Geoinformatics 2011
DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511976308.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Next-generation plate-tectonic reconstructions using GPlates

Abstract: Plate tectonics is the kinematic theory that describes the large-scale n1otions and events of the outermost shell of the solid Earth in terms of the relative motions and interactions of large, rigid, interlocking fragments of lithosphere called tectonic plates. Plates fo1m and disappear incrementally over tin1e as a result of tectonic processes. There arc cun·ently about a dozen n1ajor plates on the surface of the Earth, and 1nany tninor ones. The present-day configuration of tectonic plates is illustrated in … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
219
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 260 publications
(221 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
219
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The outlined Mesozoic history of Kilen seems to be more similar to the southwest Barents Sea margin south of (Müller et al, 2016) produced in Gplates 1.5 (Boyden et al, 2011) showing present-day coastlines along with Cretaceous rift basins (green) and faults simplified from Faleide et al (2015) and this study. Note the pre-opening proximity of Kilen (Ki) Ki -Kilen, HFFZ -Harder Fjord Fault Zone, EGFZ -East Greenland Fault Zone, DB -Danmarkhavn Basin, BFZ -Billefjorden Fault Zone, LFZ -Lomfjorden Fault Zone, SH -Stappen High, BB -Bjørnøya Basin, TB -Tromsø Basin, HfBHammerfest Basin, SB -Sørvestnaget Basin, HB -Harstad Basin. Viewed in a plate reconstruction context, the Cretaceous basin at Kilen can be interpreted as a basin that developed between Greenland to the west and the Stappen High to the east, today on the conjugate Barents Sea margin (Fig.…”
Section: Implications For the Wandel Sea Basinsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…The outlined Mesozoic history of Kilen seems to be more similar to the southwest Barents Sea margin south of (Müller et al, 2016) produced in Gplates 1.5 (Boyden et al, 2011) showing present-day coastlines along with Cretaceous rift basins (green) and faults simplified from Faleide et al (2015) and this study. Note the pre-opening proximity of Kilen (Ki) Ki -Kilen, HFFZ -Harder Fjord Fault Zone, EGFZ -East Greenland Fault Zone, DB -Danmarkhavn Basin, BFZ -Billefjorden Fault Zone, LFZ -Lomfjorden Fault Zone, SH -Stappen High, BB -Bjørnøya Basin, TB -Tromsø Basin, HfBHammerfest Basin, SB -Sørvestnaget Basin, HB -Harstad Basin. Viewed in a plate reconstruction context, the Cretaceous basin at Kilen can be interpreted as a basin that developed between Greenland to the west and the Stappen High to the east, today on the conjugate Barents Sea margin (Fig.…”
Section: Implications For the Wandel Sea Basinsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…Subduction rates of African, Arabian and Indian plates below Eurasia were calculated from plate motion reconstructions made with GPlates (http://www.gplates.org/) (Boyden et al, 2011) Tethys alone. We used the reconstructed position of three points located on the western, central and eastern syntaxis of each plate, similar to Rosenbaum and Lister (2002), Alvarez (2010) and van Hinsbergen et al (2011a van Hinsbergen et al (2011a).…”
Section: Subduction Rates and Trench Length Estimatesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One can use Gplates (Boyden et al 2011;Gurnis et al 2012;Williams et al 2012) as did Sigloch and Mihalynuk (2013) to compare the location of the eastern vertical slab with the predicted paleogeographic trajectories for North America from 140 Ma to present as deduced from the five separate models of Shephard et al (2012): (1) a hybrid hotspot model, which uses moving hotspots in both the Atlantic and Indian oceans from 100 Ma to the present (O'Neill et al 2005), and fixed hotspots for older ages (Müller et al 1993); (2) a fixed hotspot reference frame model (Müller et al 1993); (3) framework that also assumes no longitudinal motion of Africa (Steinberger and Torsvik 2008;Seton et al 2012); and (5) an entirely different type of model that matches subducted slabs with subduction zones (van der Meer et al 2010). Uncertainty pervades nearly every aspect of the reconstructions, including possible errors in properly locating and dating hotspots, the shape of the North American margin, error envelopes in paleomagnetic pole locations and ages, errors in assigning movement to hotspots, and in the case of the subduction model, mistakes in matching mantle anomalies with subduction zones once the subducting slab has broken.…”
Section: Plate Trajectories and Paleomagnetismmentioning
confidence: 99%