3-0.25Fe2O3总-1.142MgO+0.438CaO+0.475Na2O+1.426K2O-6.861

    Pettijohn et al.[40]通过各种砂岩大量的化学分析结果,总结出不同成熟度的实验化学成分上的变量关系,其中成熟的石英砂屑岩具有较高的SiO2/Al2O3比值,未成熟的砂岩则具有较低的SiO2/Al2O3比值,同时未成熟砂岩中Na2O/K2O比值也存在差异,则反映碎屑和胶结物成分的不同。因此,在判断源岩类型及形成条件上具有重要意义,在国内外得到广泛的应用。Pettijohn et al.[40]通过Na2O/K2O和SiO2/Al2O3的对数值作为横纵坐标建立了Na2O/K2O和SiO2/Al2O3图解能够有效地判断源岩类型。

    通过对昌都盆地古近系贡觉组一段、二段和三段细碎屑岩主量元素特征,化学蚀变指和化学风化指数的分析,表明古近系贡觉组二段的细碎屑岩的主量元素含量、化学蚀变指数和化学风化指数明显高于一段和三段。可能是在二段时期,由于气候环境的变化,构造的隆升,风化更为强烈。F1-F2函数图解揭示贡觉组细碎屑岩主要来自火成岩区(图6a)。主量元素的log(K2O/Na2O)-log(SiO2/Al2O3)函数图解揭示昌都盆地贡觉组细碎屑岩的岩石类型为长石砂岩和石质砂屑砂岩(图6b)。F’1-F’2函数图解揭示昌都盆地贡觉组细碎屑岩的物源来自中性岩火成岩物源区(图6c)。综上所述,昌都盆地古近系贡觉组细碎屑岩以长石砂岩和长质砂屑砂岩为主,源岩来自中性火山成物源区。二叠纪—三叠纪,由于怒江特提斯洋向昌都地块的俯冲作用,在昌都地块及其周围形成了大量的火山岛弧,其中江达岩体就形成于该时期,且以中酸性火山岩为主[28],表明昌都盆地古近系贡觉组的细碎屑岩可能来自江达岩体。

  • 沉积岩在风化、搬运、沉积和成岩过程中,其La、Y、Sc、Cr、Th、Th、Zr、Co等元素相对稳定,不易受环境改变而改变,因此,可以用来判断原始物质来源。Bhati[41]对东澳大利亚五个已知物源区构造环境的泥岩及杂砂岩的微量元素地球化学特征研究,认为微量元素含量与源区类型和构造背景之间存在对应关系,并提出不同的构造环境下沉积岩微量元素Th-Sc-Zr/10、Th-Co-Zr/10和La-Th-Sc三端元判别图解。利用这些图解可以直观地判断杂砂岩形成的构造环境,并得到地质学界的认可和广泛应用[42]

    细碎屑岩的特定地球化学元素含量具有源区构造背景的继承性[4344]。因此,利用昌都盆地古近系贡觉组细碎岩微量元素的三端元图解投图,对昌都盆地古近系贡觉组细碎岩构造环境识别。贡觉组一段、二段和三段的细碎屑岩样品在Th-Sc-Zr/10、Th-Co-Zr/10和La-Th-Sc图解中均落入大陆岛弧环境(图7),指示昌都盆地古近系贡觉组的细碎屑岩的源岩来自岛弧环境。而在二叠纪—三叠纪时期,怒江特提斯洋向昌都地块持续俯冲,昌都地块形成了大量的火山岛弧,侏罗纪—白垩纪由于冈—念陆块继续向昌都陆块俯冲,同时西侧的德格陆块也向昌都陆块俯冲[28]。古近纪以来,印度板块和欧亚大陆的碰撞及强烈的陆内汇聚作用[26],印度板块俯冲与欧亚板块碰撞,盆地被拉分[1419],使得晚三叠世火成岩的出露,在强烈的风化剥蚀作用下,沉积于盆地内,形成了古近系贡觉组的细碎屑岩沉积。

    Figure 7.  Diagram of tectonic setting for the grain⁃fine clastic rocks from the Paleogene Gongjue Formation in Qamdo Basin[45]

