4.7 Article

Evolution of the South China Sea: Revised ages for breakup and seafloor spreading

期刊

MARINE AND PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
卷 58, 期 -, 页码 599-611

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2014.02.022

关键词

South China Sea; Tectonic evolution; Seafloor spreading; Age; Breakup

资金

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung [03G0197A]
  2. Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The continental breakup which gave way to the formation of the oceanic South China Sea (SCS) basin began in the latest Cretaceous in the northeastern SCS and propagated in southern and western direction over a long period of time, possibly more than 40 m.y. The seafloor spreading history of the South China Sea has been interpreted in different ways in the past and the debate over the correct timing of the major tectonic events continues. We review the different models that have been published and present a revised interpretation of seafloor spreading anomalies based on three datasets with documented high quality which cover all of the SCS but the northernmost and southernmost parts. We can precisely date the onset of seafloor spreading in the central part of the SCS at 32 Ma. After a ridge jump at 25 Ma spreading also began in the southwestern sub-basin and spreading ended at 20.5 Ma in the entire basin, followed by a phase of magmatic seamount formation mainly along the abandoned spreading ridge. Spreading rates vary from 56 mm/yr in the early stages to 72 mm/yr after the ridge jump to 80 mm/yr in the southwestern sub-basin. We find indications for a stepwise propagation of the seafloor spreading from northeast to southwest in segments bounded by major fracture zones. Seafloor spreading ended abruptly probably because the subduction zone along the eastern and southern boundary of the SCS (of which today the Manila Trench remains) was blocked by collision with a continental fragment, possibly the northern part of Palawan or a part of the Dangerous Grounds. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据