• search hit 3 of 6
Back to Result List

Paleomagnetic tests of tectonic reconstructions of the India-Asia collision zone

  • Several solutions have been proposed to explain the long-standing kinematic observation that postcollisional upper crustal shortening within the Himalaya and Asia is much less than the magnitude of India-Asia convergence. Here we implement these hypotheses in global plate reconstructions and test paleolatitudes predicted by the global apparent polar wander path against independent, and the most robust paleomagnetic data. Our tests demonstrate that (1) reconstructed 600-750km postcollisional intra-Asian shortening is a minimum value; (2) a 52Ma collision age is only consistent with paleomagnetic data if intra-Asian shortening was 900km; a 56-58Ma collision age requires greater intra-Asian shortening; (3) collision ages of 34 or 65Ma incorrectly predict Late Cretaceous and Paleogene paleolatitudes of the Tibetan Himalaya (TH); and (4) Cretaceous counterclockwise rotation of India cannot explain the paleolatitudinal divergence between the TH and India. All hypotheses, regardless of collision age, require major Cretaceous extension withinSeveral solutions have been proposed to explain the long-standing kinematic observation that postcollisional upper crustal shortening within the Himalaya and Asia is much less than the magnitude of India-Asia convergence. Here we implement these hypotheses in global plate reconstructions and test paleolatitudes predicted by the global apparent polar wander path against independent, and the most robust paleomagnetic data. Our tests demonstrate that (1) reconstructed 600-750km postcollisional intra-Asian shortening is a minimum value; (2) a 52Ma collision age is only consistent with paleomagnetic data if intra-Asian shortening was 900km; a 56-58Ma collision age requires greater intra-Asian shortening; (3) collision ages of 34 or 65Ma incorrectly predict Late Cretaceous and Paleogene paleolatitudes of the Tibetan Himalaya (TH); and (4) Cretaceous counterclockwise rotation of India cannot explain the paleolatitudinal divergence between the TH and India. All hypotheses, regardless of collision age, require major Cretaceous extension within Greater India.show moreshow less

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author:Wentao Huang, Douwe J. J. van Hinsbergen, Peter C. Lippert, Zhaojie Guo, Guillaume Dupont-Nivet
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063749
ISSN:0094-8276 (print)
ISSN:1944-8007 (online)
Parent Title (English):Geophysical research letters
Publisher:American Geophysical Union
Place of publication:Washington
Document Type:Article
Language:English
Year of first Publication:2015
Year of Completion:2015
Release Date:2017/03/27
Tag:India-Asia collision; paleomagnetism; tectonic reconstruction
Volume:42
Issue:8
Pagenumber:8
First Page:2642
Last Page:2649
Funder:Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO); VIDI [864.08.005]; DJJvH [864.11.004]; ERC [306810 (SINK)]; Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; CIG "HIRESDAT"; U.S. National Science Foundation [EAR-1008527]; French ministry of foreign affairs; French ministry of higher education and research; Chinese Ministry of Education
Organizational units:Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät / Institut für Erd- und Umweltwissenschaften
Peer Review:Referiert