Baltica, Amazonia and the SAMBA connection—1000 million years of neighbourhood during the Proterozoic?

Johansson, Åke

doi:10.1016/j.precamres.2009.09.011

Cited by 236 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Well-dated paleomagnetic poles for the different fragments that later were assembled in these cratons are scarce, thus we can only speculate about the possible presence of Archean supercratons, as are the cases of Zingarn (Zimbabwe/Rhodesia/Yilgarn) and Vaalbara (Kaapvaal/ Pilbara) supercratons proposed by Smirnov et al (2013) and de Kock et al (2009), respectively. In Amazonia, some authors advocate a relation between the Guiana Shield and the West Africa Craton forming a single, large cratonic block (supercraton) at about 2000 Ma ago (Onstott & Hargraves 1981, Nomade et al 2003, Johansson 2009, Evans & Mitchell 2011.…”

Section: The Proto-amazonian Craton Before Columbiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since other Archean blocks collided with Central Amazonia along the MIMB during and after its assembly, it is very likely that the craton at such time was a larger landmass. Based mainly on geological/geochronological evidence, Johansson (2009) Ma partially based on paleomagnetic data. Proto-Amazonia (pAM) was constrained using the OYA pole (Tab.…”

Section: The Proto-amazonian Craton Before Columbiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, different paleogeographic scenarios of Columbia were proposed, mainly due to scarcity of high-quality paleomagnetic poles (e.g. Meert 2002, Zhao et al 2002, 2003, 2004, Pesonen et al 2003, Hou et al 2008a, 2008b, Johansson 2009, Rogers & Santosh 2009, Wingate et al 2009, Yakubchuk 2010, Evans & Mitchell 2011, Zhang et al 2012, Pisarevsky et al 2014among others).…”

Section: Columbia Supercontinentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5b). West Africa Craton can be included in the model assuming it was linked to the proto-Amazonian Craton (Onstott & Hargraves 1981, Nomade et al 2003, Johansson 2009, Evans & Mitchell 2011, BispoSantos et al 2014a. However, some adjustments should be done to accommodate geological information taking into account the uncertainties of the available paleomagnetic poles.…”

Section: Columbia Supercontinentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rogers 1996, Rogers & Santosh 2002, Zhao et al 2002, 2003, 2004, Meert 2002, Pesonen et al 2003, Hou et al 2008a, 2008b, Johansson 2009, 2014, Yakubchuck 2010, Piper 2010, Evans & Mitchell 2011, Zhang et al 2012. This supercontinent has received different names: NENA (Gower et al 1990), NUNA (Hoffman 1997), Columbia (Rogers & Santosh 2002), or Paleopangea (Piper 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decade, the participation of the Amazonian Craton on Precambrian supercontinents has been clarified thanks to a wealth of new paleomagnetic data. Paleo to Mesoproterozoic paleomagnetic data favored that the Amazonian Craton joined the Columbia supercontinent at 1780 Ma ago, in a scenario that resembled the South AMerica and BAltica (SAMBA) configuration. Then, the mismatch of paleomagnetic poles within the Craton implied that either dextral transcurrent movements occurred between Guiana and Brazil-Central Shield after 1400 Ma or internal rotation movements of the Amazonia-West African block took place between 1780 and 1400 Ma. The presently available late-Mesoproterozoic paleomagnetic data are compatible with two different scenarios for the Amazonian Craton in the Rodinia supercontinent. The first one involves an oblique collision of the Amazonian Craton with Laurentia at 1200 Ma ago, starting at the present-day Texas location, followed by transcurrent movements, until the final collision of the Amazonian Craton with Baltica at ca. 1000 Ma. The second one requires drifting of the Amazonian Craton and Baltica away from the other components of Columbia after 1260 Ma, followed by clockwise rotation and collision of these blocks with Laurentia along Grenvillian Belt at 1000 Ma. Finally, although the time Amazonian Craton collided with the Central African block is yet very disputed, the few late Neoproterozoic/Cambrian paleomagnetic poles available for the Amazonian Craton, Laurentia and other West Gondwana blocks suggest that the Clymene Ocean separating these blocks has only closed at late Ediacaran to Cambrian times, after the Amazonian Craton rifted apart from Laurentia at ca. 570 Ma.

show abstract