The Sierra Nevada (California) Is a Relict Tropical Late Cretaceous Range: A Field Guide to the Evidence

Jeffrey P. Schaffer
{"title":"The Sierra Nevada (California) Is a Relict Tropical Late Cretaceous Range: A Field Guide to the Evidence","authors":"Jeffrey P. Schaffer","doi":"10.1353/pcg.2023.a913573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:The notion of late-Cenozoic uplift was implied in 1865 by Whitney, who assumed a buried bedrock canyon lay beneath the Table Mountain latite flow and above the modern Stanislaus River canyon, with the difference between the two longitudinal profiles suggesting post-latite uplift. However, only a series of buried bedrock ridges exists and no uplift is inferred. I briefly present thirty-three key sites of about three hundred remnants in the entire Sierra Nevada, from north of the Feather River south to the Kern River. These include Late Cretaceous strata, Eocene strata, Oligocene rhyolites, Mio-Pliocene andesites, and Quaternary basalts, some remnants on canyon floors but most on lower slopes, preserving topography at the time of deposition. I found no evidence of late-Cenozoic incision, which is required under the late-Cenozoic uplift paradigm. Instead, each site contains verifiable field evidence that challenges the uplift paradigm. Moreover, the results are consistent with the range having a common uplift history: the crest elevation, drainage topography, and relief developed in the Late Cretaceous, and only minor changes occurred in post-Eocene time. This supports uplift studies in the northern Sierra based on hydrogen and oxygen isotopes on auriferous deposits, and supports pediment ages of 40+ Ma in the southern Sierra. Uplift studies based on thermochronology and numerical modeling, on cave-sediment dating and its implied incision, and on significant denudation on benchlands cannot be reconciled with verifiable field evidence. Finally, migration of giant sequoias southwest into the Sierra Nevada was possible only from late in the Cretaceous, when the Nevadaplano came into existence and the range was high, negating any Sierran late-Cenozoic uplift paradigm.","PeriodicalId":412404,"journal":{"name":"Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers","volume":"121 44","pages":"121 - 149"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pcg.2023.a913573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT:The notion of late-Cenozoic uplift was implied in 1865 by Whitney, who assumed a buried bedrock canyon lay beneath the Table Mountain latite flow and above the modern Stanislaus River canyon, with the difference between the two longitudinal profiles suggesting post-latite uplift. However, only a series of buried bedrock ridges exists and no uplift is inferred. I briefly present thirty-three key sites of about three hundred remnants in the entire Sierra Nevada, from north of the Feather River south to the Kern River. These include Late Cretaceous strata, Eocene strata, Oligocene rhyolites, Mio-Pliocene andesites, and Quaternary basalts, some remnants on canyon floors but most on lower slopes, preserving topography at the time of deposition. I found no evidence of late-Cenozoic incision, which is required under the late-Cenozoic uplift paradigm. Instead, each site contains verifiable field evidence that challenges the uplift paradigm. Moreover, the results are consistent with the range having a common uplift history: the crest elevation, drainage topography, and relief developed in the Late Cretaceous, and only minor changes occurred in post-Eocene time. This supports uplift studies in the northern Sierra based on hydrogen and oxygen isotopes on auriferous deposits, and supports pediment ages of 40+ Ma in the southern Sierra. Uplift studies based on thermochronology and numerical modeling, on cave-sediment dating and its implied incision, and on significant denudation on benchlands cannot be reconciled with verifiable field evidence. Finally, migration of giant sequoias southwest into the Sierra Nevada was possible only from late in the Cretaceous, when the Nevadaplano came into existence and the range was high, negating any Sierran late-Cenozoic uplift paradigm.
内华达山脉(加利福尼亚州)是白垩纪晚期的一座热带新山脉:证据实地指南
摘要:惠特尼于1865年提出了晚新生代隆升的概念,他认为在桌山latite流的下方和现代Stanislaus河峡谷的上方有一个埋藏的基岩峡谷,两个纵剖面的差异表明是后latite隆升。然而,只存在一系列埋藏的基岩脊,没有推断出隆起。我简要地介绍了整个内华达山脉的33个关键遗址,大约有300个遗迹,从羽毛河以北到克恩河以南。这些地层包括晚白垩世地层、始新世地层、渐新世流纹岩、中新世安山岩和第四纪玄武岩,其中一些残留在峡谷底,但大多数在较低的斜坡上,保留了沉积时的地形。我没有发现晚新生代切割的证据,而这是晚新生代隆升模式所要求的。相反,每个站点都包含挑战隆起范式的可验证的现场证据。此外,研究结果与具有共同隆升历史的山脉相一致,在晚白垩世发育了峰顶高程、流域地形和地形起伏,在始新世后仅发生了微小的变化。这支持了基于含金矿床氢和氧同位素的北塞拉利昂隆升研究,并支持了南塞拉利昂山墙40+ Ma的年龄。基于热年代学和数值模拟的隆升研究,基于洞穴沉积物定年及其隐含切口的隆升研究,以及基于台地显著剥蚀的隆升研究,都无法与可验证的实地证据相一致。最后,巨型红杉向西南向内华达山脉的迁移只有在白垩纪晚期才有可能,当时内华达平原形成,范围很大,否定了任何西华达山脉晚新生代隆起的模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信