渤海湾唐山港海域表层沉积物粒度和黏土矿物分布特征及其物源指示

杨娅敏, 张礼中, 沈睿文, 褚宏宪, 姜正龙, 冯永财, 姜文钦, 殷学博, 李佳林, 王鹏飞, 颜宏伟

杨娅敏,张礼中,沈睿文,等. 渤海湾唐山港海域表层沉积物粒度和黏土矿物分布特征及其物源指示[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质,2023,43(5): 136-147. DOI: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2023073102
引用本文: 杨娅敏,张礼中,沈睿文,等. 渤海湾唐山港海域表层沉积物粒度和黏土矿物分布特征及其物源指示[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质,2023,43(5): 136-147. DOI: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2023073102
YANG Yamin,ZHANG Lizhong,SHEN Ruiwen,et al. Characteristics of grain size and clay mineral distribution of surface sediments and their provenance implication in Tangshan Harbor, Bohai Bay[J]. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology,2023,43(5):136-147. DOI: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2023073102
Citation: YANG Yamin,ZHANG Lizhong,SHEN Ruiwen,et al. Characteristics of grain size and clay mineral distribution of surface sediments and their provenance implication in Tangshan Harbor, Bohai Bay[J]. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology,2023,43(5):136-147. DOI: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2023073102

渤海湾唐山港海域表层沉积物粒度和黏土矿物分布特征及其物源指示

基金项目: 中国地质调查局自然资源综合调查指挥中心科技创新基金“构建海洋自然资源分层分类模型——以海南岛东南海域为例”(KC20220012);中国地质调查局地质调查项目“陆海统筹基础地质调查成果融合表达关键技术”(DD20230416),“渤海曹妃甸海域1:5万海洋区域地质调查”(DD20211553),1:25万威海幅海洋区域地质调查(DD20230412)
详细信息
    作者简介:

    杨娅敏(1990—),女,博士,海洋地质专业,主要从事海洋沉积研究,E-mail:yangyamin@mail.cgs.gov.cn

    通讯作者:

    张礼中(1969—),男,研究员,主要从事水工环地质研究,E-mail:zhanglizhong@mail.cgs.gov.cn

    褚宏宪(1973—),男,正高级工程师,主要从事海洋地质调查研究,E-mail:chx-8@163.com

  • 中图分类号: P736.2

Characteristics of grain size and clay mineral distribution of surface sediments and their provenance implication in Tangshan Harbor, Bohai Bay

  • 摘要: 通过对取自渤海湾唐山港海域的161个站位的表层沉积物进行粒度和黏土矿物组成及分布特征分析,探讨不同区域沉积物物质来源及其控制因素。研究结果表明,唐山港海域表层沉积物平均粒径(Mz)为1.4~7.7 Φ,主要由粉砂质砂、砂质粉砂以及少量的砂和黏土组成。根据粒度参数特征和端元模型分析,研究区沉积物可以分为3个区和EM1—EM4四个端元:东北部以EM3端元砂和粉砂质砂为主,分选较差、正偏态,沉积环境动力强;中部曹妃甸深槽区以EM4端元砂质粉砂和粉砂质砂为主,分选差、正偏态,沉积环境动力强;南部和北部唐山港附近区域以EM1和EM2端元粉砂为主,分选中等—较差,沉积动力环境较弱。黏土矿物组成主要是伊利石(72%)和蒙脱石(12%),其次是绿泥石(8%)和高岭石(8%)。物源分析表明,渤海湾唐山港海域表层沉积物中细颗粒组分来源主要是黄河-海河混合来源的陆源碎屑物质,研究区东北部和曹妃甸深槽区可能有部分古滦河三角洲粗颗粒物质的加入。渤海环流和潮余流控制着本区细颗粒沉积物主要向南部和唐山港附近运移,粗颗粒物质向东北部和中部曹妃甸区搬运沉积。
    Abstract: The grain size and clay composition and distribution of 161 samples taken from surface sediments in the Tangshan Harbor, Bohai Bay were analyzed to explore the provenance and the controlling factors. Results show that the average grain size (Mz) of the surface sediments was from 1.4 ~ 7.7 Φ, and mainly consists of silty sand, sandy silt, and a small amount of sand and clay. According to the characteristics of grain size parameters and end-member modelling analysis, the sediments can be divided into three zones and four end-members (EM1 to EM4). The northeastern part of the area is dominated by EM3 (sand and silty sand), with poor sorting, positive skew, and strong dynamics of depositional environments. The central Caofeidian Deep Trough area is dominated by EM4 (sandy silt and silty sand), with poor sorting, positive skew, and strong dynamics of depositional environments. The southern part and the Tangshan Harbor area is dominated by EM1 and EM2 (silt), with moderate-poor sorting and weak depositional dynamics. The clay minerals are relatively high in illite (72%) and smectite (12%), followed by chlorite (8%) and kaolinite (8%). The provenance analysis shows that the source of surface sediments in Tangshan Harbor is mainly the mixed detrital materials from Yellow River and Haihe River, while the northeastern part of the study area and the Caofeidian Deep Trough may have some coarse-grained materials from the ancient Luanhe Delta. The Bohai Sea circulation and tidal currents control the transport of fine-grained sediments mainly to the south and near Tangshan Harbor, while coarse-grained materials are transported and deposited to the northeastern and central Caofeidian area.
  • 岩石圈增厚与下沉是大陆岩浆弧地区普遍存在的旋回性过程,典型例子如:中新生代时期的中国华北东部与美洲科迪勒拉等地区[1]。任纪舜等[2]根据中国东部大兴安岭-太行山-武陵山重力梯度带东、西两侧燕山造山期之后的差异性:西部保存良好的沉积盆地、广泛分布的中元古代—侏罗纪沉积盖层(中-上构造层)迥然不同于东部的变质基底大量出露(下构造层)特征,首次提出中国东部在印支-燕山旋回期间曾因挤压造山而隆升(成为高原)。邓晋福等[3]根据实验岩石学的证据,认为华北燕辽地区燕山期无负Eu异常的火山岩应形成于加厚的地壳底部(或山根带)。董树文等[4-5]提出燕山期华北周缘多板块汇聚的东亚汇聚模式,用于解释华北东部中生代东高西低古地势的动力学机制。张旗等[6]在上述研究基础上,首先提出“C型”埃达克岩的概念,将其用于描述中国东部燕山期富钾并具埃达克岩属性特征的岩浆岩,认为该类型岩浆岩源自增厚地壳的熔融,并根据中生代埃达克岩的分布大致圈定了东部高原的范围。尽管对于“C型”埃达克岩的成因及其所代表的大地构造意义仍存在不同的认识[6-12],但越来越多的实例证明了“C型”埃达克岩的出现与地壳增厚具有对应关系[8]

    “中国大地构造演化和国际亚洲大地构造图编制(青岛所)”项目组在2017—2019年进行海区毗邻陆域的野外工作中,借助岩石主微量元素特征确定青岛即墨马山发育一套具埃达克岩地球化学特征的火山岩。该套中酸性火山岩因发育罕见的柱状节理而建设成为“马山石林”地质景观。1∶25万青岛市幅区域地质调查成果将该套火山岩归入青山群八亩地组火山岩地层中[13]。韩宗珠等[14]曾根据岩石主微量元素分析结果提出马山安山玢岩的分异结晶程度较高,为具火山弧属性的钙碱性火山岩,推测构造背景为大陆边缘弧环境,火山岩成生的动力学机制可能为扬子板块与华北板块在燕山期的推挤作用。最近,何登洋等[15]也对该套马山火山岩开展了锆石测年、全岩地球化学及锆石原位Lu-Hf同位素等工作,其认为该套火山岩来源岩浆形成于早白垩世(119.3±1.6 Ma)区域下地壳物质的熔融,与胶莱盆地早白垩世伸展变形时间对应,对应的动力学机制为古太平洋板片大规模回撤背景下的区域性伸展。上述研究者前期所做的部分样品显示出典型的“C型”埃达克岩地化特征,但未对其埃达克岩属性展开讨论[14-15],更大的分歧在于对该套火山岩形成的构造背景存在挤压与伸展环境两种截然相反的认识[14-15]

