Breaking new ground – the rise of plate tectonics

Exactly 100 years ago, German geophysicist Alfred Wegener presented his theory of continental drift – the idea that the continents of Earth are gradually drifting apart. And now we have some compelling new information. Wegener’s theory was party based on the observation that the large landmasses of…

Nz45dg3p-1346902408
The theory of plate tectonics is the foundation for understanding geodynamics. rgordon

Exactly 100 years ago, German geophysicist Alfred Wegener presented his theory of continental drift – the idea that the continents of Earth are gradually drifting apart. And now we have some compelling new information.

Wegener’s theory was party based on the observation that the large landmasses of Earth fit nicely together like a puzzle but it was also supported by evidence of the same fossilised plants on opposites sides of oceans.

My colleagues and I have published a paper in Nature that could further extend our understanding of the motion of our planet’s surface.

Fossil patterns found across continents were one of the first pieces of evidence for continental drift. Osvaldocangaspadilla

Wegener argued that all the earth’s land masses were once assembled into one large coherent continent, a supercontinent later named Pangea.

And while Wegener’s drift theory seemed to be accurate, he had no good explanation for it and his theory was generally rejected. It was not until roughly 50 years later, with the discovery of seafloor spreading, that his theory gained widespread acceptance.

(Quite simply, seafloor spreading is the process by which the ocean floor is extended when two tectonic plates separate.)

Wegener’s theory has now been replaced by the theory of plate tectonics – an extension of continental drift theory that suggests continents migrate due to the movement of the tectonic plates on which they lie.

Today, the theory of plate tectonics is the foundation for understanding geodynamics – the movement of the earth’s surface – at the most basic level. Plate tectonics can help explain why Hawaii is “followed” by a chain of islands and how mountain chains form by the collision of continental plates.

Seafloor spreading occurs when two tectonic plates move apart. Subduction zones, on the other hand, occur when two plates collide. US Geological Survey

The basic idea is that the convection cells (regions of different densities) in the mantle flow up beneath spreading zones (where plates are separating) and moves down beneath subduction zones (where plates are coming together).

At the mid-ocean spreading zones, the mantle partially melts during decompression, and the melted rocks are pushed out to form the oceanic crust – the seafloor.

At subduction zones the oceanic crust has cooled down by reacting with ocean water and it is then transported back it into the mantle. During the subduction process the mantle is flushed by fluids from the down-going oceanic crust. This leads to a second melting event where a more permanent crust is formed.

Such a process led to the formation of the islands – and continental arcs, where present day examples are Japan and the Andean mountain belt.

So where does our new Nature paper come in? Well, we now think we have an idea of when the process of plate tectonics might have started on Earth: 3.2 billion years ago.

If that’s right, it means plate tectonics has been underway for roughly two-thirds of the planet’s history. This transition into the modern-day tectonic regime is an important point in Earth’s history.

From this period onwards the earth has operated as a relatively well understood system.

Our findings come from a study of hafnium isotopes in 2.8 to 3.9 billion-year-old rocks from Greenland – some of the best preserved and oldest rocks on Earth.

Our isotope measurements were done in zircon, a very robust mineral that can preserve its isotopic composition even when its host rock is melted.

We found that rocks of more than 3.2 billion years old had a different isotopic fingerprint to younger rocks. This suggests that a change happened around that time, in the way crust forming processes operated and that rocks older than 3.2 billion years were not formed by plate tectonic processes.

So what do we know of how a pre-plate tectonics system would have worked? And what effect would a pre-plate tectonics system have had on ocean and atmospheric chemistry, for instance?

It’s likely that changes in geodynamics of the earth’s history reflect changing mantle temperatures. And changes in mantle temperatures basically reflect the decrease in radiogenic heat production from radioactive elements (such as U, Th and K) and in response, the earth’s mantle has cooled through time. The initiation of plate tectonic processes is likely a consequence of a cooler mantle.

The answer to such issues is: we are not entirely sure. But it is well documented that life on Earth emerged before 3.2 billion years ago, meaning the environment that gave rise to early life was governed by unknown geological processes.

And while we don’t know exactly how pre-plate-tectonics geodynamics might have worked, we do know crust-forming processes of some kind have been happening for almost as long as Earth has existed – 4.57 billion years.

We know this thanks to research that investigated the oldest known zircon grains on Earth – grains that are up to 4.3 billion years old.

