4.3 Article

Tectonic evolution of the Gediz Graben: field evidence for an episodic, two-stage extension in western Turkey

期刊

GEOLOGICAL MAGAZINE
卷 141, 期 1, 页码 63-79

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0016756803008379

关键词

continental extension; detachment faults; normal faulting; exhumation; Gediz Graben; Menderes Massif; western Turkey

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Western Turkey is one of the most spectacular regions of widespread active continental extension in the world. The most prominent structures of this region are E-W-trending grabens (e.g. Gediz and Buyuk Menderes grabens) and intervening horsts, exposing the Menderes Massif. This paper documents the result of a recent field campaign (field geological mapping and structural analysis) along the southern margin of the modern Gediz Graben of Pliocene (similar to 5 Ma) age. This work provides field evidence that the presently low-angle ductile-brittle detachment fault is cut and displaced by the high-angle graben-bounding normal faults with total displacement exceeding 2.0 km. The evolution of the N-S extension along the Gediz Graben occurred during two episodes, each characterized by a distinct structural styles: (1) rapid exhumation of Menderes Massif in the footwall of low-angle normal fault (core-complex mode) during the Miocene; (2) late stretching of crust producing E-W grabens along high-angle normal faults (rift mode) during Pliocene-Quaternary times, separated by a short-time gap. The later phase is characterized by the deposition of now nearly horizontal sediments of Pliocene age in the hanging walls of the high-angle normal faults and present-day graben floor sediments. The evolution of extension is at variance with orogenic collapse and/or back-arc extension followed by the combined effect of tectonic escape and subduction rollback processes along the Aegean-Cyprean subduction zone. Consequently, it is misleading to describe the Miocene sediments exhumed on shoulders of the Gediz Graben as simple graben fill.

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