西准噶尔西南地区古海洋地壳与板块构造

<正> 引言 我国著名地质学家尹赞勋、李春昱先生1972年先后将板块构造理论引入我国,至今仅十个年头。开始曾有人担心:奠基于海洋地质的海底扩张和板块构造理论能否在“大陆地质”的研究中得到验证,而表现在现代地质中的板块运动记录又是否能在漫长的地球历史中反映。随着板块构造研究的不断深入,特别是赫斯、迪茨的研究,提出蛇绿岩实际上代表大洋岩石圈的碎块以后,近年来已有越来越多的人根据优地槽中蛇绿岩的分布来寻找已消逝的古阳盆，用大洋的扩张和闭合来解剖大陆地质的演变。     

蛇绿岩研究的最新进展

关于蛇绿岩的形成、定义和分类争论了近200年。早期蛇绿岩被认为是有成因联系的几种岩石的组合,发育在优地槽的核部。在板块构造中它被看作形成于洋脊的古洋壳残片。经过几十年的研究,发现导致蛇绿岩多样性的因素很多,一个新的定义和分类方案被提出。新定义强调了蛇绿岩形成的构造环境,认为在威尔逊旋回的各个阶段都会形成性质不同的蛇绿岩,并根据生成环境将蛇绿岩分为两大类．即与俯冲作用无关和与俯冲作用相关的蛇绿岩,两大类型还可以划分出不同的亚类。这些类型的蛇绿岩有其特有的地球化学、岩石学指标和内部结构。最近的研究还发现蛇绿岩产生的主要时段与全球超大陆的形成、裂解,以及巨型地幔柱活动的时间吻合。根据新分类方案,一部分前寒武纪绿岩应属于蛇绿岩,表明在太古宙时期地球已进入板块构造体制。新的定义和分类为蛇绿岩研究指出了新的方向。     

蛇绿岩研究的最新进展

关于蛇绿岩的形成、定义和分类争论了近200年。早期蛇绿岩被认为是有成因联系的几种岩石的组合,发育在优地槽的核部。在板块构造中它被看作形成于洋脊的古洋壳残片。经过几十年的研究,发现导致蛇绿岩多样性的因素很多,一个新的定义和分类方案被提出。新定义强调了蛇绿岩形成的构造环境,认为在威尔逊旋回的各个阶段都会形成性质不同的蛇绿岩,并根据生成环境将蛇绿岩分为两大类,即与俯冲作用无关和与俯冲作用相关的蛇绿岩,两大类型还可以划分出不同的亚类。这些类型的蛇绿岩有其特有的地球化学、岩石学指标和内部结构。最近的研究还发现蛇绿岩产生的主要时段与全球超大陆的形成、裂解,以及巨型地幔柱活动的时间吻合。根据新分类方案,一部分前寒武纪绿岩应属于蛇绿岩,表明在太古宙时期地球已进入板块构造体制。新的定义和分类为蛇绿岩研究指出了新的方向。     

甘肃北山早古生代蛇绿岩带的特征及演化

板块构造学说问世以来,地质学有了突破性进展。现代大洋岩石与大陆蛇绿岩之间明显的相似性,使人们把蛇绿岩视为消失大洋在大陆造山带中的残留标志。笔者综合有关蛇绿岩的研究成果,在我国北山首次确定了早古生代的蛇绿岩带,并对其发展演化做了研究     

19世纪以来全球蛇绿岩研究综述

蛇绿岩普遍被发现在碰撞型和增生型两种造山带缝合线上,因此经常被用来确定板块边界。自从欧洲地质学家在19世纪早期提出蛇绿岩的概念以来,蛇绿岩的研究经历了几个发展阶段。早期研究认为蛇绿岩是侵入地槽的一套侵入岩;板块构造理论兴起后,蛇绿岩被认为是产生于大洋中脊的洋壳;在1972年的Penrose会议上,科学家们将蛇绿岩定义为一套从基性岩到超基性岩的,可以区分的复式岩体。此后,蛇绿岩的起源(构造背景),侵位机制,特征等研究都取得了很多进展。进入21世纪,出现了一些较好的蛇绿岩形成模式和划分方法。     

