Seismic evidence for a mantle suture and
implications for the origin of the Canadian
Cordillera
Yunfeng Chen
1,6
, Yu Jeffrey Gu
1
, Claire A. Currie
1
, Stephen T. Johnston
2
, Shu-Huei Hung
3
,
Andrew J. Schaeffer
4,5
& Pascal Audet
4
The origin of the North American Cordillera and its affinity with the bounding craton are
subjects of contentious debate. The mechanisms of orogenesis are rooted in two competing
hypotheses known as the accretionary and collisional models. The former model attributes
the Cordillera to an archetypal accretionary orogen comprising a collage of exotic terranes.
The latter, less popular view argues that the Cordillera is a collisional product between an
allochthonous ribbon microcontinent and cratonic North America. Here we present new
seismic evidence of a sharp and structurally complex Cordillera
–craton boundary in the
uppermost mantle beneath the southern Canadian Cordillera, which can be interpreted as
either a reshaped craton margin or a Late Cretaceous collisional boundary based on the
respective hypotheses. This boundary dips steeply westward underneath a proposed
(cryptic) suture in the foreland, consisent with the predicted location and geometry of the
mantle suture, thus favoring a collisional origin.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09804-8
OPEN
1Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E1, Canada.2Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E3, Canada.3Department of Geosciences, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan.4Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada.5Geological Survey of Canada, Pacific Division, University of Ottawa Sidney, British Columbia, Canada.6Present address: Deep Earth Imaging, Future Science Platform, CSIRO, Perth, Australia. Correspondence and requests for materials should be
addressed to Y.C. (email:yunfeng1@ualberta.ca)
123456789
T
he Precambrian Laurentia craton, the core of the North
American continent, is
flanked to the west by the North
American Cordillera
1, a broad Phanerozoic orogenic belt
that extends from Mexico northwards to Alaska. The Canadian
portion of the Cordilleran orogeny was initiated by earliest
Cambrian (~540 Ma) rifting and passive margin formation
2,
followed by the development of a convergent margin and
sub-sequent Mesozoic and Cenozoic collisional events
3–6. Various
models (e.g., retro-arc thrusting
7,
flat slab subduction
8,
archipe-lago convergence
9and ribbon continent collision
4) have been
proposed to explain this protracted (150–50 Ma) orogenic period,
with arguments centering on the provenance, extent and
geo-metry of the accreted terranes that make up the Cordillera
9–13.
The prevailing idea supports the successive emplacements of thin
crustal
flakes (exotic terranes
3) over the autochthonous craton
margin since at least the Early Jurassic
13–15. In this scenario, the
ancient Laurentian craton constitutes the upper plate above an
east-directed subducting Farallon slab. Alternative hypotheses
favor episodes of westward subduction of oceanic plates that
produced the Cordilleran composite (upper plate) in the form of
intra-oceanic arcs (i.e., Insular terrane)
16or a preassembled
micro-continent
4,11,17prior to collision with the craton. In short,
the presumed roles of the Cordilleran terranes and their affiliation
to the bounding craton largely decide the styles of the orogenesis
(accretionary versus collisional) during the Mesozoic growth of
the North American continent.
Keys to differentiating these models are the nature, location
and geometry of the boundary between the Cordillera and
craton
4,18. The accretionary model, with its subsurface structures
mainly constrained by deep crustal seismic reflection/refraction
surveys
15, suggests that much of the Cordillera is built upon a
continuous cratonic basement of North America bounded
beneath by a landward (eastward) dipping mantle lithosphere
15and extends as far west as the Coast Belt
13(Fig.
1
). This unique
boundary geometry could reflect a destructive (i.e., reshaped)
margin that was initially formed by rifting
13and later modified by
episodic lithospheric removal events
22,23. This model and its
inferred boundary processes have ostensibly become a textbook
example of an accretionary orogenic belt. In contrast, the
colli-sional model differs from the accretionary concept by predicting
both a late (Cretaceous) terminal collision along a (cryptic) suture
in the orogenic foreland
4and a lithospheric scale boundary
between the Cordillera and North America
4,11. The boundary
potentially preserves an oceanward (i.e., westward) dipping
geo-metry of a relic craton margin following the break-off of a
westward subducting oceanic plate
4,17(Fig.
1
b). Based on a range
of geological and geophysical (primarily paleomagnetic)
obser-vations
4, the suture (boundary) is assumed to run along, or
adjacent to, a carbonate-shale (C-S) facies boundary directly east
of the Rocky Mountain Trench (RMT), an orogen-parallel valley
that extends from Montana to Yukon with its southern segment
formed primarily through Cenozoic normal-faulting (Fig.
1
).
Although both models provide a tectonic framework for the
Canadian Cordillera, they differ in terms of the predicted
sub-surface structures and processes. Consequently, a better
knowl-edge of the Cordillera–craton boundary (CCB) is of critical
importance for an assessment of the onset and development of
the Cordillera.
Aside from the sharp geological contrast across the C-S facies
boundary, which separates the Paleozoic platformal carbonate
sequences of the eastern Foreland Belt from the basinal chert and
shale of the western Foreland Belt
24(Fig.
1
b), changes in physical
properties (e.g., crustal/mantle seismic velocities
25–31, surface
heat
flow
32and mantle electrical conductivity
33) are well
docu-mented near the RMT. The crust and lithosphere also exhibit
significant eastward thickening, by >10 km (ref. [
25
]) and >200
km (refs. [
15
,
23
,
34
]), respectively. However, the precise location
and morphology of the CCB, especially at sub-crustal depths,
remain speculative due to insufficient spatial sampling in previous
geophysical surveys. Here we present updated geophysical
con-straints based on a decade (2006–2015) of broadband recordings
from dense seismic arrays in western Canada. This dataset
enables a higher resolution illumination of the 3D seismic
P-velocity and S-P-velocity structures of the Cordilleran foreland
region than previously available. By integrating seismic imaging
with geodynamic calculations and surface geology, our study
sheds new light on the mantle structures and dynamics near
the CCB.
Results
Tomographic models. Our
finite-frequency body-wave
tomo-graphic models (see Methods section) show mantle velocity
structures across the region and delineate contrasting low and
high wave-speeds to the west and east of the RMT, respectively
(Fig.
2
). Beneath the southern Canadian Cordillera, negative
velocities of
–2.5% (–3%) relative to the reference model
36for P
(S) waves extend to 300 km depth. To the east, positive
velo-cities of 2% (2.5%) of P (S) waves are present beneath the
Alberta foreland basin
34. The western margin of the cratonic
lithosphere is a steeply dipping high-velocity structure
juxta-posed to the west with pronounced low velocities beneath the
Canadian Cordillera. This boundary (i.e., CCB) is defined by a
high amplitude velocity gradient and shows significant spatial
and geometrical complexities along the strike of the mountain
belt (Fig.
2
g–j).
Cordillera
–craton boundary. The CCB provides a key structural
constraint on Cordilleran assembly. We determine its location in
our P-wave and S-wave models and three published tomographic
studies
29,30,35using the maximum horizontal velocity gradient
(see Methods section), assuming the boundary marks a sharp
lateral change in physical properties (e.g., temperature,
compo-sition and seismic velocity). The resulting location varies among
different tomographic models and forms a narrow (<200 km)
zone surrounding the RMT (Fig.
3
a). Our P-wave and S-wave
results both place the CCB at a maximum distance of 40–50 km
west of the RMT at 150 km depth (Fig.
3
a), with a pronounced
westward dip (a minimum of ~10° from the vertical) between
49 and 52° N (see AA′ in Fig.
2
g, i). The location and dip are
robustly determined based on our synthetic tests, which show a
small (<10 km) lateral uncertainty of the boundary location and a
well-constrained boundary geometry in this region
(Supplemen-tary Figs. 7 and 8). The boundary lies directly beneath the RMT
north of ~52° N (Fig.
3
a), where its dip changes to sub-vertical
and then east-dipping within a short (<50 km) distance (see BB′
in Fig.
2
h, j). Farther north, the boundary merges into the
northern Rocky Mountain Trench-Tintina Fault (RMT-TF)
sys-tem at ~54° N (Fig.
3
a). In this area, the geometry of the craton
margin cannot be robustly determined due to reduced station
density (see Supplementary Fig. 7).
The greatest velocity increase occurs within a 100 km distance
from the CCB (Fig.
3
a), showing maximum horizontal gradients
of 4% and 3.5% per 100 km, respectively, for P and S velocities at
150 km depth (Fig.
3
a). The shear-velocity value is consistent with
the >3% gradient observed in this region in a recent
continental-scale shear-velocity model
30. As temperature is the dominant
control on upper mantle seismic velocity
37, the observed velocity
contrast across the CCB provides constraints on the temperature
variation (see Methods section). At 150 km depth, the P (4.3%)
and S (7.0%) velocity contrasts indicate a decrease of 200–300 °C
from the Cordillera to craton (Fig.
3
b). The low Cordilleran
velocities are consistent with a relatively wet, near-adiabatic
mantle (1200–1350 °C). The temperatures of high-velocity
cratonic lithosphere are 950–1100 °C, showing slightly higher
values for a depleted composition; the craton velocities are
insensitive to water content
38. These temperatures are in
agreement with earlier estimates based on surface heat
flow,
xenoliths, and seismic velocity
32,37,39,40, as well as the hypothesis
that the thin Cordilleran lithosphere is maintained through
small-scale convection of a hydrated mantle
39. Based on geodynamic
models, low craton temperatures in combination with a dry and
moderately depleted composition are required to maintain a
prominent (sharp and steep) lithospheric step at the craton edge
for a minimum timescale of 100 Ma
41,42. Specifically, the cratonic
mantle lithosphere must be rheologically strong (5–50 times
stronger than damp olivine, i.e., consistent with a dry
composi-tion) and chemically depleted (20–40 kg m
−3less dense than
primitive mantle)
42. This intrinsically stable and potentially
well-preserved mantle boundary thus provides critical temporal
constraints on the initiation and evolution of the Cordilleran
orogen.
Discussion
The location (subjacent to the cryptic suture in the foreland
crust), westward-dipping geometry, and the large (>200 km) and
sharp lithospheric thickness contrast at the CCB (see Fig.
2
g–j)
are key observations from our seismic models. They enable a new
assessment of the tectonic paradigms (collisional or accretionary)
for Cordillera evolution. In the collisional model, the Cordillera is
a product of the Late Cretaceous collision between a
pre-assembled (Triassic-Jurassic) ribbon continent and the North
American continent
4,11,17, implying the existence of a collisional
suture between allochthonous (i.e., Cordillera) and
auto-chthonous (i.e., craton) mantle. Within this framework, the
cra-ton margin and CCB were established relatively recently (younger
than 100 Ma) compared with the Late Devonian age suggested by
50° 55° 60° GSLsz CDF AB BC SK ID MT Hearne THO MHB WA VS GFTZ Rae Wyoming W E W E RMT NT ND North America Arctic North Pacific North Atlantic TF Cordillera Coast Belt C oa st B elt Omineca O m in eca Foreland Fo rela nd Insular In su lar Intermontane In te rm on ta ne 200 km 1000 km STZ Cratonic basement Lithosphere? Asthenosphere JDF Mantle flow Mantle suture? 1.1 Ga 2.6–3.3 Ga cratonic lithosphere RMT Foreland CDF Omineca Coast belt Insular Pacific Intermon-tane Fraser fault Alberta Basin C S 0 km 200 O L 40 80 160 120 Depth (km) 40 80 160 120 200 200
a
b
−126° −120° −114° −108° −102° 50° 55° 60° 0 1000 2000 3000 m CRANE CNSN USArray RAVEN CANOE −126° −120° −114° −108° −102°Fig. 1 Tectonic setting of the Cordillera–craton transition region in western Canada. a Topographic relief map superimposed with station coverage. The boundaries of the tomographic model are denoted by the red polygon. Seismic stations are shown by various symbols. The thick gray lines represent the important structural discontinuities within the craton and the white lines indicate the major domain boundaries in southwestern Canada19,20. The black
barbed and red dashed lines mark the location of the Cordilleran Deformation Front (CDF) and the Rocky Mountain Trench (RMT)-Tintina Fault (TF) system, respectively. The map area relative to North America is shown by the enclosed region in the regional map to the right.b A schematic cross-section showing the structural transition from the Cordillera to craton (location indicated by the blue line on the map). The blue bar marks the carbonate (C) to shale (S) facies boundary, the proposed Cordillera–craton surface suture. The thin dashed lines mark the interpreted lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary (LAB), with either a landward (L) or oceanward (O) dip inferred for accretionary and collisional models, respectively. Modified after ref.21. GFTZ, Great
Falls Tectonic Zone; GSLsz, Great Slave Lake shear zone; MHB, Medicine Hat Block; STZ, Snowbird Tectonic Zone; THO, Trans-Hudson Orogen; VS, Vulcan Structure
the accretionary model
13,21. Therefore, the collisional model
infers a relatively short-term (<100 Ma) evolution (reworking) of
the craton margin, providing an important temporal constraint
on the preservation of the CCB, particularly its location and
geometry.
