Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemie der Erde

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

Invited review

Impact cratering: The South American record – Part 1

⁎
A.P. Cróstaa, , W.U. Reimoldb,c, M.A.R. Vasconcelosd, N. Hauserb, G.J.G. Oliveiraa,
M.V. Mazivieroa, A.M. Góese
a
State University of Campinas, Brazil
b
University of Brasília, Brazil
c
Natural History Museum – Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany
d
Federal University of Bahia, Brazil
e
University of São Paulo, Brazil

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Earth’s impact record is known to be rather limited in both time and space. There are ca. 190 impact
Impact crater structures currently known on Earth, representing a minor fraction of all the impact events that contributed to
Impact structure the initial formation of our protoplanet, and then to formation and modification of the surface of the planet.
Impact record Moreover, the distribution of impact structures on Earth is manifestly uneven. One continent that stands out for
Shock metamorphism
its relatively small number of confirmed impact structures and impact ejecta occurrences is South America. The
Meteorite
limited impact record for this large continent makes a robust case that there is a significant potential for further
Impact glasses
Tektites discoveries. Significant information on the impact record of South America is dispersed in different types of
Distal ejecta publications (journal articles, books, conferences abstracts, etc.), and in several languages, making it difficult to
K-Pg boundary access and disseminate it among the geoscientific community. We aim to present a summary of the current
Airburst knowledge of the impact record of this continent, encompassing the existing literature on the subject. It is
South America published in two parts, with the first one covering an up-to-date introduction to impact cratering processes and
to the criteria to identify/confirm an impact structure and related deposits. This is followed by a comprehensive
analysis of the Brazilian impact structures. The Brazilian impact record accounts for the totality of the large
structures of this kind currently confirmed in South America. The second part will examine the impact record of
other countries in South America, provide information about a number of proposed impact structures, and
review those that already have been discarded as not being formed by impact.

1. Introduction
Between 16 and 22 July 1994, fragments of comet D/1993 F2
(Shoemaker-Levy) successively impacted into the atmosphere of Jupiter
at a speed of some 60 km/s. The phenomenon was closely monitored by
scientists from Earth, using telescopes at many observatories, and from
space, through the Hubble Space Telescope and the Galileo Probe,
among others. The comet, which originally measured some 4 km across,
had broken up already in 1992 under the strong tidal forces of Jupiter.
During the six-day impact period 21 fragments of the comet, ran-
ging in size from some hundred meters to 1 kilometer, collided with
Jupiter’s atmosphere, causing fireballs and plumes that reached heights
of up to 3000 km. The combined energy released by these impacts was
calculated to have been the equivalent of 6 million megatons TNT,
roughly 600 times the total nuclear arsenal in the world. As Jupiter is a
gas planet, which probably only has a liquid or solid core, the effects of
the impact were recorded as gigantic spots in its atmosphere, the largest
of which had a diameter of 12,000 km (Hockey, 1994).
This was the first collision of two planetary bodies ever observed
and recorded by humankind. Consequently, this event posed a para-
digm shift for planetary scientists, as a phenomenon that had previously
been analyzed only indirectly through the study of meteorite impact
craters − the scars left on planetary surfaces by ancient impact events
− could, for the first time, be observed, monitored, and scientifically
investigated in real time.
Impact cratering studies have come a long way from modest be-
ginnings as far back as Robert Hooke’s crude experiments in the 17th
century, when he dropped objects into mud and formed crater-like
structures similar to those on the Moon’s surface (Koeberl, 2001;
McHall, 2006). These beginnings also include such important

⁎
Corresponding author at: Geosciences Institute, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP, R. Carlos Gomes 250, Cidade Universitária ‘Zeferino Vaz’, Campinas, SP,
CEP 13083-855, Brazil.
E-mail address: alvaro@ige.unicamp.br (A.P. Crósta).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemer.2018.06.001
Received 14 April 2018; Received in revised form 5 June 2018; Accepted 6 June 2018
0009-2819/ © 2018 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Crósta, A.P., Chemie der Erde (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemer.2018.06.001
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

benchmarks as J.K. Gilbert’s hotel room cratering experiments Russia, on 15 February 2013 (Borovička et al., 2013; Kohout et al.,
(Koeberl, 2001) and Alfred Wegener’s comparison of self-made “cra- 2013). The energy released was equivalent to 500 kilotons of TNT, and
ters” with lunar craters (Wegener, 1921). Strongly fertilized by Ralph the resulting shock waves caused human injuries (approximately 1500
Baldwin’s seminal book “The Face of the Moon”of 1946, impact studies people were injured mainly due to flying glass fragments) and extensive
finally came into their own with modern space exploration, when the property damage (such as broken window glass in approximately 7200
planetary science community realized its importance as an essential buildings).
process in shaping planetary surfaces. As well stated by this pioneer of As a consequence of the events described above, impact cratering, a
planetary impact science, Eugene Shoemaker, in his book chapter en- geological process that did not receive much attention from scientists
titled “Why study impact craters?” (Roddy et al., 1977), “the impact of until no more than a few decades ago, is now considered not only a
solid bodies is the most fundamental of all processes that have taken planetary process of fundamental, even paramount importance, but also
place on the terrestrial planets (Earth, Mars, Venus, Mercury). Indeed, the geological process that has been most ubiquitous throughout the
we can now sustain that impact processes are fundamental on all solid evolution of the Solar System. The effects of impact cratering over the
cosmic bodies, such as planets, moons, asteroids and comets” (page 1). entire timespan from planetary accretion until current times, as well as
Between the early 1980′s and the mid-1990′s, impact cratering covering the entire paleo-environmental and biological evolution on
studies experienced three decisive impulses. The first one was the re- our planet, are considered of profound significance (e.g., Melosh, 2011;
cognition of a link between a thin layer unusually enriched in platinum- papers listed in Reimold and Jourdan, 2012; Osinski and Pierazzo,
group elements (PGE), and its relation to a possible collision of a large 2013).
asteroid or comet with the Earth. It was found by Louis and Walter After decades of dedicated study of terrestrial impact structures, it is
Alvarez and colleagues in the Italian Apennines (Alvarez et al., 1980), now also known that the Earth’s known overall impact record is rather
deposited right at the boundary between the Cretaceous and the Pa- limited in both time and space. Differently from other planetary bodies,
leogene sediment deposits. This thin layer was then known as the such as the Moon, Mars or Mercury and all solid planetary bodies, in-
Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary – today it is referred to by the acronym cluding asteroids and comets, that have preserved their full impact
K-Pg (Cretaceous-Paleogene) boundary. Near-simultaneously, a Dutch records over 4.5 billion years (Fig. 1), the Earth’s crust is extremely
geologist, Jan Smit, made the same discovery in the K-Pg layer exposed dynamic, so that most of the terrestrial impact record has been ob-
in Spain (Smit and Hertogen, 1980). These authors postulated that this literated by tectonic, erosional and/or sedimentary processes. The
large-scale cosmic impact was responsible for the mass extinction event about 190 impact structures currently known on Earth (Earth Impact
that wiped out most of the life forms present at approximately 66 Database, February 2018) represent just a minor fraction of all the
million years ago, which includes the bulk of the dinosaur fauna.
However, an impact crater of compatible large-size and age remained to
be found on Earth, in order to corroborate this hypothesis.
The second boost for impact science was the actual discovery of a
very large impact structure, Chicxulub, straddling the edge of the
Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico (Hildebrand et al., 1991), with precisely the
same age as that of the K-Pg boundary, i.e., about 66 Ma. An intense
debate ensued in the geoscience community and under widespread
interest by the public, related to whether or not a single meteorite
impact, even of the magnitude of the one that produced the Chicxulub
impact structure of some 180 km diameter (Sharpton et al., 1993;
Morgan et al., 1997), would be capable of setting off a mass extinction
of this magnitude. This debate ran for nearly two decades, until a team
of 41 experts from several countries reviewed all the evidence for the
link between Chicxulub crater and the K-Pg mass extinction and con-
cluded in favor of the connection of both events (Schulte et al., 2010).
The significant role played by the Chicxulub impact and its global ef-
fects have since been strengthened (e.g. Morgan et al., 2016, on the
latest deep drilling results carried out at the peak-ring of the structure).
The third major impact discovery – or importance for impact cra-
tering studies – was then the widely televised comet impact of
Shoemaker-Levy 9 into the atmosphere of Jupiter of July 1994. Some
countries around that time invested into setting up committees and
scientific investigations analyzing the present danger from space, ac-
tively pursuing sky surveys in order to provide early warning of stray
planetary bolides approaching Earth’s airspace.
To reinforce the fact that meteorite impacts on Earth are not just a
phenomenon of the past, on 15 September 2007 a small meteorite (no
larger than 1–2 m in size) ‘touched down’ near the village of Carancas,
in Peru, forming an, admittedly, very small crater of 14 m diameter
(e.g., Borovička and Spurný, 2008; Kenkmann et al., 2009a, 2009b).
Although the local inhabitants were startled by this rare and un-
expected event, fortunately no harm was caused, which would not have
been the case if a hypothetical similar fall had happened over a more
populated area, say a large city. Fig. 1. a) Surface of Mercury exhibiting numerous impact structures. Image
Likewise, another recent phenomenon aroused serious concern from the MESSENGER probe (Credit: NASA-JPL/Johns Hopkins University
about meteorite impacts and the safety for humankind: the explosion of Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington). b) Full view
a 20 m meteorite about 23 km above the vicinity of Chelyabinsk, a of giant asteroid Vesta (diameter 530 km), registered by the framing camera on
major city of 1 million inhabitants located in the Ural Mountains of the Dawn spacecraft (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCAL/MPS/DLR/IDA).

2
A.P. Crósta et al.
impact events that contributed to the initial formation of our proto-
planet, and then to formation and modification of the surface of the
planet.
1.1. The South American impact record
The geographical distribution, as well as the density of known im-
pact structures on Earth, are remarkably uneven. The map depicting the
worldwide distribution of impact structures (see Fig. 13, in Section 4 of
this review paper) shows greater crater densities in North America,
Europe and Australia, whereas other continents and regions exhibit a
lesser number of such structures. For example, the Earth Impact Data-
base (February 2018) records 27 confirmed impact structures in Aus-
tralia, whereas the record for the much larger continent Africa stands
only at 20.
South America, in particular, depicts a relatively reduced number of
such structures. Whilst being among the large continents on Earth, it is
the one with the least number of confirmed impact structures, with only
10 (see also Reimold et al., 2018). In addition, it also exhibits a very
limited number of occurrences of materials related to the impact record,
such as impact glasses, tektites, K-Pg boundary layer sites and reports of
airbursts (Fig. 2).
This small number of confirmed impact structures in South America
is not compatible with its overall geological characteristics. The con-
tinent comprises two main tectonic domains: the Andean domain and
the South American Platform domain (e.g., Cordani et al., 2016)
(Fig. 3). The Andean domain is generally characterized by younger
terrains (Phanerozoic) than occurring on the rest of the continent. In
these younger terrains, active geological processes have not favored the
preservation of the impact record, in particular with respect to older
structures. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the only two impact
craters known to date in the Andean domain are very young (Montur-
aqui – < 500–700 ka and Carancas – 10 years). However, even con-
sidering the limitation imposed by active geological processes in this
domain, this number of young craters is uncharacteristically small
compared to other similar regions of the world, such as North America
(∼7 craters younger than 40 Ma), or even Africa (∼9 craters younger
than 40 Ma).
The remainder of the continent is mostly a stable continental region,
which has served as the cratonic counterpart to the Andean domain
during the Phanerozoic (Cordani et al., 2016). There are seven cratonic
areas in South America, all of which have been tectonically stable at
least since the Neoproterozoic. These cratons, the Amazonian, São
Francisco, São Luís, Parnaíba, Paranapanema, Luiz Alves, and Rio de la
Plata, are surrounded by orogenic belts related to the Neoproterozoic
Brasiliano/Pan African Orogenic Cycle (Cordani et al., 2016). There is
only one possible – still to be confirmed – impact crater in a cratonic
area known in South America, the Colônia structure near the mega-city
of São Paulo in southeastern Brazil. Still, there is no reason why these
terrains, especially the cratonic areas, should not have (at least rem-
nants of) medium to large sized impact structures, as those exhibited by
similar geological terrains in North America, South Africa and Aus-
tralia.
The South American Platform has also five major intra-cratonic
sedimentary basins, which have developed from Middle Ordovician
times until the Cenozoic. Only two of these basins contain the majority
of the medium to large sized, confirmed impact structures of South
America: Araguainha, Vargeão, Vista Alegre, and the recently con-
firmed Cerro do Jarau structure in the Paraná Basin, and Serra da
Cangalha, Santa Marta, and Riachão in the Parnaíba Basin.
Starting in the Mesozoic, the breakup of the Gondwana continent,
with the opening of the South Atlantic Ocean, caused extensive rifting
along the continental margin and formed a number of sedimentary
basins. Most of these basins are located offshore and there are at least
two reported buried circular structures (Praia Grande and Ilha do Mel)
of possible impact origin, both in the Santos basin in the southeast
3
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
offshore region of Brazil. Once again, this number of impact structures
in sedimentary basins of Phanerozoic ages in South America, most of
which have remained tectonically stable for long periods, is well below
the average when compared to similar terrains of other continents.
These considerations all point to the fact that there is further sig-
nificant potential for identifying new impact structures in South
America, thus contributing to improve the overall Earth impact record.
Probably one of the main reasons why there are so few of them de-
scribed on this continent is the fact that impact cratering is a geological
process that has not been well known amongst the geoscience com-
munities in South America, including universities, geological surveys,
and industry. With the exception of a few academics, mostly based at
Brazilian universities such as the Universities of Campinas, São Paulo,
Brasília, and the Federal University of Bahia in Salvador, research and
teaching covering this important field has been essentially absent in all
other South-American countries. No undergraduate or graduate dis-
cipline covering topics in planetary geology, including impact cra-
tering, has been taught – till now – on a regular basis as part of the
Geoscience curricula.
Nonetheless, interest in themes related to meteorite impact and
planetary research, in general, has been increasing in recent years
amongst the South American geoscientific community. Conferences and
conference symposia, such as the International Geological Congress
2000 and the Annual Meeting of the Meteoritical Society in 2004 (both
held in Rio de Janeiro), as well as the 2010 AGU Fall Meeting in Foz do
Iguassu, included impact cratering in their programs, as well as field
trips to some of the Brazilian impact craters. International scientific
cooperation is also on the rise, with scientists from South America
frequently working in collaboration with well-known impact scientists
from other countries, contributing to advance the knowledge about the
impact structures on the continent. Short courses and seminars on to-
pics related to impact research and meteoritics have been presented in
Brazil and Argentina by renowned researchers in the field, such as Klaus
Keil and Uwe Reimold. One of the important outcomes of these activ-
ities has been a significant increase in the number of articles reporting
results of impact cratering-related research in major international
journals.
Maybe even more important, a growing number of undergraduate
students has been exposed to these subjects in recent years – raising
expectations for further discoveries in the future.
In this overall context, a comprehensive review of the South-
American impact structures, in the same way as it was done for the
African continent by Reimold and Koeberl (2014a, 2014b), is timely
and, perhaps, somewhat overdue. The information currently available
is either limited to Brazil (e.g., Crósta, 1987; Romano and Crósta, 2004;
Crósta and Vasconcelos, 2013), or dispersed across many articles, book
chapters, and abstracts in conference proceedings that have been
variably published in English, Portuguese, and Spanish.
In addition, some seriously misleading and inaccurate information
has been disseminated about the impact record of South America, with
so-called “impact craters” having been nominated without acceptable
or even circumstantial evidence supporting a meteorite impact origin.
Such is the case of a small book by Acevedo et al. (2015), aimed at
presenting a catalog of the impact craters in South America (see also the
review of this book by Crósta and Reimold, 2016). However, Acevedo
et al. mixed scientifically proven impact structures with a number of
generic and doubtful circular structures, for which no proper evidence
had been produced. Contrary to what has been extensively and widely
accepted among the international impact crater community, i.e., the
need of proper scientific evidence for a structure to be considered of
impact origin (e.g., French, 1998; French and Koeberl, 2010; Reimold
and Koeberl, 2014a, 2014b), Acevedo et al. (2015) erroneously stated
that impact craters can be identified as such even in the absence of
shatter cones, meteoritic material, or proven shock deformation.
Following this flawed line of thought, their catalog lists a number of
uncertain structures, such as the alleged strewn fields of Bajada del
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 2. A summary of the South American impact record, including confirmed impact structures (based partially on the Earth Impact Database, last consulted on 28
February 2018), and other impact-related materials and sites.

Diablo and Rio Cuarto, both in Argentina, the Rio Vichada structure in of impact origin, based entirely on dubious and inconclusive geophy-
Colombia, and a suite of alleged structures in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, sical signatures, was recently offered by Rocca et al. (2017). Alleged
Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela, Guyana, and Suriname. circular patterns in geophysical data are used by these authors to sug-
An even more recent example of a structure pointed out as possibly gest that a 250 km wide impact crater is present just NW of the Falkland

4
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 3. Main tectonic domains of South America (after Cordani et al., 2016).
(Malvinas) Islands. They conclude that this could represent a late Pa-
leozoic impact structure comparable in size to Chicxulub. No evidence
for impact is presented, nor does this “observation” have any features
comparable to the typically – although not consistently – observed
geophysical or structural characteristics of large proven impact struc-
tures (Reimold et al., 2017b; McCarthy et al., 2017).
Although the identification of potential impact sites is an important
step in cratering research, as a guide to future work, it is crucial that
experts in impact processes be involved in the confirmation of such
sites, to make sure that claims of new craters are truly based on con-
crete evidence. Otherwise, an erroneous message may be conveyed to
anybody interested in this relevant subject. This message is that it is
possible to discover new impact structures on Earth just by perusing
web-based satellite image services, or even geophysical databases, to
find circular structures of unidentified origin and, then, assigning them
to impact events. It actually takes a lot more sound research to find
proper evidence of meteorite impact events! In the following section, a
concise summary of knowledge about impact structures and how to
recognize them is presented, before the South American impact record
is introduced – in terms of proven and possible impact structures, and
disproven/controversial suggestions.
Part I of this review includes the current status of impact knowledge
for South America, encompassing the Brazilian impact record. In Part II,
the relevant information for the remaining countries and regions of
5
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
South America will be presented.
We expect that one outcome of this review will be that the subject
will become more widely known to the South American geoscientific
community, with the expectation that a progressive number of students
and professionals may engage in activities related to searching for and
studying impact structures.
2. The impact cratering process
Impact crater of sizable dimensions are formed when projectiles
enters the Earth’s atmosphere at hypervelocity (i.e., velocity at impact
in excess of the speed of sound) and upon impact on the Earth’s surface
generates a strong compression (shock) wave that affects both the
projectile and the target rock. According to French (1998), a projectile
of 50 m diameter will produce a crater with 1 km diameter. Note that
smaller projectiles may be fragmented or burnt up in the atmosphere, or
– occasionally and under exceptional conditions – make it through the
atmosphere without fragmentation and then create very small impact
craters (for example – see in Part II of this review: Carancas, Peru). The
crater generation process is ultra-dynamic and characterized by shock
pressures and associated (i.e., after pressure release) shock tempera-
tures, as well as strain rates that are orders of magnitudes higher (up to
106 s−1) than those associated with any other geological process on
Earth (e.g., Melosh, 2011). Shock deformation of rocks and minerals is
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

achieved at impact-generated stress levels in excess of the Hugoniot

Elastic Limit. These impact generated pressures and temperatures op-
erate in the upper levels of the crust (only in the largest known ter-
restrial continental impact structures, such as the originally at least
250 km wide Vredefort impact structure are mid-crustal levels in-
volved) where these conditions exceed normal metamorphic conditions
by orders of magnitude.
It has been modelled that the formation of the currently known
largest impact structure on Earth, the complex Vredefort impact
structure in South Africa (Reimold and Koeberl, 2014a) of originally
250–300 km diameter, would have taken a mere 15 min (Henkel and
Reimold, 1998). Certainly this short time only pertains to the actual
crater-forming interval that is, then, followed by a much longer period
of post-impact crustal adjustment and equilibration. The very short
cratering interval is classically divided into the three stages of (i) con-
tact and compression, (ii) excavation, and (iii) modification and col-
lapse.
Studies of impact structures and impact cratering processes are
carried out on several fronts: (1) geological field work and geophysical
analysis of known impact structures (as well as suspected structures),
(2) laboratory investigations of samples from crater structures and
possible ejecta deposits, (3) shock experiments with known physical
conditions to obtain products (experimentally produced craters or
shock deformed rock) that can be compared with natural observations,
and (4) studies of shock features in meteorites. In addition (5), ex-
tensive numerical modeling of all parts of the cratering process on
highly variable scales, from the planetary to the micro-regime, has
created in the past decades a rather good understanding of the physical
and chemical processes taking place during such an ultra-dynamic,
short-lived cratering event. The known terrestrial impact structures, in
turn, then represent the natural observatories to test these models and,
themselves, provide input parameters for better constraining the next
generation of cratering models (see Reimold and Koeberl, 2014a, for a
more detailed introduction of impact cratering studies).
Shock experiments in specially equipped laboratories with high
velocity gas guns and explosive set-ups to simulate impacts in specific
materials or conduct micro- and meso-scale cratering experiments can
also be used to gain insight into the impact process (Deutsch et al.,
2015, and references therein). There is one drawback, however: shock
pulse durations in natural impact events are much longer than those
generated in shock experiments with projectiles orders of magnitude
smaller than planetary bolides. Consequently, the kinetics of shock
propagation are of vital importance and anybody comparing the effects
of natural and experimental impact ought to bear this in mind. Fig. 4. Stages of formation of simple impact craters (after French, 1998).

2.1. The three stages of impact cratering

strength of both the target and projectile materials, which leads to
vaporization of most of the projectile and the part of the target in the
The mechanics of impact cratering have been described in detail by,
environs of the impact point.
for example, French and Short (1968), Roddy et al. (1977), Grieve
The shock pressure becomes released when the shock wave reaches
(1987, 1991), Melosh (1989, 2011), and Melosh and Ivanov (1999),
the trailing end of the projectile and is reflected back as a so-called
and useful introductions to this topic have been provided by French
rarefaction (release) wave that travels slightly faster through the al-
(1998), French and Koeberl (2010), Collins et al. (2012), and Reimold
ready damaged target material than the shock wave did (Fig. 4-B). The
and Koeberl (2014a). In the following, the short interval of impact
target material becomes unloaded, whereby much of the projectile’s
cratering shall be discussed in terms of the processes active during the
kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy (shock temperature) that
contact and compression phase, excavation phase, and the modification
is deposited into the target.
and collapse phase (compare Fig. 4).
By far most of the projectile will be transformed to vapor, with an at
(i) Contact and compression phase: the cratering process begins
best very small remainder possibly being incorporated into impact-
with the contact of the projectile with the target (Fig. 4-A). Hyperve-
generated melt. Only in a few cases have small, solid particles from
locity impact velocities are typically of the order of tens of kilometers
projectiles been recovered, such as tiny particles at Chicxulub, on the
per second (the average velocity at asteroid impact is estimated at
sea-floor at the Eltanin impact site in the South Pacific, and – ex-
15 km/sec and for comet impacts at 25 km/sec). The exceptional kinetic
ceptionally – a 2-decimeter-sized meteorite fragment in impact melt
energy transferred by a large planetary projectile to its target is
rock of the Morokweng impact structure in South Africa. It is thought
achieved via a shock wave that at the point of contact can reach peak
that this fragment is the result of spallation off the projectile. What an
pressures of many hundreds of GPa (1 gigapascal = 10 kbar). The shock
exceedingly low probability to hit such a rare fragment in a borehole…
wave propagates hemispherically through the target and, backward,
Of the impact melt generated, much may pool in the interior of the
into the projectile. The pressures thus generated exceed the yield

