Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Supplementary Material for
Circum-Arctic mantle structure and long-wavelength topography since the
Jurassic
Shephard, G. E., Flament, N., Williams, S., Seton, M., Gurnis, M., and Müller, R.D.
Supplementary Methods
Absolute reference frames and Net Lithospheric Rotation (NLR)
The hybrid absolute plate reference frame of Seton et al. (2012) (case C2) is
based on a moving Indian/Atlantic hotspot model (O’Neill et al., 2005) for times
younger than 100 Ma and on a True Polar Wander (TPW)-corrected
palaeomagnetic model (Steinberger and Torsvik, 2008) for older times (Table 2).
The use of the hybrid absolute plate motion of O’Neill et al. (2005) and
Steinberger and Torsvik (2008) implies NLR in excess of 0.4°/Myr between ~40-
60, 65-80, 110-115 and 180-215 Ma (Figure S13). NLR is large at present-day in
a Pacific hotspot reference frame (~ 0.44°/Myr HS3, Conrad and Behn, 2010)
and geologically recent NLR (since ~ 50 Ma) has an overall westward direction
with estimated rates previously ranging between 1.5-9 cm/year (or
~0.11+_0.03°/Myr) depending on reconstructions (e.g. Ricard et al., 1991;
Becker, 2006; Torsvik et al., 2010). While a component of NLR throughout time
may be real, increasing uncertainty of the plate reconstruction back in time may
result in unrealistically large NLR, especially concerning the velocities of the
large plates comprising Panthalassa. Our plate models are constructed with
continuously closing plates (Gurnis et al., 2012), which allow us to define global
surface velocity fields through time and to calculate the NLR implied by a given
reference frame as in Torsvik et al. (2010) and Alisic et al. (2012).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We used three approaches to minimize NLR from the absolute reference frame in
our geodynamic model cases (Tables 2 and S3); (i) computing and removing the
NLR from the plate reconstruction (case C3), (ii) including a low-viscosity
asthenosphere to decouple the lithosphere from the sub-asthenospheric mantle
(cases C2 and C8) and (iii) changing the absolute reference frame by using the
finite rotations from the moving hotspot reference frame of Torsvik et al. (2008)
rather than that of O’Neill et al. (2005) for ages younger than 70 Ma (models C1,
C4, C5 as well as C6-C8). We also change the absolute motion of the Pacific during
the Cenozoic by changing the poles of rotation between east and west Antarctica
(from Cande et al. [2000] to Granot et al. [2013]). The resultant NLR for this
latter absolute plate motion model (C1, C4-C8) is < 0.4°/Myr for all times,
although it is slightly more elevated for the last 20 Ma (~ 0.18°/Myr) than the
previous reference frame (O’Neill et al., 2005; Steinberger and Torsvik, 2008:
~0.12°/Myr; C2, Table 2, Fig. S13).
In addition to differences in the absolute reference frame we explored different
mantle parameters including viscosity profile, initial slab depth, slab dip and
basal layer density (Figs. S3, S4, S6-8, S10-15, Table S3). We find that changes in
dynamic topography are small and do not affect our main conclusions. Rates of
dynamic topography for alternative cases C3-C5 are usually in the order of ±5
m/Myr from those of C1 (Table S1, S2), and are compatible with the geological
constraints presented in the main text (see Figs. 7e-h). Notably, under Eurasia,
alternative cases C3-C5 (Figs. S10) predict a similar two-slab configuration
(Mongol-Okhotsk slab to the west and north-eastern Panthalassa slab to the
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
east) to those of C1 but with locations offset by ± 5° longitude (10° to the east for
slab (m) in C5, though the use of a depth-dependent viscosity was not ideal, see
below). Case C4, illustrates that increasing the slab dip does not significantly
change the results.
In addition to C1-C5 and in the interests of illustrating the main suite of
parameters tested (see also Flament et al., 2014) we present an extended set of
eight cases (C1-C8) in Figs. S14 and S15. These figures illustrate our investigation
of the effect of rheological parameters on lower mantle structure and our
selection of a set of parameters for C1 by visual comparison between predicted
mantle temperature and seismic tomography along arbitrary cross-sections. For
example, C6 and C8 both include a linear increase in viscosity for the lower
mantle; looking under Eurasia (Fig. S15) in case C6, which has a higher density
basal layer, the predicted volume of slabs is systematically too small, whereas in
case C8, which has a lower density basal layer and asthenosphere, slabs are
significantly offset compared to seismic tomography. C7, which also has a lower
basal density over-predicts the amount of slab material and has dominant
upwellings. Under North America (50°N, Figure S14) the alternative cases are
similar to each other and to seismic tomography (no qualitatively “best” case,
though C8 seems to under-predict slab volumes at this location). We therefore
opted for a dense basal layer and a layered viscosity structure, with no depth-
dependent viscosity in the lower mantle for reference case C1. Note that the
influence of alternative parameters on the pattern of dynamic topography (right
panels of Figs. S14 and S15) is small; our main conclusions are largely unaffected
by parameter selection.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Supplementary References
Alisic, L., Gurnis, M., Stadler, G., Burstedde, C., and Ghattas, O., 2012, Multi-scale
dynamics and rheology of mantle flow with plates. Journal of Geophysical
Research, v.117 doi:10.29/2012JB009234
Ballance, P.F., 1993, in South Pacific Sedimentary Basins v.2 of Sedimentary
Basins of the Word P.F., Balance (Ed) Elsevier Amsterdam p.93-110.
Becker, T.W., 2006, On the effect of temperature and strain-rate dependent
viscosity on global mantle flow, net rotation, and plate-driving forces.
Geophysical Journal International v.167 p.943-957.
Cande, S.C., Stock J.M., Müller, R.D. and Ishihara, T., 2000, Cenozoic motion
between East and West Antarctica, Nature v.404 p.145-150.
Conrad, C.P. and Behn, M.D., 2010, Constraints on lithosphere net rotation and
asthenospheric viscosity from global mantle flow models and seismic anisotropy.
Geochemistry, Geophysics and Geosystems v.11 doi:10.1029/2009GC002970
Granot, R., Cande, S.C., Stock, J.M., and Damaske, D., 2013, Revised Eocene-
Oligocene kinematics for the West Antarctic rift system. Geophysical Research
Letters v.40 p.279-284.
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Gurnis, M., Turner, M., Zahirovic, S., DiCaprio, L., Spasojevic, S., Müller, R., Boyden,
J., Seton, M., Manea, V., and Bower, D., 2012, Plate Tectonic Reconstructions with
Continuously Closing Plates. Computers and Geosciences, v. 38 p. 35-42.
Flament, N., Gurnis, M., Williams, S., Seton, M., Skogseid, J., Heine, C and Müller,
R.D. 2014. Topographic asymmetry of the South Atlantic from global models of
mantle flow and lithospheric stretching. Earth and Planetary Science Letters v.
387, p. 107-119.
O'Neill, C., Müller, R.D., and Steinberger, B., 2005, On the Uncertainties in Hotspot
Reconstructions, and the Significance of Moving Hotspot Reference Frames:
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 6 doi:10.1029/2004GC000784.
Ricard, Y., Doglioni, C., and Sabadini, R., 1991, Differential rotation between
lithosphere and mantle. A consequence of lateral mantle viscosity variations.
Journal of Geophysical Research v.96 p.8407-8415.
Seton, M., Müller, R.D., Zahirovic, S., Gaina, C., Torsvik, T.H., Shephard, G., Talsma,
A., Gurnis, M., Turner, M., Maus, S., and Chandler, M., 2012 Global continental and
ocean basin reconstructions since 200 Ma. Earth-Science Reviews v.113 p.212-
270 doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2012.03.002
Steinberger, B., and Torsvik, T., 2008. Absolute plate motions and true polar
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
wander in the absence of hotspot tracks. Nature v.452 p.620–624.
doi:10.1038/nature06842.
Sutherland, R., 1995, The Australia-Pacific boundary and Cenozoic plate motions
in the SW Pacific: Some constraints from Geosat data. Tectonics v.14 p.819-831.
Torsvik, T., Steinberger, B., Gurnis, M., and Gaina, C., 2010. Plate tectonics and net
lithosphere rotation over the past 150 My. Earth and Planetary Science Letters
v.291 p.106-112.
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Supplementary Figures
Supplementary Figure Captions
Figure S1. 180-30 Ma evolution of the plate reconstruction (Shephard et al.,
2013 with a modified reference frame, Table 2) assimilated in the mantle flow
models. The absolute reference frame used here is that of case C1. Reconstructed
plate boundaries (black lines with teeth located on overriding plate), coastlines
(dark grey lines), continental lithosphere (grey polygons) and ages of oceanic
lithosphere (see colour scale) are shown, as well as velocities (black arrows).
Major plates and oceans labeled as AM Amerasia Basin, AFR Africa, CCR Cache
Creek oceanic plate, EUR Eurasia, GRN Greenland, FAR Farallon, IZA Izanagi,
MOK Mongol-Okhostk, NAM North America, SAO South Anuyi Oceans.
Orthographic projection centered on 30°W. Additional reconstruction ages are
shown in Fig. 2.
Figure S2. Top panels, maps of predicted time-dependent temperature field
from case C1 at 1000 km depth. Bottom panels, maps of predicted present-day
temperature field for case C1 at different depths from 500 km to the near the
core-mantle boundary (CMB ~2900 km). Slabs labeled as in text and Figs. 3-5.
Present-day coastlines superimposed in black for reference. Cold material (T <
0.45) is inferred to represent subducted lithosphere whereas hot material
represents upwelling from the thermal boundary layer along the CMB.
135
136137138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
Figure S3. Predicted present-day mantle temperature field for cases C3-C5 at
different depths from 500 km to near the core-mantle boundary. Present-day
coastlines superimposed in black for reference. Cold material (T < 0.45) is
inferred to represent subducted lithosphere whereas hot material represents
upwelling from the thermal boundary layer along the CMB. Slabs labeled as in
text and Figs. 3-5 and S6-S8, S10.
Figure S4. Predicted time-dependent mantle temperature for cases C3-C5 at
1000 km depth. Present-day coastlines superimposed in black for reference. Cold
material (T < 0.45) is inferred to represent subducted lithosphere whereas hot
material represents upwelling from the thermal boundary layer along the CMB.
Figure S5. Predicted time-dependent mantle temperature for cases C1 and C2
(Table 2) and comparison to seismic tomography for the present-day. As in
Figure 3 but for a cross-section at 50°N latitude across NAM (130-30°W).
Inferred slabs from this vertical cross-section result from subduction along the
north-eastern margin of Panthalassa (a, c, d) and along the intra-oceanic
subduction zone of the Wrangellia Superterrane (b).
Figure S6. Predicted evolution of mantle temperature for cases C3, C4 and C5
(Table S3) and comparison to seismic tomography for the present-day. Top
panels, orthographic projection of cross-section at 50°N latitude across NAM
(130-30°W) superimposed on location of subduction zones and predicted
present-day temperature at ~1500 km depth. Inferred slabs from this vertical
cross-section correspond largely to subduction along the north-eastern margin
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
of Panthalassa and along the intra-oceanic subduction zone of the Wrangellia
Superterrane. Panels in green box show seismic velocity anomalies for three
tomography models with 0.45 mantle temperature contours overlain for cases
C3 (green), C4 (black) and C5 (purple).
Figure S7. Predicted time-dependent mantle temperature for cases C3, C4 and
C5 (Table S3) and comparison to seismic tomography for the present-day. As in
Figure S6 but for a cross-section at 30°N latitude across NAM.
Figure S8. Predicted time-dependent mantle temperature for cases C3, C4 and
C5 (Table S3) and comparison to seismic tomography for the present-day. As in
Figure S6 but for a cross-section at 40°W latitude under Greenland (40-90°N). At
150 Ma, two subducting slabs are captured in case C3, 75°N and 85°N, and a
single slab at 75°N is clearly imaged in cases C4 and C5 with a second smeared
slab under 85°N. The difference in location and dip of subducting slabs at this
fixed vertical cross-section is a function of absolute reference frames used (Table
S3).
Figure S9. Predicted evolution of mantle temperature for cases C1 and C2 (Table
S3) and comparison to seismic tomography for the present-day. As in Figure 3
but for a cross-section at 60°N longitude under Siberia (90-180°E). Inferred slabs
within this cross-section correspond largely to subduction of the Izanagi Plate
along the north-western margin of Panthalassa (p).
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
Figure S10. Predicted time-dependent mantle temperature since initial
conditions for cases C3, C4 and C5 (Table S3) and comparison to seismic
tomography for the present-day. As in Figure S6 but for a cross-section at 60°N
latitude under northern Eurasia (0-100°E). Inferred slabs within this cross-
section largely result from subduction along the northern margin of the Mongol-
Okhotsk Ocean (m) and along the northwestern margin of Panthalassa (p). Note
that case C3 has an initial slab depth to 1750 km (Table S3) as opposed to the
alternative cases, which are to 1210 km.
Figure S11. Air-loaded surface dynamic topography for cases C3-C5 between
170-0 Ma, as in Figure 6. Stars indicate location of selected reconstructed Arctic
points as in Fig. 1. Orthographic projection centered on 30°W.
Figure S12. Predicted evolution of dynamic topography for cases C3-C5 at
selected circum-Arctic locations grouped into four geographic regions between
170-0 Ma (based on the plate reconstruction). The colours of the plotted lines
match the colours of the stars in Fig.1, and solid for C3, thick for C4 and dashed
for C5. Note the broad subsidence predicted for most locations from 170 Ma to
between ~70-50 Ma followed by slowed subsidence or uplift to present day.
Values are detailed further in Table S2. Air-loaded results shown for all locations
except for Lomonosov Ridge and Barents Sea which are water-loaded.
Figure S13. Evolution of Net Lithospheric Rotation (NLR) for the five main
reconstructions used herein (Table 2, S3), and present-day NLR calculated from
reference frame HS3, based on Pacific hotspots (0.44°/Myr). NLR evolution was
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
computed in 1 Myr increments, which is the interval at which boundary
conditions are defined for the geodynamic models. Conrad and Behn (2010)
proposed that 60% of HS3 (0.26°/Myr) is the geodynamically reasonable limit
for NLR. Larger NLR from the reconstructions likely reflects the motion of large,
fast-moving plates of Panthalassa, for which the reconstruction uncertainty is
large before 83.5 Ma. NLR computed using the same relative plate motions as in
Seton et al. (2012) and the absolute reference frame of Doubrovine et al. (2012)
is shown for reference in green. The peak amplitudes at ~80 Ma for DBV is larger
than in Fig. 9 of Doubrovine et al. (2012) that showed NLR computed in 10 Myr
incrmenets. Other small differences may also arise due to different Pacific plate
boundaries and the use of a Pacific plate circuit via Antarctica (Seton et al., 2012;
Shephard et a;., 2013) rather than via the Lord Howe Rise (Doubrovine et al.,
2012).
Figure S14. Left panels, predicted present-day mantle temperature for cases C1-
C8 (Tables 2, S3) and comparison to seismic tomography, middle panels. Details
are as in Figs. 3 and S5, this location is at 50°N latitude across NAM (130-30°W).
Right panels show the evolution of dynamic topography for the North American
region illustrating the similarity between models despite variation in the
predicted lower mantle structure.
Figure S15. As in Figure S14. Left panels, predicted present-day mantle
temperature for cases C1-C8 (Tables 2, S3) and comparison to seismic
tomography for the present-day, middle panels. This location is at 60°N latitude
across Eurasia (0-100°E). Right panels show the evolution of dynamic
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
topography for the Barents Sea region illustrating the similarity between models
despite variation in the predicted lower mantle structure.
260
261
Table S1: Evolution of air-loaded dynamic topography (*except for Barents Sea and Lomonosov Ridge which are water-loaded) and its
rate of change at selected circum-Arctic locations through time for our preferred case C1. The time intervals between ~170, ~100, ~50
and 0 Ma were chosen to capture the main changes in dynamic topography trends and are to be used as a guide in conjunction with
Figure 7. Note that shorter wavelength subsidence or uplift or changes in rates may occur within these intervals (see main text and Fig.
7)..
Absolute (m, top
panels) and
change in
dynamic
topography
(m/Myr, bottom
panels,
coloured/italic)
Barents Sea and adjacent region
Fennoscandia Barents Sea* Svalbard Franz Josef Land
~170 Ma329.6 10.2 223.9 -57.6
~100 Ma 33.0 -482.7 -285.9 -463.6
262
263
264
265
266
~50 Ma-213.4 -640.1 -522.9 -608.7
0 Ma-159.8 -350.3 -465.2 -501.8
Rate 170-100 Ma -4.3 -7.1 -7.4-5.9
Rate 100-50 Ma -4.7-3.1
-4.6 -2.8
Rate 50-0 Ma 1.1 5.9 1.2 2.2
Greenland
North Greenland South Greenland East Greenland West Greenland
~170 Ma354.2 667.0 475.1 633.4
~100 Ma-113.7 329.6 181.8 164.9
~50 Ma-537.3 -223.6 -245.9 -417.3
0 Ma-696.7 -543.6 -476.7 -660.2
Rate 172-100 Ma-6.8 -4.9 -4.3 -6.8
Rate 100-50 Ma-8.1 -10.6 -8.2 -11.2
Rate 50-0 Ma -3.3 -6.5 -4.7 -5.0
Siberia
Siberian Traps East Siberia Lomonosov Ridge* Taimyr Peninsula
~170 Ma-660.7 -850.0 -247.8 -530.9
~100 Ma-491.8 -903.6 -808.9 -620.6
~50 Ma-565.3 -946.0 -1071.7 -690.2
0 Ma-454.6 -823.3 -1085.4 -608.6
Rate 170-100 Ma2.4 -0.8
-8.1 -1.3
Rate 100-50 Ma-1.4 -0.8
-5.2 -1.3
Rate 50-0 Ma2.3 2.5
-0.3 1.7
North America and Canadian Arctic Islands
Slave Craton North Slope Banks Island Ellesmere Island
~170 Ma2.6 -262.0 -27.6 123.9
~100 Ma-1095.2 -884.1 -801.4 -428.7
~50 Ma -733.6 -677.9 -804.6 -728.9
0 Ma-441.4 -601.1 -677.2 -815.6
Rate 170-100 Ma -15.9 -9.0 -11.2 -8.0
Rate 100-50 Ma 7.0 4.0 -0.1 -5.8
Rate 50-0 Ma 6.0 1.6 2.6 -1.8
Table S2: Evolution of air-loaded dynamic topography (* except for Barents Sea and Lomonosov Ridge which are water-loaded) and its
rate of change at selected circum-Arctic locations through time for three alternative cases, separated by commas in order of C3, C4, C5.
The time intervals between ~170, ~100, ~50 and 0 Ma were chosen to capture the main changes in dynamic topography trends and are
to be used as a guide in conjunction with Figure S12. Note that shorter wavelength subsidence or uplift or changes in rates may occur
within these intervals (see main text and Figs. 7 and S11, S12).
Absolute (m, top
panels) and
Barents Sea and adjacent region
Fennoscandia Barents Sea* Svalbard Franz Josef Land
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
change in
dynamic
topography
(m/Myr, bottom
panels,
coloured/italic)
~170 Ma 156.5, 363.1, 251.7 -33.4, -158.0, 26.7 223.3, 274.6, 162.0 -5.6, 53.9, -28.7
~100 Ma 57.1, 115.6, 110.0 -506.5, -368.2, -336.7 -216.0, -210.9, -206.9 -490.0, -391.1, -407.6
~50 Ma -233.4, -144.8, -263.4 -994.8, -598.0, -868.4 -695.2, -482.7, -658.0 -875.9, -590.3, -796.7
0 Ma -371.3, -139.0, -598.9 -968.6, -382.3, -1016.9 -733.3, -540.3, -883.1 -817.5, -548.8, -868.0
Rate 170-100 Ma -1.4, -3.5, -2.0 -6.8, -1.2, -5.3 -6.3, -6.9, -5.3 -7.1, -6.3, -5.4
Rate 100-50 Ma -5.8, -5.3, -7.5 -9.7, -4.7, -9.0 -9.6, -5.5, -9.0 -7.7, -4.1, -7.8
Rate 50-0 Ma -2.8, 0.1, -6.7 0.5, 4.2, -3.0*
*uplift from 15Ma
-0.8*, -1.1*, -4.5
*uplift from 9 and 3
1.2, 0.8, -1.4*
*uplift from 15Ma
Ma respectively
Greenland
North Greenland South Greenland East Greenland West Greenland
~170 Ma 298.8, 378.7, 252.4 534.0, 620.9, -463.5 316.2, 476.9, 347.2 540.3, 589.7, 422.9
~100 Ma -21.2, -42.5, -45.6 418.8, 358.7, 333.3 226.0, 244.6, 224.1 303.4, 200.2, 180.4
~50 Ma -613.6, -451.0, -605.1 -71.5, -151.9, -274.7 -197.2, -167.7, -311.7 -292.9, -354.1, -489.3
0 Ma -847.4, -804.8, -957.7 -513.7, -584.4, -791.2 -572.0, -448.9, -770.0 -690.9, -730.5, -902.8
Rate 172-100 Ma -4.6, -6.0, -4.3 -1.6, -3.7, -1.9 -1.2, -3.3, -1.8 -3.4, -5.6, -3.5
Rate 100-50 Ma -11.8, -8.3, -11.2 -9.8, -10.4, -12.2 -8.5, -8.4, -10.7 -11.9, -11.3, -13.4
Rate 50-0 Ma -4.7, -6.9, -7.1 -8.8, -8.4, -10.3 -7.5, -5.5, -9.2 -8.0, -7.3, -8.3
Siberia
Siberian Traps East Siberia Lomonosov Ridge* Taimyr Peninsula
~170 Ma -714.4, -471.4, -588.0 -810.8, -653.9, -748.1 -93.1, -60.8, -158.3 -451.2, -300.7, -371.5
~100 Ma -771.9, -456.3, -568.9 -1099.5, -875.7, -1024.2 -923.2, -707.9, -754.7 -825.0, -546.4, -656.2
~50 Ma -835.8, -487.7, -549.6 -1086.6, -915.9, -1024.3 -1451.8, -1057, -1356.3 -1012.0, -707.4, -933.3
0 Ma -645.7, -363.8, -588.0 -796.6, -773.7, -821.9 -1348.2, -1230.3 -
1435.0
-806.6, -573.4, -759.3
Rate 170-100 Ma -0.8, 0.2, 0.3 -4.1, -3.2, -3.9 -11.9,-9.2, -8.5 -5.3, -3.5, -4.1
Rate 100-50 Ma -1.3, -0.6, 0.4 0.3, 0.8, 0.0 -10.6, -7.1, -12.0 -3.7, -3.2, -5.5
Rate 50-0 Ma 3.8, 2.4, -0.8 5.8, 2.8, 4.0 2.1, -3.3, -1.6*
*uplift from 30 Ma
4.1, 2.6, 3.5
North America and Canadian Arctic Islands
Slave Craton North Slope Banks Island Ellesmere Island
~170 Ma 221.8, -41.2, -177.1 37.4, -191.5, -278.0 219.1, -6.8, -96.0 210.7, 184.1, 82.0
~100 Ma -896.0, -1097.2, -
1160.4
-930.3, -885.3, -906.7 -624.1, -749.9, -712.4 -339.3, -352.2, -348.6
~50 Ma -901.7, -836.8, -998.0 -841.0, -768.0, -857.7 -988.1, -879.7, -1044.8 -873.1, -697.1, -874.8
0 Ma -452.5, -561.2, -606.8 -613.4, -660.0, -817.0 -730.0, -795.2, -850.0 -911.4, -938.0, -1013.1
Rate 170-100 Ma -16.0, -15.1, -14.0 -12.8, -9.9, -9.0 -12.0, -10.6, -8.8 -7.9, -7.7, -6.2
Rate 100-50 Ma -0.1, 5.3, 3.2 1.8, 2.4, 1.0 -7.3, -2.6, -6.6 -10.7, -7.0, -10.5
Rate 50-0 Ma 9.0, 5.4, 7.8 4.6, 2.1, 0.8 5.2, 1.7, 3.9 -0.8*, -4.7, -2.8*
*uplift from 9 and
10Ma respectively.
Table S3: Acronyms and alternative model details referred to in this study.
Name/Acronym Base plate
reconstruction
Absolute reference frame (prior
to NLR correction)
Net Lithospheric rotation
(NLR) correction
Viscosity profile*
Initial slab depth
Slab dip
Basal layer density
C3 Shephard et al. (2013) Moving hotspots 0-100 Ma Removed from plate 1,1,1,100
274
275
276
277
(O’Neill et al., 2005)
TPW-corrected palaeomagnetic
100-200 Ma (Steinberger and
Torsvik, 2008)
reconstruction. Minimal NLR
remaining (<0.1°/Myr, Fig.
S13).
1750 km
45° (<660 km) then 90°
+3.6%
C4 Shephard et al. (2013) Moving hotspots 0-70 Ma
(Torsvik et al., 2008)
TPW-corrected palaeomagnetic
105-200 Ma (Steinberger and
Torsvik, 2008; interpolation
between 70-105 Ma)
Minimized from plate
reconstruction (NLR
<0.4°/Myr, Fig. S13) and by
using new poles of rotation
for E-W Antarctica (Granot et
al., 2013) $
1,1,1,100
1210 km
58° (<425 km) then 90°
+3.6%
C5 Shephard et al. (2013) Moving hotspots 0-70 Ma
(Torsvik et al., 2008) and TPW-
corrected palaeomagnetic 105-
Minimized from plate
reconstruction (NLR
<0.4°/Myr, Fig. S13) and by
1,1,1,10 100
1210km
200 Ma (Steinberger and Torsvik,
2008) (interpolation between 70-
105 Ma)
using new poles of rotation
for E-W Antarctica (Granot et
al., 2013)$
45°
+1.7%
C6 Shephard et al. (2013) Moving hotspots 0-70 Ma
(Torsvik et al., 2008)
TPW-corrected palaeomagnetic
105-200 Ma (Steinberger and
Torsvik, 2008; interpolation
between 70-105 Ma)
Minimized from plate
reconstruction (NLR
<0.4°/Myr, Fig. S13) and by
using new poles of rotation
for E-W Antarctica (Granot et
al., 2013) $
1,1,1, 10 100
1210km
45°
+3.6%
C7 Shephard et al. (2013) Moving hotspots 0-70 Ma
(Torsvik et al., 2008)
TPW-corrected palaeomagnetic
105-200 Ma (Steinberger and
Minimized from plate
reconstruction (NLR
<0.4°/Myr, Fig. S13) and by
using new poles of rotation
1,1,1,100
1210km
45°
+1.7%
Torsvik, 2008; interpolation
between 70-105 Ma)
for E-W Antarctica (Granot et
al., 2013) $
C8 Shephard et al. (2013) Moving hotspots 0-70 Ma
(Torsvik et al., 2008) and TPW-
corrected palaeomagnetic 105-
200 Ma (Steinberger and Torsvik,
2008) (interpolation between 70-
105 Ma)
Minimized from plate
reconstruction (NLR
<0.4°/Myr, Fig. S13) and by
using new poles of rotation
for E-W Antarctica (Granot et
al., 2013).$ Minimized in
the lower mantle by the
low-viscosity
asthenosphere in the
dynamic model.
1,0.1,1, 10 100
1210km
45°
+1.7%
$ Granot et al. (2013) describes motion in the West Antarctic Rift System from Chron 18o (40.13 Ma) until around Chron 8o (26.5 Ma,
Cande et al., 2000; Granot et al., 2013). A plate boundary likely existed between East and West Antarctic earlier in the Cenozoic, though
the timing of extension is poorly constrained (Cande et al., 2000; Cande and Stock, 2004). For times earlier than Chron 18o we model
278
279
280
extension within the West Antarctic Rift System using the C18o pole of rotation from Granot et al. (2013) but with a larger angle to
minimize the amount of deformation implied in New Zealand, which is considered to be tectonically quiescent during this period
(Ballance, 1993; Sutherland, 1995).
* Factor applied to reference viscosity (1021 Pa s) for mantle above 160 km (lithosphere), between 160 and 310 km (asthenosphere),
between 310 and 410 km (upper mantle) and below 670 km (lower mantle). The “” symbol indicates that the viscosity linearly
increases with depth between the two listed values.
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
