Geoelectric evidence for centripetal resurge of impact melt and

breccias over central uplift of Araguainha impact structure

C.H. Tong1,*, C. Lana2, Y.R. Marangoni3, and V.R. Elis3
1
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HX, UK
2
Department of Geology, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7620, South Africa
3
Instituto de Astronomia, Geofisica e Ciencias Atmosfericas, USP Rua do Matao, 1226, Cidade Universitaria, Sao Paulo, SP 05508-
090, Brazil

ABSTRACT uplifts is not well constrained because previ-

We present five profiles from electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), with surface con- ous studies on impact melt have been based on
straints and gravity data, in the central uplift of the Araguainha impact structure in central mineralogical (e.g., Maier et al., 2006), borehole
Brazil. The central uplift, the overlying polymict breccias, and decameter-scale impact melt (e.g., Whitehead et al., 2002), surface observa-
rocks are characterized by contrasting ranges of electrical resistivity. Our resistivity model tions (e.g., Osinski, 2004), and the characteriza-
provides empirical evidence that supports the existing model in which impact melt and brec- tion of their physical properties (e.g., Kukkonen
cias resurged toward the crater center in the final stages of the cratering process. On the et al., 1992) only. Electrical resistivity tomogra-
basis of our results from the first use of ERT in impact cratering studies, we conclude that the phy (ERT) is well suited for imaging local lat-
deposition and flow of impact melt and breccias over the central uplift were influenced by the eral lithologic variations (e.g., Beauvais et al.,
geometry of the lithologic boundaries in the central uplift. 1999), and it is also capable of providing high-
resolution subsurface images of lithologic units
INTRODUCTION However, the subsurface structural variations at eroded impact structures. Although measure-
Hypervelocity impact events consist of the of well-exposed impact structures are not well ments of electrical resistivity of impact crater
following stages: contact and shock compres- defined. This is because previous geophysical materials (e.g., Kukkonen et al., 1992) and mod-
sion, growth of transient cavity by ejection of studies on well-exposed impact structures, on els from magnetotelluric studies (e.g., Masero et
crater material, and the final modification of which many current constraints on the internal al., 1997; Campos-Enriquez et al., 2004) have
transient cavity (Melosh and Ivanov, 1999). A structure of central uplifts are based, focused been obtained, there have been hitherto no
central uplift is formed during the modification primarily on their relatively large-scale fea- reports on ERT in impact cratering research.
stage if the transient crater is sufficiently deep tures with typical geophysical measurements In order to illustrate the novel application of
and becomes gravitationally unstable (Melosh taken at >1 km intervals (e.g., Pilkington and geoelectric tomography in characterizing the
and Ivanov, 1999; Fig. 1A). The internal struc- Grieve, 1992; Masero et al., 1997; Henkel and subsurface geometry of central uplifts, we pre-
ture and topography of central uplifts are geo- Reimold, 2002). sent five ERT profiles of the shallow subsurface
logically important because they provide a key Similarly, the subsurface geometry of deca- from the central uplift of the 245 Ma Araguainha
record of the ways in which impact melt, rock meter-scale impact melt bodies on central impact structure in Brazil, the largest complex
debris, and large target rock blocks from dif-
ferent parts of the transient crater are emplaced
and deposited to result in the final form of the
Ejecta 53.02° W 53.00 ° W 52.98 ° W 52.96 ° W
crater (e.g., Kenkmann and von Dalwigk, 2000;
A1 Transient B
Lana et al., 2006, 2008). Current models for the Shock wave s
crater
ck Polymict breccias
emplacement of impact melt involve significant ro 16.79 ° S
ry
centrifugal impact melt flow during the modi- ta
en
fication stage, when the impact debris surges im B3
Crater floor moves s ed
away from the rising central uplift toward the A2 inward and upward
o ll ar B2
16.81 ° S
Granite
crater rim (e.g., Melosh, 1989). Subsequent C
core
resurge of the impact melt back from the crater B1 Monomict
breccias
rim toward the center of the structure is expected
to occur after the collapse of the central uplift A2 16.83 S

