Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Mesoproterozoic paleogeography: Supercontinent and beyond
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Core to Crust Fluid Systems (CCFS) and the Institute for Geoscience Research (TIGeR), Department of Applied Geology, Curtain University.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Geosciences and Environmental Engineering.
Division of Geophysics and Astronomy, Department of Physics, University of Helsinki.
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Core to Crust Fluid Systems (CCFS) and the Institute for Geoscience Research (TIGeR), Department of Applied Geology, Curtain University.
2014 (English)In: Precambrian Research, ISSN 0301-9268, E-ISSN 1872-7433, Vol. 244, p. 207-225Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

A set of global paleogeographic reconstructions for the 1770–1270 Ma time interval is presented here through a compilation of reliable paleomagnetic data (at the 2009 Nordic Paleomagnetic Workshop in Luleå, Sweden) and geological constraints. Although currently available paleomagnetic results do not rule out the possibility of the formation of a supercontinent as early as ca. 1750 Ma, our synthesis suggests that the supercontinent Nuna/Columbia was assembled by at least ca. 1650–1580 Ma through joining at least two stable continental landmasses formed by ca. 1.7 Ga: West Nuna (Laurentia, Baltica and possibly India) and East Nuna (North, West and South Australia, Mawson craton of Antarctica and North China). It is possible, but not convincingly proven, that Siberia and Congo/São Francisco were combined as a third rigid continental entity and collided with Nuna at ca.1500 Ma. Nuna is suggested to have broken up at ca. 1450–1380 Ma. West Nuna, Siberia and possibly Congo/São Francisco were rigidly connected until after 1270 Ma. East Nuna was deformed during the breakup, and North China separated from it. There is currently no strong evidence indicating that Amazonia, West Africa and Kalahari were parts of Nuna.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 244, p. 207-225
National Category
Geophysics
Research subject
Applied Geophysics; Exploration Geophysics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-3033DOI: 10.1016/j.precamres.2013.05.014ISI: 000335106900015Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84896361254Local ID: 0c971d37-b4da-41aa-a7f3-c7b2183d4ce3OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-3033DiVA, id: diva2:975888
Note
Validerad; 2014; 20130603 (andbra)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2018-07-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Elming, Sten-åke

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Elming, Sten-åke
By organisation
Geosciences and Environmental Engineering
In the same journal
Precambrian Research
Geophysics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 38 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf