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
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:
Archivo | Descripción | Tamaño | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|---|
2019_Guerrera_etal_IntGeologyRev_final.pdf | Versión final (acceso restringido) | 4,26 MB | Adobe PDF | Abrir Solicitar una copia |
Todos los documentos en RUA están protegidos por derechos de autor. Algunos derechos reservados.