Next Article in Journal
Engineered Organo-Clay Nanocomposites for Dual Cationic/Anionic Dye Removal: Role of Polyethylene Glycol Chain Length
Previous Article in Journal
A Fundamental Study on the Selective Flotation Separation of Magnesite and Quartz Using an Eco-Friendly Collector PKO-H: A Performance and Adsorption Mechanism Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/min15090934
minerals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Provenance Analysis of the Silurian Kepingtag Formation in the Northwest Margin of Tarim Basin-Evidence from Petrology and Geochemistry

by
Qiyuan Zhang
1,2,
Jingchun Tian
1,3,*,
Xiang Zhang
1,3,
Shuyao Hao
1,3,
Zhenping Li
1,3 and
Kang Ji
1,3
1
State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
2
College of Earth Science, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
3
Institute of Sedimentary Geology, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2025, 15(9), 934; https://doi.org/10.3390/min15090934
Submission received: 14 July 2025 / Revised: 27 August 2025 / Accepted: 30 August 2025 / Published: 1 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Mineral Geochemistry and Geochronology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The integration of petrological and geochemical analyses serves as an effective methodology for reconstructing depositional environments and constraining sediment provenance within distinct tectonic frameworks. This study investigates the provenance characteristics of the Silurian Kepingtag Formation in the northwestern Tarim Basin through an integrated approach combining field outcrop observations and laboratory analyses. Fieldwork covers the Sishichang, Dawangou, and Tongguzibulong sections, while laboratory analyses include clastic component identification, whole-rock major and trace element geochemical analysis, and rare earth element (REE) profiling. These efforts enable a systematic evaluation of sediment sources and their tectonic linkages. The research provides a theoretical basis for understanding the tectono-sedimentary framework of the northwestern Tarim Basin during the Early Silurian and offers significant guidance for reconstructing the lithofacies paleogeographic pattern of the basin during this period. Petrographic analyses reveal a lithological assemblage dominated by lithic quartz sandstones and lithic sandstones, with subordinate feldspathic lithic sandstones. Quartz exhibits secondary overgrowths. In a relatively stable tectonic environment, sediments undergo a gentle burial rate, which favors the formation of this phenomenon. Lithic fragments are dominated by magmatic lithics, indicating that the source contains magmatic rocks. Detrital component analysis reveals that the provenance of Kepingtag Formation sandstones in the study area is predominantly characterized by stable craton and recycled orogenic belt tectonic settings. Integrated geochemical datasets from major element compositions and trace element signatures constrain the provenance characteristics of the Kepingtag Formation sandstones. Major element ratios demonstrate predominant contributions from felsic igneous source rocks, while trace element ratios are diagnostic of sediment derivation from passive continental margin settings, consistent with prolonged tectonic quiescence along the northern Tarim cratonic margin during Silurian deposition The CIA index indicates that the Silurian Kepingtag Formation in the study area exhibits weak to moderate weathering. Integrating the above analyses, the Tabei Uplift—ancient craton setting—is interpreted as the likely provenance source for the sandstones of the Kepingtag Formation in the northwestern Tarim Basin.

1. Introduction

Sediment provenance analysis, encompassing paleo-erosion area identification, parent rock property tracing, climatic determination, and sedimentary basin tectonic background recognition, represents a fundamental component of basin analysis. As geological theories advance and modern analytical methodologies continue to refine, provenance analysis has emerged as a pivotal research focus across sedimentology, structural geology, petrology, paleo-oceanography, and petroleum geology [1,2,3,4]. In recent decades, geochemical methods using major, trace, and rare earth elements (REE) in sandstones have been used to establish the sedimentary environment, characteristics of the provenance, and tectonic setting [5].
The Silurian succession in the Tarim Basin represents the first widely distributed sandstone strata since the Phanerozoic, signaling a significant tectonic event in the late Early Paleozoic. This period witnessed substantial detrital input from provenance areas, triggering profound transformations in the basin’s structural and sedimentary framework.
Among these, the geodynamic origin of the abrupt transformation in the tectonic setting of the Tarim Basin during the Ordovician–Silurian has emerged as a research focus. This includes the influence of tectonic activities along the northern margin of the basin, primarily the subduction and consumption of the South Tianshan Ocean. It also encompasses the intra-basin tectonic responses triggered by the subduction, consumption, and closure of the West Kunlun Ocean along the southern margin, as well as the issue of the tectonic of the basin’s marginal zones.
Extensive research has been conducted on the establishment of sequence stratigraphic frameworks, sedimentary facies division, sand body distribution, high-quality reservoir occurrence, and reservoir formation processes of the Silurian strata in the Tarim Basin. However, persistent discrepancies exist regarding the sedimentary system, tectonic setting, and provenance of the Silurian Kepingtag Formation. Zhou et al. argued that the Keping area was in a continental margin tectonic setting during the Early Silurian, with sediments derived from a mature continental quartzose provenance. Niu et al. suggested that the depositional tectonic setting was a continental island arc, and the clastic materials were sourced from the continental upper crust, with the provenance being the Shaya Uplift within the Northern Tarim Uplift. Zhang et al. proposed that the provenance originated from the sedimentary strata of the Northern Tarim, Central Tarim, and Eastern Tarim Uplifts, with granitoids as the parent rocks. Based on the analysis and comparison of detrital zircon U-Pb dating data, Chang concluded that the provenance areas included the western part of the Shaya Uplift, the Central Tarim Uplift, and the piedmont uplift in the southwestern Tarim. Wu et al. determined, through detrital zircon U-Pb dating, that the provenance was the Precambrian basement in the northern Tarim Basin [6,7,8,9,10].
To clarify the sedimentary provenance of the Silurian Kepingtag Formation in the northwestern Tarim Basin, this study builds on prior research and focuses on the Kepingtag Formation in this region. We systematically collected rock samples and employed analytical techniques including detrital component analysis and major and trace element geochemistry to conduct provenance and tectonic background analyses for each section of the Kepingtag Formation. Finally, we discuss the provenance characteristics and tectonic evolution of the Kepingtag Formation. This study provides critical insights into the accurate reconstruction of the paleogeographic lithofacies pattern of the Kepingtag Formation in the Tarim Basin. Investigations into sedimentary provenance within the basin are conducive to revealing the tectonic nature of potential source areas and the processes of sedimentary evolution, thereby offering references for exploring the coupling relationships between the Tarim Basin and its surrounding orogenic belts.

2. Geological Setting

The Tarim Basin, with an area of 5.3 × 105 km2, is located in northwestern China (Figure 1a). The evolution of the Tarim Basin was governed by bounding orogenic belts, including the Kunlun, Altun, and South Tianshan orogens. Since the Cambrian, successive tectonic activities have driven the superimposition of prototype basins, reworking of sedimentary strata, and transformation of sedimentary systems.
By the end of the Early Ordovician, subduction of the Kunlun Ocean along the southern margin of the Tarim Plate toward the Middle Kunlun Block had been initiated, leading to the development of an unconformity between the Middle and Upper Ordovician successions. In the Altun region, the development of a trench-arc-basin system drove the southern margin of the Tarim Plate to transition from extensional to near north–south-oriented compressional stress regimes. Concurrently, subduction of the northern marginal paleo-ocean toward the Central Tianshan Block was initiated, driving the entire Tarim Basin to experience bidirectional compression from both the south and north. This tectonic regime reshaped the early Paleozoic basin architecture into an alternating pattern of uplifts and depressions [11,12,13,14,15]. Uplifted regions, primarily encompassing the Tazhong and Tabei areas, contrast with depressions concentrated in the Keping–Mangar region. Starting from the Late Ordovician, the Tarim Basin transitioned into a critical tectonic-sedimentary transformation phase, driven by the Caledonian collisional orogeny in the Kunlun Mountains. This orogenic event, spanning the Late Ordovician to Early Silurian, served as the primary driver of tectonic reconfiguration. The Caledonian orogeny induced a tectonic transition in the Tarim Basin, shifting it from a long-term regional extensional regime to a compressional tectonic state. During the Late Ordovician, the Tarim Basin underwent a critical transition from a cratonic basin to a peripheral foreland basin, marking a pivotal tectonic–sedimentary shift. Overlying Silurian strata exhibit regional unconformity with the underlying Ordovician, characterized by local occurrences of parallel and low-angle unconformities. Concurrently, the Tarim Basin was dominated by carbonate rocks or deep-water mudstones and shales during the Late Sinian–Ordovician, whereas it rapidly transitioned to a shallow-marine clastic depositional environment, such as shelf–tidal flat during the Silurian [16,17,18].
The study area, the Keping region on the northwestern margin of the Tarim Basin, corresponds to the Keping Fault Uplift in structural terms. The Sinian–Carboniferous strata in this area are relatively completely exposed and can be well correlated with the strata in various tectonic units within the basin. This region constitutes an important part of the Tarim Basin and serves as a key window for studying the basin [19,20].
The field sections studied in this research include the Sishichang Section, Tongguzibulong Section, and Dawangou Section. The Sishichang and Tongguzibulon sections are located 30–40 km away from Aksu urban area, while the Dawangou Section is situated 6 km from Yingan Village, Keping County, and approximately 100 km from Aksu urban area (Figure 1b). All these sections cover the Ordovician–Carboniferous strata, which are well-exposed with abundant geological phenomena.
The Kepingtag Formation in the study area is subdivided into three members in ascending order, as follows: the lower sandstone member (S1k1), middle mudstone member (S1k2), and upper sandstone member (S1k3) (Figure 1c). This formation exhibits conformable contact with the overlying Tataertag Formation and parallel unconformity with the underlying Yingan or Qilang Formation. The Tataertag Formation is predominantly composed of interbedded purplish-red mudstones and argillaceous siltstones. The Yingan Formation consists of a suite of black mudstone deposits. The Qilang Formation developed a set of gray marls.
The Kepingtag Formation exhibits a coarse–fine–coarse lithological succession. The lower sandstone member consists primarily of dark gray to gray-green siltstone and argillaceous siltstone, while the middle mudstone member is dominated by gray-green to dark gray mudstone interbedded with thin siltstone layers. The upper sandstone member comprises gray-green medium to fine-grained sandstone, intercalated with thin beds of gray-green and dark gray mudstone and siltstone.

