Conjugate volcanic rifted margins, seafloor spreading, and microcontinent: Insights from new high‐resolution aeromagnetic surveys in the Norway Basin

Gernigon, Laurent; Blischke, Anett; Nasuti, Aziz; Sand, M.

doi:10.1002/2014tc003717

Cited by 85 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 134 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Note that a separate rotation set was calculated for the oceanic part of the Norway Basin based on magnetic data. Compression described in the SE part of the JMMC demonstrates that relative motion between the oceanic and stretched continental domains took place probably after the seafloor spreading reorganization in the Eocene (see Gernigon et al 2012Gernigon et al , 2015Blischke et al 2016). Although the eastern part of the Norway Basin now has complete aeromagnetic data coverage (described and analysed by Gernigon et al 2015), we did not have access to the new magnetic anomaly data and our interpretation is based on the magnetic grid shown in Figure 2 The magnetic anomaly identification sets (Table 1), combined with the fracture zone segments, were used for constructing densely spaced isochrons for 30 geological times (compared to only six in previous models: e.g.…”

Section: Spreading Domains In the Ne Atlanticmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The more recent models, which took advantage of new aeromagnetic data collected in the Norway Basin and neighbouring regions, show a more complex kinematic model for the evolution of the NE Atlantic (e.g. Gernigon et al 2008Gernigon et al , 2012Gernigon et al , 2015Gaina et al 2009). Although isolated changes in the plate boundary have been previously proposed, the Gaina et al (2009) model presented a comprehensive and integrated regional view of the NE Atlantic Ocean that attempted to explain and quantify the complexities in the evolution of plate boundaries in this region since the Paleocene.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PeronPinvidic et al 2012;Gernigon et al 2015;Blischke et al 2016). The seafloor spreading history for the last 20 myr has been modelled in detail by using high-resolution magnetic data along the Reykjanes, Mohn's and Kolbeinsey ridges (Ehlers & Jokat 2009;Merkur'ev et al 2009;Hey et al 2010;Benediktsdóttir et al 2012;Merkouriev & DeMets 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Break-up and seafloor spreading domains in the NE Atlantic

Gaina

Nasuti

Kimbell

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An updated magnetic anomaly grid of the NE Atlantic and an improved database of magnetic anomaly and fracture zone identifications allow the kinematic history of this region to be revisited. At break-up time, continental rupture occurred parallel to the Mesozoic rift axes in the south, but obliquely to the previous rifting trend in the north, probably due to the proximity of the Iceland plume at 57-54 Ma.The new oceanic lithosphere age grid is based on 30 isochrons (C) from C24n old (53.93 Ma) to C1n old (0.78 Ma), and documents ridge reorganizations in the SE Lofoten Basin, the Jan Mayen Fracture Zone region, in Iceland and offshore Faroe Islands. Updated continent -ocean boundaries, including the Jan Mayen microcontinent, and detailed kinematics of the EocenePresent Greenland-Eurasia relative motions are included in this model.Variations in the subduction regime in the NE Pacific could have caused the sudden northwards motion of Greenland and subsequent Eurekan deformation. These events caused seafloor spreading changes in the neighbouring Labrador Sea and a decrease in spreading rates in the NE Atlantic. Boundaries between major oceanic crustal domains were formed when the European Plate changed its absolute motion direction, probably caused by successive adjustments along its southern boundary.

show abstract

Section: Spreading Domains In the Ne Atlanticmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Break-up and seafloor spreading domains in the NE Atlantic

Gaina

Nasuti

Kimbell

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can be understood as a consequence of the presence of intrusive rocks in the upper continental crust of COTZs, which makes it difficult to distinguish magnetically from the igneous oceanic crust (e.g. Gernigon et al, 2015).…”

Section: Cob and Cotz In Magnetic Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting over continent ocean boundaries

