4.5 Review

How does the mid-crust accommodate deformation in large, hot collisional orogens? A review of recent research in the Himalayan orogen

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY
卷 78, 期 -, 页码 119-133

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsg.2015.06.008

关键词

Continent-continent collision; Himalaya; Channel flow; Critical taper

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [EAR-1119380]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Discovery grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of hot, weak crust is a central component of recent hypotheses that seek to explain the evolution of continent-continent collisions, and in particular may play an important role in accommodating the >3000 km of convergence within the Himalaya Tibetan collision over the last similar to 55 Myr. Models that implicate flow of semi-viscous midcrustal rocks south toward the front of the Himalayan orogen, 'channel flow', are able to account for many geologic observations in the Himalaya, while alternative models of collision, particularly thrust-wedge taper', demonstrate that much of the observed geology could have formed in the absence of a low-viscosity mid-crustal layer. Several recent studies, synthesized here, have prompted a shift from initial assumptions that channel flow and thrust-wedge taper processes are by definition mutually exclusive. These new studies reveal the presence of several tectonometamorphic discontinuities in the midcrust that appear to reflect a continuum of deformation in which both channel- and wedge-type processes operate in spatially and temporally distinct domains within the orogen, and further, that the system may migrate back and forth between these types of behavior. This continuum of deformation styles within the collisional system is of crucial importance for explaining the evolution of the Himalayan orogen and, hence, for understanding the evolution of Earth's many continent-continent collision zones. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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