Cenozoic geodynamics of the Bering Sea region

Chekhovich, V. D.; Sukhov, A. N.; Sheremet, O. G.; Kononov, M. V.

doi:10.1134/s001685211203003x

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, later magnetic analyses suggested a change in lineation orientation at the Vitus arch ( Fig. 1), leading to speculation that the crust in the study area could be back-arc crust formed during early Cenozoic back-arc extension [Cooper et al, 1992], or a push-up structure in oceanic crust associated with a strike-slip fault zone active in the middle Eocene [Chekhovich et al, 2012;Chekhovich and Sheremet, 2013]. The change in magnetic fabric orientation occurs along Line 2 between OBSs 7 and 10 ( Fig.…”

Section: Nature Of Aleutian Basin Crustmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…We conclude that although we cannot exclude the back-arc model for crust in our study area, there are no definitive observations to support this model. The strike-slip model suggests that the Vitus arch is a pushup structure along a Bering Sea strike-slip system [Chekhovich et al, 2012;Chekhovich and Sheremet, 2013]. However, the reflection data do not image any near-vertical faults or flower structures along either Line 1 or Line 2 (Fig.…”

Section: Nature Of Aleutian Basin Crustmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…1), which is characterized by northeast-southwest trending basement horsts and grabens [Cooper et al, 1992]. An alternate model has the Vitus arch associated with a push-up structure along a strikeslip fault zone active in the middle Eocene [Chekhovich et al, 2012;Chekhovich and Sheremet, 2013].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Aleutian basin oceanic crust

Christeson

Barth

2015

Earth and Planetary Science Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Editor: P. Shearer Keywords:Aleutian basin Bering Sea oceanic crust wide-angle seismic ocean bottom seismometer We present two-dimensional P-wave velocity structure along two wide-angle ocean bottom seismometer profiles from the Aleutian basin in the Bering Sea. The basement here is commonly considered to be trapped oceanic crust, yet there is a change in orientation of magnetic lineations and gravity features within the basin that might reflect later processes. Line 1 extends ∼225 km from southwest to northeast, while Line 2 extends ∼225 km from northwest to southeast and crosses the observed change in magnetic lineation orientation. Velocities of the sediment layer increase from 2.0 km/s at the seafloor to 3.0-3.4 km/s just above basement, crustal velocities increase from 5.1-5.6 km/s at the top of basement to 7.0-7.1 km/s at the base of the crust, and upper mantle velocities are 8.1-8.2 km/s. Average sediment thickness is 3.8-3.9 km for both profiles. Crustal thickness varies from 6.2 to 9.6 km, with average thickness of 7.2 km on Line 1 and 8.8 km on Line 2. There is no clear change in crustal structure associated with a change in orientation of magnetic lineations and gravity features. The velocity structure is consistent with that of normal or thickened oceanic crust. The observed increase in crustal thickness from west to east is interpreted as reflecting an increase in melt supply during crustal formation.

show abstract

Section: Nature Of Aleutian Basin Crustmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Nature Of Aleutian Basin Crustmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Aleutian basin oceanic crust

Christeson

Barth

2015

Earth and Planetary Science Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Amphiboles within the amphibolites from the oceanic complex were K-Ar dated as 47 ± 5 Ma and zircons gave a 72 ± 1.4 Ma age (Sukhov et al, 2011). The amphibolites, metagabbro, and Upper Cretaceous to Paleocene volcanic and sedimentary rocks all underwent intense deformation (Chekhovich et al, 2012).…”

Section: Bering Seamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also in the transition zone, but below Kamchatka, lies the Mayn slab (Figure 8b). Van der Meer et al (2018) followed the interpretation of Chekhovich et al (2012) that there was~30-15 Ma subduction below the Shirshov Ridge, and proposed that this would have produced the Mayn slab. To the west, between~1,600 and 800 km depth in the lower mantle below the northern Sea of Okhotsk lies the Ushky slab (Figure 8c).…”

Section: 1029/2018tc005164mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstruction of Subduction and Back‐Arc Spreading in the NW Pacific and Aleutian Basin: Clues to Causes of Cretaceous and Eocene Plate Reorganizations

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Eocene (~50–45 Ma) major absolute plate motion change of the Pacific plate forming the Hawaii‐Emperor bend is thought to result from inception of Pacific plate subduction along one of its modern western trenches. Subduction is suggested to have started either spontaneously, or result from subduction of the Izanagi‐Pacific mid‐ocean ridge, or from subduction polarity reversal after collision of the Olyutorsky arc that was built on the Pacific plate with NE Asia. Here we provide a detailed plate‐kinematic reconstruction of back‐arc basins and accreted terranes in the northwest Pacific region, from Japan to the Bering Sea, since the Late Cretaceous. We present a new tectonic reconstruction of the intraoceanic Olyutorsky and Kronotsky arcs, which formed above two adjacent, oppositely dipping subduction zones at ~85 Ma within the north Pacific region, during another Pacific‐wide plate reorganization. We use our reconstruction to explain the formation of the submarine Shirshov and Bowers Ridges and show that if marine magnetic anomalies reported from the Aleutian Basin represent magnetic polarity reversals, its crust most likely formed in an ~85‐ to 60‐Ma back‐arc basin behind the Olyutorsky arc. The Olyutorsky arc was then separated from the Pacific plate by a spreading ridge, so that the ~55‐ to 50‐Ma subduction polarity reversal that followed upon Olyutorsky‐NE Asia collision initiated subduction of a plate that was not the Pacific. Hence, this polarity reversal may not be a straightforward driver of the Eocene Pacific plate motion change, whose causes remain enigmatic.

show abstract