Independent evidence from rocks, fossils, and genes converge on a cohesive narrative of isthmus formation in the Pliocene.

Email alerting services articles cite this article to receive free e-mail alerts when new www.gsapubs.org/cgi/alerts click Subscribe America Bulletin to subscribe to Geological Society of www.gsapubs.org/subscriptions/ click Permission request to contact GSA http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/copyrt.htm#gsa click official positions of the Society. citizenship, gender, religion, or political viewpoint. Opinions presented in this publication do not reflect presentation of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide, regardless of their race, includes a reference to the article's full citation. GSA provides this and other forums for the the abstracts only of their articles on their own or their organization's Web site providing the posting to further education and science. This file may not be posted to any Web site, but authors may post works and to make unlimited copies of items in GSA's journals for noncommercial use in classrooms requests to GSA, to use a single figure, a single table, and/or a brief paragraph of text in subsequent their employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted permission, without fees or further Copyright not claimed on content prepared wholly by U.S. government employees within scope of Notes articles must include the digital object identifier (DOIs) and date of initial publication.

Tectonic collision between South America and Panama began at 23-25 Ma. The collision is signifi cant because it ultimately led to development of the Panamanian Isthmus, which in turn had wide-ranging oceanic, climatic, biologic, and tectonic implications. Within the Panama Canal Zone, volcanic activity transitioned from hydrous mantle-wedge−derived arc magmatism to localized extensional arc magmatism at 24 Ma, and overall marks a permanent change in arc evolution. We interpret the arc geochemical change to result from fracturing of the Panama block during initial collision with South America. Fracturing of the Panama block led to localized crustal extension, normal faulting, sedimentary basin formation, and extensional magmatism in the Canal Basin and Bocas del Toro. Synchronous with this change, both Panama and inboard South America experienced a broad episode of exhumation indicated by (U-Th)/He and fi ssion-track thermochronology coupled with changing geographic patterns of sedimentary deposition in the Colombian Eastern Cordillera and Llanos Basin. Such observations allow for construction of a new tectonic model of the South America-Panama collision, northern Andes uplift and Panama orocline formation. Finally, synchroneity of Panama arc chemical changes and linked uplift indicates that onset of collision and Isthmus formation began earlier than commonly assumed.

Volcanic rocks along the Panama Canal present a world-class opportunity to examine the relationship between arc magmatism, tectonic forcing, wet and dry magmas, and volcanic structures. Major and trace element geochemistry of Canal volcanic rocks indicate a significant petrologic transition at 21–25 Ma. Oligocene Bas Obispo Fm. rocks have large negative Nb-Ta anomalies, low HREE, fluid mobile element enrichments, a THI of 0.88, and a H2Ocalc of >3 wt. %. In contrast, the Miocene Pedro Miguel and Late Basalt Fm. exhibit reduced Nb-Ta anomalies, flattened REE curves, depleted fluid mobile elements, a THI of 1.45, a H2Ocalc of <1 wt. %, and plot in mid-ocean ridge/back-arc basin fields. Geochemical modeling of Miocene rocks indicates 0.5–0.1 kbar crystallization depths of hot (1100–1190°C) magmas in which most compositional diversity can be explained by fractional crystallization (F = 0.5). However, the most silicic lavas (Las Cascadas Fm.) require an additional mechanism, and assimilation-fractional-crystallization can reproduce observed compositions at reasonable melt fractions. The Canal volcanic rocks, therefore, change from hydrous basaltic pyroclastic deposits typical of mantle-wedge-derived magmas, to hot, dry bi-modal magmatism at the Oligocene-Miocene boundary. We suggest the primary reason for the change is onset of arc perpendicular extension localized to central Panama. High-resolution mapping along the Panama Canal has revealed a sequence of inward dipping maar-diatreme pyroclastic pipes, large basaltic sills, and bedded silicic ignimbrites and tuff deposits. These volcanic bodies intrude into the sedimentary Canal Basin and are cut by normal and subsequently strike-slip faults. Such pyroclastic pipes and basaltic sills are most common in extensional arc and large igneous province environments. Overall, the change in volcanic edifice form and geochemistry are related to onset of arc perpendicular extension, and are consistent with the idea that Panama arc crust fractured during collision with South America forming the observed Canal extensional zone.

The Kodiak batholith is one of the largest, most elongate intrusive bodies in the forearc Sanak-Baranof plutonic belt located in southern Alaska. This belt is interpreted to have formed during the subduction of an oceanic spreading center and the associated migration of a slab window. Individual plutons of the Kodiak batholith track the location and evolution of the underlying slab window. Six U/Pb zircon ages from the axis of the batholith exhibit a northeastward-decreasing age progression of 59.2 ± 0.2 Ma at the southwest end to 58.4 ± 0.2 Ma at the northeast tip. The trench-parallel rate of age progression is within error of the average slab-window migration rate for the entire Sanak-Baranof belt (~19 cm/yr).Structural relationships, U/Pb ages, and a model of new gravity data indicate that magma from the Kodiak batholith ascended 5-10 km as a northeastward-younging series of 1-8-km-diameter viscoelastic diapirs. Individual plutons ascended by multiple emplacement mechanisms including downward fl ow, collapse of wall rock, stoping, and diking. Stokes fl ow xenolith calculations suggest ascent rates of 5-100 m/yr and an effective magmatic viscosity of ≈10 7 -10 8 Pa s. Pre-existing structural or lithologic heterogeneities did not dominantly control the location of the main batholith. Instead, its location was determined by migration of the slab window at depth.