(U-Th)/He chronology: Part 2. Considerations for evaluating, integrating, and interpreting conventional individual aliquot data
(U-Th)/He chronology: Part 2. Considerations for evaluating, integrating, and interpreting conventional individual aliquot data
复制标题
DOI：
10.1130/b36268.1
复制
发表时间：
2022-04-20
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
Brown, R. W.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Flowers, R. M.;Ketcham, R. A.;Brown, R. W.
(U-Th)/He测年技术是地球科学研究中的重要工具，具有不同的热年代学、地质年代学和碎屑应用。它现在被广泛用于构造、构造、岩石学、沉积、地貌、火山学和行星研究。虽然在某些情况下，(U-Th)/He数据的解释相对简单，但在其他情况下就不那么简单了。在某些地质背景下，对同一样品中的同一矿物进行单独分析时，由于氦扩散动力学的变化，预计会产生远远超出其分析不确定性的日期。尽管利用这一现象来破译更详细的热历史信息有很大的潜力，但区分由晶体之间的动力学差异引起的可解释的样品内数据变化与由其他因素引起的不可解释的过度分散可能是具有挑战性的。在建立热历史模型时，确定在什么情况下将多个数据集结合起来是合适的，也不总是容易的(例如，为了评估数据，试图总结数据集的特征，以及描述不同地质和年代学信息的复杂性、数据输入、权重)。我们强调，在这些领域中没有硬性的规则，这仍然是改进和社区讨论的重要焦点，不应将单一的解释和建模理念强加于数据集。这里提出的所有建议背后的指导原则是报告与评估、整合和解释数据相关的步骤和假设的透明度，这将促进(UTH)/He年代学的持续发展。(U-Th)/He测年技术是地球科学研究中的重要工具，具有不同的热年代学、地质年代学和碎屑应用。它现在被广泛用于构造、构造、岩石学、沉积、地貌、火山学和行星研究。虽然在某些情况下，(U-Th)/He数据的解释相对简单，但在其他情况下就不那么简单了。在某些地质背景下，对同一样品中的同一矿物进行单独分析时，由于氦扩散动力学的变化，预计会产生远远超出其分析不确定性的日期。尽管利用这一现象来破译更详细的热历史信息有很大的潜力，但区分由晶体之间的动力学差异引起的可解释的样品内数据变化与由其他因素引起的不可解释的过度分散可能是具有挑战性的。要确定在什么情况下使用汇总统计数据(如平均样本日期)集成多个单独分析是合适的，或者决定将数据纳入热历史建模的解释过程的最佳方法也并不总是很容易。在此，我们提出了一些评价数据的建议，试图总结目前对数据集的统计表征的思维状态，并描述了在建立热历史模型时必须考虑的复杂性、数据输入、不同地质和年代学信息的权重)。我们强调，在这些领域中没有硬性的规则，这仍然是改进和社区讨论的重要焦点，不应将单一的解释和建模理念强加于数据集。这里提出的所有建议背后的指导原则是报告与评估、整合和解释数据相关的步骤和假设的透明度，这将促进(UTH)/他年表的继续发展。
The (U-Th)/He dating technique is an essential tool in Earth science research with diverse thermochronologic, geochronologic, and detrital applications. It is now used in a wide range of tectonic, structural, petrological, sedimentary, geomorphic, volcanological, and planetary studies. While in some circumstances the interpretation of (U-Th)/He data is relatively straightforward, in other cases it is less so. In some geologic contexts, individual analyses of the same mineral from a single sample are expected to yield dates that differ well beyond their analytical uncertainty owing to variable He diffusion kinetics. Although much potential exists to exploit this phenomenon to decipher more detailed thermal history information, distinguishing interpretable intra-sample data variation caused by kinetic differences between crystals from uninterpretable overdispersion caused by other factors can be challenging. Nor is it always simple to determine under what circumstances it is appropriate to integrate multiple for evaluating data, attempt to summarize characterization of data sets, and describe the complexity, data input, weighting of different geologic and chronologic information) that must be made when setting up thermal history models. We emphasize that there are no hard and fast rules in any of these realms, which continue to be an important focus of improvement and community discussion, and no single interpretational and modeling philosophy should be forced on data sets. The guiding principle behind all suggestions made here is for transparency in reporting the steps and assumptions associated with evaluating, integrating, and interpreting data, which will promote the continued development of (UTh)/He chronology.The (U-Th)/He dating technique is an essential tool in Earth science research with diverse thermochronologic, geochronologic, and detrital applications. It is now used in a wide range of tectonic, structural, petrological, sedimentary, geomorphic, volcanological, and planetary studies. While in some circumstances the interpretation of (U-Th)/He data is relatively straightforward, in other cases it is less so. In some geologic contexts, individual analyses of the same mineral from a single sample are expected to yield dates that differ well beyond their analytical uncertainty owing to variable He diffusion kinetics. Although much potential exists to exploit this phenomenon to decipher more detailed thermal history information, distinguishing interpretable intra-sample data variation caused by kinetic differences between crystals from uninterpretable overdispersion caused by other factors can be challenging. Nor is it always simple to determine under what circumstances it is appropriate to integrate multiple individual analyses using a summary statistic such as a mean sample date or to decide on the best approach for incorporating data into the interpretive process of thermal history modeling. Here we offer some suggestions for evaluating data, attempt to summarize the current state of thinking on the statistical characterization of data sets, and describe the complexity, data input, weighting of different geologic and chronologic information) that must be made when setting up thermal history models. We emphasize that there are no hard and fast rules in any of these realms, which continue to be an important focus of improvement and community discussion, and no single interpretational and modeling philosophy should be forced on data sets. The guiding principle behind all suggestions made here is for transparency in reporting the steps and assumptions associated with evaluating, integrating, and interpreting data, which will promote the continued development of (UTh)/He chronology.