Reply to comment by Z. Yi et al. on “Remagnetization of the Paleogene Tibetan Himalayan carbonate rocks in the Gamba area: Implications for reconstructing the lower plate in the India-Asia collision”

Wentao Huang, Peter C. Lippert, Michael J. Jackson, Mark J. Dekkers, Yang Zhang, Juan Li, Zhaojie Guo, Paul A Kapp, Douwe J.J. van Hinsbergen

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In their comment on our publications on pervasive remagnetization of Jurassic-Paleogene carbonate rocks of the Tibetan Himalaya (Huang et al., 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122, doi: 10.1002/2016JB013662 and 122, doi: 10.1002/2017JB013987), Yi et al. (2017) questioned our fold tests applied to their published paleomagenetic results from the Paleogene Zongpu and latest Cretaceous Zongshan carbonate rocks (Patzelt et al., 1996, Tectonophysics, 259(4), 259–284; Yi et al., 2011, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 309(1), 153–165). They argued that authigenic magnetite pseudomorphic after pyrite, which is the dominant magnetic carrier within these carbonate rocks as indicated by our thorough rock magnetic and petrographic investigations, was formed during early diagenesis and that the primary natural remanent magnetization (NRM) is retained by these carbonate rocks. However, their statement for the invalidity of our fold tests is based on unrealistic assumptions that these carbonate rocks carry primary NRM and that the upper Zongpu Formation was deposited on a 10° primary dip. Their argument for immediate oxidization of pyrite to authigenic magnetite after carbonate deposition onto the continental passive margin ignores that sulfate-reducing conditions were prevailing during early diagenesis, it is also inconsistent with the timing of the secondary remanence acquisition in remagnetized carbonate rocks elsewhere. As previously demonstrated, and agreed upon by Yi et al. (2017), the Zongpu and Zongshan carbonate rocks in Gamba are remagnetized; here we argue that the timing of remagnetization cannot be demonstrated to shortly postdate sedimentation. These data should therefore not be used for tectonic reconstructions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)4859-4863
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
Volume122
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2017

Fingerprint

carbonate rocks
remagnetization
Carbonates
India
carbonate rock
Paleogene
carbonates
collision
Rocks
rocks
magnetization
collisions
magnetite
natural remanent magnetization
Ferrosoferric Oxide
pyrites
diagenesis
pyrite
Magnetization
tectonophysics

Keywords

  • carbonate rocks
  • remagnetization
  • Tibetan Himalaya

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geophysics
  • Oceanography
  • Forestry
  • Ecology
  • Aquatic Science
  • Water Science and Technology
  • Soil Science
  • Geochemistry and Petrology
  • Earth-Surface Processes
  • Atmospheric Science
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Space and Planetary Science
  • Palaeontology

Cite this

Reply to comment by Z. Yi et al. on “Remagnetization of the Paleogene Tibetan Himalayan carbonate rocks in the Gamba area : Implications for reconstructing the lower plate in the India-Asia collision”. / Huang, Wentao; Lippert, Peter C.; Jackson, Michael J.; Dekkers, Mark J.; Zhang, Yang; Li, Juan; Guo, Zhaojie; Kapp, Paul A; van Hinsbergen, Douwe J.J.

In: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 122, No. 7, 01.07.2017, p. 4859-4863.

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

Huang, Wentao ; Lippert, Peter C. ; Jackson, Michael J. ; Dekkers, Mark J. ; Zhang, Yang ; Li, Juan ; Guo, Zhaojie ; Kapp, Paul A ; van Hinsbergen, Douwe J.J. / Reply to comment by Z. Yi et al. on “Remagnetization of the Paleogene Tibetan Himalayan carbonate rocks in the Gamba area : Implications for reconstructing the lower plate in the India-Asia collision”. In: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 2017 ; Vol. 122, No. 7. pp. 4859-4863.
@article{fc88dcaff0214f2d815c158aa9e186e3,
title = "Reply to comment by Z. Yi et al. on “Remagnetization of the Paleogene Tibetan Himalayan carbonate rocks in the Gamba area: Implications for reconstructing the lower plate in the India-Asia collision”",
abstract = "In their comment on our publications on pervasive remagnetization of Jurassic-Paleogene carbonate rocks of the Tibetan Himalaya (Huang et al., 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122, doi: 10.1002/2016JB013662 and 122, doi: 10.1002/2017JB013987), Yi et al. (2017) questioned our fold tests applied to their published paleomagenetic results from the Paleogene Zongpu and latest Cretaceous Zongshan carbonate rocks (Patzelt et al., 1996, Tectonophysics, 259(4), 259–284; Yi et al., 2011, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 309(1), 153–165). They argued that authigenic magnetite pseudomorphic after pyrite, which is the dominant magnetic carrier within these carbonate rocks as indicated by our thorough rock magnetic and petrographic investigations, was formed during early diagenesis and that the primary natural remanent magnetization (NRM) is retained by these carbonate rocks. However, their statement for the invalidity of our fold tests is based on unrealistic assumptions that these carbonate rocks carry primary NRM and that the upper Zongpu Formation was deposited on a 10° primary dip. Their argument for immediate oxidization of pyrite to authigenic magnetite after carbonate deposition onto the continental passive margin ignores that sulfate-reducing conditions were prevailing during early diagenesis, it is also inconsistent with the timing of the secondary remanence acquisition in remagnetized carbonate rocks elsewhere. As previously demonstrated, and agreed upon by Yi et al. (2017), the Zongpu and Zongshan carbonate rocks in Gamba are remagnetized; here we argue that the timing of remagnetization cannot be demonstrated to shortly postdate sedimentation. These data should therefore not be used for tectonic reconstructions.",
keywords = "carbonate rocks, remagnetization, Tibetan Himalaya",
author = "Wentao Huang and Lippert, {Peter C.} and Jackson, {Michael J.} and Dekkers, {Mark J.} and Yang Zhang and Juan Li and Zhaojie Guo and Kapp, {Paul A} and {van Hinsbergen}, {Douwe J.J.}",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/2017JB014447",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "122",
pages = "4859--4863",
journal = "Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics",
issn = "2169-9380",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reply to comment by Z. Yi et al. on “Remagnetization of the Paleogene Tibetan Himalayan carbonate rocks in the Gamba area

