Deformation of the Northwestern Okhotsk Plate: How Is It Happening?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Stephan Mueller Spec. Publ. Ser., 4, 147–156, 2009 www.stephan-mueller-spec-publ-ser.net/4/147/2009/ Special © Author(s) 2009. This work is distributed under Publication the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Series Deformation of the Northwestern Okhotsk Plate: How is it happening? D. Hindle1, K. Fujita2, and K. Mackey2 1Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat¨ Freiburg, Geologisches Institut, Albertstr. 23b, 79104, Freiburg i. Br., Germany 2Dept. Geol. Sci., Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1115, USA Abstract. The Eurasia (EU) – North America (NA) plate the Central Chersky Range (Figs. 1 and 2) (Fujita et al., boundary zone across Northeast Asia still presents many 2009, this volume). As a result, a nutcracker type mo- open questions within the plate tectonic paradigm. Con- tion affects a roughly triangular shaped zone including the straining the geometry and number of plates or microplates Suntar-Khayata, Kukhtuy and Central Chersky Ranges and present in the plate boundary zone is especially difficult be- extending southwards to the northern coastline of the Sea of cause of the location of the EU-NA euler pole close to or Okhotsk (Figs. 1 and 2). It may also lead to varying degrees even upon the EU-NA boundary. One of the major chal- of “extrusion” of this region towards the south or southeast lenges remains the geometry of the Okhotsk plate (OK). as it is squeezed between the two giant plates. This segment whose northwestern portion terminates on the EU-OK-NA of the complex EU-NA plate boundary zone has often been triple junction and is thus caught and compressed between considered part of the Okhotsk plate (OK) (Cook et al., 1986; converging EU and NA. We suggest that this leads to a co- Riegel et al., 1993; Seno et al., 1996; Fujita et al., 1997; Hin- herent and understandable large scale deformation pattern of dle et al., 2006), which extends east to the Kamchatka-Kuril mostly northwest-southeast trending strike-slip faults which subduction margin, west to Sakhalin Island and south to the split Northwest OK into several extruding slivers. When the Northern Sea of Japan, though historically, a range of alter- fault geometry is analysed together with space geodetic and native configurations of plates, blocks and microplates have focal mechanism data it suggests a central block which is ex- been suggested for the region (Fujita et al., 2009, this vol- truding faster bordered east and west by progressively slower ume). extruding blocks until the OK plate boundary faults are en- The rigidity of OK, particularly its northern landward por- countered. Taking into account elastic loading from both the tion extending from the northern coastline of the Sea of intra-OK faults and the OK-Pacific (PA) boundary reconciles Okhotsk to the apex formed by the EU-OK-NA triple junc- geodetic motions with geologic slip rates on at least the OK- tion, will strongly influence the kinematics of partitioning of NA boundary which corresponds to the Ulakhan fault. EU-NA convergence. The northwestern portion of OK dealt with in this paper forms part of the Chersky Seismic Belt (CSB) of diffuse seismicity (Figs. 1 and 2) (Parfenov et al., 1 Introduction 1988; Riegel et al., 1993). Seismicity of the CSB including the landward portion of OK extending from Magadan and Northeast Russia (Fig. 1) has for a long time been identi- Okhotsk on the northern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk, to the fied as a region where both the number and geometry of presumed EU-OK-NA triple junction is described in detail tectonic plates and microplates are subject to uncertainty by Fujita et al. (2009, this volume). It is therefore impor- (Morgan, 1968; Seno et al., 1996; Stein and Sella, 2002). tant to understand whether the diffuse seismicity of the CSB This is mostly due to the fact that the EU-NA rotation pole represents an even, continuous distribution of EU-NA con- lies very close to their mutual plate boundary (e.g., Sella vergence across Northwestern OK or whether more localised et al., 2002) with a gradual transition from active spread- slip, possibly associated with occasional large earthquakes, ing along the Mid-Atlantic and Arctic (Gakkel) ridges (El- on larger structures, controls the kinematics of the region. dholm et al., 1990) to mostly transpression further south in A series of end member, kinematic models for deforma- tion partitioning across OK (Hindle et al., 2006) tested sev- Correspondence to: D. Hindle eral mechanical scenarios for a distinct, Northwestern OK ([email protected] region undergoing compressional deformation and possible freiburg.de) extrusion between EU and NA. The models considered the Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. Figures 148 D. Hindle et al.: Deformation