Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of South American Earth Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsames

Revised chronostratigraphic framework for the Cretaceous Magallanes- T

Austral Basin, Última Esperanza Province, Chile
Benjamin G. Danielsa,∗, Stephen M. Hubbarda, Brian W. Romansb, Matthew A. Malkowskic,
William A. Matthewsa, Anne Bernhardtd, Sebastian A. Kaempfeb, Zane R. Jobee, Julie C. Fosdickf,
Theresa M. Schwartze, Andrea Fildanig, Stephan A. Grahamc
a
Department of Geoscience, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N1N4, Canada
b
Department of Geosciences, Virginia Tech, 926 West Campus Drive, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA
c
Department of Geological Sciences, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Building 320, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA
d
Institute for Geological Sciences, Freie Universität Berlin, Malteserstrasse 74-100, Berlin, 12249, Germany
e
Department of Geology and Geological Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 1516 Illinois Street, Golden, CO, 80401, USA
f
Center for Integrative Geosciences, University of Connecticut, 354 Mansfield Road, Storrs, CT, 06269-1045, USA
g
Equinor Research Center, 6300 Bridge Point Parkway, Building 2, Suite 100, Austin, TX, 78730, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The deposits of ancient sediment-routing systems in basins adjacent to the Andes offer key perspectives into the
Magallanes-Austral Basin geologic evolution of South America, and can provide insight into basin-evolution-controlling mechanisms that
Chronostratigraphy operate on time scales spanning millions of years. The Andes and associated basins of southernmost South
U-Pb geochronology America are important archives of paleogeographic evolution in Patagonia, a region that underwent significant
Strontium isotope stratigraphy
geologic and paleoenvironmental change during the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras. Here, we present an updated
Basin analysis
chronostratigraphic framework for Upper Cretaceous units (Punta Barrosa, Cerro Toro, Tres Pasos, Dorotea
Patagonia
Formations) in the Magallanes-Austral retroarc foreland basin in Última Esperanza Province, Chile, to assist
workers with deciphering the geologic and paleoenvironmental evolution of southernmost South America. The
framework combines stratigraphic information from over 60 years of research in the basin with a large suite
(N = 51) of U-Pb volcanic ash and detrital zircon depositional ages, which includes new ages (N = 13) from
outcrop exposures near Laguna Sofia, Chile, as well as weighted mean strontium isotope depositional ages
(N = 3) from in-situ inoceramid shells. Results show that each formation contains stratigraphic architecture that
is related to distinct depositional environments, all of which can be temporally constrained using the available
data. The basin fill succession records deposition associated with: (1) largely unconfined submarine fan systems
(Punta Barrosa Formation; 101.0 ± 2.2 Ma to 89.5 ± 1.9 Ma); (2) abyssal plain systems characterized by
coarse-grained sediment starvation (lower Cerro Toro Formation; 89.5 ± 1.9 Ma to 84.7 ± 1.3 Ma); (3) con-
glomerate-rich deep-water channel-levee systems (upper Cerro Toro Formation; 84.7 ± 1.3 Ma to
80.5 ± 0.3 Ma); (4) a slope system characterized by widespread submarine mass-wasting (lower Tres Pasos
Formation; 80.5 ± 0.3 Ma to 77.4 ± 1.1 Ma); and (5) a shelf margin system characterized by shelf-slope
clinoform propagation (upper Tres Pasos and Dorotea Formations; 77.4 ± 1.1 Ma to 67.1 ± 1.8 Ma). Using the
temporal constraints, we provide recommendations for use of specific ages associated with each architectural
interval to facilitate future basin-analysis studies in the region.

1. Introduction 2017a). Stratigraphic information from basins adjacent to the Andes

Andean foreland basins provide key insights into the evolution of
South America over deep geologic time (Jordan et al., 2001; DeCelles
and Horton, 2003; Ghiglione et al., 2010; Hoorn et al., 2010; Cuitiño
et al., 2012; Di Giulio et al., 2012; Horton, 2017; Malkowski et al.,
can inform the mechanisms that control basin evolution and sediment
routing over numerous time scales, including orogenic uplift (e.g.,
Bayona et al., 2008; Hoorn et al., 2010; Siks and Horton, 2011); tec-
tonically driven changes in basin subsidence (e.g., Romans et al., 2010,
2011); eustatic sea-level change (e.g., Howell et al., 2005);

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bgdaniel@ucalgary.ca (B.G. Daniels).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2019.05.025
Received 30 October 2018; Received in revised form 13 May 2019; Accepted 18 May 2019
Available online 23 May 2019
0895-9811/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B.G. Daniels, et al.
paleoclimate fluctuations (e.g., Do Campo et al., 2010; Varela et al.,
2018); and autogenic controls, such as catchment reconfiguration via
prolonged weathering processes (e.g., Roddaz et al., 2006). Andean
foreland basins also host important Mesozoic and Cenozoic fossils (e.g.,
Pardo-Pérez et al., 2012; Rubilar-Rogers et al., 2012; Otero et al., 2015)
that require independent chronostratigraphic control and paleoenvir-
onmental context. Furthermore, these basins are critical to the social
and economic development of nations on the margins of the Andean
Cordillera, as they contain considerable hydrocarbon (e.g., Thomas,
1949a, 1949b; Mathalone and Montoya, 1995) and groundwater
(Raychowdhury et al., 2014) resources.
Stratigraphic successions in Andean foreland basins have been
characterized extensively over the past several decades (e.g., the Chaco
foreland basin; Sempere et al., 1990; Husson and Moretti, 2002;
DeCelles and Horton, 2003; Uba et al., 2006; Hulka and Heubeck,
2010). Recent work on Andean foreland basin successions has empha-
sized chronostratigraphic characterization, with implications for pa-
leoenvironment reconstructions (e.g., Ruskin and Jordan, 2007), eva-
luation of sedimentation rates (e.g., Stevens Goddard and Carrapa,
2018), and the relative importance of basin-evolution-controlling me-
chanisms in various settings along the length of the orogen (e.g.,
Horton, 2017; Sickmann et al., 2018). Though numerous workers have
gleaned insightful perspectives into Andean foreland systems using site-
specific chronostratigraphic data (e.g., Fildani et al., 2003; DeCelles
et al., 2007; Horton et al., 2015), thorough evaluation of the history of a
basin requires chronostratigraphic data sets that are spatially and
temporally exhaustive. Consideration of small data sets of depositional
ages for individual stratigraphic units (e.g., Tunik et al., 2010; Siks and
Horton, 2011), combined with sparse spatial/temporal coverage of
depositional age constraints for those units (e.g., Romans et al., 2010),
may potentially confound interpretations of controls on basin evolution
(e.g., the central Andes; Charrier et al., 2013). Insufficient or in-
adequate depositional age constraints may also fundamentally hinder
accurate stratigraphic correlation of units that preserve numerous facies
transitions across space and time (e.g., the foreland basins of Central
Argentina; Folguera et al., 2015). In some instances, reliance on limited
chronostratigraphic data to inform correlations has led to the devel-
opment of multiple stratigraphic frameworks for a single Andean
foreland basin (e.g., Arbe and Hechem, 1984; Varela et al., 2012, 2013),
which has resulted in differing interpretations of the basin history
(Sickmann et al., 2018). Furthermore, depositional ages used in
chronostratigraphic analysis require a level of precision that is appro-
priate for the time intervals being studied. As an example, while paly-
nological data may assist with temporally constraining depositional
phases that take place over multiple geologic epochs (tens of millions of
years), the age range (including its uncertainty) of a palynomorph may
be inadequate for constraint of depositional phases that take place over
shorter periods of time (e.g., Bayona et al., 2008).
To assist workers focused on deciphering the tectonic evolution and
paleoenvironmental record of Andean foreland basins in southernmost
South America, we examine chronostratigraphic relationships for Upper
Cretaceous units (Punta Barrosa, Cerro Toro, Tres Pasos, and Dorotea
Formations) of the Magallanes-Austral foreland basin in Última
Esperanza Province, Chile (Fig. 1). Our analysis combines stratigraphic
data from over 60 years of research with a large database of U-Pb
detrital and volcanic ash zircon-derived depositional ages from in-
trabasinal units (N = 51), which includes newly reported ages (N = 13)
from units exposed near Laguna Sofia, Chile (Figs. 1 and 2). Additional
geochronologic constraint is provided by strontium isotope ages
(N = 3) from in-situ inoceramid shells, which are found within the
Cerro Toro Formation. The objectives of this study are to: (1) use the
depositional ages to construct an updated Upper Cretaceous chronos-
tratigraphic framework in Última Esperanza Province; and (2) evaluate
the utility of the data for future studies on Magallanes-Austral Basin
evolution, as well as related processes (e.g., development of sediment-
routing systems, paleofaunal histories).
2
Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209
2. Geologic background
2.1. Geologic history of the Cretaceous Magallanes-Austral Basin
Development of the Magallanes-Austral Basin is linked to Andean
orogenesis and uplift in Chilean and Argentine Patagonia during the
Mesozoic. During the Jurassic, rifting and subduction at the southern
end of South America associated with the breakup of Gondwana led to
the development of a volcanic arc and the associated Rocas Verdes
backarc basin (Dalziel et al., 1974; Suárez and Pettigrew, 1976; de Wit
and Stern, 1981; Olivero and Martinioni, 2001; Fildani and Hessler,
2005; Calderón et al., 2007). Late Jurassic–earliest Cretaceous mag-
matism is reflected in mafic volcanic units of the Sarmiento, Capitán
Aracena, Carlos III, and Tortuga ophiolite complexes, as well as silicic
volcanic units associated with the Tobífera, El Quemado, and Ibañez
Formations of western Patagonia (Figs. 1 and 2; Godoy, 1978; de Wit
and Stern, 1981; Allen, 1982; Pankhurst et al., 2000; Calderón et al.,
2007; Mpodozis et al., 2011; Calderón et al., 2016). Deposition in the
Rocas Verdes Basin is reflected in volcanic detritus associated with the
units listed above, as well as marine, siltstone-prone units preserved in
the Río Mayer and Zapata Formations of Argentina and Chile, respec-
tively (Nullo et al., 1981; Fildani and Hessler, 2005; Richiano, 2014).
Rocas Verdes Basin fill thicknesses range from 200 to 500 m in the
north to > 1000 m in the south (Biddle et al., 1986); southward in-
creasing thickness trends are associated with a prolonged phase of ex-
tension and crustal attenuation in the southern part of the basin relative
to the northern regions (Stern et al., 1992; Mukasa and Dalziel, 1996;
Stern and de Wit, 2003; Calderón et al., 2013; Malkowski et al., 2016).
Increased spreading rates in the South Atlantic Ocean, coupled with
elevated convergence and subduction on the western margin of South
America during the Aptian-Albian, resulted in the transition from an
extensional to compressional setting in southernmost South America,
and led to the formation of the Magallanes-Austral retroarc foreland
basin (Figs. 1 and 2; Bruhn and Dalziel, 1977; Rabinowitz and La
Brecque, 1979; Dott et al., 1982; Dalziel, 1986; Mpodozis and Ramos,
1989; Ramos and Aguirre-Urreta, 1994; Fildani and Hessler, 2005). The
rapid uplift of the Andes during this time, coupled with an inherited
attenuated lithosphere, led to enhanced subsidence in the basin fore-
deep (Fildani and Hessler, 2005; Calderón et al., 2012; Fosdick et al.,
2014), and development of deep-water depositional environments
where water depths exceeded 1000 m (Natland et al., 1974; Hubbard
et al., 2010). Sediment routed to these environments was largely de-
rived from fold-thrust belt, arc, and other basin-peripheral sources to
the north and west (Fig. 1). Sediment sources include: (1) Paleozoic to
Early Mesozoic (> 200 Ma) metamorphic basement units (e.g., Duque
de York metamorphic complex; Fig. 1; Calderón et al., 2016); (2) Early
to Middle Jurassic volcanic units north of Lago Viedma (e.g., Deseado
Massif; Fig. 1; Pankhurst et al., 2000); (3) Late Jurassic to Early Cre-
taceous mafic volcanic units of the Sarmiento, Capitán Aracena, Carlos
III, and Tortuga ophiolite complexes, and silicic volcanic units of the
Tobífera, El Quemado, and Ibañez Formations (Fig. 1; Calderón et al.,
2007, 2013); (4) Early Cretaceous backarc basin deposits of the Zapata
Formation (Fig. 1; Calderón et al., 2007); and (5) the Early to Late
Cretaceous emergent Andean arc, which was episodically active over
the entire depositional history of the basin (Fig. 1; Hervé et al., 2007).
Increased transfer of coarse clastic detritus to deep-water settings in
the Magallanes-Austral Basin began at ∼115 Ma (Fosdick et al., 2011;
Malkowski et al., 2017a, 2017b), and is reflected in a ∼1000 m thick
succession of intercalated sandstones and siltstones associated with the
Aptian-Turonian Punta Barrosa Formation in Chile and Argentina (Katz,
1963; Arbe and Hechem, 1984; Wilson, 1991; Fildani et al., 2009;
Malkowski et al., 2017a, 2017b). The tabular-to-lenticular architecture
observed in Punta Barrosa Formation sandstones led workers to suggest
that these deposits accumulated in largely unconfined submarine fan
systems in the basin foredeep (Fig. 2; Fildani et al., 2009; Malkowski
et al., 2017a, 2017b). Southward, basin-axial propagation of these fan
B.G. Daniels, et al. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209

Fig. 1. Geologic map of the modern Patagonian fold-thrust belt (modified from Fildani and Hessler, 2005; Romans et al., 2010; Malkowski et al., 2017a). The location
of the study area (shown in Fig. 2A) is demarcated by the red box. CDMC = Cordillera Darwin Metamorphic Complex; DYMC = Duque de York Metamorphic
Complex; EAMC = Eastern Andean Metamorphic Complex; LA = Lago Argentino; LV = Lago Viedma; MAB = Magallanes-Austral Basin; RVB = Rocas Verdes Basin.
(For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

systems continued until ∼90 Ma, when retroforeland convergence and
development of duplex structures in the hinterland resulted in eastward
migration of the foredeep, as well as narrowing and deepening of the
basin (Fosdick et al., 2011; Romans et al., 2011). The depositional re-
sponse to this change is reflected in a ∼2500 m thick stratigraphic
succession associated with the Coniacian-Campanian Cerro Toro For-
mation in Chile and Argentina (Cecioni, 1957; Arbe and Hechem, 1984;
Winn and Dott, 1977, 1979; Hubbard et al., 2008; Romans et al., 2011;
Ghiglione et al., 2014; Malkowski et al., 2018). The initial phase of
Cerro Toro Formation sedimentation is recorded by a thick (∼1500 m)
succession of dominantly fine-grained deposits in the basin foredeep
(Fig. 2; Bernhardt et al., 2012). However, by ∼88 Ma (Bernhardt et al.,
2012; Malkowski et al., 2018), sediment-routing systems emanating
from the hinterland began to transect shelf edge and slope regions, and
a southward-verging basin-axial channel system, recorded in ∼1000 m
of conglomeratic strata, was established (Fig. 2; Winn and Dott, 1979;
Hubbard et al., 2008; Bernhardt et al., 2012).
By ∼80 Ma, thrust sheets in the hinterland had been intruded by
epizonal plutons, suggesting an eastward shift in the locus of thrust
fault propagation (Fosdick et al., 2011; Calderón et al., 2012; Ghiglione
et al., 2014). This is interpreted to have been followed by a ∼10 m.y.
period of intense structural doming, deformation, and extrusion of the
accretionary wedge in Chilean and Argentine Patagonia (80-70 Ma;
Calderón et al., 2012; Calderón et al., 2016). Enhanced denudation of
the hinterland and fold-thrust belt during deformation, coupled with a
decrease in tectonic subsidence rate, together may have led to foredeep
shallowing during this time period (Daniels et al., 2018). Deposition in
the basin over the middle to late Campanian is recorded in sandstone
and siltstone units associated with north-to-south prograding deep-
water slope clinoform systems preserved in the ∼2500 m thick Tres

3
B.G. Daniels, et al.
Pasos and Alta Vista Formations in Chile and Argentina, respectively
(Fig. 2; Macellari et al., 1989; Shultz et al., 2005; Hubbard et al., 2010;
Ghiglione et al., 2014; Sickmann et al., 2018). These deep-water units
are genetically related to Campanian-Maastrichtian shelf, marginal
marine, and terrestrial sandstone- and conglomerate-prone deposits of
the Dorotea Formation in Chile (Covault et al., 2009; Schwartz and
4
Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209
Graham, 2015; Gutiérrez et al., 2017), and the La Anita and Cerro
Fortaleza Formations in Argentina (Sickmann et al., 2018), which can
reach thicknesses of ∼1000 m (Fig. 2). These linked Campanian-
Maastrichtian units are interpreted to record the final infilling phase of
the Cretaceous Magallanes-Austral Basin (Hubbard et al., 2010; Romans
et al., 2011). A regional unconformity, which spans the Paleocene and
(caption on next page)
B.G. Daniels, et al. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209

Fig. 2. Overview of outcropping Magallanes-Austral basin-fill units in Santa Cruz Province, Argentina, and Última Esperanza Province, Chile. (A) Satellite image of
the study area (image data: Google, Landsat, Copernicus, 2018, http://www.google.com/earth/index.html, center of image coordinates: 50°42′16.91″S,
72°40′4.06″W). Featured outcrop locations are indicated with red dots; new data is from outcrops indicated with blue dots (see Part C). (B) Stratigraphic column of
the Rocas Verdes and Magallanes-Austral basin-fill units in the study area. E = Eocene; L = Lower; P = Paleocene; Pz = Paleozoic; O = Oligocene. Characteristic
lithology (yellow = sandstone/conglomerate; brown = mass transport deposit; gray = siltstone; light/dark purple = volcanogenic units) and architecture (chan-
nelform, tabular) for each formation is shown. (modified from Daniels et al., 2018; adapted from Wilson, 1991; Fildani and Hessler, 2005; Fosdick et al., 2011;
Schwartz et al., 2017). (C) Geologic map of the study area (modified from Fosdick et al., 2011; Malkowski et al., 2017a; Daniels et al., 2018; Sickmann et al., 2018).
All Upper Cretaceous deep-water units north of Lago Argentino are mapped as part of the Cerro Toro Formation sensu Ghiglione et al. (2014); mapped units
associated with the Punta Barrosa and Alta Vista Formations are not yet well-constrained in this region. Locations of sectors featured in Fig. 5 are indicated.
J = Jurassic; K = Cretaceous; N = Neogene; Pg = Paleogene. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web
version of this article.)

much of the Eocene and is interpreted to be related to large-scale fold-
thrust belt evolution (Fosdick et al., 2013), caps the succession of in-
terest.
2.2. Study area
We examine deposits from the Punta Barrosa, Cerro Toro, Tres
Pasos, and Dorotea Formations (and age equivalents) along a near-
continuous, north-south oriented outcrop belt that extends for
∼120 km between Laguna Tres de Abril in Argentina (Malkowski et al.,
2018) and Puerto Natales in Chile (Fig. 1). Post-Cretaceous uplift and
deformation (Fosdick et al., 2011), along with glaciation (Sagredo
et al., 2011; Solari et al., 2012; García et al., 2014), has produced
outcrops that preserve largely depositional-dip-oriented and dip-ob-
lique perspectives of the basin fill. These exceptionally exposed out-
crops enable comprehensive examination of stratigraphic architecture
and depositional timing for all Upper Cretaceous units.
3. Stratigraphic and geochronologic data
3.1. Stratigraphic data
Stratigraphic data discussed in this study are derived from previous
research. Outcropping deposits of the Late Cretaceous Magallanes-
Austral Basin in the study area have been mapped and characterized by
numerous workers over the past six decades (e.g., Cecioni, 1957; Katz,
1963; Scott, 1966; Smith, 1977; Winn and Dott, 1977, 1979; Arbe and
Hechem, 1984; Macellari et al., 1989; Wilson, 1991; Coleman, 2000;
Sohn et al., 2002; Beaubouef, 2004; Shultz and Hubbard, 2005; Shultz
et al., 2005; Valenzuela, 2006; Crane and Lowe, 2008; Hubbard and
Shultz, 2008; Hubbard et al., 2008; Armitage et al., 2009; Covault et al.,
2009; Fildani et al., 2009; Romans et al., 2009; Hubbard et al., 2010;
Jobe et al., 2010; Bernhardt et al., 2011; Campion et al., 2011;
Macauley and Hubbard, 2013; Ghiglione et al., 2014; Schwartz and
Graham, 2015; Auchter et al., 2016; Pemberton et al., 2016; Gutiérrez
et al., 2017; Daniels et al., 2018; Malkowski et al., 2018). Recent
mapping has incorporated measurement of stratigraphic sections at
decimeter-scale, along with analysis of ground- and unmanned-aerial-
vehicle-based photography and satellite imagery, as well as differential
GPS surveying. Mapping techniques have been augmented with pa-
leocurrent data derived from measurements of sole marks, imbricated
clasts, cross-stratification, and ripple crests. These data enable robust
interpretations of sediment paleodispersal patterns in the basin.
3.2. Geochronologic data
3.2.1. Data sources
Geochronologic data includes depositional ages determined from U-
Pb detrital and volcanic ash zircon dates, as well as strontium isotope
dates. Previously reported depositional ages from detrital and volcanic
ash zircons (N = 38) were derived from studies that focused on sedi-
ment provenance and depositional timing in the basin (Fildani et al.,
2003; Romans et al., 2010; Bernhardt et al., 2012; Fosdick et al., 2015;
Malkowski et al., 2017a, 2018, 2017b; Schwartz et al., 2017; Daniels
et al., 2018; Sickmann et al., 2018). Dates reported in those studies
were acquired via conventional sensitive high-resolution ion microp-
robe (reverse geometry) methods (SHRIMP-RG; e.g., DeGraaff-Surpless
et al., 2002), laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectro-
metry techniques (LA-ICP-MS; e.g., Fedo et al., 2003; Gehrels et al.,
2008; Matthews and Guest, 2017), or thermal ionization mass spec-
trometry approaches (TIMS, e.g., Parrish and Noble, 2003). Strontium
isotope ages (N = 3) were derived from 87Sr/86Sr dates (nsamples = 14)
reported by Bernhardt et al. (2012). 87Sr/86Sr dates were acquired using
the United States Geological Survey's Isotope Laboratory Menlo Park
Multicollector MAT 261, following methods outlined by Howarth and
McArthur (1997), McArthur et al. (2001), and Bernhardt et al. (2012).
Specific analytical procedures for each sample set are summarized in
the aforementioned references.
In addition to previously reported ages, we report new U-Pb max-
imum depositional ages from detrital zircons (N = 13) that were ob-
tained from fine-to medium-grained sandstones from Upper Cretaceous
Magallanes-Austral Basin units that crop out near Laguna Sofia, Chile
(Figs. 3 and 4). Detrital zircon grains from this area were separated via
standard mineral separation techniques (Fedo et al., 2003; Gehrels
et al., 2008). U-Pb ratios and grain ages were determined at the Uni-
versity of Calgary using LA-ICP-MS, following practices outlined by
Matthews and Guest (2017) and Daniels et al. (2018). Isolated zircon
grains were first measured using a high-throughput (n > 500), short
ablation period (t = 5 s per grain) method to acquire a large amount of
detrital age data for provenance purposes and to increase the likelihood
of finding large numbers of young, near-depositional-age zircons (i.e.,
zircons that approximate true depositional age; Pullen et al., 2014;
Daniels et al., 2018). Following identification, the youngest grains in
the population (n ≈ 20–60 per sample) were repolished and measured
again using a longer ablation period (t = 20 s per grain) to minimize
measurement uncertainty associated with each grain age (Daniels et al.,
2018). In some cases, grains from the youngest population could ac-
commodate multiple 22 μm beam spots. These grains were measured
multiple times to better constrain individual grain ages and evaluate
potential Pb-loss (Gehrels, 2012; Spencer et al., 2016). Details of the
mineral separation and LA-ICP-MS procedures for these samples are
provided in Appendix A.
3.2.2. Depositional age calculation
U-Pb zircon maximum depositional ages from all data sources (see
Appendix B for ages from Laguna Sofia) were determined via weighted
mean age calculations conducted using the Isoplot add-in (v. 4.15) for
Microsoft Excel (Ludwig, 2012). All maximum depositional ages were
computed from 206Pb/238U ratios with a probability of con-
cordance > 1% (Ludwig, 1998). In most cases, maximum depositional
ages were determined from the weighted mean of the youngest cluster
of ages (n ≥ 3) in a sample that overlapped at 2σ uncertainty (YC2σ;
Dickinson and Gehrels, 2009; Coutts et al., 2019); we use this age
calculation method as it represents a conservative limit of the true
depositional age (i.e., the YC2σ age is rarely younger than the true
depositional age; Coutts et al., 2019). In cases where < 3 ages were
present in the youngest age cluster, we computed maximum deposi-
tional ages using the weighted mean of the youngest 2 ages that

5
B.G. Daniels, et al. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209

Fig. 3. Summary of studied outcrops near Laguna Sofia, Chile. (A) Stratigraphic locations of new detrital zircon geochronology samples (indicated with red dots). CT
= Cerro Toro Formation; DO = Dorotea Formation; E = Eocene; L = Lower; LS = Laguna Sofia; O = Oligocene; P = Paleocene; PB = Punta Barrosa Formation;
Pz = Paleozoic; TP = Tres Pasos Formation. Characteristic lithology (yellow = sandstone/conglomerate; brown = mass transport deposit; gray = siltstone; light/
dark purple = volcanogenic units) and architecture (channelform, tabular) for each formation is shown (modified from Daniels et al., 2018; adapted from Wilson,
1991; Fildani and Hessler, 2005; Fosdick et al., 2011; Schwartz et al., 2017). (B) Geographic locations of new detrital zircon geochronology samples (image data:
Google, DigitalGlobe, US Department of State, CNES/Airbus, 2018, http://www.google.com/earth/index.html, center of image coordinates: 51°32′49.69″S,
72°36′46.78″W). Maximum depositional ages for each sample are provided. (C) Normalized probability density plots of detrital zircon ages < 1600 Ma for each
sample from the Laguna Sofia area. Numbers of ages in view are indicated in parentheses. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

overlapped at 1σ uncertainty (YC1σ; Dickinson and Gehrels, 2009;
Coutts et al., 2019). Each maximum depositional age incorporates all
systematic uncertainties including excess variance related to the long-
term reproducibility of the 206Pb/238U ratio in a validation reference
material, uncertainty in the 206Pb/238U ratio of the calibration re-
ference material (σy), as well as uncertainty associated with U-Pb decay
constants (λ; Jaffey et al., 1971, following modifications by Mattinson,
1987; Horstwood et al., 2016). The age calculation method uses in-
dividual grain ages together with weighted mean ages determined from
multiple measurements on the same grain wherever possible (Fig. 4).
Volcanic ash layer depositional ages from previous work employed a
weighted mean of dates associated with the youngest population of ages
in a sample. Ages were computed from 206Pb/238U ratios in all cases.
Strontium isotope ages from previous work were computed from a
weighted mean of 87Sr/86Sr dates acquired from inoceramid shells
collected at each sample location. Details of depositional age calcula-
tions for these samples are summarized in the studies where ash and
shell ages were first reported (e.g., Bernhardt et al., 2012; Malkowski
et al., 2017b; Daniels et al., 2018; Malkowski et al., 2018).
The reported degree of uncertainty differs between published results
that are integrated into this study. In most cases, random and sys-
tematic uncertainty is reported; however, it is usually not clear what
systematic uncertainty components were included in the estimate. To
enable effective comparison of ages between data sets, we have in-
cluded all reported random and systematic uncertainty components and
propagated them into individual grain ages and depositional ages
where appropriate (Horstwood et al., 2016; Matthews et al., 2017).
4. New U-Pb detrital zircon age results from Laguna Sofia, Chile
New U-Pb detrital zircon age results from Upper Cretaceous units
exposed near Laguna Sofia are summarized in probability density plots
(Fig. 3), which display the original distribution of zircon age popula-
tions for each sample, as well as weighted mean age plots that show the
youngest cluster of ages in each sample (Fig. 4), which provide the basis
for maximum depositional age determination.
4.1. Punta Barrosa Formation
The Punta Barrosa Formation is exposed on Monte Pirámide, im-
mediately west of Laguna Sofia (Fig. 3; Fildani et al., 2003; Fosdick
et al., 2011). One sandstone sample (LS-PB1) was obtained from an
interval of interbedded sandstone and siltstone located approximately
midway between the base and top of the formation (Fig. 3, Table 1).
Detrital zircon dates from this sample range between
3058.3 ± 78.7 Ma and 90.1 ± 5.6 Ma (Fig. 3, Appendix B). Weighted
mean age calculations that employed the youngest cluster of zircon ages
resulted in a maximum depositional age of 94.6 ± 1.6 Ma for this
sample (Figs. 3 and 4, Table 1).
4.2. Cerro Toro Formation
The Cerro Toro Formation crops out on Cerro Benítez, located on
the south shore of Laguna Sofia (Fig. 3; Winn and Dott, 1979; Hubbard
et al., 2008). The lower siltstone-prone part of the Cerro Toro Forma-
tion crops out on the western flank of Cerro Benítez, whereas

