Rodinia Descendants in South America

A

diRsaNtIb(tb©

K

1

wlAcrttR

awr

(

0d

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Precambrian Research 160 (2008) 108–126

Rodinia descendants in South America

Reinhardt A. Fuck a,∗, Benjamim Bley Brito Neves b, Carlos Schobbenhaus c

a Instituto de Geociencias, Universidade de Brasılia, 70910-900 Brasılia, Brazilb Instituto de Geociencias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, 05508-080 Sao Paulo, Brazil

c Servico Geologico do Brasil-CPRM, 70830-030 Brasılia, Brazil

Received 5 December 2006; received in revised form 10 January 2007; accepted 23 April 2007

bstract

Geological structures and Precambrian rock units thought to be related to Rodinia Supercontinent evolution were recognized in three mainomains of South America: (i) Mesoproterozoic fold belts ca. 1.5–1.1 Ga old and corresponding foreland cover successions and coeval cratonicntrusions exposed in the southwestern portion of the Amazonian Craton make up the most complete and best preserved record of interpretedodinia amalgamation in South America. Recently obtained paleomagnetic data place this part of the Amazonian Craton close to the southernmost

egment of Laurentia’s Grenville margin. Inferred collision of both continents is reflected in the Nova Brasilandia and Aguapeı-Sunsas fold belts,s well as in the Llano Uplift area. (ii) In eastern South America small crustal fragments of inferred Rodinia ascent were variably reworked duringeoproterozoic Brasiliano orogenic events, rendering it difficult to recognize and map Meso-Neoproterozoic (Grenvillian) mobile belts. So far,

he best candidates to represent possible fragments of such mobile belts were recognized in the Punta del Este, Uruguay, terrain, in the Serra dotaberaba, Sao Paulo, eastern Brazil area and in the Cariris Velhos, northeastern Brazil area. (iii) The third domain comprises a number of scattered
asement exposures within the Andean Cordillera, from Venezuela and Colombia (Guajira, Santa Marta) in the north to northwest ArgentinaPampia, Arequipa-Antofalla) in southern South America. Although deeply reworked and fragmentary in exposure, these basement inliers seemo represent the largest litho-structural record of the Meso-Neoproterozoic orogenic collage in South America, apparently making up the westernorder of the South American Platform.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

eopro

e2flAaR

bPaR

eywords: South America; Rodinia; Meso-Neoproterozoic orogenic collage; N

. Introduction

There are many problems in recognizing crust fragmentshich took part in Rodinia Supercontinent amalgamation and,

ater on, after break-up and dispersal, ended up as part of Southmerica. Two stand out as the most relevant: (i) the identifi-

ation of direct descendant segments of Rodinia fragmentation,earranged within the Gondwana framework and (ii) the iden-ification of Mesoproterozoic mobile belts which took part inhe net of orogenic belts that accomplished the amalgamation ofodinia Supercontinent (Fig. 1).

Major exposed blocks of South American shield areas, such
s the Amazonian, Sao Francisco, and Rio de la Plata cratons,ere recognized early on as possible Rodinia descendants and
egarded as such by most authors of Rodinia reconstruction mod-

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.A. Fuck), [email protected]

B.B. Brito Neves), [email protected] (C. Schobbenhaus).

ilr

rAe(

301-9268/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.precamres.2007.04.018

terozoic break-up

ls (Hoffman, 1991; Moores, 1991; Unrug, 1996; Dalziel, 1997,001). However, a number of smaller continental blocks of dif-erent geological and geographical origins and environments,ike the Sao Luıs and Luıs Alves cratonic fragments, the Riopa block, as well as reworked segments, such as Goias, Granja

nd Guanhaes massifs, have not been considered in the classicodinia reconstruction models of the last decade.

In addition, there are several large crustal blocks hiddeneneath large sedimentary basins, like the Paranapanema andarnaıba blocks, concealed underneath the Phanerozoic Paranand Parnaıba basins, respectively, which are also absent in allodinia reconstructions. Therefore, it is rather difficult or even

mpossible to reach the goal of a reliable map of Rodinia, if aarge number of its descendant fragments are not included in theeconstructions.

A major part of Mesoproterozoic mobile belts was deeply
egenerated within the Andean Cordillera, either within thendean zone itself, like the basement windows in the north-
rn part of the Andean Chain, or within pre-Andean domainsAleman and Ramos, 2000; Ramos and Aleman, 2000; Ramos,

mailto:[email protected]



dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2007.04.018

R.A. Fuck et al. / Precambrian Research 160 (2008) 108–126 109

Fig. 1. Sketch map of Rodinia in South America. (1) Archean rocks (>2500 Ma); Paleoproterozoic orogenic belts: (2) (2200–2000 Ma), (3) (2000–1800 Ma), (4)( sin der (900–r ic sett

2Awcr

malRoo1r

oanPAAir

2

1800–1600 Ma); (5) Passive margin deposits (1100–900 Ma); Intracratonic baelated rocks (900–700); Oceanic arc related rocks: (10) (1600–1300 Ma), (11)ocks (1600–1300 Ma); (14) High grade metamorphic rocks of uncertain tecton

004, 2005), as, for instance, in the Pampean domain, in centralrgentina. Only rather small fractions of Mesoproterozoic beltsere preserved within the stable domains of the South Ameri-

an Platform, and many of them were partially or even totallyeworked within Neoproterozoic Brasiliano orogens.

Here we present a more complete picture of crustal massesaking up South America, which, to the best of our knowledge,

nd based on available geologic, geophysical, and geochrono-ogical data, took part in the amalgamation and demise ofodinia. In our compilation, the most recent geological maps
f South America were used, among others the Geological Mapf South America (Schobbenhaus and Bellizzia, 2001), the new:2,500,000 geological map of Brazil (Bizzi et al., 2001), and theecently released complete set of 1:1,000,000 geological sheets
ig

posits: (6) (1600–1300 Ma), (7) (1300–1100 Ma), 8. (1100–900 Ma); (9) Rift700 Ma); (12) Continental arc related rocks (1100–900 Ma); (13) AMCG suiteing (1300–1100 Ma).

f the whole of Brazilian territory (Schobbenhaus et al., 2004),s well as a series of recently published papers in different inter-ational and national magazines. Geophysical data provided byetrobras, CPRM, and Universidade de Sao Paulo (Instituto destronomia, Geofısica e Ciencias Atmosfericas) were also used.side from that, many colleagues from Brazil and South Amer-

ca helped us out with valuable information and important recenteferences.

. Descendant blocks of Rodinia break-up and dispersal

Before discussing the case of Rodinia break-up and dispersal,t is useful to recollecting dispersal of Pangea, and the complexeographical and geological picture emerging from the long,

1 an Re

dpbcmig

rsbiom

tat

trtm

tsotnreMe

Fdba

10 R.A. Fuck et al. / Precambri

iscontinuous and diachronous process of its break-up and dis-ersal after the Triassic. A complex framework of continentallocks and fragments of varied size resulted from the pro-ess, including many small pieces, identified as microcontinents,icroplates, terranes, etc., which subsequently may have been

nvolved in the development of accretionary and collisional oro-enic belts.

Detailed analysis of the history of Western Gondwana alsoeveals that it comprises a complex arrangement of a great diver-ity of large, intermediate, and small crustal segments, includingasement inliers, crust slices, terranes, tectonic highs, etc., in thenternal and external zones (cratons, quasi-cratons, massifs, etc.)f the Neoproterozoic Brasiliano and Pan-African fold belts,any of which include descendant fragments from Rodinia.
Different assemblages of Neoproterozoic blocks can be put
ogether, such as that of Fig. 2, a cartoon from Almeida etl. (2000) or those from Brito Neves et al. (1999). These car-oons display presumed paleogeographic arrangements before

l

tp

ig. 2. Cartoon showing Neoproterozoic (post-Tonian, pre-Ediacaran) paleogeograomains. (1) Neoproterozoic blocks (plates, microplates, microcontinents, terranes);elts QPC; (3) volcano-sedimentary belts, BVAC, greenstone >QPC; (4) ophiolitic rel., 2000).

search 160 (2008) 108–126

he Brasiliano orogeny and after amalgamation of Gondwana,espectively. Due to possible omissions and mistakes, these car-oons have to be seen as what they actually are, and not as graphic

odels.Similarly break-up of Rodinia and dispersal of the resul-

ant fragments is translated in large descendants, as well aseveral of intermediate dimensions, which are in general rec-gnized as such and included in attempted reconstitutions ofhe former supercontinent. However, there are also a largeumber of smaller pieces, often forgotten in supercontinenteconstructions, hampering cartographic representation, modellaboration, and the better understanding of geological history.any times these smaller pieces of former supercontinents are

ven ignored because they are not known in the international
iterature.
Behavior of the smaller fragments in subsequent Neopro-erozoic and Phanerozoic orogenic events is often inverselyroportional to their size, corroborating Coward and Ries’

phy. Rodinia descendant fragments are indicated, as well as possible oceanBrasiliano Neoproterozoic fold belts and rock associations: (2) marginal foldmnants; (5) magmatic arcs; (6) covered and unknown areas (from Almeida et


Fig. 3. Tectonic sketch of the Paranapanema Block, basement of the ParanaBasin, inferred from geophysical surveys and subsurface data: GM, Goias mas-s2

(wafGrrta

prdar(ctcaio2

SR(soAOw

Fig. 4. Tectonic sketch of the Parnaıba Basin basement inferred from geo-physical survey (adapted from Nunes, 1993). Legend: (1) Gurupi belt; (2)A((

faleaotne

3

mC1Rt1tocicia2006). This fact has been used to support the SWEAT hypothe-

if; SFC, Sao Francisco Craton (from Quintas, 1995; Mantovani and Brito Neves,005).

1986) statements on colliding blocks in general. Smaller blocksere more deeply affected and reworked during Neoproterozoic

nd Phanerozoic orogenies. The same is true for most of the crustragments involved in slightly older thermal events, such as therenvillian and Cariris Velhos blocks. They may be thoroughly

eworked in younger Neoproterozoic orogenic events due to theirelatively hotter state. As a result, the previous geological his-ory of such crustal blocks is frequently hard to be recognizednd recovered.

Blocks underlying the large Paleozoic basins (e.g., Parana-anema, Fig. 3, Parnaıba, Fig. 4) have been ignored in alleconstructions of Rodinia. Similarly, crustal blocks more or lesseeply reworked during Neoproterozoic orogenies (e.g., Goiasnd Pernambuco-Alagoas massifs, Rio Grande do Norte ter-ane), as well as the regenerated blocks within the Andean Chaine.g., Arequipa/Antofalla, Pampia) have been left out in practi-ally all reconstitution schemes of Rodinia. However, some ofhese forgotten blocks are as large and as important as thoseonsidered in classic reconstructions. Recent compilations givegood idea of the plurality of these blocks and their importance

n fits of the real world, in contrast to the classic reconstitutionf Rodinia and Gondwana (Almeida et al., 2000; Brito Neves,003).

In the case of South America, usually only the Amazonian,ao Francisco, and Rio de la Plata blocks were recorded inodinia fits of the last decade. Paranapanema (Fig. 3), Parnaıba

Fig. 4), and many other blocks of intermediate and small sizeshould be included in future fits, as we have tried to do duringur mission along the IGCP 440 project. The same holds true for
frica, where again only the larger blocks have been considered.n the other hand, in most Rodinia reconstructions the blocksere included in schematic fits with their present geographic
swT

raguaia belt; (3) Borborema Province; (4) Granja Massif; (5) Goias Massif;6) Sao Luıs-W Africa Craton; (7) Sao Francisco Craton; (8) Parnaıba block;9) Cambro-Ordovician rift structures; (10) Neoproterozoic rift structures (?).

orms, without taking into consideration regenerated portions,ccretionary and collisional additions, as well as many kinds ofateral accretion as a whole, resulting from Neoproterozoic orven younger orogenies. An additional problem is the fact thatll blocks are considered as simple monolithic entities, with-ut taking into account the nature of their crust, their thickness,heir thermo-tectonic condition (thermal age) and rheology, theature of their margins, the part they played during orogeny,tc.

. Andean basement

A number of windows with basement exposures and base-ent inliers are known for some time within the Andeanordillera and pre-Andean areas (see Dalla Salda and Dalziel,993; Aleman and Ramos, 2000; Ramos and Aleman, 2000;amos, 2005 and references therein). Available age determina-

ions place them in the late Mesoproterozoic (e.g., Kroonenberg,982; Restrepo and Toussaint, 1988). One common feature ofhese basement exposures is the “Grenville” signature, basedn Nd-isotope data (Restrepo-Pace et al., 1997) and Pb-isotopeomposition (Ruiz et al., 1999). Robust U-Pb age data obtainedn recent years support the interpretation that Mesoproterozoicrust forming and high-grade metamorphic events prevailedn these basement remnants (Cordani et al., 2005; Cardona etl., 2006; Jimenez-Mejıa et al., 2006; Ordonez-Carmona et al.,

is (Moores, 1991), suggesting that Laurentia was placed to theest of Gondwana until early Phanerozoic times (Moores, 1991;osdal, 1996; Ramos and Basei, 1997; Cordani et al., 2005).

112 R.A. Fuck et al. / Precambrian Research 160 (2008) 108–126

F ows oA d Ram

HnigwtDbAl

e(a2C

a(AaCrpaeioi

ig. 5. Tectonic setting of the Colombian Andes with accreted terranes and winddapted from Kroonenberg (1982), Restrepo and Toussaint (1988), Aleman an

owever, these could be crust fragments of Laurentia affinity,ot Laurentia itself, since, in the absence of paleomagnetic data,t is hard to be sure. Plate velocities calculations underline thereat difficulty in admitting that Laurentia circumscribed Gond-ana to the west. On the other hand, it has to be stressed that

hese basement rocks have undergone a complex tectonic history.isplacement rates are generally unknown and they may haveeen involved in more than one Phanerozoic orogeny (Hercinian,ndean, etc.) and even in pre-Phanerozoic orogenies, like the

ate Neoproterozoic Brasiliano orogeny.In the northernmost Andean Chain around 16 basement

xposures are known in the Eastern and Western cordilleras
Kroonenberg, 1982; Restrepo and Toussaint, 1988; Alemannd Ramos, 2000; Ramos and Aleman, 2000; Cordani et al.,005; Cardona et al., 2006; Jimenez-Mejıa et al., 2006; Ordonez-armona et al., 2006). They appear to the west of 70◦W, as well
fMcC

f basement exposures, most of which with late Mesoproterozoic age indications.os (2000), Cordani et al. (2005) and Ordonez-Carmona et al. (2006).

s to the west of the inferred limit of the Amazonian CratonFig. 5). It is believed that the Mesoproterozoic rocks of thendaquı terrane remained attached to the Amazonian Craton

fter the Grenville orogeny, whereas other areas grouped in thehibcha terrane, although formed during the Grenville orogeny,

emained either as part of another continental block or as dis-ersed islands amalgamated to the Amazonian Craton duringPaleozoic orogeny (Ordonez-Carmona et al., 2006). In any

vent, the picture may have been much more complicated, whent is recalled that Avalonian blocks that seem to have been partf South America in Rodinia ended up in eastern North Amer-ca (e.g., Mallard and Rogers, 1997). In our reconstitution these
ragments – from the Garzon Massif to Sierra Nevada de Santa
arta and the Guajira Peninsula – are interpreted as possibleontinuation of the Mesoproterozoic domain of the Amazonianraton (Fig. 1).

an Re

shObtCawzgAGcw

dRAcazdaAo

Fi

R.A. Fuck et al. / Precambri

In the area of Arequipa-Antofalla, in the central Andes,outh of Lima, two groups of reworked basement exposuresave been identified (Ramos and Vujovich, 1993; Tosdal, 1996).ne of these groups comprises about 15 basement exposureselonging to the Arequipa-Antofalla block, a presumed cra-on/plate during Neoproterozoic collage (e.g., Arequipa, Belen,hoja, Limon Verde, Antofalla, etc., approximately between 15nd 28◦S). It is believed that they are part of a larger block,hich interacted with the Pampia block in late Neoprotero-

oic, giving birth to the western Pampean belt. Geological andeochronological data (Tosdal, 1996) have confirmed that the
requipa-Antofalla block is a fragment of a Mesoproterozoicrenvillian orogenic belt, whose interaction with the Pampia
raton during the Neoproterozoic Brasiliano orogeny led to theestern Pampean belt, and with the South American platform

Cibs

ig. 6. Sketch map of northern Argentina and of neighboring countries displayingnteraction (adapted from Ramos and Vujovich, 1993).

search 160 (2008) 108–126 113

uring the Hercinian orogeny gave birth to the Famatinian belt.ecent work defined three crustal domains in the Arequipa-ntofalla basement (Loewy et al., 2004): the northern domain

ontains juvenile Paleoproterozoic intrusions metamorphosedt 1.82–1.79 Ga; the central domain contains a Mesoprotero-oic juvenile component, incorporating crust from the northernomain, and both domains were metamorphosed between 1.2nd 0.94 Ga; the southern domain comprises Ordovician rocks.ccording to Loewy et al. (2004), Arequipa-Antofalla accretednto Amazonia during the 1.0 Sunsas Orogeny (Fig. 6).

The other group of basement exposures refers to the Pampia
raton (Fig. 6), proposed by Ramos and Vujovich (1993). It
s interpreted as the remnant of a Neoproterozoic plate, placedetween Arequipa-Antofalla and Rio de la Plata cratons, andeparated from the Amazonian Craton by the inferred Sucre

Proterozoic cratons, and Neoproterozoic mobile belts that resulted from their

1 an Re

tPwtgPapotei

4

rooc2pB

ocsIlfP2sSP

((

Fb((eG


riple junction (Ramos and Vujovich, 1993). Existence of theampia block is well constrained by geological data from theestern and eastern Pampean belts, the latter represented by

he Neoproterozoic Cordoba magmatic arc. New geological andeochronological data (Ramos and Basei, 1997) suggest thatampia comprises an assemblage of juvenile island arc materi-ls, supporting the hypothesis that it is an important late Meso-roterozoic fragment, and probably was part of the Grenvillianrogenic amalgamation. Its collision with the Rio de la Plata Cra-on is constrained to ca. 530 Ma (Leal et al., 2003). Largely cov-red by Phanerozoic deposits, the Pampia block was generallygnored in all Rodinia reconstructions up to the present (Fig. 6).

. The western domain of Amazonia

In northern South America, a supposed continuation of Lau-entia, appears the best geologic and geochronologic recordf what is believed to be the result of Rodinia amalgamationf possible remnants from the break up of a previous super-
ontinent (Nena, Gower, 1992; Columbia, Rogers and Santosh,002). Resultant structures are well exposed in the southwesternart of the Amazonian Craton, in Rondonia and Mato Grosso,razil, and in Bolivia. The Amazonian Craton displays a notori-
koes

ig. 7. Geologic map of the SW part of the Amazonian Craton. (1) Cenozoic cover; (2asins (1.0–0.97 Ga); (5) Rondonia (Younger Granites), Costa Marques and Guap1.08–1.0 Ga): (7) Nova Floresta basalt and gabbro (1.2 Ga); (8) Aguapeı/Sunsas grou11) Cachoeirinha granitoid suite (1.58–1.52 Ga); (12) undifferentiated granite suitest al. (2001), Tohver et al. (2002), Rizzotto et al. (2004a,b), Boger et al. (2005). ProviM: Guajara Mirim.

search 160 (2008) 108–126

us chelogenic disposition, building up from the seed Archeanore, the Central Amazonia Province. To the northeast it isurrounded by the Paleoproterozoic Transamazonian Maroni-tacaiunas Province. To the southwest, the Archean core isimited by the ca. 1.85–2.0 Ga Ventuari-Tapajos Province, whicharther SW is followed by the ca. 1.55–1.8 Ga Rio Negro-Juruenarovince (Tassinari and Macambira, 1999, 2004; Tassinari et al.,000). Younger Mesoproterozoic additions (Fig. 7), recordingeveral orogenic events, occur to the southwest (Rizzotto, 1999;candolara et al., 1999; Santos et al., 2000; Geraldes et al., 2001;ayolla et al., 2002):

(i) Cachoeirinha accretionary event 1.5–1.55 Ga;(ii) Santa Helena accretionary event 1.42–1.45 Ga;iii) Rondonia and San Ignacio collisional event 1.3–1.35 Ga;iv) Nova Brasilandia and Sunsas accretionary and collisional

events 1.0–1.1 Ga.

It is worth recalling that similar events and ages are well
nown from North America, reinforcing the notion of a previ-us Laurentia-Amazonia link, as conveyed in a recent correlationxercise by Van Schmus (2001). Another important feature inouthwestern Amazonia is the presence of post-Rodinia sed-
) Paleo-Mesozoic cover; (3) Neoproterozoic fold belt; (4) Meso-Neoproterozoice granite suites (1.0–0.91 Ga); (6) Santa Clara and Rio Pardo granite suitesps; (9) Nova Brasilandia belt; (10) Santa Helena granitoid suite (1.42–1.48 Ga);and basement units (1.8–1.3 Ga). Modified from Geraldes et al. (2001), Bizzi

nces sketchmap after Tassinari and Macambira (1999). A: Ariquemes; J: Jauru;

an Re

i2lf(iPngsfbazN

5

ae

bpdandtueeutirbvc


mentary covers, the so-called Palmeiral stage (Brito Neves,002; Tohver et al., 2002). These covers appear to have beenaid down in a large basin at the end of the Mesoproterozoic,ollowing the Nova Brasilandia accretion and collision eventRizzotto, 1999). They have been disrupted subsequently, dur-ng Tonian taphrogenesis. Resultant graben, e.g. Sao Lourenco,acaas Novos, Uopiones, etc., are witness to the ensuing conti-ental break-up process, associated with intraplate anorogenicranite magmatism (e.g., Santa Clara and Costa Marques graniteuites, Rondonia Younger Granites), which mark the transitionrom Mesoproterozoic to Neoproterozoic times. In other words,esides being the most complete geological record of Rodiniagglutination in South America, the western domain of the Ama-onian Craton displays also the best record of its break-up (Britoeves, 2002).

