Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2016 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Brazilian Journal of Geology |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2317-48892016000200275 |
Resumo: | ABSTRACT: In the last decade, the participation of the Amazonian Craton on Precambrian supercontinents has been clarified thanks to a wealth of new paleomagnetic data. Paleo to Mesoproterozoic paleomagnetic data favored that the Amazonian Craton joined the Columbia supercontinent at 1780 Ma ago, in a scenario that resembled the South AMerica and BAltica (SAMBA) configuration. Then, the mismatch of paleomagnetic poles within the Craton implied that either dextral transcurrent movements occurred between Guiana and Brazil-Central Shield after 1400 Ma or internal rotation movements of the Amazonia-West African block took place between 1780 and 1400 Ma. The presently available late-Mesoproterozoic paleomagnetic data are compatible with two different scenarios for the Amazonian Craton in the Rodinia supercontinent. The first one involves an oblique collision of the Amazonian Craton with Laurentia at 1200 Ma ago, starting at the present-day Texas location, followed by transcurrent movements, until the final collision of the Amazonian Craton with Baltica at ca. 1000 Ma. The second one requires drifting of the Amazonian Craton and Baltica away from the other components of Columbia after 1260 Ma, followed by clockwise rotation and collision of these blocks with Laurentia along Grenvillian Belt at 1000 Ma. Finally, although the time Amazonian Craton collided with the Central African block is yet very disputed, the few late Neoproterozoic/Cambrian paleomagnetic poles available for the Amazonian Craton, Laurentia and other West Gondwana blocks suggest that the Clymene Ocean separating these blocks has only closed at late Ediacaran to Cambrian times, after the Amazonian Craton rifted apart from Laurentia at ca. 570 Ma. |
id |
SBGEO-1_f7cf894eab98aa7f88e0144e3e387dc0 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S2317-48892016000200275 |
network_acronym_str |
SBGEO-1 |
network_name_str |
Brazilian Journal of Geology |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinentsAmazonian CratonpaleomagnetismsupercontinentsColumbiaRodiniaGondwanaABSTRACT: In the last decade, the participation of the Amazonian Craton on Precambrian supercontinents has been clarified thanks to a wealth of new paleomagnetic data. Paleo to Mesoproterozoic paleomagnetic data favored that the Amazonian Craton joined the Columbia supercontinent at 1780 Ma ago, in a scenario that resembled the South AMerica and BAltica (SAMBA) configuration. Then, the mismatch of paleomagnetic poles within the Craton implied that either dextral transcurrent movements occurred between Guiana and Brazil-Central Shield after 1400 Ma or internal rotation movements of the Amazonia-West African block took place between 1780 and 1400 Ma. The presently available late-Mesoproterozoic paleomagnetic data are compatible with two different scenarios for the Amazonian Craton in the Rodinia supercontinent. The first one involves an oblique collision of the Amazonian Craton with Laurentia at 1200 Ma ago, starting at the present-day Texas location, followed by transcurrent movements, until the final collision of the Amazonian Craton with Baltica at ca. 1000 Ma. The second one requires drifting of the Amazonian Craton and Baltica away from the other components of Columbia after 1260 Ma, followed by clockwise rotation and collision of these blocks with Laurentia along Grenvillian Belt at 1000 Ma. Finally, although the time Amazonian Craton collided with the Central African block is yet very disputed, the few late Neoproterozoic/Cambrian paleomagnetic poles available for the Amazonian Craton, Laurentia and other West Gondwana blocks suggest that the Clymene Ocean separating these blocks has only closed at late Ediacaran to Cambrian times, after the Amazonian Craton rifted apart from Laurentia at ca. 570 Ma.Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia2016-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2317-48892016000200275Brazilian Journal of Geology v.46 n.2 2016reponame:Brazilian Journal of Geologyinstname:Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia (SBGEO)instacron:SBGEO10.1590/2317-4889201620160055info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessD'Agrella-Filho,Manoel SouzaBispo-Santos,FranklinTrindade,Ricardo Ivan FerreiraAntonio,Paul Yves Jeaneng2016-08-03T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S2317-48892016000200275Revistahttp://bjg.siteoficial.ws/index.htmhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpsbgsede@sbgeo.org.br||claudio.riccomini@gmail.com2317-46922317-4692opendoar:2016-08-03T00:00Brazilian Journal of Geology - Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia (SBGEO)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents |
title |
Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents |
spellingShingle |
Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents D'Agrella-Filho,Manoel Souza Amazonian Craton paleomagnetism supercontinents Columbia Rodinia Gondwana |
title_short |
Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents |
title_full |
Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents |
title_fullStr |
Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents |
title_full_unstemmed |
Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents |
title_sort |
Paleomagnetism of the Amazonian Craton and its role in paleocontinents |
author |
D'Agrella-Filho,Manoel Souza |
author_facet |
D'Agrella-Filho,Manoel Souza Bispo-Santos,Franklin Trindade,Ricardo Ivan Ferreira Antonio,Paul Yves Jean |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Bispo-Santos,Franklin Trindade,Ricardo Ivan Ferreira Antonio,Paul Yves Jean |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
D'Agrella-Filho,Manoel Souza Bispo-Santos,Franklin Trindade,Ricardo Ivan Ferreira Antonio,Paul Yves Jean |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Amazonian Craton paleomagnetism supercontinents Columbia Rodinia Gondwana |
topic |
Amazonian Craton paleomagnetism supercontinents Columbia Rodinia Gondwana |
description |
ABSTRACT: In the last decade, the participation of the Amazonian Craton on Precambrian supercontinents has been clarified thanks to a wealth of new paleomagnetic data. Paleo to Mesoproterozoic paleomagnetic data favored that the Amazonian Craton joined the Columbia supercontinent at 1780 Ma ago, in a scenario that resembled the South AMerica and BAltica (SAMBA) configuration. Then, the mismatch of paleomagnetic poles within the Craton implied that either dextral transcurrent movements occurred between Guiana and Brazil-Central Shield after 1400 Ma or internal rotation movements of the Amazonia-West African block took place between 1780 and 1400 Ma. The presently available late-Mesoproterozoic paleomagnetic data are compatible with two different scenarios for the Amazonian Craton in the Rodinia supercontinent. The first one involves an oblique collision of the Amazonian Craton with Laurentia at 1200 Ma ago, starting at the present-day Texas location, followed by transcurrent movements, until the final collision of the Amazonian Craton with Baltica at ca. 1000 Ma. The second one requires drifting of the Amazonian Craton and Baltica away from the other components of Columbia after 1260 Ma, followed by clockwise rotation and collision of these blocks with Laurentia along Grenvillian Belt at 1000 Ma. Finally, although the time Amazonian Craton collided with the Central African block is yet very disputed, the few late Neoproterozoic/Cambrian paleomagnetic poles available for the Amazonian Craton, Laurentia and other West Gondwana blocks suggest that the Clymene Ocean separating these blocks has only closed at late Ediacaran to Cambrian times, after the Amazonian Craton rifted apart from Laurentia at ca. 570 Ma. |
publishDate |
2016 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2016-06-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2317-48892016000200275 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2317-48892016000200275 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/2317-4889201620160055 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Journal of Geology v.46 n.2 2016 reponame:Brazilian Journal of Geology instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia (SBGEO) instacron:SBGEO |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia (SBGEO) |
instacron_str |
SBGEO |
institution |
SBGEO |
reponame_str |
Brazilian Journal of Geology |
collection |
Brazilian Journal of Geology |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Journal of Geology - Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia (SBGEO) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
sbgsede@sbgeo.org.br||claudio.riccomini@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1752122398436491264 |