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; May 2009; v. 37; no. 5; p. 391-394; DOI: 10.1130/G25460A.1
© 2009 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
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rey, P.F.
Right arrow Articles by Whitney, D.L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Extension rates, crustal melting, and core complex dynamics

P.F. Rey1,*, C. Teyssier2 and D.L. Whitney2

1Earthbyte Research Group, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
2Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA

Correspondence: *E-mail: p.rey{at}usyd.edu.au.

Two-dimensional thermomechanical experiments reveal that the crystallization versus exhumation histories of migmatite cores in metamorphic core complexes give insights into the driving far-field extensional strain rates. At high strain rates, migmatite cores crystallize and cool along a hot geothermal gradient (35–65 °C km–1) after the bulk of their exhumation. At low strain rates, migmatite cores crystallize at higher pressure before the bulk of their exhumation, which is accommodated by solid-state deformation along a cooler geothermal gradient (20–35 °C km–1). In the cases of boundary-driven extension, space is provided for the domes, and therefore the buoyancy of migmatite cores contributes little to the dynamics of metamorphic core complexes. The presence of melt favors heterogeneous bulk pure shear of the dome, as opposed to bulk simple shear, which dominates in melt-absent experiments. The position of migmatite cores in their domes reveals the initial dip direction of detachment faults. The migmatitic Shuswap core complex (British Columbia, Canada) and the Ruby–East Humboldt Range (Nevada, United States) possibly exemplify metamorphic core complexes driven by faster and slower extension, respectively.







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