. Central and Eastern Brazil

Geological records of Mesoproterozoic age in central Brazilre scarce. Earlier assumptions of a Mesoproterozoic orogenicvent, the Uruacuano orogeny (Almeida et al., 1976, 1981),

tAIp

Fig. 8. Geologic sketch map of the Brasılia belt

search 160 (2008) 108–126 115

ased mainly on poorly constrained Rb–Sr isotopic data, wereroved wrong. Available data indicate that the western bor-er of the Sao Francisco Craton was a passive margin, facinglarge ocean basin in early Neoproterozoic times. The origi-

al sedimentary pile is now part of the Brasılia Belt, formeduring the Late Neoproterozoic Brasiliano collage. Opening ofhe former basin is not well constrained, but its closure wasnder way ca. 900 Ma (Pimentel and Fuck, 1992a,b; Pimentelt al., 2000). The core of the Brasılia Belt includes an appar-ntly allochtonous older crust fragment, the Goias Massif, ofnknown provenance. It comprises Archean granite-greenstoneerrains in the south and Paleoproterozoic orthogneiss basementn the north, covered by folded younger Proterozoic supracrustalocks (Fig. 8). The eastern margin of the Goias massif is markedy large mafic-ultramafic layered complexes and associatedolcanic-sedimentary sequences. Detailed geologic, geochemi-al, and isotopic data have shown that the upper layered series of
he layered complexes of Cana Brava, Niquelandia, and Barrolto, and volcanic-sedimentary sequences of Palmeiropolis,
ndaianopolis, and Juscelandia, dated at 1250–1280 Ma, are theroduct of continental rifting processes that transition to open-

related units after Pimentel et al. (2000).

1 an Re

i2tN

etrlogat1o

Fot1t

zHbCr

Fdi(R


ng of ocean basins (Moraes et al., 2003, 2006; Pimentel et al.,003, 2004). Break-up events at ca. 800 Ma are also recorded inhis area, represented by the lower layered series of Cana Brava,iquelandia and Barro Alto complexes (Pimentel et al., 2004).Within the Sao Francisco Craton (Fig. 9) Mesoproterozoic

vents are poorly known, mainly because reliable age determina-ions are lacking. Infilling of the precursor basin of the Espinhacoange started around 1750 Ma (Schobbenhaus et al., 1996), butater developments are poorly constrained. Despite the presencef intrusive and volcanic rocks within the Espinhaco Super-roup sedimentary pile, reliable ages are scarce (Brito Neves
nd Alckmim, 1993). The Brotas de Macaubas gabbro sill withinhe Mangabeira Formation, Paraguacu Group, was dated at ca.500 Ma (Babinski et al., 1999). Rb–Sr age determination of phl-gopite from kimberlite intruded at the base of the Tombador
Eatc

ig. 9. Intracratonic basin related units of the Chapada Diamantina plateau, E Braiamictite; (3) Probably Stenian (∼1.2–1.1 Ga) Chapada Diamantina Gr./diamondntrusive (∼1.5 Ga); (6) Espinhaco Supergr./Paraguacu Gr./conglomerate, quartzite, p1.75 Ga); (8) Basement rocks (>1.8 Ga); (9) Thrust fault. Adapted from SchobbenhausC: Rio de Contas.

search 160 (2008) 108–126

ormation, Chapada Diamantina Group, sets a maximum agef ca. 1150 Ma (Pereira and Fuck, 2005) for the deposition ofhis formation. Closing of the basin infilling between 1200 and100 Ma is based on poorly constrained Rb–Sr age determina-ions (Babinski et al., 1999).

Folding of the Espinhaco Supergroup before the Neoprotero-oic Brasiliano orogeny is controversial (Brito Neves, 2003).owever, the foreland fold-and-thrust belt recorded in Ireceasin (Fig. 9) in the central-northern part of the Sao Franciscoraton is characterized by E–W structures, approximately at

ight angles with NNW-SSE folding observed in the underlying
spinhaco strata, suggesting a unconformity (Romeiro Cesarnd Zalan, 2005). Unconformity relations are less clear withinhe Espinhaco range in Minas Gerais. Mafic intrusions, whichut through the Espinhaco Supergroup, but not the overlying
zil: (1) Neogene sediments; (2) Cryogenian Una Gr./carbonate rocks, pelite,bearing conglomerate, quartzite, pelite; (4) Kimberlite (1.15 Ga); (5) Basicelite; (7) Espinhaco Supergr./Rio dos Remedios Gr./felsic volcanics, quartzite(1993); kimberlite age from Pereira and Fuck (2005). BM: Brotas de Macaubas,

an Re

Nciiomc

6b

tAmdmfBot(uatftiasrrtzr

6

iBmpp

P2TcSCIsta

liclnsoimsA

FRP


eoproterozoic Jequitaı glacial deposits and Bambui Grouparbonates, were dated at ca. 900 Ma (Machado et al., 1989),ndicating a ca. 200 Ma gap between both sequences. However,n this area all structures became parallel during the Brasilianorogeny, and the suggestion of a previous Espinhaco defor-ation and its origin became the core of much debate and

ontroversy.

. Meso-Neoproterozoic events recorded in theasement of the Brasiliano collage

The South American platform is the product of the Neopro-erozoic Brasiliano collage (Brito Neves and Cordani, 1991;lmeida et al., 2000). Apart from very few exceptions, base-ent rocks of the Brasiliano mobile belts were deeply reworked

uring Neoproterozoic folding, metamorphism, melting andagmatism events. Because of this, the South American plat-

orm has been divided schematically in two major domains: therasiliano domain includes the central and central-eastern partsf the platform, whereas the pre-Brasiliano domain compriseshe northwestern (Amazonian craton) portion of the platformBrito Neves, 1991). This explains why Mesoproterozoic rocknits and structures are well preserved in Bolivia, Rondoniand Mato Grosso, whereas they are hard to find and to charac-erize within the Brasiliano domain, where reworking occurredrequently deep within the crust. The largest reworked Mesopro-erozoic remnants were found in the Borborema Province, andn the Mantiqueira Province, mainly in the Ribeira river valleynd in Uruguay. We suggest that these findings do not repre-ent everything there is. Bearing in mind that Mesoproterozoicemnants have younger thermal ages, therefore being prone to
egeneration during the following Brasiliano collage, accordingo the Coward and Ries (1986) statement, other Mesoprotero-oic rock units were not detected up to now probably due to theiregeneration.
eopt

ig. 10. Transversal Domain of central Borborema Province singling out the Altoio Grande do Norte: SJC, Sao Jose Caiano; PB, Pianco-Alto Brıgida; RG, Riachernambuco-Alagoas (Brito Neves et al., 2000).

search 160 (2008) 108–126 117

.1. Borborema province–Cariris Velhos orogeny

The Borborema Province, in the northeast of South Amer-ca, is a typical branched system of orogens of the ca. 600 Marasiliano (Pan African) collage. Related deformation, meta-orphism, melting, and especially the widespread granite

lutonism, are factors for obscuring previous Meso- and Neo-roterozoic events.

The basement of the province is the product of three majoraleoproterozoic orogenic events, which took place at ca. 2.35,.15, and 2.0 Ga (Fetter et al., 2000; Brito Neves et al., 2000).hese events are accounted as part of the Paleoproterozoicollage, which admittedly led to the hypothetical Atlanticaupercontinent (Rogers, 1996), or the more recently proposedolumbia Supercontinent (Rogers and Santosh, 2002, 2004).

ncipient break-up and formation of extensional basins occurredubsequently during the Statherian, between 1.8 and 1.6 Ga, likehe precursor basin of the Oros-Jaguaribe belt (Brito Neves etl., 1995a,b).

Evidence for extension and fragmentation of the basement,eading to the formation of different crust segments, is recordedn the central part of the Borborema Province, within the soalled Transversal Domain, limited to the north by the Patosineament, and to the south by the Pernambuco lineament. Theorthern crust segment (Rio Grande do Norte terrane) and theouthern segment (Sao Francisco Craton) have preserved mostf their Paleoproterozoic framework (Brito Neves, 2005). In thentermediate central domain or transversal zone, between two

ajor lineaments, important continental and oceanic volcanic-edimentary basins were developed during the Mesoproterozoic.n apparently complete Wilson cycle was developed in the area,

nding with ocean closure ca. 0.97 Ga, during the Cariris Velhorogeny (Brito Neves et al., 2000, 2005). These rocks were com-letely reset and intruded by numerous granite bodies duringhe Brasiliano collage. The Cariris Velhos orogenic system is

Pajeu Terrane and Cariris Velhos Ortogneiss in NE Brazil. Terranes: RGN,o Gravata; AP, Alto Pajeu; AM, Alto Moxoto; RC, Rio Capibaribe; PEAL,

1 an Re

plsttatemacma(ehtnBsrp

mcoeFomim

swF

6

sUAtbte(FaF

atJMb

tmeraatw

stwCBdeucit(mwAumablcAabfB

dfaLsittpf1tb

eie


resently represented by a ca. 800 km long, WSW-ENE trending,inear belt, marked by hundreds of granite intrusions of differentize and shape (Fig. 10). In this belt, exposed diagonally acrosshe Transversal Domain, late Mesoproterozoic-early Neopro-erozoic arc-related granites intrude Paleoproterozoic basement,s well as late Mesoproterozoic metavolcanic and metasedimen-ary rocks of the Alto Pajeu and Riacho Gravata terranes (Santost al., 1997a,b). Alto Pajeu is mainly made of orthogneiss andigmatized schist and paragneiss, representing metagreywacke

nd associated felsic and intermediate metavolcanic rocks. Ria-ho Gravata comprises mainly felsic metavolcanics (60% orore) associated to psamitic and pelitic metasedimentary rocks,

s well as mafic volcanics and occasional ultramafic rocksSantos et al., 1997a,b; Brito Neves et al., 2000, 2005). South-astwards from the Alto Pajeu is a Paleoproterozoic remnantundreds of kilometers long (>20,000 km2), the Alto Moxotoerrane, comprising Paleoproterozoic orthogneiss and alumi-ous metapelite, deeply reworked and restructured during therasiliano collage, with a few late Neoproterozoic granite intru-

ions. Similar large blocks as yet not recognized, reset andeworked during the Neoproterozoic orogeny, are probablyresent within the Brasiliano collage.

A very complex crustal fragment, the Pernambuco-Alagoasassif, is exposed southwards of the Pernambuco lineament. It

omprises at least two Archean nuclei, surrounded by fragmentsf Paleoproterozoic belts and remnants of late Mesoproterozoic-arly Neoproterozoic orthogneiss (Brito Neves et al., 2000; Silvailho et al., 2002). Tens of large granite batholiths intrude therthogneiss complexes. A few are of Mesoproterozoic age, butost are Neoproterozoic in age, including a few arc-related

ntrusions to the south and southeast of the Pernambuco-Alagoasassif.Late Mesoproterozoic-early Neoproterozoic metamorphosed

upracrustal sequences and granite intrusions are exposed alsoithin the Brasiliano Riacho do Pontal Belt bordering the Saorancisco Craton westward of the Pernambuco-Alagoas massif.