(Melosh, 1989). A3 Central peak collapses

under gravity Collar
A1

In order to assess the extent of melt resurge Araguainha sedimentary rocks

toward the crater center on a collapsed central 16.85 S
4 km Parana
uplift, it is crucial to have empirical constraints Basin
on the subsurface geometry of the central uplift
and the overlying impact melt and breccias. Figure 1. A: Schematic snapshots (not to scale) illustrating formation of large impact craters
Structures of central uplifts have been stud- (after Melosh, 1989; Melosh and Ivanov, 1999): growth of transient cavity, ejection of crater
material (A1), and subsequent uplift of crater floor (A2), and final modification of transient
ied by surface geologic mapping (Lana et al., cavity with collapse of central peak (A3). B: Main map showing central uplift of Araguainha
2003; 2007; Scherler et al., 2006), and geo- impact structure in central Brazil and locations of five resistivity profiles (white dotted lines;
physical methods have been applied to study A1–A2, B1–B3) and associated gravity measurements (black diamonds). Coordinates of
the internal variations of central uplifts of bur- start and end points of resistivity profiles are listed in GSA Data Repository (see text foot-
note 1). Inset shows location of Araguainha impact structure. Lithologic boundaries (gray
ied impact structures (e.g., Brenan et al., 1975). solid lines) are based on results from previous studies (Engelhardt et al., 1992) and surface
observations. All resistivity profiles begin from granite core (zero distance in Figs. 2 and 3)
*E-mail: [email protected]. and end in sedimentary rocks or polymict breccias.

© 2010 Geological Society of America. For permission to copy, contact Copyright Permissions, GSA, or [email protected].
GEOLOGY,
Geology, January
January 2010
2010; v. 38; no. 1; p. 91–94; doi: 10.1130/G30459.1; 4 figures; Data Repository item 2010016. 91

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-pdf/38/1/91/3537950/91.pdf

by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo user
 impact crater found in South America (Fig. 1B). 540 -100
100 HRB Distance (m)
The 12-km-diameter central uplift of the struc- 520 300 -65.4 Bouguer gravity (mGal) Profile A1

Altitude (m)
ture consists of a 4-km-wide well-exposed core 500
-65.8
480
of alkali Precambrian-Ordovician granites and -66.2
460
a collar of Permian-Devonian sandstones of -66.6
440 Sedimentary
Profile A1 -67
the Paraná Basin (Lana et al., 2006). The con- 420
Granite strata Distance (m)
Resistivity (Ω m) -67.4
tact between the alkali granite and the Paraná 400 30 75 125 175 250 400 750 2000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
sediments is partially overlain by polymict and 20 50 100 150 200 300 500 1000
540 -100
monomict breccias (Engelhardt et al., 1992). 100 Distance (m)
Profile A2
520 300 -65 Bouguer gravity (mGal)