答读者问

编辑同志：目前一些有关“板块构造”的文章，大多提到对蛇绿岩的研究是当今研究板块构造的方法之一。我对蛇绿岩的概念不够清楚，请帮助详细解答什么是蛇绿岩？其研究意义是什么？     

19世纪以来全球蛇绿岩研究综述

蛇绿岩普遍被发现在碰撞型和增生型两种造山带缝合线上,因此经常被用来确定板块边界。自从欧洲地质学家在19世纪早期提出蛇绿岩的概念以来,蛇绿岩的研究经历了几个发展阶段。早期研究认为蛇绿岩是侵入地槽的一套侵入岩;板块构造理论兴起后,蛇绿岩被认为是产生于大洋中脊的洋壳;在1972年的Penrose会议上,科学家们将蛇绿岩定义为一套从基性岩到超基性岩的,可以区分的复式岩体。此后,蛇绿岩的起源(构造背景),侵位机制,特征等研究都取得了很多进展。进入21世纪,出现了一些较好的蛇绿岩形成模式和划分方法。     

印度-欧亚大陆碰撞过程中冈底斯带岩浆底侵作用的年代学限定：SHRIMP锆石U—Pb年龄证据

早期蛇绿岩的研究近十多年来引起了地质学家的广泛关注,这是因为它涉及地球早期板块构造演化以及古海洋形成过程等问题,也涉及本区是否存在“原特提斯”大洋和罗丁利亚(Rodinia)大陆的裂解和敛合等重大问题。本文提出西昆仑山存在一套可靠完整的晚元古宙—早古生代的蛇绿岩——库地蛇绿岩,它的时限是利用SHRIMP-锆石U-Pb法对蛇绿岩内堆晶岩中下部岩石的测年,分别给出510±4Ma和502±13Ma。根据地球化学测年数据,结合地质构造演化,本文提出库地蛇绿岩很可能形成于“多岛洋盆”,不是广阔的大洋——所谓的“原特提斯”大洋,在古生代早期该…     

祁连山古蛇绿岩带的地质构造意义

近十数年,在讨论板块构造中,越来越多的地质学家注意到对蛇绿岩的研究在理论和生产实践上的意义。祁连山具较典型的古蛇绿岩带,著者认为系代表一个古海洋壳残体。通过实际资料的初步分析研究,认为:目前盛行的古蛇绿岩带岩石组合、侵位顺序及其在地质构造和成矿关系方面的某些论述和模式是不够全面、确切的,有待进一步补充。     

中国板块构造研究的某些新进展

<正> 1972年尹赞勋综合大量国外资料,在我国首次较系统地介绍了板块构造理论,接着李春昱、傅承义等又著文进一步介绍板块构造的基本理论,在我国广大地质工作者中引起了强烈的反响。由于当时还处在十年动乱时期,板块构造这一新兴学说得不到应有的重视,研究工作未能广泛开展,只有局部地区的探索。李春昱先生不顾古稀之年,带领西北地质研究所少数几人,首先开展了祁连山—秦岭地区的板块构造研究工作,这对我国板块构造研究起了先锋作用。     

The Orosirian (1800–2050 Ma) plate tectonic episode: Key for reconstructing the Proterozoic tectonic record

Eight lines of evidence indicate that the Orosirian Period in mid-Paleoproterozoic time was characterized by plate tectonics: ophiolites, low T/P metamorphism including eclogites, passive margin formation, tall mountains, paleomagnetic constraints, ore deposits, abundant S-type granites, and seismic images of paleo-subduction zones. This plate tectonic episode occurred about 1 billion years earlier than the present plate tectonic episode began in Neoproterozoic time. The two plate tectonic episodes bracket the ‘Boring Billion’, which may have been a protracted single lid tectonic episode that began when the supercontinent Nuna or Columbia formed. Recognition of multiple lines of evidence for Orosirian plate tectonics demonstrates that Earth’s tectonic style can be reconstructed with some confidence back to at least Early Paleoproterozoic time, and thus the absence of compelling evidence for Mesoproterozoic plate tectonics is not obvious due to poor preservation. A tectono-magmatic lull ～2.3 Ga suggests an earlier episode of single lid tectonics. Evidence for two episodes of plate tectonics and two episodes of single lid tectonics indicates that Earth switched between single lid and plate tectonics multiple times during the last 2.4 Ga.     

