TECTONOPHYSICS GEO4-1409 FINAL PAPER: PLATE BOUNDARY CHANGES FOLLOWING COLLISION. OBSERVATIONS AND MODELS.

STUDENT: RAFAEL FERNANDO DIAZ GAZTELU 3777901 LECTURER & SUPERVISOR: ROB GOVERS DATE: MAY 2013

FACULTY OF GEOSCIENCES UTRECHT UNIVERSITY THE NETHERLANDS

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

PLATE BOUNDARY CHANGES FOLLOWING COLLISION: MODELS & OBSERVATIONS.

ABSTRACT The collision that usually takes place between two plates may derive into different kinds of events depending on which sites these collisions take part. More specifically, depending on the kind of weak zone of the plate (Mantle Wedge, Plate Interface, Lower Continental Crust, etc.), there will be some diverse features like Subduction Polarity Reversal, Delamination or simply continuation of the subduction process. Comparison between observations based on both seismicity and Global Positioning System and numerical models may give an insight on the subject and maybe give directions for further investigation in order to improve our knowledge of collision tectonics.

INTRODUCTION Plate Tectonics is a unique characteristic in the known universe, no other planet in the Solar System displays evidence for the existence of plate dynamics. Subduction happens when two plates converge and one of them overrides the other, which sinks into the Earths mantle. Although the mechanisms that initiate the formation of new subduction zones are not fully understood even today, there is a consensus among geodynamicists that states that sinking of cold, gravitationally unstable lithosphere drives the plates and indirectly causes mantle to well up beneath mid-ocean ridges, therefore, the driving force of plate movement is sinking of the lithosphere, and weakening of it is a required factor for subduction nucleation. Numerical models concerning subduction initiation suggest that the subducting plate must be forced down at a rate of at least 1cm/yr, otherwise there is dissipation of thermally induced density effects and the subduction process wont be self-sustained (Toth & Gurnis, 1998). Once initiated, the temporal evolution of this scenario is one of the biggest challenges in geodynamics. After the subduction process is initiated, it undergoes a series of changes, of which this paper covers two of them, Subduction Polarity Reversal and Delamination. Subduction Polarity Reversal. Subduction Polarity Reversal consists on an interruption of the process of subduction due to a failure in the overriding plate (see frame 3 in Fig. 1) followed by rupture or bending of the subducting slab and resulting of the overriding plate subducting the former subducting plate, changing the roles of both plates (McKenzie, 1969).

-1-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

Figure 1. Subduction Polarity Reversal depicted in the case of an arc/continent-continent setting, the numbered frames indicate the temporal evolution of the system. P1 and P2 stand for plates 1 and 2, MW indicates the location of the mantle wedge and A is the Arc. It has been assumed a detachment of the subducting slab prior to the reversal, but it may also happen with no detachment whatsoever. The arrows show the main direction of movements of the plates and the slab, however, the mantle flow is assumed to be going upwards, along the slope of the subducting slab.

Subduction Polarity Reversal is observed in the Wetar Thrust, in the Algerian Margin, in the San Cristobal trench in the Solomon Islands and in the New Hebrides, but in this paper only the case for the Solomon Islands will be covered and compared with models. Delamination As a result of the weakest zone in the setting being the crust itself another possible scenario following continental collision arises, and that is delamination. This mechanism displays a part or the whole buoyant continental plate breaking apart from the lithosphere in a sort of planar geometry. Resistance to subduction of continental crust causes delamination of subducted continental crust from the rest of the subducting lithosphere and formation of a new plate boundary near the former one.

Figure 2. A depiction of delamination in the case of an arc/continent-continent setting. The numbered frames indicate the temporal evolution of the system. P1, and P2 stand for plates 1 and 2, MW indicates the location of the mantle wedge and A is the Arc. The arrows show the main direction of movement of the plates, however, the mantle flow is assumed to be going upwards, along the slope of the subducting slab.

-2-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

As seen in Fig. 2, the pushing of P2 over P1 turns out into the breaking of P1, peeling the crust flake and stacking it under the arc. Delamination has been observed to happen in the Himalayas, in the Aegean Region, at the North American Cordillera and in the collision zone in N-S China. In this paper, only the Himalayas case will be covered. OBSERVATIONS Solomon Islands This arc-trench system is only a part of the convergent boundary between the westward moving Pacific Plate and the northward moving Indo-Australian Plate. Clear evidence of this happening is the presence of volcanic arcs since the early Eocene.

