A história Natural do Grupo Serra Geral desde o Cretáceo até o Recente
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X13236Abstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X13236
The natural history of the Serra Geral Group comprises a series of processes, starting with the partial melting of the asthenosphere, continuing with the upwelling and modification of magmas and reaching the effusion of the basalt lavas. It also includes interaction of these magmas with the surrounding crust, especially causing heating of the Guarani aquifer and pyrometamorphism of the sedimentary units of the Paraná Basin. This evolution culminates with the hydrothermal alteration and weathering of silica gossans over amethyst geode zones, recording in the gossans’ mud the local evolution of life and climate in the last 10 thousand years. Besides the well-studied magmatic processes, the distinctive formation of paralavas related with methane combustion was identified, including re-melting of basalts at around 1,800oC. The re-melting may generate Au-EGP-Cu ore deposits in stratiform complexes. Hydrothermal alteration caused the filling of amygdales with zeolites and smectite, allowing the use of such basalts in the ‘rock for crops’ practice. Gem-quality amethyst and agate deposits are also hydrothermal in origin, as well as native copper (first hydrothermal event) and sand injections (second hydrothermal event). The natural history of the volcanic group is thus better understood; its study demands the description of many aspects of the planet’s dynamics, both in its interior and on the surface.
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.
