2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.gr.2017.04.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

No excessive crustal growth in the Central Asian Orogenic Belt: Further evidence from field relationships and isotopic data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
62
0
4

Year Published

2017
2017
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 167 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 209 publications
0
62
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Precambrian continental blocks are currently distributed in the vast area along the south margin of Siberia and northern Mongolia and NE China. Although derivation of those blocks from either Siberia or Gondwana has been the subject of much controversy, there seems a consensus that the continental blocks were already attached and/or adjacent to the southerly Siberia mainland in most Cambrian paleogeographic reconstructions (e.g., Kravchinsky et al, ; Kröner et al, ; Levashova et al, ). Such a proposition is supported by the findings that late Proterozoic sedimentary basins of the southern Siberian margin began receiving detritus from the Mongolian collage system, as exemplified by a progressively increasing contribution of Neoproterozoic zircons in the youngest Proterozoic formations (the Oselok Group and Ushakovka formation) in southern Siberia (e.g., Chumakov et al, ; Gladkochub et al, ; Letnikova et al, ; Powerman et al, ), similar to those found in the Neoproterozoic sedimentary successions of Mongolian blocks (e.g., Bold et al, ; Zhang et al, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Precambrian continental blocks are currently distributed in the vast area along the south margin of Siberia and northern Mongolia and NE China. Although derivation of those blocks from either Siberia or Gondwana has been the subject of much controversy, there seems a consensus that the continental blocks were already attached and/or adjacent to the southerly Siberia mainland in most Cambrian paleogeographic reconstructions (e.g., Kravchinsky et al, ; Kröner et al, ; Levashova et al, ). Such a proposition is supported by the findings that late Proterozoic sedimentary basins of the southern Siberian margin began receiving detritus from the Mongolian collage system, as exemplified by a progressively increasing contribution of Neoproterozoic zircons in the youngest Proterozoic formations (the Oselok Group and Ushakovka formation) in southern Siberia (e.g., Chumakov et al, ; Gladkochub et al, ; Letnikova et al, ; Powerman et al, ), similar to those found in the Neoproterozoic sedimentary successions of Mongolian blocks (e.g., Bold et al, ; Zhang et al, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Central Asian Orogenic Belt (CAOB), formed as a result of prolonged subduction and accretion of the juvenile materials spanning from Neoproterozoic to the end of Paleozoic, represents one of the world's largest accretionary orogens (Han, Zhou, Wang, & Cao, ; Jahn, Wu, & Chen, ; Kröner et al, , ; Safonova, ; Sengör, Natal'in, & Burtman, ; Tang et al, ; Xiao, Windley, & Yuan, , Xiao et al, , Xiao, Sun, & Santosh, ). The Chinese Altay and East Junggar Terrane occur as distinct small blocks within the CAOB and are separated by several ophiolite zones (Figure and Table ) that played an important role in the accretion processes of the CAOB (Safonova, Buslov, Iwata, & Kokh, ; Safonova & Santosh, ; Xiao et al, , ; ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The South Tien Shan (STS) range in Central Asia results from the docking of the Tarim craton with the Kazakh block or platform (Figure a) after the final closure of the Turkestan Ocean in the Late Carboniferous (e.g., Biske, ; Charvet et al., ). This is the final accretion event recorded in the western part of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt (CAOB; e.g., Kröner et al., ; Windley, Alexeiev, Xiao, Kroner, & Badarch, ), before a new subduction initiated south of the Tarim craton with the closure of the Paleo‐Tethys Ocean (e.g., Metcalfe, ). Constraining the geodynamic evolution of the STS is, thus, important for understanding the final stages of CAOB collisional history.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%