Altitude (m)
Previous geologic mapping has shown that the
500 -66
nature of this contact is discordant, and sedi- 480 -67
mentary strata dip at high angles toward the 460 Sedimentary
-68 Granite Distance (m)
center of the central uplift (Lana et al., 2007). 440
Profile A2 strata
-69
The sedimentary layers record overturned sedi- 420 0 100 200 300 400
mentary features, which are consistent with
more than 90° rotation during development of Figure 2. Profiles from electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and total Bouguer gravity in
vicinity of granite-sediment boundary (A1–A2). Solid white lines indicate interpreted core-
the central uplift (Lana et al., 2007). The strata collar boundary (granite to sedimentary strata) as identified from resistivity models with
also record an early stage of large-scale thrust- surface constraints. Dotted white line indicates interpreted fracture with infill in sedimentary
ing responsible for significant duplications and strata. HRB—high-resistivity block. Lithologic groups are based on surface observations
thickening of the strata around the granite core and previous study (Engelhardt et al., 1992). Note that resistivities match at crossing point
(Lana et al., 2006, 2008). Similar overturned and that gravity data have an estimated error of 0.15 mGal arising predominantly from uncer-
tainties in altitude measurement.
features have been observed elsewhere, includ-
ing those at Vredefort Dome in South Africa
(e.g., Wieland et al., 2005). responding lower Bouguer gravity in the gran- BRECCIAS AND IMPACT MELT
ite region (Fig. 2). Both low resistivity and low BODIES: SUBSURFACE GEOMETRY
METHODS Bouguer gravity are compatible with the results Figure 3 shows the granite region, which is
We acquired resistivity data in the study of a recent petrographic study showing that the characterized by a similar range of resistivity
area (Fig. 1) using the dipole-dipole configura- granite core is strongly fractured (Machado et (100–250 Ω m) and Bouguer gravity values
tion with 50 m electrode spacing (two poten- al., 2008), and our results agree with similar (~–67 mGal) as shown in Figure 2. Bouguer
tial electrodes and six current electrodes). We observations from some other impact struc- gravity values increase consistently away from
also concurrently acquired gravity data along tures (Pilkington and Grieve, 1992). the granitic areas (~1–3 mGal/km along the pro-
the five profiles by using a portable LaCoste- The granite-sediment boundary, which coin- files), although there are some variations in the
Romberg gravimeter. Details of ERT modeling cides with a region of high lateral resistivity local gradient and in the length of the profiles
and gravity data processing can be found in the gradient, is subvertical, dipping slightly out- (Figs. 2 and 3). However, we observe three dis-
GSA Data Repository.1 Our structural inter- ward from the core in both resistivity profiles tinct resistivity anomalies in the polymict brec-
pretation of the profiles in this case study of (Fig. 2). This tomographic result provides the cias: (1) low-resistivity zones, characterized by
ERT is based on the systematic changes in the first subsurface evidence that the granite-sedi- anomalously low resistivity of 30–80 Ω m dip-
decameter-scale resistivity features resolvable ment boundary, which is partially covered by ping toward the granite core (profiles B1 and
by the tomographic method. breccias (Engelhardt et al., 1992), is a well- B3); (2) high-resistivity blocks, characterized
defined structural interface. This observation by resistivity higher than 300 Ω m (profiles B1–
GRANITE-SEDIMENTARY BOUNDARY suggests that both the granite and sedimentary B3); and (3) regions of anomalously high resis-
IN THE CENTRAL UPLIFT materials can result in the final core-collar tivity relative to other lithologic units in the pro-
We observe a direct correspondence geometry without kilometer-scale brecciation files (1000–2500 Ω m) in the lower parts of the
between the lithology identified on the surface or megablock rotation (see also Lana et al., model (XHRs in profile B1). Unlike the granite-
and the subsurface resistivity structures across 2003; Wieland et al., 2005). There is a pro- sediment boundary, the subsurface resistivity
the well-exposed boundary between the sedi- nounced vertical narrow low-resistivity region structure shown in the granite-breccia profiles
mentary strata in the collar and the granite core within the sedimentary rocks (Fig. 2). Given does not show clear delineations separating the
(Fig. 2). The higher-resistivity regions (>400 its vertical geometry and resistivity contrast, polymict breccias from the granite, despite the
Ω m) lie immediately below the sedimentary this feature is interpreted as a significant frac- consistent increase in Bouguer gravity from the
strata as identified from surface observations. ture in the sedimentary strata filled with other core toward the breccias (Fig. 3) similar to the
In contrast, the granitic rock in the core has a lithologic materials, which may correspond to pattern observed in Figure 2.
typical resistivity of 150–250 Ω m. The low cataclastic fault zones or the injected breccia Previous field observations and petrographic
resistivity of the core, both relative to the resis- commonly found in and around central uplifts studies (Engelhardt et al., 1992) have shown
tivity of unfractured granite (Pilkington and (Dressler and Reimold, 2004). This feature is that the polymict breccias at Araguainha con-
Grieve, 1992) and to that of the surrounding likely to represent concentric faults that dis- sist of a mixture of (1) shocked and unshocked
sedimentary rocks, is consistent with the cor- placed sediments outward as observed in other sedimentary and granitic rock fragments, and
crater structures (Spray et al., 2004). Although (2) blocks of impact melt rocks. These are the
1
GSA Data Repository item 2010016, methods, it is not possible to determine the width of the two distinct lithologic components that can best
experimental geometry and photograph of impact interpreted faults owing to resolution limita- explain the observed contrast in resistivity in
melt rocks, is available online at www.geosociety.
org/pubs/ft2010.htm, or on request from editing@
tions, the consistent geometry of this structure terms of porosity and that are also compatible
geosociety.org or Documents Secretary, GSA, P.O. at all depths suggests that this low-resistivity with the geometry of the low-resistivity zones
Box 9140, Boulder, CO 80301, USA. anomaly is required by the data. and high-resistivity blocks. The low-resistivity

