Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Geology Email Content Delivery
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Geology; June 2006; v. 34; no. 6; p. 465-468; DOI: 10.1130/G22236.1
© 2006 Geological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wang, S.
Right arrow Articles by Liu, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Moving hotspots or reorganized plates?

Shimin Wang1 and Mian Liu2

1 Department of Geological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA, and Computational Geodynamics Laboratory, Department of Geophysics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
2 Department of Geological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA

Hotspot fixity and no major plate reorganization in the past ~40 m.y. are two propositions important for studying absolute plate motion and mantle dynamics. Reexamining the hotspot data with the NUVEL-1A relative plate motion model, we find that these two propositions cannot be simultaneously tenable: either hotspots have been moving relative to each other, or a major reorganization of plate motion occurred in the past ~40 m.y. Statistical compatibility tests show that hotspot rate data are incompatible with trend data, implying that hotspots have moved. Furthermore, hotspot rates are consistently lower than those predicted by best-fitting absolute plate motion models. This may be explained by hotspots moving systematically opposite to the plate motion. If so, the moving hotspots still provide a useful reference frame for defining absolute plate motion. However, all hotspot trend data, with ages as old as 40 Ma, are statistically compatible, indicating no major reorganization of plate motion in the past ~40 m.y. In this case, relative plate motion models based on young marine magnetic anomalies may be used to infer older (<40 Ma) plate kinematics, which lack direct constraints.

Key Words: plate tectonics • plate motion • hotspots • models • statistical analysis




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Geological Society of America Special PapersHome page
D. L. Anderson
The eclogite engine: Chemical geodynamics as a Galileo thermometer
Geological Society of America Special Papers, January 1, 2007; 430(0): 47 - 64.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Geological Society of America Special PapersHome page
A. D. Smith
A plate model for Jurassic to Recent intraplate volcanism in the Pacific Ocean basin
Geological Society of America Special Papers, January 1, 2007; 430(0): 471 - 495.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Geological Society of America