    基于此,拟以该套马山柱状节理中-酸性火山岩为研究目标,利用其中的锆石U-Pb测年进一步限定其形成时代,借助岩石主微量元素分析与锆石原位Lu-Hf同位素特征探讨其来源岩浆性质,在前人研究的基础上,重点为下述3个科学问题的探讨提供约束与线索:①马山柱状节理火山岩的形成时间;②柱状节理火山岩的来源岩浆的地球化学特征;③该火山岩形成期对应的区域动力学机制等。

    山东即墨马山地区在大地构造位置上处于中朝板块与扬子板块的结合带——苏鲁造山带北侧、胶莱盆地南部,因该地中性火山岩中发育规模壮观的柱状节理及其他地质景观,已建设成为省级地质公园。该地区的柱状节理中-酸性火山岩岩体直接覆盖于早白垩世莱阳群曲格庄组砂岩、粉砂岩之上,属于青山群八亩地组[13]图1a)。

    图  1  研究区地质概况、马山柱状节理火山岩露头与镜下特征
    a. 研究区地质简图(据文献[13]),b. 马山石林剖面,c. 粗面英安岩中的晶洞构造,d. 马山粗面英安岩镜下显微特征,左侧为单偏光(-),右侧为正交光(+)。
    Figure  1.  Geological map of Mashan region with pictures of outcrops and photomicrographs of the volcanic rocks with columnar joints
    a. sketched geological map of study area (According to reference [13]), b. section of columnar joints developed in Mashan, c. geode structure of the trachydacite, d. petrographic characteristics of Mashan trachydacite under microscope, with single polarized light (-) on the left and crossed light (+) on the right.

    马山柱状节理火山岩岩体露头呈浅灰绿色,肉眼观察为斑状结构,发育充填方解石的晶洞(图1bc),晶洞直径由几厘米到十几厘米不等。在马山地质公园的“石林”景观处(36°24′3″N、120°22′17″E)分散采集新鲜的柱状节理火山岩样品4块,每块约5 kg,分别用于薄片磨制、锆石挑选及主微量元素分析等。

    选取样品MS-01用于锆石挑选、测年及薄片磨制。MS-01、MS-02、MS-03与MS-04用于主微量元素分析。锆石挑选、制靶与拍照均在河北廊坊诚信地质服务有限公司进行。按照标准的重矿物挑选流程对样品进行粉碎、重磁分选,双目镜下挑选获得用于定年的锆石颗粒。然后用环氧树脂将锆石固定并研磨抛光至锆石颗粒尺寸的1/2左右,以揭示锆石内部结构。在进行锆石U-Pb及Lu-Hf测试前,首先拍摄锆石的透射、反射及阴极发光图像,以保证在分析过程中避开锆石颗粒中的包裹体或裂隙。

    锆石U-Pb测试在中国冶金局山东局测试中心完成,所用激光剥蚀系统为美国Conherent 公司生产的GeoLasPro 193 nm ArF准分子系统,电感耦合等离子体质谱仪的型号为ThermoFisher 公司生产的iCAPQ。具体实验流程为:以氦气为载气,束斑直径为30 μm,频率为10 Hz,能量密度约为8 J/cm2。单点采集时间模式为:30 s气体空白,50 s样品剥蚀,30 s冲洗;每10个样品点插入一组标样(锆石标样+成分标样)。采用91500(年龄为1 064±2 Ma)作为外标进行基体校正;成分标样采用NIST SRM610。其中29Si作为内标元素。锆石微量元素分析与U-Pb定年同步进行,以NIST 612作为外标计算未知微量元素的浓度,使用Pearce等[16]推荐值。利用29Si作为内标对分析结果进行标准化。轻稀土元素分析结果的平均不确定度为10%,其余元素为5%。

    锆石原位Lu-Hf测试在北京科荟测试技术有限公司进行,利用NWR213nm 固体激光器对锆石进行剥蚀,激光剥蚀的斑束直径为55 μm,能量密度为7~8 J/cm2,频率为10 Hz,激光剥蚀物质以高纯He为载气送入Neptune Plus(MC-ICPMS)。以国际标样GJ-1作为监控样。采用179Hf/177Hf=0.7325对Hf同位素比值进行指数归一化质量歧视校正,采用173Yb/172Yb=1.35274对Yb同位素比值进行指数归一化质量歧视校正。εHft)计算采用衰变常数λ=1.867×10−11/a[17],(176Lu/177Hf)CHUR=0.0332,(176Hf/177Hf)CHUR=0.282772[18],(176Lu/177Hf)DM=0.0384,(176Hf/177Hf)DM=0.28325[19]T C DM为二阶段Hf模式年龄;计算采用平均地壳176Lu/177Hf比值为0.015。

    样品的主量元素与微量元素分析均在中国冶金地质总局山东局测试中心完成。4件样品的制备分为粗碎、中碎和细碎,每个阶段均包括破碎、过筛、混匀和缩分4道工序,实验室检测温度均保持25 ℃。主量元素分析采用X-射线荧光粉末熔片法,具体流程为:准确称取0.2000 g样品,7.0000 g混合熔剂放入瓷坩埚中,搅拌均匀,转入铂-金坩埚(wPt95%+wAu5%)内,加入2滴溴化锂溶液(4.2),将坩埚置于熔样机上以1 150 ℃熔融12 min,浇铸制备玻璃片。最后上机(ARL 9900XP型X射线荧光光谱仪)测试主量元素。主量元素的检测精度与准确度为:SiO2、Al2O3、MgO为0.1%,总铁TFe2O3、CaO为0.05%,TiO2、MnO、Na2O、K2O为0.01%,P2O5为0.005%。

    微量元素测试采用电感耦合等离子质谱法:准确称取0.1000 g样品于Teflon杯中,少量水润湿样品,依次加入2 mL HNO3和3 mL HF,加盖,放入钢套,烘箱185 ℃加热48 h后,冷却后拧开钢套,开盖,电热板130 ℃加热蒸至尽干,加入2 mL HNO3继续加热蒸干,以1.5 mL HNO3,1.5 mL MQ水冲洗杯壁,加盖,放入钢套,180 ℃加热12 h提取盐类,冷却后开盖,转移至100 mL 塑料刻度管中,稀释至刻度,摇匀,静置后利用ICP-MS测试微量元素。微量元素的检测精度与准确度为:U为0.003×10−6,Y、Nd、Hf为0.01×10−6,Cd为0.02×10−6,Mo、Be、Zr、Ta为0.05×10−6,Sc、Ni、W、Tl、Pb为0.1×10−6,Co、Cu、Ga、Sr、Sn为0.2×10−6,Cr、Ba为0.5×10−6,Th为0.8×10−6,Li、Rb为1.0×10−6,V、Zn为2.0×10−6。稀土元素的检出限除La、Ce、Pr、Nd、Sm、Gd为0.01×10−6外,其余均为0.003×10−6

    马山柱状节理火山岩的岩石薄片镜下分析显示:岩石主要由斑晶、基质组成。斑晶显示柱状,呈角闪石假象组成,绿鳞石化、少量绿泥石化等呈假象,粒度一般为0.2~0.8 mm,分布零散,少数聚斑状产出,部分具暗化边结构(图1d)。基质由长石、暗色矿物假象、石英组成,长石主要为斜长石,呈半自形微板条状,粒度一般<0.1 mm,半定向或呈交织状分布,具交织结构,其间填隙暗色矿物(已蚀变为绿泥石等)及石英。杏仁体不规则状,大小0.2~1 mm 零散分布,被石英、绿泥石等填充(图1d)。从岩石薄片分析即可发现石英含量较典型安山岩要高,薄片鉴定可将其归为英安岩类。

    马山柱状节理粗面英安岩中挑选获得的23颗锆石进行U-Pb测年(表1),选取协和度≥90%、结果显示最年轻一组12颗锆石U-Pb加权平均年龄为113.2 ± 1.3 Ma (MSWD=0.64,图2),对应早白垩世晚期Aptian与Albian期界线附近,其该组锆石的Th/U比值均大于0.4,表明锆石多为岩浆锆石[20],可用于代表马山柱状节理粗面英安岩的形成时代。

    表  1  马山粗面英安岩锆石U-Pb测试结果
    Table  1.  Zircon U-Pb dating results of trachydacite at Mashan
    点 号Th /10−6U/10−6Th/U比值年龄/Ma谐和度*/%
    207Pb/206Pb± 1σ207Pb/235U± 1σ206Pb/238U± 1σ207Pb/206Pb± 1σ207Pb/235U± 1σ206Pb/238U± 1σ
    MS-013.2370.20.010.049950.002970.133780.007410.019840.000391951341277127299
    MS-02165.0235.10.700.103040.003872.149010.078400.150080.002761679691165259011574
    MS-030.00.450.010.034650.016824.371172.079280.034120.01459----17073932169156
    MS-041327.3935.31.420.047820.001970.118100.004840.017850.00027100871134114299
    MS-05376.9294.51.280.049510.003290.119910.007490.017870.000401721561157114399
    MS-06100.5115.30.870.056430.005250.136870.012190.017670.0005347820513011113385
    MS-07899.6806.21.120.051670.002460.128890.006000.017870.000373331051235114292
    MS-0896.9148.00.650.116180.003705.079290.160910.312620.0057018985718332717542895
    MS-091121.3809.31.390.050880.002580.126930.006280.017950.000362351141216115294
    MS-1080.6120.90.670.081390.004430.717900.040650.063210.001671231140549243951067
    MS-110.06.20.000.090500.022780.450480.120010.032430.003611436496378842062341
    MS-12510.81110.00.460.051500.002060.125020.005060.017270.00030265931205110291
    MS-13167.72466.90.070.169040.004069.842730.238790.412520.0063325484024202222262991
    MS-14184.5166.11.110.052290.004710.129910.010390.017950.000462982101249115392
    MS-1569.1246.80.280.055780.002570.267340.011740.034360.000624431022419218490
    MS-16109.4315.40.350.052550.002370.241680.010640.032710.00060309992209208494
    MS-17937.5625.81.500.052140.002390.130700.005110.017940.000343001061255115291
    MS-18396.1555.50.710.053030.002220.130040.004860.017490.00032332941244112290
    MS-1952.91325.40.040.050070.001460.226080.006220.032090.00044198692075204398
    MS-20614.1290.22.120.046500.005310.114270.014120.017150.000483324311013110399
    MS-213467.11542.52.250.046980.001560.117370.004140.017660.0002956721134113299
    MS-221321.0881.11.500.047500.001890.120300.004820.017970.0003476891154115299
    MS-23412.3496.50.830.046820.002510.112490.005550.017280.00040391261085110397
      注:*谐和度=100${\rm{ \times \{ 1 - [}}{{\rm{(}}^{{\rm{206}}}}{\rm{Pb}}{{\rm{/}}^{{\rm{238}}}}{\rm{U}}\;{{\rm{ - }}^{{\rm{207}}}}{\rm{Pb}}{{\rm{/}}^{{\rm{235}}}}{\rm{U}}\;{\rm{)/(}}{{\rm{(}}^{{\rm{206}}}}{\rm{Pb}}{{\rm{/}}^{{\rm{238}}}}{\rm{U}}\;{\rm{}}{{\rm{ + }}^{{\rm{207}}}}{\rm{Pb}}{{\rm{/}}^{{\rm{235}}}}{\rm{U}}\;{\rm{)/2)]\} }}$
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格
    图  2  马山粗面英安岩锆石特征与测年结果
    a. 马山粗面英安岩的锆石阴极发光图像及对应的Pb206/U238年龄与εHft)值,b. 加权平均值,c. U-Pb年龄谐和图。
    Figure  2.  Zircon characteristics and dating results of the trachyandesite in Mashan
    a. cathodoluminescence (CL) images, yellow numbers=U-Pb ages and red number= εHft) values; b. weighted mean age, c. concordia diagrams of zircons from the Mashan trachydacite.

    最年轻一组锆石显示相似的左倾稀土配分特征(标准化值据McDonough和Sun[21]),重稀土富集,具δCe正异常及轻微的δEu负异常(图3)。碎屑锆石的稀土元素特征与形成时代关系密切,表明不同时代锆石的结晶条件存在差异(图3)。锆石原位Lu-Hf测试结果显示:所测锆石的εHf(t)值均为负值(−0.42~−19.48),对应的二阶段模式年龄均为古元古代—太古代(表2图4)。

    图  3  马山粗面英安岩中锆石的稀土元素配分曲线[21]
    Figure  3.  Rare earth element distribution pattern of zircons from Mashan trachydacite[21]
    表  2  马山粗面英安岩锆石原位Lu-Hf测试结果
    Table  2.  Zircon in-situ Lu-Hf results of trachydacite at Mashan
    点 号176Yb/177Hf±2σ176Lu/177Hf±2σ176Hf/177Hf±2σt (Ma)T C ② DM±2σεHf(t)±2σ
    MS-010.0107700.0001130.0004680.0000040.2823400.000014127197132−12.50.51
    MS-040.0926220.0021840.0034620.0000740.2822420.000021114220947−16.50.76
    MS-050.0800540.0015200.0030270.0000390.2822390.000021114221346−16.60.74
    MS-070.1451240.0042300.0052050.0001410.2822210.000020114226344−17.40.71
    MS-080.0049210.0002090.0001250.0000050.2812650.0000151898326333−11.10.54
    MS-090.1055450.0008740.0038230.0000370.2822140.000017115227238−17.50.61
    MS-120.1332180.0015710.0049970.0000550.2822320.000033110223972−17.01.17
    MS-130.0221710.0009790.0007140.0000250.2811770.0000272548308758−0.40.96
    MS-140.0640950.0016470.0025420.0000620.2821910.000029115231763−18.21.01
    MS-150.0224320.0005870.0008750.0000190.2821760.000016218228736−16.40.58
    MS-160.0137030.0001350.0006270.0000050.2822940.000012208203028−12.50.44
    MS-170.1102100.0003950.0041990.0000160.2821590.000017115239538−19.50.61
    MS-190.0241160.0005540.0011120.0000240.2821020.000012204245827−19.40.44
    MS-200.0828070.0014610.0033160.0000560.2822250.000025110224855−17.20.88
    MS-210.1500460.0041720.0052990.0001460.2822630.000023113217251−15.90.82
    MS-220.1322880.0024290.0051100.0000930.2822540.000022115219148−16.20.77
    MS-230.0741510.0040700.0028050.0001470.2821870.000018110233039−18.50.64
      注:①为锆石表观年龄;②为基于DM的二阶段模式年龄计算使用平均大陆地壳176Lu/177Hf值0.015。表中数据的误差为2σ(标准误差),不确定度为最后一位数字;③为εHf(t)值的计算使用锆石的表观年龄,该年龄为锆石结晶年龄的最小估计值,λ176Lu=1.867×10−11/a[17],CHUR现今的176Lu/177Hf及176Hf/177Hf值分别为0.0332和0.282772[18],DM现今的176Lu/177Hf及176Hf/177Hf值分别为0.0384和0.28325[19]
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格
    图  4  马山粗面英安岩中锆石的εHft)值与对应的二阶段模式年龄
    Figure  4.  εHft) values and two stage Hf model ages of zircons from trachydacite in Mashan

    马山柱状节理火山岩4件样品的主量元素含量如表3所示,SiO2含量较高,为65.44%~67.26%,平均为66.74%;Al2O3含量为13.37%~14.58%,平均为13.69%;K2O含量较高,为3.58%~3.98%,平均为3.79%;Na2O含量为3.77%~4.71%,平均为4.34%;全碱w(Na2O+K2O)含量为7.59%~8.24%,平均为8.13%;TiO2、MnO、P2O5含量均较低,平均含量分别为0.44%、0.09%、0.19%;MgO平均含量为2.14%;CaO平均含量为2.85%;全铁含量较高(3.61%~3.89%),平均含量为3.69%。岩石全碱TAS图解(据Le Bas[22]图5)中,样品点均落于粗面英安岩区域,与镜下鉴定结果吻合。

    表  3  马山粗面英安岩全岩主量元素分析结果
    Table  3.  Whole-rock major element compositions of trachydacite at Mashan
    %
    样品号M-01M-02M-03M-04平均值
    SiO265.4467.2667.0667.1866.74
    TiO20.460.450.440.400.44
    Al2O314.5813.3713.4313.3813.69
    Fe2O33.613.893.653.623.69
    MnO0.080.100.080.090.09
    MgO2.101.952.142.362.14
    CaO3.402.672.762.582.85
    Na2O3.774.484.714.414.34
    K2O3.833.763.583.983.79
    P2O50.180.190.210.170.19
    L.O.I2.121.461.861.651.77
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格
    图  5  马山柱状节理粗面英安岩岩石类型划分TAS图解[22]
    Figure  5.  TAS diagram of the trachydacite at Mashan[22]

    4件马山粗面英安岩的微量元素(表4)特征为:Sr含量高(341×10−6~489×10−6),平均为413.5×10−6;Yb与Y含量低,均值分别为1.40×10−6、13.5×10−6;稀土元素总量较低(表5),ΣREE为119.2×10−6~131.1×10−6,平均为126.1×10−6,明显低于地壳岩浆岩平均值。稀土配分模式呈轻稀土显著富集、重稀土强烈亏损的右倾模式,(La/Yb)N为13.51~14.56,(Ce/Yb)N为9.31~9.98。δEu范围为0.77~0.93,平均值0.88,显示轻微负异常(图6)。此外,马山粗面英安岩明显富集大离子亲石元素Ba、Pb,亏损Th、Nb、Ti等高场强元素(图7)。

    表  4  马山粗面英安岩微量元素分析结果
    Table  4.  Trace element compositions of trachydacite at Mashan
    10−6
    样品号M-01M-02M-03M-04平均值
    Li37.541.436.438.638.5
    Be1.751.661.701.681.70
    Sc18.307.807.918.1010.50
    Ti28232700264024002641
    V53.155.156.154.454.7
    Cr68.563.565.681.669.8
    Co10.8011.0011.0011.4011.10
    Ni32.129.529.639.232.6
    Cu4.7645.8028.6028.2026.80
    Zn48.572.268.067.264.0
    Ga17.916.717.215.916.9
    Rb91.685.087.199.290.7
    Sr402341422489414
    Y13.413.613.913.013.5
    Zr130141134126133
    Nb9.511.010.810.610.5
    Mo0.610.880.580.660.68
    Cd0.0360.0610.0660.0380.051
    Cs0.880.620.651.000.79
    Ba23811461193917271877
    Hf3.734.354.404.004.12
    Ta0.731.201.001.151.02
    Tl0.380.380.380.440.40
    Pb30.354.639.243.641.9
    Th6.465.565.385.265.67
    U1.691.501.541.541.57
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格
    表  5  马山粗面英安岩稀土元素分析结果
    Table  5.  REE compositions of trachydacite at Mashan
    10−6
    样品号M-01M-02M-03M-04平均值
    La29.629.930.827.829.5
    Ce52.453.154.649.552.4
    Pr6.346.186.345.776.16
    Nd22.923.324.021.823.0
    Sm3.963.863.923.643.85
    Eu0.941.081.101.001.03
    Gd3.533.283.383.103.32
    Tb0.500.470.480.460.48
    Dy2.502.532.602.462.52
    Ho0.500.510.520.480.50
    Er1.391.421.441.381.41
    Tm0.240.220.220.220.23
    Yb1.451.461.441.401.44
    Lu0.230.230.230.220.23
    Eu/Eu*0.770.930.920.910.88
    LaN/YbN13.8913.9414.5613.5113.98
    ΣREE126.48127.54131.07119.23126.08
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格
    图  6  马山粗面英安岩稀土元素配分曲线[21]
    Figure  6.  REE distribution pattern of the trachydacite at Mashan[21]
    图  7  马山粗面英安岩微量元素蛛网图[21]
    Figure  7.  Spider distribution pattern of the trachydacite at Mashan[21]

    埃达克岩概念首先由Defant and Drummond于1990年在研究由年轻岩石圈俯冲熔融形成的现代弧岩浆时提出,系于现代弧岩浆由Kay[23]首先记录于阿留申群岛的埃达克岛(Adak Island),因之命名为Adakite[24]。埃达克岩初始定义用于描述由年轻的大洋岩石圈(≤25 Ma)俯冲形成的火山岩或侵入岩,具有SiO2含量≥56%,Al2O3≥15%(很少低于此值),Na2O>3.5%,MgO含量通常<3%(很少高于6%),相对岛弧性质的安山岩、英安岩和钠质流纹岩组合具有更低的Y和重稀土含量(Y≤18×10−6;Yb≤1.9×10−6),Sr含量高(很少<400×10−6),高场强元素含量低等特征[24-25]。国内埃达克岩的研究,由张旗等在21世纪初引入并引发关于埃达克岩的广泛讨论[6-10, 12, 26-31]。张旗等将中国东部与板块消减无关、富K2O(Na2O/K2O=0.9~1.3)并具埃达克岩地化特征的陆相火成岩称之为“C型”埃达克岩,而将Defant 和Drummond[24]所定义的与年轻的大洋板块俯冲有关的埃达克岩称之为“O型”埃达克岩,并赋予“C”型埃达克岩明确的构造意义——代表增厚的地壳[6-8, 31]

    本文所测4件马山粗面英安岩的主微量元素值,除Al2O3含量(平均值13.69%)略低外,各项指标均符合典型“C型”埃达克岩的上述特征[6-8, 31]。Sr/Y-Y比值判别图解[24]与(La/Yb)N-YbN判别图解[32]的投点亦均落入典型埃达克岩范围内(图8)。4件样品的HREE与Y元素均表现为亏损,这可能是因为来源熔体的残留相中存在石榴石导致[24, 33]。Eu的轻微负异常也表明来源岩浆源区很少或没有斜长石,对应的残留相为榴辉岩,表明岩浆很可能来自增厚地壳的熔融[6, 8, 12, 33]。实验岩石学证据表明,Sr与Yb元素特征与压力密切相关[8, 12],马山粗面英安岩样品具有显著的高Sr(均值414×10−6)、低Yb(均值1.40×10−6)特征,可能代表了高压(增厚地壳)环境。此外,统计数据表明,对于安山岩类,在SiO2含量一定的情况下,K2O的含量越高对应来源岩浆所处的地壳厚度越大[34],本文4件样品的K2O含量较高,Na2O/K2O平均值为1.15,亦暗示马山粗面英安岩的岩浆来源较深,可能形成于增厚地壳的熔融。4件马山粗面英安岩的Ce/Pb比值为0.97~1.73,均值1.31,与洋壳来源的Ce/Pb比值特征(14.38)截然不同[35],表明来源岩浆源区不可能为洋壳。韩宗珠等[14]所测马山的“ms04”与“ms08”等2件样品、何登洋等[15]所测马山的“17MS01”、“17MS02”、“17MS03”、“17MS04”等4件样品的主微量元素特征与本文所获结果相似。综上,马山粗面英安岩为典型的“C型”埃达克岩,岩浆最可能来源于增厚地壳的熔融。

    图  8  马山粗面英安岩Sr/Y vs.Y[24]和(La/Yb)N-YbN[32]判别图解
    Figure  8.  Sr/Y -Y and (La/Yb)N-YbN adakitic trace elemental discrimination diagrams for Mashan trachydacite[24, 32]

    年代学方面,何登洋等[15]近来借助LA-ICPMS锆石U-Pb定年,将马山粗面英安岩的形成时代定为119.3±1.6 Ma(n=9, MSWD=1.9)。但其用于确定喷出岩年龄的9颗锆石中年龄最小的2颗锆石年龄分别为112±1 Ma及115±1 Ma[13],与本文所测的锆石U-Pb年龄在误差范围内一致,而迥然不同于其余7颗锆石年龄(约119~123 Ma)[15]。通过比较,可以推测马山粗面英安岩的实际形成时间可能更接近本文所测的113.2±1.3 Ma。

    此外,马山地区该套早白垩世晚期的“C”型埃达克岩在区域上并非个例,鲁东与辽东地区亦存在大量同时期的埃达克岩,如:文登长山南花岗岩(114 Ma)和胶东的六度寺(115 Ma)、泰薄顶(114 Ma)、三佛山与辽东的古道岭(113 Ma)等[36]

    中国东部燕山期经历了由特提斯构造域/古亚洲洋构造域向太平洋构造域的转变[2, 37-39],晚中生代在东亚外侧形成壮观宏伟的燕山造山带的同时[2],从俄罗斯楚科奇半岛到中国浙闽沿海发育了范围广大(长度超过5 000 km)的岩浆岩带[39]。对东亚大陆边缘晚中生代大规模岩浆活动的动力学机制一直存在较大分歧。胡受奚等[40]强调古太平洋板块向欧亚板块俯冲的弧后效应可能是主要原因[40];王德滋等[41]根据晚侏罗世—早白垩世火山岩的地化特征,将长江断裂带以北、郯庐断裂带以东地区分布的火山岩归为橄榄粗安岩省,认为其生成于华北-扬子板块对接后的陆内造山与晚期伸展、古太平洋板块向欧亚板块的俯冲消减及与白垩纪后特提斯构造体制有关的碰撞-挤出作用,三大构造动力体制所导致的郯庐断裂带大规模左行平移营造出的张应力环境。董树文等[4-5]则强调燕山期东亚多块体的汇聚模式。万天丰等[42]提出圈层滑脱与高地温梯度的洋陆过渡型岩石圈沿构造断裂的活动可能是中国东部中生代岩浆起源的动力学机制。张旗[43]根据中国东部中生代缺少岛弧玄武岩和岛弧花岗岩及太平洋板块俯冲方向与大规模岩浆活动出现时代的不匹配等,认为中国东部中生代大规模岩浆活动与太平洋板块向西俯冲无关。

    根据本文马山柱状节理粗面英安岩及胶辽地区广泛分布的早白垩世晚期“C型”埃达克岩,可以推测该时期马山地区粗面英安岩的岩浆来源于增厚地壳的熔融。但该时期熔融的增厚地壳是燕山运动早期的增厚地壳的残留(或范围缩减的高原)[31]还是由燕山运动多期次、间歇性幕式区域性挤压形成的增厚地壳?是来自华北板块下部地壳还是俯冲的扬子板块?从马山MS-01样品的锆石U-Pb与Lu-Hf测试结果分析,马山粗面英安岩来源岩浆中结晶锆石的二阶段模式年龄集中于古元古代—太古代(表2图4)。古元古代—太古代的锆石组分在华北板块扬子北缘均广泛分布[44-45]。但根据本文及何登洋等[15]所测马山粗面英安岩样品的锆石U-Pb年龄分析,锆石中分别出现了代表扬子板块与苏鲁造山带的新元古代与晚石炭世组分,表明增厚地壳的熔融物质中含有扬子陆壳的组分[15]。此外,从马山粗面英安岩中具早白垩世晚期年龄锆石的Hf同位素特征看,并未呈现出在拉张环境下大陆弧地区产出锆石的Hf同位素受亏损地幔影响而导致εHft)值更向正值的趋势[1]。该结果亦暗示马山柱状节理粗面英安岩的岩浆来源更可能来源于区域挤压导致增厚地壳的熔融而非受控于太平洋板块俯冲的弧后效应。这与马山粗面英安岩的主微量元素特征所反映出来的“C型”埃达克岩所代表的构造含义一致。

    从大区域上看,东亚在早白垩世发生过数次幕式的挤压事件[4-5, 46-48]。与马山柱状节理粗面英安岩形成时代接近的挤压事件对应于Aptian晚期,Guo 等[48]将该期区域性挤压事件的动力学机制解释为:华南板块与其东南部——由现在的民都洛岛、朗布隆岛、班乃岛、巴拉望岛、婆罗洲东部及苏拉威西北部等构成的微陆块发生碰撞所致。即墨马山相邻的灵山岛地区在早白垩世Aptian期也存在NW-SE向挤压事件的明确记录,证据如:千层崖剖面西侧大型褶皱、平面X剪破裂所反映的古应力场特征等[49]。胶莱盆地西侧的临沂方城盆地八亩地组与上覆火山岩间存在沉积间断,甚至发育有古风化壳[50]。在燕山-辽西地区,该期碰撞事件导致早白垩世晚期的九佛堂组与阜新组之间形成区域性不整合[48, 51-52],向内陆西北方向甚至可影响至二连盆地,二连盆地内早白垩世晚期的腾格尔组与赛罕组之间存在不整合[48]等。

    马山地区所处的胶莱盆地,目前绝大多数研究者认为其为拉张性盆地。但姜同海[53]根据①盆地发育于基底褶皱之上,盆地南部为一逆冲断裂;②白垩系下统的沉积速率与挤压型盆地一致(由慢变快);③盆地边缘的莱阳群林寺山组底部发育磨拉石沉积,向内逐渐变为复理石沉积等特征,认为胶莱盆地属于挤压挠曲型盆地。特别是,早白垩世中晚期该地区构造应力场为NW-SE向挤压,与周缘地区记录的挤压事件吻合。如:Wu 等[54]利用高(锆石U-Pb)-中(白云母Ar-Ar)-低(锆石U-Th/He)3种温标对胶东地区早白垩世中晚期两处侵入岩体的热史进行约束,发现在117~110 Ma存在一期快速冷却事件。该期热事件可与区域上该期挤压隆升事件相对应。此外,Zhang 等[55]曾借助碳酸盐团簇同位素估算胶莱盆地晚白垩世期间的古海拔超过2 000 m,在约90 Ma之前甚至更高。但该时期高原或海岸山脉的形成是受控于鄂霍茨克板块与东亚大陆边缘的碰撞[56]还是从早白垩世晚期持续至晚白垩世早期的山脉或高原[57],还需更多证据与线索。

    综合上述马山早白垩世柱状节理粗面英安岩的“C型”埃达克岩属性、区域上同时期的构造、沉积响应及锆石U-Pb与Hf同位素特征,笔者更倾向于认为:早白垩世Aptian晚期,马山地区经历区域性挤压事件造成地壳增厚,进而导致原俯冲于华北板块之下的扬子板块部分熔融并沿同时期切割深度较大的断裂通道(如:牟平-即墨断裂)喷发形成范围广阔的火山岩盆地。

    (1)锆石U-Pb定年结果显示马山地区的柱状节理粗面英安岩的形成时代为早白垩世113.2 Ma,岩石全岩主微量元素分析结果显示其具有“C型”埃达克岩特征。

    (2)马山粗面英安岩中所获锆石的二阶段模式年龄均为古元古代—太古代,暗示来源岩浆形成于古老基底的熔融。

    (3)马山柱状节理粗面英安岩类的岩浆可能源于燕山期区域性NW-SE向挤压导致的大陆地壳增厚后的熔融,熔融物质包含来自俯冲于华北板块之下的扬子板块组分。

  • 图  1   渤海湾唐山港海域表层沉积物取样站位及海流示意图

    a:渤海湾季节性环流系统(海流方向据文献[27-30]修改),b:渤海湾唐山港海域表层沉积物取样站位。

    Figure  1.   Surface sediment sampling stations and currents in Tangshan Harbor, Bohai Bay

    a: Seasonal current system in Bohai Bay (currents direction modified after references [27-30]), b: Surface sediment sampling stations in Tangshan Harbor, Bohai Bay.

