ESTÁGIOS EVOLUTIVOS DA BACIA DO CAMAQUÃ (RS)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X13748Abstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X13748
This chapter presents a revision of concepts and hypotheses previously presented about the evolution of the Camaquã Basin, central portion of the Rio Grande do Sul State (Southernmost Brazil). This review was based on a large number of new pieces of evidence, data and studies performed since earlier publication, including a large number of radiometric, high-quality geochronological data. The Camaquã Basin is still seen as the result of the superimposition between 630 and 510 Ma of a series of independent, but successive basins in the same locus. These basins represent the final stages of the Brasiliano Orogeny in the Rio Grande do Sul State and encompass an evolution from tardi- (Maricá Retroarc Foreland Basin and Western and Eastern Bom Jardim Strike-Slip basins) to post-orogenic (Western and Eastern Santa Bárbara rifts and Guaritas Rifte) settings. Any tectono-sedimentary cycle (except the basal one) comprise an early volcanism that has evolved throughout the evolution of the entire Camaquã Basin from tholeiitic and calci-alkaline, high-K to shoshonitic (Bom Jardim Event), through bimodal, alkaline (Acampamento Velho Event) to mantle derived, basic magmas derived from the base of the just formed continental crust (Rodeio Velho Event). The sedimentary successions that intercalate and cover the volcanic rocks has evolved from dominantly marine strata at the base (Maricá Allogroup) through deep- (Bom Jardim Allogroup) to shallow- (Santa Bárbara Allogroup) lacustrine facies associated with fan-deltas and axial braid-plain deltas, to shallow-lacustrine, deltaic and eolian deposits (Guaritas Allogroup).
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
