Paleoenvironmental characteristics in the late stage of biosphere recovery in the southern margin of the North China Plate after PTME—evidence from the Middle Triassic Ermaying Formation

doi:10.13745/j.esf.sf.2023.3.5

Abstract

Abstract:

The Triassic is an important period of ecological recovery after the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction (PTME) and also an important tectonic transition period. As ecosystem recovery was near completion in the Middle Triassic while biosphere recovery was in the late stage, the environmental and paleontological condition of this period was greatly important to a full ecological recovery. Based on detailed geologic profile study and sample testing conducted in the Middle Triassic Ermaying Formation in Baiping, Dengfeng, western Henan, the Middle Triassic sedimentary environment and paleoenvironmental changes were analyzed by sedimentology and geochemical methods. The results show that (1) The lower member of the Ermaying Formation (layers 2-18) developed four sedimentary cycles under meandering river environment, where mainly composed of yellow-green fine-grained feldspar sandstone and purplered mudstone with unequal thickness interbeds. The middle member (layers 19-25) is dominated by thick yellow-green feldspathic quartz sandstone in the bottom and frequently interbedded mudstone and sandstone in the upper, which is the shore-shallow lake deposition. From the lower to the middle member, Ermaying Formation experienced alternating depositions of coarse-grained and fine-grained sediment, and gradually changed from fluvial facies to shore-shallow lake facies. (2) The low Mg/Ca and Sr/Cu ratios (1.8-5.2, averaging 3.5) of samples indicate the Ermaying Formation was deposited under warm and humid climate conditions. The Sr/Ba (0.15-0.42, averaging 0.29) and ∑LREE/∑HREE ratios, Ce anomaly index and elemental ratios of redox sensitive elements (U, V, Cr, Ni, Co) in the Ermaying Formation indicate its sedimentary environment type is continental freshwater under oxidation conditions. In summary, the Ermaying Formation has typical fluvial-lacustrine sedimentary facies, and, compared with the underlying Heshanggou Formation, its paleoclimate obviously changed from arid and hot to warm and humid, which plays an important role in the ecosystem recovery.

Key words: Middle Triassic, Ermaying Formation, paleoenvironment, Dengfeng area, ecosystem recovery

CLC Number:

XING Zhifeng, ZHANG Xiangyun, LI Wanying, QI Yong’an, ZHENG Wei, WU Panpan, ZHANG Lijun. Paleoenvironmental characteristics in the late stage of biosphere recovery in the southern margin of the North China Plate after PTME—evidence from the Middle Triassic Ermaying Formation[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2023, 30(5): 491-509.

Figures/Tables 19

Fig.1 Location and geological setting of the study area

Fig.2 Composite column diagram of the Ermaying Formation in Baiping, Dengfeng, western Henan

Fig.3 Structural and microstructural characteristics of sedimentary rocks of the lower members of the Ermaying Formation in Baiping, Dengfeng

Fig.4 Structural and microstructural characteristics of sedimentary rocks of the middle section of the Ermaying Formation in Baiping, Dengfeng

Table 1 Formulas for calculating sediment particle size parameters by graphical method. Modified after [24].

参数	福克和沃德公式
平均粒径Mz	$M z = ϕ 16 + ϕ 50 + ϕ 84 3$
标准偏差σ	$σ = ϕ 84 - ϕ 16 4 + ϕ 95 - ϕ 5 6.6$
偏度SK	$S K = ϕ 16 + ϕ 84 - 2 ϕ 50 2 (ϕ 84 - ϕ 16) + ϕ 5 + ϕ 95 - 2 ϕ 50 2 (ϕ 95 - ϕ 5)$
峰度K_G	$K G = ϕ 95 - ϕ 5 2.44 (ϕ 75 - ϕ 25)$

Table 1 Formulas for calculating sediment particle size parameters by graphical method. Modified after [24].

参数	福克和沃德公式
平均粒径Mz	$M z = ϕ 16 + ϕ 50 + ϕ 84 3$
标准偏差σ	$σ = ϕ 84 - ϕ 16 4 + ϕ 95 - ϕ 5 6.6$
偏度SK	$S K = ϕ 16 + ϕ 84 - 2 ϕ 50 2 (ϕ 84 - ϕ 16) + ϕ 5 + ϕ 95 - 2 ϕ 50 2 (ϕ 95 - ϕ 5)$
峰度K_G	$K G = ϕ 95 - ϕ 5 2.44 (ϕ 75 - ϕ 25)$

Table 2 Grain size parameters for sandstone from the middle and lower members of the Ermaying Formation in Baiping, Dengfeng

层位	ϕ₅/Φ	ϕ₁₆/Φ	ϕ₂₅/Φ	ϕ₅₀/Φ	ϕ₇₅/Φ	ϕ₈₄/Φ	ϕ₉₅/Φ	Mz/Φ	σ	SK	K_G
2	3.150	3.474	3.644	3.837	4.059	4.322	4.644	3.877	0.461	0.113	1.475
3	2.450	2.837	3.059	3.322	3.644	3.837	4.150	3.332	0.508	0.002	1.047
4	2.943	3.059	3.322	3.644	3.950	4.059	4.322	3.587	0.459	0.007	0.900
6	2.350	2.837	2.943	3.350	3.837	4.059	4.450	3.415	0.624	0.138	0.964
14	2.396	2.750	2.943	3.322	3.644	3.837	4.322	3.303	0.563	-0.004	1.127
19	2.474	2.850	2.943	3.184	3.550	3.837	4.250	2.290	0.516	0.261	1.200
21	2.837	3.059	3.184	3.644	3.837	4.150	4.550	3.618	0.532	-0.007	1.077
23	2.322	2.737	2.943	3.322	3.644	3.837	4.150	3.298	0.552	-0.079	1.070
24	2.850	3.050	3.322	3.644	3.850	3.950	4.322	3.548	0.448	-0.199	1.142

Fig.5 Variation of sandstone grain size in the middle and lower members of the Ermaying Formation in Baiping, Dengfeng

Fig.6 Cumulative curves and histograms for clastic rock samples from the middle and lower members of the Ermaying Formation in Baiping, Dengfeng

Fig.7 Trace fossils from the middle and lower members of the Ermaying Formation in Baiping, Dengfeng A—Arenicolites isp.; B—Palaeophycus tubularis; C—Skolithos annulatus; D—Palaeophycus tubularis; E—Palaeophycus heberti; F—Planolites beverleyensis; G—Skolithos verticalis; H—Skolithos isp.; I—Palaeophycus heberti; J—Palaeophycus tubularis; K—Planolites beverleyensis; L—Planolites montanus。

Table 3 Major element percent compositions of mudstone samples from the middle and lower members of the Ermaying Formation in Baiping, Dengfeng

样品	w_B/%
样品	Al₂O₃	K₂O	MgO	MnO	Na₂O	P₂O₅	TFe₂O₃	TiO₂	SiO₂	CaO	烧失量
DF-H-64	12.11	2.21	2.67	0.12	1.00	0.14	6.04	0.75	51.55	10.95	12.24
DF-H-66	17.88	3.28	3.30	0.10	0.87	0.23	7.86	0.80	59.06	0.98	5.57
DF-E-3	13.50	3.42	2.70	0.14	1.11	0.19	5.53	0.61	51.42	9.99	11.35
DF-E-12	15.79	3.93	3.07	0.07	1.26	0.23	6.34	0.71	55.52	5.21	7.84
DF-E-19	14.14	3.52	2.95	0.07	1.17	0.21	5.92	0.65	54.10	7.44	9.09
DF-E-14CW	13.72	3.34	2.39	0.10	1.27	0.22	5.10	0.64	53.51	9.06	14.48
DF-E-31	16.60	4.21	3.37	0.08	0.52	0.20	7.46	0.71	51.66	5.72	8.67
DF-E-17CW	15.24	4.09	2.94	0.09	0.15	0.11	6.21	0.59	45.55	11.40	13.07
DF-E-46	12.96	3.24	2.78	0.15	0.23	0.13	5.59	0.54	40.59	16.45	16.74
DF-E-51	14.03	3.17	3.08	0.08	1.04	0.20	6.46	0.66	49.93	9.80	10.94
DF-E-N5W	14.22	3.38	3.22	0.10	0.57	0.20	6.36	0.65	50.08	9.52	11.30
DF-E-62	13.94	3.11	2.98	0.08	1.43	0.18	6.08	0.62	51.85	9.22	10.03

