Propagation of the Deformation and Growth of the Tibetan-Himalayan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Earth-Science Reviews 143 (2015) 36–61 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Earth-Science Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/earscirev Propagation of the deformation and growth of the Tibetan–Himalayan orogen: A review Yalin Li a,⁎, Chengshan Wang a, Jingen Dai a,GanqingXub, Yunling Hou a,XiaohanLia a State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China b Department of Earth and Ocean Science, University of Waikato, Hamilton 2001, New Zealand article info abstract Article history: Long-standing problems in the geological evolution of the Tibetan–Himalayan orogen include where the Received 22 January 2014 India–Asia convergence was accommodated and how the plateau grew. To clarify these problems, we review Accepted 13 January 2015 the deformations and their role in the plateau's growth. Our results show that ~1630 km of shortening occurred Available online 22 January 2015 across the Tibetan–Himalayan orogen since ~55 Ma, with more than ~1400 km accommodated by large-scale thrust belts. These thrust belts display an outward expansion from central Tibet and couple with the surficial Keywords: fi – Tibetan plateau uplift. The development of the Tibetan plateau involved three signi cant steps: Primitive plateau (~90 55 Ma), – – Fold–thrust belt Proto-plateau (~55 40 Ma), and Neoteric plateau (~40 0 Ma). Several processes have collaborated to produce Extension the Proto-plateau, including the pre-existing Primitive plateau, the India–Asia collision, and subductions of Crustal shortening Greater India and Songpan–Ganzi beneath the Lhasa–Qiangtang terrane. Since ~40 Ma, the Proto-plateau, Uplift which was dominated by a topographic gradient, lower crustal flow and continuous India–Asia convergence, Cenozoic experienced three periods of rapid outward growth (~40–23, ~23–10, and ~10–0 Ma) in general. The N–S trending rifts were caused by the eastward growth of the plateau dominated by thrusting and crust flow in central Tibet, while they were the results of intense N–S shortening in Himalaya. © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction...............................................................37 2. Geologicalsettingandmodelsfortheplateauuplift.............................................38 3. Distribution of the fold–thrust belts in the Tibetan–Himalayanorogen.....................................38 3.1. Yarlung Zangpo–Himalayathrustsystem...............................................38 3.2. CentralTibetthrustsystem.....................................................40 3.3. NorthernTibetthrustsystem....................................................42 3.4. EasternTibetthrustsystem.....................................................42 4. Extension in the Tibetan–Himalayanorogen................................................43 4.1. SouthTibetDetachmentSystem...................................................43 4.2. North–southtrendingrifts.....................................................43 5. Discussion................................................................43 5.1. Propagation of fold–thrustdeformation...............................................43 5.1.1. Late Cretaceous-Paleocene (~90–55Ma)...........................................44 5.1.2. Eocene-Oligocene (~55–23Ma)...............................................44 5.1.3. Early-Middle Miocene (~23–10Ma).............................................45 5.1.4. Middle Miocene–present (~10–0Ma)............................................46 5.2. Deformation and uplift of the Tibetan–Himalayanorogen.......................................47 5.2.1. Shorteningandcrustalthickening..............................................47 5.2.2. Development of the thrusting and uplift of the Tibetan–Himalayanorogen...........................49 ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 82321586; fax: +86 10 8232217. E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Li). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.01.001 0012-8252/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Y. Li et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 143 (2015) 36–61 37 5.3. Growth dynamics of the Tibetan–Himalayanorogen......................................... 52 5.3.1. GeneticmechanismoftheProto-plateau.......................................... 52 5.3.2. Dynamic mechanism for the growth of the Tibetan–Himalayanorogen............................. 53 5.3.3. Extensionalstructuresandgrowthoftheplateau...................................... 54 5.4. Integrated model for the growth of the Tibetan–Himalayanorogen................................... 55 6. Conclusions............................................................... 56 Acknowledgments.............................................................. 57 References.................................................................. 57 1. Introduction documented Himalayan–Tibetan shortening (Patriat and Achache, 1984; Yin and Harrison, 2000; DeCelles et al., 2002; van Hinsbergen The Tibetan–Himalayan orogen, the largest mountain chain on Earth et al., 2011a, b). Moreover, the large-scale fold–thrust belts not only today, was considered to be the result of the continued convergence contributed to the crustal shortening but also led to the tectonic between the Indian and Eurasian continents following their initial colli- uplift of the adjoining mountains (Molnar and Tapponnier, 1975; sion approximately 50–65 Myr ago (Fig. 1)(Molnar and Tapponnier, Tapponnier and Molnar, 1977; Allegre et al., 1984; Dewey et al., 1975; Harrison et al., 1992; Ratschbacher et al., 1994; Yin and 1988; DeCelles et al., 2002; Zhu et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2008a; Yin Harrison, 2000; DeCelles et al., 2002; Li et al., 2012; Meng et al., 2012). et al., 2008; Li et al., 2012). However, how the fold–thrust belts and The deformation and its relationship to the rise of the plateau are an crustal shortening contributed to the uplift of the plateau in space and essential problem related to the geologic evolution of the Tibetan pla- time is ambiguous. Tapponnier et al. (2001) proposed that the rise of teau and to continental tectonics more generally (Ratschbacher et al., the Tibetan plateau has undergone three main steps from central 1994; Coleman and Hodges, 1995; Tapponnier et al., 2001; Wang Tibet since the Eocene, the subduction of mantle lithosphere accounting et al., 2008a). Although the question of when and how the plateau for the dominant growth of the Tibet plateau toward the east and north- attained its current elevation is still in dispute, it has been accepted east. However, how the crustal shortening and exhumation history that the deformation processes preserve the most dramatic records of responded to this growth and whether the Himalaya experienced the the long-term evolution of the plateau (England and Houseman, 1989; analogical process is still uncertain. Moreover, the crustal shortening, DeCelles et al., 2002). Conversely, the uplifting process of the plateau uplifting history and their dynamics cannot be effectively reconciled would provide a first-order constraint on the dynamics of the crustal by a growth model in eastern Tibet (western Sichuan) (Clark and deformation (England and Molnar, 1990). Therefore, the origin of the Royden, 2000; Tapponnier et al., 2001; Hubbard and Shaw, 2009; high-elevation plateau and its relationship to crustal deformation have Oskin, 2012; Wang et al., 2012). Although Tapponnier et al. (2001) been studied intensively since the mid-1970s (Molnar and Tapponnier, and Wang et al. (2008a, 2014a) confirmed the growth of the plateau 1975; Tapponnier and Molnar, 1977; Allegre et al., 1984; Dewey et al., from central Tibet, the uplifting process and dynamics remain question- 1988; Ratschbacher et al., 1994; DeCelles et al., 2002; Deng et al., able (Murphy et al., 1997; Zhang, 2000; Kapp et al., 2003, 2005; Zhang 2014; Zhang et al., 2012). et al., 2004; Volkmer et al., 2007; Guillot and Replumaz, 2013). This Crustal shortening and extension are two basically deformational means the deformation history and mechanism of the Tibet plateau's styles in the Tibetan–Himalayan orogen and are important for under- northward growth should be reappraised. standing the geological history and surface uplift of the plateau. Plate The E–W extension and related N–S trending rift are another notable reconstructions show that since 50 Ma ~2400–3200 km of India– deformation pattern of the plateau, which is widely distributed but of Asia convergence occurred, much more than the 1200–1800 km of very low magnitude in the Himalaya and central Tibet. Some researchers 75°E 80°E 85°E 90°E 95°E 100°E 105°E Noth China Tian Shan Hexi Corridor Basin 40°N Northern Qilian Shan Qilian Shan Tarim Basin Qaidam BasinNan Shan Parmir Yecheng Altyn Tagh Fault KarakomrumWester Fault Eastern Kunlun Shan n Kunlun Kunlu Xining Shan Songpan-Ganzi n Fault Jinsha suture 35°N TanggulHoh Xil Basin aShan Qiangtan g Gonggashan Bangong Nujiang sutureShuanghu Shiquanhe - Amdo Ganzi Gaize 0 200 400km Chengdu Longmen Shan Coqin Lhasa Xianshuihe Fault Indus Yalun Sichuan 30°N - Gangdese Lhasa Elevation /m g Basin 0-1000 Zangpo suture 1000-2000 Soth 2000-3000 thrust Xigaze 3000-4000 Himalaya China 4000-5000 5000-6000 strike-slip fault 6000-7000 7000-8000 India >8000 suture zone Fig. 1. Topographic map and major tectonic units of the Tibetan–Himalayan orogen. 38 Y. Li et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 143 (2015) 36–61 attributed the extension to the rapid uplift and gravitational collapse of thickening during the Cenozoic (England and Houseman, 1989;