92 GEOLOGY, January 2010

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-pdf/38/1/91/3537950/91.pdf

by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo user
 HRB Distance (m) -62 Bouguer gravity (mGal) note that adjacent high-resistivity blocks show
560 100 300 500 700 -63
-100 900 a similar dipping geometry. The gently dipping
Altitude (m)

540 -64
520
Profile -65 geometry of the high-resistivity blocks and low-
500 L RZ
480 B1
-66 resistivity zones indicates that these rocks were
XHR -67 Sedimentary
460
XHR XHR XHR
-68 strata
deposited during the final stages of structural
Polymict
30 75
Resistivity (Ω m)
125 175 250 400 750 2000
Granite -69 breccias Distance (m) uplift or immediately after the target rocks ceased
-70
20 50 100 150 200 300 500 1000 -900 -600 -300 0 300 600 900 1200 1500
to move. Given recent stratigraphic and structural
evidence for structural uplift of the granite core
Distance (m) -66.6 Bouguer gravity (mGal)
HRB 300 and its subsequent gravitational collapse to form
560 -100 100 -66.9
540 -67.2 a peak-ring structure (Lana et al., 2007, 2008), the
Altitude (m)

520 Profile -67.5

Polymict inclined orientation of both the high-resistivity
500 B2 -67.8 Granite breccias Distance (m)
480 -68.1 blocks and low-resistivity zones toward the core
460 0 100 200 300 400 500 in different locations from the polymict breccias
-66 Bouguer gravity (mGal)
Distance (m) HRB (profiles B1–B3) reflects the topography of the
HRB 300 -66.5
100
560 -100 crater floor, where significant amount of rock
540 -67
fragments and melt rocks accumulated (Engel-
Altitude (m)

