Balkatach Hypothesis: a New Model for the Evolution of the Pacific, Tethyan, and Paleo-Asian Oceanic Domains
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research Paper GEOSPHERE Balkatach hypothesis: A new model for the evolution of the Pacific, Tethyan, and Paleo-Asian oceanic domains 1,2 2 GEOSPHERE, v. 13, no. 5 Andrew V. Zuza and An Yin 1Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557, USA 2Department of Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095-1567, USA doi:10.1130/GES01463.1 18 figures; 2 tables; 1 supplemental file ABSTRACT suturing. (5) The closure of the Paleo-Asian Ocean in the early Permian was accompanied by a widespread magmatic flare up, which may have been CORRESPONDENCE: avz5818@gmail .com; The Phanerozoic history of the Paleo-Asian, Tethyan, and Pacific oceanic related to the avalanche of the subducted oceanic slabs of the Paleo-Asian azuza@unr .edu domains is important for unraveling the tectonic evolution of the Eurasian Ocean across the 660 km phase boundary in the mantle. (6) The closure of the and Laurentian continents. The validity of existing models that account for Paleo-Tethys against the southern margin of Balkatach proceeded diachro- CITATION: Zuza, A.V., and Yin, A., 2017, Balkatach hypothesis: A new model for the evolution of the the development and closure of the Paleo-Asian and Tethyan Oceans criti- nously, from west to east, in the Triassic–Jurassic. Pacific, Tethyan, and Paleo-Asian oceanic domains: cally depends on the assumed initial configuration and relative positions of Geosphere, v. 13, no. 5, p. 1664–1712, doi:10.1130 the Precambrian cratons that separate the two oceanic domains, including /GES01463.1. the North China, Tarim, Karakum, Turan, and southern Baltica cratons. Ex- INTRODUCTION isting studies largely neglect the Phanerozoic tectonic modification of these Received 18 November 2016 Revision received 5 April 2017 Precambrian cratons (e.g., the effects of India-Arabia-Eurasia convergence Eurasia, the largest and youngest continent on Earth, was assembled Accepted 21 July 2017 and post-Rodinia rifting). In this work we systematically restore these effects through the Neoproterozoic to the present over a time span of 1 b.y. (Scotese Published online 11 September 2017 and evaluate the tectonic relationships among these cratons to test the hy- and McKerrow, 1990; Şengör and Natal’in, 1996). The three major oceanic pothesis that the Baltica, Turan, Karakum, Tarim, and North China cratons domains of Eurasia—the Paleo-Asian, Tethyan, and Pacific Oceans—repre- were linked in the Neoproterozoic as a single continental strip, with variable sent large Phanerozoic oceans that were (or still are) intimately related to along-strike widths. Because most of the tectonic boundaries currently sep- the assembly and evolution of the continent (Fig. 1) (e.g., Şengör 1984, 1992; arating these cratons postdate the closure of the Paleo-Asian and Tethyan Şengör et al., 1988, 2008; Zonenshain et al., 1990; Yin and Nie, 1996; Şengör Oceans, we are able to establish a >6000-km-long Neoproterozoic contiguous and Natal’in, 1996; Heubeck, 2001; Badarch et al., 2002; Stampfli and Borel, continent referred to here as Balkatach (named from the Baltica–Karakum– 2002; Sone and Metcalfe, 2008; Biske and Seltmann, 2010; Gehrels et al., Tarim–North China connection). By focusing on the regional geologic history 2011; Burchfiel and Chen, 2012; Wu et al., 2017a). Decades of research have of Balkatach’s continental margins, we propose the following tectonic model generated a wealth of geologic data, yet the tectonic history of the open- for the initiation and evolution of the Paleo-Asian, Tethyan, and Pacific oce- ing and closing of these major ocean systems remains debated. For exam- anic domains and the protracted amalgamation and growth history of the ple, researchers have variably attributed the evolution of the Paleo-Asian Eurasian continent. (1) The early Neoproterozoic collision of the combined Ocean to (1) lateral expansion of juvenile continental crust via protracted Baltica–Turan–Karakum–South Tarim continents with the linked North Tarim– trench retreat and strike-slip duplexing of a long-lived continental arc de- North China cratons led to the formation of a coherent Balkatach continent. rived from Siberia or Baltica (Şengör et al., 1993; Şengör and Natal’in, 1996; (2) Rifting along Balkatach’s margins in the late Neoproterozoic resulted in Yakubchuk, 2002), (2) accretion of multiple intraoceanic and/or continental the opening of the Tethyan Ocean to the south and unified Paleo-Asian and arcs onto the continents bounding the Paleo-Asian Ocean(s) (i.e., a multi- Pacific Oceans to the north (present-day coordinates). This process led to the ple arc model) (e.g., Zonenshain et al., 1990; Hsü and Chen, 1999; Filippova detachment of Balkatach-derived microcontinents that drifted into the newly et al., 2001; Badarch et al., 2002; Windley et al., 2007; Xiao et al., 2008), or formed Paleo-Asian Ocean. (3) The rifted microcontinents acted as nuclei for (3) redistribution and entrapment of preexisting microcontinents within the subduction systems whose development led to the eventual demise of the Paleo-Asian Ocean(s) (e.g., Badarch et al., 2002; Kröner et al., 2013, 2014). Paleo-Asian Ocean during the formation of the Central Asian Orogenic Sys- Simi larly, the paleogeographic origin of the oceanic and continental frag- tem (CAOS). Closure of this ocean within an archipelago-arc subduction sys- ments in the Tethyan orogenic system is also enigmatic: were they derived tem was accommodated by counterclockwise rotation of the Balkatach conti- from (1) the northern margin of Gondwana (Stampfli et al., 2013), (2) (at least nental strip around the CAOS. (4) Initial collision of central Balkatach and the partially) the southern margin of Laurasia (Sengör et al., 1993; Yakubchuk, For permission to copy, contact Copyright amalgamated arcs and microcontinents of the CAOS in the mid-Carbonifer- 2002), or (3) a continent located within the Paleozoic–early Mesozoic Tethyan Permissions, GSA, or [email protected]. ous was followed by a bidirectional propagation of westward and eastward oceans (Şengör, 1984)? © 2017 Geological Society of America GEOSPHERE | Volume 13 | Number 5 Zuza and Yin | Balkatach hypothesis Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article-pdf/13/5/1664/3995541/1664.pdf 1664 by guest on 28 September 2021 Research Paper N 0° 5 Arctic Ocean Td M SIBERIA CRATON Sea of Okhotsk BALTICA CRATON 170°E Figure 1. Simplified tectonic map of Asia showing cra- tons, sutures, and modern subduction zones. Teeth are on DO Black S MO overriding plate. For simplicity, the structures and sutures Sea B within the Central Asian Orogenic System are omitted. 0°N a 3 Pre-Neoproterozoic sutures within cratons are not shown. Bi U Central Asian Pacific Ocean The location of Figure 2 is outlined. Inset map shows AS Orogenic System major tectonic divisions and oceanic domains. AS—Aral SJY Caspian Se Sea, B—Lake Baikal, Kara—Karakum craton, MFT—Main T TSYS ARABIAN KARA frontal thrust. Sutures: AKM—Anyimaqen-Kunlun-Muz- CRATON ZNT TARIM NORTH tagh, Bi—Bitlis, BN—Bangong-Nujiang, DO—Denisov-Ok- PT ? QS-Q CHINA tyabrsk, DS—Dabie Shan, J—Jinsha, M—Magnitogorsk, Figure 2 AKM DS 150°E MO—Mongol-Okhotsk, PT—Paleo-Tethys, S—Sakmara, SJY—Solonker-Jilin-Yanji, TSYS—Tian Shan–Ying Shan, MFT BN J IY N T—Turketsan, Td—Timanide, U—Ural, QS-Q—Qilian SOUTH ° CHINA 10 Shan–Qinling, ZNT—Zagros–Neo-Tethys. Figure after Yin INDIAN CRATON and Nie (1996), Şengör and Natal’in (1996), Natal’in and Şengör (2005), Xiao et al. (2010), and Zheng et al. (2013). Arabian Sea W South e s B s 50°E 70°E e a i t d k e China li a a l r Bay of r id n U e Modern subduction zone s Sea P Bengal a c Altaids i f i Sutures c Paleo-Asian Domain D Cenozoic o I m ntermedia nits te u a Mesozoic i Tethysides n Paleozoic Indian Ocean Tethyan Domain Precambrian Regional names labelled 90°E 110°E 130°E Although extensive research has focused on the evolution of the Central tectonic relationships and their deformational history during and after they Asian and Tethyan orogens, our understanding of the tectonic history and role became individual tectonic entities. Most of the tectonic boundaries currently of the cratonal units that are between these two orogenic systems, including separating these cratons postdate the closure of the Paleo-Asian and Tethyan the Baltica, Karakum, Turan, Tarim, and North China cratons, remains com- Oceans, and we systematically restore the shape of these cratons from their paratively limited (e.g., Şengör and Natal’in, 1996). This may be attributed to present-day configuration through the Phanerozoic and back into the Protero- (1) poor bedrock exposure across the region (e.g., Turan, Karakum, and Tarim zoic. By removing the effects of younger tectonic distortion, we show that Bal- are extensively covered by Mesozoic–Cenozoic sand-desert deposits) and tica, Karakum, Turan, Tarim, and North China were once continuously linked (2) significant tectonic modification that occurred during and after the clo- in the Neoproterozoic as a ~6000-km-long continental strip. This contiguous sure of the Paleo-Asian and Tethyan Oceans throughout the Phanerozoic (e.g., strip of Precambrian continental lithosphere is herein referred to as Balkatach Windley et al., 1990; Allen et al., 1993, 1995; Yin, 2010). The lack of detailed (named after the Baltica–Karakum–Tarim–North China connection of the tradi- studies on the Intermediate Units of Şengör and Natal’in (1996) (inset of Fig. 1) tionally defined Precambrian cratons). has limited our ability to use a geologic process-based approach to reconstruct The proposed Balkatach hypothesis has implications for the boundary the tectonic history of the Paleo-Asian and Tethyan orogenic systems in Asia.