    图  2   渤海湾唐山港海域表层沉积物三角分类图

    S-砂,C-黏土,M-泥,Z-粉砂,sC-砂质黏土,sM-砂质泥,sZ-砂质粉砂,cS-黏土质砂,mS-泥质砂,zS-粉砂质砂。

    Figure  2.   Ternary classification of surface sediments in Tangshan Harbor, Bohai Bay

    S-sand, C-clay, M-mud, Z-silt, sC-sandy clay, sM-sandy mud, sZ-sandy silt, cS-clayey sand, mS-muddy sand, zS-silty sand.

    图  3   渤海湾唐山港海域水深和表层沉积物粒度分布图

    a:水深,b:黏土,c:粉砂,d:砂。

    Figure  3.   Bathymetric map and the distribution patterns of grain size of surface sediments in Tangshan Harbor, Bohai Bay

    a: Water depth, b: clay, c: silt, d: sand.

    图  4   渤海湾唐山港海域表层沉积物粒度参数分布图

    a:平均粒径,b:分选系数,c:偏态,d:峰态。

    Figure  4.   Distribution patterns of grain size parameters of surface sediments in Tangshan Harbor, Bohai Bay

    a: Mean grain size, b: sorting coefficient, c: skewness, d: kurtosis.

    图  5   渤海湾唐山港海域表层沉积物粒度端元分析结果

    a:粒度端元数-复相关系数平均值,b:4个端元(EM1-EM4)粒度频率分布曲线。

    Figure  5.   End-member analysis of surface sediments in Tangshan Harbor, Bohai Bay

    a: End member-mean coefficient of determination, b: frequency curves of four end-members (EM1-EM4).

    图  6   渤海湾唐山港海域表层沉积物4个端元相对含量平面分布

    Figure  6.   Distribution of relative contents of four end-members of surface sediments in Tangshan Harbor, Bohai Bay

    图  7   渤海湾唐山港海域表层沉积物黏土矿物相对含量分布图

    Figure  7.   Distribution of the relative content of clay minerals in surface sediments in Tangshan Harbor, Bohai Bay

    图  8   渤海湾唐山港附近海域及周围河流表层沉积物黏土矿物组合三角图和比值散点图

    a:黏土组合蒙脱石-(伊利石+绿泥石)-高岭石三角图,b:伊利石/蒙脱石-高岭石/绿泥石比值散点图;HH-黄河;LR-滦河;HR-海河。

    Figure  8.   Triangle and scatter diagram of the clay minerals of surface sediments in Tangshan Harbor and surrounding rivers

    a: Triangle diagram of clay minerals assemblages smectite-(illite+chlorite)-kaolinite, b: Scatter plot of illite/smectite-kaolinite/chlorite ratios; HH-Yellow River; LR-Luan River; HR-Hai River.

    图  9   渤海湾唐山港附近沉积物迁移模式图

    Figure  9.   Sediment transport pattern in Tangshan Harbor area, Bohai Bay

    表  1   渤海湾唐山港附近海域及周围河流表层沉积物中黏土矿物相对含量

    Table  1   Relative content of clay minerals in surface sediments of the Tangshan Harbor and surrounding rivers in the Bohai Bay

    样品位置 样品数量/个 蒙脱石/% 伊利石/% 高岭石/% 绿泥石/% 伊利石结晶度 数据来源
    唐山港海域 161 12 72 8 8 0.43 本文
    HH-1 23.0 58.0 12.0 7.0 引自文献[43]
    HH-2 23.2 59.0 8.5 9.3 引自文献[44]
    HH-3 13.0 67.0 8.0 12.0 引自文献[45]
    HH-4 16.0 62.0 10.0 12.0 引自文献[46]
    HH-5 15.2 62.5 9.7 12.5 引自文献[47]
    HH-6 10.0 60.0 12.0 18.0 引自文献[48]
    HH-7 12.0 62.0 10.0 16.0 引自文献[49]
    HH-8 21.0 61.0 9.0 9.0 引自文献[42]
    HH-9 16 29 (11~44) 54 (39~69) 7 (5~9) 10 (9~14) 0.33 引自文献[50]
    LR-1 22 48 16 14 0.45 引自文献[19]
    LR-2 15 54 16 16 0.43
    LR-3 24 46 16 14 0.47
    LR-4 27 50 12 12 0.48
    LR-5 26 47 14 13 0.43
    HR-1 7 63 14 19 0.36 引自文献[19]
    HR-2 9 64 14 14 0.35
    注:HH1-9: 黄河表层沉积物中黏土矿物;LR1-5: 滦河表层沉积物中黏土矿物;HR1-2: 海河表层沉积物中黏土矿物。
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] 褚宏宪, 史慧杰, 宗欣, 等. 渤海湾曹妃甸深槽海区地形地貌特征及控制因素[J]. 海洋科学, 2016, 40(3):128-137 doi: 10.11759/hykx20140515002

    CHU Hongxian, SHI Huijie, ZONG Xin, et al. Characteristic geomorphology and controlling factors of Caofeidian Channel in the Bohai Bay[J]. Marine Sciences, 2016, 40(3):128-137. doi: 10.11759/hykx20140515002

    [2] 王强, 李凤林. 渤海湾西岸第四纪海陆变迁[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质, 1983, 3(4):83-89 doi: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.1983.04.013

    WANG Qiang, LI Fenglin. The changes of marine-continental conditions in the west coast of the Bohai gulf during Quaternary[J]. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology, 1983, 3(4):83-89. doi: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.1983.04.013

    [3]

    Liu J, Wang H, Wang F F, et al. Sedimentary evolution during the last ~1.9 Ma near the western margin of the modern Bohai Sea[J]. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 2016, 451:84-96. doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2016.03.012

    [4] 庄振业, 许卫东, 刘东生, 等. 渤海南部S3孔晚第四纪海相地层的划分及环境演变[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质, 1999, 19(2):27-35

    ZHUANG Zhenye, XU Weidong, LIU Dongsheng, et al. Division and environmental evolution of late Quaternary marine beds of S3 hole in the Bohai Sea[J]. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology, 1999, 19(2):27-35.

    [5]

    Yi L, Deng C L, Xu X Y, et al. Paleo-megalake termination in the Quaternary: paleomagnetic and water-level evidence from south Bohai Sea, China[J]. Sedimentary Geology, 2015, 319:1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2015.01.005

    [6] 吴越, 杨文波, 王琳, 等. 曹妃甸填海造地时空分布遥感监测及其影响初步研究[J]. 海洋湖沼通报, 2013(1):153-158 doi: 10.13984/j.cnki.cn37-1141.2013.01.016

    WU Yue, YANG Wenbo, WANG Lin, et al. Primary study on the spatial-temporal changes and the effect of sea reclamation in caofeidian based on remote sensing[J]. Transactions of Oceanology and Limnology, 2013(1):153-158. doi: 10.13984/j.cnki.cn37-1141.2013.01.016

    [7] 张宁, 殷勇, 潘少明, 等. 渤海湾曹妃甸潮汐汊道系统的现代沉积作用[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质, 2009, 29(6):25-34

    ZHANG Ning, YIN Yong, PAN Shaoming, et al. Modern sedimentation of tidal inlet-tidal basin system in Caofeidian coastal area, Bohai bay, northeastern China[J]. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology, 2009, 29(6):25-34.

    [8]

    Yao Z Q, Guo Z T, Xiao G Q, et al. Sedimentary history of the western Bohai coastal plain since the late Pliocene: implications on tectonic, climatic and sea-level changes[J]. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 2012, 54-55:192-202. doi: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.04.013

    [9]

    Yang Z S, Ji Y J, Bi N S, et al. Sediment transport off the Huanghe (Yellow River) delta and in the adjacent Bohai Sea in winter and seasonal comparison[J]. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 2011, 93(3):173-181. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2010.06.005

    [10] 乔淑卿, 石学法, 王国庆, 等. 渤海底质沉积物粒度特征及输运趋势探讨[J]. 海洋学报, 2010, 32(4):139-147

    QIAO Shuqing, SHI Xuefa, WANG Guoqing, et al. Discussion on grain-size characteristics of seafloor sediment and transport pattern in the Bohai Sea[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2010, 32(4):139-147.

    [11] 蓝先洪, 李日辉, 王中波, 等. 渤海西部表层沉积物的地球化学记录[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质, 2017, 37(3):75-85 doi: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2017.03.008

    LAN Xianhong, LI Rihui, WANG Zhongbo, et al. Geochmical records of surface sediments in the western Bohai sea[J]. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology, 2017, 37(3):75-85. doi: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2017.03.008

    [12] 虞义勇, 王永红, 李日辉, 等. 渤海西部表层沉积物中黏土矿物分布特征及物源指示[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质, 2017, 37(1):51-58 doi: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2017.01.006

    YU Yiyong, WANG Yonghong, LI Rihui, et al. Clay mimerals distribution pattern in surface sediments of western Bohai and their provenance implications[J]. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology, 2017, 37(1):51-58. doi: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2017.01.006

    [13] 冯秀丽, 魏飞, 刘杰, 等. 渤海湾西部表层沉积物粒度及黏土矿物特征分析[J]. 海洋科学, 2015, 39(8):70-77

    FENG Xiuli, WEI Fei, LIU Jie, et al. The sediment grain size characteristics and analysis of sources in the western Bohai Bay[J]. Marine Sciences, 2015, 39(8):70-77.

    [14] 韩宗珠, 张军强, 邹昊, 等. 渤海湾北部底质沉积物中黏土矿物组成与物源研究[J]. 中国海洋大学学报, 2011, 41(11):95-102

    HAN Zongzhu, ZHANG Junqiang, ZOU Hao, et al. Characteristics and provenance of clay mineral assemblage of sediments from the Northern Part of the Bohai Bay[J]. Periodical of Ocean University of China, 2011, 41(11):95-102.

    [15] 乔淑卿, 石学法, 方习生, 等. 渤海—北黄海沉积物黏土矿物特征及其环境意义[J]. 海洋科学进展, 2020, 38(2):253-262 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-6647.2020.02.006

    QIAO Shuqing, SHI Xuefa, FANG Xisheng, et al. Distribution and composition of clay minerals in seafloor surface sediments of the Bohai Sea and North Yellow Sea and their implications for sedimentary environment[J]. Advances in Marine Science, 2020, 38(2):253-262. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-6647.2020.02.006

    [16] 窦衍光, 陈晓辉, 李军, 等. 东海外陆架-陆坡-冲绳海槽不同沉积单元底质沉积物成因及物源分析[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质, 2018, 38(4):21-31 doi: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2018.04.002

    DOU Yanguang, CHEN Xiaohui, LI Jun, et al. Origin and provenance of the surficial sediments in the subenvironments of the East China Sea[J]. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology, 2018, 38(4):21-31. doi: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2018.04.002

    [17] 杨娅敏, 曾志刚, 殷学博, 等. 700年以来冲绳海槽南部黏土矿物来源及其对沉积环境的响应[J]. 海洋科学, 2021, 45(11):42-53

    YANG Yamin, ZENG Zhigang, YIN Xuebo, et al. Sediment provenance and its response to the paleoenvironment in the southern Okinawa Trough over the past 700 years[J]. Marine Sciences, 2021, 45(11):42-53.

    [18]

    Biscaye P E. Mineralogy and sedimentation of recent deep-sea clay in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas and oceans[J]. GSA Bulletin, 1965, 76(7):803-832. doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1965)76[803:MASORD]2.0.CO;2

    [19]

    Dou Y G, Li J, Zhao J T, et al. Clay mineral distributions in surface sediments of the Liaodong Bay, Bohai Sea and surrounding river sediments: sources and transport patterns[J]. Continental Shelf Research, 2014, 73:72-82. doi: 10.1016/j.csr.2013.11.023

    [20] 李从先, 陈刚, 王利. 滦河废弃三角洲和砂坝: 泻湖沉积体系[J]. 沉积学报, 1983, 1(2):60-72

    LI Congxian, CHEN Gang, WANG Li. The abandoned deltas of the Luanhe river and the barrier-lagoon sedimentary systems[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 1983, 1(2):60-72.

    [21] 冯永财, 曹斌华, 褚宏宪, 等. 渤海湾曹妃甸深槽断面监测研究进展[J]. 海洋地质前沿, 2023, 39(8):78-83 doi: 10.16028/j.1009-2722.2022.088

    FENG Yongcai, CAO Binhua, CHU Hongxian, et al. Research progress on monitoring of trough section in Caofeidian, Bohai Bay[J]. Marine Geology Frontiers, 2023, 39(8):78-83. doi: 10.16028/j.1009-2722.2022.088

    [22]

    Milliman J D, Meade R H. World-wide delivery of river sediment to the oceans[J]. The Journal of Geology, 1983, 91(1):1-21. doi: 10.1086/628741

    [23]

    Li G X, Wei H L, Han Y S, et al. Sedimentation in the Yellow River delta, part I: flow and suspended sediment structure in the upper distributary and the estuary[J]. Marine Geology, 1998, 149(1-4):93-111. doi: 10.1016/S0025-3227(98)00031-0

    [24] 中国科学院海洋研究所海洋地质研究室. 渤海地质[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1985

    Marine Geology Research Office, Institute of Oceanography, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Geology of Bohai[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 1985.

    [25] 韩雁, 张士锋. 海河流域径流变异特征及其影响因素研究[J]. 水资源与水工程学报, 2021, 32(1):7-13

    HAN Yan, ZHANG Shifeng. Characteristics of runoff variations and their influencing factor in Haihe River Basin[J]. Journal of Water Resources & Water Engineering, 2021, 32(1):7-13.

    [26] 刘振夏. 现代滦河三角洲的影响因素和沉积物分区[J]. 黄渤海海洋, 1989, 7(4):55-64

    LIU Zhenxia. The influential factors and zoning of the modern Luanhe River Delta[J]. Journal of Oceanography of Huanghai & Bohai Seas, 1989, 7(4):55-64.

    [27] 赵保仁, 庄国文, 曹德明, 等. 渤海的环流、潮余流及其对沉积物分布的影响[J]. 海洋与湖沼, 1995, 26(5):466-473

    ZHAO Baoren, ZHUANG Guowen, CAO Deming, et al. Circulation, tidal residual currents and their effects on the sedimentations in the bohai sea[J]. Oceanologia et Limnologia Sinica, 1995, 26(5):466-473.