520
Profile -67.5
Z B3 Polymict hardt et al., 1992). The observed sharp change in
500
LR -68
Granite breccias Distance (m)
480
-68.5
resistivity from the anomalously high-resistivity
460
-300 -100 100 300 500 700 900 regions to the rock units above (profile B1) there-
fore defines the morphology of the crater floor
Figure 3. Profiles from electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and total Bouguer gravity in
vicinity of granite-polymict-breccia boundary (B1–B3). Key features identified include high- immediately above the sedimentary collar of the
resistivity blocks (HRBs), low-resistivity zones (LRZs), and anomalously high-resistivity re- central uplift; this is consistent with the interpre-
gions (XHRs). Dotted white line (B1) indicates significant fractures between XHRs. Lithologic tation that anomalously high-resistivity regions
groups are based on surface observations and previous study (Engelhardt et al., 1992). Note represent the sedimentary strata.
that resistivities match at crossing point (profiles B2 and B3) and that gravity data have an es-
timated error of 0.15 mGal arising predominantly from uncertainties in altitude measurements. A large portion of the allogenic materi-
als accumulated in the vicinity of the granite-
sediment boundary, which is a clear depression
zones are interpreted to represent materials that For this interpretation, each high-resistivity related to the rotation and outward collapse of
make up the matrix of the polymict breccias, block may represent a single decameter block or the sedimentary target (Lana et al., 2008). Our
along with rock fragments in which the high- multiple blocks of impact melt with an equiva- surface observation shows that impact melt
resistivity blocks are found. The anomalously lent effective resistivity. rocks found in the polymict breccia region have
low resistivity can be explained by the hetero- Anomalously high-resistivity regions at the flow textures (GSA Data Repository Fig. DR1).
geneous composition of the polymict matrix, bottom of profile B1 are likely to represent the Given that the impact structure is well preserved
which is characterized by higher porosity linked sedimentary target rocks because they are the (Lana et al., 2006), the observed dipping geom-
to the presence of significant microfractures only rock type found around the granite core etry of the polymict breccias and impact melt
(Engelhardt et al., 1992). The low resistivity is that simultaneously satisfies the observed resis- implies that the molten material and breccias
also consistent with values observed in breccias tivity, size, and geometry. First, the anomalously flowed toward the inner part of the peak ring
found in other impact structures (Kukkonen et high-resistivity regions are highly unlikely to and accumulated near the granite-sediment
al., 1992). As for the impact melt rocks, they represent the heavily fractured granite core boundary (Fig. 4). This flow is compatible with
have been shown to have higher resistivity than given their high resistivity. Second, although the the observation that parts of the high-resistivity
breccias because of the lower porosity of the anomalously high-resistivity regions have resis- blocks overlie the granite-sediment boundary
crystalline or glassy impact melt matrices (Kuk- tivity values similar to some interpreted impact and cover parts of the granite core or are found
konen et al., 1992). From outcrop observations, melt rocks, their physical dimensions (spanning in the granitic region (Figs. 1 and 2). Note that
meter- to decameter-scale blocks of impact melt hundreds of meters laterally) are not compatible the inward-dipping orientation of the struc-
rock are common features of polymict breccias with those of the impact melt rocks. Third, the tures with flow texture in the topographic low
in several parts of the Araguainha impact struc- anomalously high-resistivity regions are char- at the granite-sedimentary boundary provides
ture (Engelhardt et al., 1992; Fig. DR1 in the acterized by the presence of vertical fractures evidence for the centripetal resurge. The sup-
Data Repository), and these blocks have also similar to those found in profile A2. This con- port for the centripetal flow direction does not
been observed in other impact structures (e.g., figuration is consistent with the emplacement depend on whether the breccias or impact melts
Osinski et al., 2005). geometry of sedimentary strata onto the granite were completely removed from the central uplift
The resistivity of the high-resistivity blocks core. The higher resistivity of this interpreted or from the topographic low.
is consistently one order of magnitude higher sedimentary strata compared to those in profiles Since the polymict breccia region in the
than that of the surrounding low-resistivity A1–A2 can be explained by the reduced fluid- topographic low above the crater floor is con-
zones in all three profiles (profiles B1–B3). Our filled fractures at greater depths. sistently characterized by inward-dipping struc-
results indicate that the high-resistivity blocks tures (Figs. 1 and 3), the centripetal deposition
are unlikely to represent the highly fractured EMPLACEMENT OF BRECCIAS and the inferred centripetal flow of breccias
granite in the core because of its significantly AND IMPACT MELT BODIES OVER and impact melt (Fig. 4) are representative of
lower resistivity (Figs. 2 and 3). A high-resis- CENTRAL UPLIFT the central uplift of the Araguainha impact
tivity block of similar size and resistivity is also We observe that the low-resistivity zones and structure. This model implies that significant
observed near the granite-sediment boundary high-resistivity blocks are arranged as subho- amounts of impact debris surged back toward
(profile A1), and for the same reasons, the fea- rizontal structures, gently dipping toward the the crater center following the gravitational
ture is likely to represent a block of impact melt. granite core (profiles B1–B3). In profile B3, we collapse of the central uplift. This centripetal

GEOLOGY, January 2010 93

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-pdf/38/1/91/3537950/91.pdf

by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo user
 Crater Decameter-scale Crater rim stratified lateritic terrains overlying a granitic W.U., 2008, Structural evolution of the 40 km
center impact melt bodies
bedrock in West Africa, using 2-D electrical re- wide Araguainha impact structure, central Bra-
Impact breccias sistivity tomography: Earth and Planetary Sci- zil: Meteoritics & Planetary Science, v. 43,
ence Letters, v. 173, p. 413–424, doi: 10.1016/ p. 701–716.
Erosion level S0012-821X(99)00245-9. Machado, R., Lana, C., Filho, C.R.S., and Stevens,
on
po siti Brenan, R.L., Peterson, B.L., and Smith, H.J., 1975, G., 2008, Optical and scanning electron mi-
100 m

De
Granite The origin of Red Wing Creek structure, croprobe study of shock veins from the Ara-
core McKenzie County, North Dakota: Wyoming guainha central uplift, central Brazil: Large
Sedimentary collar Geological Association Earth Science Bulletin, Meteorite Impacts and Planetary Evolution,
Central uplift v. 8, p. 11–41. v. IV, p. 3062.
Campos-Enriquez, J.O., Chavez-Garcia, F.J., Cruz, Maier, W.D., Andreoli, M.A.G., McDonald, I., Hig-
Figure 4. Schematic diagram (not to scale) H., Acosta-Chang, J.G., Marsui, T., Arzate, gins, M.D., Boyce, A.J., Shukolyukov, A.,
showing centripetal deposition of impact J.A., Unsworth, M.J., and Ramos-Lopez, J., Lugmair, G.W., Ashwal, L.D., Graser, P., Rip-
melt and impact breccias in central uplift. 2004, Shallow crustal structure of Chicxulub ley, E.M., and Hart, R.J., 2006, Discovery of a
This model is based on decameter-scale impact crater imaged with seismic, gravity and 25-cm asteroid in the giant Morokweng impact
structures (interpreted impact melt bodies), magnetotelluric data: Inferences about the cen- crater, South Africa: Nature, v. 441, p. 203–
all of which dip gently toward crater center tral uplift: Geophysical Journal International, 206, doi: 10.1038/nature04751.
in topographic low (Fig. 3). Our tomographic v. 157, p. 515–525. Masero, W., Fischer, G., and Schnegg, P.A., 1997,
model shows that lithologic boundaries Collins, G.S., Kenkmann, T., and Osinski, G.R., Electrical conductivity and crustal deformation
within central uplift, which reflect pre-impact 2008, Mid-sized complex crater formation in from magnetotelluric results in the region of
rheological structure, are likely to be related mixed crystalline-sedimentary targets: Insight the Araguainha impact, Brazil: Physics of the
to centripetal deposition. Present erosion from modeling and observation: Meteoritics & Earth and Planetary Interiors, v. 101, p. 271–
level (Lana et al., 2006) is included for com- Planetary Science, v. 43, p. 1955–1977. 289, doi: 10.1016/S0031-9201(96)03267-0.
parison. Note that peak rings and impact Dressler, B.O., and Reimold, W.U., 2004, Order or Melosh, H.J., 1989, Impact Cratering: A Geologic Pro-
melt have been differentially eroded, result- chaos? Origin and mode of emplacement of cess: Oxford, Oxford University Press, 245 p.
ing in previously observed internal rings breccias in floors of large impact structures: Melosh, H.J., and Ivanov, B.A., 1999, Impact crater
exposed on crater floor (Lana et al., 2007). Earth-Science Reviews, v. 67, p. 1–54, doi: collapse: Annual Review of Earth and Plane-
Granite-sedimentary contact is discordant 10.1016/j.earscirev.2004.01.007. tary Sciences, v. 27, p. 385–415, doi: 10.1146/
(Lana et al., 2006, 2007, 2008). Engelhardt, W., Matthäi, S.K., and Walzebuck, J., annurev.earth.27.1.385.
1992, Araguainha impact crater, Brazil: 1. The Osinski, G.R., 2004, Impact melt rocks from the
interior part of the uplift: Meteoritics, v. 27, Ries structure, Germany: An origin as impact
p. 442–457. melt flows?: Earth and Planetary Science Let-
resurge of impact breccias and melt in the final Gulick, S.P.S., Barton, P.J., Christeson, G.L., Mor- ters, v. 226, p. 529–543, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl
stages of the impact cratering process suggests gan, J.V., McDonald, M., Mendoza-Cervantes, .2004.08.012.
that the direction of flow and deposition in the K., Pearson, Z.F., Surendra, A., Urrutia- Osinski, G.R., Spray, J.G., and Lee, P., 2005, Impac-
Fucugauchi, J., Vermeesch, P.M., and Warner, tites of the Haughton impact structure, Devon
final stages of the cratering process was deter- M.R., 2008, Importance of pre-impact crustal Island, Canadian High Arctic: Meteoritics &
mined by the crater floor topography, which is structure for the asymmetry of the Chicxulub Planetary Science, v. 40, p. 1789–1812.
likely to be complex, as revealed in this case impact crater: Nature Geoscience, v. 1, p. 131– Pilkington, M., and Grieve, R.A.F., 1992, The geo-
study at Araguainha. This is particularly true at 135, doi: 10.1038/ngeo103. physical signature of terrestrial impact craters:
Henkel, H., and Reimold, W.U., 2002, Magnetic Reviews of Geophysics, v. 30, p. 161–181, doi:
