Evolutionary geological models of the central-western peri-Mediterranean chains: a review

Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/100733
Información del item - Informació de l'item - Item information
Título: Evolutionary geological models of the central-western peri-Mediterranean chains: a review
Autor/es: Guerrera, Francesco | Martín-Martín, Manuel | Tramontana, Mario
Grupo/s de investigación o GITE: Evolución Geodinámica de la Cordillera Bética Oriental y de la Plataforma Marina de Alicante
Centro, Departamento o Servicio: Universidad de Alicante. Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra y del Medio Ambiente
Palabras clave: Tethys | Oceanic branches | Microplates | Palaeogeography | Paleotectonics | Models
Área/s de conocimiento: Geodinámica Interna
Fecha de publicación: 25-dic-2019
Editor: Taylor & Francis
Cita bibliográfica: International Geology Review. 2019. doi:10.1080/00206814.2019.1706056
Resumen: Two main groups of geological models presented over the last four decades on the palaeogeographic, paleotectonic and geodynamic eo-Alpine and neo-Alpine evolution of the central-western Mediterranean area were compared. The comparison was carried out mainly considering the main stratigraphic, sedimentological, petrographic, structural and plate tectonic constraints. Moreover, recent geophysical interpretations and reconstructions were also considered with an aim of presenting all the different results. The models can roughly be grouped into two main classes. First family considers the presence of the Mesozoic Tethyan Ocean, where a single oceanic basin is located between Africa and Europe and from which both eo-Alpine and neo-Alpine chains were generated during the Cretaceous to Miocene time span. Conversely, the other class considers the occurrence of at least two Tethyan oceanic branches (or with thinned continental crust) since the Jurassic, separated by one or more microcontinents. The pros and cons of both classes of models are presented. Progressive innovations and improvements to the two groups of models were proposed over the years. However, because the models are based on different data sets resulting from basic geological studies or obtained by means of other approaches, they often do not integrate easily. This caused interpretative difficulties and terminological uncertainties for their comparison, and completely different models were considered equivalent and, sometimes, the same terminology was used indifferently to identify different geological subjects. The main differences between the examined models concern the kinematic reconstructions and by hence in the palaeogeographic and paleotectonic interpretations. The discussion presented in this paper aims at contributing to clarify and update the state of knowledge on this controversial topic.
Patrocinador/es: This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (Research Project CGL2016-75679-P), the University of Urbino Carlo Bo (funds RISINT Tramontana Dipartimento di Scienze Pure e Applicate) (Grants to M. Tramontana and F. Guerrera), and the Alicante University (Research Project VIGROB-053).
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/100733
ISSN: 0020-6814 (Print) | 1938-2839 (Online)
DOI: 10.1080/00206814.2019.1706056
Idioma: eng
Tipo: info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Derechos: © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Revisión científica: si
Versión del editor: https://doi.org/10.1080/00206814.2019.1706056
Aparece en las colecciones:INV - GEODIN - Artículos de Revistas

Archivos en este ítem:
Archivos en este ítem:
Archivo Descripción TamañoFormato 
Thumbnail2019_Guerrera_etal_IntGeologyRev_final.pdfVersión final (acceso restringido)4,26 MBAdobe PDFAbrir    Solicitar una copia


Todos los documentos en RUA están protegidos por derechos de autor. Algunos derechos reservados.