Table 4 Element content of mudstone in the middle and lower members of Ermaying Formation in Baiping area, Dengfeng

Fig.8 Broken-line graphs showing the impact of common trace elements on paleoclimate in the middle and lower members of the Ermaying Formation in Baiping, Dengfeng

Fig.9 Paleoenvironmental changes in the middle and lower members of the Ermaying Formation in Baiping, Dengfeng by multi-proxy approach

Table 5 Rare earth element analysis of Ermaying Format tion in Baiping area,Dengfeng

Fig.10 Chondrite-normalized REE patterns for mudstone samples from Baiping, Dengfeng

Fig.11 Rear earth element geochemistry of mudstone from the Ermaying Formation in Baiping, Dengfeng

Fig.12 Paleogeographic map of the Shichuanhe, Shaanxi-Jiyuan/Dengfeng, western Henan-Ningwu, Shanxi areas in the Early-Middle Triassic. Modified after [48].

Fig.13 Stratigraphic correlation between the study area and its surrounding areas in the Triassic. Adapted from [7,48-49].

Table 6 Paleo-facies/paleo-climate/paleoontology correlation between the Triassic Ermaying Formation in different areas

古地理特征	陕西石川河二马营组	豫西济源二马营组	山西宁武二马营组	豫西登封二马营组(研究区)
岩性	块状砂岩和薄-中层粉砂岩	暗紫、灰紫色黏土岩、钙质黏土岩、粉砂岩与灰紫色长石石英砂岩不等厚互层	浅黄绿色厚层-块状中粗砂岩与紫红色巨厚层细粉砂岩互层为主	黄绿色、紫红色长石砂岩、紫红色泥岩
沉积相	河流相	河湖相	曲流河相	曲流河相
气候	温湿	干旱氧化与温湿还原交替	温湿	湿润与干旱交替的环境
遗迹化石	Gordia indianaensis、Palaeophycus tubularis、Palaeophycus isp.、Planolites beverleyensis、Planolites isp.、Scoyenia gracilis、Skolithos linearis、Skolithos isp.、Teanidium isp.、根迹等7属10种	Skolithos linearis、Palaeophycus tubularis、Palaeophycus alternatus、Scoyenia gracilis、Planolites beverleyensis、Planolites montanus、Taenidium barretti、Didymaulichnus roualti、根迹等7属9种		Skolithos、Palaeophycus、Arenicolites、Planolites、Scoyenia、Beaconites等6属
轮藻化石	Stellatocharahollvicensis、 S.hanchengensis、 Stenocharaovata等种	Stellatochara、Stenochara、Cuneatochara、Porochara、Porosphaera等属