    稀土元素(REE)常被认为是非迁移的,稳定的,其沉积物中的REE含量受控源区岩石中的REE丰度及源区风化条件的约束,搬运、沉积和成岩作用对沉积物中REE含量的影响甚微,REE配分模式特征从源区到沉积场所不会发生明显的改变[37],沉积物中的REE能够有效反映源区岩石的特征。稀土元素球粒陨石标准化能够反映沉积物的物质来源是否一致,北美页岩能够反映其物质来源于上地壳[37],因此,采用球粒陨石和北美页岩标准化曲线揭示其古近系贡觉组细碎屑岩来自于江达岩体。通过引用江达地区晚三叠世花岗岩的稀土元素[28]与研究区古近系贡觉组细碎屑岩的稀土元素进行球粒陨石和北美页岩标准化。对比发现,除了江达岩体的CL-6、CL-7、CL-8和CL-10的样品的北美页岩和球粒陨石标准化曲线与细碎屑岩的标准化曲线相比,出现了明显的Eu负异常之外,其余样品均与细碎屑岩的样品曲线表现出高度的相似性(图8),表明盆地细碎屑岩的物源来源于上地壳,其源岩为江达岩体的英云闪长岩和石英闪长岩的风化产物。

    Figure 8.  Standardized spider web diagram of REE in the grain⁃fine clastic rocks from the Paleogene Gongjue Formation in Qamdo Basin and granite in the Jiangda area[28]

  • 晚中生代以来,我国大部分地区以发育陆相沉积为特色,陆相地层与大气直接接触,细碎屑岩敏感地记录沉积时期的古环境和古气候特点及变化[4748],而沉积岩的微量元素B、Sr、Ba、Cu、V、Cr、U、Th、Zn等具有可变价态,易受环境变化影响,在沉积物中的富集程度受环境的氧化还原条件控制。因此,这些氧化还原敏感元素能够指示沉积岩的形成环境,它们的质量分数及元素比值可以作为判断沉积环境的重要指标[4950]。此次通过对昌都盆地古近系贡觉组碎屑岩样品的微量元素特征比值进行分析(表4),采用沉积岩微量元素的Sr/Ba、Sr/Cu、V/Cr、U/Th、Cu/Zn元素比值,以及CIA、ICV、CIW、CIWcorr、Sr和B元素质量等指标,揭示昌都盆地贡觉组的沉积环境演化规律。

    样品编号B/×10-6Sr/BaSr/CuV/CrV/(V+Cr)Ni/CoU/ThCu/Zn
    L-18-2127.001.1415.851.500.602.600.290.51
    L-19-136.906.8631.041.420.592.800.410.22
    L-20-1119.001.3312.631.390.582.600.250.93
    L-22-262.500.155.251.450.592.570.250.58
    L-76-385.400.457.441.440.592.280.260.29
    L-79-2141.000.274.201.420.592.240.240.42
    平均值95.301.7012.731.440.592.510.280.49
    L-07-2103.000.565.891.480.604.300.230.35
    L-09-188.800.627.951.190.542.490.280.39
    L-12-4154.000.244.661.410.592.770.240.34
    L-64-371.400.515.941.280.562.530.260.31
    平均值104.300.486.111.340.573.020.250.35
    L-33-289.400.495.431.580.612.490.280.53
    L-46-1176.000.373.841.410.582.460.210.40
    平均值132.700.434.631.490.602.480.250.46
  • 在潮湿气候条件下,沉积岩中Fe、Al、V、Ni、Ba、Zn、Co等元素含量较高,说明湖水淡化,为高湖面期,反映的是潮湿的气候环境。而在干燥气候条件下,由于水分蒸发,水介质的碱性增强,Na、Ca、Mg、Cu、Sr、Mn大量析出,形成各种盐类沉积在水底,所以它们的含量相对增高,为低湖面期,反映的是干燥的气候环境[49]。因此Sr/Ba、K2O-B*、B-Sr以及V-Ba图解常是指示沉积物水体盐度和来源的一种重要判别指标和图解。当Sr/Ba大于1.0时,为海相咸水;介于0.6~1.0为半咸水相;小于0.6时,为陆相淡水[4950],同时利用B-Sr、V-Ba以及K2O-B*图解指示沉积物沉积时的水体盐度和来源[51]。通过盆地细碎屑岩的K2O-B*和B-Sr图解判断,昌都盆地贡觉组一段、二段和三段的细碎屑岩基本均落入半咸水—咸水区域(图9a,b),而V-Ba图解显示总体上均落入陆相区(图9c)。Sr/Ba指标显示,贡觉组一段细碎屑岩Sr/Ba的比值介于0.37~0.49,其平均值为0.43;贡觉组二段细碎屑岩Sr/Ba的比值介于0.4~0.62,平均值为0.48;贡觉组三段细碎屑岩Sr/Ba的比值介于0.15~6.86,平均值为1.70(图9d)。表明贡觉组一段以淡水环境为主,二段以淡水—半咸水环境为主,三段以半咸水—咸水环境为主。总体而言,昌都盆地古近系贡觉组体现了由一段到三段均为陆相环境,沉积过程中搬运介质的盐度不断升高的过程,可能是受气候的影响,水体蒸发导致盐度不断升高。

