Time evolution of the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly

The South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA) is one of the most outstanding anomalies of the geomagnetic field. The SAMA secular variation was obtained and compared to the evolution of other anomalies using spherical harmonic field models for the 1590-2005 period. An analysis of data from four South American observatories shows how this large scale anomaly affected their measurements. Since SAMA is a low total field anomaly, the field was separated into its nondipolar, quadrupolar and octupolar parts. The time evolution of the non-dipole/total, quadrupolar/total and octupolar/total field ratios yielded increasingly high values for the South Atlantic since 1750. The SAMA evolution is compared to the evolution of other large scale surface geomagnetic features like the North and the South Pole and the Siberia High, and this comparison shows the intensity equilibrium between these anomalies in both hemispheres. The analysis of non-dipole fields in historical period suggests that SAMA is governed by (i) quadrupolar field for drift, and (ii) quadrupolar and octupolar fields for intensity and area of influence. Furthermore, our study reinforces the possibility that SAMA may be related to reverse fluxes in the outer core under the South Atlantic region.A Anomalia Magnética do Atlântico Sul (SAMA) é uma das maiores anomalias do campo geomagnético. A variação secular da SAMA foi obtida e comparada com a evolução de outrasanomalias usando modelos de campo por harmônicos esféricos para o período de 1590-2005. Uma análise dos dados de quatro observatórios da América do Sul mostra como esta anomalia de grande escala afetou suas medidas. Como a SAMA é uma anomalia de campo total baixo, o campo foi separado nas componentes não-dipolar, quadrupolar e octupolar. A evolução temporal das razões dos campos não-dipolar/total, quadrupolar/total e octupolar/total mostram valores elevados para o Atlântico Sul desde 1750. A evolução da SAMA é comparada com a evolução de outras grandes feições geomagnéticas de superfície como os pólos Norte e Sul e o Alto da Sibéria, e sua comparação mostra o equilíbrio de intensidade entre estas anomalias em ambos os hemisférios. A análise dos campos não-dipolares no período histórico sugere que a SAMA é regida (i) pelo campo quadrupolar para a deriva, e (ii) pelos campos quadrupolar e octupolar para a intensidade e área de influência. Além disso, este estudo reforça a possibilidade de que a SAMA possa estar relacionada aos fluxos reversos no núcleo externo sob a região do Atlântico Sul.Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP

Columbia revisited: Paleomagnetic results from the 1790 Ma colider volcanics (SW Amazonian Craton, Brazil)

In an attempt to improve our understanding of the Paleoproterozoic geodynamic evolution, a paleomagnetic study was performed on 10 sites of acid volcanic rocks of the Colider Suite, southwestern Amazonian Craton. These rocks have a well-dated zircon U-Pb mean age of 1789 +/- 7 Ma. Alternating field and thermal demagnetization revealed northern (southern) directions with moderate to high upward (downward) inclinations. Rock magnetism experiments and magnetic mineralogy show that this characteristic magnetization is carried by Ti-poor magnetite or by hematite that replaces magnetite by late-magmatic cleuteric alteration. Both magnetite and hematite carry the same characteristic component. The mean direction (Dm = 183.0 degrees, Im = 53.5 degrees, N = 10, alpha(95) = 9.8 degrees, K = 25.2) yielded a paleomagnetic pole located at 298.8 degrees E, 63.3 degrees S (alpha(95) = 10.2 degrees, K = 23.6), which is classified with a quality factor Q = 5. Paleogeographic reconstructions using this pole and other reliable Paleoproterozoic poles suggest that Laurentia, Baltica, North China Craton and Amazonian Craton were located in laterally contiguous positions forming a large continental mass at 1790 Ma ago. This is reinforced by geological evidence which support the existence of the supercontinent Columbia in Paleoproterozoic times. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Tectonic implications of the 1419 Ma Nova Guarita mafic intrusives paleomagnetic pole (Amazonian Craton) on the longevity of Nuna

The Nuna supercontinent was probably assembled in the Paleoproterozoic, but its paleogeography and the timing for its demise are still a matter of debate. A paleomagnetic and geochronological study carried out on the Mesoproterozoic Nova Guarita dyke swarm (northern Mato Grosso State, SW Amazonian Craton) provides additional constraints on the duration of this supercontinent. Paleomagnetic AF and thermal treatment revealed south/southwest (northeast) magnetic directions with downward (upward) inclinations for 19 analyzed sites. These directions are carried by PSD magnetite with high unblocking temperatures as indicated by additional magnetic tests, including thermomagnetic curves, hysteresis loops and the progressive acquisition of isothermal remanence in selected samples. A positive contact test with the host granite in one of the studied dykes further attests to the primary origin of the characteristic magnetic component. A mean site direction was calculated at D =220.5°, I =45.9° (α =6.5°, K=27.7), which yielded a paleomagnetic pole located at 245.9°E, 47.9°S (A =7.0°). Ar/ Ar dating carried out on biotites from four analyzed dykes yielded well-defined plateau ages with a mean of 1418.5±3.5Ma. The Nova Guarita pole precludes a long-lived Nuna configuration in which Laurentia, Baltica, North China, and Amazonia formed a long and continuous block as previously proposed for the Paleoproterozoic. It is nevertheless fully compatible with a SAMBA (Amazonia-Baltica) link at Mesoproterozoic times

The 1420 Ma Indiavai Mafic Intrusion (SW Amazonian Craton): Paleomagnetic results and implications for the Columbia supercontinent

The configuration and the timing of assembly and break-up of Columbia are still matter of debate. In order to improve our knowledge about the Mesoproterozoic evolution of Columbia, a paleomagnetic study was carried out on the 1420 Ma Indiavai mafic intrusive rocks that crosscut the polycyclic Proterozoic basement of the SW Amazonian Craton, in southwestern Mato Grosso State (Brazil). Alternating field and thermal demagnetization revealed south/southwest ChRM directions with downward inclinations for sixteen analyzed sites. These directions are probably carried by SD/PSD magnetite with high coercivities and high unblocking temperatures as indicated by additional rock magnetic tests, including thermomagnetic data, hysteresis data and the progressive acquisition of isothermal remanent magnetization. Different stable magnetization components isolated in host rocks from the basement 10 km NW away to the Indiavai intrusion, further support the primary origin of the ChRM. A mean of the site mean directions was calculated at Dm = 209.8 degrees, Im = 50.7 degrees (alpha(95) = 8.0 degrees, K = 22.1), which yielded a paleomagnetic pole located at 249.7 degrees E, 57.0 degrees S (A(95) = 8.6 degrees). The similarity of this pole with the recently published 1420 Ma pole from the Nova Guarita dykes in northern Mato Grosso State suggests a similar tectonic framework for these two sites located 600 km apart, implying the bulk rigidity of the Rondonian-San Ignacio crust at that time. Furthermore these data provide new insights on the tectonic significance of the 1100-1000 Ma Nova Brasilandia belt-a major EW feature that cuts across the basement rocks of this province, which can now be interpreted as intracratonic, in contrast to previous interpretation. From a global perspective, a new Mesoproterozoic paleogeography of Columbia has been proposed based on comparison of these 1420 Ma poles and a 1780 Ma pole from Amazonia with other paleomagnetic poles of similar age from Baltica and Laurentia, a reconstruction in agreement with geological correlations. (C) 2012 International Association for Gondwana Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.FAPESPFAPESP [07/53177-4, 07/59531-4, 11/50887-6]CNPq [554458/2005-5, 302917/2009-8]CNPqSwedish Research Council (VR)Swedish Research Council (VR