Skip to main content

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

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Reply to ‘Unfeasible subduction?’

Nature Geoscience volume 10, pages 879–880 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Rowley and Ingalls reply — The physics of subduction is dictated by the relative densities of crustal materials to the density of the asthenosphere. Crust that has undergone eclogite facies metamorphism has densities exceeding those of the asthenosphere and is continuously subductable. This physical mechanism could account for the loss of crust in the India–Asia collision, and is supported by tomographic images that are interpreted to reveal a thick (about 19 km, approximately half the thickness of the incoming Indian crust) layer of eclogitized lower crust1, subducted into the mantle beneath the Himalaya during only the last 10 million years or less of convergence2.

Palaeoaltimetry data3,4 indicate that southern Tibet has been elevated (more than 4 km) since at least 55 million years ago. This equates to more than 60-km-thick continental crust, sufficient to support continuous production of eclogites within the Himalayan core — and beneath at least southern Tibet — throughout the orogen’s collision history. This source of negative buoyancy could contribute to ongoing post-collisional convergence between India and Asia. Eclogites in Tso Morari5,6 and Kaghan Valley7,8 demonstrate that upper-crustal eclogites were produced during early collision. The fraction of exhumed relative to subducted upper crustal eclogite is unknown. It is possible that considerable volumes of upper-crustal eclogites were permanently subducted into the mantle during rapid convergence (more than 150 km per million years) early in the collision. This has yet to be constrained by existing data.

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

References

  1. Nábělek, J. et al. Science 325, 1371–1374 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Li, C., Vanderhilst, R., Meltzer, A. & Engdahl, E. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 274, 157–168 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ding, L. et al. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 392, 250–264 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ingalls, M. et al. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1130/B31723.1 (2017).

  5. Guillot, S., Lardeaux, J. M., Mascle, G. & Colchen, M. Compte Rendu Acad. Sci. Ser II 320, 931–936 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  6. St-Onge, M. R., Rayner, N., Palin, R. M., Searle, M. P. & Waters, D. J. J. Metamorphic Geol 31, 469–504 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pognante, U. & Spencer, D.  A. Eur. J. Mineral. 3, 613–618 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Spencer, D. A., Tonarini, S. & Pognante, U. Eur. J. Mineral. 7, 89–102 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. DeCelles, P. G., Robinson, D. M. & Zandt, G. Tectonics 21, 1062 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gibbons, A. D. et al. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 13, Q05W13 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  11. van Hinsbergen, D. J. J. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 7659–64 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang, W. et al. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 122, 2434–2456 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. DeCelles, P. G., Kapp, P., Gehrels, G. E. & Ding, L. Tectonics 33, 824–849 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hu, X. et al. Earth Sci. Rev 160, 264–299 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. DeCelles, P. et al. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 227, 313–330 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Beck, R. et al. Nature 373, 55–58 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shah, S. M. I. Stratigraphy of Pakistan Memoir of the Geological Survey of Pakistan (Pakistan Press, Quetta, 2009).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of the Geophysical Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    David Rowley & Miquela Ingalls

  2. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

    Miquela Ingalls

Authors
  1. David Rowley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miquela Ingalls
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to David Rowley or Miquela Ingalls.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Sections 1 & 2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rowley, D., Ingalls, M. Reply to ‘Unfeasible subduction?’. Nature Geosci 10, 879–880 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-017-0016-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-017-0016-1

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