David L. Daniels
United States Geological Survey
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by David L. Daniels.
Geology | 2010
Mark G. Steltenpohl; Isidore Zietz; J. Wright Horton; David L. Daniels
The New York–Alabama (NY-AL) lineament, recognized in 1978, is a magnetic anomaly that delineates a fundamental though historically enigmatic crustal boundary in eastern North America that is deeply buried beneath the Appalachian basin. Data not in the original aeromagnetic data set, particularly the lack of any information available at the time to constrain the southern continuation of the anomaly southwest of Tennessee, left the source of the lineament open to conjecture. We use modern digital aeromagnetic maps to fill in these data gaps and, for the first time, constrain the southern termination of the NY-AL lineament. Our analysis indicates that the lineament reflects a crustal-scale, right-lateral strike-slip fault that has displaced anomalies attributed to Grenville orogenesis by ∼220 km. Palinspastic restoration of this displacement rearranges the trace of the Grenville belt in southern Rodinia and implies only passive influence on later-formed Appalachian structures. The precise timing of dextral movement on the NY-AL structure is not resolvable from the existing data set, but it must have occurred during one of, or combinations of, the following events: (1) a late, postcontractional (post-Ottawan) stage of the Grenville orogeny; (2) late Neoproterozoic to Cambrian rifting of Laurentia; or (3) right-slip reactivation during the late Neoproterozoic–Cambrian rifting of Laurentia, or during Appalachian movements. Our palinspastic reconstruction also implies that the host rocks for modern earthquakes in the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone are metasedimentary gneisses, and it provides an explanation for the spatial location and size of the seismic zone.
Geology | 2005
Anjana K. Shah; John M. Brozena; Peter R. Vogt; David L. Daniels; J. B. Plescia
We present high-resolution gravity and magnetic field survey results over the 85-km- diameter Chesapeake Bay impact structure. Whereas a continuous melt sheet is antici- pated at a crater this size, shallow-source magnetic field anomalies of ;100 nT instead suggest that impact melt pooled in kilometer-scaled pockets surrounding the base of a central peak. A central anomaly of ;300 nT may represent additional melt or rock that underwent shock-induced remagnetization. Models predict that the total volume of the melt ranges from ;0.4 to 10 km 3 , a quantity that is several orders of magnitude smaller than expected for an impact structure this size. However, this volume is within predictions given a transient crater of diameter of 20-40 km for a target covered with water and sedimentary deposits such that melt fragments were widely dispersed at the time of impact. Gravity data delineate a gently sloping inner basin and a central peak via a contrast between crystalline and sedimentary rock. Both features are ovoid, oriented parallel to larger preimpact basement structures. Conceptual models suggest how lateral differences in rock strength due to these preimpact structures helped to shape the craters morphology during transient-crater modification.
Geosphere | 2013
Mark G. Steltenpohl; J. Wright Horton; Robert D. Hatcher; Isidore Zietz; David L. Daniels; Michael W. Higgins
Aeromagnetic and gravity data sets obtained for Alabama (United States) have been digitally merged and filtered to enhance upper-crustal anomalies. Beneath the Appalachian Basin in northwestern Alabama, broad deep-crustal anomalies of the continental interior include the Grenville front and New York–Alabama lineament (dextral fault). Toward the east and south, high-angle discordance between the northeast-trending Appalachians and the east-west–trending wedge of overlapping Mesozoic and Cenozoic Gulf Coastal Plain sediments reveals how bedrock geophysical signatures progressively change with deeper burial. High-frequency magnetic anomalies in the Appalachian deformed domain (ADD) correspond to amphibolites and mylonites outlining terranes, while broader, lower-amplitude domains include Paleozoic intrusive bodies and Grenville basement gneiss. Fundamental ADD structures (e.g., the Alexander City, Towaliga, and Goat Rock–Bartletts Ferry faults) can be traced southward beneath the Gulf Coastal Plain to the suture with Gondwanan crust of the Suwannee terrane. Within the ADD, there is clear magnetic distinction between Laurentian crust and the strongly linear, high-frequency magnetic highs of peri-Gondwanan (Carolina-Uchee) arc terranes. The contact (Central Piedmont suture) corresponds to surface exposures of the Bartletts Ferry fault. ADD magnetic and gravity signatures are truncated by the east-west–trending Altamaha magnetic low associated with the Suwannee suture. Arcuate northeast-trending magnetic linears of the Suwannee terrane reflect internal structure and Mesozoic failed-rift trends. Geophysical data can be used to make inferences on surface and subsurface geology and vice versa, which has applicability anywhere that bedrock is exposed or concealed beneath essentially non-magnetic sedimentary cover.
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union | 2013
Wright Horton; David L. Daniels; Richard J. Blakely
Isidore “Izzy” Zietz, a leader in airborne geophysical methods, died 9 February 2013 at age 93. During a career that spanned more than half a century, he made fundamental contributions to the early development of potential-field geophysics for airborne magnetic surveys; led the U.S. effort in compiling state, regional, and national aeromagnetic-anomaly maps; and promoted their use in understanding upper crustal geology.
Professional Paper | 1983
David Gottfried; C.S. Annell; G.R. Byerly; Marvin A. Lanphere; Jeffrey D. Phillips; Gregory S. Gohn; Brenda B. Houser; Ray R. Schneider; Hans D. Ackermann; B.R. Yantis; John K. Costain; F. Steve Schilt; Larry D. Brown; Jack Oliver; S. Kaufman; Robert M. Hamilton; John Charles Behrendt; V. James Henry; Kenneth C. Bayer; David L. Daniels; Isidore Zietz; Peter Popenoe; T.M. Chowns; Cootie Williams; Robert E. Dooley; J. Wampler; William P. Dillon; Kim D. Klitgord; Charles K. Paull; Lyle D. McGinnis
Geophysical Investigation Map | 1978
M. C. Blake; Isidore Zietz; David L. Daniels
Special Paper of the Geological Society of America | 2009
Anjana K. Shah; David L. Daniels; Agnes Kontny; John M. Brozena
Geophysical Investigation Map | 1982
Isidore Zietz; F.E. Riggle; David L. Daniels
GSA Annual Meeting in Denver, Colorado, USA - 2016 | 2016
Aaron G. Stubblefield; Robert D. Hatcher; J. Wright Horton; David L. Daniels
Open-File Report | 2006
Michael P. Ryan; Herbert A. Pierce; Carole D. Johnson; David M. Sutphin; David L. Daniels; Joseph P. Smoot; John K. Costain; Cahit Çoruh; George E. Harlow