.2. Mantiqueira Province

The Mantiqueira Province is a complex Brasiliano orogenicystem, extending from southern Bahia, east Brazil to southernruguay. The northernmost part of the province is made of theracuaı Belt, developed at the margin of the Sao Francisco Cra-

on. Reworked Archean terrains of the Gouveia and Guanhaeslocks appear to be fragments of the nearby Sao Francisco Cra-on (Pedrosa Soares and Wiedemann-Leonardos, 2000; Heilbront al., 2004). Adjacent reworked Paleoproterozoic orthogneissPorteirinha and Mantiqueira complexes) and granulite (Juiz deora Complex) have been interpreted as possible fragments oflarge Paleoproterozoic belt, partially preserved within the Saorancisco Craton in Bahia and Minas Gerais.

Further south, close to the city of Sao Paulo, metamorphosedndesite from the Serra do Itaberaba Group (Fig. 11) within
he Ribeira Belt has been dated at 1395 ± 10 Ma (U-Pb zircon,uliani et al., 2000). The basal part of this group comprises
ORB-type mafic metavolcanic rocks, including pillowedasalts, hyaloclastite, volcaniclastic rocks, rhyolite, andesite,

sAoE

search 160 (2008) 108–126

uff, metapelite, and banded iron formation. Widespread pre-etamorphic hydrothermal alteration has been recorded (Juliani

t al., 2000). The upper units of the sequence include Mn- and Fe-ich metapelite, carbonate rocks, tuff, felsic volcanics, capped bylarge unit of quartzite and arkose. The sequence is interpreteds having been laid down in an ocean basin environment, ini-ially related to a mid-ocean ridge, with the later units associatedith ocean closure.Southwards the Neoproterozoic Ribeira Belt includes other

tratigraphic units which also contain mafic rocks of Mesopro-erozoic age (Fig. 11). Mafic volcanic rocks, dikes and sillsithin the Agua Clara and Votuverava formations and the Perauomplex have ca. 1.48 Ga U-Pb zircon ages (Weber et al., 2004;asei et al., submitted). According to the authors, these rocksisplay T-MORB geochemical signature and were formed inxtensional environments. To the south the Mesoproterozoicnits are abutted against the Curitiba Massif (Fig. 11), whichomprises ca. 2.1 Ga migmatized orthogneiss and amphibolitentruded by ca. 1.8 Ga igneous rocks deeply reworked duringhe Brasiliano collage, especially along the Lancinha fault zoneBasei et al., 2000). The Curitiba Massif served as continentalargin for the Ribeira Belt and acted as a microplate. South-ards it is separated by the Pien magmatic arc from the Luıslves Craton (Fig. 11), another Brasiliano microplate, which isnderlain by mostly Archean orthogneiss protoliths with a fewafic and ultramaphic layered bodies, overprinted by ca. 2.3

nd 2.1 Ga granulite facies metamorphism. Although affectedy late Neoproterozoic tectonics and intruded by a number ofate- to post-tectonic granites, Luıs Alves has not lost its cratonicharacter, as was the case of the Curitiba Massif. Eastwards, Luıslves is bordered by Neoproterozoic magmatic arc granitoids,

nd to the south it served as basement for the Itajaı forelandasin, related to the evolution of the Brasiliano Dom Felicianoold belt. To the west it disappears below the Phanerozoic Paranaasin (Fig. 11).

The ca. 300,000 km2 Paranapanema block (Fig. 3) is also hid-en below the Parana basin. Its size and form have been inferredrom gravimetric data (Mantovani and Brito Neves, 2005), whichlso indicate that it is separated from the Rio de la Plata anduıs Alves cratons. To the west it appears to be limited by theouthwards continuation of the Goias Magmatic Arc, whereas,ts northeastern border is marked by arc rocks which make uphe late Neoproterozoic Socorro-Guaxupe high-grade nappe. Tohe east it bears features of an Atlantic-type continental marginartially preserved in the Brasiliano Ribeira fold belt. Judgingrom scarce isotopic data of drill-core samples (Cordani et al.,984) and TDM model ages from Cretaceous flood basalts ofhe Parana basin (Mantovani and Brito Neves, 2005), the Paranalock basement is Paleoproterozoic in age.

The Rio de la Plata Craton (Almeida et al., 1973; Dalla Saldat al., 1988; Basei et al., 2000; Cingolani and Dalla Salda, 2000)s mostly covered by Phanerozoic deposits. Main basementxposures are in Uruguay, with minor ones in Argentina and
outh Brazil. The core of the craton is represented by the Piedralta terrane, Uruguay (Fig. 12), which comprises juvenile Pale-proterozoic orthogneiss associated with three Paleoproterozoic-W-trending supracrustal belts. The basement is intruded by a


F withi2

uYbgoiKztwdonBoAlofgae

B2fa

PaftEcaitiF

I

ig. 11. Geologic map showing distribution of Mesoproterozoic and other units004).

ndeformed mafic dyke swarm ca. 1.78 Ga old. The Sarandy delshear zone separates these rocks from the adjoining Nico Perez

lock (Fig. 12), which comprises remnants of Archean granite-reenstone terrain (Hartmann et al., 2001), Paleoproterozoicrthogneiss and supracrustal volcano-sedimentary sequences,ntruded by the 1.76 Ga Illescas rapakivi granite. Ca. 1250 Ma–Ar muscovite age from mylonite suggests Mesoprotero-

oic thermal-tectonic events (Basei et al., 2000 and referencesherein). Middle to late Neoproterozoic granite intrusions, asell as young K–Ar and Rb–Sr age determinations are evi-ence of strong reworking during the Neoproterozoic Brasilianorogeny. Further north, the Ibare shear zone separates the juve-ile Neoproterozoic Sao Gabriel block from the Taquarembo,razil and Rivera, Uruguay blocks. In the latter blocks, Pale-proterozoic granulite facies rocks are exposed, containingrchean protoliths, which give place southwards to amphibo-

ite facies orthogneiss and supracrustal sequences. Brasilianorogeny-related reworking is indicated by sedimentary cover,
elsic volcanics and a number of Neoproterozoic to Cambrianranite intrusions. Paleoproterozoic orthogneiss, occasionallyssociated with metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, is alsoxposed in the Martin Garcıa Island and in the Sierra Tandilia,
tdtP

n the Ribeira belt in SE Brazil (adapted from Juliani et al., 2000; Perrotta et al.,

uenos Aires Province, Argentina (Cingolani and Dalla Salda,000). They are covered by Neoproterozoic and Ordovician plat-orm sequences. Southwards the Precambrian rocks are limitedgainst the Paleozoic Sierra de la Ventana fold-and-thrust belt.

The basement of the Rojas belt in eastern Uruguay is calledunta del Este terrane (Fig. 12, Preciozzi et al., 1999; Basei etl., 2000). It comprises high-grade tonalite gneiss and migmatiteormed between 0.9 and 1.0 Ga, suggesting that it is related withhe Namaqua belt of southwest Africa (Preciozzi et al., 1999).nclaves of mafic and ultramafic rocks and garnet-sillimanite-ordierite-bearing gneiss have been found within the orthogneissnd migmatite terrain, which is intruded by late Neoproterozoicsotropic granites. Westwards the Punta del Este terrane is over-hrusted by the Neoproterozoic Aigua batholith (Fig. 12), whichs part of the magmatic arc of the Neoproterozoic Dom Felicianoold Belt (Basei et al., 2000).

Mesoproterozoic crust underlies the Malvinas-Falklandslands, which are a small, emergent part of a fragment of con-
inental crust known as the Falkland Microplate (Fig. 1). It isivided in two parts by the Falkland Sound fault. The crys-alline basement of the microplate, unconformably overlain byhanerozoic deposits, is only exposed on land at Cape Meredith,


Fig. 12. Sketch map showing relationship of tectonic units of Uruguay and southern Brazil: (1) Phanerozoic cover; (2) Neoproterozoic isotropic granites; (3) DomF intruB semet

Wlrgaapog(apA

7

dcbvcb

ab

cNryz

ctb

mStBimt

s1eT

eliciano Belt (A, Aigua batholith); (4) 1.78 Ga mafic dikes; (5) Shist belt andlock (NP); (7) Punta del Este Terrane (PET) (1.0–0.9 Ga): Mesoproterozoic ba

hrust fault (adapted from Preciozzi et al., 1999; Basei et al., 2000).

est Falkland. It comprises a sequence of layered, amphibo-ite facies felsic and intermediate gneisses and amphibolite,are calc-silicate rock and schlieren of sillimanite-garnet-biotiteneiss, interpreted as representing a volcanic pile of calc-lkaline affinity (Thomas et al., 1997). U-Pb SHRIMP zirconge of 1118 ± 8 Ma is interpreted as age of extrusion of rhyoliterotolith of felsic gneiss (Jacobs et al., 1999). Intrusive gran-diorite gneiss was dated at ca. 1090 Ma, syntectonic graniteneiss at ca. 1070 Ma, and post-tectonic granite at ca. 1000 MaJacobs et al., 1999). Syn- to post-tectonic granitoid intrusionsre comparable in age to similar rocks from the Natal Metamor-hic Province, SE Africa and West Dronning Maud Land, Eastntarctica (Jacobs et al., 1999).

. Dispersal of Rodinia

Evidence of rifting, break-up and drifting in the severalescendant blocks of Rodinia in South America is scarce andontroversial. However, from available data we do know thatreak-up was diachronous, occurring at different time inter-als in different blocks. The same is true for dispersal and laterollage. There does not seem to be a magical age number for
reak-up and dispersal (Fig. 1).
In southwestern Amazonia there is evidence of rifting, maficnd alkaline magmatism, anorogenic granite intrusions, andasin subdivision, indicating break-up and dispersion since

cslg

sive granites (Lavalleja Group); (6) Piedra Alta Terrane (PA) and Nico Pereznt covered by low-grade supracrustal rocks of Rocha Group; (8) shear fault; (9)

a. 1000 Ma, soon after closing of the late Mesoproterozoicova Brasilandia orogeny. However, the main rifting episode,

ecorded in the Puncoviscana and Tucavaca belts, is muchounger, having been constrained to the end of the Neoprotero-oic (see Ramos, 2000; Baldo et al., 2006).

Along the coast of Bahia, at the eastern edge of the Sao Fran-isco Craton, mafic dyke swarms from Salvador to Ilheus seemo be the result of a mantle plume active ca. 1.0 Ga, leading toreak-up (Correa Gomes et al., 1996).

In the southern Espinhaco range the Pedro Lessa mafic mag-atism, represented by dykes and sills, cuts through Espinhacoupergroup sedimentary formations, but not through Neopro-

erozoic diamictite and carbonate deposits of the Bambuı Group.adelleyte U-Pb age of ca. 906 Ma was obtained in one of these

ntrusions (Machado et al., 1989). Similar fissural tholeiitic mag-atism is also recorded in northern Minas Gerais and Bahia, but

here are no reliable age determinations available.At the western border of the Sao Francisco Craton there is

tratigraphic record of a continental passive margin (Fuck et al.,993a,b, 1994; Dardenne, 2000; Pimentel et al., 2001; Valerianot al., 2004) of uncertain age, probably younger than 1.0 Ga.his is clear indication that the former Sao Francisco paleo-
ontinent or peninsula had been rifted apart and separated fromome other, as yet unknown, continental mass and was facing aarge ocean basin to the (present) west. Age data of detrital zirconrains from samples of several units from the southern part of the

an Re

NfwwaF

tAamhPdatro61HapwlbtiNicaniG1e

abtbawwrpot

8

tssa

1eaisioRSAfisa

a2autidootFt2

PadcLiui

9

syaedotoRuwa


eoproterozoic Brasılia Belt give a maximum age of ca. 980 Maor sedimentation at this margin (Valeriano et al., 2004). Furtherest, subduction of oceanic lithosphere of this large ocean basinas underway at ca. 900 Ma, which is the age of the oldest island

rc rocks dated so far in the Goias Magmatic Arc (Pimentel anduck, 1992a,b; Pimentel et al., 2000, 2004; Laux et al., 2005).

Within the Borborema Province (Medio Coreau and Cen-ral Ceara domains), in eastern Minas Gerais, and in northwestrgentina (Puncoviscana domain), as well as in several other

reas, there is record of break-up and separation of continentalasses diachronically between 810 and 750 Ma. On the other

and, in the Serido and Riacho do Pontal fold belts, Borboremarovince, and in Mato Grosso (Puga Formation) there is evi-ence of later break-up events, which took place between 650nd 630 Ma, probably only then completing dispersal of con-inental blocks formerly belonging to Rodinia. Concurrently,ather well constrained orogenic events were taking place inther parts of South America at 900–850 Ma, 790–750 Ma,50–630 Ma, 600–580 Ma, and ca. 520 Ma (Brito Neves et al.,999; Pimentel et al., 2000, 2004; Pedrosa Soares et al., 2000;eilbron et al., 2004). These events represent orogenic peaks and

re well recorded in the evolution of Neoproterozoic structuralrovinces in South America. However, their beginnings are notell constrained, and therefore it is not possible as yet to ratify a

imiting age for Rodinia. On the other hand, a unique age for thereak-up of Rodinia does not seem to be the case, since it appearso have been developed diachronically, as was also the case ofts assembling. As knowledge of the late Mesoproterozoic andeoproterozoic Brasiliano orogenic systems in South America

ncreases, more evident becomes the diachronic and long-livingharacter of amalgamation of Rodinia Supercontinent, as wells of its break-up and subsequent dispersal of resulting conti-ental masses. The same insight comes from better known areasn other continents, like Australia (Myers et al., 1995), easternrenville in North America, where the process lasted from ca.230 to 955 Ma (Gower, 2001), and the Mocambique Belt inastern Africa (900–550 Ma, Stern, 1994).

From available data, it appears that amalgamation processesre rather long, having taken for instance ca. 350 Ma or more toe completed in the case of Gondwana. The same appears to berue for break-up and dispersal in the case of Rodinia. Moreover,oth processes overlap in time. Therefore, concurring events ofmalgamation of one supercontinent and dispersal of the otherere taking place in the same time span in different parts ofhat is now South America. Diachronism appears to be more the

ule than the exception, in agreement with the dynamics of ourlanet. In spite of scarcity of data, diachronism and overlappingf Rodinia break-up and amalgamation of Gondwana was alsohe case of South America.

. The quest of paleomagnetic data

Insufficiency of paleomagnetic data for the Proterozoic, in
erms of their number, quality, and distribution in time andpace (Meert, 2001), has allowed a large degree of freedom forupercontinent reconstitution, leading to the many existing dis-greements. According to recent reviews (D’Agrella Filho et al.,
itop

search 160 (2008) 108–126 121

998, 2001), best data sets refer to Laurentia, with reliable appar-nt polar wander path (APW) known for the period between 830nd 500 Ma, and East Gondwana, mainly Australia, where APWs well known for the period between 770 and 550 Ma. Eveno, distribution is not uniform in space and time, and precisions not as one would like it to be. Consequently, reconstitutionf the Australia–East Antarctica–Laurentia connection duringodinia time resulted in three different formulations, namelyWEAT (Moores, 1991), AUSWUS (Brookfield, 1993), andUSMEX (Wingate et al., 2001). Although all these proposedts were based on coherent geologic and geochronologic dataets, paleomagnetic data are still unable to discriminate the ideallternative.

The paleomagnetic data set for Western Gondwana is gener-lly of poor quality and distribution (D’Agrella Filho et al., 1998,001; Meert, 2001). Paleomagnetic poles are of low ranking,ccording to international convention, hampering their adequatese and inequivocal interpretation. Also useful data for largeime intervals of important geotectonic units are lacking. Obtain-ng paleomagnetic poles older than 600 Ma has been difficult,ue to activation and regeneration processes during Brasilianorogeny, leading to resetting of paleomagnetic and isotopic dataf both basement and Proterozoic cover. Among others, this ishe case of the Neoproterozoic Bambuı Group covering the Saorancisco Craton, where inferred fluid circulation at the end of

he Neoproterozoic lead to important resetting (Trindade et al.,004).

Available data sets for Congo, Sao Francisco, and Rio de lalata blocks are hampered by varied problems, not least of whichre the poor age constraints. There are no reliable paleomagneticata for the Amazonian Craton between 800 and 600 Ma. Dis-ussion and interpretation rely on the supposed connection withaurentia, whose APW is rather well constrained for that time

nterval. Position of Congo and Kalahari blocks is generallyncertain. At least four different positions have been suggestedn the last years (Powell et al., 2001).

. Reworking imposed on Rodinia descendants

The so-called Brasiliano provinces display a very complexcenario of tectonic setting and paleogeography. Defined 25ears ago (Almeida et al., 1981), they need conceptual revision,nd their connections in South America and Africa (Almeidat al., 2000) need to be reassessed. The possibility of naturalivisions is recognized in most of them, adequate both in termsf increasing knowledge and diversity of geographic and tec-onic paleoenvironments. Geochronologic data tell us of manyrogenic events, going back to ca. 900 Ma, in parallel withodinia break-up events, and lasting well into the Cambrian,ntil ca. 520–490 Ma, when post-orogenic extension processesere occurring in many parts of South America (Brito Neves et

l., 1999; Ramos, 2000).Definition of a formal succession of common orogenic events

n each province bears many problems. Available data show thathere is great diversity in space and time, starting with formationf precursor basins and subsequent interaction of lithospherelates in each province. In the same way as there are problems


Table 1Saga of Rodinia descendants in the building up of West Gondwana

No. Cratons, blocks, terranes Deformation, reworking Additional aspects

1 Amazonian, Sao Luıs-West Africa,Kalahari

Segments/descendants with maximumpreserved integrity

Minimum territorial losses by “regeneration”near surrounding Brasiliano Belts. Maficdike swarms

2 Sao Francisco-Congo, Rio de la Plata,Paranapanema, Rio Apa

Segments with preserved importantlitho-structural integrity. Some territoriallosses

Substantial territorial losses. Reworking ofmarginal and even interior portions of theoriginal block. Original shapes anddimensions of the continental blocks difficultto reconstitute

3 Rio Grande do Norte (+ Central Hoggar),Troia-Taua, Goias Massif, Luıs Alves

Blocks/areas entirely reworked duringthe Brasiliano collage. Strong but partialductile deformational processes

Mostly Paleoproterozoic terranes withArchean seed-nuclei. Important structuralepisodes and granitic plutonism The smallerblocks seldom behave as allochthonousterranes

4 Sobradinho, Guanhaes, Curitiba,Pernambuco-Alagoas, Alto Moxoto

Blocks/areas strongly reworked.Advanced ductile deformationalprocesses

Paleoproterozoic terranes (minor Archeanseed-nuclei) exhibiting Brasiliano structuraltrends Preponderant thermal, tectonic andmagmatic Brasiliano processes

5 Gouveia, Juiz de Fora, Quirino-Dorania,Aurizona/Ticunzal

Blocks/areas with complete ductiledeformation

Infra-structure of the Brasiliano fold beltscropping out, by local tectonic and erosionalcontingencies. Original segments ofPaleoproterozoic Belts (minor Archeannuclei) may occur

6a Espinhaco Belt, Serra doItaberaba/Aguas Claras, Punta del Leste

Mesoproterozoic-Early Neoproterozoicbelts reworked during the Brasilianocollage

Preponderant Brasiliano overprint, only localexhibition of the original structures

6b Garzon-Santa Marta,Arequipa-Antofalla, TerrenoOccidentalia (Belem, Choja, Pie de Palo,L. Verde, etc.), Pampia

Paleoproterozoic and earlyMesoproterozoic belts reworked duringthe Hercynian and Andean orogenies

Brasiliano reworking could exist. ThePhanerozoic deformational processes aredominant

Abundant occurrences within the Litho-structural features and isotopicpre-N

Multiple and complex deep crustal

ioatdeddeiisPta6tm

apas(t

SmHcnd

dcmzsam(rmthiw

basement of the Brasiliano Provinces signatures ofterranes

n stipulating a precise age of Rodinia break-up, we have to rec-gnize that problems of the same order will be met in gradualssembly of Gondwana. As already observed above, it is not easyo understanding the crust levels of reworking to which Rodiniaescendants were submitted. Comparison is risky due to het-rogeneity of knowledge, but it will be done, at least to boastebate and stimulate improved formulations in the future. Theiscrimination list (Table 1) follows suggestions by Marschakt al. (1999), and takes reference to tectonic-magmatic activ-ty imparted by the Brasiliano Orogeny. Adopted subdivisions based on Marschak et al. (1999) type I: continental crust notubmitted to penetrative deformation or metamorphism after theroterozoic (post-Ordovician time would be the more proper

erm for the South American Platform in West Gondwana), butffected by Proterozoic thermo-tectonic activity. Only in caseb (Table 1) is there clear incidence of Marschak et al. (1999)ype A, with continental crust presently residing in an active

argin.For several reasons, like inadequate geologic mapping,

bsence or deficiency of geophysical and geochronological data,resence of Proterozoic and Phanerozoic cover, among others,
dequate tectonic zoning of many blocks has yet to be done. Thishould include discriminating and mapping of full cratonic areasorthoplatforms), foreland zones, activated, regenerated, decra-onized areas, etc. An interesting exercise was developed for the
b

de

eoproterozoic reworking (structural, thermal andmagmatic)

ao Francisco Craton (Alkmim et al., 1993). Similar develop-ents should be available for other blocks in the near future.owever, a quest for caution should be beared in mind. Many

ratonic areas held as preserved from later orogenic events wereot really entirely preserved, therefore requiring tectonic zoningifferentiation.

