the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The western Andes at ~20–22° S: A contribution to the quantification of crustal shortening and kinematics of deformation
Abstract. The Andes are an emblematic active Cordilleran orogen. Mountain-building in the Central Andes (~20° S) started by Late Cretaceous to Early Cenozoic along the subduction margin, and propagated eastward. In general, the structures sustaining the uplift of the western flank of the Andes are dismissed, and their contribution to mountain-building remains poorly constrained. Here, we focus on two sites along the western Andes at ~20–22° S, in the Atacama Desert, where structures are well exposed. We combine mapping from high-resolution satellite images with field observations and numerical trishear forward modeling to provide quantitative constraints on the kinematic evolution of the western Andes. Our results confirm the existence of two main structures, once our field observations are combined with regional data: (1) the Andean Basement Thrust, a west-vergent thrust system placing Andean Paleozoic basement over Mesozoic strata; and (2) a series of west-vergent thrusts pertaining to the West Andean Thrust System, deforming primarily Mesozoic units. Once restored, we estimate that both structures accommodate together at least ~6–9 km of shortening across the sole investigated ~7–17 km-wide field sites. This multi-kilometric shortening represents only a fraction of the total shortening accommodated along the whole western Andes. The timing of the main deformation recorded in the folded Mesozoic series can be bracketed between ~68 and ~29 Ma – and possibly between ~68 and ~44 Ma – from dated deformed geological layers, with a subsequent significant slowing-down of shortening rates. Even though negligible when compared to total shortening across the whole orogen, the contribution of the structures forming the West Andes has been relatively significant at the earliest stages of Andean mountain-building before deformation was transferred eastward.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(13523 KB)
-
Supplement
(18865 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13523 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(18865 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-629', Benjamin Gérard, 08 Aug 2022
Please refer to the .pdf file attached: Review_EGU_BG
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Martine Simoes, 23 Sep 2022
Please, find our answers to the various comments by Benjamin Gerard in the attached document.
The suggested revisions do not question our results and conclusions, but will clearly help improve our manuscript by clarifying our arguments and their presentation. We thank Benjamin Gerard for his positive appreciation of our work, as well as for his various comments and suggestions.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Martine Simoes, 23 Sep 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-629', Patrice Baby, 15 Sep 2022
The paper of Habel et al. presents a structural study of two sites of the western Andes in Chile (20-22°S), where the authors use numerical trishear forward modelling to evaluate minimum horizontal shortening and analyse the kinematic evolution of two fault-related anticlines.
Before being published, this paper must better document the structural observations, which are not always convincing (see below). These data can be used to construct in each area a balanced section to validate structural interpretations and calculate shortenings more rigorously. The authors need to better explain why they chose a fault propagation fold model rather than a tectonic inversion model in their structural interpretation.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
The title must be modified. The studied areas are too small to represent the entire western Andes. It would be interesting to locate the two sites on a regional cross-section through the western Andes.
The stratigraphic and geologic background (2.2.1) needs a figure with a synthetic stratigraphic column.
Structural and kinematic context (2.2.2):
In their last paper, Martinez and Fuentes (2022)(https://doi-org.insu.bib.cnrs.fr/10.1016/B978-0-323-85175-6.00037-7) show the importance of tectonic inversion of the Jurassic rift in this region. The analysed seismic sections are just west of the study areas of this paper and must be taken into consideration and discussed.
Data and structural observations:
It is important to better document the field data. For example, it is necessary to localise the field structural data in the structural map of Figure 4 to validate the cross-sections construction and structural interpretations.
Field pictures interpretations must be also validated by field data. These field data, as structural dip measurements, must be placed on the pictures. I am not at all convinced by the structural interpretation of the picture in Figure 7b. I can't really see the axis of the anticline of the Quebrada Tambillo, which is a key element of the structural interpretation. This picture interpretation must be absolutely validated by field measurements.
The structural map of the Quebrada Blanca zone shows structural dips values, which is not the case for the structural map of the Pinchal area. I understand that strike and dip measurements are extracted from 3D mapping. These 3D mapping and data extraction must be documented with some detailed illustrations.
Structural interpretations:
I don't understand why the authors didn't try to construct balanced cross-sections, the best way for thrust system modelling and calculation of shortening. The proposed interpretations are not geometrically validated. The footwalls of the thrusts have not been constructed (?).