Not only were crust-formation processes underway before plate tectonics began, a number of studies suggested as much as 50-70% of the planet’s crust was formed during the first 2 billion years of Earth’s history.

Furthermore, it is only from around 2.5 billion years ago that we see a pronounced change in the chemical composition of our planet’s upper crust. This seems to suggest there are several transitions or modifications to the processes involved in stabilising and growing the continental crust.

The key principle of plate tectonics is that the lithosphere exists as separate and distinct tectonic plates, which undergo motion in different directions. US Geological Survey

To understand these processes we have to invoke a major change in geodynamics. We need a theory that can explain how the earth’s surface was changing prior to 3.2 billion years ago. And to get there we need to a lot more research.

A century ago, Wegener laid out the path to understanding the geodynamic processes behind the development of the earth. But we now have to acknowledge that when we look back in time, there have been considerable changes in the geodynamics of the earth.

Understanding these changes is essential if we want to learn more about the early development of Earth and the conditions affecting the climate and environments under which life on Earth began.

Sign in to Favourite

Want to follow The Conversation?

Sign up to our free newsletter to get the day's top stories in your inbox each morning, with a special wrap on Saturday.

Spinner
Donate and become a friend of The Conversation

Join the conversation

21 Comments sorted by

  1. Bob Buick

    Retired medical consultant

    Nice article, but I'd correct the spelling of Antarctica in the second illustration, to avoid embarrassment.

    report
  2. Bruce Moon

    Bystander!

    Tomas

    Some years ago, while studying at UNE, I was offered a different view as to continental drift.

    The geologist advocating the position would now be long gone (for the life of me, I can't remember his name). However, his ideas were adopted in the (then) Soviet Union.

    His view accords with the 'big bang' theory. he argued that our planet has been expanding over time. That, once, much of the moisture was held in the atmosphere, and the reason the continental plates were joined is because there was no major void in between (as now).

    If I can remember correctly, his explanation rested on a view that the circumference of Earth has increased over time. And, the 'cause' of the circumferential spread was because of both, the diminution of the density of matter over time, and the relative expansion of the core material of the Earth.

    My 'logic' suggests western geologists might be well advised to revisit his view.

    Cheers

    report
    1. Fred Pribac

      logged in via email @internode.on.net

      In reply to Bruce Moon

      Was that Prof. Cliff Ollier?

      I used to get into after dinner arguments with him about this.

      The expanding earth hypothesis fits the observation of matching continental shapes but has very little to say about the various lines of evidence from mantle, hot spot and lithosphere chemistry and the seafloor magnetic lineations. And unlike mantle convection hypotheses gives no insight to mantle density structures as observed from seismic studies.

      There is no plausible mechanism that could lead to an expanding earth nor any mechanism supported by experimental evidence.

      Finally and fatally - we can now measure both the deformations of the earth surface and the rates of plate tectonic movements directly. As far as I know nobody has measured a changing radius for the earth and yet plate tectonics continues apace.

      There is no theoretical nor observational support for the expanding earth hypothesis. It is dead in the water and has been for quite a while.

      report
    2. John Harland

      bicycle technician

      In reply to Fred Pribac

      The Earth is constantly bombarded by meteorites. Although I have no data to estimate at what rate the Earth is expanding, It is not reasonable to suppose that there is no absolutely no gain in mass.

      report
    3. Jack Arnold

      Director

      In reply to Bruce Moon

      Perhaps it was Prof Ron Green of Geophysics. He was 1/3 speakers at a wonderful UNE seminar discussing the "discovery" of continental drift (CD).

      Florey from UTas had postulated CD based on coastline analysis (about 80% fit) then again on continental shelf edge analysis (about 92% fit). HIs 1969 impromptu lecture at 1969 ANZAAS Conference was simply remarkable.

      This article appears to be a high tech confirmation of a theory hypothesised & initiated by much simpler scientific methods.

      report
    4. Laurie Willberg

      Journalist

      In reply to Jack Arnold

      Oops, you're going to have to prove that.
      Or maybe academic standards in Australia really are lower than they are in Canada.

      report
    5. Andrew Glikson

      logged in via email @iinet.net.au

      In reply to Fred Pribac

      The expanding Earth theory - a most elegant hypothesis but one founded on circumstantial evidence - to date lacks empirical support from paleomagnetic measurements..

      According to Carey most of the expansion onset about the Jurassic. However, this is inconsistent with:

      1. paleomagnetic evidence as presented by McElhinny et al. based on studies in Europe;.

      2. laser-rnaging measurements. From Carey's suggested rates of expansion the measurements could be expected to show reduction in the Pacific Ocean diameter, which is not the case.

      report
    6. Andrew Glikson

      logged in via email @iinet.net.au

      In reply to Fred Pribac

      The main proponent of the Expanding Earth hypothesis was Professor Sam Carey of the University of Tasmania, although not the only one.

      report
    7. Jack Arnold

      Director

      In reply to Laurie Willberg

      Hi Laurie ... as I sweep the cobwebs from my literature reviewing of some 40 years ago I seem to remember that the Australian Journal of Science was the place. But then I feel sure that the University of Tasmania Geology or Geography Departments would still have some corporate memory of one of their most outstanding staffers. Otherwise the Proceedings of the 1969 ANZAAS Conference, Adelaide may give you a lead.

      I'll back Australian academic standards against any other academics in the world, including Canadians ... and especially the USA.

      report
    8. Laurie Willberg

      Journalist

      In reply to Jack Arnold

      If you had mentioned Harry Hammon Hess, Fred Vine, Arthur Holmes, no problemo. The historical record doesn't give any mention to anyone named Florey as an internationally recognized contributor. J. Tuzo Wilson ranks far ahead as the most significant contributor of the 20th Century.
      Australia doesn't rank anywhere near Canada when it comes to world-class scientific discoveries.

      report
    9. Jack Arnold

      Director

      In reply to Laurie Willberg

      Hi Laurie ... I did note that I read the article ABOUT 40 YEARS AGO ... my apologies for indulging in several food paying careers in other fields since then. Research reading is a little like mathematics; if you don't review it regularly you tend to lose it.

      Your Canadian nationalism does NOT stand close scrutiny in just about any field of endeavour.

      report
    10. Laurie Willberg

      Journalist

      In reply to Jack Arnold

      Hi, Jack... why do you think that your anecdotal recollections of "something" you read 40 years ago are proof of some unknown individual's contribution to a field of study?
      It's hardly "nationalism" to allude to contributions by internationally renowned figures like Jonas Salk, Banting and Best, and yes J. Tuzo Wilson. Not to mention 22 Nobel Prize winners, the invention of the radio, telephone, television, IMAX projector, and electron microscope. Just the facts, Jack.
      Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me about similar Australian figures, because they seem to be lacking. The only notable Florey (Howard) was acclaimed in medicine, not geophysics.

      report
  3. John McBride

    Associate Professor

    As a meteorologist, I would have preferred the first line to have read,
    "Exactly 100 years ago, German meteorologist and geophysicist Alfred Wegener presented his theory of continental drift......... "
    We usually claim him as one of our own.

    report
  4. Laurie Willberg

    Journalist

    Kindly give credit for the development of the theory of plate tectonics where due -- Canadian J. Tuzo Wilson.
    In 1963, Wilson developed a concept crucial to the plate-tectonics theory. He suggested that the Hawaiian and other volcanic island chains may have formed due to the movement of a plate over a stationary "hotspot" in the mantle. This hypothesis eliminated an apparent contradiction to the plate-tectonics theory -- the occurrence of active volcanoes located many thousands of kilometers from…

    Read more
  5. Andrew Glikson

    logged in via email @iinet.net.au

    The author inquires regarding the type of events at 3.2 billion years ago which may have resulted in a shift from vertical tectonic patterns to plate tectonic patterns.:

    At 3.24-3.26 Ga a cluster of very large asteroids (diameters estimated at >20 km) is recorded from the Archaean Barberton reenstone belt, South Africa, by Lowe and byerly, and is correlated by myself in the Pilbara, Western Australia, marking an abrupt shift from greenstone-tonalite crustal conditions to continental-type sedimentary…

    Read more
  6. Daryl Deal

    retired

    Actually, I do believe the original proposal for the possibility of plate tectonics and continental drift, turned up in the year 1596.

    This was in the sixth edition of the very rare printed edition of the world atlas, which was a compilation of the wide variety of new/old world exploration maps bound in one volume. The map compiler/editor noted similarities of how the then known major continents, all fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle.

    The only reason, I believe why many geologists from…

    Read more