Palaeomagnetic configuration of continents during the Proterozoic

Pesonen, L. J.; Elming, Sten-åke; Mertanen, S.; Pisarevsky, Sergei; D’Agrella-Filho, Manoel S.; Meert, Joseph G.; Schmidt, P. W.; Abrahamsen, Niels; Bylund, Göran

doi:10.1016/s0040-1951(03)00343-3

Cited by 342 publications

(171 citation statements)

References 169 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

144

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4, the Karelia position was constrained by the 1984 Ma Pudozhgora Intrusion pole (Lubnina et al 2016), and Kola Craton is tentatively positioned close to Karelia. According to Daly et al (2006), after the formation of the Archean Kernoland supercontinent (Pesonen et al 2003), a Wilson cycle was developed between Kola and Karelia after the break-up of this supercontinent at ca. 2500 Ma.…”

Section: The Proto-amazonian Craton Before Columbiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, different paleogeographic scenarios of Columbia were proposed, mainly due to scarcity of high-quality paleomagnetic poles (e.g. Meert 2002, Zhao et al 2002, 2003, 2004, Pesonen et al 2003, Hou et al 2008a, 2008b, Johansson 2009, Rogers & Santosh 2009, Wingate et al 2009, Yakubchuk 2010, Evans & Mitchell 2011, Zhang et al 2012, Pisarevsky et al 2014among others).…”

Section: Columbia Supercontinentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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%

“…Rogers 1996, Rogers & Santosh 2002, Zhao et al 2002, 2003, 2004, Meert 2002, Pesonen et al 2003, Hou et al 2008a, 2008b, Johansson 2009, 2014, Yakubchuck 2010, Piper 2010, Evans & Mitchell 2011, Zhang et al 2012. This supercontinent has received different names: NENA (Gower et al 1990), NUNA (Hoffman 1997), Columbia (Rogers & Santosh 2002), or Paleopangea (Piper 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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: The Proto-amazonian Craton Before Columbiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Columbia Supercontinentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ages, structures, and compositions of rock units and orogenic events within Amazonia are still imperfectly known, in spite of significant recent advances [6] [7]- [15]. Amazonia is a key piece of the puzzle for many supercontinent reconstructions [16]- [25]. The tentative reconstruction of these paleocontinents takes into account paleomagnetic data, orogenic belts match, geologic provinces match, fossil assemblages and glaciogenic sequences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Overview of the Amazonian Craton Evolution: Insights for Paleocontinental Reconstruction

Geraldes

Tavares²,

Santos³

2015

IJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Amazonian craton major accretionary and collisional processes may be correlated to supercontinent assemblies developed at several times in the Earth history. Based on geologic, structural and paleomagnetic evidence paleocontinent reconstructions have been proposed for Archean to younger times. The oldest continent (Ur) was formed probably by five Achaean cratonic areas (Kaapvaal, Western Dhawar, Bhandara, Singhhum and Pilbara cratons). Geologic evidences suggest the participation of the Archaean rocks of the Carajás region in the Ur landmass. Supercontinental 2.45 Ga Kenorland amalgamation is indicated by paleomagnetic data including Laurentia, Baltica, Australia, and Kalahari and Kaapvaal cratons. There is no evidence indicating that Amazonian craton was part of the Kenorland supercontinent.

show abstract

Sensitivity experiments on True Polar Wander

Greff-Lefftz

Besse

2014

Geochem Geophys Geosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using sensitivity experiments based on the position of subductions and of superplumes, we derive models for the temporal evolution of 3-D mass anomalies in the mantle and compute the associated inertia perturbations and polar wander. We show that although the large length-scale mantle dynamics during the Earth's history may have been dominated by coupled supercontinent-superplume cycles, subductions alone are sufficient to trigger major True Polar Wander (TPW) episodes, or rotation of the whole lithosphere and mantle with respect to the Earth's rotation axis. We present two examples. We speculate that the distribution of continents with respect to the equator on the Earth's surface is driven by episodic subductions during the Wilson cycle: alternating fast subduction girdles around continents and upwellings during the divergence phases, with both reduced or stopped subductions activity around continents and moderate inter-continental subductions during the convergence phases, lead to successive equatorial or polar distributions of continents, both configurations being separated by strong episodes of TPW. Finally, using plate reconstructions and geologic maps, over the period 1100-720 Ma, the period of amalgamation and destruction of the Rodinia supercontinent, we explain with our model the observed large eastward/ westward and poleward/equatorward motions of the rotation axis.

show abstract

Palaeomagnetic configuration of continents during the Proterozoic

Cited by 342 publications

References 169 publications

Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents

Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents

An Overview of the Amazonian Craton Evolution: Insights for Paleocontinental Reconstruction

Sensitivity experiments on True Polar Wander

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About