Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (18) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bendick, R. Articles by Bilham, R. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

How perfect is the Himalayan arc?

¹ Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0399, USA

The Himalayan plate boundary, because it is entirely subaerial, is both the most dramatic and the most accessible to direct observation of all active convergent boundaries on Earth. The shape of this boundary can be described as a small circle of radius 1696 ± 55 km, centered at long 91.6° ± 1.6°E and lat 42.4° ± 2.1°N for the extent of the arc between long 77.2° and 92.1°E. The pole of this small circle is consistent whether seismicity, topography, or stress state is used to define the position of the tectonic boundary. The defined small circle also coincides with a peak in microseismicity, the maximum horizontal strain rate, and a peak in the vertical velocity field. This quantitative definition of a stable, curved tectonic boundary is a prerequisite to modeling the dynamics of curvature in convergent arcs and applying appropriate boundary conditions to other regional models.

Key Words: convergence • arcs • tectonics • geomorphology • Himalaya

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Taylor and A. Yin Active structures of the Himalayan-Tibetan orogen and their relationships to earthquake distribution, contemporary strain field, and Cenozoic volcanism Geosphere, June 1, 2009; 5(3): 199 - 214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. J. Finnegan, B. Hallet, D. R. Montgomery, P. K. Zeitler, J. O. Stone, A. M. Anders, and L. Yuping Coupling of rock uplift and river incision in the Namche Barwa Gyala Peri massif, Tibet Geological Society of America Bulletin, January 1, 2008; 120(1-2): 142 - 155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. Treloar, K. J. Vince, and R. D. Law Two-phase exhumation of ultra high-pressure and medium-pressure Indian Plate rocks from the Pakistan Himalaya Geological Society, London, Special Publications, January 1, 2007; 272(1): 155 - 185. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. C. Thiede, J. R. Arrowsmith, B. Bookhagen, M. McWilliams, E. R. Sobel, and M. R. Strecker Dome formation and extension in the Tethyan Himalaya, Leo Pargil, northwest India Geological Society of America Bulletin, May 1, 2006; 118(5-6): 635 - 650. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. C. Thiede, J R. Arrowsmith, B. Bookhagen, M. O. McWilliams, E. R. Sobel, and M. R. Strecker From tectonically to erosionally controlled development of the Himalayan orogen Geology, August 1, 2005; 33(8): 689 - 692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Jade, B.C. Bhatt, Z. Yang, R. Bendick, V.K. Gaur, P. Molnar, M.B. Anand, and D. Kumar GPS measurements from the Ladakh Himalaya, India: Preliminary tests of plate-like or continuous deformation in Tibet Geological Society of America Bulletin, November 1, 2004; 116(11-12): 1385 - 1391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. H. Hartz and V. Hartz How perfect is the Himalayan arc?: Comment Geology, March 1, 2003; 31(3): 287 - 287. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. P. Finlayson, D. R. Montgomery, and B. Hallet Spatial coincidence of rapid inferred erosion with young metamorphic massifs in the Himalayas Geology, March 1, 2002; 30(3): 219 - 222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]