Sedimenta~ Geology, 42 (1985) 25-40 25

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

GRAIN SIZE OF GRANITE AND DERIVED GRUS, ENCHANTED ROCK

PLUTON, TEXAS

CHARLES M. HOSKIN and DANIEL A. SUNDEEN

Marine Geology Department Harbor Branch Foundation, Fort Pierce, FL 33450 (U.S.A.)
Department of Geology, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406- 5044 (U.S.A.)
(Received December 7, 1982; revised and accepted March 22, 1984)

ABSTRACT

Hoskin, C.M. and Sundeen, D.A., 1985. Grain size of granite and derived grus, Enchanted Rock phiton,
Texas. Sediment. Geol., 42: 25-40.

Twenty five samples of grus from non-vegetated weather pits in granite were sieved and found to be
mostly pebble gravel. Average content of gravel, sand and mud was 76, 16 and 18%, respectively, by
weight. Primary grain-size modes were between 2.8-23.0 mm, and most grus was composed of granite
rock fragments.
Twelve granite cores drilled in the same weather pits from which grus was collected were studied in
thin section, with 856 grains identified mineralogically and measured for size. These measurements were
recast as sieve data. Grain-size comparisons for each granite-grus pair showed that the grain-size mode of
grus did not follow the crystal size of parent granite. Granite with average crystal sizes of 23.0 and 4.0 mm
formed grus with a primary grain-size mode of 5.7 mm. For two different sample pairs, granite with
crystal sizes of 4.0 and 1.0 mm yielded grus with primary grain-size modes of 5.7 and 11.6 mm. Modal size
measurements were pooled for the twelve granite-grus pairs, and the average crystal size of parent granite
was found to be 3.4 mm and the average grain-size mode of derived grus was 5.7 ram. Folk and Patton
(1982) have documented micro-sheet fracturing of granite as the earliest stage of weathering which
explains the lack of correspondence between granite texture and grain size of grus at Enchanted Rock.

INTRODUCTION

Source rocks and their derived sediments are related to each other by size and
composition of their mineral constituents. The essential components of a source-de-
rivative couplet include the in-situ source, sediment deposit, climate, soil, transport-
ing agent, and depositional environment. Especially for ancient sediments, reliable
data are required to make the sediment-source connection (Mack and Suttner,
1977). In recent years, data have become available to evaluate the effects of separate
components of some source-sediment systems, and granites are particularly well
documented.

0037-0738/85/$03.30 © 1985 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

26

Some workers have claimed that climate is the master control. Studies of granite
and derivative sediments in the humid Appalachians and arid Rocky Mountains
have shown that similar granite compositions (quartz 24 27%, total feldspar 62-65%,
and accessory minerals 1.2-1.3%; Basu, 1976) yield modern fluvial sediments of
different compositions in humid (Q 60, F 27, R 13%) and arid climates (Q 27, F 39,
R 34%); (Basu, 1976; Suttner et al., 1981).
Soil-forming processes have been found to strongly influence the composition and
size of sediments from granite. Sediments from a granite source, collected from
modern stream beds on granite bedrock with minimal stream transport (several
kilometers), show increased quartz and decreased plagioclase relative to in-situ
granite, due to soil-forming processes (Mann and Cavaroc, 1973). Suttner et al.
(1981, fig. 2, p. 1237) indicated the initial composition of modern fluvial sediment is
determined by soil-forming processes. This conclusion was based on the observation
that size-composition relationships are similar for both soil and fluvial sediments on
granite terrain (stream transport distance < 5 km). Moss (1972, fig. 6, p. 91) showed
that quartz from deeply weathered source material was detectable through its lower
strength (fragmentation load) as compared to quartz from less-weathered sources in
stream headwaters (stream transport of 0.5-1.5 km). Nahon and Trompette (1982)
suggested that soil-forming processes also produced large amounts of quartz silt.
In granite terrain, stream transport processes over 75 km have been shown to
cause an average decrease of 12% for feldspar and 16% for rock fragments (Suttner
et al., 1981, p. 1238). Moss (1972) has shown that 10 50 km of stream transport
eliminates 4 mm quartz, reduces 2 mm quartz to particles < 1 mm, and increases the
abundance of quartz < 1.3 mm. However, Basu (1976, p. 704) has argued that
effects of stream transport of sand on granite terrain are negligible as judged from
the close correspondence between size and composition for sands from soil and
adjacent modern streams.
For depositional environments, Suttner et al. (1981, fig. 4A, p. 1241) have shown
that the high-energy marine environment would strongly alter sand composition,
destroying any compositional imprint from its source.
None of the studies cited above have related mineral composition and crystal size
of a specific in-situ source to its specific derived sediment. Because the in-situ source
determines the initial conditions of size and composition, we believe it is essential to
compare the texture and composition of granite with its disintegrated, untransported
weathering product ( = grus). Intriguing data have been reported by McEwen et al.
(1959) on granite and grus from two weather pits at Bear Mountain, central Texas. It
was found that the average crystal size of the granite was 1.5 mm (estimated from
thin section), and median sizes of grus developed from this granite were 3.7, 4.3 and
4.5 mm (recast data from McEwen et al., 1959, fig. 4, p. 484). The reason for the
different median sizes was not known. The granite at Bear Mountain was composed
of similar proportions of quartz, plagioclase and microcline, whereas the grus was
composed of 37-54% quartz, 25-40% plagioclase, and 10-14% potassium feldspar
 27

(recalculated from McEwen et al., 1959, table 2, p. 480). It appears that significant
changes in size and composition occurred as granite became grus, and that these
changes would be passed along and augmented as transport occurred.
The main goal of the present study done at the Enchanted Rock granite batholith
was to evaluate the granite to grus change, emphasizing size relationships between
in-situ granite and untransported grus, which we assert is a neglected component in
the source-derived sediment couplet.

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

The surface of Enchanted Rock Batholith consists of four concentric zones of

slightly different plutonic rocks. The outer zone consists of medium to coarse-grained
leucogranite and granite. Medium to coarse-grained granite, and quartz monzonite
and alkalic granodiorite, and fine to medium-grained leucoquartz monzonite and
leucogranite comprise the inner three zones, respectively (Hutchinson, 1956). En-
chanted Rock State Park, where most of the sampling was done, is located on the
outer zone in the southeastern corner of the exposed batholith. Except for a small
pod of syenite (samples 5 and 37) all of the samples discussed in this paper are
massive, medium to coarse-grained leucogranite to granite and their derivatives.
At many places in hills of the outer zone there are weather pits. Observations in
the field convinced us that these weather pits were actively forming, and that grus in
a pit came from that same pit (Johnson, 1974). This occurrence of source rock and
its particulate weathering product presented an opportunity to relate grain size of
source and sediment.

SAMPLING DESIGN

All sampling sites were chosen subjectively. A grid or other objective scheme was
not appropriate due to the scattered distribution of weather pits. Every effort was
made to assure ourselves that each site represented a source-derivative relationship.
We chose weather pits with undercut rims situated at or near the top of topographic
rises. Sites were selected to include the largest possible range of granite textures and
the widest possible geographic area. Sites not sampled included flat areas at the base
of slopes and weather pits on steep slopes (to avoid downhill movement of grus), full
or overflowing weather pits (to avoid lag materials), and places with human litter.

FIELD WORK

Granite samples

Samples of granite were taken with a portable coring device. A five cm diamond
coring tube was attached to a chain-saw engine through a gear reduction transmis-
28

sion and water swivel. Ten to fifteen centimeter-long cores were taken at each site.
Cores were cut inside the weather pits from which we collected grus.

Grus samples
T w o environments were sampled; edges of crumbling exfoliation sheets (n = 5) as
shown in Fig. 1A and B, and weather pits (n = 25) as shown in Fig. 1C, D and E.

Fig. 1. A. Exfoliation sheet at Enchanted Rock State Park, Texas. Width of view approximately 500 m. B.
Field sieving apparatus and crumbling exfoliation sheet edge. Trench at right for channel sample. C. Dry
weather pit in granite (sample 32). D. Wet weather pit in granite, 1 m diameter. E. Vegetated weather pit
in granite, 1 × 2 m.
 29

Two exfoliation sheet edges were sampled by hand, and three were channel-sampled
by shovel. The latter were air dried on a canvas ground cloth, sieved and weighed in
the field, and an aliquot of the finer than 6.3 mm fraction taken to the lab. These
five samples weighed 1.5, 1.3, 40, 21 and 20 kg; the large weights necessary because
of the coarse particle size (Folk, 1968).
Sediment was recovered from weather pits by scraping with a spatula. Care was
taken to recover all sediment from the surface to the rock floor of each pit as
stratification by grain size was observed in some pits with gravel on top and fines
beneath. Not all sediment was collected from each weather pit. Representative areas
were removed from large pits, for example a 25 x 25 cm square for sample 32 (Fig.
1C). Fines were gathered with a brush. Sediment was placed in polyethylene bags,
and stored at room temperature without preservatives. Sample weights were 0.16-2.2
kg, £ = 1.2 kg.

