4.7 Article

Improved Late Cretaceous and early Cenozoic Paleomagnetic apparent polar wander path for the Pacific plate

Journal

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
Volume 262, Issue 1-2, Pages 1-20

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2007.05.036

Keywords

paleomagnetism; Pacific plate; apparent polar wander; plate tectonics; hotspots

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Understanding of Pacific plate tectonics and geodynamics is aided by refinement of the plate's apparent polar wander path (APWP). We improved the Late Cretaceous and early Cenozoic APWP by analyzing a large, diverse paleomagnetic data set that combines core sample, seamount magnetic anomaly model, and marine magnetic anomaly skewness data. Our preferred APWP has five mean paleomagnetic poles representing the Oligocene (30 Ma), Late (39 Ma) and Early (49 Ma) Eocene, and Palcocene (61 Ma) epochs and the Maastrichtian (68 Ma) stage. Along with a published 80 Ma pole, the APWP shows a stillstand from similar to 80 to similar to 49 Ma punctuating the large overall northward drift of the plate. The two youngest poles imply resumption of northward motion during mid-Eocene time with another change of polar motion after similar to 30 Ma. If unaffected by other phenomena (e.g., true polar wander or change in time-averaged magnetic field geometry), the stillstand implies negligible northward plate motion during the period of Emperor Seamounts formation, contrary to most accepted plate motion models. The stillstand is consistent with paleomagnetic data from the Emperor Seamounts, which imply southward motion of the Hawaiian melting anomaly. It also implies significant westward drift of the hotspot if the Pacific plate was moving west at rates similar to the later Cenozoic. In addition, changes in polar wander after similar to 49 Ma are consistent with changes of north Pacific plate boundaries. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available