Lyell Collection

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (17) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Windley, B. F. Articles by Badarch, G. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Tectonic models for accretion of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt

^{1 1}Department of Geology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK (e-mail: brian.windley@btinternet.com)
^{2 2}Geological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pyzhevsky Lane 7, Moscow 119017, Russia
^{3 3}Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, PO Box 9825, Beijing 100029, China
^{4 4}Institut für Geowissenschaften, Universität Mainz, 55099 Mainz, Germany
^{5 5}Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Ulaanbaatar 210351, Mongolia (deceased)

The Central Asian Orogenic Belt (c. 1000–250 Ma) formed by accretion of island arcs, ophiolites, oceanic islands, seamounts, accretionary wedges, oceanic plateaux and microcontinents in a manner comparable with that of circum-Pacific Mesozoic–Cenozoic accretionary orogens. Palaeomagnetic and palaeofloral data indicate that early accretion (Vendian–Ordovician) took place when Baltica and Siberia were separated by a wide ocean. Island arcs and Precambrian microcontinents accreted to the active margins of the two continents or amalgamated in an oceanic setting (as in Kazakhstan) by roll-back and collision, forming a huge accretionary collage. The Palaeo-Asian Ocean closed in the Permian with formation of the Solonker suture. We evaluate contrasting tectonic models for the evolution of the orogenic belt. Current information provides little support for the main tenets of the one- or three-arc Kipchak model; current data suggest that an archipelago-type (Indonesian) model is more viable. Some diagnostic features of ridge–trench interaction are present in the Central Asian orogen (e.g. granites, adakites, boninites, near-trench magmatism, Alaskan-type mafic–ultramafic complexes, high-temperature metamorphic belts that prograde rapidly from low-grade belts, rhyolitic ash-fall tuffs). They offer a promising perspective for future investigations.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. RIPPINGTON, D. CUNNINGHAM, and R. ENGLAND Structure and petrology of the Altan Uul Ophiolite: new evidence for a Late Carboniferous suture in the Gobi Altai, southern Mongolia Journal of the Geological Society, 2008; 165: 711 - 723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K.T. Pickering, T.N. Koren, V.N. Lytochkin, and D.J. Siveter Silurian Devonian active-margin deep-marine systems and palaeogeography, Alai Range, Southern Tien Shan, Central Asia Journal of the Geological Society, 2008; 165: 189 - 210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. ZHAO, A. KRONER, S. A. WILDE, M. SUN, S. LI, X. LI, J. ZHANG, X. XIA, and Y. HE Lithotectonic elements and geological events in the Hengshan Wutai Fuping belt: a synthesis and implications for the evolution of the Trans-North China Orogen Geological Magazine, 2007; 144: 753 - 775. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

• Home  |  
• Current issue  |  
• Table of contents  |  
• Archive  |  
• Search  |  
• Feedback

• Copyright policy  |  
• Permissions request   |  
• Terms of use   |  
• Feedback   |  
• HighWire Press