LAB WORK

Granite

Thin sections were prepared from the granite cores. Each core was split with a
diamond saw parallel to the long cylinder axis. Sections were made of the weathered
top and of the fresh bottom ends. One to three thin sections per core were used to
measure the granite texture. Microscope measurements for twelve granite samples
were recast as sieve data following the technique of Harrel and Eriksson (1979). A
total of 856 grains were identified and measured, the number of grains per sample
was 29-164, 2 = 71. Measurements were grouped into 0.5 mm size classes with the
largest class being 20.0-20.49 mm ( - 4 . 2 9 to - 4 . 3 3 ~). Grains were totalled by
number in each size class, converted to frequency and cumulative percent, and
plotted at the fine edge of each size class on probability ordinate graph paper.
Straight lines connected each point. Phi intercepts at 2, 5, 9, 16, 25, 36, 50, 64, 75, 84
and 91 percentiles were tabulated and converted to sieve equivalents using the
formula of Harrel and Eriksson (1979, table 3, p. 279). These converted data were
plotted on arithmetic graph paper as a cumulative curve, and a frequency curve was
derived for each by the method of tangents (Folk, 1968, p. 43). A composite
frequency curve including all 856 grains was prepared by the same methods.

Grus

Grain-size analyses were made using sieves for gravel and sand, and pipets for
mud to 8 ~. Field sieves for gravel were - 5 . 2 5 , -4.65, -4.25, - 3 . 6 5 , - 3 . 2 5 and
- 2 . 6 5 ~; lab sieves and pipettings were at one-half phi intervals. Organic material
(roots) was the binder in grain aggregates and was destroyed by digestion in boiling
H202. Some samples required multiple digestions, and one required boiling in 10%
30

HCI. Arithmetic ordinate cumulative curves were plotted, and for a few samples,
straight-line extrapolation was made from 8 q, to the 95 percentile. Statistical
parameters were computed (Folk and Ward, 1957) and frequency curves were
derived by the method of tangents (Folk, 1968). A composite frequency curve for
twelve grus samples, paired with twelve granite cores, was prepared normalizing
sample weight to 406.45 g (smallest sample).
Mineralogy of the gravel fraction for five selected samples was done visually by
low-power microscope. Mineralogy of clay in five selected samples was done by
scanning X-ray diffraction (J.P. Burke and K. Mather, Waterways Experimental
Station, Vicksburg, Miss., pers. commun., 1976).

RESULTS

Mineralogy of selected granite samples is given in Table I, and these data are
summarized graphically, using quartz, microcline and plagioclase as end-members in
an igneous rock classification scheme (Streckeisen, 1973) in Fig. 2. Size variation and
mean of the four most abundant minerals in these granites is given in Table II.
Petrology of the granite is summarized in the Appendix.
Grain-size descriptors for grus are given in Table III, and size-frequency curves
are given in Fig. 3. With one exception (sample 28, Fig. 3), particles were most

(2

---v~60 % Q

5!:
: ,20

I0
-:: e'- 7
e28

r!?" GRANITE
5" •
: 15
20% Q

90A lOP 65A 35P 35A-65P IOA-9OP

Fig. 2. Distribution of source rock Q A P contents on an l U G S igneous rock classification diagram
(Streckeisen, 1973). N u m b e r s correspond to samples; Q = quartz, A = microcline, P = plagioclase.
TABLE I
Modal analysis of cored granite source rock, Enchanted Rock, Texas

Mineral type Sample number

1 3 5 7 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 28
Microcline 42.9 48.9 58.5 42.9 33.1 49.8 44.6 44.6 52.0 47.5 37.2 37.8
Plagioclase 18.7 15.7 18.4 17.1 22.2 15.3 9.1 9.8 12.0 12.6 13.0 23.6
Quartz 30.2 31.1 16.5 34.1 35.3 24.5 39.4 41.4 31.2 36.6 45.9 35.5
Biotite 4.4 3.4 5.3 5.9 9.0 9.6 6.9 4.2 4.8 2.2 3.9 2.7
Accessory
minerals" 3.8 0.9 1.3 tr 0.4 0.8 tr tr tr 1.1 tr 0.4

