Evolution of the Neogene Andean foreland basins of the Southern Pampas and Northern Patagonia (34°–41°S), Argentina
The Pampas plain (30°–41°S) has historically been considered as a sector that evolved independently from the adjacent Andean ranges. Nevertheless, the study of the Pampas showed that it is reasonable to expect an important influence from the Andes into the extraandean area. The Pampas plain can be d...
| Autores: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2015 |
| País: | Argentina |
| Recursos: | Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| Repositorio: | CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/19205 |
| Acesso em linha: | http://hdl.handle.net/11336/19205 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Basin Analysis Neogene Dynamic Topography Broken Andean Foreland Southern Pampa https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.5 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 |
| Resumo: | The Pampas plain (30°–41°S) has historically been considered as a sector that evolved independently from the adjacent Andean ranges. Nevertheless, the study of the Pampas showed that it is reasonable to expect an important influence from the Andes into the extraandean area. The Pampas plain can be divided into two sectors: the northern portion, adjacent to the Pampean Ranges, has been studied by Davila (2005, 2007, 2010). The southern sector (34°–41°S) is the objective of the present work. The study of this area allowed to characterize two separate foreland basins: the Southern Pampa basin and the Northern Patagonian basin. The infill is composed of Late Miocene and Pliocene units, interpreted as distal synorogenic sequences associated with the late Cenozoic Andean uplift at this latitudinal range. These foreland basins have been defined based on facies changes, distinct depositional styles, along with the analysis of sedimentary and isopach maps. The basins geometries are proposed following De Celles and Gilles (1996) taking into account the infill geometry, distribution and grain size. In both cases, these depocenters are located remarkably far away from the Andean tectonics loads. Therefore they cannot be explained with short-wave subsidence patterns. Elastic models explain the tectonic subsidence in the proximal depocenters but fail to replicate the complete distal basins. These characteristics show that dynamic subsidence is controlling the subsidence in the Southern Pampas and Northern Patagonian basins. |
|---|