From Rodinia to Pangea: an Extroversion Process Driven First by Plume Push Followed by Downwelling Pull, Absorption and Merging

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

From Rodinia to Pangea: an Extroversion Process Driven First by Plume Push Followed by Downwelling Pull, Absorption and Merging

EGU2020-12348 https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-12348 EGU General Assembly 2020 © Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. From Rodinia to Pangea: an extroversion process driven first by plume push followed by downwelling pull, absorption and merging Zheng-Xiang Li, William Collins, Lei Wu, and Sergei Pisarevsky Curtin University, Earth Dynamics Research Group, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Perth, Australia ([email protected]) Numerous works also suggested that mantle plumes or mantle upwellings associated with LLSVPs in a degree-2 mantle state play a major role in driving the break-up of a supercontinent. However, subduction and mantle downwelling may play an increasing role in the leadup to the assembly of the next supercontinent. Anderson (1994) noticed that continents tend to gather at mantle downwelling zones, which was later developed into the hypothesis of orthoversion assembly of supercontinents by Mitchell (2012). Zhong et al. (2007) conceptualised the assembly of supercontinents through the merger or absorption of mantle downwellings, leading to the assembly of supercontinents over a superdownwelling in a degree-1 mantle. Here we present a revised global paleogeographic reconstruction featuring an extroversion assembly of Pangea (i.e. through the closure of the Mirovoi superocean) over a pre-existing yet dynamic mantle downwelling zone (Li et al., 2019). In particular, we show that the Paleozoic world was dominated by two major subduction (dowelling) cells, one associated with the newly assembled Gondwana, and the other associated with the assembly of Laurasia. The two cells gradually merged together by the Carboniferous time, forming the supercontinent Pangea over a mantle superdownwelling (Zhang et al., 2010). It was during the merger of the two dowelling cells that continental and arc terranes was successively transported from Gondwana margin to future Laurasia. References: Anderson, D.L., 1994. Superplume or supercontinents? Geology 22, 39-42. Huang, C., Zhang, N., Li, Z.-X., Ding, M., Dang, Z., Pourteau, A., Zhong, S., 2019. Modeling the Inception of Supercontinent Breakup: Stress State and the Importance of Orogens. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 20, 4830-4848. Li, Z.X., Mitchell, R.N., Spencer, C.J., Ernst, R., Pisarevsky, S., Kirscher, U., Murphy, J.B., 2019. Decoding Earth’s rhythms: Modulation of supercontinent cycles by longer superocean episodes. Precambrian Research 323, 1-5. Mitchell, R.N., Kilian, T.M., Evans, D.A.D., 2012. Supercontinent cycles and the calculation of absolute palaeolongitude in deep time. Nature 482, 208-211. Zhang, N., Zhong, S., Leng, W., Li, Z.-X., 2010. A model for the evolution of the Earth's mantle structure since the Early Paleozoic. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 115, B06401. Zhong, S., Zhang, N., Li, Z.-X., Roberts, J.H., 2007. Supercontinent cycles, true polar wander, and very long-wavelength mantle convection. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 261, 551-564. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org).

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Assembly, Configuration, and Break-Up History of Rodinia
Author's personal copy Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Precambrian Research 160 (2008) 179–210 Assembly, conﬁguration, and break-up history of Rodinia: A synthesis Z.X. Li a,g,∗, S.V. Bogdanova b, A.S. Collins c, A. Davidson d, B. De Waele a, R.E. Ernst e,f, I.C.W. Fitzsimons g, R.A. Fuck h, D.P. Gladkochub i, J. Jacobs j, K.E. Karlstrom k, S. Lu l, L.M. Natapov m, V. Pease n, S.A. Pisarevsky a, K. Thrane o, V. Vernikovsky p a Tectonics Special Research Centre, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia b Department of Geology, Lund University, Solvegatan 12, 223 62 Lund, Sweden c Continental Evolution Research Group, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia d Geological Survey of Canada (retired), 601 Booth Street, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0E8 e Ernst Geosciences, 43 Margrave Avenue, Ottawa, Canada K1T 3Y2 f Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton U., Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6 g Tectonics Special Research Centre, Department of Applied Geology, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia h Universidade de Bras´ılia, 70910-000 Bras´ılia, Brazil i Institute of the Earth’s Crust SB RAS, Lermontova Street, 128, 664033 Irkutsk, Russia j Department of Earth Science, University of Bergen, Allegaten 41, N-5007 Bergen, Norway k Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northrop Hall University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA l Tianjin Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources, CGS, No.
[Show full text]
Proterozoic East Gondwana: Supercontinent Assembly and Breakup Geological Society Special Publications Society Book Editors R
Proterozoic East Gondwana: Supercontinent Assembly and Breakup Geological Society Special Publications Society Book Editors R. J. PANKHURST (CHIEF EDITOR) P. DOYLE E J. GREGORY J. S. GRIFFITHS A. J. HARTLEY R. E. HOLDSWORTH A. C. MORTON N. S. ROBINS M. S. STOKER J. P. TURNER Special Publication reviewing procedures The Society makes every effort to ensure that the scientific and production quality of its books matches that of its journals. Since 1997, all book proposals have been refereed by specialist reviewers as well as by the Society's Books Editorial Committee. If the referees identify weaknesses in the proposal, these must be addressed before the proposal is accepted. Once the book is accepted, the Society has a team of Book Editors (listed above) who ensure that the volume editors follow strict guidelines on refereeing and quality control. We insist that individual papers can only be accepted after satis- factory review by two independent referees. The questions on the review forms are similar to those for Journal of the Geological Society. The referees' forms and comments must be available to the Society's Book Editors on request. Although many of the books result from meetings, the editors are expected to commission papers that were not pre- sented at the meeting to ensure that the book provides a balanced coverage of the subject. Being accepted for presentation at the meeting does not guarantee inclusion in the book. Geological Society Special Publications are included in the ISI Science Citation Index, but they do not have an impact factor, the latter being applicable only to journals.
[Show full text]
Where Is (And Was) Pennsylvania?”
Essay: “Where Is (and Was) Pennsylvania?” W.E. Hamilton D.Y. Sillman Penn State University This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution‐Noncommercial‐No Derivative Works 3.0 license. It may be distributed and shared, with attribution, but not altered or used commercially in any way. “Where Is (and Was) Pennsylvania?” Pennsylvania is a pretty obvious place to us. It’s a rectangular, politically defined piece of the eastern United States with a wiggly eastern border that follows the Delaware River and three, very straight other borders on the north, west, and south that were laboriously marked off after a great deal of social and legal travail and even some violence. It’s a hilly to mountainous, river‐rich place with forests and fields and cities. Its statistics are simple: it is about three hundred miles from east to west and a little less than one hundred and seventy miles from south to north. It comprises 46,058 square miles (although the number “45,308” shows up in some references). Its latitude range is thirty‐nine degrees forty‐three minutes N to forty‐two degrees N, and its longitude range is seventy‐four degrees and forty‐three minutes W to eighty degrees thirty‐one minutes W (Netstate 2008). This Pennsylvania, though, hasn’t always been all of that. The great rectangle of Pennsylvania has been, through the geological history of the Earth, in the southern hemisphere, on the equator, and in a great many places in between. It has been oriented with its long, three hundred mile axis east to west and also with this long axis running south to north.
[Show full text]
The Making and Unmaking of a Supercontinent: Rodinia Revisited
Tectonophysics 375 (2003) 261–288 www.elsevier.com/locate/tecto The making and unmaking of a supercontinent: Rodinia revisited Joseph G. Meerta,*, Trond H. Torsvikb a Department of Geological Sciences, University of Florida, 241 Williamson Hall, PO Box 11210 Gainesville, FL 32611, USA b Academy of Sciences (VISTA), c/o Geodynamics Center, Geological Survey of Norway, Leif Eirikssons vei 39, Trondheim 7491, Norway Received 11 April 2002; received in revised form 7 January 2003; accepted 5 June 2003 Abstract During the Neoproterozoic, a supercontinent commonly referred to as Rodinia, supposedly formed at ca. 1100 Ma and broke apart at around 800–700 Ma. However, continental fits (e.g., Laurentia vs. Australia–Antarctica, Greater India vs. Australia– Antarctica, Amazonian craton [AC] vs. Laurentia, etc.) and the timing of break-up as postulated in a number of influential papers in the early–mid-1990s are at odds with palaeomagnetic data. The new data necessitate an entirely different fit of East Gondwana elements and western Gondwana and call into question the validity of SWEAT, AUSWUS models and other variants. At the same time, the geologic record indicates that Neoproterozoic and early Paleozoic rift margins surrounded Laurentia, while similar-aged collisional belts dissected Gondwana. Collectively, these geologic observations indicate the breakup of one supercontinent followed rapidly by the assembly of another smaller supercontinent (Gondwana). At issue, and what we outline in this paper, is the difficulty in determining the exact geometry of the earlier supercontinent. We discuss the various models that have been proposed and highlight key areas of contention. These include the relationships between the various ‘external’ Rodinian cratons to Laurentia (e.g., Baltica, Siberia and Amazonia), the notion of true polar wander (TPW), the lack of reliable paleomagnetic data and the enigmatic interpretations of the geologic data.
