Comparing the drift of Laurentia and Baltica in the Proterozoic: the importance of key palaeomagnetic poles

Buchan, Kenneth L.; Mertanen, S.; Park, R. G.; Pesonen, L. J.; Elming, Sten-åke; Abrahamsen, Niels; Bylund, Göran

doi:10.1016/s0040-1951(00)00032-9

Cited by 270 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 115 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some attempts to correlate Archean units based on geological and paleomagnetic data have been published, such as the formation of Zingarn supercraton made by the link of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia (Africa) and Yilgarn (Australia) blocks (Smirnov et al 2013), or the Vaalbara supercraton formed by Kaapvaal (Africa) and Pilbara (Australia) blocks (de Kock et al 2009). However, the lack of the main paleomagnetic poles for the Archean nuclei make paleogeographic reconstructions for those times very speculative (Buchan et al 2000, Pesonen et al 2003.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decade, the participation of the Amazonian Craton on Precambrian supercontinents has been clarified thanks to a wealth of new paleomagnetic data. Paleo to Mesoproterozoic paleomagnetic data favored that the Amazonian Craton joined the Columbia supercontinent at 1780 Ma ago, in a scenario that resembled the South AMerica and BAltica (SAMBA) configuration. Then, the mismatch of paleomagnetic poles within the Craton implied that either dextral transcurrent movements occurred between Guiana and Brazil-Central Shield after 1400 Ma or internal rotation movements of the Amazonia-West African block took place between 1780 and 1400 Ma. The presently available late-Mesoproterozoic paleomagnetic data are compatible with two different scenarios for the Amazonian Craton in the Rodinia supercontinent. The first one involves an oblique collision of the Amazonian Craton with Laurentia at 1200 Ma ago, starting at the present-day Texas location, followed by transcurrent movements, until the final collision of the Amazonian Craton with Baltica at ca. 1000 Ma. The second one requires drifting of the Amazonian Craton and Baltica away from the other components of Columbia after 1260 Ma, followed by clockwise rotation and collision of these blocks with Laurentia along Grenvillian Belt at 1000 Ma. Finally, although the time Amazonian Craton collided with the Central African block is yet very disputed, the few late Neoproterozoic/Cambrian paleomagnetic poles available for the Amazonian Craton, Laurentia and other West Gondwana blocks suggest that the Clymene Ocean separating these blocks has only closed at late Ediacaran to Cambrian times, after the Amazonian Craton rifted apart from Laurentia at ca. 570 Ma.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, timing of large igneous provinces and associated episodes of continental breakup and supracrustal deposits can be used for such analyses, whereby the most detailed record known is that of the Laurentian cratonic fragments [127]. Similar Palaeoproterozoic configurations have also been discussed in the literature, and various models presented [8,110,128,129,130]. Following breakup of a potential Neoarchaean supercraton, oceanic arcs started to converge from c. 2.0 Ga, with eventually accretion of the cratons along sutures that follow the grain of the Palaeoproterozoic orogens ( Figure 22).…”

Section: Linking Palaeoproterozoic Terranes and Events In The North Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent paleomagnetic reconstruction of the Palaeoproterozoic [8,128] suggests the presence of several large colliding plates, including the North Atlantic and west Greenland plates, the Central Greenland Craton and the Fennoscandian (Baltic-Kola) plate, with the Lewisian somewhere in between ( Figure 25). Most workers link the Lewisian to the Palaeoproterozoic Nagssugtoqidian belt in Greenland [5,129,131], and consider that this belt may have counterparts both in North America and/or the Fennoscandian Shield [3, 4,110].…”

Section: Linking Palaeoproterozoic Terranes and Events In The North Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Was the Precambrian Basement of Western Troms and Lofoten-Vesterålen in Northern Norway Linked to the Lewisian of Scotland? A Comparison of Crustal Components, Tectonic Evolution and Amalgamation History"

Bergh¹,

Corfú²,

Myhre³

et al. 2012

Tectonics - Recent Advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Three very different late Archaean global plate reconstructions have been proposed based on palaeomagnetic data with acknowledged limitations (Mertanen and Pesonen 2005;Buchan et al 2000;Halls et al 2008;Evans and Pisarevsky 2008). Bleeker (2003) proposed two: one reconstruction includes all the cratons as a single supercraton named Kenorland, while the other proposes three separate supercontinents termed Vaalbara, Superia and Slavia, distinguished by slightly different cratonisation ages of 2.9, 2.7, and 2.6 Ga, respectively.…”

Section: Late Archaean Tectonic Restructuringmentioning

confidence: 99%