Earth Sci Inform

DOI 10.1007/s12145-015-0244-0

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Application of a new computer program for tectonic

discrimination of Cambrian to Holocene clastic sediments
Surendra P. Verma 1 & Lorena Daz-Gonzlez 2 & John S. Armstrong-Altrin 3

Received: 18 December 2014 / Accepted: 29 October 2015

# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Abstract TecSand is a new Java software that is used for

deciphering the tectonic setting of clastic sediments and
sedimentary rocks through two new multidimensional
discrimination diagrams. For each sample, TecSand calculates four complex discriminant functions: DF1m1 and
DF2 m1 for the high-silica diagram and DF1 m2 and
DF2m2 for the low-silica diagram, each representing linear combinations of log-ratios of all major elements.
These functions determine the position of each sample
within island or continental arc, continental rift, and
collision/convergent settings. The program also calculates the probability values for the three tectonic fields.
TecSand provides a ready for publication report for
each locality, including the adjusted major elements,
log-transformed variables, DF1 and DF2 results, and
probability values for individual samples. Validations
from samples of known tectonic settings, evaluation of
chemical changes, and applications to Precambrian

clastic sediments have previously been demonstrated in

the literature. Therefore, we illustrate the use of
TecSand in 10 case studies covering ages from the
Early Cambrian to the Holocene. The results obtained
from these two diagrams were not only mutually consistent but also with other geological constraints. As an
innovation, TecSand provides an overall synthesis of the
two diagrams as total percent probability values.
Comparison of the results of this study with the previously published tectonic discrimination diagrams reveals
that two recent multidimensional discrimination diagrams are more efficient in discriminating tectonic settings. Although TecSand does provide graphics, which
can be imported and modified in commercial software,
plotting of the sample diagram is no longer required.

Communicated by: H. A. Babaie

Introduction

* Surendra P. Verma
spv@ier.unam.mx
Lorena Daz-Gonzlez
ldg@uaem.mx
John S. Armstrong-Altrin
armstrong@cmarl.unam.mx
1

Instituto de Energas Renovables, Universidad Nacional Autnoma

de Mxico, 62580 Temixco, Mor, Mexico

Centro de Investigacin en Ciencias, Instituto de Investigacin en

Ciencias Bsicas y Aplicadas, Universidad Autnoma del Estado de
Morelos, 62209 Cuernavaca, Mor, Mexico

Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnologa, Procesos Ocenicos y

Costeros, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Circuito
Exterior s/n, 04510 Mxico D.F, Mexico

Keywords Sedimentary rocks . Discrimination diagrams .

Tectonic setting . Arc . Rift . Collision/convergent

In sedimentary rock geochemistry, it is common practice to

explore the provenance of sediments and sedimentary rocks
(e.g. Cullers 2000; Ohta 2008; Xu et al. 2010; Etemad-Saeed
et al. 2011; Saxena and Pandit 2012; Wang and Zhou 2013;
Perri 2014; Zaid 2015). However, it is less common to decipher the tectonic setting in which the sediments were deposited (Quanren et al. 2002; Zhang 2004; Xu et al. 2010; Tao
et al. 2014; Armstrong-Altrin 2015; Perri et al. 2015), which
may be due to the lack of suitable tectonic discrimination
diagrams (Armstrong-Altrin and Verma 2005; Verma and
Armstrong-Altrin 2013).
Major element composition based discrimination diagrams were put forth by Bhatia (1983) and Roser and

Earth Sci Inform

Korsch (1986). Bhatia (1983) proposed four diagrams

with Fe 2 O 3 t + MgO as the x-axis and TiO 2 , K 2 O/
Na 2 O, Al 2 O 3 /SiO 2 , or Al 2 O 3 /(CaO + Na 2 O) as the
y-axis and one diagram based on discriminant functions
of all major element concentrations to discriminate the
tectonic setting as oceanic island arc, continental island
arc, active continental margin, and passive margin.
Roser and Korsch (1986) published the SiO2 (K2O/
Na2O) discrimination diagram to differentiate the oceanic island arcs, active continental margins, and passive
continental margins.
The use of crude chemical compositions as documented in
the diagrams of Bhatia (1983) and Roser and Korsch (1986) is
subject to the constant sum or closure problem (e.g., Pearson
1897; Chayes 1960, 1978; Aitchison 1981, Pawlowsky-Glahn
and Egozcue 2006; Agrawal and Verma 2007; Buccianti
2013). Even the ratios used in these diagrams do not fully
comply with the statistical requirements (e.g., Aitchison
1984, 1986; Egozcue et al. 2003; Verma 2015). Therefore,
the above mentioned diagrams have a major defect, which
can be overcome by log-ratio transformation techniques
(e.g., Aitchison 1984, 1986; Egozcue et al. 2003). Thus, tectonic discrimination of clastic sediments has been successfully
achieved through log-transformed ratios of adjusted major
elements.
Two multidimensional diagrams one for high-silica
and the other for low-silica clastic rocks were proposed (Verma and Armstrong-Altrin 2013). Each diagram provides an efficient discrimination of three tectonic settings (arc, rift, and collision or convergent).
Actually measured element concentrations must be converted to adjusted values on an anhydrous 100 % basis
to assist in the decision of which diagram to use for a
given sample from a group or locality. To create each
diagram, four complex discriminant functions must then
be computed from log-transformed ratios. In addition to
this, probability values for the three tectonic fields are
calculated (Verma and Armstrong-Altrin 2013), which is
difficult without a suitable computer program.
Based on this, it was considered worthwhile to write
a computer program to efficiently utilize the new multidimensional discrimination diagrams. The main purpose of our work is to briefly report on this computer
program and illustrate its efficient use through 10 case
studies of clastic sediments.

Sand clastic sediments), written in Java. After starting

the program, the input data file (in the old xls Excel
format only, not the newer ones, such as xlsx), containing the sample names with their complete major element
data (10 oxides from SiO2 to P2O5) clearly identified
from a single locality name, is loaded and validated.
All samples to be processed together are given the same
locality name; the input file can contain one locality or
several of them. If during data validation, typographical
errors or missing data are found, this is displayed visually on the computer screen. If this occurs, one has to
exit the program, correct the errors in Excel program,
and restart TecSand.
Once the Excel input data file is correctly loaded
without errors, the user can proceed to process the data
according to the specified single or multiple localities.
The measured data are input with total Fe as Fe2O3T.
From the measured major element compositions,
TecSand efficiently calculates the adjusted values on

Computer program
General description
Figure 1 presents a simplified flow diagram of the computer program TecSand (Tectonic discrimination of

Fig. 1 A simplified flow diagram of TecSand written in Java for the

application of two multidimensional diagrams for clastic sediments and
probability calculations

Earth Sci Inform

an anhydrous 100 % basis, separates the samples into

high-silica and low-silica varieties, and excludes all
samples with (SiO2)adj > 95 % and (SiO2)adj < 35 %
as suggested by the original authors (Verma and
Armstrong-Altrin 2013). The high-silica samples with
(SiO2)adj > 95 % are avoided, because they may be
characterised by relatively high analytical errors in the
determination of the major elements. The low-silica
samples with (SiO2)adj < 35 % are not recommended
to be used, because they may be other rock types not
represented in the original database by Verma and
Armstrong-Altrin (2013) used for the proposal of
diagrams.
The program then proceeds to individually calculate
the samples for the high-silica and low-silica diagrams,
and then calculates the discriminant functions DF1 and
DF2 (see the eqs. 1 to 4 below) and probability estimates for the individual samples. TecSand then compares the probability values for a given sample to the
three potential tectonic settings and assigns the most
probable tectonic setting. This will be the tectonic field
in which the sample will actually plot. TecSand continues to calculate the statistical summary of both diagrams individually for samples from a given locality
and generates a report in Excel format. Similarly, it
also generates two diagrams one for high-silica and
the other for low-silica. These diagrams can be modified
in a program of users choice.
TecSand provides a summary separately for each diagram
as described in Verma and Armstrong-Altrin (2013). Unlike
the original paper, however, it provides combined statistical

