Provenance and Paleogeography of the 25-17 Ma Rainbow Gardens Formation: Evidence for Tectonic Activity at Ca. 19 Ma and Internal Drainage rather than Throughgoing Paleorivers on the Southwestern Colorado Plateau

The paleogeographic evolution of the Lake Mead region of southern Nevada and northwest Arizona is crucial to understanding the geologic history of the U.S. Southwest, including the evolution of the Colorado Plateau and formation of the Grand Canyon. The ca. 25–17 Ma Rainbow Gardens Formation in the Lake Mead region, the informally named, roughly coeval Jean Conglomerate, and the ca. 24–19 Ma Buck and Doe Conglomerate southeast of Lake Mead hold the only stratigraphic evidence for the Cenozoic pre-extensional geology and paleogeography of this area. Building on prior work, we present new sedimentologic and stratigraphic data, including sandstone provenance and detrital zircon data, to create a more detailed paleogeographic picture of the Lake Mead, Grand Wash Trough, and Hualapai Plateau region from 25 to 18 Ma. These data confirm that sediment was sourced primarily from Paleozoic strata exposed in surrounding Sevier and Laramide uplifts and active volcanic fields to the north. In addition, a distinctive signal of coarse sediment derived from Proterozoic crystalline basement first appeared in the southwestern corner of the basin ca. 25 Ma at the beginning of Rainbow Gardens Formation deposition and then prograded north and east ca. 19 Ma across the southern half of the basin. Regional thermochronologic data suggest that Cretaceous deposits likely blanketed the Lake Mead region by the end of Sevier thrusting. Post-Laramide northward cliff retreat off the Kingman/Mogollon uplifts left a stepped erosion surface with progressively younger strata preserved northward, on which Rainbow Gardens Formation strata were deposited. Deposition of the Rainbow Gardens Formation in general and the 19 Ma progradational pulse in particular may reflect tectonic uplift events just prior to onset of rapid extension at 17 Ma, as supported by both thermochronology and sedimentary data. Data presented here negate the California and Arizona River hypotheses for an “old” Grand Canyon and also negate models wherein the Rainbow Gardens Formation was the depocenter for a 25–18 Ma Little Colorado paleoriver flowing west through East Kaibab paleocanyons. Instead, provenance and paleocurrent data suggest local to regional sources for deposition of the Rainbow Gardens Formation atop a stripped low-relief western Colorado Plateau surface and preclude any significant input from a regional throughgoing paleoriver entering the basin from the east or northeast

Magmatic Landscape Construction

Magmatism is an important driver of landscape adjustment over ∼10% of Earth's land surface, producing 103‐ to 106‐km2 terrains that often persistently resurface with magma for 1–10 s of Myr. Construction of topography by magmatic intrusions and eruptions approaches or exceeds tectonic uplift rates in these settings, defining regimes of landscape evolution by the degree to which such magmatic construction outpaces erosion. We compile data that span the complete range of magmatism, from laccoliths, forced folds, and InSAR‐detected active intrusions, to explosive and effusive eruption deposits, cinder cones, stratovolcanoes, and calderas. Distributions of magmatic landforms represent topographic perturbations that span >10 orders of magnitude in planform areas and >6 orders of magnitude in relief, varying strongly with the style of magmatism. We show that, independent of erodibility or climate considerations, observed magmatic landform geometry implies a wide range of potential for erosion, due to trade‐offs between slope and drainage area in common erosion laws. Because the occurrence rate of magmatic events varies systematically with the volume of material emplaced, only a restricted class of magmatic processes is likely to directly compete with erosion to shape topography. Outside of this range, magmatism either is insignificant on landscape scales or overwhelms preexisting topography and acts to reset the landscape. The landform data compiled here provide a basis for disentangling competing processes that build and erode topography in volcanic provinces, reconstructing timing and volumes of volcanism in the geologic record, and assessing mechanical connections between climate and magmatism

Using Fill Terraces to Understand Incision Rates and Evolution of the Colorado River in Eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona

The incision and aggradation of the Colorado River in eastern Grand Canyon through middle to late Quaternary time can be traced in detail using well-exposed fill terraces dated by a combination of optically stimulated luminescence, uranium series, and cosmogenic nuclide dating. This fluvial history provides the best bedrock incision rate for this important landscape and highlights the complications and advantages of fill terrace records for understanding river long-profile evolution and incision. The use of fill terraces, as distinct from strath terraces, for calculating incision rates is complicated by the cyclic alluviation and incision they record. In the example of the Grand Canyon this has led to various rates being reported by different workers and rates that tend to be overestimates in shorter records. We illustrate that a meaningful long-term bedrock incision rate of 140 m/m.y. can be extracted from the Grand Canyon record by linking episodes when the Colorado River is floored on bedrock. Variable incision rates reported in the greater region may be, to some degree, due to inconsistent calculations. Our data also highlight that the Colorado River has been a mixed alluvial-bedrock river through both time and space and has been a bedrock river for less than half of its Pleistocene history. This strong temporal variation, combined with the varying bedrock the river encounters on its path, heightens the challenge of understanding the tectonic, climatic, and drainage integration controls on the form and evolution of the Colorado River’s long profile

Eruptions at Lone Star Geyser, Yellowstone National Park, USA: 1. Energetics and eruption dynamics

Author Posting. © American Geophysical Union, 2013. This article is posted here by permission of American Geophysical Union for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 118 (2013): 4048–4062, doi:10.1002/jgrb.50251.Geysers provide a natural laboratory to study multiphase eruptive processes. We present results from a 4 day experiment at Lone Star Geyser in Yellowstone National Park, USA. We simultaneously measured water discharge, acoustic emissions, infrared intensity, and visible and infrared video to quantify the energetics and dynamics of eruptions, occurring approximately every 3 h. We define four phases in the eruption cycle (1) a 28±3 min phase with liquid and steam fountaining, with maximum jet velocities of 16–28 m s−1, steam mass fraction of less than ∼0.01. Intermittently choked flow and flow oscillations with periods increasing from 20 to 40 s are coincident with a decrease in jet velocity and an increase of steam fraction; (2) a 26±8 min posteruption relaxation phase with no discharge from the vent, infrared (IR), and acoustic power oscillations gliding between 30 and 40 s; (3) a 59±13 min recharge period during which the geyser is quiescent and progressively refills, and (4) a 69±14 min preplay period characterized by a series of 5–10 min long pulses of steam, small volumes of liquid water discharge, and 50–70 s flow oscillations. The erupted waters ascend from a 160–170°C reservoir, and the volume discharged during the entire eruptive cycle is 20.8±4.1 m3. Assuming isentropic expansion, we calculate a heat output from the geyser of 1.4–1.5 MW, which is <0.1% of the total heat output from Yellowstone Caldera.Support comes from NSF (L. Karlstrom, M. Manga), the USGS Volcano Hazards program (S. Hurwitz, F. Murphy, M.J.S. Johnston, and R.B. McCleskey), and WHOI (R. Sohn).2014-02-1

High-Precision U-Pb Geochronology Links Magmatism in the Southwestern Laurentia Large Igneous Province and Midcontinent Rift

The Southwestern Laurentia large igneous province (SWLLIP) comprises voluminous, widespread ca 1.1 Ga magmatism in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. The timing and tempo of SWLLIP magmatism and its relationship to other late Mesoproterozoic igneous provinces have been unclear due to difficulties in dating mafic rocks at high precision. New precise U-Pb zircon dates for comagmatic felsic segregations within mafic rocks reveal distinct magmatic episodes at ca. 1098 Ma (represented by massive sills in Death Valley, California, the Grand Canyon, and central Arizona) and ca. 1083 Ma (represented by the Cardenas Basalts in the Grand Canyon and a sill in the Dead Mountains, California). The ca. 1098 Ma magmatic pulse was short-lived, lasting 0.25^+0.67_-0.24 m.y., and voluminous and widespread, evidenced by the ≥100 m sills in Death Valley, the Grand Canyon, and central Arizona, consistent with decompression melting of an upwelling mantle plume. The ca. 1083 Ma magmatism may have been generated by a secondary plume pulse or post-plume lithosphere extension. The ca. 1098 Ma pulse of magmatism in southwestern Laurentia occurred ≁2 m.y. prior to an anomalous renewal of voluminous melt generation in the Midcontinent Rift of central Laurentia that is recorded by the ca. 1096 Ma Duluth Complex layered mafic intrusions. Rates of lateral plume spread predicted by mantle plume lubrication theory support a model where a plume derived from the deep mantle impinged near southwestern Laurentia, then spread to thinned Midcontinent Rift lithosphere over ~2 m.y. to elevate mantle temperatures and generate melt. This geodynamic hypothesis reconciles the close temporal relationships between voluminous magmatism across Laurentia and provides an explanation for that anomalous renewal of high magmatic flux within the protracted magmatic history of the Midcontinent Rift

