USGS ScienceSearch

Geology topics

Katerina Bartosova

Publications and source records attributed to Katerina Bartosova.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Petrography, mineralogy, and geochemistry of deep gravelly sands in the Eyreville B core, Chesapeake Bay impact structure

The ICDP–USGS Eyreville drill cores in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure reached a total depth of 1766 m and comprise (from the bottom upwards) basement-derived schists and granites/pegmatites, impact breccias, mostly poorly lithified gravelly sand and crystalline blocks, a granitic slab, sedimentary breccias, and postimpact sediments. The gravelly sand and crystalline block section forms an approximately 26 m thick interval that includes an amphibolite block and boulders of cataclastic gneiss and suevite. Three gravelly sands (basal, middle, and upper) are distinguished within this interval. The gravelly sands are poorly sorted, clast supported, and generally massive, but crude size-sorting and subtle, discontinuous layers occur locally. Quartz and K-feldspar are the main sand-size minerals and smectite and kaolinite are the principal clay minerals. Other mineral grains occur only in accessory amounts and lithic clasts are sparse (only a few vol%). The gravelly sands are silica rich (~80 wt% SiO 2 ). Trends with depth include a slight decrease in SiO 2 and slight increase in Fe 2 O 3 . The basal gravelly sand (below the cataclasite boulder) has a lower SiO 2 content, less K-feldspar, and more mica than the higher sands, and it contains more lithic clasts and melt particles that are probably reworked from the underlying suevite. The middle gravelly sand (below the amphibolite block) is finer-grained, contains more abundant clay minerals, and displays more variable chemical compositions than upper gravelly sand (above the block). Our mineralogical and geochemical results suggest that the gravelly sands are avalanche deposits derived probably from the nonmarine Potomac Formation in the lower part of the target sediment layer, in contrast to polymict diamictons higher in the core that have been interpreted as ocean-resurge debris flows, which is in agreement with previous interpretations. The mineralogy and geochemistry of the gravelly sands are typical for a passive continental margin source. There is no discernible mixing with marine sediments (no glauconite or Paleogene marine microfossils noted) during the impact remobilization and redeposition. The unshocked amphibolite block and cataclasite boulder might have originated from the outer parts of the transient crater.

Virginia

Petrographic and geochemical comparisons between the lower crystalline basement-derived section and the granite megablock and amphibolite megablock of the Eyreville B core, Chesapeake Bay impact structure, USA

The Eyreville B core from the Chesapeake Bay impact structure, Virginia, USA, contains a lower basement-derived section (1551.19 m to 1766.32 m deep) and two megablocks of dominantly (1) amphibolite (1376.38 m to 1389.35 m deep) and (2) granite (1095.74 m to 1371.11 m deep), which are separated by an impactite succession. Metasedimentary rocks (muscovite-quartz-plagioclase-biotite-graphite ± fibrolite ± garnet ± tourmaline ± pyrite ± rutile ± pyrrhotite mica schist, hornblende-plagioclase-epidote-biotite-K-feldspar-quartz-titanite-calcite amphibolite, and vesuvianite-plagioclase-quartz-epidote calc-silicate rock) are dominant in the upper part of the lower basement-derived section, and they are intruded by pegmatitic to coarse-grained granite (K-feldspar-plagioclase-quartz-muscovite ± biotite ± garnet) that increases in volume proportion downward. The granite megablock contains both gneissic and weakly or nonfoliated biotite granite varieties (K-feldspar-quartz-plagioclase-biotite ± muscovite ± pyrite), with small schist xenoliths consisting of biotite-plagioclase-quartz ± epidote ± amphibole. The lower basement-derived section and both megablocks exhibit similar middle- to upper-amphibolite-facies metamorphic grades that suggest they might represent parts of a single terrane. However, the mica schists in the lower basement-derived sequence and in the megablock xenoliths show differences in both mineralogy and whole-rock chemistry that suggest a more mafic source for the xenoliths. Similarly, the mineralogy of the amphibolite in the lower basement-derived section and its association with calc-silicate rock suggest a sedimentary protolith, whereas the bulk-rock and mineral chemistry of the megablock amphibolite indicate an igneous protolith. The lower basement-derived granite also shows bulk chemical and mineralogical differences from the megablock gneissic and biotite granites.

Virginia