4.7 Article

4-D evolution of SE Asia's mantle from geological reconstructions and seismic tomography

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 221, 期 1-4, 页码 103-115

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0012-821X(04)00070-6

关键词

India-Asia collision; mantle tomography block reconstruction; spatio-temporal evolution of mantle structure; matching tectonic and tomography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

How the collision between India and Asia is related to processes deeper in the mantle is unclear. Here we compare geological reconstructions of block motions within Asia since approximate to 50 Ma with the tomographically imaged three-dimensional (3-D) morphology of subducted lithosphere to obtain insight into the spatiotemporal evolution of mantle structure. Past positions of the convergent margin show remarkable similarities with slab geometry at specific depths. The striking change in slab geometry from a linear structure beneath I 100 km to an increasingly distorted shape at depths of less than 700 km results from collision. The slab contours match the progressive deformation of Asia's margin, including India's indentation and Sundaland's extrusion. Ever since the onset of collision, the Indian plate appears to have overridden its own sinking mantle and it does not seem, at present, to underthrust Tibet significantly north of the Zangbo suture. If correct, this observation would provide further evidence against models of plateau build-up involving Indian lithosphere. The tomographic images beneath India confirm that Asian deformation has absorbed at least approximate to 1500 km of convergence since collision began. From the match between the southeastward motion of Sundaland between 40 and 20 Ma and the principal change in slab structure between 700 and I 100 km depths, we infer that lateral advection in the mantle is small and that the sinking rate beneath Sunda was similar to 2 cm/yr in the lower mantle and similar to 5 cm/yr above the transition zone. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. 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