, Volume 52, Issue 5, pp 564–577 | Cite as

Tectonic Phenomena and Supervising Underlying Geodynamic Processes

  • V. G. TrifonovEmail author
  • S. Yu. Sokolov


The study concerns two deep sources of tectonic processes in Late Mesozoic and Cenozoic which influence is transferred and enforced on the spheroid surface – Earth crust. The first source is mantle convection. Its upgoing branches are comprised by mantle superplumes from which the upper mantle flows spreads laterally. Downgoing convection branches are comprised by detached highly metamorphosed fragments of thickened continental lithosphere and partially by subducted slabs, submerged lower than transitional mantle layer (~410–680 km). Major of subduction zones are transformed to subhorizontal lenses at the transitional layer depth participating in upper mantle convection. Coupled with total mantle convection it defines plate tectonic processes and lithosphere density loose, bringing rise amplifying during mountain formation. The second source is outer core flows reflected in magnetic field inversions, which are more frequent during or before of major of tectonic activity phases (phases of compression and transpression deformations strengthen). Inversion frequency rises during neotectonic orogeny. It is supposed, that Earth core flows change its spheroid parameters, which brings to the appearance of volume forces, affecting almost immediately in geological time. Thus core flows contribute to global character of tectonic phases occurrences and synchronicity for superposition of modern mountain formation main phase with plate tectonic processes.


mantle and upper mantle convection orogenic phases and magnetic inversions correlation global synchronicity of mountain formation periods 



The work was financed by the Russian Science Foundation (project no. 17–17–01073).


  1. 1.
    Yu. N. Avsyuk and I. I. Suvorova, “Latitude variations and their relation to forced movements of the inner solid core,” Izv., Phys. Solid Earth 42, 598–607 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. V. Artyushkov, “Gravitational convection in the Earth’s interior,” Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR. Fiz. Zemli, No. 9, 3–18 (1968).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. V. Artyushkov, Geodynamics (Nauka, Moscow, 1979) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. V. Artyushkov, Physical Tectonics (Nauka, Moscow, 1993) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. V. Artyushkov, “Neotectonic crustal uplifts as a consequence of mantle fluid infiltration into the lithosphere,” Russ. Geol. Geophys. 53, 566–582 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. L. Dobretsov, A. G. Kirdyashkin, and A. A. Kirdyashkin, Deep Geodynamics (Izd. Sib. Otd. Ross. Akad. Nauk, Novosibirsk, 2001) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ya. B. Zel’dovich and A. A. Ruzmaikin, “Hydromagnetic dynamo as a source of the planetary, solar, and galactic magnetism,” Usp. Fiz. Nauk 152, 263–284 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Yu. Kurazhkovskii, N. A. Kurazhkovskaya, B. I. Klain, and V. Yu. Bragin, “Variations of the geomagnetic field during the Cretaceous,” Russ. Geol. Geophys. 51, 712–719 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. V. Ladynin and A. A. Popova, “Optimization fitting of the eccentric dipole models to the observed geomagnetic field,” Russ. Geol. Geophys. 50, 195–205 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yu. G. Leonov, Tectonic Nature of the Devonian Orogeny (Nedra, Moscow, 1976) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. I. Lobkovsky, “Deformable plate tectonics and regional geodynamic model of the Arctic region and Northeastern Asia,” Russ. Geol. Geophys. 57, 371–381 (2016). doi 10.1016/j.rgg.2016.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. V. Luk’yanov, “Plastic deformations and tectonic flow of rocks in the lithosphere,” in Tectonic Layering of the Lithosphere (Nauka, Moscow, 1980), pp. 105–146.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. A. Mossakovsky, Orogenic Structure and Volcanism of Eurasian Paleozoides, Vol. 268 of Tr. Geol. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR (Nauka, Moscow, 1975) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    V. S. Ponomarev and V. G. Trifonov, “Tectogenesis factors,” in Topical Problems of Tectonics of Oceans and Continents (Nauka, Moscow, 1987), pp. 81–94.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    V. S. Ponomarev and V. G. Trifonov, “Tectonic system,” Priroda, No. 4, 62–71 (1989).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. N. Puchkov, “Relationship between plume and plate tectonics,” Geotectonics 50, 425–438 (2016). doi 10.1134/S0016852116040075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yu. M. Pushcharovsky and D. Yu. Pushcharovsky, Geology of the Earth’s Mantle (GEOS, Moscow, 2010) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yu. L. Rebetsky, “On the specific state of the crustal stresses in intracontinental orogens,” Geodin. Tektonofiz. 6, 437–466 (2015). doi 10.5800/GT-2015-6-4-0189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yu. L. Rebetsky, “Geodynamics and tectonics of small tangential mass forces,” in Tectonics of Contemporary and Ancient Oceans and Their Margins: Proceedings of the XLIX Meeting on Tectonics (GEOS, Moscow, 2017), Vol. 2, pp. 133–139.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    O. G. Sorokhtin, Global Evolution of the Earth (Nauka, Moscow, 1974) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    V. G. Trifonov, “Collision and mountain building,” Geotectonics 50, 1–20 (2016). doi 10.1134/ S0016852116010052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    V. G. Trifonov, E. V. Artyushkov, A. E. Dodonov, D. M. Bachmanov, A. V. Mikolaichuk, and F. A. Vishnyakov, “Pliocene-quaternary orogeny in the Central Tien Shan,” Russ. Geol. Geophys. 49, 98–112 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    V. G. Trifonov and S. Yu. Sokolov, “Comparison of tectonic phases and geomagnetic reversals in the Late Mesozoic and in the Cenozoic,” Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 88, 37–44 (2018). doi 10.1134/S1019331617060119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    V. G. Trifonov and S. Yu. Sokolov, “Sublithospheric flows in the mantle,” Geotectonics 51, 535–548 (2017). doi 10.1134/S0016852117060085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    V. P. Trubitsyn, “Viscosity distribution in the mantle convection models,” Izv., Phys. Solid Earth 52, 627–636 (2016). doi 10.1134/S1069351316050153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    V. P. Trubitsyn and A. P. Trubitsyn, “Numerical model for the generation of the ensemble of lithospheric plates and their penetration through the 660-km boundary,” Izv., Phys. Solid Earth 50, 853–864 (2014). doi 10.1134/S106935131406010XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    T. W. Becker and L. Boschi, “A comparison of tomographic and geodynamic mantle models,” Geochem., Geophys., Geosyst. 3 (2002). doi 10.1029/2001GC000168Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. L. Bull, A. K. McNamara, and J. Ritsema, “Synthetic tomography of plume clusters and thermochemical piles,” Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 278, 152–162 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    F. Deschamps, L. Cobden, and P. Tackley, “The primitive nature of large low shear wave velocity provinces,” Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 349–350, 198–208 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    W. Fjeldskaar, “Viscosity and thickness of the asthenosphere detected from the Fennoscandian uplift,” Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 126, 399–410 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    D. Forsyth and S. Uyeda, “On the relative importance of the driving forces of plate tectonics,” Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 43, 163–200 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Y. Fukao, S. Widiyantoro, and M. Obayashi, “Stagnant slabs in the upper and lower mantle transition region,” Rev. Geophys. 39, 291–323 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    R. G. Gordon, “The plate tectonic approximation: Plate nonrigidity, diffuse plate boundaries, and global plate reconstructions,” Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 26, 615–642 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    S. P. Grand, R. D. van der Hilst, and S. Widiyantoro, “Global seismic tomography: A snapshot of convection in the Earth,” GSA Today 7 (4), 1–7 (1997).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    G. Hirth and D. Kohlstedt, “Rheology of the upper mantle and the mantle wedge: A view from the experimentalists,” in Inside the Subduction Factory, Vol. 138 of Geophys. Monogr. Ser., Ed. by J. Eiler (Am. Geophys. Union, Washington, DC, 2003), pp. 83–105.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J. Huang and D. Zhao, “High-resolution mantle tomography of China and surrounding regions,” J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 111 (2006). doi 10.1029/2005JB004066Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    IERS Annual Report 2006, Ed. by W. R. Dick and D. Richter (Verlag des Bundesamts für Kartographie und Geodäsie, Frankfurt am Main, 2008).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    S. D. Jacobsen, S. Demouchy, J. D. Frost, T. B. Ballaran, and J. Kung, “A systematic study of OH in hydrous wadsleite from polarized FTIR spectroscopy and single-crystal X-ray diffraction: Oxygen sites for hydrogen storage in Earth’s interior,” Am. Mineral. 90, 67–70 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    A. I. Kozhurin, “Active faulting at the Eurasian, North American and Pacific plates junction,” Tectonophysics 380, 273–285 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    S. Maruyama, M. Santosh, and D. Zhao, “Superplume, supercontinent, and post-perovskite: Mantle dynamics and anti-plate tectonics on the core–mantle boundary,” Gondwana Res. 11, 7–37 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    A. Paulson, Sh. Zhong, and J. Wahr, “Modelling post-glacial rebound with lateral viscosity variations,” Geophys. J. Int. 163, 357–371 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    J. R. Smyth, “A crystallographic model for hydrous wadsleyte: An ocean in the Earth’s interior?,” Am. Mineral. 79, 1021–1025 (1994).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    V. P. Trubitsin, M. N. Evseev, and A. P. Trubitsin, “Influence of continents and lithospheric plates on the shape of D'' layer and the spatial distribution of mantle plumes,” Russ. J. Earth Sci. 15 (2015). doi 10.2205/2015ES000552Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    R. D. Van der Hilst, S. Widiyantoro, and E. R. Engdahl, “Evidence of deep mantle circulation from global tomography,” Nature 386, 578–584 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geological Institute of the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations