It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The type of lithosphere subducted between India and Tibet since the Paleocene remains controversial; it has been suggested to be either entirely continental, oceanic, or a mixture of the two. As the subduction history of this lost lithosphere strongly shaped Tibetan intraplate tectonism, we attempt to further constrain its nature and density structure with numerical models that aim to reproduce the observed history of magmatism and crustal thickening in addition to present-day plateau properties between 83°E and 88°E. By matching time-evolving geological patterns, here we show that Tibetan tectonism away from the Himalayan syntaxis is consistent with the initial indentation of a craton-like terrane at 55 ± 5 Ma, followed by a buoyant tectonic plate with a thin crust, e.g., a broad continental margin (Himalandia). This new geodynamic scenario can explain the seemingly contradictory observations that had led to competing hypotheses like the subduction of Greater India versus largely oceanic subduction prior to Indian indentation.
By evaluating model predictions with multiple geological data, the study shows that Tibetan tectonism is most consistent with the initial indentation of a cratonic terrane, followed by subduction of a buoyant tectonic plate resembling a continental margin.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details



1 Chinese Academy of Science, State Key Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry and CAS center of Excellence in Deep Earth Science, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Guangzhou, China (GRID:grid.9227.e) (ISNI:0000000119573309); University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Geology, Urbana, USA (GRID:grid.35403.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9991); Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, China (GRID:grid.511004.1)
2 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Geology, Urbana, USA (GRID:grid.35403.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9991)
3 Southern University of Science and Technology, Department of Marine Science and Engineering, Shenzhen, China (GRID:grid.263817.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 1773 1790)
4 Chinese Academy of Science, State Key Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry and CAS center of Excellence in Deep Earth Science, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Guangzhou, China (GRID:grid.9227.e) (ISNI:0000000119573309); Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, China (GRID:grid.511004.1)
5 Chinese Academy of Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Lithospheric Evolution, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Beijing, China (GRID:grid.9227.e) (ISNI:0000000119573309)