References

1

Acton, G. D., and R. G. Gordon, Paleomagnetic tests of Pacific plate reconstructions and implications for motion between hotspots, Science, 263, 1246-1254, 1994.

2

Baksi, A. K., A geomagnetic polarity time scale for the period 0-17 Ma, based on Ar/Ar plateau ages for selected field reversals, Geophys. Res. Lett., 20, 1607-1610, 1993.

3

Baksi, A. K., Concordant sea-floor spreading rates obtained from geochronology, astrochronology, and space geodesy, Geophys. Res. Lett., 21, 133-136, 1994.

4

Baksi, A. K., V. Hsu, M. O. McWilliams, and E. Farrar, Ar/Ar dating of the Brunhes-Matuyama geomagnetic field reversal, Science, 256, 356-357, 1992.

5

Beck, M. E., On the nature of buttressing in margin-parallel strike-slip fault systems, Geology, 21, 755-758, 1993.

6

Cande, S. C., and D. V. Kent, A new geomagnetic polarity time scale for the Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 13,917-13,951, 1992.

7

Cande, S. C., J. Stock, C. A. Raymond, and W. F. Haxby, Changes in Pacific-Antarctic plate motion and the age of the bend in the Hawaii-Emperor chain (abstract), Eos Trans. AGU, 73, 507-508, 1992.

8

Carbotte, S., and K. Macdonald, East Pacific Rise 8-1030'N: Evolution of ridge segments and discontinuities from SeaMARC II and three-dimensional magnetic studies, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 6959-6982, 1992.

9

Dalziel, I. W. D., Antarctica: A tale of two supercontinents, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 20, 501-525, 1992.

10

DeMets, C., R. G. Gordon, D. F. Argus, and S. Stein, Current plate motions, Geophys. J. Int., 101, 425-478, 1990.

11

DeMets, C., Oblique convergence and deformation along the Kuril and Japan trenches, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 17,615-17626, 1992.

12

DeMets, C., R. G. Gordon, D. F. Argus, and S. Stein, Effect of recent revisions to the geomagnetic reversal time scale on estimates of current plate motions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 21, 2191-2194, 1994.

13

England, P., and R. E. Wells, Neogene rotations and quasicontinuous deformation of the Pacific Northwest continental margin, Geology, 19, 978-981, 1991.

14

Freymueller, J. T., J. N. Kellogg, and V. Vega, Plate motions in the North Andean region, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 21,853-21,863, 1993.

15

Goldfinger, C., L. D. Kulm, R. S. Yeats, B. Appelgate, M. E. MacKay, and G. F. Moore, Transverse structural trends along the Oregon convergent margin: Implications for Cascadia earthquake potential and crustal rotations, Geology, 20, 141-144, 1992.

16

Gordon, R. G., Plate tectonics: orbital dates and steady rates, Nature, 364, 760-761, 1993.

17

Grindlay, N. R., P. J. Fox, and P. R. Vogt, Morphology and tectonics of the Mid-Atlantic ridge (25-2730'S) from Sea Beam and magnetic data, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 6983-7010, 1992.

18

Harrison, T. M., P. Copeland, W. S. F. Kidd, and A. Yin, Raising Tibet, Science, 255, 1663-1670, 1992.

19

Hilgen, F. J., Extension of the astronomically calibrated (polarity) time scale to the Miocene/Pliocene boundary, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 107, 349-366, 1991.

20

Huestis, S. P., and G. D. Acton, A new geomagnetic polarity time scale using mutual smoothness constraints on rates from multiple spreading centers (abstract), Eos Trans. AGU, 74, 217, 1993.

21

Jackson, J., and P. Molnar, Active faulting and block rotations in the western Transverse Ranges, California, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 22,073-22,087, 1990.

22

Jarrard, R. D., Relations among subduction parameters, Rev. Geophys., 24, 217-284, 1986.

23

Klootwijk, C. T., J. S. Gee, J. W. Peirce, and G. M. Smith, Constraints on the India-Asia convergence: Paleomagnetic results from Ninetyeast ridge, Proc. ODP, 121, 777-881, 1991.

24

Larson, R. L., R. C. Searle, M. C. Kleinrock, H. Schouten, R. T. Bird, D. F. Naar, R. I. Rusby, E. E. Hooft, and H. Lasthiotakis, Roller-bearing tectonic evolution of the Juan Fernandez microplate, Nature, 356, 571-576, 1992.

25

Lonsdale, P., Structural patterns of the Pacific floor offshore of Peninsular California, in Gulf and Peninsular Provinces of the Californias, AAPG Memoir 47, edited by J. P. Dauphin and B. R. T. Simoneit, pp. 87-125, 1991.

26

Lonsdale, P., Segmentation and disruption of the East Pacific Rise in the mouth of the Gulf of California, submitted to Mar. Geophys. Res., 1994.

27

MacDonald, K. C., D. S. Scheirer, and S. M. Carbotte, Mid-ocean ridges: Discontinuities, segments, and giant cracks, Science, 253, 986-994, 1991.

28

McCaffrey, R., Slip vectors and stretching of the Sumatran fore arc, G, 19, 881-884, 1991.

29

McCaffrey, R., Oblique plate convergence, slip vectors, and forearc deformation, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 8905-8915, 1992.

30

McCaffrey, R., Global variability in subduction thrust zone-forearc systems, Pure and Applied Geophysics, 142, 173-224, 1994.

31

Molnar, P., P. England, and J. Martinod, Mantle dynamics, uplift of the Tibetan plateau, and the Indian monsoon, Reviews of Geophysics, 31, 357-396, 1993.

32

Naar, D. F., and R. N. Hey, Tectonic evolution of the Easter microplate, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 7961-7993, 1991.

33

Raymond, C. A., J. M. Stock, and S. C. Cande, Late Cretaceous---Early Tertiary plate kinematics of the south Pacific: Results of a marine geophysical survey of the Antarctic plate (abstract), Eos Trans. AGU, 74, 586-587, 1993.

34

Richardson, R. M., and G. L. Cole, Plate reconstruction uncertainties using empirical probability density functions, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 10,391-10,400, 1991.

35

Royer, J.-Y., and T. Chang, Evidence for relative motions between the Indian and Australian plates during the last 20 Myr from plate tectonic reconstructions: Implications for the deformation of the Indo-Australian plate, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 11,779-11802, 1991.

36

Rusby, R. I., Tectonic pattern and history of the Easter microplate, based on GLORIA and other geophysical data, Ph. D thesis, Durham, England, Univ. of Durham, 1992.

37

Schouten, H., K. D. Klitgord, and D. G. Gallo, Edge-driven microplate kinematics, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 6689-6701, 1993.

38

Searle, R. C., R. T. Bird, R. I. Rusby, and D. F. Naar, The development of two oceanic microplates: Easter and Juan Fernandez microplates, East Pacific Rise, J. Geol. Soc. London, 150, 965-976, 1993.

39

Shackleton, N. J., A. Berger, and W. R. Peltier, An alternative astronomical calibration of the lower Pleistocene timescale based on ODP Site 677, Trans. Royal Soc. of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 81, 251-261, 1990.

40

Smith, D.E., J. W. Robbins, and C. Ma, Large-scale plate behavior and horizontal crustal deformation inferred from space geodetic techniques, paper presented at International Workship on Global Positioning Systems in Geosciences, Crete, 1992.

41

Spell, T. L., and I. McDougall, Revisions to the age of the Brunhes-Matuyama boundary and the Pleistocene geomagnetic polarity timescale, Geophys. Res. Lett., 19, 1181-1184, 1992.

42

Stow, D. A. V., J. R. Cochran, and ODP Leg 116 Scientific Party, The Bengal Fan: Some preliminary results from ODP drilling, Geo-Marine Letters, 9, 1-10, 1989.

43

Weiland, C., D. S. Wilson, and K. C. Macdonald, High-resolution plate reconstructions of the southern Mid-Atlantic ridge, submitted to Mar. Geophys. Res., 1993.

44

Wilson, D. S., Confirmation of the astronomical calibration of the magnetic polarity timescale from sea-floor spreading rates, Nature, 364, 788-790, 1993a.

45

Wilson, D. S., Confidence intervals for motion and deformation of the Juan de Fuca plate, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 16,053-16,071, 1993b.

46

Yu, G., S. G. Wesnousky, and G. Ekström, Slip partitioning along major convergent boundaries, Pure and Applied Geophysics, 140, 183-210, 1993.

 
Figure 1: Non-rigorous comparison of 148 geodesic rates derived from SLR or VLBI measurements at 20 sites on five plates (Australia, Eurasia, Nazca, North America, and Pacific) [ Smith et al., 1992] and geodesic rates predicted by NUVEL-1A. The solid line represents the slope and intercept of the best, least-squares fit to the two sets of rates weighted by their uncertainties. Dotted line has a slope of 1.0 and intercept of 0.0, corresponding to perfect agreement between the two sets of rates. Dashed line shows the geodesic rates predicted by NUVEL-1, which are 4.38% faster than rates predicted

 
Figure 1. (continued):

by NUVEL-1A. A rigorous comparison of the observed and predicted geodesic rates would incorporate the variances and covariances for both sets of rates. The non-zero intercept, which implies an absolute offset of 1 millimeter per year between the observed and predicted rates, may reflect the still limited number of plates and sites sampled by SLR or VLBI.

 
Figure 2: Upper---Microplate model based on a simple, concentrically rotating bearing. Bold dark lines show positions of major spreading centers, overlapping about the microplate. Stippled regions show areas of convergence. Lower---Magnetic isochrons and prominent faults and pseudofaults near the Juan Fernandez microplate (JFMP). Brunhes anomaly is stippled. Diagonal hatching represents compressional ridges or other complex structures. Figure and caption are modified from Searle et al. [1993].

 
Figure 3: Java-Sumatra subduction zone, with tectonic features, earthquake slip vectors, and plate-motion vectors. Inset shows horizontal earthquake slip directions (circles), the trench-normal direction (solid line), and azimuths predicted by the NUVEL-1 Australia-Eurasia angular velocity. Note how the earthquake slip vectors parallel the trench-normal direction rather than the predicted convergence direction. Figure is modified from McCaffrey [1991].