    [28]

    Yuan P, Wang H J, Wu X, et al. Grain-size distribution of surface sediments in the Bohai Sea and the northern Yellow Sea: sediment supply and hydrodynamics[J]. Journal of Ocean University of China, 2020, 19(3):589-600. doi: 10.1007/s11802-020-4221-y

    [29] 张剑, 李日辉, 王中波, 等. 渤海东部与黄海北部表层沉积物的粒度特征及其沉积环境[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质, 2016, 36(5):1-12 doi: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2016.05.001

    ZHANG Jian, LI Rihui, WANG Zhongbo, et al. Grain size characteristics of surface sediments in the east Bohai sea and the northern Yellow sea and their implications for environments[J]. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology, 2016, 36(5):1-12. doi: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2016.05.001

    [30] 赵保仁, 曹德明. 渤海冬季环流形成机制动力学分析及数值研究[J]. 海洋与湖沼, 1998, 29(1):86-96 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0029-814X.1998.01.014

    ZHAO Baoren, CAO Deming. Dynamic analysis and numerical modeling of forming mechanisms of winter circulations in the Bohai Sea[J]. Oceanologia et Limnologia Sinica, 1998, 29(1):86-96. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0029-814X.1998.01.014

    [31]

    Jiang W Q, Chu H X, Liu Y Y, et al. Distribution of heavy metals in coastal sediments under the influence of multiple factors: a case study from the south coast of an industrialized harbor city (Tangshan, China)[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2023, 889:164208. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164208

    [32]

    Folk R L, Andrews P B, Lewis D W. Detrital sedimentary rock classification and nomenclature for use in New Zealand[J]. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 1970, 13(4):937-968. doi: 10.1080/00288306.1970.10418211

    [33]

    Folk R L, Ward W C. Brazos River bar: a study in the significance of grain size parameters[J]. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 1957, 27(1):3-26. doi: 10.1306/74D70646-2B21-11D7-8648000102C1865D

    [34]

    Holtzapffel T, Bonnot-Courtois C, Chamley H, et al. Héritage et diagenèse des smectites du domaine sédimentaire nord-atlantique (Crétacé, Paléogène)[J]. Bulletin de la Société géologique de France, 1985, 1(1):25-33.

    [35]

    Weltje G J, Prins M A. Muddled or mixed? Inferring palaeoclimate from size distributions of deep-sea clastics[J]. Sedimentary Geology, 2003, 162(1-2):39-62. doi: 10.1016/S0037-0738(03)00235-5

    [36]

    Weltje G J. End-member modeling of compositional data: numerical-statistical algorithms for solving the explicit mixing problem[J]. Mathematical Geology, 1997, 29(4):503-549. doi: 10.1007/BF02775085

    [37]

    Steinke S, Hanebuth T J J, Vogt C, et al. Sea level induced variations in clay mineral composition in the southwestern South China Sea over the past 17, 000 yr[J]. Marine Geology, 2008, 250(3-4):199-210. doi: 10.1016/j.margeo.2008.01.005

    [38]

    Jardine G E, Crocker A J, Bailey I, et al. The imprint of windblown dust from the North American Southwest on the California Channel Islands and Pacific Ocean sediments[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2021, 261:106934. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2021.106934

    [39]

    Nakai S, Halliday A N, Rea D K. Provenance of dust in the Pacific Ocean[J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 1993, 119(1-2):143-157. doi: 10.1016/0012-821X(93)90012-X

    [40]

    Diekmann B, Hofmann J, Henrich R, et al. Detrital sediment supply in the southern Okinawa Trough and its relation to sea-level and Kuroshio dynamics during the late Quaternary[J]. Marine Geology, 2008, 255(1-2):83-95. doi: 10.1016/j.margeo.2008.08.001

    [41] 张义丰, 李凤新. 黄河、滦河三角洲的物质组成及其来源[J]. 海洋科学, 1983, 7(3):15-18

    ZHANG Yifeng, LI Fengxin. The characteristics of material component and the material resources in Huanghe (Yellow) River, Luanhe River[J]. Marine Sciences, 1983, 7(3):15-18.

    [42] 刘建国. 全新世渤海泥质区的沉积物物质组成特征及其环境意义[D]. 中国科学院研究生院(海洋研究所)博士学位论文, 2007

    LIU Jianguo. Material compositions of sediments in the Bohai Sea mud area during the Holocene and their environmental implications[D]. Doctor Dissertation of Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2007.

    [43]

    Li Y, Li A C, Huang P, et al. Clay minerals in surface sediment of the north Yellow Sea and their implication to provenance and transportation[J]. Continental Shelf Research, 2014, 90:33-40. doi: 10.1016/j.csr.2014.01.020

    [44] 赵全基. 渤海表层沉积物中粘土矿物研究[J]. 黄渤海海洋, 1987, 5(1):78-84

    ZHAO Quanji. A study of the clay minerals of the surficial deposit in the Bohai Sea[J]. Journal of Oceanography of Huanghai & Bohai Seas, 1987, 5(1):78-84.

    [45]

    Ren M E, Shi Y L. Sediment discharge of the Yellow River (China) and its effect on the sedimentation of the Bohai and the Yellow Sea[J]. Continental Shelf Research, 1986, 6(6):785-810. doi: 10.1016/0278-4343(86)90037-3

    [46] 杨作升. 黄河、长江、珠江沉积物中粘土的矿物组合、化学特征及其与物源区气候环境的关系[J]. 海洋与湖沼, 1988, 19(4): 336-346

    YANG Zuosheng. Mineralogical assemblages and chemical characteristics of clays from sediments of the Huanghe, Changjiang, Zhujiang Rivers and their relationship to the climate environment in their sediment source areas[J]. Oceanologia et Limnologia Sinica, 1989, 19(4): 336-346.

    [47] 范德江, 杨作升, 毛登, 等. 长江与黄河沉积物中粘土矿物及地化成分的组成[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质, 2001, 21(4):7-12

    FAN Dejiang, YANG Zuosheng, MAO Deng, et al. Clay minerals and geochemistry of the sediments from the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers[J]. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology, 2001, 21(4):7-12.

    [48]

    Yang S Y, Jung H S, Choi M S, et al. The rare earth element compositions of the Changjiang (Yangtze) and Huanghe (Yellow) river sediments[J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2002, 201(2):407-419. doi: 10.1016/S0012-821X(02)00715-X

    [49]

    Yang S Y, Jung H S, Lim D I, et al. A review on the provenance discrimination of sediments in the Yellow Sea[J]. Earth-Science Reviews, 2003, 63(1-2):93-120. doi: 10.1016/S0012-8252(03)00033-3

    [50]

    Zhang J, Wan S M, Clift P D, et al. History of Yellow River and Yangtze River delivering sediment to the Yellow Sea since 3.5 Ma: tectonic or climate forcing?[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2019, 216:74-88. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.06.002

    [51]

    Jiang W S, Pohlmann T, Sun J, et al. SPM transport in the Bohai Sea: field experiments and numerical modelling[J]. Journal of Marine Systems, 2004, 44(3-4):175-188. doi: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2003.09.009

    [52]

    Li Y Y, Feng H, Yuan D K, et al. Mechanism study of transport and distributions of trace metals in the Bohai Bay, China[J]. China Ocean Engineering, 2019, 33(1):73-85. doi: 10.1007/s13344-019-0008-6

    [53]

    Qiao S Q, Shi X F, Zhu A M, et al. Distribution and transport of suspended sediments off the Yellow River (Huanghe) mouth and the nearby Bohai Sea[J]. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 2010, 86(3):337-344. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2009.07.019

  • 期刊类型引用(2)

    1. 董杰,朱晓青,窦衍光,宋维宇,薛碧颖,邹亮. 胶州湾基底新元古代变花岗岩的发现与地质意义. 海洋地质与第四纪地质. 2024(06): 163-175+178-189 . 本站查看
    2. Ziwei SUN,Jin LIU,Yue ZHANG,Jinming SONG,Yuanyuan XIAO,Huamao YUAN,Ning LI,Xuegang LI. Compositional characteristics of sediment from Jiaozhou Bay in North China and the implication to the provenance. Journal of Oceanology and Limnology. 2023(05): 1729-1741 . 必应学术

    其他类型引用(1)

图(9)  /  表(1)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  179
  • HTML全文浏览量:  31
  • PDF下载量:  31
  • 被引次数: 3
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2023-07-30
  • 修回日期:  2023-09-26
  • 录用日期:  2023-09-26
  • 网络出版日期:  2023-10-29
  • 刊出日期:  2023-10-27

目录

/

返回文章
返回