1-20 OF 124 RESULTS FOR

Chemehuevi Formation

Results shown limited to content with bounding coordinates.
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account

Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Close Modal
Sort by
Journal Article
Journal: GSA Bulletin
Published: 28 October 2024
GSA Bulletin (2025) 137 (3-4): 1582–1606.
...Harrison J. Gray; P. Kyle House; Adam M. Hudson; Jorge A. Vazquez; Ryan Crow; Miriam Primus; Shannon Mahan; Tammy Rittenour; Keith A. Howard Abstract The Chemehuevi Formation is a distinctive 50–150-m-thick wedge-shaped Pleistocene sedimentary unit deposited by the Colorado River. It lines...
FIGURES | View All (12)
Image
Published: 28 October 2024
Figure 2. Photographs of outcrops from locations of the Chemehuevi Formation around the Lower Colorado River corridor (LOCO). (A) Typical exposure of the Chemehuevi Formation showing sand-over-mud contact. Hill is ~40 m tall. (B) Exposure of the Monkey Rock tephra of Malmon et al. (2011
Image
Published: 28 October 2024
TABLE 1. SAMPLE SITE INFORMATION, CHEMEHUEVI FORMATION, LOWER COLORADO RIVER CORRIDOR
Image
Published: 28 October 2024
TABLE 2. LUMINESCENCE DATING RESULTS, CHEMEHUEVI FORMATION, LOWER COLORADO RIVER CORRIDOR
Image
Published: 28 October 2024
TABLE 6. SAMPLE OF DEPOSITS WITH SIMILAR TIMING TO THE CHEMEHUEVI FORMATION WITHIN THE COLORADO RIVER AND NEIGHBORING REGIONAL-SCALE DRAINAGES
Image
Published: 28 October 2024
Figure 11. Illustration of the volume of the Chemehuevi Formation based on the upper bounding surface of Malmon et al. (2011) . (A) Google Earth image showing approximate maximum extent of the Chemehuevi Formation created by extrapolating the upper bounding envelope defined by Malmon et al
Image
Published: 28 October 2024
Figure 8. Plot of geochronologic results versus global glacial-interglacial climate record (LR04 benthic stack δ 18 O relative to Vienna Peedee belemnite [VPDB, ‰]; Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005 ). Ages are shown in rank ascending order. Ages for Chemehuevi Formation are from luminescence dating
Image
Published: 28 October 2024
Figure 10. Detrital zircon age distributions for the modern Grand Canyon upstream of the Chemehuevi Formation and modern sand taken near Laughlin, Nevada, and upper sand and lower mud facies of the Chemehuevi Formation. Plot was made with detritalPy version 1.4.1 ( Sharman et al., 2018 ). Data
Image
Published: 28 October 2024
Figure 3. Longitudinal profile of the Lower Colorado River corridor and features of the Chemehuevi Formation given and slightly modified from Malmon et al. (2011) . Overall, the Chemehuevi Formation expresses a wedge-shaped geomorphic pattern potentially reflecting aggradation initiating
Series: GSA Field Guides
Published: 04 September 2019
DOI: 10.1130/2019.0055(03)
EISBN: 9780813756554
... of its upstream lake breached the divide and led the river southward. The Bouse Formation in this and other basins records the pre–river integration water bodies. Younger riverlaid deposits including the Bullhead Alluvium (Pliocene) and the Chemehuevi Formation (Pleistocene) record subsequent evolution...
FIGURES | View All (40)
Image
Published: 28 October 2024
Figure 9. Schematic of the geochronology results (age errors are at 2σ uncertainty) and sampled approximate position above the modern river level within the Chemehuevi Formation. Sand/mud facies designation is schematic, as multiple heights exist for the various facies throughout the Lower
Image
Published: 16 October 2019
Figure 3. Schematic figure showing the generalized inset relationships between the paleo–Colorado River deposits ( House, 2016 ) in the lower Colorado River corridor. This paper focuses on the ca. 4 Ma Bullhead Alluvium and the ca. 70 ka Chemehuevi Formation. See the text for details about
Image
Published: 28 October 2024
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF MAJOR HYPOTHESES FOR THE CAUSAL MECHANISM OF THE CHEMEHUEVI FORMATION (Qch) AND CONCLUSIONS OF THIS STUDY
Image
Published: 16 October 2019
Figure 4. Longitudinal profile focused on the lower Colorado River corridor showing the locations of Chemehuevi Formation, Bullhead Alluvium, and Quaternary travertine deposits from geologic mapping and subsurface data sets. When the mapped outcrops being depicted were queried due to uncertainty
Image
Published: 28 October 2024
Figure 1. (A) Location map of the study area, informal extent of the Chemehuevi Formation, and sample locations. Mtn—Mountains; SHRIMP—sensitive high-resolution ion microprobe. (B) Schematic of the stratigraphy of the Lower Colorado River corridor ( House, 2016 ).
Image
Published: 16 October 2019
Figure 6. Topographic profile across Lake Mead (see Fig. 2 for location) showing the locations of Chemehuevi Formation, Bullhead Alluvium, and Hualapai Limestone deposits from geologic mapping. Deformed Hualapai Limestone deposits across the Lost Basin Range–Wheeler faults can be used
Image
Published: 28 October 2024
Figure 4. Summary of feldspar post-infrared infrared stimulated luminescence (pIR-IRSL) characteristics and dating for samples from the Chemehuevi Formation. (A) Decay curves of the natural pIR-IRSL for all aliquots. Color is grouped by sample name. (B) Growth curves for all aliquots fitted
Image
Published: 28 October 2024
Figure 12. Illustration of previously proposed lava dams in the Grand Canyon as potential sourcing mechanisms for the Chemehuevi Formation. (A) Schematic of large lava dams (Upper Prospect, Toroweap, Buried Canyon, Black Ledge) in the Grand Canyon that could have resulted in a major impoundment
Image
Published: 01 March 2012
(black), Miocene conglomerate (Tc), Miocene Hualapai Limestone (Th), upper late Pleistocene Chemehuevi Formation (Qc; Longwell, 1963 ), and alluvial fill (dashed) below the modern (predam) river valley. Pliocene and Miocene rocks are tilted at Sandy Point and Hualapai Wash. Deposits of Hualapai Wash
Image
Published: 01 February 2015
) , and Matmon et al. (2012) ; dated speleothems are from Polyak et al. (2008 ; elevations from Polyak, 2013, written commun.). Envelopes on the elevation extent of the late Pleistocene Chemehuevi Formation (0.07 Ma; Malmon et al., 2011 ) are shown for comparison with the Bullhead profiles.