|
ИСТИНА |
Войти в систему Регистрация |
ИПМех РАН |
||
Comment on ‘Relict basin closure and crustal shortening budgets during continental collision: An example from Caucasus sediment provenance’ by Cowgill et al. [2016]статья
Статья опубликована в высокорейтинговом журнале
Статья опубликована в журнале из списка Web of Science и/или Scopus- Авторы: Vincent S., Saintot A., Mosar J., Okay A., Nikishin A.M.
- Журнал: Tectonics
- Год издания: 2018
- Издательство: American Geophysical Union
- Местоположение издательства: United States
- DOI: 10.1002/2017TC004515
- Аннотация: Cowgill et al. [2016] presented a provocative model for the tectonic development of the southern flank of the Greater Caucasus that linked the 5 Ma closure of a ‘relic ocean basin’, the Greater Caucasus Basin, to Arabian plate deceleration and the reorganization of the Arabia-Eurasia collision zone. They also used a ~350-400 km width estimate for the former basin to reconcile post-collisional shortening deficits across the Arabia-Eurasia collision zone. While Cowgill and his co-authors provided a succinct summary of the tectonic setting of the Greater Caucasus mountain belt and highlighted many aspects of the Arabia-Eurasia collisional system that remain to be fully constrained, our views diverge considerably from the tectonic model they proposed. Specifically: 1) ‘Relic ocean basin’ closure at 5 Ma is not supported by any sedimentological, provenance or structural data. 2) Instead, multiple data sets, including the development of successor foreland basins, indicate closure of, at least the western segment of, the Greater Caucasus Basin at the Eocene-Oligocene transition. 3) Data excluded from their study, from farther west in Russia, provide key insights into the architecture and development of the basin. The allochthonous nature of some of the sediments here, and farther to the east, do not diminish their value in this regard. 4) They misinterpret the geological context of Oligocene to Upper Miocene provenance samples from the southern flank of the range in west Georgia. These were not deposited in a still-open, narrowing basin (or on its southern flank), but in one of a series of foreland basins that developed from the Oligocene onwards in response to loading of the southern margin of the former basin. 5) Their sparse Jurassic to Eocene provenance data set is insufficient to provide any meaningful insights into the former width of the basin. 6) Implicit reference to oceanic spreading within the Greater Caucasus Basin is not supported by field or geochemical data. These points will be addressed in turn, after some brief geological background to the Greater Caucasus Basin.
- Добавил в систему: Никишин Анатолий Михайлович
Прикрепленные файлы
| № | Имя | Описание | Имя файла | Размер | Добавлен |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Полный текст | статья | Vincent_et_al-2018-Tectonics.pdf | 746,6 КБ | 26 марта 2018 [nikishin] |
| 2. | Полный текст | статья | Vincent_et_al_2018_Tectonics_comment.pdf | 2,5 МБ | 27 марта 2018 [nikishin] |