Accessory minerals include apatite, sphene, muscovite, magnetite, and corroded remnants of deep green amphibole/clinopyroxene (?).
32

a b u n d a n t in the gravel range, d e c r e a s e d t h r o u g h the s a n d range, a n d i n c r e a s e d a g a i n

at 0.022 m m . M i n e r a l o g y of the 2 - 8 m m gravel f r a c t i o n for r e p r e s e n t a t i v e grus
s a m p l e s was m o s t l y rock f r a g m e n t s ( T a b l e IV). M i n e r a l o g y of the clay fraction for
five r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a m p l e s i n c l u d e d smectite, vermiculite, 10 A c l a y - m i c a , koalinite,
m i x - l a y e r clay a n d quartz. S i z e - f r e q u e n c y curves for g r a n i t e a n d grus, b a s e d o n
twelve s a m p l e pairs, are given in Fig. 4, a n d c o m p o s i t e s i z e - f r e q u e n c y curves for
these s a m p l e pairs are given in Fig. 5.

Pebbles

T h e grus f r o m E n c h a n t e d R o c k B a t h o l i t h was p e b b l e gravel b y grain-size distri-

b u t i o n . T h e m o s t a b u n d a n t particle size p r e s e n t in t w e n t y five s a m p l e s was b e t w e e n
2 . 8 - 2 3 . 0 m m ( T a b l e III) with the average p e a k of p e b b l e a b u n d a n c e at 8 m m (Fig.
3). M i n e r a l o g y o f the p e b b l e s was m o s t l y g r a n i t e rock f r a g m e n t s ( T a b l e IV),
i n d i c a t i n g that the p e b b l e s c a m e f r o m the granite.

TABLE II
Uncorrected grain-size range and average measured in thin sections of granite source rocks from
Enchanted Rock Batholith, Texas "
Sample number Microcline Plagioclase Quartz Biotite
ER-I 0.5-13.7 0.2- 4.1 0.7- 8.9 0.4 8.4
(5.0) (1.8) (3.7) (1.9)
ER-3 0.5-16.1 0.1 4.8 0.2-10.1 0.3- 2.7
(5.4) (1.7) (3.6) (1.2)
ER-5 0.5-15.1 0.3- 5.0 0.2-- 6.1 (1.4 2.7
(5.7) (1.9) (3.2) (1.7)
ER-7 1.4-11.6 0.4- 3.0 0.6 8.2 0.2- 3.1
(6.3) (1.4) (3.2) (1.5)
ER-10 0.5-10.5 0.1-10.8 0.3 6.8 0.3-- 5.0
(3.6) (2.7) (2.0) (1.8)
ER-15 0.6-18.3 0.1- 3.2 0.1- 4.4 0.2- 3.5
(8.8) (1.2) (0.9) (1.5)
ER-16 1.8-14.0 0.2- 5.7 3.5 9.5 0.4 10.8
(5.8) (1.7) (5.9) (3.5)
ER-17 1.8-12.5 0.3-10.0 0.2- 9.8 1.0- 2.8
(6.6) (2.6) (5.1) (2.1)
ER-18 1.5-14.0 0.5- 3.5 1.7- 7.9 1.0 3.6
(7.1) 11.7) (4.0) (1,9)
ER-19 0.5-11.5 0.5- 7.5 0.5-11.3 0,4- 2.7
(6.1) (2.7) (5.3) (1.2)
ER-20 1.7- 9.3 1.2 5.4 1.3-- 8.9 0.9- 3,5
(5.8) (2.6) (4.6) (2.0)
ER-28 0.3-12.3 0.2- 5.3 0.2-11.0 0.9 3.(1
(3.7) (1.6) (3.0) (2.0)

" Measured in millimeters across the largest dimension of the grain.

TABLE III
Grain-size descriptors for grus from Enchanted Rock Batholith, Texas

Environment Weight percent Statistical parameter Grain size Grain size

Name Mode (mm)
Gravel Sand Silt Clay Mud Mz(mm) ox SK I K~

Exfoliation
sheet edge % range 71-98 2-29 n.d. h n.d. 0.1-0.3 2.8-12.0 0.7-1.6 -0.23 to +0.30 0.50-0.62 pebble
3.4-8.0
na~5 .~ 88 11.6 n.d. n.d 0.2 nearl2.0 1.1 n.d. 0.56 gravel

Non-vegetated pebble gravel

weathering and 2.8-23.0, 0.016-0.031
pit % range 56-97 1-34 5-15 1-5 0.5-19 1-9 0.7-3.9 +0.04 to +0.65 0.48-0.78 muddy sandy most 5.7 most 0.022
pebble Gravel
n = 22 .~ 76 16 8 2 8 near3 2.2 + 0.40 0.60

Vegetated gravelly mud 3.4, 0.022

weathering and
pit % range 24-40 16-19 29-41 12-21 42-60 0.055-0.28 4.3-4.8 - 0 . 2 0 t o +0.45 0.41-0.42 muddy
pebble gravel
n=3 .2 29 18 35 17 53 near0.06 4.6 n.d. 0.42

" n = the number of samples taken; b n.d. = not determined.

34

-2 -19

-3 -20

-4

-5 -30

-6 2O -31
18
16
-7 ! -- -32
14 c~
12 -
-8 I0 cL
J
u
6 $
-9 -34
4

-I0 0 I -35

-II -36

-37
-6 -i 4 8 ¢

/ -16
32 8 2 .5 .0625 0039 mm

Weother/ng pit sediments

-17 from
-6 I 4 6 ¢
', ', ', I I I I t ; ', ', ; ', ', E'nchonted Rock Botholith
32 8 2 .5 0625 .0039 mrn

Fig. 3. Size-frequency curves for grus. Samples 1 - 32 from non-vegetated weather pits in granite; 3 4 - 3 6
from vegetated w e a t h e r pits; s a m p l e 3 7 from weather pit in syenite. Zero intercepts on y-axis at each
s a m p l e n u m b e r tick mark.

Silt

T h e o r i g i n of the silt is u n c e r t a i n ; silt m a y have c o m e f r o m the granite, or it m a y

h a v e been w i n d b l o w n f r o m s u r r o u n d i n g c u l t i v a t e d fields. W e d o n o t k n o w if
 35

:."~'~ '~"'""' ..................... "J'"" ''"''"'"" - I ./."

/

•,... ..-...,.
.....,
.,../' ".~ ..... ""~ ........... "" ''""" -16
' ............................... ..."........... .,.. ,,....
-3

- 20
18
16 ~ . "/"~. "........................................... -17
,!',..,, ..'
.; ........ ~
12

.I'__/\ " ........... 8~ "',.....

.... .... ..........
-18
4
2
0

..... 7

iiii.......... 10
","/..._
-
....................
-20

~ \ \ ~ . ,........ ....... "'. ,.,............... ,.,...

......... - 2 8
-6 -I 4 8

32 8 2 .5 .0625 , 0 0 3 9 mm
"~""" ............. 4..
-15
-6 -I 4
8 ¢ Gronite- Sadiment poirs
I I I I I I
32 8 2 ..5 .0625 .0039 mm Enchonf@d Rock Bofholifh

Fig. 4. Size-frequency curves for paired samples; twelve granite cores (solid lines) and twelve grus samples
(dotted lines), each pair from the same weather pit. Granite data are based on microscope measurements
of petrographic thin sections, recast as sieve data; grus data are based on sieving.
36

T A B L E IV

M i n e r a l o g y and numerical percentages of selected sediment sizes from E n c h a n t e d Rock B a t h o l i t h "

Environment G r a i n size C o m p o s i t i o n and percentage range

(mm)
Rock fragments h K-feldspar Quartz Plagioclase Biotite

Exfoliation
sheet edge 4-8 56-66 17-34 5 21 (Y 6 i)

j1 ' 2 3 2-4 38-51 16-36 17 21 I II tr-1

Non-vegetated
w e a t h e r i n g pit 4 8 70-82 11-17 8 12 0 1 0

n = l 2-4 43-52 25-26 21 24 2. 5 1 2

" Average of 216 grains counted per sample; h G r a i n s were considered rock fragments unless the grain
was > 95 vol.% m o n o m i n e r a l i c ; ' n equals the n u m b e r of samples studied,

Enchanted Rock granite contained much (if any) silt-size grains. This is a problem
because the smallest size class used in microscope measurements o f granite thin
sections was 0-500/~m. Silt- and clay-size particles were present in all grus samples,

I//\\\/
/ !\ \ !~o ~_

i \_. ~ ~P T-i~7..~..i "Grus 6 ~

/" •. . . . . . . Granite 4
/

r~ i 116 i i I i i i t i
Lo

64 32 8 4 2 I .5 .125 0625 mm
Fig. 5. C o m p o s i t e size-frequency curves for the twelve g r a n i t e - g r u s s a m p l e pairs. The grus curve is shifted
5.5 units upwards on the y-axis to avoid overlap. Bars indicate + 1 s t a n d a r d deviation with the curve
d r a w n through the m e a n at each size increment.
 37

with grus from crumbling exfoliation sheet edges containing the least silt (0.2-0.3%)
and vegetated weather pits the most (about 35%, Table III). We know grus from
exfoliation sheet edges did not contain a silt grain-size mode (peak of abundance)
because we searched for that mode by greatly expanding the frequency axis scale of
size-frequency curves. We believe the silt was wind blown, and was selectively
concentrated in weather pits. Vegetated weather pits contained more silt because, we
believe, the vegetation increased the effectiveness of particle trapping. Nahon and
Trompette (1982) reported that soil-forming processes generate quartz silt. However,
this seems to require thick soil profiles, and the only soil on Enchanted Rock
Batholith is adjacent to exfoliation sheet edges and in weather pits; all other surfaces
are granite.

Grain-size imprinting

Our chief goal was to examine the grain-size distribution of grus for evidence of
imprinting by granite texture. In simple form, this means that coarse-textured
granite should, on weathering, yield coarse-grained grus, and fine-textured granite
should yield fine-grained grus. The mechanism for this relationship might be the
crystal size (texture) of the granite. This hypothesis was apparently invoked by
McEwen et al. (1959, pp. 484-485) in explaining the degree of size correspondence
between granite and grus at Bear and Sandstone Mountains, Texas. Mann and
Cavaroc (1973) also implied that source areas impart characteristic size distributions
to their derived sediments, as did Rahn (1966, p. 221) for granitic source rocks.
However, Basu (1976, p. 704) stated that weathering was the main influence on size
and composition of modern fluvial sediments, and Pingitore and Shotwell (1976, p.
1045) stated that sediment size was not a significant indicator of source area. Hoskin
and Sundeen (1975) found no size match between source and derived sediment for
an Alaskan tonalite, and for mineral studies, Blatt (1967) found no grain size match
between quartz in massive plutonic rocks and quartz in their derived sediments.
As a test of size imprinting by granite, we selected twelve granite cores paired
with grus samples; each granite-grus pair was collected from a different weathering
pit on the Enchanted Rock Batholith (Fig. 4). There probably are serious limitations
to this comparison scheme due to: (1) different methods of analysis for granite (thin
sections) and grus (sieves); and (2) the small number of granite crystals measured
(total of 856). However, assuming these limitations were not crippling, we conclude
that there is no grain size imprinting for this grus. The coarsest granite had crystal
sizes of 23.0 and 4.0 mm (sample 16, Fig. 4) and the grain-size mode of grus derived
from that granite was 5.7 ram. One fine-textured granite (sample 15) had crystal
sizes of 4.0 and 1.0 mm, and the resultant grus had a grain-size mode of 11.6 mm.
Another granite (sample 19) had crystal sizes of 11.6 and 1.0 mm, and the derived
grus had a grain-size mode of 5.7 mm. Composite size-frequency curves including all
data for the twelve granite-grus pairs showed the average crystal size of granite to
3~

