Uplift and subsidence from oblique slip: the Ganos–Marmara bend of the North Anatolian Transform, western Turkey

Seeber, Leonardo; Emre, Ömer; Cormier, Marie-Hélène; Sorlien, Christopher C.; McHugh, C. M.; Polonia, Alina; Özer, Naşi̇de; Çağatay, N.

doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2004.07.015

Cited by 70 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But transforms tend to be steep, and the steeper the fault, the faster the subsidence required to accommodate bendrelated extension. Estimated maximum subsidence rates in the basins near the causative fault bends are indeed astonishing: 2.8 millimeters per year in Tekirdag basin [Seeber et al, 2004], 8 millimeters per year in Cinarcik basin [Seeber et al, 2006], and 10 millimeters per year in Karamursel basin . Subsidence in California's Ridge basin was calculated from the average growth rate of the shingled structure to be up to 4 millimeters per year; and near the Duzce bend on the northern branch of the NAF, subsidence reached 3 meters during the second M > 7 earthquake in 1999 [Emre et al, 2003].…”

Section: Similar Structural Features?mentioning

confidence: 94%

Continental Transform Basins: Why Are They Asymmetric?

Seeber¹,

Sorlien²,

Steckler³

et al. 2010

EoS Transactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Continental transforms constitute only a few of the world's plate boundaries and do not produce the largest earthquakes. Yet they are the tectonic underpinning of some of the most attractive and densely populated coastal environments. As a result, they have disproportionally contributed to catastrophic earthquakes. The most recent example is the M = 7.0 earthquake that struck Haiti on 12 January 2010, killing at least 100,000 people, by some reports. Because of concern for their earthquakes, continental transforms–particularly California's San Andreas Fault and Turkey's North Anatolian fault–have been intensely studied. Nonetheless, the link between the largest and most dangerous earthquakes and fault segments along transforms remains elusive. A better understanding of the structural singularities bounding these segments, particularly the subsurface nature of basins along transform faults, may clarify why some of them stop earthquake ruptures while others do not.

show abstract

Section: Similar Structural Features?mentioning

confidence: 94%

Continental Transform Basins: Why Are They Asymmetric?

Seeber¹,

Sorlien²,

Steckler³

et al. 2010

EoS Transactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thermal models of the Marmara Sea basins focused on whether the growth was steady, or whether the basins grew initially and passively rode along the transform later. Structural evidence suggests asymmetric fault-bend basins subsiding steadily into the present (Seeber et al, 2004). Unconformities were identified, tentatively dated, and correlated in all the Marmara Sea basins from seismic profiles (Sorlien et al, 2012).…”

Section: Scientific Presentationsmentioning

confidence: 81%

Continental Transform Boundaries: Tectonic Evolution and Geohazards

McHugh

Seeber

Çağatay

et al. 2012

Scientific Drilling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Continental transform boundaries cross heavily populated regions, and they are associated with destructive earthquakes,for example, the North Anatolian Fault (NAF)across Turkey, the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden fault in Haiti,the San Andreas Fault in California, and the El Pilar fault in Venezuela. Transform basins are important because they are typically associated with 3-D fault geometries controlling segmentation—thus, the size and timing of damaging earthquakes—and because sediments record both deformation and earthquakes. Even though transform basins have been extensively studied, their evolution remains controversial because we don’t understand the specifics about coupling of vertical and horizontal motions and about the basins’long-term kinematics. Seismic and tsunami hazard assessments require knowing architecture and kinematics of faultsas well as how the faults are segmented

show abstract

“…The latter dies out by right-lateral offset, after the NAF fully propagates (vertically and horizontally) and becomes a passive marker (Fig.10, left). Although, considerably reduced, the remaining uplift occurs not only on Mount Ganos side as implied in [Seeber et al, 2004] but on both sides of the restraining bend.…”

Section: Reconstruction Of Initial Fold Geometry In the Dardanellesmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…1a and b). Changes in strike and segmentation of the North Anatolian Fault within the Marmara pull-apart region cause development of restraining and releasing bends, as well as slip partitioning, so that deformation is distributed in faults and at bends combining strike-slip with normal -or with reverse slip -depending on the nature of the bend Seeber et al, 2004]. Both, kinematic reconstruction of large-scale, long-term geological offsets (of up to ~85 km, over the past ~5 Myrs; Armijo et al, 1999;2002) and present-day motion determined with GPS data suggest that slip partitioning across the Marmara pull-apart has concentrated on the NNAF about 70-90% of the total motion [Flérit et al, 2003].…”

Section: Geological Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crustal Strain in the Marmara Pull‐Apart Region Associated With the Propagation Process of the North Anatolian Fault

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key Points:• Structural map and geological cross-section of the Ganos-Gelibolu fold system in the Dardanelles region.• Timing, amount of shortening associated to the propagation of the North Anatolian Fault deduced from mapping and critical revision of the stratigraphy.• Reconstruction of the westward propagation of the NAF in the Dardanelles region. AbstractPropagation processes of plate-scale faults through continental lithosphere are poorly documented. The North Anatolian fault (NAF) is a continental right-lateral transform with striking evidence for propagation processes in the Marmara Sea pull-apart region. Earlier work [Armijo et al., 1999] suggests that in the Dardanelles, where the principal, northern branch of that fault (NNAF) enters into the Aegean: (1) a fold-thrust system has progressively developed above the NNAF fault tip, at the WSW corner of the Marmara Sea pull-apart. The main anticline formed there was sheared and its SW half laterally offset by ~70 km to the SW; (2) the timing of structure development appears correlated with sea-level changes associated with the Messinian Salinity Crisis (MSC). Our new description of the Dardanelles (or Ganos-Gelibolu) fold-thrust system is based on structural mapping, field observations and calcareous nannoplankton analyses to date key sedimentary units. Our results provide tight constraints on the main pulse of folding associated with propagation of the tip of the NNAF: it took place in the late Miocene to earliest Pliocene (5.60 to 5.04 Ma), before deposition of undeformed Pliocene marine sediments. The folding is mostly coeval with the MSC and accommodated several kilometers of shortening at the fault tip. After full propagation of the NNAF up to the surface, the folded structure was sheared and right-laterally offset, with an average 14 mm/yr of slip-rate during the past ~5 Myrs. A reconstruction of tectonic evolution suggests a flower structure nucleating and taking root at the tip of the fault.

show abstract

Uplift and subsidence from oblique slip: the Ganos–Marmara bend of the North Anatolian Transform, western Turkey

Cited by 70 publications

References 43 publications

Continental Transform Basins: Why Are They Asymmetric?

Continental Transform Basins: Why Are They Asymmetric?

Continental Transform Boundaries: Tectonic Evolution and Geohazards

Crustal Strain in the Marmara Pull‐Apart Region Associated With the Propagation Process of the North Anatolian Fault

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About