The Prevalence and Significance of Offset Magma Reservoirs at Arc Volcanoes

Determining the spatial relations between volcanic edifices and their underlying magma storage zones is fundamental for characterizing long‐term evolution and short‐term unrest. We compile centroid locations of upper crustal magma reservoirs at 56 arc volcanoes inferred from seismic, magnetotelluric, and geodetic studies. We show that magma reservoirs are often horizontally offset from their associated volcanic edifices by multiple kilometers, and the degree of offset broadly scales with reservoir depth. Approximately 20% of inferred magma reservoir centroids occur outside of the overlying volcano's mean radius. Furthermore, reservoir offset is inversely correlated with edifice size. Taking edifice volume as a proxy for long‐term magmatic flux, we suggest that high flux or prolonged magmatism leads to more centralized magma storage beneath arc volcanoes by overprinting upper crustal heterogeneities that would otherwise affect magma ascent. Edifice volumes therefore reflect the spatial distribution of underlying magma storage, which could help guide monitoring strategies at volcanoes

Eruptions at Lone Star geyser, Yellowstone National Park, USA: 2. Constraints on subsurface dynamics

Author Posting. © American Geophysical Union, 2014. This article is posted here by permission of American Geophysical Union for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 119 (2014): 8688–8707, doi:10.1002/2014JB011526.We use seismic, tilt, lidar, thermal, and gravity data from 32 consecutive eruption cycles of Lone Star geyser in Yellowstone National Park to identify key subsurface processes throughout the geyser's eruption cycle. Previously, we described measurements and analyses associated with the geyser's erupting jet dynamics. Here we show that seismicity is dominated by hydrothermal tremor (~5–40 Hz) attributed to the nucleation and/or collapse of vapor bubbles. Water discharge during eruption preplay triggers high-amplitude tremor pulses from a back azimuth aligned with the geyser cone, but during the rest of the eruption cycle it is shifted to the east-northeast. Moreover, ~4 min period ground surface displacements recur every 26 ± 8 min and are uncorrelated with the eruption cycle. Based on these observations, we conclude that (1) the dynamical behavior of the geyser is controlled by the thermo-mechanical coupling between the geyser conduit and a laterally offset reservoir periodically filled with a highly compressible two-phase mixture, (2) liquid and steam slugs periodically ascend into the shallow crust near the geyser system inducing detectable deformation, (3) eruptions occur when the pressure decrease associated with overflow from geyser conduit during preplay triggers an unstable feedback between vapor generation (cavitation) and mass discharge, and (4) flow choking at a constriction in the conduit arrests the runaway process and increases the saturated vapor pressure in the reservoir by a factor of ~10 during eruptions.Funding for USGS team members was provided by the USGS Volcano Hazards Program. R. Sohn's participation was supported by the WHOI Green Technology Program. M. Manga, L. Karlstrom and M. Rudolph did receive salary from the National Science Foundation to spend time on this project.2015-06-0

Evaluating the Shinumo-Sespe drainage connection: Arguments against the “old” (70–17 Ma) Grand Canyon models for Colorado Plateau drainage evolution

The provocative hypothesis that the Shinumo Sandstone in the depths of Grand Canyon was the source for clasts of orthoquartzite in conglomerate of the Sespe Formation of coastal California, if verified, would indicate that a major river system flowed southwest from the Colorado Plateau to the Pacific Ocean prior to opening of the Gulf of California, and would imply that Grand Canyon had been carved to within a few hundred meters of its modern depth at the time of this drainage connection. The proposed Eocene Shinumo-Sespe connection, however, is not supported by detrital zircon nor paleomagnetic-inclination data and is refuted by thermochronology that shows that the Shinumo Sandstone of eastern Grand Canyon was \u3e60 °C (∼1.8 km deep) and hence not incised at this time. A proposed 20 Ma (Miocene) Shinumo-Sespe drainage connection based on clasts in the Sespe Formation is also refuted. We point out numerous caveats and non-unique interpretations of paleomagnetic data from clasts. Further, our detrital zircon analysis requires diverse sources for Sespe clasts, with better statistical matches for the four “most-Shinumo-like” Sespe clasts with quartzites of the Big Bear Group and Ontario Ridge metasedimentary succession of the Transverse Ranges, Horse Thief Springs Formation from Death Valley, and Troy Quartzite of central Arizona. Diverse thermochronologic and geologic data also refute a Miocene river pathway through western Grand Canyon and Grand Wash trough. Thus, Sespe clasts do not require a drainage connection from Grand Canyon or the Colorado Plateau and provide no constraints for the history of carving of Grand Canyon. Instead, abundant evidence refutes the “old” (70–17 Ma) Grand Canyon models and supports a \u3c6 Ma Grand Canyon