Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T23:54:20.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tectonic controls on sedimentary provenance and basin geography of the Mesoproterozoic Wilton package, McArthur Basin, northern Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2020

Bo Yang*
Affiliation:
Tectonics and Earth Systems Research Group, Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia Mineral Exploration Cooperative Research Centre
Alan S. Collins
Affiliation:
Tectonics and Earth Systems Research Group, Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia Mineral Exploration Cooperative Research Centre
Morgan L. Blades
Affiliation:
Tectonics and Earth Systems Research Group, Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia Mineral Exploration Cooperative Research Centre
Tim J. Munson
Affiliation:
NT Geological Survey, Department of Primary Industry and Resources, GPO Box 4550, Darwin, NT 0801, Australia
Justin L. Payne
Affiliation:
Mineral Exploration Cooperative Research Centre School of Natural and Built Environments, Mawson Lakes Campus, University of South Australia, SA 5095, Australia
Stijn Glorie
Affiliation:
Tectonics and Earth Systems Research Group, Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia Mineral Exploration Cooperative Research Centre
Juraj Farkaš
Affiliation:
Tectonics and Earth Systems Research Group, Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia Mineral Exploration Cooperative Research Centre
*
Author for correspondence: Bo Yang, Email: bo.yang@adelaide.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The c. 1.5–1.3 Ga Wilton package, the upper succession of the greater McArthur Basin, preserves detailed tectono-sedimentary evidence for the Mesoproterozoic evolution of the North Australian Craton (NAC). In addition, it is a valuable global sedimentary repository for the poorly explored Mesoproterozoic. New detrital zircon U–Pb age and Lu–Hf isotope data, collected from multiple, geographically separated, basins that make up the Wilton package, are compiled with previously published data to illuminate the basin evolution. The spatial and temporal variation in sedimentary provenance illustrates two major geographic changes that correspond to continent-scale tectonic convulsions of the NAC during the Mesoproterozoic. The first is shown by the influx of sediment sourced from east and southeast terranes. This is linked to rifting between Proterozoic Australia and Laurentia at c. 1.45 Ga, resulting in the uplift of the eastern margin of the NAC–SAC (South Australian Craton). The second basin geographic change is illustrated by a flux of southerly-sourced detritus that is interpreted to be tectonically driven by the uplift of the southern NAC, during the subduction/closure of the Mirning Ocean at c. 1.32 Ga. Spatially, sediment in the Wilton package is separated into two depositional systems: sedimentary rocks within the Birrindudu Basin, the western component of the Wilton package, have different detrital signatures relative to other Wilton package successions found east of the Daly Waters Fault Zone, in the Beetaloo Sub-basin, the McArthur Basin and the South Nicholson Basin. The Daly Waters Fault Zone is interpreted as an ancient bathymetric high, blocking sediment transport. Although they differ in sources, rocks in both the Birrindudu Basin and the eastern Wilton package record coeval shifts of basin provenance to southern sources. The coherent evolution of basin provenance indicates a consistent tectono-sedimentation history, and links the Birrindudu Basin and the other Wilton successions in a tectonic framework.

Information

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (a) Top-to-basement map (SEEBASE™ basement surface image after Frogtech Geoscience, 2018), showing the location of the greater McArthur Basin and the North Australian Craton (NAC). (b) Location of the Mesoproterozoic NAC within the c. 1.3 Ga Rodinia Supercontinent (modified after Kirscher et al.2018). (c) Tectonic framework of the NAC with the locations of interpreted Wilton package (shade area), orogens and sampled boreholes, modified after Munson (2016) and Yang et al. (2018).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic chart of the Wilton package and its potential equivalents, after Ahmad & Munson (2013), Munson (2016) and Munson et al. (2018). Diagrammatic cross-section showing the stratigraphy of the Wilton package, modified after Frogtech Geoscience (2018). Note that the top of the Wilton package has been normalized to surface. Not to scale. Gp: Group; Sub-gp: Subgroup. Dolerite baddeleyite isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry (ID-TIMS) ages are from Yang et al. (2020) and Bodorkos et al. (2020).

Figure 2

Table 1. Details of samples collected for this study

Figure 3

Table 2. Summary of results

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Epsilon hafnium values against 207Pb/206Pb ages plot of the measured samples from the Collara Subgroup. Zircon ϵHf(t) heat maps reflect the point density distribution of published magmatic zircon data from possible source regions, including (a) South Australian Craton (SAC; Nebel et al.2007; Reid et al.2008, 2014, 2017, 2020; Howard et al.2009, 2011; Kromkhun et al.2013; Reid & Payne, 2017), (b) Aileron Province (Hollis et al.2010; Beyer et al.2013, 2015) and (c) the Kathleen Fold Belt (KFB) of Mount Isa Province (Bierlein et al.2008). Published detrital zircon data from source regions are from Eastern Fold Belt (EFB) of Mount Isa Province (Griffin et al.2006), Coen and Georgetown provinces (C&G; Murgulov et al.2007). CHUR: chondrite reservoir. *data from Munson et al. (2018). Maiwok Subgroup data are from Yang et al. (2019).

Figure 5

Fig. 4. Kernel distribution estimates (KDE) of detrital zircon 207Pb/206Pb age spectra of the Bullita and Tijunna Groups and potential sources. Data from this study are compiled with published 207Pb/206Pb age data from *Munson et al. (2018), **Carson (2013) and ***Kositcin & Carson (2017). Published 207Pb/206Pb ages from magmatic zircon grains are included from potential source areas, including Aileron Province (Cross et al.2005a, b, c; Carson et al.2009; Beyer et al.2013, 2015, 2016; Kositcin et al.2013a, b, 2014a, b, 2015; Bodorkos et al.2013; Worden et al.2006a, b, 2008; Hollis et al.2010), Pine Creek Orogen (Carson et al.2009; Kositcin et al.2013b; Beyer et al.2013; Worden et al.2006a, b, 2008), Halls Creek Orogen (Worden et al.2008), Tanami Region (Cross et al.2005c; Worden et al.2006a, 2008; Bagas et al.2010; Kositcin et al.2013a; Iaccheri, 2019). Red arrows: the youngest detrital zircon 207Pb/206Pb age (with >95% concordance) for each formation. MDA: the youngest detrital zircon 207Pb/206Pb age used as maximum deposition age constraint. Red line represents the assigned maximum deposition age for each formation. Grey columns are bands of equivalent age range.

Figure 6

Fig. 5. Kernel distribution estimates (KDE) of detrital zircon 207Pb/206Pb age spectra of the South Nicholson Group, possible Wilton package equivalents and potential sources. Data used for comparison are from this study and from *Nordsvan et al. (2018), **Neumann & Kositcin (2011), ***Kositcin & Carson (2019) and ****Anderson et al. (2019). Published 207Pb/206Pb ages from both magmatic and detrital zircon grains are included from potential source areas, including Aileron Province (Cross et al.2005a, b, c; Worden et al.2006a, b, 2008; Carson et al.2009; Hollis et al.2010; Beyer et al.2013, 2015, 2016; Bodorkos et al.2013; Kositcin et al.2013a, b, 2014a, b, 2015), Western Fold Belt & Kathleen Fold Belt (WFB&KFB) of Mount Isa Province (Neumann et al.2006, 2009; Cross et al.2015), Eastern Fold Belt (EFB) of Mount Isa Province (Griffin et al.2006), South Australian Craton (SAC; Nebel et al.2007; Reid et al.2008, 2014, 2017, 2020; Howard et al.2009, 2011; Wade et al.2012; Kromkhun et al.2013; Reid & Payne, 2017; Morrissey et al.2019), Coen and Georgetown provinces (C&G; Blewett et al.1998; Hoskin & Black, 2000; Kositcin et al.2009; Neumann & Kositcin, 2011). Red arrows: the youngest detrital zircon 207Pb/206Pb age (with >95 % concordance) for each formation. MDA: the youngest detrital zircon 207Pb/206Pb age used as maximum deposition age constraint. Red line represents the assigned maximum deposition age for each formation. Grey columns are bands of equivalent age range.

Figure 7

Fig. 6. Epsilon hafnium values against 207Pb/206Pb ages plot of the measured samples from the Collera Subgroup. Zircon ϵHf(t) heat maps reflect the point density distribution of published magmatic zircon data from possible source regions, including (a) South Australian Craton (SAC; Nebel et al.2007; Reid et al.2008, 2014, 2017, 2020; Howard et al.2009, 2011; Kromkhun et al.2013; Reid & Payne, 2017), (b) Aileron Province (Hollis et al.2010; Beyer et al.2013, 2015) and (c) the Kathleen Fold Belt (KFB) of Mount Isa Province (Bierlein et al.2008). Published detrital zircon data from source regions are from the Eastern Fold Belt (EFB) of Mount Isa Province (Griffin et al.2006), the Coen and Georgetown provinces (C&G; Murgulov et al.2007). CHUR: chondrite reservoir. *data from Munson et al. (2018). Maiwok Subgroup data are from Yang et al. (2019).

Figure 8

Fig. 7. Epsilon hafnium values against 207Pb/206Pb ages plot of the measured samples from the Bullita Group and the Tijunna Group. Zircon ϵHf(t) heat maps reflect the point density distribution of published magmatic zircon data from possible source regions, including (a) Aileron Province (Hollis et al.2010; Beyer et al.2013, 2015), (b) Tanami Region (Iaccheri, 2019) and (c) Pine Creek Orogen (Beyer et al.2013). Published detrital zircon data from source regions are from Halls Creek Orogen (Hollis et al.2014; Iaccheri & Kemp, 2018). CHUR: chondrite reservoir. *data from Munson et al. (2018).

