HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schreiber, B. C. Articles by Helman, M. L. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Criteria for Distinguishing Primary Evaporite Features from Deformation Features in Sulfate Evaporites

¹ Department of Geology, 195 Rankin Science Building, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina 28608; geologo{at}aol.com
² Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP, One Blue Hill Plaza, Pearl River, New York 10965

In many tectonized regions, evaporites, which served as décollement zones, are brought to the surface, where they are studied as part of the normal sedimentary succession and their internal structures are commonly treated as the primary products of deposition and synsedimentary deformation. Evaporites, however, respond to tectonism in a manner that is vastly different from other rocks in the succession. Associated limestone, dolostone, and siliciclastic beds may remain virtually unaffected by the same degree of deformation that significantly alters evaporites. Even modest differential stresses, with geologically reasonable strain rates applied at low temperatures (20–200°C), result in significant recrystallization, foliation, and flow in evaporites, whereas other rocks (non-evaporites) in the same succession may show little apparent change. The large differences in physical properties between evaporites and both carbonate and siliciclastic lithologies in such tectonized sections result in evaporites that no longer reflect their original sedimentary environment because of recrystallization and plastic deformation. Yet, because their structures and fabrics may not be recognized as secondary, they can be misinterpreted as original features indicative of primary depositional environments.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. Alberto, F. Carraro, M. Giardino, and D. Tiranti Genesis and evolution of 'pseudocarniole': preliminary observations from the Susa Valley (Western Alps) Geological Society, London, Special Publications, January 1, 2007; 285(1): 155 - 168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]