    Figure 9.  Judging diagram of the grain⁃fine clastic rocks salinity from the Paleogene Gongjue Formation in Qamdo Basin[39]

  • Cr在氧化环境中,以离子形式(CrO42-)稳定地存在于海水中,V除了以离子形式(H2VO4-)存在海水中,还有一小部分被Fe、Mn氧化物所吸附[52]。当海水由氧化环境逐渐向缺氧环境转变时,V被还原为VO22+,与有机物发生络合沉淀于沉积物中,Cr被还原为Cr(OH)2+与腐殖酸或者黄腐酸形成的复合物沉淀于沉积物中[53]。当环境继续向硫化环境转变时,V进一步被还原为难溶的V2O3和V(OH)3,在沉积物中的富集程度进一步加强,而Cr对硫化环境不敏感,易于随陆源碎屑或替代其中的Mg元素沉积下来[5456]。因此,V/Cr常作为判断氧化还原条件的一种重要指标,当V/Cr小于2时为含氧环境,V/Cr在2.00~4.25之间为贫氧环境,而V/Cr大于4.25时为贫氧—缺氧环境[4950]。昌都盆地贡觉组一段细碎屑岩的V/Cr比值介于1.41~1.58,均值为1.49;贡觉组二段细碎屑岩的V/Cr比值介于1.19~1.48,均值为1.34,三段细碎屑岩的V/Cr比值介于1.39~1.50,一段、二段和三段的V/Cr比值均小于2,表明盆地古近纪贡觉组整体处于含氧环境(图10a)。

    Figure 10.  Redox environment map of grain⁃fine clastic rocks in the Paleogene Gongjue Formation, Qamdo Basin

    Th和U自身化学性质的不同,导致其在不同环境下的赋存状态有所差异。Th对氧化还原条件的敏感性差,在水体中以Th4+的溶解态存在[53]。U在缺氧水体中以U4+离子态与氟化物结合形成不溶于水的化合物,并且易于在腐殖酸中形成有机金属配位体。在氧化水体中以U6+形式与海水中的碳酸根离子形成可溶性的[UO2(CO33]4-,导致在氧化环境中沉积物亏损U,因此,U/Th是指示水体氧化还原条件的重要指标[53]。普遍认为U/Th的比值大于1.25时为缺氧环境,U/Th的比值介于0.75~1.25时为贫氧环境,U/Th的比值小于0.75时为氧化环境[4950]。昌都盆地贡觉组一段细碎屑岩的U/Th比值介于0.21~0.28,均值为0.25;二段细碎屑岩的U/Th比值介于0.23~0.28,均值为0.25;三段细碎屑岩的U/Th比值介于0.24~0.41,均值为0.28,一段、二段和三段的U/Th比值均小于0.75,表明昌都盆地古近纪贡觉组处于氧化环境,与V/Cr比值指示盆地处于含氧环境吻合(图10b)。

    V/(V+Cr)是指示水体氧化还原程度的重要指标,其原理与V/Cr相同,不再阐述。V/(V+Cr)大于0.6时显示较强的缺氧条件[5758]。通过对昌都盆地古近系贡觉组细碎屑岩微量元素的V/(V+Cr)比值计算,得出一段的V/(V+Cr)比值介于0.58~0.61,均值为0.6;二段的V/(V+Cr)比值介于0.54~0.6,均值为0.57;三段的V/(V+Cr)比值介于0.58~0.6,均值为0.59。一段、二段和三段细碎屑岩的V/(V+Cr)比值均小于0.6,揭示贡觉组处于富氧—有氧环境(图10c)。

    Cu在氧化环境中,以有机金属配位体和CuCl+离子的形式存在,当水体为还原条件时,Cu2+被还原为Cu+,进入黄铁矿中或形成硫化物CuS2-或者CuS[59]。Zn在海水氧化环境时,以腐殖酸/富里酸的络合物形式存在;硫化环境时,以Zn的形式存在于黄铁矿中[60]。因此,Cu/Zn常被用来指示氧化—还原程度,当Cu/Zn值小于0.21,为还原环境,在0.21~0.35时为弱还原环境,在0.35~0.50时为氧化环境[5051]。昌都盆地贡觉组一段细碎屑岩的Cu/Zn比值介于0.40~0.53,均值为0.46;二段细碎屑岩的Cu/Zn比值介于0.31~0.39,均值为0.35;三段细碎屑岩的Cu/Zn比值介于0.22~0.93,均值为0.49。整体上,一段、二段和三段的Cu/Zn比值范围变化较大,但都大于0.21,多数大于0.35,表明盆地古近纪贡觉组一段、二段和三段均出现了由弱还原环境向氧化环境转化,其氧化程度由弱向强转化(图10d)。

    在氧化水体中,Ni以溶解态的离子形式存在(Ni2+)或者以碳酸盐形式(NiCO3)被有机质所吸附[52]。还原(有H2S存在)环境中,Ni形成不溶性硫化物(NiS),可在固溶体中被自生黄铁矿吸收[59]。在还原环境中,Co比Ni优先活化,造成沉积物中Ni/Co比值增大。因此,Ni/Co是判断沉积物沉积环境中水体氧化还原程度的重要参数。普遍认为:当Ni/Co小于5时为氧化环境;当Ni/Co介于5~7时为贫氧环境,Ni/Co大于7时为次缺氧—缺氧环境[6064]。通过对昌都盆地古近系贡觉组细碎屑岩微量元素的Ni/Co比值计算,得出一段的Ni/Co介于2.46~2.49,均值为2.48;二段的Ni/Co比值介于2.49~4.3,均值为3.02;三段的Ni/Co比值介于2.24~2.8,均值为2.51。一段、二段和三段细碎屑岩的Ni/Co)比值均小于5,指示贡觉组处于氧化环境(图10e)。

  • 高含量Sr是水体在干旱炎热的气候条件下浓缩的结果,而Cu是在干燥的条件,水体介质的碱性增强,导致Cu的大量析出[49],因此Sr/Cu常被用来判断气候温湿和干热的重要指标,当Sr/Cu的比值介于1~10时指示温湿气候,大于10时,指示干热气候[4950]。昌都盆地贡觉组第一段细碎屑岩Sr/Cu介于3.84~5.43,均值为4.63;第二段细碎屑岩Sr/Cu的比值介于4.66~7.95,均值为6.11;第三段细碎屑岩Sr/Cu的比值介于4.20~31.04,均值为12.73(图11)。总体而言,贡觉组一段和二段处于温湿气候,到了三段环境发生改变,转化为干热气候环境,表明古近纪贡觉组气候变化复杂,经历了由温湿到干热气候的转变,且在三段出现了气候温湿到干热旋回性变化。

    Figure 11.  The paleoclimate and weathering index of grain⁃fine clastic rocks in the Paleogene Gongjue Formation, Qamdo Basin