Linking the NE Anatolian and Lesser Caucasus ophiolites: evidence for large-scale obduction of oceanic crust and implications for the formation of the Lesser Caucasus-Pontides Arc

In the Lesser Caucasus and NE Anatolia, three domains are distinguished from south to north: (1) Gondwanian-derived continental terranes represented by the South Armenian Block (SAB) and the Tauride–Anatolide Platform (TAP), (2) scattered outcrops of Mesozoic ophiolites, obducted during the Upper Cretaceous times, marking the northern Neotethys suture, and (3) the Eurasian plate, represented by the Eastern Pontides and the Somkheto-Karabagh Arc. At several locations along the northern Neotethyan suture, slivers of preserved unmetamorphozed relics of now-disappeared Northern Neotethys oceanic domain (ophiolite bodies) are obducted over the northern edge of the passive SAB and TAP margins to the south. There is evidence for thrusting of the suture zone ophiolites towards the north; however, we ascribe this to retro-thrusting and accretion onto the active Eurasian margin during the latter stages of obduction. Geodynamic reconstructions of the Lesser Caucasus feature two north dipping subduction zones: (1) one under the Eurasian margin and (2) farther south, an intra-oceanic subduction leading to ophiolite emplacement above the northern margin of SAB. We extend our model for the Lesser Caucasus to NE Anatolia by proposing that the ophiolites of these zones originate from the same oceanic domain, emplaced during a common obduction event. This would correspond to the obduction of non-metamorphic oceanic domain along a lateral distance of more than 500?km and overthrust up to 80?km of passive continental margin. We infer that the missing volcanic arc, formed above the intra-oceanic subduction, was dragged under the obducting ophiolite through scaling by faulting and tectonic erosion. In this scenario part of the blueschists of Stepanavan, the garnet amphibolites of Amasia and the metamorphic arc complex of Erzincan correspond to this missing volcanic arc. Distal outcrops of this exceptional object were preserved from latter collision, concentrated along the suture zones.     

The Late Cretaceous palaeolatitude of the Neotethyan spreading axis in the eastern Mediterranean region

