TY - JOUR
T1 - Make subductions diverse again
AU - Chelle-Michou, Cyril
AU - McCarthy, Anders
AU - Moyen, Jean François
AU - Cawood, Peter A.
AU - Capitanio, Fabio A.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank ETH Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation (grants P2LAP2_171819 and P400P2_180794 ) and the Australian Research Council (grants FL160100168 and FT170100254 ) for support. Finally, we are grateful to Eduardo Garzanti and an anonymous reviewer for their very insightful and constructive comments that have considerably helped in improving this manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022
PY - 2022/3
Y1 - 2022/3
N2 - In the original plate-tectonic centric framework for Earth evolution as proposed in the 1960s, the term ‘subduction’ was initially applied to the down thrusting of oceanic lithosphere below a continental or oceanic upper plate, delineated by a Wadati-Benioff zone of earthquake foci. Over time, the use of the term has broadened and its meaning weakened by its application to the diversity of mechanisms accommodating lithospheric convergence, foundering and recycling. This has led to complex and sterile debates regarding the tectonic processes in orogens, the initiation of (modern) plate tectonics, or the tectonic regime on other planets, hampering a clear and concise discussion of those problems. We discuss three instances where the use of the ill-defined term “subduction” or even “proto-subduction”, through biases and polysemism, has hampered scientific discourse, namely (i) the Cenozoic subduction of the Western Tethys leading to the formation of the European Alps; (ii) the initiation of (modern) “subduction” in the (eo)Archean; and, (iii) lithospheric recycling on Venus. We highlight that Benioff-type subduction is only one of a spectrum of mechanisms that have operated through time (Archean to present) for the foundering and recycling of lithosphere into the mantle. We propose a framework that summarizes the various end-member modes of foundering by focussing on two parameters (i) the type of lithosphere being foundered into the mantle and (ii) the mechanical driver of the foundering process, which might predominantly control convergence and recycling.
AB - In the original plate-tectonic centric framework for Earth evolution as proposed in the 1960s, the term ‘subduction’ was initially applied to the down thrusting of oceanic lithosphere below a continental or oceanic upper plate, delineated by a Wadati-Benioff zone of earthquake foci. Over time, the use of the term has broadened and its meaning weakened by its application to the diversity of mechanisms accommodating lithospheric convergence, foundering and recycling. This has led to complex and sterile debates regarding the tectonic processes in orogens, the initiation of (modern) plate tectonics, or the tectonic regime on other planets, hampering a clear and concise discussion of those problems. We discuss three instances where the use of the ill-defined term “subduction” or even “proto-subduction”, through biases and polysemism, has hampered scientific discourse, namely (i) the Cenozoic subduction of the Western Tethys leading to the formation of the European Alps; (ii) the initiation of (modern) “subduction” in the (eo)Archean; and, (iii) lithospheric recycling on Venus. We highlight that Benioff-type subduction is only one of a spectrum of mechanisms that have operated through time (Archean to present) for the foundering and recycling of lithosphere into the mantle. We propose a framework that summarizes the various end-member modes of foundering by focussing on two parameters (i) the type of lithosphere being foundered into the mantle and (ii) the mechanical driver of the foundering process, which might predominantly control convergence and recycling.
KW - Ampferer-type subduction
KW - Benioff-type subduction
KW - Lithospheric foundering
KW - Lithospheric recycling
KW - Polysemism
KW - Scientific biases
KW - Tectonic regime
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124734125&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.103966
DO - 10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.103966
M3 - Review Article
AN - SCOPUS:85124734125
VL - 226
JO - Earth-Science Reviews
JF - Earth-Science Reviews
SN - 0012-8252
M1 - 103966
ER -