4.5 Article

Geologic evolution of the Sor Rondane Mountains, East Antarctica: Collision tectonics proposed based on metamorphic processes and magnetic anomalies

期刊

PRECAMBRIAN RESEARCH
卷 234, 期 -, 页码 8-29

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.precamres.2013.05.017

关键词

Neoproterozoic; Collision metamorphism; Sor Rondane Mountains; East Antarctica

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan [21253008, 22244063]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23540559, 25287132, 23540534, 25400521, 21253008, 22244063, 25400518, 25400483, 25302008, 23340155] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Sor Rondane Mountains of eastern Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica can be subdivided into two different crustal terranes: the NE-terrane and the SW-terrane. The former is underlain by basement rocks of amphibolite-facies (unit A) and granulite-facies (unit B), and the latter by granulite-facies (unit C) to greenschist-facies (units D and D') rocks. The metamorphic evolution of the NE-terrane exhibits a clockwise pressure-temperature-time (P-T-t) path and the SW-terrane exhibits a counter-clockwise P-T-t path, and detrital zircon U-Pb ages are also different between the two terranes. The differences in the metamorphic evolution processes and detrital zircon provenance in these two regions can be explained by the collision of the NE-terrane and the SW-terrane which is constrained to have occurred at 600-650 Ma. The collision is interpreted to reflect convergence between the East Maud-East African orogen terrane and the Maud-Nampula terrane of the Kalahari Craton, which are bounded by the Main Tectonic Boundary and passes through the Sor Rondane Mountains. The RTP magnetic anomalies suggest this suture is cut by the subsequent collision boundary between the Kalahari Craton and the Rayner Belt, which is exposed in the Lutzow-Holm region. This collisional belt is considered to have formed at approximately 520-580 Ma. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据