3. Materials and Methods

In this study, 48 sandstone samples were systematically selected for detailed petrological analysis (Figure 2). Thin sections were prepared at the State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation, Chengdu University of Technology, and microscopic images were captured using a Nikon LV100POL optical microscope (Tokyo, Japan).
In this study, detrital components (including quartz, feldspar, and lithic fragments) were quantified using a point-counting technique following Dickinson’s statistical framework. Samples with a matrix volume fraction exceeding 25% were excluded to focus on framework grains. Each thin section was analyzed with 300–400 points counted to ensure statistical reliability. A square grid tool in digital imaging software, with grid spacing set to twice the average particle size, was overlaid on thin-section photomicrographs to systematically calculate the relative abundances of detrital components.
To investigate sedimentary differentiation between the upper and lower sandstone members of the Kepingtag Formation, major and trace element analyses were performed on 8 samples from each member (In Figure 2, the samples used for geochemical analysis are marked in red). For geochemical analysis, rock powders were prepared using an agate mortar and pestle. After each sample preparation, the mortar was meticulously cleaned with ultrapure water to prevent cross-contamination. Samples were air-dried prior to grinding to a fine powder (<75 μm, 200 mesh) using an automated grinder. Geochemical analyses were conducted at the Chengdu Mineral Technology Development Institute, following standard protocols for rock powder preparation and elemental quantification.
For major element analysis, the powder was dried at 105 °C, ignited at 1000 °C to remove volatiles, and fused with lithium borate flux to form glass beads, which were analyzed by PerkinElmer 5300V ICP-OES (Waltham, MA, USA). Trace element analysis involved digesting 50 mg of 200-mesh samples with 65% HNO3 at 150 °C, evaporating to dryness, redissolving in 65% HNO3, and filtering. The solutions were analyzed by Agilent 7700e ICP-MS (Santa Clara, CA, USA) for trace element concentrations.

4. Results

4.1. Development Characteristics of Section Strata

(1)
Formation development characteristics of Sishichang section
The upper sandstone member of the Sishichang Section consists of gray-green medium-fine sandstone, measuring approximately 115 m in thickness. The middle mudstone member consists of gray-black mudstone interbedded with gray-green mudstone and siltstone, measuring approximately 60 m in thickness. The lower sandstone member comprises gray-green sandstone intercalated with siltstone beds, with a cumulative thickness of about 100 m. The Upper Ordovician Yingan Formation is absent at the base of the stratigraphy, evidenced by an unconformable contact between the thick-bedded grayish-green fine-grained sandstone at the base of the Kepingtag Formation and the gray marl at the top of the Qilang Formation. The top boundary of the Kepingtag Formation is defined by conformable contact between its gray-green mudstone and the overlying purplish-red mudstone of the Tataertag Formation (Figure 3a). The sedimentary section exhibits diverse sedimentary structures, including parallel-bedding, cross-bedding, and wave ripple marks preserved on bedding planes.
(2)
Formation development characteristics of Tongguzibulong section
The upper sandstone member of the Tongguzibulong Section comprises gray-green sandstone interbedded with mudstone, with a thickness of approximately 110 m. The middle mudstone member is characterized by gray-green mudstone intercalated with silty mudstone, measuring around 55 m in thickness. The lower sandstone member consists of gray-green sandstone alternating with siltstone beds, with an estimated thickness of 40 m. The Kepingtag Formation is in unconformable contact with the gray marl of the Qilang Formation, and its top is in conformable contact with the purplish-red mudstone and grayish-green siltstone of the Tataertag Formation. (Figure 3b).
(3)
Formation development characteristics of Dawangou section
In the Dawangou Section, the Kepingtag Formation exhibits the following overall features. The lower sandstone member consists of interbedded grayish-green sandstones and grayish-black mudstones, the middle mudstone member is dominated by grayish-black mudstone deposits, and the upper sandstone member is composed of grayish-green medium-grained sandstones. This lithological sequence has an aggregate thickness of approximately 160 m. The section features excellent outcrop exposure, revealing a diverse array of sedimentary structures. The Kepingtag Formation in this area overlies the black to gray-black mudstones of the Upper Ordovician Yingan Formation, indicating a clear stratigraphic relationship (Figure 3d). The Tataertag Formation, conformably overlying the Kepingtag Formation, is characterized by alternating beds of purplish-red mudstone and gray-green sandstone (Figure 3c).

4.2. Petrological Characteristics

Based on detailed field observations and systematic records of the Sishichang, Tongguzibulong, and Dawangou sections, a preliminary description of the rock composition and sedimentary characteristics of the Kepingtag Formation is presented herein, with reference to rock types, sedimentary structures, and mineral features seen under the microscope. This work provides basic petrological evidence for provenance analysis.
The outcrop (Figure 4a) exhibits interbedded gray to gray-green medium- to thick-bedded fine sandstone and gray thin-bedded mudstone in the upper sandstone member of the Kepingtag Formation. These lithologies form rhythmic alternations with distinct bedding contacts. No associated trace fossils or storm-generated sedimentary structures are observed within the muddy interlayers. Small gastropod fossils are observed within the fine-grained sandstone (the rock surface is severely weathered in Figure 4b) that is inferred to have formed in the intertidal zone of a tidal flat facies. Trough cross-bedding in the fine-grained sandstone (Figure 4c), with the long axis of the troughs extending parallel to the paleocurrent direction, indicates a high-energy environment of tidal channels. No storm-induced sedimentary structures such as hummocky or swaley cross-stratification are observed in the section. Oblique bedding (Figure 4d) and bidirectional cross-bedding (Figure 4e), intersecting trough cross-beds (Figure 4f), which collectively indicate a tidal environment for the Kepingtag Formation. Petrographic analysis via polarizing microscopy reveals that the sandstones exhibit moderate sorting, with clasts predominantly sub-angular to sub-rounded and forming a grain-supported framework. Key mineralogical features include plagioclase with polysynthetic twinning (Figure 4g), magmatic rock fragments, and chert. Additionally, a small amount of low-grade metamorphic rock fragments containing sericite are observed (Figure 4h,i,l). Furthermore, chert grains and quartz overgrowths are identified (Figure 4j,k), indicating the presence of secondary silica cementation during diagenesis.
Analyzing the clastic composition of sandstone represents a fundamental approach in sedimentology, enabling the characterization of source rock properties and inference of tectonic backgrounds to a certain degree. Specifically, point-counting methods were applied to quantify quartz, feldspar, and rock fragment abundances, with results compiled into Table 1.
The Silurian Kepingtag Formation in the Keping area is dominated by lithic quartz sandstone and lithic sandstone, with minor occurrences of feldspar lithic sandstone. Quartz constitutes 50%–80% of the clastic framework (average: 72.3%), indicating high compositional maturity, whereas feldspar ranges from 3% to 10% (average: 6%). Rock fragments are relatively abundant, comprising 30%–44% of the total clasts (average: 36%), reflecting a significant contribution from polycrystalline and lithic debris sources. The rock fragments in the Kepingtag Formation are predominantly magmatic in origin. Mineralogical composition and clast abundances exhibit minimal variation among the upper sandstone, middle mudstone, and lower sandstone members of the study area. Specifically, the lower member displays slightly lower quartz content compared to the upper member, with comparable feldspar abundances, while rock fragment concentrations are moderately higher in the lower interval than in the upper.

4.3. Distribution of Major Elements

Geochemical analysis of major element abundances in Kepingtag Formation sandstones yields insights into their geochemical signatures and facilitates inference of source rock attributes.
Major oxide abundances are presented in Table 2. The samples exhibit high SiO2 concentrations, ranging from 71.23% to 89.85% (mean: 76.49%), which exceed typical upper continental crust (UCC) values. This elevated silica content is consistent with felsic source rock dominance in the provenance. This observation indicates that the sample is enriched in quartz and felsic minerals, implying elevated compositional maturity. Major oxide abundances are summarized in Table 2. TFe2O3 concentrations vary between 1.12% and 4.98% (mean: 3.51%), slightly lower than the upper continental crust (UCC) value of 5.04%. Al2O3 ranges from 2.93% to 13.02% (mean: 7.88%), also below UCC averages, while MgO shows narrower variation (0.40%–1.85%, mean: 1.25%), significantly lower than the UCC reference of 2.48%. CaO exhibits the widest range (0.17%–15.6%, mean: 2.77%), moderately below UCC (3.59%). Na2O falls within 0.2%–1.97% (mean: 1.19%), markedly lower than the UCC value of 3.27%. Notably, MnO abundances show substantial scatter (0.05%–1.07%, mean: 0.19%) but align closely with UCC average concentrations. These trends collectively reflect a dominance of felsic-derived components and limited mafic input in the sedimentary source system. Statistical analysis of the samples reveals high silica (SiO2) concentrations and low ferromagnesian (mafic) contents, suggesting a felsic to acidic volcanic source rock affinity.
Major oxide distributions in the Kepingtag Formation sandstone members are as follows: The average SiO2 content in the upper sandstone member is 73.78%, while that in the lower sandstone member is 79.21%, with the lower member showing a slightly higher degree of silica enrichment. The average Al2O3 content in the upper member is 7.97%, and in the lower member, it is 7.79%, with the contents being relatively close. The MgO contents of the two members are comparable, with an average of 1.18% in the upper member and 1.33% in the lower member; the average MnO content is 0.27% in the upper member and 0.10% in the lower member. These geochemical signatures are conducive to inferring the lithology and mineral composition of source rocks and can constrain the tectonic setting of the provenance area through oxide combination modeling.
During sediment transport, the abundances of Al, Si, and their oxides systematically vary with transport distance, and their geochemical ratios can be used to infer the proximity of the provenance area. For example, the Al2O3/SiO2 ratio ranges from 0.03 to 0.18 (mean: 0.11), suggesting relatively short transport distance and proximity to the provenance. This geochemical signature is consistent with near-source deposition, where limited physical weathering and transportation have preserved the original clastic composition. The geochemical proxy of ferromagnesian content (TFe2O3 + MgO) in sandstones provides additional constraints on source rock lithology. In general, intermediate to mafic magmatic rocks exhibit low felsic mineral abundances and elevated ferromagnesian components, whereas felsic igneous rocks display the opposite trend. Our samples yield consistently low TFe2O3 + MgO values (1.52%–6.83%, mean: 4.76%), suggesting derivation from a felsic magmatic source. This inference aligns with the petrographic evidence from clastic composition analysis, collectively supporting a dominant acidic igneous provenance. The abundance of stable detrital minerals also serves as a proxy for transport distance, as more resistant minerals are preferentially preserved during long-range transportation. The average value of K2O/Na2O in the sample is 1.86, and the Al2O3/(CaO + Na2O) ratio ranges from 0.35 to 7.57, with an average value of 3.64, which proves that there are more stable minerals in the sample.

4.4. Characteristics of Trace and Rare Earth Elements

During deposition, the chemical properties of trace elements are relatively stable, making them useful for deciphering source rock characteristics and reconstructing tectonic backgrounds [21]. Table 3 and Table 4 show the abundances of trace and rare earth elements (REEs). In the study area, the Th/U ratios of the upper sandstone member of the Kepingtag Formation range from 3.08 to 5.63, with an average of 4.86. The La/Sc ratios vary from 6.01 to 8.78, averaging 6.89, while the Th/Sc ratios range between 0.89 and 1.70, with a mean value of 1.41. These parameters are significantly higher than the corresponding average contents of the upper continental crust (UCC). Rocks that have undergone crustal remelting tend to exhibit higher rare earth element concentrations. Following data standardization, the rare earth element distribution pattern in the upper sandstone member of the Kepingtag Formation, Tarim Basin, was plotted (Figure 5). The rare earth element (REE) geochemistry reveals that most samples from the upper sandstone member of the Kepingtag Formation exhibit weak negative Eu anomalies (δEu = 0.59–0.67, mean: 0.63). Chondrite-normalized REE patterns are right-inclined, characterized by LREE enrichment and relatively flat HREE segments. Total rare earth element concentrations (∑REE) range from 152.87 to 259.27 ppm, with an average of 208.29 ppm.
The Th/U ratios in the lower sandstone member of the Kepingtag Formation vary between 4.09 and 6.06 (mean: 4.93), while La/Sc ratios range from 5.29 to 8.53 (mean: 6.58), and the Th/Sc ratios range between 1.05 and 1.84, with a mean value of 1.41. Total rare earth element concentrations (∑REE) exhibit a distribution of 137.65–221.75 ppm, with an average of 187.57 ppm. The trace and rare earth element contents of the upper and lower sandstone members of the Kepingtag Formation show minimal differences, suggesting a common provenance. Following data standardization, a chondrite-normalized rare earth element (REE) distribution pattern was generated for the lower sandstone member of the Kepingtag Formation in the Tarim Basin (Figure 6). The rare earth element (REE) geochemistry indicates that most samples exhibit similar chondrite-normalized patterns characterized by light rare earth element (LREE) enrichment, with nearly parallel curves. Eu anomalies (δEu) range from 0.58 to 0.77 (mean: 0.64). The overall weak negative anomaly may imply a certain degree of acid rock weathering or magmatic differentiation in the provenance or mild Eu depletion events during the sedimentary process. Comparisons of REE distribution patterns between the upper and lower sandstone members of the Kepingtag Formation reveal roughly synchronous variations in REE abundances, suggesting a common provenance for both intervals.

5. Discussion

5.1. Weathering Degree

Sediments are transported from the provenance area following denudation and ultimately deposited in sedimentary basins. During this process, certain stable geochemical proxies are preserved, offering insights into parent rock composition and the tectonic setting of the provenance. However, accurately interpreting these signals requires quantifying the impact of weathering processes on geochemical signatures, as surface alteration can modify element abundances before final deposition [22]. The CIA index, that is, chemical alteration index, is usually used to judge the degree of weathering in the source area [23]. The CIA is calculated as follows (the oxides are calculated by molar percentages):
CIA = Al2O3/(Al2O3 + CaO* + Na2O + K2O) × 100
CaO* is derived from silicate minerals. The correction method is shown in McLennan et al. (1993) [24].
If the CIA is greater than 50, it indicates that the sample may be subjected to weathering. A CIA index of 50 indicates that the sample has not been affected by weathering. If the CIA index is less than 50, it indicates that the iron magnesium in the rock is high, and it is likely to be a middle basic magmatic rock. The samples exhibit a mean CIA of 62.13, indicative of weak to moderate chemical weathering. Correlation analyses reveal weak relationships between CIA and chondrite-normalized (La/Yb)n (r = 0.0111) and (Gd/Yb)n (r = −0.255), suggesting minimal influence of weathering intensity on rare earth element (REE) distributions (Figure 7).

5.2. Source Rock Nature

Petrographic analysis of sandstone clast types and mineralogical characteristics indicates that the dominant source rock types in the provenance are felsic magmatic rocks.
According to previous studies, the geochemical characteristics of the major and trace elements and the analysis of rare earth elements can indicate the composition and properties of the parent rock to a certain extent, which is of great significance for the restoration of the tectonic background of the source area and the tectonic pattern of the surrounding block [24,25,26,27,28].
The Al2O3/TiO2 ratio serves as a robust proxy for source rock lithology [29]. Values ranging from 21 to 70 are diagnostic of felsic magmatic sources, characterized by high abundances of felsic minerals. Ratios between 8 and 21 indicate a transitional lithology, with decreasing quartz-feldspar dominance and a shift toward intermediate magmatic compositions. When Al2O3/TiO2 falls within 3–8, the signature reflects elevated mafic mineral content, consistent with mafic magmatic sources. The samples exhibit Al2O3/TiO2 ratios of 13.54–24.31 (mean: 19.90), indicating that the provenance is dominated by acidic magmatic rocks.
The La/Yb ratio in combination with total rare earth element (∑REE) abundances can effectively discriminate parent rock lithologies [30]. This geochemical framework classifies protoliths into the following four groups: carbonate rocks, sedimentary rocks with calcareous mudstone, granites, and a transitional field encompassing oceanic tholeiitic basalt, continental tholeiitic basalt, and alkaline basalt. Analysis of sample REE data and compilation of relevant parameters reveal that plots of La/Yb against ∑REE in the parent rock lithology discrimination diagram (Figure 8) show all data points falling within the granite field. This indicates that the dominant parent rocks are granites.
REE can also be used to restore parent rock types and indicate sedimentary sources. For example, acidic magmatic rocks usually have the characteristics of negative Eu anomalies, which are generally absent in basic extrusive rocks [31].
The values of δEu in the sample shows a weak negative anomaly, which is consistent with the conclusion that the parent rock type in the provenance area is acidic magmatic rock.
Geochemical ratios of oxides and trace elements in the samples can constrain the lithology and genetic characteristics of parent rocks, as well as provide insights into the tectonic setting of the provenance [32,33,34,35].
The TiO2/Ni ratio is diagnostic of felsic source rock compositions (Figure 9a). In the Zr/Sc vs. Th/Sc discrimination diagram, data points plot within the felsic material field, indicating dominant felsic sources in the provenance (Figure 9b). Sample La/Th ratios range from 3.67 to 9.86 (mean: 4.97), while Hf concentrations average 7.13 ppm, with data points predominantly falling in the felsic source domain (Figure 9c). In the La/Sc–Co/Th diagram, all samples plot within the granite field, consistent with previous inferences (Figure 9d).

