Palaeomagnetism of Precambrian rocks in northern Sweden and its correlation to radiometric data

Elming, Sten-åke

doi:10.1016/0301-9268(94)90079-5

Cited by 22 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2a), whereas well-constrained paleomagnetic data for Laurentia also place North America and Greenland at low latitudes at 1460-1420, 1320-1290, and 1267Symons, 1991;Elming, 1994;Smethurst et al, 1998;Gala et al, 1998;Buchan et al, 2000). Thus, these new data further support the conclusion that Laurentia and Siberia drifted together during the Mesoproterozoic.…”

Section: How Was Siberia Matched With Laurentia?supporting

confidence: 63%

“…The available paleomagnetic data support the existence of the Paleo-Mesoproterozoic Columbia supercontinent (e.g. Symons, 1991;Elming, 1994;Smethurst et al, 1998;Zegers et al, 1998;Buchan et al, 2000;Ernst et al, 2000;Nomade et al, 2003;Pesonen et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Recent work has established the existence of Fennoscandian basement rocks from Baltica through Estonia, Belorussia and Poland to the western Ukraine (Bogdanova, 1993(Bogdanova, , 1999. Paleomagnetic studies by Elming (1994) suggest that the Ukrainian Shield had not separated from Fennoscandia until w1.3 Ga ago, implying that the North China Craton did not lay adjacent to the eastern margin of the Fennoscandian Shield. Another possible fit adjacent to the western margin of Baltica contravenes the already established connection of Baltica and South Greenland (e.g.…”

Section: Where Was North China In the Supercontinent Columbia?mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Paleomagnetic data indicate that during the Mesoproterozoic, Siberia was restricted to a G308 paleolatitude range (Piper, 1982;Smethurst et al, 1998;Ernst et al, 2000), broadly similar to latitudes determined for Laurentia and Baltica (Irving, 1979;Piper, 1982;Elming, 1994;Gala et al, 1998;Buchan et al, 2000). As paleomagnetic data cannot constrain longitude, various paleomagnetic reconstruction models for relative position of Siberia with Laurentia or Baltica have been postulated (e.g.…”

Section: How Was Siberia Matched With Laurentia?mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Some key issues in reconstructions of Proterozoic supercontinents

Zhao

Sun

Wilde

et al. 2006

Journal of Asian Earth Sciences

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: How Was Siberia Matched With Laurentia?supporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Where Was North China In the Supercontinent Columbia?mentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: How Was Siberia Matched With Laurentia?mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Some key issues in reconstructions of Proterozoic supercontinents

Zhao

Sun

Wilde

et al. 2006

Journal of Asian Earth Sciences

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These values are significantly different from those of the NCC, in which the cratonization of micro-continental blocks began at 2.6 to 2.5 Ga and was finally completed at w1.85 Ga (Zhao et al, , 2005Kusky et al, 2007;Zhai, 2010). In addition, the palaeomagnetic studies by Elming (1994Elming ( , 2001 suggested that the Ukrainian Shield did not separate from Fennoscandia until 1.3 Ga. This result contradicts the previous belief that the NCC was adjacent to the Baltic Shield.…”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 73%

Correlations between the North China Craton and the Indian Shield: Constraints from regional metallogeny

Chen

et al. 2015

Geoscience Frontiers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe correlation between the North China Craton (NCC) and the Indian Shield (IND) has been a hot topic in recent years. On the basis of ore deposit databases, the NCC and IND have shown broad similarity in metallogenesis from the middle Archaean to the Mesoproterozoic. The two blocks both have three major metallogenic systems: (1) the Archaean BIF metallogenic system; (2) the Paleoproterozoic Cu-Pb-Zn metallogenic system; and (3) the Mesoproterozoic Fe-Pb-Zn system. In the north margin of the NCC and the west margin of the IND, the Archaean BIF-Au-Cu-Pb-Zn deposits had the same petrogenesis and host rocks, the Paleoproterozoic Cu-Pb-Zn deposits were controlled by active belts, and the Mesoproterozoic Fe-Pb-Zn deposits were mainly related to multi-stage rifting. Matching regional mineralization patterns and geological features has established the continental assembly referred to as "NCWI", an acronym for the north margin of the NCC (NC) and the west margin of the IND (WI) during the middle Archaean to the Mesoproterozoic. In this assembly, the available geological and metallogenic data from the Eastern Block and active belts of NC fit those from the Dharwar craton and the AravallieDelhi eVindhyan belt of WI, respectively. Moreover, the depositional model and environment of Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary manganese deposits in NCWI implied that the assembly may be located at low latitudes, where the conditions were favorable for dissolving ice and precipitating manganese deposits.Ó 2015, China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

show abstract