6
A.P. Crósta et al.
of very large impact structures, may only last for 15–20 min from
projectile contact with the target to completion of the collapse phase
(e.g., Henkel and Reimold, 1998; Kenkmann et al., 2009b), the final
crater structures become subject to normal geological degradation. This
involves erosion, tectonic overprint and even truncation, and finally
burial by sediment or tectonic slices. Impact-induced thermal overprint
of rocks (e.g., due to the vicinity of massive and superheated impact
melt, or prolonged residence in hot impact breccia), tectonic adjust-
ment of the wider crustal volume, and hydrothermal overprint may
continue for many hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years.
Obviously, the duration of such hydrothermal activity is a function of
the size of the impact structure, i.e., a function of impact energy, the
volume and composition of melt rock and its respective cooling beha-
vior, and the availability of fluid.
2.2. Crater morphology
Turtle et al. (2005) provided a detailed discussion of impact crater
morphologies and the inherent nomenclature. Impact crater mor-
phology ranges from simple, bowl-shaped (Fig. 4-F) to complex geo-
metries with central uplift (peak) (Fig. 5-D), with peak ring, with peak
ring and central basin or pit, to multi-ring basin morphologies (Hargitai
et al., 2015). In contrast to volcanic crater structures, impact produces
generally circular, shallow (invariably only involving upper crustal le-
vels, only in the largest known terrestrial impact structures reaching
down to mid-crustal level – Vredefort, South Africa; Gibson and
Reimold, 2008), and rootless structures. Even for relatively low angles
of impact (say, 15–30 ° from the horizontal), circular crater forms will
be generated (Elbeshausen et al., 2013). Of course, erosion and post-
impact tectonic overprint may strongly affect/change the primary
morphology of a structure. A distinctive feature of fresh impact craters
is – in contrast to volcanic crater structures – that they have overturned
(after some erosion of the uppermost rim zone, still strongly upturned)
rim stratigraphy. Rims of volcanic craters are generally characterized
by flat stratification or only weak upturning of the uppermost strata.
On Earth, < 2–4 km diameter impact craters have simple, bowl-
shape geometry. Due to wall collapse the final crater shapes, in com-
parison to the early transient crater forms, are of a somewhat wider and
flatter geometry. The onset size for formation of complex craters is a
function of the lithological composition of the target. On Earth, the
crossover from simple to complex morphology is at about 2 km for se-
dimentary targets (note that the ca. 2-km-wide BP crater of Libya has a
distinct but small central uplift structure of complexly deformed sand-
stones – Koeberl et al., 2005), and at 4 km for crystalline targets. In the
planetary context, these limits depend essentially on a body’s gravity;
for example, on the Moon with a gravity that is only one-sixth of that of
Earth, up to 15–20 kilometer impact structures will still display simple
bowl-shape geometry.
For complex craters, the nature of the target determines how wide
and high a central uplift structure becomes. In the environs of variably
sized crater structures, such as the 2 km wide BP impact structure in
Libya or the ca. 10 km wide Bosumtwi structure in Ghana, conspicuous
ring features may occur. It has been debated that they could have
formed due to the downward and outward directed compression vectors
during the excavation flow, or alternatively, that they are the result of
inward-motion of material in the course of central uplift formation
(Koeberl et al., 2005), or simply denote the outer edge of impact ejecta
deposition (Wagner et al., 2002).
Very large craters may exhibit concentric ring structures, according
to which they are classified as multi-ring impact basins (Spudis, 1993).
There are only three terrestrial candidates for this structural type:
Vredefort in South Africa, Sudbury in Canada, and Chicxulub in Mexico
(Grieve et al., 2008). The nature of such multiple rings is still a matter
of debate, with faulting or warping, décollement structures, or zones of
enhanced cataclasis followed by melting of this comminuted material
having been invoked.
8
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Kenkmann et al. (2014) provided a detailed review of the structural
geology of impact structures. This included a discussion of some first-
order indicators for oblique impact, such as asymmetries of the crater
rim, the central uplift structure, and ejecta blankets outside of an im-
pact structure.
The geophysical characteristics of impact structures have been re-
viewed by, e.g., Pilkington and Grieve (1992), Grieve and Pilkington
(1996), and Reimold and Koeberl (2014a). It suffices to introduce here
that there are no unique geophysical characteristics of simple or com-
plex impact structures, as they variably depend on physical impact
parameters (such as angle of impact), as well as target lithological
composition and pre-impact geophysical anomaly patterns, and – de-
cisively – degree of erosion of an impact structure. Crater fill by low-
density impact breccias and impact-induced damage of the crater
basement and enveloping rock volume generally cause a negative
gravity anomaly over an impact crater, often of circular or annular
form. This, however, also depends on the distribution of rocks of dif-
ferent densities below the crater and in the crater wall. Magnetic sig-
natures of impact structures can be highly varied and depend – first-
order – on the magnetic properties of target rocks and impact-induced
remagnetization by thermal and chemical processes (e.g., Henkel and
Reimold, 2002; Salminen et al., 2009). Suevite generally has a stronger
magnetic signature than impact melt rock, but the latter may be re-
sponsible for widespread remagnetization where its thermal overprint
has exceeded the Curie temperatures of the magnetic carrier phases.
3. Recognition criteria for impact structures and impactite
systematics
Morphological expression (such as circularity, crater basin forms),
geophysical or regional geological anomalies may provide first-order
hints at the possible presence of an impact structure, but they do not
suffice as proof thereof. Invariably, groundtruthing is required in order
to obtain definite confirmation of such a possibility. Evidence of shock
metamorphism is diagnostic, and chemical evidence that demonstrates
the presence of traces of an extraterrestrial projectile in breccias/melt
rock is similarly conclusive. Only in impact structures, the rock de-
formation phenomenon known as shatter cones has been detected and,
thus, constitutes a diagnostic, meso- to macroscopic recognition cri-
terion.
3.1. Shock metamorphism
Physical expressions of shock wave compression and immediately
subsequent decompression are irreversible deformation effects, e.g.,
planar deformation features, formation of diaplectic glass, and high-
pressure polymorphs, in many rock-forming minerals (see e.g., French,
1998; French and Koeberl, 2010; Langenhorst and Deutsch, 2012;
Reimold and Koeberl, 2014a; Deutsch et al., 2015; Burchell, 2015;
Stöffler et al., 2017 − for reviews). These deformation and transfor-
mation effects are collectively known as shock metamorphism, or im-
pact metamorphism if melting is also involved.
In Fig. 6 the pressure-temperature regimes of normal crustal meta-
morphism and of impact metamorphism are compared. In cases of
impact into continental crust, impact structures are essentially confined
to the upper crust, with only very large structures reaching into the
middle (such as Vredefort) or, in potentially larger yet still undetected
structures, even lower crust. Normal crustal metamorphism is essen-
tially limited to temperatures of 1000 °C and pressures < 1 GPa,
whereas impact metamorphic conditions extend to many hundreds of
GPa and thousands of degrees centigrade.
Shock metamorphism in an impact crater has a “progressive”
character in that there is a continuous increase of shock pressure and
temperature conditions in direction towards the location where the
shock wave originated. Close to this “point of impact”, initial tem-
perature conditions are comparable to those on the surface of the Sun.
A.P. Crósta et al.
of very large impact structures, may only last for 15–20 min from
projectile contact with the target to completion of the collapse phase
(e.g., Henkel and Reimold, 1998; Kenkmann et al., 2009b), the final
crater structures become subject to normal geological degradation. This
involves erosion, tectonic overprint and even truncation, and finally
burial by sediment or tectonic slices. Impact-induced thermal overprint
of rocks (e.g., due to the vicinity of massive and superheated impact
melt, or prolonged residence in hot impact breccia), tectonic adjust-
ment of the wider crustal volume, and hydrothermal overprint may
continue for many hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years.
Obviously, the duration of such hydrothermal activity is a function of
the size of the impact structure, i.e., a function of impact energy, the
volume and composition of melt rock and its respective cooling beha-
vior, and the availability of fluid.
2.2. Crater morphology
Turtle et al. (2005) provided a detailed discussion of impact crater
morphologies and the inherent nomenclature. Impact crater mor-
phology ranges from simple, bowl-shaped (Fig. 4-F) to complex geo-
metries with central uplift (peak) (Fig. 5-D), with peak ring, with peak
ring and central basin or pit, to multi-ring basin morphologies (Hargitai
et al., 2015). In contrast to volcanic crater structures, impact produces
generally circular, shallow (invariably only involving upper crustal le-
vels, only in the largest known terrestrial impact structures reaching
down to mid-crustal level – Vredefort, South Africa; Gibson and
Reimold, 2008), and rootless structures. Even for relatively low angles
of impact (say, 15–30 ° from the horizontal), circular crater forms will
be generated (Elbeshausen et al., 2013). Of course, erosion and post-
impact tectonic overprint may strongly affect/change the primary
morphology of a structure. A distinctive feature of fresh impact craters
is – in contrast to volcanic crater structures – that they have overturned
(after some erosion of the uppermost rim zone, still strongly upturned)
rim stratigraphy. Rims of volcanic craters are generally characterized
by flat stratification or only weak upturning of the uppermost strata.
On Earth, < 2–4 km diameter impact craters have simple, bowl-
shape geometry. Due to wall collapse the final crater shapes, in com-
parison to the early transient crater forms, are of a somewhat wider and
flatter geometry. The onset size for formation of complex craters is a
function of the lithological composition of the target. On Earth, the
crossover from simple to complex morphology is at about 2 km for se-
dimentary targets (note that the ca. 2-km-wide BP crater of Libya has a
distinct but small central uplift structure of complexly deformed sand-
stones – Koeberl et al., 2005), and at 4 km for crystalline targets. In the
planetary context, these limits depend essentially on a body’s gravity;
for example, on the Moon with a gravity that is only one-sixth of that of
Earth, up to 15–20 kilometer impact structures will still display simple
bowl-shape geometry.
For complex craters, the nature of the target determines how wide
and high a central uplift structure becomes. In the environs of variably
sized crater structures, such as the 2 km wide BP impact structure in
Libya or the ca. 10 km wide Bosumtwi structure in Ghana, conspicuous
ring features may occur. It has been debated that they could have
formed due to the downward and outward directed compression vectors
during the excavation flow, or alternatively, that they are the result of
inward-motion of material in the course of central uplift formation
(Koeberl et al., 2005), or simply denote the outer edge of impact ejecta
deposition (Wagner et al., 2002).
Very large craters may exhibit concentric ring structures, according
to which they are classified as multi-ring impact basins (Spudis, 1993).
There are only three terrestrial candidates for this structural type:
Vredefort in South Africa, Sudbury in Canada, and Chicxulub in Mexico
(Grieve et al., 2008). The nature of such multiple rings is still a matter
of debate, with faulting or warping, décollement structures, or zones of
enhanced cataclasis followed by melting of this comminuted material
having been invoked.
8
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Kenkmann et al. (2014) provided a detailed review of the structural
geology of impact structures. This included a discussion of some first-
order indicators for oblique impact, such as asymmetries of the crater
rim, the central uplift structure, and ejecta blankets outside of an im-
pact structure.
The geophysical characteristics of impact structures have been re-
viewed by, e.g., Pilkington and Grieve (1992), Grieve and Pilkington
(1996), and Reimold and Koeberl (2014a). It suffices to introduce here
that there are no unique geophysical characteristics of simple or com-
plex impact structures, as they variably depend on physical impact
parameters (such as angle of impact), as well as target lithological
composition and pre-impact geophysical anomaly patterns, and – de-
cisively – degree of erosion of an impact structure. Crater fill by low-
density impact breccias and impact-induced damage of the crater
basement and enveloping rock volume generally cause a negative
gravity anomaly over an impact crater, often of circular or annular
form. This, however, also depends on the distribution of rocks of dif-
ferent densities below the crater and in the crater wall. Magnetic sig-
natures of impact structures can be highly varied and depend – first-
order – on the magnetic properties of target rocks and impact-induced
remagnetization by thermal and chemical processes (e.g., Henkel and
Reimold, 2002; Salminen et al., 2009). Suevite generally has a stronger
magnetic signature than impact melt rock, but the latter may be re-
sponsible for widespread remagnetization where its thermal overprint
has exceeded the Curie temperatures of the magnetic carrier phases.
3. Recognition criteria for impact structures and impactite
systematics
Morphological expression (such as circularity, crater basin forms),
geophysical or regional geological anomalies may provide first-order
hints at the possible presence of an impact structure, but they do not
suffice as proof thereof. Invariably, groundtruthing is required in order
to obtain definite confirmation of such a possibility. Evidence of shock
metamorphism is diagnostic, and chemical evidence that demonstrates
the presence of traces of an extraterrestrial projectile in breccias/melt
rock is similarly conclusive. Only in impact structures, the rock de-
formation phenomenon known as shatter cones has been detected and,
thus, constitutes a diagnostic, meso- to macroscopic recognition cri-
terion.
3.1. Shock metamorphism
Physical expressions of shock wave compression and immediately
subsequent decompression are irreversible deformation effects, e.g.,
planar deformation features, formation of diaplectic glass, and high-
pressure polymorphs, in many rock-forming minerals (see e.g., French,
1998; French and Koeberl, 2010; Langenhorst and Deutsch, 2012;
Reimold and Koeberl, 2014a; Deutsch et al., 2015; Burchell, 2015;
Stöffler et al., 2017 − for reviews). These deformation and transfor-
mation effects are collectively known as shock metamorphism, or im-
pact metamorphism if melting is also involved.
In Fig. 6 the pressure-temperature regimes of normal crustal meta-
morphism and of impact metamorphism are compared. In cases of
impact into continental crust, impact structures are essentially confined
to the upper crust, with only very large structures reaching into the
middle (such as Vredefort) or, in potentially larger yet still undetected
structures, even lower crust. Normal crustal metamorphism is essen-
tially limited to temperatures of 1000 °C and pressures < 1 GPa,
whereas impact metamorphic conditions extend to many hundreds of
GPa and thousands of degrees centigrade.
Shock metamorphism in an impact crater has a “progressive”
character in that there is a continuous increase of shock pressure and
temperature conditions in direction towards the location where the
shock wave originated. Close to this “point of impact”, initial tem-
perature conditions are comparable to those on the surface of the Sun.
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 6. Schematic pressure-temperature diagram for shock metamorphic processes in the context of an impact event. ‘Geotherm’ is the modelled depth-temperature
distribution from the Earth́ s upper lithosphere to the core (after Deutsch et al., 2015).
Shock pressure may reach many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of GPa.
The affected target material will be vaporized instantaneously, as is
much of the projectile. Strain rates achieved in impacts can be as high
as 106 s−1, many orders of magnitude higher than the strain rates as-
sociated with tectonic deformation or achieved in powerful volcanic
eruptions. In a further zone, radially somewhat more removed from the
shock epicenter (point of source of the shock wave), shock pressures
and shock temperatures are sufficiently high to cause bulk melting of
target rock. This is followed by a further zone characterized by melting
of distinct minerals (i.e., by so-called part melting of target rock – Keil
and McCoy, 2017, and references therein). Finally, a regime of forma-
tion of diaplectic glass (syn.: thetomorphic glass – a phase with long-
range order of the precursor mineral partially preserved but that is
essentially isotropic due to abundant disruption of bonds at the atomic
scale), of planar deformation features (PDFs), and high-pressure mi-
neral polymorphs is reached, before below the Hugoniot Elastic Limits
(HEL) of minerals only elastic (brittle) mineral deformation is possible.
Wherever possible, quartz is the mineral of choice when searching
for shock metamorphic effects. Not only is this mineral widely available
in the upper terrestrial crust, but it is also rather resistant to weathering
and under moderate metamorphic overprint. Under varied conditions
of shock pressure/temperature, quartz develops a range of different
shock metamorphic effects that all are shock barometers: Planar
Fractures (PFs), mosaicism, Planar Deformation Features (PDFs), dia-
plectic quartz glass, high-pressure polymorphs and, finally, quartz fu-
sion (formation of lechatelierite). The formation conditions of these
shock barometers have been well calibrated by shock experiments.
Crystallographic analysis of PDFs is facilitated by the uniaxial optical
character of quartz. The mineral zircon has in recent years also become
a favourite with shock workers, due to its very refractive nature and
good preservation in the sedimentary environment, and the fact that
several shock metamorphic effects (shock twinning, planar fractures,
granular shock texture, and shock induced dissociation into baddeleyite
– ZrO2 – and silica – SiO2) are quite readily recognizable with standard
optical and electron optical microscopic techniques.
A very large part of the impact affected target volume is not shocked
above the HEL of the mineral constituents. For this reason, extensive
investigations have been carried out on weakly shocked (experimen-
tally and naturally shocked at < 10 GPa) rock to detect possibly new
diagnostic impact deformation features (e.g., Kowitz et al., 2013a,
2013b, 2016). To date, only compression features such as impaction of
grains onto each other with associated radial microfracturing (so-called
concussion fractures), kinkbanding of micaceous minerals, local cata-
clasis, planar fractures (PFs – (sub)planar fracturing akin to imperfect
9
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
cleavage), and so-called “shock extension fractures” (also called “ver-
micular microfractures” by Buchanan and Reimold, 2002) have been
described from this low shock regime – all of which have doubtful
impact-diagnostic value.
Furthermore, so-called feather features (FFs) have been described in
quartz in rocks from many impact structures and, additionally, have
rarely been produced experimentally (Poelchau and Kenkmann, 2011;
Kowitz et al., 2013a, 2013b, 2016). The definition of FFs has been used
differently in the literature: some refer to the combination of a longer
planar fracture and short, narrow-spaced “feathers” as FFs, others only
refer the term FF to these short and narrow fractures. As no FFs have
been reported yet from tectonically deformed rock, this is a very pro-
mising, likely shock-characteristic deformation phenomenon. Whereas
in recent years only one-sided “feathers” had been described, Zaag
(2013) and Zaag et al. (2016) observed in a thin section from a shatter
cone from the Serra da Cangalha impact structure (Brazil) a two-sided
“feather”. Their explanation for this phenomenon was that the target
grain must have been subject of vibrational forces in order to produce
shear fractures in opposite directions.
Brazil and Dauphiné twins are generated under shock conditions in
quartz. Twinning is also important in zircon and in shocked carbonates.
The latter show, at relatively enhanced shock pressures, melting and
dissociation effects.
French et al. (1974) reported tiny pockets of glass from shocked
sandstone samples of the BP and Oasis impact structures in Libya.
Kowitz et al. (2013a, 2013b, 2016) observed glass/melt in experi-
mentally shocked sandstone subjected to nominal shock pressures of
only 5–12.5 GPa. Such glass formations are seemingly diagnostic for
low-shock overprint of porous sedimentary rocks – however, they have
not been observed in sandstone from many impact structures – and it is
likely that lithological properties may be essential in glass formation
(perhaps presence of a clay component in a sandstone may facilitate
melting – Ebert et al., 2017). Kowitz et al. (2013a, 2013b) also detected
diaplectic quartz glass in their weakly shocked sandstone specimens.
Numerical modeling results by Güldemeister et al. (2013; also discussed
in Kowitz et al., 2013b, 2016) demonstrated that interaction of a shock
wave with pore spaces can cause local shock temperature increase by
factors up to 4, thus reaching the conditions related to normal pressure
regimes for formation of diaplectic quartz glass (> 30 GPa) and silica
glass (> 45 GPa) even at shock pressures as low as 5–10 GPa.
PDFs (planar deformation features) formed in various important
rock-forming minerals (including quartz, feldspars, olivine) are the
most widely applied recognition criterion for shock metamorphism.
They are absolutely straight (planar), crystallographically controlled
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 7. Planar deformation features (PDF) in quartz within shocked granite
from the Araguainha Dome. Note the perfectly planar features along two dis-
tinct crystallographic orientations (NW-SE; WNW-ESE). Spacing between fea-
tures ranges from 2 to 8 μm [courtesy of Joana Sanchez, UFG, Goiânia, Brazil].
features, 1–2 μm wide, and spaced at 2–10 μm (Fig. 7). They may occur
in parts of a crystal or traverse it penetratively. PDFs have been ex-
perimentally produced in quartz above 8–10 GPa (e.g., Stöffler and
Langenhorst, 1994; Huffman and Reimold, 1996). Detailed scanning
electron microscopy (e.g., Hamers and Drury, 2011 and references
therein) and transmission electron microscopy (e.g., Stöffler and
Langenhorst, 1994; Gratz et al., 1996) showed that they may represent
amorphous (glass) lamellae, high-density dislocation bands, basal Brazil
twins, Dauphiné twins, or annealed equivalents (see also Trepmann and
Spray, 2005, 2006; Wenk et al., 2005, 2011). More recently, electron
backscatter diffraction (EBSD) studies have provided a new means to
investigate the nature of planar shock deformation, and, in particular,
shock induced twinning, not only in quartz but also in zircon and other
minerals.
When PDFs are thermally overprinted (post-impact annealing), the
original glassy phase is annealed. The former PDFs are then only re-
cognizable due to the straight trails of fluid inclusions exsolved from the
primary melt phase. These planar fluid inclusion trails are known as
“decorated PDFs”. “Toasted quartz” (French and Koeberl, 2010;
Ferrière et al., 2009; Whitehead et al., 2002) refers to the “dirty” tex-
tured quartz of impact breccias in which fluid and solid inclusions have
been widely decrepitated and their content oxidized – now staining the
host crystals to provide the textural appearance of burnt toast.
At shock pressures above ca. 15 GPa a further shock effect is induced
in quartz (and also in olivine): “mosaicism” is the result of micro-ro-
tation of small crystal domains due to shock compression, which ob-
viously leads to a mottled appearance of the intracrystalline extinction.
When shock pressures of 30–35 GPa affect quartz, the crystal
structure of this mineral is entirely destroyed and a quasi-amorphous
phase – diaplectic quartz glass – is generated. The grains still maintain
the original habit and original mineral defects will still be recognizable;
however, under crossed polarizers such a grain will appear amorphous.
Feldspar minerals are also known for diaplectic glass formation, with
diaplectic plagioclase known as “maskelynite”, and being a frequent
constituent of meteorites as well. Shock metamorphism in important
rock-forming minerals, including the feldspar minerals, was recently
reviewed by Stöffler et al. (2017).
Another impact-indicative thermal feature is the so-called “ballen
quartz” (Fig. 8) thought to originate from annealing of diaplectic quartz
glass and/or lechatelierite (fused silica glass). “Checkerboard feldspar”
(Fig. 9) can also indicate impact deformation and represents melting of
a feldspar crystal with typical near-rectangular habit at the microscopic
scale and controlled strictly by crystal lattice symmetry. An equivalent
to checkerboard feldspar was described by Buchanan and Reimold
10
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 8. Microphotograph (in plane-polarized light) of ballen-quartz (type II of
Ferrière et al., 2009) in an impact melt rock from the Wanapitei structure
(Canada) [courtesy of Ludovic Ferrière, NHM Vienna].
Fig. 9. Checkerboard feldspar clast in impact melt rock from the Lappajärvi
impact structure, Finland (see C. Reimold, 1982 for further information). The
original feldspar crystal has been partially melted under crystallographic con-
trol. The outer narrow, compact rim is an overgrowth generated due to reaction
between the clast and the cooling, originally superheated impact melt. Width of
field of view: ca. 0.36 mm.
(2002) in quartz. They called this crystallographically controlled micro-
melting of quartz “vermicular quartz”. Based on the different shock
textures produced at different shock pressure levels, shock meta-
morphic schemes have been set up for different minerals (e.g., quartz –
Stöffler and Langenhorst, 1994) – and then for different rock types (e.g.,
Stöffler and Grieve, 2007). Additional information on the behavior of
zircon under shock metamorphic conditions can be obtained from
Timms et al. (2017).
Some minerals may be transformed to otherwise rare or non-ex-
istent high-pressure polymorphs under the conditions of elevated shock.
Coesite and stishovite have been found in many impact structures.
While coesite is known from magmatic or tectonic crustal settings as
well (it may occur in kimberlite and in rocks associated with subduction
zones), stishovite is only known from impact structures. Reidite, the
high-pressure polymorph after zircon, has also been observed widely in
impact structures; it is formed at shock pressures between 20 and
40 GPa (Reimold et al., 2002). At even higher shock pressure/shock
temperature zircon can melt and then crystallize again to so-called
“granular” or “strawberry” shock texture. Monazite shows similar be-
havior (Deutsch and Schärer, 1994; Moser et al., 2011). At even higher
pressure conditions, zircon will dissociate to silica plus baddeleyite
(ZrO2). A recent review by Timms et al. (2017) provides a
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 10. Two examples of shatter cones from Brazilian impact structures. a) Formed in phyllites from Araguainha Dome; b) formed in basalt from Vista Alegre (see
Sections 5.1.1.1 and 5.1.1.3 for further information on these impact structures). Scales in cm.

comprehensive treatise of shock metamorphism of zircon. Zircon and
monazite are also very useful due to their strong refractivity; they are
the minerals of choice when searching for shock deformation in old
Proterozoic or Archean rocks (possibly subjected to polymetamorphism
and strong alteration). These minerals are also essential for U-Th-Pb
geochronology. In target rock containing graphite, impact diamond or
lonsdaleite may be formed, as in the so-called ‘impact treasury’ of
Russia, the Popigai impact structure of northern Siberia. Shock de-
formation in other trace minerals such as xenotime or apatite has also
been reported recently (Cavosie and Lugo-Centeno, 2014; Cavosie et al.,
2016). When applying conventional phase diagrams to shock meta-
morphic assemblages, it must be observed that the ultradynamic shock
processes do not allow equilibrium reactions to take place.
When shock pressures are sufficiently high, so that the associated
post-shock temperatures are higher than the melting temperatures of
minerals (or mineral associations), impact-induced melting is achieved.
First individual minerals or mineral assemblages may melt, then at even
higher temperatures bulk rock melting may be achieved. Impact melt is,
thus, generated and will be, as a consequence of cratering, either em-
placed in within-crater impact breccias (see below), or incorporated
into ejecta from an impact structure. Further discussion of the products
of impact melting is found in the following section on impactite no-
menclature.
Shock deformation is a strictly heterogeneous phenomenon (“shock
heterogeneity”) due to the complex behavior of compression waves in a
heterogeneous, multi-particle/-mineral and texturally invariably com-
plex – at multiple scales – rock. Waves may be reflected, scattered, or
refracted on grain boundaries or defects that are always present in

11
A.P. Crósta et al.
natural rock, which results in shock attenuation or amplification. This
may lead to grains of the same mineral in any rock section showing
highly variable deformation degrees on the grain scale, possibly from
being unshocked to highly shocked. Also different minerals have dif-
ferent affinity for shock effect generation at a specific pressure level
(e.g., Ogilvie et al., 2011). Due to the different behaviors of minerals
under shock conditions, different rock types also display varied re-
sponses to shock. Examples for progressive shock deformation of a
basaltic and a granitic rock are found in Stöffler and Grieve (2007), and
progressive shock deformation for mafic, pyroxene- and olivine-rich
meteorites in Stöffler et al. (1991). Stöffler et al. (2017) reviewed the
response of various rock types to shock deformation and proposed an
updated classification system for terrestrial and extraterrestrial rocks.
When trying to obtain evidence for shock deformation in a geolo-
gical structure suspected of being the result of impact cratering, where
available, possible impact breccias (next section) should be sampled for
investigation of evidence for shock metamorphism. Where only
monomict clastic breccia or unbrecciated rock can be sampled in the
outer or deeply eroded parts of a suspected structure, it may still be
possible to detect shocked minerals – albeit in comparatively lower
abundance, as these deformations would have been generated in the
outermost zone of an impact structure under very weak shock condi-
tions. A pertinent example of such a case is the Cerro do Jarau structure
that will be introduced in this paper later: we recently examined some
250 thin sections of samples from there and only found a handful of
specimens that displayed an altogether significant but very limited
amount of shocked grains.
Great care must be taken not to confuse impact-generated micro-
deformation with the deformation effects of tectonic processes. There
are many erroneous reports of shock deformation in the literature, some
of which have been – very unfortunately – further promulgated due to
the widely persisting lack of proper education about impact deforma-
tion and the requisite methodology for its investigation.
It should also be admitted that, in some past investigations, de-
formation features that were only studied by normal optical microscopy
might have been discarded as non-impact evidence, only because the
proper analysis by universal stage (or TEM analysis) was not applied.
Reassessment of such cases ought to be undertaken. Vice versa, there
are cases of previously published supposed PDFs in the literature, the
validity of which ought to be investigated again. All such cases of al-
leged impact structures that are based on only one or two grains of
allegedly shocked quartz need to be readdressed with the current state-
of-the-art methodology, and where possible with investigating more
minerals than only quartz. As stated already above, shock deformation
in porous sandstone has recently been investigated by Kowitz et al.
(2013a, 2013b, 2016). An important finding from our ongoing studies
of naturally shocked sandstone samples is that the presence of porosity,
with or without cement, significantly affects the affinity of a rock for
shock deformation. In particular, the formation of PDF in quartz seems
to be subdued. And invariably only limited formation of short and
narrow sets of PDF has been observed – in the majority of instances at
or close to grain boundaries. In such rocks, having very well-polished
thin sections is mandatory, and careful screening of them at a minimum
microscope magnification of ca. 300× is required.
The only reliable mega- to macroscopic shock deformation criterion
is represented by shatter cones (Fig. 10), centimeter- to meter-sized
cone-shaped fracture phenomena with striations that diverge in a ridge-
and-groove pattern from a small apical area (see papers in a recent
special issue of Meteoritics and Planetary Science: Baratoux and
Reimold, 2016; also Deutsch et al., 2015). Shatter cones are known
from a large number of impact structures, and have not been observed
from any other geological settings. Care must be taken though, as
various other fracture phenomena (e.g., plumose fractures, or cone-in-
cone structures of sedimentary origin, cone fractures – so-called per-
cussion marks – at the base of fossil water-falls, wind-ablation features
in desert environments, inter alia – Baratoux and Reimold, 2016) can –
12
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
and have been – mistaken for shatter cones (for comparison of sedi-
mentary and impact cones, see, for example, Reimold and Minnitt,
1996; Lugli et al., 2005). Baratoux and Reimold (2016) and references
therein also provide a comprehensive treatise of current hypotheses
regarding the physics on shatter cone formation. Shatter cones have
been mostly described from settings in central-uplift and crater-floor
rocks, but a few reports have related them to crater rim occurrences as
well. In addition, they have been detected in rock clasts within impact
breccias outside of the corresponding crater structures.
Small shatter cones have also been produced experimentally (Wilk
and Kenkmann, 2016; Kenkmann et al., 2016). The shock pressure re-
gime for shatter cone formation has been estimated between < 5 GPa
and perhaps > 30 GPa (e.g., the shatter cones occurrences in the central
uplift structure of the Vredefort impact structure – Nicolaysen and
Reimold, 1999; Wieland et al., 2006). Zaag et al. (2016) applied com-
puter tomography to investigate the 3D distribution of microfractures
in a shatter cone, to attempt to understand the previously repeatedly
published possible interrelationships between shatter cones and sub-
parallel, closely set fracture systems (so-called “multipli-striated joint
sets” – MSJS, Nicolaysen and Reimold, 1999).
Shock metamorphic indicators should be easily observed, preferably
by widely accessible optical microscopy. However, it has been fre-
quently necessary to utilize sophisticated but time-consuming trans-
mission electron microscopy (TEM) to investigate the true nature of
microdeformation features not resolvable by optical microscopy alone.
An enlarged arsenal for shock metamorphic investigations has been
created in recent years by advances in scanning electron microscopy
(SEM) and associated techniques such as color (or color composite)
cathode-luminescence (CL), electron forescatter or electron backscatter
diffraction (EBSD) techniques (e.g., Hamers, 2013; Hamers and Drury,
2011; Pittarello et al., 2015b). Electron-backscatter diffraction (EBSD)
analysis and electron microscopic techniques have been very success-
fully employed for detailed shock metamorphic analysis of zircon
(Timms et al., 2017 and references therein) and monazite (Erickson
et al., 2017). Scanning electron microscopic techniques now can fill the
gap between optical and transmission electron microscopy.
3.2. The recommended impactite nomenclature
Lithologies formed as a direct consequence of an impact event occur
(prior to erosion) within and around impact structures, in either prox-
imal or distal settings. Stöffler and Grieve (2007) provided a detailed
nomenclature for impactites (Fig. 11) and, recently, Stöffler et al.
(2017) presented further discussion.
“Distal impactites” include ejecta that can be distributed – ac-
cording to the magnitude of the impact event – regionally, or on con-
tinental and even global scales. This includes tektites and microtektites
that may be found many hundreds to thousands of kilometers from the
source structure. Four tektite strewn fields are currently known on
Earth: the Central European (moldavites), the Australasian (including
microtektite occurrences in Antarctica), the Ivory Coast, and the North
American strewn fields (Glass and Simonson, 2012, 2013 – for a review
of currently known distal impact ejecta deposits). In addition, a tektite
occurrence in Uruguay has recently been proposed (Ferrière et al.,
2017), and some conference contributions have referred to possible
tektites from Colombia (see Part II of this review, for a discussion).
Moldavites are related to the Ries impact of southern Germany, the
Ivory Coast tektites to the Bosumtwi crater structure in Ghana, and the
North American tektites to the Chesapeake Bay impact structure on the
shelf at the eastern seaboard of the USA. The Australasian tektites could
so far not be correlated with a proven impact structure but are believed
to originate from Southeast Asia; microtektites of this occurrence have
been collected as far as 6 000 km from Indochina, in Antarctica. The
proposed Uruguayan occurrence has so far not been related to a po-
tential source crater. Distal impact ejecta also comprise regionally or
globally occurring impact ejecta, for which the best-known occurrence
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 11. Classification of impactites according to their geological settings (proximal or distal with respect to an impact structure), as proposed by Stöffler and Reimold
(2006) and Stöffler and Grieve (2007).
is at the K-Pg boundary. In addition, the Archean and Proterozoic
spherule layers (e.g., Glass and Simonson, 2013) also need to be re-
ferred to as distal impact ejecta from unknown, likely by now com-
pletely degraded or subducted ancient impact structures.
“Proximal impactites” (i.e., impact-generated rocks deposited closer
to their source than ca. 2 crater diameters) include the categories of
shocked rocks and impact breccias. Shocked rocks have maintained
their original texture and fabric but incorporate shock metamorphosed
minerals. Amongst impact breccias the categories of monomict breccias
(cataclased target rock, equivalent to tectonically produced cataclasite,
but perhaps carrying shocked minerals) and polymict impact breccias
are distinguished by clast content and matrix composition. Lithic
breccias (historically termed “fragmental impact breccia”) are com-
posed of clastic components only, without any melt component. Suevite
consists of mineral and lithic clasts of varied shock metamorphic degree
plus a melt component. Impact melt rock is composed of a melt matrix
with a highly variable proportion of mineral and lithic clasts. Textures
of such melt rocks can vary strongly, according to the nucleation and
cooling history of a melt. As impact melt rocks may not only texturally
but also chemically resemble volcanic or plutonic rocks, it is not sur-
prising that in the past many impact melt rocks were originally con-
sidered products of magmatism. Impact glass – in contrast to impact
melt rock not, or not fully, crystallized and either glassy or semihyaline
(composed of crystallites in glassy mesostasis) – occurs in contrast to
tektites/microtektites in proximal settings to impact structures. Impact
glasses are also characterized by significant contents of water, and their
chemical compositions may indicate origin from any type of target rock
and depth in the transient cavity regime. In contrast, tektites only re-
present the geo-zone of the uppermost target and as high-temperature
formations are comparatively dry.
There has been a lively debate about the origin of what has been
historically termed “suevite” over the last decades. First, the debate
involved the question of “how much melt material an impact breccia
would have to contain” to deserve the label suevite. Some suggested
that 10 vol%, or 3 vol% were required, whereas others were content
13
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
with the pure presence of some melt. Stöffler and Grieve (2007) defined
this lithology as an impact breccia composed of impact-generated, co-
genetic clastic and melt particles, as a transitional lithology between
purely clastic lithic breccia and impact melt breccia/rock. Stöffler et al.
(2013, 2017 and Artemieva et al. (2013) promoted a two-stage genetic
scenario, in which “suevite” is generated by fallout from the impact
vapor plume over both, the crater and its surroundings, and mostly
occurring outside of the crater, as the result of secondary phreato-
magmatic-like eruptions triggered by the interaction of hot impact melt
and volatile matter (water, carbonate), akin to so-called molten-fluid-
coolant interaction (MFCI). Stöffler et al. (2017) inscribed a distinction
between “suevite” and “suevitic impact breccia” into their revised im-
pactite classification scheme. It should be pointed out that the term
“suevitic breccia” has been used for many years to describe a pre-
dominantly clastic impact breccia with a mere tiny fraction of impact
melt (e.g., Reimold et al., 1997 – suevitic breccia from Roter Kamm
impact crater, Namibia). Osinski et al. (2016, and papers referred to
therein) emphasized that some impact breccias previously referred to as
suevite actually contain melt material in their matrices and should,
thus, be termed a “particulate impact melt breccia”. That melt particles
are contained in Ries suevite was also discussed by Reimold et al.
(2011, 2013a) with respect to the impact breccias from the Enkingen
drill core. Osinski et al. (2016) also took serious issue with the MFCI
hypothesis for the origin of the Ries suevite, as they see strong differ-
ences between Ries suevite and Onaping impact breccia of the Sudbury
Structure that they consider having been generated by this process. It is
obvious from this short treatise that the origin of melt-bearing but
lithic-clast dominated impact breccia (suevite) is still a highly con-
tentious issue in need of further conclusive investigation.
Impact breccias can also occur as breccia injections in the crater
floor, or as local, authigenic breccia developments in the crater floor
and walls of an impact structure. They have been summarily termed
dike breccias in the impactite nomenclature. Dike breccia types can be
injections of any type of crater-fill breccia (i.e., both monomict and
polymict lithic breccia, suevite, or impact melt rock). Dike breccias also
A.P. Crósta et al.
include the enigmatic pseudotachylitic breccias (PTB – Reimold, 1995,
1998; Reimold and Gibson, 2006; Reimold et al., 2016, 2017a; compare
Fig. 12). In the past – and still today by some workers – these breccias of
varied genesis have been indiscriminately termed “pseudotachylite”.
This problem is rooted in history, as this term (historical spelling:
pseudotachylyte) was coined by Shand (1916) for the enigmatic melt
breccias of the Vredefort Dome, the central part of the world’s largest
known impact structure (Gibson and Reimold, 2008). Today, the term
“pseudotachylite” is reserved in structural geology for bona fide friction
melt only, whereas in impact settings melt breccias of pre-, syn-, and
post-impact age and of a range of different modes of origin can occur:
friction melt, cataclasite, ultramylonite that in the field cannot be dis-
tinguished from friction melt or impact melt rock, and finally bona fide
impact melt rock (an example of multiple types of PTB in the crater
floor of an impact structure was reported by Reimold et al., 1999 from
the Morokweng structure, South Africa). As discussed by, for example,
Mohr-Westheide and Reimold (2010, 2011) and Reimold et al. (2016,
2017a), a number of genetic processes could be responsible for PTB
formation in impact structures: compression and immediate decom-
pression during the early stage of cratering, friction melting during
various impact cratering stages, the combination of compression and
friction melting, and during the modification phase PTB can be pro-
duced due to frictional movement of large blocks and/or rapid de-
compression. Only a few occurrences of massive pseudotachylite (fric-
tion melt rock) are known from tectonic occurrences, such as – at the
meter-scale – at the Insubrian Line in the Italian Alps, and in the
Musgrave Block of Australia (Camacho et al., 1995) where meter-scale
networks of cm- to dm- veins meander around blocks of precursor li-
thology. In contrast, the PTB developments of the two largest impact
structures known on Earth, the Sudbury and the Vredefort structures,
are in part orders of magnitudes larger, with the largest manifestations
in Sudbury and Vredefort attaining kilometer scale. There are some
workers who consider these PTB summarily as pseudotachylite sensu
strictu, formed by shear-induced friction melting (see e.g., Deutsch
et al., 2015; Spray, 2010). Others state that “macroscopic” develop-
ments of such melt breccia “are predominantly formed by the intrusion
of impact melt into the basement of impact craters” (Stöffler et al.,
2017, p.15). Both of this is contrary to the geological, petrographic and
14
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 12. One of the best exposures of massive
pseudotachylitic breccia in the Archean grani-
toid core of the Vredefort Dome, at Leeukop
Quarry just north of the town of Parys. Note
that this seemingly steeply northward (fore-
ground) dipping melt body is exposed in sev-
eral quarrying benches, each of which is ca.
4 m high. The section shown is about 20 m
wide.
– especially – geochemical evidence from the Vredefort impact struc-
ture, as most recently examined by Reimold et al. (2016, 2017a). These
authors favor decompression melting of basement rock in the course of
central uplift formation as the likely process for the formation of mas-
sive PTB, such as those known from the large Vredefort and Sudbury
impact structures.
One of the problems with pseudotachylitic breccias is that they can
be generated during all stages of the cratering process. And various
melting processes can take place – either at specific times such as de-
compression melting during the modification stage, or throughout the
process as in the case of friction melting that may be a component
during shock compression and modification (for further discussion, see
e.g., Reimold, 1998; Spray, 2010; Reimold et al., 2016, 2017a).
In every case of observation and analysis of such dike breccias,
careful investigation in the laboratory, if necessary aided by electron
microscopic methods, is required to properly classify PTB according to
their matrix type, clast deformation, and chemical systematics. If this is
not possible (for instance, because the groundmass is too altered), use
of the non-genetic term pseudotachylitic breccia is recommended until
such time that new, possibly conclusive information may become
available for definitive classification.
3.3. Identification of extraterrestrial projectiles
Another way of obtaining evidence for the confirmation of the im-
pact origin of a geological structure is to attempt to identify traces of
the impactor from space. The detection and verification of an extra-
terrestrial component in impact-derived melt rocks or breccias can be of
impact-diagnostic value, as discussed in detail by, e.g., Goderis et al.
(2013) and Koeberl (2014). Generally, a very small amount of me-
teoritic material is mixed with target rock-derived vapor and melt, and
this mixture is then incorporated into impact breccia or impact glass. In
most cases, the amount of extraterrestrial material within such im-
pactite is < < 1% by mass, although in exceptional cases values as
high as 10% by mass have been obtained. Detecting such generally
small amounts of extraterrestrial matter is difficult. Only elements that
occur with high abundances in meteorites but at comparatively low
abundances in terrestrial crustal rocks are used for such studies (e.g.,
A.P. Crósta et al.
Ni, Co, and Cr, and the platinum-group elements [PGE], cf. Koeberl,
2014). If siderophile element contents in impact melt are distinctly
higher than the abundances in target rock (the so-called indigenous
component), this may be indicative for the presence of a chondritic or
iron meteoritic component (e.g., McDonald et al., 2001). Complications
may, however, arise: (a) because each meteorite class has a range of
compositions; some are better constrained than others; (b) the target
rocks may have variable siderophile element concentrations; or (c) if
the siderophile element concentrations in the impactites are very low;
and (d) it may be essentially impossible to separate an achondritic
projectile component from the indigenous component, due to the si-
milarity of compositions of such meteorites to some mafic terrestrial
rocks. The contribution to the siderophile element budget from the
target rock to the composition of impactites can only be understood if
there is either a well-constrained mixing relationship between the im-
pactor and target rock compositions that results in a reliable regression
line and a lower intercept that reflects the average PGE concentration in
the target rocks (e.g., McDonald et al., 2001), or if all contributing
target rocks have been verified and their respective contributions to the
melt mixture are known with confidence.
Isotopic compositions can be very good indicators for the presence
of a meteoritic component as well. In Re-Os isotopic analysis (see re-
view by Koeberl and Shirey, 1997), the different isotopic compositions
and significantly different abundances of the element Os in meteorites
and crustal terrestrial rocks are used to fingerprint a meteoritic com-
ponent. This isotope system is very sensitive for this purpose (projectile
proportions as low as 0.2% in impact melt rock have been determined –
e.g., Koeberl et al., 1996) but allows only detecting the presence of a
chondritic or iron meteorite component, without the capability of
specifying the meteorite type and identifying achondrite signatures.
The Cr isotope system is less sensitive for the detection of an extra-
terrestrial component but allows distinguishing between some me-
teorite types, including achondrites (e.g., Koeberl, 2007, 2014; Koeberl
et al., 2007). Both these methods rely on the fact that isotopic com-
positions for the elements Os and Cr are different between most me-
teorites and terrestrial rocks, and that these differences are large en-
ough to allow detection of small contributions of meteoritic Os or Cr to
impactite. The best-suited materials for analysis are impact melt rocks/
breccias, preferably from a coherent impact melt body, but in some
cases melt fragments from suevite have worked as well.
4. The terrestrial impact cratering record
At the time of this writing, 190 confirmed terrestrial impact struc-
tures are listed in the Earth Impact Database (February 2018); their
locations are shown schematically in Fig. 13. This number is bound to
increase further, as a few structures are usually added each year. On the
other hand, it may also decrease if it would be shown that previously
listed structures (as happened, e.g., to the pair of Arkenu structures in
Libya – see Reimold and Koeberl, 2014a) should be removed from the
record. There are other data bases on the internet with information
regarding more structures – most of which recognized only by more or
less circular outlines in remote sensing data sets. It must be emphasized
again that only the truly confirmed structures can be referred to as bona
fide confirmed impact structures, whereas others should only be re-
ferred to as possible impact structures without proper verification. As a
number of such doubtful records have entered even the peer-reviewed
literature, confusion of non-experts in the field is understandable. The
rules and criteria for the recognition and confirmation of impact
structures, as outlined above, are straightforward; so-called identifica-
tions can easily be dismissed as not based on any established criteria
(e.g., Reimold et al., 2014; Crósta and Reimold, 2016).
Any first-order observation – by remote sensing, geophysical or
geological data – must be followed up with ground-truthing, and where
the relevant expertise does not exist, interaction with established im-
pact cratering research groups ought to be sought.
15
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Most known impact structures are located in North America and
Eurasia, and there is another significant cluster in Australia. Clearly,
there is a link between space exploration and related widespread
knowledge about planetary impact structures (e.g., Hargitai et al.,
2015). Impact structures have been searched for and investigated ever
since the 1950s in countries where active space exploration has been
pursued. Other small, active groups have made regional contributions –
in Scandinavia, in southern Africa, and in Australia. European efforts
have been strongly supported by a European Science Network program
for impact research in the 1990s and the Nordic countries’ educational
program of the last decade. The large number of Australian impact
structures must be accredited to the singular effort of the late Eugene
Shoemaker and his wife Carolyn, in collaboration with a number of
Australian workers.
One should not forget that differential preservation of old impact
structures has been governed by the varied geological histories of dif-
ferent regions. Young oceanic crust, recently exhumed continental
crust, and – to the contrary – long exhumed, stable continental plat-
forms would obviously have very different crater accumulation and
degradation rates (this has been discussed recently in the SW
Gondwana context, pertinent to this review of the South American
impact record, by Reimold et al., 2018).
There are several regions in the world that are underrepresented in
the terrestrial impact record. This includes large parts of Asia, including
eastern Siberia, Mongolia, and China, the Middle East, and Southeast
Asia. The equatorial rain forest belt of Amazonia, Central Africa and
Southeast Asia has not been supportive of remote sensing investigations
for crater exploration, and Antarctica and Greenland are covered, in
large parts, by kilometer-thick ice carapaces.
The terrestrial cratering record is seriously incomplete, but to esti-
mate by how much is not an easy task. It was estimated by Stewart
(2011) that not less than 228 impact craters > 2.5 km remained to be
identified in the global Phanerozoic (i.e., younger than 540 Ma) sedi-
ment record. She estimated for Africa that only some 15% of the full
crater population in such settings and between < 1 and > 10 km in
diameter had been discovered so far, and only 10% of structures <
210 km diameter. For craters > 10 km in diameter, about 45% (i.e., 5
out of 11) were known. It is a complex undertaking to achieve such
estimations that have to depend on a number of generalizations and
assumptions, such as: how much of the Phanerozoic sediment record
has survived plate tectonics and surface degradation? Has the impact
flux since the end of the Precambrian remained constant? Can the
global rate of degradation be averaged? What is the effect of differential
rates of uplift? How can one estimate differential rates of obliteration of
very small (< 2 km size) craters?
Hergarten and Kenkmann (2015) also investigated the statistical
validity of the current terrestrial impact crater record. They could not
find any evidence for systematic incompleteness in the available record
for craters > 6 km in diameter and exposed at the surface. However,
they noted that more than 90 craters in the range from 1 to 6 km dia-
meter may still have to be discovered, and even > 250 of 0.25–1 km
diameter. They relate this computed transition from a probably com-
plete inventory for craters > 6 km to a strongly incomplete record for
smaller crater sizes to the difference between simple and complex
craters.
Therefore, it would be vain to try making predictions of how many
impact structures remain to be discovered in South America. However,
it is safe to anticipate that future discoveries will be made.
5. The record of confirmed impact structures of South America
The South American continent occupies an area of ∼17.8 million
km2. Brazil corresponds to nearly half of the continent, with ∼8.5
million km2. Most of the older terrains in South America, those that
remained tectonically stable since the Neoproterozoic, are located in
Brazil, with minor portions in neighboring countries such as Uruguay,
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 13. World distribution of impact craters (modified after Reimold and Koeberl 2014a).
Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Suriname, French Guyana and
Guyana (Cordani et al., 2016, and references therein).
Consequently, the fact that the majority of large impact structures
known in South America are located in Brazil stems naturally from the
vast extent of its territory, combined with the geological nature and
ages of its terrains. What is not to be expected is that no younger and
relatively small impact structures are at present known from Brazil.
However, this apparent lack of younger structures in these older geo-
logical terrains might be partially related to factors such as the pre-
vailing tropical to sub-tropical climates, which do not favor the pre-
servation of small-size structures due to fast weathering rates. In
addition, the presence of thick vegetation cover, typical of the central
and northern portions of Brazil, may conceal surficial or surface-near
morphological features – thus suggesting that new discoveries of small,
or even large, impact structures may well be possible, especially in
these regions.
Likewise, the Pacific margin (the Andean Belt) of South America,
having been tectonically active throughout the Phanerozoic (Cordani
et al., 2016, and references therein), did not favor the preservation of
older impact structures. This terrane corresponds, partially or entirely,
to the territories of countries such as Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru,
Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. Again, one might surmise that these
terrains should likely contain younger impact structures. The prevailing
climates in these regions are comparatively drier, which should con-
tribute to the preservation of small impact craters and meteoritic ma-
terial, such as meteorites, tektites, and micrometeorites. On the other
hand, relatively high uplift rates throughout the Andean Belt could
have been responsible for erosion of such structures.
This section presents a review of the record of South America’s
currently confirmed impact structures subdivided by country. It must
also be stressed that all the structures mentioned in this section exhibit
evidence of their impact origin, in the forms emphasized in Sections 3.1
to 3.3 above and also treated in detail by, for example, French (1998),
French and Koeberl (2010), and Reimold and Koeberl (2014a), among
others, not allowing any speculative discussion about the nature and
origin of these structures.
5.1. Brazil
The current Brazilian impact record (Crósta, 2004, 2012; Crósta and
Vasconcelos, 2013; Crósta and Reimold, 2016) is exclusively associated
16
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
with two Phanerozoic intracratonic sedimentary basins, the Paraná
Basin (Zalan et al., 1991; Milani et al., 2007) and the Parnaíba Basin
(Góes and Feijó, 1994; Santos and de Carvalho, 2009). The impact re-
cord of Brazil is hereby presented according to the structures’ respective
geological settings.
5.1.1. Paraná Basin
The Paraná Basin (Fig. 14) is a large sedimentary basin covering an
area of ∼1.5 million km2. It is located in the central-eastern portion of
South America, with ∼75% of its area occurring in Brazil and the re-
mainder in eastern Paraguay, northeastern Argentina, and northern
Uruguay.
The Paraná Basin is an Ordovician-to-Cretaceous intracratonic
flexural basin, developed between 460 and 66 million years ago. Its
genesis is related to the convergence between the former Gondwana
supercontinent and the oceanic crust of the former Panthalassa Ocean
(e.g., Milani et al., 1994, 2007). The basin was filled by six depositional
supersequences (Fig. 15), predominantly siliciclastic in nature, but also
comprising the largest (in volume) basaltic lava flows on continental
crust, the Paraná-Etendeka Large Igneous Province (LIP). The maximum
thickness of the basin infill reaches 7000 m in its central area; this
comprises both sedimentary and igneous strata (e.g., Zalan et al., 1991;
Peate, 1997; Milani et al., 2007).
There are four confirmed impact structures in the Paraná Basin:
Araguainha Dome, Vargeão Dome, Vista Alegre and Cerro do Jarau
(Fig. 14). Except for Araguainha Dome, which was formed in Permian
to Devonian sedimentary strata, reaching the crystalline basement and
exposing Neo-Proterozoic rocks, the other three structures were formed
in the same stratigraphic unit, namely the Cretaceous Serra Geral For-
mation, which corresponds to the volcanic rocks of the Paraná-Eten-
deka LIP.
Impact structures formed in volcanic rocks are rare on Earth. Of
those formed in basalt, the best example known is Lonar in India (e.g.,
Fredriksson et al., 1973; Fudali et al., 1980; Osae et al., 2005; Ray et al.,
2017). This is a young, well preserved, simple crater of small diameter
(1.8 km) that was formed at 570 ± 47 ka (40Ar/39Ar method; Jourdan
et al., 2011) ago in the Deccan Trap basalts of India. Today the crater
structure is partially filled by a lake. There are other impact structures
on Earth that encompass mafic or felsic volcanic target rocks such as
Logancha and El'gygytgyn, both in Russia (Masaitis, 1999; and papers
in a special issue of Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 2013). However,
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 14. The Paraná Basin and its impact structures; inset: the Paraná Basin within South America (after Crósta et al., 2010a).
they contain no, or only very limited, exposures of shocked volcanic
rocks or impact breccias at the surface. Therefore, Lonar crater has
remained the type locality for studying shock effects in basaltic targets,
and as an analog for comparative studies of impact processes on ter-
restrial planets with basaltic crusts, such as Mars. El’gygytgyn was the
subject of an extensive and successful drilling project by the Interna-
tional Continental Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP) that yielded some
200 m of impact-affected or –generated rocks from the interior of this
17
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
complex crater in mainly felsic volcanic crust (e.g., Koeberl et al., 2013;
Raschke et al., 2013, 2015)
With the discovery and geological characterization of the three
large, complex impact structures formed mainly in basaltic targets in
the Paraná Basin of southern Brazil, there are now more alternatives for
such analog studies, with the basalts and subsidiary sandstones also
exhibiting different levels of shock metamorphism. Furthermore, access
and logistics for ground truthing are very favorable for all three of these
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 15. Simplified stratigraphic column of the Paraná Basin showing its six depositional supersequences and respective litho-stratigraphic units (modified after
Milani, 1997).
structures.
5.1.1.1. Araguainha. The Araguainha impact structure, also known as
Araguainha Dome, has a diameter of 40 km and an area of
approximately 1300 km2 (Fig. 16). It is the largest known impact
structure in South America. It is centered at 16° 48′ 45″S/52° 59′
02″W. Araguainha was the first large impact structure discovered on
this continent (Dietz and French, 1973; Crósta et al., 1981; Crósta,
1982; Theilen-Willige, 1981). The structure was formed at about 253
Ma ago in Paleozoic sedimentary rocks of the northeastern-most part of
the Paraná Basin and underlying crystalline rocks from the basement.
The structure straddles the border between the Mato Grosso and Goiás
states in central Brazil.
From bottom to top, the stratigraphic units affected by the impact
are: the crystalline basement, composed of a porphyritic alkali granite,
and phyllites and metasandstones of the Cuiabá Group; the Devonian
Paraná Group (Furnas and Ponta Grossa formations), the Carboniferous
Tubarão Group, specifically the Aquidauana Formation, and the
Permian Passa Dois Group that comprises the Iratí and Corumbataí
formations (Zalan et al., 1991; Milani et al., 2007). The geological map
of Araguainha is shown in Fig. 17.
First reference to an anomalous circular structure in this part of the
Paraná Basin was made by Northfleet et al. (1969), who interpreted it
as the result of an igneous intrusion of alkaline nature and Cretaceous
age, which would have uplifted and deformed the Paleozoic sedimen-
tary rocks – thus forming a dome structure. Because of this inter-
pretation, and considering the economic potential of similar Cretaceous
alkaline intrusions in the Paraná Basin, a specific geological survey of
Araguainha Dome was conducted by Silveira Filho and Ribeiro (1971),
producing the first schematic geological map of the structure. These
authors referred a cryptovolcanic structure, with a granitic core be-
longing to the crystalline basement of the Paraná Basin exposed at the
center. According to them, the central core of the structure was
18
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
surrounded by volcanic rocks, comprising lava, breccia and tuff of
trachytic composition, as well as deformed Paleozoic sedimentary
rocks.
Dietz and French (1973) reported on two probable, eroded impact
structures identified on satellite images of NASA’s then newly launched
Landsat Program. These were the Araguainha Dome and the Serra da
Cangalha structure (see Section 5.1.2.1). Their completely novel in-
terpretation (at the time there were only ∼40 impact structures iden-
tified on Earth) was based on the typical morphology of eroded impact
craters, including the rim, the central uplift, and deformed strata. A
brief exploratory visit to Araguainha by R.S. Dietz revealed distinct sets
of planar deformation features (shock lamellae) in several crystal-
lographic orientations in quartz grains from breccias from the central
area of Araguainha.
Comprehensive evidence for the impact origin of the Araguainha
Dome was first provided by Crósta et al. (1981), Theilen-Willige (1981),
and Crósta (1982). They presented the results of geological and geo-
morphological mapping, as well as detailed petrographic and micro-
structural analysis of rocks from the granitic basement, the sedimentary
strata, and impact breccias. All lithologies were shown to exhibit
abundant evidence of shock deformation, such as shatter cones and
planar deformation features (PDF) in quartz. Besides these diagnostic
shock deformation features, Crósta et al. (1981) presented a collection
of complementary deformation features found in rocks from the central
uplift of Araguainha. This included planar deformation features (PDF)
in quartz, kinkbanding in mica, selective melting of feldspar, and dia-
plectic silica and feldspar glass. Crósta (1982) described the widespread
occurrence of radial as well as concentric fault zones throughout the
entire structure, from the rim to the central uplift. This faulting conveys
a multi-annular aspect to this structure.
von Engelhardt et al. (1992) presented results of a detailed petro-
graphic and geochemical study of samples from the inner portion of the
central uplift, focusing on the granitic basement and the impact
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 16. View of Araguainha Dome on a Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper+ (ETM + ) false color image (bands 4, 5 and 3 as red, green and blue); the scene
measures about 50 × 50 km. The towns of Araguainha (∼5 km to the SW of the center) and Ponte Branca (near the northeastern rim) are shown, as well as the
Araguaia River, which meanders around the central part of the structure (central uplift) running from S to NW. It forms the border between the states of Mato Grosso
and Goiás.

breccias. They recognized three types of breccias: impact breccia with
melt matrix, polymict impact breccia, and monomict sandstone impact
breccia. The authors also identified the occurrence of red and gray
dykes cross-cutting the granite and ranging in thickness from < 10 to
some 100 cm, and in length up to tens of meters. They were shown to
contain cataclastic mixtures of shocked and unshocked granitic mate-
rial, as well as melts. They pointed out that these dykes must have been
intruded into the granite under extensional stress conditions, most
likely during the uplift of the granitic core as a result of collapse of the
transient crater, during the modification stage of the crater formation.
Lana et al. (2006) analyzed the constraints on target rock movement
during the collapse of Araguainha’s transient crater. They described the
occurrence of folding and bedding-parallel shearing related to several
kilometer wide, lateral inward-directed movement of the supracrustal
target rocks, accompanied by differential slip between these strata. In
comparison, vertical movement would have been restricted to distances
of less than a few hundred meters along radial and concentric fault
zones around the crater rim. They also observed kilometer-scale folding
of the strata in the inner 15 km wide sector of the crater floor and
thickening of the strata in the collar of the central uplift. Results of
further structural work on the structure were reported by Lana et al.
(2007, 2008), who provided a structural division of the structure into a
central peak, an annular basin, and at least two concentric inner rings.
Hippertt et al. (2014) reported on a detailed structural study on the
Furnas Formation in the central uplift area.
The central uplift, about 10–12 km wide in total, includes the actual

19
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 17. Geological map of Araguainha Dome and a schematic section (A-B) across the center of the structure (after Thomé-Filho et al., 2012).

20
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 18. Panoramic view of part of the central uplift of Araguainha Dome. The hills to the left and center comprise mostly impact breccias and Furnas sandstone,
whereas the ones to the right comprise Furnas sandstone. Image width is ca. 4 km.
central peak and the innermost part of the annular basin (Lana et al.,
2007, 2008; Yokoyama et al., 2012) (Fig. 18). The outer limit is set
where the Ponta Grossa Formation partially overlaps the Furnas strata,
with upright to overturned attitude, and comes into contact with the
Aquidauana Formation. This is well observed along the Araguaia River,
about 5 km to the south of Ponte Branca town. The schematic geological
map of the inner part of the central uplift is shown in Fig. 19.
The Cuiabá Group, composed of phyllites and metasandstones, is the
oldest stratigraphic unit within the central uplift of Araguainha. These
21
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 19. Schematic lithological map of the
central part of the Araguainha Dome central
uplift. The map is based on Fig. 2 of Yokoyama
et al. (2012), modified with some observations
by the authors. Recent papers (e.g. Machado
et al., 2009; Yokoyama et al., 2012, Silva et al.,
2011, 2016), based on a statement by von
Engelhardt et al. (1992), have proposed the
occurrence of remnants of a melt sheet within
the central uplift; thus, the unit “Melt sheet” is
shown on this map. However, the authors of
this review do not want to imply that there
ever was a melt sheet covering this area, or
that the veins and blobs of melt rock observed
in the field represent remnants thereof. Only
small, < 15 m2 outcrops of melt rock have ever
been observed.
rocks have experienced three metamorphic phases: the first, a regional
metamorphism linked to the Brasiliano-Pan African Cycle
(Neoproterozic), the second, a thermal metamorphism related to the
intrusion of the Serra Negra granite (locally also called Araguainha
granite), and the last, shock metamorphism related to the impact. The
best outcrops are to the west of the road between Ponte Branca and
Araguainha town, to the north of the granite plug, where also well-
developed shatter cones can be observed in extensive road-cuts
(Fig. 20).
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 20. Three examples of shatter cones from the western sector of the
Araguainha central uplift, where excellent outcrops of phyllites from the Cuiabá
Group occur. In a) and c), pens for scale are ca. 13 cm long. Coin in b) is 2.5 cm
across.