be 3.4 mm (Fig. 5) and the average grain-size mode for grus to be 5.7 mm. These
pooled data show the same disparity in sizes as found for individual granite-grus
pairs. Evidently, Enchanted Rock granite does not disintegrate into particles, each of
which previously was a whole crystal. Instead of breaking at mineral boundaries, the
granite breaks through crystals so that each fragment is composed of several
minerals, or in other words, the bulk of Enchanted Rock grus (Figs. 2 and 3) is
granite rock fragments (Table IV).
What, then, controls the initial size of rock fragments? Folk and Patton (1982)
have shown at Enchanted Rock that the first step in the granite-to-grus process is
formation of closely spaced joints parallel to the exposed rock surface. These
micro-sheet joints are one to several cm apart (Folk and Patton 1982, p. 22 and
photos 5 and 6), and these authors are the first to identify early stages of grus
formation by micro-sheet jointing. Earlier, Moss (1972. p. 916) had mentioned
incipient fractures as forming the boundaries of pebbles and quartz sand from
granite. Assuming that micro-sheet joints occur within weathering pits at Enchanted
Rock, the expectation that grain size of grus would be inherited from granite crystal
size fails because the micro-sheet joints control the beginning size of grus, and
granite crystal size does not.
In commenting on an earlier version of this study, R.L. Folk (pers. commun.,
1982) called our attention to the small amount of sand in grus from weathering pits
(Y = 16%, 1-34, Table IV). As spacing of the micro-sheet joints is within the sand
range (generally 0.1-1 mm wide; Folk and Patton 1982, p. 22), disintegration of
these sheets should provide much sand. Lack of sand may be due to the slow rate of
granular disintegration caused by mineral hydration. Sand content of exfoliation
sheet edges and weathering pits is the same (Table III)~ even though water may be
present for longer times in tile latter. Mineral hydration and consequent sand
production occurs at Enchanted Rock as shown by grus accumulating beneath an
overhanging exfoliation sheet edge. This sheet, about 3 m thick, rests on non-disin-
tegrated, hard granite. Grus scraped by hand from the underside of the overhang,
and from the upper 8 cm of grus accumulated by gravity directly beneath the
overhang, have sand contents of 20 and 19 wt. %, respectively. The lower 8 cm of
that grus, resting on fresh granite, is bright orange, in contrast to the tan grus above,
and contains 45% sand. We believe hydration of biotite occurred at that place,
causing granular disintegration, and yielding the increased content of sand. The
amount of elapsed time between grus formed in weather pits (little time?) and under
the exfoliation sheet overhang (much time?) may explain the difference in their sand
contents. We agree with Folk and Patton (1982) that micro-sheet jointing is the first
step in grus formation at Enchanted Rock.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Grain size of in-situ grus is coarser than the crystal size of its parent granite at
specific sites, and modal grain size of grus does not track with modal crystal size of
 39

granite. Granite with crystal sizes of 23.0 and 4.0 mm produced grus with a
grain-size mode of 5.7 mm; granite with crystal sizes of 4.0 and 1.0 mm produced
11.6 mm grus. Most probably, grus is coarser (2 grain-size mode = 5.7 mm) than
parent granite (2 crystal size = 3.4 mm) because micro-sheet joints described by
Folk and Patton (1982) cause the initial mechanical fragmentation of the granite.
(2) By weight, grus is mostly gravel (~ = 76%) composed of granite rock frag-
ments. Previous studies have suggested that climate, whether humid or arid, de-
termines the portion of rock fragments surviving short transport in streams (Basu,
1976; Mack and Suttner, 1977). Therefore, the compositional signature of a source
rock is a function of climate. Another potentially useful signature of source is grain
size. At Enchanted Rock, the micro-sheet joints described by Folk and Patton (1982)
break through crystals, so that on disintegration of the granite rock fragments
(probably during stream transport) the individual grains released are only parts of
crystals. The size of these crystal fragments reflect the spacing of the micro-sheet
joints, and not the size of the crystals in the parent granite. It is likely that further
studies of grus at places having wide- and narrowly spaced micro-sheet joints will be
rewarding in terms of relating in-situ granite crystal size to grain size of untrans-
ported grus.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was funded in part by a grant through the Faculty Research Commit-
tee of the University of Southern Mississippi from the Board of Trustees, Institu-
tions of Higher Learning, and in later manuscript revisions, by the Harbor Branch
Foundation. This is Contribution No. 84-1, from the Geology Department of the
University of Southern Mississippi, and Contribution No. 372 from the Harbor
Branch Foundation. We thank Robert L. Folk and Keith A.W. Crook for their help
with manuscript revisions.

APPENDIX

Brief description of Enchanted Rock granite source rock

The percentages of major minerals are given in Table I. The size data are given in Table II. All of the
samples described here were taken from the southeastern edge of the Enchanted Rock pluton north of
Fredericksburg, Texas. Eleven of the twelve samples described are granite. The other rock was classified
as a quartz syenite. The mineral abundances were plotted on the IUGS Igneous Rock Classification chart
(Streckeisen, 1973).
Granite: Samples ER-1, 3, 7, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 28. Mineralogy: microcline; microcline and
Carlsbad twinning, slight alteration to sericite, perthitic texture with stringy albite present, generally is the
largest and most abundant mineral in the sample. Plagioclase; anorthite content varied from 27 to 34%,
Albite and Carlsbad twinning common, concentric zoning, slight alteration to saussurite, sericite, and
clay, with myrmekitic intergrowths around the outer edges common. Quartz; anhedral, polycrystalline,
with both sharp and some wavey extinction. Biotite; usually seen in clusters of two to five grains, with
mostly golden brown to dark brown pleochroism, but greenish-brown to dark greenish-brown pleochroism
40

