USGS ScienceSearch

place

Grand Canyon, Meteor Crater

Grand Canyon, Meteor Crater: explore 1 source-linked works published from 2025 to 2025, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: usgs. Collection updated 2026-09-15. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

Grand Canyon landslide-dam and paleolake triggered by the Meteor Crater impact at 56 ka

This paper hypothesizes that the Meteor Crater impact in Arizona, USA, 56,000 years ago triggered landslides in Grand Canyon that dammed the Colorado River and formed Nankoweap paleolake. This is compatible with shock and earthquake physics for the impact that infer a M5.4 seismic event, attenuated to an effective magnitude of M3.5 at Grand Canyon. Results that support the hypothesis include radiocarbon dating of driftwood and luminescence dating of associated slack-water lake sediments that are preserved in caves up to 60 m above the modern Colorado River. Radiocarbon ages from two locations, including Stanton’s Cave, date the driftwood as 55.25 ± 2.44 ka (n = 4). Sediments associated with the driftwood gave a luminescence age of 56.00 ± 6.39 ka (n = 2). These six Grand Canyon dates, and three published ages for the Meteor Crater impact, show statistically indistinguishable results that support the hypothesis for a geologically instantaneous series of events with a mean age of 55.60 ± 1.30 ka. This work highlights the value of radiocarbon dating near the limits of the technique, integration of multiple dating methods, and seismic and landslide hazards associated with meteorite impacts in regions of extreme topography like Grand Canyon.

Arizona
Compare source metadata on this page

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.