The central peak includes a 4–5 km wide inner plug of porphyritic

alkali granite that displays different degrees of cataclasis (Fig. 21). It is
surrounded by occurrences of polymict breccia and, in some parts, by a
1–2 km wide collar of highly deformed rocks of the Furnas Formation.
(caption on next page)
The granite is composed of 0.5–2 cm long, euhedral megacrysts of K-
feldspar in a coarse-grained matrix of plagioclase, biotite, quartz, and
accessory zircon, titanite, magnetite, hematite, and tourmaline. Xeno-
liths of metamorphosed sandstone and siltstone, probably from the host

22
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 21. a) Typical aspect of the porphyritic alkali granite of the Araguainha
Dome; megacrysts of K-feldspar up to 6 cm long, immersed into a coarse- to
medium-grained matrix composed by K-feldspar, quartz, biotite and albite. b)
Local deformation and melting in the granite are frequently observed. c) and d)
Aspects of the transitional, partially impact-melted granite, after Fischer
(2015). Pink schlieren composed of feldspar are visible. Cores of quartz are
surrounded by dark lines that represent neoblastic biotite. In a), hammer for
scale ca 35 cm long. Coin in b) is 2.8 cm in diameter, and coins in the other
figures are 2.5 cm in diameter.
Fig. 22. a) Folded and recrystallized sandstone of the Furnas Formation,
Araguainha Dome; b) folded siltstone and shale of the Ponta Grossa Formation.
Fig. 23. Strongly deformed strata of the Passa Dois Formation (Irati and Corumbataí members) along the road MT-100 that cuts the Araguainha impact structure in
the southwestern sector.
23
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
formation to the granite, the Cuiabá Group, have been observed.
On the latest geological map of the structure, created by the
Institute of Geosciences of the University of Brasilia (UnB-IG, 2012,
unpublished), sedimentary rocks belonging to the Río Ivaí Group
(Ordovician) were identified for the first time. They occur locally be-
tween the Furnas Formation and the alkali granite, with the best out-
crops being in the northern and southern sectors, just inside of the
collar-like occurrences of Furnas Formation quartzite and sandstone.
The Furnas Formation is the more prominent unit in the central
uplift (Fig. 22). It constitutes a 400–800 m thick pile of clastic quartzose
strata. They are segmented into fault-bounded blocks that have ex-
perienced varied rotation, resulting in a megablock zone around the
granite core (Lana et al., 2007, 2008; Hippertt et al., 2014). The most
prominent exposures occur in the northeastern parts, in the Serra da
Arnica, and to the southeast, on the Morro Pelado hill. To explain the
large-scale folding of the Furnas sandstone strata around the central
uplift within the short time frame of an impact event (seconds/minutes)
and the absence of significant friction melts, Hippertt et al. (2014) re-
cently drew on a combination of microbrecciation, cataclasis, and fluid
expansion.
The annular basin, between the central peak and the outer annular
ring, comprises strata of the Ponta Grossa Formation and the lower part
of the Aquidauana Formation. The Ponta Grossa Formation is best ob-
served along the Araguaia River, where its strata are seen to be strongly
folded (Fig. 22-B).
The annular ring between the annular basin and the crater rim
comprises two main ring features at 10–12 km and 14–18 km from the
center of the structure (Lana et al., 2007). The inner ring structure
marks the extent of the deformation related to the outward movement
of the target rocks (Lana et al., 2008). A 700–800 m thick section of
sandstones and conglomerates, overlain by stratified siltstones and
sandstones belonging to the Aquidauana Formation of the Tubarão
Group (Carboniferous) are the more conspicuous sedimentary units in
the annular ring. The Passa Dois Group, comprising the Iratí and Cor-
umbataí formations, is well preserved as lenses in the areas of normal
faults (in the form of graben or halfgraben structures) (Fig. 23). About
20–40 m thick Permian siltstone, chert and carbonate of the Iratí For-
mation and 80–100 m thick Permian-Triassic siltstones and subsidiary
sandstones and chert of the Corumbataí Formation were identified.
The rocks of the Araguainha Dome that were generated by the im-
pact occur in the central uplift (Fig. 24). von Engelhardt et al. (1992)
distinguished impact breccia with melt matrix (impact melt rock), as
well as red and gray dikes (Fig. 24B, C, D) and polymict and monomict
breccias. The dikes are characterized by angular to subrounded clasts of
granite and schlieren of mobilised feldspar that are immersed in a fine-
grained groundmass (Fig. 24D). von Engelhardt et al. (1992) showed a
large occurrence of monomict breccia described as cataclasites, mainly
in the south-eastern sector of their schematic map of the central uplift.
Later workers have not confirmed this (e.g., Yokoyama et al., 2012),
and we can not substantiate these extensive occurrences of monomict
breccia either. von Engelhardt et al. (1992) also alleged that the impact
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 24. Araguainha Dome. a) The contact between the porphyritic alkali granite (spotted aspect) and the impact melt rock (more homogeneous). Inset: a porphyritic,
fluidal-textured impact melt rock, in which some granite clasts are recognized in the red, aphanitic melt matrix. b) and c) Examples of two red dykes, in b) of 20 cm
and in c) of 10 cm width. d) Macroscopically, the melt rocks in the dykes are characterized by fluidal texture, where K-feldspar and granite fragments may be well
aligned. e) and f) Two examples of pseudotachylitic breccia (PTB) – images from Preuss (2012). Scale bars in cm, pens are ca. 13 cm long and coin has a diameter of
2.5 cm.

melt rocks form at least two big continuous outcrops on the top of the
hills in the south and central part of the central uplift, and three smaller
ones in the north.
On the basis of field observation and petrographic studies, the im-
pact melt rocks were classified variably by different authors (von
Engelhardt et al., 1992; Machado et al., 2009; Yokoyama et al., 2012,
Preuss, 2012; Fischer, 2015; Silva et al., 2011, 2016). Machado et al.
(2009) divided the impact melt rocks into melt sheet and melt vein
occurrences, whereby we do not feel confident about the assumption
that a melt sheet, or remnants thereof, is actually in evidence (as also
questioned by Fischer, 2015). It appears that the sketch by von
Engelhardt et al. (1992) that shows impact melt breccia overlying other
rocks of the central uplift, has caused later assumption that remnants of
a melt sheet stratigraphically occurring above shocked alkali granite
existed in the dome. Preuss (2012) introduced the term pseudotachy-
litic breccia for selected, cm-wide veinlets of breccia (Fig. 24E, F) cut-
ting across the alkali granite that contained a polymict clast population
(in contrast to the impact melt veins that essentially only show rem-
nants of alkali granite precursor, besides some comparatively rare,
oxidized and possibly melted clasts that might be derived from the
Cuiabá Group). Fischer (2015) introduced the term transitional granite
(Fig. 21C, D) for partially impact-melted alkali granite. For comparison,
and in order to see possible equivalents, a compilation of the varied
nomenclatures applied in the past is presented in Table 1.
Yokoyama et al. (2012) and UnB-IG (2012) reported individual
occurrences of impact melt rock within the larger areas mapped by
earlier workers – demonstrating that these do not represent continuous
bodies. Fischer (2015) carried out extensive field work in the southern
part of the central uplift, where in theory there should have been some
of the large outcrops referred to by von Engelhardt et al. (1992). She
demonstrated that there is no continuous outcrop and that there is no
direct relationship between occurrences of impact melts rock and the
tops of hills – as suggested by the work of von Engelhardt et al. (1992)
and Machado et al. (2009).
Several petrographic and geochemical studies have been carried out
on the granite and impact melt rocks (von Engelhardt et al., 1992;
Machado et al., 2009; Yokoyama et al., 2012, Preuss, 2012; Fischer,
2015; Silva et al., 2016; Hauser et al., 2017). They showed that the
impact melt rocks and the granite are very similar in composition. Some
workers stated that seemingly no sedimentary rocks were involved in
the production of melt (von Engelhardt et al., 1992; Machado et al.,
2009). However, there are some slight differences between granite and
impact melt rock abundances in terms of some lithophile and side-
rophile trace elements, and this observation, coupled with some pet-
rographic findings, could be interpreted that a minor proportion of
Cuiabá Group material may have been mixed into impact melt as well.
Some PGE analyses were carried out by Hippert and Lana (1998) and
Machado et al. (2009). These data were interpreted to indicate that the
Araguainha impact melt rock does not carry an identifiable meteoritic
component.
Large outcrops of polymict impact breccia occur in the western,
northern and northeastern sectors of the central uplift (von Engelhardt
et al., 1992), and more restricted in the southern part (Yokoyama et al.,
2012; UnB-IG 2012) (Fig. 25A). The main components of the polymict
breccia were summarized by von Engelhardt et al. (1992) and include
sandstone clasts of different grades of metamorphism, with or without
alteration, whereby some of these are completely fused; often squarish
clasts of red pelites that are probably derived from the Aquidauana
Formation; rounded quartzite pebbles with fractures – likely from the
Furnas Formation (Fig. 25B); strongly deformed and laminated, folded

24
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Impact melt rock including transitional granite in the form of

Metamorphic basement (Cuiabá Group)

Shocked porphyritic alkali granite

Suevite and lithic impact breccia

melt sheet and melt dykes(?)
Fischer (2015)

Pseudo-tachylitic breccia (Type 2

Impact melt rock (Type 1

Suevite and lithic breccia

Monomictic breccia
Preuss (2012)

breccia)

breccia)
Granite
Partially molten granite

Monomictic breccia
Silva et al. (2011)
Comparison of rock nomenclatures applied to Araguainha lithologies by various authors. Modified from Fischer (2015).

Polymict breccia
Shocked granite

Melt dykes?

Melt sheets

Fig. 25. a) Aspect of the polymict breccia in the northern part of the
Araguainha central uplift. Some of the laminated sedimentary clasts are plas-
Dikes and veins filled with molten

Rocks with a lot of relict material

tically deformed. Section of a hammer-head shown, for scale, ca. 14 cm wide. b)

Rocks with a few relict material
Metamorphic basement (Cuiabá

Multi-faulted quartz pebble from coarse conglomerate, probably derived from

either the Furnas Formation (Devonian) or the Rio Ivaí Group (Ordovician-
Silurian); float collected in the southern part of the central uplift in an area with
Granite (porphyritic)

extensive occurrence of polymict breccia. Note that the individual segments of

Polymictic breccia
Yokoyama (2008)

the pebble have been displaced against each other. Scale bar in cm.

and purple/yellow clasts probably from the Passa Dois Group; and
material
Group)

minor proportions of clasts derived from alkali granite, as well as

phyllite from the Cuiabá Group.
Preuss (2012) showed that there are distinct melt rock clasts in the
Machado et al. (2009)

polymict breccia from the northern sector – which therefore should be

Monomictic breccia
Polymictic breccia
Crystalline alkali

classified as a suevite. Some of these melt clasts are quartzitic in com-

position. De Marchi et al. (2016) studied the polymict breccia in a thick
Melt sheet
Melt veins

sequence in the northwestern region. Her observations indicate that in

granite

terms of composition, size and shape of clasts there is no general trend

along a vertical axis through this package. However, alkali granite and
likely Cuiabá Group derived clasts are significantly more abundant in
Monomictic impact breccia from
Impact breccia with melt matrix

the lower part of this breccia package than higher up.

von Engelhardt et al. (1992)

5.1.1.1.1. Geophysical characteristics of the Araguainha Dome. The

Polymictic impact breccia

region where the Araguainha Dome is located was covered by a

Red dykes/gray veins

regional aerial geophysical survey in the 1970s, the Alto Garças

Project (PROSPEC, 1972). It comprised gamma spectrometry and
magnetic methods. At the time, the structure was still interpreted as
sandstone

an alkaline igneous intrusion, with potential for uranium

Granite

mineralization. The main goal of the survey was to identify areas

with anomalous radioactive signals, and the Araguainha Dome stood
out in the region as a conspicuous circular and concentric radiometric
Melt breccia
Basement

anomaly (Fig. 26). A circular potassium anomaly occurs in the area

Table 1

where the granitic core is exposed at the center of the structure,

Dikes

surrounded by a circular area of low gamma signal, corresponding to

25
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 27. a) Landsat ETM+ color composite image showing Vargeão Dome with its multi-annular inner features. The outer white dashed line indicates the rim of the
structure, whereas the inner circle marks the limit of the central uplift. b) A 3D perspective view of the structure from SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission)
digital elevation data. Image width is ca. 20 km.
the occurrence of the Furnas sandstones. This area is, in turn,
surrounded by another circular anomaly of high potassium, thorium
and uranium, corresponding to the area of occurrence of the Ponta
Grossa Formation. Continuing towards the border of the structure, there
is an ample area of very low gamma signal with sparse, small areas of
low potassium signal. At approximately 20 km from the center, and
surrounding almost the entire structure, a striking circular anomaly of
high potassium marks the rim of the structure, corresponding to the
areas of occurrence of the deformed strata of the Passa Dois Group.
These gamma anomalies confer an overall appearance of a bull’s eye
pattern to Araguainha, as seen on Fig. 26, which shows a remarkable
26
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 26. Regional gamma spectrometric survey
over the Araguainha Dome, showing the an-
nular and concentric patterns of the total count
(TC) signal, comprising the intensities for po-
tassium, uranium, and thorium. This bulĺs eye
pattern exhibits remarkable coincidence with
the local geology (see Fig. 17 for comparison).
(Gamma image courtesy of Johann Lambert
Silva, Unicamp).
correlation with the regional geological map of the structure (Fig. 17).
The interpretation of the magnetic data from this aerial survey
provided information about the depth of the basement underneath the
structure, which ranges from a maximum of 1500 to 1700 m at the rim
to progressively lower values towards the center, where the basement is
exposed. A highly disturbed magnetic pattern was also identified within
the structure, contrasting with the predominatly NE-SW oriented pat-
tern typical of the region surrounding the Dome.
Masero et al. (1994) and Fischer and Masero (1994) employed the
magnetotelluric method to estimate the depth of the basement and the
total displacement of the central uplift. They concluded that in the
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 28. Schematic cross sections along the N-S (top) and W-E (bottom) directions across the center of Vargeão Dome. Note the morphology of the structure, with
topographic gradients of up to 150 m between the rim and the interior of the structure, as well as the remarkable structural control of the topography related to high-
angle faulting (after Crósta, 2012).

Fig. 29. Interpreted seismic section for Vargeão Dome and the surrounding area (Kazzuo-Vieira et al., 2009; Crósta et al., 2011).

annular area located between 9 and 20 km from the center, the base-
ment forms a symmetric ring at 1 km depth. From 9 km distance to-
wards the center of the structure, the top of the basement rises up,
reaching the surface at 1.5–2 km from the center. Masero et al. (1997)
performed 2-D and 3-D modeling of the magnetotelluric data, sug-
gesting the existence of an elliptic zone within the granite lying at
depths between 3 and 7 km, characterized by resistivity values below
those of the upper crust. They interpreted this anomaly as the result of
impact-induced deformation (brecciation and faulting). Schnegg and
Fontes (2002) also suggested the existence of a ∼1 km deep and 4 km
wide conductive source near the center of the structure based on
magnetotelluric data, which would coincide with the area where the
granitic core is exposed.
Aeromagnetic data allowed characterizing the magnetic signature of
the granite at the center of the structure. Vasconcelos (2007) estimated
the depth of the basement through power spectrum analysis of the
aeromagnetic data. The analysis pointed out a deeper source lying at
around 1 km depth, on average, which reinforces the magnetotelluric
interpretation.
Electrical resistivity tomography data were acquired and

27
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 30. a) 3-D gravity model of the Vargeão Dome showing the central uplift as a pronounced gravimetric low, with an approximate diameter of 3 km; b) Depth map
of the of the Pirambóia/Botucatu sandstone in relation to the topographic surface; c) an enlarged view of the central uplift showing the location of the sandstone
outcrops (in red); the dashed line shows the position of the central uplift established in previous studies using remote sensing data, which is off-set in relation to the
gravimetric low (Ferreira et al., 2015).

interpreted by Tong et al. (2010) for characterizing the subsurface
geometry of the central uplift. They distinguished granitic from sedi-
mentary rocks based on resistivity values. In addition, zones with low
resistivity values within the granite were interpreted as being due to
higher porosity related to deformation.
Studies using magnetic anisotropy conducted by Yokoyama et al.
(2012) allowed to track the orientation of microscopic deformation
features (PDF and PF) in minerals from the granitic core, which are
decorated by magnetite and hematite. The orientation of magnetic
lineation and magnetic foliation shows a regular pattern at the border
of the central peak, consistent with the fabric of sedimentary strata at
the structure's inner collar. In contrast, they found a complex pattern at
the center of the structure. The authors pointed out that the cataclastic
flow obtained from microstructural observations and the structural
pattern of the magnetic anisotropy match the predictions from nu-
merical modeling of complex impact structures. Yokoyama et al. (2014)
used samples from the shocked granite of Araguainha, together with
samples from impact melt and the alleged melt sheet, to establish a new
magnetic pole for the Pangea supercontinent in the Permo-Triassic.
Alternating field and thermal demagnetization indicate a stable re-
manent magnetization carried by magnetite and hematite from the
Araguainha samples. According to these authors, this method provided
a paleomagnetic record as reliable as those obtained from volcanic
rocks.
5.1.1.1.2. Dating the Araguainha impact event. Crósta (1982)
presented the first radiometric age dating for the deformed granitic
basement. He obtained a K/Ar age of 283.6 ± 17.2 Ma for K-feldspar
and pointed out that this age was likely a mixed age between the
original, pre-Devonian age of the granite and the impact event, as the
shock level of the dated sample was probably not high enough for a
complete loss of inherited Ar.
A 40Ar/39Ar cooling age was obtained on biotite from the alkali
granite by Hammerschmidt and von Engelhardt (1995), which sug-
gested that the granite passed through the 300 °C isotherm before 481
Ma. A younger Rb-Sr cooling age of 449 Ma was also obtained by
Deutsch et al. (1992). On the basis of geochemistry and age, Lacerda
Filho et al. (2004) related the Araguainha granite to the Serra Negra
Suite, a group of post-tectonic granites with U-Pb ages between 462 and
503 Ma.
Hammerschmidt and von Engelhardt (1995) established the age of
the impact event using the 40Ar/39Ar method on melt rock. They ob-
tained two ages of 245.5 ± 3.5 Ma and 243.3 ± 3.0 Ma, thus

28
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 31. Simplified geological map of the Vargeão Dome impact structure (after Crósta et al., 2011).
indicating that the impact event had occurred around the Permo-
Triassic (P-Tr) boundary. These results were subsequently re-calculated
by Jourdan et al. (2009) to 248 ± 4 Ma.
In terms of Sr-Nd isotopes, Deutsch et al. (1992) obtained a Rb-Sr
isochron (whole rock + albite + biotite) of 449 ± 9 Ma for shocked
granite and a second isochron of 243 ± 19 Ma (whole rock and cor-
dierite) on a sample of impact melt rock. The Sm-Nd results for the
impact melt rock show that the whole rock, cordierite and magnetite
data form a regression line of 476 ± 110 Ma, similar to the assigned
age of the shocked granite, demonstrating that the Sm-Nd system was
somewhat disturbed.
Tohver et al. (2012) dated samples of impact-generated melts using
the U-Th-Pb methods on neocrystallized monazite and 40Ar/39Ar on
quartz inclusions from impact melt. They obtained a 254.7 ± 2.5 Ma
weighted mean age for the impact event. Recently, Erickson et al.
(2017) obtained a similar U-Pb concordia age of 259 ± 5 Ma on neo-
blastic monazite from impact melt rock.
Hauser et al. (2017) made some Sr-Nd isotope analyses on target
rocks (granite and Cuiabá Group samples), impact melt rock, and
transitional granite. Their results show that the impact melt rocks, the
transitional granite and the granite are homogeneous in terms of
87
Sr/86Sr and 143Nd/144Nd, whereas a melt clast found in suevite has an
isotopic composition more similar to the Cuiabá Group samples.
5.1.1.1.3. A possible relationship between the Araguainha impact event
and the Permo-Triassic boundary. The mass extinction event that
happened at the P-Tr boundary occurred about 252 Ma ago and
caused the disappearance of > 90% of all marine species and 70% of
the terrestrial vertebrate species (Erwin, 1990; Shen et al., 2011). The
causes for what is known as the ‘Great Dying’ has been under severe
scrutiny for decades and are still a matter of intense debate.
Based on what is currently known about the younger mass extinc-
tion event at the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary, and its direct
relationship with the Chicxulub impact event (Schulte et al., 2010),
researchers started to look for a similar direct link between the P-Tr
extinction event and a large impact structure of such age on Earth. In
29
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
this context, attention turned to the Araguainha structure, as the ages
obtained since Hammerschmidt and von Engelhardt (1995) indicated
an age of formation, within error, very close to the P-T boundary.
Mutter et al. (2008) examined the potential role that the Araguainha
impact event might have had in the P-Tr extinction, based on pa-
leontological data collected in outcrops of the strata belonging to the
Permian Passa Dois Group, around and at the rim of the impact struc-
ture. They pointed out that the magnitude of the Araguainha impact
event would not have been large enough to produce the global mass
extinction event of the P-Tr boundary, as it is largely known based on
modeling of large impact events, but would rather be compatible with a
regional extinction event. However, these authors did not offer a con-
clusion, only stating that it was unclear whether the Araguainha impact
predated, coincided, overlapped with, or postdated the P-Tr extinction.
A different hypothesis linking Araguainha and the P-Tr extinction
was proposed by Tohver et al. (2013). In their view, even a moderate
size impact event, such as the one that formed the Araguainha impact
structure, could be responsible for a large-scale mass extinction, if a
large enough amount of methane would be released by the impact. In
the case of Araguainha, the authors associated a possible release of
great amounts of methane to three possible mechanisms: volatilization
of the bolide itself, volatilization of the target rocks, and methane re-
leased by impactogenic seismicity. They pointed out the C-rich rocks of
the Permian Iratí Formation that occur throughout the Paraná basin as
the potential source of the methane for the latter two mechanisms.
Tohver et al. (2013) then used mass balance calculations to estimate the
total amount of methane released by these three mechanisms to ca.
1600 Gt. According to their interpretation, this massive release of me-
thane would have had immediate consequences for the biosphere, with
climate perturbation effected by a rapid spike in greenhouse gases.
Their hypothesis, albeit interesting, still needs to be scrutinized and
tested, before any conclusion as to the direct connection between the
Araguainha impact and the P-Tr mass extinction can be substantiated.
Besides, the recent dating by Erickson et al. (2017) has poised the
question whether the P-Tr boundary and Araguainha impact are really
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 32. Vargeão Dome a) Brecciated tholeiitic basalt with intense fracturing; the fractures (red veinlets) and the texture resemble a pseudotachylitic breccia –
however, due to the secondary overprint on the veins it is uncertain what breccia type this material originally represented. b) Brecciated volcanic rock (BVR) with
originally possibly glassy material showing fluidal texture. Scale bars are in cm.

coeval.
5.1.1.1.4. Geoheritage of Araguainha. The Araguainha impact
structure has been among the first significant geological features of
Brazil to be included in the geoheritage database coordinated by the
Brazilian Commission of Geological and Paleontological Sites – SIGEP.
This is part of a geoheritage project sponsored by UNESCO and the
International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) in an effort to
establish an international network of protected sites of geological
interest (geosites and geoparks). Araguainha was approved as a
geosite by SIGEP in 2002 (Crósta, 2002), but this did not result in
significant heritage development action.
This first declaration was complemented by a more recent project
conducted by the Brazilian Geological Survey (CPRM), in which some
geosites of the SIGEP database were selected as potentially important
for the establishment of Brazilian Geoparks. CPRM published a book
with the proposals for the creation of Brazilian Geoparks, with detailed
geological, environmental, and heritage-related information for each
site. This publication does include Araguainha (Thomé-Filho et al.,

30
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 33. Vargeão Dome a) Monomict sandstone breccia. b) Shatter cones (note
the undulating nature of the lower terminations indicating the curvature on the
striated fracture planes) in sandstone. Scale bars are in cm.
2012). So far, the Araguainha Geopark has not been created, due to the
lack of potential local partners, such as state and municipal govern-
ments, and non-governmental organizations.
Sanchez (2006) studied the geo-touristic aspects of Araguainha
Dome, whereas Sanchez and Brilha (2017) assessed the scientific value
of the Brazilian impact structures as geoheritage sites. They concluded
that the Araguainha Dome, together with Serra da Cangalha (see below,
Section 5.1.2.1), were the ones to rank higher in their assessment,
calling for the development of geoconservation strategies and adequate
management of these sites.
5.1.1.2. Vargeão. The Vargeão Dome structure of 12.4 km diameter is
located in the western portion of Santa Catarina State (26°49′S and
52°10′W). The structure is named after the homonymous town, which is
located on the inside of the southern rim of the structure (Fig. 27).
Vargeão Dome is a complex impact structure with a central uplift,
which was formed in igneous and sedimentary rocks of the São Bento
Group (Pirambóia, Botucatu and Serra Geral formations – Figs. 14 and
15) of the Paraná Basin.
The presence of a circular geomorphological feature at this location
was first noted by Paiva Filho et al. (1978), through interpretation of
airborne radar images; they coined the name Vargeão Dome. These
authors identified a remarkable pattern of annular and radial fractures
31
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 34. a) Polymict breccia from the center of Vargeão; b) clast of sandstone
with a shatter cone in polymict breccia. Scale bars are in cm.
in the basalts of the Jurassic-Cretaceous Serra Geral Formation, as well
as in sandstone outcrops in the central part of the structure that they
associated with the Jurassic Botucatu Formation. Owing to the fact that
these sandstones occur stratigraphically underneath the Serra Geral
lava flows, actually at depths of about 1 km in this region, the authors
suggested that the structure might have been formed by a buried ig-
neous intrusion that uplifted the strata, thus exposing the Botucatu
sandstone at the center of the structure.
The structure was subsequently analyzed in detail by Barbour and
Corrêa (1981), with the purpose of assessing its potential for oil and gas
resources. They produced the first geological map of Vargeão Dome,
showing the occurrence of four volcanic flows between the rim and the
central portion of the structure. The lower three flows have a basaltic
composition, whereas the fourth and uppermost flow represents a more
acidic lava type of porphyritic texture. The authors pointed out the
apparent tectonic nature of the sandstone outcrops near the center of
the structure, with the contacts between them and the basalts marked
by faults. They also found sandstone monomict breccias in the interior
of the structure, which they related to structural deformation due to the
uplift of the sandstone. As to the origin of the structure, they suggested
four possible causes: vertical faulting, cryptovolcanic explosion caused
by either volcanic gases or meteorite impact, or a buried igneous in-
trusion.
Crósta (1987) pointed to a number of similarities with respect to
deformation of Vargeão Dome with other meteorite impact structures,
including Araguainha Dome that was, at that time, the only confirmed
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 35. a) Shatter cones on basalt collected in the central uplift of Vargeão; it is
evident that they originate from a fracture; b) shatter cones on fine-grained
tholeiitic basalt.
impact structure in Brazil. Among the deformation features mentioned
were planar fractures in quartz grains from sandstone in the central
portion of the structure.
Kazzuo-Vieira et al. (2009), Crósta et al. (2005, 2011), Crósta
(2012), and Ferreira et al. (2015) analyzed the geological, morpholo-
gical and deformation features of Vargeão Dome, as well as its
Fig. 36. a) Feather features (FF) in quartz from a conglomeratic level of the Pirambóia/Botucatu sandstone exposed at the central uplift of Vargeão; b) curvilinear
microfractures of a FF in quartz from another sample from the same location as the previous figure (Crósta et al., 2011).
32
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
geophysical signatures. The characteristics of the structure presented
next are based on the findings of these authors.
Vargeão Dome was formed in lava flows of mafic and felsic com-
position that belong to the Serra Geral Formation. Some of the re-
markable aspects of this structure are the circular and multi-annular
morphology, as shown by remote sensing images and digital elevation
data (Fig. 27). This morphology is due to structural control by sub-
vertical faulting, related to the modification stage of crater formation,
with the uplift of the sandstone in the central area and rim collapse,
followed by the gravitational collapse of the central uplift. The struc-
tural framework of Vargeão Dome is shown in the schematic cross-
section of Fig. 28. Current topographic escarpments of up to 150 m
elevation between the rim and the inner portion of the structure cor-
respond to offsets along the planes of listric faults that mark the col-
lapse of the rim. Other annular features observed in the interior of the
structure are believed to also represent the surface expression of high-
angle collapse-related faults.
In the central uplift area there are occurrences of highly deformed
sandstone that are in structural contact with brecciated volcanic rocks
(mostly basalt). These sandstones are currently related to the
Pirambóia-Botucatu succession of the Late Permian to Early Cretaceous
São Bento Group (Donatti et al., 2001). The Botucatu eolian system
rests abruptly on the fluvio-eolian deposits of the Pirambóia system,
with both systems being covered by the Serra Geral volcanic flows. The
degree of cataclasis exhibited by the sandstones in the central portion of
the Vargeão structure does not allow differentiating between these two
stratigraphic units, which are therefore referred to only as the Pir-
ambóia-Botucatu sandstones (Crósta et al., 2011).
Kazzuo-Vieira et al. (2009), Crósta et al. (2011), and Ferreira et al.
(2015) conducted geophysical analysis of Vargeão Dome. Using seismic
data acquired for oil exploration in the 1980′s, Kazzuo-Vieira et al.
(2009) and Crósta et al. (2011) interpreted the subsurface stratigraphy
and structures in the interior of the structure and its surrounding region
(Fig. 29). Their results depict Vargeão Dome as a shallow crustal
structure, as one would expect for an impact crater, with the rim
bounded by listric faults – likely related to the collapse phase of cra-
tering, and a marked central uplift characterized by a conical structure,
in which sedimentary strata have been uplifted by up to 4 km and are
deformed. Ferreira et al. (2015) produced a 3D gravity model, based on
gravity data acquired in the field. Their model (Fig. 30) shows the
position of the central uplift, which differs slightly from the inter-
pretation from satellite images presented by Kazzuo-Vieira et al.
(2009). The model of these authors also shows the depths of the Pir-
ambóia-Botucatu sandstone strata in relation to the present topographic
surface. This, in turn, helped to explain the current position of the fault-
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 37. A 3-D perspective view of the Vista Alegre impact structure, obtained by combining data from Landsat-7/ETM+ with a digital elevation model (GDEM)
generated from Terra/ASTER data. Scene shown is ca. 14 km wide.

