Abstract
Ages of ophiolitic rocks along plate suture in Taiwan orogen: Fate of the South China Sea from subduction to collision
Highlights
Convergent plate sutures are often marked by ophiolite-bearing belts where entire or partial sections of oceanic lithosphere were consumed during collisional or accretionary orogenesis (e.g., Pan et al 2012)
While the consumption of South China Sea followed by Chinese continental margin subduction along the Manila Trench is well-characterized southwest of Taiwan (Lin et al 2009), how the South China Sea lithosphere was incorporated into the orogenic system remains largely speculative (e.g., Suppe et al 1981; Chang et al 2009; Malavieille et al 2016; Hsieh et al 2017)
Of the Taiwan ophiolite-bearing belts, only the Kenting Mélange was the direct product of South China Sea subduction and the ophiolitic rocks within are mostly of South China Sea affinity (e.g., Lu and Hsu 1992; Chang et al 2003; Zhang et al 2016; Tian et al 2019); debates remain for the origin of the ophiolitic rocks in the Lichi Mélange as either Philippine Sea Plate/Luzon forearc (e.g., Juan et al 1980; Malavieille et al 2002; Chang et al 2009; Huang et al 2018) or South China Sea (e.g., Chung and Sun 1992; Hsieh et al 2017); the mafic blocks within the Yuli Belt have been inferred from the South China Sea (Yui et al 2014; Chen et al 2017b; Beyssac et al 2008) but lack further constraints
Summary
Convergent plate sutures are often marked by ophiolite-bearing belts where entire or partial sections of oceanic lithosphere were consumed during collisional or accretionary orogenesis (e.g., Pan et al 2012). Of the Taiwan ophiolite-bearing belts, only the Kenting Mélange was the direct product of South China Sea subduction and the ophiolitic rocks within are mostly of South China Sea affinity (e.g., Lu and Hsu 1992; Chang et al 2003; Zhang et al 2016; Tian et al 2019); debates remain for the origin of the ophiolitic rocks in the Lichi Mélange as either Philippine Sea Plate/Luzon forearc (e.g., Juan et al 1980; Malavieille et al 2002; Chang et al 2009; Huang et al 2018) or South China Sea (e.g., Chung and Sun 1992; Hsieh et al 2017); the mafic blocks within the Yuli Belt have been inferred from the South China Sea (Yui et al 2014; Chen et al 2017b; Beyssac et al 2008) but lack further constraints Such ambiguities made tectonic interpretation and reconstruction difficult and fraught with uncertainties, especially for the LichiYuli pair on the opposing sides of the active plate boundary, the Longitudinal Valley (Fig. 1). Protolith origin(s) must be resolved as a prerequisite for comprehensive knowledge on the tectonic processes bringing these two ophiolite-bearing belts of contrasting histories against each other along the plate suture
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
