Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cretaceous Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/CretRes

Geochemistry of the Mural Formation (Aptian-Albian) of the Bisbee Group,

Northern Sonora, Mexico
J. Madhavaraju a, *, C.M. González-León a, Yong Il Lee b, J.S. Armstrong-Altrin c, L.M. Reyes-Campero d
a
Estación Regional del Noroeste, Instituto de Geologia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 1039, Hermosillo, Sonora 83000, México
b
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-747, Republic of Korea
c
Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Geología Marina y Ambiental, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito Exterior s/n, 04510 México D.F., México
d
Servicio Geológico Mexicano, Gerencia de Hidrogeología y Geología Ambiental, Blvd. Felipe Ángeles Km. 93.50-4, Pachuca de Soto, Hidalgo 42080, México

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The elemental content (major, trace and rare earth elements) of 35 AptianeAlbian limestone samples
Received 8 May 2008 from the Mural Formation has been determined to provide information on depositional conditions and
Accepted in revised form 14 May 2010 provenance. The limestones of the Mural Formation show large variations in terrigenous and carbonate
Available online 20 May 2010
contents (1.2 to 42.3% and 57.7 to 98.8% respectively). Small variations are observed in CaO concentra-
tions in the Tuape Shale, Cerro La Puerta and Mesa Quemada members whereas large variations are
Keywords:
found in the Cerro La Ceja, Los Coyotes and Cerro La Espina members. The majority of the limestones
Geochemistry
show high values of Th, Sc and Zr. Large variations in SREE content are observed among different
Rare Earth Element
Provenance
members of the Mural Formation. Most limestones from the Mural Formation record non-seawater-like
AptianeAlbian Limestone REEþY signatures. The limestones show large variations in Ce anomalies which may be due to mixing of
Mural Formation sediment components (biogenic and authigenic phases) and detrital materials including Fe-colloids from
Northern Sonora fluvial input. Most of the limestones show positive Eu anomalies, but some samples show negative Eu
México anomalies (Eu/Eu*: 0.42 to 2.62).
The large variations in terrigenous percentage, high Al2O3 and SREE contents, high LaN/YbN ratios, low
Y/Ho ratios and non-seawater-like REE patterns suggest that the observed variations in SREE contents
are mainly controlled by the amount of detrital sediments in the limestones of the Mural Formation. The
limestones of the Mural Formation were deposited under both coastal and open shelf environments, and
they exhibit non-seawater-like REE þ Y patterns. The presence of terrigenous materials in these
carbonates as contaminants effectively masks the seawater signature due to their high concentration of
the REE. Thus, trying to decipher the palaeoceanographic conditions represented by ancient carbonate
rocks should be done cautiously since limestones deposited under open marine environments may also
be contaminated by some amount of terrigenous particles. The presence of small quantities of terrige-
nous materials in the limestones can also reveal source rock information. The La/Sc, La/Co, Th/Sc, Th/Cr,
Th/Co and Cr/Th ratios suggest that the terrigenous materials present in the limestones were mainly
derived from a nearby exposed basement of intermediate to felsic igneous rocks.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction terrestrial input from continental weathering, hydrothermal input)

Rare Earth Element (REE) concentrations, REE patterns, and the
Eu and Ce anomalies in marine sediments provide useful infor-
mation on marine depositional environments. Many workers have
undertaken detailed studies on the REE to understand the path-
ways of biogenic and terrigenous fluxes from the source to the
marine sediments (Piper, 1974; Murray and Leinen, 1993;
Sholkovitz et al., 1994). The REE concentrations in seawater are
mainly controlled by factors relating to different input sources (e.g.,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mj@geologia.unam.mx (J. Madhavaraju).
and scavenging processes related to depth, salinity and oxygen
levels (Elderfield, 1988; Piepgras and Jacobsen, 1992; Greaves et al.,
1999). Rare Earth Elements generally reflect uniform trivalent
behaviour except for Ce and Eu which exhibit multiple oxidation
states. Shale-normalized seawater REE patterns are characterized
by i) LREE depletion, ii) negative Ce anomalies and iii) a slight
positive La anomaly (e.g. de Baar et al., 1991; Bau and Dulski, 1996).
Y and Ho are chemically similar in charge and ionic radius, but Ho is
more readily removed from seawater than Y because of its surface
complexation behaviour (Nozaki et al., 1997), thus seawater
exhibits distinctly a high Y/Ho ratio than the terrigenous materials
(e.g. Bau, 1996).

0195-6671/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2010.05.006
 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414
The distribution of REEs and Ce anomalies in marine sediments
may be influenced by depositional environments such as proximity
to source area (Murray et al., 1991a), widespread marine anoxia (Liu
et al., 1988; German and Elderfield, 1990; Murray et al., 1991b),
surface productivity variation (Toyoda et al., 1990), oceanic redox
conditions (Liu et al., 1988; German and Elderfield, 1990) and
lithology and diagenesis (Nath et al., 1992; Madhavaraju and
Ramasamy, 1999; Armstrong-Altrin et al., 2003; Madhavaraju and
Lee, 2009). Ce anomalies in marine sediments are considered by
some as reliable indicators for understanding the paleoredox
conditions (Liu et al., 1988), although several workers have raised
doubts about their effectiveness (German and Elderfield, 1990;
Murray et al., 1991b; Nath et al., 1992, 1997).
The REE signatures in ancient marine environment provide
information on secular changes in detrital influx and oxygenation
conditions in the water column (e.g. Holser, 1997; Kamber and
Webb, 2001). The seawater signatures are, however, completely
masked by the incorporation of terrigenous materials, which have
relatively high, non-seawater-like REE contents (Murray et al., 1992;
Webb and Kamber, 2000; Nothdurft et al., 2004; Madhavaraju and
Lee, 2009). The identification of the terrigenous particles present
in the marine carbonate rocks as contaminants is an important
aspect to understand the geochemistry of carbonate rocks.
The Lower Cretaceous, shallow marine siliciclastic and calcar-
eous strata of the Mural Formation are exposed in northern Sonora,
northwest Mexico in a 300 km long transect that extends from
Sierra El Chanate (westernmost part) to Cerro El Caloso Pitaycachi
(northeastern most outcrop). Along this transect, González-León
et al. (2008) reported the stratigraphy and biostratigraphy of
several sections, including the Cerro Pimas and Sierra San José
sections (Figs. 1 and 2) of which we discuss herein the major, trace
and REE geochemistry of their limestone beds. The aims of our
study are to determine the influence of terrigenous materials on the
REE characteristics of carbonate rocks, to document the variations
in Ce anomalies and to unravel the probable reason for significant
positive Eu anomalies in the limestones of the Mural Formation.
San Luis 113 00 110 00
R. C.
SONORA ARIZONA
Sonoita
Naco Agua Prieta
Nogales
Cananea
Sierra
Caborca Santa Ana San Jose
Cerro
Pimas
HERMOSILLO
0 20
Guaymas
Obregon
Mexico
Fig. 1. Location map of the studied sections of the Mural Formation.
401
2. Geology and Stratigraphy
The Lower Cretaceous sedimentary succession assigned to the
Bisbee Group is well exposed in the north-central part of the state
of Sonora, Mexico. This succession has similar stratigraphic and
lithologic characteristics to the younger formations of the Bisbee
Group (Ransome, 1904) of southern Arizona and New Mexico in the
United States of America, and is correlative with strata exposed in
northern Mexico (Cantu-Chapa, 1976; Bilodeau and Lindberg, 1983;
Mack et al., 1986; Dickinson et al., 1989; Jacques-Ayala, 1995;
Lawton et al., 2004). In Arizona the Bisbee Group consists of the
Glance Conglomerate and the Morita, Mural and Cintura Forma-
tions that were deposited in a rift basin, termed the Bisbee Basin.
The older unit is the Glance Conglomerate composed of cobble- to
boulder-conglomerate with local interbeds of volcanic flows and
tuffs, which represent syntectonic rift deposits (Bilodeau et al.,
1987; Lawton et al., 2004).
The Morita and Cintura Formations are composed of reddish
brown siltstone and lenticular beds of arkose and feldspathic
arenite (Dickinson et al., 1986; Klute, 1991) that were deposited
under fluvial conditions. These two formations are difficult to
distinguish based only on their lithological characteristics. Hence,
the intervening marine Mural Formation is key to understanding
Lower Cretaceous stratigraphy and basin configuration in the area.
The fossiliferous clastic and carbonate strata of the Mural
Formation were deposited during a major marine transgression
during AptianeAlbian time (Scott, 1987) in the region of Sonora and
Arizona where it overlies the Morita Formation on a sharp ravine-
ment surface and grades upward into the Cintura Formation.
Lawton et al. (2004) defined six members in the Mural Formation in
north-central Sonora (Fig. 2), which from the base upwards are the
Cerro La Ceja, Tuape Shale, Los Coyotes, Cerro La Puerta, Cerro La
Espina and Mesa Quemada members. The lithostratigraphic studies
of different members of the Mural Formation show minor facies
changes from west to east. The facies characteristics and regional
correlation of different members of the Mural Formation indicate
that the depositional environments of this formation varied from
restricted shelf with deltaic and fluvial influence to open shelf with
coral rudist buildups, to offshore shelf. For the present study, we
have collected limestone samples from the western part (Cerro
Pimas e CP) and the eastern part (Sierra San José e SSJ) of the
Bisbee Basin in northern Sonora. Here the limestones of the Mural
Formation were deposited in a nearshore environment with deltaic
31 00
and fluvial influence to open marine environments (González-León
et al., 2008). Most of the limestone samples contain varied amounts
of terrigenous materials.
The Cerro La Ceja (CLC) Member consists of interbedded bio-
clastic limestone, siltstone and calcareous sandstone. The limestone
beds are grey, brown and dark yellowish brown, bioturbated and
locally sandy. Siltstone beds are grey, green and reddish brown with
calcareous nodules. The Tuape Shale (TS) Member is mainly
29 00
composed of grey to black mudstone and shale, shaly limestone and
60 120
subordinate amount of siltstone and fine grained sandstone.
Km Limestone occurs as thin beds which contain oysters and ammo-
nites. The Los Coyotes (LC) Member consists of thin beds of brown
mudstone, calcareous siltstone, shaly limestone, massive brown
siltstone, fine-grained sandstone and bioclastic limestone. This
member contains abundant fossils such as oysters, trigoniids,
Navojoa gastropods, bivalves and echinoderms. The Cerro La Puerta (CLP)
27 00
Member is composed of mostly black shale and thin beds of fine-
grained sandstone and fossiliferous limestone. The limestone
exhibits distinct bedding-parallel burrows on the upper bed
surfaces, and it contains fossils including oysters and Orbitolina; the
black shale contains calcareous nodules. The Cerro La Espina (CLE)
Member consists mainly of massive limestone with thin beds of
402 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414

Fig. 2. Lithostratigraphic sections of the Mural Formation in Cerro Pimas and Sierra San José areas (modified after González-León et al., 2008).
 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414 403

siltstone, mudstone, fine grained sandstone and shaly limestone. Table 1

The limestone beds are lenticular and fossiliferous with Orbitolina, Comparison of data of major oxides, trace and rare-earth elements for USGS refer-
ence sample MAG-1 (marine sediment) with the literature USGS certificate of
gastropods, corals, rudists and other bivalves and the shaly lime- analysis (Govindaraju 1994; see also USGS website).
stones contain abundant oysters. The Mesa Quemada (MQ)
Member includes green mudstone, light grey or red siltstone, Oxide/Elements This Study* Govindaraju 1994 Limits of detection**

sandstone and bioclastic limestone. Sandstone beds are fine- to Mean 

very fine-grained with local parallel laminations. The bioclastic SiO2 50.72 50.4 0.96 e
limestone contains numerous oysters. Al2O3 16.48 16.4 0.30 5
Fe2O3 7.11 6.8 0.60 20
CaO 1.42 1.37 0.10 5
3. Material and methods MgO 3.11 3.0 0.10 5
K2O 3.59 3.55 0.17 5
The stratigraphy of several sections of the Mural Formation Na2O 3.60 3.83 0.11 50
exposed in the northern part of Sonora has recently been studied by MnO 0.10 0.098 0.009 5
TiO2 0.70 0.75 0.07 15
Lawton et al. (2004) and González-León et al. (2008). Among them,
P2O5 0.17 0.16 0.021 15
carbonate rocks are well exposed at the Cerro Pimas and Sierra San LOI 14.09 e e e
José sections (Fig. 2). In our present study, thirty-five limestone Co 20.2 20 1.6 0.0287
samples from these two sections were analyzed e twenty from the Cr 77.1 97 8 e
Cerro Pimas section and fifteen from the Sierra San José section. We Sc e 17 1 e
Y 24.91 28 3 0.0075
consider these to be representative limestone samples from the Sr 133.7 150 15 e
western and northeastern part of the Bisbee Basin in order to Zr 125.6 130 13 e
establish the geochemical variations in the two sections that are Pb 28.44 24 3 0.0598
separated by about 150 km within the Bisbee Basin. Th 11.96 12 1 0.0473
La 41.46 43 4 0.0044
Care was taken to remove the weathered materials from the
Ce 87.32 88 9 0.0030
surface of the limestone samples. The selected samples were Pr 10.06 e e 0.0031
washed with distilled water several times, air dried and powdered Nd 38.10 38 5 0.0034
in an agate mortar. Then, fused glass beads were prepared for major Sm 7.61 7.5 0.6 0.0034
element analysis using a Phillip PW 1480 X-ray fluorescence Eu 1.66 1.6 0.14 0.0031
Gd 5.89 5.8 0.7 0.0036
spectrometer with a rhodium X-ray source (see Norrish and Hutton, Tb 1.28 0.960 0.090 0.0024
1969; Giles et al., 1995). The accuracy of SiO2, Al2O3 and K2O are Dy 5.92 5.2 0.3 0.0024
better than 1%, MnO is better than 2% and that of Fe2O3, CaO and Ho 1.16 1.0 0.1 0.0027
MgO are better than 4%. Na2O, P2O5 and TiO2 are better than 6%, Er 3.09 3.0 e 0.0024
Tm 0.56 0.43 0.43 0.0023
Trace elements (Cr, Sc, Sr and Zr) were measured using a Jobin Yvon
Yb 2.70 2.6 0.3 0.0029
138 Ultrace Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spec- Lu 0.53 0.4 0.04 0.0018
trometer (ICP-AES). Rare Earth Elements and certain other trace *
Major oxides in wt% are analysed by XRF (average of 43 measurements); trace
elements (Co, Y, Th and Pb) were analyzed using a VG elemental PQ elements in ppm by ICP-AES and ICP-MS (average of 6 measurements). The obtained
II plus Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometer (ICP-MS) data were not tested statistically to find out the discordant outliers and it will be
(see Jarvis, 1988). The sedimentary geochemical standard rock, undertaken in our future work (Barnett and Lewis, 1994; Verma, 2005; Verma and
MAG-1, obtained from the USGS, was used for calibration. The Quiroz-Ruiz, 2006a, 2006b, 2008; Verma et al., 2008).
**
Limit of Detection: Three times the standard deviation of seven blank measure-
result from the analyses of MAG-1 are compared with the pub-
ments; For major elements in mg/L and for trace elements in ng/L.
lished values compiled by Govindaraju (1994) which shows better e not determined or not reported.
precision of our data and also compatible with the published values
(Table 1). The precision for trace elements like Co, Zr and Th are
better than 3% whereas Cr, Sr, Y and Pb are better than 10%. The 6000 with Cu ka radiation to estimate semi-quantitatively the
analytical accuracy of all REEs is better than 4% (except Tb, Dy, Ho, minerals present. The dominant minerals identified in these lime-
Tm and Lu). The precision of Tb, Dy, Ho, Tm and Lu are more than stone samples are quartz, feldspar and calcite. The clastic and
10%. The limits of detection for the analytical procedure are also carbonate percentages are given in Table 2.
listed in Table 1. They mainly agree with the findings mentioned by
earlier workers (Verma et al., 2002; Santoyo and Verma, 2003; 4. Results
Verma and Santoyo, 2005). Major, trace and Rare Earth elements
were analyzed at the Korea Basic Science Institute. Three analyses The concentrations of major elements in the studied limestones
were made for each sample and then averaged. Yttrium is inserted samples of the Mural Formation are given in Table 2. Large varia-
between Dy and Ho in the REE pattern according to its identical tions are observed in SiO2 and Al2O3 contents (Table 2) among
charge and similar radius (REE þ Y pattern, Bau, 1996). Rare Earth different members of the Mural Formation in both sections. In the
Elements were normalized to the Post Archaean Australian Shale Cerro Pimas section, the CaO content in the CLC, TS, LC, CLE and MQ
(PAAS) values of Taylor and McLennan (1985) for preparing REE- varies significantly (Table 2). Small variations are observed in CaO
normalized diagrams. The Ce/Ce* (Ce anomaly) is calculated using concentrations in the CLC, TS, CLP, CLE and MQ members whereas
the value of Ce (Cesample/CePAAS) and the predicted value of Ce* is large variations are found only in the LC Member of Sierra San José
obtained from the interpolation from the PAAS-normalised values section (Table 2). The limestones from both sections show low
of La and Pr. The Eu/Eu* (Eu anomaly) is also calculated in similar contents of Fe2O3 (Table 2). Those major and trace elements which
way using the values of Sm, Eu and Gd. are enriched in silicate minerals (eg. SiO2 and Al2O3) are higher in
Thirty-five samples were analyzed using standard XRD proce- the CLC, TS, CLE and MQ members than the LC member from the
dures (Biscaye, 1965; Muller, 1967; Grim, 1968; Hardy & Tucker, Cerro Pimas sections. In contrast, major and trace elements that are
1988) for whole rock mineralogy. The powder samples were housed in the carbonate minerals (eg. CaO and Sr) are higher in the
scanned from 2e70 (2q) per minute. X-ray diffraction was used in LC member than the other members of the Cerro Pimas section. The
a computer controlled Shimadzu Diffractometer system model CLC, TS, LC and MQ members from the Sierra San José section are
404 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414

Table 2
Major oxides (wt%), trace and rare earth elements (ppm) concentrations for limestones of the Mural Formationa.

Member/Sample no Clastic % Carbonate % SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO K2O Na2O MnO TiO2 P2O5 LOI Total Co Cr Sc Y Zr Sr
Cerro Pimas section
Mesa Quemada
CP47 10.8 89.2 9.1 0.50 0.80 49.9 0.20 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.03 0.05 39.0 99.82 4.2 11.3 1.00 5.1 1.0 425
CP45 5.1 94.9 3.5 0.86 0.41 53.0 0.31 0.16 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.02 41.3 99.74 2.9 10.4 1.00 4.7 1.0 631
Cerro La Espina
CP43 29.5 70.5 23.7 2.99 1.46 38.7 0.67 0.82 n.d. 0.15 0.12 0.03 31.4 100.00 4.3 9.1 2.21 6.1 24.1 554
CP41 4.8 95.2 3.0 0.27 0.34 53.3 0.35 0.05 n.d. 0.06 0.02 0.02 42.0 99.41 2.8 1.0 0.41 5.2 0.6 405
CP38 11.0 89.0 7.8 1.10 1.27 48.7 1.26 0.07 n.d. 0.12 0.05 0.02 39.1 99.49 6.9 4.9 1.40 10.7 9.4 544
CP36 5.2 94.8 3.3 0.58 0.56 53.0 0.68 0.08 n.d. 0.09 0.02 0.02 41.4 99.73 4.6 3.5 1.20 14.1 2.6 529
CP33 7.7 92.3 5.6 0.46 0.66 51.2 0.73 0.01 n.d. 0.08 0.03 0.02 40.8 99.59 3.2 4.6 0.60 9.5 2.8 746
Los Coyotes
CP28 2.8 97.2 1.8 0.14 0.28 54.1 0.35 0.01 n.d. 0.06 0.01 n.d. 42.7 99.45 2.9 1.4 0.20 1.7 1.0 540
CP26 5.5 94.5 3.9 0.65 0.65 52.0 0.41 0.14 n.d. 0.08 0.04 0.02 41.3 99.19 3.7 11.0 0.60 4.1 4.4 428
CP24 3.9 96.1 2.9 0.48 0.65 53.2 0.26 0.10 n.d. 0.06 0.03 0.02 41.9 99.60 4.3 6.0 0.60 4.4 4.2 440
CP22 1.9 98.1 1.5 0.10 0.25 54.9 0.09 0.01 n.d. 0.07 0.01 0.01 42.4 99.34 3.0 3.5 0.20 10.3 1.0 218
CP18 6.1 93.9 3.4 0.48 1.81 51.9 0.51 0.08 n.d. 0.25 0.02 0.02 41.1 99.57 10.1 7.7 0.60 6.0 2.6 368
CP15 6.6 93.4 5.4 0.47 0.78 51.5 0.18 0.12 n.d. 0.25 0.02 0.01 40.5 99.23 4.5 6.3 0.60 6.5 4.4 471
Tuape Shale
CP12 19.6 80.4 14.2 2.75 1.66 44.2 0.69 0.44 n.d. 0.15 0.12 0.05 35.5 99.76 4.6 10.8 1.79 7.1 14.4 866
CP10 14.9 85.1 9.9 1.73 1.33 46.8 1.20 0.20 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.04 37.7 99.12 3.6 13.6 1.39 18.2 42.1 1116
CP9 17.0 83.0 13.1 1.33 1.37 46.1 0.32 0.14 0.26 0.16 0.07 0.05 36.6 99.50 3.0 9.0 0.81 8.4 5.9 503
CP6 20.8 79.2 16.9 2.04 1.36 43.5 0.45 0.45 0.03 0.08 0.10 0.02 34.6 99.53 3.2 15.3 2.19 13.2 24.1 705
Cerro La Ceja
CP4 3.9 96.1 2.0 0.49 0.26 53.3 0.38 0.10 n.d. 0.01 0.03 0.02 42.5 99.09 2.2 7.7 0.61 2.5 1.6 510
CP3 5.8 94.2 3.1 0.77 0.41 53.3 0.23 0.17 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.04 41.4 99.55 5.3 6.8 0.87 6.6 1.9 391
CP1 29.3 70.7 23.3 2.84 1.59 38.0 0.52 0.29 0.66 0.69 0.12 0.06 31.1 99.17 3.4 9.1 1.78 9.5 24.8 298

