Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T11:47:58.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Provenance of a Late Permian retroarc foreland basin along the eastern Gondwanan margin: northern Sydney Basin, eastern Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2023

Angelos G. Maravelis*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
Robin Offler
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW, Australia
Chrysanthos Botziolis
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Sedimentology, Department of Geology, University of Patras, Rion, Greece
George Pantopoulos
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences “Ardito Desio”, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
Alexandra Scott
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW, Australia
Bill Landenberger
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW, Australia
William J. Collins
Affiliation:
The Institute for Geoscience Research (TIGeR), Department of Applied Geology, Curtin University, Perth WA, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Angelos G. Maravelis; Email: angmar@geo.auth.gr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Upper Permian sedimentary successions in the northern Sydney Basin have been the subject of several stratigraphic, sedimentological and coal petrographic studies, and recently, extensive U-Pb zircon dating has been carried out on tuffs in the Newcastle Coal Measures. However, detailed petrographic and geochemical studies of these successions are lacking. These are important because a major change in tectonic setting occurred prior to the Late Permian because of the Hunter-Bowen Orogeny that caused the uplift of the Carboniferous and Devonian successions in the Tamworth Group and Tablelands Complex adjacent to the Sydney Basin. This should be reflected in the detrital makeup of the Upper Permian rocks. This study provides data that confirms major changes did take place at this time. Petrographic analysis indicates that the source area is composed of sedimentary, felsic volcanic and plutonic and low-grade metamorphic rocks. Conglomerate clast composition analysis confirms these results, revealing a source region that is composed of felsic volcanics, cherts, mudstones and sandstones. Geochemical analysis suggests that the sediments are geochemically mature and have undergone a moderate degree of weathering. The provenance data presented in this paper indicate that the southern New England Orogen is the principal source of detritus in the basin. Discrimination diagrams confirm that the source rocks derive from an arc-related, contractional setting and agree with the provenance analyses that indicate sediment deposition in a retroarc foreland basin. This study offers new insights on the provenance and tectonic setting of the Northern Sydney Basin, eastern Australia.

Information

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Geological map of NEO and surrounding regions depicting the distribution of the Tablelands Complex and the Tamworth Belt (accretionary prism and forearc basin respectively, Leitch, 1974; Korsch, 1977).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Comparable diagrams illustrating the differences between the current and revised stratigraphic framework in the NSB (from Maravelis et al.2020). The revised stratigraphic model condenses the NCM stratigraphy, suggesting the existence of the Lambton Sub-group that is represented by the deltaic setting and the Moon Island Beach Sub-group that includes (at least at its basal part) the fluvial portion of the succession.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Stratigraphic column that portrays the temporal development of the studied sedimentary succession. Note the decrease in water depth as documented by the shift from delta-front to delta-plain sediments and finally to fluvial deposits (from Breckenridge et al.2019).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Map of the study region illustrating the lateral extension of the different rock units. Black dots correspond to the selected locations for geochemical analysis, red dots to the locations for petrographic analysis, and black squares to the locations for conglomerate clast composition analysis (modified from Herbert & Helby, 1980).

Figure 4

Figure 5. Photomicrographs showing the different types of detritus that occur in the sediments of the NCM. (a) Felsic volcanic clast (Fv) surrounded by secondary calcite aggregates Ca). (b) Possible radiolarians (R) in tuffaceous siltstone host associated with siltstone (St) and chert (Ch) clasts. (c) Chert (Ch) clast showing secondary quartz nucleated at boundary (arrow) XP. (d) Slate (Sl), detrital muscovite (Mu) and quartz (Q). (e) Felsic volcanic clast (Fv) and plagioclase (Pl) surrounded by a calcite cement. Note that many clasts are totally replaced by fine-grained white mica (I. Illite?). (f) Quartz-rich arenite with interlocking, angular to sub-angular quartz (Q) aggregates and polycrystalline quartz (Qp).

Figure 5

Table 1. Point-counting data (volume %) for the NCM system

Figure 6

Figure 6. Sandstone composition plots for the NCM samples. (a) QFL compositional plot with Q: quartz; F: feldspar; and L: lithic grains (Dickinson et al.1983). The samples cluster close to the lines between the transitional arc, the undissected arc, and the recycled orogenic fields. (b) QmFLt plot (Dickinson 1985). The samples cluster in the lithic recycled field. (c) QmpFL diagram, where the samples plot in the quartzo-lithic field. (d) Lithic grain diagram that discriminates sedimentary (Ls), volcanic (Lv) and metamorphic (Lm) lithic grains. The samples plot close to the Lm pole.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Data from the conglomerate clast composition analysis of the studied NCM sediments. Note the prevalence of a sedimentary source (containing chert, sandstone and mudstone clasts), followed by a felsic volcanic source and a less important metamorphic source.

Figure 8

Table 2. Major elements (in wt.%) after LOI correction for the NCM system

Figure 9

Figure 8. Pearson’s correlations for selected major element (SiO2, TiO2 K2O, Al2O3) and trace element (Ba, Rb, Sr, Th, Sc, Cr, V, Ni, Co, Zr, U, Y, Hf and Cu) abundances for the studied NCM samples.

Figure 10

Table 3. Trace elements (in ppm) for the NCM system

Figure 11

Figure 9. PAAS-normalized multi-element diagram for trace element abundances of the NCM samples (PAAS normalizing values are from Taylor & McLennan, 1985). The trace element values were normalized as ppm. A horizontal line for mudstone PAAS value of 1 is included for reference.

Figure 12

Table 4. Rare earth elements (in ppm) for the NCM system

Figure 13

Figure 10. Plot illustrating the chondrite-normalized rare earth element distribution of the NCM samples. Chondrite normalization values are from Taylor and McLennan (1985). REE pattern of Post-Archean Australian Shale (PAAS) is also presented.

Figure 14

Figure 11. (a). N-MORB normalized patterns of samples from the different depositional environments. The NCM samples exhibit similar features, displaying Nb, Ta depletion, Th enrichment and Sr depletion, suggesting derivation of detritus from calc-alkaline, continental arc rocks (Pearce, 1983). Normalizing values from Sun and McDonough (1989). (b) Th/Yb vs. Ta/Yb plot for intermediate and felsic rocks (Gorton & Schandl 2000). The NCM sample plot in the active continental margin field. Abbreviations: WPB: within-plate basalts, MORB: mid-ocean ridge basalts, ACM: active continental margins, WPVZ: within-plate volcanic zones.

Figure 15

Figure 12. (a) TiO2 vs. Al2O3 plot for the NCM samples (anhydrous-normalized basis) suggesting that all samples have felsic compositions (fields are from Schieber, 1992). (b) A-CN-K diagram (Nesbitt & Young, 1984) that suggests moderate degree of source rock weathering in the NCM. Abbreviations: Ga: gabbro, To: tonalite, Grd: granodiorite, G: granite (Le Maitre, 1976), Pl: plagioclase Ksp: K-feldspar (Nesbitt & Young, 1984), PWT: Predicted weathering trend. (c) 15Al2O3-Zr-300TiO2 ternary diagram (Garcia et al.1991). Arrow points at the typical recycling trend. All plots indicate minimum degree of sediment recycling.

Figure 16

Figure 13. Binary diagrams that evaluate the source rock composition. (a) Th/Sc vs. Zr/Sc diagram. (b) La/Th vs. Hf diagram (Floyd & Leveridge, 1987). (c) Co/Th vs. La/Sc diagram. All three diagrams indicate that the studied deposits were derived from source rocks that are predominantly of felsic composition.

Figure 17

Figure 14. Binary diagrams that evaluate the tectonic setting of the NCM samples. (a) Discriminant function multi-dimensional plot for high-silica clastic sediments (the reader should refer to Verma & Armstrong-Altrin, 2013, for detailed explanation of the discriminant-function equations). The diagram suggests an arc-related tectonic setting under contractional tectonic regime. (b) Major element-based diagram that separates active (A) and passive (P) margins (from Verma & Armstrong-Altrin, 2016). The function (DF (A-P)M) is determined from the equation: DF (A-P)M = (3.0005 × ilr1Ti) + (−2.8243 × ilr2Al) + (−1.0596 × ilr3Fe) + (−0.7056 × ilr4Mn) + (−0.3044 × ilr5Mg) + (0.6277 × ilr6Ca) + (−1.1838 × ilr7Na) + (1.5915 × ilr8K) + (0.1526 × ilr9P) – 5.9948. The diagram suggests an arc-related tectonic setting under contractional tectonic regime.

Figure 18

Figure 15. Schematic diagram illustrating the Late Permian geotectonic and depositional setting of the NCM (modified from Jessop et al.2019).

Supplementary material: File

Maravelis et al. supplementary material

Maravelis et al. supplementary material 1

Download Maravelis et al. supplementary material(File)
File 306.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Maravelis et al. supplementary material

Maravelis et al. supplementary material 2

Download Maravelis et al. supplementary material(File)
File 77.1 KB