the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The influence of accretionary orogenesis on subsequent rift dynamics
Abstract. The Wilson Cycle of closing and opening of oceans is often schematically portrayed with ‘empty’ oceanic basins. However, bathymetric and geophysical observations outline anomalous topographic features on the ocean floor, such as microcontinents and oceanic plateaus, that can be accreted or subducted when oceans close in subduction. If later rifting and extension localizes in the area of former oceanic closure, this implies that the rifted margins formed in regions characterized not only by continent-continent collision, but also by the presence of accreted continental terranes. An excellent example of such a system can be found in the North Atlantic, where the late-Paleozoic to Mesozoic opening of the Atlantic Ocean occurred immediately after the early Paleozoic Caledonian orogeny, that formed during the collision of Baltica and Laurentia continents but also incorporated allochthonous continental terranes. The full evolution from subduction to accretion-collision and how those processes bear on continental rifting has not been studied systematically. Potential factors that can influence the evolution and structural style of a rift in such a tectonic setting include the thermo-tectonic age of the orogen, the number and type (size, rheology) of accreted terranes, the nature of terrane boundaries, as well as the velocity of rifting.
Here, we use 2D finite-element thermo-mechanical models to investigate how accreted microcontinents and the size of the orogen affect the style of continental rifting. Our models demonstrate that there is a competition between thermal and structural inheritance that has a first order effect on the style of rifting. In large, warm orogens thermal inheritance dominates over structural inheritance, leading to the formation of new major extensional shear zones, whereas in small, cold orogens structural inheritance dominates over thermal inheritance, allowing for efficient deformation localization along pre-existing sutures. In comparison, the presence of accreted terranes within the orogen only has secondary effects. In small, cold orogens, when multiple sutures are present, the oldest, shortest and most optimally oriented suture is reactivated extensively, with the others experiencing only limited activity. In contrast, in large, warm orogens, the suture closest to the centre of the orogen is inverted the most. Additionally, the presence of accreted terranes within the pre-rift lithosphere leads to the formation of continental fragments in the rifted margin architecture.
Competing interests: Susanne Buiter is an Executive Editor of the journal Solid Earth.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(3381 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 10 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1065', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Apr 2025
reply
Dear Editor,
In their contribution, Erdős et al. use thermo-mechanical numerical modelling to investigate the impact of micro-continents incorporated in collisional orogens on subsequent rifting. They conclude that the structural inheritance related to the oceanic sutures are likely to control the location of future rifting and breakup when the orogen is small and cold because resulting from limited convergence. Conversely, when the orogen is large and hot consequently to protracted convergence, rifting and breakup are more likely to occur away from the suture zones.
The article presents new conclusions, which are sensible and consistent with observations and conceptual models. I find the article clear, well written and well referenced, including recent studies. The model parameters are clearly presented, and the model limitations are comprehensively listed. The results of the numerical experiments are discussed in the light of other numerical modelling studies. In my opinion, the paper can be accepted as is.
I have only two minor comments to the authors:
L 14: “the late-Paleozoic to Mesozoic opening of the Atlantic Ocean occurred immediately after the early Paleozoic Caledonian orogeny”. In your numerical experiments, you consider a phase of thermal relaxation between the end of convergence and the onset of rifting. The Caledonian domain experienced presumably such a phase of relaxation between the end of the orogeny and the onset of rifting, often called “post-orogenic collapse” in the literature. Thus, I find your statement in L 14 misleading.
Figure 2: The figure displays cratons, Cenozoic rift basins and older rift basins while the figure caption announces that it displays “rheological, structural and thermal inheritance”. At least explicit the correspondence between the two.
Best regards.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1065-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1065', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Apr 2025
reply
The authors have conducted 2D thermo-mechanical experiments studying the effect of different types of inheritance on the evolution and dynamics of rifting. They have found that rheological and structural features play a major role in the rifting style of cold, small orogens, while thermal inheritance is most pronounced in warm, large orogens.
The study is novel and very informative, and sheds light on the very important (and often puzzling) aspect of inheritance. Moreover, the manuscript is very well presented. However, because it is essentially a continuation of the authors’ submitted and not-yet peer-reviewed article (as of April 2025), it is not possible to assess this work independently. I recommend holding off on the acceptance of this paper until after the authors’ submitted paper is accepted. Finally, to make this article work as a standalone study, without having to have read the submitted 2024 paper, I recommend appending the methodology with more details about some numerical decisions, values, etc., as well as more detailed description of the first phase, since most inherited features come from that first phase. I am presenting below a list of minor comments, which can hopefully speed up the review process should this article is re-submitted.
Minor comments:
Figure 2: Neither of the three types of inheritance is mentioned in the caption/figure label.
L 72: Can you briefly describe what an “empty” ocean basin is?
