Architecture and orogenic evolution of the northeastern Outer Carpathians from cross-section balancing and forward modeling

Structure and tectonic evolution of the NE segment of the Polish-Ukrainian Carpathians during the Late Cenozoic: subsurface cross-sections and palinspastic models

“…The influence of the advanced subduction of the basement in that part of the Outer Carpathians is manifested by the occurrence of Neogene volcanics in the hinterland, accompanied by a detached and sunken lithospheric slab (Konečný et al 2002). The differentiation of the evolution from NW to SE of the central-outer belt of the Outer Carpathians during the Late Tertiary (34-12 Ma) is reflected by the large variation of measured parameters (Table 1) The parameters above are different from the ones determined by balancing of one traverse with a different subsurface interpretation and conceptual kinematic model (Behrmann et al 2000;Gągała et al 2012). The recon structed width of the sedimentation zone and the magnitude of the basement displacements in the plane of that traverse (Table 1, traverse V) are relatively smaller than the values given by Roure et al (1993) based on a hypothesis of a maximum dimension of the subthrust basement (Roure et al 1994, fig.…”

“…This problem has often been neglected, and this has had an impact on the reliability of the presented models (e.g., Nemčok et al 2006). Cross-sections balanced without balancing of the highly variable thicknesses of synorogenic sediments revealing a diachronous pattern of lithofacies boundaries should not be a basis for drawing the tectogenetic conclusions, in particular based on a kinematic model of only single traverse (e.g., Gągała et al 2012).…”

“…Discriminating between ductile deformations and brittle deformations, exposed by Gągała et al (2012), is of significance when analysing the disharmonious setting of local structures. In the regional context, however, the tectonic style disharmony is more dependent on location of sediments subjected to deformation, and on pinching out of thick series of synorogenic deposits in zones of basement depression, in sections of which compressional structures are often associated by gravitational deformations with disharmonious tectonics (Kuśmierek 1979), improperly located in the recent geological map of the Outer Carpathians (Jankowski et al 2004).…”

“…In the extensive Carpathian bibliography, and against the background of thorough studies revealing the regularities of the geological structure and evolution of the Outer Carpathians (e.g., Gluško 1968;Świdziński 1971;Książkiewicz 1972;Vjalov et al 1981;Kotlarczyk 1988;Picha 2011), there are remarkably different reconstructions of the pre-orogenic geometry of the sedimentary subbasins (e.g., Unrug 1979;Oszczypko & Tomaś 1985;Kuśmierek 1988;Roure et al 1993;Golonka et al 2006;Nemčok et al 2006;Gągała et al 2012). They reflect different interpretations of the subsurface structure of the Outer Carpathians and conceptual models for the formation of the nappes, in particular their thrusting directions and the reference lines of palinspastic projections, which according to the classic assumptions (Kay 1945) have implied insurmountable difficulties (Khain et al 1977;Kruglov et al 1985).…”

The Stebnyk Formation (Miocene) in the Boryslav-Pokuttya and Sambir nappes of the Ukrainian Carpathians: a record of environmental change in the Carpathian Foredeep

“…In the Ukrai nian Carpathians, the for ma tion oc curs in a nar row belt. Gągała et al (2012) es ti mated the width of the "Stebnyk Ba sin" at about 70 km at the me rid ian of Przemyśl. Very likely, this width reached up to 100 km some tens of kilo metres to the east, but it is un clear whether the Stebnyk For ma tion oc cu pied the whole width of the ba sin rep re sented by the Boryslav-Pokuttya and the Sambir nappes.…”