4.6 Article

Accretionary unit formats in subduction complexes: examples from the Franciscan and Miura-Boso complexes

期刊

INTERNATIONAL GEOLOGY REVIEW
卷 62, 期 12, 页码 1581-1609

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00206814.2019.1667881

关键词

Accretionary complex; subduction; Franciscan; Miura-Boso

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation, Division of Earth Sciences [EAR 76-06062]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Subduction accretionary complexes are composed of major and minor structural, stratigraphic, and tectonostratigraphic units. The major architectural units, Accretionary Units (AUs), are bounded by major faults, but differ from terranes in that they may contain units stratigraphically correlative with units in other AUs and they are smaller than the largest terranes. AUs occur in three basic formats ? (1) singular sheets or blocks of stratigraphic layers, dismembered formation, or m?lange, (2) folded units composed of one or more stratigraphic or block-in-matrix units, and (3) faulted stratigraphic masses (i.e., broken formations). Composite AUs with multiple units and multiple attributes are common. Multiple suites of structures may arise in AUs from progressive early deformation or later superimposed deformational events. AUs may be subdivided through detailed mapping into sub-units such as fault blocks, m?langes, dismembered formations, broken formations, intact formations, and members. Each AU should be defined on the basis of unique characters that derive from a thorough description of the AU, including its distinct rock types and character; and where possible, lithofacies, metamorphic facies, structures, and unit history. Descriptions of partially described AUs from the Franciscan Complex of California and the Miura-Boso area of Japan provide examples of the character of AUs. Ideally, the architecture and history of a subduction complex can be reconstructed by assembling detailed map and text descriptions of the constituent AUs, their 3D-positions, their relationships, and their histories.

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

4.6
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