Sedimentary basin and detrital zircon record along East Laurentia and Baltica during assembly and breakup of Rodinia
325
Citation
159
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
Tectonic processes associated with supercontinent cycles result in a variety of basin types, and the isotopic dating of detrital minerals within sedimentary sequences assists palaeogeographical reconstructions. Basins located along the Laurentia–Baltica margin prior to assembly of Rodinia at 1.2–1.0 Ga are dominated by zircon detritus derived from contemporaneous magmatic arcs. Basins formed during assembly are also dominated by zircon detritus with ages similar to that of sediment accumulation, reflecting syn-collisional magmatism and rapid exhumation of the developing Grenville–Sveconorwegian orogen. Post-collision intracratonic basins lack input from syn-depositional magmatism, and are dominated by significantly older detritus derived from the mountain range as well as its foreland. Basins formed during late Neoproterozoic to Cambrian breakup of Rodinia are divisible into two types. Those within the Caledonides lie on the Grenville–Sveconorwegian foreland and incorporate Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic detritus derived from the cratonic interior and Mesoproterozoic detritus derived from the eroded remnants of the orogen. In the Appalachian orogen, such basins are dominated by Mesoproterozoic detritus with older detritus forming only a minor component, suggesting restricted input from the cratonic interior as a result of either the Grenville orogen still forming a drainage divide or the formation of rift shoulders.Keywords:
Baltica
Rodinia
Laurentia
Abstract Late Ediacaran opening of the Iapetus Ocean is typically considered to reflect separation of Baltica and Laurentia during final breakup of the Rodinia supercontinent, with subsequent closure during the Caledonian Orogeny. However, evidence of the pre‐opening juxtaposition of Baltica and Laurentia is limited to purportedly similar apparent polar wander paths and correlation of Rodinia‐forming orogenic events. We show that a range of existing data do not unequivocally support correlation of these orogens, and that geologic and palaeomagnetic data instead favour separation of Baltica and Laurentia as early as 1.1–1.2 Ga. Furthermore, new detrital zircon U–Pb age and Ar–Ar thermochronological data from Norway point towards an active western Baltican margin throughout most of the Neoproterozoic and early Palaeozoic. These findings are inconsistent with the majority of palaeogeographic reconstructions that place Baltica near the core of the Rodinia supercontinent.
Rodinia
Baltica
Laurentia
Supercontinent
Orogeny
Cite
Citations (6)
Abstract Final Rodinia supercontinent breakup during the early Ediacaran is recorded by mafic dyke swarms in Baltica and Laurentia, but corresponding dykes have been elusive for Amazonia, the third craton involved. We report ages and compositions for plume‐related dykes intruded into Rodinia‐type basement of the Novillo Gneiss, part of a microcontinent placed between Amazonia and Baltica in Rodinia reconstructions. In situ U‐Pb micro‐baddeleyite dating with secondary ion mass spectrometry yielded dyke intrusion ages of 619 ± 9 Ma (95% c.i.), coeval with ages of similar dykes from Baltica and Laurentia. A younger age group is consistent with an earlier 40 Ar‐ 39 Ar age at ~545 Ma, reflecting Pb loss and recrystallization during hydrothermal alteration. The results indicate an Amazonia‐Baltica‐Laurentia connection prior to opening of the Iapetus Ocean and suggest a previously unrecognized superplume‐related large igneous province extending over all sides of the former triple point. Weathering of these large igneous province basalts may have contributed to Ediacaran Gaskiers glaciation.
Baltica
Rodinia
Laurentia
Supercontinent
Large igneous province
Baddeleyite
Cite
Citations (30)
Baltica
Rodinia
Laurentia
Supercontinent
Orogeny
Cite
Citations (255)
Abstract The core of the Rodinia supercontinent has long been considered to have consisted of three cratons – Baltica, Laurentia and Amazonia – amalgamated along the late Mesoproterozoic Sveconorwegian, Grenville and Sunsas orogens. In recent years, however, it has become increasingly clear that the metamorphic and magmatic evolution of the Sveconorwegian orogen is inconsistent with a collisional model. Although geological data alone do not rule out proximity to Rodinia, palaeomagnetic data indicate significant latitudinal separation of Baltica and Laurentia during supercontinent assembly. In this contribution, we briefly review two recently proposed and mutually exclusive tectonic models for the Sveconorwegian orogeny and present a compilation of previously published and new chemical and isotopic data. A lack of crustal thickening throughout much of the orogen and few if any changes in lower-crustal sources and melting conditions between 1.3 and 0.9 Ga suggest that the western part of the Sveconorwegian orogeny represents a change from a dominantly extensional to a compressional back-arc regime, but without a significant change in overall tectonic setting. This orogenic evolution is incompatible with amalgamation into Rodinia and suggests that Baltica may have been isolated until the Silurian Caledonian orogeny.
Rodinia
Baltica
Supercontinent
Laurentia
Orogeny
Cite
Citations (6)
Laurentia
Baltica
Rodinia
Supercontinent
Apparent polar wander
Cite
Citations (537)
Laurentia
Baltica
Rodinia
Supercontinent
Laurasia
Cite
Citations (20)
Laurentia
Rodinia
Baltica
Supercontinent
Large igneous province
Geochronology
Sill
Cite
Citations (116)
Abstract The Grenville, Sveconorwegian, and Sunsas orogens are typically inferred to reflect collision between Laurentia, Baltica, and Amazonia at ca. 1.0 Ga, forming a central portion of the Rodinia supercontinent. This triple‐junction configuration is often nearly identical in otherwise diverse Rodinia reconstructions. However, available geological data suggest that although the Grenville and Sveconorwegian provinces shared a similar tectonic evolution from pre‐1.8 to ca. 1.5 Ga, they record distinctly different tectonic histories leading up to, during, and possibly following Grenville–Sveconorwegian orogenesis. Moreover, palaeomagnetic data suggest the two continents were separated at peak orogenesis, further invalidating any direct correlation. A number of possible interpretations are permissible with available geological and palaeomagnetic data, of which a “classic” triple‐junction configuration appears least likely. In contrast to the commonly inferred intertwined Proterozoic evolution of Baltica and Laurentia, the possibility remains that they were unrelated for a billion years between 1.5 and 0.45 Ga.
Rodinia
Laurentia
Baltica
Supercontinent
Cite
Citations (34)
Baltica
Laurentia
Rodinia
Supercontinent
Cite
Citations (10)
Laurentia
Baltica
Rodinia
Supercontinent
Cite
Citations (156)