2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2017.12.031
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Understanding phengite argon closure using single grain fusion age distributions in the Cycladic Blueschist Unit on Syros, Greece

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

11
64
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(75 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
11
64
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This c . 340 Ma age pattern is, thus, in agreement with the partial preservation of a crystallization age from the prograde metamorphic path (e.g., Uunk, Brouwer, ter Voorde, & Wijbrans, ; Warren, Hanke, & Kelley, ). Apart from this later sample, all ages range from 328 to 319 Ma.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This c . 340 Ma age pattern is, thus, in agreement with the partial preservation of a crystallization age from the prograde metamorphic path (e.g., Uunk, Brouwer, ter Voorde, & Wijbrans, ; Warren, Hanke, & Kelley, ). Apart from this later sample, all ages range from 328 to 319 Ma.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…The spectrum of this latter c. 340 Ma age (grain 02, Figure 11a) exhibits a complex shape, which might reflect some recrystallization processes. This c. 340 Ma age pattern is, thus, in agreement with the partial preservation of a crystallization age from the prograde metamorphic path (e.g., Uunk, Brouwer, ter Voorde, & Wijbrans, 2018;Warren, Hanke, & Kelley, 2012). Apart from this later sample, all ages range from 328 to 319 Ma.…”
Section: Hp Metasedimentary Unitsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…The Cycladic Archipelago is located in the centre of the Aegean domain and corresponds to the deepest exhumed parts of the Hellenides–Taurides belt (Figure ). In this archipelago, the CBU, belonging to the Pindos oceanic domain (Bonneau, ; Bonneau & Kienast, ), reached peak‐pressure conditions during the formation of the Hellenides at 53–48 Ma (Figure ; Lagos et al., ; Laurent et al., ; Lister & Forster, ; Tomaschek et al., ; Uunk, Brouwer, ter Voorde, & Wijbrans, ). This HP–LT metamorphic unit was exhumed during the Eocene within the subduction channel between a top‐to‐the south thrust at the base and top‐to‐the east/northeast syn‐orogenic detachment at the top, the Vari Detachment (Figure ; Augier, Jolivet, Gadenne, Lahfid, & Driussi, ; Brun & Faccenna, ; Huet, Labrousse, & Jolivet, ; Jolivet, Faccenna, Goffé, Burov, & Agard, ; Laurent et al., ; Ring et al., , ).…”
Section: Geological Contextmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Phengite v. muscovite diffusion parameters Uunk et al (2018) used muscovite parameters as determined by Harrison et al (2009) to model results for their phengite geochronology on Syros. The effect of different P-T-t paths was modelled using activation volume to correct for the effects of pressure.…”
Section: Microstructures At the Base Of The Upper Platementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The effect of different P-T-t paths was modelled using activation volume to correct for the effects of pressure. Uunk et al (2018) require cooling below greenschist facies temperatures before closure occurs. This result can be extrapolated to the eclogite-blueschist unit on Ios, in which case exhumation-related cooling would need to have occurred at least 8-10 myr earlier than the onset of the operation of the SCSZ.…”
Section: Microstructures At the Base Of The Upper Platementioning
confidence: 99%