4.5 Article

Playing jigsaw with Large Igneous Provinces-A plate tectonic reconstruction of Ontong Java Nui, West Pacific Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems

期刊

GEOCHEMISTRY GEOPHYSICS GEOSYSTEMS
卷 16, 期 11, 页码 3789-3807

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2015GC006036

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [03G0224A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The three largest Large Igneous Provinces (LIP) of the western Pacific-Ontong Java, Manihiki, and Hikurangi Plateaus- were emplaced during the Cretaceous Normal Superchron and show strong similarities in their geochemistry and petrology. The plate tectonic relationship between those LIPs, herein referred to as Ontong Java Nui, is uncertain, but a joined emplacement was proposed by Taylor (2006). Since this hypothesis is still highly debated and struggles to explain features such as the strong differences in crustal thickness between the different plateaus, we revisited the joined emplacement of Ontong Java Nui in light of new data from the Manihiki Plateau. By evaluating seismic refraction/wide-angle reflection data along with seismic reflection records of the margins of the proposed Super''- LIP, a detailed scenario for the emplacement and the initial phase of breakup has been developed. The LIP is a result of an interaction of the arriving plume head with the Phoenix- Pacific spreading ridge in the Early Cretaceous. The breakup of the LIP shows a complicated interplay between multiple microplates and tectonic forces such as rifting, shearing, and rotation. Our plate kinematic model of the western Pacific incorporates new evidence from the breakup margins of the LIPs, the tectonic fabric of the seafloor, as well as previously published tectonic concepts such as the rotation of the LIPs. The updated rotation poles of the western Pacific allow a detailed plate tectonic reconstruction of the region during the Cretaceous Normal Superchron and highlight the important role of LIPs in the plate tectonic framework.

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

4.5
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