Ramblings about what I encounter within the realm of the geosciences, as well as the occasional rant about nonsense.

12 March 2009

Martian Fans

ResearchBlogging.orgIn the recent issue of Geology, there is a report by Schon et al. on constraining the age of depositional fans by using impact crater density and cratering rays. The title of the paper is "Unique Chronostratigraphic Marker in Depositional Fan Stratigraphy on Mars: Evidence for ca. 1.25 Ma Gully Activity and Surficial Meltwater Origin"

These depositional fans have several potential mechanisms of formation. Schon et al. divide these mechanisms into 3 categories: Dry mechanisms, wet mechanisms invoking groundwater release (from a confined aquifer or similar feature), and wet mechanisms invoking surficial meltwater. However, testing these hypotheses is difficult. This is further complicated by an inability to constrain the ages of depositional events.

The authors attempt to overcome the latter problem by applying impact crater densities in conjunction with cratering rays. The concept of impact crater density is commonly used to date surfaces in planetary geology. The technique measures crater density over certain areas and uses this density as a proxy to determine how long that surface has existed. The implication is the longer a surface is exposed, the greater the proportion of impact craters compared to surface area. This method is only limited by bodies that recycle their surfaces (like Earth having active plate tectonics) and has limited utility on bodies that readily recover their surface (like Io having active volcanism). However, another problem presents itself when scientists try and constrain the age of a surface that is relatively small. This is the major obstacle to applying this technique to martian depositional fans.

Schon et al. have proposed using secondary craters and rays that can be traced back to other primary craters. These primary craters will, ideally, be located in regions of sufficient surface area that impact crater density is a viable tool for age constraint. Then by applying a little bit of super-position and, bingo, you have constrained the age of the depositional fan. In order for a secondary crater, or a crater ray, to be preserved on the surface of the depositional fan, the depositional fan had to have been present before the primary crater.

Below is the second figure from this paper, showing an image of the depositional fan being studied. The authors have outlined several depositional lobes. The clearest application of the authors method would be contrasting the crater rich area that defines lobe 1 with the other lobes (2-4) which post-date secondary cratering. Since lobe 1 is the oldest depo-center, it would have the highest crater density. Comparing this with subsequent depositional centers, it is clear that the lack of cratering indicates that the subsequent lobes formed after the intial cratering event. This constrains the formation of the younger lobes to within 1.25 Ma (the age of the primary crater).
I thought that this was a very good example of how surficial features can be applied to determining general stratigraphic patterns. This is, to my eyes, an excellent method for constraining the maximum age of deposition. However, this study did not have any method to examine depositional mechanisms. The authors argument, that this study supports an interpretation of meltwater as the depositional process, rests on the fact that there are multiple depositional events forming this fan. I don't argue this contention, I just don't think that surficial meltwater is the only possible mechanism that can display this pattern of deposition. Therefore, I don't know if there is enough evidence yet to make the assertion that liquid water is (was) present as recently as 1.25 Maa.
Citations:
Schon, S., Head, J., & Fassett, C. (2009). Unique chronostratigraphic marker in depositional fan stratigraphy on Mars: Evidence for ca. 1.25 Ma gully activity and surficial meltwater origin Geology, 37 (3), 207-210 DOI: 10.1130/G25398A.1

6 comments:

BrianR said...

"I just don't think that surficial meltwater is the only possible mechanism that can display this pattern of deposition."

I agree ... and it seems that the wet vs. dry flows on Mars discussion is robust enough that those who are into experimental sed processes ought to design an experiment to test these under Mars-like gravity and such. Or maybe someone already has and I just don't know about it.

BTW, you should consider making these posts part of researchblogging.org.

Bryan said...

I am unfamiliar with researchblogging.org. I assume, as the url indicates, it is blogging on research.

I will look into it. Thanks.

Bryan said...

okay I am now registered (pending review, I think). Thanks for the suggestion.

Silver Fox said...

Doesn't it just make you want to go up there?

Bryan said...

I've wanted to go there since I read Kim Stanley Robinson's "Red Mars" series.

Stuff like this just makes it frustratingly tantalizing. So close, but oh so far.

BrianR said...

Once researchblogging is set up right, then a post like this will have the 'icon' and automatically generate the citation (via the doi) and cross-post it on their site ... like one of my posts here: http://tinyurl.com/8htos6

there needs to be more geoscience posts there ... I've only done a couple, need to do more myself

Disclaimer

All the Latin on this page is from my vague recollections from High School. There are mistakes in the text. I just was trying to get the point across

Between Los Alamos,NM and White Rock, NM

Between Los Alamos,NM and White Rock, NM
The photo of the travertine spring was taken in the small opening in the center of the image.

Lectio Liber