[Show full text]
Earth History
Earth History Geography 106 LRS Doug Fischer Introduction – Overview of geologic history • Plate positions over time • Major biogeographic events Earth’s tectonic history • Gondwanaland – Southern continents – Formed 650mya Precambrian • Laurasia – Northern Continents – Most converged in Devonian 400mya as “old sandstone continent” • Formation of Pangaea – Late Permian ~ 275 mya Breakup of Pangaea • Started 180 mya (early Jurassic) – Prior to breakup, great mixing of biota – However, regionalization did still occur as it does on (smaller) continents today Breakup of Laurasia • Separated Europe & N. America 100 mya • Beringia rejoined them 75 mya • Intermittent connection via Greenland & Beringia through Tertiary Breakup of Gondwanaland • 180-160mya Gondwanaland started to split – Mesozoic (Triassic/Jurassic) • Mostly finished by 90 mya 152 mya 94 mya Central America and Antilles • Caribbean Plate was sandwiched between N&S America between 80 and 20 mya • Formed ring of islands • Landbridge closed ~ 3.5 mya – Great American Interchange 14 mya Biogeographic consequences of plate tectonics • Fragmentation and dispersal of ancestral biota (vicariance) • Changing barriers and coridors – biotic interchange • Speciation and extinction – changing physical and biological conditions Tour of Geologic History The geologic time scale • Phanerozoic starts with Cambrian explosion of species with hard body parts – (Some multi- cellular algae and animals lived at the end of the Precambrian) Paleozoic Paleozoic Cambrian • Animals with hard-shells appeared in great numbers for the first time • The continents were flooded by shallow seas. • The supercontinent of Gondwana had just formed and was located near the South Pole. Ordivician • ancient oceans separated the barren continents of Laurentia, Baltica, Siberia and Gondwana. • The end of the Ordovician was one of the coldest times in Earth history.
[Show full text]
Muttoni+Kent-2019 RIPS Copy
Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafa (Research in Paleontology and Stratigraphy) vol. 125(1): 249-269. March 2019 ADRIA AS PROMONTORY OF AFRICA AND ITS CONCEPTUAL ROLE IN THE TETHYS TWIST AND PANGEA B TO PANGEA A TRANSFORMATION IN THE PERMIAN GIOVANNI MUTTONI1* & DENNIS V. KENT2 1 *Corresponding author. Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra 'Ardito Desio', Università degli Studi di Milano, via Mangiagalli 34, I-20133 Milan, Italy. 2Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA, and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA.. To cite this article: Muttoni G. & Kent D.V. (2019) - Adria as promontory of Africa and its conceptual role in the Tethys Twist and Pangea B to Pangea A Transformation in the Permian. Riv. It. Paleontol. Strat., 125(1): 249-269. Keywords: Paleomagnetism; Adria; Pangea B; Pangea A. Abstract. It has been almost 60 years since the frst results from the Early Permian Bolzano Quartz Porphyries from the Trento Plateau of northern Italy (Southern Alps) showed paleomagnetic inclinations steeper than inclina- tions from broadly coeval units from central Europe. This experimental discrepancy, confrmed ever since at varying levels of magnitude and certitude, implied that northern Italy had paleolatitudes too northerly relative to Europe to be considered part of the European continent. On the other hand, it became progressively more apparent that paleo- magnetic data from northern Italy were more compatible with data from Africa than with data from Europe, and this observation revived and complemented Argand’s original concept of Adria as a promontory of Africa. But if Adria was part of Africa, then the paleolatitude anomaly of Adria relative to Europe translated into a huge crustal misft of Gondwana relative to Laurasia when these landmasses were forced into a classic Wegenerian Pangea as typifed by the Bullard ft of the circum-Atlantic continents.
[Show full text]
Pannotia to Pangaea: Neoproterozoic and Paleozoic Orogenic Cycles in the Circum-Atlantic Region: a Celebration of the Career of Damian Nance
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 27, 2021 Pannotia to Pangaea: Neoproterozoic and Paleozoic Orogenic Cycles in the Circum-Atlantic Region: A celebration of the career of Damian Nance J. Brendan Murphy1,2*, Robin A. Strachan3 and Cecilio Quesada4 1Department of Earth Sciences, St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, B2G 2W5, Canada 2Earth Dynamics Research Group, the Institute for Geoscience Research (TIGeR), School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, WA 6845, Australia 3School of the Environment, Geography and Geosciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 3QL, UK 4Instituto Geológico y Minero de España (IGME), C/Ríos Rosas, 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain JBM, 0000-0003-2269-1976 *Correspondence: [email protected] Special Publication 503 celebrates the career of between tectonic events and biogeochemical cycles, R. Damian Nance. It features 27 articles, with more as exemplified in the late Neoproterozoic–Early than 110 authors based in 18 different countries. Cambrian by the amalgamation of Gondwana span- The wide range of topics presented in this volume ning a time interval characterized by dramatic climate mirrors the breadth and depth of Damian’s contribu- swings, profound changes in the chemistry of the tions, interests and expertise. Like Damian’s papers, oceans and atmosphere, and the evolution of multi- the contributions range from the predominantly con- cellular animals (see Hoffman 1991; Hoffman et al. ceptual to detailed field work, but all are targeted at 1998; Narbonne 2010; Knoll 2013). understanding important tectonic processes. Their As reconstructions became more refined, scope not only varies in scale from global to regional several authors proposed that Gondwana was part to local, but also in the range of approaches required of a larger entity called Pannotia that included Lau- to gain that understanding.
[Show full text]
A History of Supercontinents on Planet Earth
By Alasdair Wilkins Jan 27, 2011 2:31 PM 47,603 71 Share A history of supercontinents on planet Earth Earth's continents are constantly changing, moving and rearranging themselves over millions of years - affecting Earth's climate and biology. Every few hundred million years, the continents combine to create massive, world-spanning supercontinents. Here's the past and future of Earth's supercontinents. The Basics of Plate Tectonics If we're going to discuss past and future supercontinents, we first need to understand how landmasses can move around and the continents can take on new configurations. Let's start with the basics - rocky planets like Earth have five interior levels: heading outwards, these are the inner core, outer core, mantle, upper mantle, and the crust. The crust and the part of the upper mantle form the lithosphere, a portion of our planet that is basically rigid, solid rock and runs to about 100 kilometers below the planet's surface. Below that is the asthenosphere, which is hot enough that its rocks are more flexible and ductile than those above it. The lithosphere is divided into roughly two dozen major and minor plates, and these plates move very slowly over the almost fluid-like asthenosphere. There are two types of crust: oceanic crust and continental crust. Predictably enough, oceanic crust makes up the ocean beds and are much thinner than their continental counterparts. Plates can be made up of either oceanic or continental crust, or just as often some combination of the two. There are a variety of forces pushing and pulling the plates in various directions, and indeed that's what keeps Earth's crust from being one solid landmass - the interaction of lithosphere and asthenosphere keeps tearing landmasses apart, albeit very, very slowly.
[Show full text]
North China Craton: the Conjugate Margin for Northwestern Laurentia in Rodinia Jikai Ding1,2, Shihong Zhang1,3*, David A.D
https://doi.org/10.1130/G48483.1 Manuscript received 7 October 2020 Revised manuscript received 27 December 2020 Manuscript accepted 12 January 2021 © 2021 The Authors. Gold Open Access: This paper is published under the terms of the CC-BY license. Published online 22 March 2021 North China craton: The conjugate margin for northwestern Laurentia in Rodinia Jikai Ding1,2, Shihong Zhang1,3*, David A.D. Evans2, Tianshui Yang1, Haiyan Li1, Huaichun Wu1 and Jianping Chen3 1 State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China 2 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA 3 School of Earth Sciences and Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China ABSTRACT ern NCC and northwestern Laurentia (present In the Rodinia supercontinent, Laurentia is placed at the center because it was flanked coordinates) was proposed (Fu et al., 2015; by late Neoproterozoic rifted margins; however, the conjugate margin for western Laurentia Zhao et al., 2020) but required rigorous testing is still enigmatic. In this study, new paleomagnetic results have been obtained from 15 ca. by coeval pairs of high-quality poles with pre- 775 Ma mafic dikes in eastern Hebei Province, North China craton (NCC). Stepwise thermal cise age constraints. In this study, we report a demagnetization revealed a high-temperature component, directed northeast or southwest new high-quality paleomagnetic pole obtained with shallow inclinations, with unblocking temperatures of as high as 580 °C. Rock magne- from ca. 775 Ma mafic dikes in the eastern He- tism suggests the component is carried by single-domain and pseudo-single-domain magnetite bei Province, NCC.
[Show full text]
What's in a Name? the Columbia (Paleopangaea/Nuna) Supercontinent
Gondwana Research 21 (2012) 987–993 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Gondwana Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gr GR Letter What's in a name? The Columbia (Paleopangaea/Nuna) supercontinent Joseph G. Meert ⁎ University of Florida, Department of Geological Sciences, 241 Williamson Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, United States article info abstract Article history: Supercontinents play an important role in Earth's history. The exact deﬁnition of what constitutes a super- Received 4 December 2011 continent is difﬁcult to establish. Here the argument is made, using Pangæa as a model, that any superconti- Received in revised form 6 December 2011 nent should include ~75% of the preserved continental crust relevant to the time of maximum packing. As an Accepted 8 December 2011 example, Rodinia reached maximum packing at about 1.0 Ga and therefore should include 75% of all conti- Available online 14 December 2011 nental crust older than 1.0 Ga. In attempting to ‘name’ any supercontinent, there is a clear precedent for Handling Editor: M. Santosh models that provide a name along with a testable reconstruction within a reasonable temporal framework. Both Pangæa and Rodinia are near universally accepted names for the late Paleozoic and Neoproterozoic su- Keywords: percontinent respectively; however, there is a recent push to change the Paleo-Mesoproterozoic superconti- Columbia nent moniker from “Columbia” to “Nuna”. A careful examination of the “Nuna” and “Columbia” proposals Supercontinent tectonics reveals that although the term “Nuna” was published prior to “Columbia”, the “Nuna” proposal is a bit nebu- Pangaea lous in terms of the constitution of the giant continent.
[Show full text]
Supercontinent Cycle and Thermochemical Structure in the Mantle: Inference from Two-Dimensional Numerical Simulations of Mantle Convection
geosciences Article Supercontinent Cycle and Thermochemical Structure in the Mantle: Inference from Two-Dimensional Numerical Simulations of Mantle Convection Masanori Kameyama * ID and Akari Harada Geodynamics Research Center, Ehime University, 2–5 Bunkyo-cho, Matsuyama 790-8577, Ehime, Japan; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 27 September 2017; Accepted: 30 November 2017; Published: 5 December 2017 Abstract: In this study, we conduct numerical simulations of thermochemical mantle convection in a 2D spherical annulus with a highly viscous lid drifting along the top surface, in order to investigate the interrelation between the motion of the surface (super)continent and the behavior of chemical heterogeneities imposed in the lowermost mantle. Our calculations show that assembly and dispersal of supercontinents occur in a cyclic manner when a sufficient amount of chemically-distinct dense material resides in the base of the mantle against the convective mixing. The motion of surface continents is significantly driven by strong ascending plumes originating around the dense materials in the lowermost mantle. The hot dense materials horizontally move in response to the motion of continents at the top surface, which in turn horizontally move the ascending plumes leading to the breakup of newly-formed supercontinents. We also found that the motion of dense materials in the base of the mantle is driven toward the region beneath a newly-formed supercontinent largely by the horizontal flow induced by cold descending flows from the top surface occurring away from the (super)continent. Our findings imply that the dynamic behavior of cold descending plumes is the key to the understanding of the relationship between the supercontinent cycle on the Earth’s surface and the thermochemical structures in the lowermost mantle, through modulating not only the positions of chemically-dense materials, but also the occurrence of ascending plumes around them.
[Show full text]
29305929 OA.Pdf
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 449 (2016) 118–126 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Earth and Planetary Science Letters www.elsevier.com/locate/epsl Linking collisional and accretionary orogens during Rodinia assembly and breakup: Implications for models of supercontinent cycles ∗ Peter A. Cawood a, , Robin A. Strachan b, Sergei A. Pisarevsky c, Dmitry P. Gladkochub d, J. Brendan Murphy e a Department of Earth Sciences, University of St. Andrews, Irvine Building, North Street, St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL, UK b School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 3QL, UK c Institute for Geoscience Research (TIGeR), Department of Applied Geology, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Core to Crust Fluid Systems (CCFS), Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia d Institute of the Earth’s Crust, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 128 Lermontov Street, 664033 Irkutsk, Russia e Department of Earth Sciences, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia B2G 2W5, Canada a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Periodic assembly and dispersal of continental fragments has been a characteristic of the solid Earth for Received 4 April 2016 much of its history. Geodynamic drivers of this cyclic activity are inferred to be either top-down processes Received in revised form 24 May 2016 related to near surface lithospheric stresses at plate boundaries or bottom-up processes related to mantle Accepted 28 May 2016 convection and, in particular, mantle plumes, or some combination of the two. Analysis of the geological Available online 8 June 2016 history of Rodinian crustal blocks suggests that internal rifting and breakup of the supercontinent were Editor: A.
[Show full text]