Interpreting data dispersion and “inverted” dates in apatite (U–Th)/He and fission-track datasets: An example from the US midcontinent

Abstract

New apatite (U–Th)/He (AHe) and apatite fission-track (AFT) data were acquired for cratonic basement samples from an 80 m span of drillcore in northeastern Kansas. The short depth interval over which the samples were collected indicates that they should have undergone thermal histories that would be indistinguishable using low temperature thermochronometry techniques. Individual AHe dates from four samples range from 99 to 464 Ma. Three samples yield dates <300 Ma that display a correlation with apatite eU (9–34 ppm) and a weaker correlation with grain size. eU concentration maps of apatites from these samples reveal low to moderate zonation in eU. Results for a fourth sample are characterized by dates >300 Ma, higher eU (39–113 ppm), and substantial data dispersion uncorrelated with eU and grain size. These apatites have strong and variable eU zonation. AFT dates for five samples range from 242 to 291 Ma. The sample with the highest eU apatites and oldest AHe dates yields the youngest AFT results. These results are “inverted”, with AHe dates distinctly older than the corresponding AFT date. We explore both the causes of data dispersion and the overall compatibility of this cratonic dataset. We find that geologically reasonable thermal histories can (1) explain the distribution of the moderate eU AHe data when accounting for the influence of radiation damage, grain size, and eU zonation on apatite He diffusivity, (2) reproduce the observed dispersion in the high eU AHe data when using a viable range of eU zonation and grain size, and (3) explain the AFT data for the same samples. The AHe and AFT data are mutually consistent, and viable thermal histories successfully predict the observed pattern of older AHe than AFT dates for the high eU apatites. Together these results suggest that appropriately accounting for the known controls on apatite He diffusivity can explain the observed dispersion and “inverted” AHe and AFT results in some thermochronometry datasets. A range of AHe dates should be especially common in cratonic data, because small differences in apatite He diffusivity are amplified by the thermal histories that typify cratonic settings. We use these results to develop some guidelines for interpreting dispersed AHe datasets. First, date–eU and date–grain size correlations should be evaluated, and if these patterns occur they can be used to better resolve the thermal history. Second, for samples that yield inexplicably large dispersion of AHe dates uncorrelated with eU and crystal size, the appropriate strategy is either to reject these samples from the suite used for thermal history interpretation or to acquire additional data to help decipher the significance of the age distribution.