Gogus, O.H. and Russell N. Pysklywec, Mantle Lithosphere Delamination Driving Plateau Uplift and Synconvergent Extension In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mantle lithosphere delamination driving plateau uplift and synconvergent extension in eastern Anatolia Og˘uz H. Gög˘üs¸*, Russell N. Pysklywec Department of Geology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada ABSTRACT delamination-style separation of the mantle Eastern Anatolia is the site of lithospheric thinning, plateau uplift, heating, and synconver- lithosphere from the crust prior to its detach- gent extension. Using numerical geodynamic experiments, we test the hypothesis that these ment beneath the entire plateau. tectonic anomalies are all related and the consequence of delamination of the mantle litho- Alternatively, Ershov and Nikishin (2004) sphere. Our fi ndings indicate that delamination during plate convergence results in ~2-km- proposed a mantle plume scenario for eastern high plateau uplift. The removal of mantle lithosphere induces distinct regions of contraction Anatolia. However, petrological and geophysi- and thickening, as well as extension and thinning of the crust. The latter occurs even within cal evidence, e.g., the migration of the volcanism a regime of plate shortening, although it is muted with increasing plate convergence. Detach- from north to south within the plateau and its ment of the delaminating slab results in minor surface topographic perturbation, but only change in the chemistry (calc-alkaline to alka- above the delamination hinge. The plateau uplift and pattern of surface contraction and/or line) (Keskin, 2003) and seismic tomographic extension are consistent with a topographic profi le at 42°E and geologically interpreted zone interpretations of the detached slab beneath the of synconvergent extension at eastern Anatolia. plateau (Lei and Zhao, 2007), does not favor the viability of a plume model. Keywords: Eastern Anatolian plateau, delamination, lithospheric thinning, synconvergent extension. Here we propose that all the primary tectonic anomalies for Eastern Anatolia plateau uplift INTRODUCTION Anatolia may be related to lithospheric delami- and heating, but also the notable presence of The Eastern Anatolian plateau has formed nation in the manner defi ned by Bird (1979). synconvergent crustal extension, may be related as part of a Himalayan-type orogenic system That is, mantle lithosphere is removed as a as the coupled response of the crust to active through the collision of the Arabian and Eur- coherent slice by peeling away along the crust- underlying mantle dynamics during plate colli- asian plates (Fig. 1A). Based on receiver func- mantle boundary or at the upper margin of the sion. Using computational geodynamic models, tion studies, the crust beneath the plateau is anomalously dense lower crust (Anderson, we test whether the geological and geophysical only 38–50 km thick (Zor et al., 2003); hence 2007). In the light of the observations given observables are consistent with delamination of it has been suggested that the high topography above, a slab break-off model was proposed the mantle lithosphere. Any mantle lithosphere is not isostatically supported by a thick crustal by Şengör et al. (2003) and Keskin (2003). removal in eastern Anatolia progresses within root (Şengör et al., 2003; Keskin, 2003). Fur- These studies suggest that break-off of the a convergent plate regime, so we conduct a thermore, seismic data for eastern Anatolia are northward-subducting oceanic Arabian plate in series of experiments with variable rates of the interpreted as evidence for the complete absence the past 7–8 m.y. has caused domal uplift and imposed convergence of the delaminated slab of the mantle lithosphere beneath the plateau volcanic activity in eastern Anatolia through and with higher yield strength of the mantle (Gok et al., 2007) (Fig. 1B) and are consistent rising mantle. We note that although Şengör lithosphere. The mantle lithosphere is permitted with high heat fl ow and volcanic activity (e.g., et al. (2003) and Keskin (2003) did not use the to detach and we consider how slab break-off Nemrut, Suphan, and Agri-Ararat volcanoes) term delamination, they implicitly assumed a modifi es the surface tectonic expression. across eastern Anatolia. Large-scale plate deformation in the region is dominated by plate convergence with shorten- A ing and contraction, but normal fault–controlled 32°E 36°E 40°E 44°E extensional basins such as the Kagizman- Y Caucasus Tuzluca , Hinis, Karliova, and Mus basins are Black Sea well documented (Dhont and Chorowicz, 2006) NAF within the plateau. Such extensional features, NEAF as well as the presence of the young volcanics, 40°N Figure 1. A: Topographic are notable because their stress orientations are ANATOLIAN PLATE map of eastern Anatolia cre- inconsistent with E-W extensional deforma- EAF ated with generic mapping tion. Rather, the inferred extension seems to be Bitlis-Zagros tools (GMT) showing the oriented ~N25°E. Global positioning system suture zone major tectonic boundaries. B: Lithospheric structure measure ments slightly to the west of this region ARABIAN PLATE beneath eastern Anatolia also indicate local extension, but directed N-NW Mediterranean 36°N modifi ed from S¸engör et al. (Reilinger et al., 2006). Although there is some Sea 4 2 0 –2 (km) (2003), Dhont and Chorowicz Y′ discrepancy in the precise orientations, the geol- (2006), Gok et al. (2007), and ogy and geodesy both suggest extension in the Strike-slip fault EAF = East Anatolian fault Thrust fault Keskin (2003). NAF = North Anatolian fault NEAF = North East Anatolian fault same general direction and contemporaneous B with the dominant plate convergence. N S crust Bitlis-Poturge massif Anderson (2005) suggested that topographic crust crust 0 uplift with widespread volcanism in eastern PML Sublithospheric mantle AML 100 km YYPML = Pontide mantle lithosphere ′ *E-mail: [email protected]. AML = Arabian mantle lithosphere © 2008 The Geological Society of America. For permission to copy, contact Copyright Permissions, GSA, or [email protected]. GEOLOGY,Geology, September September 2008; 2008 v. 36; no. 9; p. 723–726; doi: 10.1130/G24982A.1; 4 fi gures. 723 MODELING DELAMINATION mantle lithosphere to initiate the delamination SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY AND In our numerical experiments, we used a process (e.g., Morency and Doin, 2004). We CRUSTAL DEFORMATION plane strain viscous-plastic fi nite element code, recognize that anomalously dense (e.g., eclogi- At t = 1.2 m.y., negative surface topography SOPALE (Fullsack, 1995; Pysklywec et al., tized) lower crust may also participate in the (~−2.8 km) develops as the crust is pulled down 2002). The confi guration of the model (Fig. 2A) removal. However, the model setup is simplifi ed by the dense delaminating mantle lithosphere is designed as an idealized representation of the by assuming that such crust is already descend- (Fig. 2B). Flanking uplift features arise as a con- continent-continent plate boundary at eastern ing with the mantle lithosphere. sequence of upward return fl ow and replacement Anatolia. We impose a convergence velocity Figure 2A shows the evolution of our refer- of less dense mantle in the mantle lithosphere VAR to the northern edge of the Arabian litho- ence model that may correspond to the evo- gap (Fig. 2A). Crustal contraction, driven by sphere and pin the southern edge of Eurasian lution of the mantle lithosphere in eastern entrainment toward the downgoing mantle litho- lithosphere at VEU = 0 (Fig. 2A). The top of Anatolia, where VAR = 3.0 cm/yr. At time, sphere and the imposed convergence, is subtly the box is a free surface. A viscous fl ow law of t = 1.2 m.y. the mantle lithosphere is delami- visible within the Lagrangian mesh (Fig. 2A). − n ⎛ Q⎞ nating from the crust, exposing a Moho width Note that the negative surface topography is ε=Aσ exp⎜ ⎟ is used for viscous material ⎝ RT ⎠ of ~300 km to the mantle. Subsequently, hot observed at the surface, even though the crust response, where ε is the strain rate, T is tempera- and buoyant sublithospheric mantle fl ows has thickened by ~5 km. ture, and σ is differential stress. A, n, Q, and R into the region vacated by the peeling mantle At t = 2.9 m.y., positive surface topography are the viscosity parameter, power law expo- lithosphere. The rapid nature of the delamina- dominates with a peak near the delaminating gap nent, activation energy, and ideal gas constant, tion means that the high mantle temperatures where upwelling fl ow is most vigorous. Inspec- respectively. For mantle A = 4.89 × 10−17 Pa–3.5/s, are effi ciently advected upward, heating the tion of the Lagrangian mesh elements also shows n = 3.5, Q = 535 kJ/mol (Hirth and Kohlstedt, lower crust (Gogus and Pysklywec, 2008). that there is localized crustal contraction, with 1996), and a Coulomb yield stress of 120 MPa are The delaminated mantle lithosphere is bent ~12.5 km crustal thickening and as much as 30% used. For continental crust A = 1.1 × 10−28 Pa–4/s, steeply into the mantle but remains intact shortening near the hinge (Figs. 2A and 2B). n = 4, and Q = 223 kJ/mol are used based on as a coherent plate, i.e., as opposed to a vis- At the center of the lithospheric gap, crustal wet quartzite (Gleason and Tullis, 1995). In cous dripping-type removal. Between 2.9 and extension of ~30% and thinning of as much as addition, the upper crust has a brittle Coulomb 7.0 m.y., there is detachment and/or break-off several kilometers are observed (Fig. 2A). This behavior with an internal angle of friction of this mantle lithosphere slab. At the latest extension and thinning are notable as internally φ = 15°. Density, ρ, is a function of composition stage shown (t = 7.0 m.y.), the Eurasian mantle driven tectonic processes within the overall con- and temperature (using α = 2 × 10−5 1/K). lithosphere on the left side undergoes a much vergent plate regime.