Tectonics and surface effects of the supercontinent Columbia

Rogers, John J. W.; Santosh, M.

doi:10.1016/j.gr.2008.06.008

Cited by 413 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1270 Ma. In contrast, Zhao et al (2004) and Rogers & Santosh (2009) postulated that Columbia's break-up occurred almost synchronously at ca. 1500 Ma.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…According to Rogers & Santosh (2009), the Columbia supercontinent mostly assembled at about 1900-1850 Ma, as suggested by geologic correlations, age constraints, and other lines of evidence, like significant atmospheric changes (Bleeker 2003). However, different paleogeographic scenarios of Columbia were proposed, mainly due to scarcity of high-quality paleomagnetic poles (e.g.…”

Section: Columbia Supercontinentmentioning

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%

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

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

“…1270 Ma. In contrast, Zhao et al (2004) and Rogers & Santosh (2009) postulated that Columbia's break-up occurred almost synchronously at ca. 1500 Ma.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Columbia Supercontinentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Columbia Supercontinentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Paleoproterozoic age (ca. 1.8-2.0 Ga) zircons could be related to the Luliang orogeny (Sun and Liu, 1985;Lan et al, 1995) which was probably associated with the amalgamation of the major crustal blocks in the North China Craton as well as with the Paleoproterozoic Columbia supercontinent (e.g., Zhao et al, 2002Zhao et al, , 2005Zhao et al, , 2009Rogers and Santosh, 2009; 2007a,b; Santosh et al, 2010;Santosh, 2010). The basement rocks of the Yangtze Block, however, also include Archean and Paleoproterozoic rocks, with average ages of 2.7-2.8 Ga and 2.2-2.5 Ga (Chen and Jahn, 1998).…”

Section: Upper Triassic-middle Jurassicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sedimentary provenance of the Hengyang and Mayang basins, SE China, and implications for the Mesozoic topographic change in South China Craton: Evidence from detrital zircon geochronology

Yan¹,

Xiaoqiong²,

Ge³

et al. 2011

Journal of Asian Earth Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…2.5 Ga and 1.8 Ga rocks (e.g., Zhao et al, 2005;Zhao and Zhai, 2013;Zheng et al, 2013;Zhao, 2014). Its evolutionary history is critical for the understanding of the assembly and break-up of Columbia because very different models have been proposed for its location in the supercontinent (e.g., Zhao et al, 2002Zhao et al, , 2004Kusky et al, 2007;Hou et al, 2008;Kusky and Santosh, 2009;Rogers and Santosh, 2009;Meert, 2012;Roberts, 2013;Teixeira et al, 2013;Nance et al, 2014;Wang et al, 2015). However, its western boundary remains strongly disputed (e.g., Dong et al, 2007;Dan et al, 2012;Gong et al, 2012;Dan et al, 2014a), hampering a better understanding of its position in the supercontinent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%