History of rift propagation and magnetization intensity for the Cocos‐Nazca sspreading Center

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Analysis of magnetic anomaly profiles collected nearly parallel to tectonic flow lines allows detailed interpretation of the complicated tectonic history of the Cocos‐Nazca spreading center. Forward models of the magnetic anomalies accounting for spreading rate variations, ridge jumps, asymmetric spreading, magnetization intensity variations, and bathymetry show excellent agreement with observed anomalies. Spreading rates can be constrained to a common finite rotation history through anomaly 4A with three changes in rates. Rate changes at about 1.5 Ma and 4.1 Ma correspond to changes in rate gradients and occur during the well‐calibrated part of the reversal timescale, so they can unquestionably be identified as true changes in plate motion. A ∼15% rate decrease at about 5.2 Ma could be interpreted either as a change in plate motion or as an artifact of poor calibration of the older part of the timescale. The change at 4.1 Ma is especially important because many timescales are based on the assumption of constant spreading rate for this plate pair for 0–6 Ma. Rift propagation has played a dominant role in the continuous reorganization of the geometry of the ridge axis. Propagation has been predominantly away from the hotspot, with jumps predominantly south‐ward. Propagation rates have ranged from 30 to 120 mm/yr, commonly near 70 mm/yr. Origin of most propagation sequences is difficult to interpret, but many appear to involve discrete southward ridge jumps forming a new segment near the hotspot. Magnetic anomaly amplitude appears to be a reliable tracer of Fe content of lavas. Several generalizations can be drawn about along‐axis variations in magnetization intensities since 8 Ma: high magnetizations are only observed at the far ends (relative to the Galapagos hotspot) of segments at least 150 km long; offset at the end of a high‐magnetization segment is at least 15 km; and there are no offsets larger than 30–45 km between high‐magnetization segments and the reconstructed position of the hotspot. We interpret these patterns to indicate that fractionated lavas erupt where gradients in magma supply cause along‐axis flow of evolved magma. The gradients in supply result from subaxial flow of hotspot‐derived asthenosphere in a narrow conduit. This flow is only partly obstructed by an offset of 20–30 km but entirely blocked by an offset of 50 km.