information for both diagrams, which is useful to understand

the net implications of the analysis, and for all clastic rock
samples from a given locality.
The Excel output file contains a total of seven sheets. The
first sheet (Report Data Summary) provides an overall synthesis, which will be explained in the next section when we
describe the first application example (case study A1). The
next two sheets [Adj_ln(Arc-Rift-Col)m1 for adjusted major elements and log-ratios for high-silica and Adj_ln
(Arc-Rift-Col)m2 for adjusted major elements and
log-ratios for low-silica] give the adjusted major element concentrations and log-transformed ratios of individual samples.
The fourth and fifth sheets [DF(Arc-Rift-Col)m1 for DF1
and DF2 functions for high-silica and DF(Arc-Rift-Col)m2
for DF1 and DF2 functions for low-silica] contain the discriminant function scores for individual samples. The final two
sheets [Prob(Arc-Rift-Col)m1 for probability values for
high-silica and Prob(Arc-Rift-Col)m2 for probability values
for low-silica] report the probability estimates for individual
samples for all three tectonic settings, which will allow the
user to understand how the samples are assigned to different
tectonic settings and counted.
Discrimination functions and probability estimates
The equations for the DF1 and DF2 functions (Verma and
Armstrong-Altrin 2013) were programmed for the
high-silica (eqs. 1 and 2) and low-silica (eqs. 3 and 4) diagrams, respectively, as follows:
For the first diagram of high-silica [(SiO2)adj = > 63 %
- 95 %] sediments,



DF1ArcRiftColm1 0:26268557180321067  lnTiO2 =SiO2 adj

 


0:60368524343983732  lnAl2 O3 =SiO2 adj 1:72489248177453480  ln Fe2 Ot3 =SiO2 adj

 

0:66041836652887831  lnMnO=SiO2 adj 2:19127622323789280  lnMgO=SiO2 adj

 

0:14421062320062730  lnCaO=SiO2 adj 1:30431903641646780  lnNa2 O=SiO2 adj

 

0:05449428500688245  lnK2 O=SiO2 adj 0:33001729950322428  lnP2 O5 =SiO2 adj
1:58815020644808



DF2ArcRiftColm1 1:19586124907348950  lnTiO2 =SiO2 adj

 


1:06399204492462900  lnAl2 O3 =SiO2 adj 0:30341274376808475  ln Fe2 Ot3 =SiO2 adj

 

0:43567169774073294  lnMnO=SiO2 adj 0:83804666408979545  lnMgO=SiO2 adj

 

0:40664743236659878  lnCaO=SiO2 adj 1:02139743398723120  lnNa2 O=SiO2 adj

 

1:70581653140239940  lnK2 O=SiO2 adj 0:12642549004651965  lnP2 O5 =SiO2 adj
1:06800987330049950

(2)

Earth Sci Inform

For the second diagram of low-silica [(SiO2)adj = > 35 % - 63 %] sediments,



DF1ArcRiftColm2 0:60809078489845048  lnTiO2 =SiO2 adj

 


1:85446940618193420  lnAl2 O3 =SiO2 adj 0:29904393119679923  ln Fe2 Ot3 =SiO2 adj

 

0:54963763478374505  lnMnO=SiO2 adj 0:12026367890895152  lnMgO=SiO2 adj

 

0:19376772473792128  lnCaO=SiO2 adj 1:51035682151955440  lnNa2 O=SiO2 adj

 

1:94073978913841040  lnK2 O=SiO2 adj 0:00342667284070615  lnP2 O5 =SiO2 adj
0:29377654839363254


DF2ArcRiftColm2 0:55404181896836147  lnTiO2 =SiO2 adj

 


0:99527978177608567  lnAl2 O3 =SiO2 adj 1:76466857807896570  ln Fe2 Ot3 =SiO2 adj

 

1:39148626498541670  lnMnO=SiO2 adj 1:03363347961061440  lnMgO=SiO2 adj

 

0:22481662304274486  lnCaO=SiO2 adj 0:71312665595821023  lnNa2 O=SiO2 adj

 

0:33021745118850615  lnK2 O=SiO2 adj 0:63684346260753044  lnP2 O5 =SiO2 adj
3:63055768827460090

(3)

(4)
The subscripts arc, rift, and col., refer to the three
tectonic fields (island or continental arc, continental rift,
and collision/convergent) that can be discriminated from
these diagrams; the subscripts m1 and m2 are for the
high-silica and low-silica diagrams, respectively. Note
more exact coefficients with larger number of digits
than reported by Verma and Armstrong-Altrin (2013)
were programmed in eqs. 1 to 4; this was done to
minimise the effects of rounding errors and achieve
the most exact DF1-DF2 functions for each sample.
This provides the exact probability values, so the sample counting for the different tectonic fields becomes
more accurate.
Another salient feature of TecSand is that it calculates the probability distribution of an individual sample
belonging to one of the three tectonic settings. For these
calculations, the DF1-DF2 values of the three centroids
(corresponding to the three tectonic settings) are required. The rounded values reported by Verma and
Armstrong-Altrin (2013) are as follows: (0.175,
1.269) for arc; (1.321, 0.841) for continental rift;
and (1.516, 0.570) for collision/convergent. Similarly,
for the low-silica diagram the centroids are as follows:
(1.650, 0.308) for arc; (0.744, 1.568) for continental
rift; and (1.767, 1.098) for collision/convergent.
However, the exact values for these centroids were programmed in TecSand. The equations for the probability
calculations have been given by Verma and Agrawal
(2011) and Verma (2012); for the sake of brevity, they
are not included here. The exact unrounded values must
be used for coefficients in eqs. 1 to 4 so that the results
of actual counting of samples in a diagram coincide

exactly with the probability-based counting. The final

results should, however, be rounded before reporting
them.
TecSand calculates probability values for a given sample
for the three tectonic fields, compares them, and saves the
highest value and the name of the corresponding tectonic field
in which it will plot. The complete set of results for DF1-DF2
and their respective probability values for all samples is saved
in an Excel file. Samples that plot in any of the three tectonic
fields are counted. TecSand then calculates statistical information (mean, standard deviation, and range) for the
probability values for each field in order to prepare the
synthesis for each diagram and reports it in an Excel
output file. In the report, the minimum and maximum
values of the range are arbitrarily rounded to four decimal places, whereas the mean and standard deviation
values are reported according to the flexible rounding
rules put forth by Verma (2005). These flexible rules
indicate that the dispersion parameter (e.g., standard deviation) can be rounded to three significant digits for
smaller values equivalent to <45 and two significant
digits for larger values >45; the central tendency parameter (mean) can then be rounded to contain the same
number of decimal places as the dispersion parameter.

Program availability
An executable version of TecSand (TecSand.jar), related libraries, and Excel input-output data files are available for
download from tlaloc.ier.unam.mx. Program code is also
available from the same website.

Earth Sci Inform

Application
The coherent statistical technique of log-ratio transformation
and linear discriminant analysis are highly desirable for the
construction of discrimination diagrams (e.g., Aitchison 1986;
Egozcue et al. 2003; Agrawal and Verma 2007; Verma 2015).
These were adopted by Verma and Armstrong-Altrin (2013)
for the proposal of two diagrams for siliciclastic sediments.
These authors also extensively tested the diagrams from geochemical data of known tectonic settings. Both diagrams provided accurate results. The effects of chemical changes caused
by analytical errors and element mobility were also extensively evaluated by the original authors (Verma and
Armstrong-Altrin 2013). The diagrams provided consistent
indications in spite of the chemical changes of up to 40 %
in element concentrations, because the centroids stayed in the
original tectonic fields (Verma and Armstrong-Altrin 2013).
Therefore, these aspects are not repeated in the present work.
Instead, the emphasis is on the successful use of TecSand.
The application case studies are summarised in Table 1.
Their locations are schematically shown in Fig. 2. The application localities or regions are by age from oldest to youngest.
For a statistically significant result, total percent probability
values must exceed the by-chance probability of ~33.3 %.
Case study A1
The first application will be described in greater detail than the
other application studies. Data for 9 sandstone samples
(Group 1 and Group 2) of the Lower Cambrian (~520 Ma)
Nama Group (Namibia) were compiled from Blanco et al.
(2014). Group 3 samples (black sands) were not considered
because they represented unusual clastic rocks extremely
enriched in Ti and Fe. These rocks are significantly different
f r o m t h e r o c k t y p e s c o n s i d e r e d b y Ve r m a a n d
Armstrong-Altrin (2013) in the original diagrams. The data
were adjusted to 100 % on an anhydrous basis and total Fe
as Fe2O3T, with results showing 7 samples of high-silica and 2
of low-silica (Table 1).
For illustration purposes, we present the high-silica diagram (Arc-Rift-Col)m1 in Fig. 3. Six out of seven samples plot
in the continental rift field and showed average probability
values of 0.743 0.231 and a range of 0.42840.9904
(Table 1; open circles in Fig. 3). The remaining (one) sample
plots in the arc field with a very low probability of 0.3599
(Table 1; open square in Fig. 3). The probability value for a
given sample plotting in a tectonic field gives an indication of
how far inside that particular sample will plot. In order to more
accurately explain the probability concept, aside to the tectonic field boundaries (solid lines in Fig. 3), we have included the
70 % (or 0.70) and 90 % (0.90) probability curves (dotted and
dashed-dotted curves, respectively; Fig. 3). Any tectonic
boundary away from the triple point the intersection of the

three boundaries represents equal probability of approximately 0.50 for the two tectonic fields it separates and a very
small, negligible probability of the third field. At the triple
point, the three fields have the same probability values of
approximately 0.333. A high probability value for a given
tectonic field implies that the sample will plot well inside that
field, away from the boundaries whereas a low value will plot
close to the tectonic field boundary.
In our first application (A1), 2 samples plotted well inside
the continental rift field; they have probability values >0.90
because they plotted inside the 0.90 probability curve (Fig. 3).
One of them has the highest value of 0.9904 shown in the
range of values (0.42840.9904; Table 1) and the other sample
has a value of 0.9379 (not shown in Table 1). As an example,
such a high probability value (0.9904) for the rift field automatically means that the total probability for the other two
fields is only approximately 0.0096, which is extremely low.
Two other samples plotted between the 0.70 and 0.90 probability curves. The remaining 2 samples of the rift field plotted
very close to the field boundaries; they therefore have probability <0.70. One of them has the value of 0. 4284, being the
lowest value of the range of 0.42840.9904 (Table 1); the
other sample has a value of 0.4972 (not shown in Table 1).
The average value is approximately 0.743 (with standard deviation of 0.231) for the 6 samples in the rift field (Table 1),
which implies these samples, on average, would plot well
inside the continental rift field (Fig. 3).
The low value of 0.3599 for the only sample that plotted in
the arc field implies that this sample would plot very close to
the boundary of the field which had the next highest probability value, in this case, the rift field (Fig. 3). The probability of
this sample for the rift field was approximately 0.3533 (value
not shown in Table 1), which is only slightly lower than
0.3599 for the arc field. This is a clear example where plotting
of the sample in the diagram does not aid the decision of
which tectonic field the sample belongs to, but the small difference in the probability values (0.3599 for arc against
0.3533 for rift) suggests that the sample would plot in the
arc field close to the arc-rift boundary.
For the low-silica diagram (Arc-Rift-Col)m2 (not shown here)
of Verma and Armstrong-Altrin (2013), only 2 samples were
available for this case study (Table 1). Use of such a small
number of samples is not recommended, especially if no samples were available for the other diagram. This is not the case
here however, because the high-silica diagram had 7 samples.
The results of the low-silica diagram are included in Table 1,
to combine them with the other diagram (Fig. 3). The probability calculations clearly indicate that both samples would
plot well inside the rift field because their probability values
for this field are very high (0.9849 and 0.9860; Table 1).
As TecSand also combines the results of the 2 diagrams and
presents an overall synthesis, we can now briefly consider
them in the discussion. For both diagrams the total number

{n} {prob}
[%prob]
high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1
low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2
{n} {prob}
[%prob]

3
7

low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2
{n} {prob}
[%prob]
high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1

A3c: Gulang area

A4: Junggar basin, Xinjiang, China,

Carboniferous (Tao et al. 2013, 2014)
A4a: Northeast Junggar

20
15
35

{n} {prob}

0
12

12

1
12

high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1
low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2

low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2
{n} {prob}
[%prob]

low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2
{n} {prob}
[%prob]
high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1

A3b: Minle area

A3d: Jingyuan area

10

{n} {prob}
[%prob]
high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1
11

5
5

high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1
low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2

A3: Laojunshan formation, China, Lower

and Middle Devonian (Xu et al. 2010)
A3a: Sunan area

11
4
15

low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2

A2: Altai-Mongolian terrane, Russia,

CambrianOrdovician (Chen et al. 2014)

high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1

A1: Nama group, Namibia, Lower Cambrian

(Blanco et al. 2014)

Total number of samples

Figure type*

0 (0)
10 [0.9600.046]
(0.8471-0.9967)
{10} {9.6025}

{0} {0}
[0 %]

{0} {0}
[0 %]

20 [0.8070.164] (0.4509-0.9717)
5 [0.9640.049]
(0.8783-0.9995)
{25} {20.9516}

{0} {0}
[0 %]
0 (0)

0 (0)

{0} {0}
[0 %]
3 [0.8200.152]
(0.7120-0.9933)
0 (0)
{3} {2.4588}
[27 %]
0 (0)

0 (0)
0 (0)

6 [0.7430.231]
(0.4284-0.9904)
2 [0.98550.0008]
(0.9849, 0.9860)
{8} {6.4302}
[95 %]
0 (0)
1 (0.3939)
{1} {0.3939}
[3 %]

Continental rift
[pRift]

{1} {0.9969}
[15 %]
0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)
{8} {5.9225}
[64 %]
1 (0.9969)

5 [0.8440.148] (0.6035-0.9675)
5 [0.99530.0055]
(0.9857-0.9992)
{10} {9.1950}
[100 %]
8 [0.7400.179] (0.4529-0.9731)

{1} {0.3599}
[5 %]
11 [0.9560.075] (0.7368-0.9987)
2 [0.7230.126] (0.6343, 0.8126)
{13} {11.9664}
[93 %]

0 (0)

1 (0.3599)

Arc
[pArc]

Number of discriminated samples

Application of the two discriminant function based multi-dimensional diagrams for clastic sedimentary rocks

Case study no.: locality, age (reference)

Table 1

{0} {0}

0 (0)
0 (0)

1 (0.7988)
{1} {0.7988}
[9 %]
3 [0.9380.105]
(0.8163-1.0000)
3 [0.99970.0002]
(0.9995-0.9998)
{6} {5.8125}
[85 %]
12 [0.8800.137]
(0.5992-0.9998)

{12} {10.5553}
[100 %]

{0} {0}
[0 %]
0 (0)

0 (0)
0 (0)

{0} {0}
[0 %]
0 (0)
1 (0.4877)
{1} {0.4877}
[4 %]

0 (0)

0 (0)

Collision
[pCol]

Earth Sci Inform

38

{n} {prob}
[%prob]
high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1

A9: Mediterranean Alpine Chains, Italy

(Perri et al. 2012, 2014, 2015; Perri 2014;
Perri and Ohta 2014)
A9a: Calabria-Peloritani, Triassic-Jurassic

A8: Betic Cordillera and Gibraltar, Spain,

Upper Triassic to Lower Jurassic (Perri
2014; Perri and Ohta 2014)

A7: Asa Basin, Central Tibet, Lower

Cretaceous (Zhang 2004)

A6: Lower Saxony basin, NW Germany,

Albian (Rachold and Brumsack 2001)

