1017

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences Eurasia J Biosci 13, 1017-1036 (2019)

Study sedimentology and origin of fluvial modern sediment by using integrated methods, case study of Zagros foreland Basin

Morteza Mirzaei 1, Eisa Mataji 2*, Mohammad Reza Noura 1, Kazem Shabani Goraji 1 1 Department of Geology, Islamic Azad University, Zahedan Branch, Zahedan, IRAN 2 Department of Geology, Islamic Azad University, Chalus Branch, Chalus, IRAN *Corresponding author: Eisa Mataji

Abstract Zagros foreland Basin places along with Himalyas- Alp orogeny that it is created by collision Eurasia with Arabic plane and closing Neotethys. Two rivers Karkhe and Dez are the most important Iranian rivers in which this study has examined sedimentology and their sediment origin in Zagros foreland Basin in Khuzestan province (Shush region). The most important used data in this study include Granometry data and thin section from 30 samples from two rivers and Geochemical data XRD from 2 samples and 14 samples are main elements as well as 12 samples were studied from two rivers in order to analyzing heavy minerals. The most frequent seeds of our sample are in sand and gravel that they were sort from bad to very bad. Regarding to faces and architectural elements, two meander rivers model except that Dez river has less twist. Main minerals constituent gravel sediments (carbonate gravel with more frequency and Chert gravel with less frequency) and quartz. Constituent elements and also geochemistry analysis results in analytical graphs show the origin of collision orogeny and rock recycle and weathering dry to wet weather for origin rock. Regarding to the total results, it is considered more carbonate gravel from Mishan formations, more quartz seeds from Aghajari formations and older debris formations and more heavy minerals is originated from zone of Sanandaj-Sirjan. Keywords: origins, Zagros, Karkhe River, Dez River, fluvial sediments Mataji E, Mirzaei M, Noura MR, Goraji KS (2019) Study sedimentology and origin of fluvial modern sediment by using integrated methods, case study of Zagros foreland Basin. Eurasia J Biosci 13: 1017-1036. © 2019 Mataji et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.

INTRODUCTION Rivers as natural channels of transferring

meteorological rainfall (water) and alluvial (soil), always are considered by human society and affected human’s life and try directly or indirectly (LePera and Arribas 2004, Miall 2013, Singh 2010). This fact cause that many studies are conducted on the current rivers in different world regions (Bhuiyan et al. 2011, Garzanti et al. 2016, Kleinhans 2001, Singh 2010, Surian 2002).

The plains of Khuzestan province at the sought and eastern south in Iran (along with Himalyas- Alp orogeny zone), mainly are covered with alluvial deposits and fluvial sediments of Karkhe, Karun, Dez, Jarahi and Hendijan and their branches. Due to fertile and wide lands and plenty water sources as well as favorable climate conditions, most of these regions are unique for farming. The more important aspect of Khuzestan plain is that it is great importance due to oil & mineral sources as the part of Iran south regions (Abdolmaleki et al. 2016, Abdolmaleki and Tavakoli 2016).

Granometry, mineralogy and debris silicious deposits geochemical function of factors such as origin rock compound, weathering processes, transportation, sediment; therefore, we can use from these data at explaining and interpretation of sediment origin and condition (Condie et al. 1995, Garzanti et aI. 2000).

At this study, it has been tried to examine alluvial and fluvial sediments of two important Iran Rivers namely Karkhe and Dez at the Khuzestan province (Shush region) by using current data (Fig. 1 A), moreover, evaluation sediment status and rivers features, to examine sediments origin and their Tectonics position (origins). Identification such features, in addition, its pure scientific aspect, can be too efficient for programing in order to the maximum usage from water, soil sources as well as face with dangers and related possible issues such as flood, river advance or progression toward to substructure and barrier are filled with sediments (Dill and Ludwing 2008, Le Pera et aI. 2001, Miall 2013).

Received: February 2019 Accepted: June 2019

Printed: August 2019

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1018

GENERAL STATUS GEOLOGY AND THE STUDIED REGION CLIMATE

The studied region is located in Khuzestan province but due to watershed basin of Karkhe and Dez rivers have more area than this province, we will discuss briefly about the geology of neighborhood regions.

Regions where two Karkhe and Dez rivers are passed them in Iran geology divisions include Zagros zones (specially folded section) and Sanandaj_Sirjan (Fig. 1 A).

These two zones place along with Himalyas- Alp orogeny zone (Stocklin 1968). Formation and division Iran earth zones are related to creation Neotethys Ocean (Zagros orogeny) between Arabic plane and Eurasia. Events related to Neotethys from middle Permian to current time in the different regime cause to effect on Iran micro continent especially west side (Alavi 2004).

These sedimentary-tectonics events until the current time during its creation in each stage (opening, subduction, collision, post-collision) leads to changes in the governing regime on Iran crust and its sample like different architectural zones such as Sanandaj-Sirjan mylonite-magmatic zone, Cenozoic magmatic arc (including oromieh Dokhtar, Alborz, Azarbaijan, Iran east) from west to east (Alavi 1994, 2004, Pirouz et al. 2017a, Stocklin 1968).

Moreover, northern margin of Arabic plane like folded and trustee sedimentary units forms Zagros structural zone that currently, it is placed in Sirjan-Sanandaj zone and attached to its (due to closing Neotethys) and it (Khoye-Neiriz) is separated from Sanandaj-Sirjan by trans-driven ophiolite belt (Neotethys remains) (Zagros main trust, Pirouz et al. 2017)

Therefore, we can recently to the great extent Zagros, Sanandaj, Sirjan Zones from the type of Active continental margin (Alavi 2004, Arfania and Shahriari 2009, Ghasemi and Talbot 2006, Pirouz et al., 2017).

In Zagros zone, more formations of silicious-carbonate and alluvial have bed outcrop and in Sanandaj-Sirjan zone have more magmatic-metamorphic complex (Alavi 2004, Sepehr and Cosgrove 2004). Moreover, new and older alluvial sediments, the most important formations that have bed outcrop near studied regions including carbonate formations (Mishan and Asmari), debris (Aghajari, Bakhtiary and vapor (Gachsaran) that have neogene age limitations (Fig. 1 B). Their nature and feature sediment resulted from Zagros foreland sedimentary-tectonics status during pressed regime at collision Eurasia-Arabic plane (Fig. 2).

The weather of Khuzestan province generally is hot desert, but there are more various climates in its north and eastern north due to Zagros southern range foothills, so that it is observed the hot & dried to clod wet climate in this area (Fig. 3 A).

Karkhe and Dez rivers are the most important rivers in Iran that has the most scattering in Khuzestan province (Fig. 3 B) and drain the part of Zagros and sanandaj-sirjan architectural zones. Dez River is one of the important braids in Karun river system in Khuzestan province that its main source is in Sarband zone in Sanandaj-Sirjan. This river enter Khuzestan plain in north of Dezful and enter into Karun in Bandghir rural. The Dez river length to Banghir is about 515 km.

Karkhe river length is almost 900 km origin from the southern hillsides Alvand mountain in Hamaden Province (Sanandaj-Sirjan Zone) after add GhareSou river to its from Kermanshah province, enter to Lorestan

Fig. 1. A: the status of Khuzestan province in Iran B: Geology map of Khuzestan province and the studied region

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1019

Province. This river is called Karkhe after entering to Kuzestan province (Fig. 3-B), Karkhe River after Karun and Dez is considered as the third large river in Iran according to the amount of watering.

