2009
DOI: 10.1126/science.1168549
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Matter of Preservation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
182
1
4

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 342 publications
(189 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
2
182
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…In such a scenario it is possibile that Earth might have had episodic mantle convection in its earlier history as previously suggested (Condie, 2001(Condie, , 1998Parman, 2007;Pearson et al, 2007;Frimmel, 2008;Ernst and Buchan, 2002). We also note that the evidence presented for episodicity is controversial; zircon peaks might reflect preservation (Hawkesworth et al, 2009), while it has been argued that the isotopic peaks may not be statistically robust (Rudge, 2008). Phase-change induced mantle avalanches could initiate superplumes/superevents (Condie, 1998).…”
Section: Earth Evolutionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…In such a scenario it is possibile that Earth might have had episodic mantle convection in its earlier history as previously suggested (Condie, 2001(Condie, , 1998Parman, 2007;Pearson et al, 2007;Frimmel, 2008;Ernst and Buchan, 2002). We also note that the evidence presented for episodicity is controversial; zircon peaks might reflect preservation (Hawkesworth et al, 2009), while it has been argued that the isotopic peaks may not be statistically robust (Rudge, 2008). Phase-change induced mantle avalanches could initiate superplumes/superevents (Condie, 1998).…”
Section: Earth Evolutionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Total losses average 4.9 km 3 /a, based on rates of 0.4 km 3 /a of passive margin subduction in continental collision zones, 0.4 km 3 /a of dissolved chemical weathering flux, 1.1 km 3 /a of lower crustal delamination, 1.3 km 3 /a of forearc tectonic erosion and 1.7 km 3 /a of sediment subduction. At these rates the entire continental crust could be recycled into the mantle in 1.8 Ga. Clearly this has not happened because the centers of cratons have been stable and not recycled, while crust in active margins and orogens are susceptible to destruction by tectonic erosion, as well as by erosion by surface processes and subduction as sediment (Hawkesworth et al, 2009). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The modern Earth appears to be somewhat more mountainous and thus erosive compared to the Earth at 65 Ma, prior to the building of the High Andes and Tibet, as well as much of the Alpine-Himalayan belts (Patzkowsky et al, 1991;Dercourt et al, 1993). These cycles of supercontinent accretion and destruction have been recognized in thermochronology, especially zircon dating, as resulting in a rock record of uneven and biased preservation (Hawkesworth et al, 2009). Furthermore, compilations of global sediment budgets indicate that erosion rates since the initiation of Northern Hemispheric Glaciation are much elevated compared to those before ca.…”
Section: Erosional Destruction Of Cratonic Crust During the Cenozoicmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on our analysis of modern tectonic processes, crustal growth is greatest shortly after the supercontinent breaks up and is at a minimum as and after the supercontinent tectonically congeals. Hawkesworth et al (2009) argue that the apparent abundance of igneous rocks during times of inferred supercontinent formation reflects the fact that other tracts of juvenile crust -such as arcs and volcanic rifted margins -are destroyed. We are puzzled by this posit, because the immense size of juvenile arcs -approximately 200-300 km across and up to 30 km thick -are too great to be easily obliterated.…”
Section: Continental Crust Formation and The Supercontinent Cyclementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Crustal growth should dominate early, crustal destruction should dominate late. A significant conundrum to resolve is why the rock record seems to record that crustal growth is at a maximum when supercontinents are thought to have formed, especially for postulated Precambrian supercontinents (Condie 2004;Hawkesworth et al 2009). Based on our analysis of modern tectonic processes, crustal growth is greatest shortly after the supercontinent breaks up and is at a minimum as and after the supercontinent tectonically congeals.…”
Section: Continental Crust Formation and The Supercontinent Cyclementioning
confidence: 99%