Sierra San José section

Mesa Quemada
SSJ27 11.3 88.7 8.2 1.56 0.59 49.1 0.50 0.29 0.05 0.44 0.06 0.03 38.8 99.62 3.2 2.0 1.39 5.4 6.6 983
Cerro La Espina
SSJ25 6.7 93.3 4.3 0.51 0.60 51.7 0.88 n.d. n.d. 0.07 0.02 0.01 41.3 99.39 2.8 4.0 0.40 4.3 3.8 313
SSJ23 7.9 92.1 6.5 0.46 0.12 50.7 0.93 0.07 n.d. 0.02 0.02 0.01 40.7 99.53 2.2 3.6 0.20 1.5 10.1 390
SSJ21 5.9 94.1 4.2 0.44 0.10 52.6 0.73 0.04 n.d. 0.01 0.01 0.01 41.7 99.84 2.1 2.8 0.20 1.2 6.2 439
SSJ18 1.2 98.8 0.3 0.08 0.06 54.6 0.68 n.d. n.d. 0.01 0.01 0.01 43.4 99.15 2.1 2.7 0.20 0.8 1.8 407
SSJ16 5.9 94.1 4.6 0.21 0.16 52.5 0.85 n.d. n.d. 0.01 0.02 0.01 41.4 99.76 1.98 3.0 0.20 1.5 5.0 434
Cerro La Puerta
SSJ11 7.3 92.7 4.7 0.90 0.50 51.7 0.96 0.06 n.d. 0.07 0.03 0.01 40.6 99.53 2.2 6.3 0.60 3.3 6.0 827
SSJ10 6.1 93.7 3.9 0.84 0.44 52.6 0.90 0.08 n.d. 0.02 0.03 0.02 40.3 99.13 2.1 5.9 0.60 4.4 6.2 849
SSJ9 7.8 93.2 4.8 0.78 0.37 52.3 0.78 0.10 n.d. 0.02 0.03 0.01 40.2 99.39 1.8 7.4 0.60 3.6 5.4 673
Los Coyotes
SSJ7 8.4 91.6 5.7 0.54 0.96 51.2 0.84 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.06 39.7 99.11 1.6 8.6 0.61 5.7 6.5 1183
SSJ6 38.1 61.9 31.5 3.00 1.20 36.2 0.73 0.24 0.86 0.09 0.23 0.06 25.6 99.71 2.3 11.9 1.59 18.0 70.3 753
Tuape Shale
SSJ5 17.0 83.0 12.5 1.78 0.86 46.1 0.72 0.20 0.34 0.08 0.10 0.04 36.5 99.22 2.2 15.2 1.42 8.0 52.2 699
SSJ4 17.9 82.1 13.5 1.92 0.92 49.7 0.78 0.21 0.37 0.09 0.11 0.04 31.6 99.24 1.9 19.3 2.00 13.8 43.8 520
Cerro La Ceja
SSJ3 42.3 57.7 31.7 6.26 0.94 37.3 0.80 0.59 2.03 0.29 0.21 0.08 19.9 100.10 2.7 10.5 2.42 11.3 57.4 528
SSJ2 39.2 60.8 29.6 6.00 1.48 32.8 1.03 1.21 0.07 0.07 0.30 0.08 27.3 99.94 2.8 21.4 4.20 12.1 50.6 481

Member/Sample no Th Pb La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu SREE
Cerro Pimas section
Mesa Quemada
CP47 0.25 8 5.57 5.63 0.98 4.68 0.86 0.23 1.07 0.13 0.74 0.14 0.39 0.04 0.28 0.04 20.78
CP45 0.39 29 5.91 10.27 1.52 7.46 1.15 0.23 1.24 0.15 0.83 0.16 0.45 0.05 0.35 0.04 29.81
Cerro La Espina
CP43 1.55 254 6.16 12.44 1.38 7.28 1.31 0.39 1.62 0.21 1.03 0.22 0.62 0.09 0.59 0.09 33.43
CP41 0.23 47 3.25 6.21 0.69 3.73 0.70 0.18 1.00 0.14 0.75 0.16 0.45 0.06 0.39 0.06 17.77
CP38 1.01 22 7.75 17.38 1.85 10.06 1.67 0.43 2.38 0.32 1.62 0.33 0.91 0.12 0.77 0.11 45.70
CP36 0.81 58 8.62 19.69 2.07 11.45 1.98 0.43 2.91 0.40 2.06 0.42 1.16 0.16 1.02 0.15 52.52
CP33 0.64 43 6.78 13.62 1.49 8.07 1.39 0.36 2.07 0.28 1.40 0.28 0.76 0.10 0.61 0.09 37.27
Los Coyotes
CP28 e 93 1.07 1.70 0.19 1.03 0.20 0.06 0.30 0.04 0.22 0.05 0.14 0.02 0.12 0.02 5.22
CP26 0.33 49 3.66 6.45 0.73 3.87 0.68 0.20 0.89 0.12 0.56 0.12 0.32 0.04 0.26 0.04 17.94
CP24 0.39 135 3.19 5.65 0.66 3.52 0.67 0.18 0.90 0.13 0.66 0.14 0.39 0.05 0.34 0.05 16.53
CP22 0.09 18 2.23 2.69 0.38 1.92 0.44 0.14 0.57 0.08 0.44 0.10 0.27 0.04 0.21 0.03 9.54
CP18 0.57 25 4.74 9.17 1.04 5.51 1.10 0.37 1.34 0.18 0.92 0.18 0.55 0.07 0.43 0.06 25.66
CP15 0.50 46 5.31 9.18 1.04 5.60 1.12 0.36 1.40 0.19 0.93 0.19 0.50 0.06 0.39 0.06 26.33
Tuape Shale
CP12 1.27 40 9.18 18.68 2.04 10.97 1.78 0.69 2.12 0.26 1.19 0.23 0.65 0.08 0.53 0.08 48.48
CP10 1.68 117 11.98 27.18 3.26 17.25 2.42 0.78 2.94 0.35 1.42 0.26 0.70 0.08 0.54 0.08 69.24
C P9 1.44 79 20.88 50.49 4.53 26.72 2.87 1.03 3.69 0.40 1.52 0.28 0.82 0.09 0.56 0.08 113.96
CP6 2.34 14 7.72 14.32 2.01 10.33 1.94 0.47 2.43 0.35 1.98 0.41 1.21 0.16 1.09 0.17 44.59
Cerro La Ceja
CP4 1.51 19 4.63 7.40 1.03 5.05 0.75 0.17 0.89 0.12 0.45 0.09 0.24 0.04 0.19 0.03 21.08
 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414 405

Table 2 (continued )

Member/Sample no Th Pb La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu SREE
CP3 1.13 67 6.49 11.50 1.59 8.04 1.32 0.36 1.57 0.20 1.07 0.21 0.58 0.07 0.48 0.07 33.55
CP1 1.34 41 13.51 28.94 3.05 16.52 2.17 0.49 2.77 0.33 1.45 0.28 0.85 0.12 0.77 0.12 71.37

Sierra San José section

Mesa Quemada
SSJ27 0.72 25 6.69 13.64 1.39 7.54 1.21 0.75 1.48 0.18 0.83 0.17 0.48 0.06 0.40 0.06 34.88
Cerro La Espina
SSJ25 0.35 13 3.77 7.77 0.81 4.44 0.70 0.19 6.50 0.12 0.56 0.12 0.31 0.04 0.36 0.04 25.73
SSJ23 0.12 7 1.06 1.87 0.21 1.10 0.18 0.05 0.24 0.03 0.17 0.04 0.115 0.018 0.11 0.017 5.21
SSJ21 0.08 17 0.91 1.59 0.19 0.98 0.16 0.04 0.23 0.03 0.17 0.037 0.11 0.017 0.114 0.018 4.60
SSJ18 0.01 9 0.53 0.73 0.09 0.45 0.09 0.028 0.14 0.014 0.08 0.017 0.05 0.007 0.043 0.006 2.28
SSJ16 0.07 26 0.92 1.26 0.16 0.82 0.14 0.04 0.21 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.10 0.01 0.09 0.012 3.97
Cerro La Puerta
SSJ11 0.44 14 2.95 4.64 0.55 2.83 0.46 0.13 0.61 0.08 0.41 0.09 0.26 0.04 0.22 0.03 13.30
SSJ10 0.31 34 2.37 3.55 0.46 2.34 0.41 0.11 0.55 0.08 0.40 0.09 0.24 0.03 0.21 0.03 10.87
SSJ9 0.36 9 2.51 3.71 0.48 2.44 0.42 0.12 0.63 0.08 0.43 0.09 0.27 0.04 0.22 0.03 11.47
Los Coyotes
SSJ7 0.77 11 9.36 21.51 2.56 13.45 1.78 0.37 2.10 0.25 1.06 0.19 0.54 0.07 0.42 0.07 53.73
SSJ6 3.11 15 19.48 43.03 4.57 24.40 3.38 0.68 4.45 0.62 3.10 0.65 1.91 0.27 1.77 0.27 108.58
Tuape Shale
SSJ5 1.19 21 6.66 13.26 1.68 8.62 1.27 0.39 1.50 0.20 0.94 0.19 0.56 0.08 0.50 0.08 35.93
SSJ4 1.97 34 12.19 19.72 2.58 13.31 2.06 0.44 2.65 0.36 1.81 0.39 1.14 0.15 0.98 0.15 57.93
Cerro La
CejaSSJ3 2.80 15 10.55 21.80 2.41 12.68 1.93 0.52 2.37 0.34 1.77 0.38 1.11 0.16 1.06 0.16 57.24
SSJ2 3.23 6 12.68 27.70 3.35 17.51 2.80 0.81 3.18 0.44 2.18 0.44 1.29 0.18 1.19 0.18 73.93
a
Before data presentation, an attempt was made to round the data to the number of significant digits as suggested by Verma (2005).

more enriched in silicate minerals than the CLP and CLE members.
In contrast, the CLP and CLE members are more enriched in
carbonate minerals than the CLC, TS, LC and MQ members. The
observed variations in the major oxides concentrations within the
same member from different localities may be due to the amount of
clastic materials included in them.
The bivariate plots of major oxides including certain trace
elements vs the percentage of clastic materials present in the
carbonate rocks provide useful information regarding the source of
these materials (Parekh et al., 1977; Cullers, 2002). In addition,
statistical approach will also useful to understand the statistically
valid or invalid correlation (Verma et al., 2006). A Plot of the
S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2) vs the per-
centage of clastic materials show excellent linear correlation and
also the linear plot extending from the origin (Fig. 3a). This suggests
as expected that these oxides are mainly incorporated into the
clastic materials rather than the calcite. In contrast, CaO and LOI
have a perfect negative correlation with the percentage of clastic
materials, suggesting that they are incorporated into the carbonate
phase (Fig. 3b and c). These results are consistent with the other
published studies (Parekh et al., 1977; Cullers, 2002).
Trace elements concentrations and their ratios are given in
Tables 2 and 3. The high field strength elements (HFSE), namely Zr,
Y and Th, are resistant to weathering and alteration processes when
compared with other trace elements (Taylor and McLennan, 1985).
The limestones from the LC and MQ members contain a low
concentration of Zr when compared with other members at the
Cerro Pimas section (Table 2). The CLC, TS and LC members have
higher concentrations of Zr than the CLP, CLE and MQ members at
Sierra San José section (Table 2). Maximum concentrations of Y are
found in the CLC, TS, LC and CLE members whereas low concen-
trations are found in the MQ Member at Cerro Pimas section
(Table 2). In the Sierra San José section, the higher concentrations of
Y are observed in the CLC, TS, LC and MQ members than the CLP and
CLE members. Overall, the limestones of the Mural Formation
contain high Sr content (Table 2).
Plots of La, Ce, Sc and Th vs S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO
þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2) yield significant positive correlation with the
linear plots emanating slightly above the intersects of the X and Y
axes (Fig. 4aed). This suggests that these elements are mainly
housed in the clastic materials. Likewise, Sm, Eu, Tb, Yb, and Lu
show a positive correlation with S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ
Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2) which suggest that these elements are mainly
associated with terrigenous particles (statistically significant at
a strict significance level of 0.001; linear correlation coefficient
r ¼ 0.64; 0.63; 0.71; 0.78; 0.79; respectively, n ¼ 35). These results
are consistent with the other published studies (Parekh et al., 1977;
Cullers, 2002).
The enrichment and depletion of REE in the sediment are
controlled by the major processes such as the terrigenous input
from the continental area, authigenic removal of REE from the
water column and early diagenesis (Sholkovitz, 1988). Seawater
contributes lesser amount of REE to the sediments where as the
sediments contain high REE concentration show non-seawater-like
pattern (Nothdurft et al., 2004). The PAAS normalized Seawater REE
patterns (Fig. 5) are characterized by (1) uniform light REE deple-
tion, (2) a negative Ce anomaly, and (3) a slight positive La anomaly
(e.g., De Baar et al., 1991; Bau and Dulski, 1996) and higher Y/Ho
ratios (e.g., Bau, 1996). The limestones from the CP and SSJ
sections show non-seawater-like REE þ Y patterns (CLC:
NdN/YbN ¼ 1.52  0.42, n ¼ 5; TS: 1.95  1.17, n ¼ 6; LC: 1.18  0.65,
n ¼ 8; CLP: 0.97  0.08, n ¼ 3, CLE: 0.92  0.15, n ¼ 10; MQ:
1.57  0.19, n ¼ 3; Fig. 6aef). Most of the samples contain positive La
and negative Ce anomalies although some samples show slightly
positive La and negative Ce anomalies to no anomalies. Most of the
limestones from the CP and SSJ sections contain chondritic Y/Ho
ratios (CLC: 30.1  2.7, n ¼ 5; TS: 34.2  5.0, n ¼ 5; LC: 32.1  2.4,
n ¼ 7; CLE: 35.4  6.1, n ¼ 10; MQ: 32.5  3.3, n ¼ 3; respectively,
Y/Ho Chondritic ratio: w28), but the limestones of the CLP member
from the SSJ section contain slightly higher Y/Ho ratios (CLP:
41.8  6.4, n ¼ 3). Two samples contain high Y/Ho ratios (CP10:
70.15 and CP22: 102.5) which have been statistically proved as
outliers using the method proposed by Verma and Quiroz-Ruiz
(2006a,b). So, we have not included those samples with discor-
dant outliers while calculating the mean and standard deviation to
improve the authenticity of the data set (Verma et al., 2008).
406 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414
a
b 0.53; 0.58; respectively). Such moderate correlation of Ce and Ce/
c deposited in shallow marine environments (Lawton et al., 2004;
Fig. 3. a, plot of the S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2) vs clastic
percentage in the limestones of the Mural Formation provides a linear plot with
a correlation coefficient of 0.99. b, plot of the clastic (%) vs CaO content gives significant
negative correlation with a correlation coefficient of 0.98. c, clastic (%) vs LOI plot
exhibits a linear plot with a correlation coefficient of 0.98.
5. Discussion
5.1. Ce Anomaly
Ce/Ce* ratios in limestones of the Cerro Pimas section ranges
from 0.56 to 1.20, with a mean value of 0.91 (n ¼ 20); in limestones
of the Sierra San José section this ratio ranges from 0.73 to 1.05 with
a mean value of 0.90 (n ¼ 15). Noticeable variations are observed
among different members of the Mural Formation. Many lime-
stones of the Mural Formation exhibit less negative Ce anomalies
than the deep-sea Indian Ocean carbonates (Nath et al., 1992),
Arabian sea sediments (Nath et al., 1997), Cretaceous carbonates
from Southern Alps (Bellanca et al., 1997), Maastrichtian carbonates
of Southern India (Madhavaraju and Ramasamy, 1999), Indian
Ocean waters (Bertram and Elderfield, 1993) and Pacific Ocean
waters (Zhang and Nozaki, 1996).
The depletion of Ce relative to the adjacent REE is one of the
characteristic features of modern seawater. In seawater Ce/Ce*
values range from <0.1 to 0.4 (Elderfield and Greaves, 1982;
Piepgras and Jacobsen, 1992), but it is 1 in average shale
(Murray et al., 1991a). The deficiency of Ce in seawater result
from the oxidation of Ceþ3 to the less soluble Ceþ4 and subse-
quently its removal from the seawater through scavenging by
suspended particles which settle through the water column
(Sholkovitz et al., 1994).
The Ce/Ce* values are not correlated very well with Al, Th and Zr
(r ¼ 0.40; 0.35; 0.33; respectively), but Ce values are positively
correlated with Al, Th and Zr (statistically significant at a strict
significance level of 0.001; linear correlation coefficient r ¼ 0.55;
Ce* with Al, Th and Zr suggests that other factors in addition to
detrital input might have controlled the Ce distribution in the
studied limestones.
Seawater and marine carbonates exhibit a Ce deficient nature
due to the scavenging of Ceþ4 by FeeMn oxides in the deep sea
environments (Elderfield, 1988). The deep sea regions having a low
sedimentation rate with a well developed oxic water column with
a more active scavenging processes which initiate the coprecipi-
tation of Ce(OH) on to FeeMn coatings on sedimentary particles. In
the studied limestones the Ce/Ce* values, however, are not corre-
lated with a scavenging-type particle reactive element (Ce/Ce* vs
Pb: r ¼ 0.24), which indicates that the observed variations in Ce
anomalies are probably unrelated to a scavenging process.
Furthermore, the limestones of the Mural Formation were
González-León et al., 2008) where scavenging processes are
limited when compared with deep sea regions.
Many limestone samples from the Mural Formation contain
positive Ce anomalies. The positive Ce anomalies mainly occur due
to the paleoredox conditions (German and Elderfield, 1990),
lithology and diagenesis (Nath et al., 1992; Madhavaraju and
Ramasamy, 1999; Armstrong-Altrin et al., 2003; Madhavaraju and
Lee, 2009) and Fe-organiceREE rich colloids from the riverine
input (Sholkovitz, 1992).
The variations in the bottom water oxygenation level in the
carbonate rocks have been estimated using Ce/Ce* ratios (Wang
et al., 1986; Piper, 1991). In the present study, Ce anomalies are
inversely correlated with CaO contents (r ¼ 0.48) suggesting
that the Ce/Ce* values, however, not related to bottom water
oxygenation. The inclusion of REE-rich river-borne colloids in the
coastal fringing reef resulted in the lack of a negative Ce anomaly
(Nothdurft et al., 2004). The fluvial deltaic-influenced facies are
present in the Cerro la Puerta and Cerro la Espina members at
Cerro Pimas locations (González-León et al., 2008). The absence
of a large Ce anomaly requires inclusion of material with a posi-
tive Ce anomaly relative to PAAS, and Fe-colloids from riverine
input have such positive Ce anomaly (Sholkovitz, 1992).
A comparison of Ce/Ce* values with the concentrations of Fe
indicates that there is a moderate correlation ((statistically
significant at a strict significance level of 0.001; linear correlation
coefficient r ¼ 0.57) between them in these limestones. Hence,
the observed variations in Ce content and Ce anomalies in the
limestones of the Mural Formation may be due to the mixing of
different portions of sediment components (dominantly biogenic
and authigenic phases) which inherited the seawater-like Ce
anomaly and of detrital materials (mainly alumino-silicates) with
crust-like Ce anomaly. In addition, incorporation of Fe-colloids
from riverine input might be partially responsible for the varia-
tions in Ce anomalies.
 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414 407

Table 3
Elemental ratios for limestones of the Mural Formation.

Member/Sample no La/Sc La/Co Th/Sc Th/Co Th/Cr Cr/Th Ce/Ce* Eu/Eu* LaN/YbN NdN/YbN Y/Ho
Cerro Pimas section
Mesa Quemada
CP47 5.57 1.33 0.25 0.06 0.02 45.00 0.56 1.13 1.47 1.39 36.07
CP45 5.91 2.05 0.39 0.14 0.04 26.69 0.79 0.91 1.25 1.77 29.56
Cerro La Espina
CP43 2.79 1.44 0.70 0.36 0.17 5.89 0.99 1.26 0.77 1.10 27.68
CP41 7.93 1.17 0.56 0.08 0.23 4.43 0.95 1.01 0.62 0.80 32.75
CP38 5.54 1.12 0.72 0.15 0.21 4.84 1.05 1.02 0.74 1.09 32.33
CP36 7.18 1.89 0.68 0.18 0.23 4.32 1.07 0.84 0.62 0.93 33.45
CP33 11.3 2.13 1.07 0.20 0.14 7.14 0.99 1.00 0.82 1.10 33.96
Los Coyotes
CP28 5.35 0.37 e e e e 0.84 1.17 0.44 0.70 33.60
CP26 6.10 0.99 0.55 0.09 0.03 33.27 0.91 1.21 1.04 1.24 34.00
CP24 5.32 0.73 0.65 0.09 0.07 15.26 0.89 1.09 0.69 0.86 31.57
CP22 11.15 0.74 0.45 0.03 0.03 38.78 0.67 1.33 0.78 0.77 102.50
CP18 7.90 0.47 0.95 0.06 0.07 13.44 0.95 1.44 0.82 1.07 33.28
CP15 8.85 1.17 0.83 0.11 0.08 12.54 0.89 1.35 1.01 1.20 34.05
Tuape Shale
CP12 5.13 2.02 0.71 0.28 0.12 8.47 1.00 1.67 1.28 1.72 31.04
CP10 8.62 3.32 1.21 0.47 0.12 8.10 1.00 1.38 1.64 2.66 70.15
C P9 25.78 7.01 1.78 0.48 0.16 6.23 1.20 1.49 2.75 3.96 29.89
CP6 3.53 2.40 1.07 0.73 0.15 6.54 0.84 1.02 0.52 0.79 32.12
Cerro La Ceja
CP4 7.59 2.10 2.48 0.68 0.20 5.09 0.78 0.98 1.81 2.22 28.00
CP3 7.46 1.22 1.30 0.21 0.17 6.01 0.82 1.17 0.99 1.39 31.48
CP1 7.59 4.01 0.75 0.40 0.15 6.81 1.04 0.94 1.30 1.78 34.00

