The effect of slab gaps on subduction dynamics and mantle upwelling

Király, Ágnés; Portner, D. E.; Haynie, Kirstie L.; Chilson-Parks, Benjamin H.; Ghosh, Tithi; Jadamec, M. A.; Makushkina, Anna; Manga, Michael; Moresi, Louis; O'Farrell, K. A.

doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2020.228458

Cited by 31 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Slab windows or gaps are openings in the downgoing plate that allow hot sub-slab asthenosphere to flow through the slab hole impacting beneath the upper-plate margin. This phenomenon influences the arc and backarc magmatism (e.g., bratis, and W rner, G., 2001;Rosenbaun et al, 2008;Thorkelson et al, 2011), the upper-plate thermal structure (Roche et al, 2018;Ávila and Dávila, 2018), the mantle flow in subduction zones, and the overall plate kinematics (Guillaume et al, 2010;Király et al, 2020). Slab gap development can be produced by several processes but mostly results from two general causes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One is the presence of buoyancy anomalies in the downgoing plate such as oceanic plateaus, aseismic ridges, or continental fragments (e.g., Cloos, 1993) that resist subduction and lead to slab ruptures. The latter could be caused by local slab necking forming holes within the downgoing plate (e.g., Király et al, 2020), vertical slab tearing (e.g., Rosenbaun et al, 2008), or by the propagation of horizontal tears (e.g., Wortel and Spakman, 2000). The other cause of slab gap development comprises the divergence or reactivation and separation of a preexisting plate discontinuity such as the separation of an active spreading center during subduction (Uyeda and Miyashiro, 1974;DeLong and Fox, 1979;Marshak and Karig, 1977;Dickinson and Snyder, 1979) or a major fault onboard the oceanic plate such as fracture zones and transform faults (e.g., Pesicek et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The late Paleozoic paired metamorphic belt of southern Central Chile: Consequence of a near-trench thermal anomaly?

Gianni¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hypothesis of a subduction-related Miyashiro-type paired metamorphic belt for the origin of the late Paleozoic igneous and metamorphic complex in the Andean Coastal Cordillera has remained unquestioned since its proposal in the early seventies. A synthesis of the advances in the study of these metamorphic rocks between 33°S and 42°S, revising field relations among geological units, and geochemical and geochronological data from the contemporaneous granitoids of the Coastal Batholith, highlights inconsistencies in this model. The record of short-lived forearc magmatism in the late Paleozoic intruding the partially synchronous accretionary prism, and geochemical and isotopic data from the igneous rocks indicating sources from the accretionary prism sediments and the back-top lithosphere, suggest a departure from typical subduction settings. I conclude that the anomalous configuration of the paired metamorphic belt and the associated Coastal Batholith resulted from a complex geodynamic process involving a near-trench thermal anomaly caused by the subduction of a trench parallel mid-ocean ridge.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The late Paleozoic paired metamorphic belt of southern Central Chile: Consequence of a near-trench thermal anomaly?

Gianni¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…plex rheology involving both viscous and frictional and/or plastic materials, and reactive processes. Numerical studies comparing to analogue experiments include gelatine wedge seismic experiments (van Dinther et al, 2013a), plume dynamics (Davaille, 1999;Davaille et al, 2011), indenter block experiment (Tapponnier et al, 1982;Peltzer and Tapponnier, 1988), and subduction dynamics (Schellart, 2005;Duarte et al, 2013;Király et al, 2020b). Since there are fundamental differences between numerical and laboratory experiments, the model results are often not identical, and instead certain characteristic features of the solutions need to be compared.…”

Section: Code Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

101 geodynamic modelling: how to design, interpret, and communicate numerical studies of the solid Earth

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Geodynamic modelling provides a powerful tool to investigate processes in the Earth's crust, mantle, and core that are not directly observable. However, numerical models are inherently subject to the assumptions and simplifications on which they are based. In order to use and review numerical modelling studies appropriately, one needs to be aware of the limitations of geodynamic modelling as well as its advantages. Here, we present a comprehensive yet concise overview of the geodynamic modelling process applied to the solid Earth from the choice of governing equations to numerical methods, model setup, model interpretation, and the eventual communication of the model results. We highlight best practices and discuss their implementations including code verification, model validation, internal consistency checks, and software and data management. Thus, with this perspective, we encourage high-quality modelling studies, fair external interpretation, and sensible use of published work. We provide ample examples, from lithosphere and mantle dynamics specifically, and point out synergies with related fields such as seismology, tectonophysics, geology, mineral physics, planetary science, and geodesy. We clarify and consolidate terminology across geodynamics and numerical modelling to set a standard for clear communication of modelling studies. All in all, this paper presents the basics of geodynamic modelling for first-time and experienced modellers, collaborators, and reviewers from diverse backgrounds to (re)gain a solid understanding of geodynamic modelling as a whole.

show abstract

“…Other complex processes in which analogue experiments can be insightful include frictional and free surface boundaries, complex rheology involving both viscous and frictional/plastic materials, or reactive processes. Numerical studies comparing to analogue experiments include gelatine wedge seismic experiments (van Dinther et al, 2013a), plume dynamics (Davaille, 1999;Davaille et al, 2011), indenter block experiment (Tapponnier et al, 1982;Peltzer and Tapponnier, 1988), and subduction dynamics (Schellart, 2005;Duarte et al, 2013;Király et al, 2020b). Since there are fundamental differences between numerical and laboratory experiments (e.g., the numerical model is discrete, whereas the laboratory model has 'infinite resolution'), the model results are often not identical, and instead certain characteristic features of the solutions need to be compared.…”

Section: Code Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

101 Geodynamic modelling: How to design, interpret, and communicate numerical studies of the solid Earth

Zelst¹,

Crameri²,

Pusok³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geodynamic modelling provides a powerful tool to investigate processes in the Earth's crust, mantle, and core that are not directly observable. However, numerical models are inherently subject to the assumptions and simplifications on which they are based. In order to use and review numerical modelling studies appropriately, one needs to be aware of the limitations of geodynamic modelling as well as its advantages. Here, we present a comprehensive, yet concise overview of the geodynamic modelling process applied to the solid Earth, from the choice of governing equations to numerical methods, model setup, model interpretation, and the eventual communication of the model results. We highlight best practices and discuss their implementations including code verification, model validation, internal consistency checks, and software and data management. Thus, with this perspective, we encourage high-quality modelling studies, fair external interpretation, and sensible use of published work. We provide ample examples from lithosphere and mantle dynamics and point out synergies with related fields such as seismology, tectonophysics, geology, mineral physics, and geodesy. We clarify and consolidate terminology across geodynamics and numerical modelling to set a standard for clear communication of modelling studies.All in all, this paper presents the basics of geodynamic modelling for first-time and experienced modellers, collaborators, and reviewers from diverse backgrounds to (re)gain a solid understanding of geodynamic modelling as a whole.

show abstract

The effect of slab gaps on subduction dynamics and mantle upwelling

Cited by 31 publications

References 78 publications

The late Paleozoic paired metamorphic belt of southern Central Chile: Consequence of a near-trench thermal anomaly?

The late Paleozoic paired metamorphic belt of southern Central Chile: Consequence of a near-trench thermal anomaly?

101 geodynamic modelling: how to design, interpret, and communicate numerical studies of the solid Earth

101 Geodynamic modelling: How to design, interpret, and communicate numerical studies of the solid Earth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About