References 53

[1]	童金南, 楚道亮, 缪雪, 等. 中国三叠纪岩石地层划分和对比[J]. 地层学杂志, 2021, 45(3): 340-363.
[2]	CHEN Z Q, BENTON M J. The timing and pattern of biotic recovery following the end-Permian mass extinction[J]. Nature Geoscience, 2012, 5(6): 375-383. DOI
[3]	HU S X, ZHANG Q Y, CHEN Z Q, et al. The Luoping biota: exceptional preservation, and new evidence on the Triassic recovery from end-Permian mass extinction[J]. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2011, 278(1716): 2274-2282. DOI URL
[4]	ZHANG Q Y, WEN W, HU S X, et al. Nothosaur foraging tracks from the Middle Triassic of southwestern China[J]. Nature Communications, 2014, 5: 3973. DOI PMID
[5]	SUES H D, FRASER N C. Triassic life on land[M]. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.
[6]	郑伟, 许欣, 齐永安, 等. 豫西地区陆相三叠纪遗迹化石演化及生态学意义[J]. 地球科学, 2021, 39: 1-23.
[7]	朱志才. 山西二叠-三叠系过渡段沉积环境演化[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学(北京), 2017.
[8]	刘俊, 李录, 李兴文. 山西三叠系二马营组和铜川组SHRIMP锆石铀-铅年龄及其地质意义(英文)[J]. 古脊椎动物学报, 2013, 51(2): 162-168.
[9]	张运强, 陈海燕, 魏文通, 等. 冀北三叠系二马营组凝灰岩夹层的发现及其地质意义[J]. 地质通报, 2016, 35(1): 20-26.
[10]	辛补社. 华北克拉通北缘承德下板城盆地三叠系二马营组凝灰岩夹层SHRIMP锆石U-Pb定年及源区分析[J]. 北京师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 55(6): 796-802.
[11]	彭兆蒙, 吴智平. 华北地区三叠纪地层发育特征及原始沉积格局分析[J]. 高校地质学报, 2006, 12(3): 343-352.
[12]	河南省地质矿产局. 河南省区域地质志[M]. 北京: 地质出版社, 1989.
[13]	刘绍龙. 华北地区大型三叠纪原始沉积盆地的存在[J]. 地质学报, 1986, 60(2): 128-138.
[14]	邢智峰, 李婉颖, 齐永安, 等. 二叠纪末生物大灭绝后Skolithos遗迹化石的古环境意义: 以豫西和尚沟组为例[J]. 古地理学报, 2022, 24(3): 461-478.
[15]	席文祥, 裴放. 河南省岩石地层[M]. 武汉: 中国地质大学出版社, 1997: 299.
[16]	《中国地层典》编委会. 中国地层典: 三叠系[M]. 北京: 地质出版社, 2000: 138.
[17]	胡斌, 芦旭辉, 宋慧波. 豫西登封地区下三叠统中的遗迹化石及其沉积环境[J]. 地层学杂志, 2015, 39(4): 454-465.
[18]	胡斌, 王长征, 宋慧波. 渤海湾盆地古近纪湖泊沉积中的遗迹组合与组构研究[C]// 第十五届全国古地理学及沉积学学术会议摘要集. 成都, 2018: 209-211.
[19]	齐永安, 胡斌, 张国成, 等. 豫西济源地区中三叠世油房庄组遗迹组构及其环境解释[J]. 沉积学报, 2007, 25(3): 372-379.
[20]	常龙, 王长征, 胡斌, 等. 东濮凹陷沙三段正常三角洲沉积中遗迹化石及意义[J]. 沉积与特提斯地质, 2017, 37(3): 66-73.
[21]	王长征, 王海邻, 胡斌, 等. 河南西峡盆地上白垩统寺沟组遗迹化石及其沉积环境[J]. 古生物学报, 2016, 55(3): 367-384.
[22]	胡斌, 胡磊, 宋慧波, 等. 晋东南上石炭统—下二叠统太原组灰岩中遗迹组合及其沉积环境[J]. 古地理学报, 2013, 15(6): 809-818.
[23]	朱筱敏. 沉积岩石学[M]. 4版. 北京: 石油工业出版社, 2008.
[24]	FOLK R L, WARD W C. Brazos River bar: a study in the significance of grain size parameters[J]. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 1957, 27(1): 3-26. DOI URL
[25]	VISHER G S. Grain size distributions and depositional processes[J]. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 1969, 39(3): 1074-1106.
[26]	陈晶, 黄文辉, 何明倩. 鄂尔多斯盆地东南部本溪组-下石盒子组泥岩元素地球化学特征[J]. 现代地质, 2018, 32(2): 240-250.
[27]	ROSER B, GRAPES R. Geochemistry of a metabasite-chert-coloured-argillite-turbidite association at Red Rocks, Wellington, New Zealand[J]. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 1990, 33(2): 181-191. DOI URL
[28]	刘刚, 周东升. 微量元素分析在判别沉积环境中的应用: 以江汉盆地潜江组为例[J]. 石油实验地质, 2007, 29(3): 307-310, 314.
[29]	谭聪, 袁选俊, 于炳松, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地南缘上二叠统-中下三叠统地球化学特征及其古气候、古环境指示意义[J]. 现代地质, 2019, 33(3): 615-628.
