Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The tectonic evolution of the NW alpine front and foreland basin is reviewed in the light of new structural and chrono-stratigraphical data. Seismic-reflection profiles from the Jura fold thrust belt and Molasse basin, surface-geology and thrust-system considerations lead to a complete cross-section of the NW Alpine front including the Helvetic domain. Restoration of this section places individual Cenozoic formations in their approximate palaeogeographic position. ‘Geohistory’ plots are constructed for five profiles along a SE-NW transect. Thrust front, onlap and forebulge advanced at high rates of 10–20 km/Ma −1 at the onset of foreland basin formation in the late Eocene/ early Oligocene (40–30 Ma). In these early stages, the foreland basin is an underfilled flexural trough with about 100 km width, less than 600 m water depth at the deepest point and less than 200 m of total accumulated sediments. From 30 to 22 Ma, thrust front and ‘pinch-out’ migrate at a decreased rate of about 5 km/Ma −1 northwestward. The basin width remains constant at around 100 km; an increased total subsidence ( c. 2.7 km) is compensated by sedimentation. At around 22 Ma, the thrust front seems to come to a halt southeast of Lausanne, whereas a strong subsidence trend prevails. After the Serravallian ( c. 12 Ma) the Alpine thrust front jumps by about 100 km northwestward from a position southeast of Lausanne to the external Jura leading to thrust related uplift, deformation and concommitant erosion of the entire basin fill. No new flexural foreland basin in response to the modified thrust- and load-geometry has yet been developed. The present-day Molasse basin is only a small remnant of a much larger foreland basin in a very advanced stage of its evolution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Burkhard et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: