4.3 Article

Discovery of a hidden Triassic Arc in the Southern South China Sea: Evidence for the breakaway of a ribbon continent with implications for the evolution of the Western Pacific margin

期刊

TERRA NOVA
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 12-19

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ter.12556

关键词

Arc volcanic rocks; paleo-Pacific subduction; ribbon continent; South China Block; South China Sea

资金

  1. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA13010106, XDA13010102]
  2. National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars [42025201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identifies a Triassic arc in the South China Sea, supporting the existence of an active continental margin in the region. Part of the arc later split off and drifted southward during the Oligocene opening of the South China Sea. The research results help to better understand the lateral extent of flat-slab subduction along the margin of the South China Block and the breakaway of arcs in active continental margins.
Paleo-Pacific subduction generated a prolonged active continental margin along the coast of the South China Block (SCB). A Triassic magmatic gap was argued to have occurred and was ascribed to flat-slab subduction of an oceanic plateau. We study for the first time a >330-m-long core of typical arc volcanics dated at ca. 218 Ma from the Meiji Atoll in the southern South China Sea (SCS). Paleomagnetism suggests 4.1 degrees +/- 1.5 degrees of post-eruption southward drift. These observations clearly support the existence of a Triassic arc in the SCB and imply that part of the arc later split off and drifted southward during the opening of the SCS in the Oligocene. Our results better constrain the lateral extent of the proposed flat-slab subduction along the margin of the SCB. Moreover, we provide direct evidence of how the breakaway of ribbon continents operated in active continental margins, a recurrent scenario that has been invoked for Phanerozoic tectonics and continental growth throughout Asia.

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

4.3
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