Figure 9

Fig. 8. Epsilon hafnium values against 207Pb/206Pb ages plot of the measured samples from the South Nicholson Group. Zircon ϵHf(t) heat maps reflect the point density distribution of published magmatic zircon data from possible source regions, including (a) South Australian Craton (SAC; Nebel et al.2007; Reid et al.2008, 2014, 2017, 2020; Howard et al.2009, 2011; Kromkhun et al.2013; Reid & Payne, 2017), (b) Aileron Province (Hollis et al.2010; Beyer et al.2013, 2015), (c) the Kathleen Fold Belt (KFB) of Mount Isa Province (Bierlein et al.2008). Published detrital zircon data from source regions are from the Eastern Fold Belt (EFB) of Mount Isa Province (Griffin et al.2006), the Coen-Georgetown provinces (C&G; Murgulov et al.2007). CHUR: chondrite reservoir. *data from Munson et al. (2018). Maiwok Subgroup data are from Yang et al. (2019).

Figure 10

Fig. 9. Reconstruction of the Mesoproterozoic North Australian Craton (NAC) and South Australian Craton (SAC) at c. 1.45 Ga, modified after Yang et al (2018, 2019). The proposed exhumation of eastern source regions during the separation between the NAC–SAC and Laurentia is shown. Compiled zircon age distributions from sedimentary units and potential sources plotted as pie diagrams, following the method proposed by Sharman et al. (2018). Large pie charts with black outlines are possible source regions; smaller pie charts with no outline are sediment age distributions in the Wilton package and coeval sedimentary sequences. Colours of pie charts and igneous units refer to age bins in the legend (see Fig. 10).

Figure 11

Fig. 10. Joint non-parametric multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot (after Vermeesch, 2013) showing the relationships amongst analysed formations. Compiled zircon age distributions from sedimentary units and potential sources plotted as pie diagrams, following the method proposed by Sharman et al. (2018). The larger pie charts with black outlines are the potential source areas. Detrital zircon 207Pb/206Pb age data included in this study are from *Yang et al. (2018, 2019), **Munson et al. (2018), ***Carson (2013), ****Kositcin & Carson (2017), #Nordsvan et al. (2018), ##Neumann & Kositcin (2011), ###Anderson et al. (2019) and ####Kositcin & Carson (2019). SAC: South Australian Craton; WFB: Western Fold Belt (Mount Isa Province); KFB: Kathleen Fold Belt (Mount Isa Province); EFB: Eastern Fold Belt (Mount Isa Province); Fm: Formation; Sst: Sandstone; Gp: Group. Pie chart colours refer to age bins defined on the KDE plot of all near-concordant U–Pb age detrital age data (top).

Figure 12

Fig. 11. Graph probability distribution plot comparing the composed detrital zircon age spectra of formations from the Bullita and Tijunna groups. The plot was generated using the FitPDF program (Eglington, 2018). Probabilities are illustrated by the colour density. MDA: maximum deposition age; Gp: Group; Fm: Formation. Red line represents assigned maximum deposition age for each formation. Grey line represents the stratigraphic shifting of the dominant age peaks.

Figure 13

Fig. 12. Reconstruction of Australia at c. 1.32 Ga. The reconstruction shows the uplift and exposure of southern sources (e.g. the Aileron Province and Tanami Region) during the amalgamation of the West Australian Craton (WAC) with the North and South Australian cratons (NAC–SAC). This allowed them to become sources for the upper Maiwok Subgroup and the Tijunna Group (modified after Yang et al.2019). Compiled zircon age distributions from sedimentary units and potential sources plotted as pie diagrams, following the method proposed by Sharman et al. (2018). Large pie charts with black outlines are possible source regions; smaller pie charts with no outline are sediment age distributions in the Wilton package and coeval sedimentary sequences. Colours of pie charts and igneous units refer to age bins in the legend (see Fig. 10).

Figure 14

Fig. 13. Graph probability distribution plot of the composite detrital zircon age spectra of formations from the Maiwok Subgroup, Collara Subgroup, South Nicholson Group, Inorunie Group and sedimentary rocks from the Millungera Basin (Fig. 1), illustrating the provenance similarity between these basins. The plot was generated using the FitPDF program (Eglington, 2018). Probabilities are illustrated by the colour density. MDA: maximum deposition age; Gp: group; Fm: formation. Red lines represent assigned maximum deposition age for each formation. Red dashed lines represent possible maximum deposition age constraint.

Supplementary material: File

Yang et al. supplementary material

Yang et al. supplementary material

Download Yang et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.5 MB