the lithologic boundaries for craters with mixed model of the central uplift of the Vredefort im- 10.1029/92RG00192.
target rocks. The level of topographic complex- pact structure, South Africa: Journal of Applied Scherler, D., Kenkmann, T., and Jahn, A., 2006,
ity of crater floors is directly related to the ways Geophysics, v. 51, p. 43–62, doi: 10.1016/ Structural record of an oblique impact: Earth
in which the target rock blocks were emplaced, S0926-9851(02)00214-8. and Planetary Science Letters, v. 248, p. 43–53,
Kenkmann, T., and von Dalwigk, I., 2000, Radial doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.05.002.
and the pre-impact rheology of the target rocks
transpression ridges: A new structural feature Senft, L.E., and Stewart, S.T., 2007, Modeling im-
is a key factor that determines their geometry of of complex impact craters: Meteoritics & Plan- pact cratering in layered surfaces: Journal of
emplacement (Melosh and Ivanov, 1999; Gulick etary Science, v. 35, p. 1189–1201. Geophysical Research, v. 112, p. E11002, doi:
et al., 2008). In other words, the influence of the Kukkonen, I.T., Kivekäs, L., and Paananen, M., 1992, 10.1029/2007JE002894.
flow dynamics of breccias and impact melt on Physical properties of karnaite (impact melt), Spray, J.G., Butler, H.R., and Thompson, L.M.,
suevite and impact breccia in the Lappajarvi me- 2004, Tectonic influences on the morphometry
surface-crater morphology varies with the pre- teorite crater, Finland: Tectonophysics, v. 216, of the Sudbury impact structure: Implications
impact rheology. We therefore anticipate differ- p. 111–122, doi: 10.1016/0040-1951(92)90159-4. for terrestrial cratering and modelling: Mete-
ent planetary bodies in the solar system where Lana, C., Gibson, R.L., and Reimold, W.U., 2003, oritics & Planetary Science, v. 39, p. 287–301.
layered target rocks are common (Senft and Impact tectonics in the core of the Vredefort Whitehead, J., Grieve, R.A.F., and Spray, J.G., 2002,
dome, South Africa: Implications for central Mineralogy and petrology of melt rocks from
Stewart, 2007; Collins et al., 2008) to display uplift formation in very large impact struc- the Popigai impact structure, Siberia: Meteorit-
distinct patterns of surface morphology in the tures: Meteoritics & Planetary Science, v. 38, ics & Planetary Science, v. 37, p. 623–647.
vicinity of their central uplifts, reflecting their p. 1093–1107. Wieland, F., Gibson, R.L., and Reimold, W.U., 2005,
near-surface pre-impact rheological structures. Lana, C., Romano, R., Reimold, U., and Hippertt, Structural analysis of the collar of the Vre-
J., 2006, Collapse of large complex impact defort dome, South Africa—Significance for
craters: Implications from the Araguainha im- impact-related deformation and central uplift
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS pact structure, central Brazil: Geology, v. 34, formation: Meteoritics & Planetary Science,
We gratefully acknowledge funding received from p. 9–12, doi: 10.1130/G21952.1. v. 40, p. 1537–1554.
Birkbeck, University of London (Faculty of Science Lana, C., Filho, C.R.S., Marangoni, Y.R., Yokoyama,
Grant); Claude Leon Foundation, South Africa; and E., Trindade, R.I.F., Tohver, E., and Reimold,
FAPESP (São Paulo, Brazil project 05/51530). We W.U., 2007, Insights into the morphology,
thank the Editor Andrew Barth, Joanna Morgan, and an geometry, and post-impact erosion of the
anonymous reviewer for their constructive comments. Araguainha peak-ring structure, central Bra- Manuscript received 15 June 2009
zil: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Revised manuscript received 6 August 2009
REFERENCES CITED v. 119, p. 1135–1150, doi: 10.1130/B26142.1. Manuscript accepted 12 August 2009
Beauvais, A., Ritz, M., Pariscot, J.C., Dukhan, M., Lana, C., Filho, C.R.S., Marangoni, Y.R., Yokoyama,
and Bantsimba, C., 1999, Analysis of poorly E., Trindade, R.I.F., Tohver, E., and Reimold, Printed in USA

94 GEOLOGY, January 2010

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-pdf/38/1/91/3537950/91.pdf

by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo user