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.

  • Article
  • Published:

Secular craton evolution due to cyclic deformation of underlying dense mantle lithosphere

Nature Geoscience volume 16, pages 637–645 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The cratonic crust is the most long-lived tectonic unit on Earth. The longevity of Earth’s cratonic crust has been attributed to neutrally buoyant and mechanically strong lithospheric keels. However, this is inconsistent with observed secular cratonic deformation and alteration. Here we analyse the density profile and dynamic evolution of the lithospheric mantle underlying cratons to show that cratonic lithosphere may have experienced continuous and cyclic deformation and evolution since the break-up of the Rodinia supercontinent ~800 million years ago. We find that the thickness of cratonic crust correlates linearly with that of the mantle lithosphere, suggesting coupled evolution. Seismic evidence for depth-dependent radial anisotropy implies that the dense lower cratonic lithosphere experienced pervasive vertical deformation consistent with delamination. Geologic data and azimuthal anisotropy further suggest repeated post-Rodinia thinning of cratonic lithosphere followed by gradual restabilization of the perturbed lower lithosphere. Geodynamic simulations support our interpretation that partial lithospheric delamination, potentially triggered by plume underplating, can generate rapid surface uplift and erosion, with subsequent lithospheric stabilization leading to gradual craton subsidence. We propose that Earth’s long-lived cratons have been maintained by this cyclic deformation style since the Neoproterozoic.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Fig. 1: Relationship among craton topography, crustal thickness and LAB depth.
Fig. 2: Globally observed lithospheric radial anisotropy above and below the MLD.
Fig. 3: Craton locations relative to the deep mantle correlate with their vertical motion history.
Fig. 4: Comparison of reconstructed North American azimuthal anisotropy with Phanerozoic plate motion.
Fig. 5: Three possible scenarios for the temporal evolution of SCLM.
Fig. 6: Cyclic deformation of the SCLM since the Neoproterozoic.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The CRUST1.0 model is available at https://igppweb.ucsd.edu/~gabi/crust1.html. The LITHO1.0 model is available at https://igppweb.ucsd.edu/~gabi/litho1.0.html. The data for residual topography and residual gravity can be found at Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3940835). The crustal age data are based on ‘World CGMW, 1:50 M, Geological Units Onshore’ with the permission of OneGeology at http://portal.onegeology.org/OnegeologyGlobal/. The seismic anisotropy data are available mostly from the original publications, and additional data can be found at https://ds.iris.edu/ds/products/ and https://schaeffer.ca/tomography/sl2016sva/.

Code availability

The mantle convection code CitcomS is available at https://geodynamics.org/cig/software/citcoms/.

References

  1. Jordan, T. H. Composition and development of the continental tectosphere. Nature 274, 544–548 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lenardic, A. & Moresi, L. N. Some thoughts on the stability of cratonic lithosphere: effects of buoyancy and viscosity. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 12747–12758 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carlson, R. W., Pearson, D. G. & James, D. E. Physical, chemical, and chronological characteristics of continental mantle. Rev. Geophys. 43, RG1001 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hu, J. et al. Modification of the Western Gondwana craton by plume–lithosphere interaction. Nat. Geosci. 11, 203–210 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Laske, G., Masters, G., Ma, Z. & Pasyanos, M. Update on CRUST1.0–A 1-degree global model of Earth’s crust. Geophys. Res. Abstracts 15, abstr. EGU2013-2658 (2013).

  6. Schaeffer, A. J. & Lebedev, S. Global shear speed structure of the upper mantle and transition zone. Geophys. J. Int. 194, 417–449 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. DeLucia, M. S., Guenthner, W. R., Marshak, S., Thomson, S. N. & Ault, A. K. Thermochronology links denudation of the Great Unconformity surface to the supercontinent cycle and snowball Earth. Geology 46, 167–170 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee, C.-T. A., Luffi, P. & Chin, E. J. Building and destroying continental mantle. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 39, 59–90 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Read, G. et al. Stratigraphic relations, kimberlite emplacement and lithospheric thermal evolution, Quiricó Basin, Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Lithos 77, 803–818 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Liu, L. et al. The role of oceanic plateau subduction in the Laramide orogeny. Nat. Geosci. 3, 353–357 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang, Y., Liu, L. & Zhou, Q. Topography and gravity reveal denser cratonic lithospheric mantle than previously thought. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2021GL096844 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fischer, K. M. et al. The lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 38, 551–575 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen, L. Layering of subcontinental lithospheric mantle. Sci. Bull. 62, 1030–1034 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Griffin, W. L. et al. The origin and evolution of Archean lithospheric mantle. Precambrian Res. 127, 19–41 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhu, R., Zhao, G., Xiao, W., Chen, L. & Tang, Y. Origin, accretion, and reworking of continents. Rev. Geophys. 59, e2019RG000689 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Adams, A. & Nyblade, A. Shear wave velocity structure of the southern African upper mantle with implications for the uplift of southern Africa. Geophys. J. Int. 186, 808–824 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Garber, J. M. et al. Multidisciplinary constraints on the abundance of diamond and eclogite in the cratonic lithosphere. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 19, 2062–2086 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang, Y., Liu, L. & Zhou, Q. Geoid reveals the density structure of cratonic lithosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 127, e2022JB024270 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ho, T., Priestley, K. & Debayle, E. A global horizontal shear velocity model of the upper mantle from multimode Love wave measurements. Geophys. J. Int. 207, 542–561 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Porritt, R. W., Becker, T. W., Boschi, L. & Auer, L. Multiscale, radially anisotropic shear wave imaging of the mantle underneath the contiguous United States through joint inversion of USArray and global data sets. Geophys. J. Int. 226, 1730–1746 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pearson, D. G. & Wittig, N. Formation of Archaean continental lithosphere and its diamonds: the root of the problem. J. Geol. Soc. 165, 895–914 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tang, M., Chu, X., Hao, J. & Shen, B. Orogenic quiescence in Earth’s middle age. Science 371, 728–731 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stern, R. J. The Mesoproterozoic single-lid tectonic episode: prelude to modern plate tectonics. GSA Today https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG480A.1 (2020).

  24. Bradley, D. C. Passive margins through Earth history. Earth Sci. Rev. 91, 1–26 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ritsema, J., Deuss, A., Van Heijst, H. J. & Woodhouse, J. H. S40RTS: a degree-40 shear-velocity model for the mantle from new Rayleigh wave dispersion, teleseismic traveltime and normal-mode splitting function measurements. Geophys. J. Int. 184, 1223–1236 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Torsvik, T. H., Burke, K., Steinberger, B., Webb, S. J. & Ashwal, L. D. Diamonds sampled by plumes from the core–mantle boundary. Nature 466, 352–355 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. King, S. D. & Adam, C. Hotspot swells revisited. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 235, 66–83 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Self, S., Schmidt, A. & Mather, T. A. in Volcanism, Impacts, and Mass Extinctions: Causes and Effects (eds Keller, G. & Kerr, A. C.) 319–337 (Geological Society of America, 2014).

  29. Merdith, A. S. et al. Extending full-plate tectonic models into deep time: linking the Neoproterozoic and the Phanerozoic. Earth Sci. Rev., 214, 103477 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Peters, S. E. & Gaines, R. R. Formation of the ‘Great Unconformity’ as a trigger for the Cambrian explosion. Nature 484, 363–366 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Allen, P. A. & Armitage, J. J. in Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins: Recent Advances (eds Busby, C. & Azor, A.) 602–620 (Wiley, 2012).

  32. Liu, L. et al. Development of a dense cratonic keel prior to the destruction of the North China Craton: constraints from sedimentary records and numerical simulation. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 124, 13192–13206 (2019).

  33. Gurnis, M., Mitravica, J. X., Ritsema, J. & van Heijst, H. J. Constraining mantle density structure using geological evidence of surface uplift rates: the case of the African Superplume. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 1, 1020 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Liu, L. The ups and downs of North America: evaluating the role of mantle dynamic topography since the Mesozoic. Rev. Geophys. 53, 1022–1049 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Liu, L. & Gurnis, M. Dynamic subsidence and uplift of the Colorado Plateau. Geology 38, 663–666 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yuan, H. & Romanowicz, B. Lithospheric layering in the North American craton. Nature 466, 1063–1068 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schaeffer, A. J., Lebedev, S. & Becker, T. W. Azimuthal seismic anisotropy in the Earth’s upper mantle and the thickness of tectonic plates. Geophys. J. Int. 207, 901–933 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Peng, L., Liu, L. & Liu, L. The fate of delaminated cratonic lithosphere. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 594, 117740 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hu, J., Liu, L. & Gurnis, M. Southward expanding plate coupling due to variation in sediment subduction as a cause of Andean growth. Nat. Commun. 12, 7271 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Liu, J. et al. Plume-driven recratonization of deep continental lithospheric mantle. Nature 592, 732–736 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fu, H.-Y., Li, Z.-H. & Chen, L. Continental mid-lithosphere discontinuity: a water collector during craton evolution. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2022GL101569 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gurnis, M. Large-scale mantle convection and the aggregation and dispersal of supercontinents. Nature 322, 695–699 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hallam, A. Phanerozoic Sea-Level (Columbia Univ. Press, 1992).

