See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333835204

Sedimentological and petrochemical studies of Jurassic clastic rocks, Habo

Dome Basin, Kachchh Mainland, Northwest India: Implications for
depositional environment, provenance, and...

Article in Island Arc · June 2019

DOI: 10.1111/iar.12307

CITATIONS READS

2 358

3 authors, including:

Roohi Irshad A.H.M. Ahmad

8 PUBLICATIONS 66 CITATIONS
Aligarh Muslim University
122 PUBLICATIONS 833 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by A.H.M. Ahmad on 03 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 24 April 2018 Revised: 4 March 2019 Accepted: 15 March 2019
DOI: 10.1111/iar.12307

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Sedimentological and petrochemical studies of Jurassic clastic

rocks, Habo Dome Basin, Kachchh Mainland, Northwest India:
Implications for depositional environment, provenance, and
tectonic setting

Roohi Irshad | Mohammad S. Khan | Abul H. M. Ahmad

Department of Geology, Aligarh Muslim

University, Aligarh, 202002, India
Correspondence
Roohi Irshad, Department of Geology, Aligarh
Muslim University, Aligarh 202002, India.
Email: roohigeology@gmail.com
Abstract
Mesozoic rocks are extensively and excellently preserved in the western Indian shield
in several basins. The Kachchh Mainland Basin (KMB), comprising six small sub-
basins, is the main repository of these sediments. Habo Dome Basin, situated in the
easternmost part of KMB and largest among the six basins, hosts clastics of the Chari
Formation of Jurassic age. The fluctuating transgressive–regressive facies cycle,
developed during the Callovian and Late Early Oxfordian in the Habo Dome Basin,
was mainly controlled by local tectonics and not by global eustatic fluctuations. Near
magmatic relationships are displayed by various elements of the clastic rocks of Habo
Dome Basin. Two litho-chemical groups have been identified in Habo Dome Basin,
which are cyclically repeated over entire lithostratigraphic sequence, indicating alter-
nate pulses of sediment inputs from two different sources under palpitating tectonic
conditions. Provenance indicator elements and their ratios coupled with source
modeling indicate predominantly felsic source with basic and alkalic components.
Integrated analysis of petrograhic and geochemical characteristics suggests two
source terranes for these rocks: a granitoid source with significant basic volcanics
(Banded Gneissic Complex) and a granite–gneissic source with minor alkaline volca-
nics (Nagarparkar Massif) lying to northeast and NNW respectively. The petrochem-
istry of Habo Dome clastics suggests their deposition in a fault controlled sink which
was influenced by sea level changes. Drifting of the Indian plate resulted in the open-
ing of series of rifted basins in the Kachchh Mainland during Late Triassic/Early Juras-
sic, which were closed later during collision of Indian plate with Eurasia at early
Eocene. The Habo Dome Basin which opened up as a half graben in response to the
initial stress regime, remained tectonically unstable until the cessation of pre and post
collisional stress regimes.

KEYWORDS
Callovian–Oxfordian, Habo Dome, Jurassic clastics, Kachchh Mainland

Island Arc. 2019;e12307. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/iar © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 1 of 21
https://doi.org/10.1111/iar.12307
2 of 21
1 | I N T RO D UC T I O N
Clastic sedimentary rocks are one of the main sources of information
regarding past geological conditions that prevailed on the Earth's sur-
face and exhumed ancient orogens (Absar & Srinivas, 2015; Fatima &
Khan, 2012; P. K. Singh & Khan, 2017; Zimmermann & Bahulburg,
2003). Petrochemical studies including relative abundance of major
framework components of sandstones, clay mineral abundance of
shales and chemical composition of clastic rocks coupled with
lithofacies records provide a better understanding of various sedimen-
tological processes responsible for detritus generation to its final
deposition (Condie, 1992, 1993; Fatima & Khan, 2012). The chemical
record of clastic sedimentary rocks is considered to be influenced by
source rock characteristics, chemical weathering, hydrodynamic
sorting and post-depositional diagenetic reactions (McLennan, 1989;
Nesbitt, Fedo, & Young, 1997). Nevertheless, immobile incompatible
(Th, La, Zr, Hf) and compatible elements (Ti, Sc, Cr and Co), REE pat-
terns, and Nd isotope records of fine-grained clastic sedimentary
rocks provide important clues regarding provenance and composition
of upper continental crust (e.g. Absar, Nizamuddin, Augustine, Mana-
gave, & Balakrishnan, 2016; Absar, Raza, Roy, Naqvi, & Roy, 2009;
Banner, 2004; Condie, 2005; Cullers, 2000; Rashid, Ahmad, Singh, &
Absar, 2018; Taylor & McLennan, 1985, 1995; Yang et al., 2012). On
the contrary, nature and intensity of chemical weathering can be esti-
mated and inferred from the behavior of mobile elements such as
alkali (Na, K) and alkaline earth elements (Ca, Sr) of clastic rocks
(Nesbitt & Young, 1982).
F I G U R E 1 Simplified regional geological map of a part of Northwest India showing distribution of major lithological domains, tectonic
elements and location of Kachchh Mainland. After Biswas (1982) and Jan, Laghari, and Khan (1997)
IRSHAD ET AL.
The Jurassic sedimentary litho-package on different plates dis-
plays cyclic repetitions of clay-sand-carbonate facies (Hallam, 1978,
2001). This cyclicity is recognized in three orders on the basis of pres-
ence of disconformities (Hallam, 2001). It is ascribed to global or
regional sea level changes, or to aerially restricted effects such as local
tectonism (Brenchley & Rawson, 2006; Cope, 2006; Jenkyns, 2003;
Jenkyns, Jones, Grocke, Hesselbo, & Parkinson, 2002).
In western Peninsular India there are several basins, namely the
Jara, Jumara, Nara, Keera, Jhurio, Habo, within the Kachchh Mainland
(Figure 1). These basins are filled up with sedimentary packages of
Mesozoic, Tertiary, and Quaternary ages (Koshal, 1984; C. S. P. Singh,
Jaitley, & Pandey, 1982). The Mesozoic package comprises Late Trias-
sic to Early Jurassic continental, Middle to Late Jurassic marine and
Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous fluvio-deltaic sediments. There is a
gradual northwest transgression and deepening of the sea during the
Middle Jurassic. The deepest conditions occurred in the Early Oxford-
ian, which is reflected in the highly condensed bed (horizon) comprising
hardgrounds, reworked concretions, intraformational conglomerates,
shell legs, stromatolitic iron crusts and iron oncoids, in the topmost
succession (I. B. Singh, 1989; Fürsich & Oschmann, 1993; Fürsich,
Oschmann, Singh, & Jaitly, 1992). The sedimentation pattern reflects
the interplay of general subsidence, regional tectonics, eustatic sea
level fluctuations and changes in climate (Fürsich, Oschmann, Jaitely, &
Singh, 1991). The combined effect of various factors induced relative
sea level variations that produced cyclic patterns within the sedimen-
tary rocks. The cyclic sedimentation is recorded in both distal and prox-
imal parts of the basin (Fürsich, Pandey, Callomon, Jaitely, & Singh,
IRSHAD ET AL.
2001). The Kachchh Mainland is bordered by the Nagarparkar Massif
in the north, Radhanpur-Barmer arch in the east and Kathiawar uplift
to the south (Figure 1). This Mainland extends between latitude

0
0
0
0
~ 22 55 and 23 55 and longitude ~ 68 20 and 72 30 E covering
entire Kachchh district of Gujarat state. Two factors controlled sedi-
ment accommodation within the basins of the Kachchh Mainland:
tilting of fault blocks and/or depression created by movements along
faults and sea level fluctuations during depositional cycles. The sedi-
mentation finally ceased during the Late Cretaceous with the onset of
Deccan volcanism (Biswas, 1982).
Among the series of basins of the Kachchh Mainland, the Habo
Dome Basin (~ 23 km long, ~ 6 km wide) represents easternmost. The
basin is nearly rhomb-shaped, elongated in the ENE–WSW direction
and its longer sides are marked by the ENE–WSW trending Kachchh
Mainland Fault and Katrol Hill Fault in the north and south, respec-
tively (Figure 2). These faults are subvertical near the surface and
show evidence of strike-slip movements (Biswas, 2002). The regional
strike of the basinal strata is NE–SW, and the regional dip (~ 30
) is
northerly.
In the present work, we have conducted sedimentary facies and
petrography, and geochemical study of the well-preserved clastic hori-
zons of the Chari Formation of the Habo Dome Basin to glean infor-
mation about the depositional environment of the sediments,
weathering conditions, provenance and tectonic setting of the basin.
Finally, with the aid of immobile high field strength and rare earth ele-
ment data, an attempt has been made to unravel the geodynamic evo-
lution of this basin.
2 | GEOLOGICAL SETUP
The sedimentary sequences in the Kachchh Basin range from Middle
Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous in age and are exposed extensively in
the Kachchh Mainland and as isolated bodies at Wagad, Patcham,
F I G U R E 2 Geological map of
Kachchh Mainland Basin of
Northwest Indian shield showing the
location of Habo Dome basin (after
Biswas, 1982). An exaggerated view
of Habo Dome basin depicting the
type localities of various lithounits
3 of 21
Bela, Khadir and Chorar in the Great Rann of Kachchh (I. B. Singh,
1989). The mainland outcrops preserve a continuous succession from
Bajocian to Albian in age and form a prominent ridge extending for
193 km from Jawahar Nagar in the east to Jara in the west. These
Mesozoic sediments unconformably overlie the Precambrian base-
ment (Bardan & Datta, 1987). There are numerous regional tectonic
lineaments throughout the Precambrian basement in the Indian shield
(Krishnan, 1953). Reactivation of these basement lineaments is con-
sidered to be responsible for the formation of Post Cambrian sedi-
ment depositories, in particular within the western part of Indian
shield (Biswas, 1982; Katz, 1979; Milanovsky, 1972). Katz (1978) and
Metcalfe (1988, 1993) demonstrated that the Precambrian lineaments
were rejuvenated during the Mesozoic–Tertiary period to form oce-
anic transform faults and rifts that determined phases of Indian Ocean
floor spreading and are implicated for separation of Madagascar and
Srilanka from India.
Kanjilal (1978) gave first stratigraphic classification scheme for the
Kachchh Mainland, which was slightly modified by Biswas (1980,
1982). Fürsich et al. (2001) further modified the lithostratigraphic suc-
cession of the Kachchh Mainland proposed by Biswas (1980, 1982)
by introducing different members in each formation of the basin.
Detailed lithostratigraphic classification of Jurassics of Kachchh Main-
land Basin is presented in Figure 3. Four members viz. Dhrang, Jhikadi,
Rudramata and Lodai of the Chari Formation are exposed in the Habo
Dome Basin (Figures 2 and 3). Clastic sediments of the Chari Forma-
tion are the subject of present study.
3 | FACIES ASSOCIATIONS AND
D E P O S I T I O N A L H I S TO R Y
The deposition of clastic sediments of Habo Dome clastics took place
into three environments. Depending upon the sedimentary structures
and coexistence, the lithofacies have been grouped into three main
4 of 21 IRSHAD ET AL.

F I G U R E 3 Lithostratigraphic sequence of Kachchh Mainland showing hierarchical position of various formations. The Chari Formation at
Habo Dome is displayed in detail incorporating the geology and location of samples and the values of their chemical index of alteration (CIA).
Lithosections measured at well developed sites are shown in conjunction with sample numbers, sampling interval and the distribution of
lithofacies

