2019
DOI: 10.1007/s00531-019-01680-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Deformation within the Cycladic subduction–exhumation channel: new insights from the enigmatic Makrotantalo nappe (Andros, Aegean)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
45
0
14

Year Published

2020
2020
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 119 publications
3
45
0
14
Order By: Relevance
“…Upright open folds (F 3 ), with their axes trending parallel to the NE‐SW shear direction developed during exhumation and were probably related to constriction within the extruding channel, owing to along‐strike variations in channel thickness. These features have also been documented across the CBU (Gerogiannis et al, 2019; Xypolias & Alsop, 2014). If there were no variation in along‐strike exhumation rates, narrower zones within the channel would produce a component of convergent flow orthogonal to the main transport direction (e.g., Lévy & Jaupart, 2011; Mancktelow & Pavlis, 1994) toward unrestricted zones.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…Upright open folds (F 3 ), with their axes trending parallel to the NE‐SW shear direction developed during exhumation and were probably related to constriction within the extruding channel, owing to along‐strike variations in channel thickness. These features have also been documented across the CBU (Gerogiannis et al, 2019; Xypolias & Alsop, 2014). If there were no variation in along‐strike exhumation rates, narrower zones within the channel would produce a component of convergent flow orthogonal to the main transport direction (e.g., Lévy & Jaupart, 2011; Mancktelow & Pavlis, 1994) toward unrestricted zones.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…Recently, some petrological evidence on a former high‐ P event (Huyskens & Bröcker, ) dated at 116 Ma (Cretaceous) by Ar–Ar dating of white micas (Huet, Labrousse, Monie, Malvoisin, & Jolivet, ) has been documented from the Makrotantalon unit. Because Cretaceous high‐ P metamorphism has been unknown from the CBU in the central Aegean islands, there is still a continuing debate on the Makrotantalon unit and whether it belongs to the Pelagonian Zone (Huet et al, ) or to the CBU (Gerogiannis, Xypolias, Chatzaras, Aravadinou, & Papapavlou, ; Huyskens & Bröcker, ). The Permian sections rest on both the CB and the Mesozoic series of the CBU with a tectonic contact defined as a low‐angle normal fault (Bulle et al, ; Gautier, Brun, & Jolivet, ; Huyskens & Bröcker, ; Philippon et al, ; Ring, Glodny, Will, & Thomson, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A ca. 40–30 Ma Eocene‐Oligocene metamorphic event linked to synorogenic exhumation driven by ductile extrusion has been identified by white mica 40 Ar/ 39 Ar and Rb‐Sr dating (Gerogiannis et al, 2019; Huet et al, 2009; Jolivet et al, 2010; Ring et al, 2007; Scheffer et al, 2016; Schneider et al, 2011). Deeper levels of the CBU are suggested to have continued experiencing high‐pressure metamorphism until 30 Ma (Huet et al, 2014; Lister & Forster, 2016; Wijbrans et al, 1990) even as the higher structural levels were partially exhumed and undergoing contemporaneous greenschist facies metamorphism (Ring et al, 2010).…”
Section: Geological Settingmentioning
confidence: 99%