DATA AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY For sediments grading and related parameters, 30

samples were extracted from rivers (15 samples from each river) that the approximate position of sampling region is determined in Figs. 1 and 2. Samples are extracted optionally along with rivers at the range of 1 km. The results of analyzing grading are provided in separation gravel, sand and mud (silt and clay) (Table 1). The Folk (1980) method is also used for examination grading parameters. The arranged samples were considered base on the Miall (2013O method in order to determine sedimentary facies and type of river (Table 2).

The thin section was prepared in order to mineralogy studies from extracted samples. The percentage of forming minerals each sample was determined by the image analyzer method and numerating point method

(Zuffa 1985) (Table 3) as well as an analyze sample XRD is conducted from each river with device model PW1800 in order to more exact examine of mineralogy. Also 12 samples (6 samples from each river) were selected in order to examine heavy minerals amounts. Heavy minerals studies including steps like sampling from channel sediments (size 10 mesh volume 55 ltr), washing and initial thickening, separation with heavy solutions, magnetic separation and finally studying remaining phases NM-AA-AV. Their studies and examines were conducted after mud washing, panning, volumetric and magnetic separation.

14 samples (7 samples from each river) were selected (Table 4) in order to Geochemical analyze of Oxide main elements and after powdering, they were transferred from 200 sieve. The provided powdering samples were analyzed by XRF device, Philips magic pro model. The different methods were used for analyzing geochemical data such as figures of Dickinson (1985), Bhatia (1983), Roser and Korsch (1986).

Fig. 2. Tectonics status- Zagros foreland sedimentary during pressing regime collision Arabic-Eurasia plane from Oligocene until now period

Fig. 3. A: Climate status of Khuzestan Province B: watershed basin positions along with important rivers in Khuzestan province

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1020

THE SEDIMENTATION GRADING IN KARKHE AND DEZ RIVERS

The grading analyzes results of Karkhe (k) and Dez (D) Rivers samples are stated in Table 1. Sand and gravel Seeds almost with same size, are the most frequent elements and seeds have less frequency at the mud size. The minimum frequency gravel, sand and mud at the samples are respectively 3.66, 14.86, 0.36 and their maximum are respectively 81.19, 86.90, 19.31percent. According to Folk’s (1980) classification,

most samples are located at the range of gravel sand to sand gravel (Fig. 4). Grading sedimentary parameters of two rivers samples are compared to each other in Figs. 5 and 6.

SEDIMENTARY FACIES, ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND KARKHE AND DEZ RIVERS MODEL IN THE STUDIED REGION

Sedimentary facies is part of sediments that is classified base on structures and different sedimentary

Table 1. The frequency percent of different seeds size at the samples of two Karkhe (k) and Dez (D) rivers Samples Percent of grain size Samples Percent of grain size

Gravel Sand Mud Gravel Sand Mud D1 77.12 20.29 2.59 K1 9.71 84.18 6.11 D2 46.70 48.97 4.33 K2 3.66 77.02 19.31 D3 76.59 19.85 3.56 K3 30.69 67.61 1.70 D4 60.09 37.65 2.26 K4 34.01 57.29 8.70 D5 74.44 21.90 3.66 K5 8.00 86.90 5.11 D6 64.80 28.65 6.55 K6 9.47 86.02 4.51 D7 61.52 36.91 1.57 K7 13.18 81.31 5.51 D8 58.39 35.66 5.95 K8 10.40 86.32 3.28 D9 16.42 76.86 6.72 K9 60.90 38.74 0.36 D10 42.29 45.74 11.97 K10 59.01 37.96 3.03 D11 47.00 46.12 6.88 K11 27.99 68.91 3.09 D12 80.61 14.86 4.53 K12 72.28 27.02 0.70 D13 12.53 76.11 11.36 K13 78.78 19.04 2.18 D14 66.01 30.56 3.43 K14 81.19 15.63 3.17 D15 74.44 21.90 3.66 K15 77.05 21.68 1.27

Fig. 4. Samples position in the diagram folk 1980, for two rivers A) Dez and B) Karkhe C) comparing grading sedimentary parameters at the two rivers samples (naming and calculation method base on Folk 1980)

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1021

textures (Miall 2013). Miall (2013) has classified and explained fluvial facies to Graveling facial groups (with 7 main gravel facies), sandy (with 7 main sandy facies), fine grain (5 facies), non-debris facies and facies along with fluvial facies. Generally, folded designs and lithofacies features are reflecting changes in chaos design or governing conditions on the flow (speed and depth), transportation rate or the rate of density and the type of sediment. Base on Miall (2013) classification, the identified lithofacies are as follow in the studied regions:

Gravel Lithofacies 3 types of gravel lithofacies are most frequently seen

in case study region that includes gravel lithofacies with mass classification and matrix framework (Gmm), gravel lithofacies with gradual classification and matrix framework (Gmg) and gravel is with classification trough (Gt) (Fig. 5 A-C).

Gmm lithofacies indicating thin floor and sometimes sturdiness that their main framework is from matrix. In this lithofacies, sandy & muddy fine grain sediments have filled the space between gravel seed (Fig. 5 A-C). These sediments lack of specified layer and rarely are seen gradual classification at them. These sediments have weak sorting and disturbance buildings and indicating the sediments are less carried. Gravel in this lithofacies is seen from angled (with more frequency) to circulated. This lithofacies can happened in channels, barrier and gravel layer forms and forms resulted from gravity sedimentary flows (Blair and McPherson 1999, Kostic et al. 2005). Gmg lithofacies includes floors that have a matrix framework.

In these sediments, the amount of background sand was more than muddy particles and seeds sorting is also more (Fig. 5 A-C). This lithofacies has sediment with former facies in similar conditions and their difference is in flow power. Deynouxa and their colleague (2005) have stated by his studies in Sparta basin in Turkey that lithofacies Gmg include gradual and vice versa classification and its reason low flow power carrying sediment in comparison with Gmm lithofacies. Gt lithofacies shows sediments that mostly is resulted from filling small and secondary channels and show trough classification (Fig. 5 A-C).

Sandy Lithofacies This kind of lithofacies in fluvial system is resulted

from sand transportation by tensile flow and in its turn (Miall 2013). In the studied region, sandy lithofacies St, Sp, Sm and Sh were identified. St lithofacies (sand with trough diagonal classification) often having sands with medium seed to fine seed (Fig. 5 A) that is formed by migration 3 dimensional megaripples with complex crest (Harms et al. 1982). This face has less frequency in studied region. The current building in this face is formed by sandy tuberous movement and on the erosive surface and more is the type of trough classification (Ganil and Alam 2003, Miall 2013).

Sh lithofacies (sand with horizontal laminates) having particles almost circulated sand and show the better sorting (Fig. 5 K, H, G). The reasons of these features can refer to more transportation distance sediments of this lithofacies than other forming lithofacies above them. The main element forming such floors is existence linear Separation in the surface and linear flows (Fisher 1971, Kostic et al. 2005).

Sp lithofacies (sand with flat diagonal classification) has the size seed range from fine to large sand and sometimes has cell particles scattered. This lithofacies that usually does not have the great thickness is formed by the movement ripples (Fig. 5 H, E, C).

Sm lithofacies (sand with massing classification) more is resulted from gravity flows and the less frequency has in the studied region (Fig. 5 E, F), sorting and circulated is very low in these sediments.

Muddy Lithofacies Muddy lithofacies that have the more frequency in

some cases in the studied region, are formed more in the meander rivers and more in the river output place that is connecting to the flooding plain. The most frequency of the observed muddy lithofacies in the studied region includes F1 and Fm.

F1 lithofacies (sand, Silt and mud with laminations) is along with Sm lithofacies (Fig. 5 I). Existence muddy cracks at the surface of this face and also plants root effect expressive forming this lithofacies in the sediment calm condition that is affected by atmosphere at the most time. Sediment of this lithofacies in the pending form and to some extent weak tensile is done. Environment disturbance, creatures track, muddy cracks and plants root effects are the most important physical and environmental sedimentary structures in these lithofacies (Fig. 5 J, L, N, O).

Fm lithofacies (massive silt and mud) having frequent effect from plant root and Bioturbation. It seems that this face is the same face that lost its initial constructions in the Bioturbation (Fig. 5 J, K, M).

Architectural Elements and Fluvial Model Sedimentary barrier and channels are the main

elements of sedimentary process in the fluvial environments that is named to fluvial architectural elements and sedimentary environments. These element are separated and identified base on high and low boundary or surface of sediments, internal and external geometry, thick, old flows patterns and lithology interior & exterior sediments of channel of river (Miall 2013). According to identified lithofacies of forming architectural elements in the main channel studied the examined river later.

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1022

Sediments architectural elements with lateral growth (LA) is formed when river channel is migrated to another way and meander form is created, erosion at one side and sediment is happened at the other side and finally lateral growth is occurred. The Sediments migration forms are in such a way that larger sediments are placed on the finer sediments and move downside. We can refer to Sh, Sp, St from the main lithofacies constituent

this architectural element that in some cases always is accompanied with Gmm, Gmg, and Gt.

Sand architectural element with layering forms (SB) to sheeted form as well as width and wide is observed that mainly is formed sandy lithofacies. The above element usually is formed as filling sediments channel and its forming lithofacies is mostly Sp, St, Sh, Sm.

Structural element sediments, fine seed sediments out of channel have sheeted state and its folded is from

Table 2. The determined lithofacies for alluvial sediments of two Karkhe and Dez rivers Facies code Lithofacies Sedimentary Structure Interpretation

Gmm Matrix supported massive gravel Massive Deposited from debris flows and plastic debris flows, High viscosity and energy

Gmg Matrix-supported graded gravel Graded bedding Deposited from debris flows or pseudoplastic debris flows, Low viscosity and energy

Gt Trough cross-bedded Trough cross bedding Infill of minor channels St Trough cross-stratified sand Trough cross bedding Deposited from ripples and three-dimensional dunes Sp Planar cross-stratified sand Planar cross bedding Deposited from ripples and two- dimensional dunes Sm Massive sand Massive Deposition from bedload or debris flow

Sh Planar-stratified sand Planar bedding Deposition from the upper plane-bed flows or predominantly suspension under plane bed flow conditions

Fm Massive mudstone Massive Draped deposits or an abandoned channel

Fl Laminated sandstone, siltstone and mudstone

Laminated, Plants root and bioturbation Deposition from suspension on the floodplain and in the lake

Fig. 5. The determined lithofacies in studied region. More explanation is stated in the text

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1023

the tabular type that indicating low sediment environment energy. There is plant covering at its surface. Sediment faces F1 and Fm are formed in this architectural element. This architectural element is at wide form and usually is seen with SB architectural element intermittently. The meander model of two rivers is clear in aerial photos (Fig. 6).

MINERALOGY The Main and Light Minerals As it is stated in the research methodology, thin

section was provided from extracted samples for studying mineralogy two rivers at the understudied region. Also two sample test XRD also is taken that examine them in continuance. At the Table 3, the percentage element samples two rivers are mentioned.

Fig. 6. Aerial Photo from two rivers of Karkhe and Dez in Shuh region. At the photo, meander form of two rivers is observable very well

Table 3. The constituent element percentage at the samples two Karkhe and Dez River Samples

Percent of Grain Qm Qp Qt F Lm Lv Ch Lc Sh-Ss Lt

D1 13.52 14.21 27.73 0.00 0.00 4.03 13.26 54.98 0.00 72.27 D2 14.12 12.15 26.27 2.16 3.32 5.80 2.24 60.21 0.00 71.57 D3 5.41 13.80 19.21 4.12 0.00 11.18 28.00 37.49 0.00 76.67 D4 8.15 2.40 10.55 1.83 1.44 1.14 15.80 67.13 2.11 87.62 D5 7.18 2.09 9.27 3.92 0.00 0.00 3.63 83.18 0.00 86.81 D6 11.03 45.15 56.18 4.83 0.00 2.04 19.96 16.84 0.15 38.99 D7 12.18 0.00 12.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.26 69.56 0.00 87.82 D8 41.16 19.46 60.62 2.97 1.69 0.16 12.69 21.87 0.00 36.41 D9 16.45 21.50 37.95 0.00 2.16 2.32 19.97 37.60 0.00 62.05 D10 14.12 15.16 29.28 6.16 0.00 0.00 16.18 48.38 0.00 64.56 D11 35.12 19.78 54.90 2.16 0.00 3.65 12.16 27.13 0.00 42.94 D12 16.47 36.19 52.66 1.16 0.00 1.13 22.16 22.89 0.00 46.18 D13 11.18 42.16 53.34 0.32 0.00 0.94 11.09 34.08 0.23 46.34 D14 16.16 17.56 33.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.18 49.10 0.00 66.28 D15 24.00 15.24 39.24 1.15 2.16 3.48 16.14 37.83 0.00 59.61 K1 17.24 16.11 33.35 16.14 3.12 3.54 19.53 24.11 0.21 50.51 K2 23.15 9.82 32.97 2.10 3.20 0.00 15.53 46.20 0.00 64.93 K3 21.43 12.86 34.29 3.60 2.65 3.46 18.43 37.57 0.00 62.11 K4 3.18 8.76 11.94 2.06 0.00 0.00 3.65 82.35 0.00 86.00 K5 20.12 26.18 46.30 3.21 0.00 0.00 21.10 29.39 0.00 50.49 K6 9.11 2.04 11.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.00 71.85 0.00 88.85 K7 14.12 16.66 30.78 2.89 0.00 0.00 1.14 65.19 0.00 66.33 K8 12.67 11.19 23.86 0.00 2.17 0.00 0.94 73.03 0.00 76.14 K9 41.85 24.52 66.37 6.45 2.65 4.31 16.08 4.04 0.10 27.18 K10 16.25 13.89 30.14 0.00 1.12 0.00 24.16 44.58 0.00 69.86 K11 21.16 19.45 40.61 16.19 2.16 6.18 4.12 30.74 0.00 43.2 K12 16.17 1.06 17.23 3.12 2.41 0.00 3.14 74.10 0.00 79.65 K13 11.15 2.18 13.33 3.21 0.00 0.00 16.17 67.29 0.00 83.46 K14 16.16 2.17 18.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04 79.63 0.00 81.67 K15 8.12 3.14 11.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.74 0.00 88.74

Average 16.60 14.90 31.50 2.99 1.01 1.78 13.06 49.57 0.09 65.50 Min 3.18 0.00 9.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.04 0.00 27.18 Max 41.85 45.15 66.37 16.19 3.32 11.18 28.00 88.74 2.11 88.85

Qm: Mono crystalline quartz Qp: poly crystalline quartz Qt: poly crystalline and mono crystalline quartz total F: feldspar, Lm: Metamorphic gravels, Lv: Volcanic gravels, Ch: Chert, Lc: carbonate gravels, Sh-Ss: chile gravels and sandstone, Lt: total gravels

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1024

As it is observable in the table, quartz seeds total (monocrystalline) are at the range 9.27% to 66.37 % that include average 31.50 total samples. The most amount of gravels are 88.85% and the lowest amount 27.18% that its average at the samples almost 65%. Carbonate gravels with average 49.57% the most frequency gravel at the samples. Feldspar grains with the average 2.99%, the lowest frequency toward to quartz and gravels (Table 3).

