Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Reply to 'Problematic plate reconstruction'

Nature Geoscience volume 5, page 677 (2012)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Authors' reply

The main criticism by Tucholke and Sibuet on our paper1 concerns the position, nature and age of the J anomaly that occurs on both sides of the Newfoundland–Gibraltar Fracture Zone. Despite the fact that Tucholke previously proposed a 100 km offset for the J anomaly across the Newfoundland–Gibraltar Fracture Zone2, Tucholke and Sibuet argue that this anomaly is “collinear” and thus formed at the same time (∼125 Myr ago; chron M0). However, at that time, the nature of the crust north and south of the Newfoundland–Gibraltar Fracture Zone was different. To the south excess magma resulted in a thickening of the oceanic magnetic layer2 and amplification of its associated magnetic anomaly (M0), whereas the northern domain was formed by exhumed subcontinental mantle and polyphase magmatic activity, as evidenced by rocks from Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) sites 1277 and 1070 (ref. 3). To account for the drilling and seismic results, we proposed that this excess magmatic event occurring south of Newfoundland–Gibraltar Fracture Zone at around M0 time2 propagated into the Newfoundland–Iberia rift and finally resulted in onset of seafloor spreading in the northern part (ODP sites 1277 and 1070) at about 112 Myr ago. Such a mechanism for break-up has been previously proposed4, and we suggested that the J anomaly is the signature of this diachronous propagating event1.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Bronner, A., Sauter, D., Manatschal, G., Peron-Pinvidic, G. & Munschy, M. Nature Geosci. 4, 549–553 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tucholke, B. E. & Ludwig, W. J. J. Geophys. Res. 87, 9389–9407 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jagoutz, O. et al. Geology 35, 1087–1090 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Reston, T. J. & Morgan, J. P. Geology 32, 133–136, (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sibuet, J-C., Srivastava, S. P. & Spakman, W. J. Geophys. Res. 109, B08104 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jammes, S., Manatschal, G., Lavier, L. & Masini, E. Tectonics 28, TC4012 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Souriau, A., Chevrot, S. & Olivera, C. Tectonophysics 460, 206–214 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut de Physique du Globe de Strasbourg, IPGS–UMR 7516, CNRS–Université de Strasbourg, 1 rue Blessig, Strasbourg Cedex, 67084, France

    Adrien Bronner, Daniel Sauter, Gianreto Manatschal & Marc Munschy

  2. Geological Survey of Norway (NGU), Leiv Eirikssons vei 39, Trondheim, 7491, Norway

    Gwen Péron-Pinvidic

Authors
  1. Adrien Bronner
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Sauter
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gianreto Manatschal
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gwen Péron-Pinvidic
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marc Munschy
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrien Bronner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bronner, A., Sauter, D., Manatschal, G. et al. Reply to 'Problematic plate reconstruction'. Nature Geosci 5, 677 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1597

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1597

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing