Assessing discrepancies between previous plate kinematic models of Mesozoic Iberia and their constraints
Assessing discrepancies between previous plate kinematic models of Mesozoic Iberia and their constraints
复制标题
评估中生代伊比利亚先前的板块运动学模型及其约束之间的差异
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Stefan Maus
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
N. Barnett;Maral Hosseinpour;Stefan Maus
目前，有几个已发表的端元板块模型描述了伊比利亚在中生代的演化。我们回顾了以前用作这些模型约束条件的关键地质和地球物理数据集，包括（1）比利牛斯地质的地质解释;（2）西伊比利亚和纽芬兰边缘以及比斯开湾磁异常的端元解释;（3）伊比利亚的古地磁数据集;（4）伊比利亚的古地磁数据集;（5）伊比利亚的古地磁数据集。（4）地震层析成像模型，以前曾用于支持白垩纪在伊比利亚和欧亚大陆之间的俯冲作用。从这次审查中，我们确定关键的限制，并认为一个合理的板块运动学模型的伊比利亚应满足所有这些。相反，我们通过使用GPlates软件进行运动学分析，确定这些关键约束与几个已发表的端杆板模型之间的不一致性。我们还分析了已发表的地震层析成像模型，以前没有考虑过，在整个北方非洲和伊比利亚，并确定没有板保存在地幔内推测与白垩纪之间的俯冲伊比利亚和欧亚大陆。沿着比利牛斯山脉缺乏已发表的地质证据来支持这一俯冲历史，这也使人们对这一设想产生了怀疑。我们的运动学分析强调，首先，在重建现有的大陆-海洋边界解释时，沿着各自的边缘，伊比利亚和欧亚大陆之间的跨张运动的停止与伊比利亚和纽芬兰之间在大西洋的同时分裂在运动学上不能调和。第二，伊比利亚和纽芬兰之间有争议的端元M0解释（~120.6 Ma）的拟合意味着伊比利亚的板块速度，导致其相对于欧亚大陆的无文献记载的压扭或挤压运动，直到C34。
Currently, there are several published end‐member plate models that describe the evolution of Iberia during the Mesozoic. We review key geological and geophysical data sets previously used as constraints on these models including (1) geological interpretations of Pyrenean geology; (2) end‐member interpretations of magnetic anomalies along the West Iberian and Newfoundland margins and Bay of Biscay; (3) the paleomagnetic data set of Iberia; and (4) seismic tomography models, which have previously been used to support Cretaceous subduction between Iberia and Eurasia. From this review we identify key constraints and argue that a reasonable plate kinematic model of Iberia should satisfy all of these. Instead, we determine inconsistencies between these key constraints and several published end‐member plate models through a kinematic analysis using the GPlates software. We also analyze published seismic tomography models, not previously considered, across northern Africa and Iberia, and identify no slab preserved within the mantle supposedly linked to Cretaceous subduction between Iberia and Eurasia. A lack of published geological evidence along the Pyrenees supporting this subduction history also casts doubt on this scenario. Our kinematic analysis highlights that, first, the cessation in transtensional motion between Iberia and Eurasia by the Albian cannot be kinematically reconciled with the concurrent breakup between Iberia and Newfoundland in the Atlantic when reconstructing existing continent‐ocean boundary interpretations along their respective margins. Second, either fit of the contentious end‐member M0 interpretations (~120.6 Ma) between Iberia and Newfoundland implies plate velocities of Iberia that results in its undocumented transpressional or compressional motion relative to Eurasia until C34.