Our seismic models show a well-defined westward-dipping
CCB beneath the Cordilleran Foreland Belt. At 150 km depth, a
robustly resolved depth range in our seismic images, the mantle
CCB is ~50 km west of the surface suture (C-S facies boundary
east of the RMT) in the southern Cordilleran foreland. In this
region, the amount of the Late Cretaceous and Paleocene
shortening as accommodated by the Rocky Mountain
thrust-and-fold belt is ~200 km (see ref.
43). Following the shortening,
the release of compressive stress near the thrust termination in
the foreland reactivated the basal décollement, causing
post-Eocene normal faulting in the southern RMT
44and regional
−128° −120° −112° −104° 50° 55° 60° A A′ B B′ 50° 55° 60° −128° −120° −112° −104° −128° −120° −112° −104° STZ RMT CDF Hearne Hearne MHB MHB Rae Rae CDF RMT CDF RMT CDF RMT CDF RMT A A′ B B′ A A′ B B′ Rockies Rockies Basin Basin VS P S P S Cordillera C or dille ra
a
Pb
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
200 km 200 km 200 km 200 km 200 km 200 km 100 km 100 km 200 km 200 km 300 km 300 km −1 0 1 VP / VP (%) VS / VS (%) −2 −1 0 1 2 100 200 300 400 Depth (km) 100 200 300 400 Depth(km) 0 500 1000 Distance (km) 0 500 1000 Distance (km) SFig. 2 P-wave and S-wave velocity anomalies resolved fromfinite-frequency tomography. a–c P-wave velocities at 100, 200, and 300 km depths, respectively.d–f The same as a–c but for S-wave velocities. The locations of two velocity profiles are shown by the purple lines at 100 km depth. The red dashed line marks the Rocky Mountain Trench.g, h P-wave velocity anomalies along two profiles in the southern Canadian Cordillera. i, j The corresponding S-wave velocity variation along the two profiles. The southern (AA′) and northern (BB′) profiles intersect with the Rocky Mountain Trench at about 50° and 52° N, respectively. The locations of the Rocky Mountain Trench and Cordilleran Deformation Front are respectively marked by the red and black lines at the surface. The black dashed line indicates the zero percent velocity contour, which approximates the location of the Cordillera–craton boundary
extension of up to 25 km
45. The close spatial association of the
RMT with the CCB potentially suggests strong influences from
minor reactivation of the CCB during extension. According to
the collisional model, the compression stage is attributed to the
convergence between the North American craton and the
Cor-dillera
4. During this protracted period of tectonic interaction
(i.e., collision), the mantle CCB, which marks the collision
front, moved continuously westwards as a consequence of the
underthrusting of the leading edge of the craton
17while the
overlying crust carried the surface suture eastwards along the
basal décollement of the thrust-and-fold belt
4. The crustal
extension partially restored the position of the surface suture
relative to the stationary mantle suture, resulting in a net offset
of ~50 km between the two structures. The collision process
provides a straightforward yet self-consistent interpretation of
the observed westward-dipping CCB (a relic collision front;
Fig.
4
) and its spatial correlation with the surface suture in the
southern Canadian Cordillera. Similar phenomena have been
documented in orogenic belts of Qinling-Dabie in central
China
46and Trans-European Suture Zone
41. North of 52°
latitude, the RMT joins the TF in northern British Columbia
and Yukon and is characterized by >400 km of Eocene dextral
strike-slip displacement
47,48. The transition from convergent to
strike-slip motion coincides with the change in dip direction
(i.e., westward to sub-vertical/eastward; Fig.
4
), implying a
dominant margin-parallel component of transpressive motion
a
Vs Vp 2.0%/100 km RMT −124° −124° −120° −120° −116° −116° −112° −112° 50° 52° 52° 54° 54° 56° 56° Foreland STZ Craton Cordillera 100 km 50° 2 3 4S-wave velocity anomaly (%)
b
RMT-TF CDF VS –6 –4 –2 0 2 4 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Temperature (°C) Craton Cordillera Gradient (%/100 km)Fig. 3 Seismic velocity gradient and temperature contrast at the Cordillera–craton boundary. a Seismic velocity gradient at 150 km depth from an averaged Vp and Vs velocity model scaled using Vp/Vs ratios in the reference model36. The Cordillera–craton boundary in the upper mantle determined from
P-wave and S-P-wave models are shown by the purple and blue lines, respectively. The shaded region highlights the spatial variation in the Cordillera–craton boundary location measured from this study and three recent tomographic models29,30,35(Supplementary Fig. 5). The green arrows indicate the direction
of the maximum velocity gradient near the transition boundary. Major faults are marked by the gray lines.b S-wave velocity-temperature (Vs-T) relationship at 150 km depth. The horizontal black lines show the respective average S velocities for the Cordillera and craton regions, with the corresponding standard deviations shaded in gray. The solid and dashed curves represent pyrolite (fertile) and dunite (depleted) compositions, respectively, in a dry (50 ppm H/Si; red) and wet (5000 ppm H/Si; blue) mantle. The yellow shaded regions show the variations of Vs-T curves for various frequencies (0.03–0.3 Hz) and grain sizes (0.03–3 cm)
100 km 400 km N Cordillera Craton CDF RMT 48° 55° –121° –111° Basin Rockies Mantle flow Mantle lithosphere Upper mantle Crust 200–300 °C Facies boundary 2 1 δVp/Vp(%)0 –1 –2 400 km
Fig. 4 A 3-dimensional perspective of the Cordillera–craton boundary. The profile in the south is dominated by margin-perpendicular displacement whereas the northern profile is characterized by strike-slip motion. The Rocky Mountain Trench and Cordilleran Deformation Front are shown by the red dashed and black barbed lines, respectively. The surface facies boundary is shaded in gray and the mantle boundary is indicated by the black dashed line on the cross-section
of the Cordillera relative to the craton in this region. This
argument is corroborated by an overlapped surface suture and
mantle boundary (Fig.
3
a) and supports the interpretation of
the TF as a lithosphere penetrating structure
49.
The interpretation of the CCB as a collisional boundary differs
significantly from the views of the CCB in the accretionary
hypothesis
13. This model predicts that (1) the craton margin was
established by at least the Late Devonian; (2) only the
supra-crustal rocks of the exotic terranes were added to the North
American margin; (3) the Intermontane Belt comprises the
easternmost extent of accreted terranes and all crust farther east is
North America
13,15; (4) the lower crust and lithosphere beneath
the Cordillera is a westward extension of the North American
craton; and (5) the lithospheric mantle thins gradually to the west
from the craton to Cordillera
13,21. In this model, the evolution of
the CCB has undergone at least two distinctive stages: the initial
building of the Cordillera through the accretion of exotic terranes,
followed by the lithosphere removal to create the sharp
present-day craton boundary. Removal could be achieved through
regional lithosphere-scale delamination
23(Fig.
5
a) and/or viscous
thinning and thermal erosion of the Cordilleran lithosphere in a
retro-arc setting
22,53,54(Fig.
5
b). In both cases, the formation of a
steeply-dipping boundary underneath the Cordilleran foreland is
closely associated with destructive processes. According to the
delamination model (Fig.
5
a), the boundary location is controlled
by a proto-step beneath the RMT, which, in combination with the
edge-driven convection, jointly triggered removal
23. This
pro-vides a possible explanation for the spatial affinity between the
CCB and the RMT. However, the post-Eocene normal faults of
the RMT region are younger than the suggested Eocene
delami-nation event and a single large-scale delamidelami-nation event does not
account for the observed diverse geometry of the CCB along the
strike of the orogen (Figs.
2
, 4). Additionally, the interpreted
present-day position of the delaminated lithosphere below its
point of origin
23(i.e., west of the CCB and immediately beneath
the Cordillera; Fig.
5
a) is difficult to reconcile with the continual
westward motion of North America. The average absolute North
American plate motion rate of ~3 cm per year since the proposed
delamination event at 55 Ma (see ref.
50–52) would place the
detached block ~1500 km to the east relative to the overlying
continent.
A more plausible destructive mechanism may involve
smaller-scale viscous/thermal erosion that removes a significant amount
of mantle lithosphere from beneath the Cordillera (Fig.
5
b).
However, the accretionary model predicts that the
sub-Cordilleran mantle lithosphere is composed of dry and buoyant
rocks that are intrinsically resistive to erosion (Fig.
5
b). Therefore,
strength reduction is needed to promote thinning, possibly
through continent rifting followed by refertilization and/or slab
dehydration above an east-dipping subduction zone
39,54. In this
interpretation, the CCB marks the eastern limit of the erosion
front and its present-day geometry (e.g., Fig.
2
) is evidence of a
Craton mantle lithosphere Cordillera crust
Asthenosphere
In-situ delaminated lithosphere? CDF RMT Edge driven convection ∼3 cm/year Eocene Proto-step JDF
a
Potential westward extensionCraton mantle lithosphere Cordillera crust Asthenosphere CDF RMT Convection cell Since devonian JDF
b
Potential westward extension Late cretaceousCraton mantle lithosphere Cordillera mantle lithosphere
Cordillera crust Craton crust
Asthenosphere JDF Ribbon continent CDF Mantle boundary 50-100 km Facies boundary
c
Uncertain dipping direction? Craton crust Craton crust RMT 200 km 200 km 200 kmFig. 5 Three mechanisms for the formation of the Cordillera–craton boundary. In the accretionary hypothesis, the Cordillera–craton boundary formed as a destructive boundary through eithera lithosphere delamination23orb viscous thermal erosion. In the delamination model (a), the absolute North
American plate motion rate is obtained from refs.50–52.c A continental collision model that involves terminal suturing between a ribbon continent and
sharp rheological boundary. This boundary has either persisted as
a long-lived (i.e., since the Devonian) rheological difference or
that the current (foreland) position of the CCB reflects a snapshot
of an eastward-migrating craton margin
54. It is not clear that
either of these scenarios can create the observed large gradients in
seismic velocity from the Cordillera to the North American
craton.
For the southern Canadian Cordillera, the new seismic
obser-vations are more compatible with the collisional model that
provides a self-consistent mechanism to explain (1) the steep and
well-preserved west-dipping geometry—a young (<100 Ma)
col-lision front; (2) the sharp velocity, temperature and lithospheric
thickness contrasts indicating a boundary separating two distinct
lithospheres; and (3) the excellent spatial correlation (and offset)
with the cryptic surface suture (Fig.
5
c). Collectively, these
spatio-temporal constraints on the CCB could signify periods of ribbon
continent formation and its later collision to the autochthonous
domains (i.e., North American craton; see ref.
4). The collisional
process predicts a crustal suture in the foreland, the identification
of which will be critical for substantiating this hypothesis and
requires high-resolution seismic imaging of the crustal structures.
Although our interpretation of a collisional suture beneath the
foreland of the Cordillera is based on a study of the southern
Canadian Rocky Mountain region, our model implies that the
mantle seismic structure (i.e., lithospheric suture) extends
southwards into the United States (Fig.
2
a–f). This is
corrobo-rated by the geological observations across international border,
where
continuous
structures,
stratigraphy
and
geological
belts have been reported. Specific examples
4,6of continuity
include, from west to east, Triassic/Jurassic magmatic arc
sequences (Quesnellia in the north and Wallowa and Olds Ferry
to the south); the Mesoproterozoic and Neoproterozoic
Belt-Purcell and Windermere supergroups; mid-Cretaceous (120–90
Ma) granitoid plutons (Omineca Magmatic Belt in the north and
Idaho batholith to the south) that intrude the Precambrian and
younger strata; and Jurassic to Paleocene, east-verging
fold-and-thrust belt structures (Columbian and Rocky Mountain in the
north, versus Sevier and Laramide in the south). Although
cryptic, the surface trace, and its mantle counterpart, of the
proposed suture likely continues southwards within the foreland
fold-and-thrust belt, east of and structurally beneath the
Belt-Purcell sequence
4,11,17.
Suture zones place crucial constraints on continental assembly,
although the recognition of distinctive plate boundaries at shallow
(e.g., surface ophiolite belts) and deep (e.g., lithospheric fault
zones) structural levels is not trivial
18. Our analysis of the
southern Canadian Cordillera combines deep structural
con-straints from seismic tomography with surface geology to shed
new light on the close relationship between a surface cryptic
suture and its upper mantle expression (see Figs.