[30]	王益友, 郭文莹, 张国栋. 几种地球化学标志在金湖凹陷阜宁群沉积环境中的应用[J]. 同济大学学报, 1979(2): 51-60.
[31]	熊小辉, 肖加飞. 沉积环境的地球化学示踪[J]. 地球与环境, 2011, 39(3): 405-414.
[32]	ERNST W. Geochemical facies analysis[M]. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1970.
[33]	JONES B, MANNING D A C. Comparison of geochemical indices used for the interpretation of palaeoredox conditions in ancient mudstones[J]. Chemical Geology, 1994, 111(1/2/3/4): 111-129. DOI URL
[34]	WIGNALL P B, TWITCHETT R J. Oceanic anoxia and the end Permian mass extinction[J]. Science, 1996, 272(5265): 1155-1158. PMID
[35]	颜佳新, 徐四平, 李方林. 湖北巴东栖霞组缺氧沉积环境的地球化学特征[J]. 岩相古地理, 1998, 18(6): 27-32.
[36]	HATCH J R, LEVENTHAL J S. Relationship between inferred redox potential of the depositional environment and geochemistry of the Upper Pennsylvanian (Missourian) Stark Shale Member of the Dennis Limestone, Wabaunsee County, Kansas, USA[J]. Chemical Geology, 1992, 99(1/2/3): 65-82. DOI URL
[37]	HARNOIS L. The CIW index: a new chemical index of weathering[J]. Sedimentary Geology, 1988, 55(3/4): 319-322. DOI URL
[38]	MCLENNAN S M, HEMMING S, MCDANIEL D K, et al. Geochemical approaches to sedimentation, provenance, and tectonics[M]// Processes controlling the composition of clastic sediments. New York: Geological Society of America, 1993: 21-40.
[39]	FEDO C M, YOUNG G M. Unraveling the effects of potassium metasomatism in sedimentary rocks and paleosols, with implications for paleoweathering conditions and provenance[J]. Geology, 1995, 23(10): 921-924. DOI URL
[40]	徐小涛, 邵龙义. 利用泥质岩化学蚀变指数分析物源区风化程度时的限制因素[J]. 古地理学报, 2018, 20(3): 515-522.
[41]	BOYNTON W V. Cosmochemistry of the rare earth elements: meteorite studies[M]// Rare earth element geochemistry. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1984: 63-114.
[42]	TAYLOR S R, MCLENNAN S M. The continental crust: its composition and evolution[M]. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985.
[43]	王中刚, 于学元. 稀土元素地球化学[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1989.
[44]	ELDERFIELD H, GREAVES M J. The rare earth elements in seawater[J]. Nature, 1982, 296: 214-219. DOI
[45]	杨森楠, 杨巍然. 中国区域大地构造学[M]. 北京: 地质出版社, 1985.
[46]	李洪革, 杜旭东, 陆克政, 等. 渤海湾地区中西部中生代构造特征及演化[J]. 石油大学学报(自然科学版), 1999, 23(3): 1-5.
[47]	胡斌. 河南省中生代岩相古地理研究[M]. 北京: 煤炭工业出版社, 2014.
[48]	GUO W W, TONG J N, TIAN L, et al. Secular variations of ichnofossils from the terrestrial Late Permian-Middle Triassic succession at the Shichuanhe section in Shaanxi Province, North China[J]. Global and Planetary Change, 2019, 181: 102978. DOI URL
[49]	邢智峰, 许欣, 齐永安, 等. 豫西济源中三叠统二马营组中、下段遗迹组构与沉积环境[J]. 地球科学, 2022, 40: 1-25.
[50]	吴汉宁, 朱日祥, 刘椿, 等. 华北地块晚古生代至三叠纪古地磁研究新结果及其构造意义[J]. 地球物理学报, 1990, 33(6): 694-701.
[51]	张振来. 河南登封中三迭世轮藻化石[C]// 中国地质科学院宜昌地质矿产研究所文集(地层古生物专号). 宜昌: 宜昌地质矿产研究所, 1980: 94-101, 163-164.
[52]	王振, 黄仁金. 陕西三叠纪轮藻化石[J]. 古生物学报, 1978, 17(3): 267-276, 361-362.
[53]	李满洲, 李广坤, 李玉信. 河南平原第四纪地质演化与环境变迁: 兼论黄河发育演化与再造[M]. 北京: 地质出版社, 2013.