L 59-82: I understand that separating the rheological and structural inheritance is difficult, but the way I am reading the text, there is some rheological characteristics in the structural inheritance, especially when they are describing accretion and collision (thinking about the inherently weak sediments that can make up a subduction interface and how they are rheologically weaker and can thus localize deformation). Perhaps you could mention this in the paragraph about structural inheritance?
L 87-89: Are there any studies regarding the geothermal gradient in that region that can answer this question?
L 117: Why was there no localization at former suture zones?
Table 1: Many of the parameters used are not explicitly mentioned in the text (I assume because they are part of the 2024 article under revision). For instance, why did you choose such low φ values for some layers, what do the small differences in the densities and cohesions of the crustal rocks reflect, where is eta_eff used?
L 154: What is the significance of the scaling factor? I understand how it works mathematically, but why is this a necessary addition, what purpose does it serve?
L 157: Using gabbro rheology for sediments is a bit unusual, so it would help if you could write an explanation for that.
L 162: Why did you choose this angle (and orientation) for the trailing continental margin? If we consider that the trailing continent was the result of rifting, one expects the margin to have the opposite orientation I think, but maybe I am missing something here.
L 176: I was wondering what the significance of the microcontinent widths is. Would your results be significantly different? And why this width?
L 204: How do you identify the time when deformation moves into the hyper-extension regime?
L 205-206: I assume these are typos and you meant M0a, M0b etc.?
L 208: Why specifically 130 Myr?
Paragraph 2.1: Just so one can have a sense of resources, how computationally expensive were the models?
L 231: Strain weakening is not mentioned in the numerical setup nor in the table. Perhaps add a short phrase?
Paragraph 3.1: It’s great that you give a brief description of the models; I recommend summarizing them also in a table, e.g., Model name – inheritance – suture behaviour – etc.
L 256-259: Why is this additional material important?
L 269: Maybe add a short sentence introducing/describing what a large orogen is?
Figure 7: For consistency, you could keep the subfigure names going vertically, instead of horizontally (same for Fig. 8).
L 391-392: In the absence of healing, pre-existing structures also lower the strength of the lithosphere. Perhaps you could comment on this?
L 409-419: This might be a long shot, but are there any geological constraints on this, i.e. from the rock record?
Figure 8: Great way to show the three inheritance types (ternary)! On a slightly separate note, I was wondering why rifting does not usually initiate elsewhere than the inherited structures, given the strain weakening mechanism in the models.
L 443: What exactly is lower crustal flow? I might have missed it. Also, how/why does it alter the thermal state?
L 472: Is this thermal relaxation phase defined somehow also rheologically?
L 498-500: How certain are you about this? I know it is beyond the scope of this paper, but did you run any models with varying extension velocities? Any other relevant studies?
Paragraph 4.4: It would help if you added some labels on Fig. 8 that denote the accreted terranes.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1065-RC2 -
AC1: 'Short reply regarding the concerns about the companion paper availability', Zoltán Erdős, 28 Apr 2025
reply
Many thanks for your review of our manuscript. We will reply in more detail to your questions and suggestions, as well as those of Referee 1, during manuscript revision. Here we would like promptly to take up the issue of this manuscript building on Erdős et al., which was in review in JGR Solid Earth at the time we submitted this manuscript. We indeed see it as our duty to ensure that all information that is needed to evaluate the inheritance resulting from the subduction, accretion and collision (that is the topic of Erdős et al.) is available to the reviewers. We therefore provided the following material upon submission of this manuscript: 1) images showing the final state of the collision stage in the top panels of Figures 4, 5 and 6, 2) descriptions of the evolution of each model-set in the collision phase in Appendix B, and 3) a preprint of Erdős et al. (JGR Solid Earth in review) on the ESS Open Archive (https://essopenarchive.org/doi/full/10.22541/essoar.171629621.10603551/v1) as referenced in the reference list.
The manuscript was in the meantime accepted and is published open access since 10 April 2025 as: Erdős, Z., Buiter, S. J. H., & Tetreault, J. (2025). The role of microcontinent strength and basal detachment in accretionary orogenesis: Insights from numerical models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 130, e2024JB029509. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JB029509
We hope that this short reply will be helpful in moving ahead the expert evaluation of our manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1065-AC1
-
AC1: 'Short reply regarding the concerns about the companion paper availability', Zoltán Erdős, 28 Apr 2025
reply
Data sets
The influence of accretionary orogenesis on subsequent rift dynamics - Animations and data assembly Zoltán Erdős, Susanne Buiter, and Joya Tetreault https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14980544
Video supplement
The influence of accretionary orogenesis on subsequent rift dynamics - Animations and data assembly Zoltán Erdős, Susanne Buiter, and Joya Tetreault https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14980544
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
89 | 28 | 7 | 124 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 89
- PDF: 28
- XML: 7
- Total: 124
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1