the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Low-temperature thermochronology and its geological significance in the central and northern section of the western margin of the Ordos Basin
Abstract. The study of low-temperature thermochronology at plate edges provides favorable constraints for regional tectonic evolution and surface processes. Based on the existing thermochronological data of multiple cooling events since the Mesozoic era, we conducted apatite fission track and apatite (U-Th)/He studies on drilling samples from the middle and northern parts of the western margin of the Ordos Basin, revealing the uplift and cooling history and differences in the middle and northern parts of the western margin of the Ordos Basin. The new thermal history simulation results show that the Zhuozishan Mountain (Mt.) part experienced large-scale uplift in the Late Jurassic (160 Ma–150 Ma), slow uplift at 130 Ma–30 Ma, and severe uplift after 30 Ma; The Taole – Hengshanbao part began to uplift at 155 Ma–145 Ma, slowly uplifted at 145 Ma–30 Ma, and then violently uplifted; The Majiatan – Huianbao part experienced large-scale uplift at 158 Ma–137 Ma, with a slightly slower uplift rate at 137 Ma–110 Ma, and entered a severe uplift stage again at 70 Ma–50 Ma. The Late Jurassic tectonic uplift indicated by thermochronology corresponds to the formation of the western margin thrust fold structure, with the northern and southern sections starting earlier and the middle section starting slightly later. This is related to the different tectonic evolution and stress in their location, and the differences in uplift rate and time may be related to the impact of multiple Yanshanian orogeny on the region.
- Preprint
(1789 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 02 Feb 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3191', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Jan 2025
reply
General comments
In this paper, Xing and coauthors present a thermochronological study in the western margin of the Ordos Basin with the aim to reveal its uplift and cooling history. In particular, the result of the work shows that different zones of the Ordos Basin underwent cooling at different times, demonstrating the complex tectonic history of the fold-and-thrust belt of which it is part of. Anyway, I think that the concepts reported in this contribution appear to be disconnected from each other, making it hard to give conceptual and scientific continuity to what is meant to be said. Therefore, I suggest a more homogeneous writing style. There are also several major errors in terminology and nomenclature related to tectonic structures and geological timescales (e.g. Early Cretaceous (130-30 ma) at line 367).
#Introduction
The introduction focuses on the tectonic history of the study area and the general objectives of the work. However, the concepts are explained in a confusing and, sometimes, repetitive manner. Moreover, they are always expressed in a general way, never going into detail.
#Geological setting
The geological setting is focused on describing the tectonic events that have characterized the study area over time. However, there is a complete lack of stratigraphic setting and description of the outcropping deposits with their respective ages. This information is not only important to make the geological framing more complete, but also to better correlate the thermochronological data and resetting conditions of the samples. Moreover, a key aspect that makes this section difficult to read is the complete disconnection from Figure 1 in which the different areas within the Ordos Basin does not follow what is shown in the figure.
#Sampling strategy and methodology
The sampling strategy and methodology paragraph lacks two tables (one for the apatite fission-track and one for the (U-Th)/He data) with information related to:
AFT:
- Geographic coordinates of samples;
- N° of counted mounts;
- N° of counted grains for each samples;
- Ns, Ni, ρd, ρi, ρs;
- Central ages.
AHe:
- Rs;
- Age ± error;
- U, Th, Sm content;
- eU correlation and content (eU= U+(0,24 x Th)).
#Discussion
The discussion section should be written more thoroughly as it is currently a report of the results obtained with few considerations about tectonic implications with respect to the long-term orogenic history. There is a lack of reference to the figures, which makes it difficult to read the data and, consequently, to interpret them. There are also many errors regarding the ages of the different uplift phases, of which it would be important to indicate the numerical value to understand what is mean for “slow,” “rapid,” and “intermediate,” also with respect to the correlation made with the events reported in the literature. Referring to “Late” and “Early Mesozoic,” it seems that the related tectonic phases are diversified from those described of Jurassic and Cretaceous ages, creating much confusion. Moreover, as pointed out in the text, the term “Late” and “Early” Palaeozoic is not right terminologically according to ICS (International Chronostratigraphic Chart).
Specific comments (line-by-line)
Line 23: Lower Cretaceous- Oligocene.
Line 24: Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous.
Line 25: Early Cretaceous- Oligocene.
Line 27: How much does the exhumation rate vary numerically?
Line 47-50: “…and developed since the Mesozoic as a residual intra-cratonic basin”.
Line 53: please describe which kind of sedimentary strata.
Line 57-59: are you sure that these are tectonic units?
Line 62: since the Mesozoic or Phanerozoic?
Line 64: which tectonic units? Please specify.
Line 67-68: I think that the study area is in the western margin of the Ordos Basin.
Line 71: Are you talking about the Ordos Basin or about the belt of which it is part of?
Line 72: ...previous published papers investigated the structural framework…
Line 74: western margin of what? The belt? The Ordon Basin?
Line 87: …“south, central and northern”. It is not reported in Fig.1. Maybe it is necessary to explain these concepts with another figure.
Line 107: Which geological evidence? Not clear.
Line 118: ..”large composite”. What do you mean?
Line 122-128: please modify “,” with “;”.
Line 133: “part”. It is not reported in any figure.
Line 137: “… and surrounding areas. The red rectangle mostly evidences the Yinchuan Basin…”.
Line 138: western or south-western sector.
Line 140-143: d-f) W-E oriented simplified geological cross-sections (modified from Zhou, 2015; Zhao, 2006 and Ma, 2019, respectively).
Line 150: Why only westward?
Line 156: What do you mean?
Line 161: Yinchuan Basin.
Line 161-162: please, explain more deeply this concept.
Line 163-165: If you are referring to the geological cross-section of Fig. 1 (1f) the thrusts are both W- and E-dipping. I also think that it is necessary to modify the dip-angle of these structures as it is too high.
Line 165: What do you mean?
Line 166-170: This information is not reported in Fig.1. In addition, I think that the name that you gave are referred to single thrusts, not thrust sheets. Maybe, it is necessary to revise the terminology used. Furthermore, the structure that is represented in the geological cross-section in Fig.1f is not an anticline.
Line 173: It is necessary to find a name that make sense from a geological/geographical of structural point of view.
Line 182: Tianshuibao city.
Line 183: fission-track (please correct it within all the text).
Line 185: “The ages obtained through the apatite fission-track analysis…”.
Line 185: from 189.6 to 3.1 Ma.
Line 186: From 192 to 105.4 Ma.
Line 195: please modify the last part of the sentence as “thermochronological data in the study area”.
Line 196: What does it mean? Please, clarify.
Line 201: which kind of geochronological methods?
Line 206-207: This is not a consequence of the temperature to which the apatite grains are sensitive. Please, delete.
Line 214: It is not necessary to repeat it every time. Just use “study area”.
Line 221: It is necessary to ass information about the stratigraphic setting of the study area. Otherwise, all the consideration are useless.
Line 222-223: Put the sentence in the next paragraph.
Line 256: peak ages.
Line 256-257: These ages do not correspond to what it is reported in Fig. 4b.
Line 258: How much is the error?
Line 259: Which kind of tectonic event?
Line 279: “…in this region from Late Jurassic to Eocene (Fig. 4c).
Line 289: Is the age referred to sample Z2-11?
Line 295-296: Is the relation with eU direct or inverse?
Line 313: Please, specify the parameters.
Line 316-317: It is a repetition, please integrate as a single sentence from line 314 top 318.
Line 333-334: You should specify how many lengths did you measure for each sample to check if there are enough for modelling.
Line 359: Jurassic belongs to the Mesozoic.
Line 361: How did you calculate the average uplift rate?
Line 367: See the comment at line 359.
Line 368: What do you mean by “slow cooling”?
Line 379: The uplift is faster respect to what?
Line 381: What do you mean by “intermediate uplify?”
Line 382: Which analyses?
Line 395: See the comment at line 367.
Line 407: 95 Ma is Upper Cretaceous.
Line 443: Please, indicate the age of sediments.
Line 444: To indicate the first part of Palaeozoic you cannot you the capital letter. You should write “early Palaeozoic”.
Line 450: See comment at line 444.
Line 450-453: As written, it seems that the fluvial and deltaic deposits are shallow water sediments.
Line 455: Which kind of event of faulting?
Line 456; See comment at line 444.
Line 461: Which kind of tectonic event?
Line 468: sedimentary succession?
Line 480: Which kind of unconformity?
Line 532: What are you referring to by “this existing structure”?
Comments to figure
Figure 1: (general comment) I think that it is necessary to revise the figure in a deeply way. In particular:
- Lacks a stratigraphic column indicating the outcropping fms and their age;
- I do not see the localisation of the samples used for the study;
- Differentiate the samples used for the study and those in Gao 2014 in a way that is more graphically evident;
- Switch the order of the figures or letters shown above. It is not intuitive to see figure 1c as first;
- Increase figure resolution;
- Put the scale in Fig.1c;
- Unify the style of the geological cross-sections;
- The bedding symbology is completely missing, so it is difficult to understand if the geologic structures indicate on the map correspond to the reality.
In Fig. 1c:
- The bedding symbology is completely missing;
- Specify the symbology of faults to differentiate the tectonic structures. I think that the right orientation of the thrust faults is NNW-SSE;
- Indicate the North-South Tectonic Belt of China (as indicate in the text (line 64).
In Fig. 1d:
- Put the faults in the legend;
- Fault displacement is inverted with respect to the direction of slip indicated by the arrows;
- Review the nature of the contact reported on the flanks of the anticline.
In Fig. 1e:
- Put in the legend the symbology of faults;
- What do the double arrows at the hanging wall of faults indicate? Do they refer to a tectonic inversion?
Figure 3: It is necessary to try to report the data in a more visible way. Currently, both radial plots and labels are too small, making it difficult to read the data and the sample to which it belongs clearly enough to interpret it.
Figure 4: Again, it is necessary to enlarge the labels in the figure. Specify what the coloured dots in the legend indicate. Does it refer to the stratigraphic age?
Figure 6: Boxes are missing to understand what geological parameters are used (stratigraphic age, known tectonic events, etc.). Do the modelled ages refer to AFT, AHe data, or both? This information is important to understand how constrained the model is. Also, linked to the model, there is a missing table indicating the stratigraphic age of the sample, number of model interactions, path constraints, randomizer style and halve. Report in the same table or directly on the models the number of total, acceptable and good pathways.
Figure 7: As represented now, the data reported in the thermal model do not allow a clear correlation. It would be appropriate to report only the weighted mean paths for each sample. As highlighted in Fig.6, the model lacks the boxes indicating the main constraints.
Figure 8: Explain what the red arrows connecting the “lithostratigraphy” column to the “chronostratigraphy” column indicate. Also, what do the abbreviations in panels a and b indicate? In the “chronostratigraphy” column replace “Paleocene” with “Paleogene”.
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Guangyuan Xing, 08 Jan 2025
reply
Thank you for the reviewer's suggestions. There are still many shortcomings in this article, and I will revise them one by one according to your suggestions to make the article more meaningful.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3191-CC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
143 | 34 | 5 | 182 | 1 | 2 |
- HTML: 143
- PDF: 34
- XML: 5
- Total: 182
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1