Eagles

Pérez-Díaz

Scarselli

2015

Earth-Science Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of a simple linear boundary between continental and oceanic crust at extended continental margins is widely recognised to be an oversimplification. Despite this, such boundaries continue to be mapped because of their perceived utility in palinspastic and plate kinematic reconstructions. To examine whether this perception is justified, we review the data and models on which basis continent ocean boundaries are interpreted, and map a set of such interpretations worldwide from more than 150 publications. The maps show that the location of the continent ocean boundary is rarely consistently estimated within the ~10-100 km observational uncertainty that might be expected of the geophysical data used for doing so, that this is the case regardless of whether the transition zone behind the boundary is classified as magma rich or magma poor, and that the geographical separation of estimates exceeds the width of single-study continent ocean transition zones. The average of global maximum separations across sets of three or more estimates is large (167 km) and mostly a consequence of interpretations published over the last decade. We interpret this to indicate an extra component of uncertainty that is related to authors' understanding of the range of features that are interpretable at extended continental margins. We go on to discuss the implications of this uncertainty for palinspastic and plate kinematic modelling using examples from the literature and from the South Atlantic ocean.We conclude that a precise continent ocean boundary concept with locational uncertainty defined from the ensembles is of limited value for palinspastic reconstructions because the reconstruction process tends to bunch the ensemble within a region that is (i) of similar width to the observational uncertainties associated with continent ocean boundary estimates, (ii) narrower than the regions of uncertainty about rotated features implied by the propagation of uncertainties from plate rotation parameters, and (iii) coincident, within all the above uncertainties, with the more-easily mapped continental shelf gravity anomaly.Secondly, we conclude that estimated continent ocean boundaries are of limited use in developing or testing plate kinematic reconstructions because (i) reconstructions built using them as markers do not, within uncertainty limits defined from the ensembles, differ greatly from those using more-easily determined bathymetric or gravity anomaly contours, and (ii) because it is impossible to segment and date them with useful precision to use as markers of the edges of rigid oceanic lithosphere outside of the constraints of a pre-existing plate kinematic model.

show abstract

“…Opening of the Labrador Sea and rifting between Greenland and Europe competed for many tens of million years (Dickie et al, 2011;Hosseinpour et al, 2013;Barnett-Moore et al, 2016) before the present-day North East Atlantic mid-ocean ridge 10 formed in Eocene times (Gernigon et al, 2015;Gaina et al, 2017) possibly due to the arrival of the Iceland hotspot (Coffin and Eldholm, 1992;Storey et al, 2007). Final separation between Greenland and Europe took place along the sheared margin of the Fram Strait in Miocene times ~17-15 Ma (Jakobsson et al, 2007;Knies and Gaina, 2008).…”

Section: North Atlantic Riftmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oblique rifting: the rule, not the exception

Brune¹,

Williams²,

Müller³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Movements of tectonic plates often induce oblique deformation at divergent plate boundaries. This is in striking contrast with traditional conceptual models of rifting and rifted margin formation, which often assume 2D deformation 10 where the rift velocity is oriented perpendicular to the plate boundary. Here we quantify the validity of this assumption by analysing the kinematics of major continent-scale rift systems in a global plate tectonic reconstruction from the onset of Pangea breakup until present-day. We evaluate rift obliquity by joint examination of relative extension velocity and local rift trend using the script-based plate reconstruction software pyGPlates. Our results show that the global mean rift obliquity amounts to 34° with a standard deviation of 24°, using the convention that the angle of obliquity is spanned by extension 15 direction and rift trend normal. We find that more than ~70% of all rift segments exceeded an obliquity of 20° demonstrating that oblique rifting should be considered the rule, not the exception. In many cases, rift obliquity and extension velocity increase during rift evolution (e.g. Australia-Antarctica, Gulf of California, South Atlantic, India-Antarctica), which suggests an underlying geodynamic correlation via obliquity-dependent rift strength. Oblique rifting produces 3D stress and strain fields that cannot be accounted for in simplified 2D plane strain analysis. We therefore highlight the importance of 3D 20 approaches in modelling, surveying, and interpretation of most rift segments on Earth where oblique rifting is the dominant mode of deformation.

show abstract

Conjugate volcanic rifted margins, seafloor spreading, and microcontinent: Insights from new high‐resolution aeromagnetic surveys in the Norway Basin

Cited by 85 publications

References 134 publications

Break-up and seafloor spreading domains in the NE Atlantic

Break-up and seafloor spreading domains in the NE Atlantic

Getting over continent ocean boundaries

Oblique rifting: the rule, not the exception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About