Jump to: Page Content, Section Navigation, Site Navigation, Site Search, Account Information, or Site Tools.
|
|
Technical CommentsComment on "Rapid Uplift of the Altiplano Revealed Through 13C-18O Bonds in Paleosol Carbonates"
Based on stable isotope measurements, Ghosh et al. (Reports, 27 January 2006, p. 511) concluded that the Bolivian Altiplano uplifted 3 to 4 kilometers between
1 Institut de Recherche pour le Développement and Laboratoire "Mécanismes et Transferts en Géologie," Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées, Université Paul Sabatier, 31400 Toulouse, France. 10.3 and 6.7 million years ago as a result of gravitational loss of dense lithosphere. This result stands at odds with current geological knowledge of the Central Andes, and we propose a test for the reliability of the paleoaltimetry method.
2 School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UE, UK. 3 Institut de Recherche pour le Développement and Géosciences Rennes, Université de Rennes, 35042 Rennes, France. * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: sempere{at}lmtg.obs-mip.fr
Ghosh et al. (1) reconstructed the elevation history of the Altiplano plateau in the Bolivian Andes using a thermometer based on the temperature-dependent binding rate of 13C and 18O isotopes in carbonate minerals. Their measurements indicate that the Altiplano lay between 400 and 0 m from 11.4 to 10.3 million years ago (Ma) and rose to its current altitude at an average rate of 1.03 ± 0.12 mm per year between
The idea that part of the Bolivian Altiplano was at or below sea level as late as Ghosh et al. (1) argued that their proposed uplift history is consistent with paleobotanical evidence (10). However, the current paleoaltimetry method based on fossil leaf morphology systematically underestimates high altitudes (11). Therefore, Low Miocene paleoaltitudes reported for Andean Bolivia using this method (10) may also be underestimations and cannot be invoked to support the results in (1).
Crustal thickening in the Central Andes is widely believed to have been caused by tectonic shortening (12). On the contrary, Ghosh et al. (1) contend that this process is too slow to account for the rapid uplift of the Altiplano implied by their results. Instead the authors suggest crustal delamination, removal of dense lower crust and/or mantle lithosphere, as a more plausible mechanism. However, this process can only occur when the lower part of the lithosphere has become gravitationally unstable as a result of thickening (13). Delamination below the Altiplano (1) should thus have been a consequence of thickening. However, if the Corque Basin was indeed at or below sea level at Can soil paleotemperatures, and hence paleoaltitudes, be securely deduced from isotopegeochemical measurements? Ghosh et al. (1) assumed that the carbonate nodules they analyzed were devoid of diagenetic signal, yet they reported one sample (04BL69) from the 10.3 to 11.4 Ma interval that yielded an apparent paleotemperature of 50.3° ± 4.9°C and acknowledged that this was likely due to cryptic recrystallization during burial. The samples from this interval were subject to minimum burial depths of between 2200 and 3400 m (8) and thus to temperatures of 60° to 90°C (adopting a conservative estimate of 30°C/km for the geothermal gradient). We believe it unlikely that only one sample was selectively affected by burial metamorphism and that samples above and below were not.
We propose a simple test to determine whether a burial heating component is indeed present in the geochemical signal. The Because isotopic resetting may occur during burial diagenesis of paleosol nodules, the geochemical methods used by Ghosh et al. (1) should have been robustly validated by thorough down-section sampling before drawing conclusions about the history and mechanisms of uplift in the Central Andes. If burial is proved to have modified the geochemical signal as we predict, the reported paleoaltitude estimates from at least the 11.4 to 10.3 Ma interval will need to be reevaluated and the rapid and late Andean uplift proposed by Ghosh et al. reconsidered.
Received for publication 21 July 2006. Accepted for publication 4 October 2006.
The editors suggest the following Related Resources on Science sites:In Science Magazine
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:
|
Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)