T2 - Implications for reconstructing the lower plate in the India-Asia collision”

AU - Huang, Wentao

AU - Lippert, Peter C.

AU - Jackson, Michael J.

AU - Dekkers, Mark J.

AU - Zhang, Yang

AU - Li, Juan

AU - Guo, Zhaojie

AU - Kapp, Paul A

AU - van Hinsbergen, Douwe J.J.

PY - 2017/7/1

Y1 - 2017/7/1

N2 - In their comment on our publications on pervasive remagnetization of Jurassic-Paleogene carbonate rocks of the Tibetan Himalaya (Huang et al., 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122, doi: 10.1002/2016JB013662 and 122, doi: 10.1002/2017JB013987), Yi et al. (2017) questioned our fold tests applied to their published paleomagenetic results from the Paleogene Zongpu and latest Cretaceous Zongshan carbonate rocks (Patzelt et al., 1996, Tectonophysics, 259(4), 259–284; Yi et al., 2011, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 309(1), 153–165). They argued that authigenic magnetite pseudomorphic after pyrite, which is the dominant magnetic carrier within these carbonate rocks as indicated by our thorough rock magnetic and petrographic investigations, was formed during early diagenesis and that the primary natural remanent magnetization (NRM) is retained by these carbonate rocks. However, their statement for the invalidity of our fold tests is based on unrealistic assumptions that these carbonate rocks carry primary NRM and that the upper Zongpu Formation was deposited on a 10° primary dip. Their argument for immediate oxidization of pyrite to authigenic magnetite after carbonate deposition onto the continental passive margin ignores that sulfate-reducing conditions were prevailing during early diagenesis, it is also inconsistent with the timing of the secondary remanence acquisition in remagnetized carbonate rocks elsewhere. As previously demonstrated, and agreed upon by Yi et al. (2017), the Zongpu and Zongshan carbonate rocks in Gamba are remagnetized; here we argue that the timing of remagnetization cannot be demonstrated to shortly postdate sedimentation. These data should therefore not be used for tectonic reconstructions.

AB - In their comment on our publications on pervasive remagnetization of Jurassic-Paleogene carbonate rocks of the Tibetan Himalaya (Huang et al., 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122, doi: 10.1002/2016JB013662 and 122, doi: 10.1002/2017JB013987), Yi et al. (2017) questioned our fold tests applied to their published paleomagenetic results from the Paleogene Zongpu and latest Cretaceous Zongshan carbonate rocks (Patzelt et al., 1996, Tectonophysics, 259(4), 259–284; Yi et al., 2011, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 309(1), 153–165). They argued that authigenic magnetite pseudomorphic after pyrite, which is the dominant magnetic carrier within these carbonate rocks as indicated by our thorough rock magnetic and petrographic investigations, was formed during early diagenesis and that the primary natural remanent magnetization (NRM) is retained by these carbonate rocks. However, their statement for the invalidity of our fold tests is based on unrealistic assumptions that these carbonate rocks carry primary NRM and that the upper Zongpu Formation was deposited on a 10° primary dip. Their argument for immediate oxidization of pyrite to authigenic magnetite after carbonate deposition onto the continental passive margin ignores that sulfate-reducing conditions were prevailing during early diagenesis, it is also inconsistent with the timing of the secondary remanence acquisition in remagnetized carbonate rocks elsewhere. As previously demonstrated, and agreed upon by Yi et al. (2017), the Zongpu and Zongshan carbonate rocks in Gamba are remagnetized; here we argue that the timing of remagnetization cannot be demonstrated to shortly postdate sedimentation. These data should therefore not be used for tectonic reconstructions.

KW - carbonate rocks

KW - remagnetization

KW - Tibetan Himalaya

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027995465&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027995465&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/2017JB014447

DO - 10.1002/2017JB014447

M3 - Letter

AN - SCOPUS:85027995465

VL - 122

SP - 4859

EP - 4863

JO - Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics

JF - Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics

SN - 2169-9380

IS - 7

ER -