associations as (i) tidally influenced fluvial facies comprising matrix-
supported conglomerate, tabular and trough cross-bedded sandstone
and herring–bone cross-bedded sandstone facies, (ii) foreshore–
offshore facies composed of ripple bedded sandstone, tabular and
trough cross-bedded sandstone, massive sandstone, laminated sand-
stone and oolitic limestone facies, and (iii) tidal flat lagoonal facies
containing black micritic limestone, interbedded gypsiferous shale and
sandstone/siltstone, interbedded limestone and shale facies.
The three facies associations were generated by transportation of
sediments through mass flows, unchannalized flows, channalized
flows and settling from suspension. Mass flow is characterized by the
presence of matrix-supported conglomerate deposits with the
frequent presence of large size clasts and fining upward sediments
(Selley, 2000). Unchannalized flows are responsible for deposition of a
rhythmic/alternating succession of high and low energy facies such as
alternating beds of coarse- or medium- to fine-grained sandstones,
thick- or thin-bedded sandstones, and interbedded sequences of
shale-sandstones (Boggs, 2009). Channelized flows produce large scale
cross beds, parallel laminations, and ripple marks (Nicholas, 2009) and
settling from suspension leads to the deposition of shale (Allen &
Chambers, 1998). A summarized account of the depositional environ-
ment and processes of the three facies association is given in Table 2.
In the Habo Dome two types of sandstone are exposed, best
exposures of which are seen at villages Dhrang and Jhikadi. In this
IRSHAD ET AL.
study, these sandstones are referred to as Dhrang and Jhikadi Sand-
stones respectively. These sandstones are coarsening-upward litholo-
gies comprising coarse grained, large scale trough cross-bedded
sediments with intraformational clasts of argillaceous siltstones.
Dhrang Sandstones are coarse-grained, less sorted than Jhikadi Sand-
stones. On the basis of ammonites occurring just below the Dhrang
Sandstones, their age is firmly constrained as Late Callovian (C. S. P.
Singh et al., 1982). The Dhrang and Jikhadi Sandstones of Habo Dome
are considered time equivalent lithosequences of the Ridge Sandstone
Member and Athleta Sandstone Member respectively of the Chari
Formation (Jurassic) exposed in other parts of the Kachchh Mainland
(Fürsich et al., 2004). There are minor argillaceous rocks associated
with these sandstones referred to as Dhrang Shales and Jhikadi
Shales. Thick and well developed shale beds overly Jhikadi clastics
which are designated as Rudramata Shales and Lodai Shales
(Figure 3). At the top of Habo Dome sequence, i.e. Lodai Shales,
there are beds that contain boulders rich in corals (Fürsich et al.,
2001). The coarsening-upward sandstone sequence indicates a
regressive phase, while the coral boulder beds are interpreted to
have been deposited under pure marine conditions that originated
during the transgressive phase. The uppermost 15–20 m thick bed,
represents the Dhosa Oolite Member of Late Oxfordian age. These
ooids were formed at the end of transgressing phase but their final
burial took place during regression (Ramkumar, Albert, Fürsich, &
Pandey, 2013). Subsequent sea level rise resumed after the deposi-
tion of Dhosa Oolite Member, resulting in the formation of shell legs
and hardground surfaces (Ramkumar et al., 2013). I. B. Singh (1989)
and Fürsich et al. (1992) regarded the Dhosa Oolites as a heteroge-
neously condensed deposit.
The lithological architecture of Habo Dome Basin indicates a gen-
eral deepening trend which started in the Callovian (Dhrang Sand-
stones) and reached its peak in the Late Early Oxfordian (Dhosa
Oolite member). This type of sequence is not preserved in all the
basins of Kachchh Mainland (Fürsich et al., 1992) and therefore, Habo
Dome transgressive–regressive facies cycle is interpreted to have
been deposited on account of the fluctuations in sea level which are
not purely eustatic, rather more due to local tectonics. An analogous
sequence has been recognized by Jacquin and de Graciansky (1998) in
the western Tethys. The sea level history across the Callovian–
Oxfordian boundary in the Kachchh Basin, adduced from Habo Dome
sequence, includes the following elements:
1. An initial phase of relative sea level rise culminated with the depo-
sition of oolitic limestone (Keera Oolite Member) towards the rear
end of the gentle regional paleoslope (Early Callovian).
2. A slowing in the rate of sea level rise, and a subsequent sea level
fall, is indicated by a gradual coarsening-upward shoreface succes-
sion that resulted in the deposition of thin isolated beds of con-
glomerates followed by thick sandstone deposits (the Chari
Formation, Dhrang and Jhikadi Sandstone Members).
3. Sea level fall and lowstand conditions are marked by a widespread
surface within the Rudramata Member (Gypsiferous Shales) that is
characterized by the presence of terrigenous sand and deep sand-
5 of 21
filled crack. These are probably of desiccation origin, indicating
emergence and drying of the sediments above sea level, prior to
renewed flooding and subaqueous deposition.
4. Subsequent sustained sea level rise led to the development of an
overall deepening-upward succession represented by offshore
mudstones (Lodai Shale sequence).
5. In areas closest to regions of carbonate production, a storm-
dominated carbonate mixed siliclastic ramp was formed during the
middle stages of the relative sea level rise, either through auto-
genic depositional processes or through allogenic tectonic tilting.
Onto this ramp, deposition of the uppermost bed of Habo Dome
sequence (Late–Early Oxfordian), the Dhosa Oolite Member
(Krishna, Pathak, Pandey, & Ojha, 2000), took place. Since the
change in the sea level conditions was more due to local tectonics;
because of staggered reactivation of basin bordering faults, all
components of the deepening-upward succession, e.g. thick
marine carbonate ramp, steep gravity-flow deposits (Hesselbo,
Stuart, Robinson, & Finn Surl, 2004), could not develop. Therefore,
this overall trend was not uniform, but composed of numerous
smaller cycles of different hierarchies (e.g. Fürsich & Pandey,
2003; Krishna et al., 2000).
4 | PETROFACIES
Seventy thin sections of sandstone samples were prepared for petro-
graphic study. For quantitative analysis, about 300–350 points per
thin section were counted for determining the modal composition of
rocks under investigation following the Gazzi-Dickinson technique
(Gazzi, 1966; Gazzi, Zuffa, Gandolfi, & Paganelli, 1973). Heavy min-
erals were separated by Milner (1962) method. Authigenic compo-
nents (cement, matrix replacement constituents) and pore spaces
were counted separately. Modal mineralogy (Table 1) and textural
attributes of these sandstones were studied in order to interpret the
provenance and tectonic setting.
Despite general similarity in the petrographic modes, there are
significant differences in the modal abundances of the two sand-
stones. For example the Dhrang Sandstones are characterized by a
higher content of polycrystalline quartz but lesser abundances of K-
feldspar, rock fragments and heavy minerals compared to the Jikhadi
Sandstones (Table 1). Furthermore, Dhrang Sandstones contain rock
fragments of granitoids and sedimenatry rocks with minor volcanic
lithics, whereas Jikhadi Sandstones largely comprised sedimentary
and volcanic fragments and lesser granitoids. In order to understand
the tectonic setting of the Habo Dome Sandstones, the petrofacies
were plotted in the standard ternary diagrams, e.g. total quartz (Qt)–
feldspar (F)–lithic fragments (L), monocrystalline quartz (Qm)–feld-
spar–total lithic fragments (Lt), monocrystalline quartz–plagioclase
(P)–K-feldspar (K) and polycrystalline quartz (Qp)–volcanic rock frag-
ments (Lv)–sedimenrary rock fragments (Ls) (Dickinson et al., 1983;
Dickinson & Suczek, 1979). Most of the Habo Dome Sandstones fall
in continental block provenance field in the Qt–F–L plot, suggesting
6 of 21 IRSHAD ET AL.

TABLE 1 Detrital modes of sandstones of the Habo Dome Basin (in %)

Dhrang Sandstones (Dhrang Sandstone Member, Chari

Formation) Jhikadi Sandstones (Jhikadi Sandstone Member, Chari Formation)

PQ F PQ F

Sample No. MCQ RMQ SMQ Mica Chert M P RF HV Sample No. MCQ RMQ SMQ Mica Chert M P RF HV
D6 86 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 J11 87 1 1 2 0 4 1 4 0
D8 86 4 2 1 0 2 3 0 2 J12 66 4 5 4 2 4 3 11 1
D18 89 2 1 2 0 0 4 1 1 J13 65 4 4 3 2 5 3 12 2
D19 87 3 2 0 0 5 2 1 0 J14 70 3 4 4 2 4 3 9 1
D20 86 4 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 J15 65 4 4 3 2 6 4 10 2
D25 88 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 J16 83 0 0 2 1 3 5 5 1
D29 84 4 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 J17 85 0 0 2 1 5 1 6 0
DS1 85 1 7 0 1 2 2 0 2 J18 84 1 1 2 0 4 4 4 0
DS2 82 4 5 2 1 4 0 2 0 J20 70 0 3 3 2 5 6 10 1
DS3 86 2 9 0 0 1 2 0 0 J21 67 3 1 2 1 9 8 9 0
DS4 75 5 11 0 3 0 3 2 1 J22 76 4 2 3 1 5 4 5 0
DS5 84 0 10 0 1 4 1 0 0 J23 83 1 2 2 1 4 5 2 0
DS6 75 7 9 0 2 2 2 2 1 J24 77 1 2 2 1 5 4 7 1
DS7 84 1 11 0 0 2 2 0 0 JD1 70 0 3 3 2 5 6 10 1
DS8 88 1 5 0 0 3 2 1 0 JD2 67 3 1 2 1 9 8 9 0
DS9 85 2 0 4 0 5 2 0 2 JD3 76 4 2 3 1 5 4 5 0
DS10 88 0 7 0 0 3 1 1 0 JD4 77 2 4 2 0 5 4 6 0
DS11 82 4 4 1 1 4 3 1 0 JD5 79 1 2 2 1 6 6 2 1
DS12 84 3 9 0 0 1 2 0 1 JD6 79 1 2 4 1 6 5 2 0
DS13 82 4 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 JD7 79 1 2 2 1 5 6 4 0
DS14 83 5 2 2 0 2 3 0 3 JD8 77 1 2 2 1 5 4 7 1
DS15 90 2 0 2 0 0 4 1 1 JD9 72 0 13 2 1 7 5 0 0
DS16 87 4 2 0 0 4 2 1 0 JD10 75 2 2 2 0 5 6 8 0
DS17 86 4 2 2 1 3 1 0 1 JD 12 83 1 1 3 2 3 2 4 1
DS18 88 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 JD 13 87 0 1 4 0 2 0 6 0
DS19 85 5 5 1 1 0 3 0 0 JF1 82 0 0 1 1 3 5 7 1
DS20 85 1 7 0 1 2 2 0 2 JF2 83 0 0 3 1 5 2 6 0
DS21 82 4 5 2 1 4 0 2 0 JF3 84 1 1 2 0 4 4 4 0
DS22 86 2 9 0 0 1 2 0 0 JF4 84 0 2 2 0 4 2 4 2
DS23 74 6 12 0 3 0 2 2 1 JF5 87 0 0 0 1 6 3 3 0
DS24 84 0 10 0 1 4 1 0 0 JFS3 79 0 0 0 2 3 4 10 2
DS25 75 6 8 0 2 3 3 2 1 JFS4 77 2 1 2 2 3 5 8 0
DS26 85 2 8 1 0 2 2 0 0 JFS5 71 1 1 1 2 4 6 14 0
Avg. 84 3 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 Avg. 78 1 2 2 1 5 4 6 1

Index: Avg., Average; MCQ, Monocrystalline quartz; PQ, Polycrystalline quartz; RMQ, Recrystallized metamorphic quartz; SMQ, Stretched metamorphic
quartz; F, Feldspar; M, Microcline; P, Plagioclase; RF, Rock fragment; HV, Heavies.

a contribution from the craton interior with basement uplift
(Figure 4a). Few samples of the Jikhadi Sandstones fall in the
recycled orogen provenance, which suggests their derivation from
metasedimentary and sedimentary rocks that were originally depos-
ited along the former passive continental margin (Dickinson, 1985;
Dickinson & Suczek, 1979). In the Qm–F–Lt diagram, the data fall
both in the recycled and continental block basement uplift
provenances due to the presence of higher proportion of lithics par-
ticularly in Jikhadi Sandstones (Figure 4b). The Qp–Lv–Ls plot shows
that the Dhrang samples occupy a rifted continental margin, whereas
the Jhikadi samples exclusively lie in a collision suture and fold
thrust belt (Figure 4c). The Qm–P–K diagram demonstrates that the
Jikhadi Sandstones are less mature than the Dhrang Sandstones
(Figure 4d).
IRSHAD ET AL. 7 of 21

5 | G E O C H E M I S T RY : A N A LY T I C A L 6 | W E A T H E R I N G HI S T O RY
TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS
The range of values of chemical index of alteration (CIA) of Habo
After petrographic screening, 28 representative samples (11 sand- Dome clastics (58.4 to 89.6), calculated as CIA = [Al2O3/
stones and 17 shales), were selected for geochemical analysis. The (Al2O3 + CaO* + Na2O + K2O)] x 100 (Nesbitt & Young, 1982) after
criteria included freshness and unweathered nature of samples, as employing the procedure of McLennan, Hemming, Mcdaniel, and Han-
well representation of variability in grain size and lithology. The sam- son (1993) for CaO* correction (i.e. in the samples possessing ele-
ples were analyzed for major and trace elements at National Insti- vated CaO contents, CaO* = Na2O is used in all weathering related
tute of Oceanography, Goa. Major element concentrations were calculations), indicates low to moderately intense chemical weathering
measured by XRF (X-ray fluorescence) (AXIOS model of PAN analyti- in the source area. Index of compositional variability (ICV) calculated
cal, Almelo, the Netherlands) using bead pellets and trace elements as ICV = (Fe2O3 + K2O + Na2O + CaO + MgO + MnO + TiO2)/Al2O3

including rare earths were determined by the Inductively Coupled (Cox & Lowe, 1995; Cox, Lowe, & Cullers, 1995) and also used to

Plasma Mass Spectrometer (ICP-Mass Spectrometer) Model ELAN interpret intensity of chemical weathering, attests the CIA based

DRC II (PerkinElmer Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) with detection limit interpretation.
To further assess the intensity of chemical weathering, geochem-
for most of the elements in pg/ml (ppt) and fg/ml (ppq) level. USGS
ical data is plotted in the A–CN–K triangular diagram (Figure 5) of
standard quartz latite (QOL–1) and GSJ standard (JSD–2) were run
Fedo, Erikson, and Krogstad (1996) where A = Al2O3, CN = CaO
together with samples during major element analysis. The precision
+ Na2O, K = K2O in molecular proportions and CaO* represents
and accuracy of these standards are better than 5–10 % RSD. The
CaO incorporated into silicate minerals (Nesbitt, 2003; Nesbitt &
standards SGR–1, GSR–4, and GSR–5 were analysed simultaneously
Young, 1984). In this diagram all samples plot above the plagioclase-
with trace elements and their precision and accuracy vary between
K-feldspar join, indicating moderate to intense chemical weathering
2–12 % RSD.
in the source area. The range of CIA values in shales (68.03–89.99)
The results of the geochemical analyses indicate that sandstones
is high compared to sandstones (62.89–63.5). Employing the best fit
of Habo Dome are as usual enriched in SiO2 contents with
line method of Bhat and Ghosh (2001), the ACNK plot of Habo
corresponding depletion in other oxides compared to shales (Table 3).
Dome sediments show two weathering trends 1 and 2 (Figure 5).
However, the samples of Jhikadi clastics contain higher amount of
Trend 1 comprising samples of Dhrang Sandstones, Dhrang Shales,
CaO due to the presence of calcite cement. Furthermore, one sample
Jikhadi Sandstones, and Jikhadi Shales, is aligned parallel to the A-
each of Dhrang Sandstones, Dhrang Shales, Jikhadi Shales, and Lodai
CN line, showing gradual leaching of CaO and Na2O under moderate
Shales contain significantly higher amount of CaO probably due to the
chemical weathering, whereas trend 2 comprising samples of Lodai
presence of secondary calcite. These CaO values have not been
and Rudramata Shales is parallel to the A–K line close to Al apex
included in the average values of respective lithogroups. showing intense chemical weathering. It is probable that original
The Al2O3 contents of Habo Dome clastics bear moderate to minerals of source rocks (tonalite, mafic/ultramafic) were converted
strong positive correlation with MgO, K2O, TiO2, P2O5, Sc, Ni, and Co into alumina bearing minerals under the influence of high degree
and negative correlation with SiO2 which suggests that their concen- weathering and that the parallelism displayed by the plots with A–K
trations are primary and they are associated with micaceous/clay min- line (indicated by arrow) is due to K-metasomatism (Fedo, Nesbitt, &
erals (chlorite) (Absar et al., 2009; Absar, Nizamuddin, & Augustine, Young, 1995).
2016; Das, Mikhlafib, & Kaur, 2006). On the basis of major element
abundance, the coarse clastics of Habo Dome are classified as
7 | S OU R C E C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S
litharenite and subarkose (Herron, 1988) which is in close consonance
to their petrographic nomenclature according to Folk's (1980) division.
Petrography gives the primary idea about the nature of the prove-
The fine clastics are calssified as shale and wacke (Herron, 1988; see
nance of clastic rocks. Presence of splintery and idiomorphic mono-
Figure S1).
crystalline quartz grains (Figure 6a), polycrystalline quartz grains
A close scrutiny of chemical composition of Habo Dome clastics
(Figure 6b,c) and fresh plagioclase and K-feldspar (Figure 6d,e) in the
of the Chari Formation shows two broad chemical groups. First group
Habo Dome coarse clastics suggest predominantly first-cycle igneous
comprises Dhrang Sandstones, Dhrang Shales and Rudramatra Shales
provenance with only a minor contribution from recycled orogen. In
whereas the second group is constituted by Jhikadi Sandstones,
terms of modal mineralogy, a high percentage of monocrystalline qua-
Jhikadi Shales and Lodai Shales. The Dhrang Sandstones are depleted
rtz grains, undulating extinction and cryptocrystalline quartz grains,
than Jikhadi Sandstones whereas Dhrang and Rudramata Shales are
and presence of granitoid rock fragments in the Habo Dome sand-
enriched compared to Jikhadi and Lodai Shales respectively in all ele- stones, are suggestive of metagranitoids as possible source rocks. The
ments (except SiO2) (Table 3). However, in terms of stratigraphy, the presence of strain free quartz further suggests that the source rocks
members of two groups are alternately exposed, i.e. Dhrang clastics, are plutonic (Basu, 1985). Moreover, the framework modal abundance
Jhikadi clastics, Rudramata Shales and Lodai Shales (Figure 3). based diagrams (Figure 4) and heavy mineral suites (including
8 of 21 IRSHAD ET AL.

T A B L E 2 Facies association and depositional environment of the Geochemically, the A–CN–K ternary plot (Figure 5) is employed to
Chari Formation at Habo Dome, Kachchh Mainland infer probable source rock(s). The backward projection of the
Depositional Process/ weathering trend line intersects the plagioclase-potash feldspar join at
Facies Facies Association Environment mafic/ultramafic and granodiorite/granite junctions indicating them to
Black micritic Tidal Flat Lagoonal Low energy protected be the likely source rocks.
limestone Facies environment mainly For authentic characterization of the provenance of the Habo
lagoon
Dome sediments, elements that are immobile during surface pro-
Matrix supported Tidally Influenced Tidal flat and wave cesses are utilized. Taylor and McLennan (1985) and McLennan and
conglomerate Fluvial Facies and storm
Taylor (1991) suggested that the REEs, Th, Sc, Co, Ti, Zr, and Hf are
dominated
shoreface especially useful in monitoring source area composition. These ele-

Thinly bedded Tidal Flat Lagoonal Low energy, offshore ments have very short residence time in sea water and are transferred
limestone with Facies environment below almost quantitatively into the sedimentary record. Additionally, this
clay partings storm wave base array includes both incompatible (Th, REEs, HFSEs) and compatible
Tabular cross Foreshore - Lateral accretion of (Sc, Co, Ti) element ratios which are useful in differentiating felsic
bedded Offshore Facies transverse bars from mafic source components. However, during recycling and trans-
sandstone
port, even Ti and HFSEs are strongly partitioned in sand size grains
Trough Cross- Tidally Influenced During prolong high
and can be decoupled from other element groups because of heavy
bedded Fluvial Facies water stand mega
Sandstone Fore Shore- ripple migration mineral fractionation (McLennan, 1989; Taylor & McLennan, 1985). In
Offshore Facies took place in the order to evaluate the sorting effect, Al2O3 versus TiO2 diagram for
active channels. the Habo Dome clastics is plotted (Figure 7a). There is strong positive
Long shore currents
correlation between two elements, which indicates magmatic charac-
deposited these
upper shoreface ter of igneous differentiates (Hayashi, Fujisawa, Holland, & Ohmoto,
deposits. 1997) and thus refutes the possibility of Ti–enrichment due to
Laminated Foreshore- Heavy storm on the weathering or sorting. Similar inference can be drawn from Zr/Ti ratio
sandstone Offshore Facies shoreface causes which increases with SiO2 (Figure 7b) and the strong positive covaria-
offshore transport tion of V with Sc (Figure 7c). Furthermore, average CIA values of indi-
of sand. It erodes
vidual lithologies vary significantly (Dhrang Sandstones = 62.89,
sand from upper
part of beach and Jhikadi Sandstones = 63.50, Dhrang Shales = 80.07, Jhikadi
transfers it into the Shales = 68.03, Rudramata Shales = 89.61, Lodai Shales = 84.24,
turbulent water. Table 3) in the Habo Dome clastics suggesting a non-steady state of
Ripple bedded Tidally Influenced Low energy nearshore weathering and rapid physical erosion under an active tectonic regime
sandstone Fluvial Facies environment
and tapping of the complete zone of weathering profile (Nesbitt et al.,
between wave base
1997). Weathering indices suggest that the Habo Dome sedimentary
and swash zone /
lower shoreface / rocks suffered moderate weathering (lower lithologies) and slightly
tidal sand-sheet intense weathering (upper lithologies) which did not affect the pri-
bars in upper shore mary chemical compositions of these rocks except minor redistribu-
surface.
tion of alkalies. Therefore, it is assumed that the immobile elements
Interbedded Tidal Flat Lagoonal Low energy protected
behaved as a closed system during sedimentary processes and can be
gypsiferous shale Facies environment mainly
–sandstone / lagoon, (evaporitic utilized to place constraints on the provenance composition.
siltstone environment) Al2O3/TiO2 ratio in sedimentary rocks have been used to identify
Oolitic Limestone Tidally influenced Above storm wave and discriminate their igneous parentage (Hayashi et al., 1997).
Facies base in agitated Al2O3/TiO2 ratio in igneous rocks varies according to rock types,
foreshore setting i.e. in felsic igneous rocks it is generally > 10 but rarely > 100, in mafic
Massive Sandstone Fore Shore- Middle shoreface rocks generally < 20 and rarely ≥ 50 (Byerly, 1999). Al-depleted high
Offshore Facies environment
Mg rocks, for example peridotite, komatiite etc, contain lowest value
Herringbone cross Tidally influenced High energy
of Al2O3/TiO2 around 4 (Sugitani, Horiuchi, Adachi, & Sugisaki, 1996).
bedded channel nearshore
The Al2O3/TiO2 ratios of the Habo Dome clastics show narrow varia-
sandstone environment environment
between wave base tion from 6 to 22 in the sandstones and 12 to 19 in shales (Table 3)
and swash zone barring two samples of Lodai Shales which have elevated values. It
indicates contribution of basic igneous rocks in the sediments of Habo
tourmaline, biotite, garnet, staurolite, rutile, epidote, hornblende, and Dome clastic rocks.
opaques) of the Habo Dome sandstones indicate multiple rock Upper continental crust (UCC) normalized spidergrams of average
sources for these sediments. contents of Habo Dome clastics suggest that sandstones are depleted
IRSHAD ET AL. 9 of 21

F I G U R E 4 Tectono-
provenance discrimination
diagram (Dickinson, 1985) for
Habo Dome Sandstones. (a) Total
quartz (Qt)–Feldspar (F)–Lithic
fragments (L). (b) Monocrystalline
quartz (Qm)–Feldspar (F)–Total
lithic fragments (Lt).
(c) Pollycrystalline quartz (Qp)–
Volcanic lithic fragments (Lv)–
Sedimentary lithic fragments (Ls).
(d) Monocrystalline quartz (Qm)–
Plagioclase (P)–K-feldspar (K).
The disposition of sample plots of
Dhrang and Jhikadi Sandstones,
despite plotting in similar fields,
are different. Dhrang samples
clearly plot in continental block
provenance (a,b,c) and are more
mature (d). Jhikadi sample plots
are inclined towards uplifted
basement (a,b), collision suture /
fold thrust belt (c) and display low
maturity

in the majority of elements except SiO2, TiO2, Fe2O3, V, Ni, Ba, and Th
with respect to the UCC (Figure 8). Whereas, the shales also show
patterns similar to that of the sandstones, but Dhrang Shales and
Rudramata Shales show peculiar enrichment of P2O5, Th, Zr, Hf, Y,
and REEs with respect to the UCC (Figure 8). Nevertheless, the
enrichment in LILEs such as Th, Rb, and Ba, is marginal indicating a
source terrane of felsic composition. The compatible transition ele-
ments (Sc, V, Co, Ti, and Fe) show variable concentrations as some
samples are considerably enriched, others are depleted, indicating a
mafic-intermediate component in the source. The felsic–intermedi-
ate–mafic nature as adduced from the UCC normalized diagram
(Figure 8) is well corroborated by the ratios of various immobile
incompatible to compatible element pairs, such as Th/Sc, Th/Co,
Zr/Sc, and La/Sc, (e.g. Cullers, 2000; Fatima & Khan, 2012; Khan &
Khan, 2014; Raza et al., 2010; Taylor & McLennan, 1985; Tran,
Ansdell, Bethune, Watters, & Shton, 2003; Wang, Zhou, Yan, & Li,
2012). The range and average values of these ratios in the calstic
rocks of the Habo Dome Basin advocate for a predominantly felsic
source mixed with mafic ingredient (Table 3). The Banded Gneissic
Complex (BGC) of the Aravalli craton, one of the likely source terrane
for Habo Dome Basin, is composed of three types of igneous rocks,
i.e. granite, tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite and mafic enclaves.
Average Th/Sc and La/Sc ratios of the garanite (0.9, 8), tonalite–tro-
ndhjemite–granodiorite (3.2, 9) and mafic enclaves (0.06, 5) of BGC
(T. Ahmad, Deb, Tarney, & Raza, 2008) encompass the range of the
average values of Th/Sc and La/Sc ratios of Habo Dome clastics
(Table 3). It also justifies the procurement of detritus for Habo Dome
Basin from a predominantly felsic source containing mafic material.
The Nb/Y ratio is also used to discriminate contributions from alkalic
to subalkalic igneous rocks (Fralick, 2003; Winchester & Floyd, 1977).
The clastic rocks of Dhrang and Jhikadi formations posses Nb/Y ratio
less than 0.7 (a feature of sub-alkaline igneous rocks) whereas a good
number of the samples of Rudramata Shales and Lodai Shales posses
a high Nb/Y ratio ≥ 0.7 which points the presence of alkaline rocks in
the source terranes (Table 3). The alkaline rocks have been reported
from the Nagarparkar Massif lying to the north and north–northwest
of the Habo Dome (S. A. Ahmad, Mateen, & Chaudhry, 2005; Jan,
Agheem, Laghari, & Anjum, 2017; Jan et al., 1997) (Figure 1). These
are represented by mafic dikes (hornblende microdioritc to gabbro
and dolerite), some of which contain titanium augite, an indicator of
alkaline affinity (Laghari et al., 2013). Other plutonic rocks of the
Nagar Parkar area contain high concentration of total alkali oxides
(Na2O + K2O) ranging from 8.33 wt% to 10.96 wt% (Jan et al., 2017)
with alkaline to peralkaline character. Although trace element data on
10 of 21 IRSHAD ET AL.