In the case of the Amazonian block, the largest segmenterived from Rodinia break-up in South America, its classifi-ation among those of lowest reworking level (Table 1) may beerely consequence of lesser knowledge. It is known that Ama-

onia served as foreland for the Araguaia-Paraguay orogenicystem at the end of the Neoproterozoic. Amazonia behaveds a relatively rigid block, having been penetrated by alkalineafic-ultramafic magmatism along the axis of the Amazon Basin

Cordani et al., 1984), and by a dike swarm in the Tapajosiver area at that time (Santos et al., 2002). It is worth alsoentioning the case of the Goias block. Recent studies show

he presence of Archean and Paleoproterozoic domains, whichave been partially or completely regenerated during Brasil-ano Orogeny (Pimentel et al., 2000, 2004), including collisionith Neoproterozoic island arc systems, previously thought to
e older basement.
Pre-Neoproterozoic litho-structural and isotopic traces areisplayed in the bottom part of Table 1 as recognized cases ofxtreme reworking. Evidence of Archean, Paleoproterozoic, and

an Re

MBUdmo

A

asa

R

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

D


esoproterozoic protoliths has been found frequently withinrasiliano mobile belts, especially in using tools as Sm-Nd and-Pb isotopic determinations, either ID-TIMS or SHRIMP ageeterminations. In many cases of Brasiliano belts, higher TDModel ages or older inherited zircon grains indicate the presence

f Paleoproterozoic or Archean material within the basement.

cknowledgements

RAF and BBBN are CNPq research fellows; RAFcknowledges support from FINATEC. Comments and helpfuluggestions from J.J.W. Rodgers and V.A. Ramos are greatlyppreciated.

eferences

leman, A., Ramos, V.A., 2000. Northern Andes. In: Cordani, U.G., Milani,E.J., Thomaz Filho, A., Campos, D.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Inter-national Geological Congress on The Tectonic Evolution of South America.Rio de Janeiro, pp. 453–480.

lkmim, F.F., Brito Neves, B.B., Alves, J.A.C., 1993. Arcabouco tectonicodo Craton do Sao Francisco—uma revisao. In: Dominguez, J.M.L., Misi,A. (Eds.), O Craton do Sao Francisco, Salvador. Sociedade Brasileira deGeologia-BA/Secretaria de Geologia e Mineracao/Conselho Nacional dePesquisa e Desenvolvimento Tecnologico, pp. 45–62.

lmeida, F.F.M., Amaral, G., Cordani, U.G., Kawashita, K., 1973. The Precam-brian evolution of the South American cratonic margin south of the AmazonRiver. In: Nairn, A.E.M., Stehli, E.G. (Eds.), The Ocean Basin and Margins.Plenum Publishers, pp. 411–446.

lmeida, F.F.M., Hasui, Y., Brito Neves, B.B., 1976. The Upper Precambrianof South America. Boletim do Instituto de Geociencias da Universidade deSao Paulo 7, 45–80.

lmeida, F.F.M., Hasui, Y., Neves, B.B.B., Fuck, R.A., 1981. Brazilian structuralprovinces: an introduction. Earth Sci. Rev. 17, 1–29.

lmeida, F.F.M., Brito Neves, B.B., Carneiro, C.D.R., 2000. The origin andevolution of the South American Platform. Earth Sci. Rev. 50, 77–111.

abinski, M., Pedreira, A.J., Brito Neves, B.B., Van Schmus, W.R., 1999.Contribuicao a geocronologia da Chapada Diamantina. In: Proceedings ofthe VII Simposio Nacional de Estudos Tectonicos & International Sym-posium on Tectonics, Lencois, Bahia, Socidedade Brasileira de Geologia,Nucleo Bahia-Sergipe, pp. 118–120.

aldo, E., Casquet, C., Pankhurst, R.J., Galindo, C., Rapela, C.W., Fanning,C.M., Dahlquist, J., Murra, J., 2006. Neoproterozoic A-type magmatism inthe Western Sierras Pampeanas (Argentina): evidence for Rodinia break-upalong a proto-Iapetus rift? Terra Nova 18 (6), 388–394.

asei, M.A.S., Siga Jr., O., Masquelin, H., Harara, O.M., Reis Neto, J.M., Pre-ciozzi, F.P., 2000. The Dom Feliciano Belt and the Rio de la Plata Craton:tectonic evolution and correlation with similar provinces of southwesternAfrica. In: Cordani, U.G., Milani, E.J., Thomaz Filho, A., Campos, D.A.(Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st International Geological Congress on TheTectonic Evolution of South America. Rio de Janeiro, pp. 311–334.

asei, M.A.S., Harara, O.M., Prazeres Filho, H.J., Siga Jr., O, Nutman, A.,Sato, K., Cury, L.F., Passarelli, C.R., Kaulfuss, G.A., Cordeiro, H., Castro,N.A., Reis Neto, J.M., Weber, W., submitted for publication. First evidencefor Votuverava and Perau Mesoproterozoic basins (southern Ribeira Belt,Brazil): regional stratigraphic inferences base don U-Pb zircon ages ofmetabasic rocks. J. South Am. Earth Sci.

izzi, L.A., Schobbenhaus, C., Goncalves, J.H., Baars, F.J., Delgado, I.M.,Abram, M.B., Leao Neto, R., Matos, G.M.M., Santos, J.O.S. (coords.) 2001.
Mapa Geologico do Brasil 1:5,000,000. Geology, Tectonics and MineralResources of Brazil. GIS, Brasılia, CPRM, 4 CD-Rom.
oger, S.D., Raetz, M., Giles, D., Etchart, D., Fanning, C.M., 2005. U-Pb agedata from the Sunsas region of Eastern Bolivia, evidence for the allochtonousorigin of the Paragua Block. Precamb. Res. 139, 121–146.

D

search 160 (2008) 108–126 123

rito Neves, B.B., 1991. Os dois Brasıs Geotectonicos. In Atas do XIVSimposio de Geologia do Nordeste, Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia.Nucleo Nordeste, 6–8.

rito Neves, B.B.B., 2002. Main stages of the development of the sedimen-tary basins of South America and their relationship with the tectonics ofsupercontinents. Gondwana Res. 5, 175–196.

rito Neves, B.B., 2003. A saga dos descendentes de Rodınia na construcao deGondwana. Rev. Bras. Geociencias 33 (1), 77–88.

rito Neves, B.B., 2005. Os co-irmaos descratonizados da Penınsula do SaoFrancisco em Gondwana Ocidental. In: Anais do III Simposio sobre o Cratondo Sao Francisco, Salvador. Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia, NucleoBahia-Sergipe, pp. 3–6.

rito Neves, B.B., Alckmim, F.F., 1993. Craton: evolucao de um conceito. In:Dominguez, J.M.L., Misi, A. (Eds.), O Craton do Sao Francisco. SociedadeBrasileira de Geologia/SGM/CNPq, Salvador, pp. 1–10.

rito Neves, B.B., Cordani, U.G., 1991. Tectonic evolution of South Americaduring the Late Proterozoic. Precamb. Res. 53, 23–40.

rito Neves, B.B., Sa, J.M., Nilson, A.A., Botelho, N.F., 1995a. A TafrogeneseEstateriana nos blocos paleoproterozoicos da America do Sul e processossubsequentes. Geonomos 3 (2), 1–21.

rito Neves, B.B., Van Schmus, W.R., Santos, E.J., Campos Neto, M.C.C.,Kozuch, M., 1995b. O evento Cariris Velhos na Provıncia Borborema:integracao de dados, implicacoes e perspectivas. Rev. Bras. Geociencias25 (4), 279–296.

rito Neves, B.B., Campos Neto, M.C., Fuck, R.A., 1999. From Rodinia toWestern Gondwana: an approach to the Brasiliano-Pan African Cycle andorogenic collage. Episodes 22, 155–166.

rito Neves, B.B., Santos, E.J., Van Schmus, W.R., 2000. Tectonic history ofthe Borborema Province. In: Cordani, U.G., Milani, E.J., Thomaz Filho,A., Campos, D.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st International Geologi-cal Congress on Tectonic evolution of South America. Rio de Janeiro, pp.151–182.

rito Neves, B.B., Van Schmus, W.R., Kozuch, M., Santos, E.J., Petronilho,L., 2005. A zona tectonica Teixeira–Terra Nova—ZTTTN—fundamentosda geologia regional e isotopica. Rev. Inst. Geociencias USP 5 (1), 57–80.

rookfield, M.E., 1993. Neoproterozoic Laurentia-Antartica fit. Geology 28,683–686.

ardona, A., Cordani, U.G., MacDonald, W.D., 2006. Tectonic correlations ofpre-Mesozoic crust from the northern termination of the Colombian Andes,Caribbean region. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 21 (4), 337–354.

ingolani, C., Dalla Salda, L., 2000. Buenos Aires cratonic region. In: Cordani,U.G., Milani, E.J., Thomaz Filho, A., Campos, D.A. (Eds.), Proceedings ofthe 31st International Geological Congress on The Tectonic Evolution ofSouth America. Rio de Janeiro, pp. 139–147.

ordani, U.G., Brito Neves, B.B., Fuck, R.A., Porto, R., Thomaz Filho, A.,Bezerra da Cunha, A.F., 1984. Estudo preliminar de integracao do Pre-Cambriano com eventos tectonicos das bacias sedimentares brasileiras.Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. Serie Ciencia Tecnica Petroleo: Exploracao dePetroleo, 15–70.

ordani, U.G., Cardona, A., Jimenez, D.M., Liu, D., Nutman, A.P., 2005.Geochronology of Proterozoic basement inliers in the Colombian Andes:tectonic history of remnants of a fragmented Grenville belt. In: Vaughan,A.P.M., Leat, P.T., Pankhurst, R.J. (Eds.), Terranes Processes at the Marginsof Gondwana, vol. 246. Geological Society of London, pp. 329–346 (specialpublication).

orrea Gomes, L.C., Oliveira, M.A.F.T., Motta, A.C., 1996. Provıncia de diquesmaficos do estado da Bahia: mapa, estagio atual do conhecimento e evolucaotemporal, vol. 144. Secretaria de Industria, Comercio e Mineracao da Bahia,SGM, Salvador.

oward, M.P., Ries, A.C. (Eds.), 1986. Collision Tectonics. Oxford, BlackwellScientific Publications (Geological Society Special Publication no. 19), p.415.

’Agrella Filho, M.S., Trindade, R.I., Siqueira, R., Ponte Neto, C.F., Pacca,
I.G., 1998. Paleomagnetic constraints on the Rodinia Supercontinent: impli-cations for its Neoproterozoic break-up and the formation of Gondwana. Int.Geol. Rev. 40, 171–188.
’Agrella Filho, M.S., Cordani, U.G., Brito Neves, B.B., Trindade, R., Pacca,I.G., 2001. Evidence from South America on the formation and disruption

1 an Re

D

D

D

D

D

F

F

F

F

G

G

G

H

H

H

J

J

J

K

L

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

N

O

P

P

P

P

P


of Rodinia. In: Proceedings of the IGCP 440 Symposium on From Basins toMoutains: Rodinia at the Turn of the Century (Abstracts), Perth, Australia,pp. 31–34.

alla Salda, L.H., Bossi, J., Cingolani, C.A., 1988. The Rio de la Plata cratonicregion of southwestern Gondwanaland. Episodes 11 (4), 263–269.

alla Salda, L.H., Dalziel, I.W.D., 1993. O supercontinente Neoproterozoico eas interacoes Gondwana-Laurentia durante o Paleozoico Inferior—Medio.Rev. Bras. Geociencias 23 (3), 183–186.

alziel, I.W.D., 1997. Neoproterozoic-Paleozoic geography and tectonics:reviews, hypotheses, environmental speculations. GSA Bull. 109, 16–42.

alziel, I.W.D., 2001. Rodinia 2001. Balkanization or reunification. In: Proceed-ings of the IGCP 440 Symposium on From Basins to Mountains; Rodinia atthe Turn of the Century (Abstracts), Perth, Australia, p. 35.

ardenne, M.A., 2000. The Brasılia Fold Belt. In: Cordani, U.G., Milani, E.J.,Thomaz Filho, A., Campos, D.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Interna-tional Geological Congress on Tectonic Evolution of South America. Rio deJaneiro, pp. 231–263.

etter, A.H., Van Schmus, W.R., Santos, T.J.S., Nogueira Neto, J.A., Arthaud,M.H., 2000. U-Pb and Sm-Nd geochronological constraints on the crustalevolution and basement architecture of Ceara State, NW BorboremaProvince, NE Brazil: implications for the existence of the Paleoproterozoicsupercontinent “Atlantica”. Rev. Bras. Geociencias 30, 102–106.

uck, R.A., Pimentel, M.M., Machado, N., Daoud, W.K., 1993a. Idade U-Pb doGranito Madeira, Pitinga (AM). SBG, Congresso Brasileiro de Geoquımica,Brasılia, DF, Anais 4, 246–248.

uck, R.A., Sa, E.F.J., Pimentel, M.M., Dardenne, M.A., Soares, A.C.P., 1993b.As faixas de dobramentos marginais do Craton do Sao Francisco: sıntesedos conhecimentos. In: Dominguez, J.M.L., Misi, A. (Eds.), O Craton doSao Francisco. Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia/Secretaria de Geologiae Mineracao/Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientıfico e Tec-nologico, Salvador, pp. 161–185.

uck, R.A., Pimentel, M.M., Silva, L.J.H.D.R., 1994. CompartimentacaoTectonica na porcao oriental da Provıncia Tocantins. SBG, CongressoBrasileiro de Geologia, Balneario de Camboriu. Anais 38 (1), 215–216.

eraldes, M.C., Van Schmus, W.R., Condie, K.C., Bell, S., Teixeira, W.,Babinski, M., 2001. Proterozoic geologic evolution of the SW part of theAmazonian Craton in Mato Grosso State, Brazil. Precamb. Res. 111, 91–128.

ower, C.F. 1992. The revelance of the Baltic Shield Metallogeny to min-eral explration in Labrador. Current Research Report 92-1, NewfounlandDepartment of Mines and Energy, St. John, Newfoundland, pp. 331–366.

ower, C.F., 2001. Late Paleoproterozoic and Mesoproterozoic evolution ofthe Eastern Grenville Province and adjacent parts of Laurentia and broaderimplications. In: Bettencourt, J.S., Teixeira, W., Pacca, I.G., Geraldes, M.C.,Sparrenberger, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the IGCP Project 426 Meetingon Geology of the SW Amazonian Craton: State of the Art (extendedabstracts). S. Paulo, Institute of Geosciences, University of S. Paulo,pp. 60–63.

artmann, L.A., Campal, N., Santos, J.O.S., McNaughton, N., Bossi, J., Schip-ilov, A., Lafon, J.M., 2001. Archean crust in the Rio de la Plata Craton,Uruguay—SHRIMP U-Pb zircon reconnaissance geochronology. J. SouthAm. Earth Sci. 14, 557–570.

eilbron, M., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Campos Neto, M.C., Silva, L.C., Trouw,R.A., Janasi, V.A., 2004. Provıncia Mantiqueira. In: Mantesso-Neto, V.,Bartorelli, A., Carneiro, C.D.R., Brito Neves, B.B. (Eds.), Geologia do Con-tinente Sul-Americano. Evolucao da Obra de Fernando Flavio Marques deAlmeida, Sao Paulo, Beca, pp. 203–234.

offman, P.F., 1991. Did the breakout of Laurentia turn Gondwanaland inside-out? Science 253, 1409–1411.

acobs, J., Thomas, R.J., Armstrong, R.A., Henjes-Kunst, F., 1999. Age andthermal evolution of the Mesoproterozoic Cape Merdith Complex, WestFalkland. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 156, 917–928.

imenez-Mejıa, D.M., Juliani, C., Cordani, U.G., 2006. P-T-t conditions ofhigh-grade metamorphic rocks of the Garzon Massif, Andean basement,
SE Colombia. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 21 (4), 322–336.
uliani, C., Hackspacker, P.C., Dantas, E.L., Fetter, A.H., 2000. The Mesopro-terozoic Serra do Itaberaba Group of Central Ribeira Belt, Sao Paulo State,Brazil: implications for the age of the overlyng Sao Roque Group. Rev. Bras.Geociencias 30 (1), 82–86.

P

search 160 (2008) 108–126

roonenberg, S.B., 1982. A Grenvillian Granulite Belt in the Colombian Andesand its relation to the Guiana Shield. Geologie en Mijnbouw 61, 325–333.

aux, J.H., Pimentel, M.M., Dantas, E.L., Junges, S.L., Armstrong, L.A., 2005.Two Neoproterozoic crustal accretion events in the Brasılia Belt, centralBrazil. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 18, 183–198.

eal, P.R., Hartmann, L.A., Santos, J.O.S., Miro, R.C., Ramos, V.C., 2003.Volcanismo postotogenico en el extreme norte de las Sierras PampeanasOrientales: nuevos datos geocronologicos y suas implicancias tectonicas.Rev. Asociacion Geologica Argentina 58 (4), 593–607.

oewy, S.L., Connelly, J.N., Dalziel, I.W.D., 2004. An orphaned basementblock: the Arequipa-Antofalla basement of central Andean margin of SouthAmerica. GSA Bull. 116 (1/2), 171–187.

achado, N., Schrank, A., Abreu, F.R., Knauer, L.G., Almeida-Abreu, P.A.,1989. Resultados preliminares da geocronologia U/Pb na Serra do EspinhacoMeridional. Boletim da Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia-Nucleo MinasGerais 10, 171–174.

allard, L.D., Rogers, J.J.W., 1997. Relationship of Avalonian and Cado-mian terranes to Grenville and Pan-African events. J. Geodynamics 23,197–221.

antovani, M.S.M., Brito Neves, B.B., 2005. The Paranapanema lithosphericblock: its importance for Proterozoic Rodinia, Gondwana supercontinenttheories. Gondwana Res. 8 (3), 303–315.

arschak, S., Van Der Pluijm, B.A., Hamburger, M., 1999. Preface—the tecton-ics of continental interiors tectonophysics. In: Preface of the Special Issue,Selected Papers of Penrose Conference, September 1997, Utah 305, 1/3, p.VIIX.

eert, J.G., 2001. Growing Gondwana and refining Rodinia: a paleomagneticperspective. Gondwana Res. 4, 279–288.

oores, E.M., 1991. Southwest US–East Antarctica (SWEAT) connection: ahypothesis. Geology 19, 425–428.

oraes, R., Fuck, R.A., Pimentel, M.M., Gioia, S.C.M.L., Hollanda, M.H.B.M.,Armstrong, R., 2006. The bimodal rift-related Juscelandia volcanosed-imentary sequence in central Brazil: Mesoproterozoic extension andNeoproterozoic metamorphism. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 20, 287–301.

yers, J.S., Shaw, R.D., Tyler, I.M., 1995. Tectonic evolution of ProterozoicAustralia. Tectonics 15, 1431–1446.

unes, K., 1993. Interpretacao integrada da Bacia do Parnaiba, com enfase nosdados aeromagneticos. Congresso Internacional de Geofısica, SBGf, Rio deJaneiro, Brazil. Resumos Expandidos 1, 152–156.

rdonez-Carmona, O., Restrepo, J.J., Pimentel, M.M., 2006. Geochronologicaland isotopical review of pre-Devonian crustal basement of the ColombianAndes. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 21 (4), 372–382.

ayolla, B.L., Bettencourt, J.S., Kozuch, M., Leite Jr., W.B., Fetter, A.H., VanSchmus, W.R., 2002. Geological evolution of the basement rocks in the east-central part of the Rondonia Tin Province, SW Amazonian Craton, Brazil:U-Pb and Sm-Nd isotopic constraints. Precamb. Res. 119, 141–169.

edrosa Soares, A.C., Wiedemann-Leonardos, C.M., 2000. Evolution of theAracuaı Belt and its connection to the Ribeira Belt, Eastern Brazil. In:Cordani, U.G., Milani, E.J., Thomaz Filho, A., Campos, D.A. (Eds.),Proceedings of the 31st International Geological Congress on Tectonic Evo-lution of South America. Rio de Janeiro, pp. 265–286.

ereira, R.S., Fuck, R.A., 2005. Kimberlitos e rochas relacionadas no Cratondo Sao Francisco. Anais do III Simposio sobre o Craton do Sao Francisco,Salvador, Soc.Bras. Geol. Nucleo Bahia-Sergipe, pp. 114–117.

errotta, M.M., Salvador, E.D., Lopes, R.C., D’Agostino, L.Z., Wildner, W.,Ramgrab, E., Peruffo, N., Freitas, M.A., Gomes, S.D., Chieregati, Silva,L.C., Sachs, L.L.B., Silva, V.A., Batista, I.H., Marcondes, P.E.P., 2004. FolhaSG. 22-Curitiba. In: Schobbenhaus, C., Goncalves, J.H., Santos, J.O.S.,Abram, M.B., Leao Neto, R., Matos, G.M.M., Vidotti, R.M., Ramos, M.A.B.,Jesus, J.D.A.de. (Eds.), Carta Geologica do Brasil ao Milionesimo, Sis-tema de Informacoes Geograficas. Programa Geologia do Brasil (CD-ROM).CPRM, Brasılia.

imentel, M., Fuck, R.A., 1992a. Neoproterozoic crustal accretion in Central
Brazil. Geology 20 (4), 375–379.
imentel, M.M., Fuck, R.A., 1992b. Caracterısticas geoquımicas e isotopicasde unidades metavulcanicas e ortognaissicas neoproterozoicas do oeste deGoias. Boletim da Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia—Nucleo Centro-Oeste15, 1–22.

an Re

P

P

P

P

P

Q

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

T

T

T


imentel, M.M., Fuck, R.A., Jost, H., Ferreira Filho, C.F., Araujo, S.M., 2000.The basement of the Brasılia Fold Belt and the Goias Magmatic Arc. In:Cordani, U.G., Milani, E.J., Thomaz Filho, A., Campos, D.A. (Eds.), Pro-ceedings of the 31st International Geological Congress on The TectonicEvolution of South America. Rio de Janeiro, pp. 195–229.

imentel, M.M., Dardenne, M.A., Fuck, R.A., Viana, M.G., Junges, S.L., Fis-chel, D.P., Seer, H.J., Dantas, E.L., 2001. Nd isotopes and provenance ofdetrital sediments of the Neoproterozoic Brasılia-Belt, Central Brazil. J.South Am. Earth Sci. 14, 571–585.

imentel, M.M., Ferreira Filho, C.F., Armstrong, R.A., 2004. SHRIMP U-Pband Sm-Nd ages of the Niquelancia layered complex: Meso-(1.25 Ga) andNeoproterozoic (0.79 Ga) extensional events in central Brazil. Precamb. Res.132, 133–153.

owell, C.Mc.A., Pisarevsky, S.A., Wingate, M.T.D., 2001. An animated historyof Rodinia. From the Basins to Mountains: Rodinia at the turn of the cen-tury. In: Proceedings of the Rodinia Symposium (Abstract), 65, GeologicalSociety of Australia, Perth, Australia, pp. 67–85.

reciozzi, F., Masquellin, E., Basei, M.A.S., 1999. The Namaqua/Grenvilleterrane of Eastern Uruguay: early Neoproterozoic implications. In: Proceed-ings of the II South American Symposium on Isotope Geology, Cordoba,Argentina, Actas, pp. 338–340.

