Neotethyan closure history of western Anatolia: a geodynamic discussion
Neotethyan closure history of western Anatolia: a geodynamic discussion
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00531-015-1226-7
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
A. Pourteau;R. Oberhänsli;O. Candan;É. Barrier;B. Vrielynck
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Pourteau;R. Oberhänsli;O. Candan;É. Barrier;B. Vrielynck
本文论述了爱琴海后退俯冲系统的东部终端，即西安纳托利亚的岩石圈规模的俯冲-碰撞历史。虽然有一些普遍的共识，至少从新生代早期以来，爱琴海的长期俯冲演化，与西安纳托利亚的相关性已被广泛争论了几十年。在安纳托利亚西部，三个主要的构造配置已设想在过去几年中重建板片动力学在关闭的新特提斯海洋领域自晚白垩世。一些作者提出了爱琴海型的情景，即单一岩石圈板片的连续俯冲，被幕式板片回滚和海沟退缩打断，而另一些作者则假设了一个不连续的俯冲历史，其特征是在坎帕尼亚期（约1000年）或坎帕尼亚期（约1000年）间歇性板片断裂。75 Ma）或早始新世（ca。55-50 Ma）。第三种观点认为存在三个部分同生的俯冲带。我们对这些模型的回顾指出了关键的有争议的方面，这些方面可以根据文献中的多学科限制进行重新评估。我们的讨论使我们能够解决俯冲开始的时间，假设的海洋盆地的存在，之间的金牛座和庞蒂德，构造单元的古地理起源和板断裂的可能性，无论是在坎帕尼亚或早始新世的干预俯冲带的数量。因此，我们提出了一个有利的构造方案，具有两个连续阶段的俯冲的一个单一的岩石圈板和情节增生的两个大陆域分开的大陆槽，代表基克拉泽斯洋的爱琴海的东端。缺乏明确的证据表明，在西安纳托利亚板片断裂和大陆构造单元（从85，70至50 Ma）在晚白垩世-古近纪期间向南俯冲的HP/LT变质作用，表明自110 Ma以来持续俯冲，其标志是在古新世和渐新世-中新世的回滚事件，以及在中新世期间在西安纳托利亚下面的板片撕裂。
This paper addresses the lithosphere-scale subduction–collision history of the eastern termination of the Aegean retreating subduction system, i.e. western Anatolia. Although there is some general consensus on the protracted subduction evolution of the Aegean since the early Cenozoic at least, correlation with western Anatolia has been widely debated for more than several decades. In western Anatolia, three main tectonic configurations have been envisaged in the past years to reconstruct slab dynamics during the closure of the Neotethyan oceanic realm since the Late Cretaceous. Some authors have suggested an Aegean-type scenario, with the continuous subduction of a single lithospheric slab, punctuated by episodic slab roll-back and trench retreat, whereas others assumed a discontinuous subduction history marked by intermittent slab break-off during either the Campanian (ca. 75 Ma) or the Early Eocene (ca. 55–50 Ma). The third view implies three partly contemporaneous subduction zones. Our review of these models points to key debated aspects that can be re-evaluated in the light of multidisciplinary constraints from the literature. Our discussion leads us to address the timing of subduction initiation, the existence of hypothetical ocean basins, the number of intervening subduction zones between the Taurides and the Pontides, the palaeogeographic origin of tectonic units and the possibility for slab break-off during either the Campanian or the Early Eocene. Thence, we put forward a favoured tectonic scenario featuring two successive phases of subduction of a single lithospheric slab and episodic accretion of two continental domains separated by a continental trough, representing the eastern end of the Cycladic Ocean of the Aegean. The lack of univocal evidence for slab break-off in western Anatolia and southward-younging HP/LT metamorphism in continental tectonic units (from ~85, 70 to 50 Ma) in the Late Cretaceous–Palaeogene period suggests continuous subduction since ~110 Ma, marked by roll-back episodes in the Palaeocene and the Oligo-Miocene, and slab tearing below western Anatolia during the Miocene.