Figure 3. Spatial seismicity study of the Solomon Islands (ISC less than 4.7 Mb, from the 1st of January 1964 to the 30th of June 1984). The dashed-dotted line marks the North Solomon trench. This map also displays the four cross sections A-D useful in the next figure. (Cooper & Taylor 1985).

In the event of a convergent plate boundary, the downgoing slab is spatially mapped thanks to the deep seismicity that it induces. The hypocenter map that shapes the slab is known as the Wadati-Benioff Zone. Regional seismicity studies reveal the existence of two juxtaposed Wadati-Benioff zones of opposite polarity. This is evidence for a reversal in the polarity of the arc region (Fig. 4) as a result of the convergence between the Ontong Java plateau ad the Solomon arc.
-3-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

Figure 4. Projections on vertical planes (located in Fig. 3) of ISC seismicity. NBT stands for New Britain Trench, SCT is San Cristobal Trench and NST stands for North Solomon Trench. (Cooper & Taylor 1985).

Himalayas About 60 million years ago, the Indian Plate moved northward carrying the Indian subcontinent, closing the Neo-Tethys ocean at about 40-50 Ma (Mattauer 1986), and as it subducted under the Eurasian Plate, an accretionary wedge accumulated from the sediments and oceanic crust scraped off the descending plate. Rising magma from the descending plate thickened the Eurasian Plate crust. Approximately 30 to 50 million years ago, the Indian subcontinent collided with Tibet, but India was too buoyant to be subducted into the mantle, so India broke along the Main Central Thrust fault (Molnar & Lyon-Caen 1988). As the collision continued, the motion was taken up along the thrust fault, and a slice of Indian crust and shelf sediments was stacked onto the oncoming subcontinent. From 10 to 20 million years ago, the Main Boundary Fault developed, stacking a second slice of crust onto India and lifting the first slice. Therefore, it was proposed that the continued subduction was possible due to the peeling away of the subducting lithospheric mantle from the corresponding continental crust, what is known as delamination (Bird 1978).

-4-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

Figure 5. Stacking of tectonic units in the Himalayas. MCT- Main Central Thrust. MBT - Main Boundary thrust. MFT - Main frontal thrust. (Johnson, 2002)

Also, it was proposed that the deformation in the Himalayas is driven by shear delamination of the continental crust along the crust-mantle below the crust along the Moho (Mattauer 1986). Moreover, the stacking of thrust sheets in the central part of the Himalayas is indicative of shear delamination and continued subduction of the lithospheric mantle (Johnson, 2002).

MODELS There are numerous models describing the various effects taking place in a subduction scenario. Chemenda et al. (2001) constructed a both physical and numerical model in which the forces associated with the asthenosphere and the subducting plate were the boundary conditions themselves. On the other hand, Baes, Govers & Wortel (2011) covers a wide area of study as they proposed a series of models deployed with respect a reference model in which they changed some properties in order to depict the three principal outcomes described at the beginning of this paper. Also, Baes et al (2011) cover both continent-continent and arc-continent collision. Using the GTECTON (Govers & Wortel 1993) finite element code, they studied the deformation patterns during early stages of continental collision and solved the momentum equation to obtain stresses and velocities. Lastly, Midtkandal et al. (2013) built a series of analogue experiments, building a lithosphere model made of sand and silicone putty, simulating a plate convergence, and although the model is based on the Iberian-Eurasian plate convergence and oriented to the understanding of deformation patterns and the local orogen, it provides a clear visualization of the process.

-5-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

Analogue modeling Analogue models are the simplest way to carry out a simulation. The method consists on simulate simplified stress profiles, which incorporate brittle (simulated by several kinds of sand) and ductile (simulated by silicone putty) rheologies with gravity forces.

Figure 6. Experimental setup by Midtkandal et al 2013, performed in the Experimental Tectonic Laboratory, Universit Rennes I, France, showing the model geometry. The cross-sections 1 and 2 are detailed on the right. The numbers accompanying each layer are the densities of each layer. (Midtkandal et al. 2013).

The experimental setup (Fig. 6) was built in a 42x44cm container, partially filled with a water solution of sodium polytungstate, representing a low-viscosity asthenosphere. The southern edge consists on a vertical wall attached to a pair of sidewalls reaching halfway along the length of the model and it pushed at a constant rate. The eastern part consists of two plates with continental-type strength profiles separated by a narrow weak zone whereas the western part the two continental plates are separated in map view by a larger wedge shape plate with a brittle, oceanic-type strength profile. The experience consisted on a series of 24 experiments, among which 19 of them were considered successful. The variables of the experiment were the thickness of the high strength lithosphere mantle (from now on HSLM) and the shortening velocity. Three different typical experiments were selected, corresponding to three bulk deformation patterns; subduction polarity reversal, uniform subduction polarity and transition from subduction to folding.

-6-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

Figure 7. The plot shows the distribution of experimental results as a function of both the shortening velocity and the HSLM. CC stands for Continental Crust whereas OC stands for Oceanic Crust. (Midtkandal et al. 2013).

The first deformation pattern, which corresponds to subduction polarity reversal is predominant when HSLM >5 mm and velocity of shortening >5mm/h and is the most prevalent scenario (see Fig. 7), covering 12 of the 19 successful experiments. As seen in Fig. 8a, there is a switch of subduction polarity between the segments CC and OC.

Figure 8. Selected profiles for the three patterns, from West to East of the experimental model. (Midtkandal et al. 2013).

Fig. 8b corresponds to the second pattern, which displays no subduction polarity reversal whatsoever, obtained with lower convergence rate and thicker HSLM, indicating that a strong decoupling between upper brittle crust and HSLM can prevent switch of polarity.
-7-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

Another interesting model is the one done by Chemenda et al. (2001). Using a 2D physical and finite-element numerical modeling technique, they studied the evolution and failure of the overriding lithosphere during subduction, which turned out to be plausible and in some occasions, even inevitable. The key to these changes is weakening of some parts of the setup. This weakening is due to the interaction between the subducting lithosphere and the asthenosphere in the mantle wedge between the two plates, and due to back-arc spreading. In the case of oceanic subduction, the weakest part is the volcanic arc area, and when it becomes weak enough, the lithosphere fails there, occurring along a fault dipping under the arc in either of two possible directions and results either in subduction polarity reversal or subduction of the fore arc due to fragmentation of the overriding plate (delamination).

Figure 9. Experimental model. 1= Oceanic overriding lithosphere; 2= Oceanic segment of the subducting lithosphere; 3= Plastic upper continental crust with strong strain weakening; 4= Ductile, very weak lower crust; 5= Plastic continental lithospeheric mantle; 6= Piston; 7= Liquid low-viscosity asthenosphere; Lb= Back-arc spreading centre/trench distance; La= arc/trench distance. The table shows an outline of the model parameters throughout the series of experiments. (Chemenda et al. 2001).

The model setup can be seen schematised in Fig. 9; it includes a one-layer overriding oceanic lithosphere and a three layer continental lithosphere. All the lithosphere layers possess plastic properties and the upper continental crust, the continental lithospheric mantle and the oceanic lithosphere have the same yield limit and are characterized by a strong strain weakening. The lower continental crust is considerably weaker and more ductile (see the table in Fig. 9 for more details). The lithosphere is underlain by a low-viscosity asthenosphere, which in the experiment is just pure water. Lastly, the convergence is driven by a piston moving at a constant rate throughout the experiment.

-8-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

Figure 10. Time evolution of the 4th experiment. (Chemenda et al. 2001).

After a series of experiences with rather different features, experiment 4 (this one having an increased Lb by 1.4 cm, which in would be about 40 km in real life), there was a failure (Fig. 10f) in the overriding plate in the opposite direction, followed by subduction polarity reversal (Figs. 10f and g).

-9-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

Numerical Modelling Baes et al (2011) constructed a series of numerical models of a subduction scenario, changing properties among them in order to show the different responses. The reference model is a box 1200 km wide and 660 km deep in which two convergent plates moving with a velocity of 1cm/yr, which is consistent with the conditions for self-sustainability of a subduction process (Toth & Gurnis 1998). The continental crust lies below the arc, with a channel (8km wide) in between. The Slab broke off and is 30 km deep below the subducting continental crust edge, which is enough to assume a decoupling between the two (See Fig. 11). Concerning temperature, the initial field in the subducting slab away from the trench is based on a steady-state geotherm (surface heat flow of 65 mW/m2). The temperature of the mantle below the lithosphere (75 km thick) changes adiabatically with a gradient of 0.4K/km. The driving forces of the setup are the gravitational forces associated with density variations and the forces imposed with the convergence rate. Lastly, the model follows a viscoelastic-plastic-rheology. The state of stress, strain rate and temperature drive the domains of elastic, viscous and plastic behaviour. The viscosity associated with the sinking slab is set to 1023 Pa s whereas the viscosity of the channel and the mantle is assumed to be 5 1020 Pa s.

Figure 11. General depiction of M1, in which distances, boundary conditions and temperature (colours) are represented. The broken off slab is 70 thick, 600 km long and is 30 km below the detachment edge. It has a vertical velocity of 1.5 cm/yr. (Baes et al. 2011).

Then M1 was modified by replacing the newly formed shear zone by another narrow dipping channel (4km thick), with a sediment layer on top of the surface to lubricate the channel with sedimentary material. This new model evolution is shown in Fig. 12. There is an uplifting motion on the initial subducting slab. The oceanic lithosphere has been subducted beneath the arc along the new plate boundary (Baes et al. 2011).

-10-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

Figure 12. Model M1ch. The left frame shows the effective strain and the right frame displays the shear strain, both at t = 3.2 Myr for model M1ch. Black arrows represent the velocity field at the indicated times. The vector in the green box on the lower left side of the figure indicates the scale of velocity vectors. The arrows of the colour bar of total shear strain show the sense of shear as seen in the vertical model section. (Baes et al 2011).

In model M2 there is no detachment of the sunken slab. There is a leftward shear motion in the channel and the shear motion along the arc/backarc boundary is rightward, which means subduction of the backarc beneath the arc. Similarly as in M1 (and M1ch), an uplift motion takes place in the subducting slab as well as on the arc. It is greater in M2 though, due to the lower suction force (no detachment). Also, vertical displacement shows a similar pattern as in M1.

Figure 13. Two different modes for M2: (a) to (d) corresponds to M2a: No imposed velocities at the bottom of the slab. Frames (e) to (h) correspond to M2b, which has an imposed velocity at the bottom of the slab which is the same as in the convergence of the two plates (Baes et al 2011).
-11-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

There is sinistral shear motion within the channel, which indicates that the plate interface is still active. Whereas the shear motion along the arc/backarc boundary is dextral, implying subduction of the backarc beneath the arc. It must be highlighted the increase of both effective and total shear strains in the fault between the arc and the overriding plate. In both models, M2a and M2b the response is a subduction polarity reversal even though the first subducting slab is still attached. Unlike in M1 and M2, which had a weak astenosphere and therefore a weak mantle wedge, in model M3, they assumed a much stronger mantle wedge, giving the asthenosphere a much higher viscosity, 10 23 Pa s.

Figure 14: Model M3. The left frame shows the effective strain and the right frame displays the shear strain, both at t = 1.65 Myr. The vector in the green box on the lower left side of the figure indicates the scale of velocity vectors. The arrows of the colour bar of total shear strain show the sense of shear as seen in the vertical model section (Baes et al 2011).

As seen in Fig. 14, three deformation zones develop, one along the arc-backarc boundary and the other two localised in the subduction lithosphere, dipping parallel to the plate interface. There exists no shear motion whatsoever within the channel (black arrows vanish at this point), which means that the subduction contact is not operative. Two opposing motions, dextral and sinistral, in the arc-backarc boundary and in the subducting plate respectively leads to the existence of a shear zone in between that does not extend throughout the whole lithosphere beneath the arc, meaning that it is not as active as the shear zone which develops on the subducting slab. As it turns out, the weakest part of the system is the lower continental crust, leading to the delamination of the continental crust. This is, breaking apart from the rest of the subducting slab and the consequent formation of a new plate boundary near the former trench. This happens when the contrast between the mantle wedge and surrounding lithosphere (MW/ Lith) is less than one order of magnitude.

-12-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION In this paper, plate boundary changes following collision were studied (and focusing mostly on Subduction Polarity Reversal) first looking at observations for those changes, then going through some models (both analogous and numerical) for the above mentioned phenomena. When it comes to compare what was found in the models with the observations recorded at some local spots, a really straightforward diagram arises.

