4.0 Review

Early Palaeozoic orogenic events north of the Rheic suture (Brabant, Ardenne): A review

期刊

COMPTES RENDUS GEOSCIENCE
卷 341, 期 2-3, 页码 156-173

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.crte.2008.11.012

关键词

Early Palaeozoic; Rheic ocean; Rhenohercynian ocean; Brabantian; Ardennian; Eovariscan; Unconformity

资金

  1. Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek - Vlaanderen (FWO - Vlaanderen)
  2. [6.0271.05]
  3. [KAN1.5.128.05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Lower Palaeozoic rocks exposed in the Brabant-Ardenne region (Belgium, France) recorded the Early Palaeozoic history on the southern margin of the perigondwanan microcontinent of Avalonia, north of the Rheic suture. These rocks crop out in the Brabant basement and in the Ardenne basement inliers within the Variscan Ardenne allochthon. The two main unconformities are classically associated with distinct orogenic episodes, the Late Ordovician Ardennian event and the Early Devonian Brabantian event. A review of the current state-of-knowledge with respect to the reconstruction of Early Palaeozoic geodynamics in the Brabant-Ardenne region is presented. It is demonstrated that an unconformity, does not necessarily represent an orogenic event, and that the hiatus related to an unconformity does not necessarily coincide with tectonic activity, especially when tectonism is diachronous in nature. The former applies to the Ardennian unconformity, while the latter applies to the Brabantian unconformity. Finally, the well-constrained Brabantian orogeny, as well as the Ardenne-Eifel basin development, is tentatively framed within the Early Palaeozoic geodynamic context of the northern margin of the Rheic realm. By doing so, it is shown that the Brabant-Ardenne region links, both in space and time, the Rheic and Rhenohercynian ocean. To cite this article: M. Sintubin et al., C. R. Geoscience 341 (2009). (C) 2008 Academic des sciences. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. 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

4.0
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