A compilation of available palaeomagnetic data from the Troodos (Cyprus) and Baër–Bassit (Syria) ophiolitic terranes of the eastern Mediterranean Tethyan orogenic belt is presented. The ophiolites represent fragments of oceanic lithosphere generated at a Neotethyan spreading axis in the Late Cretaceous, although debate continues over the tectonic setting of this spreading axis and its position within the eastern Mediterranean palaeogeography. Two types of model reconstructions have been proposed: Type 1—the ophiolites formed in a southerly Neotethyan basin by spreading above an oceanic subduction zone. The Baër–Bassit ophiolite was then emplaced a relatively short distance (tens of kilometers) southwards on to the Arabian continental margin, leaving the Troodos ophiolite isolated in an intra-oceanic setting to the west; and Type 2—the ophiolites formed in a northerly Neotethyan basin by spreading at a ‘normal’ oceanic ridge, with subsequent large-scale thrusting (hundreds of kilometers) to the south of emplaced ophiolites over microcontinental fragments to reach their present positions. Palaeomagnetic determination of the palaeolatitude of the Neotethyan spreading axis is, therefore, of considerable interest.Previous palaeomagnetic analyses have demonstrated the presence of significant, and in some cases extreme, relative tectonic rotations of a variety of origins in both ophiolites. To allow palaeomagnetic data from these rotated units to be combined, an inclination-only formulation of the palaeomagnetic tilt test is employed. This provides unequivocal evidence that both ophiolites retain pre-deformational remanent magnetizations, which are interpreted as original ocean-floor magnetizations acquired close to the time of crustal formation in the Late Cretaceous. The mean inclinations of 37.0±2.6° for the Troodos terrane and 41.1±3.4° for the Baër–Bassit terrane indicate respective palaeolatitudes for the spreading axes of 20.6°N±1.8° and 23.6°N±2.5°, consistent with a Late Cretaceous position between the Arabian and Eurasian margins. These data, together with a well-defined palaeolatitude of 25.5°N±4.5° for the eastern Pontides previously reported in the literature, provide constraints which must be incorporated in any successful tectonic reconstruction of the eastern Mediterranean Tethys. The implications of these constraints for Type 1 and 2 models are discussed using a series of plate tectonic cross-sections constructed along a line extending northwards from the Arabian continental margin. In the absence of palaeomagnetic data from Late Cretaceous rocks of the eastern Taurides, however, it is presently impossible to use these palaeolatitudinal constraints to resolve the root zone debate on a purely palaeomagnetic basis. Solutions which satisfy the constraints may be found for both types of model reconstruction. Additional, published field-based geological considerations, however, strongly support models in which the Troodos and Baër–Bassit (and other southerly) ophiolites were generated in a southern Neotethyan basin, rather than those involving generation in a northerly basin and subsequent large-scale thrust displacement to the south.     

Plate kinematics, origin and tectonic emplacement of supra-subduction ophiolites in SE Asia

A unique feature of the Circum Pacific orogenic belts is the occurrence of ophiolitic bodies of various sizes, most of which display petrological and geochemical characteristics typical of supra-subduction zone oceanic crust. In SE Asia, a majority of the ophiolites appear to have originated at convergent margins, and specifically in backarc or island arc settings, which evolved either along the edge of the Sunda (Eurasia) and Australian cratons, or within the Philippine Sea Plate. These ophiolites were later accreted to continental margins during the Tertiary. Because of fast relative plate velocities, tectonic regimes at the active margins of these three plates also changed rapidly. Strain partitioning associated with oblique convergence caused arc-trench systems to move further away from the locus of their accretion. We distinguish “relatively autochthonous ophiolites” resulting from the shortening of marginal basins such as the present-day South China Sea or the Coral Sea, and “highly displaced ophiolites” developed in oblique convergent margins, where they were dismantled, transported and locally severely sheared during final docking. In peri-cratonic mobile belts (i.e. the Philippine Mobile Belt) we find a series of oceanic basins which have been slightly deformed and uplifted. Varying lithologies and geochemical compositions of tectonic units in these basins, as well as their age discrepancies, suggest important displacements along major wrench faults.We have used plate tectonic reconstructions to restore the former backarc basins and island arcs characterized by known petro-geochemical data to their original location and their former tectonic settings. Some of the ophiolites occurring in front of the Sunda plate represent supra-subduction zone basins formed along the Australian Craton margin during the Mesozoic. The Philippine Sea Basin, the Huatung basin south of Taiwan, and composite ophiolitic basements of the Philippines and Halmahera may represent remnants of such marginal basins. The portion of the Philippine Sea Plate carrying the Taiwan–Philippine arc and its composite ophiolitic/continental crustal basement might have actually originated in a different setting, closer to that of the Papua New Guinea Ophiolite, and then have been displaced rapidly as a result of shearing associated with fast oblique convergence.     

华南大陆东部若干构造问题的思考

华南大陆的结构、属性、过程与动力学一直是地质学家关注的热点。本文以钦杭构造带东段为主要研究地区,通过精细的构造解析、变质变形研究、年代学分析,结合反射地震剖面,探讨了华南大陆东部几个科学问题。（1）江南造山带形成于新元古代华夏板块与扬子板块的“软碰撞”作用,可划分为扬子板块南缘、扬子—华夏汇聚带和华夏板块北缘3个构造单元,江南断裂带和武夷山—遂昌断裂带分别为江南造山带的北界和南界。（2）扬子—华夏板块汇聚带由多个小板块拼合而成,其间有多条缝合带,大约900 Ma开始汇聚,760 Ma全面闭合,850~780 Ma为活动高峰期,具有递变式的汇聚拼合过程,由南向北发展,先斜向俯冲,后右旋走滑,最晚集中在中部活动。（3）华南大陆东部为中生代奠定的构造格架,主要构造为一系列北东走向褶皱和逆冲断层,大量地壳范围内的叠瓦状逆冲推覆构造,由南向北逆冲,可下切到中—下地壳。（4）华南大陆燕山晚期区域性伸展构造广泛发育,存在“华南热隆”构造,震旦系内的滑覆构造典型,同期大规模岩浆活动、火山活动和大规模的热液成矿。（5）华南大陆构造演化为：850 Ma扬子—华夏板块递进式汇聚,760 Ma全面拼合,江南造山带形成;600 Ma华南大陆盖层发育;430 Ma钦杭构造带受南部构造影响;220 Ma钦杭构造带受北部远程构造影响;160 Ma逆冲推覆构造产生;140 Ma大规模伸展,构造-岩浆-成矿关系密切;随后江南持续隆升,华南强烈热隆。     

中国的全球构造位置和地球动力系统

现今之中国位于亚洲大陆东南部,西太平洋活动带中段;在全球板块构造图上,中国位于欧亚板块的东南部,南为印度板块,东为太平洋板块和菲律宾海板块。地质历史上,以中朝、扬子、塔里木等小克拉通为标志的中国主体属于冈瓦纳和西伯利亚两个大陆之间的转换(互换)构造域:古生代时期,位于古亚洲洋之南,属冈瓦纳结构复杂的大陆边缘;中生代阶段,位于特提斯之北,属劳亚大陆的一部分。显生宙中国大地构造演化依次受古亚洲洋、特提斯-古太平洋、太平洋-印度洋三大动力体系之控制,形成古亚洲洋、特提斯和太平洋三大构造域。不论古亚洲洋,还是特提斯,都不是结构简单的大洋盆地,而是由一系列海底裂谷带(小洋盆带)和众多微陆块组合而成的结构复杂的洋盆体系。加之中、新生代的太平洋构造域和特提斯构造域叠加在古生代的古亚洲洋构造域之上,使中国地质构造图像在二维平面上呈现镶嵌构造,在三维空间上呈现立交桥式结构,使中国不仅是亚洲,也是全球构造最复杂的一个区域。不同阶段的地球动力体系在中国的叠加、复合,使多旋回构造-岩浆和成矿作用成为中国地质最突出的特征。因而中国的造山带大多是多旋回复合造山带,成矿(区)带大多是多旋回复合成矿(区)带,大型含油气盆地大多是多旋回叠合盆地。     

徐宿地区构造特征及其演化

研究区位于苏、鲁、豫、皖交界中心,大地构造隶属于华北板块东南缘,是华北地区主要赋煤地带,自石炭—二叠纪以来,该区经受了多次构造活动,构造演化与华北板块南缘和东缘的2条板缘构造活动带密切相关。通过在研究区进行野外实际调查并结合区域地质资料的基础上,对研究区地质构造特征及其演化进行了讨论,并探讨了研究区构造对煤田的控制作用。     

中国板块构造的轮廓

<正> 一、前言 中国大地构造研究已有数十年历史。早在四十年代中期黄汲清发表了“中国主要地质构造单位”,其后又有各种不同学术观点的中国大地构造文献问世。但从板块构造观点研究中国大地构造则开展的很晚,不过为近数年间之事。中国幅员广大,地质构造复杂,以往的地质资料又缺乏有关板块构造的记载,因而现在要论述全国的板块构造,很感资料的不足。这里只能讲一个大致的轮廓,有些地方也还只是一些设想。