TABLE 3 Whole rock geochemical analyses of the clastic rocks of the Habo Dome Basin, Kachchh, North Western Indian shield

Dhrang Sandstones Jhikadi Sandstones Dhrang Shales

Elements (D6) (D8) (D20) (D29) (D25) Average (J1) (J7) (J8) (J10) (J11) (J12) Average (D11) (D12) (D13) Average
SiO2 67.19 90.05 90.63 76.9 91.98 83.35 82.86 73.62 70.41 64.96 61.54 79.9 72.22 59.78 61.95 61.92 61.22
Al2O3 4.01 2.86 5.29 10.08 3.79 5.21 5.07 5.35 10.38 9.86 7.09 7.01 7.46 17.99 21.86 21.80 20.55
TiO2 0.31 0.29 0.71 0.68 0.32 0.46 0.23 0.9 0.96 0.81 0.44 0.66 0.67 1.04 1.29 1.29 1.21
Fe2O3 1.49 4.1 1.24 7.24 1.7 3.15 3.02 4.49 8.84 8.15 8.59 3.26 6.06 9.49 8.51 8.54 8.85
MnO 0.13 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.06
MgO 0.37 0.62 0.19 0.89 0.29 0.47 0.58 0.4 0.97 0.98 0.83 0.43 0.70 1.78 1.84 1.86 1.83
CaO 24.87 0.39 0.27 1.73 0.77 5.61 0.7 7.71 0.41 7.46 13.19 0.79 5.04 7.00 1.69 1.68 3.46
Na2O 0.40 0.18 0.1 0.62 0.21 0.30 0.35 0.42 0.57 0.54 0.49 0.41 0.46 0.40 0.30 0.32 0.34
K2O 1.16 0.47 1.52 2.81 0.76 1.34 1.64 2.05 2.39 2.14 2.71 2.45 2.23 1.96 2.36 2.38 2.23
P 2O 5 0.06 0.94 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.23 0.45 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.46 0.17 0.16 0.26
CIA NC 65.49 69.6 58.41 59.71 63.30 58.38 60.09 70.94 70.89 61.2 59.53 63.51 84.06 78.17 77.98 80.07
ICV 1.25 2.18 0.85 1.48 1.3 1.41 1.47 1.61 1.31 1.3 1.79 1.26 1.46 0.86 0.82 0.83 0.84
Sc 2.43 nd 3.54 7.86 nd 4.61 nd 5.64 8.74 8.06 5.8 nd 7.06 21.79 24.71 19.40 21.97
V 14.20 nd 14.83 109.2 nd 46.08 nd 38.42 82.61 95.61 82.14 nd 74.70 161.10 211.00 151.50 174.53
Co 31.23 nd 30.14 41.08 nd 34.15 nd 49.53 56.68 40.79 22.66 nd 42.42 26.09 29.02 30.54 28.55
Ni 1.19 nd 5.66 26.94 nd 11.26 nd 14.38 26.88 18.78 26.7 nd 21.69 31.82 51.99 53.79 45.87
Rb 22.67 nd 29.12 72.18 nd 41.32 nd 40.94 67.47 58.5 55.52 nd 55.61 88.40 114.40 82.51 95.10
Sr 585.40 nd 95.26 139.5 nd 273.39 nd 114.3 111.3 125.8 163.9 nd 128.83 192.00 92.44 205.70 163.38
Y 21.36 nd 13.67 15.72 nd 16.92 nd 24.08 16.82 17.55 15.6 nd 18.51 58.56 37.96 31.19 42.57
Zr 134.50 nd 94.89 221.4 nd 150.26 nd 501.3 358.6 253.4 168.6 nd 320.48 213.40 237.20 210.60 220.40
Nb 3.47 nd 3.77 6.01 nd 4.42 nd 3.24 11.31 5.05 4.25 nd 5.96 8.63 13.81 10.35 10.93
Ba 234.00 nd 363.4 614.4 nd 403.93 nd 839.6 569.4 426.2 613.5 nd 612.18 123.80 145.50 122.20 130.50
La 25.14 nd 25.12 37.47 nd 29.24 nd 46.27 34.81 31.69 26.03 nd 34.70 59.39 47.42 48.54 51.78
Ce 48.96 nd 49.51 82.52 nd 60.33 nd 95.82 73.00 68.61 57.43 nd 73.72 154.50 107.00 107.10 122.87
Pr 5.19 nd 5.23 7.73 nd 6.05 nd 9.6 7.01 6.67 5.51 nd 7.20 16.08 10.91 10.14 12.38
Nd 21.93 nd 21.7 33.42 nd 25.68 nd 40.41 29.71 28.44 23.69 nd 30.56 70.11 46.86 43.77 53.58
Sm 4.26 nd 4.15 5.69 nd 4.70 nd 7.38 5.22 5.25 4.39 nd 5.56 15.85 9.63 8.34 11.27
Eu 1.00 nd 0.9 1.07 nd 0.99 nd 1.12 0.88 0.96 0.96 nd 0.98 3.72 2.19 1.75 2.56
Gd 3.50 nd 3.24 4.05 nd 3.60 nd 5.42 3.73 3.82 3.21 nd 4.05 12.93 7.65 6.35 8.98
Tb 0.61 nd 0.52 0.64 nd 0.59 nd 0.88 0.62 0.64 0.55 nd 0.67 2.32 1.39 1.12 1.61
Dy 3.48 nd 2.79 3.31 nd 3.19 nd 4.67 3.34 3.42 2.95 nd 3.60 12.51 7.77 6.31 8.87
Ho 0.71 nd 0.54 0.63 nd 0.63 nd 0.9 0.66 0.68 0.58 nd 0.71 2.34 1.51 1.25 1.70
Er 1.98 nd 1.56 1.86 nd 1.80 nd 2.74 2.06 2.04 1.75 nd 2.15 6.49 4.38 3.76 4.87
Tm 0.28 nd 0.22 0.27 nd 0.26 nd 0.42 0.32 0.31 0.26 nd 0.33 0.84 0.64 0.55 0.68
Yb 1.53 nd 1.26 1.72 nd 1.50 nd 2.72 2.1 1.93 1.54 nd 2.07 4.81 3.91 3.22 3.98
Lu 0.23 nd 0.19 0.27 nd 0.23 nd 0.44 0.33 0.31 0.24 nd 0.33 0.72 0.61 0.50 0.61
Hf 3.80 nd 2.61 5.98 nd 4.13 nd 12.98 9.66 6.9 4.81 nd 8.59 6.27 6.74 6.01 6.34
Ta 1.19 nd 1.14 0.74 nd 1.02 nd 1.09 3.49 0.58 0.91 nd 1.52 0.41 1.82 1.29 1.17
Th 7.95 nd 14.4 18.67 nd 13.67 nd 23.57 19.35 17.15 13.51 nd 18.40 17.23 19.57 18.67 18.49
U 0.85 nd 1.01 2.55 nd 1.47 nd 3.08 2.58 2.01 1.76 nd 2.36 1.97 2.07 1.75 1.93
P
REE 118.8 nd 116.94 180.65 nd 138.79 nd 218.77 163.79 154.78 129.09 nd 166.61 362.60 251.86 242.72 285.73
Al2O3/ 13.00 10.00 7.00 15.00 12.00 11.00 22.00 6.00 11.00 12.00 16.00 11.00 11.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00
TiO2
La/Sc 10.37 7.09 4.77 7.41 8.21 3.98 3.93 4.49 5.15 2.73 1.92 2.50 2.38
Th/Sc 3.28 4.06 2.38 3.24 4.18 2.21 2.13 2.33 2.71 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.85
IRSHAD ET AL. 11 of 21

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Dhrang Sandstones Jhikadi Sandstones Dhrang Shales

Elements (D6) (D8) (D20) (D29) (D25) Average (J1) (J7) (J8) (J10) (J11) (J12) Average (D11) (D12) (D13) Average
Zr/Sc 55.46 26.78 28.19 36.81 88.93 41.01 31.44 29.06 47.61 9.79 9.60 10.86 10.08
Th/U 9.35 14.2 7.32 10.29 7.66 7.49 8.53 7.68 7.84 8.76 9.46 10.68 9.64
La/Th 3.16 1.74 2.01 2.30 1.96 1.8 1.85 1.93 1.89 3.45 2.42 2.60 2.82
Th/Co 0.25 0.48 0.45 0.39 0.48 0.34 0.42 0.6 2.27 1.51 1.48 1.64 1.54
Zr/Ti 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03
Nb/Y 0.16 0.28 0.38 0.27 0.13 0.67 0.29 0.27 0.34 0.15 0.36 0.33 0.28
LREE/ 8.57 10.24 13.08 10.63 10.97 11.37 10.7 10.57 10.90 7.36 7.96 9.44 8.25
HREE
Eu/Eu* 0.79 0.75 0.68 0.74 0.54 0.61 0.66 0.78 0.65 0.79 0.78 0.74 0.77
(Gd/Yb)N 1.89 2.12 1.95 1.99 1.65 1.47 1.63 1.72 1.62 2.22 1.62 1.63 1.82
(La/Sm)N 3.81 3.9 4.25 3.99 4.05 4.31 3.9 3.83 4.02 2.42 3.18 3.76 3.12
(La/Yb)N 11.78 14.27 15.61 13.89 12.22 11.91 11.75 12.12 12.00 8.85 8.70 10.80 9.45

Jhikadi Shales Rudramata Shales Lodai Shales

(J14) (J14A) Average (R1) (R2) (R3) (R4) (R5) (R6) Average (L1) (L3) (L4) (L5) (L6) (L8) Average
73.57 73.73 73.65 60.41 62.64 62.39 62.72 63.70 61.55 62.24 68.14 74.60 41.82 73.47 73.96 79.44 68.57
8.02 9.03 8.53 27.44 29.11 28.64 27.48 26.06 27.29 27.67 22.68 20.99 14.35 20.11 20.15 13.21 18.58
0.65 0.60 0.62 1.47 1.53 1.52 1.48 1.44 1.44 1.48 0.30 0.07 0.65 1.18 1.29 0.75 0.71
7.57 6.77 7.17 7.13 2.89 3.87 4.34 5.12 6.17 4.92 4.54 3.38 0.77 2.11 1.16 3.30 2.54
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
0.81 0.88 0.84 0.85 0.89 0.81 0.97 0.84 0.80 0.86 0.31 0 .14 0.95 0.58 0.59 0.23 0.47
6.69 5.86 6.28 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.28 0.24 0.22 3.27 0.39 40.04 0.20 0.24 0.18 0.85
0.42 0.48 0.45 0.29 0.49 0.33 0.50 0.20 0.22 0.34 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.22 0.16 0.13 0.11
2.19 2.57 2.38 2.02 2.07 2.07 2.12 2.14 2.07 2.08 0.65 0.36 1.27 2.04 2.38 2.68 1.56
0.05 0.06 0.06 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.17 0.21 0.17 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06
68.34 67.71 68.03 90.12 89.55 90.11 88.67 89.21 89.99 89.61 83.35 86.24 79.63 77.3 76.03 79.39 80.24
1.43 1.29 1.36 0.42 0.33 0.34 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.19 0.16 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.54 0.33
6.56 6.02 6.29 16.74 14.30 14.99 14.52 17.09 16.47 15.69 3.19 0.57 7.22 14.41 13.03 6.96 7.56
98.08 100.80 99.44 165.70 138.60 148.80 140.20 147.40 156.80 149.58 12.49 6.90 45.39 124.00 91.31 58.67 56.46
28.69 28.12 28.41 25.72 69.83 23.28 22.61 33.46 21.35 32.71 38.50 46.62 19.03 29.90 21.37 22.78 29.70
17.34 19.30 18.32 53.43 35.31 28.13 33.58 45.53 40.08 39.34 3.74 13.49 18.10 30.86 24.04 18.07 18.05
53.98 61.18 57.58 87.84 87.69 94.03 92.44 97.29 91.33 91.77 13.96 7.38 30.50 64.57 79.83 68.16 44.07
112.70 124.00 118.35 142.90 214.30 161.70 133.90 157.50 244.90 175.87 137.10 84.75 500.40 105.90 93.37 99.40 170.15
15.44 11.55 13.50 37.52 33.79 34.23 36.01 40.29 34.49 36.06 6.46 2.21 14.95 23.07 23.21 10.73 13.60
257.00 170.30 213.65 276.30 265.60 316.30 278.10 270.30 268.60 279.20 105.10 34.29 123.80 315.60 314.90 174.60 178.05
5.49 3.89 4.69 18.39 19.52 24.17 17.37 18.70 19.65 19.30 5.77 0.51 8.06 1.35 17.03 5.46 8.86
519.30 572.60 545.95 325.30 354.90 342.30 345.00 348.40 359.80 345.95 156.50 85.15 3042.00 436.60 461.40 632.00 802.28
28.56 20.58 24.57 57.92 65.47 58.92 55.17 55.92 56.45 58.31 12.77 4.61 27.96 52.20 48.74 25.18 28.58
59.60 42.86 51.23 118.50 129.10 114.90 106.30 114.00 114.10 116.15 22.79 8.07 48.98 114.80 99.61 46.44 56.78
5.71 4.15 4.93 11.49 12.45 11.28 10.67 11.14 11.10 11.36 2.49 0.83 6.08 10.07 9.11 4.75 5.55
24.30 17.90 21.10 48.74 52.05 47.01 44.39 46.61 46.31 47.52 10.13 3.35 23.34 44.38 38.61 19.40 23.20
4.32 3.23 3.78 9.13 9.24 8.42 8.08 8.99 8.48 8.72 1.87 0.62 5.81 7.62 6.81 3.53 4.38
0.81 0.75 0.78 1.96 1.94 1.77 1.77 2.01 1.87 1.89 0.27 0.13 1.43 1.51 1.35 0.66 0.89
3.17 2.33 2.75 7.14 6.89 6.45 6.36 7.39 6.63 6.81 1.45 0.47 3.53 5.70 5.06 2.48 3.12
0.54 0.40 0.47 1.26 1.16 1.11 1.11 1.29 1.14 1.18 0.23 0.08 0.61 0.92 0.84 0.40 0.51
12 of 21 IRSHAD ET AL.

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Jhikadi Shales Rudramata Shales Lodai Shales

(J14) (J14A) Average (R1) (R2) (R3) (R4) (R5) (R6) Average (L1) (L3) (L4) (L5) (L6) (L8) Average
2.93 2.21 2.57 7.07 6.35 6.18 6.31 7.28 6.40 6.60 1.19 0.44 3.23 4.70 4.58 2.07 2.70
0.58 0.44 0.51 1.40 1.22 1.25 1.27 1.43 1.26 1.30 0.24 0.08 0.61 0.87 0.88 0.38 0.51
1.80 1.36 1.58 4.18 3.63 3.70 3.81 4.08 3.71 3.85 0.73 0.24 1.78 2.61 2.68 1.17 1.53
0.28 0.21 0.24 0.61 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.57 0.53 0.56 0.11 0.04 0.25 0.38 0.40 0.17 0.22
1.78 1.32 1.55 3.68 3.12 3.24 3.40 3.43 3.40 3.38 0.63 0.23 1.52 2.43 2.46 1.09 1.39
0.29 0.21 0.25 0.56 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.50 0.51 0.10 0.04 0.24 0.38 0.39 0.17 0.22
7.02 4.81 5.91 7.48 7.09 7.80 7.16 7.20 7.01 7.29 3.05 1.03 3.89 7.86 8.28 4.86 4.83
0.85 0.53 0.69 2.32 2.57 2.81 0.92 2.43 2.04 2.18 5.85 0.93 1.81 2.67 2.18 1.38 2.47
15.24 12.13 13.69 23.65 24.15 23.70 23.60 22.56 22.03 23.28 6.96 2.71 10.75 20.12 20.70 12.29 12.26
2.09 1.43 1.76 3.40 3.28 3.41 3.32 3.31 3.19 3.32 0.78 0.29 1.75 3.05 3.00 1.89 1.79
134.65 97.94 116.30 273.63 293.62 265.27 249.72 264.65 261.88 268.13 54.99 19.22 125.36 248.58 221.51 107.91 129.59
12.00 15.00 14.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 18.00 19.00 19.00 75.00 300.00 22.00 17.00 16.00 18.00 26.00
4.35 3.42 3.89 3.46 4.58 3.93 3.80 3.27 3.43 3.74 4.01 8.13 3.87 3.62 3.74 3.62 4.50
2.32 2.01 2.17 1.41 1.69 1.58 1.63 1.32 1.34 1.49 2.18 4.78 1.49 1.40 1.59 1.77 2.20
39.16 28.29 33.72 16.51 18.57 21.10 19.15 15.82 16.31 17.91 32.98 60.48 17.14 21.90 24.17 25.08 30.29
7.30 8.51 7.91 6.97 7.37 6.94 7.10 6.82 6.91 7.02 8.88 9.49 6.16 6.61 6.90 6.50 7.42
1.87 1.70 1.79 2.45 2.71 2.49 2.34 2.48 2.56 2.50 1.84 1.70 2.60 2.59 2.35 2.05 2.19
1.88 2.32 2.10 0.92 0.35 1.02 1.04 0.67 1.03 0.84 0.18 0.06 0.56 0.67 0.97 0.54 0.50
0.07 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05
0.36 0.34 0.35 0.49 0.58 0.71 0.48 0.46 0.57 0.54 0.89 0.23 0.54 0.71 0.73 0.51 0.60
10.79 10.47 10.63 9.49 11.48 10.47 9.63 9.11 10.03 10.04 10.73 10.84 9.53 12.73 11.74 12.51 11.35
0.67 0.83 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.76 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.51 0.71 0.96 0.70 0.70 0.68 0.71
1.47 1.46 1.46 1.60 1.83 1.64 1.55 1.78 1.61 1.67 1.91 1.73 1.92 1.94 1.70 1.88 1.85
4.27 4.11 4.19 4.10 4.57 4.52 4.41 4.02 4.30 4.32 4.40 4.80 3.11 4.42 4.62 4.60 4.33
11.51 11.17 11.34 11.29 15.04 13.03 11.63 11.69 11.90 12.43 14.59 14.63 13.19 15.40 14.23 16.52 14.76

Major elements in oxide wt%, trace elements in ppm; total Fe as Fe2O3. Eu/Eu* = EuN/(SmN × GdN)1/2. NC, not calculated; nd, not determined.

the rocks of Nagar Parkar region is not available, none of the
lithocomponents of BGC contains Nb/Y ratio > 0.7 (Granite, 0.64,
Tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite, 0.43, Mafic enclaves, 0.26, T.
Ahmad et al., 2008) or high total alkali oxides (Na2O + K2O wt%,
Granite, 7.62, Tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite, 7.86, Mafic
enclaves, 2.19; T. Ahmad et al., 2008) like Nagar Parkar alkalines.
Thus, it affirms the derivation of the parts of detritus from Nagar
Parkar massif into the Habo Dome Basin.
P
The REE abundance of the Habo Dome clastics show peculiar
distribution (Table 3). In the Dhrang sequence, sandstones have lower
P
REE contents than shales. Contrary to this, in the Jhikadi sequence,
P
sandstones possess higher REE values than shales. Viewed in terms
of descending average SiO2 contents of these lithologies (Dhrang
Sandstones, 83.55 %; Jhikadi Shales, 73.85 %; Jhikadi Sandstones,
P
72.22 %; Dhrang Shales, 61.22 %), the trend of their average REE
abundance (Dhrang Sandstones, 138.79; Jhikadi Shales, 116.3; Jhikadi
Sandstones, 166.6; Dhrang Shales, 285.73) is nearly opposite, which
suggests a probable role of quartz dilution. It is noteworthy, that over-
P
all REE contents show increasing trend in sandstones (Dhrang
Sandstones, 138.79; Jhkadi Sandstones, 166.6) but alternately low
and high in shales (Dhrang Shales, 285.73; Jhikadi Shales, 116.3;
Rudramata Shales, 268.13; Lodai Shales, 129.59) with respect to strat-
igraphic height (Table 3). It either suggests variable mixing of detritus
generated from felsic to mafic igneous rocks or change in provenance
or change in the tectonic evolutionary style of the basin. Eu anomaly
is considered to be a proxy of source rocks as differentiated / evolved
igneous rocks have large Eu anomalies compared to primary rocks
(Taylor, 1987). Range of Eu anomaly (0.50–1.02, Table 3) of Habo
Dome clastics also supports their sediment derivation from a mixed
provenance. Based on geochemistry and Nd isotopic systematics, four
distinctive provenance components for modern deep-sea turbidites
have been suggested viz. (1) old upper continental crust, (2) young
undifferentiated arc, (3) young differentiated (intracrustal) arc, and
(4) mid oceanic ridge basalts (McLennan et al., 1993; McLennan, Tay-
lor, Mcculloch, & Maynard, 1990). The chondrite normalized REE pat-
terns (Figure 12) of the Habo Dome clastics are not exactly similar but
sub-parallel to tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite and granitoid
(Condie, 1993; Martin, Smithies, Rapp, Moyen, & Champion, 2005),
suggesting major contribution from the old upper crustal sources.
Two samples within the Habo Dome clastics possess prominent
IRSHAD ET AL.
F I G U R E 5 Al2O3–(CaO* + Na2O)–K2O (A–CN–K) (in molecular
proportion) ternary plot (Nesbitt & Young, 1984) for the Habo Dome
clastics, displaying two weathering trends. Effect of K-metasomatism
in Rudramata and Lodai Shales is clearly discernible. Trends 1, 2, and
3 are explained in text
negative Eu anomalies (0.54 and 0.51, respectively), similar to gran-
ite (Eu/Eu* ~ 0.5), one of the end members of the basement hosted
in the Aravalli craton (T. Ahmad & Tarney, 1994; Gopalan,
Macdougall, Roy, & Murali, 1990), a probable source terrane for
these sediments.
F I G U R E 6 Photomicrographs of main framework constituents of the sandstones of Habo Dome Basin. (a) Monocrystalline quartz.
(b) Recrystallized quartz. (c) Stretched metamorphic quartz. (d) Fresh plagioclase. (e) K-feldspar. Arrows indicate respective mineral in the
photograph
13 of 21
Provenance modeling based on simple mixing calculations of the
end members of the basement of Aravalli craton has been performed
to quantify their relative contributions to the composition of the Habo
Dome clastics. Banded Gneissic Complex (BGC, 3.3 Ga, Gopalan et al.,
1990) is the basement of Aravalli craton composed of granites,
tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite and mafic enclaves. The mixing
calculations suggest a probable model comprising end members in the
proportions 35 granite: 34 tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite:
31 mafic enclaves. But the presence of 31 % mafic rocks in the BGC,
as estimated in provenance modeling, is not compatible with the
present-day field configuration of end member which is about
20–25 % (Roy & Jakhar, 2002). Furthermore, mixing calculations for
the individual two group of rock suites (Dhrang Sandstones, Dhrang
Shales, Rudramata Shales) and (Jhikadi Sandstones, Jhikadi Shales,
Lodai Shales) show quite different proportions of end members i.e. 43
granite: 20 tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite: 37 mafic enclaves and
55 granite: 10 tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite: 35 mafic enclaves
respectively. Moreover, the alkaline character shown by the samples
of Rudramata and Lodai Shales (Nb/Y ratio ≥ 0.7) cannot be addressed
considering BGC source alone. As there are no alkaline rocks reported
in Aravalli craton but these are present in Nagarparkar Massif (Jan
et al., 1997, Jan, Laghari, Agheem, & Anjum, 2014; S. A. Ahmad et al.,
2005). This suggests a dual source for the Habo Dome clastics. A
study carried out in another basin (Jara Basin) of Kachchh Mainland
also indicates the possibility of Nahar Parkar Complex as the
provenence for its sedimentary rocks (Periasamy and Venkateshwarlu,
2017). Numerous studies carried out by various workers,
e.g. Balagopal and Srivastava (1975), Dubey and Chatterjee (1997), A.
H. M. Ahmad, Khan, and Saikia (2008), prescribed bimodal current
14 of 21
directions for the sand dispersion in the Habo Dome Basin. The inter-
pretation adduced from the petrochemical characteristics in the pre-
sent study in conjunction with earlier studies (A. H. M. Ahmad,
Roohi, & Bhat, 2015; Roohi & Ahmad, 2013; Roohi, Ahmad, & Alam,
2013) ubiquitously establishes dual source terranes for the sedimen-
tary rocks of the Habo Dome Basin. Petrographic characters, geo-
chemical attributes, provenace modeling performed in the present
study, coupled with paleocurrent directions advocate that the most
likely source terranes for the Habo Dome clastics are Precambrian
rocks of Aravalli craton situated in the east and northeast and
Nagarparkar Massif lying to the north and northwest to the basin.
8 | T E C TO N I C S E T T I N G
The framework modes of Habo Dome sandstone samples (Figure 4)
suggest that rocks housed in craton interior (metagranitoids) and
supracrustals of recycled orogen (low–high grade metamorphites) pro-
vided detritus to the basin along with significant contributions from
collision suture–fold thrust belt. However, non-steady state
weathering in the source areas is indicated by the large variation in
weathering indices, ACNK diagram and variable concentration of
IRSHAD ET AL.
F I G U R E 7 Bivariant plots of selective
major and trace elements for assessing
primary nature of chemical composition
of Habo Dome clastics. (a) Al2O3 versus
TiO2 and (b) Zr/Ti versus SiO2 diagrams
display magmatic covariation which
refutes significant effect of
sorting/weathering. (c) Sc-V diagram
shows linear positive variation of these
elements indicating enrichment of
volcanic rock fragments. Habo Dome
litho index: DSH, Dhrang Shales; DST,
Dhrang Sandstones; JSH, Jhikadi Shales;
JST, Jhikadi Sandstones; LSH, Lodai
Shales; RSH, Rudramata Shales
labile elements such as Ca, Na, and Sr (Nesbitt et al., 1997) which
advocates sediment supply from a rapidly uplifted source area.
Reservations regarding the use of geochemical compositions of
sediments to infer the plate tectonic setting of ancient sedimentary
basins have been expressed by a section of geoscientists (Armstrong-
Altrin & Verma, 2005; Ryan & Williams, 2007; Verma & Armstrong-
Altrin, 2013). It is argued that the elemental enrichment/depletion in
the sedimentary rocks reflect the enrichment/depletion of related min-
erals in the clastic rocks and not of the protolith. Because, a clastic rock
may be an admixture of detritus of rocks with different origin. For
example, heavy minerals are easily fractionated during transportation
(Bouchez, Gaillardet, France-Lannord, Maurice, & Dutra-Maia, 2011;
Grazanti et al., 2011), which in turn would deplete the final product in
the elements contained in those heavy minerals. The Habo Dome clas-
tics are characterized by Th/Sc >1 and Zr/Sc > 10 which suggests
enrichment of heavy minerals, particularly zircon and monazite. To
constrain the extent and effect of heavy mineral fractionation, it is
appropriate to analyze covariation of the elements hosted by such
suspected heavy minerals. For example, zircon is the major contributor
of Zr and HREE, monazite of Th and LREE and apatite of P2O5 and
REE. P2O5 shows strong positive correlation with REE (rP2O5–LREE,
0.74; rP2O5–HREE, 0.86) and Th with LREE (rTh–LREE, 0.87) but Zr shows
F I G U R E 8 Upper continental crust
normalized multi-element spider diagram of Habo
Dome clastics suggesting mixed source
provenance. Normalizing values after Condie
(1993). Legends as in Figure 7
IRSHAD ET AL. 15 of 21

moderate positive correlation with HREE (r, 0.49) in the Habo Dome
clastics. It suggests that REE abundances in Habo Dome clastics are
controlled by apatite, monazite and other fine-grained clay minerals.
Furthermore, K2O also shows strong positive correlation with Rb
(r = 0.94), Ba (r = 0.86) and Th (r = 0.89). These magmatic relationships
between various mobile and immobile elements in the clastic rocks
under study affirm that their chemical composition is largely that of
their protolith and has not been affected by fluvial fractionation and or
chemical weathering (McLennan et al., 1993). Therefore, the chemical
abundance of these sedimentary rocks can be safely used for the inter-
pretation of tectonic setting of the sediment depository. To infer the
tectonic setting of Habo Dome clastics, their immobile trace element
data is plotted in La–Th–Sc ternary diagram (Figure 9). In this diagram all
samples plot within the field demarcated for passive and active conti-
nental margin except three samples which exclusively lie in continental
island arc field. To further distinguish passive and active margin settings,
the data of Habo Dome clastic is plotted in Th–Sc–Zr/10 ternary dia-
gram (Figure 10). In this diagram data points equally spread in passive
margin and continental island arc field. The continental island arc setting
is somewhat contrary to the well established rifted setting of Habo
Dome Basin as evident from other studies (Biswas, 1987, 2005). The
imprints of continental island arc signatures have probably been
F I G U R E 1 0 Th–Sc–Zr/10 ternary diagram for Habo Dome
inherited from the Aravalli craton wherein Paleoproterozoic greywackes clastics. Fields after Bhatia and Crook (1986)
are proved to have deposited in Andean type active margin setting
(Absar & Srinivas, 2015). Discriminant function diagram of Verma and
Armstrong-Altrin (2013) is considered a better tool in the interpretation
of tectonic settings of ancient sedimentary basins. In this diagram
(Figure 11) high silica samples of Jhikadi Sandstones and Jhikadi Shales
exclusively plot in the rift field, all samples of Rudramata and Lodai
Shales (barring one) in the collision field and those of Dhrang Sandstones
plot in both rift and collision fields (Figure 11a). Whereas the low silica
samples of Dhrang, Rudramata and Lodai Shales plot in rift and collision
fields (Figure 11b). The plot patterns in this diagram suggest that initially
the deposition took place in rifted setting (Dhrang Sandstones, Dhrang
Shales) which laterward changed to collisional setting. A somewhat simi-
lar results are obtained when chondrite normalized average REE con-
tents of Habo Dome clastics are compared with the fine and coarse
clastics deposited in the diverse tectonic settings (Figure 12). The REE
profiles of Dhrang Sandstones, Jhikadi Sandstones, Dhrang Shales and
Rudrmata Shales resemble to sediments deposited in trailing edge and
continental collision zone basins whereas Jhikadi Shales and Lodai
Shlaes match with back arc and continental arc basins.
Various geochemical tectonic discriminators, such as, Zr/Th,
La/Th, Zr/Y, La/Sc, ΣREE abundance, and Eu anomaly show wide vari-
ations which preclude exact determination of tectonic setting of Habo
Dome Basin (Table 3). These chemical signatures could result from
mixing of multiple source regions. Ryan and Williams (2007) argued
F I G U R E 9 La–Th–Sc ternary diagram for Habo Dome clastics that mixed tectonic setting signatures may arise from a combination
suggesting predominantly felsic source with significant mafic
of sediment provenances at a particular tectonic setting. On the other
component. Fields after Bhatia and Crook (1986). For reference, data
hand Floyd et al. (1991) observed that sorting, heavy mineral content
of the components of Banded Gneissic Complex (Archean basement,
Raza et al., 2010) is also plotted. BG, berach granite; M, mafic and proportion of mafic input severely affect the chemical composi-
enclaves; T, Tonalite–Trondhjemite–Granodiorite tion of sediments. They also advocated for a possibility where
16 of 21
F I G U R E 1 1 Discriminant function multidimensional diagram DF1 (Arc–Rift–Collision) versus DF2 (Arc–Rift–Collision) of Habo Dome clastics
(after Verma & Armstrong-Altrin, 2013). (a) High-silica samples. (b) Low–silica samples. Note the data pattern suggests rift to collisional tectonic
setting. The suffix scripts m1 in (a) and m2 in (b) with DF1 and DF2 represent log ratios of major elements. The calculation details are given in
Verma and Armstrong-Altrin (2013). Legends as in Figure 7
sedimentary sequences can include sediment derived from a number
of geologically unrelated tectonic settings. Thus, chemical signatures
of different tectonic settings for Habo Dome clastics are most likely
due to the combination of sediments derived from different
provenances.
9 | GEODYNAMIC IMPLICATION
The petrochemical characteristics and paleocurrent directions of the
clastic rocks of the Habo Dome Basin clearly prescribe dual source
terranes for these sediments. Both source terranes are predominantly
felsic in nature but one terrane is rich in basic volcanic material
(Banded Gneissic Complex) whereas the other contains alkaline rocks
(Nagarparkar Massif) in addition to granitoid–gneissic rocks. The array
of sediments with varying tectonic setting characteristics (Figures 9–
12) can most easily be accounted for by mixing of sediments from
these two sources. One possible model that may accommodate these
results is a continental margin back arc basin (Condie, 1992). The pet-
rochemical signatures of Habo Dome clastics indicate a continental
margin setting of Andean type for the deposition of these rocks. The
Andean type margins are marked by diverse geomorphic setting rang-
ing from plate convergence, orogenic belts, and strike-slip basin
(Bhatia & Crook, 1986). However, to invoke a back arc setting for
these rocks, presence of a Phanerozoic or Mesozoic arc is necessary
which is not reported from any part in this region.
An alternative model to the back arc basin may be deposition of
the Habo Dome sediments on an unstable, rifted continental shelf.
The western continental margin of India has been classed as an
Atlantic-type passive margin by Biswas (1982). The Kachchh Mainland
Basin is considered to have originated as pericratonic rift basin in con-
sequence to the breakup of Gondwana in the Late Triassic/Early
IRSHAD ET AL.
Jurassic (Norton & Scalter, 1979) which later evolved through late rift
divergent wrench phase and post rift convergent wrench phase
(Biswas, 2005). These three tectonic events of Kachchh Mainland
Basin are probable corollary of the break up, drifting and collision of
Indian plate. These tectonic phases of Indian plate have great bearing
on the sedimentation processes, depositional environment and tec-
tonic architecture of Kachchh Mainland Basin and its sub-basins. Con-
tinued drifting of the Indian plate marked the extensional rift phase,
when Mesozoic sedimentation took place, and its collision with Eur-
asian plate set the stage for a compressive inversion regime that pro-
duced present structural framework. The horizontal stresses
developed during collisional phase were responsible for strike-slip
movements along the master Kachchh Mainland fault (Biswas, 2005).
Habo Dome as well as other sub-basins in its linear symmetry
within Kachchh Mainland do not contain associated rift related volca-
nism, though there are at least two phases of intrusive magmatic
activity (Biswas, 1980, 1993). During the extensional stage of main
rift, mantle-derived ultramafic rocks intruded into the older Jurassic
sediments and second phase occurred in the post rift inversion stage
during Late Cretaceous in the form of plume (Reunion) related Deccan
Trap magmatism. Viewed in the light of generalized evolution of entire
basin, the petrochemical characters of Habo Dome Basin can be
explained. A primary rift developed a huge graben between the Nagar
Parkar and the North Kathiawar faults. Numerous intra-basinal sub-
parallel strike faults tilted the block uplifts and formed a series of half
grabens, where deposition of rift-fill sediments took place (Biswas,
2005). The Habo Dome Basin as well as other collinear basins are half
grabens situated in the south of the master fault–the Nagar Parkar
fault (Figure 1). During the early phase of rifting, all the sub-basins
were quite shallow and only received sediments from the highlands
present at the shoulder of graben without any synsedimentational
volcanism. However, at the same time partial melting of lower
IRSHAD ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 2 Average chondrite normalized REE patterns of Habo Dome clastics compared with the respective rocks deposited in the basins
of different tectonic settings. Dhrang Sandstones, Jhikadi Sandstones, Dhrang Shales and Rudramata Shales match well with TEM and CCB but
Jhikadi and Lodai Shales match with BAB and CAB. BAB, Back Arc Basins; CAB, Continental Arc Basins; CCB, Continental Collision Basins; FAB,
Fore Arc Basins; SSB, Strike-Slip Margins; TEM, Trailing Edge Margins. Data from McLennan et al. (1990). Legends as in Figure 7
lithosphere/asthenosphere was initiated due to decompression, con-
sequent to lithospheric stretching. The magma rose diaprically and
intruded into predeposited, Jurassic sediments at the attenuated litho-
sphere. The alkaline nature of ultramafics endorses their intra-plate
character (Aniruddha, 1964; Karmalkar & Sarma, 2003). These igneous
bodies are exposed in the western part of Kachchh Mainland near
Pachham Island.
Habo Dome Basin has similarity in many aspects with strike-slip or
pull-apart basins, e.g. a fining–upward sequence in which coarse clas-
tics, represented by Dhrang Sandstones comprising minor conglomer-
ates and sandstones, are exposed on both margins of the basin. This
sequence is followed by Jhikadi Sandstones which are exclusively com-
posed of sandstones. The axial region of the basin hosts Rudramata
and Lodai Shales. Furthermore, the thickness of shale horizons gradu-
ally increases from Dhrang Shales to Lodai Shales. Moreover, the shape
of the Habo Dome Basin is nearly rhomboidal oftenly characterizing
pull-apart basins (Aydin & Nur, 1982). However, it differs from ideal
pull-apart basins by the absence of oceanic crust in the axial region,
successive overlap of basement by sediments, typical rhomboidal or
“lazy Z” or “lazy S” shapes (Aydin & Nur, 1982; Hempton & Dunne,
1984; Mann, Hempton, Dwight, & Burke, 1983). Biswas (2005)
suggested two-tier evolution of main Kachchh Basin i.e. initial exten-
sional rift phase and terminal compressive inversion phase. He
observed that primordial faults got reactivated as normal faults during
rift phase and the same set of faults later acted as strike-slip faults dur-
ing inversion stage. Drifting of the Indian plate was responsible for the
increase in horizontal stresses that led to generate divergent wrench
17 of 21
movements until Late Cretaceous. This tectonic regime produced
changes in the basin geometries and the sedimentation pattern. The
change in the shape and dimensions of various sub-basins of the
Kachchh Mainland (i.e. tiny spherical in Jara to rhomboidal in Habo,
Figure 1) is probably related to this tectonic regime. The left-stepping
Kachchh Mainland fault seems to be the principal strike-slip fault and
the main architect of the structural style for the Kachchh Mainland
Basin as well as its sub-basins including the Habo Dome.
The Habo Dome Basin remained tectonically unstable due to the
activation/generation of intra-basinal faults. It is evident from Table 3
and Figure 3 that weathering indices including CIA and ICV vary in
similar manner i.e. alternatively low and high. These chemical charac-
teristics indicate supply of sediments in alternating pulses from two
source terranes or repetitions of same chemical environment which in
turn is suggestive of palpitating tectonic conditions in the source ter-
ranes. In either case, a local, tectonically induced transgressive–
regressive phase is mandatory to explain the temporal variation in the
chemical composition of the clastic rocks of Habo Dome Basin.
10 | C O N CL U S I O N S
1. Habo Dome sequence represents a fluctuating transgressive–
regressive facies cycle, developed during Callovian and Late Early
Oxfordian but the fluctuations in sea level are not purely eustatic
rather more due to local tectonics.
18 of 21
2. Major and immobile trace element concentrations, their ratios and
REE abundances of the Habo Dome clastics indicate sediment
derivations from two source terranes. Integrated analysis of pet-
rochemical characteristics coupled with various paleocurrent
studies on Jurassic sandstone of the Kachchh Basin suggests that
the detritus was derived from the Aravalli Mountain Range and
Nagarparkar Massif situated to the ENE and NNW of the Habo
Dome Basin, respectively.
3. The petrochemical signatures of the clastic rocks of Habo Dome
suggest their deposition in rift or collisonal settings. The divergent
chemical signatures for Habo Dome Basin is due to its initial
development in rifted setting which laterward changed to colli-
sional mode when drifted Indian Plate collided with Eurasian Plate
resulting in the inversion of stresses.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
The authors are thankful to the Chairperson, Department of Geology,
for providing necessary facilities in the department. This work is part
of Ph.D. thesis of RI. The authors are highly obliged to Abhay
Mudholkar of NIO, Goa for analyzing samples at the Labs of NIO.
Financial assistance provided by UGC, New Delhi in the form of
MANF-MUS-UTT-3315 to RI is sincerely acknowledged. The authors
appreciate the efforts of Nurul Absar and N. Awasthi (reviewers), the
Associate Editor and Editor in Chief for their editorial com-
ments/suggestions and Amirraullah Khan (for English language check),
which significantly improved the presentation of the manuscript.
ORCID
Roohi Irshad https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1516-9979
RE FE R ENC E S
Absar, N., Nizamuddin, B. M., & Augustine, S. (2016). Petrography, clay
mineralogy and geochemistry of clastic sediments of Proterozoic
Bhima Group, Eastern Dharwar Craton, India: Implications for prove-
nance and tectonic setting. Journal of Applied Geochemistry, 18,
237–250.
Absar, N., Nizamuddin, B. M., Augustine, S., Managave, S., &
Balakrishnan, S. (2016). C, O, Sr and Nd isotope systematics of carbon-
ates of Papaghni subbasin, Andhra Pradesh, India: Implications for gen-
esis of carbonate-hosted stratiform uranium mineralisation and
geodynamic evolution of the Cuddapah basin. Lithos, 263, 88–100.
Absar, N., Raza, M., Roy, M., Naqvi, S. M., & Roy, A. K. (2009). Composition
and weathering conditions of Paleoproterozoic upper crust of Bundel-
khand craton, Central India: Records from geochemistry of clastic sedi-
ments of 1.9 Ga Gwalior Group. Precambrian Research, 168, 313–329.
Absar, N., & Srinivas, B. (2015). Petrology and geochemistry of greywackes
of the ~1.6 Ga Middle Aravalli Supergroup, northwest India: Evidence
for active margin processes. International Geology Review, 57,
134–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00206814.2014.999355
Ahmad, A. H. M., Khan, A. F., & Saikia, C. (2008). Palaeoenvironment and
diagenesis of Middle Jurassic Athleta Sandstones, Jhurio Dome,
Kachchh, Gujarat. Journal Geological Society of India, 71, 73–78.
Ahmad, A. H. M., Roohi, I., & Bhat, G. M. (2015). Facies and diagenetic
evolution of the Bathonian-Oxfordian mixed Siliciclastic-Carbonate
IRSHAD ET AL.
sediments of the Habo Dome, Kachchh Basin, India. Volumina
Jurassica, 13, 83–104.
Ahmad, S. A., Mateen, A., & Chaudhry, M. N. (2005). Petrology and geo-
chemistry of the Nagar Parkar complex, southeastern Sindh, Pakistan.
Geological Bulletin Punjab University, 38, 19–22.
Ahmad, T., Deb, M., Tarney, J., & Raza, M. (2008). Proterozoic mafic volca-
nism in the Aravalli-Delhi Orogen North-western India: Geochemistry
and tectonic framework. Journal Geological Society of India, 72,
93–111.
Ahmad, T., & Tarney, J. (1994). Geochemistry and petrogenesis of late
Archaean Aravalli volcanics, basement enclaves and granitoids, Rajas-
than. Precambrian Research, 65, 1–23.
Allen, P. G., & Chambers, J. L. C. (1998). Facies analysis and sedimentary
structures. In Sedimentation in the Modern and Miocene Mahakam Delta
(p. 236). Indonesian Petroleum Association.
Aniruddha, D. (1964). Iron-titanium oxides in alkali-olivine basalts,
tholleites and acidic rocks of the Deccan trap series and their signifi-
cance. Proceedings International Geological Congress, New Delhi, Part
VIII, 126–138.
Armstrong-Altrin, J. S., & Verma, S. P. (2005). Critical evaluation of six tec-
tonic setting discrimination diagrams using geochemical data of Neo-
gene sediments from known tectonic settings. Sedimentary Geology,
177, 115–129.
Aydin, A., & Nur, A. (1982). Evolution of pull-apart basins and their scale
independence. Tectonics, 1, 91–105.
Balagopal, A. T., & Srivastava, V. K. (1975). A study of the paleocurrent
and the provenances of the Jurassic rocks of Central Kutch Gujarat
state India. Journal of Earth Sciences, 2, 62–76.
Banner, J. L. (2004). Radiogenic isotopes, systematics and applications to
earth surface processes and chemical stratigraphy. Earth Science
Review, 65, 141–194.
Bardan, S., & Datta, K. (1987). Biostratigraphy of Jurassic Chari Formation,
a study in Keera Dome, Kachchh, Gujrat. Journal Geological Society of
India, 63, 171–182.
Basu, A. (1985). Influence of climate and relief on composition of sand
release at source areas. In G. G. Zuffa (Ed.), Provenance of Arenites
(pp. 1–18). Boston, MA, USA; Lancaster, UK: Reidel Dordrecht.
Bhat, M. I., & Ghosh, S. K. (2001). Geocshemistry of 2.51 Ga old Rampur
group pelites, Western Himalayas: Implications for their provenance
and weathering. Precambrian Research, 108, 1–16.
Bhatia, M. R., & Crook, K. A. W. (1986). Trace elements characteristics of
greywacke and tectonic setting discrimination of sedimentary basins.
Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 92, 181–193.
Biswas S. K. (1980). Structure of Kutch-Kathiawar Region Western India.
Proceedings 3rd Indian Geological Congress Pune. 255-272.
Biswas, S. K. (1982). Rift basins in the western margin of India and their
hydrocarbon prospects. Bulletin American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, 66, 1497–1513.
Biswas, S. K. (1987). Regional tectonic framework structure and evolution
of the western marginal basins of India. Tectonophysics, 135, 307–327.
Biswas, S. K. (1993). Geology of Kutch (p. 450). Dehradun, India: KDM Insti-
tute of Petroleum Exploration.
Biswas, S. K. (2002). Structure and tectonics. DST sponsored contacts pro-
gramme on ‘Structure, Tectonics and Mesozoic Stratigraphy of
Kachchh-14-20th January, organized by M.S. University of Baroda. 4:
63-92.
Biswas, S. K. (2005). A review of structure and tectonics of Kutch basin,
western India, with special reference to earthquakes. Current Science,
88, 1592–1600.
Boggs, S., Jr. (2009). Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (4th ed.,
p. 688). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN-10: 0131547283
Bouchez, J., Gaillardet, J., France-Lannord, C., Maurice, L., & Dutra-
Maia, P. (2011). Grain size control of river suspended sediment geo-
chemistry: Clues from Amazon River depth profiles. Geochemistry,
IRSHAD ET AL.
Geophysics, Geosystems, 12, Q03008. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2010GC003380
Brenchley, P. J., & Rawson, P. F. (Eds.). (2006). The Geology of England and
Wales (p. 579). London: Geological Society of London.
Byerly, G. R. (1999). Komatiites of the Medon Formation, Latestage ultra-
mafic volcanism in the Barberton Greenstone Belt. Geological Society
of America Special Publication Paper, 329, 189–211.
Condie, K. C. (1992). Evolutionary changes at the Archean-Proterozoic
boundary. In J. E. Glover & S. E. Ho (Eds.), The Archean, Terrains Pro-
cesses and Metallogeny Proceedings Volume of the Third International
Archean Symposium 1990 (Vol. 22, pp. 177–189). Perth, Australia: Uni-
versity of the Western Australia.
Condie, K. C. (1993). Chemical composition and evolution of the upper
continental crust, contrasting results from surface samples and shales.
Chemical Geology, 104, 1–37.
Condie, K. C. (2005). Earth as an Evolving Planetary System (Vol. 447).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Academic Press.
Cope, J. C. W. (2006). Jurassic, returning of seas. In P. J. Brenchley &
P. F. Rawson (Eds.), The Geology of England and Wales (2nd ed.,
pp. 325–365). London: The Geological Society.
Cox, R., & Lowe, D. R. (1995). A conceptual review of regional scale con-
trols on the compositions of clastic sediments and the co-evolution of
continental blocks and their sedimentary cover. Journal of Sedimentary
Research, 65, 1–12.
Cox, R., Lowe, D. R., & Cullers, R. D. (1995). The influence of sediment
recycling and basement composition on evolution of mudrock chemis-
try in the southwestern United States. Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta, 59, 2919–2940.
Cullers, R. L. (2000). The geochemistry of shales siltstones and sandstones
of Pennsylvanian-Permian age Colorado, USA: Implications for prove-
nance and metamorphic studies. Lithos, 51, 181–203.
Das, B. K., Mikhlafib, A. A. S., & Kaur, P. (2006). Geochemistry of Mansar
Lake sediments, Jammu, India: Implication for source-area weathering,
provenance, and tectonic setting. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 26,
649–668.
Dickinson, W. R. (1985). Interpreting relations from detrital modes of
sandstone. In G. G. Zuffa (Ed.), Provenance of Arenites (pp. 333–361).
Boston, MA, Lancaster, UK: Reidel Dordrecht.
Dickinson, W. R., Beard, L. S., Brakenridge, G. R., Erjavec, J. L.,
Ferguson, R. C., Inman, K. F., … Ryberg, P. T. (1983). Provenance of
North American Phanerozoic sandstones in relation to tectonic set-
ting. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 94, 222–235.
Dickinson, W. R., & Suczek, C. A. (1979). Plate-tectonics and sandstones
composition. American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin, 63,
2164–2182.
Dubey, A., & Chatterjee, B. K. (1997). Sandstones of Mesozoic Kachchh
Basins, Their provenance and basinal evolution. Indian Journal of Petro-
leum Geology, 6, 55–58.
Fatima, S., & Khan, M. S. (2012). Petrographic and geochemical character-
istics of Mesoproterozoic Kumbalgarh clastic rocks NW Indian shield,
Implications for provenance tectonic setting and crustal evolution.
International Geological Review, 54, 1113–1144.
Fedo, C. M., Erikson, K. A., & Krogstad, E. J. (1996). Geochemistry of shales
from the Archean (3.0 Ga) Buhwa Greenstone Belt Zimbabwe, Implica-
tions for provenance and source-area weathering. Geochimica
Cosmchim Acta, 60, 1751–1763.
Fedo, C. M., Nesbitt, H. W., & Young, G. M. (1995). Unraveling the effects
of potassium metasomatism in sedimentary rocks and paleosols with
implications for weathering conditions and provenance. Geology, 23,
921–924.
Folk, R. L. (1980). Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Austen, TX: Hemphills.
Fralick, P. (2003). Geochemistry of clastic sedimentary rocks, ratio tech-
niques. In D. R. Lentz (Ed.), Geochemistry of Sediments and Sedimentary
Rocks, Evolutionary Considerations to Mineral-Deposit Forming Environ-
ments (Vol. 4, pp. 85–104). Geological Association of Canada.
19 of 21
Fürsich, F. T., & Oschmann, W. (1993). Shell beds as tools in basin analysis,
the Jurassic of Kachchh western India. Journal of Geological Society
London, 150, 169–185.
Fürsich, F. T., Oschmann, W., Jaitely, A. K., & Singh, I. B. (1991). Faunal
response to transgressive and regressive cycles –Examples from Juras-
sic of western India. Palaeogeography Palaeoecology Palaeontology, 85,
149–159.
Fürsich, F. T., Oschmann, W., Pandey, D. K., Jaitly, A. K., Singh, I. B., &
Lui, C. (2004). Paleoecology of middle to lower upper Jurassic
Macrofaunas of the Kachchh basin, Western India-An overview. Jour-
nal Paleontological Society of India, 46, 1–26.
Fürsich, F. T., Oschmann, W., Singh, I. B., & Jaitly, A. K. (1992). Hard-
grounds reworked concretion levels and condensed horizons in the
Jurassic of western India, their significance for basin analysis. Journal
of Geological Society London, 149, 313–331.
Fürsich, F. T., & Pandey, D. K. (2003). Sequence stratigraphy significance
of sedimentary cycles and shell concentrations in the Upper-Jurassic
lower Cretaceous of Kachchh, western India. Palaeogeography Pal-
aeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 193, 285–309.
Fürsich, F. T., Pandey, D. K., Callomon, J. H., Jaitely, A. K., & Singh, I. B.
(2001). Marker beds in Jurassic of Kachchh Basin western India, their
depositional environment and sequence-stratigraphic significance.
Journal of Palaeontologicl Society India, 46, 173–198.
Gazzi, P. (1966). Le arenarie del flysch sopracretaceo dell Appennio mode-
nese; correlazioni con il flysch di Monghidoro. Mineralogica e
Petrografica Acta, 12, 69–97.
Gazzi, P., Zuffa, G. G., Gandolfi, G., & Paganelli, L. (1973). Provenienza e
dispersion litoranea delle sabbie delle spiagge adriatiche fra le foci dell
isonzo e del foglia; in quadramento regionale. Memorie della Societa
Geologica Italiana, 12, 1–37.