6
B.G. Daniels, et al. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209

Fig. 4. Weighted mean age plots that show Laguna Sofia maximum depositional ages obtained from the weighted mean of the youngest cluster of dates that overlap
at 2σ uncertainty (YC2σ). The number of grains used in each calculation is provided in parentheses on each plot. Stratigraphic younging direction is up and to the
right; maximum depositional ages that are significantly older than age constraints from underlying strata are indicated in magenta. Individual age results from a
single analysis on a single grain are indicated with black error bars. Age results derived from a weighted mean of multiple analyses on the same grain are indicated
with blue and red error bars. Blue error bars illustrate age uncertainty associated with 95% confidence limits (C.L.) determined from the population standard
deviation (σ) multiplied by 1.96 (student's-t value for an infinite number of points). This uncertainty calculation technique is used by Isoplot if the ages used in the
calculation have a probability of fit > 15% (Ludwig, 2012). Red error bars show age uncertainty associated with 95% confidence limits (C.L.) determined from the
product of the student's-t result for N-1 degrees of freedom (N = number of ages used in the calculation), σ, and the square root of the MSWD for the age cluster. This
is the default uncertainty calculation in Isoplot if dates used to generate a weighted mean age have a probability of fit < 15% (Ludwig, 2012). Both types of colored
error bars are shown where the red error bar calculation method generated a result with a very large range (e.g., LS-PB1); in some cases, red error bars are clipped at
the margins of each plot to improve visibility of the other error bars in the plot (refer to Appendix B for actual age uncertainty ranges). CT = Cerro Toro Formation;
DO = Dorotea Formation; LS = Laguna Sofia; MSWD = mean square of weighted deviates; PB = Punta Barrosa Formation; TP = Tres Pasos Formation. (For in-
terpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

conglomeratic deposits related to the upper part of the formation are
exposed further east (Fig. 3; Hubbard et al., 2008; Bernhardt et al.,
2012). One sandstone sample (LS-CT0) was obtained from a unit to-
wards the top of the lower siltstone-prone part and six sandstone
samples (LS-CT1 to LS-CT6) were collected from various intervals
within the upper conglomeratic part (Figs. 3 and 4).
Detrital zircon dates from the sample from the lower siltstone-prone
part of the formation (LS-CT0) range between 3124.6 ± 86.3 Ma and
83.9 ± 3.7 Ma (Fig. 3, Appendix B). Analysis of the youngest cluster of
zircons in that sample yielded a maximum depositional age of
86.3 ± 1.5 Ma (Figs. 3 and 4, Table 1). Detrital zircon dates from
samples in the upper conglomeratic part of the formation (LS-CT1 to LS-
CT6) collectively span 3366.3 ± 71.4 Ma to 73.1 ± 6.9 Ma (Fig. 3,
Appendix B). Maximum depositional ages from samples LS-CT1 to LS-
CT5 range from 84.7 ± 1.3 Ma to 79.7 ± 2.2 Ma. A maximum de-
positional age of 89.5 ± 2.0 Ma was computed from the

7
B.G. Daniels, et al. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209

Table 1
Sandstone sample information (Laguna Sofia maximum depositional ages).
Sample name Latitude Longitude Elevation Stratigraphic interval Maximum depositional age Description
(°S) (°W) (m) (YC2σ)

LS-DO2 51°36′25.24″ 72°27′01.53″ 838 Dorotea Fm 68.6 ± 1.3 Ma Fine-grained sandstone

LS-DO1 51°36′31.57″ 72°27′36.64″ 701 Dorotea Fm 68.9 ± 1.7 Ma Fine-grained sandstone
LS-TP3 51°35′59.31″ 72°28′59.85″ 265 Tres Pasos Fm 73.4 ± 1.6 Ma Fine-grained sandstone
LS-TP2 51°35′04.19″ 72°30′01.31″ 191 Tres Pasos Fm 76.9 ± 1.1 Ma Fine-grained sandstone
LS-TP1 51°33′44.11″ 72°30′35.89″ 203 Tres Pasos Fm 78.5 ± 1.6 Ma Fine-grained sandstone
LS-CT6 51°32′41.48″ 72°33′21.58″ 155 Cerro Toro Fm (Upper) 89.5 ± 2.0 Maa Medium-grained sandstone
LS-CT5 51°32′54.12″ 72°34′32.30″ 175 Cerro Toro Fm (Upper) 79.7 ± 2.2 Ma Medium-grained sandstone
LS-CT4 51°32′48.43″ 72°35′19.65″ 252 Cerro Toro Fm (Upper) 82.4 ± 1.9 Ma Medium-grained sandstone
LS-CT3 51°32′49.27″ 72°35′27.71″ 355 Cerro Toro Fm (Upper) 80.2 ± 1.4 Ma Medium-grained sandstone
LS-CT2 51°32′45.60″ 72°36′57.42″ 300 Cerro Toro Fm (Upper) 82.5 ± 1.2 Ma Fine-grained sandstone
LS-CT1 51°32′07.48″ 72°37′39.60″ 74 Cerro Toro Fm (Upper) 84.7 ± 1.3 Ma Fine-grained sandstone
LS-CT0 51°32′55.98″ 72°40′49.26″ 156 Cerro Toro Fm (Lower) 86.3 ± 1.5 Ma Fine-grained sandstone
LS-PB1 51°27′25.08″ 72°47′35.98″ 816 Punta Barrosa Fm 94.6 ± 1.6 Ma Fine-grained sandstone

a
Maximum depositional age is significantly older than age constraints from underlying strata.

stratigraphically highest conglomeratic deposits in the formation at
Cerro Benítez (LS-CT6). Since this age is much older than inferred de-
positional ages from the underlying deposits, it does not accurately
constrain the true depositional age of this unit. In this case, it is plau-
sible that: (1) sample sizes were not large enough to obtain a large
population of near-depositional-age zircons (Pullen et al., 2014); (2)
near-depositional-age zircons were not incorporated into the sediment-
routing system at the time of deposition; or (3) the youngest population
of zircons was primarily derived from ∼90 Ma Cretaceous arc sources
and/or recycling of ∼90 Ma intrabasinal units.
4.3. Tres Pasos Formation
Deposits of the Tres Pasos Formation are exposed in ridges east of
Laguna Sofia (Fig. 3; Fosdick et al., 2011); three sandstone samples (LS-
TP1 to LS-TP3) were obtained from exposures associated with these
ridges. Detrital zircon dates span 3072.8 ± 107.2 Ma to
71.2 ± 5.6 Ma (Fig. 3, Appendix B). Maximum depositional ages from
this interval range from 78.5 ± 1.6 Ma to 73.4 ± 1.6 Ma (Figs. 3 and
4, Table 1).
4.4. Dorotea Formation
Deposits of the Dorotea Formation are exposed in the Sierra Dorotea
range east of the Tres Pasos Formation outcrops (Fig. 3). Two sandstone
samples (LS-DO1 and LS-DO2) were obtained from exposures in the
range. Detrital zircon dates from Dorotea Formation units range from
3520.9 ± 86.6 Ma to 66.8 ± 1.9 Ma (Fig. 3, Appendix B). Maximum
depositional ages derived from this interval span 68.9 ± 1.7 Ma to
68.6 ± 1.3 Ma (Figs. 3 and 4, Table 1).
5. Synthesis of Upper Cretaceous chronostratigraphic data in
Última Esperanza Province
New data reported in this study were integrated into a large data-
base of previously reported depositional ages from Upper Cretaceous
units to examine spatial/temporal depositional age patterns along the
basin axis (i.e., southward) in Última Esperanza Province (Figs. 2 and
5). To facilitate analysis of age relationships along depositional dip,
depositional ages were binned into five west-to-east-oriented sectors
(Figs. 2 and 5); results from these sectors provide the basis for the re-
vised chronostratigraphic framework of the basin fill (Fig. 5). Some
samples from previous studies lacked significant populations (n ≥ 2) of
near-depositional-age zircons, resulting in a maximum depositional age
that was significantly older than other age constraints from the host
strata (e.g., sample TS12-LCH-1A; Schwartz et al., 2017). As a result,
only ages that approximately coincide with the true depositional age of
the stratigraphic unit in question are used in the framework (Fig. 5; cf.
Johnstone et al., 2019).
We define the maximum age of the base of the Upper Cretaceous
Magallanes-Austral Basin succession to be ca. 100 Ma in this part of
Última Esperanza Province. This limit is constrained by a U-Pb volcanic
ash age of 101.0 ± 2.2 Ma from the upper part of a siltstone-prone
package of strata that records the transition from the underlying Zapata
Formation into the Punta Barrosa Formation (Fildani and Hessler, 2005;
Fosdick et al., 2011), as well as a volcanic ash U-Pb age of
98.1 ± 2.4 Ma from the basal part of the Punta Barrosa Formation at
Laguna Tres de Abril (Figs. 2 and 5; Malkowski et al., 2017a, 2017b).
Previous workers have suggested that this basal boundary may be
younger in the southern part of the study area (e.g., Fildani et al., 2003;
Bernhardt et al., 2012; Malkowski et al., 2017b); however, absolute age
constraint for equivalent deposits does not yet exist in this region. The
age at the top of the basin fill is variable along depositional dip;
available absolute ages suggest that this boundary is as old as ca. 71 Ma
in the north and as young as ca. 65 Ma in the south (Fig. 5; Fosdick
et al., 2015; Schwartz et al., 2017; Sickmann et al., 2018). Variability in
this age is related to progressive younging of depositional systems as-
sociated with the Dorotea Formation from north to south, as well as
spatially variable erosion related to the Paleocene-Eocene angular un-
conformity that truncates the top of the succession (Fosdick et al., 2015;
Schwartz et al., 2017; Sickmann et al., 2018).
5.1. Sector 1
Chronostratigraphic results from Sector 1 incorporate ages from a
series of exposures located near the northern limit of Última Esperanza
Province at the border between Chile and Argentina (Figs. 2 and 5). At
the western edge of the sector, depositional timing associated with the
Punta Barrosa Formation is constrained via a volcanic ash zircon age
from near the base of the unit at Laguna Tres de Abril (LTA84;
98.1 ± 2.4 Ma; Fig. 5; Malkowski et al., 2017a), as well as a detrital
zircon age from higher up in the formation at Lago Dickson (3/5–3;
90.6 ± 2.5 Ma; Fig. 5; Fildani et al., 2003; Malkowski et al., 2017a).
The age of the transition into the basal siltstone-prone part of the Cerro
Toro Formation is constrained by a 90.4 ± 2.7 Ma volcanic ash bed
from this interval at Laguna Tres de Abril (LTA81; Fig. 5; Malkowski
et al., 2018). The age of the top of the siltstone-prone interval is defined
by an ash bed from just below the conglomeratic interval at Laguna Tres
de Abril, which yields an age of 88.0 ± 3.4 Ma (LTA88; Malkowski
et al., 2018). Accurate, high-precision constraints from within the upper
conglomeratic interval are few; we consider the maximum depositional
age from sample LTA78 from Laguna Tres de Abril (88.5 ± 4.2 Ma;
Fig. 5; Malkowski et al., 2018) to adequately characterize this interval.
The age of the basal part of the Tres Pasos Formation, which

8
B.G. Daniels, et al. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209

(caption on next page)

9
B.G. Daniels, et al. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209

Fig. 5. Chronostratigraphic framework for the Magallanes-Austral Basin in Última Esperanza Province, Chile. Labels at top correspond to sectors outlined in Fig. 2.
Architectural information (e.g., tabular, lenticular bodies) is derived from Fildani et al. (2003), Romans et al. (2011), et al. (2018), and Daniels et al. (2018). Detrital
zircon maximum depositional age (DZ MDA) data is color-coded by formation; the MDA calculation technique for each data set (e.g., YC1σ; YC2σ) has also been
included. Age data is derived from Fildani et al. (2003), Romans et al. (2010), Fosdick et al. (2011), Bernhardt et al. (2012), Fosdick et al. (2015), Schwartz et al.
(2017), Malkowski et al. (2017a), Malkowski et al. (2017b), Daniels et al. (2018), Malkowski et al. (2018), Sickmann et al. (2018), as well as data presented in this
study. Only MDAs that approximately temporally coincide with the true depositional ages of the studied stratigraphic intervals are shown. The majority of ash
samples from the Cerro Toro Formation are derived from fine-grained units adjacent to conglomeratic strata; this relationship is shown by a gradational contact
between the two time-equivalent units in the diagram. Depositional ages for stratigraphic units in Sector 5 deposited between ca. 94-79 Ma and ca. 74-72 Ma
(indicated by hatched lines) are poorly constrained; stratigraphic boundaries in these intervals are based on interpretations from Sector 4 and are speculative. CT =
Cerro Toro Formation; DO = Dorotea Formation; LTA = Laguna Tres de Abril; NA = not available; PB = Punta Barrosa Formation; SS = Silla Syncline; TP = Tres
Pasos Formation. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