5.3. Tectonic Setting

The composition of sandstone is controlled by the tectonic environment of the source area, and the analysis of the composition characteristics of sandstone is one of the methods to study the geotectonic environment of the source area. Among them, the Dickinson diagram method is the most widely used by scholars, which can distinguish the tectonic background by calculating feldspar, quartz, and cuttings and combining with the tectonic background information [36,37,38].
The diagram of Qt-F-L, Qt-F-Lt, and Qm-F-Lt shows (Figure 10a,c,d) that the sandstone is located in the region of recyclic orogenic belt. The Qm-F-Lt diagram (Figure 10b) shows that some samples come from the recycled quartz region and some from the transitional recycled region, which indicates that the material has been recycled. In the Qp-Lv-Ls diagram (Figure 10e), the sample sites fall in the volcanic arc material region, and some fall in the mixed orogenic sandstone region. This paper suggests that the sandstone source of Kepingtag Formation in the study area may come from the retrocyclic orogenic belt.
Trace element ratios of rocks can indicate tectonic settings [1]. A La/Sc ratio ranging from 3 to 6 and a La/Th ratio of 1.8 ± 0.1 typically point to an active continental margin environment. In contrast, a relatively low Sc/Cr ratio (less than 0.4) combined with a wide variation in La/Sc ratios (usually ranging from 3 to 9) generally indicates a passive continental margin environment.
Calculations reveal that La/Sc ratios in the upper sandstone member of the Silurian Kepingtag Formation range from 6.01 to 8.78 (mean: 6.89), while Sc/Cr ratios vary between 0.16 and 0.30 (mean: 0.22), and La/Th rations vary between 3.87 and 9.86 (mean: 5.17). For the lower sandstone member, La/Sc ratios fall within 5.29–8.53 (mean: 6.58), Sc/Cr spans 0.13–0.25 (mean: 0.20), and La/Th exhibits values of 3.67–6.83 (mean: 4.78). It is, therefore, inferred that the tectonic setting of the Kepingtag Formation was likely a passive continental margin. Tectonic discrimination ternary plots of Th–Co–Zr/10 and Th–Sc–Zr/10 show that most sandstones derive from a PM + ACM (Passive Margin + Active Continental Margin) tectonic environment (Figure 11 and Figure 12).

5.4. Provenance Analysis

Integrated with previous understanding, the Kepingtag Formation was deposited after the Middle Caledonian movement. The sedimentary framework transitioned from Ordovician carbonate deposition to Silurian clastic sedimentation, with an overall dominance of tidal flat facies [39,40,41]. Macroscopic sedimentary structures observed in outcrop sections, such as bidirectional cross-bedding, reflect characteristics of tidal flat deposition. Petrographic observations of thin sections reveal high contents of lithic fragments and quartz, which may indicate substantial provenance input triggered by tectonic uplift. Quartz exhibits secondary overgrowth, whereas lithic fragments are dominated by magmatic lithics, with minor amounts of metamorphic and sedimentary lithics. Statistical analysis of detrital mineral contents, combined with the construction of Dickinson diagrams, infers that the provenance of the study area is primarily derived from a recycled orogenic belt.
Analysis of major element data for the sandstones reveals that the samples are characterized by high SiO2 contents. Concentrations and ratios of TFe2O3, Al2O3, and MgO collectively indicate features of high silica and low ferromagnesian contents. The Al2O3/TiO2 ratios suggest an acidic magmatic provenance. Integrated with microscopic observations, these results indicate that the parent rocks were likely related to acidic felsic materials.
The trace and rare earth element (REE) contents of the upper and lower members of the Kepingtag Formation in the samples show few differences, indicating a common provenance for both intervals. The REE distribution patterns reveal that the samples are generally characterized by light rare earth element (LREE) enrichment and weak negative Eu anomalies, suggesting that the provenance area experienced weak tectonic activity [42]. In the La/Yb-∑REE plot of the parent rock lithology discrimination diagram, all data points fall within the granite field. Results from other parent rock type discrimination diagrams, such as the Zr/Sc-Th/Sc diagram, primarily point to a felsic provenance. In a series of diagrams reflecting tectonic settings, including the Bhatia diagram, the sample points are mainly distributed in the passive continental margin and recycled orogenic belt fields (Figure 8).
In the study area, scholars have conducted zircon U-Pb geochronological research. Chang carried out a study on the zircon chronological characteristics of the Lower Silurian clastic rocks in the Keping area and proposed that the zircons with U-Pb ages of 900–700 Ma are the most abundant in the Lower Silurian of the Keping area, which is similar to the distribution characteristics of zircon contents in the northern Tarim area. The zircons of this age group in the northern Tarim area are derived from the Precambrian basement in the Tabei region [43]. Niu sampled the Dawanggou section in western Keping and performed detrital zircon chronological analysis, revealing that the surface ages of detrital zircons have three distinct concentration intervals (800–1200 Ma, 1800–2000 Ma, and 2400–2600 Ma). These three age groups reflect the strong tectonic movement that occurred in the early Qingbaikou Period of the late Proterozoic, the intense tectonic movement from the end of the Early Proterozoic to the early Middle Proterozoic, and the massive volcanic eruptions and magmatic emplacements from the late Archean to the early Early Proterozoic, respectively. It is suggested that the main provenance in the northwestern Tarim area is the ancient Precambrian cratonic basement rocks. During the Early Silurian, the South Tianshan Ocean was in a subduction and consumption state, which provided the dynamic and thermal sources for the Silurian granitoids in the northern margin of the Tarim Basin [44]. In the comparison with the ages of potential provenance areas, the ages of the samples are highly consistent with the tectono-thermal event ages of the Tarim Basin basement, with obvious peak ages at 800 Ma, 1800 Ma, and 2500 Ma. This also indicates that the paleo-uplifts in the basin may be potential provenance areas [7,45].

5.5. Geotectonic Framework

The grayish-green sandstones, argillaceous siltstones, and mudstones of the Silurian Kepingtag Formation in the Keping area of the Tarim Basin are in unconformable contact with the underlying Ordovician strata, which results from the second phase of the Middle Caledonian Orogeny (approximately spanning from the end of the Ordovician to the Silurian). This tectonic event drove the Tarim Basin to gradually transition from an intracratonic extensional basin during the Cambrian–Ordovician to a compressional setting. Marginal uplifts had formed along the northern margin of the Tarim Basin, accompanied by the emergence of continental erosion zones, which provided abundant terrigenous provenance to the Tarim Basin [46,47].
The Paleo-South Tianshan Ocean basin formed during the rifting process along the northern margin of the Tarim Block since the late Precambrian. This rifting led to the separation of the Yili-Middle Tianshan Microcontinent from the Tarim Block. Subsequently, triggered by the subduction and closure of the Proto-Tethys Ocean and Paleo-Asian Ocean, the South Tianshan Ocean initiated subduction, resulting in the collapse of the Altun trench-arc-basin system. During the Silurian, the northern margin of the Tarim Basin remained a passive continental margin, while the Paleo-South Tianshan Ocean basin began to subduct beneath the Yili-Middle Tianshan Microcontinent, forming a continental margin arc along the southern margin of the latter [47,48,49]. Consequently, the Tarim Basin entered the evolutionary stage of a peripheral foreland basin, with the Paleozoic uplift framework fundamentally established. Significant uplift occurred along the northern margin of the basin, providing abundant provenance to the depositional system (Figure 13). However, the northward subduction and consumption of the Proto-Tethys Ocean during the Middle–Late Ordovician intensified arc–continent collision along the southwestern margin of the Tarim Basin, which is inconsistent with a stable tectonic setting. Integrating the previous discussions on parent rock properties and the tectonic background of provenance areas, it is proposed that the northern paleo-uplifts within the basin were potential provenance areas.

6. Conclusions

Building upon prior investigations into the provenance analysis and sedimentary characteristics of the Silurian Kepingtag Formation, this study performs systematic clastic composition and whole-rock geochemical analyses on the Kepingtag Formation in the northwestern Tarim Basin. The key scientific findings are summarized as follows:
(1)
Sandstones in the study area are predominantly lithic quartz sandstones, with subordinate lithic sandstones and arkosic quartz sandstones. Whole-rock geochemical analyses reveal similar geochemical signatures across the upper sandstone, middle mudstone, and lower sandstone members. Chemical Index of Alteration (CIA) values indicate that Keping area sandstones of the Kepingtag Formation experienced weak to moderate weathering. These geochemical datasets, therefore, serve as robust proxies for deciphering parent rock lithology, genetic characteristics, and the tectonic setting of the provenance.
(2)
The clastic components of Kepingtag Formation in Tarim Basin show that they are mainly derived from acidic magmatic rocks. Dickinson diagram shows that the sandstone source of Kepingtag Formation in the northwest margin of Tarim Basin is mainly from the stable craton and recycled orogenic belt. The major element analysis results show that the source rock of Kepingtag Formation in the northwest margin of Tarim Basin is feldspar acid igneous rock. The trace element results show that the sandstone source of Kepingtag Formation in the northwest margin of Tarim Basin is mainly from passive continental margin environment. In summary, the parent rock types in the source area are mainly felsic acid magmatic rocks from an intra-basin recycle orogenic belt and may also include phyllite metamorphic rocks with low metamorphism, and the tectonic background is passive continental margin.
Integrating clastic component analysis, geochemical datasets, and paleogeographic reconstructions, the Tabei Uplift is interpreted as a basement high that emerged during the Tarim Movement. This uplift persisted through the Caledonian orogeny and continued to influence sedimentation until the late Devonian. Since the Precambrian, the subduction of the South Tianshan Ocean Basin beneath the Yili–Middle Tianshan Microcontinent has established a passive continental margin setting for the Tabei Block. Consequently, the sandstone provenance of the Kepingtag Formation in the northwestern Tarim Basin is inferred to derive from the Tabei Uplift, which functioned as a source within the ancient Tarim Basin paleotopography.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.Z. and J.T.; methodology, X.Z.; software, S.H.; validation, K.J. and Z.L.; formal analysis, Q.Z.; investigation, Q.Z.; resources, Q.Z.; data curation, Q.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.Z.; writing—review and editing, Q.Z.; visualization, Q.Z.; supervision, Q.Z.; project administration, X.Z.; funding acquisition, X.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The project title is “Study on multi-event depositional coupling and depositional process of lacustrine basin in continental depression: a case study of Chang 7-Chang 6 oil formation in Yanchang Triassic, Ordos Basin” [grant number 42372141].

Data Availability Statement

All the underlying data can be found in the tables in the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

Qingshao Liang and Zhuangsheng Wang from the Chengdu University of Technology are sincerely thanked for their critical reviews and constructive comments on the manuscript. The careful reviews and constructive suggestions of the manuscript by anonymous reviews are greatly appreciated.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest that may be perceived as inappropriately influencing the presentation or interpretation of reported research results.

