Q2. What is the main reason for the tectonic evolution of the Grenville orogen?
In particular, long-lived subduction of oceanic crust, and 323 consequent slab pull, beneath the Sveconorwegian orogen, may have been a major driving 324 force for prolonged Grenvillian continent-continent collision.
Q3. What is the reason for the late convergence in the Grenville Province?
Hynes and Rivers (2010) suggested that cessation of 302 late convergence in the Grenville Province was due to a major reorganization of plate 303 boundaries.
Q4. how many large-scale extension have been documented along the mylonite zone?
Large-scale extension has 198 been documented along the Mylonite Zone (Viola et al., 2011), separating the eclogite-199 bearing Eastern Segment from the overlying Idefjorden terrane, and preserved prograde 200 mineral zoning in the eclogites bears evidence of relatively rapid burial and exhumation, 201 suggesting that the observed extension may play a role in their exhumation (Möller, 1998).
Q5. what is the backbone of the late Mesoproterozoic Grenville?
The Late Mesoproterozoic Grenville–Sveconorwegian orogenic belt forms the backbone in 40 most reconstructions of the Late Mesoproterozoic supercontinent Rodinia, and is typically 41 envisaged as a linear orogenic belt resulting from collision between Laurentia (Grenville) and 42 Baltica (Sveconorwegian) with Amazonia (Sunsas) (e.g., Li et al., 2008).
Q6. What is the earliest evidence of a continental extensional regime?
ferroan magmatism and large-scale crustal extension in the Sveconorwegian 296 Province had started by 990 Ma, heralding the onset of a continental extensional regime that 297 was operative until at least 920 Ma (Slagstad et al., 2013a).
Q7. What is the likely geodynamic setting for the 298 extensional regime?
A likely geodynamic setting for 298 such a long-lived extensional event is a continental back-arc or extensional-arc setting (cf., 299 Slagstad et al., 2009), reflecting steepening subduction and slab roll back (Fig. 3D).
Q8. What is the main consequence of the Grenville Province?
Gower et al. (2008) speculate that one major 157 consequence of this change in tectonic style is that the Grenville Province did not continue as 158 a major orogenic belt eastwards into Baltica, and "that models involving Laurentia–Baltica 159 links during Grenvillian orogenesis require rethinking".
Q9. What is the earliest tectonic event in the Grenville Province?
This high-195 pressure (HP) event has been correlated with the roughly coeval Rigolet phase in the 196 Grenville Province because both events represent foreland-directed thrusting and HP 197 metamorphism close to the orogenic foreland (Möller et al., 2015).
Q10. What is the general picture of NW thrusting in the easternmost Grenville Province?
In the easternmost Grenville Province, 155 the general picture of NW-directed thrusting gives way to a dextral, strike-slip lateral-ramp 156 regime (Fig. 3B; Gower et al., 2008).
Q11. What is the implication of the 29013 Sveconorwegian?
It is possible that 289 this part of the orogenic evolution reflects a shallowing subduction angle in the 29013Sveconorwegian resulting in increased compression here (Fig. 2C).
Q12. What is the polarity of the apwp for Baltica?
Elming et al. (2009) further developed this model, which, in 97 addition to ca. 3000 km of sinistral strike-slip translation along the eastern margin of 98 Laurentia, includes almost 180° rotation of the Amazonia Craton, but with Baltica much 99farther north and the Sveconorwegian Province adjacent to NE Greenland.