Evolution of the Greater Caucasus Basement and Formation of the Main Caucasus Thrust, Georgia

Along the northern margin of the Arabia‐Eurasia collision zone in the western Greater Caucasus, the Main Caucasus Thrust (MCT) juxtaposes Paleozoic crystalline basement to the north against Mesozoic metasedimentary and volcaniclastic rocks to the south. The MCT is commonly assumed to be the trace of an active plate‐boundary scale structure that accommodates Arabia‐Eurasia convergence, but field data supporting this interpretation are equivocal. Here we investigate the deformation history of the rocks juxtaposed across the MCT in Georgia using field observations, microstructural analysis, U‐Pb and 40Ar/39Ar geochronology, and 40Ar/39Ar and (U‐Th)/He thermochronology. Zircon U‐Pb analyses show that Greater Caucasus crystalline rocks formed in the Early Paleozoic on the margin of Gondwana. Low‐pressure/temperature amphibolite‐facies metamorphism of these metasedimentary rocks and associated plutonism likely took place during Carboniferous accretion onto the Laurussian margin, as indicated by igneous and metamorphic zircon U‐Pb ages of ~330–310 Ma. 40Ar/39Ar ages of ~190–135 Ma from muscovite in a greenschist‐facies shear zone indicate that the MCT likely developed during Mesozoic inversion and/or rifting of the Caucasus Basin. A Mesozoic 40Ar/39Ar biotite age with release spectra indicating partial resetting and Cenozoic (<40 Ma) apatite and zircon (U‐Th)/He ages imply at least ~5–8 km of Greater Caucasus basement exhumation since ~10 Ma in response to Arabia‐Eurasia collision. Cenozoic reactivation of the MCT may have accommodated a fraction of this exhumation. However, Cenozoic zircon (U‐Th)/He ages in both the hanging wall and footwall of the MCT require partitioning a substantial component of this deformation onto structures to the south.Plain Language SummaryCollisions between continents cause deformation of the Earth’s crust and the uplift of large mountain ranges like the Himalayas. Large faults often form to accommodate this deformation and may help bring rocks once buried at great depths up to the surface of the Earth. The Greater Caucasus Mountains form the northernmost part of a zone of deformation due to the ongoing collision between the Arabian and Eurasian continents. The Main Caucasus Thrust (MCT) is a fault juxtaposing old igneous and metamorphic (crystalline) rocks against younger rocks that has often been assumed to be a major means of accommodating Arabia‐Eurasia collision. This study examines the history of rocks along the MCT with a combination of field work, study of microscopic deformation in rocks, and dating of rock formation and cooling. The crystalline rocks were added to the margins of present‐day Eurasia about 330–310 million years ago, and the MCT first formed about 190–135 million years ago. The MCT is likely at most one of many structures accommodating present‐day Arabia‐Eurasia collision.Key PointsAmphibolite‐facies metamorphism and plutonism in the Greater Caucasus basement took place ~330–310 MaThe Main Caucasus Thrust formed as a greenschist‐facies shear zone during Caucasus Basin inversion and/or rifting (~190–135 Ma)The Main Caucasus Thrust may have helped facilitate a portion of at least 5–8 km of basement exhumation during Arabia‐Eurasia collisionPeer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154626/1/tect21292-sup-0002-2019TC005828-ts01.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154626/2/tect21292-sup-0006-2019TC005828-ts05.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154626/3/tect21292_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154626/4/tect21292-sup-0003-2019TC005828-ts02.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154626/5/tect21292-sup-0005-2019TC005828-ts04.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154626/6/tect21292.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154626/7/tect21292-sup-0004-2019TC005828-ts03.pd

In-situ evidence for dextral active motion at the Arabia-India plate boundary

International audienceThe Arabia-India plate boundary--also called theOwen fracture zone--is perhaps the least-known boundary among large tectonic plates1-6. Although it was identified early on as an example of a transform fault converting the divergent motion along the Carlsberg Ridge to convergent motion in the Himalayas7, its structure and rate of motion remains poorly constrained. Here we present the first direct evidence for active dextral strike-slip motion along this fault, based on seafloor multibeam mapping of the Arabia-India-Somalia triple junction in the northwest Indian Ocean. There is evidence for 12km of apparent strike-slip motion along the mapped segment of the Owen fracture zone, which is terminated to the south by a 50-km-wide pull-apart basin bounded by active faults. By evaluating these new constraints within the context of geodetic models of global plate motions, we determine a robust angular velocity for the Arabian plate relative to the Indian plate that predicts 2-4mmyr−1 dextral motion along the Owen fracture zone. This transformfault was probably initiated around 8 million years ago in response to a regional reorganization of plate velocities and directions8-11, which induced a change in configuration of the triple junction. Infrequent earthquakes of magnitude 7 and greater may occur along the Arabia-India plate boundary, unless deformation is in the formof aseismic creep

The present-day number of tectonic plates

The number of tectonic plates on Earth described in the literature has expanded greatly since the start of the plate tectonic era, when only about a dozen plates were considered in global models of present-day plate motions. With new techniques of more accurate earthquake epicenter locations, modern ways of measuring ocean bathymetry using swath mapping, and the use of space based geodetic techniques, there has been a huge growth in the number of plates thought to exist. The study by Bird (2003) proposed 52 plates, many of which were delineated on the basis of earthquake locations. Because of the pattern of areas of these plates, he suggested that there should be more small plates than he could identify. In this paper, I gather together publications that have proposed a total of 107 new plates, giving 159 plates in all. The largest plate (Pacific) is about 20 % of the Earth's area or 104 Mm (super 2) , and the smallest of which (Plate number 5 from Hammond et al. 2011) is only 273 km (super 2) in area. Sorting the plates by size allows us to investigate how size varies as a function of order. There are several changes of slope in the plots of plate number organized by size against plate size order which are discussed. The sizes of the largest seven plates is constrained by the area of the Earth. A middle set of 73 plates down to an area of 97,563 km (super 2) (the Danakil plate at number 80, is the plate of median size) follows a fairly regular pattern of plate size as a function of plate number. For smaller plates, there is a break in the slope of the plate size/plate number plot and the next 32 plates follow a pattern of plate size proposed by the models of Koehn et al. (2008) down to an area of 11,638 km (super 2) (West Mojave plate # 112). Smaller plates do not follow any regular pattern of area as a function of plate number, probably because we have not sampled enough of these very small plates to reveal any clear pattern. Copyright 2016 The Author(s) and Harrison

Paleoseismic History of the Dead Sea Fault Zone

International audienceThe aim of this entry is to describe the DSF as a transform plate boundary pointing out the rate of activedeformation, fault segmentation, and geometrical complexities as a control of earthquake ruptures. Thedistribution of large historical earthquakes from a revisited seismicity catalogue using detailedmacroseismic maps allows the correlation between the location of past earthquakes and fault segments.The recent results of paleoearthquake investigations (paleoseismic and archeoseismic) with a recurrenceinterval of large events and long-term slip rate are presented and discussed along with the identification ofseismic gaps along the fault. Finally, the implications for the seismic hazard assessment are also discussed