The authors propose a model of fault propagation fold (or fault bend fold (?)) for each section. Why? Why not a tectonic inversion? How do you explain such a steep frontal ramp in the cross-section of Figure 9C? Are there lithologies compatible with the levels of detachment?
The calculation of shortening is confusing (“Folding” + “Folding + thrusting”(?)).
The discussion would require an integration of results in a regional cross-section through the Western Andes.
My detailed comments are highlighted in the attached pdf version.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Martine Simoes, 29 Sep 2022
Please, find our answers to the various comments by Patrice Baby in the attached document.
The suggested revisions do not question our results and conclusions, but will clearly help improve our manuscript by clarifying our arguments and their presentation. We thankPatrice Baby for his various comments and suggestions.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Martine Simoes, 29 Sep 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-629', Benjamin Gérard, 08 Aug 2022
Please refer to the .pdf file attached: Review_EGU_BG
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Martine Simoes, 23 Sep 2022
Please, find our answers to the various comments by Benjamin Gerard in the attached document.
The suggested revisions do not question our results and conclusions, but will clearly help improve our manuscript by clarifying our arguments and their presentation. We thank Benjamin Gerard for his positive appreciation of our work, as well as for his various comments and suggestions.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Martine Simoes, 23 Sep 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-629', Patrice Baby, 15 Sep 2022
The paper of Habel et al. presents a structural study of two sites of the western Andes in Chile (20-22°S), where the authors use numerical trishear forward modelling to evaluate minimum horizontal shortening and analyse the kinematic evolution of two fault-related anticlines.
Before being published, this paper must better document the structural observations, which are not always convincing (see below). These data can be used to construct in each area a balanced section to validate structural interpretations and calculate shortenings more rigorously. The authors need to better explain why they chose a fault propagation fold model rather than a tectonic inversion model in their structural interpretation.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
The title must be modified. The studied areas are too small to represent the entire western Andes. It would be interesting to locate the two sites on a regional cross-section through the western Andes.
The stratigraphic and geologic background (2.2.1) needs a figure with a synthetic stratigraphic column.
Structural and kinematic context (2.2.2):
In their last paper, Martinez and Fuentes (2022)(https://doi-org.insu.bib.cnrs.fr/10.1016/B978-0-323-85175-6.00037-7) show the importance of tectonic inversion of the Jurassic rift in this region. The analysed seismic sections are just west of the study areas of this paper and must be taken into consideration and discussed.
Data and structural observations:
It is important to better document the field data. For example, it is necessary to localise the field structural data in the structural map of Figure 4 to validate the cross-sections construction and structural interpretations.
Field pictures interpretations must be also validated by field data. These field data, as structural dip measurements, must be placed on the pictures. I am not at all convinced by the structural interpretation of the picture in Figure 7b. I can't really see the axis of the anticline of the Quebrada Tambillo, which is a key element of the structural interpretation. This picture interpretation must be absolutely validated by field measurements.
The structural map of the Quebrada Blanca zone shows structural dips values, which is not the case for the structural map of the Pinchal area. I understand that strike and dip measurements are extracted from 3D mapping. These 3D mapping and data extraction must be documented with some detailed illustrations.
Structural interpretations:
I don't understand why the authors didn't try to construct balanced cross-sections, the best way for thrust system modelling and calculation of shortening. The proposed interpretations are not geometrically validated. The footwalls of the thrusts have not been constructed (?).
The authors propose a model of fault propagation fold (or fault bend fold (?)) for each section. Why? Why not a tectonic inversion? How do you explain such a steep frontal ramp in the cross-section of Figure 9C? Are there lithologies compatible with the levels of detachment?
The calculation of shortening is confusing (“Folding” + “Folding + thrusting”(?)).
The discussion would require an integration of results in a regional cross-section through the Western Andes.
My detailed comments are highlighted in the attached pdf version.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Martine Simoes, 29 Sep 2022
Please, find our answers to the various comments by Patrice Baby in the attached document.
The suggested revisions do not question our results and conclusions, but will clearly help improve our manuscript by clarifying our arguments and their presentation. We thankPatrice Baby for his various comments and suggestions.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Martine Simoes, 29 Sep 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
286 | 103 | 18 | 407 | 26 | 6 | 5 |
- HTML: 286
- PDF: 103
- XML: 18
- Total: 407
- Supplement: 26
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Tania Habel
Robin Lacassin
Daniel Carrizo
German Aguilar
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13523 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(18865 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper