The growth of northeastern Tibet and its relevance to large‐scale continental geodynamics: A review of recent studies

  • Dao‐Yang Yuan
    Lanzhou Institute of Seismology China Earthquake Administration Lanzhou China
  • Wei‐Peng Ge
    Lanzhou Institute of Seismology China Earthquake Administration Lanzhou China
  • Zhen‐Wei Chen
    State Key Laboratory of Earthquake Dynamics Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration Beijing China
  • Chuan‐You Li
    State Key Laboratory of Earthquake Dynamics Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration Beijing China
  • Zhi‐Cai Wang
    State Key Laboratory of Earthquake Dynamics Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration Beijing China
  • Hui‐Ping Zhang
    State Key Laboratory of Earthquake Dynamics Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration Beijing China
  • Pei‐Zhen Zhang
    State Key Laboratory of Earthquake Dynamics Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration Beijing China
  • De‐Wen Zheng
    State Key Laboratory of Earthquake Dynamics Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration Beijing China
  • Wen‐Jun Zheng
    State Key Laboratory of Earthquake Dynamics Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration Beijing China
  • William H. Craddock
    Department of Geosciences Pennsylvania State University University Park Pennsylvania USA
  • Katherine E. Dayem
    Ecova Durango Colorado USA
  • Alison R. Duvall
    Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Michigan Ann Arbor Michigan USA
  • Brian G. Hough
    Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Rochester Rochester New York USA
  • Richard O. Lease
    Department of Earth Science University of California Santa Barbara California USA
  • Jean‐Daniel Champagnac
    Earth Surface Dynamics, Geological Institute Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Switzerland
  • Douglas W. Burbank
    Department of Earth Science University of California Santa Barbara California USA
  • Marin K. Clark
    Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Michigan Ann Arbor Michigan USA
  • Kenneth A. Farley
    Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences California Institute of Technology Pasadena California USA
  • Carmala N. Garzione
    Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Rochester Rochester New York USA
  • Eric Kirby
    Department of Geosciences Pennsylvania State University University Park Pennsylvania USA
  • Peter Molnar
    Now at the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon USA
  • Gerard H. Roe
    Department of Earth and Space Sciences University of Washington Seattle Washington USA

書誌事項

公開日
2013-09
権利情報
  • http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor
DOI
  • 10.1002/tect.20081
公開者
American Geophysical Union (AGU)

この論文をさがす

説明

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Recent studies of the northeastern part of the Tibetan Plateau have called attention to two emerging views of how the Tibetan Plateau has grown. First, deformation in northern Tibet began essentially at the time of collision with India, not 10–20 Myr later as might be expected if the locus of activity migrated northward as India penetrated the rest of Eurasia. Thus, the north‐south dimensions of the Tibetan Plateau were set mainly by differences in lithospheric strength, with strong lithosphere beneath India and the Tarim and Qaidam basins steadily encroaching on one another as the region between them, the present‐day Tibetan Plateau, deformed, and its north‐south dimension became narrower. Second, abundant evidence calls for acceleration of deformation, including the formation of new faults, in northeastern Tibet since ~15 Ma and a less precisely dated change in orientation of crustal shortening since ~20 Ma. This reorientation of crustal shortening and roughly concurrent outward growth of high terrain, which swings from NNE‐SSW in northern Tibet to more NE‐SW and even ENE‐WSW in the easternmost part of northeastern Tibet, are likely to be, in part, a consequence of crustal thickening within the high Tibetan Plateau reaching a limit, and the locus of continued shortening then migrating to the northeastern and eastern flanks. These changes in rates and orientation also could result from removal of some or all mantle lithosphere and increased gravitational potential energy per unit area and from a weakening of crustal material so that it could flow in response to pressure gradients set by evolving differences in elevation.</jats:p>

収録刊行物

  • Tectonics

    Tectonics 32 (5), 1358-1370, 2013-09

    American Geophysical Union (AGU)

被引用文献 (6)*注記

もっと見る

問題の指摘

ページトップへ