References

  1. Bhatia, M.R.; Crook, K.A. Trace element characteristics of greywackes and tectonic setting discrimination of sedimentary basins. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1986, 92, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cao, L.C.; Tao, J.; Wang, Z.F.; Zhang, Y.Z.; Sun, H. Provenance of Upper Miocene sediments in the Yinggehai and Qiongdongnan basins, northwestern South China Sea: Evidence from REE, heavy minerals and zircon U–Pb ages. Mar. Geol. 2015, 361, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chen, Q.; Sun, M.; Long, X.P.; Zhao, G.C.; Wang, J.; Yu, Y.; Yuan, C. Provenance study for the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks from the west Yangtze Block: Constraint on possible link of South China to the Gondwana supercontinent reconstruction. Precambrian Res. 2018, 309, 271–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Verma, S.P.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S. New multi-dimensional diagrams for tectonic discrimination of siliciclastic sediments and their application to Precambrian basins. Chem. Geol. 2013, 355, 117–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hofmann, M.H.; Li, X.H.; Chen, J.; MacKenzie, L.A. Provenance and temporal constraints of the Early Cambrian Maotianshan Shale, Yunnan Province, China. Gondwana Res. 2016, 37, 348–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hoskin, P.W.O.; Ireland, T.R. Rare earth element chemistry of zircon and its use as a provenance indicator. Geology 2000, 28, 627–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, L.L.; Yang, B.Z.; Yin, Y.H.; Liu, L.L.; Wang, B.B. Provenance Analysis of the Lower Silurian Kepingtag Formation in the Keping Area, Xinjiang: Constraints from Geochemistry and Zircon U-Pb Geochronology. Geol. Sci. Technol. Inf. 2017, 36, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhou, X.Y.; Li, Y.J.; Wang, Z.M.; Li, Y.P.; Luo, Q.C.; Zhang, B. A preliminary study on the sedimentary-tectonic setting of the Lower Silurian in the northwestern margin of the Tarim Basin. Chin. J. Geol. 2002, 37, 57–63. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  9. Wu, G.H.; Zhang, B.S.; Guo, C.L.; Wang, C.L.; Gao, L. Detrital zircon dating of the Silurian in northern Tarim Basin and its geological significance. Geotecton. Metallog. 2009, 33, 418–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lahijani, H.; Tavakol, V. Identifying provenance of South Caspian coastal sediments using mineral distribution pattern. Quat. Int. 2012, 261, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Markwitz, V.; Kirkland, C.L.; Wyrwoll, K.H.; Hancock, E.A.; Evans, N.J.; Lu, Y. Variations in zircon provenance constrain age and geometry of an Early Paleozoic rift in the Pinjarra Orogen, East Gondwana. Tectonics 2017, 36, 2477–2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pang, X.Q.; Jia, C.Z.; Pang, H.; Yang, H. Destruction of hydrocarbon reservoirs due to tectonic modifications: Conceptual models and quantitative evaluation on the Tarim Basin, China. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2018, 91, 401–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Xu, Y.J.; Du, Y.S.; Cawood, P.A.; Zhu, Y.H.; Li, W.C.; Yu, W.C. Detrital zircon provenance of Upper Ordovician and Silurian strata in the northeastern Yangtze Block: Response to orogenesis in South China. Sediment. Geol. 2012, 267, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, L.F.; Ai, Y.L.; Li, X.P.; Rubatto, D.; Song, B.; Williams, S.; Song, S.G.; Ellis, D.; Liou, J.G. Triassic collision of western Tianshan orogenic belt, China: Evidence from SHRIMP U-Pb dating of zircon from HP/UHP eclogitic rocks. Lithos 2007, 96, 266–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, C.L.; Li, H.K.; Santosh, M.; Li, Z.X.; Zou, H.B.; Wang, H.Y.; Ye, H.M. Precambrian evolution and cratonization of the Tarim Block, NW China: Petrology, geochemistry, Nd-isotopes and U–Pb zircon geochronology from Archaean gabbro-TTG–potassic granite suite and Paleoproterozoic metamorphic belt. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2012, 47, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, J.X.; Li, H.K.; Meng, F.C.; Xiang, Z.Q.; Yu, S.Y.; Li, J.P. Polyphase tectonothermal events recorded in “metamorphic basement” from the Altyn Tagh, the southeastern margin of the Tarim basin, western China: Constraint from U-Pb zircon geochronology. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2011, 27, 23–46. [Google Scholar]
  17. Zhang, J.F.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Gao, Y.J. Silurian hydrocarbom exploration breakthrough and its implications in the Shajingzi structural belt of Tarim Basin, NW China. Pet. Explor. Dev. 2022, 49, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Xu, Z.Q.; He, B.Z.; Zhang, C.L.; Zhang, J.X.; Wang, Z.M.; Cai, Z.H. Tectonic framework and crustal evolution of the Precambrian basement of the Tarim Block in NW China: New geochronological evidence from deep drilling samples. Precambrian Res. 2013, 235, 150–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wu, G.; Heron, D.P.L.; Yang, L.; Luo, B.X.; Xiao, Y.; Wang, B. Cryptic climatic signatures and tectonic controls on Cryogenian diamictites in the NW Tarim Craton, China. J. Geol. Soc. 2018, 175, 642–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wu, G.H.; Xiao, Y.; Bonin, B.; Ma, D.; Li, X.; Zhu, G.Y. Ca. 850 Ma magmatic events in the Tarim Craton: Age, geochemistry and implications for assembly of Rodinia supercontinent. Precambrian Res. 2018, 305, 489–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shu, L.S.; Deng, X.L.; Zhu, W.B.; Ma, D.S.; Xiao, W.J. Precambrian tectonic evolution of the Tarim Block, NW China: New geochronological insights from the Quruqtagh domain. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2011, 42, 774–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nesbitt, H.W.; Young, G.M. Early Proterozoic climates and plate motions inferred from major element chemistry of lutites. Nature 1982, 299, 715–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Effoudou-Priso, E.N.; Onana, V.L.; Boubakar, L.; Beyala, V.K.K.; Ekodeck, G.E. Relationships between major and trace elements during weathering processes in a sedimentary context: Implications for the nature of source rocks in Douala, Littoral Cameroon. Chem. Erde. 2014, 74, 765–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mclennan, S.M.; Hemming, S.R.; Mcdaniel, D.K.; Hanson, G.N. Geochemical approaches to sedimentation, provenance, and tectonics. Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am. 1993, 284, 21–40. [Google Scholar]
  25. Liu, J.Y.; Yang, H.J.; Yang, Y.H.; Cai, Z.Z.; Liu, Y.Q.; Rui, Z.F.; Su, Z.Z. The U-Pb chronologic evidence and sedimentary responses of Silurian tectonic activities at northeastern margin of Tarim Basin. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2012, 55, 1445–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hou, Q.; Mou, C.L.; Wang, Q.Y.; Tan, Z.Y.; Ge, X.Y.; Wang, X.P. Geochemistry of sandstones from the Silurian hanxia formation, north Qilian belt, China: Implication for provenance, weathering and tectonic setting. Geochem. Int. 2018, 56, 362–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Morton, A.C.; Hallsworth, C.R. Identifying provenance-specific features of detrital heavy mineral assemblages in sandstones. Sediment. Geol. 1994, 90, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Morton, A.C.; Hallsworth, C.R. Processes controlling the composition of heavy mineral assemblages in sandstones. Sediment. Geol. 1999, 124, 3–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Girty, G.H.; Ridge, D.L.; Knaack, C.; Johnson, D.; Al-Riyami, R.K. Provenance and depositional setting of Paleozoic chert and argillite, Sierra Nevada, California. J. Sediment. Res. 1996, 66, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Allègre, C.J.; Minster, J.F. Quantitative models of trace element behavior in magmatic processes. Earth Planet. Sci. 1978, 38, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fu, X.G.; Wang, J.; Zeng, Y.H.; Tan, F.W.; He, J.L. Geochemistry and origin of rare earth elements (REEs) in the Shengli River oil shale, northern Tibet, China. Geochemistry 2011, 71, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Floyd, P.A.; Winchester, J.A.; Park, R.G. Geochemistry and tectonic setting of Lewisian clastic metasediments from the early Proterozoic loch maree Group of Gairloch, NW Scotland. Precambrian Res. 1989, 45, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Floyd, P.A.; Leveridge, B.E. Tectonic environment of the Devonian Gramscatho basin, south Cornwall: Framework mode and geochemical evidence from turbiditic sandstones. J. Geol. Soc. 1987, 144, 534–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gu, X.X.; Liu, J.M.; Zheng, M.H.; Tang, J.X.; Qi, L. Provenance and tectonic setting of the Proterozoic turbidites in hunan, south China: Geochemical evidence. J. Sediment. Res. 2002, 72, 393–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hayashi, K.I.; Fujisawa, H.; Holland, H.D.; Ohmoto, H. Geochemistry of ~1.9 Ga sedimentary rocks from northeastern Labrador, Canada. Geochem. Cosmochim. Acta 1997, 61, 4115–4137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cullers, R.L. The geochemistry of shales, siltstones and sandstones of Pennsylvanian–Permian age, Colorado, USA: Implications for provenance and metamorphic studies. Lithos 2000, 51, 181–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dickinson, W.R. Interpreting detrital models of graywacke and arkose. J. Sediment. Petrol. 1970, 40, 695–707. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dickinson, W.R. Interpreting Provenance Relations from Detrital Modes of Sandstones. In Provenance of Arenites; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  39. Wang, J.X. Tidal flat sedimentary characteristics of Silurian Kepingtag Formation in Tarim Basin. Northwestern Geol. 2018, 51, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ge, R.F.; Zhu, W.B.; Wu, H.L.; Zheng, B.H.; He, J.W. Timing and mechanisms of multiple episodes of migmatization in the Korla Complex, northern Tarim Craton, NW China: Constraints from zircon U–Pb–Lu–Hf isotopes and implications for crustal growth. Precambrian Res. 2013, 231, 136–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ge, R.F.; Zhu, W.; Wilde, S.A.; He, J.W.; Cui, X.; Wang, X.; Zheng, B.H. Neoproterozoic to Paleozoic long-lived accretionary orogeny in the northern Tarim Craton. Tectonics 2014, 33, 302–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Li, J.; Tian, J.C.; Zhang, X.; Liang, Q.S.; Peng, M.H. Geochemical characteristics and the constraints on paleoenvironment, provenance, and tectonic setting of Precambrian Xifangshan Formation in the northwestern Tarim Basin, NW China. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2022, 208, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chang, J.; Qiu, N.S.; Li, J.W. Coupling Relationship between the Tarim Basin and the South Tianshan: New Evidence from (U-Th)/He Ages. Earth Sci. Front. 2012, 19, 234–243. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  44. Niu, L.; Yu, B.S.; Zhang, W.B. Provenance Analysis and Parent Rock Age Determination of the Lower Silurian Kepingtag Formation in the Northern Tarim Basin. Acta Sedimentol. Sin. 2013, 31, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Guo, Z.F.; Liu, X.M.; Liu, J. Analysis of the Relationship between Clastic Components of Silurian-Devonian Sandstones and Tectonic Settings in the Keping-Bachu Fault-Uplift, Tarim Basin. Henan Pet. 2004, 18, 7–10. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  46. He, J.W.; Zhu, W.B.; Ge, R.F.; Zheng, B.H.; Wu, H.L. Detrital zircon U-Pb ages and Hf isotopes of Neoproterozoic strata in the Aksu area, northwestern Tarim Craton: Implications for supercontinent reconstruction and crustal evolution. Precambrian Res. 2014, 254, 194–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Helland-Hansen, W.; Somme, T.O.; Martinsen, O.J.; Lunt, L.; Thurmond, J. Deciphering Earth’s Natural Hourglasses: Perspectives On Source-To-Sink Analysis. J. Sediment. Res. 2016, 86, 1008–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lin, C.S.; Li, S.T.; Liu, J.Y.; Qian, Y.X.; Luo, H.; Chen, J.Q.; Peng, L.; Rui, Z.F. Tectonic framework and paleogeographic evolution of the Tarim basin during the Paleozoic major evolutionary stages. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2011, 27, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lin, W.; Chu, Y.; Ji, W.B.; Zhang, Z.P.; Shi, Y.H.; Wang, Z.Y.; Li, Z.; Wang, Q.C. Geochronological and geochemical constraints for a middle Paleozoic continental arc on the northern margin of the Tarim block: Implications for the Paleozoic tectonic evolution of the South Chinese Tianshan. Lithosphere 2013, 5, 355–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Minerals 15 00934 g001
Figure 1. (a) The tectonic units of the Tarim Basin with the Keping study area and Tabei Uplift in red box. (b) Geologic map of the NW Tarim Basin showing analyzed section locations. (c) Details of the Kepingtag Formation, including stratigraphy, lithology, and thickness.
Figure 1. (a) The tectonic units of the Tarim Basin with the Keping study area and Tabei Uplift in red box. (b) Geologic map of the NW Tarim Basin showing analyzed section locations. (c) Details of the Kepingtag Formation, including stratigraphy, lithology, and thickness.
Minerals 15 00934 g001
Minerals 15 00934 g002
Figure 2. Stratigraphic correlation section of the Kepingtag Formation in northwest Tarim Basin.
Figure 2. Stratigraphic correlation section of the Kepingtag Formation in northwest Tarim Basin.
Minerals 15 00934 g002
Minerals 15 00934 g003
Figure 3. Stratigraphic relationships shown in the (a) Sishichang outcrop, (b) Tongguzibulong outcrop, (c,d) Dawangou outcrop. (S1k: Kepingtag Formation, Silurian System; S1k1:Lower Sandstone Member of the Kepingtag Formation, Silurian System; S1k2: Middle Mudstone Member of the Kepingtag Formation, Silurian System; S1k3: Upper Sandstone Member of the Kepingtag Formation, Silurian System; S1t: Tataertag Formation, Silurian System; O3y: Yingan Formation, Ordovician System; O3q: Qilang Formation, Ordovician System).
Figure 3. Stratigraphic relationships shown in the (a) Sishichang outcrop, (b) Tongguzibulong outcrop, (c,d) Dawangou outcrop. (S1k: Kepingtag Formation, Silurian System; S1k1:Lower Sandstone Member of the Kepingtag Formation, Silurian System; S1k2: Middle Mudstone Member of the Kepingtag Formation, Silurian System; S1k3: Upper Sandstone Member of the Kepingtag Formation, Silurian System; S1t: Tataertag Formation, Silurian System; O3y: Yingan Formation, Ordovician System; O3q: Qilang Formation, Ordovician System).
Minerals 15 00934 g003
Minerals 15 00934 g004
Figure 4. (a) Grey fine sandstone interbedded with mudstone. (b) Small gastropod fossils within the fine-grained sandstone. (c) Trough cross-bedding. (d) Oblique bedding. (e) Bidirectional cross-bedding. (f) Intersecting trough cross-beds. (g) Plagioclase and fine igneous lithic grains. (h) Igneous rock fragments. (i) Chert with cross-polarized light. (j) Flint and quartz grains with cross-polarized light. (k) Quartz overgrowths with cross-polarized light. (l) Igneous rock fragments and a small amount of low-grade metamorphic rock fragments. (The yellow lines in the figure depict the characteristics of the bedding).
Figure 4. (a) Grey fine sandstone interbedded with mudstone. (b) Small gastropod fossils within the fine-grained sandstone. (c) Trough cross-bedding. (d) Oblique bedding. (e) Bidirectional cross-bedding. (f) Intersecting trough cross-beds. (g) Plagioclase and fine igneous lithic grains. (h) Igneous rock fragments. (i) Chert with cross-polarized light. (j) Flint and quartz grains with cross-polarized light. (k) Quartz overgrowths with cross-polarized light. (l) Igneous rock fragments and a small amount of low-grade metamorphic rock fragments. (The yellow lines in the figure depict the characteristics of the bedding).
Minerals 15 00934 g004
Minerals 15 00934 g005
Figure 5. Distribution pattern of rare earth elements in upper sandstone member of Kepingtag Formation, northwest Tarim Basin.
Figure 5. Distribution pattern of rare earth elements in upper sandstone member of Kepingtag Formation, northwest Tarim Basin.
Minerals 15 00934 g005
Minerals 15 00934 g006
Figure 6. Distribution pattern of rare earth elements in lower sandstone member of Kepingtag Formation, northwest Tarim Basin.
Figure 6. Distribution pattern of rare earth elements in lower sandstone member of Kepingtag Formation, northwest Tarim Basin.
Minerals 15 00934 g006
Minerals 15 00934 g007
Figure 7. Correlation distribution of CIA and rare earth elements. (The dashed lines represent the trend lines of correlation).
Figure 7. Correlation distribution of CIA and rare earth elements. (The dashed lines represent the trend lines of correlation).
Minerals 15 00934 g007
Minerals 15 00934 g008
Figure 8. La/Yb-REE diagram of sandstone of in the Kepingtag Formation in northwest Tarim Basin (adapted from Allègre and Minster [30]).
Figure 8. La/Yb-REE diagram of sandstone of in the Kepingtag Formation in northwest Tarim Basin (adapted from Allègre and Minster [30]).
Minerals 15 00934 g008
Minerals 15 00934 g009
Figure 9. Identification diagram of sandstone source area of Kepingtag Formation in northwest Tarim Basin (adapted from Floyd and Leveridge [33]). (UCC: Upper Continental Crust, LCC: Lower Continental Crust, PAAS: Post-Archean Australian Shale, TTG: Tonalite–Trondhjemite–Granodiorite). (a) TiO2 versus Ni; (b) Th/Sc versus Zr/Sc; (c) La/Th versus Hf; (d) Co/Th versus La/Sc.
Figure 9. Identification diagram of sandstone source area of Kepingtag Formation in northwest Tarim Basin (adapted from Floyd and Leveridge [33]). (UCC: Upper Continental Crust, LCC: Lower Continental Crust, PAAS: Post-Archean Australian Shale, TTG: Tonalite–Trondhjemite–Granodiorite). (a) TiO2 versus Ni; (b) Th/Sc versus Zr/Sc; (c) La/Th versus Hf; (d) Co/Th versus La/Sc.
Minerals 15 00934 g009
Minerals 15 00934 g010
Figure 10. Dickinson diagrams of sandstone composition of the Kepingtag Formation in northwest Tarim Basin (the diagrams are adapted from Dickinson [37]). Qt. Total number of quartz grains (Qm + Qp); Qm. Monocrystalline quartz; Qp. Polycrystalline quartz clasts (including chert); F. Total amount of feldspar; Lt. Total amount of lithic clasts (L + Qp); L. Total amount of unstable lithic clasts (Lv + Ls + Lm (metamorphic lithic clasts)); Lv. Igneous lithic clasts; Ls. Sedimentary lithic clasts (excluding chert and silicified limestone). (a) Qt-F-L ternary diagram; (b) Qm-F-Lt ternary diagram; (c) Qt-F-L ternary diagram; (d) Qm-F-Lt ternary diagram; (e) Qp-Lv-Ls ternary diagram.
Figure 10. Dickinson diagrams of sandstone composition of the Kepingtag Formation in northwest Tarim Basin (the diagrams are adapted from Dickinson [37]). Qt. Total number of quartz grains (Qm + Qp); Qm. Monocrystalline quartz; Qp. Polycrystalline quartz clasts (including chert); F. Total amount of feldspar; Lt. Total amount of lithic clasts (L + Qp); L. Total amount of unstable lithic clasts (Lv + Ls + Lm (metamorphic lithic clasts)); Lv. Igneous lithic clasts; Ls. Sedimentary lithic clasts (excluding chert and silicified limestone). (a) Qt-F-L ternary diagram; (b) Qm-F-Lt ternary diagram; (c) Qt-F-L ternary diagram; (d) Qm-F-Lt ternary diagram; (e) Qp-Lv-Ls ternary diagram.