The results analysis XRD show that the main minerals of sediments at two studied samples of calcite and quartz (Fig. 7). Based on 1974 classification, Folk

the most samples at the range of litharenite and in the more detail classification place at the range of litharenite carbonate (Fig. 8). (Garzanti et al. 2000, 2016, Kasper Zubillaga et al. 2005, Le Pera and Arribas 2004).

In Fig. 9, thin sections images of studied samples are took photos from two rivers. Mono crystalline quartz almost have smaller size than 1 mm, while carbonate gravel (interaclast, fossil) often have larger size (Fig. 9). Poly crystalline quartz and chert also show their variety size. Lithogravels except carbonate lithogravels finds the little amounts in the samples. All samples have bad sorting and apparently also have very low circulated and

Fig. 7. The results analysis XRD of two samples from two rivers. In the sample karkhe (A) calcite the main mineral and at the Dez river sample (B), quartz is the main mineral

Fig. 8. samples position at the diagram, sedimentary elements 1980, Folk for two rivers

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1025

also sphere (Fig. 9). Mineralogy, the considerable difference was not shown between the frequencies the main minerals of studied samples from two rivers.

The different methods were used for examination debris sediment origins. Examination gravels and sedimentary elements are from its usual methods (Pettijohn et al. 1987). Many researchers such as

(Bhuiyan et al. 2011, Cavazza and Ingersoll 2005, Dickinson and Suczek 1979, Dickinson et al. 1983, Greene et al. 2005, Herron 1988). Debris main particles framework used sediments for determination the type of their origin and their tectonics. In this research, two diagrams were used that is Lt, Qm, F, Ls, Qp (LvDickinson 1985). As it is observed in the Fig. 10, the

Fig. 9. Sedimentary elements at the studied samples from two karkhe and Dez rivers

Fig. 10. Samples position in the figures Dickinson 1985 that indicating collision orogeny origin (A) and rock recycle (B)

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1026

studied samples were placed at the range of collision orogeny origin and rock recycle (Bhuiyan et al. 2011, González-Acebrón et al. 2010, Le Pera and Arribas 2004). Collision belt is made up from ocean and continental sequences in structural view that origin sediments foreland basins and remaining basins are around them. As stated in geology section, this fact consistent with Zagros structural conditions.

For examining orogeny origin rock by using original elements is used from Weltje (1994) figure. Drawing the obtaining points from numerating point quartz, feldspar and the studied sample gravels in the mentioned figure appeared that the origin orogeny status is placed more in zero range of this figure (Fig. 11 A). The results showing mountain topography to Hills and semi dried or Mediterranean until semi wet mild weather. Also in figure Suttner and Dutta (1986), also samples are placed in the dry climate or semi wet positions (Fig. 11 C) (Fesharaki et al. 2015).

Heavy Minerals As it is stated in the research methodology, 12

samples were examined for analyzing heavy minerals that 6 samples were selected from each river. Base on study and examination on the 55 extracted samples from alluvial at the range of the desired exploration to heavy minerals research methodology and according to heavy section volume at the samples after the bromoforming stage and emission minerals of zircon, esphan, barite, rutile, quartz and feldspar, calcite apatite, leucoxene, at the little amount in the phase NM as well as minerals such as hematite, pyroxene, amphibole, epidote, Limonite, Ilmenite, pyrite and martite minerals at the little amount, in AV samples are observed. As in Table 3 is observed, the most frequencies heavy minerals at the examined samples include magnetite, martite and Ilmenite (with Igneous origin), hematite (with sedimentary origin), garnet (with metamorphic origin).

Fig. 11. Weathering status origin rock for examined samples from two rivers. A: the suggested diagram by Weltje, 1994 and B: the suggested diagram by Suttner and Dutta (1986)

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1027

Unlike the main minerals, the heavy minerals frequency is different at the two rivers samples. At the river Dez, the total heavy minerals 11302.24 ppm and at the Dez river 9342 and at the Dez river 9342.31 ppm.

GEOCHEMICAL The Geochemical study of main elements often

include Ca, Al, P, Na, K, Mg, Mn, F, Ti, Si that stated in oxide (Rollinson 1993). The results geochemical analyses of the main oxides constituent 15 samples from two Karkhe and Dez rivers has brought in Table 5.

As the mineralogy results, geochemical data also well indicating this fact that two oxides SiO2 and CaCO3 are the main element constituent sediments. After these two oxides, oxides Al2O3 ، MgO ، Fe2O3 ، K2O ، Na2O and TiO2 respectively have the less frequency. The other oxides have the trivial frequency. The frequency of two oxides SiO2 and CaCO3 as seen in the mineralogy section, showing the frequency quartz seeds and

carbonate gravels. Existence oxides Al2O3, K2O, MgO, Na2O also sate clad minerals and Aluminosilicates at the samples (Jin et al. 2006, McLennan et al. 1983). Oxides TiO2 and Fe2O3 are also heavy and dark due to existence metaphoric gravels, volcanic as well as minerals.

Among the oxides, CaCo3, MgO, K2O, Na2O are dynamic and Al2O3 non-dynamic (Bauluz et al. 2000). Since Al2O3 oxide relatively remains without change during weathering, diagenesis and metaphore, this oxide is considered as index for comparing other oxides (Cardenas et al. 1996). As observes in Fig. 10, there is negative relationship between SiO2 and CaCo3 oxide showing this facts that the frequency quartz minerals and chert gravels reduce from the percentage frequencies minerals having CaCo3.

This means that these two oxides do not have many accompanies in a combination that increasing at the other cause to increase in another. The positive correlation between Al2O3 and K2O, MgO, Na2O oxides

Table 4. Heavy minerals analyze results at 12 samples from karkhe and Dez Rivers. The number inserted in the each column is based on (ppm) D-2 D-3 D-9 D-10 D-14 D-15 K-6 K-7 K-8 K-9 K-12 K-14 Magnetite 552.53 331.5 663 497.3 41.44 359.2 47 912 276.3 497 410.95 18.65 Hematite 631.2 273.5 315.6 1073 1973 410.3 477 617 280.5 442 1325.5 315.6 Ilmenite 11.28 4.89 2.82 9.59 35.25 0 0 5.51 0 0 0 2.82 Garnets 48 208 12 0 30 0 0 0 21.33 33.6 6.72 0 Pyroxenes 21.6 312 144 30.6 135 140.4 27.2 880 160 30.2 45.36 450 Amphiboles 36 15.6 90 24.48 22.5 23.4 5.44 17.6 16 5.04 25.2 9 Epidotes 8.4 182 2.1 7.14 26.25 5.46 25.4 4.11 29.87 29.4 29.4 105 Biotite 36 15.6 9 18.36 18 4.68 5.44 528 0 0 0 90 Pyrite oxide 96 26 150 51 375 31.2 45.3 29.3 48 168 42 15 Oligiste 0 0 0 0 390 0 9.43 6.1 0 43.7 0 0 Limonite 42 182 105 64.26 210 27.3 6.35 28.8 18.67 118 29.4 84 Martite 62.4 270.4 15.6 53.04 0 24.34 47.2 0 0 8.74 43.68 0 Olivine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.45 0 0 0 0 Chromite 0 0 0 0 35.1 0 0 26.4 24 0 0 135 Zircon 0.3 0.04 9 54 2.25 0.2 0.05 49.5 0.15 0.27 0.21 0.02 Apatite 0.04 0.02 0.12 3.6 0.15 0.03 0.03 1.1 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.01 Rutile 0.05 0.03 0.16 4.8 0.04 0.03 0.05 14.7 0.03 2.4 0.04 0.02 Barite 6 3.6 18 162 9 0.04 2.55 66 3 10.8 0.21 1.8 Sphene 0.23 0.03 0.14 4.2 0.04 0.03 0.2 0.26 0 0 0 0 Anatase 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.29 0 0 0 0.02 Leucoxene 0 0 0 0.72 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0 Malachite 0 0 0.01 0.01 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Andalusite 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.19 0 0.06

Sum 1552.2 1825 1537 2058 3304 1027 699 3191 878 1389 1958.8 1227 11302.24 9342.31

Table 5. The geochemical analyses results of the main oxides constituent 15 sample from two karkhe and Dez rivers Samples LOI CaO SiO2 Al2O3 MgO K2O Na2O TiO2 Fe2O3 P2O5 MnO SrO SO3 D1 D2 CWI D2 9.29 28.16 46.28 7.41 3.86 0.98 0.54 0.53 2.89 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 13.85 92.97 D3 8.24 33.68 45.22 7.26 2.56 0.74 0.71 0.54 0.85 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.80 11.59 90.30 D4 5.71 35.19 45.27 8.58 2.04 0.95 0.53 0.31 1.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.35 5.78 90.22 D7 8.57 32.87 46.18 7.21 2.25 0.85 0.72 0.12 1.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.04 6.95 88.14 D9 18.89 16.92 53.23 6.96 0.69 0.83 0.97 0.14 1.25 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 -1.39 0.43 89.23 D10 9.68 36.61 42.11 6.75 2.13 0.86 0.84 0.36 0.49 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 2.66 10.16 90.36 D12 11.37 43.25 35.78 6.31 1.17 0.59 0.44 0.45 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.18 6.30 87.40 K1 9.16 30.34 46.58 8.72 2.23 0.81 0.40 0.39 1.20 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.03 -1.02 6.32 92.18 K2 8.62 31.26 46.75 7.95 3.12 0.73 0.78 0.19 0.53 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.82 10.40 91.80 K8 6.73 31.67 48.42 9.36 0.85 0.86 0.74 0.21 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 -2.34 0.32 94.45 K10 8.46 25.78 50.83 9.34 2.17 0.82 0.91 0.50 1.13 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.28 6.49 95.50 K11 7.75 22.93 53.32 9.66 2.88 1.05 0.93 0.26 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 7.26 94.80 K12 10.81 34.71 41.28 7.75 2.55 0.87 0.55 0.31 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 8.59 95.09 K13 7.27 34.45 43.42 7.61 3.79 0.87 0.56 0.40 1.45 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.00 1.42 14.05 93.37 Min 5.71 16.92 35.78 6.31 0.69 0.59 0.40 0.12 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.34 0.32 87.40 Max 18.89 43.25 53.32 9.66 3.86 1.05 0.97 0.54 2.89 0.08 0.10 0.04 0.03 2.66 14.05 95.50 Average 9.32 31.27 46.05 7.92 2.31 0.84 0.69 0.34 1.13 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.15 7.75 91.84

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1028

(Fig. 12) indicating accompany these oxides in a series from definite combinations that mostly clay and phyllosilicates minerals (Jin et al. 2006, McLennan et al.

1983, Roser et al. 2000). There is a little relation between Al2O3 and TiO2, Fe2O3 oxides (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12. The relation between the main oxides of stone constituent with Al2O3

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1029

The other usage of geochemical data is determination the stone main components type by using geochemical division diagram (Pettijohn et al. 1987). As it is indicated in the mineralogy section, here, geochemical data of Lit Arnayti elements indicate for studied samples (Fig. 13).

One of the more efficient methods in order to examination origins and tectonics is the origin sediments using geochemical data of the main elements (Bhatia 1983, McLennan et al. 1990, Zaid 2012, Zhu 2005). The sediments combination is controlled by the origin rock weathering and transportation distance (Akarish and El-Gohary 2008, Pettijohn et al. 1987). Drawing the main elements data of the studied sediment samples on the discriminant function diagram Roser and Korsch (1988) is indicating the quartz sedimentary origins of more samples. Also two samples is located at the range of medium rock (Fig. 14 A).

The discriminant functions of Fig. 14 were obtained as follow and their number is observed in Table 5.

Discriminant function 1 (D1) = 30638 TiO2/Al2O3 – 12.541 Fe2O3 (total)/Al2O3 + 7.329 MgO / Al2O3 + 12.031 Na2O/Al2O3 + 35.402 K2O/Al2O3 – 6.382

Discrimination function 2 (D2) = 56500 TiO2/Al2O3 – 10.879 Fe2O3 (total)/Al2O3 + 30.875 MgO/Al2O3 – 5.404Na2O/Al2O3 +11.112 K2O/Al2O3 – 3.89

Plane making earth processeseffect geochemically on the sediments in two ways; first the different earth making environments have special the origin area features and the second, special sedimentary processes occur at them that cause difference in the sediments features (Bhatia 1983, Zuffa 1985). The sedimentary basins can relate to many main earths making position such as arcing islands, active and passive continental margins (Bhatia and Crook 1986).

At the discriminant diagram Log (K2O/Na2O)- SiO2, we can recognize three making earth positions of active and passive continental margin and arcing islands (Roser and Korsch 1988). Drawing ratio Log K2O/Na2O in comparison with SiO2 represent that earth making position of active continental margins for more examined samples (Fig. 14 B). This fact is observable in K2O/Na2O, Al2O3/SiO2 diagrams and Al2O3/(CaO+Na2O), Fe2O3+Mgo ratio (Fig. 14 C). As it can be seen in the figures, most samples are located at the continental active margin. Continental active margin of sedimentary basins continental margins from the type of Anodi and the types of strike slip. These basins is formed on the or next to the continental crusts include old fault belt rocks (Bhatia 1983). The earth making position of two rivers catchment basin has consistency with the obtained results very well.

Fig. 13. The studied samples position in the division the main elements in division by Pettijohn et al. (1987)

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1030

Samples placement position at the diagram Al2O3/ (Na2O+ CaO)- Fe2O3+MgO are due to the high amounts of carbonate gravels.

