2023 CSDMS meeting-103
From CSDMS
Revision as of 11:28, 29 March 2023 by Sfgallen (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{CSDMS meeting personal information template-2023 |CSDMS meeting first name=Sean |CSDMS meeting last name=Gallen |CSDMS Pronouns=he/him |CSDMS meeting institute=Department of Geosciences, Colorado State University |CSDMS meeting city=Fort Collins |CSDMS meeting country=United States |CSDMS meeting state=CO |CSDMS meeting email address=sean.gallen@colostate.edu |CSDMS meeting phone=3157297939 }} {{CSDMS meeting select clinics1 2023 |CSDMS_meeting_select_clinics1_2023=3)...")
(if you haven't already)
"CO" is not in the list (NO STATE, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, ...) of allowed values for the "CSDMS meeting state" property.
Log in (or create account for non-CSDMS members)
Forgot username? Search or email:CSDMSweb@colorado.edu
Browse abstracts
Joe Hughes (he/him) choose to not submit an abstract for this conference.
Nikki Seymour, Department of Geological Sciences, Stanford University Stanford California, United States.
Christoph Glotzbach, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen Tübingen , Germany.
Daniel Stockli, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas, United States.
Paul O'Sullivan, GeoSep Services Moscow Idaho, United States.
Landscapes are sensitive recorders of deep Earth processes that we cannot otherwise directly observe and can provide critical constraints on the geodynamic processes involved in subduction zone orogenesis. Here, we recover continuous 30 Myr rock uplift histories for three bedrock catchments in the forearc above the Calabrian subduction zone, a classic example of a retreating subduction system in southern Italy. Construction of the long-term rock uplift record is enabled by a novel data-driven inversion of tectonic geomorphology measurements, which include low-temperature thermochronology, cosmogenic radionuclides, marine terraces, and fluvial topography. Rock uplift histories from all catchments are similar, exhibiting high rates (>1 mm/yr) from ~30 – 25 Ma that progressively decline to <0.4 mm/yr by ~15 Ma and stay low before abruptly increasing to ~0.65 mm/yr at ~1.5 – 1.0 Ma. The rock uplift results bear little resemblance to the subduction velocity history, implying that crustal thickening through changes in accretionary flux does not dominate uplift during the subduction history. Through comparisons with slab descent reconstructions, we argue that the forearc uplift history primarily reflects the progressive establishment and abrupt destruction of an upper mantle convection cell with strong negative buoyancy beneath the forearc. As the slab freely descended through the upper mantle, the size and vigor of the convection cell grew, slowly drawing forward rock uplift rates down from ~25 – 15 Ma. Once the slab encountered the 660 km mantle transition zone, the convection cell was fully established, subduing uplift rates before slab fragmentation and associated small-scale mantle flow disrupted this condition in the Quaternary, facilitating rapid forearc rock uplift.