    Wedepohl[65]研究认为单位体积上地壳平均矿物百分含量中,斜长石占41%、石英占21%、钾长石占21%。由于石英在表生系统下化学性质极为稳定,因此,上地壳物质风化过程中,主要发生长石的分解、转化,Na+、K+和Ca2+等碱金属离子随地表流体大量流失并导致长石最终转变为以蒙脱石、高岭石及伊利石为主的黏土矿物,所以风化产物中的Al2O3摩尔分数随化学风化强度的增强而升高。因此,化学蚀变指数CIA、CIAcorr、CIW和成分分异指数ICV常用来指示沉积物风化程度的重要指标[33,66]。通过分析认为,高CIA值表明风化过程中Ca、Na、K等元素相对于稳定的Al和Ti元素的大量流失,反映了温暖、潮湿气候下相对较强的风化程度;相反,低CIA值,反映了寒冷、干燥气候下相对较弱的风化程度[67]。Fedo et al.[66]总结认为,CIA在50~60之间,反映了风化程度弱,CIA在60~80之间,反映了中等风化程度,CIA在80~100之间,反映了风化程度强烈。Cox et al.[67]认为,ICV值大于1,则反映了细碎屑岩含较少黏土物质,反映活动构造带的首次沉积,ICV值小于1,则反映了细碎屑岩含黏土成分,即沉积物经历了沉积再循环作用,或者是强烈风化作用下的首次沉积。CIW值越高,代表物源区风化程度越强,反映物源区古气候越趋向于温暖、潮湿[33,66]。昌都盆地古近系贡觉组一段细碎屑岩的CIA指数在68.18~73.69之间,平均值为71.15;二段的CIA指数在74.22~82.17之间,平均值为77.50;三段的CIA指数在65.29~76.09之间,平均值为74.10。同时,化学风化指数CIW,一段在77.65~86.47之间,平均值为82.37,二段在84.65~95.88之间,平均值为92.08,三段在72.93~92.14之间,平均值为85.15(图11)。反映了源区源岩由弱—强—弱的风化过程,以中等风化为主。贡觉组一段细碎屑岩的CIAcorr指数在72.57~78.82之间,平均值为75.82(图11),二段在79.46~87.88之间,平均值为82.61(图11),三段在67.86~79.99之间,平均值为78.48(图11),反映了贡觉组一段和二段处于潮湿的气候环境,高于平均页岩值(70~75)[33,66,68],三段气候变化频繁,潮湿和干燥的环境旋回出现,气候变化复杂。细碎屑岩的成分分异指数ICV均大于1(图11),表明细碎屑岩含有极少黏土物质,反映了活动构造带的首次沉积,同时通过薄片显微镜特征观察,其成分以石英矿物为主,成分程度较高。化学风化指数(CIA、CIAcorr、CIW)和成分分异指数(ICV)综合表明盆地贡觉组从一段到三段,风化程度由弱—强—弱的过程,其中一段与二段以潮湿的气候环境为主,三段气候变化频繁,以潮湿和干燥的环境旋回出现,更为复杂。

    通过对昌都盆地细碎屑岩微量元素的B-Sr、Ga-B-Rb、V-Ba、K2O-B*图解和Sr/Ba、Sr/Cu、V/Cr、V/(V+Cr)、Ni/Co、U/Th、Cu/Zn及化学风化程度(CIA、CIW、ICV和CIAcorr)指标综合判断,认为昌都盆地古近系贡觉组一段和二段处于湿润的氧化环境,沉积水体盐度以陆相半咸水—咸水为主,风化程度为强烈,三段氧化程度加强,水体盐度增加至咸水,转变为干热气候环境,风化程度强烈,这与现在的青藏高原气候基本吻合。

  • 昌都盆地发育在羌塘—昌都地块之上,东北为拉竹龙—金沙江缝合带,是晚三叠世金沙江洋特提斯的闭合,昌都陆块与松潘—甘孜陆块相互碰撞造山所致。西南为班公湖—怒江缝合带,是中侏罗世中晚期,班公湖—怒江洋盆的闭合,冈底斯—察隅微板块拼贴所致[30]。新生代以来,受到两侧山链向盆地对冲挤压,盆地发生缩短,形成一系列冲断体系,特别是类乌齐—东达山在海西印支期复合造山,使得盆地沿北澜沧江断裂大规模地向东部前陆盆地斜冲逆掩,前端发生强烈构造变形[30],盆地的中东部,走滑拉分作用形成一系列古近纪走滑伸展、压陷盆地。该时期由于两侧山链已形成,向盆地中间剪切挤压,形成了古近系走滑拉分盆地。对其古近系贡觉组细碎屑岩的微量元素特征分析,表明主要物源来自阿中—江达岛弧(图8),有少部分物源来自类乌齐陆块。微量元素和稀土元素指示环境分析,表明贡觉组形成于半咸水—咸水的氧化环境,气候由温湿向干热转化,气温不断降低的过程。依据环境演化特征,将其分为两个阶段(图12),第一阶段包括贡觉组一段和二段,主要为半咸水—咸水环境,气候温湿,以弱氧化为主(图12a);第二阶段为贡觉组三段,以咸水—干热—强氧化环境为主(图12b),并且出现多层次的旋回性,环境演化复杂,这可能受青藏高原的不断隆升,气候变化周期更加频繁所致。

    Figure 12.  Sedimentary environment evolution model of the Paleogene Gongjue Formation in Qamdo Basin

  • 昌都盆地位于北羌塘陆块之上,在中三叠世,南羌塘地块、北羌塘—昌都地块与昆仑地块之间发生碰撞,导致古特提斯洋及其分支洋盆的闭合,南北羌塘陆块合并为一个整体羌塘陆块,北羌塘—昌都地块隆升为剥蚀区,南羌塘陆块大部分为拗陷区,接受海相沉积[6970]。晚三叠世,金沙江古洋盆与澜沧古洋盆的闭合,北羌塘—昌都地块受到双向挤压的作用,古生代沉积形成的盆地被破坏改造,形成北羌塘—昌都盆地的基本格局。晚白垩世受新特提斯洋盆关闭的影响,海水由盆地北西方向退出[69],至古近纪昌都盆地受到印度板块与欧亚板块的碰撞,发生陆内汇聚,盆地内走滑拉分断裂发育,在昌都地区形成走滑拉分盆地[23]。古近纪在昌都地区仅出现贡觉组沉积,为一套红色砂岩、泥岩和蒸发岩沉积地层,以湖泊—河流相沉积为主。通过贡觉组细碎屑岩主量元素的log(K2O/Na2O)-log(SiO2/Al2O3)、F2-F1、F’1-F’2、Th-Sc-Zr/10、Th-Co-Zr/10和La-Th-Sc图解,再结合晚三叠世江达地区岛弧花岗岩的稀土元素球粒陨石特征,发现两者特征极其吻合,表明贡觉组的细碎屑岩源岩来自江达地区三叠世花岗岩体风化剥蚀搬运沉积的产物。前人对江达地区的肯座正长斑岩体和南部芒康马牧普正长斑岩体定年,其时代分别为210 Ma和37.6 Ma[71],因此,推断贡觉组细碎屑岩的源岩可能来自肯座正长斑岩体的风化产物,进一步说明江达地区构造隆升更为强烈,风化更为严重,破坏了区内的油气资源储层,导致油气的外溢,形成的油气未能保存,使得地层中含大量的有机质,再通过热化学还原硫酸盐,形成硫离子,提供了主要硫源,并与源区物质中的铅锌离子结合,形成铅锌矿产沉淀下来,富集成矿,因此,油气等有机质是三江地区铅锌多金属成矿的还原剂[26,50]

  • (1) 通过主微量元素的F1-F2函数图解、log(SiO2/Al2O3)-log(K2O/Na2O)和F’1-F’2函数图解,结合微量元素Th-Sc-Zr/10、Th-Co-Zr/10和La-Th-Sc图解以及江达地区晚三叠世花岗岩稀土元素标准化对比和区域地质演化特征,揭示盆地贡觉组以长石砂岩和石质砂屑砂岩为主,物源可能主要来自江达—阿中地区晚三叠世岛弧酸性火成岩区的风化产物,其年龄约为210 Ma。

    (2) 微量元素指示环境特征参数表明贡觉组一段和二段主要形成于湿润的半咸水—咸水氧化环境。三段形成于干热的咸水强氧化环境,且环境变化复杂,出现旋回性的变化且风化程度强烈,这可能与青藏高原不断隆升有关。根据贡觉组的环境演化特征,将其沉积环境划分为两个阶段,其一阶段为一段(Eg1)和二段(Eg2)环境变化模式,其二阶段为三段(Eg3)环境变化模式。

    (3) 金沙江洋和澜沧江洋的闭合,预示新特提斯洋的整体闭合。印度板块向欧亚板块俯冲,昌都地区发展为走滑拉分盆地,区内断裂发育,油气资源遭受严重破坏,同时,这些外溢油气又是三江特提斯构造带碱金属成矿主要还原剂。

Reference (71)

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return