Minerals 15 00934 g010
Minerals 15 00934 g011
Figure 11. Identification diagram of trace element tectonic environment in upper sandstone of the Kepingtag Formation, northwest Tarim Basin (adapted from Bhatia and Crook [1]). ACM, active continental margin; CIA, continental island arc; PM, passive margin; OIA, oceanic island arc. The blue rhombuses represent the samples from the upper sandstone of the Kepingtag Formation.
Figure 11. Identification diagram of trace element tectonic environment in upper sandstone of the Kepingtag Formation, northwest Tarim Basin (adapted from Bhatia and Crook [1]). ACM, active continental margin; CIA, continental island arc; PM, passive margin; OIA, oceanic island arc. The blue rhombuses represent the samples from the upper sandstone of the Kepingtag Formation.
Minerals 15 00934 g011
Minerals 15 00934 g012
Figure 12. Identification diagram of trace element tectonic environment in lower sandstone of the Kepingtag Formation, northwest Tarim Basin (adapted from Bhatia and Crook [1]). ACM, active continental margin; CIA, continental island arc; PM, passive margin; OIA, oceanic island arc. The blue rhombuses represent the samples from the lower sandstone of the Kepingtag Formation.
Figure 12. Identification diagram of trace element tectonic environment in lower sandstone of the Kepingtag Formation, northwest Tarim Basin (adapted from Bhatia and Crook [1]). ACM, active continental margin; CIA, continental island arc; PM, passive margin; OIA, oceanic island arc. The blue rhombuses represent the samples from the lower sandstone of the Kepingtag Formation.
Minerals 15 00934 g012
Minerals 15 00934 g013
Figure 13. (a) Silurian regional tectonic sketch map, (b) tectonic location sketch map of the Tarim Basin and peripheral geological bodies.
Figure 13. (a) Silurian regional tectonic sketch map, (b) tectonic location sketch map of the Tarim Basin and peripheral geological bodies.
Minerals 15 00934 g013
Table 1. Clastic partical types in sandstone sample.
Table 1. Clastic partical types in sandstone sample.
SectionPositionSample NumberQmQpQtFLLsLvLmLt
SSCUpperSSC-KP-S17632654250151027
SSC-KP-S1668270123117525
SSC-KP-S1579180216010617
SSC-KP-S1470070517215017
SSC-KP-S1374074221181221
SSC-KP-S127918051217413
LowerSSC-KP-S867168615012316
SSC-KP-S768270616110518
SSC-KP-S667370525515528
SSC-KP-S566369515110418
SSC-KP-S465267514011316
SSC-KP-S3514558200101024
SSC-KP-S258260821112823
SSC-KP-S15916010200101021
DWGUpperDWG-KP-S27412438322181234
DWG-KP-S25391405400202041
DWG-KP-S224915010322201033
DWG-KP-S20550551030052530
DWG-KP-S17591605322151533
DWG-KP-S16562588333151535
MiddleDWG-KP-S14573605372201540
DWG-KP-S13532555361251038
LowerDWG-KP-S5523555361251039
DWG-KP-S2524565311201035
DWG-KP-S1541555382231339
TGUpperT-KP-S1469473616010620
T-KP-S157137471419417
T-KP-S167247681418518
T-KP-S1768270817010719
T-KP-S187558051008215
T-KP-S197828051007312
MiddleT-KP-S1163568522213727
T-KP-S1266369522114725
T-KP-S1366470520015524
LowerT-KP-S14324510400103042
T-KP-S24334610411103044
T-KP-S34414510411103042
T-KP-S4462488411202043
T-KP-S54504510400202040
T-KP-S6432458411202043
T-KP-S7442468400202042
T-KP-S84534810380201841
T-KP-S9461478411103042
T-KP-S10433467391182042
Note: Qt. Total number of quartz grains (Qm + Qp); Qm. Monocrystalline quartz; Qp. Polycrystalline quartz clasts (including chert); F. Total amount of feldspar; Lt. Total amount of lithic clasts (L + Qp); L. Total amount of unstable lithic clasts (Lv + Ls + Lm (metamorphic lithic clasts)); Lv. Igneous lithic clasts; Ls. Sedimentary lithic clasts (excluding chert and silicified limestone).
Table 2. Major oxide contents (%) of the Kepingtag Formation.
Table 2. Major oxide contents (%) of the Kepingtag Formation.
Sample No.SSC-KP-S3SSC-KP-S8SSC-KP-S12SSC-KP-S22SSC-KP-S29DWG-KP-S1DWG-KP-S7DWG-KP-S20T-KP-S1T-KP-S3T-KP-S4T-KP-S5T-KP-S13T-KP-S14T-KP-S15T-KP-S28
SiO276.26 83.16 79.39 78.99 72.17 73.79 76.84 81.83 81.55 77.11 75.08 89.85 77.86 75.95 71.23 52.83
K2O1.85 1.10 1.86 0.61 1.12 2.17 1.83 1.88 1.53 1.76 2.20 0.61 1.79 2.15 3.13 1.56
Na2O0.20 0.98 1.43 0.43 1.05 1.97 1.25 0.87 0.97 1.14 1.80 0.59 1.67 1.33 1.55 1.86
CaO1.21 2.03 0.56 7.03 9.10 0.49 1.39 0.37 0.40 3.07 0.43 1.29 0.78 0.37 0.17 15.60
MgO1.42 0.88 1.28 0.45 0.82 1.85 1.65 1.05 1.46 1.29 1.68 0.40 1.36 1.63 1.70 1.15
Al2O39.48 5.28 8.27 2.58 4.90 11.13 8.68 7.80 7.04 7.37 10.39 2.93 9.15 9.80 13.02 8.22
TFe2O34.27 2.77 3.46 1.65 1.91 4.98 4.25 3.21 4.26 3.20 4.75 1.12 3.73 4.86 4.48 3.25
MnO0.05 0.14 0.07 0.40 0.34 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.22 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.05 1.07
TiO20.39 0.39 0.42 0.17 0.29 0.55 0.37 0.33 0.30 0.33 0.51 0.19 0.46 0.45 0.62 0.48
P2O50.10 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.12 0.17 0.14 0.21 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.11
Table 3. Trace element contents (μg/g) of the Kepingtag Formation.
Table 3. Trace element contents (μg/g) of the Kepingtag Formation.
Sample No.SSC-KP-S3SSC-KP-S8SSC-KP-S12SSC-KP-S22SSC-KP-S29DWG-KP-S1DWG-KP-S7DWG-KP-S20T-KP-S1T-KP-S3T-KP-S4T-KP-S5T-KP-S13T-KP-S14T-KP-S15T-KP-S28
Be1.14 0.57 1.05 0.27 0.53 1.28 1.12 1.15 0.95 1.13 1.43 0.44 1.12 1.43 2.17 1.18
Li34.42 21.76 27.51 20.28 19.07 31.30 35.16 25.87 24.83 24.93 29.01 21.72 32.83 35.20 37.00 26.18
V50.25 40.19 46.08 24.43 18.97 55.59 49.92 42.87 41.42 54.76 54.48 21.42 44.46 51.90 65.26 40.92
Sc6.22 4.62 5.53 4.29 3.68 7.48 7.08 5.28 5.27 6.16 7.20 2.53 6.33 6.87 8.69 6.35
Cr29.64 28.18 26.27 14.49 17.04 57.97 30.59 32.75 25.04 25.07 33.34 15.18 28.07 43.32 38.17 27.70
Co6.73 6.30 7.95 3.18 4.10 10.35 8.36 7.82 8.01 6.92 9.58 2.98 8.52 9.58 9.17 7.54
Ni17.29 12.67 14.54 8.43 11.38 19.51 16.41 11.83 19.06 15.38 17.83 6.34 14.61 17.90 18.21 18.04
Cu12.75 21.71 15.93 10.07 10.43 34.62 22.95 9.83 4.61 9.06 25.14 5.74 54.75 12.21 13.04 21.80
Zn50.24 49.85 48.99 22.42 23.75 55.28 79.13 32.14 45.86 42.27 52.48 64.55 44.97 51.06 51.37 39.32
Ga11.73 6.53 9.98 3.33 5.13 13.72 10.92 9.65 9.36 9.30 13.03 3.73 11.32 12.31 15.72 10.04
Rb62.17 36.22 55.71 18.52 34.89 72.50 58.25 54.62 48.02 55.92 72.16 20.00 60.41 65.81 97.65 54.55
Sr53.13 58.32 72.92 72.98 86.22 85.00 80.40 52.84 44.80 68.78 73.95 79.18 68.89 60.02 66.72 191.50
Y19.68 16.72 17.81 31.35 31.17 22.65 17.87 20.46 20.47 30.41 23.62 22.10 22.70 23.87 22.94 38.39
Zr229.16 246.37 210.25 89.28 165.46 376.19 226.65 202.23 179.25 228.28 333.71 176.51 400.94 293.07 358.21 391.81
Hf6.136.946.172.614.7610.226.075.564.886.549.364.9911.348.059.9710.44
Th7.588.517.883.825.8510.647.457.436.117.6610.844.6210.449.1611.3210.77
U1.661.481.401.241.332.011.821.411.271.701.791.062.051.682.491.99
Table 4. REE element contents (μg/g) of the Kepingtag Formation.
Table 4. REE element contents (μg/g) of the Kepingtag Formation.
Sample No.SSC-KP-S3SSC-KP-S8SSC-KP-S12SSC-KP-S22SSC-KP-S29DWG-KP-S1DWG-KP-S7DWG-KP-S20T-KP-S1T-KP-S3T-KP-S4T-KP-S5T-KP-S13T-KP-S14T-KP-S15T-KP-S28
La34.25 31.27 34.33 37.66 22.95 43.18 37.42 44.55 41.71 40.91 44.88 21.58 40.43 41.31 54.42 43.33
Ce55.32 56.93 64.76 67.13 44.45 72.78 72.21 78.64 72.33 75.94 78.94 41.46 74.16 75.23 100.04 74.61
Pr6.02 6.44 7.44 8.15 5.32 8.28 8.27 8.56 7.94 8.43 8.99 5.26 8.41 8.27 11.12 8.81
Nd23.61 25.24 28.98 32.20 22.33 31.54 30.90 32.25 30.08 32.98 33.76 23.98 32.63 32.04 39.70 35.54
Sm4.11 4.37 5.24 6.02 4.81 5.48 5.02 5.90 5.46 6.51 6.03 5.35 5.96 5.83 5.78 6.87
Eu0.78 0.80 1.01 1.09 1.03 1.04 1.12 1.05 1.06 1.24 1.12 0.96 1.10 1.07 1.05 1.28
Tb0.56 0.55 0.64 0.92 0.79 0.70 0.59 0.69 0.70 0.94 0.75 0.74 0.76 0.72 0.66 1.09
Gd3.55 3.67 4.32 5.39 4.56 4.55 3.92 4.58 4.52 6.00 4.88 4.81 4.94 4.74 4.24 6.47
Dy3.23 2.94 3.35 5.51 4.89 3.84 3.14 3.83 3.86 5.20 4.07 4.11 4.08 4.02 3.50 6.59
Ho0.70 0.57 0.67 1.15 1.01 0.81 0.66 0.74 0.77 1.03 0.85 0.79 0.84 0.86 0.80 1.35
Er1.97 1.62 1.82 3.05 2.62 2.33 1.91 2.10 2.06 2.73 2.41 1.86 2.26 2.44 2.51 3.42
Tm0.31 0.24 0.28 0.46 0.40 0.38 0.31 0.32 0.31 0.41 0.38 0.26 0.36 0.37 0.42 0.53
Yb2.11 1.73 1.89 2.89 2.51 2.59 2.01 2.12 1.98 2.47 2.50 1.62 2.39 2.52 2.93 3.34
Lu0.33 0.26 0.29 0.39 0.35 0.40 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.39 0.40 0.24 0.38 0.40 0.47 0.51
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, Q.; Tian, J.; Zhang, X.; Hao, S.; Li, Z.; Ji, K. Provenance Analysis of the Silurian Kepingtag Formation in the Northwest Margin of Tarim Basin-Evidence from Petrology and Geochemistry. Minerals 2025, 15, 934. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15090934

AMA Style

Zhang Q, Tian J, Zhang X, Hao S, Li Z, Ji K. Provenance Analysis of the Silurian Kepingtag Formation in the Northwest Margin of Tarim Basin-Evidence from Petrology and Geochemistry. Minerals. 2025; 15(9):934. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15090934

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Qiyuan, Jingchun Tian, Xiang Zhang, Shuyao Hao, Zhenping Li, and Kang Ji. 2025. "Provenance Analysis of the Silurian Kepingtag Formation in the Northwest Margin of Tarim Basin-Evidence from Petrology and Geochemistry" Minerals 15, no. 9: 934. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15090934

APA Style

Zhang, Q., Tian, J., Zhang, X., Hao, S., Li, Z., & Ji, K. (2025). Provenance Analysis of the Silurian Kepingtag Formation in the Northwest Margin of Tarim Basin-Evidence from Petrology and Geochemistry. Minerals, 15(9), 934. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15090934

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop