Interplay between the thermal evolution of an orogenic wedge and its retro-wedge basin: An example from the Ukrainian Carpathians

Abstract

The Carpathian-Pannonian region is\ud made up of the wide extensional Pannonian\ud Basin surrounded by the Carpathian mountain\ud belt. The Pannonian Basin formed in the\ud Miocene by extension in a retro-wedge position\ud while thrusting was still active at the\ud Carpathian front. The Ukrainian region is\ud an ideal area to reconstruct the relationship\ud between the Pannonian Basin and the Carpathians,\ud due to the relatively simple structural\ud setting and to the progressive but neat\ud transition between the two domains. This\ud study uses low-temperature thermochronometry\ud and vitrinite refl ectance analysis to\ud investigate the effect of the opening of the\ud Pannonian Basin on the thermal and burialexhumation\ud histories of the Ukrainian Carpathians.\ud The results show heating and burial\ud maxima in the central units of the wedge (up\ud to ~170 °C and 6 km, respectively), tapering\ud out toward both the innermost and the outermost\ud thrust sheets. Cooling and exhumation\ud occurred by means of a fi rst rapid stage between\ud ca. 12 and 5 Ma (exhumation rates of\ud up to ~1 mm/yr), followed by a slower stage\ud from ca. 5 Ma to the present (exhumation\ud rates within 0.5 mm/yr). Timing and spatial\ud pattern of exhumation are compatible with\ud post-thrusting erosion enhanced by isostatic\ud uplift. The extent of exhumation progressively\ud decreases toward the Pannonian Basin,\ud characterized by a thinned crust. No further\ud signifi cant infl uence of the Pannonian Basin\ud opening on the thermal and burial history of\ud the Ukrainian Carpathians may be inferred\ud based on our results, whereas the comparison\ud of the tectonothermal evolution of the two domains\ud suggests that they are both controlled\ud by the same lithospheric processes

Basement-involved reactivation in foreland fold-and-thrust belts: the Alpine–Carpathian Junction (Austria)

“…This broad uplift is also supported by thermochronological and field studies in the Western Carpathians (e.g. Danišík et al 2010; Mazzoli et al 2010; Zattin et al 2011; Anczkiewicz, Środoń & Zattin, 2013; Andreucci et al 2013, 2015; Castelluccio et al 2015). The most probable candidates for such deep-seated processes are either oceanic slab roll-back and subsequent break-off, or delamination of the tectonically thickened European lithosphere (see Magni et al 2013).…”

“…These were integrated with existing gravity data (Geofyzika, unpub. report, 1999; Lenhardt et al 2007), recent and historic earthquake distributions (Reinecker & Lenhardt, 1999; Lenhardt et al 2007), lithospheric rheology (Andeweg & Cloetingh, 1998; Lankreijer et al 1999) and thermochronological studies (Mazzoli et al 2010; Andreucci et al 2013, 2015; Castelluccio et al 2015).…”

Building and exhumation of the Western Carpathians: New constraints from sequentially restored, balanced cross sections integrated with low‐temperature thermochronometry

“…Danišík et al [] pointed out that the early Miocene cooling ages detected by the AHe in some totally reset samples collected south of Tatra Mountains could be associated to the cooling after the Oligo‐Miocene sedimentary burial or magmatism or increased heat flow. A more recent study focused on the Ukrainian Carpathians and their relationship with the Pannonian Basin [ Andreucci et al ., ] suggested that magmatism had no significant impact on the thermal field of the inner part of the Ukrainian accretionary wedge and therefore on the thermal history of the analyzed rocks. Similar to the Ukrainian Carpathians, also, the thermal field of the Slovak IC is unlikely to have been perturbated by such magmatic activity.…”

Isolating Lithologic Versus Tectonic Signals of River Profiles to Test Orogenic Models for the Eastern and Southeastern Carpathians

“…The Carpathians are an arcuate mountain range located in the eastern continuation of the Alpine orogenic belt (Figure 1). Previous studies have shown that the overall Carpathian structure formed in response to the Triassic to Tertiary opening and closure of two oceanic realms by subduction and continental collision (details in Csontos & Vörös, 2004;Mațenco, 2017;Săndulescu, 1988;Schmid et al, 2019 Andreucci et al (2015); Mațenco (2017)). Note the different references used for Prut/ Dniestr, Siret and Focani base-levels.…”

“…First, the extent of the tecto-lithologic units is estimated using the compilation of 1:50,000, 1:200,000 and 1:500,000 geological maps (published by the Geological Institute of Romania) and the studies of Mațenco et al (2010) and Mațenco (2017). The Ukrainian section of the map has been completed and extrapolated using the extent of tectonic units in Andreucci et al (2015), with some spatial approximations and unit grouping to match nomenclature in the different datasets. We also acknowledge that local lithostratigraphic variation can occur within each tectonic unit, however we prioritize N-S continuity in our unit definition in order to track changes along the mountain range over adding localized sub-units.…”