Cited by 148Geological and Tectonic Studies in Latin AmericaGeological and Geophysical StudiesGeological and Geophysical Studies Worldwide

Fast rates of subduction erosion along the Costa Rica Pacific margin: Implications for nonsteady rates of crustal recycling at subduction zones

Open access
Vannucchi, Paola, Ranero, César R., Galeotti, Simone, Straub, Susanne M., Scholl, David W., McDougall‐Ried, Kristin·2003·Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth

Abstract

At least since the middle Miocene (∼16 Ma), subduction erosion has been the dominant process controlling the tectonic evolution of the Pacific margin of Costa Rica. Ocean Drilling Program Site 1042 recovered 16.5 Ma nearshore sediment at ∼3.9 km depth, ∼7 km landward of the trench axis. The overlying Miocene to Quaternary sediment contains benthic foraminifera documenting margin subsidence from upper bathyal (∼200 m) to abyssal (∼2000 m) depth. The rate of subsidence was low during the early to middle Miocene but increased sharply in the late Miocene‐early Pliocene (5–6.5 Ma) and at the Pliocene‐Pleistocene boundary (2.4 Ma). Foraminifera data, bedding dip, and the geometry of slope sediment indicate that tilting of the forearc occurred coincident with the onset of rapid late Miocene subsidence. Seismic images show that normal faulting is widespread across the continental slope; however, extension by faulting only accounts for a minor amount of the post‐6.5 Ma subsidence. Basal tectonic erosion is invoked to explain the subsidence. The short‐term rate of removal of rock from the forearc is about 107–123 km3 Myr−1 km−1. Mass removal is a nonsteady state process affecting the chemical balance of the arc: the ocean sediment input, with the short‐term erosion rate, is a factor of 10 smaller than the eroded mass input. The low 10Be concentration in the volcanic arc of Costa Rica could be explained by dilution with eroded material. The late Miocene onset of rapid subsidence is coev…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2002jb002207

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Authors
Vannucchi, P., Ranero, C. R., Galeotti, S., Straub, S. M., Scholl, D. W., & McDougall‐Ried, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (IT)
  • Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE)
  • University of Urbino (IT)
  • Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (US)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
Published
2003-11
Volume
108
Issue
B11
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2139633355
Cited by
148
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres (publishedVersion)
  • Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research information system (University of Urbino) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geophysics › Geological and Tectonic Studies in Latin America
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geology › Geological and Geophysical Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geophysics › Geological and Geophysical Studies Worldwide
Keywords
subduction erosion, Costa Rica margin, forearc subsidence, benthic foraminifera, continental slope, normal faulting, crustal recycling, Cocos Ridge, subduction angle

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review