4.6 Article

An evaporite-bearing accretionary complex in the northern front of the Betic-Rif orogen

期刊

TECTONICS
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 1006-1036

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2016TC004414

关键词

accretionary complex; Betic orogen; Triassic; evaporites

资金

  1. Secretaria de Estado de I+D+I, Spain [CGL2012-33281, CGL2013-46368-P]
  2. CeacTierra-Universidad de Jaen
  3. Junta de Andalucia [RNM-0451]
  4. Junta de Andalucia Research Groups RNM [208, 325, 370]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Guadalquivir Accretionary Complex forms a largely oblique prism at the northern edge of the Betic-Rif orogen, where Miocene sediments plus allochthonous evaporite-bearing units were accreted during the displacement of the Alboran Domain toward the west. Traditional interpretations end the tectonic structuring of the Betic Cordillera at the present topographic front, beyond which gravitational and/or diapiric processes would predominate. However, this study shows pervasive tectonic deformation in the outer prism with coherent oblique shortening kinematics, which is achieved through an alternation of roughly N-S arcuate thrust systems connected by E-W transfer fault zones. These structures accord well with the geophysical models that propose westward rollback subduction. The main stage of tectonic activity occurred in the early-middle Miocene, but deformation lasted until the Quaternary with the same kinematics. Evaporite rocks played a leading role in the deformation as evidenced by the suite of ductile structures in gypsum distributed throughout the area. S- and L- gypsum tectonites, scaly clay fabrics, and brittle fabrics coexist and consistently indicate westward motion (top to 290 degrees), with subordinate N-S contraction almost perpendicular to the transfer zones. This work reveals ductile tectonic fabrics in gypsum as a valuable tool to elucidate the structure and deformational history of complex tectonic melanges involving evaporites above the decollement level of accretionary wedges.

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