Journal of African Earth Sciences 35 (2002) 179–183
www.elsevier.com/locate/jafrearsci
Geological Society of Africa Presidential Review No. 2
The supercontinent cycle: are there two patterns of cyclicity?
*
Kent C. Condie
Department of Earth and Environmental Science, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM 87801, USA
Abstract
Continental rifting and collisional events in the last 1000 My indicate two types of supercontinent cycles: one in which breakup
of one supercontinent is followed by formation of another supercontinent, and one in which a new supercontinent forms from
long-lived, small supercontinents, which never fragment or incompletely fragment due to insufficient mantle shielding. The small
supercontinents may form over linear, disconnected subduction arrays rather than over a region with a high density of closely
connected subduction arrays.
Ó 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Contents
1. Introduction . .
2. Results . . . . . .
3. Discussion. . . .
4. Conclusions. . .
Acknowledgements .
References . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1. Introduction
Support for the idea of a supercontinent cycle has
now reached the point that it is widely accepted in the
scientific community. The most convincing evidence
comes from paleomagnetic studies of Phanerozoic rocks
(Li and Powell, 2001). In addition, a variety of geological evidence has been cited to support a supercontinent
cycle (Hoffman, 1991; Murphy and Nance, 1991; Dalziel, 1997; Unrug, 1997). In its simple form, the supercontinent cycle involves formation of a supercontinent
from smaller continental blocks, followed by fragmentation and then by assembly of a new supercontinent.
Most computer models of the supercontinent cycle
suggest that fragmentation occurs in response to
shielding of the mantle by a large plate that carries the
supercontinent, that during a period of 200–500 My
results in the production of a mantle upwelling beneath
*
Tel.: +1-505-835-5531; fax: +1-505-835-6436.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K.C. Condie).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
179
180
181
182
182
182
the plate (Gurnis, 1988; Lowman and Jarvis, 1999).
Although fragmentation of a supercontinent may be
caused by new subduction zones developing around the
supercontinent margins (Lowman and Jarvis, 1999), the
actual sites of fragmentation may be defined by mantle
plumes developing in the mantle upwelling (Courtillot
et al., 1999; Golonka and Bocharova, 2000).
In this note, I evaluate the idea of a simple supercontinent cycle using the age distribution of continental
rifting and collisional events in the last 1000 My. Results, which are compiled in Table 1 and shown graphically in Fig. 1, include well-dated sites where rifting
resulted in continental breakup and collision resulted in
suturing of continental blocks.
2. Results
Rodinia, the Meso/Neoproterozoic supercontinent,
formed as continental blocks collided primarily along
what today is the Grenvillian orogen, which extends
from Siberia along the coasts of Baltica, Laurentia, and
Amazonia into Australia and Antarctica (Hoffman,
0899-5362/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
PII: S 0 8 9 9 - 5 3 6 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 0 5 - 2
180
K.C. Condie / Journal of African Earth Sciences 35 (2002) 179–183
Table 1
Rifting and collisional events important in the supercontinent cycle
Rifting events
Age (Ma)
Collisional events
Age (Ma)
Amazonia–La Plata
Siberia–N. China
Kalahari–Laurentia
Namaqua–Natal orogen
Kalahari–Falkland plateau
Kalahari–W. Congo
N. Africa–Arabia/Nubia
East African orogen
Kalahari–La Plata
Australia–S. China
Katangan orogen
Kalahari–E. Congo
Australia–Laurentia
Avalonia–Amazonia
Cadomia–W. Africa
Carolina–W. Africa
Laurentia–S. China
Siberia–Laurentia
Siberia–Baltica
N. Gondwana terranes
N.W. Laurentia terranes
Africa–Antarctica
Lhasa–Gondwana
Africa–India
W. Burma–Gondwana
E. Gondwana–W. Gondwana
India–Australia/Antarctica
Siberia–Laurentia (Arctic basin)
S. America–N. America
S. America–Africa
Greenland–Canada
Australia/Antarctica–New Zealand
Australia–Antarctica
Greenland–Baltica
India–Seychelles
Arabia–Africa
Japan–Asia
Baja California–Laurentia
900–800
900–800
900
860–840
860–840
870–805
840–780
840–780
830–770
830–820
850–750
820–800
800–700
800–750
800–750
800–760
800–700
700–600
700–600
500–450
600–500
200–180
180–170
180–170
170–160
140–120
140–120
140–130
140–120
100
100–70
100–90
50–40
50–40
60–50
25–20
60–50
4–3
S. Australia–Antarctica
N. Australia–S. Australia
N.E. Grenville orogen
S. Australia–W. Australia
N.E. Africa–Arabia
Kalahari–Laurentia
Kalahari–E. Antarctica
Amazonia–Laurentia
Rockall–Amazonia
Falkland–Antarctica
Sri Lanka–Antarctica
Grenville orogen (E. Canada)
Yangtze–Cathaysia
N.E. Africa–Arabia
Kalahari–Congo
N.E. Africa–Arabia
India–E. Africa
India–Antarctica
Kalahari–La Plata
W. Africa–Congo
Amazonia–Congo
Congo–La Plata
Laurentia–Baltica
Precordillera–La Plata
E. Australian orogens
S. America–N. America
Mongolia–North China
Kazhakstan–Siberia
S. China–Indonesia
Gondwana–Baltica
Mongolia–N. China
Tarim–Asia
Siberia–Baltica
N. China–S. China
SinoKorea–China
W. Burma–S.E. Asia
Lhasa–Asia
India–Asia
Australia–Indonesia
1300–1050
1300–1050
1350–1200
1300–1200
1200–1100
1150–1120
1130–1070
1100–1050
1000–900
1100–1000
1100–1000
1080–1000
800
870–700
820
750–650
600–520
550–490
575–545
600–530
600–500
600–500
450–400
470–430
420–380
400
400
365
340
320
320
280
280
270
240
130
75
55
25–20
Specified are craton–craton rifting or collision events, or orogens where rifted blocks are not identified. Most references are given in Condie (2002a);
other references are Frimmel et al. (2001), Grunow et al. (1996), Unrug (1997), Dalziel et al. (2000), Li and Powell (2001), Rivers (1997), Karlstrom
et al. (1999), Courtillot et al. (1999), Jurdy et al. (1995), Stern (1994), Scotese and McKerrow (1990), Erdtmann (2000) and Santosh et al. (2001).
1991; Condie, 2002a). Although Rodinia appears to have
assembled largely between 1100 and 1000 Ma (Fig. 1),
some collisions, such as those in the N.W. Grenville
orogen (E. Canada) and collisions between the South
and West Australia plates (Rivers, 1997; Condie, 2002a)
began as early as 1300 Ma (Table 1). Relatively minor
collisions between 1000 and 900 Ma, collisions such as
Rockall–Amazonia and Yangtze–Cathaysia, added the
finishing touches on Rodinia (Table 1). Rodinia began to
fragment about 900 Ma with the earliest separations in
the East African, Damara and Kibaran orogens, the
rifting of Siberia from Laurentia, and possible rifting of
Kalahari from southern Laurentia (Fig. 1) (Frimmel
et al., 2001; Condie, 2002a). Although most fragmentation occurred between 900 and 700 Ma, the opening of
the Iapetus Ocean began about 600 Ma with the sepa-
ration of Baltica–Laurentia–Amazonia. In addition,
small continental blocks, such as Avalonia–Cadomia
and several blocks from western Laurentia, were rifted
away as recently as 600–500 Ma (Table 1; Condie,
2002a). Although Gondwana formed chiefly between 600
and 500 Ma (Fig. 1), earlier collisions are recorded in
Africa such as the Kalahari–Congo collision (820 Ma)
and collisions in the Arabian–Nubian shield (870–750
Ma) (Hanson et al., 1994; Stein and Goldstein, 1996).
Thus, the formation of Gondwana immediately followed
the breakup of Rodinia with some overlap in timing
between 700 and 600 Ma. The short-lived supercontinent
Pannotia, which formed as Baltica, Laurentia, Siberia
briefly collided with Gondwana between 580 and 540 Ma
(Dalziel, 1997) assembled and fragmented during the
final stages of Gondwana construction.
K.C. Condie / Journal of African Earth Sciences 35 (2002) 179–183
181
Fig. 1. Distribution of rifting and collisional ages used in the construction of supercontinent cycles. References given in Table 1.
Pangea began to form about 450 Ma with the Precordillera–Rio de la Plata, Amazonia–Laurentia, and
Laurentia–Baltica collisions (Fig. 1) (Li and Powell,
2001). It continued to grow chiefly by collisions in Asia
(Scotese and McKerrow, 1990), of which the last major
collision produced the Ural orogen between Baltica and
Siberia about 280 Ma. It was not until about 180 Ma
that Pangea began to fragment with rifting of the Lhasa
and West Burma plates from Gondwana (Fig. 1) (Li
and Powell, 2001). Major fragmentation occurred between 150 and 100 Ma, with the youngest fragmentation, i.e., rifting of Australia from Antarctica occurring
only 45 Ma (Courtillot et al., 1999). Small plates, such
as Arabia (rifted at 25 Ma) and Baja California (rifted
at 4 Ma), continued to be rifted from Pangea up to
the present. Although often overlooked, there are
numerous examples of continental plate collisions that
paralleled the breakup of Pangea. Among the more
important are the China/Mongolia–Asia (150 Ma),
West Burma–S.E. Asia (130 Ma), Lhasa–Asia (75
Ma), India–Asia (55 Ma), and Australia–Indonesia (25
Ma) collisions (Condie, 2002a; Li and Powell, 2001). In
addition, numerous small plates collided with the Pacific margins of Asia and North and South America
between 150 and 80 Ma and became part of the
growing supercontinent (Schermer et al., 1984). These
collisions in the last 150 My may very well represent the
beginnings of a new supercontinent (Condie, 1998), and
if so, the breakup phase of Pangea and growth phase of
this new supercontinent significantly overlap in time
(Fig. 1). An possible earlier example two coexisting
supercontinents is the Late Archean (Aspler and Chiarenzelli, 1998).
3. Discussion
The results summarized in Fig. 1 do not support a
simple supercontinent cycle in which a breakup phase is
always followed by a growth phase, the growth phase by
a stasis phase, and the stasis phase by another breakup
phase. Rather, the data suggest that two types of supercontinent cycles may be operating: (1) a sequential
breakup and assembly cycle, and (2) a supercontinent
assembly cycle only. In the sequential cycle, a supercontinent breaks up over a geoid high (mantle upwelling)
(Anderson, 1982; Lowman and Jarvis, 1999) and the
pieces move to geoid lows, where they collide and form
a new supercontinent, in part during, but chiefly after
supercontinent breakup (Hoffman, 1991). The formation
of Rodinia followed by its breakup and then by the
assembly of Gondwana is an example of the sequential
cycle (Fig. 1). Up to 100 My overlap may occur between
each stage of the cycle. The breakup of Pangea, which is
still going on in East Africa, and the possible formation
of new supercontinent with collisions in S.E. Asia seem
to completely overlap in time, but nevertheless, probably
belong to the sequential cycle. The Rodinia–Gondwana
cycle from the first breakup of Rodinia to the final
aggregation of Gondwana lasted about 400 My (900–500
Ma) and the Pangea-new supercontinent cycle has been
in operation for about 200 My.
182
K.C. Condie / Journal of African Earth Sciences 35 (2002) 179–183
The second type of supercontinent cycle, that which
characterizes the growth of Rodinia (1100–1000 Ma)
and Pangea (450–250 Ma), appears to involve only the
formation of a supercontinent without fragmentation of
another supercontinent. But how can we explain such a
cycle? Perhaps the answer is that an earlier supercontinent did not fully fragment, and thus the later supercontinent involved relatively few collisions of large,
residual continental blocks. In the case of Pangea,
Gondwana did not fragment before becoming part of
Pangea. In fact, Pangea is really the product of continued growth of Gondwana. Thus, Pangea formed from
an already existing supercontinent that collided with
three large residual fragments left over from the breakup
of Rodinia (Laurentia, Baltica, and Siberia). In a similar
manner, Rodinia may have formed from relatively few
residual continental blocks that survived the incomplete
breakup of a Paleoproterozoic supercontinent. Condie
(2002b) has recently shown from the distribution of
sutures in Rodinia that the predecessor supercontinent
indeed did not fully fragment. At least two large fragments, Atlantica (Amazonia, Congo, Rio de la Plata,
West and North Africa) and Arctica (Laurentia, Siberia,
Baltica, North China) survived the breakup of the Paleoproterozoic supercontinent.
This immediately presents the problem of why some
supercontinents do not fully fragment. Based on the
model studies of Lowman and Jarvis (1999) and Lowman and Gable (1999), supercontinent fragmentation
depends on supercontinent size. Small supercontinents
do not produce sufficient mantle shielding to be fragmented. Only when supercontinents reach large sizes
like Rodinia and Pangea can they completely fragment.
Why should some supercontinents grow to large sizes
while others remain relatively small? One possibility is
that supercontinent size is related to the geographic
distribution of subduction zones over which supercontinent growth is centered. If subduction zones are strung
out in a linear, disconnected array rather than grouped
in a few closely connected regions on the Earth’s surface, a large supercontinent would not form over the
subduction zones at any one point. Rather, two or three
relatively linear supercontinents of smaller size may
form, and because these supercontinents do not provide
adequate thermal shielding to the underlying mantle,
they do not fragment. It is these survivors that later
collide to form a new supercontinent, and thus, complete breakup of a supercontinent is not required for
supercontinent formation in the second type of supercontinent cycle.
4. Conclusions
The distribution of ages in the last 1000 My that reflect continental rifting or collision resulting in super-
continent breakup or formation, respectively, suggests
that a simple supercontinent cycle is unacceptable. Instead, two types of cycles are recognized: one in which
breakup of one supercontinent is followed by formation
of another supercontinent, and one in which a new
supercontinent forms from long-lived, small supercontinents, which never fragmented or incompletely fragmented. These small supercontinents did not fragment
due to insufficient mantle shielding. The small size of
these supercontinents may be attributed to their accumulation over linear, disconnected subduction arrays
rather than over a region with a high density of closely
connected subduction arrays.
Acknowledgements
This paper was improved from critical reviews by
Roelof van der Merwe, Jeff Chiarenzelli, and Pat Eriksson.
References
Anderson, D.L., 1982. Hotspots, polar wander, Mesozoic convection
and the geoid. Nature 297, 391–393.
Aspler, L.B., Chiarenzelli, J.R., 1998. Two Neoarchean supercontinents? Evidence from the Paleoproterozoic. Sediment. Geol. 120,
75–104.
Condie, K.C., 1998. Episodic continental growth and supercontinents:
a mantle avalanche connection? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 163, 97–
108.
Condie, K.C., 2002a. Supercontinents, superplumes and continental
growth: the Neoproterozoic record. J. Geol. Soc. Lond., in press.
Condie, K.C., 2002b. Breakup of a Paleoproterozoic supercontinent.
Gondwana Res., in press.
Courtillot, V., Jaupart, C., Manighetti, I., Tapponnier, P., Besse, J.,
1999. On causal links between flood basalts and continental
breakup. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 166, 177–195.