uintas, M.C.L., 1995. O embasamento da Bacia do Parana: reconstrucaogeofısica de seu arcabouco. Sao Paulo, Instituto Astronomico e Geofısico,Universidade de Sao Paulo, Tese de doutoramento, p. 213.

amos, V.A., 2000. The southern central Andes. In: Cordani, U.G., Milani, E.J.,Thomaz Filho, A., Campos, D.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Interna-tional Geological Congress on The Tectonic Evolution of South America.Rio de Janeiro, pp. 561–604.

amos, V.A., 2004. Cuyania, an exotic block to Gondwana: review of a historicalsuccess and the present problems. Gondwana Res. 7 (4), 1009–1026.

amos, V.A., 2005. The Proterozoic-early Paleozoic margin of Western Gond-wana. Gondwana 12, Mendoza, Abstracts 304.

amos, V.A., Aleman, A., 2000. Tectonic evolution of the Andes. In: Cordani,U.G., Milani, E.J., Thomaz Filho, A., Campos, D.A. (Eds.), Proceedings ofthe 31st International Geological Congress on The Tectonic Evolution ofSouth America. Rio de Janeiro, pp. 635–685.

amos, V.A., Basei, M.A.S., 1997. Gondwanan, perigondwanan and exotic ter-ranes of southern South America. In: Proceedings of the South AmericanSymposium on Isotope Geology (extended abstracts), Campos do Jordao,pp. 250–253.

amos, V., Vujovich, G., 1993. Alternativas de la evolucion del borde occi-dental de America del Sur durante el Proterozoico. Revista Brasileira deGeociencias 23 (3), 194–200.

estrepo, J.J., Toussaint, J.F., 1988. Terranes and continental accretion in theColombian Andes. Episodes 11, 189–193.

estrepo-Pace, P.A., Ruiz, J., Gehrels, G., Cosca, M., 1997. Geochronologyand Nd isotopic data of Grenville-age rocks in the Colombian Andes: newconstraints for Late Proterozoic-early Paleozoic paleocontinental recon-structions of the Ameritas. Herat Planet. Sci. Lett. 150, 427–441.

izzotto, G.J. 1999. Petrologia e ambiente tectonico do Grupo NovaBrasilandia—RO. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre,Dissertacao de Mestrado, p. 136.

izzotto, G.J., Quadros, M.L.E.S., Bahia, R.B.C., Cordeiro, A.V., 2004a. FolhaSC. 20-Porto Velho. In: Schobbenhaus, C., Goncalves, J.H., Santos, J.O.S.,Abram, M.B., Leao Neto, R., Matos, G.M.M., Vidotti, R.M., Ramos, M.A.B.,de Jesus, J.D.A. (Eds.), Carta Geologica do Brasil ao Milionesimo, Sis-tema de Informacoes Geograficas. Programa Geologia do Brasil (CD-ROM).CPRM, Brasılia.

izzotto, G.J., Quadros, M.L.E.S., Bahia, R.B.C., DallıIgna, L.G., Cordeiro,A.V., 2004b. Folha SD. 20-Guapore. In: Schobbenhaus, C., Goncalves,J.H., Santos, J.O.S., Abram, M.B., Leao Neto, R., Matos, G.M.M., Vidotti,R.M., Ramos, M.A.B., Jesus, J.D.A.de. (Eds.), Carta Geologica do Brasilao Milionesimo, Sistema de Informacoes Geograficas. Programa Geologia
do Brasil (CD-ROM). CPRM, Brasılia.
ogers, J.J.W., 1996. A history of continents in the past 3 billion years. J. Geol.104, 91–107.

ogers, J.J.W., Santosh, M., 2002. Configuration of Columbia, a Mesoprotero-zoic supercontinent. Gondwana Res. 5, 5–22.

T

search 160 (2008) 108–126 125

ogers, J.J., Santosh, W.M., 2004. Continents and Supercontinents. OxfordUniversity Press, New York, p. 289.

omeiro Cesar, P.C., Zalan, P.V., 2005. Contribuicao da sısmica de reflexao nadeterminacao do limite oeste do Craton do Sao Francisco. III Simposio sobreo Craton do Sao Francisco, Salvador, Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia,Nucleo Bahia-Sergipe, Anais, pp. 44–47.

uiz, J., Tosdal, R.M., Restrepo, P.A., Murillo-Muneton, G. 1999. Pb isotope evi-dence for Colombia-southern Mexico connections in the Proterozoic. Geol.Soc. Am. (Special Paper) 336, 183–198.

antos, J.O.S., Hartmann, L.A., Gaudette, H.E., 1997a. Reconnaissance U-Pb inzircon, Pb-Pb in sulfides and review of Rb–Sr geochronology in the Tapajosgold Province, Para and Amazonas States of Brazil. In: Proceedings of theSouth American Symposium on Isotope Geology, 1, (extended abstracts),Campos do Jordao, Sao Paulo, Brazil, pp. 280–282.

antos, J.O.S., Silva, L.C., Faria, M.S.G., Macambira, M.B., 1997b. Pb–Pbsingle crystal evaporation isotopic study of the post-tectonic, sub-alkalic, A-type Moderna Granite (Mapuera Intrusive Suite), State of Roraima, northernBrazil. In: Ferreira, V.P., Sial, A.N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Interna-tional Symposium on Granites and Associated Mineralizations, 2 (extendedabstracts and program). Salvador, Brazil, Superintendencia de Geologia eRecursos Minerais, pp. 273–275.

antos, J.O.S., Hartmann, L.A., Gaudette, H.E., Groves, D.I., McNaughton,N.J., Fletcher, I.R., 2000. A new understanding of the provinces of the Ama-zon Craton based on integration of field mapping and U-Pb and Sm-Ndgeochronology. Gondwana Res. 3 (4), 453–488.

antos, J.O.S., Hartmann, L.A., McNaughton, N.J., Fletcher, I.R., 2002. Timingof mafic magmatism in Tapajos Province and implications for the evolutionof the Amazon Craton: evidence from baddeleyite and zircon U-Pb SHRIMPgeochronology. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 15, 409–429.

candolara, J.E., Rizzotto, G.J., Amorim, J.L., Bahia, R.B.C., Quadros, M.L.,Silva, C.R., 1999. Geological Map of Rondonia 1:1,000,000. Brasılia,CPRM-Brazilian Geological Survey.

chobbenhaus, C. 1993. Das Mittlere Proterozoikum Brasiliens mit besondererBerucksichtigung des zentralen Ostens: Eine Revision. Ph.D. Thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg im Breisgau.

chobbenhaus, C., Bellizzia, A. (coord.) 2001. Geological Map of South Amer-ica, 1:5,000,000. CGMW-CPRM-DNPM-UNESCO.

chobbenhaus, C., Hoppe, A., Baumann, A., Lorck, A., 1996. Idade U/Pbdo vulcanismo Rio dos Remedios, Chapada Diamantina, Bahia. Anais38th Congresso Brasileiro de Geologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia.Balneario de Camboriu 2, 397–399.

chobbenhaus, C., Goncalves, J.H., Santos, J.O.S., Abram, M.B., Leao Neto, R.,Matos, G.M.M., Vidotti, R.M., Ramos, M.A.B., Jesus, J.D.A. 2004. Geo-logical Map of Brazil, 46 map sheets at 1:1 000 000 scale, GeographicInformation System-GIS. Geol. Survey of Brazil-CPRM, Brasılia, 41 CD-ROM.

ilva Filho, A.F., Guimaraes, I.P., Van Schmus, W.R., 2002. Crustal evolutionof the Pernambuco-Alagoas Complex, Broborema Province, NE Brazil: Ndisotopic data from Neoproterozoic Granitoides. Gondwana Res. 2, 409–422.

tern, R.J., 1994. Arc assembly and continental collision in the NeoproterozoicEast African Orogen: implications for the consolidadtion of Gondwanaland.Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 22, 319–351.

assinari, C.C.G., Macambira, M.J.B., 1999. Geochronological provinces of theAmazonian Craton. Episodes 22, 174–182.

assinari, C.C.G., Macambira, M.J.B., 2004. A Evolucao Tectonica do CratonAmazonico. In: Mantesso-Neto, Bartorelli, A., Carneiro, C.D.R., BritoNeves, B.B. (Eds.), Geologia do Continente Sul-Americano: Evolucao daObra de Fernando Flavio Marques de Almeida. Editora Beca, Sao Paulo,pp. 471–486.

assinari, C.C.G., Bettencourt, J.S., Geraldes, M.C., Macambira, M.J.B., Lafon,J.M., 2000. The Amazonian Craton. In: Cordani, U.G., Milani, E.J., ThomazFilho, A., Campos, D.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st International Geo-logical Congress on The Tectonic Evolution of South America. Rio de
Janeiro, pp. 41–95.
homas, R.J., Jacobs, J., Weber, K., 1997. Geology of the MesoproterozoicCape Meredith Complex, West Falkland. In: Ricci, C.A. (Ed.), The AntarcticRegion: Geological Evolution and Processes. Terra Antarctica Publication,Siena, pp. 21–30.

1 an Re

T

T

T

UV

V

W


ohver, E., van der Pluijm, B.A., Van der Voo, R., Rizzotto, G., Scandolara, J.E.,2002. Paleogeography of the Amazon craton at 1.2 Ga: early Grenvilliancollision with the Llano segment of Laurentia. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 199,185–200.

osdal, E.M., 1996. The Amazonian-Laurentian connection as viewed from themiddle Proterozoic rocks in the central Andes, western Bolivia and northernChile. Tectonics 15 (4), 827–842.

rindade, R.I.F., D’Agrella Filho, M.S., Babinski, M., Font, E., Brito Neves,B.B., 2004. Paleomagnetism and geochronology of Bebedouro cap carbon-
ate: evidence for continental-scale Cambrian remagnetization in the SaoFrancisco Craton. Precamb. Res. 128, 83–103.
nrug, 1996. The assembly of Gondwanaland. Episodes 19 (1/2), 11–20.aleriano, C.M., Machado, N., Simonetti, A., Valadares, C., Seer, L.S.A., 2004.

U-Pb geochronology of the southern Brasilia belt (SE Brazil): sedimen-

W

search 160 (2008) 108–126

tary provenance, Neoproterozoic orogeny and assembly of West Gondwana.Precamb. Res. 130 (1–4), 27–55.

an Schmus, W.R. 2001. Late Paleoproterozoic to Early Neoproterozoic Oro-genesis in Southern Laurentia and possible correlations with SW Amazonia.Workshop “Geology of the SW Amazonian Craton: State-of-the-Art”/IGCPProject 426, Sao Paulo (extended abstracts), pp. 100–104.

eber, W., Siga Jr., O., Sato, K., Reis Neto, J.M., Basei, M.A.S., Nutman, A.P.,2004. A Formacao Agua Clara na Regiao de Aracaıba—SP: Registro U-Pbde Uma Bacia Mesoproterozoica. Revista Geologia USP—Serie Cientıfica
4 (2), 101–110.
ingate, A.T.D., Pisarevsky, S.A., Evans, D.A.D., 2001. Ausmex: a new Rodiniareconstruction at 1070 Ma. From Basins to Mountains; Rodinia at the turnof the century, IGCP 440 Symposium, Perth, Australia, Abstracts, pp.113–116.

Rodinia Descendants in South America

Documents

Transcript of Rodinia Descendants in South America