Sierra San José section

Mesa Quemada
SSJ27 4.81 2.12 0.52 0.23 0.36 2.76 1.00 2.64 1.23 1.56 31.88
Cerro La Espina
SSJ25 9.43 1.35 0.88 0.13 0.09 11.37 1.03 0.42 0.77 1.02 35.42
SSJ23 5.30 0.49 0.60 0.06 0.03 29.58 0.88 1.12 0.72 0.83 40.00
SSJ21 4.55 0.43 0.40 0.04 0.03 34.88 0.87 0.98 0.62 0.73 32.70
SSJ18 2.65 0.25 0.05 e e e 0.75 1.22 1.00 0.87 48.24
SSJ16 4.60 0.46 0.35 0.04 0.02 42.71 0.73 1.09 0.75 0.75 45.94
Cerro La Puerta
SSJ11 4.92 1.34 0.73 0.20 0.07 14.39 0.83 1.15 0.99 1.06 36.22
SSJ10 3.95 1.11 0.52 0.15 0.05 19.10 0.79 1.10 0.85 0.93 51.65
SSJ9 4.18 1.38 0.60 0.20 0.05 20.58 0.77 1.10 0.84 0.91 39.14
Los Coyotes
SSJ7 15.34 5.78 1.26 0.48 0.09 11.16 1.01 0.90 1.64 2.66 30.11
SSJ6 12.25 8.66 1.96 1.38 0.26 3.83 1.05 0.83 0.81 1.15 27.71
Tuape Shale
SSJ5 4.69 3.03 0.84 0.54 0.08 12.75 0.92 1.33 0.98 1.44 42.32
SSJ4 6.10 6.45 0.99 1.04 0.10 9.80 0.82 0.89 0.92 1.13 35.46
Cerro La Ceja
SSJ3 4.36 3.89 1.16 1.03 0.27 3.74 1.00 1.14 0.73 0.99 29.66
SSJ2 3.02 4.59 0.77 1.17 0.15 6.63 1.00 1.28 0.79 1.23 27.34

5.2. Behaviour of Europium
The limestones from Cerro Pimas and Sierra San Jose sections
show large variations in Eu anomalies (Eu/Eu*: 0.84 to 1.67; 0.42 to
2.64; respectively). Most of the limestone samples contain positive
Eu anomalies, whereas few samples contain negative Eu anomalies.
Positive Eu anomalies are mainly found either in sediments affected
by hydrothermal solutions (Michard et al., 1983; German et al.,
1993; Siby et al., 2008); intense diagenesis (Murray et al., 1991b;
MacRae et al., 1992) or variations in plagioclase content (Nath
et al., 1992). Positive Eu anomalies are not common in seawater,
which resulted due to hydrothermal discharges along mid-ocean
ridges (Klinkhammer et al., 1983, 1994). Positive Eu anomalies have
been well documented for hydrothermal vent fluids and sediment
particulates in active ridge system (Michard et al., 1983; German
et al., 1990, 1999; Douville et al., 1999). Hydrothermal solutions
mainly originate in the deep marine environments but such an
origin is unlikely for the limestones of the Mural Formation which
were deposited in shallow marine environments (Lawton et al.,
2004; González-León et al., 2008).
Positive Eu anomalies have been reported from Amazon fan
muds in which Eu2þ is precipitated from pore waters during
diagenesis (MacRae et al., 1992). Unlike Ce which can undergo
oxidation state changes in ambient seawater conditions, redox
transformations from Eu3þ to Eu2þ require low oxidation-reduction
potentials (pH 2e4) and high temperatures (>200  C) (Sverjensky,
1984; Bau, 1991). These conditions are generally absent in shallow
marine environments. Petrographic and geochemical studies,
suggest that the studied limestones were not subjected to intense
diagenesis. The positive correlation between Eu and the immobile
elements such as Y, Th and Zr (statistically significant at a strict
significance level of 0.001; linear correlation coefficient r ¼ 0.69;
0.74; 0.53; respectively) supports the nondiagenetic influence on
this element. The inclusion of small amount of feldspars may lead
to positive Eu anomalies in the bulk sediments (Murray et al.,
1991b). In the present study, Eu contents show significant posi-
tive correlation with Al2O3 which suggest the detrital origin of this
element. Hence, the observed variations in Eu anomalies in the
limestones of the Mural Formation may be due to the presence of
feldspar content rather than hydrothermal events and diagenesis.
408 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414
Fig. 4. a, S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2) vs Sc show significant
positive correlation with correlation coefficient of 0.85. b, plot of the S(SiO2 þ Al2O3
þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2) vs Th content provides positive correlation with
coefficient of 0.72. c, S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2) vs La plot
exhibits positive correlation (correlation coefficient of 0.70). d, plot of the
S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2) vs Ce content gives positive
correlation with a correlation coefficient of 0.67.
10
Seawater/PAAS x 10-6
1
0.1 NPSW
Coral Sea
South Fiji basin
Bay of Bengal
Andaman Sea
0.01
La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Y Ho Er Tm Yb Lu
Elements
Fig. 5. PAAS normalized REE patterns of modern seawaters (NPSW: North Pacific
shallow water, Sagami trough (Alibio and Nozaki, 1999), Coral Sea: Coral sea (South
Pacific shallow seawater, Zhang and Nozaki, 1996), South Fiji Basin: South Fiji Basin e
Station SA12 (Zhang and Nozaki, 1996), Bay of Bengal: Bay of Bengal shallow water
(Nozaki and Alibio, 2003) and Andaman Sea: Andaman Sea shallow water (Nozaki and
Alibio, 2003).
This interpretation is further supported by the enrichment of Sr in
these limestone samples.
5.3. Source of REE
REE data have been used extensively to assess the pathways of
biogenic and terrigenous fluxes from the source to the marine
sediments (Piper, 1974; Murray and Leinen, 1993; Sholkovitz et al.,
1994; Wray, 1995; Cullers, 1995). The concentration of REEs in
seawater is mainly controlled by factors relating to input sources
and scavenging processes related to depth, salinity, and oxygen
levels (Elderfield, 1988; Piepgras and Jacobsen, 1992; Bertram and
Elderfield, 1993; Greaves et al., 1999).
The limestones of the Mural Formation exhibit distinctly non-
seawater-like patterns (Fig. 6aef) which resulted from the presence
of a variety of contaminants. The major source of contaminants are
likely: 1) terrigenous fine-grained sediments having high REE
content with non-seawater-like pattern (Elderfield et al., 1990), 2)
Fe and Mn oxides (Bau et al., 1996) and 3) phosphates having a high
affinity for REEs in diagenetic fluids (Byrne et al., 1996).
The concentration of Al2O3 is closely related to clay content. So,
Al2O3 concentration is considered as a proxy for shale contamina-
tion (Nothdurft et al., 2004). Most of the limestones from the Mural
Formation show high values for Al2O3 (0.44 to 6.26%; except five
samples which show low concentration) when compared to the
average values of siliciclastic-contaminated carbonate rocks (0.42%;
Veizer, 1983). The Al2O3 concentration shows positive correlation
P
with the REE content (statistically significant at a strict signifi-
cance level of 0.001; linear correlation coefficient r ¼ 0.59, n ¼ 35)
which suggest a moderate contamination.
Trace elements such as Th and Sc have been used as indicators of
shale contamination because of their higher concentrations in the
PAAS than in marine carbonates (Webb and Kamber, 2000). The Th
and Sc concentrations correlate well with Al2O3 contents (statistically
significant at a strict significance level of 0.001; linear correlation
coefficient r ¼ 0.81, r ¼ 0.90; respectively) which suggest the pres-
ence of shale contamination in the limestones of the Mural Formation.
Many modern carbonates (particularly foraminifera) were
contaminated by ferromanganese crusts (Palmer, 1985), which
show a high affinity for the REEs, and the crusts incorporate them
disproportionately (Bau et al., 1996). The limestones of the present
P
study show a positive correlation between the REE and Fe
contents (statistically significant at a strict significance level of
 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414 409

a 1
d 1
SSJ9 SSJ10 SSJ11
Sample/PAAS

Sample/PAAS
0.1 0.1
CP1 CP3 CP4
SSJ2 SSJ3

0.01 0.01
La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Y Ho Er Tm Yb Lu La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Y Ho Er Tm Yb Lu

Elements Elements

b 10 e 10
CP33 CP36 CP38 CP41 CP43
CP6 CP9 CP10 SSJ16 SSJ18 SSJ21 SSJ23 SSJ25
CP12 SSJ4 SSJ5 1

Sample/PAAS
Sample/PAAS

1 0.1

0.01

0.1 0.001
La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Y Ho Er Tm Yb Lu La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Y Ho Er Tm Yb Lu
Elements Elements
1
c 1
f CP45 CP47 SSJ27
Sample/PAAS
Sample/PAAS

0.1 0.1

CP15 CP18 CP22 CP24

CP26 CP28 SSJ6 SSJ7
0.01 0.01
La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Y Ho Er Tm Yb Lu La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Y Ho Er Tm Yb Lu

Elements Elements

Fig. 6. a, REE patterns of limestones of the CLC Member. b, PAAS normalised REE patterns of the TS Member. c, REE patterns of the LC Member. d, REE patterns of limestones of the
CLP Member. e, REE patterns of limestones of the CLE Member. f, PAAS normalized REE patterns of limestones of the MQ Member.

0.001; linear correlation coefficient r ¼ 0.70). The average Fe2O3
concentrations (0.27%, n ¼ 35) of the present study is within the
range of average carbonate (0.38%, Veizer, 1983) which suggest that
the diagenetic Fe2O3 does not play a significant role in controlling
the REE patterns in these limestones.
Phosphates mainly incorporate REE disproportionally and they
are altered easily by diagenesis (Reynard et al., 1999). The lime-
stones of the present study show a positive correlation between
P
REE and P2O5 (statistically significant at a strict significance level
of 0.001; linear correlation coefficient r ¼ 0.74). A poor correlation
has been observed between P and NdN/YbN ratios (statistically
significant at a strict significance level of 0.01; linear correlation
coefficient r ¼ 0.42) in the limestones of the Mural Formation.
Hence it is unlikely that the presence of minor quantity of P2O5
could affect the REE patterns of limestones of the Mural Formation.
Thus, our data suggest that contamination by phosphate minerals
or ferromanganese coatings is not likely.
Yttrium is not removed from the seawater effectively when
compared with its geological twin Ho, due to differing surface
complex stabilities, thereby leading to a significant superchondritic
marine Y/Ho ratio (Hogdahl et al., 1968; Zhang et al., 1994; Bau et al.,
1995; Bau, 1996; Nozaki et al., 1997). The chemical sediments free
from contamination generally display Y/Ho ratios between 44 and 74.
But contaminations due to terrestrial detritus and volcanic ash have
fairly constant chondritic Y/Ho values of w28. The limestones of the
Mural Formation contain large variations in Y/Ho ratio (27.34 to
102.50). Like the Y/Ho ratio, Th and Sc also show significant variations
among different members of the Mural Formation. Such variations in
these limestones may be due to contamination by terrestrial detritus
(Webb and Kamber, 2000). In the present study, most of the lime-
stones of the Mural Formation show high values of Th, Sc and Zr and
chondritic Y/Ho ratios, which suggests that these limestones appear
to have been contaminated by terrigenous materials.
The different members of the Mural Formation show slight
variations in LaN/YbN ratios (Table 4). The LaN/YbN ratios of the CLC,
TS and MQ members are more or less similar to the values proposed
by Condie (1991; about 1.0) and Sholkovitz (1990; about 1.3) for
terrigenous materials whereas the LC, CLP and CLE members show
lower LaN/YbN ratios. The observed variations in the LaN/YbN ratios
in the limestones of the Mural Formation suggest that the REE
signals were mainly influenced by the incorporation of terrigenous
materials into them. The LaN/YbN ratios of the Mural Formation are
more or less similar to the Arabian Sea carbonate sediments (Nath
et al., 1997) and Indian Ocean carbonate sediments (Nath et al.,
1992) and lower than the shallow marine Albian and Maas-
trichtian limestones (Madhavaraju and Lee, 2009; Madhavaraju and
Ramasamy, 1999; Table 4) of the Cauvery Basin and Kudankulam
Formation (Armstrong-Altrin et al., 2003) of South India (Table 4).
The limestones from the Mural Formation show non-seawater-
like patterns. The representative samples of the present study were
compared with the limestones having non-seawater-like patterns
(Fig. 7; Late Devonian coastal fringing reef, Nothdurft et al., 2004;
Albian limestone, Madhavaraju and Lee, 2009; Maastrichtian
limestone, Madhavaraju and Ramasamy, 1999; Miocene limestone,
Armstrong-Altrin et al., 2003) which suggests that the inclusions of
terrigenous materials in the carbonates as contaminants will mask
410 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414

10

Indian Ocean
CP1 CP4 CP9 CP10

sedimentsl
carbonate
CP33 SSJ2 SSJ3 SSJ6
AL DCFR MAL ML

0.56
1.03

36.6
e

e
1

Sample/PAAS
Arabian Sea

sedimentsk
carbonate

0.84  0.1
0.8  0.2

1.15  0.1
29  12
78  40

0.1
Kudankulam

0.01
Formationj

0.9  0.1
2.7  1.4

0.78  0.3
80  40

La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Y Ho Er Tm Yb Lu
49  3

Elements

Fig. 7. Representative samples of the Mural Formation with non-seawater-like signa-

tures are compared with limestones exhibit LREE enriched REE þ Y pattern (DCFR: Late
Maastrichtian

Devonian coastal fringing reef (Nothdurft et al., 2004), AL: Albian limestone
(Madhavaraju and Lee, 2009), MAL: Maastrichtian limestone (Madhavaraju and
limestonei

0.76  0.2
1.8  0.5

0.58  0.1
73  20
42  8

Ramasamy, 1999) and ML: Miocene limestone (Kudankulam Formation, Armstrong-

Altrin et al., 2003).

the seawater signature due to their high concentration of the REE.

0.97  0.13
1.91  0.22

1.2  0.08
limestoneh

39  25

The high content of Al2O3 and SREE, the elevated concentrations of

48  6
Albian

Th and Sc, chondritic Y/Ho ratios, high LaN/YbN ratios and non-
seawater-like REE patterns indicate that the terrigenous contami-
nations in the limestones of the Mural Formation are responsible
for such variations in REE signals.
Formationg

0.91  0.13
1.0  0.45

1.16  0.34
(average)

35  28

The preservation of seawater REEþY pattern in limestone will

49  6
Mural

only occur if detrital materials, marine or diagenetic authigenic

phosphates (eg. Rasmussen et al., 1998) and ferromanganese
encrustations (eg. Reitner, 1993) are nearly absent from the lime-
stones. The inclusions of terrigenous materials in the carbonates as
0.78  0.22
1.32  0.13

1.6  0.9

contaminants will mask the seawater signature due to their high

51  2
28  7

concentration of REE in them. So, the depositional environment of

f
MQ
Average geochemical values of the Mural Formation compared to shallow and deep marine sediments.

limestone is more important to understand the REE geochemistry.

In the present study, the limestone samples from LC Member (at CP
section) and CLP and CLE members (at SSJ section) were deposited
0.93  0.12
0.74  0.12

1.0  0.24
23  19

in an open shelf environment with little terrigneous contamination

51  5

whereas the limestones from CLE (at CP section) and LC (at SSJ
e
CLE

section) members contain high concentrations of terrigenous

materials, respectively due to fluvial deltaic influence and delta-
front depositional environments (González-León et al., 2008). Thus,
0.80  0.03
0.89  0.08

1.12  0.03
52  0.5
12  1

the limestones deposited under both coastal and open shelf envi-
ronments exhibit non-seawater-like REE þ Y patterns.
d
CLP

The present study reveals that the limestones deposited in open

shelf environments are also contaminated by some terrigenous
0.90  0.12
0.90  0.35

1.17  0.22

particles. Hence, care may be taken to study the REE geochemistry

33  34
51  6

of ancient limestone. The limestones devoid of terrigenous particles

are suitable for understanding the REE patterns of ancient shallow
c
LC

seawater and also they serve as a valuable seawater proxy. The

presence of a small quantity of terrigenous materials in the lime-
Madhavaraju and Ramasamy, 1999, n ¼ 8.
0.96  0.14
1.35  0.80

1.3  0.29

stones will also reveal source rock information.

62  28
46  2

The concentrations of certain immobile elements like La and Th

Armstrong-Altrin et al., 2003, n ¼ 9.
Madhavaraju and Lee, 2009, n ¼ 8.

are higher in silicic than in basic igneous rocks (Cullers, 1995). The
b
Mural Formationaef

TS

felsic and mafic rocks show significant variations in La/Sc, La/Co, Th/
Sc, Th/Co and Th/Cr ratios which are most useful in understanding
Nath et al., 1997, n ¼ 9.
Nath et al., 1992, n ¼ 4.
0.93  0.12
1.12  0.40

1.1  0.14

the provenance composition (Wronkiewicz and Condie, 1990; Cox

Present study, n ¼ 10.

Present study, n ¼ 35.

43  10
51  23

Present study, n ¼ 5.
Present study, n ¼ 6.
Present study, n ¼ 8.
Present study, n ¼ 3.

Present study, n ¼ 3.

et al., 1995; Cullers, 1995). The extent to which these elemental

a
CLC

ratios that are useful in unraveling the provenance of terrigenous

materials present in the carbonate rock is clearly addressed by
Cullers (2002). In the present study, La/Sc, La/Co, Th/Co, Th/Cr, Cr/
LaN/YbN

Th, and Th/Sc are similar over a range of the

Eu/Eu*
Ce/Ce*
Table 4

SREE
CaO

S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2) (Fig. 8). Our
a

i
j
k
l
b

f
c
d

results are generally consistent with other studies (Cullers, 2002).

 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414 411

Fig. 8. Bivariate plots for the limestones of the Mural Formation. a, S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2) vs La/Sc. b, S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2)
vs La/Co. c, S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2) vs Th/Sc. d, S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2) vs Th/Co. e, S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O
þ K2O þ TiO2) vs Th/Cr. f, S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2) vs Eu/Eu*.

Table 5
Range of elemental ratios of the Mural Formation compared to felsic rocks, mafic rocks, Upper Continental Crust (UCC) and Post-Archaean Australian Shale (PAAS).

Range of Mural Formationa Range of sedimentsb Upper Continental Crustc Post-Archaean Australian
average shalec
Felsic rocks Mafic rocks
Eu/Eu* 0.42e2.64 0.40e0.94 0.71e0.95 0.63 0.66
La/Sc 2.65e25.78 2.50e16.3 0.43e0.86 2.21 2.40
La/Co 0.25e8.66 1.80e13.8 0.14e0.38 1.76 1.65
Th/Sc 0.05e2.48 0.84e20.5 0.05e0.22 0.79 0.90
Th/Co 0.03e1.38 0.67e19.4 0.04e1.40 0.63 0.63
Th/Cr 0.02e0.36 0.13e2.7 0.018e0.046 0.13 0.13
Cr/Th 2.76e45.0 4.00e15.0 25e500 7.76 7.53
a
Present study, n ¼ 35.
b
Cullers (1994, 2000); Cullers and Podkovyrov (2000); Cullers et al. (1988).
c
Taylor and McLennan (1985).

The La/Sc, La/Co, Th/Co, Th/Cr, Cr/Th, and Th/Sc ratios of the lime-
stones of the Mural Formation have been compared with felsic and
mafic rocks (fine fraction) as well as to upper continental crust
(UCC) and PAAS values (Table 5) which suggest that these ratios are
within the range of intermediate to felsic rocks.
6. Conclusions
The high content of Al2O3, SREE, Th and Sc, low Y/Ho ratios, high
LaN/YbN ratios and non-seawater-like REE patterns in the
limestones of the Mural Formation indicate that the terrigenous
contaminations is responsible for the variations in REE signals. The
limestones of the Mural Formation were compared with the lime-
stones having non-seawater-like patterns that indicate the inclu-
sion of terrigenous materials in the carbonates, as contaminants
will mask the seawater signature due to their high concentration of
the REE in them. The limestone samples from CLP member show
negative Ce anomalies (Ce/Ce*: 0.77 to 0.83, ave. 0.80  0.03, n ¼ 3)
whereas CLC, TS, LC, CLE and MQ members show both negative and
positive Ce anomalies (Ce/Ce*: 0.78 to 1.04, ave. 0.93  0.12, n ¼ 5;
412 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414
0.82 to 1.20, ave. 0.96  0.14, n ¼ 6; 0.67 to 1.05, ave. 0.90  0.12,
n ¼ 8; 0.73 to 1.07, ave. 0.93  0.12, n ¼ 10; 0.56 to 1.00, ave.
0.78  0.22, n ¼ 3; respectively). The observed variations in Ce
anomalies resulted from the inclusion of terrigenous materials as
well as Fe-rich colloids from rivers. The limestones of the Mural
Formation contain both negative and positive Eu anomalies relative
to the PAAS. The CLP member shows least variations in Eu anom-
alies (Eu/Eu*: 1.10 to 1.15, ave. 1.12  0.03, n ¼ 3) whereas CLC, TS,
LC, CLE and MQ members exhibit large variations in Eu anomalies
(Eu/Eu*: 0.94 to 1.28, ave. 1.10  0.14, n ¼ 5; 0.89 to 1.67, ave.
1.30  0.29, n ¼ 6; 0.83 to 1.44, ave. 1.17  0.22, n ¼ 8; 0.42 to 1.26,
ave. 1.0  0.24, n ¼ 10; 0.91 to 2.64, ave. 1.6  0.9, n ¼ 3; respec-
tively). The observed positive Eu anomalies in the limestones are
likely controlled by the feldspar content.
The elemental ratios (La/Sc, La/Co, Th/Co, Th/Cr, Cr/Th, and Th/Sc)
which are characteristics of provenance of terrigenous materials
show the minimal variations with the changing percentage of the
S(SiO2 þ Al2O3 þ Fe2O3 þ MgO þ Na2O þ K2O þ TiO2). The La/Sc, La/
Co, Th/Co, Th/Cr, Cr/Th, and Th/Sc ratios of the limestones of the Mural
Formation have been compared with felsic and mafic rocks, upper
continental crust (UCC) and PAAS values which indicate that the
terrigenous materials included in the limestones of the Mural
Formations were mainly derived from the intermediate to felsic rocks.
Acknowledgements
The first author would like to thank Dr. Thierry Calmus, ERNO,
Instituto de Geología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico
for his support and encouragement during this work. We would
like to thank Prof. S.P. Verma and Prof. R.L. Cullers for their critical
reviews and constructive comments. We would like to thank Dr.
Hannes Löser for his help during the field work. We acknowledge
the support rendered by Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
Mexico through PAPIIT Project No.IN121506-3. The field study of
this work is partly supported by PAPIIT Project No. IN107803-3. We
thank Mr. Pablo Peñaflor for powdering of limestone samples for
geochemical studies. We also thank Dr. Teresa Pi I Puig, Instituto de
Geología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México for
her help in XRD analysis. This research was partly supported by
Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) grants (R01-
2000-000-00056-0 to YIL).
References
Alibio, D.S., Nozaki, Y., 1999. Rare earth elements in seawater: particle association,
shale-normalisation, and Ce oxidation. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 63,
363e372.
Armstrong-Altrin, J.S., Verma, S.P., Madhavaraju, J., Lee, Y.I., Ramasamy, S., 2003.
Geochemistry of Upper Miocene Kudankulam Limestones, Southern India.
International Geological Review 45, 16e26.
Barnett, V., Lewis, T., 1994. Outliers in Statistical Data, third ed. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, UK, 584 pp.
Bau, M., 1991. Rare earth element mobility during hydrothermal and metamorphic
fluid-rock interaction and the significance of the oxidation state of europium.
Chemical Geology 93, 219e230.
Bau, M., 1996. Controls on fractionation of isovalent trace elements in magmatic and
aqueous systems: evidence from Y/Ho, Zr/Hf and lanthanide tetrad effect.
Contribution to Mineralogy and Petrology 123, 323e333.
Bau, M., Dulski, P., 1996. Distribution of yttrium and rare earth elements in the
Penge and Kuruman iron formation, Transvaal Supergroup, South Africa.
Precambrian Research 79, 37e55.
Bau, M., Dulski, P., Moller, P., 1995. Yttrium and holmium in South Pacific seawater:
vertical distribution and possible fractionation behaviour. Chemie der Erde 55,
1e15.
Bau, M., Koschinsky, A., Dulski, P., Hein, J.R., 1996. Comparison of the partitioning
behaviours of yttrium, rare earth elements, and titanium between hydrogenetic
marine ferromanganese crusts and seawater. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
60, 1709e1725.
Bellanca, A., Masetti, D., Neri, R., 1997. Rare earth elements in limestone/marlstone
couplets from the Albian-Cenomanian Cismon section (Venetian region,
northern Italy): assessing REE sensitivity to environmental changes. Chemical
Geology 141, 141e152.
Bertram, C.J., Elderfield, H., 1993. The geochemical balance of the rare earth
elements and neodymium isotopes in the oceans. Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta 57, 1957e1986.
Bilodeau, W.L., Lindberg, F.A., 1983. Early Cretaceous tectonics and sedimentation
in southern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and northern Sonora,
Mexico. In: Reynolds, M.W., Dolly, E.D. (Eds.), Mesozoic Paleogeography of
West-Central United States. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Miner-
alogists, Rocky Mountain Section, Rocky Mountain Paleogeography Sympo-
sium 2, pp. 173e188.
Bilodeau, W.L., Kluth, C.F., Vedder, L.K., 1987. Regional stratigraphic, sedimentologic,
and tectonic relationships of the Glance Conglomerate in southeastern Arizona.
In: Dickinson, W.R., Klute, M.F. (Eds.), Mesozoic Rocks of Southern Arizona
Adjacent Areas. Arizona Geological Society Digest, vol. 18, pp. 229e256.
Biscaye, P.E., 1965. Mineralogy and sedimentation of recent deep sea clay in the
Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas and oceans. Bulletin Geological Society of
America 76, 803e832.
Byrne, R.H., Liu, X., Schijf, J., 1996. The influence of phosphate coprecipitation on
rare earth element distributions in natural waters. Geochimica et Cosmochi-
mica Acta 60, 3341e3346.
Cantu-Chapa, A., 1976. Nuevas localidades del Kimeridgiano y Titoniano in Chihuahua
(Norte de Mexico). Revista del Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo 7, 38e45.
Condie, K.C., 1991. Another look at rare earth elements in shales. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 55, 2527e2531.
Cox, R., Lowe, D.R., Cullers, R.L., 1995. The influence of sediment recycling and
basement composition on evolution of mudrock chemistry in the southwestern
United States. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 59, 2919e2940.
Cullers, R.L., 1994. The controls on the major and trace element variation of shales,
siltstones and sandstones of Pennsylvanian e Permian age from uplifted
continental blocks in Colorado to platform sediment in Kansas, USA. Geo-
chimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58, 4955e4972.
Cullers, R.L., 1995. The controls on the major and trace element evolution of shales,
siltstones and sandstones of Ordovician to Tertiary age in the Wet Mountain
region, Colorado, U.S.A. Chemical Geology 123, 107e131.
Cullers, R.L., 2000. The geochemistry of shales, siltstones and sandstones of Penn-
sylvanianePermian age, Colorado, U.S.A.: implications for provenance and
metamorphic studies. Lithos 51, 305e327.
Cullers, R.L., 2002. Implications of elemental concentrations for provenance, redox
conditions, and metamorphic studies of shales and limestones near Pueblo, CO,
USA. Chemical Geology 191, 305e327.
Cullers, R.L., Basu, A., Suttner, L., 1988. Geochemical signature of provenance in
sand-size material in soils and stream sediments near the Tobacco Root bath-
olith, Montana, USA. Chemical Geology 70, 335e348.
Cullers, R.L., Podkovyrov, V.N., 2000. Geochemistry of the Mesoproterozoic
Lakhanda shales in southeastern Yakutia, Russia: implications for mineralogical
and provenance control, and recycling. Precambrian Research 104, 77e93.
De Baar, H.J.W., Schijf, J., Byrne, R.H., 1991. Solution chemistry of the rare earth
elements in seawater. European Journal of Solid State Inorganic Chemistry 28,
357e373.
Dickinson, W.R., Klute, M.A., Swift, P.A., 1986. The Bisbee Basin and its bearing on
late Mesozoic paleogeographic and paleotectonic relations between the
Cordilleran and Carribean regions. In: Abbott, P.L. (Ed.), Cretaceous Stratigraphy,
vol. 46. Pacific Section (SEPM) Book, Western North America, pp. 51e62.
Dickinson, W.R., Klute, M.A., Swift, P.A., 1989. Cretaceous strata of southern Arizona.
In: Jenney, J.P., Reynols, S.J. (Eds.), Geologic Evolution of Arizona. Arizona
Geological Society Digest, vol. 17, pp. 447e462.
Douville, E., Bienvenu, P., Charlou, J.L., Donval, J.P., Fouquet, Y., Appriou, P., Gamo, T.,
1999. Yttrium and rare earth elements in fluids from various deep-sea hydro-
thermal systems. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 63, 627e643.
Elderfield, H., 1988. The oceanic chemistry of the rare earth elements. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London A325, 105e126.
Elderfield, H., Greaves, M.J., 1982. The rare earth elements in seawater. Nature 296,
214e219.
Elderfield, H., Upstill-Goddard, R., Sholkovitz, E.R., 1990. The rare earth elements in
rivers, estuaries and coastal seas and their significance to the composition of
ocean waters. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 54, 971e991.
German, C.R., Elderfield, H., 1990. Application of Ce anomaly as a paleoredox indi-
cator: the ground rules. Paleoceanography 5, 823e833.
German, C.R., Hergt, J., Palmer, M.R., Edmond, J.M., 1999. Geochemistry of a hydro-
thermal sediment core from the OBS ventfield, 218 N East Pacific rise. Chemical
Geology 155, 65e75.
German, C.R., Holliday, B.P., Elderfield, H., 1993. A geochemical study of metallif-
erous sediment from the TAG hydrothermal mound, 26 080  N, mid-Atlantic
ridge. Journal of Geophysical Research 98, 9683e9692.
German, C.R., Klinkhammer, G.P., Edmond, J.M., Mitra, A., Elderfield, H., 1990.
Hydrothermal scavenging of rare earth elements in the ocean. Nature 345,
516e518.
Giles, H.L., Hurley, P.W., Webster, H.W.M., 1995. Simple approach to the analysis of
oxides, silicates, and carbonates using X-ray fluorescence spectrometry. X-ray
Spectrometry 24, 205e218.
González-León, C.M., Scott, R.W., Loser, H., Lawton, T.F., Robert, E., Valencia, V.A.,
2008. Upper Aptian-Lower Albian Mural Formation: stratigraphy, biostratig-
raphy and depositional cycles on the Sonoran shelf, northern Mexico. Creta-
ceous Research 29, 249e266.
 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414
Govindaraju, K., 1994. 1994 compilation of working values and descriptions for 383
Geostandards. Geostandards Newsletter 18, 1e158.
Greaves, M.J., Elderfield, H., Sholkovitz, E.R., 1999. Aeolian sources of rare earth
elements to the Western Pacific Ocean. Marine Chemistry 68, 31e38.
Grim, R.E., 1968. Clay Mineralogy. McGraw-Hill, New York, 600 pp.
Hardy, R., Tucker, M., 1988. X-ray powder diffraction of sediments. In: Tucker, M.
(Ed.), Techniques in Sedimentology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford,
pp. 191e228.
Hogdahl, O.T., Bowen, B.T., Melson, S., 1968. Neutron activation analysis of lantha-
nide elements in seawater. Advanced Chemical Series 73, 308e325.
Holser, W.T., 1997. Evaluation of the application of rare earth elements to paleo-
ceanography. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 132,
309e323.
Jacques-Ayala, C., 1995. Paleogeography and provenance of the Lower Cretaceous
Bisbee Group in the Caborca-Santa Ana area, northwestern Sonora. Special
Paper. In: Jacques-Ayala, C., González-León, C.M., Roldan-Quintana, J. (Eds.),
Studies on the Mesozoic of Sonora and adjacent areas, vol. 301. Geological
Society of America, pp. 79e98.
Jarvis, K.E., 1988. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry: a new tech-
nique for the rapid or ultra-trace level determination of the rare earth
elements in geological materials. Geological Society of America Bulletin 87,
725e737.
Kamber, B.S., Webb, G.E., 2001. The geochemistry of late Archaean microbial
carbonate: implications for ocean chemistry and continental erosion history.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 65, 2509e2525.
Klinkhammer, G.P., Elderfield, H., Edmond, J.M., Mitra, A., 1994. Geochemical
implications of rare earth element patterns in hydrothermal fluids from mid-
ocean ridges. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58, 5105e5113.
Klinkhammer, G., Elderfield, H., Hudson, A., 1983. Rare earth elements in seawater
near hydrothermal vents. Nature 305, 185e188.
Klute, M.A., 1991. Sedimentology, Sandstone Petrofacies, and Tectonic Setting of the
Late Mesozoic Bisbee Basin, Southeastern Arizona. Unpublished Ph.D Disser-
tation, University of Arizona, 268 pp.
Lawton, T.F., González-León, C.M., Lucas, S.G., Scott, R.W., 2004. Stratigraphy and
sedimentology of the upper Aptian-upper Albian Mural Limestone (Bisbee
Group) in northern Sonora, Mexico. Cretaceous Research 25, 43e60.
Liu, Y.G., Miah, M.R.U., Schmitt, R.A., 1988. Cerium: a chemical tracer for paleo-
oceanic redox conditions. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 52, 1361e1371.
Mack, G.H., Kolins, W.B., Galemore, J.A., 1986. Lower Cretaceous stratigraphy,
depositional environments, and sediment dispersal in southwestern New
Mexico. American Journal of Science 286, 309e331.
MacRae, N.D., Nesbitt, H.W., Kronberg, B.I., 1992. Development of a positive Eu
anomaly during diagenesis. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 109, 585e591.
Madhavaraju, J., Lee, Y.I., 2009. Geochemistry of the Dalmiapuram Formation of the
Uttatur Group (Early Cretaceous), Cauvery Basin, southeastern India: implica-
tions on provenance and paleo-redox conditions. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias
Geológicas 26, 380e394.
Madhavaraju, J., Ramasamy, S., 1999. Rare earth elements in limestones of Kallan-
kurichchi Formation of Ariyalur Group, Tiruchirapalli Cretaceous, Tamil Nadu.
Journal of the Geological Society of India 54, 291e301.
Michard, A., Albarede, F., Michard, G., Minister, J.F., Charlow, J.L., 1983. Rare earth
elements and uranium in high temperature solutions from East-Pacific rise
hydrothermal vent field (13 N). Nature 303, 795e797.
Muller, G., 1967. Methods in Sedimentary Petrology. Hefner Publishing Company,
New York, 281 pp.
Murray, R.W., Ten Brink, M.R.B., Gerlach, D.C., Russ III, G.P., Jones, D.L., 1991a. Rare
earth, major and trace elements in chert from the Franciscan complex and
Monterey Group, California: assessing REE sources to fine grained marine
sediments. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 55, 1875e1895.
Murray, R.W., Ten Brink, M.R.B., Brumsack, H.J., Gerlach, D.C., Russ III, G.P., 1991b.
Rare earth elements in Japan Sea sediments and diagenetic behaviour of
Ce/Ce*: results from ODP Leg 127. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 55,
2453e2466.
Murray, R.W., Buchholdts ten Brink, M.R., Gerlach, D.C., Russ III, G.R., Jones, D.L.,
1992. Interoceanic variation in the rare earth, major and trace element depo-
sitional chemistry of chert: perspective gained from DSDP and ODP record.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 56, 1897e1913.
Murray, R.W., Leinen, M., 1993. Chemical transport to the seafloor of the equa-
torial Pacific Ocean across a latitudinal transect at 135 W: tracking sedi-
mentary major, trace and rare earth element fluxes at the Equator and the
Intertropical Convergence Zone. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 57,
4141e4163.
Nath, B.N., Bau, M., Ramlingeswara Rao, B., Rao, Ch.M., 1997. Trace and rare earth
elemental variation in Arabian Sea sediments through a transect across the
oxygen minimum zone. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 61, 2375e2388.
Nath, B.N., Roelandts, I., Sudhakar, M., Plueger, W.L., 1992. Rare earth element
patterns of the Central Indian Basin sediments related to their lithology.
Geophysical Research Letters 19, 1197e1200.
Norrish, K., Hutton, J.T., 1969. An accurate X-ray spectrographic method for analysis
of a wide range of geological samples. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 33,
431e453.
Nothdurft, L.D., Webb, G.E., Kamber, B.S., 2004. Rare earth element geochemistry of
Late Devonian reefal carbonates, Canning Basin, Western Australia: confirma-
tion of seawater REE proxy in ancient limestones. Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta 68, 263e283.
413
Nozaki, Y., Alibio, D.S., 2003. Importance of vertical geochemical processes in
controlling the oceanic profiles of dissolved rare earth elements in northeastern
Indian Ocean. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 205, 155e172.
Nozaki, Y., Zhang, J., Amakawa, H., 1997. The fractionation between Y and Ho in the
marine environment. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 148, 329e340.
Palmer, M.R., 1985. Rare earth elements in foraminifera tests. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 73, 285e298.
Parekh, P.P., Moller, P., Dulski, P., 1977. Distribution of trace elements between
carbonate and non-carbonate phases of limestone. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 73, 285e298.
Piepgras, D.J., Jacobsen, S.B., 1992. The behaviour of rare earth elements in seawater:
precise determination of variations in the North Pacific water column. Geo-
chimica et Cosmochimica Acta 56, 1851e1862.
Piper, D.Z., 1974. Rare earth elements in the sedimentary cycle, a summary.
Chemical Geology 14, 285e304.
Piper, D.Z., 1991. Geochemistry of a Tertiary sedimentary phosphate deposit, Baja
California Sur, Mexico. Chemical Geology 92, 283e316.
Ransome, F.L., 1904. The geology and ore deposits of the Bisbee quadrangle Arizona.
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 21, 167.
Rasmussen, B., Buick, R., Taylor, W.R., 1998. Removal of oceanic REE by authigenic
precipitation of phosphate minerals. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 164,
135e149.
Reitner, J., 1993. Modern cryptic microbialite/metazoan facies from Lizard Island
(Great Barrier Reef, Australia): formation and concepts. Facies 29, 3e40.
Reynard, B., Lecuyer, C., Grandjean, P., 1999. Crystal-chemical controls on rare earth
element concentrations in fossil biogenic apatite and implications for paleo-
environmental reconstructions. Chemical Geology 155, 233e242.
Santoyo, E., Verma, S.P., 2003. Determination of lanthanides in synthetic standards
by reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography with the aid of
a weighted least-squares regression model: estimation of method sensitivities
and detection limits. Journal of Chromatography A 997, 171e182.
Scott, R.W., 1987. Stratigraphy and correlation of the Cretaceous Mural Limestone,
Arizona and Sonora. In: Dickinson, W.R., Klute, M.F. (Eds.), Mesozoic rocks of
Southern Arizona adjacent areas. Arizona Geological Society Digest, vol. 18, pp.
327e334.
Sholkovitz, E.R., 1988. Rare earth elements in the sediments of the North Atlantic
Ocean, Amazon delta, and East China Sea: reinterpretation of terrigenous input
patterns to the oceans. American Journal of Science 288, 236e281.
Sholkovitz, E.R., 1990. Rare earth elements in marine sediments and geochemical
standards. Chemical Geology 88, 333e347.
Sholkovitz, E.R., 1992. Chemical evolution of rare earth elements: fractionation
between colloidal and solution phases of filtered river water. Earth and Plan-
etary Science Letters 114, 77e84.
Sholkovitz, E.R., Landing, W.M., Lewis, B.L., 1994. Ocean particle chemistry: the
fractionation of rare earth elements between suspended particles and seawater.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58, 1567e1579.
Siby, Kurian, Nath, B.N., Ramaswamy, V., Naman, D., Gnaneshwar Rao, Kamesh
Raju, K.A., Selvaraj, K., Chen, C.T.A., 2008. Possible, detrital, diagenetic and
hydrothermal sources for Holocene sediments of the Andaman backarc basin.
Marine Geology 247, 178e193.
Sverjensky, D.A., 1984. Europium redox equilibria in aqueous solution. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters 67, 70e78.
Taylor, S.R., McLennan, S.M., 1985. The Continental Crust: its Composition and
Evolution. Blackwell, Oxford, 349 pp.
Toyoda, K., Nakamura, Y., Masuda, A., 1990. Rare earth elements of Pacific pelagic
sediments. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 54, 1093e1103.
Veizer, J., 1983. Trace elements and isotopes in sedimentary carbonates. In:
Reeder, R.J. (Ed.), Carbonates: Mineralogy and Chemistry, vol. 11. Mineralogical
Society of America, pp. 265e299.
Verma, S.P., 2005. Estadística Básica para el Manejo de Datos Experimentales:
Aplicación en la Geoquímica (Geoguimiometría). Universidad Nacional Autón-
oma de México, Mexico, D.F, 186 pp.
Verma, S.P., Díaz-González, L., Sánchez-Upton, P., Santoyo, E., 2006. OYNYL: a new
Computer Program for Ordinaly. York, and New York least-squares linear
regressions. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development 2, 997e1002.
Verma, S.P., Quiroz-Ruiz, A., 2006a. Critical values for six Dixon tests for outliers in
normal samples up to sizes 100, and applications in science and engineering.
Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas 23, 133e161.
Verma, S.P., Quiroz-Ruiz, A., 2006b. Critical values for 22 discordancy test variants
for outliers in normal samples up to sizes 100, and applications in science and
engineering. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas 23, 302e319.
Verma, S.P., Quiroz-Ruiz, A., 2008. Critical values for 33 discordancy test variants for
outliers in normal samples of very large sizes from 1000 to 30,000 and eval-
uation of different regression models for the interpolation and extrapolation of
critical values. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas 25, 369e381.
Verma, S.P., Quiroz-Ruiz, A., Díaz-González, L., 2008. Critical values for 33 discor-
dancy test variants for outliers in normal samples up to sizes 1000, and
applications in quality control in Earth Sciences. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias
Geológicas 25, 82e96.
Verma, S.P., Santoyo, E., 2005. Is odd-even effect reflected in detection limits?
Accreditation and Quality Assurance 10, 144e148.
Verma, S.P., Santoyo, E., Velasco-Tapia, F., 2002. Statistical evaluation of analytical
methods for the determination of rare-earth elements in geological materials
and implications for detection limits. International Geology Review 44,
287e335.
414 J. Madhavaraju et al. / Cretaceous Research 31 (2010) 400e414
Wang, Y.L., Liu, Y.G., Schmitt, R.A., 1986. Rare earth element geochemistry of South
Atlantic deep sea sediments: Ce anomaly change at w54 My. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 50, 1337e1355.
Webb, G.E., Kamber, B.S., 2000. Rare earth elements in Holocene reefal microbialites:
a new shallow seawater proxy. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 64, 1557e1565.
Wray, D.S., 1995. Origin of clay-rich beds in Turonian shales from Lower Saxony,
Germany e a rare-earth element study. Chemical Geology 119, 161e173.
Wronkiewicz, D.J., Condie, K.C., 1990. Geochemistry and mineralogy of sediments
from the Ventersdorp and Transvaal Supergroups, South Africa: cratonic
evolution during the early Proterozoic. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 54,
343e354.
Zhang, J., Nozaki, Y., 1996. Rare earth elements and yttrium in seawater: ICP-MS
determinations in the East Caroline, Coral Sea, and South Fiji basins of the
western South Pacific Ocean. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 60,
4631e4644.
Zhang, Y.S., Amakawa, H., Nozaki, Y., 1994. The comparative behaviours of yttrium
and lanthanides in the seawater of the North Pacific. Geophysical Research
Letters 21, 2677e2680.