Fig. 38. Panoramic view of the Vista Alegre structure taken from the northern rim, looking towards the south. The near-vertical escarpments that mark the outer rim
of the structure can be seen well on the right-hand side. The width of this view is approximately 6 km.

bounded sandstone outcrops at the central uplift.
The simplified geology of Vargeão Dome is presented in Fig. 31,
showing the main lithologies found in the interior of the structure. Most
of the rocks that occur within the structure show some degree of de-
formation (ranging from brecciation to melting).
Two types of volcanic rocks occur in the dome that belong to the
Serra Geral Formatuion: tholeiitic basalt of the Alto Uruguai Unit, and
porphyritic rhyodacite of the Ácidas Chapecó Unit. On the escarpments
of the southern rim, these volcanics are well exposed, with the tholeiitic
basalt corresponding to the lower three lava flows and the porphyritic
rhyodacite corresponding to the uppermost flow. Faulting along the rim
resulted in large blocks of undeformed volcanic rocks from these two
units slumping from the upper portions of the rim towards the interior
of the structure, where they are currently found in tilted positions.
Rock types found in the interior of Vargeão Dome comprise un-
shocked/slightly to moderately fractured basalt and rhyodacite in outer
parts of the central uplift (the so-called collar) and along its rim, and
brecciated/ fractured/melted rocks. The latter includes the two vol-
canic rock types as well as sandstones. There are also monomict brec-
cias made up of any of the three major rock types, and polymict

33
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 39. Residual Bouguer anomaly map for the Vista Alegre impact structure (after Ferreira et al., 2013); a) plan view; b) perspective view with the rim of the
structure indicated by a black line.
breccias containing fragments of all these lithologies. In the geological
map of Fig. 31, these breccias – with the exception of brecciated
sandstones – have been grouped into a single unit called ‘brecciated
volcanic rocks and polymict breccias’ (BVR), because the lack of con-
tinuous exposures and the current level of mapping of these breccia
types is not sufficient to separate distinct types.
The BVR contain clasts of dark gray basalt or rhyodacite in a poorly
sorted and heavily oxidized matrix of intense red color. They are found
in scattered outcrops at several locations in the interior of the structure.
The volcanic clasts, in turn, are strongly fractured, with the fractures
being filled by a reddish material, often in vein form. These red veinlets
comprise finely comminuted fragments in an oxidized matrix, similar to
the matrix of the BVR. The appearance of the BVR is that of pseudo-
tachylitic breccia (Fig. 32a, b). Brecciated tholeiitic basalt forms the
34
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
dominant type of BVR in Vargeão, although at some locations such as in
the central-southern part of the structure there are BVR made of brec-
ciated rhyodacite. The degree of brecciation varies considerably at
different locations. All the interstices and fractures among the clasts are
filled with an intensely oxidized matrix, thus making the more brec-
ciated varieties appear more reddish compared to the less brecciated
varieties, which appear light gray. This alteration also precludes iden-
tification of the original breccia matrix type. Locally, the BVR show
fluidal texture (dark color) comprising glassy material (Fig. 32b).
Geochemical classification (major and trace elements) of the BVR in
comparison with the target rocks (basalt, rhyodacite and sandstone
collected outside the structure) showed that they fall between the basalt
and the rhyodacite compositional clusters, but slightly closer to the
basalt end (Crósta et al., 2011).
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 40. Schematic geological map of the Vista Alegre impact structure (after Crósta et al., 2010a).
The sandstone outcrops are restricted to the central portion of the
structure, where they occur in the form of large blocks (up to several
hundred meters in size), arranged in a semi-annular pattern around the
center; they are bounded by faults (Fig. 31). The sandstones are related
to the Pirambóia-Botucatu succession (Crósta et al., 2005). Logging
data from an oil exploration well (1RCH-0001-SC) from 22 km to the
NE of the rim of Vargeão Dome places the Botucatu Fm. at 980 m depth
and the Pirambóia Formation at 1100 m depth (Crósta et al., 2011). The
sandstones on the dome are highly deformed and recrystallized, and
abundantly form monomict breccias (Fig. 33a). At a few locations, they
exhibit shatter cones (Fig. 33b).
Polymict breccias at Vargeão have significant contributions from
volcanic rocks as well as from sandstone. Yet, this type of breccia is not
common, having been found at just two locations near the center of the
structure, in weathered outcrops of only a few meters extent. The
polymict breccias are generally composed of angular, at maximum
centimeter-sized basalt clasts and minor amounts of sandstone and
calcite clasts, all set in a fine-grained red matrix (Fig. 34a). The matrix
is composed of comminuted basalt and rhyodacite, as well as quartz and
calcite clasts, besides some unidentified fine-grained material. A single
fragment of shatter cone has been found in polymict breccia (Fig. 34b).
Shatter cones formed in fine-grained tholeiitic basalt were also
found in the central portion of Vargeão Dome, at a single location near
exposures of polymict breccia (Fig. 35). They comprise aggregates of
small nested cones, with individual cones ranging in size from 2 to
7 cm. They contain volcanic glass, with incipient crystallization and
devitrification, and randomly distributed, millimeter-sized, euhedral,
opaque minerals (Crósta et al., 2011). A red layer decorates the striated
surfaces, possibly constituting alteration or an altered melt film, similar
35
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
to the melt found on the surface of some shatter cones from Vista Alegre
(Pittarello et al., 2015a).
In addition to the diagnostic evidence for impact provided by the
shatter cone finds, microscopic shock deformation features have also
been described in rocks from Vargeão Dome, in particular in the
monomict sandstone breccia from the center of the structure (Crósta
et al., 2011). This includes abundant planar fractures (PF) and some
rare feather features (FF) (Fig. 36). The former may give a hint at shock
deformation, and can be assumed to be shock induced when they occur
abundantly and in sets of multiple orientations per host grain. However,
single sets of such features are also known from tectonic deformation
and, thus, should be taken as possible shock indicators with caution.
Feather features to date have only been described from impact de-
formed rock (e.g., French, 1998, 2004; French and Koeberl, 2010;
French et al., 2004; Poelchau and Kenkmann, 2011). Both features to-
gether indicate a likely maximum shock pressure of 7–10 GPa, in the
absence of planar deformation features (PDFs). However, according to
Kowitz et al. (2013a, 2013b, 2016), these values should be considered
with caution and – likely – as an upper shock pressure limit, as these
microdeformations formed in porous sandstone could be indicative of
even lower shock pressure.
Yokoyama et al. (2015) investigated centimeter wide breccia veins
in the shocked basalts of Vargeão from the inner collar surrounding the
central area, and identified remnants of glass, newly-formed Fe-oxy-
hydroxides and secondary phases (calcite, phyllosilicates, quartz, zeo-
lites). Based on the results of textural and mineralogical studies, the
authors suggested a hydrothermal origin for them. The hydrothermal
processes would have been prompted by the disturbance of the local
aquifer following the impact.
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 41. View into the abandoned quarry near the village of Vista Alegre that displays the best exposures of the polymict impact breccia of this impact structure. As a
result of Vista Alegre having been declared a geological site of interest by the government of the State of Paraná, a set of posters with information about the Vista
Alegre impact structure was installed in various places, including this quarry. Alvaro P. Crósta, seen in this picture by the poster, provided the contents.
Vargeão Dome, like the other two impact structures formed in the
Paraná-Etendeka LIP (i.e., Vista Alegre and, as we show here convin-
cingly for the first time, Cerro do Jarau), has a maximum age de-
termined by the age of the regional Serra Geral volcanism, which oc-
curred during the interval from 137 to 127 Ma (Turner et al., 1994).
More recently, Thiele and Vasconcelos (2010) obtained a 40Ar-39Ar age
of 134.6 ± 0.6 Ma for the Serra Geral flood basalts, which points to-
wards rapid eruption of the Paraná-Etendeka LIP. In the case of the
felsic volcanic rocks of the Ácidas Chapecó Unit, which is the upper-
most stratigraphic unit at Vargeão Dome and that was also affected by
the impact, there is a precise U-Pb age of 134.3 ± 0.8 Ma on badde-
leyite crystals by Janasi et al. (2011).
Specifically for Vargeão Dome, there has only been one dating study
reported by Nédélec et al. (2013) who provided a laser-ablation ICP-MS
age of 123.0 ± 1.4 Ma (Early Aptian) for zircon. However, this age
should be taken with some caution, as the sample from which the zir-
cons were extracted, a brecciated rhyodacite with veinlets containing
lithic fragments in what could have been former melt or a cataclasite,
was collected on the outside of the southern rim of the structure. As the
impact-induced deformation along the rim that is characterized by
block-faulting and perhaps locally occurring cataclasis must be ex-
pected to have been almost entirely brittle, it cannot be expected that
melt resulting from the impact would have penetrated the acidic vol-
canic flows at such a distance from the center. Thus, this age may not
represent the time of impact.
5.1.1.3. Vista Alegre. The Vista Alegre impact structure, located at
25°57′S, 52°41′W in the western portion of Paraná State, was first
proposed as a meteorite impact structure by Crósta et al. (2004), after
ground truthing a circular feature interpreted from a satellite image
(Fig. 37). The structure is 9.5 km in diameter and is formed in tholeiitic
basalt and sandstones of the Late Permian to Early Cretaceous São
36
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Bento Group (Pirambóia, Botucatu and Serra Geral formations) of the
Paraná Basin, similarly to Vargeão Dome. Vista Alegre was named after
the rural village of this name located within the structure, which is part
of Coronel Vivida County. Crósta et al. (2010a) presented the geology of
the Vista Alegre impact structure in detail.
Vista Alegre is a complex impact structure, with a pronounced (up
to 150 m high) circular rim along nearly 70% of its perimeter and steep
escarpments along the inner slopes of the rim (Fig. 38). The interior of
the structure is a topographically depressed area in comparison with the
surrounding terrain. The morphology involves gently rolling hills, with
topographic gradients of not more than 50 m. In contrast, in the area
surrounding the structure the relief is very uneven, with much higher
and steeper topographic gradients (typically over 200 m) between
hilltops and river valleys.
The presence of a central uplift is not noticeable, but it is inferred
based on the occurrence of blocks of deformed sandstone near the
center of the structure, as well as from gravimetric data. These sand-
stones are possibly related to the Pirambóia-Botucatu succession that is
normally at depths of about 700–800 m below the present surface in
this portion of the Paraná Basin, where they are covered by the multiple
basaltic flows of the Serra Geral Formation. Thus, the specific outline
and structure of the central uplift is not yet clear due to the lack of
subsurface information such as drilling or geophysical data.
The escarpments along the border of the Vista Alegre structure ex-
hibit step-like features, formed by differential erosion along the con-
tacts between different lava flows. Four to five distinct flows are re-
cognized along the edge of the Vista Alegre structure. Most of the
central portion of the structure is covered with up to a few meter thick
soil, which is intensely used for growing crops; rock outcrops are scarce.
Ferreira et al. (2013) conducted a gravimetric survey at Vargeão
and at Vista Alegre. The resulting Bouguer anomaly map of Vista Alegre
exhibits remarkable alternation of circular and concentric gravimetric
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 42. a) View of a boulder of polymict impact breccia from the quarry at
Vista Alegre village (compare Fig. 4.15). b) Detail of a slab cut from the breccia,
showing mostly basalt (brownish, predominant) and sandstone (mottled, light Fig. 43. Vista Alegre a) Polymict lithic impact breccia with a shatter cone
grey, lower left) clasts of varied sizes and shapes in a medium-gray, fine-grained bearing basalt clast (white arrow). Scale bar is in cm. b) Shatter cone aggregate
matrix. Scale bars are in cm. of ca. 15 cm width formed in basalt – as commonly found at the quarry near
Vista Alegre town.
low and high anomalies (Fig. 39). A gravimetric low of approximately
−2 mGal occurs at the center of the structure, surrounded by an an-
nular gravity high reaching up to 1.4 mGal. This is, in turn, surrounded
by a less defined, but still circular, gravity low of −0.4 to −2 mGal.
This conspicuous bull’s eye anomaly pattern is completed by a semi-
circular gravity high, which coincides with the rim of the structure. This
gravimetric signature is very similar to the Bouguer gravity signature of
the Vargeão Dome structure (Fig. 30A), suggesting similar character-
istics of their morphology, geology, and structural deformation.
The schematic geological map of the Vista Alegre structure shown in
Fig. 40 was drawn based on occurrence of only a limited number of
outcrops that are sometimes located several hundred meters apart.
Thus, considerable extrapolation was required.
Along the escarpments on the inside of the rim of the structure, and
in an annular area that occupies just over one third of the distance
between the center of the structure and its edge, the only lithology to
occur is fractured basalt. Although fracturing is not uncommon in the
basalts of the Serra Geral Formation outside of the structure, and also
elsewhere in the Paraná Basin, the fracturing within the Vista Alegre
structure seems to be more intense in this annular zone than elsewhere.
However, no diagnostic shock deformation features have been found in
basalt samples from this zone so far. Fig. 44. Shocked quartz grain in a sandstone clast from the polymict breccia at
Polymict impact breccias occur in the central portion of the struc- the Vista Alegre quarry exhibiting one set of PDF and one of PF (after Crósta
ture. Outcrops of this breccia, although very scarce, occur along the two et al., 2010a).
main drainage channels in the structure, the Quieto and Surubim

37
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 45. a) The circular Cerro do Jarau structure seen on a perspective view of the Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission shaded-relief DEM; the central elevated semi-
circular ridges are represented in red, with the circular drainage patterns enhanced in green and blue (corresponding to lower elevations). b) Perspective view of the
Cerro do Jarau structure from Terra/ASTER sensor data, combined with the ASTER/GDEM digital elevation data (after Crósta, 2012).

Fig. 46. View across the rough terrain of the core of Cerro do Jarau, showing the semi-annular ridges formed by silicified sandstones. The photo was taken from the
top of the northern-most ridge, looking towards the south. In the interior of the central ring a basin occurs that is drained by the Nhanduvai stream. The drainage
shows a centripetal pattern of radial drainage flowing towards the opening of the ring-form in the south and then into the Quaraí-Mirim creek.

38
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 47. Schematic geological map of Cerro do Jarau (modif. from Crósta et al., 2010b).
streams, and also in a small quarry near the village of Vista Alegre. This
quarry (Fig. 41) represents the best exposure of polymict breccia. It is
located at the side of the paved road that links the village to the town of
Coronel Vivida, located 15 km from Vista Alegre. Notably, there is a
geosite information board within this quarry providing introductory
information about the formation of the Vista Alegre impact structure.
The Vista Alegre breccia is a parautochthonous type of impact
breccia (French, 1998) with a matrix composed of a very fine (pelitic),
gray material with a powdery texture, which is mostly derived from
basalt of the Serra Geral Formation. The clasts vary in size from a few
millimeters to several decimeters. Their shape is generally angular and
their compositions include volcanic (basalt) and sedimentary (sand-
stone, siltstone) litho-types, with predominance of the former (Fig. 42).
The fact that only parautochthonous breccia has been found in the in-
terior of Vista Alegre suggests that the structure is relatively well pre-
served from erosion, in contrast to Vargeão Dome and Cerro do Jarau
that must be quite deeply eroded.
Notably, some of the basalt clasts found in the breccia contain
shatter cone aggregates (Fig. 43). The shocked basalt with shatter cones
was fragmented and incorporated into the breccia, and subsequently
mixed with other fragmented rocks. Currently, there is a strong debate
in the impact cratering community whether polymict impact breccias in
and around impact structures are the result of ejecta deposition, or
whether this material in large part never left the crater where it may
have been formed due to collapse of a high-density mass flow (ground
surge or suspension flow; e.g., Stöffler et al., 2013; Osinski and
Pierazzo, 2013; Osinski et al., 2016; Siegert et al., 2017). Another
possibility is that several processes might have combined to form and
emplace these breccia packages.
Although rather rare, some examples of clasts with shatter cones in
39
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
impact breccia are known to occur, for example, at the Ries Crater in
southern Germany (see French, 1998 and references therein). In Vista
Alegre, they appear to have been formed in significant amounts, as they
have been found quite often at this quarry over the years. A similar
occurrence was also found in polymict impact breccia at Vargeão Dome
(Fig. 34B). Raschke et al. (2013) also reported three shatter coned clasts
in rhyodacite clasts that are part of the suevite interval from the ICDP
drill core from El’gygytgyn. These are the only reported cases of shatter
cones formed in volcanic rocks to date. Geochemical compositions of
three shatter cone samples obtained by Crósta et al. (2010a, 2010b) are
nearly identical to the Paraná low-Ti, high-Fe tholeiite – typical within-
plate basalt – from the southern part of the Paraná LIP (Peate et al.,
1992; Peate, 1997).
Pittarello et al. (2015a) reported the occurrence of melt on the
striated surfaces of some of these shatter cones, as well as fine-grained
cataclasites filling fractures in them. The melt phase represents a con-
tinuous, quenched melt film, comprising a so far unidentified micro-
crystalline phase, mica, and amorphous material. Ultracataclasites,
containing subrounded pyroxene clasts in an ultrafine-grained matrix
occur subparallel to the striated surface. The characterization of the
crystalline phase in the melt was not conclusive, but suggested a rare or
new type of clinopyroxene (Pittarello et al., 2015a, p. 1239).
Shocked quartz was reported by Crósta et al. (2010a) to occur at
Vista Alegre. Samples of the polymict breccia collected at the quarry
contain also sandstone clasts. Some of these contain quartz grains with
planar deformation features (PDF); most of these grains have one or two
sets of PDFs (Fig. 44).
The age of the Vista Alegre impact is still an open question. Crósta
et al. (2012) reported the only isotopic dating available. They con-
ducted four 40Ar-39Ar step-heating experiments on different aliquots of
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 48. a) Residual Bouguer gravity anomaly map of the Cerro do Jarau structure. b) 3D density models calculated for profiles A, B and C. c) Geological map
(Fig. 47) over the residual Bouguer gravity map. d) Geological interpretation of the density model shown in section ‘A’ (Fig. 48B), a N-S section near the center of the
structure (Giacomini et al., 2017).
a melt fragment recovered from polymict impact breccia and obtained
an apparent weighted mean age of 115 ± 4 Ma for the formation of
this melt (and, by implication, the impact event). However, these au-
thors recommended to take this result with caution, as they noted
pervasive alteration of this material. The age of this alteration was
calculated at 13 ± 6 Ma, which may have biased the results. Conse-
quently, they offer a more conservative age estimate for the impact
event between ∼111 Ma (the apparent minimum age obtained for the
melt) and 134 Ma, the current age constraint for the Serra Geral vol-
canism according to Thiele and Vasconcelos (2010).
5.1.1.4. Cerro do Jarau. The Cerro do Jarau structure is centered at
30°12′S, 56°32′W. It is located in Quaraí county, in the southwestern
portion of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, near the border between
Brazil and Uruguay. The structure comprises a series of semi-circular
ridges in its central parts, which rise up to 200 m higher than the
surrounding terrains. The central elevated ridges are composed of
folded and silicified sandstone that is likely related to the Botucatu
Formation. In contrast, the surrounding areas correspond to basaltic
lava flows of the Serra Geral Formation. This inner part is surrounded
40
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
by terrain with lower elevation and with equally circular drainage
patterns. The outer part comprises rather flat ‘pampa’ plains typical of
southern Brazil, as well as neighboring regions of Uruguay and
Argentina. Therefore, Cerro do Jarau stands out conspicuously in
these flattish lands (Fig. 45A). The entire structure is ∼13 km wide.
It has been known to geologists since the late 1960s, when it was first
identified through photo-interpretation. Its origin, however, has been
the subject of debate ever since.
First mention of this structure was made by Grehs (1969), who
described the occurrence of quartzites that form the ridges and which,
in turn, are surrounded by basalt. He interpreted the structure as a
structural dome, with the lower strata of the Botucatu Formation
having been uplifted and exposed at surface. Lisboa et al. (1987) de-
scribed local occurrences of brecciation in the interior of Cerro do
Jarau. They suggested as possible causes for the origin of this structure
tectonic deformation or – for the first time – meteorite impact.
Hachiro et al. (1995) interpreted the elevated sandstone ridges as
the rim of an eroded impact structure, assigning a maximum diameter
of 5 km to it. They mentioned the occurrence of microscopic shock
deformation features, without being more specific or providing
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 49. Types of breccia of possible impact origin at Cerro do Jarau: a)
sandstone breccia; b) basalt breccia. In a) hammer head segment for scale is
10 cm. In b) segment of pen is 9 cm.
documented evidence such as photos of these alleged features.
The morphology and geology of Cerro do Jarau were investigated in
detail by Crósta et al. (2010b). Different from previous works, they
interpreted the outer limit of the structure, which is not evident and
does not stand out in the topography, to coincide with the anomalous
semi-circular drainage patterns of the Guarupá stream to the north and
northwest, and the Quaraí-Mirim Creek in the south and southwest.
These drainage channels join to form the Quaraí River, which delimits
the structure in its western portion (Fig. 45a, b). Within this extent, at a
diameter of 13.5 km, the two rock types that occur within the structure
– basalt and sandstone – exhibit some degree of deformation, usually in
the form of brecciation, whereas outside of this limit the basalt does not
show deformation. The core of the structure, composed of silicified
sandstones (Fig. 46), was described by these authors as having an el-
liptical shape, with a diameter of 6.5 km in north-south direction, and
5.2 km in east-west direction. It forms an inner basin, drained by the
Nhanduvai stream and its tributaries (also compare Fig. 47).
The geology of Cerro do Jarau is shown in the schematic geological
map of Fig. 47. The structure comprises two different types of sandstone
in its central part, which is surrounded by fractured and brecciated
basalt. In the innermost part, with outcrops along the Nhanduvai Creek
and its tributary drainage channels at lower topographic levels, there
are sandstones showing characteristics of fluvial deposition, such as
parallel lamination and pelitic layers. Crósta et al. (2010b) attributed
them to the Middle Jurassic Guará Formation of the São Bento Group.
In the environs of these fluvial sandstones, and still within the limits of
the inner basin of Cerro do Jarau, are exposures of eolian sandstones
41
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 50. Cerro do Jarau a) Multiply-striated joint surfaces (MSJS) in sandstone
of the Guará Formation; b) a similar striated deformation feature in basalt of the
Serra Geral Formation.
with cross-stratification at the meter scale. These sandstones were re-
lated by these authors to the Upper Jurassic Botucatu Formation. The
basalts of the Serra Geral Formation then surround the mentioned
sandstone units, forming a bull’s eye pattern with the oldest strata at the
center and the younger ones in the outermost zone.
Giacomini et al. (2017) presented the results of a ground gravi-
metric survey of Cerro do Jarau. This was conducted with the objective
to establish the gravimetric signature and to better define the internal
structures and the outer limit of the structure. They found a positive
Bouguer gravity anomaly (> 6 mGal) forming a semi-circular pattern
surrounding the central part of the structure, as well as another positive
anomaly (> 7 mGal) in the NE portion of the structure, extending to-
wards its center (Fig. 48A, C ). The inner core of the structure, which
corresponds to the occurrence of sandstone, exhibits a more complex
gravity signature in the form of a negative anomaly surrounding a small
positive anomaly.
These authors developed 3D models based on their gravimetric data,
in order to explore the distribution of the different types of rocks pre-
sent on the surface and in the subsurface (sandstone and basalt). They
found their models (Fig. 48B) to be in accordance with the impact
hypothesis for the formation of Cerro do Jarau, with the gravity low in
the central area denoting the uplifted and more deformed sandstones
and the Serra Geral basalt producing the gravity high surrounding the
central portion of the structure (Fig. 48D). The two types of sandstones
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 51. Examples of microscopic deformation features in quartz from Cerro do
Jarau sandstone. a) Grain with two sets of PDF (0001 and 10-14 orientations) in
quartz grain in sandstone. b) Two sets of PDF at the margins of two adjoining
quartz grains in sandstone (red arrows). c) Another example of PDF in quartz
grain in sandstone (red arrow). d) Basalt breccia with thin veinlets of entirely
altered material.
42
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
shown in Fig. 48D would represent a more deformed sandstone
(“Sandstone I”, exhibiting lower density, 2.2–2.3 g/cm3), and a less
deformed sandstone (“Sandstone II”) with relatively higher density
(2.4–2.6 g/cm3).
The debate regarding the origin of Cerro do Jarau has been ongoing
since the first reference to its possible impact origin by Lisboa et al.
(1987). However, their suggestion was based solely on the circular
nature of the structure, combined with an unlikely possibility of it
having been created by endogenous processes. The reference to the
hypothetical shock features by Hachiro et al. (1995) remained un-
substantiated.
The first evidence to strongly support an impact origin for Cerro do
Jarau was reported by Crósta et al. (2010b). This included a report of
brecciation of sandstone and basalt (Fig. 49), as well as deformation
features in these two rock types (Fig. 50). They interpreted these stri-
ated fracture surfaces as multiply-striated joint surfaces (MSJS – after
Nicolaysen and Reimold, 1999); these fractures are apparently related
to the shock-diagnostic shatter cone phenomenon. MSJS were also de-
scribed by Milton et al. (1996) from the Australian Gosses Bluff impact
structure and by Nicolaysen and Reimold (1999) from Sudbury (Ca-
nada).
Crósta et al. (2010b) also reported multiple observations of micro-
deformation features in quartz within such breccias, including quite
frequently the occurrence of planar fractures. By themselves, planar
fractures in quartz are not recognized as a diagnostic shock indicator,
but if they occur abundantly, they may provide a hint. In any case, if
these PF in Cerro do Jarau samples had been produced by shock, they
would likely represent low-shock pressure deformation (< 5 GPa).
Subsequent microscopic analysis of Cerro do Jarau samples by Philipp
et al. (2010) confirmed the occurrence of the deformation phenomena
found by Crósta et al. (2010b), and also alleged the occurrence of
planar deformation features (PDF) in quartz from sandstone. However,
scrutiny of their results indicates that these hypothetical PDFs are likely
planar fractures as well.
Sanchez et al. (2014), based mostly on structural measurements of
the strata exposed in the Cerro do Jarau structure, suggested that the
basalt flows are structurally and stratigraphically overlain by the
sandstones, and not the other way around as suggested by all previous
studies of the structure. According to their interpretation, the two types
of sandstones (medium-coarse stratified sandstones and laminated
sandstones) would represent a stratigraphic unit younger than the Serra
Geral lava flows and, therefore, were originally deposited on top of the
basalt. They also observed that the dip of the sandstone strata was to-
wards the center of the structure, suggesting a concave configuration,
and not a convex one. Based on these assumptions, they interpreted the
whole Cerro do Jarau structure as an impact structure, but shaped as a
basin with a central depression, instead of a domal structure with an
uplifted central portion.
In our view, the interpretation presented by Sanchez et al. (2014)
does not offer adequate answers to the overall geologic and geophysical
data available for Cerro do Jarau, which point to the existence of a
central uplift (as shown in Fig. 48). Besides, a basin configuration
would suggest a simple crater rather than a complex one, and this
would be incompatible with the likely diameter of 10–13 km, according
to the current knowledge about impact craters on Earth (Melosh, 1989).
Another weak aspect of the interpretation offered by Sanchez et al.
(2014) is the complete lack of support – both, in the literature and in
the regional stratigraphic record – for such a sandstone unit with the
characteristics described for the sedimentary strata that occur within
Cerro do Jarau that would overlie the volcanic strata of the Serra Geral
Formation.
Recently, bona fide shock deformation features were identified in a
number of samples from Cerro do Jarau in the course of a thorough
optical microscopic study by one of us, WUR, of circa 250 thin sections
covering all lithologies sampled throughout the extent of the structure.
This comprises the extensive thin section collection of J. Sanchez
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 52. Location of the confirmed impact structures of the Parnaíba Basin, in northern Brazil (MA = Maranhão State; PI = Piauí State; TO = Tocantins State).
(Sanchez, 2013), the specimens in A.P. Crósta’s collection, and a host of
new samples obtained in the course of a structural geological pilot
project by P.T. Zaag (formerly of the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin) in
2016.
Amongst these numerous thin sections, about a dozen sandstone
samples show microdeformation including PF, FF, and in four cases,
PDF. PF occur in up to three sets of different orientations in selected
quartz grains. FF occur in up to 3 orientations per host grain as well,
and PDF were noted in 2 grains in 2 orientations each, whereas a dozen
other grains altogether showed only single sets of PDF. Invariably, these
shock-deformed grains are rare but PF and FF occur abundantly in se-
lected samples. PDF are generally confined to grain margins, where
they occur in sets of very short features – likely the reason why they had
not been observed earlier. Notably, Kowitz et al. (2013a, 2013b, 2016)
did not find optically identifiable PDF in their experimentally shocked
sandstone specimens. Fig. 51A, B, C gives a few examples of these shock
deformation features in Cerro do Jarau samples.
Some of J. Sanchez’ thin sections of basalt specimens do indeed
show brecciation. Invariably all these breccia zones and veinlets are
43
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
filled with matrix of dark-red color but indefinable character (Fig. 51D).
Some veins contain a polymict clast population, with quartz and
quartzite clasts in addition to the dominant basalt clast population.
However, all these occurrences of polymict clast populations are devoid
of any intra-clast microdeformation. Whether this brecciation can be
related to impact deformation, or should be completely, or partially,
considered the result of volcanic processes, as favored by Sanchez
(2013), remains uncertain at this time. Further field observations to
better constrain the geological context for these breccias are required.
The unambiguous finding of the shock deformation features re-
ported here, coupled with previous data especially from Crósta et al.
(2010b) and Giacomini et al. (2017), does no longer leave any doubt
about the impact origin of Cerro do Jarau. The age of the impact is still
undetermined. It is only defined by an upper limit provided by the Serra
Geral volcanism, at ca. 134 Ma (Thiele and Vasconcelos, 2010). The
dimensions of the structure are not yet entirely established, with a
diameter estimated currently at ca. 13.5 km. This number is based on
geomorphological features, such as the circular drainage patterns of the
Garupa and Quarai streams marking the supposed outer rim of the
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 53. ASTER image combined with ASTER/GDEM digital elevation model
giving a perspective view of the Serra da Cangalha impact structure. Image
width is ca. 15 km.
structure, the geophysical (gravity) signature, as shown by Giacomini
et al. (2017), and, finally, the important fact that no apparent de-
formation was found to affect the basalt outside the perimeter estab-
lished by the two streams. Therefore, the rim of the structure seems to
have been almost completely obliterated by erosion. What has re-
mained is mostly the deeper part of the central uplift, represented by
the silicified sandstone (meta-sandstone) that forms the highest eleva-
tions in the northern and northeastern parts of the central uplift of the
structure.
Future investigations of Cerro do Jarau shall focus on a better
characterization of shock deformation, as well as establishing its di-
mensions and age.
5.1.2. Parnaíba Basin
The intracratonic Parnaíba Basin covers an area of ∼600,000 km2
in central and northern Brazil. The basin is filled with up to 3500 m
thick sedimentary sequences deposited between the Silurian and Early
Triassic (Góes and Feijó, 1994; Góes, 1995; Pedreira da Silva et al.,
2003; Santos and de Carvalho, 2009). The basin was formed in a crustal
domain that underwent a major tectono-magmatic event during the
Fig. 54. Aerial view of the inner ring feature, the so-called ‘collar’, of the central uplift of the Serra da Cangalha impact structure. It comprises massive, silicified and
deformed sandstones of the Poti Fm. that rise up to 350 m above the surrounding terrain. View towards the south (Photo courtesy of A. Bartorelli).
44
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Brasiliano orogenic cycle (late Proterozoic and early Paleozoic) and is
bordered by amalgamated fold belts (Almeida et al., 1981).
The sedimentary filling of the Parnaíba Basin is divided into three
main sedimentary sequences that correspond, from bottom to top, to
the Serra Grande, Canindé, and Balsas groups, the ages of which range
from the Silurian to the Triassic (Góes and Feijó, 1994). These mega-
cycles record multiple transgressive-regressive events that indicate a
progressive tendency to contraction of the basin area, strong con-
tinentalization, and climatic desertification (Góes and Feijó, 1994;
Santos and de Carvalho, 2009). Additional Mesozoic volcanosedimen-
tary successions overlap the mentioned megacycles and represent the
final stage of the evolution of the Parnaíba Basin (Goés and Feijó,
1994).
The Parnaíba Basin has been known to contain several circular
structures. Some of these are related to igneous intrusions, including
kimberlites (Tompkins, 1994), whereas others have been shown to be
the result of meteorite impact (this work). There still are a number of
other structures in the basin of so far unknown origin.
The impact record of the Parnaíba Basin comprises three confirmed
meteorite impact structures: Serra da Cangalha, Riachão, and Santa
Marta (Fig. 52). A fourth structure, São Miguel do Tapuio, is currently
under investigation by some of the authors of this paper (A.P. Crósta,
M.A.R. Vasconcelos, W.U. Reimold), with promising partial results re-
garding its impact origin, as presented in more detail in Part II of this
review.
5.1.2.1. Serra da Cangalha. The Serra da Cangalha (SdC) – “Horse
Collar Range” in Portuguese – structure is a complex impact structure
centered at 8°0′ S, 46°52′ W, in the northeastern-most part of Tocantins
State (Fig. 52). In the early 1970s, as part of a regional exploration
program for industrial diamonds, 3 boreholes were drilled at the center
of a circular structure in order to investigate its possible igneous
intrusive origin, then suspected to be a possible kimberlite (DNPM,
1972).
First reference to a possible impact origin for SdC was made by Dietz
and French (1973), based on the circular morphology of the structure
documented by some early images of the Landsat satellite. This was
followed by reconnaissance fieldwork by McHone (1979) and Santos
and McHone (1979). McHone (1986) reported on the anomalous local
deformation of the strata and on low-shock pressure features, such as
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 55. Serra da Cangalha a) Gamma-ray data: K, Th, U in red, green and blue, respectively, showing a well-defined anomaly of the three radioelements, especially
for potassium, over the annular basin around the central uplift. b) Bouguer signature for Serra da Cangalha, expressed in mGal, with a weak positive anomaly in the
center. c) Forward gravity model along the N-S direction across the structure – emphasizing the central uplift of the structure (adapted from Vasconcelos et al., 2012a,
2012b).

intense grain fracturing and curvi-linear features in quartz. However, sedimentary rocks of the Parnaíba Basin. The resulting impact structure
only recently bona fide evidence for the impact origin of SdC was is eroded to a considerable degree but still exhibits some remarkable
presented by Kenkmann et al. (2011) and Vasconcelos et al. (2013). geomorphological features – including several prominent ring features
The bolide that impacted at SdC targeted Paleozoic/Mesozoic (Fig. 53). Almeida-Filho et al. (2005) and Reimold et al. (2006)

45
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 56. Geological map of the Serra da Cangalha impact structure (diameter is ca.12 km) in Tocantins State, Brazil (adapted from Kenkmann et al., 2011; see also
Vasconcelos et al., 2013).

Fig. 57. a) Shatter cones in sandstone from the

central depression of Serra da Cangalha. b)
Feather features in quartz of a shatter cone
flound in the inner basin of ther central uplift.
c) Planar fractures developed in a quartz grain
in polymict lithic breccia. d) Planar deforma-
tion features in a quartz grain of a shatter cone.
Note the distinct planarity and sharpness of
many of these features. However, there are
some features that are comparatively broader
and “grainy”. These are likely deformation
bands with countless fluid inclusions that in-
tersect the thin section plane at a rather low,
oblique angle.

conducted remote sensing analysis of SdC, distinguinshing, from the approximately 6 km diameter, followed by an incomplete second in-
center to the rim, the following morpho-structural features: (1) a pro- termediate ring structure with 11 km diameter; and (3), the outer ring
minent inner ring with 3.2 km diameter, with a central depression of with 13.4 km diameter, representing the rim of the structure.
2.2 km diameter; (2) a first intermediate ring feature with A prominent collar built up by massive, silicified sandstone

46
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 58. a) Numerical modeling results showing Serra da Cangalha shortly after impact. The model shows that temperatures (left-hand side) of up to1000 oC were
attained around the center, and pressures (right-hand side) of around 15 GPa. Pressure distribution: red (25 GPa), orange (15 GPa), yellow (10 GPa), green (5 GPa),
magenta (1 GPa), blue (< 1 GPa). Dashed line represents the current erosion level. b) Megafolds at the collar of SdC, representing examples of inverted strata shown
in the numerical model.

surrounds the central depression. This collar has a nearly-quadrangular

Fig. 59. A 3D perspective view of Riachão. Landsat 7/ETM+ combined with
SRTM digital elevation data. Image width is ca. 6 km.
shape and is up to 350 m high, forming the most conspicuous mor-
phological feature of SdC (Fig. 54). The shape of the folded sandstone
strata that form the collar of this structure has inspired its name: Horse
Collar Range. This intensely silicified/recrystallized sandstone collar
has resisted erosion comparatively better than the surrounding target
rocks, thus forming a formidable erosion remnant that stands out in the
regional landscape.
Based on the analysis of magnetotelluric data, Adepelumi et al.
(2005) estimated the deformation at SdC to be restricted to 2 km depth.
An airborne gamma-ray survey showed a well-defined anomaly of the
three radioelements, particularly for potassium, over the annular basin
around the central uplift (Fig. 55), more conspicuous over the rim and
central uplift (Vasconcelos et al., 2012a). Estimation of the average

47
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 60. a) Perspective view of gammaspectrometric maps of the Riachão impact structure showing the approximate locations of the outcrops and samples shown in
the following pictures of this figure; the maps show (bottom to top): thorium concentrations, ternary gamma-ray (K in red, Th in green and U in blue), and silica
abundance. ER1 (upper left): Outcrop of ‘Pedra da Lapa’, a lithic sandstone that forms the largest outcrop of the elevated rim of the structure. ER1 (upper right): detail
of the lithic sandstone showing intraclasts. CU1 (middle left): Sandstone with kaolinite cement. ER3 (middle right): Microscopic view of the sandstone with in-
traclasts. CU3 (lower left): Quartz grain with planar deformation features (PDF). CU3 (lower right): Detail of the previous photo showing PDF along 0001 crys-
talographic plane. (ER = Elevated Rim; CU = Central Uplift; Out = Outside. Kln = kaolinite; Ms = muscovite; Qtz = quartz). (after Maziviero et al., 2013a, 2013b).

depth to basement was also attempted by Vasconcelos et al. (2012a),
based on evaluation of regional aeromagnetic data, resulting in a depth
of 2.4 km. High resolution magnetic data presented by Vasconcelos
et al. (2012b) showed magnetic sources lying at 200–500 m depth
below the center of the structure, and deeper magnetic sources below
the entire structure, at ∼1900 m depth. The Bouguer anomaly map
shows a slight positive anomaly (1 mGal) over the central area, and a
low gravity signature of 2 mGal at the northwestern rim (Fig. 55B). The
gravity models show disturbed basement in the innermost part of the
crater, down to about 2–3 km depth (Fig. 55C).
Vasconcelos et al. (2013) divided the structure into several domains
based on the intensity of deformation that decreases from the center
toward the rim: central uplift, annular basin, crater rim, and external
terrain. The stratigraphic units that occur at the SdC structure comprise,
from the bottom to the top, the Devonian Longá Formation (shales,
siltstones), the Carboniferous Poti and Piauí formations (predominantly
sandstones), and the Permian Pedra de Fogo Formation (mudstone,
carbonate and chert) (Fig. 56).
The central uplift was defined by Kenkmann et al. (2011) and
Vasconcelos et al. (2012a) as the innermost zone of 5.8 km diameter. It
comprises an outer peripheral zone with steeply dipping strata of the
Piauí Formation, the prominent collar with silicified sandstone strata of
the Poti Formation, and a central depression underlain by strata of the
Longá Formation. The lithologies that form the Longá Formation,
mostly shales and siltstones, are more susceptible to weathering and
erosion than the other siliciclastic rocks, thus favoring erosion and the
formation of the central depression, where there is a relative lack of
outcrops. Information about the strata of the Longá Formation comes
mostly from drill cores obtained in the course of diamond exploration in
the 1970s. The three boreholes were drilled vertically through strongly
compacted and deformed, dark gray and black shales, and poorly sorted
sandstones (Vasconcelos et al., 2013).
The annular basin comprises the area between the central uplift and
the rim. Here, strata of the Pedra de Fogo Formation occur. The strata
comprise mainly brecciated (cataclased) chert layers, as well as silici-
fied sandstone, with subordinate mudstone. In some areas, such as in
the northeastern and western parts of the annular basin, the strata of
the Pedra de Fogo Formation exhibit centimeter- to meter-scale open
folds. The rim exhibits flat-topped plateaus with high topographic ele-
vations that mark the outer limit of SdC. The rim exhibits mostly rocks
of the Pedra de Fogo Formation with some occurrences of the under-
lying sandstones of the Piauí Formation in the NW and E sectors. The
Pedra de Fogo Formation consists of red/gray laminated mudstone with
abundant chert and subordinate coarse- to medium-grained and well
sorted, pink sandstone.The Piauí Formation shows frequent intercala-
tions of purple/gray mudstone and fine- to medium-grained, red
sandstone, usually with parallel bedding or with incipient sigmoidal
cross-bedding. Beyond the rim the attitude of the strata is nearly hor-
izontal and rocks do not display significant deformation.
In the northwestern sector of the structure, at a road cut that in-
tersects the rim, a prominent concentrically trending monocline in
sandstones of the Piauí Formation can be seen, whose inner limb dips
gently toward the crater center.
Shock features were found in specific locations within SdC.
Kenkmann et al. (2011) reported on the occurrence of shatter cones
of < 1 decimeter size in coarse sandstone found at two locations in the
central depression, likely in Longá Formation mudstone (Fig. 57A).
They display a characteristic cone geometry with convergent grooves
and ridges pointing to an apex and cone angles betweeen 50° and 60°.
Rare monomict and polymict breccias were also found in the central
depression and in the periphery of the central uplift.
Vasconcelos et al. (2013) also presented shock microdeformation
evidence from a few samples. They described the existence of feather
features (FF) in quartz grains of sandstones from the Longá and Poti
formations, including quartz grains from shatter cones (Fig. 57B).
Planar fractures (PF) were found in quartz grains from the same stra-
tigraphic units, in polymict breccias (Fig. 57C) and in shatter cones.
These authors also found planar deformation features (PDF) in coarse
sandstone from the drill cores into Longá Formation, and in shatter
cones (Fig. 57D), most of them with sets oriented parallel to the c
(0001) axis.
Vasconcelos et al. (2012b) employed numerical modeling to

48
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 61. a) Simplified geological map of the Riachão impact structure. The red line represents the interpreted profile shown in B. b) Northwest-southeast profile
through the southeastern sector of the Riachão structure (y axis in meters; x axis in kilometers). c) Schematic stratigraphic column (modified after Maziviero et al.,
2013a). See text for discussion.
estimate the dimensions of the bolide that formed SdC at ∼1.4 km
diameter, and the total energy released by the impact at approximately
2.74 × 1020 J. According to their results, the uplift of the strata below
the center of the structure was ∼500 m. The peak pressure in the rocks
currently exposed at the central uplift would have been ∼15 GPa
(Fig. 58), which is consistent with peak pressures necessary for the
formation of shock features as found in the target rocks of that area,
such as relatively rare PDF. Inverted strata shown in the numerical
models are similar to the overturned beds observed in the rocks of the
collar.
5.1.2.2. Riachão. The Riachão impact structure is located in Maranhão
State of northeastern Brazil, centered at 7°42′S, 46°38′W. This semi-
circular, complex structure is nearly 4 km in diameter. It was formed on
flat-lying Upper Carboniferous to Permian sedimentary rocks of the
Parnaíba Basin.
The occurrence of a circular structure was first recognized by Ojeda
and Bembom (1966), who described the anomalous radial drainage
pattern in this region and interpreted the structure as being of crypto-
volcanic origin. A possible impact origin was then suggested by
49
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
McHone and Dietz (1978) and McHone (1979), based on photographs
taken by the astronauts of the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. A first
geological map of Riachão was produced by McHone (1986). He de-
scribed impact breccia with chert clasts occurring on the rim and quartz
grains with sets of planar fractures; however, bona fide evidence for an
impact origin was not reported at the time. Only recently, Maziviero
et al. (2012, 2013a) provided conclusive evidence for Riachão’s origin
by impact.
A flat to gently rolling relief, reflecting a dendritic, radial fluvial
drainage pattern, characterizes Riachão. In general, soil, vegetation,
and alluvial sediments extensively cover the area, and there are only a
few scattered outcrops of sandstone and sedimentary breccia of the
Pedra de Fogo Formation in and around the structure.
Maziviero et al. (2013a) conducted a detailed remote sensing in-
vestigation using Landsat 7/ETM+ combined with SRTM digital ele-
vation data for assessing the geometry and morphology of the structure
(Fig. 59). Using these data, the outer limit and the morphostructural
zones were interpreted. The raised rim zone indicates an apparent
diameter of 4.1 km for the structure; it resembles a horseshoe shape that
is open to the northwest. The rim rises 50 m above the terrain outside
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 62. a) The topography of the Santa Marta impact structure, in terms of color-coded elevation values (meters above sea level) and main morphological features.
b) Perspective view (3.5 x vertical exaggeration) showing the morpho-structural domains (outer edge, annular basin with inner rings, and central elevation). The
central elevation is composed of the central uplift (CU) and the overlying central elevated plateau (CEP); D = diameter of the structure. Images were prepared from a
GoogleEarth® grayscale mosaic draped over elevation data from SRTM (after Oliveira et al., 2017).

50
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 63. a) Geological map of the Santa Marta impact structure. The A-B line in purple represents the geological profile shown in B). b) Geological profile (AB section)
across one-half of the Santa Marta impact structure. The “Central Elevation” includes both the deformed Paleozoic rocks of the central uplift (CU) and the non-
deformed detrital cover of the central elevated plateau (CEP). Note that Datum 0 relates to the actual altitude of 500 m above sea level, which corresponds
approximately to the average altitude of the outcrops in the annular basin.

51
A.P. Crósta et al. Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 64. Bouguer anomaly map of the Santa Marta structure. The outer dashed line corresponds to the outer boundary of the structure, and the inner dashed circle
corresponds to the central elevated plateau (CEP). A conspicuous NE-SW oriented gravity anomaly trend suggests a contrast between higher density rocks in the NW
sector of the crater and lower density rocks in the SE sector. It may also be linked to a deeper crustal trend (Oliveira et al., 2014).

the structure and the maximum topographic elevation of the central
uplift is 30 m above the inner ring basin.
A study involving ASTER thermal infrared (TIR) data, combined
with gamma-ray spectrometric data (Maziviero et al., 2013b), allowed
to produce a quartz index map (areas with high silica content) and the
identification of areas characterized by high values of thorium and
uranium (Fig. 60A).
Aerial gamma-spectrometry, gravity, and magnetic data were ana-
lyzed by Vasconcelos et al. (2010) and Maziviero et al. (2013a, 2013b).
A well-defined gamma-ray signature outlines the elevated rim and the
central uplift. The rim exhibits low concentrations of radioactive ele-
ments, whereas the core shows high K values, probably related to the
phyllosilicate cement of the Piauí sandstones (Maziviero et al., 2013b;
Fig. 3 – CU1). Riachão shows a positive large-wavelength gravity
anomaly of about 1 mGal that is roughly coincident with the entire
structure, as well as negative anomalies outside the structure. This
anomaly pattern is also consistent with a 4.1 km diameter for Riachão.
Magnetic data show an elongated signature along a NW-SE axis across
the central uplift (Vasconcelos et al., 2010, 2012c).
The sedimentary strata in the Riachão area are part of the deposi-
tional sequence of the Balsas Group of the Parnaíba Basin (Góes, 1995).
The Riachão structure was subdivided by Maziviero et al. (2013a) into
3 morpho-structural zones, from the periphery to the center: (1) an
elevated rim; (2) an annular depression; and (3) a central uplift. Fig. 61
shows a geological map, together with the local stratigraphic column.
The rock types on the elevated rim include predominantly lithic
sandstone with sandstone intraclasts. This apparently massive litho-
facies is medium- to coarse-grained, poorly to moderately sorted, and
matrix-supported with 20–30% subangular intraclasts of silty sand-
stone. Locally, medium-scale tabular and trough cross-bedding were
observed. This rock is tilted with dip angles > 40° and dip directions
usually toward the opening of the rim in the northwest. In some places