Dalziel, I.W.D., 1997. Neoproterozoic–Paleozoic geography and
tectonics: review, hypothesis, environmental speculation. Geol.
Soc. Am. Bull. 109, 16–42.
Dalziel, I.W.D., Mosher, S., Gahagan, L.M., 2000. Laurentia–Kalahari collision and the assembly of Rodinia. J. Geol. 108, 499–513.
Erdtmann, B.D., 2000. Neoproterozoic to Ordovician/Silurian Baltica
and Laurentia interaction with Gondwana: critical review of
macro- and microplate transfer models. Acta Univ. Carol. Geol.
42, 409–418.
Frimmel, H.E., Zartman, R.E., Spath, A., 2001. The Richtersveld
igneous complex, South Africa: U–Pb zircon and geochemical
evidence for the beginning of Neoproterozoic continental breakup.
J. Geol. 109, 493–508.
Golonka, J., Bocharova, N.Y., 2000. Hot spot activity and the break
up of Pangea. Paleo 161, 49–69.
Grunow, A., Hanson, R., Wilson, T., 1996. Were aspects of Pan–
African deformation linked to Iapetus opening. Geology 24, 1063–
1066.
Gurnis, M., 1988. Large-scale mantle convection and the aggregation
and dispersal of supercontinents. Nature 332, 695–699.
Hanson, R.E., Wilson, T.J., Munyanhiwa, H., 1994. Geologic evolution of the Neoproterozoic Zambezi orogenic belt in Zambia. J.
Afric. Earth Sci. 18, 135–150.
Hoffman, P.F., 1991. Did the breakout of Laurentia turn Gondwanaland inside-out. Science 252, 1409–1412.
K.C. Condie / Journal of African Earth Sciences 35 (2002) 179–183
Jurdy, D.M., Stefanick, M., Scotese, C.R., 1995. Paleozoic plate
dynamics. J. Geophys. Res. 100 (17), 965–975.
Karlstrom, K.E., Williams, M.L., McLelland, J., Geissman, J.W., Ahall,
K., 1999. Refining Rodinia: geologic evidence for the Australia–
Western US connection in the Proterozoic. GSA Today 9, 1–7.
Li, Z.X., Powell, C.McA., 2001. An outline of the paleogeographic
evolution of the Australasian region since the beginning of the
Neoproterozoic. Earth Sci. Rev. 53, 237–277.
Lowman, J.P., Jarvis, G.T., 1999. Effects of mantle heat source
distribution on supercontinent stability. J. Geophys. Res. 104 (12),
733–746.
Lowman, J.P., Gable, C.W., 1999. Thermal evolution of the mantle
following continental aggregation in 3D convection models.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 2649–2652.
Murphy, J.B., Nance, R.D., 1991. Supercontinent model for the
contrasting character of Late Proterozoic orogenic belts. Geology
19, 469–472.
183
Rivers, T., 1997. Lithotectonic elements of the Grenville province:
review and tectonic implications. Precambrian Res. 86, 117–154.
Santosh, M.B.-S., Shabeer, K.P. (Eds.), 2001. Gondwana Res.
Rodinia, Gondwana and Asia, ISRGA Volume 4 (4).
Schermer, E.R., Hayes, J.M., Kaplan, I.R., 1984. The origin of
allochthonous terranes. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 12, 107–131.
Scotese, C.R., McKerrow, W.S., 1990. Revised World maps and
introduction. Geol. Soc. Lond., Mem. 12, 1–21.
Stein, M., Goldstein, S.L., 1996. From plume head to continental lithosphere in the Arabian–Nubian shield. Nature 382, 773–
778.
Stern, R.J., 1994. Arc assembly and continental collision in the
Neoproterozoic East African orogen: implications for the consolidation of Gondwanaland. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 22, 319–
351.
Unrug, R., 1997. Rodinia to Gondwana: the geodynamic map of
Gondwana supercontinent assembly. GSA Today 7 (1), 1–6.