We can refer to weathering from the usual processes at the sedimentary cycles that are examined by the geochemical data method. We can refer to weathering index CIA (Nesbitt and Young 1982) or CIW (Harnois 1988) from the usual weathering index that their equations are as follow:

CIA:[Al2O3/Al2O3+CaO+Na2O+K2O].100 CIW:[Al2O3/Al2O3+CaO+Na2O].100 The considerable note in calculation weathering

index is placement only the current CaO amounts in the silicate minerals in these formulas. According to considerable presence carbonate gravels in the studied samples, CIA and CWI amounts have errors, therefore, for deletion the unfavorable effect of carbonate elements, the formula (Cullers 2000) has been used in calculation weathering index that is as follow:

CWI= [Al2O3/Al2O3+Na2O].100 The obtained amounts for CWI in Table 4 represent

that the studied samples with the average 91.84 is under the effect of the average to severe weathering (Cullers 2000).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Sediment seeding represents the high variety at the

seeds size and the element sort is bad to very bad. There are no many differences between two rivers sediments in terms of seeding except the Dez river sediments, the average seeds size is a little larger and more gravel (Fig. 3). Two river models is meander except that Dez River has less twisting (Fig. 5). The main minerals constituent gravels sediment (carbonate gravel with more frequency and Chert gravel with less frequency) and quartz. The constituent elements at the diagram, Dickinson (1985), collisional orogeny origin,

Fig. 14. A: Distinction diagram Roser & Korsch, 1986 and its examined samples position. All samples are in the active margin. B: Distinction diagram Roser&Korsch, 1988 and its examined samples position. All samples show quartz arenite B: Distinction diagram tectonic environment TiO2 - Fe2O3 + MgO, Al2O3/SiO2- Fe2O3 +MgO, K2O+ Na2O- Fe2O3+ MgO, Al2O3/ (Na2O+ CaO)- Fe2O3+MgO (Bhatia 1983). PM: passive margin, ACM: active continental margin, CIA: continental islands arc OIA: ocean islands arc. All the examined samples are at the range of ACM and PM

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1031

rock recycle and at the diagram of Suttner, Dutta and Weltje (1994), weathering determine for origin rock at the dried to wet weather.

Unlike the main minerals that there is no great difference at the two rivers, heavy minerals (with Azarine, sedimentary and mylonite origin) have shown the more average weight in the Dez river (Table 3). Geochemical data also confirming this fact and SiO2, CaCo3 oxide amounts have the more frequency in comparison with the other oxides. Geochemical data at the Roser and Korsch (1986), Roser and Korsch (1988), Bhatia (1983)’s diagrams show often continental active margin that according to the above notes about the studied region, it has consistent with the status Mesozoic and Cenozoic Zagros (Alavi 2004, Pirouz et al. 2011a, Sahraeyan and Bahrami 2012). Also geochemical data also shows the medium to severe weathering that it has consistency with component point numbering data. Totally, results show this fact that dominant origin element the studied sediments related to the bed outcrop sedimentary formations in the region that related to Mesozoic and specially Cenozoic.

In order to determination sediment origins should discuss with more details about sediments origin. As it is stated before, the most important formations that spread at the near the studied region include carbonate

formations (Mishan and Asmari), debris (Aghajari, Bakhtiary and vapor (Gachsaran) that having neogene age limitation (Fig. 1 B). At the other hand, in the watershed basin, the studied rivers moreover the above formations, volcanic mass and mylonite complexes (belong to the Sanandaj-Sirjan) also have bed outcrop (Fig. 14).

Although, the various debris formations at the watershed basin two rivers have bed outcrop but it seems that Aghajari and Bakhtiary (debris) formations due to many scattering and near to the study region, are the main suppliers of sediments but the evidences of accuracy studies petrography show that many quartz seeds show high severity tectonic pressure and burial diagenesis (BLG, SGR and GBM Recrystallisation). (Fig. 16 A, B, Guillopé and Poirier 1979, Lloyd and Freeman 1994, Passchier and Trouw 2005).

Aghajari formation due to low thickness and young of sediments on it, it can rarely bear tectonics pressure degree (refer to Passchier and Trouw, 2005). Therefore, quartz and Chert seeds related to older formations (such as Massive sandstone in Fig. 2) or belong to older formations that sediment again in Aghajari formation sequence and then have moved until have reached to current status but what it is clear, it does not seem that quartz seeds related to volcanic mass and mylonite

Fig. 15. The bed outcrop formations in watershed basin two karkhe and Dez rivers and the studied region position

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1032

complexes in the Sanandaj and Sirjan because most quartz seeds and or even Chert like gravel or carbonate cement carry again and have sediment and in many cases gravel is maintained uncooled (Fig. 16 C-E).

One of the most important facies of Aghajari formation is calcaruse Lytic Arnite (Bahrami 2009, Pirouz et al. 2012, Sahraeyan and Bahrami 2011). Carbonate gravels or related to region carbonate formations or carbonate pieces move again aghajari formation. Regarding to sediments gravel that in most cases carbonate seeds have the great size from other elements, as well as most of them have angel (Fig. 16 F), we can conclude that carbonate gravels have not transported a long distance from the origin. Regarding to

the current carbonate calcium in Aghajari formation mostly is like the carbonate cements that fill between the main element (quartz and feldspar). (Bahrami 2009, Pirouz et al. 2011 B, Sahraeyan and Bahrami 2012). It is rarely seems that suppliers of all these gravel are carbonate. Regarding to current fossil accumulation (Orbulinasuturalis, Orbulina, universa, Operculinscomplanata, Globigerinoidestriloba, Globigerinoidessubquadratus) in some samples (Fig. 17) can recognize Mishan formation as the main original of carbonate gravels (James and Wynd 1965, Heidari et al. 2013, Rahmani et al. 2010, Stocklin and Setudehnia 1977, Wynd 1965).

Fig. 16. A: the obtained structure from Recrystallization and high-temperature grain boundary migration (GBM) in the tectonics and burial pressure (High-temperature grain boundary migration; GBM). B: Bulging (BLG) structure that indicating GBM stage initiating and is created by great pressure. C, D, E gravel with carbonate cement. F: intraclast, fussil, quartz carbonate gravels. Quartz seeds despite high resistance have the many erosions but carbonate gravel remain huge and angled

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1033

Of course the other region formations also have role at the supplying carbonate elements but regarding to seeding evidence and oryctology, mishan formation have also more roles. If carbonate and quartz gravels are produced form the one origin, carbonate gravels should show more corrosion in comparison with quartz because they have very less resistance (Hughes et al. 2000, Lewin and Brewer 2002, Lewis and McConchie 1994, Selley 2000). Therefore, this kind of difference in seeding quartz and carbonate gravels represent sediments difference origin (Fig. 16 F).

Discussion is little difficult about the heavy minerals origin. Heavy minerals can also origin from debris formations near to the studied region as well as volcanic and mylonite stone in the Sanandaj and Sirjan zone. Regarding to heavy mineral amounts is the frequent in the Dezriver (Table 3) and also the distance of this river from Sirjan-Sanandaj is lesser than Karkhe river, so we can conclude possibly heavy minerals origin is the bed

outcrop Sirjan-Sanandaj zone. If the main origin of heavy minerals the bed-outcrop formations was near the studied region, according to lithology similarity near to sampling place should not have the great difference from the amounts and frequency. Usually the heavy minerals in the high amounts have the initial origin (Azarin or mylonite) (Mange and Wright 2007, Mange and Morton 2007)

Therefore, we can say briefly, evidence suggest that most carbonate gravels from Mishan formation, most quartz seeds from Aghajari formation, the older debris formations and most heavy minerals are origin from Sanandaj-Sirjan zone. Weathering severity also according to climate map of Khuzestan province can consider medium to severity that geochemical and data elements also prove this fact. Of course it may be due to most obtain elements are sediment recycle, data show the weathering severity more than fact.

REFERENCES Abdolmaleki J, Tavakoli V (2016) Anachronistic facies in the Early Triassic successions of the Persian Gulf and its

palaeoenvironmental reconstruction. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 446: 213-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2016.01.031

Abdolmaleki J, Tavakoli, V. and Asadi-Eskandar, A., 2016.Sedimentological and diagenetic controls on reservoir properties in the Permian–Triassic successions of Western Persian Gulf, Southern Iran.Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 141: 90-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.01.020

Fig. 17. The most frequency microfossil in the carbonate pieces (Orbulinasuturalis, Orbulinauniversa, Operculinscomplanata, Globigerinoidestriloba, Globigerinoidessubquadratus) that represent their Mishan formation origin (the high miosen)

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1034

Akarish AI, El-Gohary AM (2008) Petrography and geochemistry of lower Paleozoic sandstones, East Sinai, Egypt: Implications for provenance and tectonic setting. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 52(1-2): 43-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2008.04.002

Alavi M (2004) Regional stratigraphy of the Zagros fold-thrust belt of Iran and its proforeland evolution. American journal of science, 304(1): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.304.1.1

Arfania R, Shahriari S (2009) Role of southeastern Sanandaj–Sirjan Zone in the tectonic evolution of Zagros Orogenic Belt, Iran. Island arc, 18(4): 555-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1738.2009.00680.x

Bauluz B, Mayayo MJ, Fernandez-Nieto C, Lopez JMG (2000) Geochemistry of Precambrian Paleozoic siliciclastic rocks from the Iberian Range (NE Spain): implications for source-area weathering, sorting, provenance and tectonic setting. Chemical Geology 168: 135-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2541(00)00192-3

Bhatia MR (1983) Plate tectonics and geochemical composition of sandstones. The Journal of Geology, 91(6): 611-627. https://doi.org/10.1086/628815

Bhatia MR, Crook KAW (1986) Trace element characteristics of graywackes and tectonic setting discrimination of sedimentary basins. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 92: 181-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00375292

Bhuiyan MAH, Rahman MJJ, Dampare SB, Suzuki S (2011) Provenance, tectonics and source weathering of modern fluvial sediments of the Brahmaputra–Jamuna River, Bangladesh: inference from geochemistry. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 111(3): 113-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2011.06.008

Blair TC, McPherson JG (1999) Grain-size and textural classification of coarse sedimentary particles. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 69: 6-19. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.69.6

Cardenas A, Girty GH, Hanson AD, Lahren MM (1996) Assessing differences in composition between low metamorphic grade mudstones and high-grade schists using logratio techniques. Journal of Geology, 104: 279-293. https://doi.org/10.1086/629825

Cavazza W, Ingersoll RV (2005) Detrital modes of the Ionian forearc basin fill (Oligocene-Quaternary) reflect the tectonic evolution of the Calabria-Peloritaniterrane (southern Italy). Journal of Sedimentary Research, 75(2): 268-279. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2005.020

Cullers RL (2000) The geochemistry of shales, siltstones and sandstones of Pennsylvanian–Permian age, Colorado, USA: implications for provenance and metamorphic studies. Lithos, 51(3): 181-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-4937(99)00063-8

Deynouxa M, Inerb CA, Monodc O, Karab A, VyVkoglud M, Manatschala G, Tuzcu, S (2005) Facies architecture and depositional evolution of alluvial fan to fan-delta complexes in the tectonically active Miocene Kfprqc, ay Basin, Isparta Angle, Turkey. Sedimentary Geology, 173: 315-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2003.12.013

Dickinson WR (1985) Interpreting provenance relations from detrital modes of sandstones. In Provenance of arenites (pp. 333-361).Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2809-6_15

Dickinson WR, Suczek CA (1979) Plate tectonics and sandstone compositions. Aapg Bulletin, 63(12): 2164-2182. https://doi.org/10.1306/2F9188FB-16CE-11D7-8645000102C1865D

Dill HG, Ludwig RR (2008) Geomorphological-sedimentological studies of landform types and modern placer deposits in the savanna (Southern Malawi). Ore Geology Reviews, 33(3-4): 411-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2007.02.002

Fesharaki O, Arribas J, López-Martínez N (2015) Composition of clastic sediments in the Somosaguas area (middle Miocene, Madrid Basin): insights into provenance and palaeoclimate. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_JIGE.2015.v41.n2.44802

Fisher RV (1971) Features of coarse-grained, high-concentration fluids and their deposits. J. Sediment. Petrol, 41: 916–927. https://doi.org/10.1306/74D723B5-2B21-11D7-8648000102C1865D

Folk RL (1980) Petrology of sedimentary rocks. Hemphill Publishing Company. Ganil MR, Alam MM (2003) Sedimentation and basin-fill history of the Neogeneclastic succession exposed in the

southeastern fold belt of the Bengal Basin, Bangladesh: a high-resolution sequence stratigraphic approach. Sedimentary Geology, 155: 227–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0037-0738(02)00182-3

Garzanti E, Al-Juboury AI, Zoleikhaei Y, Vermeesch P, Jotheri J, Akkoca DB, Obaid AK, Allen MB, Ando S, Limonta M, Padoan M (2016) The Euphrates-Tigris-Karun river system: Provenance, recycling and dispersal of quartz-poor foreland-basin sediments in arid climate. Earth-Science Reviews, 162: 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.09.009

Garzanti E, Vezzoli G, Ando S (2002) Modern sand from obductedophiolite belts (Sultanate of Oman and United Arab Emirates). The Journal of geology, 110(4): 371-391. https://doi.org/10.1086/340440

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1035

Ghasemi A, Talbot CJ (2006) A new tectonic scenario for the Sanandaj–Sirjan Zone (Iran). Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 26(6): 683-693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2005.01.003

González-Acebrón L, Arribas J, Mas JR (2010) Sand provenance and implications for paleodrainage in a rifted basin: the Tera Group (N. Spain).

Greene TJ, Carroll AR, Wartes M, Graham SA, Wooden JL (2005) Integrated provenance analysis of a complex orogenicterrane: Mesozoic uplift of the Bogda Shan and Inception of the Turpan-Hami Basin, NW China. J. Sed. Res. 75: 251–267. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2005.019

Harms JC, Southard JB, Walker RG (1982) Structure and Sequence in Clastic Rocks. SEPM Short Course 9, SEPM, Tulsa, OK. https://doi.org/10.2110/scn.82.09

Harnois L (1988) The CIW index: a new chemical index of weathering. Sedimentary Geology, 55(3): 319-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/0037-0738(88)90137-6

Heidari A, Mahboubi A, Moussavi-Harami R, Gonzalez L, Moalemi SA (2014) Biostratigraphy, sequence stratigraphy, and paleoecology of the Lower–Middle Miocene of Northern Bandar Abbas, Southeast Zagros basin in south of Iran. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 7(5): 1829-1855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-012-0803-3

Herron MM (1988) Geochemical classification of terrigenous sands and shales from core or log data. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 58(5): 820–829. https://doi.org/10.1306/212F8E77-2B24-11D7-8648000102C1865D

Hughes MG, Keene JB, Joseph RG (2000) Hydraulic sorting of heavy-mineral grains by swash on a medium-sand beach. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 70(5): 994-1004. https://doi.org/10.1306/112599700994

Jahn BM, Condie KC (1995) Evolution of the KaapvaalCraton as viewed from geochemical and SmNd isotopic analyses of intracratonicpelites. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 59(11): 2239-2258. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(95)00103-7

James GA, Wynd JG (1965) Stratigraphic nomenclature of Iranian oil consortium agreement area.AApG Bulletin, 49(12), pp.2182-2245. https://doi.org/10.1306/A663388A-16C0-11D7-8645000102C1865D

Jin Z, Li F, Cao J, Wang S, Yu J (2006) Geochemistry of Daihai Lake sediments, Inner Mongolia, north China: Implications for provenance, sedimentary sorting and catchment weathering. Geomorphology, 80: 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.02.006

Kasper‐Zubillaga JJ, Dickinson WW, Carranza‐Edwards A, Hornelas‐Orozco Y (2005) Petrography of quartz grains in beach and dune sands of Northland, North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 48(4): 649-660. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2005.9515139

Kleinhans MG (2001) The key role of fluvial dunes in transport and deposition of sand–gravel mixtures, a preliminary note. Sedimentary Geology, 143(1-2): 7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0037-0738(01)00109-9

Kostic B, Becht A, Aigner T (2005) 3-D sedimentary architecture of a Quaternary gravel delta (SW-Germany): Implications for hydrostratigraphy. Sedimentary Geology, 181: 143–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2005.07.004

Le Pera E, Arribas J (2004) Sand composition in an Iberian passive-margin fluvial course: the Tajo River. Sedimentary Geology, 171(1-4): 261-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2004.05.019

Lewin J, Brewer PA (2002) Predicting channel patterns. Geomorphology, 40: 329-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(01)00061-7

Lewis DW, McConchie D (1994) Texture of detrital sediments. In Practical Sedimentology (pp. 114-127). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2634-6_5

Lloyd GE, Freeman B (1994) Dynamic recrystallization of quartz under greenschist conditions. Journal of Structural Geology, 16(6): 867-881. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(94)90151-1

Mange MA, Morton AC (2007) Geochemistry of heavy minerals. Developments in sedimentology, 58: 345-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0070-4571(07)58013-1

Mange MA, Wright DT (Eds.) (2007) Heavy minerals in use (Vol. 58). Elsevier. McLennan SM, Taylor SR, Eriksson KA (1983) Geochemistry of Archeanshales from Pilbara Supergroup, Western

Australia; Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 74: 1211–1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(83)90063-7 McLennan SM, Taylor SR, McCulloch MT, Maynard JB (1990) Geochemical and Nd–Sr isotopic composition of deep

sea turbidites: Crustal evolution and plate tectonic associations. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 54: 2015–2050. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(90)90269-Q

Miall AD (2013) The geology of fluvial deposits: sedimentary facies, basin analysis, and petroleum geology. Springer. Nesbitt HW, Young GM (1982) Early Proterozoic climates of sandstone mudstone suites using SiO2 content and

K2O/Na2O ratio. Nature, 299: 715-717. https://doi.org/10.1038/299715a0

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 13: 1017-1036 (2019) Mataji et al.

1036

Passchier CW, Trouw RA (1987) J. 2005. microtectonics. Deformation mechanisms. Springer, pp.56-66. Pettijohn FJ, Potter PE, Siever R (1987) Sand and Sandstone. 553 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1066-5 Pirouz M, Avouac JP, Gualandi A, Hassanzadeh J, Sternai P (2017a) Flexural bending of the Zagros foreland basin.

Geophysical Journal International, 210(3): 1659-1680. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx252 Pirouz M, Avouac JP, Hassanzadeh J, Kirschvink JL, Bahroudi A (2017b) Early Neogene foreland of the Zagros,

implications for the initial closure of the Neo-Tethys and kinematics of crustal shortening. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 477: 168-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2017.07.046

Poirier JP, Guillopé M (1979) Deformation induced recrystallization of minerals. Bulletin de Mineralogie, 102(2): 67-74. https://doi.org/10.3406/bulmi.1979.7256

Rahmani Z, Vaziri-Moghaddam H (2010) Facies distribution and palaeoecology of the Guri Member of the Mishan Formation, in Lar area, Fars Province, SW Iran. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology (Sciences), 34(3): 257-266.

Rollinson HR (1993) Using Geochemical Data: Evaluation, Presentation, Interpretation, Longman, 352 p. Roser BP, Korsch RJ (1986) Determination of tectonic setting of sandstones mudstones suites using SiO2 content

and K2O/Na2O ratio. Journal of Geology, 94: 635- 650. https://doi.org/10.1086/629071 Sahraeyan M, Bahrami M (2012) Geochemistry of sandstones from the Aghajari Formation, Folded Zagros Zone,

southwestern Iran: implication for paleoweathering condition, provenance, and tectonic setting. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 1(4): 390-407. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijbas.v1i4.244

Selley RC (2000) Applied sedimentology. Elsevier. Singh P (2010) Geochemistry and provenance of stream sediments of the Ganga River and its major tributaries in

the Himalayan region, India. Chemical Geology, 269(3-4): 220-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2009.09.020

Stocklin J (1968) Structural history and tectonics of Iran: a review. AAPG Bulletin, 52(7): 1229-1258. https://doi.org/10.1306/5D25C4A5-16C1-11D7-8645000102C1865D

Stocklin J, Setudehnia A (1977) Stratigraphic Lexicon of Iran. Geolocal Survey of Iran, Tehran. Surian N (2002) Downstream variation in grain size along an Alpine river: analysis of controls and processes.

Geomorphology, 43(1-2): 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(01)00127-1 Suttner LJ, Dutta PK (1986) Alluvial sandstone composition and paleoclimate; I, Framework mineralogy. Journal of

Sedimentary Research, 56(3): 329-345. https://doi.org/10.1306/212F8909-2B24-11D7-8648000102C1865D Weltje GJ (1994) Provenance and dispersal of sand-sized sediments: reconstruction of dispersal patterns and

sources of sand-sized sediments by means of inverse modeling techniques. Ph.D. thesis, Geologica Ultraiectina Wynd JG (1965) Biofacies of the Iranian oil consortium agreement area. IOOC Report, 1082. Zaid SM (2012) Provenance, diagenesis, tectonic setting and geochemistry of Rudies sandstone (Lower Miocene),

Warda Field, Gulf of Suez, Egypt. J Afr Earth Sci, 66–67: 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2012.03.008 Zhu B, Kidd WSF, Rowley DB, Currie BS, Shafique N (2005) Age of initiation of the Indiana-Asia collision in the east-

central Himalaya. Journal of Geology, 113: 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1086/428805 Zuffa GG (1985) Optical analyses of arenites: influence of methodology on compositional results. In Provenance of

arenites (pp. 165-189).Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2809-6_8

www.ejobios.org