52
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 65. View toward the SE across the central parts of the Santa Marta structure. The prominent escarpment of ca 50 m elevation, at the location known as Sinésio
Hill (Fig. 62A), indicates where the subhorizontal cover overlaps the strata of the central uplift. The base of this hill consists of monomict breccia formed by pelitic
rock fragments and is overlain by the young polymict sedimentary breccia forming the CEP.
on the rim there is a clastic breccia with sandstone clasts of 0.2–10 cm
sizes. McHone (1986) interpreted this breccia to be of impact nature,
but the complete lack of shock indicators suggests that it is a sedi-
mentary breccia of the Pedra de Fogo Formation.
In the annular depression occur several outcrops of laminated silt-
stone and calcilutite, with dip angles of up to 10°–20° toward
ENE–WSW and NW–SE. At the transition to the central uplift, brec-
ciated chert is observed. This morpho-structural zone exposes the Pedra
de Fogo Formation, as already proposed by McHone (1986).
The central uplift comprises fine- to medium-grained, apparently
massive sandstone, with 55°–80° dip angles and dips in various direc-
tions. According to Maziviero et al. (2013a), this sandstone represents
the lowermost stratigraphic unit in the Riachão structure, namely the
Piauí Formation. This is a reasonable assumption given the strati-
graphic uplift of ca. 0.4 km estimated from the diameter of the structure
using the formula proposed by Grieve and Pilkington (1996), namely
SU = 0.086D1.03, where SU is the amount of stratigraphic uplift un-
dergone by the deepest strata now exposed at the surface and D is the
rim diameter. The Riachão structure is deeply eroded as suggested by
its subdued topographic expression.
No shatter cones have been found at Riachão. Microscopic de-
formation features observed in thin sections of sandstone from the
central uplift reveal only features formed in the low shock deformation
regime. Only one quartz grain from a sample of Piauí sandstone exhibits
PDF of basal orientation (Fig. 60 − CU3). Other lower pressure shock
features have also been observed, including feather features (FF) and
planar fractures (PF) (Maziviero et al., 2013a).
Direct radiometric age determination for the formation of the
Riachão structure is not possible, due to the absence of suitable (melt-
bearing) material. Therefore, the age of the Permian Pedra de Fogo
Formation, attributed to the Cisuralian Epoch (299–271 Ma) by
Iannuzzi et al. (2016), provides an unconstrained upper limit for the
age of this impact event.
Abrantes (2016), studying the Permo-Triassic sequences of the
Parnaíba Basin in a region that includes the Riachão structure, identi-
fied deformational structures in the contact zone between the strata of
the Motuca and Sambaíba formations. These structures comprise in-
traformational breccias, folded strata, convoluted lamination and
faults/microfaults with clay injections. He also noticed that, near Ria-
chão, there was more plastic deformation affecting the top of the Mo-
tuca Formation, and interpreted these structures as seismic-induced.
More interestingly, he also identified metal anomalies (Cr, Co, Cu, Mn,
Au, Pd and Pt) in the deformed strata at the contact zone between these
two formations, together with metallic micro-particles within the clay
matrix of the deformed sandstones. He then suggested that the combi-
nation of deformation features, metal anomalies and metallic particles
53
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
could be potentially caused by the Riachão impact, which would put
this event at the Permo-Triassic transition (ca. 251 Ma). This is ob-
viously a speculative suggestion.
Currently, it is not clear whether the Riachão impact is related to the
formation of the Serra da Cangalha impact structure, located some
40 km south-southwest of Riachão in the neighboring state of Tocantins
– a suggestion made originally by McHone (1986).
5.1.2.3. Santa Marta. The Santa Marta impact structure (Fig. 62) is
located in the southwestern portion of Piauí State, northeastern Brazil.
It is centered at 10°10′S, 45°14′W. It is a complex impact structure of
10 km diameter that is reasonably well preserved. The structure
comprises a partially exposed raised rim, as well as a central uplift
with a diameter of 3.2 km (Oliveira et al., 2014, 2017).
Master and Heymann (2000) first mentioned Santa Marta as a po-
tential impact structure. Based on the geomorphological circular
anomaly observed by remote sensing, they suggested the impact nature
of the structure that they named “Gilbués” after a nearby town. This
name was later revised to “Santa Marta structure” by Vasconcelos et al.
(2010) according to the name of the village located within the structure
and also to the name of the local hills formed by the sedimentary strata
disrupted by the deformation processes associated with the structure.
These authors identified distinctive geophysical signatures, similar to
those observed at other impact structures formed in sedimentary target
rocks. However, confirmation of this origin was only recently presented
by Oliveira et al. (2014), based on abundant occurrence of shock fea-
tures in rocks from Santa Marta, including the widespread occurrence
of shatter cones and the presence of diagnostic shock deformation
features in quartz.
The Santa Marta structure was formed in sedimentary strata of the
Parnaíba Basin and of the Sanfranciscan Basin, in a region where se-
quences of these two different sedimentary basins overlap (Lima and
Leite, 1978). The structure is composed of rocks belonging to the Or-
dovician-Silurian Serra Grande and Devonian Canindé groups (Pi-
menteiras and Cabeças formations), both related to the Parnaíba Basin,
and the Cretaceous Areado (Abaeté, Quiricó and Três Barras forma-
tions) and Urucuia (Posse Formation) groups related to the San-
franciscan Basin (Fig. 63). An undeformed detrital cover un-
conformably overlies these sequences mainly to the west of the
structure where it forms a prominent plateau, but extends also into its
interior. This cover can be regionally correlated with the Chapadão
Formation of Cenozoic age, comprising the unconsolidated alluvial,
colluvial and elluvial sediments that cover the Late Cretaceous Urucuia
Group (Campos and Dardenne, 1997a, 1997b). The informal name
given to this plateau is “Central Elevated Plateau” or “CEP”.
The results of a ground gravimetric survey of Santa Marta are
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 66. Locations of impact breccia and shatter cone occurrences in the Santa Marta structure (Oliveira et al., 2014).
presented in Fig. 64, showing a NE-SW oriented negative gravity
anomaly partially coinciding with the CEP, and a positive anomaly of
∼2mGal in the central-eastern region. The transition between these
two anomalies has a NE-SW orientation, with an inflection around the
center of the structure. The eastern rim of Santa Marta is well marked
by a positive anomaly, whereas the western rim, which is partially
concealed by the detrital cover correlated to the Chapadão Formation,
does not show up well in the gravity data.
A variety of lithotypes in the interior of the Santa Marta structure is
responsible for the different responses to impact-generated stress and
results in different styles of deformation from the center to the crater
rim. The deformation is conditioned not only by the respective shock-
pressure zones, but also by these lithological characteristics. The oc-
currence of inner rings in the Santa Marta impact structure was inter-
preted by Oliveira et al. (2017) as a direct consequence of the variation
in lithologies. These authors recognized the existence of four distinct
54
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
morpho-structural domains within the structure (Figs. 62 and 65): outer
edge/outer rim, annular basin, and central elevation. The latter was
divided into two distinct sub-domains: central elevated plateau (CEP)
and central uplift (CU). The CEP detrital cover partially overlies the
deformed (e.g., shatter-cone bearing) Paleozoic units in the CU. These
sub-domains do not exactly coincide spatially.
The central uplift region is the area where Paleozoic strata of the
Parnaíba Basin are exposed. Considering a diameter of 10 km for the
impact structure, Oliveira et al. (2014) estimated an uplift of around
1000 m of the strata in the central part of the structure. This number is
in accordance with the estimated depth to the crystalline basement
made by Vasconcelos et al. (2010) on the basis of modeling of regional
aerogeophysical data (magnetic and gravity), thus suggesting that al-
most the entire stratigraphic sequence of the Parnaíba Basin was af-
fected by the impact.
The CU is made up of strongly deformed Paleozoic strata. The
A.P. Crósta et al.
Fig. 67. Multiple shatter cones on sandstone: a) pink sandstone likely from the
Cabeças Fm., from the center of the Santa Marta structure; b) shatter cones in
the interior of a well-rounded quartzite block from conglomerate of the Abaeté
Fm. (sample G25, location E-81C – see Fig. 66). Scale bars are in cm.
detrital cover of the central elevated plateau (CEP) hinders a more
comprehensive understanding of the stratigraphy in the central portion
of the structure. From the edge of the CEP outwards, there are Devonian
sandstones and pelites of the Cabeças and Pimenteiras formations, re-
spectively (Fig. 63). The area of occurrence of these two units extends
up to the concentric and discontinuous inner rings formed by Silurian
conglomeratic sandstones and conglomerate of the Serra Grande Group
(Oliveira et al., 2017).
The Mesozoic units are exposed in the annular basin and along the
inner side of the outer rim of Santa Marta. In the annular basin, towards
the center of the structure, tectonically induced lateral juxtaposition of
Paleozoic and Cretaceous strata can be observed, with both sequences
being intensely deformed: the juxtaposition occurs along shear zones,
along which the sedimentary strata of the two basins have been brought
into contact, as evidenced by overturned top-base indicators, drag folds,
and steeply-dipping fault planes. The distinction between Cretaceous
rudaceous and the Silurian-Devonian pelitic strata is based on contact
relations with pelitic units and on structural observations, i.e., evidence
for normal or overturned bedding. Deformed sandstones of the Posse
Formation and the Três Barras Formation occur preferentially along the
outer edge of the structure (Oliveira et al., 2017).
There are two types of impact breccias in the Santa Marta structure:
polymict breccias, which are comparatively more abundant and more
55
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
widely distributed, and monomict breccias of less frequent occurrence.
The locations of impact breccia occurrences are shown in Fig. 66.
Among the different types of breccias interpreted as impact breccias,
only the monomict sandstone breccia and one of the numerous samples
of polymict breccias that occur at the top of Sinésio Hill contain shock
features. It is thought that these shocked particles are detritus that was
incorporated into the fluvial cover deposits. Other breccias are inter-
preted as products of impact based on stratigraphic and structural re-
lations observed in the field.
A sedimentary (not impact-related) breccia also occurs on the CEP.
This breccia forms a cover that extends laterally beyond the crater rim
(Fig. 62). The best exposures are in the Sinésio Hill area (Figs. 62 and
65), in the eastern portion of the CEP, where they exhibit a thickness of
approximately 50 m (Figs. 62 and 65). This cover bears no evidence of
deformation. According to Oliveira et al. (2017), it may be correlated
with the Chapadão Formation.
In the Santa Marta structure, shatter cones (Fig. 67A) occur in
sandstones and clasts of monomict sandstone breccia possibly related to
the Cretaceous Areado Group at several locations in the central part of
the structure (Fig. 65). Shatter cones are also developed within mostly
well-rounded quartzite pebbles and blocks that occur as large clasts in
conglomerates possibly related to the Cretaceous Abaeté Formation, in
the annular basin near the outer edge of the structure (Fig. 67B) (Uchôa
et al., 2013; Oliveira et al., 2014). A total of 19 sites with shatter cone
occurrences were reported by Oliveira et al. (2014).
Shock microdeformation includes planar deformation features
(PDFs) in quartz grains found in a number of impact breccia samples
from the central part of the structure, as well as feather features (FFs)
that commonly occur associated with PDFs in intensely deformed
sandstones (Fig. 68). The same microdeformation features were ob-
served in quartz grains of shatter cones. Oliveira et al. (2014, 2017)
pointed out that these occurrences increase in frequency towards the
center of the structure. The rocks currently exposed in the central uplift
region were likely subjected to peak shock pressures (at the grain scale)
of around 20–25 GPa, as indicated by the crystallographic orientations
of PDFs in quartz grains (Oliveira et al., 2014).
The maximum age for the Santa Marta impact event is estimated
between 93 and 100 Ma, based on the age of the sandstones of the Posse
Formation, Urucuia Group, that occur at the rim of the structure and
represent the youngest unit affected by the impact event (Oliveira et al.,
2017). The minimum age is constrained by the undeformed sedimen-
tary cover, correlated to the Cenozoic Chapadão Formation. This cover
has likely been a key factor that contributed to the preservation of the
structure from more intense erosion. This makes Santa Marta one of the
better preserved impact structures in Brazil and, despite its consider-
able age, is a still very well preserved impact structure in the global
context.
6. Concluding remarks
In this first part of the “South American impact record“ we have
emphasized the universal importance of impact cratering, dealt with
the scientific background related to impact cratering studies and how to
identify/confirm an impact structure or impact deposit, and finally
introduced the Brazilian impact record.
The latter represents the bulk of the South American impact struc-
ture record – which is natural, as impact cratering studies have mostly
been performed in South America at Brazilian universities. However, it
remains to be seen in Part II of this treatise that there are highly in-
teresting sites and discoveries in several other South American coun-
tries. We do not want, with this first part of our review, discourage
Brazilian researchers to continue to investigate the already known
impact structures. To the contrary, we hope that this review of Brazilian
structures has highlighted where there are deficiencies in the scientific
knowledge about them, and which types of geological terrains still hold
good potential to possibly unveil further impact structures: for example,
A.P. Crósta et al.
there could be potential, buried impact structures in the many
Phanerozoic sedimentary basins, and older, deeply eroded structures
may occur in Proterozoic terrains. Foremost, there is a dearth of age
constraints on these impact events. We have discussed that it has not
been possible for not less than 6 of the known impact structures in
Brazil to identify datable, impact-generated melt rock. Maybe paleo-
magnetic and/or thermochronological studies may be able to further
constrain the formation ages of these structures. Further detailed
ground studies are also required and could, for example, yield valuable
structural geological information. The investigation of polymict impact
breccias in Brazil’s largest impact structure, Araguainha Dome, has –
with the exception of some earlier work on the melt rocks – only re-
cently been begun in earnest and will contribute much to the widely
conducted debate about the origin and emplacement of clastic-com-
ponent dominated impact breccias.
Part II of our review will examine the impact record of other
countries in South America, provide information about a number of
proposed impact structures, and review those that already have been
discarded as not being formed by impact. There are valuable lessons to
be learnt from this – namely, that it is no dilettante task to detect and
confirm an impact structure. The easy pickings have, most seemingly,
been made – but the record is still far from complete and detailed
geoscientific detective work employing state-of-the-art techniques
should reap reward.
56
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 68. Santa Marta impact structure. a)
Shocked quartz with two sets of PDF, one set of
PF (NW-SE), and shock extension fractures
(sample SM-4 – for sample locations see
Fig. 66). In addition, there is a set of seemingly
broad and decorated features thought to re-
present a low-angle intersection of decorated
PDF with the thin section surface. b) A shocked
quartz grain in a quartzite clast with a single
set of PDF, two sets of PF and, additionally, a
set of broad, brownish inclusion-decorated
curved features (sample SM-1). c) Sub-planar
features and at least two sets of dense PDF in a
quartzite clast (sample SM-4). d) A brecciated
deformation band in sandstone with angular
quartz fragments resulting from intense cata-
clasis (sample SM-3A). e) Single set of PDF in
adjacent quartz grains of a quartzite clast
(sample SM-1). f) Low-angle intersections of
two parallel planar fractures that are part of
feather feature arrays. In the uppermost central
part of the grain, a set of decorated PDF is also
cut at a low-angle to the section plane (sample
E-23A) (Oliveira et al., 2014).
Acknowledgments
Authors’ acknowledgements are given in Part II of the review, to be
published in a subsequent issue of Chemie der Erde/Geochemistry.
References
Abrantes Jr., F.R., 2016. O Permo-Triássico da Bacia do Parnaíba, norte do Brasil:
implicações paleoambientais, paleoclimáticas e paleogeográficas para o Pangea
Ocidental. Ph.D. thesis. Universidade Federal do Pará 130 p.
Acevedo, R.D., Rocca, M.C.L., Ponce, J.F., Stinco, S.G., 2015. Impact Craters in South
America. Springer, Heidelberg 104 p.
Adepelumi, A.A., Fontes, S.L., Schnegg, P.A., Flexor, J.M., 2005. An integrated magne-
totelluric and aeromagnetic investigation of the Serra da Cangalha impact crater,
Brazil. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 150, 159–181.
Almeida, F.F.M., Hasui, Y., Brito Neves, B.B., Fuck, R.A., 1981. Brazilian structural pro-
vinces: an introduction. Earth-Sci. Rev. 17, 1–29.
Almeida-Filho, R., Moreira, F.R.S., Beisl, C.H., 2005. The Serra da Cangalha astrobleme as
revealed by ASTER and RTM orbital data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 26, 833–838.
Alvarez, L.W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., Michel, H.V., 1980. Extraterrestrial cause for the
Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. Science 208, 1095–1108.
Artemieva, N.A., Wünnemann, K., Krien, F., Reimold, W.U., Stöffler, D., 2013. Ries crater
and suevite revisited − observations and modeling. part II: modelling. Meteorit.
Planet. Sci. 48, 590–627.
Baratoux, D., Reimold, W.U., 2016. The current state of knowledge about shatter cones:
introduction to the special issue. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 51, 1389–1434.
Barbour Jr., E., Corrêa, W.A.G., 1981. Geologia da Estrutura de Vargeão, SC. Consórcio
CESP/IPT, São Paulo 33 p. (Unpublish. report, Paulipetro).
Borovička, J., Spurný, P., 2008. The Carancas meteorite impact –encounter with a
monolithic meteoroid. Astron. Astrophys. 485, L1–L4.
Borovička, J., Spurný, P., Brown, P., Wiegert, P., Kalenda, P., Clark, D., Shrbený, L., 2013.
A.P. Crósta et al.
The trajectory, structure and origin of the Chelyabinsk asteroidal impactor. Nature
503, 235–237.
Buchanan, P.C., Reimold, W.U., 2002. Planar deformation features and impact glass in
inclusions from the Vredefort Granophyre, South Africa. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 37,
807–822.
Burchell, M.J., 2015. Shocked rocks: impacts from the laboratory to the Solar System. In:
Lee, M.R., Leroux, H. (Eds.), Planetary Mineralogy. EMU Notes in Mineralogy 15.
European Mineralogical Union and the Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and
Ireland, London, pp. 227–251.
Camacho, A., Vernon, R.H., Fitzgerald, J.D., 1995. Large volumes of anhydrous pseudo-
tachylite in the Woodroffe Thrust, eastern Mus grave Ranges, Australia. J. Struct.
Geol. 17, 371–383.
Campos, J.E.G., Dardenne, M.A., 1997a. Estratigrafia e sedimentação da Bacia
Sanfranciscana: Uma Revisão. Rev. Bras. Geoc. 27, 257–282.
Campos, J.E.G., Dardenne, M.A., 1997b. Origem e evolução tectônica da Bacia
Sanfranciscana. Rev. Bras. Geoc. 27, 283–294.
Cavosie, A.J., Lugo-Centeno, C., 2014. Shocked apatite from the Santa Fe impact struc-
ture. Lunar Planet. Sci. XXXXV. Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas
Abstract #1691.
Cavosie, A.J., Montalvo, P.E., Timms, N.E., Reddy, S.M., 2016. Nanoscale deformation
twinning in xenotime, a new shocked mineral, from the Santa Fe impact structure
(New Mexico, USA). Geology 44, 803–806. https://doi.org/10.1130/G38179.1.
Collins, G.S., Melosh, H.J., Osinski, G.R., 2012. The impact-cratering process. Elements 8,
25–30.
Cordani, H.G., Ramos, V.A., Fraga, L.M., Cegarra, M., Delgado, I., Souza, K.G., Gomes,
F.E.M., Schbbenhaus, C., 2016. Tectonic map of South America – Explanatory Notes,
2nd edition. scale 1:5,000,000. Commission for the Geological Map of the World,
Paris 13 pp.
Crósta, A.P., Reimold, W.U., 2016. Book review: Impact Craters in South America, by
Acevedo et al., 2015. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 51, 996–999.
Crósta, A.P., Vasconcelos, M.A.R. 2013. Update on the current knowledge of the Brazilian
impact craters. In: Lunar Planet. Sci. XXXXIV. Abstract #1318. Lunar and Planetary
Institute, Houston, Texas.
Crósta A.P., Gaspar J.C., Candia M.A.F., 1981. Feições de metamorfismo de impacto no
Domo de Araguainha. Rev. Brasil. Geoc. 11, 139–146.
Crósta, A.P., Kazzuo-Vieira, C., Schrank, A., 2004. Vista Alegre: a newly discovered im-
pact crater in Southern Brazil. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 39, A–28.
Crósta, A.P., Kazzuo-Vieira, C., Choudhuri, A., Schrank, A., 2005. Vargeão Dome, State of
Santa Catarina: A meteoritic impact record on volcanic rocks of the Paraná 64 Basin.
In: Winge, M., Schobbenhaus, C., Berbert-Born, M., Queiroz, E.T., Campos, D.A.
(Eds.), Sítios Geológicos e Paleontológicos do Brasil. v. 2. DNPM/CPRM/SIGEP
Brasília, pp. 23–34.
Crósta, A.P., Koeberl, C., Furuie, R.A., Kazzuo-Vieira, C., 2010a. Vista Alegre, southern
Brazil: a new impact structure in the Paranó flood basalts. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 45,
181–194.
Crósta, A.P., Lourenço, F.S., Priebe, G.H., 2010b. Cerro Jarau, Rio Grande do Sul: apos-
sible new impact structure in Southern Brazil. In: Gibson, R.L., Reimold, W.U. (Eds.),
Large Meteorite Impacts and Planetary Evolution IV. The Geological Society of
America Special Paper SPE465, GSA, Boulder.
Crósta, A.P., Kazzuo-Vieira, C., Pitarello, L., Koeberl, C., Kenkmann, T., 2011. Geology
and impact features of Vargeóo Dome, southern Brazil. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 47,
51–71.
Crósta, A.P., Jourdan, F., Koeberl, C., 2012. 40Ar/39Ar dating of the Vista Alegre crater,
Brazil. 34th International Geological Congress, Brisbane, Australia.
Crósta A.P., 1982. Mapeamento geológico do Domo de Araguainha utilizando técnicas de
sensoriamento remoto. M.Sc. thesis. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE).
Crósta, A.P., 1987. Impact structures in Brazil. In: Pohl, J. (Ed.), Research in Terrestrial
Impact Structures. Springer Vieweg Wiesbaden, pp. 30–38.
Crósta, A.P., 2002. Domo de Araguainha (GO-MT): O maior astroblema da América do
Sul. In: Schobbenhaus, C., Campos, D.A., Queiroz, E.T., Winge, M., Berbert-Born, M.
(Eds.), Sítios Geológicos e Paleontológicos do Brasil. v. 1. DNPM/CPRM/SIGEP
Brasília, pp. 531–540.
Crósta, A.P., 2004. Impact craters in Brazil: how far we’ve gotten. Meteorit. Planet. Sci.
39, A-27.
Crósta, A.P., 2012. Estruturas de Impacto e Astroblemas Brasileiros. In: Hasui, Y.,
Carneiro, C.D.R., Almeida, F.F.M., Bartorelli, A. (Eds.), Geologia do Brasil. Beca-Ball,
São Paulo, São Paulo, pp. 673–708.
DNPM, 1972. Relatório de pesquisa de diamante industrial na região da Serra da
Cangalha. Estado de Goiás, n. 805.015/70-805.019/70.
De Marchi, L., Hauser, N., Reimold, W.U., Crósta, A.P., 2016. Geological and petro-
graphical characterization of the polymict impact breccia of the Araguainha Dome,
Brazil. Lunar Planet. Sci. XXXXVII. Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas.
Deutsch, A., Schärer, U., 1994. Dating terrestrial impact events. Meteoritics 29, 301–322.
Deutsch, A., Buhl, D., Langenhorst, F., 1992. On the significance of crater ages: new ages
for Dellen (Sweden) and Araguainha (Brazil). Tectonophysics 216, 205–218.
Deutsch, A., Poelchau, M.H., Kenkmann, T., 2015. Impact metamorphism in terrestrial
and experimental cratering events. In: Lee, M.R. Leroux, H. (eds.), Planetary
Mineralogy. EMU Notes in Mineralogy 15, European Mineralogical Union and the
Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London. pp.89-127.
Dietz, R.S., French, B.M., 1973. Two probable astroblemes in Brazil. Nature 244, 562.
Donatti, L.M., Sawakuchi, A.O., Giannini, P.C.F., Fernandes, L.A., 2001. The Pirambóia-
Botucatu succession (Late Permian - Early Cretaceous, Paraná Basin, São Paulo and
Paraná states): Two contrasting eolian systems. Na. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 73, 465 (ab-
stract). DOI 10.1590/S0001-37652001000300020.
Earth Impact Database (http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase), last visited February
2018.
57
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Ebert, M., Kowitz, A., Schmitt, R.T., Reimold, W.U., Mansfeld, U., Langenhorst, F., 2017.
Localized shock-induced melting of sandstone at low shock pressures(< 17 .5 GPa):
an experimental study. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.12948.
Elbeshausen, D., Wünnemann, K., Collins, G.S., 2013. The transition from circular to
elliptical impact craters. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 2295–2309.
Erickson, T.M., Timms, N.E., Kirkland, E.L., Tohver, E., Cavosie, A.J., Pearce, M.A.,
Reddy, S.M., 2017. Shocked monazite chronometry: integrating microstructural and
in situ isotopic age data for determining precise impact ages. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol.
172, 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00410-017-1328-2.
Erwin, D.H., 1990. The end-Permian mass extinction. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 21,
69–91.
Ferreira, J.C., Leite, E.P., Vasconcelos, M.A.R., 2013. Assinatura gravimétrica e magnética
das estruturas de impacto de Vargeão e Vista Alegre, Brasil. In: 13th International
Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society XIII. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. pp.
401–406. https://doi.org/10.1190/sbgf2013-085.
Ferreira, J.C., Leite, E.P., Vasconcelos, M.A.R., Crósta, A.P., 2015. 3D gravity modeling of
impact structures in basaltic formations in Brazil: part 1–Vargeão Dome, Santa
Catarina. Braz. J. Geoph. 33, 319–332. https://doi.org/10.22564/rbgf.v33i2.723.
Ferrière, L., Koeberl, C., Reimold, W.U., Hecht, L., Bartosova, K., 2009. The origin of
toasted quartz in impactites revisited. Lunar Planet. Sci. XL. Lunar and Planetary
Institute, Houston, Texas (Abstract #1751).
Ferrière, L., Barrat, J.-A., Giuli, G., Koeberl, C., Schulz, T., Topa, D., Wegner, W., 2017. A
new tektite strewn field discovered in Uruguay. 80th Annual Meeting of the
Meteoritical Society Abstract #6195.
Fischer, G., Masero, W., 1994. Rotational properties of the magnetotelluric impedance
tensor −the example of the Araguainha impact crater, Brazil. Geophys. J. Int. 119,
548–560.
Fischer, S., 2015. Ein Beitrag über die Impaktgesteine der Araguainha Impaktstruktur
(Brasilien). M. Sc thesis. Freie Universität, Berlin.
Fredriksson, K., Dube, A., Milton, D.J., Balasundaram, M.S., 1973. Lonar lake, India: an
impact crater in basalt. Science 180, 862–864.
French, B.M., Koeberl, C., 2010. The convincing identification of terrestrial meteorite
impact structures What works, what doesn't, and why. Earth-Sci. Rev. 98, 123–170.
Shock Metamorphism of Natural Materials. In: French, B.M., Short, N.M. (Eds.), Mono
Book, Baltimore 644 pp.
French, B.M., Underwood Jr., J.R., Fisk, E.P., 1974. Shock metamorphic features in two
meteorite impact structures, southeastern Libya. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 85, 1425–1428.
French, B.M., Cordua, W.S., Plescia, J.B., 2004. The Rock Elm meteorite impact structure,
Wisconsin: geology and shock-metamorphic effects in quartz. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.
116, 200–218.
French, B.M., 1998. Traces of Catastrophe: A Handbook of Shock-Metamorphic Effects in
Terrestrial Meteorite Impact Structures. LPI Contribution 954, Lunar and Planetary
Institute, Houston 120 pp.
French, B.M., 2004. The importance of being cratered: the new role of meteorite impact as
a normal geological process. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 39, 169–197.
Fudali, R.F., Milton, D.J., Fredriksson, K., Dube, A., 1980. Morphology of Lonar crater,
India: comparison and implications. Moon Planets 23, 493–515.
Góes, A.M., Feijó, F.J., 1994. Bacia do Parnaíba. Bol. Geoc. Petrobras 8, 57–67.
Góes, A.M., 1995. A Formaçao Poti (Carbonífero Inferior) da Bacia do Parnaíba. Ph.D.
thesis. University of São Paulo.
Güldemeister, N., Wünnemann, K., Durr, N., Hiermaier, S., 2013. Propagation of impact-
induced shock waves in porous sandstone using mesoscale modeling. Meteorit.
Planet. Sci. 48, 115–133.
Giacomini, B.B., Leite, E.P., Crósta, A.P., 2017. 3D gravimetric investigation of the Cerro
do Jarau structure, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 52, 565–583.
https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.12813.
Gibson, R.L., Reimold, W.U., 2008. Geology of the Vredefort Impact Structure: A Guide to
Sites of Interest. Memoir 97, Council for Geoscience, Pretoria, 181 pp.
Glass, B.P., Simonson, B.M., 2012. Distal impact ejecta layers: spherules and more.
Elements 8, 15–60.
Glass, B.P., Simonson, B.M., 2013. Distal Ejecta Layers: A Record of Large Impacts in
Sedimentary Deposits. Springer, Heidelberg 71 6pp.
Goderis, S., Paquay, F., Claeys, P., 2013. Projectile identification in terrestrial impact
structures and ejecta material. In: Osinski, G., Pierazzo, E. (Eds.), Impact Cratering:
Processes and Products, pp. 223–239.
Gratz, A.J., Fisler, D.K., Bohor, B.F., 1996. Distinguishing shocked from tectonically de-
formed quartz by the use of the SEM and chemical etching. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
142, 513–521.
Grehs, S.A., 1969, Aspectos geológicos e geomorfológicos do Cerro do Jarau, Rio Grande
do Sul, Brasil. In: Congresso Brasileiro de Geologia XXIII, v 1, Salvador, Brazil,
Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia, p. 365–375.
Grieve, R.A.F., Pilkington, M., 1996. The signature of terrestrial impacts. AGSO J. Aust.
Geol. Geophys. 16, 399–420.
Grieve, R.A.F., Reimold, W.U., Morgan, J., Riller, U., Pilkington, M., 2008. Observations
and interpretations at Vredefort, Sudbury and Chicxulub: towards a composite ki-
nematic model of terrestrial impact basin formation. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 43,
855–882.
Grieve, R.A.F., 1987. Terrestrial impact structures. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 15,
245–270.
Grieve, R.A.F., 1991. Terrestrial impact: the record in the rocks. Meteoritics 26, 175–194.
Hachiro, J., Coutinho, J.M.V., Coimbra, A.M., 1995. The Cerro do Jarau astrobleme (Rio
Grande do Sul), Brazil: a Cretaceous cryptoexplosive structure. Academia Brasileira
de Ciências, Resumo das Comunicações 67, 4.
Hamers, M.F., Drury, M.R., 2011. Scanning electron microscope-cathodoluminescence
(SEM-CL) imaging of planar deformation features and tectonic deformation lamellae
in quartz. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 46, 1814–1831.
A.P. Crósta et al.
Hamers, M.F., 2013. Identifying Shock Microstructures in Quartz from Terrestrial
Impacts: New Scanning Electron Microscopy Methods. Ph.D. Thesis. Utrecht
University, The Netherlands.
Hammerschmidt, K., von Engelhardt, W., 1995. Ar/Ar dating of the Araguainha impact
structure, Mato Grosso, Brazil. Meteoritics 30, 227–233.
Hargitai, H., Reimold, W.U., Bray, V.J., 2015. Impact structure. In: In: Hargitai, H.,
Kereszturi, Á. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Planetary Landforms, vol. 2. Springer, New
York, pp. 988–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3134-3.
Hauser, N., Reimold, W.U., Voll, K., Chaves, J.G.S., Alves de Mattos, B., Dantas, E.L.,
2017. Are the impact melt rocks from the Araguainha impact structure, Brazil,
homogeneous? Evidence from geochemistry and Sr-nd isotopes. In: 80th Annual
Meeting of the Meteoritical Society. Santa Fe, USA. (Abstract #6215).
Henkel, H., Reimold, W.U., 1998. Integrated geophysical modelling of a giant complex
impact structure: anatomy of the Vredefort structure, South Africa. Tectonophysics
287, 1–20.
Henkel, H., Reimold, W.U., 2002. Magnetic model of the central uplift of the Vredefort
impact structure, South Africa. J. Appl. Geophys. 51, 43–62.
Hergarten, S., Kenkmann, T., 2015. The number of impact craters on Earth: any room for
further discoveries? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 425, 187–192.
Hildebrand, A.R., Penfield, G.T., Kring, D.A., Pilkington, M., Zanoguera, A.C., Jacobsen,
S.B., Boynton, W.V., 1991. Chicxulub Crater; a possible Cretaceous/Tertiary
boundary impact crater on the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Geology 19, 867–871.
Hippert, J., Lana, C., 1998. Aerial crystallization of hematite in impact bombs from the
Araguainha astrobleme, Mato Grosso, central Brazil. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 33,
1303–1309.
Hippertt, J.P., Lana, C., Weinberg, R.F., Tohver, E., Schmieder, M., Scholz, R., Gonçalves,
L., Hippertt, J.F., 2014. Liquefaction of sedimentary rocks during impact crater de-
velopment. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 408, 285–295.
Hockey, T., 1994. The Shoemaker-Levy 9 spots on Jupiter: their place in history. Earth
Moon Planets 66, 1–9.
Huffman, A.R., Reimold, W.U., 1996. Experimental constraints on shock-induced mi-
crostructures in naturally deformed silicates. Tectonophysics 256, 165–217.
Iannuzzi, R., Cisneros, J.C., Conceição, D.M., 2016. A provável idade Permiana inicial da
Formação Pedra de Fogo, Bacia do Parnaíba, e suas consequências (abstract.).
Congresso Brasileiro de Geologia XXXVIII. http://cbg2017anais.siteoficial.ws/ste01/
ID7734_112520_52_Resumo_Iannuzzi_et_al_48_CBG.pdf.
Ivanov, B.A., 2005. Numerical modeling of the largest terrestrial meteorite craters. Solar
Syst. Res. 39, 381–409.
Janasi, V.A., Freitas, V.A., Heaman, L.H., 2011. The onset of flood basalt volcanism,
northern Paraná Basin, Brazil: a precise U-Pb baddeleyite/zircon age for a Chapecó-
type dacite. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 302, 147–153.
Jourdan, F., Renne, P.R., Reimold, W.U., 2009. An appraisal of the ages of terrestrial
impact structures. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 286, 1–13.
Jourdan, F., Moynier, F., Koeberl, C., Eroglu, S., 2011. 40Ar/39Ar age of the Lonar crater
and consequence for the geochronology of planetary impacts. Geology 39, 671–674.
Kazzuo-Vieira, C., Crósta, A.P., Gamboa, F., Tygel, M., 2009. Caracterização geofísica da
estrutura de impacto do Domo de Vargeão, Brasil. Rev. Brasil. Geof. 27, 375–388.
Keil, K., McCoy, T.J., 2017. Acapulcoite-lodranite meteorites: ultramafic asteroidal partial
melt residues. Chem. Erde – Geochem. 78, 153–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemer.2017.04.004.
Kenkmann, T., Artemieva, N.A., Wünnemann, K., Poelchau, M.H., Elbeshausen, D., Núñez
del Prado, H., 2009a. The Carancas meteorite impact crater, Peru: geologic surveying
and modeling of crater formation and atmospheric passage. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 44,
985–1000.
Kenkmann, T., Collins, G.S., Wittmann, A., Wünnemann, K., Reimold, W.U., Melosh, H.J.,
2009b. A model for the formation of the Chesapeake Bay impact crater as revealed by
drilling and numerical simulation. In: Gohn, G.S., Koeberl, C., Miller, K.G., Reimold,
W.U. (Eds.), The ICDP-USGS Deep Drilling Project in the Chesapeake Bay Impact
Structure: Results from the Eyreville Core Holes. Geol. Soc. Amer., pp. 571–585
Special Paper 458.
Kenkmann, T., Vasconcelos, M.A.R., Crósta, A.P., Reimold, W.U., 2011. The complex
impact structure Serra da Cangalha, Tocantins State, Brazil. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 46,
875–889.
Kenkmann, T., Poelchau, M.H., Wulf, G., 2014. Structural geology of impact craters. J.
Struct. Geol. 62, 156–182.
Kenkmann, T., Hergarten, S., Kuhn, T., Wilk, J., 2016. Formation of shatter cones by
symmetric fracture bifurcation: phenomenological modeling and validation.
Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 51, 1519–1533.
Kenkmann, T., Deutsch, A., Thoma, K., et al., 2018. Experimental impact cratering: a
summary of the major results of the MEMIN research unit. Meteorit. Planet. Sci.
https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.13048.
Kieffer, S.W., Phakey, P.P., Christie, J.M., 1976. Shock processes in porous quartzite:
transmission electron microscope observations and theory. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol.
59, 41–93.
Koeberl, C., Shirey, S.B., 1997. Re-Os systematics as a diagnostic tool for the study of
impact craters and distal ejecta. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 132,
25–46.
Koeberl, C., Reimold, W.U., Shirey, S.B., 1996. A Re-Os isotope study of the Vredefort
Granophyre: clues to the origin of the Vredefort Structure, South Africa. Geology 24,
913–916.
Koeberl, C., Reimold, W.U., Plescia, J., 2005. BP and Oasis impact structures, Libya: re-
mote sensing and field studies. In: Koeberl, C., Henkel, H. (Eds.), Impact Tectonics.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp. 161–190.
Koeberl, C., Shukolyukov, A., Lugmair, G.W., 2007. Chromium isotopic studies of ter-
restrial impact craters Identification of meteoritic components at Bosumtwi,
Clearwater East, Lappajärvi, and Rochechouart. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 256, 534–546.
58
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Koeberl, C., Pittarello, L., Reimold, W.U., Raschke, U., Brigham-Grette, J., Melles, M.,
Minyuk, P., 2013. El'gygytgyn impact crater, Chukotka, Arctic Russia: impact cra-
tering aspects of the 2009 ICDP drilling project. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 48, 1108–1129.
https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.12146.
Koeberl, C., 2001. Craters on the Moon from Galileo to Wegener: a short history of the
impact hypothesis, and implications for the study of terrestrial impact craters. Earth
Moon Planets 85–86, 209–224.
Koeberl, C., 2007. The geochemistry and cosmochemistry of impacts. In: Davis, A. (Ed.),
Treatise of Geochemistry. Elsevier, New York pp. 1.28. 1–1.28.52.
Koeberl, C., 2014. The geochemistry and cosmochemistry of impacts. In: Holland, H.D.,
Turekian, K.K. (Eds.), Treatise on Geochemistry. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 73–118.
Kohout, T., Gritsevich, M., Grokhovsky, V.I., Yakovlev, G.A., Haloda, J., Halodova, P.,
Michallik, R.M., Penttilä, A., Muinonen, K., 2013. Mineralogy, reflectance spectra,
and physical properties of the Chelyabinsk LL5 chondrite, insight into shock induced
changes in asteroid regoliths. Icarus 228, 78–85.
Kowitz, A., Schmitt, R.T., Reimold, W.U., Hornemann, U., 2013a. The MEMIN shock
recovery experiments: first results on shock effects in dry, porous Seeberger sand-
stone from the low shock pressure range (5–12.5 GPa). Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 48,
99–114.
Kowitz, A., Güldemeister, N., Reimold, W.U., Schmitt, R.T., Wünnemann, K., 2013b.
Diaplectic quartz glass and SiO2 melt experimentally generated at only 5 GPa shock
pressure in porous sandstone: laboratory observations and meso-scale numerical
modeling. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 384, 17–26.
Kowitz, A., Güldemeister, N., Schmitt, R.-T., Reimold, W.U., Wünnemann, K., Holzwarth,
A., 2016. Revision and recalibration of existing shock classifications for quartzose
rocks using low-shock pressure (2.5–20 GPa) recovery experiments and mesoscale
numerical modeling. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 51, 1741–1761. https://doi.org/10.1111/
maps.12712.
Kruppa, C., 2016. Petrographic Characterization of a Large Impact Melt Bomb from
Otting, Nördlinger Ries Impact Structure, Germany. M.Sc. Thesis. Freie Universität
Berlin.
Lacerda Filho, J.V., Abreu Filho, W., Valente, C.R., Oliveira, C.C., Albuquerque, M.C.,
2004. Geologia e recursos minerais do estado de Mato Grosso. Geologia do Brasil
CPRM/MME/SICME, 252p.
Lana, C., Romano, R., Reimold, W.U., Hippertt, J.P., 2006. Collapse of large complex
impact structures: implications from the Araguainha impact structure. Geology 34,
9–912.
Lana, C., Souza-Filho, C.R., Marangoni, Y.R., Yokoyama, E., Trindade, R.I.F., Tohver, E.,
Reimold, W.U., 2007. Insights into the morphology, geometry, and post-impact
erosion of the Araguainha peak-ring structure central Brazil. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 119,
1135–1150.
Lana, C., Souza-Filho, C.R., Marangoni, Y.R., Yokoyama, E., Trindade, R.I.F., Tohver, E.,
Reimold, W.U., 2008. Structural evolution of the 40 km wide Araguainha impact
structure, central Brazil. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 43, 701–716.
Langenhorst, F., Deutsch, A., 2012. Shock metamorphism of minerals. Elements 8, 31–36.
https://doi.org/10.2113/gselements.8.1.31.
Lima, M.A.E., Leite, F.J., 1978. Estudo global dos recursos minerais da Bacia Sedimentar
do Parnaíba. Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais, Recife, pp. 50–115.
Lisboa, N.A., Schuck, M.T.G.O., Tramontina H.C., 1987. Reconhecimento geológico da
região do Jarau, Quaraí-RS. In Simpósio Sul-Brasileiro de Geologia, 3, Curitiba, v. 1,
p. 319–332.
Lugli, S., Reimold, W.U., Koeberl, C., 2005. Silicified cone-in-cone structures from Erfoud
(Morocco): a comparison with impact-generated shatter cones. In: Koeberl, C.,
Henkel, H. (Eds.), Impact Tectonics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp. 81–110.
Machado, R., Lana, C., Stevens, G., Filho, C.R.S., Reimold, W.U., McDonald, I., 2009.
Generation, mobilization and crystallization of impact-induced alkali-rich melts in
granitic target rocks Evidence from the Araguainha impact structure, central Brazil.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 73, 7183–7201.
Masaitis, V.L., 1999. Impact structures of northeastern Eurasia: the territories of Russian
and adjacent countries. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 34, 691–711.
Masero, W., Schenegg, P.A., Fontes, S.L., 1994. A magnetotelluric investigation of the
Araguainha impact structure in Mato Grosso-Goiás, central Brazil. Geophys. J. Intl.
116, 366–376.
Masero, W., Fischer, G., Schnegg, P.A., 1997. Electrical condutivity and crustal de-
formation from magnetotelluric results in the region of the Araguainha impact,
Brazil. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 101, 271–289.
Master, S., Heymann, J., 2000. A possible new impact structure near Gilbués in Piauí
Province, Northeastern Brazil. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 35, 5.
Maziviero, M.V., Vasconcelos, M.A.R., Góes, A.M., Crósta, A.P., Reimold, W.U., 2012. The
Riachão Ring impact structure, northeastern Brazil: Re-evaluation of its stratigraphy
and evidence for impact. Lunar Planet. Sci. XXXXIII. Lunar and Planetary Institute,
Houston, Texas Abstract #1511.
Maziviero, M.V., Vasconcelos, M.A.R., Crósta, A.P., Góes, A.M., Reimold, W.U., Carneiro,
C.C., 2013a. Geology and impact features of Riachão structure northern Brazil.
Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 48, 2044–2058.
Maziviero, M.V., Carrino, T.A., Crósta, A.P., Góes, A.M., Vasconcelos, M.A.R., Reimold,
W.U., 2013b. Integrating ASTER, geologic and airborne gamma-ray spectrometric
data as an aid to mapping silica-bearing rocks in the Riachão impact structure,
northeastern Brazil. Latin American Remote Sensing Week (LARS). Santiago, Chile
(abstract).
McCarthy, D., Aldiss, D., Arsenikos, S., Stone, P., Richards, P., 2017. Comment on
Geophysical evidence for a large impact structure on the Falkland (Malvinas) Plateau.
Terra Nova 29, 411–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12285.
McDonald, I., Andreoli, M.A.G., Hart, R.J., Tredoux, M., 2001. Platinum-group elements
in the Morokweng impact structure, South Africa: evidence for the impact of a large
ordinary chondrite projectile at the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary. Geochim.
A.P. Crósta et al.
Cosmochim. Acta 65, 299–309.
McHall, G.J.H., 2006. Meteorite cratering: Hooke, Gilbert, Barringer and beyond. In: In:
McHall, G.J.H., Bowden, A.J., Howarth, R.J. (Eds.), The History of Meteorites and
Key Meteorite Collections: Fireballs, Falls and Finds, vol. 256. Geological Society
London, pp. 443–470 Special Publ.
McHone Jr., J.F., Dietz, R.S., 1978. Astroblemes in Brazil. Proceedings, 74th GSA
Cordilleran Section Meeting.
McHone Jr., J.F., 1979. Riachão Ring, Brazil: a possible meteorite crater discovered by
the Apollo astronauts. Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Summary Science Report, vol. 412.
pp. 193–202.
McHone Jr., J.F., 1986. Terrestrial Impact Structures: Their Detection and Verification
with Two New Examples from Brasil. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA.
Melosh, H.J., Ivanov, B.A., 1999. Impact crater collapse. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 27,
385–415.
Melosh, H.J., 1989. Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process. Oxford University Press, New
York 245 pp.
Melosh, H.J., 2011. Planetary Surface Processes. Cambridge Planetary Sciences No. 13.
Cambridge University Press, New York 534 pp.
Milani, E.J., França, A.B., Schneider, R.L., 1994. Bacia do Paraná. Bol. Geoc. Petrobras 8,
69–82.
Milani, E.J., Melo, J.H.G., Souza, P.A., Fernandes, L.A., França, A.B., 2007. Bacia do
Paraná. Bol. de Geoc. Petrobras 15, 265–287.
Milani, E.J., 1997. Evolução Tectono-Estratigráfica da Bacia do Paraná e seu
Relacionamento com a Geodinâmica Fanerozóica do Gondwana Sul-Ocidental. Ph.D.
Thesis. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil 254 p.
Milton, D.J., Glickson, A.Y., Brett, R., 1996. Gosses Bluff—a late jurassic impact structure,
central Australia: part 1: geological structure, stratigraphy, and origin. AGSO J.
Austral. Geol. Geophys. 16, 453–486.
Mohr-Westheide, T., Reimold, W.U., 2010. Microchemical investigation of small-scale
pseudotachylitic breccias from the Archean gneiss of the Vredefort dome, South
Africa. In: Gibson, R.L., Reimold, W.U. (Eds.), Large Meteorite Impacts and Planetary
Evolution IV. Geol. Soc. Amer., pp. 619–643 (Special Paper 465).
Mohr-Westheide, T., Reimold, W.U., 2011. Formation of pseudotachylitic breccias in the
central uplifts of very large impact structures: scaling the melt formation. Meteorit.
Planet. Sci. 46, 543–555.
Morgan, J., Warner, M., the Chicxulub Working Group Brittan, J., Buffler, R., Camargo,
A., Christeson, G., Denton, P., Hildebrand, A., Hobbs, R., Macintyre, H., Mackenzie,
G., Maguire, P., Marin, L., Nakamura, Y., Pilkington, M., Sharpton, V., Snyder, D.,
Suarez, G., Trejo, A., 1997. Size and morphology of the Chicxulub impact crater.
Nature 390, 472–476.
Morgan, J.V., Gulick, S.P.S., Bralower, T., Chenot, E., Christeson, G., Claeys, P., Cockell,
C., Collins, G.S., Coolen, M.J.L., Ferrière, L., Gebhardt, C., Goto, K., Jones, H., Kring,
D.A., Le Ber, E., Lofi, J., Long, X., Lowery, C., Mellett, C., Ocampo-Torres, R., Osinski,
G.R., Perez-Cruz, L., Pickersgill, A., Poelchau, M., Rae, A., Rasmussen, C., Rebolledo-
Vieyra, M., Riller, U., Sato, H., Schmitt, D.R., Smit, J., Tikoo, S., Tomioka, N., Urrutia-
Fucugauchi, J., Whalen, M., Wittmann, A., Yamaguchi, K.E., Zylberman, W., 2016.
The formation of peak rings in large impact craters. Science 354, 878–882. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6561.
Moser, D.E., Cupelli, C.L., Barker, I.R., Flowers, R.M., Bowman, J.R., Wooden, J., Hart,
R.J., 2011. New zircon shock phenomena and their use for dating and reconstruction
of large impact structures revealed by electron nanobeam (BSD CL, EDS) and isotopic
U-Pb and (UTh)/He analysis on the Vredefort dome. Can. J. Earth Sci. 48, 117–139.
Mutter, R.J., Tomassi, H.Z., Do Carmo, D.A., 2008. In pursuit of causes for the greatest
mass extinction: the Permo-Triassic Boundary in the Southern Hemisphere – part II.
Vierteljahresschr. Naturforsch. Ges. Zürich 153, 81–91.
Nédélec, A., Paquette, J.-L., Yokoyama, E., Trindade, R.I.F., Aigouy, T., Baratoux, D.,
2013. In situ U/Pb dating of impact-produced zircons from the Vargeão Dome
(Southern Brazil). Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 48, 420–431.
Nicolaysen, L.O., Reimold, W.U., 1999. Vredefort shatter cones revisited. J. Geophys. Res.
104, 4911–4930. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998JB900068.
Northfleet, A.A., Medeiros, R.A., Muhlmann, H., 1969. Reavaliação dos dados geológicos
da Bacia do Paraná. Bol. Técn. Petrobrás 12, 291–346.
Ogilvie, P., Gibson, R.L., Reimold, W.U., Deutsch, A., Hornemann, U., 2011. Experimental
investigation of shock metamorphic effects in a metapelitic granulite: the importance
of shock impedance contrast between components. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 46,
1565–1586.
Ojeda, H.O., Bembom, F.C., 1966. Mapeamento geológico em semi-detalhe do sudoeste de
Riachão. Petrobras Internal Report, Rio de Janeiro Brazil. 74p.
Oliveira, G.J.G., Vasconcelos, M.A.R., Crósta, A.P., Reimold, W.U., Góes, A.M., Kowitz, A.,
2014. Shatter cones and planar deformation features confirm Santa Marta in Piauí
State Brazil, as an impact structure. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 49, 1915–1928.
Oliveira, G.J.G., Chamani, M.A.C., Góes, A.M., Crósta, A.P., Vasconcelos, M.A.R.,
Reimold, W.U., 2017. Geological investigation of the central portion of the Santa
Marta impact structure, Piauí State. Brazil. Braz. J. Geol. 47, 673–692. https://doi.
org/10.1590/2317-4889201720160095.
Osae, S., Misra, S., Koeberl, C., Sengupta, D., Gosh, S., 2005. Target rocks, impact glasses,
and melt rocks from the Lonar impact crater, India: petrography and geochemistry.
Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 40, 1473–1492.
Osinski, G.R., Pierazzo, E. (Eds.), 2013. Impact Cratering: Processes and Products. Wiley-
Blackwell, Chichester 316 pp.
Osinski, G.R., Tornabene, L.L., Grieve, R.A.F., 2011. Impact ejecta emplacement on ter-
restrial planets. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 310, 167–181.
Osinski, G.R., Grieve, R.A.F., Chanou, A., Sapers, H.M., 2016. The suevite conundrum,
part 1: the ries suevite and sudbury onaping formation compared. Meteorit. Planet.
Sci. 51, 2316–2333.
59
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
PROSPEC, 1972. Levantamento gama-espectrométrico e magnetométrico na área do
Projeto Alto Garças, estados de Goiás e Mato Grosso. Unpubl. Report 76 p.
Paiva Filho, A., Andrade, C.A.V., Scheibe, L.F., 1978. Uma janela estratigráfica no oeste
de Santa Catarina: o Domo de Vargeão. In: Congresso Brasileiro de Geologia XXX.
Recife.
Peate, D.W., Hawkesworth, C.J., Mantovani, M.S.M., 1992. Chemical stratigraphy of the
Paraná lavas (South America): Classification of magma types and their spatial dis-
tribution. Bull. Volcanol. 55, 119–139.
Peate, D.W., 1997. The Paraná-Etendeka Province. In: In: Mahoney, J.J., Coffin, M.F.
(Eds.), Large Igneous Provinces: Continental, Oceanic, and Planetary Flood
Volcanism. Geophysical Monograph, vol. 100. American Geophysical Union,
Washington, DC, pp. 217–245.
Pedreira da Silva, A.J., Cunha, L.R., Vasconcelos, M., Bahia, R.B.C., 2003. Bacias sedi-
mentares Paleozóicas e Meso-Cenozóicas interiores. In: Bizzi, L.A., Schobbenhaus, C.,
Vidotti, R.M., Gonçalves, J.H. (Eds.), Geologia, tectônica e recursos minerais do
Brasil, pp. 55–85 CPRM, Brasilia.
Philipp, R.P., Rolim, S.B.A., Sommer, C.A., Souza Filho, C.R., Lisboa, N.A., 2010. A es-
trutura de impacto de Cerro do Jarau. Rev. Bras. Geoc. 40, 468–483.
Pilkington, M., Grieve, R.A.F., 1992. The geophysical signature of terrestrial impact
craters. Rev. Geophys. 30, 161–181.
Pittarello, L., Nestola, F., Viti, C., Crósta, A.P., Koeberl, C., 2015a. Melting and cataclastic
features in shatter cones in basalt from the Vista Alegre impact structure, Brazil.
Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 50, 1228–1243. https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.12466.
Pittarello, L., Roszjar, J., Mader, D., Debaille, V., Claeys, P., Koeberl, C., 2015b.
Cathodoluminescence as a tool to discriminate impact melt, shocked and unshocked
volcanics: a case study from the El’gygytgyn impact structure. Meteorit. Planet. Sci.
50, 1954–1969.
Poelchau, M.H., Kenkmann, T., 2011. Feather features: a low-shock-pressure indicator in
quartz. J. Geophys. Res. 116. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JB007803.
Preuss, J., 2012. Characterization of Impact-Related Melt Breccias from the Impact
Structure Araguainha (Brazil). M. Sc Thesis. 92pp.. University of Potsdam, Berlin.
Raschke, U., Reimold, W.U., Zaag, P.T., Pittarello, L., Koeberl, C., 2013. Lithostratigraphy
of the impactite and bedrock section of ICDP drill core D1c from the El’gygytgyn
impact crater, Russia. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 48, 1143–1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/
maps.12072.
Raschke, U., Schmitt, R.T., McDonald, I., Reimold, W.U., Mader, D., Koeberl, C., 2015.
Geochemical studies of impact breccias and country rocks from the El'gygytgyn im-
pact structure, Russia. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 50, 1071–1088. https://doi.org/10.
1111/maps.12455.
Ray, D., Updhyay, D., Misra, S., Newsom, H.E., Ghosh, S., 2017. New insights on petro-
graphy and geochemistry of impactites from the Lonar crater, India. Meteorit. Planet.
Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.12881.
Reimold, W.U., 1982. The Lappajärvi meteorite crater, Finland: petrography, Rb-Sr,
major and trace element geochemistry of the impact melt and basement rocks.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 46, 1203–1225.
Reimold, W.U., Gibson, R.L., 2006. The melt rocks of the Vredefort Impact Structure
–Vredefort Granophyre and pseudotachylitic breccias: implications for impact cra-
tering and the evolution of the Witwatersrand Basin. Chem. Erde 66, 1–35.
Reimold, W.U., Jourdan, F., 2012. Impact! –bolides, craters and catastrophes. Elements 8,
19–24.
Reimold, W.U., Koeberl, C., 2014a. Impact structures in Africa: a review. J. Afr. Earth Sci.
93, 57–175.
Reimold, W.U., Koeberl, C., 2014b. Reply to comment on impact structures in Africa: a
review (Short Note) by Acevedo R.D. et al. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 100, 757–758.
Reimold, W.U., Minnitt, R.C.A., 1996. Impact-induced shatter cones or percussion marks
on quartzites of the Witwatersrand and Transvaal supergroups? S. Afr. J. Geol. 99,
299–308.
Reimold, W.U., Koeberl, C., Brandt, D., 1997. Suevite from the Roter Kamm impact crater,
Namibia. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 32, 431–437.
Reimold, W.U., Koeberl, C., Brandstätter, F., Kruger, F.J., Armstrong, R.A., Bootsman, C.,
1999. The Morokweng impact structure, South Africa: geological, petrographical, and
isotopic results, and implications for the size of the structure. In: Dressler, B.O.,
Grieve, R.A.F., Sharpton, V.L. (Eds.), Large Meteorite Impacts and Planetary
Evolution. Geological Society of America, pp. 61–90 Special Paper 339.
Reimold, W.U., Leroux, H., Gibson, R.L., 2002. Shocked and thermally metamorphosed
zircon from the Vredefort impact structure, South Africa : A transmission electron
microscopic study. Eur. J. Mineral. 14, 859–868.
Reimold, W.U., Cooper, G.R.J., Romano, R., Cowan, D.R., Koeberl, C., 2006. Investigation
of Shuttle Radar Topography Mission data of the possible impact structure at Serra da
Cangalha, Brazil. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 41, 237–243.
Reimold, W.U., Hansen, B.K., Jacob, J., Artemieva, N.A., Wünnemann, K., Meyer, C.,
2011. Petrography of the impact breccias of the Enkingen (SUBO 18) drill core,
southern Ries crater, Germany: new estimate of impact melt volume. Geol. Soc. Am.
Bull. 124, 104–132.
Reimold, W.U., McDonald, I., Schmitt, R.T., Hansen, B., Jacob, J., Koeberl, C., 2013a.
Geochemical studies of the SUBO 18 (Enkingen) drill core and other impact breccias
from the Ries crater, Germany. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 48, 1531–1571.
Reimold, W.U., Ferriére, L., Deutsch, A., Koeberl, C., 2014. Impact controversies: impact
recognition criteria and related issues. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 49, 723–731.
Reimold, W.U., Hoffmann, M., Schmitt, R.T., Hauser, N., Zaag, P.T., Mohr-Westheide, T.,
2016. A geochemical contribution to the discussion about the genesis of impact-re-
lated pseudotachylitic breccias: studies of PTB in the Otavi and Kudu quarries of the
Vredefort Dome support the in situ formation hypothesis. S. Afr. J. Geol. 119,
453–472. https://doi.org/10.2113/gssajg.119.3.453.
Reimold, W.U., Hauser, N., Hansen, B.T., Thirlwall, M., Hoffmann, M., 2017a. The impact
pseudotachylitic breccia controversy: insights from first isotope analysis of Vredefort
A.P. Crósta et al.
PTB and impact melt rock (Vredefort Granophyre). Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 214,
266–281.
Reimold, W.U., Crósta, A.P., Koeberl, C., Hauser, N., 2017b. Comment on Geophysical
evidence for a large impact structure on the Falkland (Malvinas) Plateau. Terra Nova
29, 409–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12284.
Reimold, W.U., Hauser, N., Crósta, A.P., 2018. The impact record of SW gondwana. In:
Siegesmund, S., et, al. (Eds.), Geology of Southwest Gondwana. Regional Geology
Reviews, Springer, pp. 677–688.
Reimold, W.U., 1995. Pseudotachylites in impact structures –generation by friction
melting and shock brecciation? A review and discussion. Earth-Sci. Rev. 39, 247–265.
Reimold, W.U., 1998. Exogenic and endogenic breccias: a discussion of major proble-
matics. Earth-Sci. Rev. 43, 25–47.
Rocca, M.C.L., Rampino, M.R., Presser, J.L.B., 2017. Geophysical evidence for a large
impact structure on the Falkland (Malvinas) Plateau. Terra Nova 29, 233–237.
Roddy, D.J., Pepin, R.O., Merril, R.B. (Eds.), 1977. Impact and Explosion Cratering.
Pergamon Press, New York 1301 pp.
Romano, R., Crósta, A.P., 2004. Brazilian impact structures: a review. Lunar Planet. Sci.
XXXV. Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas Abstract #1546.
Salminen, J., Pesonen, L.J., Reimold, W.U., Donadini, F., Gibson, R.L., 2009.
Paleomagnetic and rock magnetic study of the Vredefort impact structure and the
Johannesburg Dome Kaapvaal Craton, South Africa −implications for the paleor-
econstructions of continents during the Mesoproterozoic. Precambr. Res. 168,
167–184.
Sanchez, J.P., Brilha, J.B.R., 2017. Terrestrial impact structures as geoheritage: an as-
sessment method of their scientific value and its application to Brazil. Ann. Acad.
Bras. Ciênc. 89, 825–834.
Sanchez, J.P., Simões, L.S.A., Martins, L.E.B., 2014. Estratigrafia e estrutura do Cerro do
Jarau: nova proposta. Braz. J. Geol. 44, 265–276.
Sanchez, J.P., 2006. Mapeamento 1:25 000 do núcleo do Astroblema Domo de
Araguainha e aspectos geoturísticos da região. Diploma thesis. Universidade Estadual
Paulista 57 p.
Sanchez, J.P., 2013. Mapeamento geológico-estrutural do astroblema de Cerro do Jarau
(RS), Brasil. Ph.D. thesis. Universidade Estadual Paulista 173 p.
Santos, U.P., McHone Jr., J.F., 1979. Field report on Serra da Cangalha Riachão circular
feature. Instituto de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) Relatório 1458-NTE/153, 13 p.
Santos, M.E.C.M., de Carvalho, M.S.S., 2009. Paleontologia das Bacias do Parnaíba,
Grajaú e São Luís. Reconstituições Paleobiológicas. CPRM/Serviço Geológico do
Brasil, Rio de Janeiro 215 p.
Schnegg, P.A., Fontes, S.L., 2002. Feasibility study of the geoelectric structure of the
Araguainha impact, Brazil. Earth Planets Space 54, 597–606.
Schulte, P., Alegret, L., Arenillas, I., et al., 2010. The Chicxulub asteroid impact and mass
extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. Science 327, 1214–1218. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.1177265.
Shand, S.J., 1916. The pseudotachylyte of Parijs (Orange Free State) and its relation to
trapshotten gneiss and flinty crush-rock. Q. J. Geol. Soc. London 72, 198–221.
Sharpton, V.L., Burke, K., Camargo-Zanoguera, A., Hall, S.A., Lee, D.S., Marín, L.E.,
Suárez-Reynoso, G., Quezada-Muñeton, J.M., Spudis, P.D., Urrutia-Fucugauchi, J.,
1993. Chicxulub multiring impact basin: size and other characteristics derived from
gravity analyses. Science 261, 1564–1567.
Shen, S.Z., Crowley, J.L., Wang, Y., Bowring, S.A., Erwin, D.H., Sadler, P.M., Cao, C.Q.,
Rothman, D.H., Henderson, C.M., Ramezani, J., Zhang, H., Shen, Y., Wang, X.D.,
Wang, W., Mu, L., Li, W.Z., Tang, Y.G., Liu, X.L., Liu, L.J., Zeng, Y., Jiang, Y.F., Jin,
Y.G., 2011. Calibrating the end-Permian mass extinction. Science 334, 1367–1372.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1213454.
Siegert, S., Branney, M., Hecht, L., 2017. Density current origin of a melt-bearing impact
ejecta blanket (Ries suevite, Germany). Geology 45, 855–858.
Silva, D., Lana, C.C., Stevens, G., Souza-Filho, C.R., 2011. Effects of shock-induced in-
congruent melting within Earth́ s crust: the case of biotite melting. Terra Nova 23,
225–231.
Silva, D., Lana, C., Souza-Filho, C.R., 2016. Petrographic and geochemical characteriza-
tion of the granitic rocks of the Araguainha impact crater. Brazil. Meteorit. Planet.
Sci. 51, 443–467.
Silveira Filho, N.C., Ribeiro, C.L., 1971. Informações geológicas preliminares sobre a
estrutura vulcânica de Araguainha, Mato Grosso. Int. Report. Departamento Nacional
de Pesquisas Minerais, Brasília 50 pp.
Smit, J., Hertogen, J., 1980. An extraterrestrial event at the Cretaceous-tertiary boundary.
Nature 285, 158–200.
Spray, J.G., 2010. Frictional melting of planetary materials: from hypervelocity impact to
earthquakes. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 38, 221–254.
Spudis, P.D., 1993. The Geology of Multi-Ring Basins: The Moon and Other Planets.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 263pp.
Stöffler, D., Reimold, W.U., 2006. Geologic setting, properties, and classification of ter-
restrial impact formations. In: First Int. Conf. on Impact Cratering in the Solar System.
European Space Agency, Nordwijk, The Netherlands. pp. 205–207 Abstracts.
Stöffler, D., Reimold, W.U., Jacob, J., Hansen, B.K., Summerson, I.A.T., Artemieva, N.A.,
Wünnemann, K., 2013. Ries crater and suevite revisited – observations and modeling:
part I: observations. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 48, 515–589.
Stöffler, D., Hamann, C., Metzler, K., 2017. Shock metamorphism of planetary silicate
rocks and sediments: proposal for an updated classification system. Meteorit. Planet.
Sci. 53, 5–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.12912.
Stewart, S.A., 2011. Estimates of yet-to-find impact crater population on Earth. J. Geol.
Soc. London 168, 1–14.
Stöffler, D., Grieve, R.A.F., 2007. Impactites. In: Fettes, D., Desmons, J. (Eds.),
Metamorphic Rocks: A Classification and Glossary of Terms, Recommendations of the
International Union of Geological Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
U.K (pp. 82–92 111–125, and 126–242).
60
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Stöffler, D., Langenhorst, F., 1994. Shock metamorphism of quartz in nature and ex-
periment: I: basic observations and theory. Meteoritics 29, 155–181.
Stöffler, D., Keil, K., Scott, E.R.D., 1991. Shock metamorphism of ordinary chondrites.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 55, 3845–3867.
Theilen-Willige, B., 1981. The Araguainha impact structure, Central Brazil. Rev. Bras.
Geoc. 11, 91–97.
Thiele, D.S., Vasconcelos, P.M., 2010. Paraná flood basalts: Rapid extrusion hypothesis
confirmed by new 40Ar/39Ar results. Geology 38, 747–750.
Thomé-Filho, J.J., Crósta, A.P., de Paula, T.L.F., 2012. Astroblema de Araguainha-Ponte
Branca (GO/MT). In: Schobbenhaus, C., Silva, C.R. (Eds.), Geoparques do Brasil:
Propostas. CPRM/Serviço Geológico do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 151–182.
Thompson, L.M., Spray, J.G., 2017. Dynamic interaction between impact melt and frag-
mented basement at Manicouagan: the suevite connection. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 52,
1300–1329.
Timms, N., Erickson, T., Pearce, M., Cavosie, A., Schmieder, M., Tohver, E., Reddy, S.,
Zanetti, M.R., Nemchin, A.A., Wittmann, A., 2017. A pressure-temperature phase
diagram for zircon at extreme conditions. Earth-Sci. Rev. 165, 185–202.
Tohver, E., Lana, C., Cawood, P.A., Fletcher, I.R., Jordan, F., Jourdan, F., Sherlock, S.,
Rasmussen, B., Trinidade, R.I.F., Yokoyama, E., Souza Filho, C.R., Marangoni, Y.,
2012. Geochronological constraints on the age of a Permo–Triassic impact event:
U–Pb and 40Ar/39Ar results for the 40 km Araguainha structure of central Brazil.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 86.
Tohver, E., Cawood, P.A., Riccomini, C., Trindade, R.I.F., 2013. Shaking a methane fizz:
seismicity from the Araguainha impact event and the Permian–Triassic global carbon
isotope record. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 387, 66–75. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.07.010.
Tompkins, L.A., 1994. Tectono-structural environments of primary diamond source rocks
in Brazil. In: Meyer, H.O.A., Leonardos, O.H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth
International Kimberlite Conference, vol. 2. Diamonds: Characterization, Genesis and
Exploration. CPRM Special Publication 1B/94, Brasilia, pp. 259–267.
Tong, C.H., Lana, C., Marangoni, Y.R., Elis, V.R., 2010. Geoelectric evidence for cen-
tripetal resurge of impact melt and breccias over central uplift of Araguainha impact
structure. Geology 38, 91–94.
Trepmann, C.A., Spray, J.G., 2005. Planar microstructures and Dauphine twins in shocked
quartz from the Charlevoix impact structure, Canada. In: Kenkmann, T., Horz, F.,
Deutsch, A. (Eds.), Large Meteorite Impacts III. Geol. Soc. Am., pp. 315–328 Spec.
Paper 384.
Trepmann, C.A., Spray, J.G., 2006. Shock-induced crystal-plastic deformation and post-
shock annealing of quartz: microstructural evidence from crystalline target rocks of
the Charlevoix impact structure, Canada. Eur. J. Mineral. 18, 161–173. https://doi.
org/10.1127/0935-1221/2006/0018-0161.
Turner, S., Regelous, M., Kelley, S., Hawkesworth, C.J., Mantovani, M.S.M., 1994.
Magmatism and continental break-up in the South Atlantic: high precision 40Ar-39Ar
geochronology. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 121, 333–348.
Turtle, E.P., Pierazzo, E., Collins, G.S., Osinski, G.R., Melosh, H.J., Morgan, J.V., Reimold,
W.U., 2005. In: Kenkmann, T., Hörz, F., Deutsch, A. (Eds.), Impact Structures: What
Does Crater Diameter Mean? Geol. Soc. Amer., pp. 1–24 Special Paper 384.
Uchôa, E.B., Vasconcelos, M.A.R., Crósta, A.P., 2013. Santa Marta crater: macroscopic
and petographic evidences of a new confirmed impact struture in Northeastern Brazil.
Lunar Planet. Sci. XXXXIV. Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas Abstract
#1316.
UnB-IG, 2012. Final Mapping Project by the Graduate Class of 2012. Institute of
Geosciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brasil Unpubl. report.
Vasconcelos, M.A.R., Crósta, A.P., Molina, E.C., 2010. Geophysical characteristics of four
possible impact structures in the Paraíba Basin, Brazil. In: Gibson, R.L., Reimold
(Eds.), Large Meteorite Impacts and Planetary Evolution IV. Geol. Soc. Amer., pp.
201–217 Special Paper 465.
Vasconcelos, M.A.R., Leite, E.P., Crósta, A.P., 2012a. Contributions of gamma-ray spec-
trometry to terrestrial impact crater studies: the example of Serra da Cangalha,
northeastern Brazil. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, pL04306.
Vasconcelos, M.A.R., Wünnemann, K., Crósta, A.P., Molina, E.C., Reimold, W.U.,
Yokoyama, E., 2012b. Insights into the morphology of the Serra da Cangalha impact
structure from geophysical modeling. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 47, 1659–1670.
Vasconcelos, M.A.R., Maziviero, M.V., Crósta, A.P., 2012c. The Riachão impact structure:
evidence of an oblique impact. In: 75th Annual Meeting of the Meteoritical Society.
Cairns, Queensland, Australia. Abstract #5127.
Vasconcelos, M.A.R., Crósta, A.P., Reimold, W.U., Goes, A.M., Kenkmann, T., Poelchau,
M.H., 2013. The Serra da Cangalha impact structure, Brazil: Geological, stratigraphic
and petrographic aspects of a recently confirmed impact structure. J. South Am. Earth
Sci. 45, 316–330.
Vasconcelos, M.A.R., 2007. Caracterização geofísica da estrutura de impacto de
Araguainha. M. Sc. Thesis. University of São Paulo (157 p.).
von Engelhardt, W., Matthäi, S.K., Walzebuck, J., 1992. Araguainha impact crater, Brazil.
1. The interior part of the uplift. Meteoritics 27, 442–457.
Wagner, R., Reimold, W.U., Brandt, D., 2002. Bosumtwi impact crater, Ghana: a remote
sensing investigation. In: Plado, J., Pesonen, L.J. (Eds.), Meteorite Impacts in
Precambrian Shields. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp. 189–210.
Wegener, A., 1921. Die Entstehung der Mondkrater. Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn
Braunschweig 48 pp.
Wenk, H.-R., Lanardelli, I., Vogel, S.C., Tullis, J., 2005. Dauphiné twinning as evidence
for an impact origin of preferred orientation in quartzite: an example from Vredefort,
South Africa. Geology 33, 273–276.
Wenk, H.-R., Janssen, C., Kenkmann, T., Dresen, G., 2011. Mechanical twinning in quartz:
shock experiments, impact, pseudotachylites and fault breccias. Tectonophysics 510,
69–79.
Whitehead, J., Grieve, R.A.F., Spray, J.G., 2002. Mineralogy and petrology of melt rocks
A.P. Crósta et al.
from the Popigai impact structure, Siberia. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 37, 629–647.
Wieland, F., Reimold, W.U., Gibson, R.L., 2006. New observations on shatter cones in the
Vredefort impact structure, South Africa, and an evaluation of current models for
shatter cone formation. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 41, 1737–1759.
Wilk, J., Kenkmann, T., 2016. Formation of shatter cones in MEMIN impact experiments.
Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 51, 1477–1496.
Yokoyama, E., Trindade, R.I.F., Lana, C.R., Souza-Filho, C.R., Baratoux, D., Marangoni,
Y.R., Tohver, E., 2012. Magnetic fabric of Araguainha complex impact structure
(Central Brazil): Implications for deformation mechanisms and central uplift forma-
tion. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 331–332, 347–359.
Yokoyama, E., Brandt, D., Tohver, E., Trindade, R.I.F., 2014. Palaeomagnetism of the
Permo-Triassic Araguainha impact structure (Central Brazil) and implications for
Pangean reconstructions. Geophys. J. Internat. 198, 154–163. https://doi.org/10.
1093/gji/ggu125.
61
Chemie der Erde xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Yokoyama, E., Nédélec, A., Baratoux, D., Trindade, R.I.F., Fabre, S., Berger, G., 2015.
Hydrothermal alteration in basalts from Vargeão impact structure South Brazil, and
implications for recognition of impact-induced hydrothermalism on Mars. Icarus 252,
347–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2015.02.001.
Yokoyama, E., 2008. Trama magnética do núcleo soerguido da estrutura de impacto de
Araguainha (MT/GO). M. Sc thesis. University of São Paulo 173 p.
Zaag, P.T., Reimold, W.U., Hipsley, C.A., 2016. Microcomputed tomography and shock
microdeformation studies on shatter cones. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 51, 1435–1459.
Zaag, P.T., 2013. Petrographic and μ-Computed Tomography Investigations of Shatter
Cones. Diploma Thesis. 104pp.. Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Zalan, P.V., Wolf, S., Astolfi, M.A.M., Vieira, I.S., Conceição, J.C., Appi, V.T., Santos Neto,
E.V., Cerqueira, J.R., Marques, A., 1991. The Paraná Basin, Brazil. In: Leighton, M.W.,
Kolata, D.R., Oltz, D.F., Eidel, J.J. (Eds.), Interior Cratonic Basins. American Assoc.
Petrol. Geol., Tulsa, OK, pp. 707–708 AAPG Memoir 51.