  44. Herzberg, C., Condie, K. & Korenaga, J. Thermal history of the Earth and its petrological expression. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 292, 79–88 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Korenaga, J. Initiation and evolution of plate tectonics on Earth: theories and observations. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 41, 117–151 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Zhang, Y., Chen, L., Ai, Y. & Jiang, M. Lithospheric structure beneath the central and western North China Craton and adjacent regions from S-receiver function imaging. Geophys. J. Int. 219, 619–632 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Levander, A. & Miller, M. S. Evolutionary aspects of lithosphere discontinuity structure in the western US. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 13, Q0AK07 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zhong, S., McNamara, A., Tan, E., Moresi, L. & Gurnis, M. A benchmark study on mantle convection in a 3-D spherical shell using CitcomS. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 9, Q10017 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Simmons, N. A., Forte, A. M. & Grand, S. P. Joint seismic, geodynamic and mineral physical constraints on three-dimensional mantle heterogeneity: implications for the relative importance of thermal versus compositional heterogeneity. Geophys. J. Int. 177, 1284–1304 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pasyanos, M., Masters, G., Laske, G., Laske, G. & Ma, Z. LITHO1.0: an updated crust and lithospheric model of the Earth. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 119, 2153–2173 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Liu, L., Spasojević, S. & Gurnis, M. Reconstructing Farallon plate subduction beneath North America back to the Late Cretaceous. Science 322, 934–938 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Liu, L. & Hasterok, D. High–resolution lithosphere viscosity and dynamics revealed by magnetotelluric tomography. Science 353, 1515–1519 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Gao, S., Takahashi, E. & Suzuki, T. High-pressure melting experiments on basalt–peridotite layered source (KLB-1/N-MORB): implications for magma genesis in Hawaii. Int. J. Geosci. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2017.81001 (2017).

  54. Ballmer, M. D., Schmerr, N. C., Nakagawa, T. & Ritsema, J. Compositional mantle layering revealed by slab stagnation at ~1000-km depth. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500815 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Poag, C. W. & Sevon, W. D. A record of Appalachian denudation in postrift Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary deposits of the US Middle Atlantic continental margin. Geomorphology 2, 119–157 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Guillocheau, F. et al. Quantification and causes of the terrigeneous sediment budget at the scale of a continental margin: a new method applied to the Namibia–South Africa margin. Basin Res. 24, 3–30 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ault, A. K., Flowers, R. M. & Bowring, S. A. Phanerozoic surface history of the Slave craton. Tectonics 32, 1066–1083 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Boettcher, S. S. & Milliken, K. L. Mesozoic–Cenozoic unroofing of the southern Appalachian Basin: apatite fission track evidence from middle Pennsylvanian sandstones. J. Geol. 102, 655–663 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Boone, S. C., Seiler, C., Reid, A. J., Kohn, B. & Gleadow, A. An Upper Cretaceous paleo-aquifer system in the Eromanga Basin of the central Gawler Craton, South Australia: evidence from apatite fission track thermochronology. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 63, 315–331 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Cederbom, C., Larson, S. Å., Tullborg, E. L. & Stiberg, J. P. Fission track thermochronology applied to Phanerozoic thermotectonic events in central and southern Sweden. Tectonophysics 316, 153–167 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Fonseca, A. C. L. et al. Differential Phanerozoic evolution of cratonic and non-cratonic lithosphere from a thermochronological perspective: São Francisco Craton and marginal orogens (Brazil). Gondwana Res. 93, 106–126 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sahu, H. S., Raab, M. J., Kohn, B. P., Gleadow, A. J. W. & Bal, K. D. Thermal history of the Krishna–Godavari basin, India: constraints from apatite fission track thermochronology and organic maturity data. J. Asian Earth Sci. 73, 1–20 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Stanley, J. R., Flowers, R. M. & Bell, D. R. Kimberlite (U–Th)/He dating links surface erosion with lithospheric heating, thinning, and metasomatism in the southern African Plateau. Geology 41, 1243–1246 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wildman, M. et al. Contrasting Mesozoic evolution across the boundary between on and off craton regions of the South African plateau inferred from apatite fission track and (U–Th–Sm)/He thermochronology. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 122, 1517–1547 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

L.L. acknowledges partial support by NSF grant EAR2244660. L.C. acknowledges NSFC grant 42288201. We also acknowledge the use of Generic Mapping Tool (GMT) for plotting figures and the TACC supercomputing platform Frontera for carrying out the numerical simulations.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Yaoyi Wang, Zebin Cao.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth Science and Environmental Change, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

    Yaoyi Wang, Zebin Cao, Lihang Peng, Lijun Liu, Craig Lundstrom & Diandian Peng

  2. State Key Laboratory of Lithospheric Evolution, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Lijun Liu & Ling Chen

  3. Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Xiaotao Yang

Authors
  1. Yaoyi Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zebin Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lihang Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lijun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ling Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Craig Lundstrom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Diandian Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xiaotao Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.L. initiated and organized the project. Y.W. prepared the lithospheric and geological data. Z.C. analysed the seismic anisotropy. L.P. performed the numerical simulations. L.C. helped with seismology and tectonics. C.L. helped with petrology and tectonics. D.P. helped with modelling and graphics. X.Y. helped with seismic interpretation. L.L. wrote the paper with inputs from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lijun Liu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Geoscience thanks Hongliang Wang and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Louise Hawkins and Xujia Jiang, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Surface topography and lithospheric structures of cratons.

(A) Surface topography of major cratons (red contours, numbered from 1 to 18, all Precambrian crusts8. (B) Crustal thickness from CRUST1.05. Red lines represent the 150-km depth contour for LAB6 in C. Black lines confine Archean-Neoproterozoic exposed basement rocks (based on OneGeology, See Data Availability). (C) Global LAB depth based on surface wave tomography6, with sites of Phanerozoic unroofing from Fig. 2. (D) Dynamic topography estimates based on S40RTS25, where seismic anomalies above the LAB (300 km for continents and 200 km for oceans) are assumed to be neutrally buoyant.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Estimate of the pristine craton topography.

(A) Observed craton topography plotted against crustal thickness. The error bars represent the corresponding standard deviations. (B) Craton topography after restoring erosion-removed crustal thickness to a nominal 41-km uniform thickness. (C) Pristine topography vs. present-day LAB depth for all cratons.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Radial anisotropy from ref. 20.

In the plot, ξ = VSH/VSV with values > 1 represents faster horizontal than vertical polarization and vice versa. Magenta contours outline major cratons.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Comparison of reconstructed North American anisotropy with Phanerozoic plate motion.

(A-D) Fast axis of seismic anisotropy (black bars) over the North American craton from SL1637 at depths ranging from 75 km to 225 km that are rotated back in time following past plate trajectory (the dash-dotted magenta line) and rotation29. Each map corresponds to a different time interval (50 Myr for Paleozoic and 100 Myr for Mesozoic-Cenozoic) whose middle points are shown in E. The background colors represent the angular misfit between the reconstructed fast orientation of anisotropy and averaged plate motion over the corresponding time interval. Red contours outline the two LLSVPs. (E) Spatially averaged angular misfit with respect to depth and time.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Initial model setup.

(A) Compositional field of Model 4, where compositions of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, are ambient mantle, oceanic crust, continental crust, continental upper lithospheric mantle, compositionally buoyant lower SCLM, compositional dense lower SCLM, and relatively buoyant compositional 5 due to its delayed transformation at 660-750 km, respectively. (B-C) Density and viscosity profiles of the model initial condition. In C, the delaminated strong lower SCLM is shifted further down by ~50 km to demonstrate the decoupling zone above. (D-F) Same as (A-C), but for Model 5.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Long-term evolution of the SCLM.

(A-F) Model 4, with initial vertically stratified density profile in the lower SCLM. Background colors represent composition: 0 - ambient mantle, 1 - oceanic crust, 2 - cratonic crust, 3 - upper ( < 100 km) SCLM, 4 – lower SCLM with 0.3% excess density, 5 - lower SCLM with 3% excess density, and 6 - bridgmanite. Overplotted are the evolving geotherms. The top of each panel shows the corresponding surface topography. (G-L) Same as A-F but for Model 5 where the initial lower lithosphere has an imbricated density profile. More snapshots of the two geodynamic models are available in Supplementary Videos 3 & 4.

Extended Data Table 1 Records55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64 of craton exhumation
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 Key parameters of geodynamic models
Full size table

Supplementary information

Supplementary Video 1

Plate reconstruction since 1 Ga. Reconstructed locations of non-cratons (grey areas) and cratons (green areas)29 relative to deep mantle structures. Red dots represent hotspots27, whose locations are assumed stationary. Red shaded areas mark major LIPs28. Orange contours outline the two stationary LLSVPs, defined as seismic velocity perturbations of −0.6% at the core–mantle boundary based on tomography S40RTS25.

Supplementary Video 2

Plate reconstruction since 200 Ma. The light green triangles denote the positions of major unroofing events. Purple squares mark enhanced sedimentation along continental margins or inland depression (Extended Data Table 1).

Supplementary Video 3

Long-term evolution of SCLM in model 4.

Supplementary Video 4

Long-term evolution of SCLM in model 5.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Cao, Z., Peng, L. et al. Secular craton evolution due to cyclic deformation of underlying dense mantle lithosphere. Nat. Geosci. 16, 637–645 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01203-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01203-5

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