Author's personal copy - University of Liverpool€¦ · The palaeomagnetic record through Earth history provides a test for tectonic style because a mobile Earth of multiple continents

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

A planetary perspective on Earth evolution: Lid Tectonics before Plate Tectonics

John D.A. Piper ⁎Geomagnetism Laboratory, Geology and Geophysics, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, UK

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 September 2012Received in revised form 30 November 2012Accepted 25 December 2012Available online 12 January 2013

Keywords:Planetary tectonicsLid TectonicsPlate TectonicsPalaeomagnetismPrecambrianPalaeopangaea

Plate Tectonics requires a specific range of thermal, fluid and compositional conditions before it will operateto mobilise planetary lithospheres. The response to interior heat dispersion ranges from mobile lids in con-stant motion able to generate zones of subduction and spreading (Plate Tectonics), through styles of LidTectonics expressed by stagnant lids punctured by volcanism, to lids alternating between static and mobile.The palaeomagnetic record through Earth history provides a test for tectonic style because a mobile Earth ofmultiple continents is recorded by diverse apparent polar wander paths, whilst Lid Tectonics is recorded byconformity to a single position. The former is difficult to isolate without extreme selection whereas the latteris a demanding requirement and easily recognised. In the event, the Precambrian palaeomagnetic databaseclosely conforms to this latter property over very long periods of time (~2.7–2.2 Ga, 1.5–1.3 Ga and 0.75–0.6 Ga); intervening intervals are characterised by focussed loops compatible with episodes of true polarwander stimulated by disturbances to the planetary figure. Because of this singular property, thePrecambrian palaeomagnetic record is highly effective in showing that a dominant Lid Tectonics operatedthroughout most of Earth history. A continental lid comprising at least 60% of the present continental areaand volume had achieved quasi-integrity by 2.7 Ga. Reconfiguration of mantle and continental lid at~2.2 Ga correlates with isotopic signatures and the Great Oxygenation Event and is the closest analogy inEarth history to the resurfacing of Venus. Change from Lid Tectonics to Plate Tectonics is transitional andthe geological record identifies incipient development of Plate Tectonics on an orogenic scale especiallyafter 1.1 Ga, but only following break-up of the continental lid (Palaeopangaea) in Ediacaran times beginningat ~0.6 Ga has it become comprehensive in the style evident during the Phanerozoic Eon (b0.54 Ga).

© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Ever since the recognition and definition of Plate Tectonics in the1960's, there has been ongoing debate about the temporal durationof this process through the planetary history (e.g. Condie andKröner, 2008; Condie and Pease, 2008; Davies, 1992; Engel et al.,1974; Piper, 1982, 1987; Stern, 2008). Has this tectonic styleprevailed throughout the ~3.9 Ga recorded evolution of the continen-tal crust or did Earth experience long intervals of lid-style tectonicspunctured by volcanic activity as seen on Mars or episodic mantleoverturn and resurfacing as seen on Venus (e.g. Frankel, 1996;Nimmo and McKenzie, 1998)? This debate has been stimulated in re-cent years by the discovery of numerous planetary bodies or“super-Earths” and the expectation that many more will be discov-ered in the future by missions such as NASA Kepler (kepler.nasa.gov). Whilst considerable effort has gone into the computer modellingof potential super-Earths to predict the likelihood of Plate Tectonics, thevalidity of the conclusions must ultimately depend on observationaldata. The universe presents an instantaneous time frame, althoughoften looking backwards in time over many light years. On Earth

however, we have a laboratory of preserved crust dating back to within~0.7 Ga of the planetary origin which provides the opportunity tomonitor the way that the lithosphere has grown and moved. The tem-poral test of the dynamic history comes from palaeomagnetism, thepreserved record of the fossil magnetism in rocks and the probabilitythat thismagnetism is trapped by the lines of force from a simple sourceconstrained to the planetary rotation, the Geocentric Axial Dipole(GAD) model. In this paper I show how limiting evidence from thisrecord of remanent magnetism provides a highly robust definition oftectonic style on Earth sincemid-Archaean (~2.8 Ga) times and demon-strates that Lid Tectonics dominated the planetary lithosphere beforePlate Tectonics became the style characterising the last (Phanerozoic,b0.54 Ga) Eon of geological time.

2. Plate Tectonics, Lid Tectonics and planetary resurfacing:general considerations

An important constraint to the current debate is the evidence forrecycling of crustal material throughout the preserved continental re-cord (Armstrong, 1981; Condie et al., 2009a; Hawkesworth et al.,2010; Taylor and McLennan, 1985); the recognition of zircons datingfrom times preceding the oldest crust preserved at the surface is anindication that this recycling has been underway since primary

Tectonophysics 589 (2013) 44–56

⁎ Fax.: +44 151 7943464.E-mail address: [email protected].

0040-1951/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.12.042

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tectonophysics

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / tecto


differentiation of the planet (e.g. Van Kranendonk, 2011). HoweverEarth has also experienced intervals of intense magmatic–tectonic ac-tivity interspersed with intervals of prolonged quiescence and themotivation for recycling remains largely speculative. Many investiga-tions have highlighted possible causes for periodicity in the recyclingprocess including catastrophic slab avalanching into the mantle, man-tle plume generation and supercontinent cycles (Condie, 1998;Gurnis, 1988; Stein and Hoffman, 1994; Tackley et al., 1994) whilstother workers have suggested that surface processes may be entirelyshut down for prolonged periods (O'Neill et al., 2007; Silver and Behn,2008). Although these and other authors have usually implied thatthis means the shutdown of Plate Tectonics, it remains unclearwhether this was really the process operating.

For purposes of this discussion Plate and Lid Tectonics need to beclarified. Our understanding of Plate Tectonics is defined by the wayEarth surface processes have operated during the Phanerozoic Eon(b0.54 Ga), and most specifically since preservation of the remainingocean crustal record beginning with break-up of the supercontinentPangaea in Jurassic times (b0.19 Ga). Plate Tectonics is driven pri-marily by buoyancy forces operating within the oceanic lithospherebetween young elevated constructive margins incremented by theproducts of decompression melting and old, cold and dense marginsdescending back into the mantle. The latter incorporate the processof subduction which defines the destructive boundaries of the plates.Tectonic processes occurring within the continental crust are also fo-cussed on the plate boundaries and a consequence of melting withinand above the subducting margins, or are due to the closure of oceanswhen the constructive margins are absent or overridden. The threekey features defining comprehensive Plate Tectonics in the earlierhistory of the Earth should therefore be evidences for (i) differentialmobility, (ii) processes resulting from subduction and (iii) continentcollision/break-up. We anticipate these to be absent on planetscharacterised by Lid Tectonics, or to be only intermittently expressedwhere lids are subject to episodic resurfacing as on Venus.

The definition of Lid Tectonics is inevitably less precise because theobservational platforms aremore remote but they nevertheless empha-sise that the contrast with Plate Tectonics is transitional rather thanabrupt. Thus Mars has a ~2500 mile long fault system, the VallesMarineris, that appears to have once been characterised by strike slipfaulting and mass movement and may divide the planetary shell intotwo plates (An Yin, 2012). However, there is no substantial evidencethat Plate Tectonics analogous to Earth has ever occurred on Mars(Hood et al., 2007; Nimmo, 2000) and the planetary evolution is widelyviewed in the context of stagnant lid convection with an elastic shellforming as the lithosphere progressively thickened by conductivecooling. The only possible significant indication for past operation ofPlate Tectonics is the presence of stripe anomalies (Connerny et al.,1999) but these have latitudinal orientations; they are therefore likelyconfigured to past poles of planetary rotation and most plausiblyinterpreted in terms of whole lithosphere motion over mantle plumesfeeding large volumes of basaltic lavas (Kobayashi and Sprenke,2010). The latter is of course, a facet of Lid Tectonics still present inthe hot spot frame on Earth. On Mars the magma chambers areinterpreted to be deeper and much larger than those on Earth (Wilsonand Head, 1994) and they have an intra-plate distribution analogousto the hot spot frame on Earth (Carr, 2007).

Volcanic features on Venus are also not clustered into the linearbands characteristic of plate boundaries on Earth but are insteadbroadly distributed as plume sites (Head et al., 1992) although localsubduction may be indicated by arcuate trenches (Nimmo andMcKenzie, 1998). Other features that lack terrestrial analogues arecoronae, or circular features 60–2000 km in diameter consisting ofconcentric and radial fractures arranged about a central depression,and tesserae or elevated plateau areas characterized by intensedeformation of both compressional and extensional character. Thedefining feature of Venusian tectonics is the episodic operation of

rapid (b100 Myr) resurfacing with the last event completed300–600 Myr ago (Strom et al., 1994) and the planet appears to becurrently heating up pending a future such event. It remains possiblethat Plate Tectonics analogous to Earth operated during resurfacingalthough Nimmo and McKenzie (1998) conclude that a combinationof high mantle viscosity, high fault strength and thick basaltic crustmay prevent subduction from being sustained on Venus and hencepreclude the key signatures of Plate Tectonics.

The transition from a quasi-static lid-style to subduction-drivenplate-style tectonics is difficult to predict theoretically because it iscontrolled by a complex interplay of rheological, compositional andthermal parameters, in particular the temperature at the core–mantleboundary, and it also depends critically on the amount of waterpresent at the planetary surface. However, models have become pro-gressively more sophisticated in recent years (Moresi and Solomatov,1995, 1998; Rolf and Tackley, 2011; Tackley, 2000; Trompet andHansen, 1998; van Heck and Tackley, 2011) and have sought to deter-mine the point at which predicted convective stresses exceed theyield stress of a lithospheric lid. In general they predict three convec-tive modes comprising (i) a mobile lid in constant motion able to gen-erate zones of subduction and spreading, (ii) a stagnant lid coveringthe whole surface and (iii) an episodic lid where the regime keepsinterchanging between static and mobile.

The most comprehensive models all show that plate tectonics willbecomemore likely as the planetary size increases if the convection isbasally heated (Korenaga, 2010; Valencia and O'Connell, 2009; vanHeck and Tackley, 2011). Thus an inference could be that we seePlate Tectonics on Earth and not on Mars and Venus because of thelarger size of the former. Nevertheless such a conclusion would behighly simplistic because over time the temperature and water atthe planetary surface will have been highly variable, heat productionand compositional boundaries within the interior will have changed(Maruyama et al., 2007), and factors such as tidal forces and giant im-pacts may have had periodic inputs. Lenardic et al. (2008) proposethat an increase in surface temperatures in excess of 38 °C followingfor example, exceptional volcanism and a build-up of a heavy CO2 at-mospheric blanket, could cause the mantle to become too viscous tocontinue flowing altogether. Furthermore Archaean tectonics wasprobably constrained by a thicker and hotter lithosphere and moreconvective vigour influenced by a multi-layer mantle (Polat, 2012);thus geodynamic modelling by Moyen and van Hunen (2012) indi-cates that any Archaean (>2.5 Ga) subduction would have comprisedrepeatedly-initiated and short-lived episodes lasting no more than afew millions of years. The importance of the deep water cycle onthe viscosity of the mantle has also been demonstrated by both ex-perimental and numerical studies with current estimates of mantletemperature and water concentration suggesting that over longtime scales the interior will warm while the mantle is degassingand cool while it is regassing (Crowley et al., 2011).

Clearly further clarification of this issue can only be made fromobservational evidence, with the Earth's continental crust providingthe one substantial laboratory available to us. Whilst the operationof Lid Tectonics during Earth history has been raised by a number ofworkers (e.g. Korenaga, 2011; O'Neill et al., 2007), the approacheshave been theoretical and primarily involved in numerical simula-tions. In this paper we assess the observational evidence which is pro-vided primarily by palaeomagnetism because only the record ofremanent magnetisation in rocks is able to quantify whether thecrust was static or dynamic and unified or dispersed in past times.Plate Tectonics is identified by a diverse range of temporal polarchanges (apparent polar wander paths, APWPs) from different partsof the continental crust whereas Lid Tectonics is recognised by con-formity of pole positions from all parts of the continental crust to asingle position. Although the latter point implies no APWP, it is antic-ipated that internal thermal anomalies will be able to distort theplanetary figure from time to time and episodically shift the entire

45J.D.A. Piper / Tectonophysics 589 (2013) 44–56


tectosphere to move elevations towards the equatorial bulge; this ef-fect is expressed by true polar wander (TPW) and must be recordeduniformly over the whole continental area to validate the operationof Lid Tectonics.

3. The Palaeomagnetic Test

The Precambrian palaeomagnetic evidence (>0.54 Ga) comprisesa large dataset of pole positions of variable quality and age constraintderived from igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, with thefirst generally considered the most efficacious. In view of the greatage of the poles and the usual absence of field tests, or inability to un-dertake them, the record is typically considered only with strong res-ervation. Influenced by the sporadic record of geological evidenceconsistent with features attributable to Plate Tectonics, most analyseshave deferred to interpretation on the assumption that this processhas always operated. The predicted palaeogeographic models showdiverse cratonic elements drifting differentially across indeterminateoceans (e.g. Meert and Torsvik, 2003; Pesonen et al., 2003). Thus therecent IGCP Project 440 “Rodinia Assembly and Break-up” evaluatedthe evidence on the a priori assumption that Plate Tectonics has al-ways occurred through Precambrian time (Li et al., 2007). Althoughthis approach has tended to prevail over the past three decades(Kroner, 1982), its weaknesses have been emphasised by the needto minimise or ignore key aspects of the record showing that the tec-tonic style in Precambrian times (>0.54 Ga) was very different fromthat applying to the Phanerozoic Eon. In general terms it has failed toacknowledge contrasting signatures of continentality between Prote-rozoic and Phanerozoic times (e.g. Condie, 1998; Engel et al., 1974;Garrels and Mackenzie, 1971; O'Nions et al., 1979), the much lowerrates of lunar recession during Proterozoic times required to precludea “Gerskenkorn Event” and implying that dispersed shallow marine

platforms were rare or absent (Brosche and Sundermann, 1981;Williams, 2000), and the contrasting (Korenaga, 2003) heat releasefrom the Earth's interior at appreciably lower, and probably episodiclevels (Condie et al., 2009a; Silver and Behn, 2008) to avoid a ‘thermalcatastrophe’ in the mid-Proterozoic (Davies, 1980). In specific termsthe Plate Tectonic approach has failed to explain how palaeomagneticpoles could apparently conform to a single APWP over two billionyears of geological time (Piper, 1982, 1987) and yield an anomalousconcentration of Proterozoic magnetic inclinations in low values(Kent and Smethurst, 1998; Piper, 2010b).

Reservations surrounding the use of the palaeomagnetic databaseapply acutely to the identification of Plate Tectonics because convinc-ing recognition of diverse APW between continental plates requires ahigh quality selection, especially in the older segment of the datasetwhere error limits to age assignments critically control the orderingof poles defining APW. However, no such reservations will be evidentif Lid Tectonics operated because poles spanning a wide range ofassigned ages should then conform to a single position. In the eventit is the recognition of this latter property which identifies theprolonged operation of Lid Tectonics on Earth and shows that thepalaeomagnetic record is actually of more substantial value thanwidely recognised.

An early indication that Earth's continental crust remained essen-tially integral during much of its early history (Piper, 1982) and com-prised a symmetrical low order feature constrained to a hemisphericcrescent (Fig. 1) has remained strongly debated. However, as docu-mented in detail in a number of recent papers (Piper, 2003, 2007,2010a,b, 2013) the great improvement in the size and quality of thedataset has now been able to firmly resolve the special requirementsof the quasi-rigid model. The exceptional demand of this supposition,namely that pole positions should conform closely to a single position,or otherwise to a single path if the reconstruction is valid, reverses the

Si b e r i aL au r e n t i a

Bal t i ca

Am

azo

ni a

A us t r a l ia

N. China

S. China

Ri o d e l a Pl at a

Madagascar

SeychellesMicrcontinent

A n t ar ct i ca

India

WestAf rica

Tar i m

Sout h-Cent ralAf r ica

No

rth

Af r

ica

Ara

bi a

~1.1 Ga GrenvilleMobile Belts

< ~1.0 Ga Arc magmatismTerrane Tectonics

AnorthositesRapakivi Granites

b) Palaeopangaea between Grenville Orogenesis and Ediacaran break-up

a) Palaeopangaea between the Lomagundai event (2.2-2.06 Ga) and Grenville Orogenesis (~1.1 Ga)

' A r c t i c a '

'At

la

nt i

ca

'

‘ U r ’

Fig. 1. The continental lid of Planet Earth after 2.0 Ga shownwithin a single global hemisphere and reconstructed from palaeomagnetic data according to the Eulerian operations listed inTable 1. The distributions of some key geological features formed during the post 2.0 Ga lifetime of the lid are shown: figure (a) highlights the distribution of major Mesoproterozoicanorogenic activity with contours showing the general contraction of this magmatism towards the inner margin of the lid, whilst (b) shows the broadly-arcuate distribution of theGrenville tectonic belts formed at ~1.1 Ga and the succeeding marginal orogenic belts formed later in Neoproterozoic times by typical Plate Tectonic processes within the instep of thereconstruction. Note that locations of some shields, notably Antarctica are poorly fixed at the present time. After Piper (2013).

46 J.D.A. Piper / Tectonophysics 589 (2013) 44–56


roles of model and data: the palaeogeographic premise then becomes apossible test of palaeomagnetic data. In the event, it is close conformityof poles to a single position during very long intervals of near-staticpolar behaviour between ~2.7–2.2 Ga, 1.5–1.25 Ga and 0.75–0.6 Gaemploying a reconstruction requiring only peripheral adjustmentthat justifies the premise that the continental crust remainedquasi-integral during Precambrian times. Here we evaluate the key ev-idence as summarised in Figs. 2–7 from mid-Archaean to Ediacarantimes between ~2.8 and 0.6 Ga in the context of the Lid versus PlateTectonics debate. The primary configuration of the continental lid, thesupercontinent Palaeopangaea, is reconstructed by rotating crustal divi-sions and their associated palaeomagnetic data according to Eulerianoperations given in Table 1. The palaeomagnetic poles plotted inFigs. 2–7 are summarised in Piper (2010a,b) updated in Piper (2013)where the poles are listed following rotation according to the rotationalparameters of Table 1. These data listings are also included in the sup-plementary data to this paper.

The integrity of the core comprising the cratons of Laurentia(North America and Greenland) and Central-Southern Africa is de-monstrable from at least ~2.8 Ga (Piper, 2003, 2010a), whilst cratonicassemblages with more peripheral positions including Australia,North and South China, Fennoscandia, India, Siberia, South Americaand West Africa remained clustered with this core although subjectto one or two episodes of relative movement (Fig. 1). These conclu-sions apply to motions detectable by palaeomagnetic poles calculatedaccording to the GAD model and make no predictions about lowerscale (>103 km) internal deformation of the lid which is well ableto accommodate the small scales of mobility envisaged during the

Archaean (e.g. Van Kranendonk, 2011). Key features of the data anal-ysis summarised in Figs. 2–7 are noted in the following subsections.

3.1. Mesoarchaean–Palaeoproterozoic (Rhyacian) times (Fig. 2)

The interpretation of this interval is reinforced by a dominant da-tabase from igneous rocks with many poles linked to high-definitionage determinations. The continental reconstruction of five majorshields is tightly constrained by the close conformity of poles withinthe ~500 Myr interval between 2.7 and 2.2 Ga to a single positionnear the continental periphery (Fig. 2(a)). A succession of meanpoles with assigned ages in the range 2.7–2.2 Ga are plotted inFig. 2(a) to emphasise the long duration of this quasi-static position.Given the great antiquity of the dataset and the likelihood thatmuch residual dispersion between these poles is caused by later in-ternal deformation of the crust, this is a remarkably robust observa-tion. It produces a reconstruction comparable to the much laterPhanerozoic supercontinent of Pangaea (~0.4–0.23 Ga) in being alarge scale symmetrical feature of crescent shape confined to a singlehemisphere on the globe. In addition, the location of the quasi-staticpole position shows that this primeval crust was also constrained tothe global surface in the same way as Pangaea (Piper, 2010b). Therecognition of this first order feature comparable to the dominantand longest wavelength component of the present-day geoid sug-gests that the primary continental crust aggregated by differentiationpromoted by vigorous whole-mantle convection prior to ~2.7 Gawhich carried the continental crust escaping recycling towards aregion of low gravitational potential (Burke et al., 2008; Gurnis,

‘Arctica’ Protocontinent

1. Mesoarchaean - Palaeoproterozoic (Rhyacian) Times

Economic Pegmatites

~2.0 Ga Fluvio-DeltaicSedimentation

“Straight Belts”-Majorintracontinental shear zones

‘Ur’ Protocontinent

‘Atlantica’Protocontinent

(Nickel Province)

Sn

-WP

rov i

nce

(Ch

rom

ium

Pro

vin

c e)

Tin-Wolfram Province

2160

2156

2160

2707

2050

2641

2417

2712

2439

2730

2501

2225

2425

2670

>2.7 Ga APWor I I TPW

< 2.2 GaAPW

Africa

Australia

Fennoscandia

India

Laurentia

MeanPoles

a) b)

Fig. 2. (a) Palaeomagnetic poles assigned to the interval 2.9–2.0 Ga plotted on the pre–2.0 Ga reconstruction of the continental lid (‘Protopangaea’); mean poles are also shownwith ages in Myr to highlight the long interval of quasi-static behaviour, and hence definition of Lid Tectonics, between ~2.7 and 2.2 Ga; the earth brown area shows the extentof the continental lid. (b) Distributions of known or probable pre-2.0 Ga mineral provinces and tectonic lineaments with protocontinents as defined by Rogers and Santosh(2004); the earth brown area is the continental crust with darker regions being zones which have survived reworking in later times. Note the dominant axial alignment ofbroad zones of distributed strike-slip deformation (‘straight belts’) and the concentrations of mineral emplacement suggesting that the subcrustal mantle had largely differentiatedby these times. Figures compiled from Piper (1987, 2003, 2010a, 2013). The time divisions used here and in subsequent figures are those established by the International Commis-sion on Stratigraphy in 2009.



1988). The period 2.75–2.65 Ga initiating this prolonged quasi-staticinterval has been reckoned to include the most prodigious episodeof juvenile continental crustal formation preserved in the continentalcrust (Barley et al., 2005; Condie, 2001).

The primary preserved crustal protolith developed as three clus-ters referred to as ‘Ur’, ‘Arctica’ and ‘Atlantica’ (Rogers and Santosh,2004) with ‘Ur’ consolidating in the Palaeoarchaean prior to 3.0 Ga,‘Arctica’ near the Archaean–Proterozoic transition (~2.6–2.5 Ga),and ‘Atlantica’ consolidating last (~2.2–2.0 Ga). The subcontinentallithosphere was evidently already chemically differentiated duringthis process as shown by the concentrated distributions of mineralprovinces including economic pegmatites, tin-wolfram, chromiteand nickel (Fig. 2(b)). This interval also embraces the earliest signaturesof anisotropy in the continental crust:whilst the oldest greenstone beltssuch as the Barberton of southern Africa show essentially isotropicdistribution, later ones of Early Proterozoic age show strong axial align-ment through the continental crust (Piper, 1987, 2010a), a feature alsoseen in the succeeding broad zones of distributed strike-slip deforma-tion and reworking otherwise known as “straight belts” (Watson,1973 and Fig. 2(b)).

A specific outcome of the demonstration of quasi-integrity inFig. 2(a) is that much of the present continental area had already con-figured by mid-Archaean times. Although no precise determination is

possible, assuming the quasi-integral link between ‘Ur’ and ‘Arctica’and including the cratons of Siberia and eastern South America(Fig. 2(b)), we find that ~60% of the present crustal area had consoli-dated by ~2.7 Ga. This conclusion appears to apply closely tocontinental volume since recent assessment shows that 60%, and prob-ably at least 70%, of the present crust had separated from the mantleby 2.5 Ga (Belousova et al., 2010). The long continuity of mineral ageprovinces through the Gondwana wing of the reconstruction inFig. 2(b) supports the conclusion that a large proportion of theArchaean subcontinental lithospheric mantle is preserved beneaththe present shields (Begg et al., 2009; Griffin et al., 2009) and pro-vides further support for the early integrity of the continental lid.

The latter part of the long 2.7–2.2 Ga interval of quasi-static polarbehaviour was characterised by a near-total shutdown of magma pro-duction extending from ~2.45 to 2.2 Ga (Condie et al., 2009b); the con-tinental lid was essentially quiescent during these times with low sealevels and prolonged unconformity development (Bekker et al., 2010),and the deep oceans became strongly stratified during the latter150 Myr (Bekker and Holland, 2012). The prolonged interval ofsuppressed thermal and tectonic activity was terminated at ~2.2 Gaby a 90° APW shift (Fig. 2(a)) which reconfigured the continental lidand mantle so that subsequent palaeopoles have a preferred continent-centric location preserved throughout the remainder of Precambrian

Laurentia, Coronation Poles

Laurentia, other poles

Fennoscandia

Africa

India

Australia

Amazonia

2. Palaeoproterozoic (Orosirian - Statherian) Times~ 2.0 - 1.7 Ga

Volhyn-CentralRussia

~ 2.1-1.9 Ga Bedded Iron Deposits

Relict Archaean Cratons

Evidence for ~ 1.8-1.5 Ga subduction -related magmatic arcs

~ 1.9-1.7 Ga Mobile/Orogenic Belts

270°210° 330°

330°210° 270°

b)

a) c)

Fig. 3. (a) Pole positions assigned to the interval ~1.9 and 1.7 Ga from the continental shields with symbols shown in the key. The earth brown region is continental crust.(b) Contoured distribution of all selected palaeomagnetic poles from this time interval. (c) Key geological features assigned to these times. Earth brown area shows the extentof the continental lid. Figures (a) and (b) after Piper (2013).



times until the lid break-up occurred in Ediacaran times (Figs. 3–7). Thisrapid reconfiguration event is the closest analogy in the record of Earthhistory to the resurfacing seen on Venus and it coincided with theLomagundi–Jatuli event (LJE), a positive δ13C excursion recording thelargest and longest carbon flux in Earth history (Melezhik et al., 2007and see Fig. 8). The carbon was probably sourced in volcanic CO2 re-duced indirectly by volcanic H2 (Bekker and Holland, 2012) and thesame source seems to have terminating the ~2.43–2.2 Ga ‘Huronian’glacial events. Furthermore, the LJE corresponds to the latter part of aprolonged ‘Great Oxidation Event’ (~2.34–2.06 Ga) and the combina-tion of the two signatures was evidently responsible for the appearanceof marine sulphate evaporates and the first episode of widespreadphosphatogenesis (Bekker and Holland, 2012) in the geological record.The latter phenomenon is repeated again much later by the continentalflooding consequent on the break-up of Palaeopangaea in Edicarantimes (Figs. 7 and 8, Section 3.5).

3.2. Palaeoproterozoic (Orosirian–Statherian) times (Fig. 3)

Although ~2.0–1.7 Ga palaeomagnetic poles are the most dis-persed in the Precambrian record (Figs. 3(a)) and signify an intervalof high lid mobility, they broadly conform to the continent-centric

position on the reconstruction defined by older and younger dataand are assigned to two long APW loops referred to as the Coronationand Nagssugtoqidian (Piper, 2013). Widespread tectonic activity ac-companied the execution of these loops (Fig. 3(c)) and is mirroredin the histogram of continental ages (Condie, 1998) recording a sig-nificant interval of post-Archaean crustal growth (Sato and Siga,2002). It is also proposed that natural fission of uranium prior to de-cline in the percentage of 235U after these times was a regional con-tributor to heat production linked to this orogenic activity (Rogers,2012). Tectono-thermal belts formed during these times are widelydistributed throughout the continental shields (Zhao et al., 2002)where they are recognised to have a predominantly axial distributionand continuity demonstrable through cratons such as Laurentia andFennoscandia (Fig. 3(c)). Numerous analyses of these belts, withJohnson et al. (2011), Zhai and Santosh (2011) documenting exam-ples from the Australian and North China Shields respectively, inter-pret them in terms of Plate Tectonics in apparent conflict with thetight constraint provided by the palaeomagnetic evidence showingthat the continental lid remained quasi-integral during these times(Fig. 3(b)). This conflict is likely to prove more apparent than realboth because the palaeomagnetic data are insensitive to smallerscale shuffling movements within the lid, and because the early

a) c)

3. Palaeo - Mesoproterozoic (Orosirian - Ectasian) Times~ 1.7 - 1.3 Ga

Korosten 1.77

Aland 1.57

Mazoury 1.53

270°180°

b) Anorthosites

Rapakivi Granites

270°180°

Laurentia

Greenland

Fennoscandia

Ukraine

Siberia

Africa

South American Shields

India

Australia

South China

North China

Fig. 4. (a) Pole positions assigned to the interval ~1.7 and 1.3 Ga from the continental shields with symbols shown in the key. (b) Contoured distribution of all selectedpalaeomagnetic poles from this time interval. (c) Distribution of large igneous intrusions belonging to the anorogenic igneous province emplaced during these times; thesewere intruded into a thermally-weakened lid as ‘anorogenic’ bodies and are their temporally-unique emplacement is attributed to insulation of the sub-crustal mantle by thenear-static lid (b). Earth brown areas show the extent of the continental lid. Figures (a) and (b) compiled from Piper (2013).



signatures of orogenic scale Plate Tectonics are present primarily inthe form of subduction attributable to peripheral belts such as thosebordering Laurentia–Fennoscandia (e.g. Hoffman, 1988; Windley,1995 and Fig. 3(b)). Accompanying volcanic activity led to elevatedsea levels and in turn, to widespread flooding of the continental lid.The Fe-charged waters, in an environment which was by now strong-ly oxidising, deposited the extensive banded ironstone formations be-tween ~2.1 and 1.85 Ga (Fig. 3(c)) which comprise more that 50% ofworld iron reserves. This flooding is also recorded in the drowningand disappearance of stromatolite-forming cyanobacteria (Melezhiket al., 2007).

3.3. Palaeo-Meoproterozoic (Statherian–Calymmian) times (Fig. 4)

Movements carrying the continental lid episodically away from theprevailing continent-centric position (and likely recording disturbancesto the planetary figure) had largely ceased by 1.7 Ga and subsequentmotions seem to have been confined to two small loops yielding thetight polar concentrations of Figs. 4(a) and (b). The defining geologicalsignature of protracted quasi-static polar movement between this andthe ensuing period to ~1.25 Ga was the emplacement of a temporally-unique magma (anorthosite-mangerite-charnockite-A type granite)

suite. The spatial (mostly in Palaeoproterozoic crust) and temporal(mostly Mesoproterozoic) concentration of this magmatism (Fig. 4(c))is not explicable in terms of conventional Plate Tectonics and has beenattributed to prolonged thermal blanketing of the mantle beneath along-lived supercontinent (Anderson and Morrison, 2005). Subcrustaltemperatures of 1200–1300 °C are required to produce anorthositicmagmas and the large volumes and wide spacings of these intrusionsare considered to be the signatures of a thinner and hotter lithosphere(Vigneresse, 2005). Magma ascent driven by gravity instability ofbuoyant feldspar-rich magmas and the high level emplacement asthin and laterally-extensive plutons also requires comprehensiveweak-ening of the crust (Bridgwater et al., 1974). The near-absence of motionof the continental lid during this prolonged interval explains this mag-matic province in terms of thermal blanketing by the continental lidwithout specific input of exceptional Large Igneous Province (LIP)magmatism (Coltrice et al., 2007). It proceeded in parallel with contem-poraneous emplacement of new crust by under- or intra-plating atwithin-continental settings demonstrated by Hf and U–Pb model ages(Hawkesworth and Kemp, 2006).

The ongoing formation of marginal orogenic belts around southernLaurentia is a continuing signature of peripheral Plate Tectonic-styleprocesses during this era (Karlstrom et al., 2001). However, gold

b)

a) c)

4. Mesoproterozoic (Ectasian - Stenian) Times~ 1.3 - 1.15 Ga

LIP Events

Anorthosites

Rapakivi Granites

270°180°

270

1.38

1.27

1.151.18

1.431.431.431.43

1.381.24

1.241.14

1.241.46

1.27

1.57 1.22

1.41

1.50

1.6

1.381.27

1.59

1.17

1.47

1.38

1.11.3

1.2

1.251.2

1.3

1.391.11

1.38

1.17

1.38 1.21

1.32

1.461.61.32

Mackenzie

North America

Greenland

Hebridean Craton

Fennoscandia

Siberian Shield


Australia

Southern Africa

India

270°210°

Mackenzie- JotnianLIP Event

Fig. 5. (a) Pole positions assigned to the interval ~1.3 and 1.15 Ga from the continental shields with symbols shown in the key. (b) Contoured distribution of all selected polesassigned to this time interval. (c) Distribution of contemporaneous magmatic activity with LIP events and the Mackenzie igneous province correlating with resumption of APWat ~1.25 Ga. Earth brown areas show the extent of the continental lid. Figures (a) and (b) compiled from Piper (2010b, 2013).



precipitation provides an indication that thiswas essentially localised inimpact: gold is only reckoned to appear in continental crust by deriva-tion from fluid movement through volcano-sedimentary successionsformed as arc successions in orogenic environments (Goldfarb et al.,2001). Following precipitation during intervals of juvenile crustaddition at ~2.8–2.55 and 2.1–1.8 Ga, there is a long ~1.8–0.6 Ga hiatusuntil gold precipitation again appears, this time linked to LateNeoproterozoic orogenesis (Fig. 7).

3.4. Mesoproterozoic to Early Neoproterozoic (Ectasian–Tonian) times(Figs. 5 and 6)

The long ~1.7–1.25 Ga interval of near-static APW behaviour wascurtailed by renewed mobility of the continental lid commencingat, or shortly following, outbreak of major LIP events including theMackenzie and Jotnian igneous provinces in Laurentia andFennoscandia (Fig. 5(c)). The polar movement that followed executedtwo loops referred to as the Gardar-Keweenawan (~1.2–1.04 Ga,Figs. 5(a) and 6(a)) and Grenville-Sveconorwegian (~1.04–0.85 Ga,Fig. 6(a)). The developing architecture of the continental lid wasmoulded during these times by ~1.1 Ga Grenville orogenic belts ofpart intra-cratonic and part peripheral origin which are widely

distributed through both limbs of the lid. In common with thePalaeoproterozoic tectonic elements, these preserve a dominant axialconfiguration (Fig. 6(c)) with estimates of crustal addition to the lidduring this era ranging from ~10% (Belousova et al., 2010) to ~30%(Rino et al., 2008).

3.5. Late Neoproterozoic (Cryogenian–Ediacaran) times (Fig. 7)

The integrity of the continental lid during this last interval of Pro-terozoic times is demonstrated by the conformity of palaeomagneticpoles from diverse shields to a single APW path between 0.8 and0.6 Ga (Figs. 7(a) and (c)). This robust observation refutes all‘Rodinia’ models because the latter require diverse relative move-ments by the global operation of Plate Tectonics during these times(Li et al., 2007). The quasi-integral constraint is recorded by the co-herent (‘Franklin-Adelaide’) APW track comprising the youngerlimb of a loop commencing at the ~0.85 Ga continent-centric termi-nus of the Grenville–Sveconorwegian Loop of Fig. 6. Lid motion wasinitially rapid from ~0.82 Ga through to the time of the Franklin LIPEvent at ~0.72 Ga (Fig. 7(a)) but then slowed dramatically as APWmotion remained minimal through to ~0.6 Ga (Fig. 7(b). Followingcessation of the widespread Grenville activity, orogenesis was to

a) c)

b)

270

AUSTRALIA

N.CHINA

S.CHINA

Grenville

INDIA

WESTAFRICA

AFRICAAMAZONIA

ANTARCTICA

LAURENTIA

TARIMFENNSCANDIA

- UKRAINE

SIBERIA

SAO FRANCISCO- RIO DE LA PLATA

Sveconorwegian

Kibaran

Irumide

E. Ghats

Musgrave

Albany-Fraser

Vestfold /Bunger

Natal

Sunsas /Aguapei

A-AmarUrolNabitali

Namaqua

0.78

0.78

0.78

0.78

0.720.97

0.85

1.05

0.78-0.81

0.74-0.8

0.76-0.83

1.08

0.85

0.920.72

0.760.76

0.800.78

1.0

0.80

0.78

SIBERIA

5. Meso - Neoproterozoic (Stenian - Tonian) Times~ 1.15 - 0.8 Ga

Neoproterozoic subductionand arc-related magmatism

Grenville ~ 1.1 Ga Orogenic/Mobile Belts

Ophiolites

Large Igneous ProvinceEvents

270°180°

240°120°

Kew

eena

wan

Track

Grenville - Sveconorwegian

Loop

North America

Hebridean Craton

Fennoscandia

Siberian Shield


West Australia

North China

India

East Antarctica

South China

South Central Africa

West Africa

Fig. 6. (a) Palaeomagnetic poles with the Keweenawan Track and Gardar-Sveconorwegian APW Loops executed during the interval ~1.14–0.85 Ga. (b) Contoured distribution of allselected poles from this interval illustrating the continuing signature of Lid Tectonics. (c) Distribution of ~1.1 Ga (‘Grenville’) tectonic–magmatic/orogenic episodes andAfro-Arabian arc development after ~1.0 Ga. Earth brown areas show the extent of the continental lid. Figures (a) and (b) compiled from Piper (2010b, 2013).



~750 - 600 MaQuasi - Static

Interval

MarinoanGlacial Poles

BALTICAFen Complex583±15 Ma

SIBERIALena River Volcanics

600-542 Ma

NORTH AMERICACallander Complex

575±5 Ma

NORTH AMERICACatoctin Complex

597±18 Ma

NORTH AMERICAMoore Hallow Group

501-488 Ma

NORTH AMERICASkinner Cove Basalts

550±3 Ma

NORTH AMERICAMcClure Mountain Complex

535±5 Ma

SIBERIAKessyusa Formation

542-535 Ma

AFRICANola Dykes571±6 Ma

UKRAINEBazaltovoe Lavas

551±4 Ma

AFRICANtonya Ring Structure

522±13 Ma

NORTH CHINAL. Cambrian Sediments

NORTH CHINAU. Cambrian Sediments

SOUTH CHINAN. Suichan Sediments

513-501 Ma

ANTARCTICAZanuck Granite

521±2 Ma

BALTICAWinter Coast Sediments

555±3 Ma

INDIASalt Pseudomorph Beds

518-505 Ma

MADAGASCARCarion Granite

532±5 Ma

BALTICANorth Norway Intrusions

530±490 Ma

NORTH AMERICAHuav Limestone

513-501 Ma

AFRICANama Group Sediments

570±510 Ma

North

Am

erica S

.Am

erica

Af r ica

NorthAm

eric

a

Ba

l ti c

a

Ba

l ti c

aE. Gondwana

AUSTRALIABunyeroo Formation

593±32 Ma

SouthAmeric

a

230°140° 270°180°

AUSTRALIAAntrim Plateau Basalts

520±9 Ma

a)

b) d)

6. Neoproterozoic (Tonia - Ediacaran) Times~ 0.8 - 0.6 Ga

c)

260°140°

FranklinLIP Event

Laurentia

Fennoscandia

Central Africa

West Africa

India

Australia

South America

South China

North China

Seychelles Microcontinent

Tarim

Svalbard

Fig. 7. (a) Palaeomagnetic poles and the Franklin-Adelaide APW Track assigned to the interval ~0.8–0.6 Ga. (b) Contoured distribution of all selected poles from this intervalhighlighting the continuing operation of Lid Tectonics. (c) The signature of diverse APW after ~0.6 Ga corresponding to continental break-up and dispersal in Ediacaran times fol-lowing the Marinoan glacial event; some representative pole positions are shown but note that individual APW paths are only poorly defined during this relatively short interval(0.6–0.5 Ga) of rapid and diverse movements. (d) Contoured distribution of all selected poles from this interval highlighting the transition to comprehensive global Plate Tectonicsafter ~0.6 Ga. Earth brown areas show the extent of the continental lid. Figures compiled from Piper (2007, 2010b, 2013).

Table 1Eulerian operations used to reconstruct the continental lid (Protopangaea and Palaeopangaea) and rotate poles from the cratonic elements.

Protopangaea Palaeopangaea ‘A’: Palaeopangaea ‘B’:

Shield element °E °N Rotation °E °N Rotation °E °N Rotation

Arabia 142.4 76.6 −148.4Australia 167 −69 −161 191.0 −4.0 105.0 180.0 −63.5 158.3Central-South Africa 138.0 73.0 −146.0 138.0 73.0 −146.0East Antarctica 147.5 −23.0 87.8 33.7 73.1 −149.1Greenland 266.2 70.7 −18.1 266.2 70.7 −18.1Guyana/Amazonia 246.5 −33.0 142.0Fennoscandia (Baltica) 211 60 −42.5 3.0 20.5 70.5 274.0 80.5 −66.5Hebridean craton 27.7 88.4 −38.1India 4 −16.5 −149.5 163.5 −20.0 175.5 143.0 −46.0 159.6Madagascar 325.0 −85.0 145.0North China 26.0 −7.0 −149.0 308.0 47.0 −153.0Pan African domains 138.0 73.0 −146.0Sao Francisco/Rio Plata 295.0 53.0 −117.0South China 331.0 42.0 −172.0 279.1 58.0 −155.8Seychelles microcontinent 334.0 45.5 −136.5Siberia 164.0 83.0 134.5 164.0 83.0 134.5Svalbard 120.0 86.0 −48.0Tarim 151.0 18.5 −100.5West African Craton 123.5 59.0 −131.5

The rotational operations retain North America in present day coordinates and rotate other Precambrian cratonic nuclei towards it. ‘Protopangaea’ refers to the primitivereconstruction in Fig. 2, Palaeopangaea ‘A’ refers to the reconstruction in Figs. 3–5 and Palaeopangaea ‘B’ refers to the reconstruction in Figs. 6 and 7; see Piper, 2013 for furtherdetails of these reconstructions.



become peripheral and largely confined to the instep of the lid(Figs. 1(b) and 6(c)). Tectonism is now clearly subduction-related andincorporates emplacement of ophiolites, strike slip movement of ter-ranes and volcanic arc formation within a broad peripheral zoneextending from Arabia through eastern Africa, the Seychelles to north-ern India (Stern, 1994), all characteristic signatures of orogenic-scalePlate Tectonics. The contemporaneous Pan African orogenesis was con-centrated within the southern (Gondwana) wing of the continental lidand is interpreted to have comprised three episodes (Meert, 2003;Meert and Lieberman, 2008) with the first including compression andconsumption of oceanic lithosphere (~0.9–0.6 Ga) within the develop-ing Plate Tectonic regime; the secondwas an interval of extensional tec-tonism corresponding to break-up of the lid (c.f. Figs. 7(a) and (c)) thelast episode was a widespread thermal event responsible for isotopicresetting lasting through to ~0.45 Ga.

APW and corresponding lid motion remains integral and confined toa single path until the global Marinoan glaciations at ~0.6 Ga (Figs. 7(a)and (b)). After this the unified path explicitly divides into multiple sepa-rate paths (Fig. 7(c)), the diagnostic palaeomagnetic signature of PlateTectonics. Hence break-up of the continental lid with comprehensive im-position of Plate Tectonics on a global scale is identified as occurring inEdiacaran times, or soon after 0.6 Ga. It correlates preciselywith a diverserange of environmental indicators (Piper, 2010b) including: (i) theworld-wide initiation of rift-drift following Cryogenian–Ediacaran dykeemplacement and alkalinemagmatism, and ensuing development ofma-rine passive margins (Bond et al., 1984); (ii) multiple isotopic signatures(Halverson et al., 2010) including negative δ13CCARB due to release ofisotopically-light carbon and destabilised gas hydrates to the oceansand extinction of Ediacaran fauna; (iii) the largest δ34S signature in thegeological record identifying the release of brines from enclosed basinsinto the oceanic systemwith enhanced nutrients and organic productiv-ity also recorded by phosphatogenesis, (iv) low values of FeHR/FeTOT(b0.38) recording widespread oxygenation of the oceans inmid-Ediacarn times (Halverson et al., 2010); (v) post-0.6 Ga release ofaccumulated mantle heat expressed as large scale magmatism (Doblaset al., 2002; Santosh and Omori, 2008) with accompanying atmospheric

build-up of volcanically-vented CO2 presumably responsible for bringingthe Neoproterozoic glaciations (~0.75–0.57 Ga) to an end.

4. Discussion

Three conclusions with fundamental tectonic implications followfrom the summary of Precambrian APW in Figs. 2–7. Firstly, the pos-sibility that poles from diverse Precambrian cratons spanning morethan two billion years could conform by chance to a near-static posi-tion for intervals of hundreds of millions of years, or otherwise to sin-gle APW tracks, using a reconstruction requiring only peripheralmodification must be very small. The palaeomagnetic solution cantherefore be reckoned to be a highly robust one and confidently ex-clude the operation of orogenic-scale Plate Tectonics on Earth involv-ing diverse relative movements between continental blocks that onlyintermittently came together (‘supercontinent cycles’). Instead, fol-lowing accretion of the primary preserved crust prior to ~2.7 Gathrough amechanism probably analogous to formation of the Phaner-ozoic supercontinent Pangaea (Piper, 2010b), the continental crustcomprised a lid which adopted two stable positions relative to thegeomagnetic (and presumed rotation) axis. The first retained theconfiguration of primary accretion for the longest quasi-static intervalin Earth history (~2.7–2.2 Ga). This interval was terminated byswitching of the lid through ~90° at 2.2 Ga (Fig. 2(a)) to acontinent-centred configuration retained until break-up with globalimposition of comprehensive Plate Tectonics at ~0.6 Ga during Edia-caran times (Figs. 3–7). This latter change was evidently the definingevent separating the Proterozoic and Phanerozoic eons of Earth histo-ry. These phases in tectonic history of the continental lithosphere asconstrained by the palaeomagnetic evidence provide a definitivetest of the theoretical modelling (e.g. O'Neill et al., 2007; Korenaga,2011) and broadly conform to the temporal divisions inferred byErnst (2009). The palaeomagnetic solution evidently incorporatesthe small scale, short lifespan and repeatedly-initiated character ofPlate Tectonics widely postulated during the Archaean but it does

LO

MA

GU

ND

I -

JA

TU

LI

EV

EN

T

LID

B

RE

AK

-U

P

Total U-Pb zircon ages

500

N

500 Ma10001500200025003000

200

150

100

50

VRMS(mm/year)

Archaean Proterozoic

LOOPS:

Co

ron

atio

n

Na

gss

ug

toq

idia

n

McA

rth

ur

Be

lt

Ga

rda

r

Gre

nvi

lle

Fra

nkl

in

Ma

PalaeoproterozoicGlaciation

Baltica

Laurentia

South China

10001500200025003000

LateNeoproterozoic

Glaciation

Anorthosite-Rapakivi Anorogenic Magmatism

Fig. 8. The root mean square velocity (VRMS) of the continental lid during Precambrian times after Piper (2013) and contemporaneous magmatic activity as summarised by U–Pbages of continental granitoids and river sediments (Condie et al., 2009b). Note the correlation of low VRMS with glaciations and the Meso-Early Neoproterozoic interval ofanorogenic magmatism and the correlation of the Lomagundi–Jatulian Event with the resumption of rapid APW at ~2.2 Ga. The vertical names are the APW loops recognised inthe Precambrian polar wander record and interpreted to record intervals of True Polar Wander when the lid was reconfigured by thermal anomalies within the planetary interior.Figure compiled from Piper (2010b, 2013).



constrain this tectonic style within a large quasi-integral lid limitedby large scale mantle processes (Fig. 2).

Secondly, whilst this continent-centred configuration was retainedthroughout the post-2.2 Ga lifetime of the lid, it was periodically upsetby the execution of APW loops (Fig. 8). These are unlike the signatureof APW during the Phanerozoic eon (e.g. Besse and Courtillot, 2002);the latter comprises successive small circle arcs of variable length andduration linked by sudden changes in direction unique to individual tec-tonic blocks. The repeated changes in APW rate and direction arerecognised as the record of transformations in plate geometry with cor-responding changes in the Eulerian poles accompanying continentalbreak-up or ocean closure/continental suturing. In contrast, Precambri-an APW from the continent-centric position exclusively comprised longloops with close outward and return paths linked by a single ‘hairpin’returning the path to the continent-centred position (Figs. 3–7). Be-cause this feature is a record of whole-lid movement, it is reminiscentof the signature of True Polar Wander (TPW) which occurs when ther-mal distortions in the figure of the Earth cause thewhole tectosphere toreconfigure as developing elevations are aligned by Earth rotation intothe equatorial bulge (Goldreich and Toomre, 1969).

The APW paths of Figs. 2–7 can be translated into estimates of theroot mean square velocity (VRMS) of the continental lid following themethod of Gordon et al. (1979) as shown in Fig. 8 after Piper (2013).Intervals of significant VRMS derived from APW and the execution ofloops conform to thermal-tectonic events as expressed by the recordof superplumes, LIP events and crustal ages (Abbott and Isley, 2002;Ernst et al., 2005; Condie et al., 2009a). Fig. 8 illustrates the correla-tion with the combined U/Pb zircon age distribution from granitoidsand detrital sediments after Condie et al. (2009b). Since the latter sig-nature incorporates both the record of exposed ancient cratonic crustand the transport and distribution of eroded material, it provides aproxy for crustal age provinces including those no longer exposedor preserved. It is however, evidently largely uncoupled from thegrowth of the continental lithosphere much of which appearsto have been complete by the ~2.7 Ga commencement of the dataanalysis considered here (Belousova et al., 2010 and Fig. 2). Rapidlid motions recording loops in Palaeoproterozoic (Section 3.2) andLate Mesoproterozoic–Early Neoproterozoic times (Section 3.4), andsubsequently during continental break-up (Fig. 7), were times ofmajor orogenesis and these followed long intervals of near-static lidbehaviour that presumably thermal-blanketed the sub-crustal litho-sphere; there is probably no need to postulate major new additionsto the continental crust during these events.

A third conclusion is that a dominant ‘Lid Tectonics’ describesPrecambrian lithosphere behaviour in general terms as illustrated byconsistent and repeated conformity of poles to a single position and il-lustrated by the contoured distributions in Figs. 2(b)–7(b). This is thekey signature of Lid Tectonics and it accommodates the intermittentintra-lid deformation along wide tectono-thermal belts. The findingthat Plate Tectonics did not dominate tectonic behaviour until the latterpart of Earth history is not unexpected because the negative buoyancyrequired to motivate it by large scale subduction of oceanic lithospherewould only have been reached following prolonged planetary cooling(Davies, 1992). However, the recognition of Lid Tectonics from the Pre-cambrian palaeomagnetic record should not be seen to be in conflictwith the sporadic geological record for Plate Tectonics in the contempo-raneous geological record: as discussed in Section 2, a broad transitionin both time and space between these dominant styles of lithospherebehaviour is anticipated. Although the lid remained integral until0.6 Ga, there is evidence for relative movements between the peripher-al blocks both in Palaeoproterozoic times and during Grenville orogenicepisodes at ~1.1 Ga (Piper, 2010b and Table 1) but during these timescorresponding evidence for Plate Tectonics is primarily incipient andperipheral (Fig. 3(c)–5(c); it only becomes strongly focussed in theNeoproterozoic (Fig. 1(b)). Further speculations on the character of lith-osphere behaviour before the onset of comprehensive orogenic-scale

Plate Tectonics of Phanerozoic times are more extensively discussedelsewhere (see for example, Houseman et al., 1981; Park, 1981;Davies, 1992). Due to the thick continental component to the litho-sphere on Earth, it is unlikely that there will be very close comparisonsbetween Earth tectonic regimes and the Lid Tectonics observed onMarsor Venus although the extraordinary events recognised at ~2.2 Ga prob-ably merit comparison with the resurfacing of the latter planet.

5. Conclusions

➢ Plate Tectonics requires a sufficient degree of planetary cooling toprovide the negative buoyancy required to motivate large scale sub-duction and is expected to be preceded by a facet of Lid Tectonics.Lithosphere deformation is expressed by three possiblemodes com-prisingmobile lids in constantmotion able to generate zones of sub-duction and spreading (Plate Tectonics), stagnant lids covering thewhole surface punctured by volcanism, and episodic lids with re-gimes alternating between static and mobile (Lid Tectonics).

➢ The probability of Plate Tectonics is anticipated to increase withplanetary size. The Earth and comparisons with the smaller planetsMars and Venus provides a test for this prediction.

➢ Because of the uniquely-demanding requirement, the conformity ofpalaeomagnetic poles spanning Precambrian times (>0.54 Ga) tothree long quasi-static intervals (~2.7–2.2, 1.7–1.25, 0.75–0.6 Ga)provides a highly robust confirmation that Lid Tectonics dominatedthe earlier history of the continental crust. Only peripheral adjust-ments to the quasi-rigid Iid (Palaeopangaea) are required to achievethis conformity over a period in excess of two billion years. The sta-ble pole position was peripheral to the lid during the early part of itshistory (~2.8–2.2 Ga) and became continent-centric for the remind-er of its lifetime following a rapid reconfiguration of mantle andcrust at ~2.2 Ga.

➢ The quasi-static polar intervals were interrupted by the executionof APW loops radiating from this continent-centric position. Theseare compatible with the predictions of protracted long-arc TruePolar Wander motivated by thermal anomalies in the Earth's interi-or disturbing the global figure. This cause is suggested by a tempo-ral correlation between the loops and tectonic–magmatic eventsobserved in the continental lid.

➢ The dominance of Lid Tectonics during the Proterozoic eon explainsthe lower levels of heat release from the Earth's interior duringthese times and the lower rate of lunar recession compared withthe Phanerozoic eon. It is also compatible with the enhanced conti-nental signatures during these times.

➢ There are signatures in the geological record for the incipient opera-tion of orogenic-scale Plate Tectonics since late Palaeoproterozoictimes, probably as secular cooling of the Earth caused ocean litho-sphere to becomemore negatively-buoyant. A large scale transitionto this style occurred after ~1.1 Ga in the Afro-Arabian region. Fol-lowing break-up of the continental lid in Ediacaran times it becamecomprehensive and global in its effects.

➢ This progressive transition from Lid Tectonic to Plate Tectonics sug-gests that Earth is close to the critical size for the instigation of thelatter tectonic regime. Mars and Venus are likely to be too small.

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.12.042.

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to Kay Lancaster for drawing the figures for thispaper. I am also grateful to Professor J.J.W. Rogers and Professor M.Santosh for their valued reviews of the manuscript and suggestionsfor improvement.



References

Abbott, D.H., Isley, A.E., 2002. The intensity, occurrence and duration of superplumeevents and eras over geological time. Journal of Geodynamics 34, 265–307.

An Yin, 2012. Structural analysis of the Valles Marineris fault zone: possible evidencefor large-scale strike-slip faulting on Mars. Lithosphere 4, 286–330.

Anderson, J.L., Morrison, J., 2005. Ilmenite, magnetite and peraluminousMesoproterozoic anorogenic granites of Laurentia and Baltica. Lithos 80, 45–60.

Armstrong, R.L., 1981. Radiogenic isotopes: the case for crustal recycling on a near-steadystate no-continental-growth Earth. Philosophical Transactions of the RoyalSociety of London A301, 443–472.

Barley, M.E., Bekker, A., Krapez, B., 2005. Late Archaean to Early Palaeoproterozoic glob-al tectonics, environmental change and the rise of atmospheric oxygen. Earth andPlanetary Science Letters 238, 156–171.

Begg, G.C., Griffin, W.L., Natapov, L.M., O'Reilly, S.Y., Grand, S.P., O'Neill, C.J., Hronsky,J.M.A., Djomani, Y.P., Swain, C.J., Deen, T., Bowden, P., 2009. The lithospheric archi-tecture of Africa: seismic tomography, mantle petrology, and tectonic evolution.Geosphere 5, 23–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/GES00179.1.

Bekker, A., Holland, H.D., 2012. Oxygen overshoot and recovery during the earlyPalaeoproterozoic. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 317–318, 295–304.

Bekker, A., Slack, J.F., Planavsky, N., Krapez, B., Hofman, A., Konhauser, K.O., Rouxel, O.J.,2010. Iron formation: the sedimentary product of a complex interplay amongmantle,tectonic, oceanic and biospheric processes. Economic Geology 105, 467–508.

Belousova, E.A., Kostitsyn, Y.A., Griffin, W.L., Begg, G.C., O'Reilly, S.Y., Pearson, N.J., 2010.The growth of the continental crust: Constraints from zircon Hf-isotope data. Lithos119, 457–466.

Besse, J., Courtillot, V., 2002. Apparent and true polar wander and the geometry of thegeomagnetic field over the last 200 Myr. Journal of Geophysical Research 107(B11), 2300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/20000JB000050.

Bond, G.C., Christie-Blick, N., Kominz, M.A., 1984. Break-up of a supercontinent be-tween 635 Ma and 555 Ma: new evidence and implications for continental histo-ries. Earth and Planetary Science letters 70, 325–345.

Bridgwater, D., Sutton, J., Watterson, J., 1974. Crustal downfolding associated with ig-neous activity. Tectonophysics 21, 57–77.

Brosche, P., Sundermann, J., 1981. Tidal Friction and the Earth's Rotation II. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (344 pp.).

Burke, K., Steinberger, B., Torsvik, T.H., Smethurst, M.A., 2008. Plume generation zonesat the margins of large low shear velocity provinces on the core–mantle boundary.Earth and Planetary Science Letters 265, 49–60.

Carr, M.H., 2007. Mars: surface and Interior, In: McFadden, L.A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofthe Solar System, 2nd edition. Elsevier, San Deigo.

Coltrice, N., Phillips, B.R., Bertrand, H., Ricard, Y., Rey, P., 2007. Global warming of themantle and the origin of flood basalts over supercontinents. Geology 35, 391–394.

Condie, K.C., 1998. Episodic continental growth and supercontinents: a mantle ava-lanche connection? Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 163, 97–108.

Condie, K.C., 2001. Mantle Plumes and their record in Earth History. Cambridge Univer-sity Press, New York, NY (306 pp.).

Condie, K.C., Kröner, A., 2008. When did plate tectonics begin? Evidence from the geo-logic record. Geological Society of America Special Papers 440, 281–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/2008.2440(14).

Condie, K.C., Pease, V., 2008. When Did Plate Tectonics Begin on Planet Earth. SpecialPaper Geological Society of America, 440 (294 pp.).

Condie, K.C., Belousova, E., Griffin, W.L., Sircombe, K.N., 2009a. Granitoid events inspace and time: constraints from igneous and detrital zircon age spectra. GondwanaResearch 15, 228–242.

Condie, K.C., O'Neill, C., Aster, R.C., 2009b. Evidence and implications for a widespread mag-matic shutdown for 250 My on Earth. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 282, 292–298.

Connerny, J.E.P., Acuna, M.H., Wasilewski, P.J., Ness, N.F., Reme, H., Vignes, D., Lin, R.P.,Mitchell, D.L., Cloutier, P.A., 1999. Magnetic lineations in the ancient crust of Mars.Science 284, 794–798.

Crowley, J.W., Gérault, M., O'Connell, R.J., 2011. On the relative influence of heat and watertransport on planetary dynamics. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 310, 380–388.

Davies, G.F., 1980. Thermal histories of convective Earth models and constraints onradiogenic heat production in the Earth. Journal of Geophysical Research 85,2517–2530.

Davies, G.F., 1992. On the emergence of plate tectonics. Geology 20, 963–966.Doblas, M., Lopez-Ruiz, J., Cebria, J.-M., Youbi, N., Degroote, E., 2002. Mantle insulation

beneath the West African craton during the Precambrian–Cambrian transition.Geology 30, 839–842.

Engel, A.E.J., Itson, S.P., Engel, C.G., Stickney, D.M., Cray, E.J., 1974. Crustal evolution andglobal tectonics: a petrogenetic view. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America85, 843–858.

Ernst, W.G., 2009. Archean plate tectonics, rise of Proterozoic supercontinentality andonset of regional, episodic stagnant-lid behaviour. Gondwana Research 15, 243–253.

Ernst, R.E., Buchan, K.L., Campbell, I.H., 2005. Frontiers in large Igneous ProvinceResearch. Lithos 79, 271–297.

Frankel, C., 1996. Volcanoes of the Solar System. Cambridge University Press.Garrels, R.M., Mackenzie, F.T., 1971. Evolution of the Sedimentary Rocks. W.W. Norton,

New York (387 pp.).Goldfarb, R.J., Groves, D.I., Gardoll, S., 2001. Rotund versus skinny orogens:well-nourished

or malnourished gold? Geology 29, 539–542.Goldreich, P., Toomre, A., 1969. Some remarks on polar wandering. Journal of Geophysical

Research 74, 2555–2567.Gordon, R.G., McWilliams, M.O., Cox, A., 1979. Pre-Tertiary velocities of the continents:

a lower bound from palaeomagnetic data. Journal of Geophysical Research 84,5480–5486.

Griffin, W.L., O'Reilly, S.Y., Afonso, J.C., Begg, G.C., 2009. The composition and evolutionof lithospheric mantle: a re-evaluation and its tectonic implications. Journal of Pe-trology 50, 1185–1204.

Gurnis, M., 1988. Large-scale mantle convection and the aggregation and dispersal ofsupercontinents. Nature 332, 695–699.

Halverson, G.P., Wade, B.P., Hurtgen, M.T., Barovich, K.M., 2010. Neoproterozoicchemostratigraphy. Precambrian Research 182, 337–350.

Hawkesworth, C.J., Kemp, I.S., 2006. Evolution of the continental crust. Nature 443,811–817.

Hawkesworth, C.J., Dhuime, B., Pietranik, A., Cawood, P.A., Kemp, A.I.S., Storey, C.D.,2010. The generation and evolution of the continental crust. Journal of the Geolog-ical Society, London 167, 229–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/0016-76492009-072.

Head, J.W., Crumpler, L.S., Aubele, J.C., Guest, J.E., Saunders, R.S., 1992. Venus volca-nism: classification of volcanic features and structures, associations and global dis-tribution from Magellan data. Journal of Geophysical Research 97, 13153–13198.

Hoffman, P.F., 1988. United plates of America, the birth of a craton. Annual Review ofEarth and Planetary Sciences 16, 543–603.

Hood, L.L., Richmond, N.C., Harrison, K.P., Lillis, R.J., 2007. East–West Trending MagneticAnomalies in the SouthernHemisphere ofMars:Modelling Analysis and Interpretation,Icarus, pp. 113–131.

Houseman, G.A., McKenzie, D.P., Molnar, P., 1981. Convective instability of a thickenedboundary layer and its relevance for the thermal evolution of continental conver-gence belts. Journal of Geophysical Research 86, 6115–6132.

Johnson, S.P., Sheppard, S., Rasmussen, B., Wingate, M.T.D., Kirkland, C.L., Muhling, J.R.,Fletcher, I.R., Belousova, E.A., 2011. Two collisions, two sutures: punctuated pre-1950 Ma assembly of the West Australian Craton during the Ophthalmian andGlenburgh orogenies. Precambrian Research 189, 239–262.

Karlstrom, K.E., Harlan, S.S., Ahall, K.I., Williams, M.L., McLelland, J., Geissman, J.W.,2001. Long-lived (1.8–1.0 Ga) convergent orogen in southern Laurentia, its exten-sion to Australia and Baltica, and implications for refining Rodinia. PrecambrianResearch 111, 5–30.

Kent, D.V., Smethurst, M.A., 1998. Shallow bias of palaeomagnetic inclinations in thePalaeozoic and Precambrian. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 160, 391–402.

Kobayashi, D., Sprenke, K.F., 2010. Lithospheric drift on early Mars: evidence in themagnetic field. Icarus 210, 37–42.

Korenaga, J., 2003. Energetics of mantle convection and the fate of fossil heat. Geophys-ical Research Letters 30 (8), 1437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003GL016982.

Korenaga, J., 2010. On the likelihood of plate tectonics on super-earths: does size mat-ter? Astrophysical Journal Letters 725, 43–46.

Korenaga, J., 2011. Thermal evolution with a hydrating mantle and the initiation ofplate tectonics in the early Earth. Journal of Geophysical Research 116, B12403.http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008410.

Kroner, A. (Ed.), 1982. Precambrian Plate Tectonics. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Lenardic, A., Jellinek, A.M., Moresi, L.N., 2008. A climate change induced transition in

the tectonic style of a terrestrial planet. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 271,34–42.

Li, Z.X., Bogdanova, S.V., Collins, A.S., Davidson, A., De Waele, B., Ernst, R.E., Evans,D.A.D., Fitzsimons, I.C.W., Fuck, R.A., Gladkochub, D.P., Jacobs, J., Karlstrom, K.E.,Lu, S., Natapov, L.M., Pease, V., Pisarevsky, S.A., Thrane, K., Vernikovsky, V., 2007.Assembly, configuration, and break-up history of Rodinia: a synthesis. PrecambrianResearch 160, 179–210.

Maruyama, S., Santosh, M., Zhao, D., 2007. Superplume, supercontinent, and post-perovskite: mantle dynamics and anti-plate tectonics on the core–mantle boundary.Gondwana Research 11, 7–37.

Meert, J.G., 2003. A synopsis of events related to the assembly of eastern Gondwana.Tectonophysics 362, 1–40.

Meert, J.G., Lieberman, B.S., 2008. The Neoproterozoic assembly of Gondwana and itsrelationship to the Ediacaran–Cambrian Radiation. Gondwana Research 14, 5–21.

Meert, J.G., Torsvik, T.H., 2003. The making and unmaking of a supercontinent: Rodiniarevisited. Tectonophysics 375, 261–288.

Melezhik, V.A., Huhma, H., Condon, D.J., Fallick, A.E., Whitehouse, M.J., 2007. Temporalconstraints on the Palaeoproterozoic Lomagundi–Jatuli carbon isotopic event.Geology 35, 655–658.

Moresi, L.N., Solomatov, V.S., 1995. Numerical investigations of 2D convection with ex-tremely large viscosity variations. Physics Fluids 7, 2154–2162.

Moresi, L.N., Solomatov, V.S., 1998. Mantle convection with a brittle lithosphere:thoughts on the global tectonic styles of the Earth and Venus. Geophysical JournalInternational 133, 669–682.

Moyen, J.-F., van Hunen, J., 2012. Short-term episodicity of Archaean plate tectonics.Geology 40, 451–454.

Nimmo, F., 2000. Dike intrusion as a possible cause of linear martian magnetic anoma-lies. Geology 28 (391–384).

Nimmo, F., McKenzie, D., 1998. Volcanism and Tectonics on Venus. Annual Review ofEarth and Planetary Sciences 26, 23–53.

O'Neill, C., Lenardic, A., Moresi, L., Torsvik, T.H., Lee, C.A., 2007. Episodic Precambriansubduction. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 262, 552–562.

O'Nions, R.K., Evanson, N.M., Hamilton, P.J., 1979. Geochemical modelling of mantle dif-ferentiation and crustal growth. Journal of Geophysical Research 84, 6091–6101.

Park, R.G., 1981. Origin of Horizontal Structure in High-grade Archean Terrains. In:Glover, J.E., Groves, D.I. (Eds.), Archaean geology: Geological Society of AustraliaSpecial Publication, 7, pp. 481–490.

Pesonen, L.J., Elming, S.-A., Mertanen, S., Pisarevsky, S., D'Agrella-Filho, M.S., Meert, J.G.,Schmidt, P.W., Abrhamsen, N., Bylund, G., 2003. Palaeomagnetic configuration ofcontinents during the Proterozoic. Tectonophysics 375, 289–324.

Piper, J.D.A., 1982. The Precambrian palaeomagnetic record: the case for the ProterozoicSupercontinent. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 59, 61–89.



Piper, J.D.A., 1987. Palaeomagnetism and the Continental Crust. Open University Press,Milton Keynes (434 pp.).

Piper, J.D.A., 2003. Consolidation of Continental Crust in Late Archaean–Early Proterozoictimes: a Palaeomagnetic Test. Gondwana Research 6, 435–448.

Piper, J.D.A., 2007. The neoproterozoic supercontinent palaeopangaea. GondwanaResearch 12, 202–227.

Piper, J.D.A., 2010a. Protopangaea: Palaeomagnetic definition of Earth's oldest (mid-Archaean–Palaeoproterozoic) supercontinent. Journal of Geodynamics 50, 154–165.

Piper, J.D.A., 2010b. Palaeopangaea in Meso-Neoproterozoic times: the palaeomagneticevidence and implications to continental integrity, supercontinent form andEocambrian break-up. Journal of Geodynamics 50, 191–223.

Piper, J.D.A., 2013. Continental velocity through Precambrian times: the link tomagmatism, crustal accretion and episodes of global cooling. Geoscience Frontiers4, 7–36.

Polat, A., 2012. Growth of Archean continental crust in oceanic island arcs. Geology 40,383–384.

Rino, S., Kon, Y., Sato, W., Maruyama, S., Santosh, M., Zhao, D., 2008. The Grenvillian andPan-African orogens: world's largest orogenies through geologic time, and theirimplications on the origin of superplumes. Gondwana Research 14, 51–72.

Rogers, J.J.W., 2012. Did natural fission of 235U in the Earth lead to formation of the su-percontinent Columbia? Geoscience Frontiers 3 (4), 369–374.

Rogers, J.J.W., Santosh, M., 2004. Continents and Supercontinents. Oxford UniversityPress (289 pp.).

Rolf, T., Tackley, P.J., 2011. Focussing of stress by continents in 3D spherical mantle con-vection with self-consistent plate tectonics. Geophysical Research Letters 38,L18301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048677.

Santosh, M., Omori, S., 2008. CO2 windows from mantle to atmosphere: models ofultrahigh-temperature metamorphism and speculations on the link with meltingof snowball Earth. Gondwana Research 14, 82–96.

Sato, K., Siga, O., 2002. Rapid growth of continental crust between 2.2 and 1.8 Ga in theSouth American platform: integrated Australian, European, North American andSW USA crustal evolution study. Gondwana Research 5, 165–173.

Silver, P.G., Behn, M.D., 2008. Intermittent plate tectonics? Science 319, 85–88.Stein, M., Hoffman, A.W., 1994. Mantle plumes and episodic crustal growth. Nature

372, 63–68.Stern, R.J., 1994. Arc assembly and continental collision in the Neoproterozoic African

Orogen: implications for the consolidation of Gondwanaland. Annual ReviewEarth Planetary Science 22, 319–351.

Stern, R.J., 2008. Modern-style plate tectonics began in Neoproterozoic Time: an alter-native interpretation of Earth's tectonic history. In: Condie, K., Pease, V. (Eds.),When did Plate Tectonics Begin: Geological Society America Special Paper, vol. 440,pp. 265–280.

Strom, R.G., Schaber, G.G., Dawson, D.D., 1994. The global resurfacing of Venus. Journalof Geophysical Research 99, 10899–10926.

Tackley, P., 2000. Self-consistent generation of tectonic plates in time-dependentthree-dimensional mantle convection simulations 2. Strain weakening and as-thenosphere. Geochemical Geophysical Geosystems 1.

Tackley, P.J., Stevenson, D.J., Glatzmaier, G.A., Schubert, G., 1994. Effects of an endother-mic phase transition at 670 km depth on a spherical model of convection in theEarth's mantle. Journal of Geophysical Research 99, 15877–15901.

Taylor, S.M., McLennan, S.M., 1985. The Continental Crust: Its Composition and Evolution.Blackwell, London.

Trompet, R., Hansen, U., 1998. Mantle convection simulations with rheologies that gen-erate plate-like behaviour. Nature 395, 686–689.

Valencia, D., O'Connell, R.J., 2009. Convection scaling and subduction on Earth andsuper-Earths. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 286, 492–502.

Van Heck, H.J., Tackley, P.J., 2011. Plate tectonics on super-Earth's: equally or morelikely than on Earth. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 310, 252–261.

Van Kranendonk, M.J., 2011. Onset of plate tectonics. Science 333, 413–414.Vigneresse, J.L., 2005. The specific case of the Mid-Proterozoic rapakivi granites and as-

sociated suite within the context of the Columbia supercontinent. PrecambrianResearch 137, 1–34.

Watson, J.V., 1973. Effects of reworking on high-grade gneiss complexes. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society London A273, 433–456.

Williams, G.E., 2000. Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rota-tion and the Moon's orbit. Reviews of Geophysics 38, 37–59.

Wilson, L., Head, J.W., 1994. Mars: review and analysis of volcanic eruption theory andrelationships to observed land forms. Reviews of Geophysics 32, 221–263.

Windley, B.F., 1995. The Evolving Continents, Third edition. Wiley, Chichester (526 pp.).Zhai, M.G., Santosh, M., 2011. The early Precambrian odyssey of the North China Craton: a

synoptic overview. Gondwana Research 20, 6–25.Zhao, G., Cawood, P.A.,Wilde, S.A., Sun,M., 2002. Reviewof 2.1–1.8 Ga orogens: implications

for a pre-Rodinia supercontinent. Earth Science Reviews 59, 125–162.


Documents

Author's personal copy - University of Liverpool€¦ · The palaeomagnetic record through Earth history provides a test for tectonic style because a mobile Earth of multiple continents