85

60

{n} {prob}
[%prob]

{n} {prob}
[%prob]
high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1

35

low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2

14

25

low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2

54

{n} {prob}
[%prob]
high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1

71

15

low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2

high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1

39

542

0
542

0
16

{n} {prob}
[%prob]
high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1

low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2
{n} {prob}
[%prob]
high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1
low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2

11

low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2

16

27

[%prob]
high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1

A4b: West Junggar

A5: Songliao basin, China, Jurassic to Early

Cretaceous (Quanren et al. 2002)

Total number of samples

Figure type*

Case study no.: locality, age (reference)

Table 1 (continued)

{0} {0}
[0 %]

0 (0)

0 (0)

{0} {0}
[0 %]

0 (0)

[69 %]
27 [0.7480.138]
(0.4881-0.9655)
8 [0.9600.072]
(0.7889-0.9999)
{35} {27.8858}
[93 %]
13 [0.8750.155]
(0.5475-0.9998)

{13} {11.3808}
[79 %]

5 [0.55700.0447]
(0.4959-0.6151)
{5} {2.7850}
[0.6 %]
8 [0.8520.188]
(0.5054-0.9814)
3 [0.8770.187]
(0.6613-0.9916)
{11} {9.4471}
[20 %]
0 (0)

Arc
[pArc]

Number of discriminated samples

16 [0.7800.147]
(0.5607-0.9606)
2 [0.6350.182]
(0.5064, 0.7643)
{18} {13.7583}
[19 %]

{1} {0.5549}
[1 %]

1 (0.5549)

2 [0.8210.132]
(0.7271, 0.9145)
{2} {1.6416}
[3 %]
0 (0)

{0} {0}
[0 %]

2 [0.5490.083]
(0.4907, 0.6081)
{2} {1.0988}
[0.2 %]
0 (0)

3 [0.6860.154]
(0.5673-0.8600)
{3} {2.0570}
[7 %]
0 (0)

[31 %]
0 (0)

Continental rift
[pRift]

55 [0.8810.139]
(0.4931-0.9999)
12 [0.8490.137]
(0.6092-1.0000)
{67} {58.6453}
[81 %]

{0} {0}
[0 %]
3 [0.98240.0304]
(0.9474-1.0000)

{3} {2.9473}
[21 %]

535 [0.8840.078]
(0.4837-0.9994)
{535} {473.0774}
[99.2 %]
31 [0.9010.179]
(0.4388-1.0000)
10 [0.8520.189]
(0.5770-1.0000)
{41} {36.4558}
[77 %]
25 [0.9470.096]
(0.6025-1.0000)
34 [0.9580.076]
(0.5885-1.0000)
{59} {56.2528}
[99 %]

0 (0)

[0 %]
0 (0)

Collision
[pCol]

Earth Sci Inform

33
71
104

low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2
{n} {prob}
[%prob]

21

11
10

10
0
10

{n} {prob}
[%prob]
high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1

high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1
low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2
{n} {prob}
[%prob]
high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1
low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2

48

1
47

17
17

Total number of samples

{0} {0}
[0 %]

0 (0)

{0} {0}
[0 %]
0 (0)

0 (0)

{0} {0}
[0 %]
0 (0)
0 (0)

{5} {2.9304}
[9 %]

0 (0)
{0} {0}
[0 %]
0 (0)
5 [0.5860.148] (0.3957-0.8045)

Arc
[pArc]

Number of discriminated samples

1 (0.5860)

{1} {0.5860}
[6 %]
0 (0)
5 [0.9190.111]
(0.7252-0.9940)
{5} {4.5930}
[23 %]
2 [0.7010.194]
(0.5635, 0.8376)
57 [0.9620.057]
(0.7739-0.9999)
{59} {56.2276}
[59 %]

0 (0)
{0} {0}
[0 %]
0 (0)
16 [0.4910.085]
(0.3654-0.7308)
{16} {7.8513}
[26 %]

Continental rift
[pRift]

{45} {39.7491}
[41 %]

14 [0.8680.161] (0.5132-0.9810)

{16} {15.6410}
[77 %]
31 [0.8900.157] (0.5231-1.0000)

9 [0.97910.0344] (0.9155-0.9999)

{9} {8.8118}
[94 %]
11 [0.9680.087] (0.7070-1.0000)
5 [0.998850.00150] (0.9972-1.0000)

{27} {19.9071}
[65 %]

17 [0.9550.062] (0.7702-0.9989)
{17} {16.2371}
[100 %]
1 (0.8786)
26 [0.7320.189] (0.4125-0.9999)

Collision
[pCol]

high-silica is for (SiO2)adj = > 63 % 95 %; low-silica is for (SiO2)adj = > 35 % 63 %; Probability estimates for different tectonic groups are summarised after the number of discriminated samples
as follows: [pArc] mean, standard deviation, and range of probability values estimated for island or continental arc setting (Arc); [pRift]for continental rift setting (Rift); and [pCol]for collision setting
(Col). The statistical information of probability values [mean and standard deviation] is reported as rounded values according to the flexible rules put forth by Verma (2005); the range of probability values
(range) is reported as rounded to four decimal places. Boldface font shows the combined inference from both diagrams, depending on the availability of samples from a given locality. Refer to Fig. 2 for
localities (A1-A10)

A10c: Tarfaya Basin, south-west Morocco

(Miocene to Holocene)

A10b: Tarfaya Basin, south-west Morocco,

Cretaceous

A10: north and south-west Morocco (Perri

2014; Ali et al. 2014a, 2014b)
A10a: Rif Chain, north Morocco, Triassic to
Lower Jurassic

{n} {prob}
[%prob]

low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2
{n} {prob}
[%prob]
high-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m1
low-silica (Arc-Rift-Col)m2

A9b: Calabria-Peloritani, Lower Miocene to

Pleistocene

A9c: Gulf of Taranto, Pliocene to Pleistocene

Figure type*

Case study no.: locality, age (reference)

Table 1 (continued)

Earth Sci Inform

Earth Sci Inform

Fig. 2 A world map showing sample localities as numbered in the text for 10 case studies (case study A1-A10)

of samples (n) was 9, of which 1 sample plotted in the arc

field, 8 in the rift field, and none in the collision/convergent
field (Table 1). The respective total probability (prob) values
for the 9 samples were 0.3599, 6.4302, and 0 for the arc, rift,
and collision/convergent fields, respectively (Table 1).
TecSand provides total percent probability (%prob), which
are approximately 5 %, 95 % and 0 %, respectively, for the
arc, rift and collision/convergent fields.
From the application of multidimensional tectonic discrimination diagrams (Fig. 3; Table 1), a continental rift setting is

clearly indicated for the Nama group (Namibia) during the

Lower Cambrian.
The original authors (Blanco et al. 2014) used spinel compositions in discrimination diagrams of Arai (1992) and
Kamenetsky et al. (2001) to infer tectonic setting of their samples. In these plots, they did not distinguish among the 3
groups of samples they studied. From the Arai (1992) diagram
they suggested that their samples are similar to MORB and
boninites, whereas from the Kamenetsky et al. (2001) diagram
they may have an arc or MORB affinity. It is not clear why
diagrams proposed for spinel compositions of igneous rocks
were used for sedimentary rocks. Blanco et al. (2014) also
suggested that, after an earlier continent-continent collision,
the Fish river subgroup in Namibia may represent a foreland
basin formed in a passive margin setting. Our results indicated
a continental rift setting, which is consistent with a passive
margin.
Case study A2

Fig. 3 Example of the high-silica diagram for samples from the Nama
group, Namibia (case study A1)

We compiled data for 15 samples of CambrianOrdovician

meta-sedimentary rocks from the northern Altai-Mongolian
terrane, northwestern Central Asian Orogenic Belt (Chen
et al. 2014). All 11 samples of high-silica type plotted in the
arc field, with high probability values of 0.956 0.075 (range
0.73680.9987; Table 1). Four samples were of the low-silica
type, with 2 plotting in the arc field with high probability

Earth Sci Inform

values of 0.6343 and 0.8126, 1 in the rift field (probability of

0.3939), and 1 in the collision/convergent field (probability of
0.4877; Table 1). As a synthesis of both diagrams, clearly an
arc setting is indicated with a total percent probability approximately 93 % (Table 1).
The original authors (Chen et al. 2014) used Roser and
Korsch (1986) and Bhatia and Crook (1986) diagrams to infer
tectonic setting. Their subdivision of high-silica (4 samples)
and low-silica (11 samples) does not coincide with ours; probably they did not use analysis on an anhydrous 100 % adjusted
basis. Nevertheless, in the Roser and Korsch (1986)
SiO2-K2O/Na2O diagram, their samples plotted in the combined active continental margin and continental island arc
field, whereas in the three diagrams of Bhatia and Crook
(1986) they showed a continental island arc setting. Chen
et al. (2014) documented that the igneous rocks in the northern
Altai-Mongolian terrane were dominated by Devonian to early Carboniferous granitoids (Cai et al. 2014) with arc-like
geochemical compositions (Kurk et al. 2011). Based on the
geochemistry of the metasedimentary rocks, Chen et al.
(2014) also suggested that their samples from the
Altai-Mongolian terrane represent a coherent accretionary
prism along a continental arc in the early Paleozoic, rather
than a passive margin regime. Our results of multidimensional
diagrams suggesting an arc setting for the Altai-Mongolian
terrane are consistent with their conclusion.

A3d: For Jingyuan, all 12 samples proved to be of

high-silica type. In the high-silica diagram, all plotted in
the collision/convergent field, with a high average probability value of approximately 0.880 (Table 1).
The original authors (Xu et al. 2010) used the discrimination diagrams of Bhatia (1983) and Bhatia and Crook (1986)
and concluded that the sediments from the Sunan area were
mainly provided by the continental and oceanic arcs, whereas
sediments in the Minle, Gulang and Jingyuan areas were
principally derived not only from the continental and
oceanic arcs but also from the active continental margin.
Because these diagrams do not include the collision/
convergent tectonic setting, no result can be achieved for this
type of setting. Xu et al. (2010) also stated that the Laojunshan
Formation formed during the rapid uplift of the North Qilian
Orogenic Belt. The sediments in the Sunan area were derived
mainly from the North Qilian Continental arc, whereas those
in the other areas (Minle, Gulang, and Jingyuan) were derived
from the North Qilian Continental arc and the basement of the
Middle Qilian block. Further, the orogeny of North Qilian
Orogenic Belt is diachronous in the trending direction due to
the oblique collision between the Middle Qilian and Alxa
blocks. Our results for Sunan and Minle could be considered
consistent with their interpretation, but not those for Gulang
and Jingyuan. For these two localities, TecSand clearly
indicated a collision/convergent setting.

Case study A3a-d

Case study A4a, b

Xu et al. (2010) presented a study of sedimentary geochemistry and provenance of the Lower and Middle Devonian
Laojunshan Formation of the North Qilian Orogenic Belt.
The geochemical data for the 4 localities sampled are considered separately: A3a Sunan; A3b Minle; A3c Gulang;
and A3d Jingyuan.

Analytical data for major elements in Carboniferous clastic

rocks from the Junggar basin, China were presented by Tao
et al. (2014; Lower Carboniferous) for the north-eastern
section and by Tao et al. (2013; Upper Carboniferous) for
the western section. These regions are considered separately
as case study 4a and 4b, respectively.

A3a: From Sunan, all 10 samples (5 of high-silica and 5

of low-silica) plotted in the arc field in the respective
diagrams, with high average probability values of approximately 0.844 and 0.995, respectively (Table 1).
The total percent probability value for both diagrams
was 100 %.
A3b: From Minle, 12 samples (11 of high-silica and 1 of
low-silica) together also indicated an arc setting, with a
total percent probability of approximately 64 % (Table 1).
The rift setting showed a total percent probability value of
27 %, which is less that the chance probability of approximately 33.3 %.
A3c: From Gulang, only 7 samples (4 of high-silica and 3
of low-silica) were available. However, they consistently
indicated a collision/convergent setting in both diagrams,
with 6 of the 7 samples plotted in this field (Table 1).

A4a: From the NE Junggar basin, 20 samples of

high-silica type showed an arc setting with a high average
probability value of approximately 0.807 (Table 1).
However, 15 samples of low-silica rocks were also compiled, which indicated a transition of arc to rift setting,
with 5 samples plotting in the arc and 10 in the rift field
(Table 1). The inference from the combined diagrams is
consistent with an arc setting (percent probability of
69 %; Table 1). The rift setting showed the total percent
probability value of 31 % (Table 1), which does not really
exceed the chance probability of approximately 33.3 %.
The original authors (Tao et al. 2014) suggested a back-arc
basin setting for these rocks. They used 2 ternary diagrams of
Dickinson (1985), in both of which their samples plotted in
the undissected arc field. They also used diagrams of Roser

Earth Sci Inform

and Korsch (1986); Bhatia (1983), and Bhatia and Crook

(1986). The SiO2-K2O/Na2O diagram indicated an active continental margin to oceanic island arc setting, whereas the K2O/
Na2O-SiO2/Al2O3 was more consistent with a simple arc or an
evolved arc setting. The ternary diagrams based on trace elements (Th-Sc-La and Sc-Zr/10-Th; Bhatia and Crook 1986)
indicated an oceanic island arc or an oceanic to continental arc
setting. It is not clear which diagram indicated a back-arc
basin setting. Tao et al. (2014) opined that the proximal
Dulate arc should be the primary source area and the formation of the back-arc basin was caused by the southward subduction of the ZaysanErqis oceanic crust. TecSand cannot
show a back-arc setting, because this was not explicitly
included i n the original diagrams of Verma and
Armstrong-Altrin (2013).
A4b: From the West Junggar basin, 27 samples of
high-silica type and 11 of low-silica type could be used
in TecSand. Both diagrams indicated an arc setting separately, as in the high-silica diagram all 27 samples plotted
in this field and in the low-silica diagram 8 out of 11 did
so. The combined inference is also the same, with both
diagrams together showing an arc setting with a high total
percent probability value of approximately 93 %
(Table 1).
The original authors (Tao et al. 2013) also indicated an arc
setting for their samples. They mentioned that the northern
part of the west Junggar region comprises the Sawur and
Bozchekul-Chingiz volcanic arcs and interpreted that the
Sawur volcanic arc was the primary source for the Junggar
basin clastic sediments. They had used several discrimination
diagrams although not all of them provided a consistent answer. For example, in the Fe2O3 + MgO-Al2O3/SiO2 diagram
of Bhatia (1983) several samples plotted outside any field, as
was shown earlier by Armstrong-Altrin and Verma (2005).
Case study A5
Geochemical data for 16 Jurassic to Early Cretaceous (199.6
99.6 Ma) clastic rock samples of Songliao basin, China
(Quanren et al. 2002) were compiled. All samples proved to
be of high-silica type. The use of the corresponding diagram
indicated an arc setting with a high percent probability of 79 %
(Table 1). The original authors (Quanren et al. 2002) suggested an island arc or an active continental margin setting
for the Songliao basin. For inferring the tectonic setting, they
used several diagrams of Bhatia (1983) which did not provide
a consistent answer. Several samples plotted outside any field
as shown by Armstrong-Altrin and Verma (2005) and Verma
and Armstrong-Altrin (2013) in the evaluations of Bhatia
(1983) diagrams. From the sediment geochemistry, Quanren
et al. (2002) stated that the Songliao prototype basin was in a