contains abundant chaotically bedded mass-transport deposits (i.e.,
Phase 1; Fig. 5; Daniels et al., 2018), is defined by a detrital zircon age
from Cerro Divisadero (F04; 82.8 ± 5.2 Ma; Fig. 5; Romans et al.,
2010), as well as a detrital zircon age from Cerro Cagual from higher up
in section (15-RZ-DZ1; 78.5 ± 1.3 Ma; Fig. 5; Daniels et al., 2018).
Temporal information linked to the boundary between the basal part of
the formation and the overlying strata, which feature abundant silt-
stone-prone slope deposits (i.e., Phase 2–4; Fig. 5; Daniels et al., 2018),
is captured via a detrital zircon age from Cerro Cagual of
78.0 ± 1.3 Ma (sample 15-RZ-DZ2; Fig. 5). No other depositional ages
are available for accurate temporal characterization of the upper Tres
Pasos Formation in this sector.
Depositional age information associated with the contact between
the Tres Pasos Formation and Dorotea Formation is not available in this
sector; we employ a depositional age from the upper part of the Cerro
Fortaleza Formation in the Zona Centro region in Argentina to place
limits on the maximum age of the base of the Dorotea Formation in this
sector (EP13; 76.2 ± 2.2 Ma; Fig. 5; Sickmann et al., 2018). Two det-
rital zircon depositional ages from the Río de las Chinas outcrops pro-
vide robust temporal data for the upper part of the Dorotea Formation
in this sector (sample JCF 09–208 = 69.7 ± 2.1 Ma; sample TS11-RT-
2A = 68.9 ± 2.3 Ma; Fosdick et al., 2015; Schwartz et al., 2017). The
upper limit of the Dorotea Formation is marked by an unconformity; we
interpret that deposits just below this unconformity are Maastrichtian
in age at this location based on the aforementioned U-Pb ages, as well
as nearby vertebrate fossil assemblages (Riccardi and Rolleri, 1980;
Macellari et al., 1989).
5.2. Sector 2
Chronostratigraphic results from Sector 2 include information from
outcrops spanning Cerro Ferrier in the west to Cerro Cazador in the east
(Figs. 2 and 5). In this sector, the Punta Barrosa Formation is temporally
constrained through two detrital zircon samples obtained by Fildani
et al. (2003); one of these samples was re-analyzed by Malkowski et al.
(2017a) to acquire a larger number of near-depositional-age zircons.
Sample Pb-01-04, which was collected from siltstone-dominated strata
that record the transition between the underlying Zapata Formation
and the Punta Barrosa Formation, yielded an age of 97.4 ± 6.1 Ma
(Fig. 5; Fildani et al., 2003). Sample 2/21–3, which was collected from
the lower Punta Barrosa Formation, yielded an age of 96.4 ± 2.7 Ma
(Fig. 5; Fildani et al., 2003; Malkowski et al., 2017a).
The basal contact of the Cerro Toro Formation in this sector is
temporally constrained via a depositional age from a volcanic ash bed
in the vicinity of the contact, which was dated to be 89.5 ± 1.9 Ma in
age (SS-09-ash5; Fig. 5; Bernhardt et al., 2012). No detrital zircon
samples from the lower siltstone-prone interval of the Cerro Toro For-
mation were available in this sector (Bernhardt et al., 2012). However,
the age of this interval is well documented through results from two
volcanic ash beds (SdT-07-ash2 and SdT-06-ash1), which yield re-
spective ages of 86.0 ± 1.3 Ma and 86.0 ± 0.8 Ma. Notably, these
ages overlap at 2σ uncertainty with weighted mean strontium isotope
ages derived from in-situ inoceramid shells from the same interval
(87.5 ± 0.3 Ma and 87.2 ± 1.1 Ma; Bernhardt et al., 2012). Ages from
the upper part of the Cerro Toro Formation are derived from two facies
associations: (1) conglomeratic strata that record deposition within
deep-marine slope channels; and (2) siltstone-prone strata that reflect
deposition in out-of-channel zones (i.e., levees and overbank environ-
ments; Beaubouef, 2004; Crane and Lowe, 2008; Hubbard et al., 2008).
Depositional ages from conglomeratic facies are derived from outcrops
at Sierra del Toro and those exposed in the Silla Syncline (Figs. 2 and 5;
Crane and Lowe, 2008; Jobe et al., 2010; Bernhardt et al., 2011, 2012).
A depositional age of 84.0 ± 1.6 Ma was computed for channel de-
posits near the base of the upper part of the Cerro Toro Formation at
Sierra del Toro (SdT-Co; Bernhardt et al., 2012); this age is interpreted
to record the onset of deposition within the main channel belt asso-
ciated with the Cerro Toro Formation depositional system (Hubbard
et al., 2008; Jobe et al., 2010; Malkowski et al., 2018). Outcrops at the
Silla Syncline yielded a depositional age of 81.8 ± 3.7 Ma (SS-Ndskld;
Fig. 5; Bernhardt et al., 2012); these deposits record deposition within a
tributary channel system that routed sediment to the main channel belt
further south (Bernhardt et al., 2012). Ages from out-of-channel facies
range from 84.8 ± 2.0 Ma to 81.7 ± 1.7 Ma; notably, these ages are
largely contemporaneous with ages from conglomeratic units (Fig. 5;
Bernhardt et al., 2012; Daniels et al., 2018). A volcanic ash sample from
fine-grained strata exposed on western Cerro Cazador (15-ECB-01;
82.8 ± 0.3 Ma; Daniels et al., 2018) constrains large-scale lateral facies
relationships in the upper part of the Cerro Toro Formation in a key
outcrop showing stratigraphic continuity with the overlying Tres Pasos
Formation.
Deposits from the basal part of the Tres Pasos Formation in this
sector (i.e., Phase 1; Daniels et al., 2018) yield an age of 80.7 ± 1.5 Ma
(15-CAZ-04; Fig. 5); we consider this age to represent the maximum age
limit of Tres Pasos Formation deposition in this sector (cf. Daniels et al.,
2018). Strata from the upper part of the Tres Pasos Formation (i.e.,
Phases 2–4) return depositional ages of 75.7 ± 1.7 Ma (15-CAZ-02)
and 75.2 ± 1.7 Ma (15-CAZ-01), respectively (Fig. 5; Daniels et al.,
2018). Due to a lack of depositional age constraints for the contact
between the Tres Pasos and Dorotea Formations, we interpret the age of
the base of the Dorotea Formation to be younger than 75.2 ± 1.7 Ma in
this area (Fig. 5). Although maximum depositional ages could not be
calculated from Dorotea Formation samples, the top of the formation is
considered to be Maastrichtian in age on the basis of U-Pb ages from
Sector 1 and nearby vertebrate fossil assemblages (Riccardi and Rolleri,
1980; Macellari et al., 1989).
5.3. Sector 3
Chronostratigraphic results from Sector 3 feature depositional ages
from outcrops near Lago Porteño in the west to those near Laguna
Figueroa in the east. The maximum age of the base of the Punta Barrosa
Formation is characterized by a volcanic ash bed associated with
sample JCF 09–217, which yields an age of 101.0 ± 2.2 Ma (Fosdick
et al., 2011). Depositional age constraints for strata within the Punta
Barrosa Formation are limited in this sector; a sole 91.5 ± 3.7 Ma-aged
volcanic ash bed (CC-09-ash1; Bernhardt et al., 2012) provides in-
formation on the transition zone between the upper Punta Barrosa
Formation and the lower Cerro Toro Formation. Depositional age data

10
B.G. Daniels, et al.
from volcanic ash beds in the lower Cerro Toro Formation at this lo-
cation range from 84.2 ± 2.6 Ma to 82.7 ± 2.5 Ma (CC-09-ash5 and
CC-09-ash4; Bernhardt et al., 2012); strontium isotope ages from in-situ
inoceramid shells from the same interval produce a weighted mean age
of 87.1 ± 0.3 Ma. Bernhardt et al. (2012) suggested that the younger
volcanic ash depositional age may incorporate a higher degree of
analytical error due to the spatial position of the reference material on
the zircon mount; as such, we consider the depositional age range for
the lower Cerro Toro Formation to plausibly span 91.5 ± 3.7 Ma to
84.2 ± 2.6 Ma at this location. Depositional age information from the
upper Cerro Toro Formation is limited at this location, as all of the
relatively small samples from the Cordillera Manuel Señoret
(nages ≈ 60) lack a significant population of near-depositional-age zir-
cons (samples CC and VC; Romans et al., 2010).
The age of the basal part of the Tres Pasos Formation (i.e., Phase 1;
Daniels et al., 2018) is characterized by a detrital zircon sample (15-CS-
01; 80.6 ± 1.4 Ma), as well as a volcanic ash sample (15-CS-02;
80.5 ± 0.3 Ma) from the same interval. Two detrital zircon samples
(15-PIC-04 and 15-PIC-02) from the upper Tres Pasos Formation (i.e.,
Phases 2–4; Daniels et al., 2018) yield ages of 77.4 ± 1.1 Ma and
74.3 ± 1.5 Ma respectively. Above the Tres Pasos Formation, a single
sample from near the base of Dorotea Formation (15-CC-01) yields an
age of 70.6 ± 1.5 Ma (Daniels et al., 2018). No depositional ages from
the upper part of the Dorotea are available in this sector; as a result, we
interpret that the upper part of the Dorotea Formation is Maastrichtian
in age (< 70.6 ± 1.5 Ma) at this location using the aforementioned age
from the base of the formation, as well as information from vertebrate
fossil assemblages exposed further north (Riccardi and Rolleri, 1980;
Macellari et al., 1989).
5.4. Sector 4
Temporal information from Sector 4 incorporates the detrital zircon
data from Laguna Sofia discussed above (Fig. 3), as well as a previously
reported age from the Dorotea Formation on Sierra Dorotea (sample SD-
06; Romans et al., 2010). In this sector, the depositional age of the
Punta Barrosa Formation is characterized by the sole detrital zircon
sample from Monte Pirámide (LS-PB-1; 94.6 ± 1.6 Ma; Figs. 3 and 4).
The lower Cerro Toro Formation, which yields an 86.3 ± 1.5 Ma det-
rital zircon age in this sector, is temporally coincident with ages from
the inoceramid-bearing siltstone-prone interval further north (Sector 3;
Fig. 5). Detrital ages from the upper Cerro Toro Formation span
84.7 ± 1.3 Ma to 79.7 ± 2.2 Ma (Fig. 5); these ages are temporally
coincident with conglomeratic units associated with the same interval
further north (Fig. 5).
The basal part of the Tres Pasos Formation (i.e., Phase 1) is poorly
exposed in this sector; as a result, only the upper part of the formation
(i.e., Phases 2–4) is accurately constrained via depositional ages. As
previously mentioned, ages in the formation at this location span
78.5 ± 1.6 Ma to 73.4 ± 1.6 Ma (Figs. 3 and 4); the 78.5 ± 1.6 Ma
age can be considered a bounding age for the base of Phase 2 of the Tres
Pasos Formation in this area. The base of the Dorotea Formation has
been temporally constrained via sample SD-06, which yields an age of
71.9 ± 2.1 Ma (Romans et al., 2010). This age overlaps within un-
certainty with the age from LS-DO1 (68.9 ± 1.7 Ma; Figs. 3 and 4),
which is from the same stratigraphic package. Sample LS-DO2, which is
from the upper Dorotea Formation, yields an age of 68.6 ± 1.3 Ma
(Figs. 3 and 4). The top of the Dorotea Formation in this sector is Da-
nian in age, based on nearby foraminiferal assemblages (Malumián and
Caramés, 1997).
5.5. Sector 5
Sector 5 incorporates chronostratigraphic data from outcrops ex-
posed on Cerro Ballena (west of Puerto Natales) and at the southern end
of Sierra Dorotea (Figs. 2 and 5). Due to the elevated erosion via
11
Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209
glaciation in the area (Sagredo et al., 2011), outcrop exposures asso-
ciated with Upper Cretaceous units are sparse. A detrital zircon sample
from the Punta Barrosa Formation yielded an age of 96.4 ± 1.9 Ma in
this area (3/11–3; Fig. 5; Fildani et al., 2003; Malkowski et al., 2017a).
No exposures of the lower Cerro Toro Formation have been documented
in detail at this location. Outcrops associated with the upper Cerro Toro
Formation are exposed further south at Cerro Rotundo (Hubbard et al.,
2008); however, no depositional age constraints exist for those outcrops
at this time. A depositional age of 76.6 ± 2.0 Ma was reported from a
conglomeratic unit (sample CB-C) on Cerro Ballena by Bernhardt et al.
(2012); this unit, which is positioned west of the trend of the main
Cerro Toro Formation channel belt, has been interpreted to represent a
tributary channel to the main channel belt, which is potentially exposed
at Cerro Rotundo ∼35 km to the south (Bernhardt et al., 2012).
No deposits from the Tres Pasos Formation were available to be
sampled in this sector because this interval of the stratigraphy is in the
subsurface as a result of southward plunging structure (Fosdick et al.,
2011). Sample JCF 09–226, which was derived from the upper Dorotea
Formation, yielded an age of 67.1 ± 1.8 Ma. This age overlaps at 2σ
uncertainty with ages from units in the Sierra Dorotea located to the
north (Fig. 5), as well as with an age reported by Hervé et al. (2004)
from the same approximate location (67.4 ± 1.5 Ma). As with Sector 4,
the uppermost deposits of the Dorotea Formation are considered to be
Danian in age at this location based on foraminiferal assemblages
(Malumián and Caramés, 1997); this interpreted age is also supported
by the maximum depositional age obtained from sample JCF 09–226,
which overlaps at 2σ uncertainty with the earliest part of the Danian.
5.6. Recommended depositional ages for Cretaceous Magallanes-Austral
Basin units
To facilitate future chronostratigraphic analyses for Upper
Cretaceous units of the Magallanes-Austral Basin in Última Esperanza
Province, we provide recommended ages for each key stratigraphic
boundary (e.g., formation boundary) in the succession from 50°49′S to
51°32′S (Sectors 1–4; Table 2). The ages are commonly derived from the
closest deposits to each boundary (Fig. 5). Age precision, defined as the
percentage related to the quotient of the 2σ uncertainty and the
weighted mean age, is commonly < 3% (Table 2). This level of preci-
sion provides high-resolution temporal constraints for each formation,
as well as for intraformational stratigraphic intervals (e.g., upper Cerro
Toro Formation) where bounding ages do not overlap at 2σ uncertainty.
As previously mentioned, we suggest that a 101.0 ± 2.2 Ma age
should be used as the maximum bounding age for the base of the Punta
Barrosa Formation, as well as the base of the Upper Cretaceous
Magallanes-Austral Basin succession, from 50°49′S to 51°32′S (Table 2).
The age of the Punta Barrosa Formation – lower Cerro Toro Formation
boundary is variable from north to south (90.6 ± 2.5 Ma to
89.5 ± 1.9 Ma; Table 2). Notably, these ages overlap at 2σ uncertainty;
though the 90.6 ± 2.5 Ma age can be considered a maximum age for
the base of the interval, we recommend that the 89.5 ± 1.9 Ma age be
used as a maximum age for this boundary from 51°07′S to 51°32′S
(Sectors 2–4), as it is more precise. The age of the boundary between
the lower and upper Cerro Toro Formation also varies from north to
south, ranging from 88.0 ± 3.4 Ma to 84.0 ± 1.6 Ma (Table 2). While
it may appear that the base of the upper conglomeratic unit becomes
younger southward, it is important to note that all of these ages overlap
at 2σ uncertainty. Though sector-specific ages can be used for future
analyses on this interval as appropriate (Table 2), we recommend use of
the most precise age (84.7 ± 1.3 Ma) for basin-scale evaluations of this
unit in the region at this time.
The age for the boundary between the upper Cerro Toro Formation
and the base of the MTD-prone part of the Tres Pasos Formation ranges
from 80.7 ± 1.5 Ma to 80.2 ± 1.4 Ma from 50°49′S to 51°32′S
(Table 2); we recommend that the volcanic ash age of 80.5 ± 0.3 Ma
be used to characterize this boundary as it is derived from a sample that
B.G. Daniels, et al. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209

lies closest to the boundary (15-CS-02; Daniels et al., 2018). The age

Volcanic ash age from near the top of the Zapata-Punta Barrosa transition
range of the boundary between the MTD-dominated basal part of Tres
Maastrichtian-Danian paleofaunal assemblages (Macellari et al., 1989; Pasos Formation and overlying sandstone and siltstone turbidite-
dominated part of Tres Pasos Formation spans 78.5 ± 1.6 Ma to
Not enough information to constrain boundary in Sector 2. 77.4 ± 1.1 Ma from 50°49′S to 51°32′S (Table 2); since this in-
traformational stratigraphic boundary is somewhat diachronous in this

Highest-precision age constraints used south of Sector 2.

part of the basin, and the depositional ages associated with this
boundary are similar in terms of precision, we recommend that sector-
specific ages be used where appropriate (Table 2). The age of the li-
Bounding age from Sector 1 used in Sector 2.