Gopalan, K., Macdougall, J. D., Roy, A. B., & Murali, A. V. (1990). Sm-Nd
evidence for 3.3 Ga old rocks in Rajasthan northwestern India.
Precambrain Research, 48, 287–297.
Grazanti, E., Ando, S., Lanord, C. F., Censi, P., Vingnola, P., Galy, V., &
Lupker, M. (2011). Mineralogical and chemical variability of fluvial sed-
iments 2. Suspended-load silt (Ganga–Brahmaputra, Bangladesh). Earth
and Planetary Science Letters, 302, 107–120.
Hallam, A. (1978). Eustatic cycles in the Jurassic. Palaeogeography Pal-
aeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 23, 1–32.
Hallam, A. (2001). A review of the broad pattern of Jurassic sea-level
changes and their possible causes in the light of current knowl-
edge. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 167,
23–37.
Hayashi, K. I., Fujisawa, H., Holland, H. D., & Ohmoto, H. (1997). Geo-
chemistry of 1.9 Ga sedimentary rocks from northeastern Labrador
Canada. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61, 4115–4137.
Hempton, R. M., & Dunne, L. A. (1984). Sediementaion in pull apart basins,
active examples in eastern Turkey. Journal of Geology, 92, 513–530.
Herron, M. M. (1988). Geochemical classification of terrigenous sands and
shales from core or log data. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 58,
820–829.
Hesselbo, P. S., Stuart, A., Robinson, A. S., & Finn Surl, Y. K. (2004). Sea-
level change and facies development across potential Triassic–Jurassic
boundary horizons, SW Britain. Journal of the Geological Society, 161,
365–379.
Jacquin, T., & de Graciansky, P. C. (1998). Transgressive/regressive
(second order) facies cycles, the effects of tectono-eustacy p. 31-42.
In P. C. d. Graciansky, J. Hardenbol, T. Jacquin, & P. R. Vail (Eds.),
Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence stratigraphy of European basins. Tulsa:
SEPM Special Publication 60 (Society for Sedimentary Geology).
Jan, M. Q., Agheem, M. H., Laghari, A., & Anjum, S. (2017). Geology and
Petrography of the Nagar Parkar Igneous Complex, Southeastern
Sindh, Pakistan: The Kharsar Body. Journal Geological Society of India,
89, 91–98.
20 of 21
Jan, M. Q., Laghari, A., Agheem, M. H., & Anjum, S. (2014). Geology and
petrography of the Nagar Parkar igneous complex, southeastern Sindh:
the Dinsi body. Journal of Himalayan Earth Sciences, 47, 1–14.
Jan, M. Q., Laghari, A., & Khan, M. A. (1997). Petrography of the igneous
complex Tharparkar Sind Pakistan. Geological Bulletin University of
Peshawar, 30, 227–249.
Jenkyns, H. C. (2003). Evidence for rapid climatic change in the Mesozoic
Paleogene greenhouse word. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal
Society Series A, 361, 1885–1916.
Jenkyns, H. C., Jones, C. E., Grocke, D. R., Hesselbo, S. P., &
Parkinson, D. N. (2002). Chemostrtigraphy of the Jurassic System,
applications limitations and applications for paleogeography. Journal
Geological Society London, 159, 351–378.
Kanjilal, L. S. (1978). Geology and stratigraphy of Jurassic rocks of Habo
hill District Kutch (Gujarat). Proceedings Indian Natural Science Academy
Part A, 44, 1–15.
Karmalkar, N. R., & Sarma, P. K. (2003). Plume affected upper mantle
beneath Kutch: Evidence from spinel lherzolite xenoliths and host
alkali basalt. Deep Continental Studies in India, 13, 2–3.
Katz, M. B. (1978). Sri Lanka in Gondwanaland and the evolution of Indian
Ocean. Geological Magazine, 115, 237–244.
Katz, M. B. (1979). India and Madagascar in Gondwanaland based on
matching Precambrian lineament. Nature, 279, 312–315.
Khan, T., & Khan, M. S. (2014). Geochemistry of the Sandstones of
Punagarh Basin: Implications for two source terranes and Arabian –
Nubian connection of Aravalli Craton? Journal Geological Society of
India, 88, 366–386.
Krishnan, M. S. (1953). The structural and tectonic history of India. Memoir
Geological Survey of India, 81, 2–12.
Koshal, V. N. (1984). Differentiation of Rhaetic sediments in the subsur-
face of Kutch based on palynofossils. Petroleum Asia Journal, 7,
102–105.
Krishna, J., Pathak, D. B., Pandey, B., & Ojha, J. R. (2000). Transgressive
sediment intervals in the Late Jurassic of Kachchh India. Geological
Research Forum Zurich, 6, 321–332.
Laghari, A., Jan, M. Q., Khan, M. A., Agheen, M. H., Ghulam, A.,
Sahito, A. G., & Suhail, A. (2013). Petrography and major element
chemistry of mafic dykes in the Nagar Parkar Igneous Complex,
Tharparkar, Sindh. Journal of Himalayan Earth Sciences, 46, 1–11.
Mann, P., Hempton, M. R., Dwight, C. B., & Burke, K. (1983). Development
of pull – Apart basins. Journal of Geology, 91, 529–554.
Martin, H., Smithies, R. H., Rapp, R., Moyen, J. F., & Champion, D. (2005).
An overview of adakite tonalite– trondhjemite–granodiorite (TTG) and
sanukitoid, relationships and some implications for crustal evolution.
Lithos, 79, 1–24.
McLennan, S. M. (1989). Rare earth elements in sedimentary rocks. Influ-
ence of provenance and sedimentary processes. Reviews in Mineralogy,
21, 169–200.
McLennan, S. M., Hemming, S., Mcdaniel, D. K., & Hanson, G. N. (1993).
Geochemical approaches to sedimentation provenance and tectonics.
Geological Society of America Special Paper, 284, 21–s40.
McLennan, S. M., & Taylor, S. R. (1991). Sedimentary rocks and crustal
evolution tectonic setting and secular trends. Journal of Geology,
99, 1–21.
McLennan, S. M., Taylor, S. R., Mcculloch, M. T., & Maynard, J. B. (1990).
Geochemical and Nd-Sr isotopic composition of deep sea turbitites,
crustal evolution and plate tectonic associations. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, 54, 2015–2050.
Metcalfe, I. (1988). Origin and assembly of Southeast Asian continental
terranes. In M. G. Audley-Charles & A. Hallam (Eds.), Gondwana and
Tethys (Vol. 37, pp. 101–118). The Geological Society of London, Spe-
cial Publication No. 37.
Metcalfe, I. (1993). Southeast Asian terranes, Gondwanaland origin and
evolution. In R. H. Findlay, R. Unrug, R. M. Banks, & J. VeeversJ (Eds.),
IRSHAD ET AL.
Gondwana Eight (pp. 181–200). Rotterdam, Netherlands: A. A.
Balkema.
Milanovsky, E. F. (1972). Continental rift zones their arrangements and
developments. Tectonophysics, 15, 65–87.
Milner, H. B. (1962). Sedimentary Petrography Part II (Vol. 715). London,
UK: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Nesbitt, H. W. (2003). Petrogenesis of siliciclastic sediments and sedimentary
rocks. In: D. R. Lenz, (Ed.), Geochemistry of Sediments and Sedimen-
tary Rocks, Geotext 14 (pp. 39–51). Newfoundland: Published by Geo-
logical Association of Canada.
Nesbitt, H. W., Fedo, C. M., & Young, G. M. (1997). Quartz and feldspar
stability steady and non-steady-state weathering and petrogenesis of
siliciclastic sands and muds. Journal of Geology, 105, 173–192.
Nesbitt, H. W., & Young, G. M. (1982). Early proterozoic climates and plate
motion inferred from major element chemistry of lutites. Nature, 299,
715–717.
Nesbitt, H. W., & Young, G. M. (1984). Prediction of some weathering
trend of plutonic and volcanic rocks based on thermodynamic and
kinetic consideration. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 48, 1523–
1534.
Nicholas, G. (2009). Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (2nd ed.). West Sussex,
UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Norton, I., & Scalter, J. G. (1979). A model for the evolution of the Indian
Ocean and the breakup of Gondwanaland. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 84, 6803–6830.
Periasamy, V., & Venkateshwarlu, M. (2017). Petrography and geochemis-
try of Jurassic sandstones from the Jhuran Formation of Jara dome,
Kachchh basin, India: Implications for provenance and tectonic setting.
Journal of Earth System Science, 126, 1–20.
Ramkumar, M., Albert, M., Fürsich, F. T., & Pandey, D. K. (2013). Deposi-
tional and diagenetic environments of the Dhosa Oolite Member
(Oxfordian) Kachchh Basin India. Implication for the origin n occur-
rence of the ooids and their correlation with the global Fe-oolite peak.
On a Sustainable Future of the Earth's Natural Resources (pp.179–230).
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
32917-3_11
Rashid, S. A., Ahmad, S., Singh, S. K., & Absar, N. (2018). Elemental and
Sr-Nd isotopic geochemistry of mesoproterozoic sedimentary succes-
sions from NE Lesser Himalaya, northern India: Implications for
proterozoic climate and tectonics. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 163,
235–248.
Raza, M., Bhardwaj, V. R., Ahmad, A. H. M., Mondal, M. E. A., Khan, A., &
Khan, M. S. (2010). Provenance and weathering history of Archean
Naharmagra quartzite of Aravalli craton NW Indian shield, Petro-
graphic and geochemical evidence. Geochemical Journal, 4, 331–345.
Roohi, I., & Ahmad, A. H. M. (2013). Petrography and major element geo-
chemistry of Habo formation sediments, Western India: Clues for
provenance. Asian Journal of Science and Technology, 4, 10–22.
Roohi, I., Ahmad, A. H. M., & Alam, M. (2013). Depositional and diagenetic
environments of middle Jurassic sediments, Habo Dome, Kachchh,
Gujarat. Indian National Science Academy, 79, 139–152.
Roy, A. B., & Jakhar, M. (2002). Geology of Rajasthan (Northwestern India),
Precambrian to Recent (p. 421). Jodhpur, India: Scientific Publication.
Ryan, K. M., & Williams, D. M. (2007). Testing the reliability of discrimina-
tion diagrams for determining the tectonic depositional environment
of ancient sedimentary basins. Chemical Geology, 242, 103–125.
Selley, R. C. (2000). Applied Sedimentology. Orlando, Florida: Academic
Press.
Singh, C. S. P., Jaitley, A. K., & Pandey, D. K. (1982). First report of some
Bajocian Bathonian (Middle Jurassic) Ammonoides and the age of the
oldest Sediments from Katchchh. Newsletters on stratigraphy, West-
ern India. Journal Geological Society of India, 34, 152–160.
Singh, I. B. (1989). Dhosa Oolite- a transgressive condensation horizon of
Oxfordian age in Kachchh Western India. Journal of the Geological Soci-
ety of India, 34, 152–160.
IRSHAD ET AL.
Singh, P. K., & Khan, M. S. (2017). Geochemistry of Palaeoproterozoic rocks
of Aravalli Supergroup: Implications for weathering history and deposi-
tional sequence. International Journal of Geosciences, 8, 1278–1299.
Sugitani, K., Horiuchi, Y., Adachi, M., & Sugisaki, R. (1996). Anomalously
low Al2O3/TiO2 values of Archean cherts from the Pilbara block.
Western Australia–Possible evidence of extensive chemical
weathering on the early earth. Precambrian Research, 80, 49–76.
Taylor, S. R. (1987). Geochemical and petrological significance of
Archaen–Proterozoic boundary. Geological Society London Special Pub-
lications, 33, 3–8.
Taylor, S. R., & McLennan, S. M. (1985). The Continental Crust, Its Composi-
tion and Evolution. An Examination of the Geochemical Record Preserved
in Sedimentary Rocks. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publication.
Taylor, S. R., & McLennan, S. M. (1995). The geochemical evolution of the
continental crust. Reviews in Geophysics, 33, 241–265.
Tran, H. T., Ansdell, K., Bethune, K., Watters, B. A., & Shton, K. (2003). Nd
isotope and geochemical constraints on the depositional setting of
Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks along the margin of the
Archean Hearne Craton Saskatchewan Canada. Precambrian Research,
123, 1–28.
Verma, S. P., & Armstrong-Altrin, J. S. (2013). New multi-dimensional dia-
grams for tectonic discrimination of siliciclastic sediments and their
application to Precambrian basins. Chemical Geology, 355, 117–133.
Wang, W., Zhou, M., Yan, D., & Li, J. (2012). Depositional age provenance
and tectonic setting of the Neoproterozoic Sibao Group southeastern
Yangtze Block South China. Precambrian Research, 192, 107–124.
View publication stats
21 of 21
Winchester, J. A., & Floyd, P. A. (1977). Geochemical discrimination of dif-
ferent magma series and their differentiation products using immobile
elements. Chemical Geology, 20, 325–334.
Yang, X., He, D., Wang, Q., Tang, Y., Tao, H., & Li, D. (2012). Provenance
and tectonic setting of the carboniferous sedimentary rocks of the
east Junggar Basin China: Evidence from geochemistry and U–Pb zir-
con geochronology. Gondwana Research, 22, 567–584.
Zimmermann, U., & Bahulburg, H. (2003). Provenance analysis and tec-
tonic setting of the Ordovician clastic deposits in the southern Puna
Basin, NW Argentina. Sedimentology, 50, 1079–1104.
SUPPORTING INF ORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found online in the
Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Irshad R, Khan MS, Ahmad AHM.
Sedimentological and petrochemical studies of Jurassic clastic
rocks, Habo Dome Basin, Kachchh Mainland, Northwest India:
Implications for depositional environment, provenance, and
tectonic setting. Island Arc. 2019;e12307. https://doi.org/10.
1111/iar.12307