Northwestern Okhotsk Gakkel 10 Ridge 70˚ EU-NA POLE NA 65˚ 25 UNR1 SEY2 TKL1 TOM1 SUS1 EU OMS1 Ozernoi KUL1 TAL1 Peninsula 60˚ Okhostk Magadan MAG0 TIGI OK 55˚ AM Sakhalin Island 50˚ 130˚ 140˚ 150˚ 160˚ Fig. 1. Seismicity of Northeast Asia and inferred plate boundaries (heavy black lines). Major focal mechanisms, scaled for magnitude (largest event is the Mw 6.4 Artyk earthquake of 1971), small earthquake epicentres (light grey dots), GPS velocities of Steblov et al. (2003) Fig. 1. Seismicityreferenced of tonortheast fixed NA, with Asia 1σ andconfidence inferred ellipses plate (black boundaries arrows) and (heavy station names, black and lines). EU-NA Major motion focal vectors mechanisms, calculated at each GPS site based on the EU-NA euler vector of Sella et al. (2002) (grey shaded arrows) are also shown. scaled for magnitude (largest event is the Mw 6.4 Artyk earthquake of 1971), small earthquake epicentres (light grey dots), GPS velocities of Steblov et al. (2003) referenced to fixed NA, with 1σ confidence ellipses (black northwestern portion of OK to be either an unbroken or 2 Tectonics of Northwestern Okhotsk arrows) andsmoothly station deforming names, and piece EU-NA of lithosphere, motion and vectors ignored calculated spe- at each GPS site based on the EU-NA euler cific geological details of the structure of the plate. In this 2.1 Boundaries of Northwestern Okhotsk vector of Sellapaper, et we al. examine (2002) in (grey more detailshaded the arrows) issue of how are thealso north- shown western corner of OK is deforming, and attempt to directly In this paper, the geometry of Northwestern OK is defined integrate geological and earthquake data into a discrete, kine- following the plate boundaries suggested by Fujita et al. matic model of this portion of the CSB. (1997). The OK-NA boundary is traced along the Ulakhan fault, the largest fault in the Central Chersky ranges, visi- ble in satellite images over a distance of ∼1000 km (Par- fenov et al., 1988; Imaev et al., 1994; Fujita et al., 2009) Stephan Mueller Spec. Publ. Ser., 4, 147–156, 2009 www.stephan-mueller-spec-publ-ser.net/4/147/2009/ 15 D. Hindle et al.: Deformation Northwestern Okhotsk 149 70˚ eu-na pole Artyk Mw 6.4 65˚ Chersky RangeNA Ulakhan Fault b d Suntar-Khayata 60˚ Range a Shelikov metres c Bay 4000 EU OK 2000 55˚ 0 Defm. Zone Defm. North Schmidt North −2000 Neftegorsk Mw 7.0 −4000 AM −6000 50˚ −8000 130˚ 160˚ 135˚ 155˚ 140˚ 145˚ 150˚ Fig. 2. Present day tectonics of the EU-NA-OK system. Figure shows major plate boundaries (heavy black lines), major focal mechanisms, scaled for magnitudeFig. 2. (includingPresent day the tectonicsMw 7.0 of Neftegorsk the EU-NA-OK earthquake system. and theFigureMw shows6.4 Artyk major earthquake), plate boundaries small earthquake (heavy black epicentres (red dots), GPS velocities of Steblov et al. (2003) referenced to fixed NA (blue arrows) and major lineaments identified within OK. Yellow boxes lines), major focal mechanisms, scaled for magnitude (including the Mw7.0 Neftegorsk earthquake and the delimit the approximate positions of Fig. 5a–d. Mw6.4 Artyk earthquake), small earthquake epicentres (red dots), GPS velocities of Steblov et al. (2003) referenced to fixed NA (blue arrows) and major lineaments identified within OK. Yellow boxes delimit the and associated with teleseismic earthquakes M4-5 and local Island and the site of the Mw 7.0 Neftegorsk earthquake seismicity (Fig.approximate 2). Northeast positions of the of figures Ulakhan 5a-d. fault, there is a (Fig. 2) which occurred on a NNE-SSW striking, verti- noticeable drop in seismicity (Figs. 1 and 2), and the fault cal fault considered to be evidence of a plate boundary cuts and offsets post-Pliocene drainage networks (Krylov, in at least the northern part of Sakhalin Island (Fournier 1971; Fujita et al., 2004) and Recent alluvial fans. Further et al., 1994; Seno et al., 1996). Transpressional flower east, in the northern segment of the Kamchatka peninsula, structures are known from the sea floor south of Okhotsk uplift of the Ozernoi peninsula (Fig. 1) suggesting consider- in the North Schmidt Deformation Zone/Kashevarov fault able (∼20–30 mm/yr) convergence rates has been explained (Worrall et al., 1996) (Fig. 2) but there is an absence of seis- by the meeting of a slowly rotating Bering Block (aseismic micity along this segment of the potential plate boundary Komandorskii basin) (Mackey et al., 1997) and a short, ex- (Fujita et al., 2009, this volume), except for a Mw 4.8, thrust truding segment of OK (Pedoja et al., 2006). This interpreta- event (11 September 2006) north of Sakhalin Island and close tion further supports a throughgoing plate boundary between to the presumed trace of the boundary. This, together with the OK and NA, extending from the end of the traceable Ulakhan relatively continuous distribution of microseismicity west- fault, eastwards across Shelikov Bay (Fig.