Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Geology Don't get GSW? Talk to your librarian.
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Geology; November 2008; v. 36; no. 11; p. 835-838; DOI: 10.1130/G25032A.1
© 2008 Geological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Karlstrom, K. E.
Right arrow Articles by Van Wijk, J. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Model for tectonically driven incision of the younger than 6 Ma Grand Canyon

Karl E. Karlstrom1,*, Ryan Crow1, L.J. Crossey1, D. Coblentz2 and J. W. Van Wijk2

1 1Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131, USA
2 2Geodynamics Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, 87545, USA

Correspondence: *E-mail: kek1{at}unm.edu.

Accurate models for the incision of the Grand Canyon must include characterization of tectonic influences on incision dynamics such as active faulting and mantle to surface fluid interconnections. These young tectonic features support other geologic data that indicate that the Grand Canyon has been carved in the past 6 Ma. New U-Pb dates on speleothems are reinterpreted here in terms of improved geologic constraints and understanding of the modern aquifer. The combined data suggest that Grand Canyon incision rates have been relatively steady since 3–4 Ma. Differences in rates in the eastern (175–250 m/Ma) and western (50–80 m/Ma) Grand Canyon are explained by Neogene fault block uplift across the Toroweap-Hurricane system. Mantle tomography shows an abrupt step in mantle velocities near the Colorado Plateau edge, and geodynamic modeling suggests that upwelling asthenosphere is driving uplift of the Colorado Plateau margin relative to the Basin and Range. Our model for dynamic surface uplift in the past 6 Ma contrasts with the notion of passive incision of the Grand Canyon due solely to river integration and geomorphic response to base-level fall.







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Geological Society of America