4.7 Article

Tertiary paleomagnetic data from northwestern Yunnan, China: further evidence for large clockwise rotation of the Indochina block and its tectonic implications

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 185, 期 1-2, 页码 185-198

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0012-821X(00)00377-0

关键词

plate collision; deformation; Indochina; Eocene; paleomagnetism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Eocene red sandstones were collected at 15 sites for paleomagnetic study from two areas (Lanping and Yunlong) of the western part of Yunnan province, China, in the northern part of Indochina. The high-temperature magnetization component with an unblocking temperature of around 680 degreesC is isolated after stepwise thermal demagnetization. Characteristic directions from nine accepted sites reveal a positive fold test at the 99% confidence limit, indicating that the high-temperature magnetization component is possibly of Eocene age. A tilt-corrected mean direction from nine accepted sites is D=266.1 degrees, I=-39.8 degrees with alpha (95) = 11.2 degrees, corresponding to a paleopole at 14.5 degreesN, 169.7 degreesE with A(95) = 10.9 degrees A comparison with previously reported Tertiary paleomagnetic data indicates that the Lanping basin of the northern part of the Indochina block rotated clockwise through 91 degrees (+/-15 degrees) with respect to the Yangtze craton. This large magnitude clockwise rotation is probably caused by the superimposition of regional and local rotations. Our previous middle Cretaceous paleomagnetic results from the Yunlong area indicate that about 40 degrees of clockwise rotation out of 90 degrees is explained by tectonic rotation due to a relatively rigid body rotation of the Simao Terrane during indentation of India. The remaining component of rotation is probably ascribed to further Eocene/post-Eocene rotational motion of the tectonically independent small blocks within the Lanping basin associated with movement. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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