tectonic setting of an island arc on an active continental margin, which was related to the subduction of Izanagi Oceanic
plate under the Asian plate during the middle Jurassic and
early Cretaceous periods. Our inference of an arc setting is
consistent with this contention.
Case study A6
Rachold and Brumsack (2001) reported data for a very large
number of Albian (112.099.6 Ma) sediment samples from a
245 m core in the lower Saxony basin, Northwest Germany.
Data for 542 samples were compiled. All samples proved to
be of low-silica type. The application of TecSand showed a
collision/convergent setting for these samples with a very high
percent probability value of 99 % (Table 1). The original authors (Rachold and Brumsack 2001) did not comment on the
tectonic setting of these samples. However, Bruns and Littke
(2015) mentioned that the Carboniferous layers of the lower
Saxony basin have been uplifted and are situated at shallow
depths or even exposed at the surface. They further documented that two major phases of compression, uplift and erosion
affected the Lower Saxony basin: 1) The Variscan Orogeny
and 2) the collision of Europe and Africa (Voigt et al. 2008).
Other studies (Linnemann 1995; Linnemann and Romer
2002) also revealed that the lower Saxony basin became a part
of the Variscan Orogeny Belt during Devonian to Lower
Carboniferous collision processes. Hence, the collision/
convergent setting inferred through TecSand is consistent with
the geology of the lower Saxony basin, Northwest Germany.
Case study A7
Data for 39 samples of high-silica and 15 of low-silica clastic
rocks from the Asa basin, Central Tibet (Zhang 2004; Lower
Cretaceous - 145.5-99.6 Ma) clearly indicated a collision/
convergent setting (Table 1). For high-silica rocks, 31 out of
39 samples plotted in the collision/convergent setting, whereas for low-silica rocks, 10 out of 15 did so. The combined
inference was that the collision/convergent setting showed a
77 % total percent probability (Table 1). The arc field showed
the next highest total percent probability of 20 % (Table 1).
The original author (Zhang 2004) suggested a transitional
setting from collision/convergent to back-arc rifting. Zhang
(2004) used 3 ternary diagrams of Bhatia and Crook (1986)
to infer tectonic setting of the Tibetan samples. In two of these
diagrams, the samples showed a high scatter, with no clear
indications of a tectonic setting. In one diagram (Sc-Zr/
10-Th), they plotted in 4 fields, although primarily in continental island arc, active continental margin and passive continental
margin fields. Thus, none of the diagrams indicated a
transitional setting put forth by Zhang (2004) who also used
tectonic discrimination diagrams (Pearce and Norry 1979;
Pearce et al. 1984; Wood 1980) for Tibetan igneous rocks to

Earth Sci Inform

decipher the probable tectonic setting. Most of these diagrams

have now been shown to perform unsatisfactorily for igneous
rocks as evaluated from data of known tectonic settings (Verma
2010; Verma et al. 2012). Zhang (2004) also suggested that the
collisional orogen due to the QiangtangLhasa collision during
the late Jurassic period should have played a key role in supply
of the sediments.
Case study A8
Geochemical data for Upper Triassic to Lower Jurassic
(228.7175.6 Ma) clastic sediments from the western and
central Mediterranean Alpine Chains (Spain and Italy) were
reported by Perri (2014) and Perri and Ohta (2014).
Twenty-five samples of high-silica and 35 of low-silica types
from the Betic cordillera and Gibraltar, Spain, clearly showed
a collision/convergent setting, as the total percent probability
was extremely high (99 %; Table 1)..
The original authors (Perri 2014; Perri and Ohta 2014) did
not provide a clear description of the tectonic setting they
favoured for their samples. The samples of Perri (2014) come
from the Betic cordillera (here presented as case study A8),
Rif chain (see case study A10 below), and Calabria-Peloritani
arc (see case study A9 below). Perri (2014) used some provenance diagrams stating that Geochemistry of sandstones
gives information about the composition, provenance, tectonic setting, and source rock weathering. Perri and Ohta (2014)
st ate d th at the ir sa m p les fr om Bet ic- Rifia n an d
Calabria-Peloritani chains (separated here as case study 8, 9,
and 10) have been used to infer the relationships between
paleoclimatic conditions and paleoweathering processes during rifting of a continental crustal block. These authors further
mentioned that the Gilbraltar and the Calabria-Peloritani arcs
were shaped by Cretaceous to Miocene convergence during
the Alpine orogeny and by late- to post-orogenic extensional
tectonics. TecSand clearly established a collision/convergent
setting for both studies (Perri 2014; Perri and Ohta 2014).

A9a: From Calabria-Peloritani, 71 Triassic-Jurassic samples of high-silica and 14 of low-silica indicated a

collision/convergent setting (Table 1). The combined inference from both diagrams showed a total percent probability of 81 % for the collision/convergent setting,
followed by 19 % (below the chance probability of
33.3 %) for the rift setting.
A9b: From Calabria-Peloritani, 17 samples of Lower
Miocene to Pleistocene rocks proved to be only
low-silica type. All of them plotted in the collision/
convergent setting (Table 1).
A9c: From Gulf of Taranto, 48 samples of Pliocene to
Pleistocene sediments proved to be mostly low-silica
type, with the exception of only one sample of
high-silica type. They also indicated a collision/
convergent setting but with a relatively low total percent
probability value of 65 %; the remaining 35 % probability
value was distributed between the arc (9 %) and rift
(26 %) settings, none of them being greater than the
chance probability of approximately 33.3 %.
The original authors (Perri et al. 2012, Perri et al. 2014;
Perri 2014; Perri and Ohta 2014) used tectonic discrimination
diagrams in some papers only. For example, Perri (2014) used
Roser and Korsch (1988) discrimination diagram for provenance purposes and Perri et al. (2015) used La-Th-Sc ternary
diagram of Bhatia and Crook (1986) for tectonic inference.
About tectonic setting, Perri et al. (2014) mentioned that the
Paleozoic metamorphic and plutonic terranes of the
Calabria-Peloritani Terrane represent the Alpine continental
collision in Early Miocene and Perri et al. (2015) stated a
rifting event in the southern Tyrrhenian basin during the
Quaternary. Our results indicate that it is possible that a transition from a collision/convergent to a rift setting might have
taken place during the Quaternary, but the indications from the
discrimination diagrams are still not conclusive.

Case study A9

Case study A10

As stated in case study A8 above, the data were separated

according to the geographical locations Spain (case study
A8) and Italy (case study A9), with the purpose of
documenting any possible tectonic differences discernible
from TecSand. Case study A9 presents data for clastic rocks
from Calabria-Peloritani and Gulf of Taranto, Italy (Perri et al.
2012, 2014, 2015; Perri 2014; Perri and Ohta 2014), but separates them according to the age as follows: A9a
Upper Triassic-lower Jurassic (228.7175.6 Ma)
Calabria-Peloritani, Italy; A9b Lower Miocene to
Pleistocene (23.030.0117 Ma); and A9c Pliocene to
Pleistocene (5.3320.0117 Ma) Gulf of Taranto, Italy (Perri
et al. 2012).

Our last case study is for clastic sediments from the northern
and south-eastern parts of Morocco. The study is subdivided
as follows: A10a Upper Triassic to Lower Jurassic (228.7
175.6 Ma) rocks from the Rif chain, north Morocco (Perri
2014); A10b Cretaceous (145.565.5 Ma) rocks from the
Tarfaya basin, south-west Morocco (Ali et al. 2014a, 2014b);
and A10c Miocene to Holocene (11.6080 Ma) rocks from
the Tarfaya basin, south-west Morocco (Ali et al. 2014a,
2014b).
A10a: Only 10 samples of high-silica type were available, 9 of which plotted in the collision/convergent field
and showed a percent probability of approximately 94 %

Earth Sci Inform

(Table 1). Thus, a collision/convergent setting is indicated

during the Upper Triassic to Lower Jurassic.
A10b: A total of 11 samples of high-silica and 10 of
low-silica could be compiled (Table 1). The high-silica
rocks clearly indicated a collision/convergent setting with
all samples plotting in this field. However, the low-silica
samples were equally divided between the rift and
collision/convergent settings (Table 1). The combined interpretation would favour a collision/convergent setting
with the respective total percent probability value of
77 %, also during the Cretaceous, with some indications,
although not statistically conclusive, of a transition to the
rift setting (percent probability of 23 %).
A10c: Data for a much larger number of samples (33
high-silica type and 71 low-silica type) were available
to represent younger Miocene to Holocene rocks. Here,
the indications from the 2 diagrams were different. The
high-silica samples were consistent with a collision/
convergent setting (31 out of 33 plotted in this field;
Table 1), whereas the low-silica ones indicated a rift setting (57 out of 71 plotted in this field). This case study
highlights the importance of deriving a combined tectonic inference from both types of clastic sediments, which is
easily provided by computer program TecSand (Table 1).
For this area of Morocco during the youngest period of
Late Miocene to Holocene, a transitional setting from
collision/convergent to rift seems to be clearly indicated.
The total percent probability values for collision/
convergent and rift were 41 % and 59 %, respectively
(Table 1). Both percent values seem to be significantly
greater than the chance probability of approximately
33.3 %. Therefore, the combined diagrams can be
interpreted to decipher a transition from a collision/
convergent to a rift setting.
The original authors (Ali et al. 2014a, 2014b) used the
discrimination diagrams of Bhatia and Crook (1986) and
Roser and Korsch (1986) for tectonic inference and suggested
a passive margin setting. However, based on Nd and Sr isotopic compositions, they also identified a heterogeneous provenance for the Tarfaya basin sediments, possibly derived from
the western Anti-Atlas uplift, which began during the late
Cretaceous due to convergence between the African and
Eurasian plates (Ruiz et al. 2010).

Conclusions
The new computer program TecSand has been created for
applying two multidimensional tectonic discrimination diagrams. TecSand was able to efficiently apply to decipher the
tectonic settings in 10 case studies. The following conclusions
were obtained from TecSand: (1) A continental rift setting for

the Lower Cambrian sandstones from the Nama group

(Namibia); (2) An arc setting for the CambrianOrdovician
meta-sedimentary rocks from the northern Altai-Mongolian
terrane, northwestern Central Asian Orogenic Belt; (3) For
the Lower and Middle Devonian Laojunshan Formation of
the North Qilian Orogenic Belt, an arc setting for the Sunan
and Minle areas, and a collision/convergent setting for the
Gulang and Jingyuan areas; (4) An arc setting for the
Carboniferous clastic rocks from the Junggar basin, China;
(5) An arc setting for the Jurassic to Early Cretaceous clastic
rocks of Songliao basin, China; (6) A collision/convergent
setting for the Albian core sediments from the lower Saxony
basin, Northwest Germany; (7) A collision/convergent setting
for the Asa basin, Central Tibet, during the Lower Cretaceous;
(8) A collision/convergent setting for the Upper Triassic to
Lower Jurassic clastic sediments from the western and central
Mediterranean Alpine chains (Spain and Italy); (9) A
collision/convergent setting for Calabria-Peloritani (Italy) during the Upper Triassic-Pleistocene and Gulf of Taranto (Italy)
during the Pliocene to Pleistocene; and (10) For Morocco, a
collision/convergent setting for the Rif chain during the Upper
Triassic to Lower Jurassic and for the Tarfaya basin, a
collision/convergent setting during the Cretaceous to a transitional collision/convergent to rift setting during the Miocene
to Holocene.
Acknowledgments This work was partly supported by DGAPAPAPIIT grant RN104813. Lorena Daz-Gonzlez also acknowledges
PROMEP support to the project Estadstica computacional para el
tratamiento de datos experimentales (PROMEP/103-5/10/7332). John
S. Armstrong-Altrin expresses his gratefulness to the Instituto de Ciencias
del Mar. y Limnologa, UNAM, Institutional (no. 616) and DGAPAPAPIIT IA101213 projects. We are grateful to the editor and anonymous
reviewers for numerous helpful comments which enabled us to improve
our presentation.

References
Agrawal S, Verma SP (2007) Comment on "tectonic classification of
basalts with classification trees" by Pieter vermeesch (2006).
Geochim Cosmochim Acta 71:33883390
Aitchison J (1981) A new approach to null correlations of proportions.
Math Geol 13:175189
Aitchison J (1984) Statistical analysis of geochemical compositions.
Math Geol 16:531564
Aitchison J (1986) The statistical analysis of compositional data.
Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 416 p
Ali S, Stattegger K, Garbe-Schnberg D, Kuhnt W, Kluth O, Jabour H
(2014a) Petrography and geochemistry of Cretaceous to Quaternary
siliciclastic rocks in the tarfaya basin, SW morocco: implications for
tectonic setting, weathering, and provenance. Int J Earth Sci 103(1):
265280
Ali S, Stattegger K, Garbe-Schnberg D, Frank M, Kraft S, Kuhnt W
(2014b) The provenance of Cretaceous to Quaternary sediments in
the tarfaya basin, SW morocco: evidence from trace element geochemistry and radiogenic Nd-Sr isotopes. J Afr Earth Sci 90:6476

Earth Sci Inform

Arai S (1992) Chemistry of chromian spinel in volcanic rocks as a potential guide to magma chemistry. Miner Mag 56(383):173184
Armstrong-Altrin JS (2015) Evaluation of two multidimensional discrimination diagrams from beach and deep-sea sediments from the Gulf
of Mexico and their application to Precambrian clastic sedimentary
rocks. Int Geol Rev 57(1112):14461461
Armstrong-Altrin JS, Verma SP (2005) Critical evaluation of six tectonic
setting discrimination diagrams using geochemical data of Neogene
sediments from known tectonic setting. Sed Geol 177(12):115129
Bhatia MR (1983) Plate tectonics and geochemical composition of sandstones. J Geol 91(6):611627
Bhatia MR, Crook AW (1986) Trace element characteristics of graywackes and tectonic setting discrimination of sedimentary basins.
Contrib Mineral Petrol 92(2):181193
Blanco G, Abre P, Rajesh HM, Germs GJB (2014) Geochemistry and
heavy minerals analyses on black sands of the lower Cambrian
fish river subgroup (Nama group, Namibia). S Afr J Geol 117(1):
129148
Bruns B, Littke R (2015) Lithological dependency and anisotropy of
vitrinite reflectance in high rank sedimentary rocks of the
ibbenbren area, NW-Germany: implications for the tectonic and
thermal evolution of the lower Saxony basin. Int J Coal Geol 137:
124135
Buccianti A (2013) Is compositional data analysis a way to see beyond
the Illusion? Comput Geosci 50:165173
Cai K, Sun M, Xiao W, Buslov MM, Yuan C, Zhao G, Long X (2014)
Zircon U-Pb geochronology and Hf isotopic composition of granitoids in Russian Altai mountain, central Asian orogenic belt. Am J
Sci 314:580612
Chayes F (1960) On correlation between variables of constant sum. J
Geophys Res 65:41854193
Chayes F (1978) Ratio correlation. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago and London, A manual for students of petrology and geochemistry, 99 p
Chen M, Sun M, Cai K, Buslov MM, Zhao G, Rubanova ES (2014)
Geochemical study of the Cambrian-Ordovician meta-sedimentary
rocks from the northern Altai-Mongolian terrane, northwestern central Asian orogenic belt: implications on the provenance and tectonic
setting. J Asian Earth Sci 96:6983
Cullers RL (2000) The geochemistry of shales, siltstones and sandstones
of Pennsylvanian - Permian age, Colorado, U.S.A.: implications for
provenance and metamorphic studies. Lithos 51(3):181203
Dickinson WR (1985) Interpreting provenance relations from detrital
modes of sandstones. Proven Aren 148:333361
Egozcue JJ, Pawlowsky-Glahn V, Mateu-Figueras G, Barcel-Vidal C
(2003) Isometric logratio transformations for compositional data
analysis. Math Geol 35:279300
Etemad-Saeed N, Hosseini-Barzi M, Armstrong-Altrin JS (2011)
Petrography and geochemistry of clastic sedimentary rocks as evidence for provenance of the lower Cambrian Lalun Formation,
Posht-e-badam block, central Iran. J Afr Earth Sci 61:142159
Kamenetsky VS, Crawford AJ, Meffre S (2001) Factors controlling
chemistry of magmatic spinel: an empirical study of associated olivine, Cr-spinel and melt inclusions from primitive rocks. J Petrol 42
(4):655671
Kurk NN, Rudnev SN, Vladimirov AG, Shokalsky SP, Kovach VP, Serov
PA, Volkova NI (2011) Early-middle Paleozoic granitoids in Gorny
Altai, Russia: implications for continental crust history and magma
sources. J Asian Earth Sci 42:928948
Linnemann UG (1995) The Neoproterozoic terranes of Saxony
(Germany). Precambrian Res 73:235250
Linnemann U, Romer RL (2002) The Cadomian Orogeny in Saxo-thuringia, Germany: geochemical and Nd-Sr-Pb isotopic characterization of marginal basins with constraints to geotectonic setting and
provenance. Tectonophysics 352:3364

Ohta T (2008) Measuring and adjusting the weathering and hydraulic

sorting effects for rigorous provenance analysis of sedimentary
rocks: a case study from the Jurassic Ashikita Group, south-west
Japan. Sedimentology 55(6):16871701
Pawlowsky-Glahn V, Egozcue JJ (2006) Compositional data and their
analysis: an introduction. In: Buccianti A, Mateu-Figueras G,
Pawlowsky-Glahn V (eds) Compositional data analysis in the
geosciences: from theory to practice. The Geological Society of
London Special Publication, London, pp. 110
Pearce JA, Norry MJ (1979) Petrogenetic implications of Ti, Zr, Y, and
Nb variations in volcanic rocks. Contrib Mineral Petrol 69(1):3347
Pearce JA, Harris NBW, Tindle AG (1984) Trace element discrimination
diagrams for the tectonic interpretation of granitic rocks. J Petrol 25
(4):956983
Pearson K (1897) Mathematical contribution to the theory of evolution. on a form of spurious correlation which may arise when indices are
used in the measurement of organs. Proc Royal Soc London 60:489
502
Perri F (2014) Composition, provenance and source weathering of
Mesozoic sandstones from western-central Mediterranean Alpine
chains. J Afr Earth Sci 91:3243
Perri F, Ohta T (2014) Paleoclimatic conditions and paleoweathering
processes on Mesozoic continental redbeds from western-central
Mediterranean alpine chains. Palaeogeogr Palaeocl Palaeoecol
395:144157
Perri F, Critelli S, Dominici R, Muto F, Tripodi V, Ceramicola S (2012)
Provenance and accommodation pathways of late Quaternary sediments in the deep-water northern Ionian basin, southern Italy.
Sediment Geol 280:244259
Perri F, Borrelli L, Gull G, Critelli S (2014) Chemical and mineropetrographic features of Plio-Pleistocene fine-grained sediments in
Calabria, southern Italy. Ital J Geosci 133(1):101115
Perri F, Dominici R, Critelli S (2015) Stratigraphy, composition and
provenance of argillaceous marls from the Calcare di Base
Formation, Rossano basin (northeastern Calabria). Geol Mag 152:
193209
Quanren Y, Shanling G, Zongqi W, Jiliang L, Wenjiao X, Quanling H,
Zhen Y, Haihong C (2002) Geochemical constraints of sediments on
the provenance, depositional environment and tectonic setting of the
songliao prototype basin. Acta Geol Sin-Engl 76(4):455462
Rachold V, Brumsack H-J (2001) Inorganic geochemistry of Albian sediments from the lower Saxony basin NW Germany:
palaeoenvironmental constraints and orbital cycles. Palaeogeogr
Palaeocl Palaeoecol 174(13):121143
Roser BP, Korsch RJ (1986) Determination of tectonic setting of
sandstone-mudstone suites using SiO2 content and K2O/Na2O ratio.
J Geol 94(5):635650
Roser BP, Korsch RJ (1988) Provenance signatures of sandstonemudstone suites determined using discrimination function analysis
of major element data. Chem Geol 67:119139
Ruiz GMH, Sebti S, Negro F, Saddiqi O, Frizon de Lamotte D, Stockli D,
Foeken J, Stuart F, Barbarand J, Schaer JP (2010) From central
Atlantic continental rift to Neogene uplift western Anti-Atlas (morocco). Terra Nova 23(1):3541
Saxena A, Pandit MK (2012) Geochemistry of Hindoli Group (Morocco)
metasediments, SE Aravalli craton, NW India: implications for
palaeoweathering and provenance. J Geol Soc India 79(3):267278
Tao H, Wang Q, Yang X, Jiang L (2013) Provenance and tectonic setting
of late carboniferous clastic rocks in west Junggar, Xinjiang, China:
a case from the Hala-Alat mountains. J Asian Earth Sci 64:210222
Tao H, Sun S, Wang Q, Yang X, Jiang L (2014) Petrography and geochemistry of lower Carboniferous greywacke and mudstones in
northeast junggar, China: implications for provenance, source
weathering, and tectonic setting. J Asian Earth Sci 87:1125
Verma SP (2005) Basic statistics for handling of experimental data
(geochemometrics) (in Spanish). Mexico, D.F, UNAM, p. 186

Earth Sci Inform

Verma SP (2010) Statistical evaluation of bivariate, ternary and discriminant function tectonomagmatic discrimination diagrams. Turk J
Earth Sci 19(2):185238
Verma SP (2012) Application of multi-dimensional discrimination diagrams and probability calculations to acid rocks from Portugal and
Spain. Comunic Geol 99:7993
Verma SP (2015) Monte Carlo comparison of conventional ternary diagrams with new log-ratio bivariate diagrams and an example of
tectonic discrimination. Geochem J 49:393412
Verma SP, Agrawal S (2011) New tectonic discrimination diagrams for
basic and ultrabasic volcanic rocks through log-transformed ratios of
high field strength elements and implications for petrogenetic processes. Rev Mex Cienc Geol 28(1):2444
Verma SP, Armstrong-Altrin JS (2013) New multi-dimensional diagrams
for tectonic discrimination of siliciclastic sediments and their application to Precambrian basins. Chem Geol 355:117133
Verma SK, Pandarinath K, Verma SP (2012) Statistical evaluation of
tectonomagmatic discrimination diagrams for granitic rocks and
proposal of new discriminant-function-based multi-dimensional diagrams for acid rocks. Int Geol Rev 54(3):325347
Voigt T, Reicherter K, von Eynatten H, Littke R, Voigt S, Kley J (2008)
Sedimentation during basin inversion. In: Littke R, Bayer U,

Gajewski D, Nelskamp S (eds) Dynamics of complex

intracontinental basins. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 211232
Wang W, Zhou M-F (2013) Petrological and geochemical constraints on provenance, paleoweathering, and tectonic setting
of the Neoproterozoic sedimentary basin in the eastern
Jiangnan orogen, south China. J Sed Res 83(11):975994
Wood DA (1980) The application of a ThHfTa diagram to problems of
tectonomagmatic classification and to establishing the nature of
crustal contamination of basaltic lavas of the British tertiary volcanic
province. Earth Planet Sci Lett 50(1):1130
Xu Y, Du Y, Yang J, Huang H (2010) Sedimentary geochemistry and
provenance of the lower and middle Devonian Laojunshan
Formation, the north Qilian orogenic belt. Sci China Earth Sci 53
(3):356367
Zaid SM (2015) Geochemistry of sandstones from the Pliocene
Gabir Formation, north Marsa Alam, Red Sea, Egypt: implication for provenance, weathering and tectonic setting. J Afr
Earth Sci 102:117
Zhang K-J (2004) Secular geochemical variations of the lower cretaceous
siliciclastic rocks from central Tibet (China) indicate a tectonic transition from continental collision to back-arc rifting. Earth Planet Sci
Lett 229(12):7389