Figure 15. The horizontal axis indicates the relative strength of the mantle wedge which is expressed by ratio of the viscosity of the mantle wedge ( MW) to the backarc lithosphere's viscosity (Lith), whereas the vertical axis displays coupling between continental crust and lithospheric mantle (of the subducting plate) which is defined as ratio of the viscosity of the lower continental crust ( LCC) to the viscosity of the upper lithospheric mantle (ULM). (Baes et al 2011).

There are three possible outcomes as a result of two convergent plates (either continent-continent or arc-continent), depending on where is located the weakest point of the setup. If the weakest point happens to be the mantle wedge, the outcome of the subducting scenario turns to be subduction polarity reversal (upper left quadrant of Fig. 10). This happening only when the viscosity of the mantle is at least one order of magnitude lower than the average viscosity of the lithosphere. In the case of
-13-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

continent-continent collision, the ratio of the viscosity of the lower continental crust ( LCC) to the viscosity of the upper lithospheric mantle ( ULM) must be equal or greater than 0.006. The weakness of the mantle wedge can be checked by two means, the slab length and the subduction rate. Concerning slab length, tomography reveals a 2000km long flat-lying anomaly below the Solomon Islands (Hall & Spakman 2002) that can be interpreted as remnant of past subduction zones (Baes et al 2011). Also, the slab, being larger than 650 km may allow weakening of the mantle wedge due to slab dehydration. Solomon Islands subducting rate is about 7-8 cm yr -1 which is fast enough (Baes et al. 2011). If the weak part of the setup happens to be plate interface, the result is plain continuation of the subduction. If the weak part of the setup turns out to be the lower continental crust, the outcome is delamination (lower right quadrant on Fig. 10), happening when the ratio between the viscosity of the mantle wedge and the viscosity of the surrounding lithosphere are at least of one order of magnitude (i.e. greater than 0.1). Taking the same criteria as in the case for subduction polarity reversal in the previous paragraph, the Himalayas have a slab length of 6000 km and a convergence rate of 10 cm yr-1. Chemeda et al. (2001), on the other hand, concluded that an increase in non-hydrostatic, horizontal tectonic compression of the overriding lithosphere combined with the fact that the lithosphere is weakened due to interaction between the subducting lithosphere and the asthenosphere (in the mantle corner, between the two plates) and due to back-arc spreading, it can fail in the arc, triggering either a switch in subduction polarity or subduction of the fore-arc lithosphere. Finally, Midtkandal et al. (2013) concluded that Subduction Polarity Reversal occurs when there is a medium to strong coupling between the brittle and the ductile lithospheric layers, and for thicknesses of sub-Moho mantle hHSLM < 5 mm, which, in turn, implies a medium to high strength in the upper lithospheric mantle (see Fig. 7).
EFFECT CAUSE MODEL OBSERVATIONS

Delamination Subduction Polarity Reversal

Weak lower continental crust Weak Mantle wedge Weak Lithosphere. Increase of compression Strong upper lithospheric Mantle

Baes et. al 2011 Chemenda et al. 2001

Himalayas

Solomon Islands Midtkandal et al. 2013

Table 1. Comparison between models and observations concerning Subduction Polarity Reversal and Delamination.

A general overview of the Models versus Observations concerning changes following collision can be seen in Table 1. Concerning Subduction Polarity Reversal, the appearance of this phenomenon is characteristic of long-time lasting subduction, consequently providing weakening of the mantle wedge or lithosphere through hydration, consistent with both Baes et al. (2011) and Chemenda et al. (2001) respectively. However, the effect that causes the overriding plate to fail varies from model to model; further investigation and modeling should clarify this point.

-14-

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

CONCLUSIONS Two main scenarios resulting from the collision of two plates were studied in this paper, Subduction Polarity Reversal (or the absence of it) and delamination. A switch in subduction polarity is caused by faulting in the overriding plate whereas delamination is found to be caused by highly buoyant colliding plates. The variables that trigger these changes appear to be related to the strength or weakness of diverse parts of the set-up, according to the corresponding models, these are summarised in Table 1. REFERENCES
Baes et al. Switching between alternative responses of the lithosphere to continental collision. Geophysical Journal International, 187, 11511174, 2011. Bird, P., 1978. Initiation of intracontinental subduction in the Himalaya, J. geophys. Res., 83, 49754987. Chemenda, A.I., Hurpin, D., Tang, J.-C., Stephan, J.-F. & Buffet, G., 2001. Impact of arc- continent collision on the conditions of burial and exhumation of UHP/LT rocks: experimental and numerical modeling, Tectonophysics, 342, 137161. Cloetingh S., Wortel R., Vlaar N. J. 1989. On the initiation of subduction zones. Pure and applied geophysics, Volume 129, Issue 1-2, pp 7-25 Cooper, P.A. & Taylor, B., 1985. Polarity reversal in the Solomon Islands arc, Nature, 314, 428430. Cowley, S., Mann, P., Cofn, M.F. & Shipley, T.H., 2004. Oligocene to Recent tectonic history of the Central Solomon intra-arc basin as determined from marine seismic reection data and compilation of onland geology, Tectonophysics, 389, 267307. Faccenda, M., Gerya, T.V. & Chakraborty, S., 2008. Styles of postsubduction collisional orogeny: inuence of convergence velocity, crustal rheology and radiogenic heat production, Lithos, 103, 257287 Govers, R. & Wortel, M.J.R., 1993. Initiation of asymmetric extension in continental lithosphere, Tectonophysics, 223, 7596. Hall, R. & Spakman, W., 2002. Subduction slabs beneath the eastern Indonesia-Tonga region:
-15-

insights from tomography, Earth planet. Sci. Lett., 201, 321336. Johnson, M.R.W., 2002. Shortening budgets and the role of continental subduction during the India-Asia collision. Earth-Sci. Rev., 59, 101123. Kroenke, L.W., 1989. Interpretation of a multichannel seismic reection prole northeast of the Solomon Islands from the southern ank of the Ontong Java Plateau across the Malaita anticlinorium to the Solomon Islands arc, in Geology and Offshore Resources of Pacic Island Arcs-Solomon Islands and Bougainville, Papua New Guinea region, Earth Science Series, Vol. 12, pp. 145148, eds Vedder, J.G., Bruns, T.R., Circumpacic Council for Energy and Mineral Resources, Houston, TX. Kroenke, L.W., Resig, J.M. & Cooper, R.A., 1986. Tectonics of the southeastern Solomon Islands: formation of the Malaita anticlinorium. in Geology and Offshore Resources of Pacic Islands, Earth Science Series, Vol. 4, pp. 109115, eds Vedder, J.G., Pound, K.S., Boundy S.Q., Circum-Pacic Council for Energy and Mineral Resources, Houston, TX. Mann, P. & Taira, A., 2004. Global tectonic signicance of the Solomon Island and Ontong Java Plateau convergent zone, Tectonophysics, 389, 137190. Mattauer, M., 1986. Intracontinental subduction, crust-mantle decollement and crustal-stacking wedge in the Himalayas and other collision belts, Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ., 19, 3750. Midtkandal I., Brun J. P., Gabrielsen R. H., Huismans R. S. 2013. Control of lithosphere rheology on subduction polarity at initiation: Insights from 3D analogue modeling. Earth and

Plate boundary changes following collision

Rafael F. Daz Gaztelu 3777901

Planetary Science Letters, 361, 219-228. Miura, S., Suyehiro, K., Shinohara, M., Takahashi, N., Araki, E. & Taira, A., 2004. Seismological structure and implications of collision between the Ontong Java Plateau and Solomon Island Arc from ocean bottom seismometer-airgun data, Tectonophysics, 389, 191230. Molnar P., Lyon-Caen H. 1988. Some simple physical aspects of the support, structure and evolution of mountain belts. Geological Society of America Special Paper 218, 180-206. Morency, C. & Doin, M.-P., 2004. Numerical simulations of the mantle lithosphere delamination. J. geophys. Res., 109, McKenzie, D.P., 1969. Speculations on the consequences and causes of plate motions, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., 18, 132. Phinney, E.J., Mann, P., Cofn, M.F. & Shipley, T.H., 2004. Sequence stratigraphy, structural style, and age of deformation of the Malaita accretionary prism (Solomon arc-Ontong Java plateau convergent zone), Tectonophysics, 389, 221246. Stern R.J., 2004, Subduction initiation: spontaneous & induced. Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 226, Issues 34, 275292 Toth J., Gurnis M., 1998. Dynamics of subduction initiation at preexisting fault zones. Journal of Geophysical Research 103 (B8) 18053 18067. Yan, C.Y. & Kroenke, L.W., 1993. A plate-tectonic reconstruction of the southwest Pacic, 1000 Ma, Proc. Ocean Drill. Program, Sci. Results, 130, 697710

-16-