Bounding age from Sector 2 used in Sector 1.

Bounding age from Sector 2 used in Sector 3.

thostratigraphic contact between the Tres Pasos and Dorotea Forma-
tions ranges from 76.2 ± 2.2 Ma in the north to 70.6 ± 1.5 Ma further
south. Since previous workers have shown that deposits of the Dorotea
Formation become younger southward, we recommend that sector-
Malumián and Caramés, 1997)

specific ages be used (Table 2). As previously mentioned, the top of the
zone (Fosdick et al., 2011).

Dorotea Formation is poorly constrained via U-Pb ages. However, we

recommend that workers employ the youngest site-specific maximum
depositional ages from the Dorotea Formation for chronostratigraphic
studies at this time (Table 2), as these ages are of high precision and
generally overlap at 2σ with the ages of fossil assemblages (Maas-
Comments

trichtian-Danian) from near the top of the formation (e.g., Macellari

et al., 1989; Malumián and Caramés, 1997). Samples from the top of the
formation could be targeted in the future to more precisely constrain
Sector 4 (51°32′05″S)

the duration of the preserved Dorotea Formation.

101.0 ± 2.2 Mad

We are unable to provide recommended ages for coeval units ex-

67.1 ± 1.8 Mae

89.5 ± 1.9 Mac

84.7 ± 1.3 Ma
71.9 ± 2.1 Ma
78.5 ± 1.6 Ma

80.2 ± 1.4 Ma

posed in areas south of 51°32′S (i.e., Sector 5), as information on the

depositional timing of the Punta Barrosa, Cerro Toro, and Tres Pasos
Formations is limited in this region. Initial results suggest that deposits
associated with the aforementioned stratigraphic intervals could be
Recommended absolute ages for key stratigraphic boundaries (Magallanes-Austral Basin, Última Esperanza Province, Chile).

younger in the south (Fig. 5; McAtamney et al., 2011; Bernhardt et al.,

Sector 3 (51°17′37″S)

2012); however, additional samples at key stratigraphic boundaries are

101.0 ± 2.2 Ma
68.9 ± 2.3 Mab

84.0 ± 1.6 Mac

89.5 ± 1.9 Mac
70.6 ± 1.5 Ma
77.4 ± 1.1 Ma

80.5 ± 0.3 Ma

needed to assess the spatial/temporal development of stratigraphic

architecture in this region.

6. Utility of the results for future studies on Magallanes-Austral

Note 2: Bolded ages represent the highest precision age constraints for each boundary across the sectors.

Basin evolution
Sector 2 (51°06′44″S)

The chronostratigraphic framework provides a template for strati-

101.0 ± 2.2 Mad
68.9 ± 2.3 Mab

78.0 ± 1.3 Mab

89.5 ± 1.9 Ma
80.7 ± 1.5 Ma

84.0 ± 1.6 Ma

graphic correlation of basin fill units to the north and south of Última
Esperanza Province, and helps to place robust temporal constraints on
the interpreted paleogeographic evolution of the basin over the Late
a

Cretaceous (Macellari et al., 1989; Romans et al., 2011; Ghiglione et al.,

NA

2014; Sickmann et al., 2018). These results can be integrated with

Note 1: All absolute ages are U-Pb ages. Uncertainty is reported at the 2σ level.
Sector 1 (50°49′14″S)

paleobiological and/or paleontological findings in the basin in Última

101.0 ± 2.2 Mad

Esperanza Province to provide a thorough record of evolutionary pat-

80.7 ± 1.5 Mac
68.9 ± 2.3 Ma

76.2 ± 2.2 Ma
78.0 ± 1.3 Ma

88.0 ± 3.4 Ma
90.6 ± 2.5 Ma

terns through time (e.g., Pardo-Pérez et al., 2012; Rubilar-Rogers et al.,

2012; Manríquez et al., 2019). Future studies of these patterns will be
critical to comprehensive characterization of the paleoenvironmental
Bounding age from time-equivalent strata in Sector 3 used.
Bounding age from time-equivalent strata in Sector 1 used.

Bounding age from time-equivalent strata in Sector 5 used.

Bounding age from time-equivalent strata in Sector 2 used.
NA = not available (no absolute age constraints available).

evolution of the region, with implications for better understanding the

development of paleoflora and paleofauna at the high southern lati-
Top of Upper Tres Pasos Fm (Phases 2–4)/Base of Dorotea Fm
Top of Lower Tres Pasos Fm (Phase 1)/Base of Upper Tres Pasos

Base of Punta Barrosa Fm (base of Upper Cretaceous basin fill)

tudes across deep geologic time (e.g., Barreda et al., 2012).

Top of Lower Cerro Toro Fm/Base of Upper Cerro Toro Fm
Top of Upper Cerro Toro Fm/Base of Lower Tres Pasos Fm
Top of Dorotea Formation (top of Upper Cretaceous basin fill)

Numerous studies on ancient Andean foreland systems have at-

Top of Punta Barrosa Fm/Base of Lower Cerro Toro Fm

tempted to decipher the relative importance of basin-evolution-con-

trolling mechanisms in Andean settings and their relationship to sedi-
ment-routing patterns across deep time (e.g., Ramos et al., 2002; Gómez
et al., 2005; Uba et al., 2007; Garzione et al., 2008; DeCelles et al.,
2011; Schwartz et al., 2017). The approximate depositional duration
associated with each of the four Upper Cretaceous formations (ca. 5–10
m.y.) is sufficiently long enough to elucidate the effects of several basin
Key Stratigraphic Boundary

evolution controlling mechanisms when the recommended bounding

ages and their 2σ uncertainty values are considered (cf. Daniels et al.,
Fm (Phases 2–4)

2018). Basin-evolution-controlling mechanisms in Andean settings that

operate over 5–10 m.y. timescales include: (1) Andean uplift and re-
(Phase 1)

lated structural deformation, which can impact basin configuration and

sediment supply (e.g., Giambiagi et al., 2003; Calderón et al., 2012;
Table 2

Eude et al., 2015); (2) tectonically controlled variations in basin sub-

d
b
a

sidence (e.g., Fosdick et al., 2014; Gianni et al., 2018); (3) eustatic sea-
c

12
B.G. Daniels, et al.
level change (e.g., Aguirre-Urreta et al., 2011; Gianni et al., 2018); and
(4) long-term changes in paleoclimate regime, including periods of
regional warming or cooling (e.g., Do Campo et al., 2010; Varela et al.,
2018).
Of the mechanisms summarized above, it is plausible that the
Magallanes-Austral Basin chronostratigraphic framework is best suited
to evaluate basin evolution in response to Andean uplift and deforma-
tion. Depositional age data, when integrated with structural observa-
tions from the Andes (e.g., Calderón et al., 2012), as well as a growing
geochronologic and thermochronologic record of plutonism and de-
formation occurring within and adjacent to the basin (e.g., Hervé et al.,
2007; Calderón et al., 2012; Fosdick et al., 2015; Süssenberger et al.,
2018), offers an opportunity to examine changes to sediment routing
and basin evolution in response to specific changes in Andean uplift and
deformation, such as the development of duplex structures during the
Coniacian (e.g., Fosdick et al., 2011). The depositional age data may
also assist with understanding the role of relative sea-level change, as
well as paleoclimate variation in Chilean and Argentine Patagonia
during the Late Cretaceous. However, as relatively few regional studies
on sea-level change and paleoclimate variations in the Magallanes-
Austral Basin currently exist (e.g., del Río and Martínez, 2015; Varela
et al., 2018), a thorough evaluation of how these phenomena affected
the basin over the Late Cretaceous may not yet be possible. This
chronostratigraphic framework can be considered alongside new tem-
porally constrained results on sea-level changes, paleoclimate varia-
tions, and chemostratigraphy in the region over the Late Cretaceous as
they become available.
Furthermore, the framework offers the opportunity to evaluate
other geological elements that can assist with further comprehension of
the evolutionary history of foreland basins as a whole. For example, the
framework offers a means to interrogate the long-term connection be-
tween hinterland sources of sediment and depositional sinks in a ret-
roarc foreland basin, as well as compute sedimentation rates for strata
deposited along a ∼120 km segment of the Andean Cordillera to ex-
amine along-orogen variations in sediment input over time. Though
results generated from these future analyses will indeed be specific to
the Magallanes-Austral Basin, they could be applied to help better un-
derstand the evolution of retroarc foreland basins in other analogous
settings worldwide (e.g., the Western foreland basin of Taiwan; Nagel
et al., 2013).
7. Conclusions
Compilation of chronostratigraphic data (i.e., U-Pb zircon, stron-
tium isotope, and fossil ages) from the Cretaceous Magallanes-Austral
Basin, along with thirteen new U-Pb maximum depositional ages from
detrital zircon results from near Laguna Sofia, Chile, provides a revised
chronostratigraphic framework for the basin in the Última Esperanza
Province of Chile. The new framework offers high-precision (com-
monly < 3% for each age) temporal constraints for numerous
bounding surfaces associated with each formation in the basin (re-
commended absolute age range: 101.0 ± 2.2 Ma to 67.1 ± 1.8 Ma),
which can be used to temporally constrain discrete phases of basin
evolution related to deposition of these units. These data will assist
future workers with the evaluation of paleontological and/or paleo-
biological trends in the high southern latitudes, as well as elucidation of
basin-evolution-controlling mechanisms that operate on 5–10 m.y.
timescales. For the purposes of deciphering the relative importance of
basin-evolution-controlling mechanisms across these timescales, we
conclude that the depositional age constraints reported here are most
appropriate for examinations on the effects of Andean uplift and de-
formation. Depositional ages can be used to compute sedimentation
rates that are plausibly precise enough to be compared directly against
a large database of geochronologic and thermochronologic data from
the arc, fold-thrust belt, and basin. This may enable constraint of the
timing of deformation in the area, facilitating a thorough investigation
13
Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209
of Andean controls on basin evolution. The chronostratigraphic in-
formation reported here may also assist with constraint of the long-term
effects of sea-level change and paleoclimate variation on the basin fill;
however, we acknowledge that additional data related to the timing of
regional sea-level and chemostratigraphic proxy studies with which to
infer paleoclimate changes are required before this will be possible.
Our compilation of the chronostratigraphy of Upper Cretaceous
units in the Última Esperanza Province of Chile and surrounding areas
in Argentina also provides value to those interested in the regional
geology of the Magallanes-Austral Basin. In particular, the framework
provides a template for stratigraphic correlation of time-equivalent
basin fill units exposed in Argentina further north, as well as those
exposed south of Puerto Natales, Chile.
Acknowledgements
This work represents the sum of numerous contributions from two
decades of research based in Chilean and Argentine Patagonia, largely
conducted via Stanford University (Hubbard, Romans, Malkowski,
Bernhardt, Jobe, Fosdick, Schwartz, Fildani, Graham), the University of
Calgary (Daniels, Hubbard, Matthews), and Virginia Tech (Romans,
Kaempfe). Funding for work at Stanford University was provided by
sponsoring corporations of the Stanford Project on Deep-water
Depositional Systems (SPODDS), which have included Aera Energy,
Anadarko, BHP Billiton, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Emerald Trail,
Eni, ExxonMobil, Hess, Husky, Karoon Gas, Maersk, Marathon, NEOS,
Nexen, Occidental Petroleum, Petrobras, Reliance Industries, Repsol
YPF, Rohöl-Aufsuchungs A.G. (RAG), Saudi Aramco, Schlumberger,
Shell, Unocal, and Venoco. Funding for work at the University of
Calgary and Virginia Tech was generously provided by the industrial
sponsors of the Chile Slope Systems Joint Industry Project (Anadarko,
BG Group, BHP Billiton, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Equinor, Hess,
Maersk, Marathon, Nexen, Repsol, and Shell). Additional funding was
provided through a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant (RGPIN/341715-2013) to
Hubbard, and by the University of Calgary Silver Anniversary
Fellowship and Queen Elizabeth II graduate scholarships to Daniels. We
are grateful to various landowners for granting access to the outcrops,
including Hotel Explora, the Alarcón family, Mauricio Álvarez
Kusanovic and Hella Roehrs Jeppesen, Armando Álvarez Saldivia, Jose
Antonio Kusanovic and Tamara Mac Leod, Christian Cárdenas
Alvarado, Raúl Cárdenas Rodríguez, Jorge Vidal Nuñez, and Felipe
Vidal Nuñez, as well as Estancia Cerro Guido, Estancia El Chingüe,
Estancia Las Chinas, and Estancia 3R. We are grateful to Tomislav Goic
and Alejandrina Mac Leod for friendship and support during our field
work. This work benefitted from inspiring discussions with Neal
Auchter, Zach Sickmann, Glenn Sharman, and many other academic
and industrial colleagues, for which we are extremely grateful. Finally,
we wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments and
suggestions, which helped improve the manuscript, as well as Dr. James
Kellogg for editorial assistance.
Appendix A and Appendix B. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2019.05.025.
References
Aguirre-Urreta, B., Tunik, M., Naipauer, M., Pazos, P., Ottone, E., Fanning, M., Ramos,
V.A., 2011. Malargüe Group (Maastrichtian-Danian) deposits in the Neuquén Andes,
Argentina: implications for the onset of the first Atlantic transgression related to
western Gondwana break-up. Gondwana Res. 19, 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.gr.2010.06.008.
Allen, R.B., 1982. Geología de la Cordillera Sarmiento, Andes Patagónicos entre los 51°00′
y 52°50′ Lat. Sur, Magallanes, Chile. Serv. Nac. Geol. Miner. Sernageomin, Boletín 38,
1–46.
Arbe, H.A., Hechem, J.J., 1984. Estratigrafía y facies de depósitos marinos profundos del
B.G. Daniels, et al.
Cretácico Superior, Lago Argentino, Provincia de Santa Cruz. IX Congreso Geológico
Argentino Actas 5, 7–41.
Armitage, D.A., Romans, B.W., Covault, J.A., Graham, S.A., 2009. The influence of mass-
transport-deposit surface topography on the evolution of turbidite architecture: the
Sierra Contreras, Tres Pasos Formation (Cretaceous), southern Chile. J. Sediment.
Res. 79, 287–301. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.035.
Auchter, N.C., Romans, B.W., Hubbard, S.M., 2016. Influence of deposit architecture on
intrastratal deformation, slope deposits of Tres Pasos Formation, Chile. Sediment.
Geol. 341, 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2016.05.005.
Barreda, V.D., Cúneo, N.R., Wilf, P., Currano, E.D., Scasso, R.A., Brinkhuis, H., 2012.
Cretaceous/Paleogene floral turnover in Patagonia: drop in diversity, low extinction,
and a Classopollis spike. PLoS One 7, e52455. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0052455.
Bayona, G., Cortés, M., Jaramillo, C., Ojeda, G., Jairo Aristizabal, J., Reyes-Harker, A.,
2008. An integrated analysis of an orogen-sedimentary basin pair: latest Cretaceous-
Cenozoic evolution of the linked Eastern Cordillera orogeny and the Llanos foreland
basin of Colombia. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 120, 1171–1197. https://doi.org/10.1130/
B26187.1.
Beaubouef, R.T., 2004. Deep-water leveed-channel complexes of the Cerro Toro
Formation, upper Cretaceous, southern Chile. AAPG (Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull. 88,
1471–1500. https://doi.org/10.1306/06210403130.
Bernhardt, A., Jobe, Z.R., Lowe, D.R., 2011. Stratigraphic evolution of a submarine
channel-lobe complex system in a narrow fairway within the Magallanes foreland
basin, Cerro Toro Formation, southern Chile. Mar. Pet. Geol. 28, 785–806. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2010.05.013.
Bernhardt, A., Jobe, Z.R., Grove, M., Lowe, D.R., 2012. Palaeogeography and diachronous
infill of an ancient deep-marine foreland basin, Upper Cretaceous Cerro Toro
Formation. Magallanes Basin Basin Res. 24, 269–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1365-2117.2011.00528.x.
Biddle, K.T., Uliana, M.A., Mitchum Jr., R.M., Fitzgerald, M.G., Wright, R.C., 1986. The
stratigraphic and structural evolution of the central and eastern Magallanes Basin,
southern South America. In: Allen, P.A., Homewood, P. (Eds.), Foreland Basins.
Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, pp. 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781444303810.ch2.
Bruhn, R.L., Dalziel, I.W.D., 1977. Destruction of the Early Cretaceous marginal basin in
the Andes of Tierra del Fuego. In: In: Talwani, M., Pitman, W.C. (Eds.), Island Arcs,
Deep Sea Trenches and Back-Arc Basins: Washington, vol. 1. American Geophysical
Union, Maurice Ewing Series, pp. 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1029/ME001p0395.
Calderón, M., Fildani, A., Hervé, F., Fanning, C.M., Weislogel, A., Cordani, U., 2007. Late
Jurassic bimodal magmatism in the northern sea-floor remnant of the Rocas Verdes
Basin, southern Patagonian Andes. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 164, 1011–1022. https://doi.
org/10.1144/0016-76492006-102.
Calderón, M., Fosdick, J.C., Warren, C., Massonne, H.-J., Fanning, C.M., Fadel Cury, L.,
Schwanethal, J., Fonseca, P.E., Galaz, G., Gaytán, D., Hervé, F., 2012. The low-grade
Canal de las Montañas Shear Zone and its role on the tectonic emplacement of the
Sarmiento Ophiolitic Complex and Late Cretaceous Patagonian Andes orogeny, Chile.
Tectonophysics 524–525, 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2011.12.034.
Calderón, M., Prades, C.F., Hervé, F., Avendaño, V., Fanning, C.M., Massonne, H.J.,
Theye, T., Simonetti, A., 2013. Petrological vestiges of the Late Jurassic–Early
Cretaceous transition from rift to back-arc basin in southernmost Chile: new age and
geochemical data from the Capitán Aracena, Carlos III, and Tortuga ophiolitic com-
plexes. Geochem. J. 47, 201–217. https://doi.org/10.2343/geochemj.2.0235.
Calderón, M., Hervé, F., Fuentes, F., Fosdick, J.C., Sepúlveda, F., Galaz, G., 2016. Tectonic
evolution of the Mesozoic Andean metamorphic complexes and the Rocas Verdes
ophiolites in southern Patagonia. In: Ghiglione, M.C. (Ed.), Geodynamic Evolution of
the Southernmost Andes. Springer International Publishing, Cham, CH, pp. 7–36.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39727-6_2.
Campion, K.M., Dixon, B.T., Scott, E.D., 2011. Sediment waves and depositional im-
plications for fine-grained rocks in the Cerro Toro Formation (upper Cretaceous),
Silla Syncline, Chile. Mar. Pet. Geol. 28, 761–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpetgeo.2010.07.002.
Cecioni, G.O., 1957. Cretaceous flysch and molasses in departamento Ultima Esperanza,
Magallanes Province, Chile. AAPG (Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull. 41, 538–564.
Charrier, R., Hérail, G., Pinto, L., García, M., Riquelme, R., Farías, M., Muñoz, N., 2013.
Cenozoic tectonic evolution in the Central Andes in northern Chile and west central
Bolivia: implication for paleogeographic, magmatic and mountain building evolution.
Int. J. Earth Sci. 102, 235–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-012-0801-4.
Coleman, J.L., 2000. Reassessment of the Cerro Toro (Chile) sandstones in view of
channel-levee-overbank reservoir continuity issues. In: In: Weimer, P., Slatt, R.M.,
Coleman, J., Rosen, N.C., Nelson, H., Bouma, A.H., Styzen, M.J., Lawrence, D.T.
(Eds.), Deep-water Reservoirs of the World, GCSSEPM Research Conference, vol. 20.
pp. 252–258.
Coutts, D.S., Matthews, W.A., Hubbard, S.M., 2019. Assessment of widely used methods
to derive depositional ages from detrital zircon populations. Geosci. Front. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2018.11.002. (in press).
Covault, J.A., Romans, B.W., Graham, S.A., 2009. Outcrop expression of a continental-
margin-scale shelf-edge delta from the Cretaceous Magallanes Basin, Chile. J.
Sediment. Res. 79, 523–539. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.053.
Crane, W.H., Lowe, D.R., 2008. Architecture and evolution of the paine channel complex,
Cerro Toro Formation (upper Cretaceous), Silla Syncline, Magallanes basin, Chile.
Sedimentology 55, 979–1009. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2007.00933.x.
Cuitiño, J.I., Pimentel, M.M., Ventura Santos, R., Scasso, R.A., 2012. High resolution
isotopic ages for the early Miocene “Patagoniense” transgression in Southwest
Patagonia: stratigraphic implications. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 38, 110–122. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2012.06.008.
Dalziel, I.W.D., 1986. Collision and cordilleran orogenesis: an Andean perspective. In: In:
Coward, M.P., Ries, A.C. (Eds.), Collision Tectonics: Geological Society, London,
Special Publication, vol. 19. pp. 389–404.
Dalziel, I.W.D., De Wit, M.J., Palmer, K.F., 1974. Fossil marginal basin in the southern
Andes. Nature 250, 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1038/250291a0.
14
Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209
Daniels, B.G., Auchter, N.C., Hubbard, S.M., Romans, B.W., Matthews, W.A., Stright, L.,
2018. Timing of deep-water slope evolution constrained by large-n detrital and
volcanic ash zircon geochronology, Cretaceous Magallanes Basin, Chile. Geol. Soc.
Am. Bull. 130, 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1130/B31757.1.
de Wit, M.J., Stern, C.R., 1981. Variations in the degree of crustal extension during for-
mation of a back-arc basin. Tectonophysics 72, 229–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0040-1951(81)90240-7.
del Río, C.J., Martínez, S.A., 2015. Paleobiogeography of the Danian molluscan assem-
blages of Patagonia (Argentina): Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology. Palaeoecology
417, 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2014.10.006.
DeCelles, P.G., Horton, B.K., 2003. Early to middle Tertiary foreland basin developments
and the history of Andean crustal shortening in Bolivia. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 115,
58–77. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(2003)115<0058:ETMTFB>2.0.CO;2.
DeCelles, P.G., Carrapa, B., Gehrels, G.E., 2007. Detrital zircon U-Pb ages provide pro-
venance and chronostratigraphic information from Eocene synorogenic deposits in
northwestern Argentina. Geology 35, 323–326. https://doi.org/10.1130/G23322A.1.
DeCelles, P.G., Carrapa, B., Horton, B.K., Gehrels, G.E., 2011. Cenozoic foreland basin
system in the central Andes of northwestern Argentina: implications for Andean
geodynamics and modes of deformation. Tectonics 30, TC6013. https://doi.org/10.
1029/2011TC002948.
DeGraaff-Surpless, K., Graham, S.A., Wooden, J.L., McWilliams, M.O., 2002. Detrital
zircon provenance analysis of the Great Valley Group, California: evolution of an arc-
forearc system. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 114, 1564–1580. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-
7606(2002)114<1564:DZPAOT>2.0.CO;2.
Di Giulio, A., Ronchi, A., Sanfilippo, A., Tiepolo, M., Pimentel, M., Ramos, V.A., 2012.
Detrital zircon provenance from the Neuquén Basin (south-central Andes):
Cretaceous geodynamic evolution and sedimentary response in a retroarc-forearc
basin. Geology 40, 559–562. https://doi.org/10.1130/G33052.1.
Dickinson, W.R., Gehrels, G.E., 2009. Use of U-Pb ages of detrital zircons to infer max-
imum depositional ages of strata: a test against a Colorado Plateau Mesozoic data-
base. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 288, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2009.09.
013.
Do Campo, M., del Papa, C., Nieto, F., Hongn, F., Petrinovic, I., 2010. Integrated analysis
for constraining palaeoclimatic and volcanic influences on clay-mineral assemblages
in orogenic basins (Palaeogene Andean foreland, Northwestern Argentina). Sediment.
Geol. 228, 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2010.04.002.
Dott, R.H., Winn Jr., R.D., Smith, C.H.L., 1982. Relationship of late Mesozoic and early
Cenozoic sedimentation to the tectonic evolution of the southernmost Andes and the
Scotia arc. In: Craddock, C. (Ed.), Antarctic Geoscience: Madison, Wisconsin.
University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 193–202.
Eude, A., Roddaz, M., Brichau, S., Brusset, S., Calderon, Y., Baby, P., Soula, J.-C., 2015.
Controls on timing of exhumation and deformation in the northern Peruvian eastern
Andean wedge as inferred from low-temperature thermochronology and balanced
cross section. Tectonics 34, 715–730. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014TC003641.
Fedo, C.M., Sircombe, K.N., Rainbird, R.H., 2003. Detrital zircon analysis of the sedi-
mentary record. In: In: Hanchar, H.M., Hoskin, P.W.O. (Eds.), Zircon: Chantilly,
Virginia, Mineralogical Society of America, Reviews in Mineralogy and
Geochemistry, vol. 53. pp. 277–303.
Fildani, A., Hessler, A.M., 2005. Stratigraphic record across a retroarc basin inversion:
Rocas Verdes–Magallanes basin, Patagonian Andes. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 117,
1596–1614. https://doi.org/10.1130/B25708.1.
Fildani, A., Cope, T.D., Graham, S.A., Wooden, J.L., 2003. Initiation of the Magallanes
foreland basin: timing of the southernmost Patagonian Andes orogeny revised by
detrital zircon provenance analysis. Geology 31, 1081–1084. https://doi.org/10.
1130/G20016.1.
Fildani, A., Hubbard, S.M., Romans, B.W., 2009. Stratigraphic evolution of deep-water
architecture: examples of controls and depositional styles from the Magallanes Basin,
Chile. SEPM Field Trip Guide 10, 73.
Folguera, A., Zárate, M., Tedesco, A., Dávila, F., Ramos, V.A., 2015. Evolution of the
Neogene Andean foreland basins of the southern Pampas and northern Patagonia
(34°-41°S), Argentina. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 64, 452–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jsames.2015.05.010.
Fosdick, J.C., Romans, B.W., Fildani, A., Bernhardt, A., Calderón, M., Graham, S.A., 2011.
Kinematic evolution of the Patagonian retro-arc fold-and-thrust belt and Magallanes
foreland basin, Chile and Argentina, 51°30′S. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 123, 1679–1698.
https://doi.org/10.1130/B30242.1.
Fosdick, J.C., Grove, M., Hourigan, J.K., Calderón, M., 2013. Retroarc deformation and
exhumation near the end of the Andes, southern Patagonia. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
361, 504–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.12.007.
Fosdick, J.C., Graham, S.A., Hilley, G.E., 2014. Influence of attenuated lithosphere and
sediment loading on flexure of the deep-water Magallanes retroarc foreland basin,
Southern Andes. Tectonics 33, 2505–2525. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014TC003684.
Fosdick, J.C., Grove, M., Graham, S.A., Hourigan, J.K., Lovera, O., Romans, B.W., 2015.
Detrital thermochronologic record of burial heating and sediment recycling in the
Magallanes foreland basin, Patagonian Andes. Basin Res. 27, 546–572. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bre.12088.
García, J.-L., Hall, B.L., Kaplan, M.R., Vega, R.M., Strelin, J.A., 2014. Glacial geomor-
phology of the Torres del Paine region (southern Patagonia): implications for gla-
ciation, deglaciation and paleolake history. Geomorphology 204, 599–616. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.08.036.
Garzione, C.N., Hoke, C.D., Libarkin, J.C., Withers, S., MacFadden, B., Eiler, J., Ghosh, P.,
Mulch, A., 2008. Rise of the Andes. Science 320, 1304–1307. https://doi.org/10.
1126/science.1148615.
Gehrels, G.E., 2012. Detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology: current methods and new op-
portunities. In: Busby, C., Perez, A.A. (Eds.), Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins. Wiley-
Blackwell Publishing, Chichester, UK, pp. 47–62.
Gehrels, G.E., Valencia, V.A., Ruiz, J., 2008. Enhanced precision, accuracy, efficiency,
and spatial resolution of U-Pb ages by laser ablation-multicollector-inductively cou-
pled plasma-mass spectrometry. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 9, Q03017. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2007GC001805.
B.G. Daniels, et al.
Ghiglione, M.C., Quinteros, J., Yagupsky, D., Bonillo-Martínez, P., Hlebszevtich, J.,
Ramos, V.A., Vergani, G., Figueroa, D., Quesada, S., Zapata, T., 2010. Structure and
tectonic history of the foreland basins of southernmost South America. J. South Am.
Earth Sci. 29, 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2009.07.006.
Ghiglione, M.C., Likerman, J., Barberón, V., Beatriz Giambiagi, L., Aguirre-Urreta, B.,
Suarez, F., 2014. Geodynamic context for the deposition of coarse-grained deep-
water axial channel systems in the Patagonian Andes. Basin Res. 26, 726–745 10
.1111/bre.12061.
Giambiagi, L.B., Ramos, V.A., Godoy, E., Alvarez, P.P., Orts, S., 2003. Cenozoic de-
formation and tectonic style of the Andes, between 33° and 34° south latitude.
Tectonics 22, 1041. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001TC001354.
Gianni, G.M., Dávila, F.M., Echaurren, A., Fennell, L., Tobal, J., Navarrete, C., Quezada,
P., Folguera, A., Giménez, M., 2018. A geodynamic model linking Cretaceous or-
ogeny, arc migration, foreland dynamic subsidence and marine ingression in
southern South America. Earth Sci. Rev. 185, 437–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
earscirev.2018.06.016.
Godoy, E., 1978. Observaciones en el complejo ofiolítico de isla Milne Edwards – Cerro
Tortuga (Isla Navarino), Magallanes, Chile. In: 7th Congreso Geológico Argentino,
Actas, vol. 2. pp. 625–636.
Gómez, E., Jordan, T.E., Allmendinger, R.W., Cardozo, N., 2005. Development of the
Colombian foreland-basin system as a consequence of diachronous exhumation of the
northern Andes. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 117, 1272–1292. https://doi.org/10.1130/
B25456.1.
Gutiérrez, N.M., Le Roux, J.P., Vásquez, A., Carreño, C., Pedroza, V., Araos, J., Oyarzún,
J.L., Pablo Pino, J., Rivera, H.A., Hinojosa, L.F., 2017. Tectonic events reflected by
palaeocurrents, zircon geochronology, and palaeobotany in the Sierra Baguales of
Chilean Patagonia. Tectonophysics 695, 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.
2016.12.014.
Hervé, F., Godoy, E., Mpodozis, C., Fanning, M., 2004. Monitoring magmatism of the
Patagonian batholith through the U-Pb SHRIMP dating of detrital zircons in sedi-
mentary units of the Magallanes Basin. In: In: Carcione, J., Donda, F., Lodolo, E.
(Eds.), GEOSUR, International Symposium on the Geology and Geophysics of the
Southernmost Andes, the Scotia Arc and the Antarctic Peninsula, Actas 4-06:
Bolletino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata, vol. 45. pp. 113–117.
Hervé, F., Pankhurst, R.J., Fanning, C.M., Calderón, M., Yaxley, G.M., 2007. The South
Patagonian batholith: 150 my of granite magmatism on a plate margin. Lithos 97,
373–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2007.01.007.
Hoorn, C., Wesselingh, F.P., ter Steege, H., Bermudez, M.A., Mora, A., Sevink, J.,
Sanmartín, I., Sanchez-Meseguer, A., Anderson, C.L., Figueiredo, J.P., Jaramillo, C.,
Riff, D., Negri, F.R., Hooghiemstra, H., Lundberg, J., Stadler, T., Särkinen, T.,
Antonelli, A., 2010. Amazonia through time: Andean uplift, climate change, land-
scape evolution, and biodiversity. Science 330, 927–931. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1194585.
Horstwood, M.S.A., Košler, J., Gehrels, G.E., Jackson, S.E., McLean, N.M., Paton, C.,
Pearson, N.J., Sircombe, K., Sylvester, P., Vermeesch, P., Bowring, J.F., Condon, D.J.,
Schoene, B., 2016. Community-derived standards for LA-ICP-MS U-(Th-)Pb geo-
chronology – uncertainty propagation, age interpretation and data reporting.
Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 40, 311–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-908X.2016.
00379.x.
Horton, B.K., Anderson, V.J., Caballero, V., Saylor, J.E., Nie, J., Parra, M., Mora, A., 2015.
Application of detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology to surface and subsurface corre-
lations of provenance, paleodrainage, and tectonics of the Middle Magdalena Valley
Basin of Colombia. Geosphere 11, 1790–1811. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01251.1.
Horton, B.K., 2017. Sedimentary record of Andean mountain building. Earth Sci. Rev.
178, 279–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.11.025.
Howarth, R.J., McArthur, J., 1997. Statistics for strontium isotope stratigraphy: a robust
LOWESS fit to the marine Sr-isotope curve for 0 to 206 Ma, with look-up table for
derivation of numeric age. J. Geol. 105, 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1086/515938.
Howell, J.A., Schwarz, E., Spalletti, L.A., Veiga, G.D., 2005. The Neuquén Basin: an
Overview, vol. 252. Geological Society of London Special Publications, pp. 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2005.252.01.01.
Hubbard, S.M., Shultz, M.R., 2008. Deep burrows in submarine-fan channel deposits of
the Cerro Toro Formation (Cretaceous), Chilean Patagonia: implications for firm-
ground development and colonization in the deep sea. Palaios 23, 223–232. https://
doi.org/10.2110/palo.2006.p06-127r.
Hubbard, S.M., Romans, B.W., Graham, S.A., 2008. Deep-water foreland basin deposits of
the Cerro Toro Formation, Magallanes Basin, Chile: architectural elements of a sin-
uous basin axial channel belt. Sedimentology 55, 1333–1359. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1365-3091.2007.00948.x.
Hubbard, S.M., Fildani, A., Romans, B.W., Covault, J.A., McHargue, T.R., 2010. High-
relief slope clinoform development: insights from outcrop, Magallanes Basin, Chile. J.
Sediment. Res. 80, 357–375. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2010.042.
Hulka, C., Heubeck, C., 2010. Composition and provenance history of Late Cenozoic se-
diments of southeastern Bolivia: implications for Chaco foreland basin evolution and
Andean uplift. J. Sediment. Res. 80, 288–299. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2010.029.
Husson, L., Moretti, I., 2002. Thermal regime of fold and thrust belts – an application to
the Bolivian sub Andean zone. Tectonophysics 345, 253–280. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0040-1951(01)00216-5.
Jaffey, A.H., Flynn, K.F., Glendenin, L.E., Bentley, W.C., Essling, A.M., 1971. Precision
measurement of half-lives and specific activities of 235U and 238U. Phys. Rev. 4,
1889–1906. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.4.1889.
Jobe, Z.R., Bernhardt, A., Lowe, D.R., 2010. Facies and architectural asymmetry in a
conglomerate-rich submarine channel fill, Cerro Toro Formation, Sierra del Toro,
Magallanes, Chile. J. Sediment. Res. 80, 1085–1108. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.
2010.092.
Johnstone, S.A., Schwartz, T.M., Holm-Denoma, C.S., 2019. A stratigraphic approach to
inferring depositional ages from detrital geochronology data. Front. Earth Sci.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2019.00057. (in press).
Jordan, T.E., Schlunegger, F., Cardozo, N., 2001. Unsteady and spatially variable evo-
lution of the Neogene Andean Bermejo foreland basin, Argentina. J. South Am. Earth
15
Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209
Sci. 14, 775–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-9811(01)00072-4.
Katz, H.R., 1963. Revision of Cretaceous stratigraphy in Patagonian cordillera of Ultima
Esperanza, Magallanes Province, Chile. AAPG (Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull. 47,
506–524.
Ludwig, K.R., 1998. On the treatment of concordant uranium-lead ages. Geochem.
Cosmochim. Acta 62, 665–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7037(98)00059-3.
Ludwig, K.R., 2012. Manual for Isoplot 3.75: Berkeley, vol. 30. Berkeley Geochronology
Center, Special Publication No. 5. Rev. January, pp. 75 2012.
Macauley, R.V., Hubbard, S.M., 2013. Slope channel sedimentary processes and strati-
graphic stacking, Cretaceous Tres Pasos Formation slope system, Chilean Patagonia.
Mar. Pet. Geol. 41, 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2012.02.004.
Macellari, C.E., Barrio, C.A., Manassero, M.J., 1989. Upper Cretaceous to Paleocene de-
positional sequences and sandstone petrography of southwestern Patagonia
(Argentina and Chile). J. South Am. Earth Sci. 2, 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0895-9811(89)90031-X.
Manríquez, L.M.E., Lavina, E.L., Fernández, R.A., Trevisan, C., Leppe, M.A., 2019.
Campanian-Maastrichtian and Eocene stratigraphic architecture, facies analysis, and
paleoenvironmental evolution of the northern Magallanes Basin (Chilean Patagonia).
J. South Am. Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2019.04.010.
Malkowski, M.A., Grove, M., Graham, S.A., 2016. Unzipping the Patagonian Andes – long-
lived influence of rifting history on foreland basin evolution. Lithosphere 8, 23–28.
https://doi.org/10.1130/L489.1.
Malkowski, M.A., Schwartz, T.M., Sharman, G.R., Sickmann, Z.T., Graham, S.A., 2017a.
Stratigraphic and provenance variations in the earth evolution of the Magallanes-
Austral foreland basin: implications for the role of longitudinal versus transverse
sediment dispersal during arc-continent collision. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 129, 349–371.
https://doi.org/10.1130/B31549.1.
Malkowski, M.A., Sharman, G.R., Graham, S.A., Fildani, A., 2017b. Characterisation and
diachronous initiation of coarse clastic deposition in the Magallanes-Austral foreland
basin, Patagonian Andes. Basin Res. 29, 298–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/bre.
12150.
Malkowski, M.A., Jobe, Z.R., Sharman, G.R., Graham, S.A., 2018. Down-slope facies
variability within deep-water channel systems: insights from the Upper Cretaceous
Cerro Toro Formation, southern Patagonian. Sedimentology 65, 1918–1946. https://
doi.org/10.1111/sed.12452.
Malumián, N., Caramés, A., 1997. Upper Campanian-Paleogene from the Río Turbio coal
measures in southern Argentina: micropaleontology and the Paleocene/Eocene
boundary. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 10, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-
9811(97)00015-1.
Mathalone, J.M.P., Montoya, M., 1995. Petroleum geology of the sub-Andean basins of
Peru. In: In: Tankard, A.J., Suarez Soruco, R., Welsink, H.J. (Eds.), Petroleum Basins
of South America: Tulsa, OK, vol. 62. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Memoir, pp. 423–444.
Matthews, W.A., Guest, B., 2017. A practical approach for collecting large-n detrital
zircon U-Pb data sets by quadrupole LA-ICP-MS. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 41,
161–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggr.12146.
Matthews, W.A., Guest, B., Madronich, L., 2017. Latest Neoproterozoic to Cambrian
detrital zircon facies of western Laurentia. Geosphere 14, 243–264. https://doi.org/
10.1130/GES01544.1.
Mattinson, J.M., 1987. U-Pb ages of zircons: a basic examination of error propagation.
Chem. Geol. 66, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9622(87)90037-6.
McArthur, J.M., Howarth, R.J., Bailey, T.R., 2001. Strontium isotope stratigraphy:
LOWESS version 3: best fit to the marine Sr-isotope curve for 0-509 Ma and ac-
companying look-up table for deriving numerical age. J. Geol. 109, 155–170. https://
doi.org/10.1086/319243.
McAtamney, J., Klepeis, K., Mehrtens, C., Thomson, S., Betka, P., Rojas, L., Snyder, S.,
2011. Along-strike variability variability of back-arc basin collapse and the initiation
of sedimentation in the Magallanes foreland basin, southernmost Andes (53-54.5°S).
Tectonics 30, TC5001. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010TC002826.
Mpodozis, C., Ramos, V., 1989. The Andes of Chile and Argentina. In: In: Ericksen, G.E.,
Cañas Pinochet, M.T., Reinemund, J.A. (Eds.), Geology of the Andes and its Relation
to Hydrocarbon and Mineral Resources: Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and
Mineral Resources Earth Science Series, vol. 11. pp. 59–90.
Mpodozis, C., Mella, P., Padva, D., 2011. Estratigrafía y megasecuencias sedimentarias en
la Cuenca Austral-Magallanes, Argentina y Chile: VIII Congreso de exploración y
desarrollo de hidrocarburos. (Mar del Plata, Argentina).
Mukasa, S.B., Dalziel, I.W.D., 1996. Southernmost Andes and south Georgia Island, north
Scotia ridge, zircon U-Pb and muscovite 40Ar/39Ar age constraints on tectonic
evolution of southwestern Gondwanaland. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 9, 349–365.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-9811(96)00019-3.
Nagel, S., Castelltort, S., Wetzel, A., Willett, S.D., Mouthereau, F., Lin, A.T., 2013.
Sedimentology and foreland basin paleogeography during Taiwan arc continent
collision. J. Asian Earth Sci. 62, 180–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.09.
001.
Natland, M.L., González, E., Cañón, A., Ernst, M., 1974. A system of stages for correlation
of Magallanes basin sediments: Boulder, Colorado. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 139, 126.
https://doi.org/10.1130/MEM139-p1.
Nullo, F.E., Proserpie, C.A., Blasco, G., 1981. El Cretácico de la Cuenca Austral entre el
lago San Martín y Río Turbio. In: In: Wolkheimer, V., Musacchio, E. (Eds.), Cuencas
Sedimentarias de América del Sur, vol. 1. pp. 181–220.
Olivero, E.B., Martinioni, D.R., 2001. A review of the geology of the Argentinian Fueguian
Andes. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 14, 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-
9811(01)00016-5.
Otero, R.A., Soto-Acuña, S., Salazar, C., Oyarzún, J.L., 2015. New elasmosaurids
(Sauropterygia, Plesiosauria) from the late Cretaceous of the Magallanes basin,
Chilean Patagonia: evidence of a faunal turnover during the Maastrichtian along the
Weddellian Biogeographic Province. Andean Geol. 42, 237–267. https://doi.org/10.
5027/andgeoV42n1-a05.
Pankhurst, R.J., Riley, T.R., Fanning, C.M., Kelley, S.P., 2000. Episodic silicic volcanism
in Patagonia and Antarctic Peninsula: chronology of magmatism associated with the
B.G. Daniels, et al.
break-up of Gondwana. J. Petrol. 41, 605–625. https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/
41.5.605.
Pardo-Pérez, J., Frey, E., Stinnesbeck, W., Fernández, M.S., Rivas, L., Salazar, C., Leppe,
M., 2012. An ichthyosaurian forefin from the Lower Cretaceous Zapata Formation of
southern Chile: implications for morphological variability within Platypterygius.
Palaeobiodivers. Palaeoenviron. 92, 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12549-012-
0074-8.
Parrish, R.R., Noble, S.R., 2003. Zircon U-Th-Pb geochronology by isotope dilution-
thermal ionization mass spectrometry (ID-TIMS). Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 53,
183–213. https://doi.org/10.2113/0530183.
Pemberton, E.A.L., Hubbard, S.M., Fildani, A., Romans, B.W., Stright, L., 2016. The
stratigraphic expression of decreasing confinement along a deep-water sediment
routing system: outcrop example from southern Chile. Geosphere 12, 114–134.
https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01233.1.
Pullen, A., Ibáñez-Mejía, M., Gehrels, G.E., Ibáñez-Mejía, J.C., Pecha, M., 2014. What
happens when n=1000? Creating large-n geochronological datasets with LA-ICP-MS
for geologic investigations. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 29, 971–980. https://doi.org/10.
1039/C4JA00024B.
Rabinowitz, P.D., La Brecque, J., 1979. The Mesozoic South Atlantic ocean and evolution
of its continental margin. J. Geophys. Res. 84, 5973–6002. https://doi.org/10.1029/
JB084iB11p05973.
Ramos, V.A., Aguirre-Urreta, M.B., 1994. Cretaceous evolution of the Magallanes basin.
In: Salfity, J.A. (Ed.), Cretaceous Tectonics of the Andes, Earth Evolution Sciences.
Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 316–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
322-85472-8_7.
Ramos, V.A., Cristallini, E.O., Pérez, D.J., 2002. The Pampean flat-slab of the central
Andes. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 15, 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-9811(02)
00006-8.
Raychowdhury, N., Mukherjee, A., Bhattacharya, P., Johannesson, K., Bundschuh, J.,
Bejarano Sifuentes, G., Nordberg, E., Martin, R.A., del Rosario Stormiolo, A., 2014.
Provenance and fate of arsenic and other solutes in the Chaco-Pampean Plain of the
Andean foreland, Argentina: from perspectives of hydrogeochemical modeling and
regional tectonic setting. J. Hydrol. 518, 300–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2013.07.003.
Riccardi, A.C., Rolleri, E.O., 1980. Cordillera Patagónica Austral. Actas Segundo Simposio
de Geología Regional Argentina 2, 1173–1306.
Richiano, S., 2014. Lower Cretaceous anoxic conditions in the Austral Basin, south-
western Gondwana, Patagonia Argentina. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 54, 37–46. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2014.04.006.
Roddaz, M., Viers, J., Brusset, S., Baby, P., Boucayrand, C., Hérail, G., 2006. Controls on
weathering and provenance in the Amazonian foreland basin: insights from major
and trace element geochemistry of Neogene Amazonian sediments. Chem. Geol. 226,
31–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2005.08.010.
Romans, B.W., Hubbard, S.M., Graham, S.A., 2009. Stratigraphic evolution of an out-
cropping continental slope system, Tres Pasos Formation at Cerro Divisadero, Chile.
Sedimentology 56, 737–764. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2008.00995.x.
Romans, B.W., Fildani, A., Graham, S.A., Hubbard, S.M., Covault, J.A., 2010. Importance
of predecessor basin history on the sedimentary fill of a retroarc foreland basin:
provenance analysis of the Cretaceous Magallanes basin, Chile (50-52°S). Basin Res.
22, 640–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00443.x.
Romans, B.W., Fildani, A., Hubbard, S.M., Covault, J.A., Fosdick, J.C., Graham, S.A.,
2011. Evolution of deep-water stratigraphic architecture, Magallanes Basin, Chile.
Mar. Pet. Geol. 28, 612–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2010.05.002.
Rubilar-Rogers, D., Otero, R.A., Yury-Yáñez, R.E., Vargas, A.O., Gutstein, C.S., 2012. An
overview of the dinosaur fossil record from Chile. Earth Sci. Rev. 37, 242–255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2012.03.003.
Ruskin, B.G., Jordan, T.E., 2007. Climate change across continental sequence boundaries:
Paleopedology and lithofacies of Iglesia Basin, Northwestern Argentina. J. Sediment.
Res. 77, 661–679. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2007.069.
Sagredo, E.A., Moreno, P.I., Villa-Martínez, R., Kaplan, M.R., Kubik, P.W., Stern, C.R.,
2011. Fluctuations of the Última Esperanza ice lobe (52°S), Chilean Patagonia, during
the last glacial maximum and termination 1. Geomorphology 125, 92–108. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.09.007.
Schwartz, T.M., Graham, S.A., 2015. Stratigraphic architecture of a tide-influenced shelf-
edge delta, upper Cretaceous Dorotea Formation, Magallanes-Austral basin,
Patagonia. Sedimentology 62, 1039–1077. https://doi.org/10.1111/sed.12176.
Schwartz, T.M., Fosdick, J.C., Graham, S.A., 2017. Using detrital zircon U-Pb ages to
calculate Late Cretaceous sedimentation rates in the Magallanes-Austral basin,
Patagonia. Basin Res. 29, 725–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/bre.12198.
Scott, K.M., 1966. Sedimentology and dispersal patterns of a Cretaceous flysch sequence,
Patagonian Andes, southern Chile. AAPG (Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull. 50, 72–107.
Sempere, T., Hérail, G., Oller, J., Bonhomme, M.G., 1990. Late Oligocene-Early Miocene
major tectonic crisis and related basins in Bolivia. Geology 18, 946–949. https://doi.
org/10.1130/0091-7613(1990)018<0946:LOEMMT>2.3.CO;2.
Shultz, M.R., Hubbard, S.M., 2005. Sedimentology, stratigraphic architecture, and ich-
nology of gravity-flow deposits partially ponded in a growth-fault-controlled slope
minibasin, Tres Pasos Formation (Cretaceous), southern Chile. J. Sediment. Res. 75,
440–453. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2005.034.
Shultz, M.R., Fildani, A., Cope, T.D., Graham, S.A., 2005. Deposition and stratigraphic
architecture of an outcropping ancient slope system: Tres Pasos Formation,
Magallanes Basin, southern Chile. In: In: Hodgson, D.M., Flint, S.S. (Eds.), Submarine
16
Journal of South American Earth Sciences 94 (2019) 102209
Slope Systems: Processes and Products: London, vol. 244. Geological Society
[London] Special Publication, pp. 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2005.244.
01.03.
Sickmann, Z.T., Schwartz, T.M., Graham, S.A., 2018. Refining stratigraphy and tectonic
history using detrital zircon maximum depositional age: an example from the Cerro
Fortaleza Formation, Austral Basin, southern Patagonia. Basin Res. 30, 708–729.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bre.12272.
Siks, B.C., Horton, B.K., 2011. Growth and fragmentation of the Andean foreland basin
during eastward advance of fold-thrust deformation, Puna plateau and Eastern
Cordillera, northern Argentina. Tectonics 30, TC6017. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2011TC002944.
Smith, C.H.L., 1977. Sedimentology of the Late Cretaceous (Santonian–Maastrichtian)
Tres Pasos Formation, Ultima Esperanza District, Southern Chile. Master’s thesis.
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, pp. 129.
Sohn, Y.K., Choe, M.Y., Jo, H.R., 2002. Transition from debris flow to hyperconcentrated
flow in a submarine channel (the Cretaceous Cerro Toro Formation, southern Chile).
Terra. Nova 14, 405–415. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3121.2002.00440.x.
Solari, M.A., Le Roux, J.P., Hervé, F., Airo, A., 2012. Evolution of the Great Tehuelche
Paleolake in the Torres del Paine National Park of Chilean Patagonia during the Last
Glacial Maximum and Holocene. Andean Geol. 39, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.5027/
andgeoV39N1-a01.
Spencer, C.J., Kirkland, C.L., Taylor, R.J.M., 2016. Strategies towards statistically robust
interpretations of in situ U-Pb zircon geochronology. Geosci. Front. 7, 581–589.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2015.11.006.
Stern, C.R., de Wit, M.J., 2003. Rocas Verdes ophiolites, southernmost South America:
remnants of progressive stages of development of oceanic-type crust in a continental
margin back-arc basin. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 218, 665–683. https://doi.org/
10.1144/GSL.SP.2003.218.01.32.
Stern, C.R., Mukasa, S.B., Fuenzalida, R., 1992. Age and petrogenesis of the Sarmiento
ophiolite complex of southern Chile. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 6, 97–104. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0895-9811(92)90020-Y.
Stevens Goddard, A., Carrapa, B., 2018. Effects of Miocene-Pliocene global climate
changes on continental sedimentation; a case study from the southern Central Andes.
Geology 46, 647–650. https://doi.org/10.1130/G40280.1.
Suárez, M., Pettigrew, T.H., 1976. An upper Mesozoic Island arc back-arc system in the
southern Andes and south Georgia. Geol. Mag. 113, 305–400. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S0016756800047592.
Süssenberger, A., Schmidt, S.T., Wemmer, K., Baumgartner, L.P., Grobéty, B., 2018.
Timing and thermal evolution of fold-and-thrust belt formation in the Ultima
Esperanza District, 51°S Chile: constraints from K-Ar dating and illite characteriza-
tion. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 130, 975–998. https://doi.org/10.1130/B31766.1.
Thomas, C.R., 1949a. Geology and petroleum exploration in Magallanes Province, Chile.
AAPG (Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull. 33, 1553–1578.
Thomas, C.R., 1949b. Manantiales field, Magallanes Province, Chile. AAPG (Am. Assoc.
Pet. Geol.) Bull. 33, 1579–1589.
Tunik, M., Folguera, A., Naipauer, M., Pimentel, M., Ramos, V.A., 2010. Early uplift and
orogenic deformation in the Neuquén Basin: constraints on the Andean uplift from U-
Pb and Hf isotopic data of detrital zircons. Tectonophysics 489, 258–273. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tecto.2010.04.017.
Uba, C.E., Heubeck, C., Hulka, C., 2006. Evolution of the late Cenozoic Chaco foreland
basin, Southern Bolivia. Basin Res. 18, 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2117.2006.00291.x.
Uba, C.E., Strecker, M.R., Schmitt, A.K., 2007. Increased sediment accumulation rates and
climatic forcing in the central Andes during the late Miocene. Geology 35, 979–982.
https://doi.org/10.1130/G224025A.1.
Valenzuela, A.A.S., 2006. Proveniencia sedimentaria de Estratos de Cabos Nariz y
Formacion Cerro Toro, Cretacico Tardio-Paleoceno, Magallanes, Chile. PhD thesis.
Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, pp. 153.
Varela, A.N., Poiré, D.G., Martin, T., Gerdes, A., Goin, F.J., Gelfo, J.N., Hoffmann, S.,
2012. U-Pb zircon constraints on the age of the Cretaceous Mata Amarilla formation,
southern Patagonia, Argentina: its relationship with the evolution of the Austral
basin. Andean Geol. 39, 359–379. https://doi.org/10.5027/andgeoV39n3-a01.
Varela, A.N., Gómez-Peral, L.E., Richano, S., Poiré, D.G., 2013. Distinguishing similar
volcanic source areas from an integrated provenance analysis: implications for
foreland Andean basins. J. Sediment. Res. 83, 258–276. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.
2013.22.
Varela, A.N., Sol Raigenborn, M., Richiano, S., White, T., Poiré, D.G., Lizzoli, S., 2018.
Late Cretaceous paleosols as paleoclimate proxies of high-latitude southern hemi-
sphere: Mata Amarilla formation, Patagonia, Argentina. Sediment. Geol. 363, 83–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2017.11.001.
Wilson, T.J., 1991. Transition from back-arc to foreland basin development in the
southernmost Andes: stratigraphic record from the Ultima Esperanza District, Chile.
Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 103, 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1991)
103<0098:TFBATF>2.3.CO;2.
Winn, R.D., Dott Jr., R.H., 1977. Large-scale traction produced structures in deep-water
fan-channel conglomerates in southern Chile. Geology 5, 41–44. https://doi.org/10.
1130/0091-7613(1977)5<41:LTSIDF>2.0.CO;2.
Winn Jr., R.D., Dott Jr., R.H., 1979. Deep-water fan-channel conglomerates of Late
Cretaceous age, southern Chile. Sedimentology 26, 203–228. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1365-3091.1979.tb00351.x.