is also present, clear inclusions of zircon (?) with a pleochroic halo are common. Acce+sory mmera{~' are
present in small amounts and sizes and arc primarily sphene occurring as interstitial anhedral phases,
zircon as biotite inclusions, rare occurrences of magnetite and pyrite, and corroded renmants of a dark
green amphibole a n d / o r pyroxene.
Quartz syenite: Sample ER-5. Mineralogy: microclme; microcline and Carlsbad twinning, slight
alteration to sericite, perthitic texture with stringy albite present, is the largest and most abundant mineral
in the sample. Plagioclase; An 28, Albite and Carlsbad twinning common, concentric zoning, slight
alteration to saussurite, sericite and clay, with myrmekitic intergrowths around the outer edges present.
Quartz: anhedral, polycrystalline, with both sharp and wavey extinction. Biotite: often seen in clusters of
two to five grains, golden brown to dark brown pleochroism, inclusions of clear mineral zircon (?) show a
pleochroic halo. Accessory minerals are present in small amounts and sizes, and are primarily inclusions
of zircon (?) in biotite, euhedral apatite laths, and corroded remnants of a dark green amphibole a n d / o r
pyroxene.

REFERENCES

Basu, A., 1976. Petrology of Holocene fluvial sand derived from plutonic source rocks: implications to
paleoclimatic interpretation. J. Sediment. Petrol., 46: 694-709.
Blatt, H., 1967, Original characteristics of clastic quartz grains. J. Sediment. Petrol., 37: 401-424.
Folk, R.L., 1968. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphills, Austin, Texas, 170 pp.
Folk, R.L. and Patton, E., 1982. Buttressed expansion of granite and development of grus in Central
Texas. Z. Geomorphol., N.F., 26: 17-32.
Folk, R.L. and Ward, W.C., 1957. Brazos River bar a study in the significance of gram size paranleters.
J. Sediment. Petrol., 27: 3-26.
Harrell, J.A. and Eriksson, K.A., 1979. Empirical conversion equations for thin-section and sieve derived
size distribution parameters. J. Sediment. Petrol. 49: 273-280.
Hoskin, C.M. and Sundeen, D.A., 1975. Relationship between grain size of source rock and derived
sediment, Biorka Island tonalite, southeastern Alaska. J. Geol., 83:567 578,
Hutchinson, R.M., 1956. Structure and petrology of Enchanted Rock Batholith, Llano and Gillespie
Counties, Texas. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 67: 763-806.
Johnson, S.A., 1974. The weathering of porphyritic leucogranite in Enchanted Rock Batholith, ccntral
Texas. Unpubl. MS thesis, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Miss., 53 pp.
McEwen, M.C., Fessenden, F.W. and Rogers, J.J.W. 1959. Texture and composition of some weathered
granites and slightly transported arkosic sands. J. Sediment. Petrol., 29: 477-402.
Mack, G.H. and Suttner, L.J., 1977. Paleoclimate interpretation from a petrographic comparison of
Holocene sands and the Fountain Formation (Pennsylvania) in the Colorado Front Range. J.
Sediment. Petrol., 47: 89-100.
Mann, W.R. and Cavaroc, V.V., 1973. Composition of sand released from three source areas under
humid, low relief weathering in the North Carolina Piedmont. J. Sediment. Petrol., 43: 870-881.
Moss, A.J., 1972. Initial fluviatile fragmentation of granitic quartz. J. Sediment. Petrol., 42: 905-916.
Nahon, D. and Trompette, R., 1982. Origin of siltstones: glacial grinding versus weathering. Sedimentol-
ogy, 29: 25-36.
Pingitore, N.E. and Shotwell, J., 1976. Composition of sand released from three source areas under
humid, low relief weathering in the North Carolina Piedmont: a discussion. J. Sediment. Petrol., 46:
1041-1047.
Rahn, P.H., 1966. Inselbergs and nickpoints in southwestern Arizona. Z. Geomorphot., N.F., 10:
217-225.
Streckeisen, A.L., 1973. Plutonic rocks, classification and nomenclature recommended by the l U G S
subcommission on the systematics of igneous rocks. Geotimes, 18: 26-30.
Suttner, L.J., Basu, A. and Mack, G.H., 1981. Climate and the origin of quartz arenites. J. Sediment.
Petrol., 51:1235 1246.