Constraints of Sea Beam data on crustal fabrics and seafloor spreading in the South China Sea

Abstract

The South China Sea is a mid-late Tertiary marginal basin. The magnetic anomaly lineations in the eastern part of the basin trend approximately east-west [1,2], suggesting a north-south direction of spreading. In the spring of 1985, two cruises on the French research vessel “Jean Charcot” provided Sea Beam coverage, seismic reflection, magnetic and gravity profiles. The Sea Beam data exhibit two major structural trends: scarps striking N50°E± 15°, interpreted as normal faults, and scarps striking N140°E± 15°, interpreted as fracture zones. This fabric implies a northwest-southeast direction of spreading, up to about 100 km north and south of the inferred spreading axis [3]. Dense Sea Beam coverage of a roughly 1° square area northwest of the Scarborough Seamounts chain shows that the emplacement of these seamounts was, at least in its initial stage, controlled by faulting in two orthogonal directions, N50°E and N140°E. Magnetic and gravimetric maps of the same area also reveal anomalies trending roughly N50°E, which are disrupted by transform zones striking N140°E. This detailed study indicates that the fracture zones may be closely spaced (less than 20–30 km) east of Macclesfield Bank. Furthermore, magnetic anomalies identified as 6 and 6a (20 Myr) along two north-south profiles located at both edges to the north of this detailed study area may be correlated with the N80°E trend characteristic of such anomalies in the eastern part of the South China Sea. The east-west trend of magnetic anomalies 6 and 6a, south of Scarborough seamount chain, recognised by Taylor and Hayes (1983) [1] is incompatible with the trend of the fault scarps observed on Sea Beam data. We infer that progressive, right-lateral offsets of the ridge across closely spaced discontinuities may account for the nearly east-west average trend of some of the magnetic anomalies, and of the Scarborough seamount chain, which represents the location of the relict spreading axis, in spite of a N50°E spreading direction. The whole central part of the basin east of 115°E may have formed in this way, since N130–140°E striking fracture zones are observed on the Sea Beam swaths. This model may correspond to the second of two successive spreading phases, with N-S and NW-SE directions of extension respectively, as was presented by the authors in a previous paper (Pautot et al., 1986 [3]). Alternatively, we may assume that the direction of extension did not change radically during the opening history [3], implying that oblique spreading occurred along N80°E trending ridge segments, creating the N80°E trending scarps and magnetic anomalies observed to the north and to the south of the study area. Such a direction of extension is compatible with mid-late Tertiary left-lateral movements along large N130–150°E strike-slip faults, such as the Red River and Wang Chao faults in South China and Sundaland.