4
,
5
c). The sharp
structural and temperature gradients associated with the CCB
could be associated with a stable craton margin established during
the collision of a ribbon continent (Cordillera) with the North
American craton in the Late Cretaceous, although other scenarios
(e.g., thermal/viscous erosion) cannot be fully excluded. For
example, the formation of the CCB via gravitational thinning of
the Cordilleran lithosphere based on the accretionary model
provides an alternate interpretation; further analyses would
be needed to understand the potential thermal/dynamical
pro-cesses that create the sharp gradient near the CCB. An integrated
approach, as used in our study, is paramount to deciphering the
style
9and initiation
55of orogenesis, and provides a testable
tec-tonic framework for future investigations. As more data and
examples become available in other orogens, new insights into the
dynamics of the crust and mantle during orogenesis and
con-tinental growth can be gained.
Methods
Finite-frequency tomography. The P-wave dataset consists of 23,123 teleseismic arrival times from 1761 earthquakes and the corresponding S-wave dataset includes 17,253 arrivals from 1263 earthquakes (Supplementary Fig. 1). P phases are measured from vertical-component seismograms within frequency ranges of 0.03–0.125 (low) and 0.3–2.0 Hz (high) to minimize a noise peak at 0.2 Hz and to take advantage of the wide bandwidth of the earthquake signals. The corresponding S waves, measured from the tangential component, arefiltered at low and high frequencies of 0.03–0.1 and 0.1–0.2 Hz, respectively. Relative travel times among all stations recording the same event are measured using the multichannel cross-correlation method56. Thefinal relative travel-time residuals are computed by subtracting the demeaned theoretical relative travel times from those observed, which generally follow normal (Gaussian) distributions with a respective standard deviations of 0.4 and 1.3 s for P and S phases (Supplementary Fig. 1).
The region of study is characterized by large topographic reliefs and crustal contrast between the Canadian Rockies and the Alberta basin, which contributes to the travel timefluctuations across the recording array. We apply topographic and crustal corrections to minimize these effects caused by the shallow structures. The former term equals to the travel time within the crustal segment above sea level (i.e., extra topography). The latter term is defined by the travel-time difference between the observed (CRUST1.057) and theoretical (AK135 continent model36) values and is calculated by tracing a ray through the crustal layers in each of these two models. Large values are observed along the foothills of the Rockies (Supplementary Fig. 2), where a thick (~50 km) crust exists in response to the load of supracrustal rocks of the foreland thrust-and-fold belt43. Thefinal correction at a station is made by subtracting the topographic and crustal correction terms from the measured relative travel-time residuals. The resulting time-corrected data show a clear east (positive)-west (negative) contrast that generally follows the Cordilleran Deformation Front (Supplementary Fig. 2).
Finite-frequency theory58,59forms the basis of our travel-time tomography scheme, which relates observed travel-time measurements to slowness structures through the following equation:
δt ¼ZZZ
K xð Þδs xð Þd
3x; ð1Þ
where K(x) is the Fréchet derivative (i.e., sensitivity kernel) that maps the slowness perturbationδs at a point x within model volume ⊕ to relative travel-time residual δt. The kernel is computed using the Born forward scattering theory in combination with paraxial ray approximation58,59, which properly considers the effects of wavefront healing and diffraction on seismic wave propagation (and hence travel-time shifts). Our region of study is parameterized into a spherical grid covering an area of 12 × 12 degrees and extends 800 km in depth. The number of nodes is 33 along each direction, resulting in a grid size of approximately 40, 40, and 25 km in latitude, longitude, and depth. The model parameters can be solved by formulating Eq. (1) into a concise matrix form
d¼ Gm; ð2Þ
where d is the data vector that contains M (23,123 for P and 17,253 for S) relative travel-time residuals and m is the model vector that contains N (33 × 33 × 33= 35,937) slowness parameters. The corresponding inversion kernel (G) is then a M × N matrix that defines the sensitivity of the datum (d) to slowness perturbation (m). Instead of solving Eq. (2) directly in a grid-based parameterization, we solve P and S velocities independently and transform the model vector and inversion kernel into the wavelet domain. We then seek a damped least-squares (DLS) solution for wavelet coefficients corresponding to each wavelet basis or hierarchical scale. This approach allows a data-adaptive scheme of non-stationary
regularization, thus yielding spatially varying resolution in the resulting model. More details onfinite-frequency theory and multiscale parameterization can be found in ref.60.
Boundary determination. The interpretations of tectonic structures in tomo-graphic images are often based on visual perceptions of colors, which typically associate targeting geological structures (e.g., slab, continental lithosphere, and hot plume) to anomalies confined within a specific velocity contour. This may lead to potential interpretation biases (e.g., underestimate or overestimate of anomalies) that result from a subjective choice of contour value. In addition, even tomographic models of the same region can exhibit considerable variations due to different data type/coverage, model parameterization, as well as inversion and damping schemes (Supplementary Fig. 3). As a result, the comparisons of key structures (e.g., the CCB in this study) from different models often lack a systematic criterion and remain largely qualitative.
To quantitatively determine the location of the transition from tomographic models, we use a maximum velocity gradient approach that is insensitive to the background velocity (i.e., determined by relative velocity perturbation). We compute the horizontal velocities in a depth range of 100–200 km along a series of parallel cross-sections perpendicular to the strike of the Rockies (Supplementary Fig. 4a). Assuming that the CCB marks a sharp change in physical parameters (e.g., velocities, densities, and temperatures), we choose the point of maximum velocity gradient as the optimal boundary location at each depth (Supplementary Fig. 4b). This criterion has been applied to the determination of depth of the LAB61,62. To
avoid the spurious maxima caused by noisy data (i.e., high model roughness), wefit the velocity with lower-degree polynomials, which are degree 3 for S and degree 5 for P while considering higher frequency (i.e., shorter wavelength) nature of the latter phase. To capture the trend of local velocity variation along the profile, we use a ~500 km wide sliding window during thefitting process, which approximates the wave-length of the slow to fast velocity transition (e.g., from 250–750 km in Supplementary Fig. 4b). Thefinal boundary location is calculated by averaging all boundary points (Supplementary Fig. 4c). The same method is applied tofive tomographic models for boundary determination (Supplementary Fig. 5). Model resolution. We perform checkerboard tests to evaluate the resolution of our P and S velocity models. The input structures consist of alternating positive and negative Gaussian-shaped anomalies with maximum amplitudes of 3 and 5% for P and S velocities (Supplementary Fig. 6), respectively. Each anomaly spans 7 nodes in three directions, forming a volume of ~240 × 240 × 150 km3. Synthetic travel
times are calculated based on actual event-station geometries, and random errors with a standard deviation of 0.06 and 0.16 s, resembling the uncertainties in the observed travel times, are subsequently added to P and S data, respectively. The same parameterization and regularization schemes used in the actual inversion are adopted during the inversion of the synthetic data. The output of P velocity model successfully resolves the checkerboard in central-southern Alberta and south-eastern BC with 60% recovery of the input amplitudes. The S-wave model shows slightly lower degree (40%) of amplitude recovery than P. In both models, the lateral resolutions degrade at shallow depths (e.g., 100 km), where the converging rays cause reduced sensitivity near recording stations. The resolutions are highest in the Cordillera–craton transition region along the Rockies, where our data are sufficient to resolve a P velocity anomaly with respective lateral and vertical dimensions of 100 and 150 km. On the other hand, the S model is subjected to more severe vertical smearing effects, hence the minimum vertical scale resolvable is approximately 50 km less than that of the P model.
We conducted hypothetical tests to evaluate the uncertainty in the determined boundary location. Thefirst test includes a gentle westward-dipping boundary separating low (–3.5%) and high (2.5%) P velocity anomalies (Supplementary Fig. 7a–d). The model outputs show excellent recovery of the boundary location with 10–30% underestimate of peak input velocities in the south and 40–60% in the north. The location uncertainty is small with the maximum discrepancy (20–30 km) observed in the north (Supplementary Fig. 8). The corresponding test for the S model utilizes input low and high velocities of−4.5% and 3.5%, respectively. The boundary is well defined in the output model with a difference of 6–30 km compared to the input (Supplementary Fig. 8). The second group of tests adopts the same model input as thefirst test case except for a vertical boundary (Supplementary Fig. 7e–h). The output models show virtually the same degree of recovery in boundary location, which suggest a relatively minor effect of boundary geometry on the determined location (Supplementary Fig. 8).
The geometry and sharpness of the boundary provide important structural constraints to the Cordilleran tectonics. We further examine and discuss the resolvability of our data to these parameters. For a westward-dipping boundary (Supplementary Fig. 7a), the geometry is well-constrained in the south, but the degree of recovery degrades towards the north, where the boundary is steeper and more diffuse compared with the input. For a vertical boundary (Supplementary Fig. 7c), geometry and sharpness of the boundary are both well recovered in the south between 48 and 52° N, whereas an artificial westward dip is observed in the north. By comparing the results of these two tests, we conclude that (1) the observed boundary characteristics (sharpness and dip) is robustly determined in the south and (2) the resolution degrades towards north (above ~52° N) and the dip may be artificially skewed. Hence, caution needs to be exercised when interpreting the boundary geometry in this region. For the S model (Supplementary Fig. 9), our tests show a more severe underestimate of the dip compared to the P model and the geometry cannot be reliably determined in the north. These test results suggest that P waves are more sensitive to boundary geometry compared to S waves. In our model, the dip of the boundary transitions from westward to eastward dip at ~52° N, which we determine to be a reliable observation since the model recoveries are satisfactory on both P and S models; more importantly, we find that no artificial eastward dip occurs at this latitude in all test cases.
We further examine the effect of separation distance (i.e., sharpness) between low- and high-velocity anomalies on the recovered boundary geometry. We use the same dipping structures as those from earlier tests, but increase the separation distance to 50 km (Supplementary Fig. 10). The output model is again able to resolve the geometry and gradient of the input boundary. For thefinal test case, the separation distance is increased to 100 km, and the inversion only recovers the gradient but fails to resolve the dip of the boundary. In summary, these resolution tests suggest that our data are sufficient to distinguish a relatively sharp (<50 km) boundary with a dipping geometry, whereas the boundary cannot be fully resolved if the transition occurs over a relatively large distance (e.g., 100 km). A corollary of this test is that a sharp (within 50 km distance) boundary must be present in the southern Canadian Cordillera, where a steep westward dip is clearly defined in our model.
Temperature calculation. Insufficient data coverage and smoothness constraints (i.e., damping) in the inversion are known issues that can weaken the amplitudes of
the recovered seismic anomalies. We consider these effects on the measured velocity contrasts across the CCB and apply correction factors to compensate for the amplitude reduction. Correction factors are calculated from the percent of underestimate by comparing the input and output peak velocities of the mod-els used in the hypothetical tests. The corresponding uncertainties are derived from the standard deviation of the results of different damping values near the turning point of the trade-off curve. The corrected values show larger and nearly constant velocity increase across the transition boundary between 49 and 54° N (Supple-mentary Fig. 11a, b), which agree with the observations from a recent tomographic model30.
We compute the temperature using the seismic velocity after correcting for the underestimate during the inversion. We limit our calculation to the south of 52° N, where the model resolution is the highest. We convert the velocity perturbations to absolute velocities based on AK135 reference model36considering model dependencies in travel time prediction, ray-tracing and kernel construction. We follow the approach of ref.38to map tomographic velocity variations to temperature. Anharmonic P and S velocities as a function of composition, pressure and temperature are obtained using Perple_X63. These are then corrected for anelastic effects based on experimentally derived parameters (Eq. 4 in ref.63), using a grain size of 1 cm and frequency of 0.1 Hz; variations of 0.3–3 cm and 0.03–0.3 Hz are considered. Calculations are carried out for the primitive and depleted mantle, using a pyrolite64and dunite65composition, respectively, and for water contents of 50 ppm H/Si (dry) and 5000 ppm H/Si (wet). Percentage velocity anomalies are relative to the AK135 velocity model, consistent with the tomographic inversion approach. The resulting temperature profiles from P (Supplementary Fig. 11c) and S velocities (Fig.3b) yield consistent temperature differences of 200–300 °C between the Cordillera and craton.
Data availability
Seismic data for USArray, RAVEN, and CANOE networks are provided by IRIS Data Management Center (http://ds.iris.edu/ds/nodes/dmc/). Seismic data for CNSN network can be requested from Canadian National Data Center (http://www.earthquakescanada. nrcan.gc.ca/stndon/CNDC/index-en.php). Traveltime data could be accessed through websitehttps://sites.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/seisworld/data.
Code availability
The codes of tomographic imaging and velocity gradient analysis are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Received: 23 August 2018 Accepted: 22 March 2019
References
1. Hoffman, P. F. Precambrian geology and tectonic history of North America. Geol. N. Am. A, 447–512 (1989).
2. Bond, G. C. & Kominz, M. A. Construction of tectonic subsidence curves for the early Paleozoic miogeocline, southern Canadian Rocky Mountains: implications for subsidence mechanisms, age of breakup, and crustal thinning. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 95, 155–173 (1984).
3. Coney, P. J., Jones, D. L. & Monger, J. W. H. Cordilleran suspect terranes. Nature 288, 329–333 (1980).
4. Johnston, S. T. The Cordilleran ribbon continent of North America. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 36, 495–530 (2008).
5. Evenchick, C. A synthesis of the Jurassic–Cretaceous tectonic evolution of the central and southeastern Canadian Cordillera: exploring links across the orogen. Soc. Am. 433, 117–145 (2007).
6. Dickinson, W. R. Evolution of the North American Cordillera. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 32, 13–45 (2004).
7. DeCelles, P. G. Late Jurassic to Eocene evolution of the Cordilleran thrust belt and foreland basin system, western USA. Am. J. Sci. 304, 105–168 (2004).
8. Liu, L. et al. The role of oceanic plateau subduction in the Laramide orogeny. Nat. Geosci. 3, 353 (2010).
9. Sigloch, K. & Mihalynuk, M. G. Intra-oceanic subduction shaped the assembly of Cordilleran North America. Nature 496, 50–56 (2013).
10. Monger, J. W. H. & Ross, C. A. Distribution of fusulinaceans in the western Canadian Cordillera. Can. J. Earth Sci. 8, 259–278 (1971).
11. Johnston, S. T. The Great Alaskan Terrane Wreck: reconciliation of paleomagnetic and geological data in the northern Cordillera. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 193, 259–272 (2001).
12. Johnston, S. T. & Borel, G. D. The odyssey of the Cache Creek terrane, Canadian Cordillera: Implications for accretionary orogens, tectonic setting of Panthalassa, the Pacific superwell, and break-up of Pangea. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 253, 415–428 (2007).
13. Cook, F. A., P. Erdmer, and A. J. van der Velden.“The evolving Cordilleran lithosphere.” Tectonic Styles in Canada: the Lithoprobe perspective: Geological Association of Canada, Special Paper 49 (2012): 1–39. 14. Monger, J. W. H., Price, R. A. & Tempelman-Kluit, D. J. Tectonic accretion
and the origin of the two major metamorphic and plutonic welts in the Canadian Cordillera. Geology 10, 70–75 (1982).
15. Cook, F. A. & Erdmer, P. An 1800 km cross section of the lithosphere through the northwestern North American plate: lessons from 4.0 billion years of Earth’s history. Can. J. Earth Sci. 42, 1295–1311 (2005).
16. Sigloch, K. & Mihalynuk, M. G. Mantle and geological evidence for a Late Jurassic–Cretaceous suture spanning North America. GSA Bull. 129, 1489–1520 (2017).
17. Hildebrand, R. S. Did westward subduction cause Cretaceous–Tertiary orogeny in the North American Cordillera? Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 457, 1–71 (2009).
18. Dewey, J. F. Suture zone complexities: a review. Tectonophysics 40, 53–67 (1977).
19. Ross, G. M., Parrish, R. R., Villeneuve, M. E. & Bowring, S. A. Geophysics and geochronology of the crystalline basement of the Alberta Basin, western Canada. Can. J. Earth Sci. 28, 512–522 (1991).
20. Colpron, M. & Nelson, J. L. A digital atlas of terranes for the northern Cordillera. BC GeoFile URL: http://www.geology.gov.yk.ca/pdf/ Terranes_readme.pdf (2011).
21. Monger, J., Price, R., Survey, G. & Price, R. Article the Canadian Cordillera: geology and tectonic. Evol. CGES Rec. 27, 17–36 (2002).
22. DeCelles, P. G., Ducea, M. N., Kapp, P. & Zandt, G. Cyclicity in Cordilleran orogenic systems. Nat. Geosci. 2, 251 (2009).
23. Bao, X., Eaton, D. W. & Guest, B. Plateau uplift in western Canada caused by lithospheric delamination along a craton edge. Nat. Geosci. 7, 830–833 (2014). 24. Cecile, M. P., Morrow, D. W. & Williams, G. K. Early Paleozoic (Cambrian to
Early Devonian) tectonic framework, Canadian Cordillera. Bull. Can. Pet. Geol. 45, 54–74 (1997).
25. Clowes, R. M., Zelt, C. A., Amor, J. R. & Ellis, R. M. Lithospheric structure in the southern Canadian Cordillera from a network of seismic refraction lines. Can. J. Earth Sci. 32, 1485–1513 (1995).
26. Frederiksen, A. W., Bostock, M. G., VanDecar, J. C. & Cassidy, J. F. Seismic structure of the upper mantle beneath the northern Canadian Cordillera from teleseismic travel-time inversion. Tectonophysics 294, 43–55 (1998). 27. Sigloch, K., McQuarrie, N. & Nolet, G. Two-stage subduction history under
North America inferred from multiple-frequency tomography. Nat. Geosci. 1, 458–462 (2008).
28. Nettles, M. & Dziewoński, A. M. Radially anisotropic shear velocity structure of the upper mantle globally and beneath North America. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 113, B02303 (2008).
29. Mercier, J. P. et al. Body-wave tomography of western Canada. Tectonophysics 475, 480–492 (2009).
30. Schaeffer, A. J. & Lebedev, S. Imaging the North American continent using waveform inversion of global and USArray data. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 402, 26–41 (2014).
31. Yuan, H., French, S., Cupillard, P. & Romanowicz, B. Lithospheric expression of geological units in central and eastern North America from full waveform tomography. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 402, 176–186 (2014).
32. Hyndman, R. D. & Lewis, T. J. Geophysical consequences of the Cordillera-Craton thermal transition in southwestern Canada. Tectonophysics 306, 397–422 (1999).
33. Rippe, D., Unsworth, M. J. & Currie, C. A. Magnetotelluric constraints on thefluid content in the upper mantle beneath the southern Canadian Cordillera: implications for rheology. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 118, 5601–5624 (2013).
34. Chen, Y., Gu, Y. J. & Hung, S. H. Finite-frequency P-wave tomography of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin: implications for the lithospheric evolution in Western Laurentia. Tectonophysics 698, 79–90 (2017). 35. Bedle, H. & van der Lee, S. S velocity variations beneath North America. J.
Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 114, B07308 (2009).
36. Kennett, B. L. N., Engdahl, E. R. & Buland, R. Constraints on seismic velocities in the Earth from traveltimes. Geophys. J. Int. 122, 108–124 (1995). 37. Goes, S. & van der Lee, S. Thermal structure of the North American
uppermost mantle inferred from seismic tomography. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 107, ETG 2-1-ETG 2-13 (2002).
38. Goes, S., Armitage, J., Harmon, N., Smith, H. & Huismans, R. Low seismic velocities below mid‐ocean ridges: attenuation versus melt retention. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 117, B12403 (2012).
39. Hyndman, R. D., Currie, C. A. & Mazzotti, S. P. Subduction zone backarcs, mobile belts, and orogenic heat. GSA Today 15, 4–10 (2005).
40. Hyndman, R. D., Currie, C. A., Mazzotti, S. & Frederiksen, A. Temperature control of continental lithosphere elastic thickness, Te vs. Vs. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 277, 539–548 (2009).
41. Hieronymus, C. F., Shomali, Z. H. & Pedersen, L. B. A dynamical model for generating sharp seismic velocity contrasts underneath continents: application to the Sorgenfrei-Tornquist Zone. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 262, 77–91 (2007). 42. Currie, C. A. & van Wijk, J. How craton margins are preserved: insights from
geodynamic models. J. Geodyn. 100, 144–158 (2016).
43. Price, R. A. The Cordilleran foreland thrust and fold belt in the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains. Geol. Soc. Lond. 9, 427–448 (1981).
44. vanderVelden, A. J. & Cook, F. A. Structure and tectonic development of the southern Rocky Mountain trench. Tectonics 15, 517–544 (1996).
45. Parrish, R. R., Carr, S. D. & Parkinson, D. L. Eocene extensional tectonics and geochronology of the southern Omineca Belt, British Columbia and Washington. Tectonics 7, 181–212 (1988).
46. Wang, Y., Fan, W., Peng, T., Zhang, H. & Guo, F. Nature of the Mesozoic lithospheric mantle and tectonic decoupling beneath the Dabie Orogen, Central China: evidence from 40 Ar/39 Ar geochronology, elemental and Sr–Nd–Pb isotopic compositions of early Cretaceous mafic igneous rocks. Chem. Geol. 220, 165–189 (2005).
47. Roddick, J. A. Tintina trench. J. Geol. 75, 23–33 (1967).
48. Gabrielse, H. Major dextral transcurrent displacements along the Northern Rocky Mountain Trench and related lineaments in north-central British Columbia. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 96, 1–14 (1985).
49. Abraham, A.-C., Francis, D. & Polve, M. Recent alkaline basalts as probes of the lithospheric mantle roots of the northern Canadian Cordillera. Chem. Geol. 175, 361–386 (2001).
50. Van Der Meer, D. G., Spakman, W., Van Hinsbergen, D. J. J., Amaru, M. L. & Torsvik, T. H. Towards absolute plate motions constrained by lower-mantle slab remnants. Nat. Geosci. 3, 36 (2010).
51. Torsvik, T. H., Müller, R. D., Van der Voo, R., Steinberger, B. & Gaina, C. Global plate motion frames: toward a unified model. Rev. Geophys. 46, RG3004 (2008).
52. Doubrovine, P. V., Steinberger, B. & Torsvik, T. H. Absolute plate motions in a reference frame defined by moving hot spots in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 117, B09101 (2012).
53. Currie, C. A., Huismans, R. S. & Beaumont, C. Thinning of continental backarc lithosphere byflow-induced gravitational instability. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 269, 436–447 (2008).
54. Hardebol, N. J., Pysklywec, R. N. & Stephenson, R. Small-scale convection at a continental back-arc to craton transition: application to the southern Canadian Cordillera. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 117, 1–18 (2012). 55. Van Hinsbergen, D. J. J. et al. Greater India Basin hypothesis and a two-stage
Cenozoic collision between India and Asia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 109, 7659–7664 (2012).
56. VanDecar, J. C. & Crosson, R. S. Determination of teleseismic relative phase arrival times using multi-channel cross-correlation and least squares. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 80, 150–169 (1990).
57. Laske, G., Masters, G., Ma, Z. & Pasyanos, M. Update on CRUST1. 0—A 1-degree global model of Earth’s crust. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 15, 2658 (2013). 58. Dahlen, F. A., Hung, S.-H. & Nolet, G. Fréchet kernels forfinite-frequency
traveltimes-I. Theory. Geophys. J. Int. 141, 157–174 (2000).
59. Hung, S.-H., Dahlen, F. A. & Nolet, G. Fréchet kernels forfinite-frequency traveltimeséII. Examples. Geophys. J. Int. 141, 175–203 (2000).
60. Hung, S. H., Chen, W. P. & Chiao, L. Y. A data-adaptive, multiscale approach offinite-frequency, traveltime tomography with special reference to P and S wave data from central Tibet. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 116, B06307 (2011). 61. Priestley, K. & Debayle, E. Seismic evidence for a moderately thick lithosphere
beneath the Siberian Platform. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1118 (2003). 62. Hopper, E. & Fischer, K. M. The meaning of midlithospheric discontinuities: a
case study in the northern US craton. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 16, 4057–4083 (2015).
63. Connolly, J. A. D. Computation of phase equilibria by linear programming: a tool for geodynamic modeling and its application to subduction zone decarbonation. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 236, 524–541 (2005).
64. Xu, W., Lithgow-Bertelloni, C., Stixrude, L. & Ritsema, J. The effect of bulk composition and temperature on mantle seismic structure. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 275, 70–79 (2008).
65. Griffin, W. L. et al. The origin and evolution of Archean lithospheric mantle. Precambrian Res. 127, 19–41 (2003).
Acknowledgements
We thank Martyn Unsworth for comments; and Global Seismology Group at the Uni-versity of Alberta forfield support. Y.J.G. was supported by funds from Future Energy Systems at the University of Alberta. Y.J.G., C.A.C., S.T.J. and P.A. were supported by Discovery Grants from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). S.H. was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (grant 107-2116-M-002-020).
Author contributions
Y.C., Y.J.G. and S.H. contributed to the body-wave tomography analysis. C.A.C. con-ducted the geodynamic calculation and interpreted the results. S.T.J. provided geological background and contributed to the ribbon continent hypothesis. A.J.S. and P.A. con-tributed to velocity gradient analysis. Y.C. primarily wrote the manuscript, with sub-stantial input from Y.J.G. and additional input from all co-authors.
Additional information
Supplementary Informationaccompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09804-8.
Competing interests:The authors declare no competing interests.
Reprints and permissioninformation is available online athttp://npg.nature.com/ reprintsandpermissions/
Journal peer review information:Nature Communications thanks Meghan Miller and other anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visithttp://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/.