2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.tecto.2006.01.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reprocessing and enhanced interpretation of the initial COCORP Southern Appalachians traverse

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
66
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(75 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
9
66
0
Order By: Relevance
“…4) correlates with a prominent set of reflections imaged in COCORP line 1 by Iverson and Smithson (1983) and Cook and Vasudevan (2006). One possible model, similar to the interpretation of Cook and Vasudevan (2006), is that the conversions mark the southeast-dipping boundary between more mafic arc rocks at depth within the Carolina terrane allochthon (hanging wall) and more felsic rocks of the Inner Piedmont (footwall). The overall geometry at depth would be similar to that of the contact between the Inner Piedmont and Blue Ridge along the Brevard fault zone .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…4) correlates with a prominent set of reflections imaged in COCORP line 1 by Iverson and Smithson (1983) and Cook and Vasudevan (2006). One possible model, similar to the interpretation of Cook and Vasudevan (2006), is that the conversions mark the southeast-dipping boundary between more mafic arc rocks at depth within the Carolina terrane allochthon (hanging wall) and more felsic rocks of the Inner Piedmont (footwall). The overall geometry at depth would be similar to that of the contact between the Inner Piedmont and Blue Ridge along the Brevard fault zone .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…1A and 4;Figs. DR4 and DR5) (McBride et al, 2005;Cook and Vasudevan, 2006). The switch in dominant polarity of the basement conversions between the Blue Ridge and Inner Piedmont is interpreted to result from low-Vs metasedimentary platform rocks, shearing along the detachment, or a combination thereof (e.g., Johnston and Christensen, 1992;Szymanski and Christensen, 1993).…”
Section: Seismic Discontinuities Beneath the Inner Piedmont And Carolmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Subduction was predominantly NW-directed beneath LaurentiaeBaltica in the Canadian Appalachians (e.g., van Staal et al, 2009) and in the Variscan belt of Europe, where arc magmatism developed on the previously accreted peri-Gondwanan terranes (e.g., Mid-German Crystalline High; Kroner et al, 2007). However, the polarity of subduction was SE-directed beneath Gondwana in the U.S. Appalachian-Ouachita belt, where Laurentia forms the lower plate (e.g., Cook and Vasudevan, 2006). This would have required a major transform boundary in the southwestern Rheic Ocean, which Pe-Piper et al (2010) have suggested was located in the eastern Gulf of Maine based on plutonism linked to the slab tear.…”
Section: Ocean Closurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…High-grade metamorphism and associated magmatism occurred in the Late PennsylvanianeEarly Permian, but is limited in its extent and attributed to local crustal thickening (e.g., Snoke and Mosher, 1989). Conversely, in the southern Appalachian orogen and Ouachita belt, collision began in the late Mississippian and was essentially head-on, leading to the development of crustal-scale decollement structures and north-and west-vergent fold-thrust belts as thinned Laurentian continental crust was subducted beneath Gondwana (e.g., Cook and Vasudevan, 2006). In the orogenic hinterland exposed in the southern Appalachians, deformation was accompanied by dextral strike-slip tectonics, significant metamorphism and widespread latest Mississippiane Pennsylvanian magmatism attributed to crustal thickening (e.g., Hatcher, 2002).…”
Section: Terminal Collisionmentioning
confidence: 99%