Active foundering of a continental arc root beneath the southern Sierra Nevada in California

Zandt, G.; Gilbert, H. J.; Owens, Thomas; Ducea, Mihai N.; Saleeby, Jason B.; Jones, Craig H.

doi:10.1038/nature02847

Cited by 390 publications

(337 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

317

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other sites of proposed lower crustal delamination events include the Sierra Nevada in the western USA Jones et al, 2004;Zandt et al, 2004), the Alboran Sea of the western Mediterranean (Lonergan and White, 1997;Platt et al, 2003;BoothRea et al, 2007) and the Altiplano and Puna Plateaus of the Andes (Kay et al, 1994;McQuarrie et al, 2005). In the latter case extreme crustal thickening over the dipping slab resulted in instabilities in the eclogitic lower crust that led to Pliocene continental lithospheric delamination ( Fig.…”

Section: Lower Crustal Delaminationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Crustal redistribution, crust–mantle recycling and Phanerozoic evolution of the continental crust

Clift

Vannucchi

Morgan

2009

Earth-Science Reviews

199

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Lower Crustal Delaminationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Crustal redistribution, crust–mantle recycling and Phanerozoic evolution of the continental crust

Clift

Vannucchi

Morgan

2009

Earth-Science Reviews

199

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…upper mantle, or the introduction of volatiles to the upper mantle [e.g., Bird, 1979;McQuarrie and Chase, 2000;Humphreys et al, 2003]; (2) mid-Tertiary uplift related to the demise of a Laramide flat slab, where buoyancy is added to the upper mantle by mechanical thinning or chemical modification of the lithosphere [Spencer, 1996;Roy et al, 2005]; and (3) late Tertiary "epeirogenic" uplift associated with regional extensional tectonism, either by convective removal of lithosphere or heating from below [e.g., Bird, 1979;Thompson and Zoback, 1979;Humphreys, 1995;Parsons and McCarthy, 1995;Jones et al, 2004;Zandt et al, 2004]. Quantitative constraints on the timing of uplift therefore have the potential to falsify one or more of these hypotheses.…”

Section: Mechanisms Driving Plateau Uplift and Existing Paleoelevatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of climate change and uplift on Colorado Plateau paleotemperatures from carbonate clumped isotope thermometry

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The elevation history of Earth's surface is key to understanding the geodynamic processes responsible for the rise of plateaus. We investigate the timing of Colorado Plateau uplift by estimating depositional temperatures of Tertiary lake sediments that blanket the plateau interior and adjacent lowlands using carbonate clumped isotope paleothermometry (a measure of the temperature‐dependent enrichment of 13C‐18O bonds in carbonates). Comparison of modern and ancient samples deposited near sea level provides an opportunity to quantify the influence of climate and therefore assess the contribution of changes in elevation to the variations of surface temperature on the plateau. Analysis of modern lake calcite from 350 to 3300 m elevation in the southwestern United States reveals a lake water carbonate temperature (LCT) lapse rate of 4.2 ± 0.6°C/km. Analysis of Miocene deposits from 88 to 1900 m elevation in the Colorado River drainage suggests that the ancient LCT lapse rate was 4.1 ± 0.7°C/km, and temperatures were 7.7 ± 2.0°C warmer at any one elevation than predicted by the modern trend. The inferred cooling is plausible in light of Pliocene temperature estimates off the coast of California, and the consistency of lapse rates through time supports the interpretation that there has been little or no elevation change for any of the samples since 6 Ma. Together with previous paleorelief estimates from apatite (U‐Th)/He data from the Grand Canyon, our results suggest most or all of the plateau's lithospheric buoyancy was acquired ∼80–60 Ma and do not support explanations that ascribe most plateau uplift to Oligocene or younger disposal of either the Farallon or North American mantle lithosphere.

show abstract

“…A good example of dripping lower crust was presented by Zandt et al (2004), who used geophysical techniques to infer the removal of a dense root beneath the southern Sierra Nevada batholith of California. Petrologic evidence for foundering in this region was presented by Saleeby et al (2003), who noted a pronounced change in xenolith suites sampled by Pliocene-Quaternary lavas in the southern Sierra Nevada, from early eclogitic (lower crust and lithospheric mantle) to a younger suite of garnet-absent, spinel, and plagioclase peridotites, which they interpreted as asthenospheric samples.…”

Section: Lower Crust Founderingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Yin and yang of continental crust creation and destruction by plate tectonic processes

Stern

Scholl

2010

International Geology Review

202

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Earth's continental crust today is both created and destroyed by plate tectonic processes, a balance that is encapsulated by the traditional Chinese concept of yin-yang, whereby dualities act in concert as well as in opposition. Yin-yang conceptualizations of crustal growth and destruction are mostly related to plate tectonics; both occur mostly at subduction zones, by arc magmatic creation and by subduction removal. Crust is also created and destroyed by processes unrelated to plate tectonics, including losses by lower crust foundering and additions at hotspots. At present, creation and destruction of continental crust is either in balance (∼3.2 km 3 /year, or 3.2 AU) or more crust is being destroyed than created; the uncertainty comes from unknown deep losses of continental crust at collision zones and due to lower crustal foundering. The yinyang creation-destruction balance changes over a supercontinent cycle, with crustal growth being greatest during supercontinent break-up due to high magmatic flux at new arcs and crustal destruction being greatest during supercontinent amalgamation due to subduction of continental material and increased sediment flux due to orogenic uplift. These conclusions challenge the widely held view that continental crust volume has increased over time due to plate tectonic activity; it is just as likely that this volume has decreased.

show abstract

Active foundering of a continental arc root beneath the southern Sierra Nevada in California

Cited by 390 publications

References 44 publications

Crustal redistribution, crust–mantle recycling and Phanerozoic evolution of the continental crust

Crustal redistribution, crust–mantle recycling and Phanerozoic evolution of the continental crust

Influence of climate change and uplift on Colorado Plateau paleotemperatures from carbonate clumped isotope thermometry

Yin and yang of continental crust creation and destruction by plate tectonic processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About