Objective The QT Basin is located in the eastern segment of the Tethyan tectonic domain， the world’s most important oil-gas accumulation zone. Due to the low degree of exploration in the basin， there has been great controversy over its hydrocarbon resource potential. Restoring the basin erosion amount and burial process during key tectonic periods is crucial for deepening the understanding of the hydrocarbon generation potential of major source rocks and the overall oil-gas resource potential in the QT Basin. Methods Using the tectono-sedimentary filling extrapolation method， we analyzed the major tectonic activity episodes of the QT Basin and restored the erosion amount during key tectonic periods. Meanwhile， the burial processes of three sets of source rocks from the Upper Triassic to Jurassic were analyzed by the TSM basin simulation and resource evaluation system. Results （1） Since the Late Triassic， the QT Basin has experienced four phases of erosion events： Late Triassic-Early Jurassic （210-180 Ma）， Early Cretaceous （120-110 Ma）， Paleocene-Early Eocene （60-45 Ma）， and since the Early Miocene （25 Ma - present）. （2） During 210-180 Ma， the main part of the basin was uplifted， with intense erosion in the central uplift belt and the northern QT Depression； during 120-110 Ma， the strongest erosion occurred in the central uplift belt， its both sides and the eastern part of the basin， while the erosion in the mid-western part of the northern QT Depression was relatively weak； during 60-45 Ma， the average uplift and erosion of the basin was about 0.75 km； since ~25 Ma， the basin has shown an overall uplift characteristic. （3） Affected by sedimentary thickness， differential erosion during multi-stage tectonic uplift and other factors， the two maximum burial depths of the Upper Triassic-Jurassic source rocks in the QT Basin occurred after the deposition of the Xueshan Formation， and after the deposition of the Paleogene Kangtuo Formation and Neogene Suonahu Formation， respectively. The two major hydrocarbon generation periods correspond to the maximum burial depths and the subsequent tectonic uplift. （4） There are significant differences in the hydrocarbon generation evolution of the two sets of source rocks： the source rocks of the Xiaochaka Formation （T₃x） generated hydrocarbons relatively early with a long hydrocarbon generation and evolution cycle； the source rocks of the Buqu Formation （J₂b） and Xiali Formation （J₂x） generated hydrocarbons relatively late. In particular， the J₂x source rocks once experienced a hydrocarbon generation stagnation during the geological history， entered the secondary hydrocarbon generation evolution stage after the Paleogene deposition， and still have continuous hydrocarbon generation potential at present. Conclusions The Upper Triassic-Jurassic source rocks in the QT Basin have experienced different uplift and erosion histories， and there are obvious differences in their hydrocarbon generation and evolution processes. Horizontally， the mid-western part of the northern QT Depression， where the strata are best preserved， has great resource potential and should be the favorable exploration area for the next step.